1. “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
2. “in three days” (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19)
3. “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31)
4. “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)

On the surface, these four representations certainly appear to be inconsistent, if not contradictory. Indeed, to the English mind, these four phrases convey four different meanings. However, upon further investigation, we discover they are interchangeable expressions in the New Testament. The evidence from antiquity and from the Bible is decisive: “three days and three nights” in Oriental expression was an idiomatic allusion to any portions of the period. This fact stands proven and is undeniable based on at least three sources: (1) scholarly historical analysis of ancient idiomatic language; (2) biblical usage throughout the Old Testament; and (3) harmonization within the passion texts themselves.

HISTORICAL USAGE

First, a vast array of scholarly sources verifies the use of this idiom in antiquity. It constituted a loose form of speech to refer to two days and a portion of a third. A.T. Robertson referred to this usage as “the well-known custom of the Jews to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours.”¹ Likewise, in his monumental volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that “the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.”² The highly respected 17^th-century Hebraist John Lightfoot published a commentary on the New Testament, incorporating his vast grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic usage, including the Jewish Talmud and Mishna. In that commentary, he recounts the common usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” among the Gemarists, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, concluding: “So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day, upon which Christ arose, may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.”³ The list of scholarly confirmation could be lengthened indefinitely.

BIBLICAL USAGE

Second, the Bible uses the same idiom throughout the Old Testament and continues into the New. For example, in the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, Moses wrote: “So he put them all together in prison three days. Then Joseph said to them the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God…’” (Genesis 42:17-18). Joseph put his brothers in prison for “three days” (vs. 17) and then released them “the third day” (vs. 18). The two expressions were viewed as equivalent.

In his pursuit of the Amalekites, David and his men came upon an Egyptian in the field, whom they nourished with food and drink:

So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick” (1 Samuel 30:12-13).

The inspired writer states unequivocally that the Egyptian had taken no nourishment for “three days and nights,” which the Egyptian, in his explanation of his predicament, defined as “three days.”

On the occasion when Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt and led the Israelites in a rebellious confrontation of the rightful king Rehoboam, we are informed:

Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed (1 Kings 12:3-5).

Rehoboam then consulted with the elders of the nation, promptly rejecting their advice, and then consulted with the young men of his own generation who had grown up with him. Then the text reads: “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (1 Kings 12:12). Lest we fail to grasp the fact that “for three days” and “the third day” are equivalent expressions, the inspired writer says so explicitly by equating them and then adding “as the king had directed.” The parallel account in 2 Chronicles completes the idiomatic usage by reading: “So he said to them, ‘Come back to me after (ע֛וֹד) three days’” (10:5). This latter allusion is not to—as a westerner would think—the fourth day, but to a point in time “on” the third day (vs. 12—בַּיּ֣וֹם). Hence, “after three days” equals “the third day.”

Yet another instance is found in the book of Esther. Having been elevated to a prominent position in the eyes of King Xerxes, Mordecai urged his cousin Esther to use her influence to save the Jews throughout the Persian Empire from annihilation by Haman. Here was her response:

“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” So Mordecai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him. Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house (Esther 4:16-5:1).

Esther did not change her mind regarding when she would approach the king. Rather, she did exactly what she told Mordecai she would do. Hence, “three days, night or day” is precisely the same timeframe as “on the third day.”

We see the same idiom in the New Testament. One example is the inspired account of the events leading up to the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Several temporal indicators illustrate the principle:

• “ninth hour of the day” (vs. 3)
• “The next day” (“about the sixth hour”) (vs. 9)
• “On the next day” (vs. 23)
• “the following day” (vs. 24)
• “Four days ago” (“the ninth hour”) (vs. 30)

If we count the amount of time that transpired between the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (vs. 3) and the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius (vs. 24), we find it to be exactly three days, i.e., three 24 hour periods. Yet in Jewish reckoning, the period included three nights and parts of four days. Thus Peter described the interval as “four days” (vs. 30). See the chart below.

We are forced to conclude that the phrase “three days and three nights” is not to be taken literally. It was used figuratively in antiquity. Why take one expression out of the four that are used, interpret it literally (i.e., 72 hours), and then give it precedence over all the other passages? Jesus being in the grave “one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.”⁴ The English reader must not impose his own method of calculation upon an ancient, alternate method of reckoning time.

Another instance of the same idiom in the New Testament is seen in Paul’s stay in Ephesus. The text reads:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul states plainly that he remained in Ephesus for two years and three months. Sometime later, in his rush to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, he came to the seacoast town of Miletus from whence he sent word to the elders of the church in Ephesus to come meet with him. Among the stirring remarks that he delivered to them on that occasion were these words: “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). Once again, it is apparent that the Semitic mind considered that any portion of a day or year could be counted as a whole day or year.

JEWISH USAGE

Third, it is abundantly clear from the accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection that this idiom was well recognized and utilized by the Jews at the time. Specifically, the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed use of the idiom when they sought an audience with the Roman Procurator Pilate:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:62-64).

The Jewish leaders did not insist on the tomb of Jesus being secured for three 24-hour days. To the western mind, the phrase “after three days” indicates the need to maintain a guard until the fourth day had come. But not to the oriental mind. The phrases “after three days” and “until the third day” were, to them, equivalent expressions.

The evidence from both antiquity and the Bible is decisive: “Three days and three nights” was an idiom. This truth stands as a proven fact of history. Bullinger was correct when he emphatically stated: “It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.”⁵

ENDNOTES

1 A.T. Robertson (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row), p. 290.

The post The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What do we mean by “myth”? German theologian Rudolf Bultmann popularized the notion that, in order to properly interpret the text, the New Testament must be stripped of those elements that appear to be “mythical,” specifically, its supernatural features.¹ “Myth,” therefore, in theological circles refers to a traditional, non-literal story in a particular culture that manifests that culture’s worldview. The story serves as a vehicle to convey a truth, without necessarily being historically true. The Bible’s depictions of heaven, hell, demons, evil spirits, and Satan are viewed as symbols for deeper meanings rather than being literally existent. Many theologians, and now many Americans, insist that the Bible is a pre-scientific document that is riddled with the errors that accompanied early man’s quest for knowledge, making many of its claims “mythical.”

Along with the onset of modern scientific discovery and understanding has come a widespread tendency to compromise the biblical text of Genesis 1-11. Otherwise conservative thinking Christians have not been immune to this deadly cancer that ultimately undermines the entire Bible and one’s ability to arrive at the truth. In the 1980s, it was discovered that raw evolution was being taught by two Abilene Christian University professors. One of the biology professors provided his class with a handout that included a photocopy of the first page of Genesis. In the margin he scrawled the words, “Hymn, myth.”² Concerned about the backlash from its base, the university mobilized in an attempt to discredit the charge and sweep it under the proverbial carpet, but the evidence was decisive, as acknowledged even by objective outsiders as well as a Master’s thesis conducted 30 years later.³ The fact is that evolution has been taught on other Christian college campuses as well. The lack of outcry testifies to the fact that even Christians and their children have been adversely influenced by secular education.

It is amazing, even shocking, to see the extent to which the authority of the biblical text in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, has been undermined in the mind of the average American, especially in the last half century or so. In virtually every corner of our country, relaxed and compromised views of the Bible prevail—even among otherwise conservative Americans and those who profess to be Christian. Before leaving office, President Bush (“W”) was interviewed by Cynthia McFadden on ABC’s “Nightline.” When asked if he believed the Bible to be literally true, he responded: “You know. Probably not.… No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is…has got… You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.’”⁴ When asked about creation and evolution, Bush said:

I think you can have both. I think evolution can—you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an Almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.⁵

Myriad instances could be cited in which Americans manifest the degrading effects of skepticism, atheism, evolution, and liberal theology.

What a far cry from most of America’s history. It is hard to believe that—up until the 1960s—American education was thoroughly saturated with the biblical account of Creation.⁶ The book of Genesis was taken as a straight-forward account of the formation of the Universe and the beginning of human history. People took God at His Word. Though liberal theology swept through Europe in the late 19^th century, which included attacks on the verbal, inerrant inspiration of the Scriptures, and though the Creation account began to be openly challenged at the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, still, the majority of Americans continued to accept the biblical account right on up to World War II. Since then, however, sinister forces have been chipping away at belief in the inspiration and integrity of the Bible. They have succeeded in eroding confidence in its trustworthiness and authority.

But there are no excuses. The evidence is available, and it is overwhelming. No one can stand before God at the end of time and justify himself for his rejection of Genesis as a straightforward record of literal history. Failure to take Genesis at face value can easily result in acceptance of views and/or practices that will jeopardize one’s standing with God.

New Testament Proof that Genesis is Literal History

If we had no other means by which to determine whether Genesis is myth or history, the New Testament alone is ample proof. Depending on how one calculates the material, the New Testament has at least 60 allusions to Genesis 1-11, with over 100 allusions to the entire book.⁷ Jesus and the writers of the New Testament consistently treated Genesis as literal history. As a matter of fact, every New Testament author refers to Genesis, and nearly every New Testament book does as well. Their handling of the Genesis text demonstrates that they considered the events to have actually occurred, rather than being mythical or legendary folklore that merely contains useful lessons.

Jesus

Consider a sampling of allusions made by Jesus:

• He specified the foundation of the marriage institution, quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as historical precedent and proof that carte blanche divorce is unacceptable to God (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-8). Did He mean to ground marriage on fairytales?
• Jesus mentioned Abel as a real person whose blood was shed on account of his righteous behavior, just like other historical personages in human history (Matthew 23:35). If Abel was not an actual person who lived on Earth, neither was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom Jesus said the Jews “murdered between the Temple and the altar”—an actual physical location.
• Jesus declared Satan to be a “murderer from the beginning” and the father of lies—referring to the Fall (John 8:44; Genesis 3:4,19; cf. Romans 5:12; 1 John 3:8).
• Jesus referenced Moses’ writings as genuine representations of history (John 5:46), even warning, “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (vs. 47).
• Jesus spoke of the “days of Noah” and the Flood as an actual historical event that has many parallels to the future coming of the Son of Man in terms of what people will be doing with their time (Matthew 24:37-39).
• Jesus compared Capernaum to Sodom (Genesis 18-19), saying, “for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you” (Matthew 11:23-24). Sodom would have had to have been an actual city for it to “have remained until this day” and for it to fare more tolerably in the Day of Judgment (cf. 10:15).
• The genealogical lists of Jesus’ physical lineage identify actual historical persons in the first century all the way back to persons originally named in Genesis, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Tamar (Matthew 1:1-2), as well as Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Noah (Luke 3:36-37).

Paul

Paul, likewise, treated persons, places, and incidents in Genesis as if historically real. Here is a sampling of some of his allusions:

• He quoted Genesis 1:3 to note how God caused light to shine out of darkness (2 Corinthians 4:6).
• Quoting Genesis 2:7, Paul said Adam was the first human being on Earth (1 Corinthians 15:45).
• He claimed that Adam was made from dust (1 Corinthians 15:47)—as Genesis records.
• He noted how the woman is “from” (ek—“out of”) man (1 Corinthians 11:8,12), referring to the fact that Eve was literally taken out of Adam’s body.
• Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 to verify how a man and woman “become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16), comparing marriage to the church (Ephesians 5:31).
• Adam was as historically real as Christ and Moses, having introduced sin into the world, causing death to reign during the historical interval “from Adam to Moses” (Romans 5:14-15).
• Paul identified Adam and Eve by name, noting that Adam was created before the woman was created, and also noting the deception to which Eve succumbed (1 Timothy 2:13-14), which occurred via the “serpent” (2 Corinthians 11:3).
• Paul claimed that God’s deity and attributes have been evident “since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20).
• Paul said that Jesus fulfilled the promises that had been made to “the fathers,” i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Romans 15:8).
• Paul quoted the promise God made to Abraham concerning Sarah giving birth to Isaac (Romans 9:9), and also mentions Jacob, Esau, and Rebecca by name (vss. 9-10).

Peter

Peter, too, endorsed the historicity of Genesis:

• He alluded to the watery mass at Creation from Genesis 1:12,6-7,9 (2 Peter 3:5).
• He regarded the Flood as an actual historical event, mentioning Noah by name and specifying the number of survivors as eight, and the Flood’s extent being global (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6).
• Peter believed in the historical personage of Lot (Genesis 11-14,19) and that God actually turned “the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes” to make them “an example to those who afterward would live ungodly.” The incident also serves the purpose of demonstrating how God “knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations” (2 Peter 2:6-9). If the incident was not historical, it would serve no legitimate parallel purpose.
• Peter also noted the actual, historical relationship sustained by Sarah and Abraham (1 Peter 3:6).

Hebrews

The writer of the Hebrews letter bases his entire argument on the historicity of Genesis and the Old Testament system:

• His quotation of Psalm 102 includes the fact that even as God created the heavens and the Earth, so they will perish (1:10). Both circumstances require literal historicity.
• Alluding to the fact that God “finished” His creative activities—a direct allusion to Genesis 2:1—he then quotes Genesis 2:2 to call attention to the literal cessation of God’s actions on the seventh day of the week (4:3-4; cf. vs. 10—“as God did from His”).
• The comparison of Christ to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18) in contrast with Aaron demands that both of these figures were actual historical personages (5:1-10; 6:20; 7:1-21).
• God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 was a literal promise to a literal person (6:13-14).
• God’s creation of the Universe was by His “word” (11:3)—even as the Genesis record indicates that God spoke the created order into existence (“God said…”—1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26).
• Hebrews chapter 11 is a veritable “Who’s Who” of historical personalities from Genesis whose historicity is assumed: Cain and Abel (vs. 4), Enoch (vs. 5), Noah (vs. 7), Abraham (vss. 8-10), Sarah (vss. 11-12, who literally produced a multitude of descendants), Isaac (vss. 17-20), Jacob (vss. 20-21), and Joseph (vs. 22).
• Esau sold his birthright for food (12:16).
• Abel’s shed blood is as historically real as Christ’s (12:24).

Other New Testament Writers

The other writers show the same respect for bona fide history portrayed in Genesis. James refers to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (2:21). Jude mentions Cain, Enoch, and Sodom and Gomorrah (vss. 7,11,14). He draws a comparison between the physical destruction of the cities with “the vengeance of eternal fire” that awaits the disobedient at the Judgment. John notes that Cain murdered his brother because of his own sinful actions (1 John 3:12). Even the book of Revelation, though highly figurative, nevertheless contains numerous allusions to Genesis that indicate an historical understanding of the book (e.g., 5:5; 10:6; 20:2; 22:2). To suggest that the book of Genesis is a compilation of interesting fables, myths, folklore, popular anecdotes, and stories, rather than actual history, is to suggest that the doctrines of Christianity are rooted in and dependent on fairytales and imaginary stories. Indeed, if the events of Genesis did not historically occur, the New Testament writers—and Jesus Himself—were either in error or flat out liars, since they unquestionably referred to the events of Genesis as being historically true.

Linguistic Proof that Genesis is Literal History

In addition to the New Testament’s inspired treatment of Genesis as an actual account of history, one could also simply examine the literary genre of Genesis. Many in our day insist that Genesis should not be read as literal history because it is written in poetic form and is not a literal description of actual events. But such a claim is, itself, linguistic gobbledygook. Written language, whether from man or God, can be deciphered in terms of its genre. One can identify the author’s use of linguistic elements and extract intended meaning from the words that are used. In other words, though the 50 chapters of Genesis contain figurative language—as does the entire Bible—nevertheless, one can easily distinguish between the literal and the figurative.

Entire volumes have been written on human communication, how human language functions, and how to derive meaning from written language. Many books have been produced that expound the discipline of hermeneutics—the process of interpreting language. These volumes provide self-evident, easily discernible rules and procedures for detecting figurative language. D.R. Dungan’s classic work, Hermeneutics, written in 1888, contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “The Various Figures of the Bible,” and “Figures of Thought.”⁸ Clinton Lockhart’s 1901 volume Principles of Interpretation contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “Poetry,” and “Types.”⁹ Christendom has produced many books that demonstrate the means by which biblical language may be understood, including Bernard Ramm’s Hermeneutics and Milton Terry’s 1883 volume Biblical Hermeneutics.¹⁰ Ascertaining whether Genesis and, specifically, the Creation account are “poetic,” “hymn,” or “myth” is not a matter of confusion or uncertainty—except for those who have an agenda and wish to concoct an elaborate smokescreen to avoid the obvious import of God’s Word.

Does Genesis 1 contain any figurative language? Certainly. But not anything that makes the chapter non-literal in its basic import. For example, the term “face” in Genesis 1:2, which is actually plural in the Hebrew (pah-neem—“faces”), is an idiomatic instance of pleonasm, a form of amplificatio, in which more words are used than the grammar requires: “And darkness was upon the faces of the deep.” The noun “deep” (which, itself, is a figurative term for the sea or ocean) is enhanced or emphasized by means of a second, redundant noun “faces.” Instead of simply saying, “darkness was upon the deep,” adding “faces” makes the statement “much more forcible and emphatic.”¹¹ The use of “saw” in Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25 is the figure of speech known as anthropopatheia in which human attributes are ascribed to God—specifically in this text, human actions.¹² The expression in 1:9,10, “Let the dry appear,” is the figure of speech known as antimereia, the exchange of one part of speech for another, in this case, an adjective for a noun. “Dry” in the verses refers to the “land.”¹³ Genesis 1:11 uses polyptoton in which the same part of speech is repeated in a different inflection. Specifically, the verb “seeding” is repeated by means of its cognate noun “seed”: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,” literally, “seeding seed.”¹⁴ In other words, vegetation was created by God in a state of bearing seed, and not vice versa—which militates against the notion of evolution and underscores the instantaneous nature of the Creation. Indeed, this figurative language testifies to the literal nature of the Creation week.

So, yes, Genesis 1 (and perhaps every other chapter in the Bible) contains figurative language, as does our everyday language.¹⁵ But that language is detectable, discernible, and decipherable—and does not necessarily imply that the overall message being conveyed is not to be taken literally. None of the language of Genesis 1 even hints that the events described were imaginary as opposed to being actual historical occurrences. In fact, simply take your Bible and turn to Genesis chapter 1 and notice how many terms are used that have an obvious, undisputable literal import, including “earth,” “darkness,” “Spirit of God,” “waters,” “light,” “day,” “night,” “evening,” “morning,” “first,” “seas,” “grass,” “herb,” “seed,” “fruit,” “tree,” “seasons,” “years,” “stars,” “fowl,” “fish,” “cattle,” etc. Distinguishing between figurative and literal language is not that difficult. As a side note, Steven Boyd conducted a statistical analysis using logistic regression, in order to ascertain whether Genesis 1:1-2:3 is Hebrew poetry or historical narrative. He concluded: “The biblical creation account clearly is not poetry but instead is a literal description in real time of supernatural events.”¹⁶

Corroboration by Other Bible Passages

If the events described in the book of Genesis were not intended to be understood as literal history, one would expect the rest of the Bible to give some indication of that fact. Yet, on the contrary, several passages scattered from the Old Testament to the New Testament allude to the events in such a way that their historicity is assumed. Take, for example, specific verses regarding the creation of the Universe by God. The distinct impression is given in Genesis chapter 1 that God orally spoke everything into existence, rather than using some naturalistic, time-laden process. In what is obviously an actual historical setting, reported to us in a literal context of Scripture, Moses informs the Israelites situated at the base of Mt. Sinai—

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work…. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:8-11).

No Israelite listening to this declaration in 1500 B.C. would have ever conceived the notion that God created everything in the Universe over a period of millions and billions of years. The correlation between the days of Genesis 1 and the six-day work week enjoined upon people under the Law of Moses would have been unmistakable and could have been understood in no other way but literally.

Another example is seen in Psalm 33—which is certainly written in standard Hebrew metrical verse—but poetry that conveys literal truth. Speaking of God’s creative powers, David declared:

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:6-9).

The figurative elements of this poetic passage are seen in the notions of “breath” and “mouth”—physical attributes that would not literally, physically characterize God Who is “spirit” (John 4:24; cf. Luke 24:39). But the oral aspect of God speaking the physical realm into existence is literal, even as God literally and audibly spoke to people throughout history (e.g., Genesis 12:1ff.; 22:12; Exodus 3:4ff.; Matthew 3:17; 17:5).

Still another example is seen in the psalmist’s call for praise by inanimate creation:

Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens! (Psalm 148:1-4).

Here is an excellent instance of figurative language. Obviously, the Sun, Moon, stars, and waters cannot literally, audibly praise God. Yet, having been created by God, they reflect their Maker. They manifest attributes that demonstrate their divine origin (cf. Psalm 19:1ff.). Hence, the next verse declares: “Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created” (vs. 5). Here is yet another forthright indication that the impression projected by the Genesis account, that God literally spoke the Universe into existence, is an accurate impression, in spite of the fact that in Psalm 148 this truth is couched in figurative language.

We must ever remember that the Bible is unlike any other book on the planet. It reflects its own divine origin by the attributes that it possesses. It does not divulge its divine message in a sterile vacuum in which a writer expounds lofty ideals, or by means of a listing of ethical “do’s and don’ts.” Rather, by means of the Bible, God conveys His message to mankind in history.¹⁷ We are introduced to the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of the human race, and thereafter we are treated to a sequential, historical narrative that guides us through 4,000 years of human history, climaxing with God’s own personal visit to the Earth. This is all history! And it is clearly intended to be understood literally.

Conclusion

The book of Genesis explains the Creation of the Universe, the corruption of humanity by sin, the catastrophe of the global Flood, and the confusion at Babel. Amazingly, it provides the foundation for anthropology, biology, astronomy, geology, and a host of other disciplines. Critical doctrines that impact all of humanity are rooted in the events described in Genesis, including the necessity of clothing—human modesty—and why we organize our lives in terms of a seven-day week. More crucial doctrines that pertain to eternity are also approached early on, including why humans sin, why humans die, and why Jesus would have to die on the cross. The very meaning of human existence is clarified by examining the book of Genesis.

Read carefully to Charles Darwin’s autobiographical statement regarding the shift that occurred in his thinking that led to his belief in evolution: “I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian.”¹⁸ The integrity of the entire Bible is seriously undermined when anyone compromises the literal, historical nature of the book of Genesis, with its critical teaching on origins. Obstinately clinging to evolution, theistic or otherwise, and stubbornly insisting on a relaxed, devalued interpretation of Genesis, can only end in a diluted religion.

May we love God. May we love His Word. May we defend it against all efforts to destroy its integrity and message. May we pore over its contents—as if our lives, the lives of our family, and the lives of those we influence depend upon it. For, indeed, they do.

Endnotes

The post Genesis: Myth or History? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the December issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

#6—“God Wants You to Be Happy to Dash Babies Against the Rocks”¹

Denominational-preacher-turned-atheist, Dan Barker, listed Psalm 137:8-9 as #1 on his list of “worst Old Testament verses.” He stated: “I have always thought this was the worst verse in the bible, and my opinion remains unchanged.”² According to the Telegraph, this passage “is often omitted from readings in church,”³ apparently because “it’s just so bad, we’re too embarrassed to read it.”

So what does Psalm 137:8-9 say? “O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!” According to some critics, God is suggesting that believers “should be happy,” even “blessed”—“to kill innocent babies of those who are keeping you from worshipping your own god.”⁴ But is this really what the text means? As is so often the case, the context of the passage has been ignored or dismissed, and the worst possible interpretation is touted as the correct interpretation.

What is this nine-verse psalm all about? It’s really quite simple to understand and interpret if a little time is taken and the context is considered. The Jewish psalmist was captive in Babylon (vs. 1). As he and others longed to return to their homeland of Judea, their Babylonian plunderers and captors requested entertaining songs about Jerusalem (vs. 3). The mournful psalmist did not want to sing and play joyful songs in Babylon, while he mourned being torn away from Zion (vss. 4-6). He recalls how the Edomites (in essence) cheered on the Babylonians’ destruction of Jerusalem (vs. 7). But then the inspired psalmist concluded in verses 8-9 with a prophecy about Babylon’s own downfall: “O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!” The psalmist was really doing nothing more than what other Bible writers did: prophesying about the coming devastating destruction of Babylon at the hands of the Medes and Persians. Babylon was a mighty kingdom (Isaiah 13:19), but it was going to fall (21:9), and it would fall to “the Medes” (12:17; 21:2).

In Jeremiah 12:1, the prophet asked God about the Babylonians’ destruction of Judah, saying, “Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are those happy who deal so treacherously?” Jeremiah was not suggesting God commanded the Babylonians to rejoice about Judah’s destruction; rather, he was describing their doom. Jeremiah would later prophesy of Babylon’s destruction, saying: “Because you were glad, because you rejoiced, You destroyers of My heritage…Chaldea shall become plunder; all who plunder her shall be satisfied” (50:11,10). Like the Babylonians who “rejoiced” at Judah’s destruction, the Medes and Persians would be “happy” when they defeated Babylon. Again, God was not blessing the Medes and Persians with righteous happiness and satisfaction of their future destruction of Babylon, but was describing their feelings (however so wrong they were). Similarly, Psalm 137:8-9 only describes (not prescribes!) how the one who would conquer Babylon would be happy, even when he “dashes your little ones against the rock!”⁵

#7—“God Commands Wives to Submit to Their Husbands”

Believe it or not, according to The Telegraph of London, one of the “top 10 worst Bible passages” is Ephesians 5:22, in which Paul taught, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”⁶ In his book God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, Dan Barker titled chapter nine simply “Misogynistic.” Immediately under this chapter title, Barker prominently displayed Genesis 3:16 as apparent proof of God’s alleged misogyny: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”⁷ Later Barker wrote: “Women are second-class. Because of Eve’s insubordination, she was forced to become dependent on man. From then on, all women are inferior, so the bible says.”⁸

Is God really misogynistic? Does the Bible teach that women are actually inferior to men? And do women, according to the Scriptures, have to “submit to their husbands”?

Before answering these questions (which we are happy to do), let’s pause momentarily to ask what value atheistic, Darwinian evolution places upon women. The fact is, Charles Darwin himself wrote in The Descent of Man that “[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…. [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman…. [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman.”⁹ The Bible never teaches that men are more valuable than women, or that men should use their “intellectual powers” and physical strength to force women to do whatever they want. Yet, when atheistic evolution is taken to its logical conclusion, then “might makes right” and the “fittest” survive and excel to dominate and exploit the weaker to their own pleasure. Atheists simply have no logical moral grounds upon which to make a rational argument for why men should treat women with love and respect.

On the other hand, if God exists and the Bible is His Word, then a faithful man of God will love and cherish women. After all, the God of the Bible loves women. He loves “the world” (John 3:16), which is full of men and women. He created women (as He did men) “in His image” (Genesis 1:26-27). When God put on flesh and dwelt among mankind, He showed great compassion upon women (Luke 11:11-15; John 4:1-42; 19:25-27). He loves women so much that He freely offers them (as He does men) eternal life through Jesus’ sacrificial death (John 3:16; Luke 24:47; Romans 1:16). “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:29). Christian husbands and wives are “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). In truth, men and women are equal in their worth to God.

Furthermore, God not only loves women, He commands men to love, cherish, protect, and honor women. To the church at Colosse Paul wrote: “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them” (Colossians 3:19). To husbands in Ephesus he commanded: “[L]ove your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her…. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself…. [L]et each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself” (Ephesians 5:25,28,33). Peter wrote that husbands are to dwell with their wives “with understanding, giving honor to the wife” (1 Peter 3:7).¹⁰

So what is the main problem that atheists and skeptics (especially in the 21^st century) have with the biblical teachings about men and women? Largely that God created two (and only two) different sexes to have different roles in the home and in the Church. Yet, the omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly holy, loving, and just Creator of the Universe has every right to define the roles of His creation. A man may dislike that he was not created with the anatomical and physiological ability to carry a child in a womb for nine months, to give birth to a baby, or to nurse a newborn. He may prefer to be a follower in the family rather than the courageous leader God expects him to be (1 Corinthians 11:3). He may wish that he wasn’t assigned the role of selfless protector (Ephesians 5:25). If he was given the choice, he might rather take what he perceives (however so naively) to be the “easier role,” and just “submit” to his wife, and let “the buck stop” with her, and not feel the pressure of being the leader of the family.

Children may cry that their Creator is unfair because they must “obey [their] parents” (Ephesians 6:1). Teenagers may think it quite ignorant to have to submit to older people (1 Peter 5:5) “who don’t even know how to use a smart phone.” An unmarried man with no children may disdain God for detailing in the Bible that he’s not qualified to be an elder or deacon in the local church (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9)—even though he’s a billionaire and the CEO of a Fortune-500 company! “How could a poor, married farmer with 10 kids be more qualified to serve as an elder of a local church than a billionaire bachelor?!”

Similarly, a woman may dislike that Paul wrote that “the head of every man is Christ” and “the head of woman is man” (1 Corinthians 11:3). She may claim that the biblical teaching of man’s headship over women (Genesis 3:16) and the command for wives to “submit to” their husbands “made her an atheist.” She may openly despise Christianity, since, in the church, the apostle Paul taught, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:12-14, ESV).¹¹ Yet, none of this proves that God doesn’t exist or that the Bible is not His inspired revelation to humanity. It only demonstrates what has always been the case—most people do “what is right in their own eyes” (cf. Judges 17:6; 21:25). Like spoiled children who are angry at their parents (whose rules they deem “unfair” and do not understand the wisdom of), prideful people become angry with their “Father” in heaven. Most people refuse to bow to the will of their Creator. Most of humanity fails to “humble [themselves] under the mighty hand of God” (1 Peter 5:6). It should come as no surprise then that the same souls who refuse to “acknowledge God” (Romans 1:28, ESV) and to submit to Him, will also belittle His Word, especially those passages requiring humble, respectful submission of wives to their husbands.

#8—“God Commands Slaves To Submit to Their Masters”

It’s bad enough that the Bible teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands, but Scripture doesn’t stop there. The Bible writers actually command slaves to submit to their masters! How can anyone be okay with that kind of biblical teaching? How can any decent, morally minded person be a Bible-believing Christian when the Bible requires such rubbish?!”

Unsurprisingly, on most any list of “bad Bible passages” you will find one or more of the following verses:

• Ephesians 6:5—“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling” (ESV).
• Colossians 3:22—“Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters” (ESV).
• 1 Timothy 6:1—“Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor” (ESV).
• 1 Peter 2:18—“Servants, be submissive to your master with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.”

According to Penn Jillette, there is a “celebration of slavery” in the Bible, which is another reason he gives for being an atheist.¹² Number 10 on the Telegraph’s “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages” is 1 Peter 2:18. And, one of the self-professed “tantalizing tidbits” that Valerie Tarico listed in her Salon.com article (titled “11 Kinds of Bible Verses Christians Love to Ignore”), was the Bible’s treatment of slavery. According to Tarico, “The Good Book contains passages about…slavery that Evangelicals conveniently refuse to acknowledge…. The reality is that the Bible says much more in support of slavery than against it. Even the New Testament Jesus never says owning people is wrong. Instead, the Bible gives explicit instructions to masters and slaves. Awkward.”¹³

Americans often envision ancient slavery as the kind of oppressive bondage that was popular among some slave owners in North America in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, when millions of Africans were stolen from their homelands and shipped across the Atlantic. Certainly, some first-century slavery was similar, but often it was quite different. For example, slavery in New Testament times was not based on race. Many foreign soldiers and their families became slaves after being captured during times of war.¹⁴ What’s more, “[s]ome became slaves because they could not pay back the money they had borrowed. The government would also take people into slavery if they could not pay their taxes.”¹⁵

Consider the fact that the ancients would no doubt interpret certain modern American practices as forms of “slavery.” For example, hundreds of thousands of Americans who work, labor nearly one-third of every year for the government. That is, Americans are forced by the government with the threat of fines and imprisonment to pay over 100 days wages to local, state, and federal governments every year. According to irs.gov, U.S. citizens who fail to pay government-mandated taxes can be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to five years. (Imagine 1^st-century slaves walking into a U.S. prison and seeing men and women living for years in a six-by-eight-foot prison cell for the same crime that they committed, which resulted in their enslavement. What might they call prisoners today who may be forced to pick up trash on the side of the Interstate or perform some other kind of labor? A kind of “slave.”) And what about the military draft—“the practice of ordering people by law to serve in the armed forces”?¹⁶ To this day, all 18-25-year-old males in the U.S. are required to register with the Selective Service System in case of “a crisis requiring a draft”¹⁷—a draft in which thousands or millions of men would be forced to go to war, and possibly die for their country, whether they wanted to or not. (I’m not suggesting that we should defraud the government, or that we should refuse to submit to its authority if the draft is reinstated; I am simply suggesting that “slavery” was broadly defined in the first century.) When people disparage Bible writers for commanding slaves to be obedient to their masters, we must understand that there were various kinds of slavery in the first century, including some forms that resemble certain practices today, which may be generally accepted and morally justified.

What’s more, the Bible does not celebrate and champion slavery, at least not the kind of slavery most people think of when they hear the term. In truth, Paul specifically condemned “kidnappers” (andrapodistais) or “menstealers” (KJV) as lawless and insubordinate individuals who practice that which is “contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10). Greek authorities define this kidnapper as a “slave-dealer.”¹⁸ Far from endorsing such activity, Paul groups these men-stealing, slave traders with murderers, liars, and other ungodly sinners (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

So why does God require slaves to respect, honor, and even serve their masters? The fact is, Paul and Peter’s instruction for slaves to honor their masters is perfectly consistent with the rest of God’s Word regarding all Christians submitting to those in positions of authority. To the Christians living in the heart of the Roman Empire, Paul taught: “Let every soulbe subject to the governing authorities…. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1,7; cf. Matthew 22:21). Similarly, Peter wrote: “Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors…. For this is the will of God…. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17). Was the Roman Empire corrupt in many ways? Certainly. Was a Christian’s submission to Rome a blanket endorsement of the Empire? Not at all. But Christians were (and are) to be humbly compliant.¹⁹

God expects all Christians to have a spirit of submission. Children are to submit to their parents (Ephesians 6:1-3). Young people are to be submissive to older people (1 Peter 5:5). Wives are to submit to their husbands (1 Peter 3:1-2). Members of local churches are to submit to their overseeing elders who rule over them (Hebrews 13:17; Acts 20:28). Local shepherds are to submit fully to the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:1-4). In short, all Christians, including those in leadership positions, are to “be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble’” (1 Peter 5:5). And, yes, God expects His people to humbly “submit…to every authority instituted among men,” whether to kings or to slave masters (1 Peter 2:13,18, NIV).

God did not create the practice of slavery.²⁰ And His instructions regarding a slave’s submission to his master were not given because God favors a master over his slave (Galatians 3:28), or because He simply wants some people to have harder lives than others. The specific purpose that Paul gave for Christian slaves submitting to their pagan masters was “so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed” (1 Timothy 6:1).

God commands all Christians to do their best to make the most for the cause of Christ in whatever situation they find themselves. “Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave” (1 Corinthians 7:21-23). Whether a person becomes a Christian while in slavery or in a terrible marriage, God wants His people to change from the inside out and have a positive spiritual impact on those around them—so that the souls of the lost might be saved (cf. 1 Peter 3:1-2). We are called to be obedient to parents, husbands, governing officials, and yes, even slave owners. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). Rather than giving people reasons to curse Christ and His doctrine, Christians are called to be obedient to all those in positions of authority “for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13). We are called to be honorable at all times so that we may “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” and “by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:15,12). In short, “humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:6).

Over time, with the spread of Christianity and with increasing numbers of slave masters becoming Christians, the physical lives of many slaves would have improved dramatically. As slave owners with honest and good hearts learned (1) to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and (2) to love their neighbors (including their slaves) as themselves (Matthew 22:36-40), they would give up “threatening,” just as God commands (Ephesians 6:9). As Christian slave owners contemplated treating others how they wanted to be treated (Matthew 7:12), they would give their slaves “what is just and fair,” knowing that they, too, had a Master in heaven (Colossians 4:1). As slave owners submitted to Christ, they would be transformed by the Gospel, learning to be “kindly affectionate” to everyone (Romans 12:2,10), including all those who served them.²¹ In short, far from endorsing sinful slavery, the Gospel, taken to its logical conclusion, would eventually lead truth-seeking masters and government officials to help bring an end to any kind of cruel, sinful captivity.²²

Atheists may express repulsion for what the Bible teaches about slavery but, in truth, it’s the atheistic position that is quite irrational. After all, upon what logical grounds can an atheist ever call anything absolutely, objectively evil, including the kidnapping of people and forced servitude? And if “might makes right” and the “fittest survive” (and flourish), could an atheist not logically rationalize stronger people stealing and subjugating weaker people for their own purposes? If God does not exist, and man is nothing more than an evolved animal, it would be just as “right” to capture, enslave, and multiply human beings as it is to trap mice, encage rabbits, and breed dogs. Such is simply the case if atheism is true.

#9—“Christ Preached a Hell-Fire-and-Brimstone Eternal Punishment”

Last, but not least, the Bible’s teaching on the reality of eternal punishment for unbelievers has perhaps “made” more atheists than any other teaching of Scripture. After expressing that he did not “believe one can grant either superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels,” popular early-20^th-century agnostic Bertrand Russell indicated that he was not concerned about what other people said about Christ, but “with Christ as He appears in the Gospels.”²³ How so? In his widely distributed pamphlet “Why I Am Not a Christian,” Russell argued, “There is one very serious defect in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospel did believe in everlasting punishment.”²⁴

Many Christians foolishly and hypocritically avoid the Bible’s teaching on hell, but refer regularly to Scripture’s allusion to heaven. Yet, as Russell and many other critics of Christ are very well aware, according to Jesus and the Bible writers, “eternal punishment” is just as much a reality as “eternal life.” After explaining to His disciples how God will separate the righteous from the wicked at the Judgment (Matthew 25:31-45), Jesus concluded by telling them that the wicked “shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life” (25:46, ASV).²⁵ Earlier He stated that the wicked will be sent away “into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). Hell’s fire “shall never be quenched” (Mark 9:43), the figurative “worm” that eats on the flesh of hell’s inhabitants “does not die” (Mark 9:48), and the wicked who find themselves in hell (due to their rejection of God’s gracious gift of salvation through Christ) “shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9, RSV). As it was in Sodom, when God “rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all, even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30). Thus, as Jesus taught, “My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!” (Luke 12:4-5).

Bertrand Russell accused Jesus’ preaching of being full of “vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His [Jesus’] preaching.” “You do not,” he contrasted, “find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane towards the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation.” He added:

I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world…. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

So there you have it: how can people believe and accept the message of the chroniclers of Christ (i.e., the Gospel writers), when such accounts are full of hell-fire-and-brimstone preaching?

Consider four reasons why Jesus’ and the Bible’s teachings on hell logically should not make anyone an atheist. First, Bertrand Russell stated that he did not “feel” that any “humane” person can believe in eternal punishment, and since Christ did, then He had a “defect” in His “moral” character. Yet, truth, objectivity, and logical argumentation are not based upon people’s feelings. Atheists cannot logically condemn the Bible’s teaching about hell as objectively “inhumane” and “immoral,” while simultaneously believing that human beings arose by chance from rocks and rodents over billions of years. If an eternal, supernatural Creator does not exist, then objective²⁶ goodness and wickedness, justice and cruelty cannot logically exist. Actual good and evil, fairness and unfairness can only exist if there is some real, objective point of reference—“some objective standard…which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized.”²⁷ Indeed, the best that atheists can “argue” about the biblical teaching of hell is that they “feel” like it is “immoral,” but they cannot actually prove such.

Second, atheists and agnostics also fail in their assessment of hell because they fail to grasp what the Bible teaches about the reality, offensiveness, and severity of sin. This failure should come as no surprise because a person cannot have a proper view of sin without having a proper view of God and the Bible. Once a person comes to know that God exists and the Bible is His Word,²⁸ he then learns that there are no “white lies,” innocent “alternative lifestyles,” or mere “affairs.” There is only Truth or lies. There is only God’s infinite right way versus all of the prideful ways of man. There is only pure holiness versus repulsive unholiness. There is only light and darkness. And, since “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5), His innately pure and holy nature will not allow Him to tolerate lawlessness (Habakkuk 1:13; Isaiah 59:1-2; 1 John 3:4).

Third, God’s perfect justice demands punishment for wrongdoing. The Bible reveals that God is 100% just. There is nothing unfair about Him. “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne,” exclaimed the psalmist (89:14). “All of His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He” (Deuteronomy 32:4). A just judge is one who shows no partiality (Deuteronomy 1:17), and God “shows no partiality nor takes a bribe” (Deuteronomy 10:17). A corrupt judge allows the guilty to go unpunished, while a just judge pronounces righteous judgment upon lawbreakers. “[H]e who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality” (Colossians 3:25). The guilty cannot “buy” their way out of punishment. They can’t “flirt” their way out of righteous judgment. Similar to how citizens of an earthly kingdom rightly rejoice at the pronouncement of punishment for the wicked, humanity should rejoice that we have a just Judge who also punishes evildoers.

“But wait a minute! A just judge wouldn’t punish people forever!” Says who? Says the sinner who has a shallow, flippant view of the wretchedness of sin and the holiness of God? Says the sinner who did the crime but doesn’t like the time? Says the person who is not perfectly impartial? Says the person who knows virtually nothing compared to the omniscience of God? What’s more, aren’t just and fair sentences and punishments (even in the physical realm) often much, much longer than the amount of time the crime actually took to commit? A man can murder an innocent person in only one second and yet justly spend the next 1.5 billion seconds (or 50 years) in prison. Certainly the thought of being punished forever and ever is a sobering, scary thought, but in truth, only the omniscient, infinitely wise, and perfectly just Judge is in a position to decide appropriate punishment for unforgiven sin. In truth, a rejection of God based upon the biblical teaching of hell is a rejection based upon emotion, not evidence.

Fourth and finally, though “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and though all sinners deserve eternal punishment, because of God’s perfect love, no one has to go to hell. God has given us an all-powerful, spiritual lifeline (Romans 1:16). Indeed, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Some unbelievers love to talk about God’s “vindictive fury,” but they willfully ignore the overall theme of the Bible—“God is love” (1 John 4:8). He doesn’t want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9). God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4). From the moment wretched sin entered the world, God began revealing His answer to the sin problem (Genesis 3:15; 12:1-3). Following thousands of years of promises and prophecies throughout the Old Testament pointing to the ultimate “Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), “God sent forth His son” to redeem the slaves of sin to become children of God (Galatians 4:4-5). “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16-17). Indeed, God is so loving that He not only warned us of the eternal consequences of unforgiven sin,²⁹ but even when we succumbed to sin, God took upon Himself the punishment for our sins, that we might be saved! So why will many people still go to eternal hell? Because they choose to. Because they “trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which [they were] sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29).

Conclusion

The Word of God has been attacked and twisted since the beginning of time—ever since Satan changed what God said about eating the forbidden fruit, and lied to Eve (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:4). Sadly, nothing has changed in thousands of years of human history. Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), and most people believe the lies he sells (Matthew 7:13-14).

No lie is more dangerous than that told by many modern atheists, agnostics, and skeptics—that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God. Yet, there is nothing to fear, because the truth has nothing to fear! Just as 2 + 2 does not have to worry about “4,” truth does not fear an honest investigation. In reality, if the biblical criticisms of unbelievers are fairly considered, then the faith of Christians will only grow stronger, and honest unbelievers will see the error of their ways. In a sense, then, I suppose we should thank critics of Christianity for bringing to our attention the scriptures they dislike.

Endnotes

¹ Dan Barker (2016), “The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker,” Freethought Today, April, https://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/26141-the-10-worst-old-testament-verses.

² Ibid.

³ “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages” (2009), Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html.

⁴ “The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker,” emp. added.

⁵ For further insight into Psalm 137, see Kyle Butt (2016), “Psalm 137:9—Dashing Babies’ Heads Against a Stone,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=913.

⁶ “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages.”

⁷ Dan Barker (2016), God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction (New York: Sterling), p. 97, emp. added.

⁸ Ibid., p. 99.

⁹ Charles Darwin (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: The Modern Library, reprint), pp. 873-874, emp. added.

¹⁰ For more information on “The Biblical View of Women,” see Kyle Butt’s 2011 article by this title at http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3654.

¹¹ For further reading on the role of women in the church, see Dave Miller (2014), “Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5007&topic=389.

¹² Penn Jillette (2010), “How Did You Become an Atheist?” BigThink, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w.

¹³ Valerie Tarico (2014), “11 Kinds of Bible Verses Christians Love to Ignore,” May 31, https://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kinds_of_bible_verses_christians_love_to_ignore_partner/.

¹⁴ John Simkin (2014), “Slavery in the Roman Empire,” Spartacus Educational, http://spartacus-educational.com/ROMslaves.htm.

¹⁵ Simkin.

¹⁶ “Conscription,” Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscription, emp. added.

¹⁷ “Who Must Register” (2008), Selective Service System, https://web.archive.org/web/20090507213840/http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm.

¹⁸ Frederick Danker, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), p. 76.

¹⁹ The one exception being never to “obey man” if submission to him conflicted with a command from God. For example, to those who “commanded” Peter and John “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:17-18; 5:28), the apostles answered, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).

²⁰ Various forms of slavery have been commonplace throughout history. Virtually every ancient civilization used slaves [“History of Slavery” (no date), History World, www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac41]. Slavery was prevalent enough in Babylon in the 18^th century B.C. to be mentioned numerous times in the Code of Hammurabi [“Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon” (no date), https://archive.org/stream/cu31924060109703/cu31924060109703_djvu.txt]. What’s more, historians estimate that, by the time Paul wrote his New Testament epistles in the first century A.D., five to eight million slaves resided within the Roman Empire, including 15-25% of the total population of Italy [Walter Scheidel (2007), “The Roman Slave Supply,” pp. 3-6, https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/050704.pdf].

²¹ See Dave Miller’s article titled “Philemon and Slavery” (2005), https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=560 to learn more about how “God would have slaves not to be treated as slaves.” The Gospel of Jesus Christ “effectively eradicates the forms of slavery that are deemed objectionable.”

²² If you would like to read a more extensive response to questions regarding slavery, and especially slavery in the Old Testament, see Kyle Butt (2005), “Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery,” Reason & Revelation, 25[6]:41-47, June, https://www.apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/25_6/0506.pdf.

²³ Bertrand Russell (1927), “Why I Am Not a Christian,” https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html, emp. added.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ For a detailed response to annihilationists who claim “eternal” hell is not a reference to “time” or “duration,” but only an allusion to its “nature,” see Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2005), “The Eternality of Hell [Parts I & II],” Apologetics Press, Reason & Revelation, January & February, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1474&topic=427; http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1475.

²⁶ Independent of people’s feelings.

²⁷ Thomas B. Warren and Wallace I. Matson (1978), The Warren-Matson Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press), p. 284.

²⁸ See Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2017), Reasons to Believe (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

²⁹ Though Bertrand Russell criticized Christ for preaching on hell, while praising Socrates for being “bland and urbane towards people who would not listen to him,” Socrates was not dealing with the absolute, most important message that man could ever hear: the way to eternal life versus the tragedy of eternal punishment. Logically speaking, Jesus’ warning others about hell was one of the most loving things that He (or anyone) could preach. After all, if His preaching on hell convinced men to follow God’s gracious “way” to eternal life (John 14:6), then He saved them from eternal death. No one thinks of firemen, policemen, or doctors as being unkind when they warn others of potential physical harm or death, so how could anyone logically argue that Jesus was being unkind when He warned His hearers of the greatest tragedy of all—eternal, spiritual separation from God?

Suggested Resources

The post More “Atheist-Making” Bible Verses You Need to Know appeared first on Apologetics Press.

It might surprise some Christians to learn that a number of prominent atheists and agnostics have alleged that, of all things, the Bible “made them” unbelievers. According to 20th-century British playwright, A.A. Milne, author of the Winnie the Pooh books, “The Old Testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism, and disbelief—call it what you will—than any book ever written.”¹ Renowned British agnostic Bertrand Russell wrote a booklet in 1927 titled “Why I Am Not a Christian” (which eventually made its way onto the New York Public Library’s “Books of the Century” list).² In the pamphlet, Russell commented on Jesus and the gospel accounts, saying, “I do not believe one can grant either superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels…. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise.”³

In more recent times, the YouTube channel BigThink featured popular American magician, actor, and entertainer Penn Jillette in a video titled, “How Did You Become an Atheist?” The video has been viewed over 2.2 million times. In it, Jillette stated: “I read the Bible, cover to cover. And I think that anyone who is thinking about maybe being an atheist, if you read the Bible…cover to cover, I believe you will emerge from that as an atheist…. The Bible itself will turn you atheist faster than anything.”⁴

What scriptures do these and other atheists contend will turn a Bible reader into an unbeliever? What, exactly, in the Bible would turn a person to atheism or agnosticism?

#1—“Lot Offered His Daughters to the Wicked Men of Sodom”

When Penn Jillette was asked, “Why would reading the Bible make you an atheist?” he said, “Because what we get told about the Bible is a lot of picking and choosing.” He then gave his first actual example of what will make a person an atheist, saying: “When you see Lot’s daughter gang raped and beaten and the Lord being okay with that.”⁵

Indeed, in an attempt to protect two guests in his house, Lot offered his two daughters to an angry mob of homosexuals in Sodom, saying, “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish” (Genesis 19:8).⁶ As incomprehensible and detestable as Lot’s actions were, there is nothing in Genesis 19 or anywhere in Scripture that indicates God was “okay with that” (as Jillette contends). Quite the opposite, in fact. Genesis 19 actually reveals that the two guests, who were really angels sent by God, did not allow anything to happen to Lot’s daughters. Rather, they struck the wicked men of Sodom with blindness and later safely ushered Lot’s daughters (as well as Lot and his wife) out of the repulsively sinful city prior to God destroying it (19:12-25).

Still, some find it quite troubling that in the New Testament, Peter uses the term “righteous” three times in 2 Peter 2:7-8 to describe Lot: “God…delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds).” Why did Peter repeatedly call Lot “righteous” when many see a different picture of Lot in Genesis? Was Lot really righteous?

One must keep in mind that, though a Bible writer may have recorded specific sins and foolish acts of an individual, such revelation does not mean that the person could not also have been righteous. Christ was the only perfect man ever to live (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). Though Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. were counted faithful (Hebrews 11:7-29), they occasionally disobeyed God’s will (cf. Numbers 20:1-12), and acted foolishly or cowardly (cf. Genesis 9:21; 12:12-20; 20:1-18). God never blessed their disobedience, only their faithfulness. Similarly, just because Peter called Lot righteous does not mean that Lot was perfect. Even the apostle Peter, who also served as an elder in the Lord’s church (1 Peter 5:1), was guilty at one time or another of having a lack of faith (Matthew 14:31), denying that he knew the Lord (Matthew 26:69-75), and hypocritically withdrawing himself from Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14).

Furthermore, Peter’s statements about Lot’s righteousness must be considered in their proper context. Similar to how Noah was an island of righteousness surrounded by a sea of iniquity (2 Peter 2:5), Lot was surrounded by extremely “wicked,” “filthy,” “lawless” citizens of Sodom (2 Peter 2:7-8). Although Lot was far from perfect, he was not a wicked, lawless unrighteous citizen of Sodom; he was righteous. Lot separated himself from the unlawfulness of the inhabitants of Sodom and was even tormented “day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds” (2 Peter 2:8).

Though Lot’s offering of his daughters to the sodomites is inexcusable (as it seems were Abraham’s actions in Egypt and Gerar when he allowed his wife to be taken by kings in order to preserve his life; see Genesis 12:10-20; 20:1-18), Genesis 19 clearly indicates the distinction between the righteousness of Lot and the wickedness of the inhabitants of Sodom. The sodomites even hinted at such when they declared that Lot “keeps acting as a judge” (Genesis 19:9). This was the distinction Peter made—not that Lot was perfect, but that he remained uncontaminated by the level of intense iniquity prevalent throughout Sodom. Like Christians today who strive to walk in the light, though they are imperfect (1 John 1:5-10), Lot was a righteous man, who also made some memorable mistakes.

#2—“God Told Abraham to Kill His Son”

Genesis 19:8 is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg of verses atheists contend will make a person an unbeliever. The very next example Penn Jillette gave in his popular six-minute video was “Abraham being willing to kill his son.”⁷ Not only was Abraham willing to kill his son Isaac, God actually instructed him to do so, saying, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Genesis 22:2). The Telegraph of London highlighted this verse as “No. 8” in its article, “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages.”⁸ In his 2009 debate with Kyle Butt, American atheist Dan Barker asked the audience to “remember the thing about when Abraham—he [God] asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. By the way, Abraham should have said, ‘No way, I’m better than you, I’m not going to kill my son.’”⁹

Are Penn Jillette, Dan Barker, and other atheists right? Is this a good Bible verse to use to spread atheism? Should this passage of Scripture logically lead people away from the Bible and the God of Abraham to atheism?

Prior to a discussion of Genesis 22, one is compelled to ask the atheist upon what basis he deems the killing of a child as wrong or evil? As leading unbelievers have admitted, atheism logically implies, “Everything is permitted,”¹⁰ including murder. Do atheists not frequently justify the murder of unborn children? Renowned atheist Peter Singer indicated in 2000 that it would not even be wrong to kill a disabled child who had already been born. He wrote: “[K]illing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”¹¹ Thus, some of the world’s leading atheists have justified murdering human beings, even when doing so means the taking of the only life that a child will have (according to naturalistic atheism, which implies that there is no eternal afterlife). So how, exactly, can atheists objectively and non-hypocritically condemn God and Abraham in Genesis 22?

It Was a “Test”

Even still, Genesis 22 poses no real problem. Why? Because God did not actually intend for Abraham to kill his son as a burnt offering; God’s command was only a “test” (22:1). When a mother asks her young son (whom she watched from a distance make a mess), “Who did this?” the question is not asked for informational purposes. She is testing her son to see if he will tell the truth and take responsibility for his actions. When a teacher gives her class what appears to be an impossible-to-pass, closed-book test (the contents of which have never been covered in class), the students may initially think their teacher is being terribly unfair. However, the students later learn that the test was actually “a test” of their character: who all would be honest and take their “F” versus who would dishonestly cheat on the test in order to get an “A”? In the end, those who “failed” were actually given a “100,” while those who “passed” were given a “0.” At first, before all the facts were known, the teacher seemed quite unfair; but in the end, the students learned an important life-lesson, while also discovering that their teacher was actually very just and wise.

Scripture reveals that God has occasionally asked questions and made statements that were meant, not in the more normal ways, but as “teaching moments” or “tests.” In John 6, Jesus asked Philip about the great multitude who followed Him, saying, “Where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?” (John 6:5). But Jesus asked the question “to test him, for He Himself knew what He would do” (6:6). Would Philip and the apostles recall that Jesus miraculously had furnished more than 100 gallons of a tasty beverage at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (in John 2) and conclude that Jesus alone could just as easily miraculously feed thousands of people on this occasion if He so desired? Or, would the disciples worry themselves with the large number of people and the limited natural resources? Jesus knew they were not going to purchase food for the multitude, but He still asked the question—because it was a test of their faith. He made it a growing moment.

On another occasion, Jesus tested a Gentile woman (Matthew 15:21-28). Initially (and superficially), one might conclude that Jesus was rude and unloving to the woman who asked Him, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed” (15:22-27). However, many people miss the fact that Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples (who earlier claimed that the Pharisees were offended at His preaching—15:12) how the tenderhearted respond to potential offensive truths. Unlike the hypocritical Jewish scribes and Pharisees who, earlier in the chapter, responded to Jesus’ “hard preaching” with hard-heartedness (Matthew 15:1-12), a Gentile woman seeking assistance from Jesus acknowledged her unworthiness and persistently pursued the Holy One for help, even in the face of a difficult, divinely orchestrated test. In the end, Jesus did what He knew He was going to do all along—He healed the humble woman’s demon-possessed daughter.¹²

So what does all of this have to do with Abraham in Genesis 22? Simply that God never actually wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son—anymore than Jesus wanted His disciples to purchase bread to feed thousands of people, or than He wanted to withhold healing from a Gentile woman’s daughter. Abraham’s faith was tested, and He passed the test without ever killing Isaac (Hebrews 11:17).

In fact, had Abraham actually killed Isaac, he would have disobeyed God, since at the moment when Abraham was about to slay his son, “The Angel  of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham!… Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him’” (Genesis 22:11-12).

Admittedly, God’s test of Abraham was a deep and difficult experience for the patriarch. But keep in mind that God knew all along (1) it was a test, and (2) that the passing of the test did not actually include Abraham killing Isaac. The patriarch demonstrated such great, trusting commitment to God that he would be willing not  to withhold (22:12) even his most precious, promised son, if that is what his Master asked of him.¹³ Such complete trust is what God wants from anyone who seeks after Him (Matthew 16:24-25; Philippians 1:21).¹⁴

#3—“God Accepted Jephthah’s Daughter as a Human Sacrifice”

In “The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker,” the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation listed Judges 11:30-39 as #5–Jephthah burning his daughter “as an acceptable sacrifice to God.”¹⁵ This Bible passage also made The Telegraph’s top 10 list, coming in at #7.

Is it possible that Jephthah literally sacrificed his daughter as a “burnt offering” (Judges 11:29-40)? Yes, it’s possible. Sadly, many children in ancient history were sacrificed at the hands of powerful leaders, including some evil kings of Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-3; 33:6-9). But if Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter, he committed a grave sin, since literal human burnt offerings were condemned by God under the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10).

Despite what Barker and others contend, there simply is no indication in the book of Judges (or anywhere else in Scripture) that God sanctioned Jephthah’s actions (and such silence on God’s part cannot reasonably be interpreted as approval). Admittedly, Judges 11:29 indicates that “the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah,” but this occurred prior to his journey through Gilead, Manasseh, and Mizpah, and prior to his battle with the Ammonites, which included conquering 20 of their cities (11:33). Thus, the statement of Judges 11:29 references to a moment in time at least several weeks or months prior to Jephthah carrying out his rash vow. What’s more, having “the Spirit of the Lord” does not mean a person could never sin and do foolish things (e.g., Samson). This phrase is found seven times in Judges. It can indicate God’s consecration of a judge, such as in Othniel’s case, when “the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel” (Judges 3:10). At other times, it refers more to the courage and superhuman strength that the Lord provided them, such as in Samson’s case (Judges 14:6; 14:19; 15:14). Jephthah was a courageous leader, but he was not without sin (Judges 11:3; Romans 3:23). If he literally sacrificed his daughter, he did so without God’s authorization.

In light of some of the statements later in Judges 11, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Jephthah actually only “sacrificed” his daughter in a figurative sense, similar to how the Levites (Numbers 3:12-13; 8:10-18) were symbolically offered before the Lord (cf. Exodus 13:2,12-16; 22:29-30). Consider that, upon learning of Jephthah’s vow, his daughter and her friends mourned for two months—though the text never indicates they mourned her death. What was their sorrow? They “bewailed her virginity” (Judges 11:38). In fact, three times her virginity is mentioned (11:37-39), the last of which is noted immediately following the revelation that Jephthah “carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man” (11:39). These statements seem to indicate Jephthah’s daughter was likely “sacrificed” as a “burnt offering” at the tabernacle in the sense that she became one of the “serving women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle” (Exodus 38:8; cf. 1 Samuel 2:22). Perhaps like Anna centuries later, Jephthah’s daughter was “offered” to serve God “with fastings and prayers night and day,” never again to leave the area of the tabernacle (cf. Luke 2:36-38).

If Jephthah killed his daughter as a literal burnt offering, the repeated bewailing of her virginity makes no sense. (If someone was about to kill your unmarried daughter, would you feel the need to mourn her virginity—or her imminent death?) On the other hand, if Jephthah’s daughter was about to be “offered” to God to serve perpetually at the tabernacle, and to live the rest of her life as a single, childless servant of the Lord, it makes perfect sense that she and her friends would lament her lasting virginity. When we allow the Bible to explain the Bible, the symbolic offering of Jephthah’s daughter makes perfect sense. But regardless, there was no wrongdoing by God in the events of Judges 11.

#4—“God Killed All Sorts of People in the Bible”

On virtually every extensive list of Bible verses that should supposedly produce unbelievers is a reference to the God of the Bible being a blood thirsty murderer. In his New York Times best-selling book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins (arguably the most famous atheist in the world today), called God, a “racist, infanticidal, genocidal…capriciously malevolent bully.”¹⁶ Both The Telegraph’s and Dan Barker’s list of “worst Bible passages” included examples of God instructing the Israelites to destroy various Canaanite nations. So how could a loving God instruct one group of people to kill and conquer other groups?

In truth, God’s actions in Israel’s conquest of Canaan were in perfect harmony with His supremely loving, merciful, righteous, just, and holy nature. How? First, because punishing evildoers is not unloving. Similar to how merciful parents, principals, policemen, and judges can justly administer punishment to rule-breakers and evildoers, so, too, can the all-knowing, all-loving Creator of the Universe (cf. Hebrews 12:3-11). Loving-kindness and corporal or capital punishment are not antithetical. Prior to conquering Canaan, God commanded the Israelites, saying,

You shall not hate your brother in your heart…. You shall not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself…. And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself (Leviticus 19:17-18,33-34; cf. Romans 13:9).

The faithful Jew was expected, as are Christians, to “not resist an evil person” (Matthew 5:39) but rather “go the extra mile” (Matthew 5:41) and “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39). “Love,” after all, “is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10; cf. Matthew 22:36-40). Interestingly, however, the Israelite was commanded to punish (even kill) lawbreakers, including (and especially) fellow Israelites. Just five chapters after commanding the individual Israelite to “not take vengeance,” but “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), God twice said that murderers would receive the death penalty (Leviticus 24:21,17).

Second, the Canaanite nations were punished because of their extreme wickedness. God did not cast out the Canaanites for being a particular race or ethnic group. God did not send the Israelites into the land of Canaan to destroy a number of righteous nations. On the contrary, the Canaanite nations were horribly depraved. They practiced “abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30) and did “detestable things” (Deuteronomy 18:9, NASB). They practiced idolatry, witchcraft, soothsaying, and sorcery. They attempted to cast spells upon people and call up the dead (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). The inhabitants of Canaan would “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30). The Canaanite nations were anything but “innocent.” They were so nefarious that God said they defiled the land and the land could stomach them no longer—“the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25). [Keep in mind that God warned Israel before ever entering Canaan, that if they forsook His law, they, too, would be severely punished (Deuteronomy 28:15ff.). Sure enough, similar to how God used the Israelites to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Canaan in the time of Joshua, He used the pagan nations of Babylon and Assyria to judge and conquer Israel hundreds of years later.]

Third, unlike the impulsive, quick-tempered reactions of many men (Proverbs 14:29), the Lord is “slow to anger and great in mercy” (Psalm 145:8). He is “longsuffering…, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Immediately following a reminder to the Christians in Rome that the Old Testament was “written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope,” the apostle Paul referred to God as “the God of patience” (Romans 15:4-5). Throughout the Old Testament, the Bible writers portrayed God as longsuffering. When “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” in Noah’s day, and “every intent of the thoughts” of man’s “heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), “the Divine longsuffering waited” (1 Peter 3:20). It appears that God delayed flooding the Earth for 120 years as His Spirit’s message of righteousness was preached to a wicked world (Genesis 6:3 and 2 Peter 2:5). In the days of Abraham, God ultimately decided to spare the iniquitous city of Sodom, not if 50 righteous people were found living therein, but only 10 righteous individuals.

And what about prior to God’s destruction of the Canaanite nations? Did He respond to the peoples’ wickedness like an impulsive, reckless mad-man? Or was He, as the Bible repeatedly states and exemplifies, longsuffering? Indeed, God waited. He waited more than four centuries to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Canaan. Although the Amorites were already a sinful people in Abraham’s day, God delayed in giving the descendants of the patriarch the Promised Land. He would wait until the Israelites had been in Egypt for hundreds of years, because at the time that God spoke with Abraham “the iniquity of the Amorites” was “not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16).¹⁷ In Abraham’s day, the inhabitants of Canaan were not so degenerate that God would bring judgment upon them. However, by the time of Joshua (more than 400 years later), the Canaanites’ iniquity was full, and God used the army of Israel to destroy them.

Yes, God is longsuffering, but His longsuffering is not an “eternal” suffering. His patience with impenitent sinners eventually ends. It ended for a wicked world in the days of Noah. It ended for Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Abraham. And it eventually ended for the inhabitants of Canaan, whom God justly destroyed.

“But What About the Innocent Children in Canaan?”

The children of Canaan were certainly not guilty of their parents’ sins (cf. Ezekiel 18:20); they were sinless, innocent, precious human beings (cf. Matthew 18:3-5). So how could God justly take the lives of children “who have no knowledge of good and evil” (Deuteronomy 1:39)? In truth, as Dave Miller properly noted, “Including the children in the destruction of such populations actually spared them from a worse condition—that of being reared to be as wicked as their parents and thus face eternal punishment. All persons who die in childhood, according to the Bible, are ushered to Paradise and will ultimately reside in Heaven. Children who have parents who are evil must naturally suffer innocently while on Earth.”¹⁸ God, the Giver of life (Acts 17:25; Ecclesiastes 12:7), and only God has the right to take the life of His creation whenever He chooses (for the righteous purposes that He has). At times in history, God took the life of men out of righteous judgment. At other times (as in the case of children), it was for merciful reasons.¹⁹

#5—“God is Jealous and Insecure”

Richard Dawkins has alleged that “[t]he God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant actor in all fiction: jealous and proud of it.”²⁰ Penn Jillette listed God being “jealous and insecure” seventh in his list of reasons for becoming an atheist.²¹ Dan Barker went so far as to say:

If we were forced to reduce the entire Old Testament to a single word, what would it be? It would not be “love.” There is not enough love there to fill a communion cup…. The one word that sums up the scenario between Genesis and Malachi is “jealousy.” Almost every page, every story, every act, every psalm, every prophecy, every command, every threat in those 39 ancient books points back to the possessiveness of one particular god who wanted to own and control his chosen lover by demanding total devotion. “Love me! I am better than the others! Don’t look at them—look at me!”²²

Indeed, the Bible reveals in no uncertain terms that God is a “jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). The truth is, however, sometimes “jealously” is a good thing. The word “jealous” is translated in the Old Testament from the Hebrew word qin’ah, and in the New Testament from the Greek word zelos. The root idea behind both words is that of “warmth” or “heat.”²³ The Hebrew word for jealousy carries with it the idea of “redness of the face that accompanies strong emotion”²⁴—whether right or wrong. Depending upon the usage of the word, it can be used to represent both a good and an evil passion. In 1 Corinthians 13:4, Paul noted the negative side of jealousy when he wrote that “love is not jealous.”²⁵ Interestingly, however, three times in this same context (1 Corinthians 12-14), Paul used this word in a good sense to encourage his brethren to “earnestly desire (zeeloúte)” spiritual gifts (12:31; 14:1,39). He obviously was not commanding the Corinthians to sin, but to do something that was good and worthwhile. Later, when writing to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul was even more direct in showing how there was such a thing as “godly jealousy.” He stated: “I am jealous for you with godly jealousy” (2 Corinthians 11:2). Paul’s burning desire was for the church at Corinth to abide in the love of God. As a friend of the bridegroom (Christ), Paul used some of the strongest language possible to encourage the “bride” of Christ at Corinth to be pure and faithful.

In a similar way, Jehovah expressed His love for Israel in the Old Testament by proclaiming to be “a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). He was not envious of the Israelites’ accomplishments or possessions, but was communicating His strong love for them. The Scriptures depict a spiritual marriage between Jehovah and His people. Sadly, during the period of the divided kingdom, both Israel and Judah were guilty of “playing the harlot” (Jeremiah 3:6-10). God called Israel’s idolatrous practice “adultery,” and for this reason He had “put her away and given her a certificate of divorce” (3:8).

The fact is, love has a virtuous jealous side. What atheist would not be “jealous” (in a good sense) of a wife, whom he loved with all of his heart, flirting with others in public and committing adultery with them in private? Most everyone understands there is a sense in which one can be “justly jealous.” Such is especially true in the marriage relationship. Israel was God’s chosen people. He had begun to set them apart as a special nation by blessing their “father” Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3). He blessed the Israelites with much numerical growth while living in Egypt. He delivered them from Egyptian bondage. And, among other things, He gave them written revelation, which, if obeyed, would bring them spiritually closer to Jehovah, and even would make them physically superior to other nations, in that they would be spared from various diseases (see Exodus 15:26). Like a bird that watches over her eggs and young with jealousy, preventing other birds from entering her nest, God watched over the Israelites with “righteous” jealousy, unwilling to tolerate the presence of false gods among his people (Exodus 20:3-6).

In addition, the Bible reveals that God is every person’s Maker (or Father by creation), Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. He was (and is) jealous, not only for Israel’s love, but for everyone’s—and for everyone’s own benefit. It is in everyone’s best interest to have a loving, submissive relationship with our heavenly Father (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), even as it is in every child’s best interest to humbly submit to wise, loving, earthly fathers—who have the best interest of their own children in mind. What loving, protective father is not “angry” and “jealous” of his wayward son’s drug dealer, who keeps his son’s deadly addiction continuously supplied? Does a father not have a right to be jealous for his son’s best interest and overall life? If so, why does God not have a right to be jealous for the souls of His children?

God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). He has a perfectly truthful and loving plan intended to save the world from punishment and to give us eternal happiness. For these reasons, He is “jealous” for our love, “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

[to be continued]

Endnotes

¹ As quoted in James A. Haught (1996), 2,000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People with Courage to Doubt (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 251.

² New York Public Library, https://www.nypl.org/voices/print-publications/books-of-the-century.

³ Bertrand Russell (1927), “Why I Am Not a Christian,” https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html, emp. added.

⁴ Penn Jillette (2010), “How Did You Become an Atheist?” BigThink, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w, emp. added.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ He also later became drunk and impregnated his daughters, albeit unknowingly (Genesis 19:30-36).

⁷ Jillette.

⁸ “Top 10 Worst Bible Passages” (2009), The Telegraph, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html, emp. added.

⁹ Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? Dan Barker vs. Kyle Butt (2009), Apologetics Press, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnk4UCvY89U.

¹⁰ Jean-Paul Sartre (1989), “Existentialism is Humanism,” in Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufman, trans. Philip Mairet (Meridian Publishing Company), http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm, emp. added.

¹¹ Peter Singer (2000), Writings on an Ethical Life (New York: Harper Collins), p. 193, emp. added.

¹² For more discussion on this test, see Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2011), “Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3797&b=Matthew.

¹³ Although Abraham did not know that God was testing him (anymore than the disciples and the Gentile woman mentioned earlier knew that Jesus was testing them), Abraham stood firmly upon the promises of God. The Lord had guaranteed him saying, “Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him…. My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear….  At the appointed time I will return to you, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son” (Genesis 17:19,21; 18:14). “And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him—whom Sarah bore to him—Isaac” (21:1-3). Once more God reminded Abraham that “in Isaac your seed shall be called” (21:12). The same God who tested Abraham’s faithfulness only a few verses later (in Genesis 22), is the same God Who had recently promised him that Isaac would have many offspring (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:16; 17:2,4-6,16). Thus, Abraham concluded that, though he might kill his son at God’s trying command, God would virtually immediately raise him from the dead.

Abraham’s insight and confidence is exhibited when he said to the young men who accompanied him and Isaac on part of their journey: “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you” (Genesis 22:5). Notice that Abraham did not say that “I” will come back to you, but “we” (Abrahamand Isaac) “will come back to you.” As the Hebrews writer notes, Abraham was willing to offer up Isaac, “concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead” (11:19).

¹⁴ For further insight into Genesis 22, see Dave Miller (2018), “God, Abraham, & Child Sacrifice,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5570.

¹⁵ Dan Barker (2016), “The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker,” Freethought Today, April, https://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/26141-the-10-worst-old-testament-verses.

¹⁶ Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 248.

¹⁷ “The Amorites were so numerous and powerful a tribe in Canaan that they are sometimes named for the whole of the ancient inhabitants, as they are here” [Robert Jamieson, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft)].

¹⁸ Dave Miller (2009), “Did God Order the Killing of Babies?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2810.

¹⁹ For an excellent, extensive discussion on the relationship between (a) the goodness of God, (b) the contradictory, hideousness of atheism, and (c) God bringing about the death of various infants throughout history, see Kyle Butt’s article “Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children?” (2009), Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=260.

²⁰ Dawkins, p. 31, emp. added.

²¹ Jillette.

²² Dan Barker (2016), God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction (New York: Sterling), p. 13.

²³ E.J. Forrester (1996), “Jealousy,” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Electronic Database Biblesoft).

²⁴ Charles Lee Feinberg (1942), “Exegetical Studies in Zechariah: Part 10,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 99:428-439, October.

²⁵ NASB; cf. Romans 13:13; 2 Corinthians 12:20.

Suggested Resources

The post "Atheist-Making" Bible Verses You Need to Know appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest. How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? (Proverbs 6:6-9).

Some have charged the Bible with error because Solomon stated that ants have no “captain, overseer, or ruler”—when “everyone knows” that ants have a queen. As with most allegations leveled against the inspiration of the Bible, a little study and deeper examination beneath the surface would dispel such premature assessments.

First, observe that the first of the three Hebrew terms in verse 7, rendered “captain” in the NKJV, refers to a magistrate or military leader—a person in authority who is the decider.¹ The NASB and RSV render the term “chief,” the KJV has “guide,” while the NIV renders it “commander.” The second term, rendered “overseer” in the NKJV, refers to an “official, officer” or “magistrate”²—those who oversee the work of others. The third word means to “rule, have dominion over.”³ Clearly, all three terms used by Solomon in verse 7 connote the exertion of authority over others via guiding, commanding, overseeing, and ruling. These terms certainly characterize the function of most human queens.

Second, one must realize that mere humans—perhaps early entomologists or other naturalists—were responsible for assigning the term “queen” to one particular ant in an ant colony. As we’ve just noted, in the conventional sense of the term, a queen is a ruler who wields absolute power over her subjects. Whatever hierarchy exists between herself and her subjects, all are ultimately subject to her directives, guidance, and oversight of her kingdom. However, a study of life in an ant colony quickly reveals that the queen does not function as a “queen” in the conventional sense of that word. She does not govern, rule, direct, oversee, make decisions, or lead the colony. Keller and Gordon note: “there is neither a central authority at work here nor any hierarchy among the workers. Work arrangements depend entirely on individual initiatives within a system of self-organization.”⁴ Another writer elaborates: “Indeed, strictly speaking, ant-hives are republics—each individual having their own special office, and each performing it with assiduous diligence.”⁵

So why have researchers acquiesced to the term “queen”? Because the entire colony depends on her for their existence since she does only one thing: lay eggs. That’s it. Her “job is to lay eggs.”⁶ She is their progenitor—not leader: “Once she settles in and begins laying eggs, that’s all she does for the rest of her life.”⁷ Her importance is seen in that the colony would die out if she did not produce more ants. But that function does not accurately translate into her being thought of as a “queen.” No wonder that, toward the end of the 19^th century, “some writers had dispensed with the term ‘queen’ altogether, finding it an inappropriate term to describe the founding female of the nest.”⁸ She wields no apparent authority, makes no decisions for the rest of the colony, or exercises control over them. The term “mother” is more apropos and descriptive of her actual role. As noted 19^th-century naturalist and Vice President of both the American Entomological Society and the Academy of Natural Sciences, Henry McCook, explained: “Her queenhood is wholly fanciful, except in the first stages of her independent career. Her motherhood is the great fact of life to her and her fellows. It is as a mother that she is the destined foundress of a new community.”⁹

Third, a return to the context quickly clarifies Solomon’s point. The context shows that Solomon is addressing the problem of laziness. Ants do not have overlords or bosses that stand over them and direct their activity or keep them working. Instead of sleeping the day away and avoiding work, ants manifest initiative and industry. They do so without coercion from a hierarchy of authority or power. Instead, they manifest remarkable independence and individual responsibility. They do what needs to be done for the survival of the colony without a boss standing over them. So there is no error on Solomon’s part. In fact, his emphatic declaration, coupled with the reinforcement of not one but three specific descriptive terms (“captain,” “overseer,” “ruler”), only adds additional credence to the divine origin of Solomon’s remarks. The surface appearance of error is strictly due to the uninspired selection of the term “queen” to refer to the female ant that is responsible for egg production.

Endnotes

The post Did Solomon Err in Proverbs 6:7? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Some ask how the Flood of Genesis 6-9 could be a global Flood. There simply is not enough water on the Earth to cover “all the high mountains under the whole heaven…covering them fifteen cubits deep” (Genesis 7:19-20, ESV). After considering such apparent quandaries, many resort to interpreting the Flood of Genesis 6-9 as being, not worldwide, but local in its extent. Is the story of the Flood myth? Was the Flood a local, rather than a global, Flood?

The Testimony of Scripture

Credit: Creation Museum, Voyage room exhibits. Copyright 2007 AIG. Used with permission.

First, Scripture simply leaves no room for a local Flood interpretation. Here are eight reasons why:

1. If the Flood was local, why waste several decades building an Ark (5:32; 7:6)? Why not just leave the area?

2. Why bring onto the Ark animals from all over the region if the Flood was local—representatives of “every living thing of all flesh” (6:19)? Since God actually sent the animals to Noah anyway (6:20), why not just send them out of the area instead?

3. How would the Ark be able to stay afloat for several months while the water receded if the Flood was local (8:3)? While the Ark could certainly stay afloat on a large lake for a long span of time, large lakes do not dry up or recede in only one year without catastrophic breaches which do not conform well to the uniformitarian assumption that many local Flood advocates hold. The description in the text seems to imply that the Ark was floating in a receding mass of water so large that it took months for it to drain away. As the Flood waters were receding, Noah sent out birds to determine if the Earth was sufficiently safe and dry to exit the Ark. The dove “found no resting place for the sole of her foot” (8:9), and yet doves will often travel farther than five miles in search of food.¹

4. How could the biblical terminology—describing the water as covering “all the high mountains that are under the whole heaven” (7:19, ESV)—be reconciled with a local flood? How could water rise high enough locally to cover mountains if the Flood was not greater in its extent?

5. How could the biblically-stated purpose of destroying man (and beast) from the face of the whole Earth (6:13; 7:4) be accomplished with a local flood? Conservative estimates indicate there could have been 215,000,000 people on the planet by the time of the Flood—given the long life spans of the pre-Flood era, the robustness of the young human genome, and God’s command for humans to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the Earth (Genesis 1:28). Given that large buildings had likely not yet been engineered, such a large population would surely have been spread out a great distance, and yet all humans were killed. Further, Genesis 9:19 indicates that after the Flood, “the whole Earth was populated” through the three sons of Noah who were on the Ark with him—Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

6. God made a promise to man and the creatures of the Earth never to again destroy the Earth with a Flood in the way He had done (9:8-16). If the Flood was local, then God lied, breaking His covenant with man, since local floods occur all the time. A global Flood, however, has never again occurred.

7. Peter used the universal destruction of the Earth in the Flood to describe what judgment day will be like (2 Peter 3:6-7). If the Flood was not universal, then logically, judgment also will not be universal.

8. The Flood was so devastating to the Earth that seedtime, harvest, winter, summer, and even day and night were severely affected for many months (8:22). How could Earth processes have been thus affected if the Flood was merely local?

The Bible is clear: the Noahic Flood was global in its extent.

The Testimony of Science

Science is also clear on the universality of the Flood. A scientific theory is validated through testing its predictions. If a global, rather than a localized, Flood occurred, what would we predict we would find upon examination of the physical evidence? Here are nine scientific evidences that verify global Deluge predictions:

Scientific Evidence #1: Sedimentary Layers across Continents and Even Between Continents

Sedimentary rock is understood typically to be the result of sediment deposited by water. As would be predicted if a global Flood occurred, the bulk of the surface of the Earth is comprised of sedimentary rock. Some 80-90% of the Earth’s surface is covered with sediment or sedimentary rock, as opposed to igneous or metamorphic rocks.² While in the geologic column the upper layers, known as the Cenozoic strata (often considered post-Flood by Creation geologists), are characterized by geographically localized beds of sedimentary rock, many of the Flood layers (Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata) traverse extensive regions. Paleozoic and Mesozoic strata can often be traced across continents and, in some cases, between continents.

For example, geologists have identified six “megasequences” of sedimentary rock layers at the Grand Canyon that can be followed across North America.³ The chalk beds of the cretaceous period (e.g., the “White Cliffs of Dover”) extend from Ireland through England, across the English channel into Europe, and on down to the middle East, Egypt, and even Kazakhstan.⁴ Even more notable is the fact that the same chalk beds—found sandwiched between the same strata—are found in the Midwestern USA and in Western Australia.⁵ Similarly, the Pennsylvanian coal beds of America extend into Britain, Europe, and even further—to the Caspian Sea of Russia.⁶ Additionally, the distinctly different Permian coal beds of the southern hemisphere extend between Australia, Antarctica, India, South Africa, and South America.⁷ Such widespread deposition of sediment speaks loudly in support of a global, aqueous event that deposited vast amounts of sediment in a process like none that we witness today.

Scientific Evidence #2: Marine Fossils on Continents and Mountains

If a Flood once covered the Earth, wherein the ocean floor was  broken up and fountains of material were released on the Earth (Genesis 7:11; Proverbs 3:20) followed by all of the Earth’s mountains being covered with water (Genesis 7:19-20; ESV, NIV, RSV, NASB), one would predict marine fossils to be discovered over the entire Earth—on all continents and atop mountains.⁸ It is no secret that marine fossils are found well above sea level worldwide and at the summits of mountains. Even the tallest mountain range in the world—the mighty Himalayas—hosts marine fossils.⁹

Continental rock (including that which comprises mountains) and the basaltic rock that comprises the ocean floor are fundamentally different. The rock that raised to form mountains, therefore, was never at the base of the ocean. How, therefore, are the marine fossils found across continents and mountains to be explained? Did the continents “dip” down below sea level several times in the past to allow marine creatures to travel onto continents and be buried in several distinct layers? Since continental rock is less dense, it “floats” in the mantle like a cork—unable to dip in such a way.¹⁰ Instead, the ocean had to have risen high enough at some point to flood the continents, bringing with it the marine creatures that are found fossilized across continents—even in what are now mountains.

Scientific Evidence #3: Lack of Erosion (or Rapid Erosion) Between Rock Layers

Uniformitarian geology predicts the gradual deposition and erosion of sediment across the planet over long periods of time—present processes are the key to understanding the past. Uniformitarianism, therefore, would predict the joining surfaces between strata to be rough and uneven, with dips  and plunges. After all, normal terrain has hills, valleys, riverbeds, and other geographic features that detract from smooth, level topography. If the Flood occurred, however, many of the strata found in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic layers were laid down while saturated with water and with little time between their sequential deposition. The joining surfaces of many strata, therefore, would be smooth and flat, with little evidence of erosion. The enormous, beautiful rock outcrops of the Grand Canyon allow visitors to see for themselves the distinctive sedimentary rock layers that characterize the Paleozoic era—what Creation geologists argue is the beginning of the Flood. One characteristic feature of those layers is that the joining surfaces of the layers are generally very smooth, with little evidence of the erosion or deposition processes that should characterize the rock layers if they were formed over long periods of time.¹¹ The evidence indicates that the worldwide sedimentary layers of the geologic column were deposited rapidly in a worldwide aqueous event.

Scientific Evidence #4: Catastrophic Burial

Most living creatures do not fossilize upon dying. In order to fossilize, they must be buried rapidly and sequestered from oxygen which causes the rapid decomposition of soft-bodied animals. Fossilization, therefore, is a rarity, especially for land-dwelling creatures.¹² The conditions must be just right. While individual dead carcasses might be envisioned as being covered and preserved from time to time by a localized mudslide or rapid sediment deposition process, non-catastrophic conditions that could kill and preserve the exquisite remains of a larger animal (e.g., a sauropod or large theropod dinosaur) are much more difficult to envision. And yet fossils of dinosaurs that were killed by an aqueous burial event are typical throughout the fossil record—just as the Flood model would predict. For instance, the classic dinosaur death pose—known as the opisthotonic posture—often characterizes dinosaur fossils when the articulated remains of a skeleton are discovered.¹³ The dinosaur’s head is “thrown back over the body, sometimes almost touching the spine,”¹⁴ as if drowning and gasping for air.

Even if localized, non-catastrophic conditions could reasonably explain the preservation of individual enormous creatures, the hundreds of fossil graveyards of the world with numerous preserved fossils at each site, demand catastrophic, aqueous conditions.¹⁵ The quick execution and burial of a group of animals is much harder to explain under uniformitarian circumstances, especially when that group of animals is comprised of dinosaurs. Upon close examination, the contemporary explanation of dinosaur graveyards does not hold up. Paleontologists speculate that many dinosaur graveyards are the result of dinosaurs dying during local flood season while crossing a river and being carried to a river bend and successively buried year after year. The physical evidence, however, does not substantiate this idea. In Newcastle, Wyoming, for instance, a dinosaur graveyard of over 5,000 disarticulated dinosaurs has been discovered organized into a graded bone bed. If dinosaur corpses were piling up on a river bend each year and being rapidly buried there, one would expect the bones to be found in a river current orientation with many of the skeletons articulated—the bones found joined together as skeletons or partial skeletons. Instead, the graveyard is comprised of randomly oriented, disarticulated bones. Furthermore, if the dinosaur bones were being deposited upon one another annually, one would predict bone beds at different levels representing successive events. The bones in the dinosaur graveyard, however, are organized in a single, graded bed, with larger bones at the bottom and smaller bones as you move upward—indicating a single, rapid, catastrophic event that was responsible for the destruction, transportation, and burial of the thousands of dinosaurs in the area, including Edmontosaurus, Triceratops, Pachycephalosaurus, and various varieties of Tyrannosaurus.

Many other fossils testify to catastrophic, rather than uniformitarian, flood conditions as predicted by the Flood model. From fossils of Triassic (middle Flood) ichthyosaurs being catastrophically buried while giving birth,¹⁶ to Jurassic (late Flood) Aspidorhynchus fish buried with Rhamphorhychus (pterosaur) in its jaws,¹⁷ to Eocene (late or soon after Flood) aspiration fossils—fish killed and buried while eating other fish:¹⁸ fossils that verify the predictions of the global Flood model abound.

Scientific Evidence #5: “Unearthly” Seismites

A seismite is a special rock layer that forms when an earthquake vibrates a layer of sediment (like sand) that is covered with water—like the soggy sand that is under water along a shoreline. When an earthquake happens, it shakes the soggy sand, and the water within it tries to escape upward from the sand as it settles, like magma from a volcano. If the sand were to dry out after the earthquake and lithify (i.e., turn to stone) and then you cut the sandstone in two and looked at the inside layers, you would see the squiggly lines caused by the movement of the shaken water. These are called fluid avulsion structures, and they are usually only a few centimeters thick today. If the Flood happened, and “all of the fountains of the great deep were broken up” (Genesis 7:11) and “the mountains rose, the valleys sank down” (Psalm 104:8, ESV), in conjunction with water saturated continents, the existence of seismites in the rock layers associated with the Flood would be predicted.

Not only have many such seismites been discovered, but in Lance Creek, Wyoming, dozens of distinct seismite layers have been discovered that are several meters thick, rather than a few centimeters thick like seismites forming today.¹⁹ Such abnormal seismites would be termed “unearthly” by geologists, since no known earthly process (i.e., none witnessed today) can account for their formation. These layers have been traced over several miles and are potentially continent wide. This means that (1) the whole area was once covered with massive amounts of water (enough to make several meters of sand soggy); and (2) several major earthquakes happened—dozens of earthquakes so intense that there is no modern reference point to interpret their strength. When comparing modern seismites and their correlated earthquakes with the Lance Creek seismites, one infers that the Lance Creek seismites necessarily were caused by an unknown, abnormal phenomenon—possibly the earthquakes generated by the rapid formation of the Rocky Mountains during the Flood when, for example, the Pacific oceanic plate collided with and subducted beneath the North American plate along the west coast of the United States.

Scientific Evidence #6: Long Distance Sediment Transportation

Sedimentary rock layers are the result of sediment being deposited by water, and in some cases, wind. Rivers, for example, will pick up dirt from their beds and banks, carry them along for a certain distance, gauged by the speed and depth of the river, and re-deposit the sediment, which may eventually become sedimentary rock if the conditions are right. The type of sedimentary rock will be based on the type of material that comprises the rock, and the type of material is based on the source of the sediment that the river is carrying. If a global, rather than merely local, flood occurred, one would predict that enormous amounts of sediment would have been transported great distances, as opposed to the smaller amounts of sediment  that are transported shorter distances today.

Once again, when we examine the physical evidence in the Flood rock layers, we see certain kinds of sedimentary rock whose material source is hundreds and, in some cases, even thousands of miles away. The Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon, with an average thickness greater than the length of a football field and surface area greater than the state of California, can be traced beyond Utah to the north. The source of the Supai Group at the Grand Canyon is postulated to be extremely far from the Grand Canyon, and the source of the Navajo Sandstone of Utah appears to be the Appalachian Mountains of the eastern United States—over 1,800 miles away.²⁰ While the physical evidence is difficult to reconcile using the conventional paradigm of uniformitarianism, it verifies yet another prediction of the global Flood model.

Scientific Evidence #7: Cambrian Explosion

According to Genesis chapter one and following, a few thousand years ago, God directly created all “kinds” of life within four days, not by evolution over four billion years.²¹ Approximately 1,650 years after that initial Creation, the Flood occurred. If the Flood was, in fact, global in its extent, then it destroyed all birds and land-living creatures that were not on the vessel prepared for the eight survivors of that catastrophic event. Based on that information, Creation geologists can make several scientific predictions. Since the Earth is young and God did not create life through gradual evolution, and since the Flood was apparently the first (and only) major, global catastrophic event on the Earth post-Creation and catastrophic events are generally the cause of fossilization, the following would be predicted: (1) Very few fossils likely would have been formed prior to the Flood; (2) Transitional fossils between major phylogenic groups would be non-existent in the fossil record; (3) Instead, living creatures would appear fully formed, distinct,  and functional the first time they appear in the fossil record; (4) When the global Flood began, we would predict a significant marker in the geologic column that represents the commencement of the worldwide Flood event; (5) We would further predict an explosion of fully formed fossils above that line, worldwide, representing the deaths of living creatures due to mud slides and other fossil-forming processes during the global Flood.

When one examines the fossil record, testing the validity of these global Flood predictions, we find that all five of the predictions are easily verified. One observes beginning at the base of the record, in the Pre-Cambrian layers (i.e., pre-Flood layers), very little is found by way of fossils—namely fully formed stromatolites (predictions 1 and 3). Above the Pre-Cambrian strata, a distinct line is observed that extends across the entire planet, called the “Great Unconformity” (prediction 4).²² That line marks the beginning of the Cambrian strata (i.e., the Flood) and an explosion of fully formed fossils—called the “Cambrian Explosion” by paleontologists (predictions 3 and 5). These fossils appear worldwide in sedimentary rock with absolutely no evolutionary history preserved in the fossil record (prediction 2), and to all intents and purposes, effectively reflect the beginning of the fossil record²³—precisely what would be predicted if Creation and the global Flood occurred, and decisively contrary to the conventional evolutionary paradigm. One well-known evolutionary biologist even conceded concerning the fossils of the Cambrian: “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”²⁴ Even Charles Darwin recognized the Cambrian Explosion as a problem for his theory.²⁵ The Cambrian Explosion not only falsifies evolutionary predictions, but it verifies at least five global Flood predictions.

Scientific Evidence #8: Flood Legends

If the Flood occurred, but was merely local in its extent, one would not expect a record of the limited event to have been passed down in separate societies worldwide. One might expect distinct legends of localized floods to be passed down within separate societies, but they would not show significant similarities if they were describing different events. If the Flood occurred and was global in its extent, however, it would be inconceivable to suppose that stories about such a catastrophic event would not be passed down through the ages to virtually all societies. Since the incident at Babel occurred soon after the Flood (Genesis 11), where God directly created several distinctly different oral languages, but apparently not written languages, stories of the Flood were likely not written down for many years. Instead, they were passed along orally—a medium more prone to inaccuracies in transmission. The event, therefore, would certainly be remembered, but many of the details would not generally be expected to be accurate.²⁶ When comparing separate accounts of the event from different societies, if the details matched precisely, one would suspect collusion at some point between the societies (i.e., that the Flood stories originated from one later source, rather than from the original witnesses). Sure enough, once again, we find decisive evidence from archaeology of hundreds of worldwide, distinct but curiously similar legends of a catastrophic Flood.²⁷ The details do not perfectly match, as predicted, but amazingly match in the essentials, suggesting a true, single event thousands of years ago that affected the whole world rather than a small geographic area.

Scientific Evidence #9: Rapid Deposition of Strata

As discussed earlier, uniformitarianism, the standard assumption used to interpret geologic observations today, would suggest that the sedimentary rock layers of the Earth were deposited gradually over millions of years. One would not expect sediment layers well below the surface to be soft after millions of years, but rather to have been lithified. If a global Flood occurred, then catastrophism, not uniformitarianism, is a better interpretive principle to be used in geology. If a global Flood occurred, then the sedimentary layers of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic layers (i.e., the Flood rock strata) were laid down rapidly—possibly in as little as one year’s time. Many of the strata below the surface at any point during the Flood, therefore, would still be soft—not yet lithified. Which prediction is borne out upon examination of the physical evidence? The global Flood model prediction is verified when we observe tightly folded rock strata, for example, in the Paleozoic Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone of the Grand Canyon.²⁸ Since rocks break, rather than bend, observing several meters of unbroken, tightly folded rock strata implies the layers were not yet rock when they were bent—precisely what would be expected if the global Flood occurred and laid down the worldwide sedimentary layers of the Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras.

Further evidence of the rapid deposition of strata is seen when we observe polystrate fossils. Polystrate fossils are individual fossils that span multiple (“poly”) strata (“strate”), such as fossilized trees and other organisms across the world.²⁹ Surely only fanciful, blind “faith” would lead one to accept the postulate that a tree could remain dead, undecayed, and sticking out of the ground for hundreds of thousands or millions of years while sediment slowly accumulated around the tree, burying it. Polystrate fossils worldwide suggest rapid deposition of the sedimentary rock layers also worldwide.

Where Did the Water Go?

Both science and Scripture support a global Flood, but if the waters of the Flood really did once cover the Earth—even the mountains—where did the water go after the Flood? The water could not have disappeared from the Universe—it must be accounted for, unless God chose to suspend the First Law of Thermodynamics and directly remove the water from the Universe.

The account of the Flood event is certainly laced with God’s supernatural activity. He directly communicated with Noah, informing him how to build the Ark (Genesis 6:14-16), sent the animals to Noah (Genesis 6:20), personally shut the door of the Ark (Genesis 7:16), and apparently initiated the Flood (Genesis 6:17; 7:4,23). The possibility of other supernatural activity on God’s part, therefore, cannot be ignored. However, before assuming “God miraculously did it” as an explanation for everything that we do not know—which could lead to false conclusions, scientific laziness, and a lack of valuable knowledge about the natural realm and God’s amazing glory as reflected therein³⁰—let us consider if there is another plausible explanation as to where the water from the Flood went.

If the entire current Earth’s atmosphere released its water, it would only cover the globe to a depth of about one inch above sea level.³¹ If all of the present land ice of the Earth melted—including glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets—it would raise the sea level approximately 230 feet.³² If all of the water within the Earth’s crust was pumped onto the surface of the Earth, it would raise the sea level another 600 feet,³³ which is much more significant, but when we consider that many of Earth’s mountains tower over the Earth above 25,000 feet in height, such numbers pale in significance.³⁴ Where is the water from the Flood? Answer: apparently the same place it came from—primarily the oceans (Psalm 104:6-9).

While Scripture does not give many details about what occurred during the Flood, it does provide a few important clues.

1. When the Flood began, the “fountains of the great deep (i.e., the oceans) were broken up”—all of them (Genesis 7:11; Proverbs 3:20). Such terminology suggests the breakup of the ocean floor and the release of water and magma from below the Earth’s surface onto the ocean floor. Using our knowledge of geology in the 21^st century, such terminology suggests plate tectonics (i.e., the breakup and initiation of the movement of the plates that comprise the surface of the Earth) may have been activated at that point.
2. The breakup of the great deep is mentioned, followed by (i.e., perhaps causing) the opening of the “windows of heaven”—intense rain (Genesis 7:11) for 40 days and nights (7:12).
3. The waters “increased” (7:17)—“greatly increased” (vs. 18)—prevailing for 150 days (vs. 24)—roughly five months. After that point, “the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained,” a great wind passed over the Earth, and therefore, the waters began to recede continually (8:1-3) until the Ark came to rest several weeks later (vs. 4).
4. Psalm 104 (ESV) speaks of Creation and the Flood. Verses 6-9 refer to the Flood³⁵ and tell us that the mountains rose and the valleys sank down during the event. While some higher elevation locations apparently existed prior to the Flood (7:19-20), the taller mountains formed during the Flood.
5. Psalm 104:9 (ESV) indicates that the geologic activity that ensued in the Flood created a geographic setting that now disallows a global flood to occur again. 

Is there physical evidence to support and further explain these statements in Scripture? Undeniably.

When the fountains of the great deep were broken up—apparently commencing plate tectonics³⁶—magma from the mantle would have touched the waters of the ocean, superheating it and blasting it into the atmosphere as superheated vapor, where it came back down as rain. Many of Earth’s divergence zones³⁷ stretch for hundreds of miles at the base of the oceans. Geyser-like activity would have, therefore, created worldwide fountains that drenched the continents with immense amounts of water for possibly weeks (40 days?) until the movement of Earth’s tectonic plates slowed.

We are able to observe today the effects of Earth’s tectonic plates as they move relative to one another, converging and subducting, diverging, and transforming. Most geologic activity on the Earth occurs along the margins of tectonic plates as they move—earthquakes, volcanoes, and mountain building, for example. Subducting plates angle downward, slowly diving into Earth’s mantle and dragging with them the ocean floor. On the rear side of the plate, plate divergence occurs—plates being pulled away from one another—forming gaps between plates, and new material surfaces from the mantle to fill the gaps, replacing the material that has been pulled towards the subduction zone. While plates move on the order of centimeters per year today (forming mountains and volcanoes very slowly), when plate tectonics began (i.e., at the beginning of the Flood), simulations show the rate would have been on the order of meters per second, forming mountains rapidly.³⁸

If tectonic plates have always moved at the same slow rate that they are moving today, the subducting plate material would have heated and reached thermal equilibrium with the mantle material long before reaching the core/mantle boundary in its descent. If the global Flood model is correct, however, and the plates were moving rapidly at the onset of the Flood only a few thousand years ago, immense slabs of colder material from the ocean floor would be predicted to be piled at the core/mantle boundary that has not yet warmed to mantle temperatures. Sure enough, yet another Flood prediction was verified when technology progressed to the point that the Earth’s internal structure could be studied. Colder slabs of material were discovered piled under subduction zones, deep in the mantle in the mid-1990s.³⁹

The new material replacing the cold, dense ocean floor that is pulled towards subduction zones is much hotter, and thus, less dense. The effect is that the new material “floats” higher in the mantle. As the ocean floor was rapidly replaced with new mantle material during the early weeks of the Flood, therefore, more and more of the ocean water was continually being displaced onto the land until the entire ocean floor was replaced. Geologists and geophysicists estimate that, at its peak height, the ocean floor would have been over 3,000 feet higher than its initial level.⁴⁰ Plate motion would have slowed at that point, allowing the new ocean floor to cool, become denser once again and, therefore, float lower in the mantle—creating the valleys that would allow the Flood waters to return to the oceans. The new height of the mountains and the topography of the ocean floor now prohibit the possibility of the reoccurrence of a global Flood—as Psalm 104:9 implies.

Our ever increasing scientific knowledge continues to provide more and more clues that support and explain the global Deluge of Noah. Whether the Flood water was removed supernaturally or naturally, there is no quandary created for the global Flood model.

Conclusion

The Bible speaks of a major Flood, roughly 1,650 years after Creation. While skeptics scoff at the possibility of a global Flood and many Bible-believers scratch their heads in incredulity at such a prospect, both inspired Scripture and science agree: the Flood occurred—and it was global. Once again, there is no reason to question the validity of Scripture. When one carefully examines the evidence prior to drawing conclusions (1 Thessalonians 5:21), the claims of Scripture are verified, without exception. One need only “be diligent” as an unashamed worker, being careful to correctly handle God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15).

Does it matter, though, whether or not the global Flood happened? Most certainly. Jesus called the attention of His audience back to the Flood in Matthew 24, warning:

But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be (vss. 37-39).

Sadly, mankind has forgotten the message that God’s Flood conveyed.The Flood was a physical depiction of how God feels about sin. The Flood is a reminder about God’s holiness, and the necessity of human repentance and obedience in order to be pleasing to Him. It is a reminder that judgment can always be just around the corner, when we least expect it. In 2 Peter 3:3-6, Peter reminded his audience of the Flood, and then warned:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness (vss. 10-11)?

The global Flood of Noah is a reminder of the global judgment that looms in the future and God’s demand that we live a holy and godly life.

But the Flood is also a reminder of God’s grace. God, through Moses, went out of His way to repeatedly highlight how Noah was different—he consistently obeyed God (Genesis 6:22; 7:5,9,16). The Flood is a reminder that those who obediently submit to God can be saved through water—and receive the benefits of God’s grace—if we will only believe Him. Peter, once again, used the Flood in 1 Peter 3:

[T]he Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (vss. 20-21).⁴¹

Endnotes

Suggested Resources

The post Was the Flood Global? Testimony from Scripture and Science appeared first on Apologetics Press.

With the widespread deterioration of interest in and respect for the Bible in the last half century in America, outspoken ridicule of the inspiration of the Bible has become commonplace in universities, the entertainment industry, and beyond. One such dismissal of the credibility of the Bible is seen in the smug exclamation: “The Bible is simply a book of Jewish fables and fairy tales.” Apart from the heartbreaking sadness in the heart of any Christian who hears such a brazen statement, the level of ignorance possessed by the speaker is appalling. After all, the United States of America was founded in the bosom of the Bible and it exerted a profound influence on American culture for nearly two centuries before it came under relentless attack by sinister forces in education, politics, entertainment, and organizations formed to undermine its influence. Nevertheless, the Bible deserves a fair consideration before being subjected to such a cavalier, unstudied dismissal.

Consider the dictionary definition of a “fable”:

• Merriam-Webster: “a fictitious narrative or statement: such as (a) a legendary story of supernatural happenings, (b) a narration intended to enforce a useful truth especially one in which animals speak and act like human beings”
• Cambridge Dictionary: “a short story that tells a moral truth, often using animals as characters.”
• Webster’s New World College Dictionary: “1. a fictitious story meant to teach a moral lesson: the characters are usually talking animals; 2. a myth or legend; 3. a story that is not true; falsehood.”
• Collins Dictionary defines “fairy tale” as “a story for children involving magical events and imaginary creatures.”

One cannot help but be reminded of the famed Aesop’s fables or the folktales of Uncle Remus and the Brothers Grimm. However, to suggest that the Bible as a literary entity may be largely characterized as fable betrays either a deep commitment to bias or an abject unacquaintance with the contents of the Bible.¹

Overwhelming Evidence

An incredible array of evidences exists to demonstrate the supernatural origin of the Bible. For example, unlike fable, biblical literature is saturated with references to specific people and places that have been historically authenticated. Time and time again, when skeptics have challenged its historical claims, the Bible has been consistently vindicated. This brief article will provide the reader with a few examples (out of many) of amazing accuracy in each of six categories: history, geography, topography, science, medicine, and prophecy.

Historical Accuracy

At one time, skeptics insisted that the nation of the Hittites, mentioned so frequently in the Old Testament (nearly 60 occurrences of the term, e.g., Genesis 23:10; 26:34; Joshua 1:4), never existed. No known evidence was available to verify their historicity. This circumstance provided fodder for those who dismissed the divine authenticity of the Bible. As Wright explained in his 1884 volume The Empire of the Hittites:

Now, although the Bible is not a mere compendium of history, its veracity is deeply involved in the historic accuracy of its statements; but the Hittites had no place in classic history, and therefore it was supposed by some that the Bible references to them could not be true. There was a strong presumption that an important people could scarcely have dropped completely out of history, but the strong presumption did not warrant the unscientific conclusion that the Bible narrative was untrue. It was just possible that classic history might be defective regarding a people of whom sacred history had much to say…. The arguments against the historic accuracy of the Bible, based on its references to the Hittites, are never likely to appear again in English literature. The increasing light from Egypt and Assyria reveals to us, in broad outline and in incidental detail, a series of facts, with reference to the Hittites, in perfect harmony with the narratives of the Bible.²

It was Hugo Winckler who in 1906 excavated Bogazkale—the ancient capital of the Hittite Empire—an expansive site of over 400 acres.³ Since that time, studies of the ancient Hittites have proliferated. A veritable host of comparable discoveries could be cited that reinforce the same conclusion, including the fact that at least 63 people mentioned in the Old and New Testaments have been verified by actual inscriptional evidence.⁴ The New Testament writer Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands, most of which have been historically verified. He even alludes to 95 people, 62 of whom are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, and 27 of whom were civil or military leaders.⁵ The Bible has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be historically accurate.

Geographically

The man who has gone down in history as the “Father of Biblical Geography” is Edward Robinson. He is credited with instigating the first serious and extensive explorations of Palestine in order to verify the Bible’s geographical accuracy.⁶ He succeeded in identifying nearly 200 biblical sites. Since that time, literally thousands more have been verified. For example, some scholars once considered the account of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon to be a bit of fictitious romance. However, not only has Sheba been located in southern Arabia, the Sabaean people were known for their trade exploits as reflected in the Queen’s camel caravan of spices, gold, and precious stones (1 Kings 10:2). As a book from antiquity, the Bible stands alone in the extent to which its geographical accuracy has been substantiated.

Topographically

Topography refers to the layout of land, i.e., the three-dimensional surface configuration of its physical features, including mountains, valleys, plains, elevations, etc. Incredibly, the Bible has shown itself to be topographically accurate. For example, we are informed in Genesis 12:8 that when Abraham moved from Moreh to the mountain east of Bethel, “he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east.” Any map of Bible lands will confirm this configuration. In Joshua 7:2, “Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven, on the east side of Bethel.” This topographical arrangement is also easily verified. In Acts 8:26, Phillip was commanded to “go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” Not only is Gaza southwesterly from Jerusalem, the elevation literally descends from Jerusalem to Gaza, from approximately 700 meters (2,300 feet) to 35 meters (115 feet). Such examples could be multiplied endlessly. The Bible is topographically accurate.

Scientifically

The Bible is also scientifically accurate—though it was never intended to function as a science book. While not written in modern scientific jargon, its passing allusions to scientific realities are represented accurately. Note the following listing of but a few scientific facts:

• The Laws of Thermodynamics: Genesis 2:1; 2:2; Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:26; Hebrews 1:11
• The water cycle (condensation-precipitation-evaporation): Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:3; Amos 9:6
• Innumerable stars: Genesis 15:5; Jeremiah 33:22
• The parting of light: Job 38:24
• Trenches on the ocean floor: Job 38:16

These are but a small sampling of the Bible’s uncanny accuracy in matters of science.

Medically

The Bible manifests supernatural acquaintance with modern medical procedures that were far ahead of their time. Ancient civilizations certainly had their notions of medical thinking. But for the most part, their ideas are associated with superstition and ignorance. Not so with the Author of the Law of Moses. Consider just five:

• Avoiding communicable disease from dead bodies: Numbers 19:12
• The principle of quarantine: Leviticus 13:45-46
• Necessity of human waste disposal: Deuteronomy 23:12
• Optimum time for circumcision surgery: Leviticus 12:3
• Blood as the key to life: Leviticus 17:11-14

Prophetically

The Bible’s divine origin is particularly on display when one examines its predictive prophetic utterances. The general timeframe of the creation of the books of the Bible has been well established. A host of prophecies in the Old Testament can be demonstrated to have been spoken hundreds of years before their fulfillment. Again, here is a listing of only a few:

• The fall of Tyre: Ezekiel 26
• Zedekiah would not see Babylon: Ezekiel 12:8-13
• The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: Daniel 9:26
• The fall of Babylon: Isaiah 13-14; Jeremiah 50-51; et al.
• Babylon would be conquered by a man named Cyrus: Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-7
• The rise and fall of Alexander the Great: Daniel 8:5-8

Again, these are only a handful of the incredible number of inspired predictions that riddle the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. The Bible, in fact, contains hundreds of prophecies. Over 300 pertain to the life of Christ on Earth.

Summary

A “book of Jewish fables” or “fairy tales”? Such characterizations cannot—and never will be—sustained. No archaeologist’s spade will ever uncover the home of the seven dwarves or the palace of the wicked queen. But King Ahab’s ivory palace has been discovered and excavated (1 Kings 22:39).⁷ The location of the briar patch into which Brer Bear tossed Brer Rabbit never existed. But Hezekiah’s water tunnel really exists (2 Kings 20:20).⁸ Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel, and Gretel were not actual historical personages. But the Assyrian King Sargon II, whose historicity was initially questioned since his name occurred nowhere else in ancient literature, was found to have actually lived (Isaiah 20:1).⁹ Indeed, the Bible surpasses all other books in human history—which is precisely what one would expect if its Author is God. The great tragedy is that so many have dismissed the Bible on the flimsy ground of popular hearsay, depriving themselves of the marvelous self-authentication provided within its pages. Here, indeed, is the Word of God—a message from Deity Himself—announcing His desire that all people be saved in order to be with Him in heaven for all eternity, thereby avoiding the only possible alternative of endless suffering in hell.

Endnotes

The post "A Book of Jewish Fables"? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, “This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man’s need you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it…. And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations’” (Exodus 12:1-14).

The average Jew no doubt connected the symbolic significance of being fully clothed for travel with their imminent hasty exodus from the land. The smearing of animal blood on their doorposts might have seemed odd, but it was specifically explained as the means by which God would “pass over” them when executing the plague against the firstborn of Egypt:

And it shall be, when your children say to you, “What do you mean by this service?” that you shall say, “It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households” (Exodus 12:26-27).

However, two additional directives were given, one of which must have raised eyebrows:

In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones (Exodus 12:46).

Later generations of Israelites would have understood the significance of remaining in their homes while eating—since the blood on their doors kept their firstborn from being slain:

[N]one of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you (Exodus 12:22-23).

But the second directive pertaining to the breaking of the bones of the lamb must have perplexed even that first generation of Israelites. The stipulation was repeated to the Israelites after their departure from Egypt:

On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it (Numbers 9:11-12).

Successive generations of Jews, no doubt, would have been very careful in butchering, carving, and eating the Passover lamb to avoid breaking bones. But why? Undoubtedly, Israelite children would have asked their parents, “Why does God not want us to break any of the lamb’s bones?” The parents would have had no definitive answer—since God had not explained Himself. No clue was given to the Jews through the centuries that might explain the significance of refraining from breaking the bones of the Passover lamb.

Over five centuries later, King David wrote an inspired psalm in which he expressed his gratitude for the protection and care of God in dealing with his enemies.¹ In that Psalm, David extols the goodness of God in providing him with protection from his enemies—even to the point of preserving the bones of his body from being broken by those who wished him bodily harm:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all. He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken. Evil shall slay the wicked, and those who hate the righteous shall be condemned. The LORD redeems the soul of His servants, and none of those who trust in Him shall be condemned (Psalm 34:19-22).

No Jew in David’s day would have had any reason to extract more meaning from the psalm than that which appears at face value, i.e., God cares for His people (in this case, David) and guards them amid the onslaught of the wicked.

Over 1,000 years later, Jesus assumed bodily form on Earth (Hebrews 10:5). At the end of His 33 years, He was taken by the Romans at the behest of the Jews and crucified in keeping with Roman execution protocol. Here is John’s inspired report of the final details:

Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken” (John 19:31-36).²

Why did the Jews request that Jesus’ legs be broken? Archaeologist Vassilios Tzaferis³ explains:

Normally, the Romans left the crucified person undisturbed to die slowly of sheer physical exhaustion leading to asphyxia. However, Jewish tradition required burial on the day of execution. Therefore, in Palestine the executioner would break the legs of the crucified person in order to hasten his death and thus permit burial before nightfall. This practice, described in the Gospels in reference to the two thieves who were crucified with Jesus (John 19:18), has now been archaeologically confirmed. Since the victim we excavated was a Jew, we may conclude that the executioners broke his legs on purpose in order to accelerate his death and allow his family to bury him before nightfall in accordance with Jewish custom.⁴

This explanation squares with the biblical text: the reason given for the Jews’ request was their concern that the body of Jesus not remain on the cross once the Sabbath ensued. So the breaking of the leg bones of a crucifixion victim was directly connected to the hastening of the victim’s death. Further, the inspired writer juxtapositions the criminals’ status with Jesus’ status on the point of whether they were still alive. The soldiers broke the legs of the criminals, but the reason given for not breaking Jesus’ legs was that they “saw that He was already dead” (vs. 33).

Observe that both David’s words in Psalm 34 as well as John’s late first century quotation of those words in John 19 constitute ambiguous prophecies. Granted, John connected the Davidic messianic prophecy with the condition of Christ on the cross. But more than likely, neither he, nor David, nor any other Jew from 1,500 B.C. to A.D. 30 was able to fathom any further significance and “put it all together.” It was not until the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the church of Christ at Corinth (Cir. A.D. 55-57) that the wonder of Bible inspiration on this point achieved clarity.

In a context in which Paul urged the congregation to take public action against an immoral member, he added a remark that had relevance to their predicament, but which had a marvelous, broader significance for all Christians for all time: “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Just as Jesus predicted, the Passover found its fulfillment in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:16).⁵ After more than a millennium and a half of obscurity and virtual silence, suddenly the mysterious Mosaic prohibition was solved. The rationale for refraining from breaking any of the bones of the Passover lamb under the Law of Moses was that one day in the distant future, the Lord of Heaven and Earth would assume human form and take upon Himself the sins of the world by being executed on a Roman cross. And as that unjust sentence was being carried out, when Roman soldiers would ordinarily bring their sadistic torture to the culmination and climax of death by breaking the leg bones of the victim, they found that “He was already dead.” This incredible bit of minutia—this miniscule detail that went virtually unnoticed by those gathered on that occasion outside Jerusalem at the far flung outer extremities of the mighty Roman Empire—was of monumental significance and earth-shaking import. How could Moses or David have known that centuries far beyond their own day, unknown, unnamed Roman soldiers in first century A.D. Palestine would refrain from breaking the bones of the Messiah because “he was already dead”? They could not have known—not without supernatural assistance.

Three incredible details—the bones of the Passover Lamb of Mosaic religion were not to be broken, Jesus’ bones were not broken by the Romans, and His sacrifice on the cross enabling Him to be our Passover—intertwined to bring to fruition marvelous meaning from the mind of God for all mankind. In revealing the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit had in mind the coming of Christ and anticipated minute details about Him that neither the Old Testament prophets nor the New Testament apostles grasped:

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into (1 Peter 1:10-12).

Four human writers, each engaging his own mind to report inspired minutia, were nevertheless overseen by a single divine Mind (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit did just what Jesus said He would do: teach and explain things to them they could not grasp at the time (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13). Indeed, who could have ever sorted out these profound mysteries? No mere human. What Moses wrote (Exodus 12:43-46; Numbers 9:11-12), followed by what David wrote (Psalm 34:19-20), supplemented by what John reported (John 19:31-36), and brought to climactic fulfillment with what Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 5:7), could only have been orchestrated by the infinite, eternal mind of Deity Who transcends time and place.

“Who has declared this from ancient time?

Who has told it from that time?

Have not I, the LORD?

And there is no other God besides Me,

A just God and a Savior;

There is none besides me” (Isaiah 45:21).

Endnotes

The post Proof of Bible Inspiration: The Passover appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers serves as Director of the Graduate School of Theology and Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from F-HU as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

A minority of Christian voices through the centuries have insisted on stressing the Jewishness of Jesus.¹ Already in the New Testament, we learn that some Christians were retaining Jewish customs and doctrines in an attempt to create a hybrid religion. These attempts met stern apostolic criticism (e.g., Galatians 5:2; Colossians 2:16). Generally, as Christianity transitioned from a majority-Jewish to a majority-Gentile religion, these voices were steadily muted. However, a resurgence of the Jewish Jesus movement has led a number of people to allege ecclesiastical conspiracies to “cover up” the Jewishness of Jesus. Among the sensational claims is the alleged “change” of the name of God’s Son from Yeshua to Jesus.

Before we analyze the rationale and legitimacy behind the question of the name, let us affirm two incontrovertible truths. First, Jesus was a Jew. Scripture is clear that the New Covenant was not inaugurated until the death of Christ (Hebrews 9:16-17). Therefore, Jesus (or Yeshua, if you like) lived His entire life as a Jew under the Law of Moses. The name has nothing to do with His Jewishness. Second, His name in Hebrew was indeed Y^ehōshūa‘, or more likely in Aramaic Yēshūa‘. Growing up in the Galilee region, Jesus would have almost certainly spoken Aramaic, and He would not have heard His name as “Jesus.” Indeed, the Syriac translations of the New Testament spell the name Yēshūa‘.² The New Testament, however, is not written in Aramaic or in Syriac, but in Greek. And the English name “Jesus” is a transliteration based on the Latin, which is based on the Greek, which is in turn based on the original Aramaic.

Alleged Reasons for the Name “Change”

“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” This maxim is taught to third-graders and college students alike. Still, it doesn’t seem to sink in. People continue to read websites that propagate fictional conspiracy theories to allege the name of God’s Son was changed from its pure Hebrew form to its current corruption. And here are a few of the most common reasons why.

First, it is alleged that early Christians—even the authors of the New Testament!—were racists. They wished to erase the Jewishness of Jesus from the record in an effort to make Him seem “Christian” and “Gentile.” This simply isn’t true. First, every author of the New Testament seems to possess a Jewish background of some kind, and most were born Jewish (cf. Galatians 2:15). Second, Paul can boast not only of his Jewish lineage (Philippians 3:5), but also claim, “I am a Pharisee” (present tense!) long after his conversion (Acts 23:6). Third, where there is racism in the New Testament, it is usually against Gentiles rather than Jews (Galatians 2:12-16; cf. Romans 2:14).

Second, some would never lay such an allegation as racism at the feet of the Apostles, but they have no qualms about hurling this insult at the Catholic Church. They believe the early church falsified manuscripts of the New Testament in order to erase “Yeshua” and insert the more Western-sounding “Jesus.” There is no evidence for such a claim. We have nearly 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and approximately 19,000 New Testament manuscripts in other early languages, such as Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. In addition to these direct copies, we have tens of thousands of pages of early Christian writings, some of which are from Jewish-Christian groups. The name of Jesus occurs hundreds of thousands of times collectively in these ancient documents, and none of them speaks to a conspiratorial name change. If the “change” from Yeshua to Jesus was an early Catholic conspiracy, it is the best-executed cover-up in world history.

Third, it is occasionally alleged that the name Jesus is an attempt to insert paganism into Christianity. A few (very, very few) argue the name “Jesus” means “hail Zeus.” I suspect someone somewhere noticed the pronunciation of the name, especially in a language such as Spanish, sounds strikingly like “Hey-Zoos.” This must be a furtive nod to the chief god of the Greek pantheon, right? Not in the slightest. The New Testament was not written in English or Spanish, but in Greek. In Greek, “hail Zeus” would be chaire zeu, which bears absolutely no phonetic resemblance to “Jesus.”

How Did We Get from Yeshua to Jesus?

Although Jesus probably grew up in Galilee hearing His name as Yēshūa‘, it is not the case that the Christian world moved from Yeshua to Jesus. This is because Yeshua and Jesus are not different names, but different pronunciations of the same name. Different languages hear sounds differently. The Hebrews of the Old Testament era heard the name of the Persian king as “Ahasuerus” whereas the Greeks heard it as “Xerxes” (compare ESV with NIV in Ezra 4:6). If your name is Peter in the United States or Great Britain, you are Petros in Greece, Pietro in Italy, Pierre in France, and Pedro in Spain. Did each of these languages change your name!? No. These languages simply pronounce the same name in different ways. And so it is with Jesus. The Greek Iēsous represents the Aramaic Yēshūa‘.

But what about the meaning of the name? Those who argue in favor of the superiority of the name Yeshua insist that the Hebrew form means “salvation” whereas the Greek form is meaningless. This is true, and I believe every Christian should know the name of Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic means “salvation.” However, Peter-Petros-Pietro-Pierre-Pedro means “rock” only in the Greek language. It is meaningless in the others; yet none of us seems bothered by this problem, and no one insists on a consistent, universal pronunciation as Petros. Second, Matthew already felt the need to explain the name of Jesus in his Gospel (Matthew 1:21). And it is routine in the New Testament to translate the meaning of certain foreign words (e.g., Matthew 27:46; Mark 5:41; John 1:38, 41). If the inspired writers were content to use the medium of the Greek language, while also providing explanations, is it wrong of us to follow their example?

Third, there is more than one “Jesus” in the New Testament. In the genealogy of Christ a certain “Jesus son of Eliezer” is named (Luke 3:29). Then there is the Jesus also known as Justus (Colossians 4:11). Finally, the Old Testament hero Joshua is known in Greek transliteration as Iēsous, his name being indistinguishable in Greek from Jesus the Christ (Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8, KJV).

Conclusion

Technically, if the New Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, Yeshua would have been the form the authors used. But it wasn’t. It was written in Greek. So the authors represented the name as it was known in Greek. The name “Jesus,” in fact, was well-established in Greek transliteration as Iēsous thanks to the Septuagint, where it is found over 250 times. The New Testament authors did not change the name from Yeshua to Jesus, nor did the early Catholic Church.

Whenever modern theorists insist on the name Yeshua, they are contending for a position the New Testament authors themselves never took. The name of Jesus appears over 900 times in the Greek New Testament, every single time as Iēsous. If one travels to Israel, one will find the name of Jesus is still pronounced “Yeshua” today. But not in China, nor in Russia, nor in any European, North, or South American country will he or she find this pronunciation. The spelling and pronunciation of the name of Jesus is not a matter of conspiracy, but of culture.

Endnotes

The post Jesus or Yeshua? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For example, composed by David in the 10^th century B.C., Psalm 22 is unquestionably a messianic psalm—literally packed with minute details that forecast the death of the Messiah. In verse 18, the psalmist quotes Him as making the simple statement: “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” All four of the inspired New Testament evangelists of the first century A.D. allude to these incidental details that they report in connection with Jesus hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24).

While commentators typically report that Roman law awarded the victim’s clothes as spoils for the Roman executioners,³ others question the historicity of such a claim.⁴ In any case, the soldiers that attended the cross consisted of a quaternion—four soldiers.⁵ Matthew and Luke state very simply that these soldiers divided His clothes and cast lots for them, with Luke adding “to determine what every man should take.” These “garments” (merei) likely included a head-dress, sandals, girdle, and outer garment.⁶ Apparently, according to John 19:23, the soldiers were able to decide ownership of these four clothing articles without gambling. If they were able to agree on consignment of the four articles—one clothes item for each soldier—why did they also cast lots? It is John who provides the added clarification:

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” Therefore the soldiers did these things (John 19:23-24).

The tunic was indivisible and unique from the other clothes, and very likely more valuable. It stood alone as seamless and would need to be awarded to a single soldier only, rather than being ripped into four pieces. Hence, they agreed to gamble in order to decide ownership of the tunic.

Observe carefully that these four unnamed Roman military men, who just happened to be assigned crucifixion duty that day, and just happened to have charge of the condemned Jesus of Nazareth (who happened that day to wear a seamless tunic), were operating solely out of their own impulses. They were not Jews. They undoubtedly had no familiarity whatsoever with Jewish Scripture. They were not controlled by any external source. No unseen or mysterious force took charge of their minds, no disciple whispered in their ears to cause them to robotically or artificially fulfill a prophecy. Yet, with uncanny precision, words written by King David a millennium earlier came to stunning fruition—words that on the surface might seem to contradict each other: the clothes were to be divided into separate parts, yet lots would be cast over the clothes. Roman soldiers unwittingly fulfilled the predictions of ancient Scripture in what to them were no more than mere casual, insignificant actions associated with the execution of their military duty, in tandem with their covetous desire to profit from their victim by acquiring His material goods.

But that’s not all. The layers of complexity and sophistication of the doctrine of inspiration, like the layers of an onion, can be peeled back to reveal additional marvels. John informs us that the item of clothing, which necessitated the Roman soldiers’ need to resort to gambling to decide ownership, was “without seam, woven from the top in one piece.” Why mention this piece of minutia? What significance could possibly be associated with such a seemingly trivial detail? To gain insight into a possible explanation, one must dig deeper into Bible teaching. Since the Bible was authored by Deity, it naturally possesses a depth uncharacteristic of human writers. It reflects indication that its Author was unhampered by the passing of time or the inability to foresee or orchestrate future events. Such qualities are commensurate with the nature of divinity.

In 1500 B.C., God imparted the Law of Moses to the Israelites as the covenant requirements that would guide the nation of Israel through its national existence. This law included provision for the High Priest, the first being Aaron, the brother of Moses, commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 28). On the Day of Atonement (yom kippur), he alone entered the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle/Temple to make atonement for himself and all the people (Leviticus 16). Bible typology—another bona fide proof of Bible inspiration—portrays Jesus as our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14; 9:11; et al.). Very uniquely and critically, Jesus performs for Christians parallel functions to the High Priest that absolutely must be performed if we are to be permitted to be saved to live eternally with Deity in heaven.

Among the articles of clothing stipulated by God for the High Priest was the skillfully woven “tunic of fine linen thread” (Exodus 28:39). According to Josephus, this clothing item was seamless:

Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back.⁷

Coincidental? Perhaps. Nevertheless, John went out of his way to flag the point. And the Roman soldiers gambled for the seamless tunic of the Messiah—a tunic that subtly signaled His redemptive role as the one to make atonement for the world in the very act of dying on the cross. The handling of the clothes of Jesus Christ on the occasion of His crucifixion demonstrates the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of the Christian religion.

ENDNOTES

¹ H.C. Leupold (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 8; cf. Gleason Archer (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 440.

² Albert Barnes (1847), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint), pp. 193ff.

³ E.g., Charles Erdman (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press), p.161; J.W. McGarvey (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard), p. 725.

⁴ E.g., Alfred Edersheim (1915), The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.), 2:591-592.

⁵ William Davis (1870), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton), 3:2651.

⁶ A.T. Robertson (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revel), p. 147.

⁷ Flavius Josephus (1974 reprint), The Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. by William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 3.7.4:203.

The post Bible Inspiration: The Crucifixion Clothes appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Consider another great event whose historicity is set forth in Scripture as factual:

Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” …So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth (Genesis 11:1-9).

The great Joseon (Chosun) nation was a Korean dynastic kingdom that flourished for five centuries (1392-1897).² During the 17^th century, Korea was largely closed to the West and somewhat of a mystery to Europeans. But for a group of wayfaring Dutchmen on a journey to Japan, that all changed in 1653 when their ship “De Sperwer” (The Sparrowhawk) was shipwrecked on Jeju (formerly Cheju-do) Island off the coast of South Korea. The 36 survivors were taken into custody by the local prefect and, within a year, transferred from the island to the capitol of Seoul on the mainland where they spent the next 12 years. At the end of 13 years, in September 1666, eight survivors managed to escape to Japan. One of those survivors, Hendrick Hamel, spent the ensuing year in Nagasaki writing an account of his observations and experiences in Korea, which was published in 1668 under the title Journal van de Ongeluckige Voyage van ‘t Jacht de Sperwer. In what was essentially the first Western account, Hamel provided the world with a firsthand description of Korean society and culture. Only recently was his account translated accurately by a Dutchman based on the original manuscript.³

Apart from his fascinating assessment of Korean life in the 17^th century, Hamel provides a portrait of religious life, including the customs and practices of Confucianism. At one point in his narrative, he makes a passing remark concerning the beliefs held by the Confucian monks: “Many monks believe that long ago all people spoke the same language, but when people built a tower in order to climb into heaven the whole world changed.”⁴ Keep in mind that Hamel encountered the monks’ belief circa 1660. No one knows for how long this belief was part of the religious traditions of Korea. Hamel claims that “many” of the monks believed the matter, and that the event occurred “long ago.”

Observe that the belief of the non-Christian monks regarding the Tower of Babel contained four salient points that explicitly and directly connect with the biblical account:

1. The entire world’s population spoke a single language;
2. The people constructed a tower;
3. Their stated goal was to climb into heaven;
4. Their efforts affected the entire world.

All four of these features are included in the biblical record found in Genesis 11:

1. “[T]he whole earth had one language and one speech” (vs. 1).
2. “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower” (vs. 4).
3. “a tower whose top will reach into heaven” (vs. 4, NASB).
4. “So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city” (vs. 8). 

Christianity and the Bible have nothing to fear from the unbelief, skepticism, and hostility of infidelity. The more information surfaces from history and nature, the more the Bible is confirmed in its uncanny accuracy and supernatural endowment.⁵

Endnotes

¹  See Kyle Butt and Harrison Chastain (2015), “Noah’s Flood and The Epic of Gilgamesh,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5194&topic=100; Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=64.

²  The following historical details are gleaned from Gari Ledyard (1971), The Dutch Come to Korea (Seoul, Korea: Royal Asiatic Society); Keith Pratt and Richard Rutt (2013), Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary (London: Routledge).

³  Hendrik Hamel (1668), Hamel’s Journal: And, A Description of the Kingdom of Korea, 1653-1666, trans. Jean-Paul Buys (Seoul, Korea: Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch, 1994 edition).

⁴  Ibid., p. 61.

⁵  My thanks to Shane Fisher, missionary to Korea, for calling my attention to this  fascinating incident.

The post Babel: More Historical Confirmation of the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Bryant holds two Masters degrees as well as a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Old Testament from Amridge University. He has participated in archaeological excavations at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional memberships in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Archaeological Institute of America, and the International Society of Christian Apologetics.]

A paper published on July 27, 2017 sparked a series of headlines questioning the accuracy of the Bible. A study demonstrated that comparing the DNA of modern Lebanese with ancient Canaanites revealed a striking similarity between the two.¹ By comparing the genomes of five inhabitants of the city of Sidon (from roughly 3,700 years ago) with 99 persons living in modern Lebanon, researchers estimated that the genetic similarity between the two is about 93 percent. Based on these findings, it is argued by some that the Canaanites were not destroyed as the Bible alleges.

Headlines after the publication of the study ran with the story, with several of them stating flatly that DNA evidence had proven the Bible wrong. David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, noted that numerous headlines (many of them originating in the United Kingdom) seemed to take a deliberate swipe at the Bible.² He listed a dozen headlines from various news outlets that directly challenged the truthfulness of the biblical account of the conquest.³

In an age where attention-grabbing headlines can determine the number of clicks an article gets—as well as the amount of potential revenue from advertisers—this allegation is no surprise. However, it does expose the stunning biblical illiteracy in society today. To be fair, it may have been that the authors of the news articles simply took the following statement from the study at face value:

[T]he Bible reports the destruction of the Canaanite cities and the annihilation of its people; if true, the Canaanites could not have directly contributed genetically to present-day populations. However, no archaeological evidence has so far been found to support widespread destruction of Canaanite cities between the Bronze and Iron Ages: cities on the Levant coast such as Sidon and Tyre show continuity of occupation until the present day.⁴

Although the removal of the Canaanite population was commanded (Deuteronomy 20:17), numerous passages indicate the incomplete nature of the conquest (e.g., Joshua 17:12-13; Judges 1:27-33). One of the clearest failures recorded in the book of Judges is that the tribe of Dan in particular (or a large segment of it) remained nomadic instead of taking the territory allotted to it (Judges 18:1). The text indicates that this tribe had particular difficulties, later losing some of the land they had taken previously (Joshua 19:47).

The northernmost border of Israel’s territory was found in the allotment given to the tribe of Asher, which included the cities of Tyre and Sidon (Joshua 24:24-31). The text states that the Israelites failed to take this territory, so that the people of the tribe of Asher “lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land, for they did not drive them out” (Judges 1:31; 3:3). Both Sidon and Tyre seem to have remained as independent city states. King Hiram of Tyre made treaties with both David and Solomon many years after the conquest (2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Kings 5:1; 9:13). Later prophets denounced the Phoenician cities of Tyre⁵ and Sidon,⁶ treating them as foreign political entities. The Bible never indicates that the Israelites conquered these cities or killed their populations.

The Homeric epics of the Iliad and Odyssey mention Sidon, known in the Bible as the home of Jezebel and her father Ethbaal (1 Kings 16:31). Jezebel’s royal seal—donated to Israel’s Department of Antiquities in the early 1960s—identifies her as the “daughter of the king.”⁷ The city of Sidon had a succession of kings and was powerful enough that the term “Sidonian” became virtually synonymous with the term “Phoenician.”⁸ There is no indication—either historical or biblical—that the Israelites ever conquered the city.

Tyre was a powerful and wealthy city also, enough so that it was able to establish colonies throughout the Mediterranean. It is no coincidence that Tyre experienced a golden age beginning precisely at the time when the Bible indicates that its king made important trade agreements with David and Solomon.⁹ Tyre had a long succession of kings who often ran afoul of more powerful nations. For instance, the famed Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (747-727 B.C.) defeated a second Hiram of Tyre ruling in the eighth century.¹⁰ Later, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar plundered the city, which was subsequently razed by Alexander the Great in fulfillment of prophecy (Ezekiel 26).¹¹ The biblical portrayal of Tyre—including its wealth, its continual problems with other nations, and eventually its destruction—agrees with the ancient evidence.

The Bible and ancient inscriptions both indicate that Israel never defeated Tyre or Sidon, a fact that seems to have eluded some critics. That the modern inhabitants of Lebanon should share such genetic similarity with their ancient ancestors should not be surprising. Phoenicia always remained independent of Israel despite any political or economic connections the two may have shared. Far from undermining the biblical text, the most recent findings concerning Canaanite DNA support the accuracy of Scripture.

Endnotes

¹  See Marc Haber, et al (2017), “Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present-Day Lebanese Genome Sequences,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 101, August, http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8.

²  David Klinghoffer (2017), “For Culturally Illiterate Science Reporters, Canaanite DNA Yields Occasion to Slap Bible Around,” https://goo.gl/Pv3idN.

³  E.g., Shivali Best (2017), “Bronze Age DNA Disproves the Bible’s Claim that the Canaanites Were Wiped Out: Study Says Their Genes Live On in Modern-day Lebanese People,” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4733046/Canaanites-ancestors-modern-day-people-Lebanon.html; Chris Graham (2017), “Study Disproves the Bible’s Suggestion that the Ancient Canaanites Were Wiped Out,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/28/study-disproves-bibles-claim-ancient-canaanites-wiped/; Ian Johnston (2017), “Bible Says Canaanites Were Wiped Out by Israelites But Scientists Just Found Their Descendants Living in Lebanon,” https://goo.gl/6xXTCs.

⁴  Haber, et al, p. 275.

⁵  E.g., Amos 1:9-10; Zechariah 9:3-4; Ezekiel 26:1-28:19.

⁶  Jeremiah 24:22; Ezekiel 28:20-24.

⁷  See Marjo C.A. Korpel (2008), “Fit for a Queen: Jezebel’s Royal Seal,” Biblical Archaeology Review, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/inscriptions/fit-for-a-queen-jezebels-royal-seal.

⁸  Philip C. Schmitz (1992), “Sidon” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 6:17.

⁹  H.J. Katzenstein (1992), “Tyre” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 6:687.

¹⁰ Edward Lipinski (2006), On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 153 (Leuven: Peters), p. 187.

¹¹ See Kyle Butt (2006), “Tyre in Prophecy,” Reason & Revelation, 26[10]:73-79, October, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790.

The post Canaanite DNA and the Biblical Canon appeared first on Apologetics Press.

While this question has been posed by many people from many different contexts, we want to confront the reasoning of some who deny any supernatural descriptions for biblical events. This type of blatant denial of any supernatural elements is a ploy toward an ultimate denial of God. Rather, when we consider the historical reality and the blending of both God’s supernatural power with God’s establishment of physical laws, we find a full account that has both investigative and descriptive power to understand the unique events depicted in Scripture.

A Matter of Timing

As we discuss the timing of the crucifixion, we need to note the particulars necessary for solar and lunar eclipses to occur. First, a solar eclipse involves the Moon passing between Earth and the Sun, casting its shadow on Earth. This means that the Moon’s phase is always a New Moon during solar eclipses. In contrast, a lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth passes between the Sun and Moon, casting its shadow across the Moon. During a lunar eclipse the Moon’s phase is always a Full Moon.

As an overview, here is the timeline for the relevant events of the crucifixion. According to Mark 15:25, Jesus was crucified at the third hour of the Jewish day or 9 a.m. which, from the context, we can understand as the initial placement of Jesus on the cross. Then at the sixth hour (12 p.m. noon) there came darkness over all the land for a duration of three hours until the ninth hour or 3 p.m. (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). At this point, Jesus cried out three of His recorded sayings on the cross: “My God, My God why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34); “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” (Luke 23:46); and “It is finished” (John 19:30). At the point of Jesus’ death, the darkness appears to have ended, as each account describes the darkness lasting for three hours, then Jesus giving His life.

With the particulars of both the crucifixion timeline and the necessary timings of eclipses established, we can address whether a solar or lunar eclipse could be a possible explanation for the darkness that occurred. We can quickly rule out a lunar eclipse as the cause, since lunar eclipses do not affect the appearance of the Sun and would not have any impact during the time of Jesus’ crucifixion from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

When we consider solar eclipses, there is a definite affect on the Sun and the daylight levels as they occur. Solar eclipses, especially in the narrow path of total solar eclipses, have dramatic periods of darkness. However, we can confidently say that the darkness during Jesus’ crucifixion was not the result of a solar eclipse event. This statement can be made based on the timing particulars that the Bible defines: first, the time of the month that the Jewish Passover occurs and, second, the duration of darkness outlined by the text.

Jesus’ trial and crucifixion happened near the feast of the Passover, which occurs every year in the same month and the same day of the month. According to Leviticus 23:5, the Passover began on the evening of the 14^th day of the first month. Important is the fact that the accounting of Jewish time is based on a lunar calendar, where each month follows the lunar cycle beginning on the New Moon. This connection can be seen by the Hebrew word often translated as month, chodesh, which originates from a root meaning “new.” In context, this word is either translated as “month” in regards to time, or as “New Moon” in regards to a physical description. We can see a use of the physical “New Moon” translation in the account found in 1 Samuel 20 involving David and Jonathan: “And David said to Jonathan, ‘Indeed tomorrow is the New Moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king to eat. But let me go, that I may hide in the field until the third day at evening’” (20:5). Here we have the New Moon (chodesh) used in conjunction with a time period of waiting till the “third day” of the month. Thus since Jesus’ crucifixion happened near the middle of the month at Passover, the phase of the Moon was near a Full Moon instead of a New Moon, which is the complete opposite for a solar eclipse in apparent and physical orientation.

While the time of month for the crucifixion completely dispels the possibility of a solar eclipse, reasoning based on the darkness duration provides additional evidence for a supernatural origination. The Bible describes a three hour timeframe for the darkness (Mark 15:33). As we consider a solar eclipse, it is true that the entire event can be approximately three hours. However, this period includes the entire process from the point when the Moon begins to cover the Sun until the Moon finally completes its recession off the Sun. The partial eclipse phase of a total solar eclipse is a gradual process of slowly dimming to a point of maximum eclipse, then slowly brightening after maximum. This gradual variation does not match the succinct description of darkness over all the land that the Bible defines. Those who have witnessed a total solar eclipse would agree that “darkness” does not characterize the Earth until the brief maximum darkness phase of the eclipse. The duration for the maximum darkness of a total eclipse, however, is only a matter of minutes, not hours. The 2017 total solar eclipse that crossed the United States only had a maximum duration of two minutes and 40.2 seconds.¹ In fact, the maximum duration possible for any total solar eclipse is less than seven minutes.²

Conclusion

When we reach the climax of God’s plan at the cross, we see God using all elements of the event to highlight the incredible uniqueness of Jesus’ innocence, sacrifice, and love. One of these elements was God causing a great, supernatural darkness to cover the land and extend to the point of Jesus’ death. This darkness was not a simple coincidence, nor was it simply some usual event. Rather, it played a part in showing those at the cross then, and those who come to the cross today, the crucial message of salvation that Jesus brought to the world.

Endnotes

The post Was the Darkness of the Crucifixion Merely an Eclipse? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One such prophecy uttered by the “Messianic prophet” Isaiah is the one found in chapter 35 of his oracles. Specifically, consider the following:

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Then the lame shall leap like a deer,
and the tongue of the dumb sing.
For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness,
and streams in the desert (35:5-6).

This passage, believed to have been uttered in the 8^th century B.C., predicted that in the Messianic age to come, i.e., the Christian era, as a result of the miraculous empowerment that would accompany the initial introduction of the Gospel, the blind, the deaf, the lame, and the dumb (“mute,” NASB) would experience healing. Interestingly, one would expect as a result of their healing, the blind would be able to see and the deaf would be able to hear. And, comparably, one might expect the prophet to indicate that the lame would walk and the dumb would speak. However, instead, the dumb would not merely talk; they would sing. And the lame would not merely walk; they would “leap like a deer.” This latter detail is intriguing. The prophet might merely have been speaking figuratively, simply highlighting the concept that the lame would no longer be confined to his immobility.

However, when one turns to the New Testament and reads the inspired account of the launching of Christianity in the form of the establishment of Christ’s church after His ascension into heaven—a fact which He fully predicted (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17; 26:29; Acts 1:3)—one sees the unfolding of the presentation of the Gospel to the Jerusalem Jews. Luke was given the responsibility of reporting for all time the first 30 years of the history of Christianity. Early in his record, he reports an incident that confirms Isaiah’s prophetic prediction:

Now Peter and John went up together to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms from those who entered the temple; who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked for alms. And fixing his eyes on him, with John, Peter said, “Look at us.” So he gave them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them—walking, leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God. Then they knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him (Acts 3:1-10).

Observe that the lame man was told by Peter to “rise up and walk.” The lame man walked alright, but Luke meticulously reports that the man also “leaped.” This minute detail cannot be coincidental. By divine assistance, Isaiah peered across more than seven centuries into the first century A.D. to see an unnamed man, who had been lame from birth, leaping up as a beneficiary of the confirmatory (Mark 16:20)¹ miracles that accompanied the advent of Christianity, “walking, leaping, and praising God.” How in the world could a mere man have predicted such a minute detail so many centuries in advance? He could not have done so on his own ability. Indeed, as Peter stated: “[P]rophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).

Endnotes

¹ Dave Miller (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1399&topic=293.

The post Leaping and Bible Inspiration appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Robert Veil, Jr. formerly served as a district attorney for the Washington County State’s Attorney’s Office (Maryland), and previously maintained an active private law practice. He currently preaches in Martinsburg, West Virginia.]

The Bible is the most unusual and remarkable book we have ever encountered. It is unusual in that it claims to be the product of divine inspiration. And this book has had a remarkable influence, felt around the world for centuries. The book is morally good and pure, but upon examination we see that it is much more than a good book. Surviving countless attacks and criticisms, continuing as the world’s best seller, the Bible has been examined and cross-examined far more than any other book ever written.

As a prosecutor, I was required to examine cases with a critical eye, preparing them for presentation to a jury. All cases had their strengths and weaknesses. They had to be examined carefully and a decision had to be made concerning their prosecution. It had to be decided whether each case had merit, and whether there was a reasonable likelihood of success in proving it to a jury if necessary. If the case lacked merit, it was not proper to proceed. And this decision had to be made based upon the strength of the evidence, not upon personal preferences, political considerations, or even the level of certainty or commitment of the police officer who initiated the charges.

When I look at the Bible, I see a strong case for its inspiration. The evidence is not only compelling, it is overwhelming. The fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as opposed to merely a work of man, can be established in several ways. It can be established from a philosophical standpoint inasmuch as the derivation of truth and knowledge from God Himself is consistent with an inspired revelation of His will. It can be established from a logical or rational series of arguments, or an historical study, or a survey of nature itself—which reveals God as well. But as a prosecutor, I am also impressed with the evidence of inspiration within the Bible itself. When I look at the Bible carefully, I notice several things which strongly argue for its inspiration by God:

1. When I examine the Bible, I see that the Bible claims to be inspired by God. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The literal meaning of the Greek word translated “inspiration of God” is breathed out by God or God-breathed. This claim is unique and sets the Bible apart from the vast body of world literature. Except for a few later imitations, other books basically account for their own origin through purely natural means. But throughout the Bible, it claims to be from God.

I recognize that critics will object that the Bible’s own claim of inspiration cannot be considered on the ground that “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible.” But such an objection would be overruled, for it ignores standard and accepted practice in other proceedings. We routinely allow the accused in criminal cases to speak for himself, although in this country he is not required to do so. Even in civil cases, where the burden of proof is much lower, we allow the defendant to speak in his own behalf when his character is called into question. If the Bible is to be accorded a fair trial, its own claims of inspiration must be carefully considered along with all other evidence.

The Bible claims its own inspiration forthrightly. It makes no apology, and shows no hesitation in stating that it and its central figure, Jesus Christ, are from God. “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death…. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:22-23,32). So as a starting point, we note that the Bible claims to be of divine origin.

Sometimes people will deny that the Bible is from God, arguing that it is merely a “good book.” I recall one of my early school teachers telling the class that the Bible was written by “a good man” long ago. On the contrary, if the Bible is not truly the product of divine inspiration, it is not good, and it was not written by good people, because they steadfastly contended that it is. They would be more accurately described as deceivers or liars, because their amazing claims were false. It is also noteworthy that even the most radical Bible scholars do not argue that the book was composed by a single author.  Although there is considerable debate about specifically when and by whom some of the various books of the Bible were written, it is universally admitted to be the product of a number of writers over many years, a point to be developed further below.

2. When I examine the Bible, I observe that, the critics’ claims notwithstanding, the Bible is amazingly consistent with itself. There is a grand procession throughout. This fact is actually very compelling when it is recognized that the Bible consists of 66 separate books written by approximately 40 different writers with varying and diverse backgrounds. These writers included fishermen, a tent maker, a tax collector, a shepherd, kings, prophets, historians, social activists, statesmen, etc. Most of these writers never knew each other personally, making collusion in the composition of the Bible impossible.  They could not “get their story straight” before writing. Further, each of the books were originally written in one of three different languages, from three different continents around the world. It was written over a period of approximately 1,600 years, yet consistently develops one main story—a central theme, without contradiction or inconsistency.

The development of a grand theme, with contributions made thereto in the earliest books of the Bible, gradually unfolded, and completed throughout the latter books, is an amazing accomplishment, and unexplainable without divine intervention. For example, in the earliest books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, the writer introduces the concept of the Passover lamb, with its many similarities to Jesus Christ. The male lamb was to be spotless and without blemish, a perfect specimen. It was to be killed by the shedding of blood, and the blood was to be applied to the dwelling houses of those to be saved from the final plague (Exodus 11ff.). The Passover feast itself contained remarkable similarities to the Lord’s Supper, though instituted hundreds of years earlier. These attributes are interwoven with the manner in which the lamb was to be killed, the actual shedding of blood, and the application of it to the houses of a selected people. How could these characteristics have been devised without a knowledge of what was to come? That is, how could the invention and detailed description of the Passover appurtenanceshave been accomplished by someone completely unaware of how these details would later align with the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world?

Bible students call this phenomenon “typology.” It involves the pre-figuring of places, things, and events by Old Testament “shadows,” which look forward to and foretell future fulfillment. The Old Testament “types” are sometimes extremely detailed, and they have astonishingly appropriate applications in the New Testament “antitypes.”  From an evidentiary standpoint, they are unexplainable without divine guidance of the Bible writers. No human author, without assistance, could have foreseen the application and fulfillment of the detailed types they described. The operation of random chance can no more explain this occurrence than the dropping of the pieces of a complex jigsaw puzzle from its box onto a table could yield the completed result. The finished picture becomes visible upon examination of the various New Testament writings. Added to this is the fact that these New Testament writers had no control over the work of the Old Testament writers who foretold these matters. How is this explainable absent divine intervention?

3. When I examine the Bible I see objectivity. Although perhaps not totally inconceivable, this is surprising if the writing of the book was not superintended by God.  The Bible relates both the good and the bad concerning its heroes. That is not typical of human works, although it can sometimes be accomplished with concerted, strained effort. But given the multiplicity of Bible writers, it would be difficult to explain how all of them succeeded in such objectivity.

The Bible often includes information which seems, at first, to argue against its point. It includes “challenging” passages, which might have been easily omitted. For example, in Job 2:3 the Bible quotes God as saying to Satan, “And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” It is not surprising that Bible critics have seized upon this passage in an effort to disparage the God of the Bible, and to deny its inspiration. They claim the verse teaches that God personally set Job up for failure. Indeed, the verse on the surface seems to say this, and it is only upon deeper study of the verse with its immediate and more remote context that the true meaning appears. But why was the verse included in the first place? It would have been easy, had the work been of mere human origin, to avoid this and other difficult statements. Had we, in our limited wisdom, been composing the Bible in an effort to palm it off as the work of God, would we have included such statements? The fact that these difficult passages appear in the text is strong evidence that it was not written by humans unconstrained by a higher influence. There is an over-arching hand which gives to the text a higher meaning, understandable only upon a reading of the work as a whole. The ancient Bible writers, who were not always privy to these other, clarifying passages, would not have written this way, but for the control of inspiration. In other words, since most of the Bible writers did not have access to the other portions of the Bible as they wrote, it is not likely that they would have inserted statements understandable only upon comparison with those other portions. If they were writing with only their own uninspired wisdom, they would have omitted such passages altogether.

Further, it is a mark of authenticity to include negative or undesirable traits about the people held out as heroes. It is not typical for human witnesses to volunteer weaknesses or undesirable concessions about themselves in their own case. If the Bible writers were liars trying to convince us to follow them, it is inconceivable that they would contradict that aim by making themselves look bad. Most people want to bolster their position, and we generally tend to minimize or omit information which detracts from our message or makes us look bad. But the Bible does not do this. It delivers both the positive and the negative, the good and the bad about the characters used to tell its story. Peter, for example, is presented as the strong right hand of the Lord Himself, a pillar in the early church. Yet, in other passages he is presented with the most embarrassing of human foibles. We are given his impetuous nature, his lack of faith or conviction, his racial bias, and even his denial of Jesus Christ. David, an undisputed hero of God and his people throughout the history of Israel, and a forefather to Jesus Himself, is described as indulging in the most humiliating of sins, including sexual perversity and murder. Would these salacious facts be included had the writing of the book not been superintended by God?

4. Upon examination of the Bible, I notice what J.W. McGarvey called the “restraint” of inspiration.[1] There are many examples; it is a fascinating characteristic of the Bible and unexplainable if it is the work of mere man. Essentially, we have people and momentous events, of great interest to our human curiosity, disposed of in brief sentences leaving us longing for more. This, too, is unlike the work of uninspired men, who tend to run on and on about matters in which they have a great interest. One would think, for example, that the biblical character of Samson, whose exploits have been of keen and thrilling interest to millions, would have been accorded more than three chapters (Judges 14-16). Or, to use McGarvey’s example, the death of James, one of the apostles, would have been described in great detail, instead of only 11 words (Acts 12:2).

How are we to account for this circumstance? The matters which seem less interesting, and yet in the grand scheme of the book as a whole have greater significance, are given more attention. Whereas the matters which appeal to our human curiosity, but in reality have minor import in the overall story, are passed over quickly. Does this not show the guiding force of a superior wisdom in the composition of the entire Bible?

Those new to Bible study are often confounded by the insertion of genealogical records. The names are sometimes difficult to pronounce, and one at first wonders why they are included at all. The Bible contains about 24 genealogical lists, strategically distributed throughout its pages. Many of them include supplemental historical information in addition to the names themselves. Taken together, they amount to a progression of generations leading to the Messiah. Further, they place Him into a human history or framework. Surely, the original writers could not have foreseen the significance of these records. It is only upon closure of the final pages of the New Testament that their significance begins to dawn upon us. Their evidentiary value in connecting the Messiah to human events is meticulously established. No other person in all of human history is so carefully documented from a genealogical perspective. And while the individual writers of the Bible may not have seen the importance of including such laborious and tedious details, the God who inspired the overall work obviously did.

5. Upon examination of the Bible, I see that it is uncanny in its accuracy. Like the old anvil which withstands the blows of countless hammers, it proves to be correct time and time again. I recently watched as a nationally known atheist and Bible critic debated the existence of God. Although referring to the many embarrassing errors within the Bible, he produced none. I suspect he knew that such alleged “errors” have been put forth time and time again, only to be capably answered upon closer examination. No other book has been subjected to such treatment and withstood such attacks.

6. I see in the Bible the most enduring of books. It has long outsold all others, and has been treasured and preserved through the centuries as a priceless work of wisdom and guidance. Countless generations have largely ordered their lives from its principles. It has been translated and proclaimed at great personal risk. Men have given their lives in its proclamation. Even in our own country, the Bible provides support for our founding principles, continues to be revered by many, and is made readily available upon demand.  In our transient and disposable culture, this is no small feat.

What do I see when I examine the Bible? I see a book that I would not hesitate to take before any reasonable trier of fact. I would be willing to submit it in a fair comparison against all others. I would not shrink from relying upon it. I am confident in its power and dependability. I see the marks of inspiration upon it and the hand of God within it. I see consistency, objectivity, restraint, accuracy, and endurance. In short, I see the inspired Word of God.

REFERENCE

The post A Prosecutor Looks at the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

An exciting new discovery adds further weight to the case for the Bible’s accuracy and inspiration. In the Old Testament, we read about a king named Hezekiah. Second Kings 18:1 says that Hezekiah was “the son of Ahaz, king of Judah.” On December 2, 2015, a press release from Hebrew University in Jerusalem explained that a small clay seal was discovered near the Temple mount. The text on the seal reads, “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah” (Smith, 2015). This seal is called a bulla (bullae is the plural form). Clay bullae like this were used to seal documents. There are other such seals, but this one is the first of an Israelite or Judean king that has been discovered by professional archaeologists in situ (in the location where it was left) (Smith). Dr. Eilat Mazer and her team unearthed the bulla in a garbage heap, along with more than 30 other bullae.

The fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God has long been a settled question (Butt, 2007). Finds like this one, however, add increasing weight to the ever growing mound of evidence that confirms the divine origin of the glorious book we call the Bible.

References

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

Smith, Dov (2015), “First Seal Impression of an Israelite or Judean King Ever Exposed in Situ in a Scientific Archaeological Excavation,” PhysOrg, http://phys.org/news/2015-12-israelite-judean-king-exposed-situ.html.

Recommended Resources

The post Hezekiah Bulla: More Evidence for Bible Inspiration appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Over the years, some people have questioned the legitimacy of the story of the first two people on Earth. They have suggested that Eve was not Adam’s first wife. Uninspired Jewish folklore says that a woman by the name of Lilith was Adam’s first wife instead of Eve. The text known as The Alphabet of Ben Sira narrates the mythical story of Lilith, explaining that God originally created her out of the ground just as He created Adam. But when Adam explained to her that he was to be the leader and head of the relationship, Lilith flew away from him. Adam then proceeded to report the incident to God. God sent three angels to retrieve her, and she refused to return (Alphabet of Ben Sira, 2015). [NOTE: The date of this work is unknown, but scholars generally agree it was written some time in the middle ages around 1000-1300 A.D. see “Alphabet of Ben Sira,” 2008].

When the Lilith legend is evaluated closer, however, it becomes obvious that the story is a fabricated myth unsupported by historical fact. It is impossible to nail down when the myth started. Her name derives from a Sumerian word that means “female demons” or “wind spirits.” Lilith’s roots can be roughly traced back to Babylonian demonology, where she is said to have terrorized pregnant women and preyed upon infants, but even that is uncertain.  Feminists in today’s society often praise her for attempting to break free from the shackles of Adam’s rule in the Garden of Eden. In most expressions of her myth, she represents seduction, chaos, and ungodliness (Gaines, 2014). There is no historical proof that Lilith existed on the Earth, much less that she was Adam’s first wife who God formed in the beginning.

THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED AND ACCURATE

In order to validate the claim that the Lilith myth is true, adherents insist that Genesis chapters one and two are separate Creation accounts. God supposedly created Lilith from dust at the same time as Adam in one Creation account, and Eve was formed from his rib as the Bible describes in the other. When the words of Genesis are surveyed in greater detail, this claim cannot be reasonably maintained. There are not two different accounts of Creation in Genesis one and two (Jackson, 1991). Genesis two simply provides more details regarding the Creation account of chapter one. Genesis one and two form a perfectly complimentary account of the same events. The biblical text specifically mentions Eve as Adam’s wife and states that she is the “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). Just as conspicuously, the text does not mention any other wife, nor does it mention other mythological female demons or gods such as Ashteroth, Hera, Ishtar, or Lamia. To artificially insert such a character into the text would be disingenuous and misguided.

When the words of the Bible are evaluated, they have been proven to be factually accurate. The historical facts, archaeological finds, and written records of famous historians “live to tell the tale.” Not only have people such as John the Baptizer and King David been shown to be real, historical figures, but also countless narratives in the Bible have proven to be historically true. In fact, nothing in secular history has ever been shown to be factually true that disproves anything in the 66 books of the Bible. That fact, coupled with numerous other evidences, proves these books to be accurate and inspired (Butt, 2007). Since the Lilith story contradicts the biblical account of Creation, and since we can know that the biblical account is accurate and inspired, then we can conclude that the Lilith myth cannot be true and must be understood to be a myth fabricated over time from human imagination.

CONCLUSION

Does the myth of Lilith match up with the biblical record? Despite the beliefs and personal opinions of some, it does not. There is only one account of creation in the Bible, and the name Lilith is not found in the Creation account. Her name is associated with myths, folktales, and demonology that is based on superstition and imagination, not historical events. The Bible’s account of creation has passed every test of scrutiny and has proven itself to be historically accurate and divinely inspired. Any person or group of people can make up a story, but God’s Word has stood the test of time, and it remains the standard.

References

“Alphabet of Ben Sira,” (2008), Encyclopedia Judaica, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02541.html.

Alphabet of Ben Sira, (2015), http://jwa.org/media/alphabet-of-ben-sira-78-lilith.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

Gaines, Janet Howe (2014), “Lilith: Seductress, Heroine, or Murderer?” Bible Archaeology, http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/lilith/.

Jackson, Wayne (1991), “Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=127&article=1131.

The post Lilith… The First Wife of Adam? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary staff writer Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is completing Masters study in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as well as doctoral studies at Amridge University where he is a Ph.D. candidate. He holds professional membership in both the American Schools of Oriental Research as well as the Society of Biblical Literature.]

As with most of the early books of the Bible—particularly from Genesis to the early chapters of 1 Samuel—skeptics and critics label the Joseph story as the work of later authors (see Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, pp. 67-68). According to the documentary hypothesis (popularly known as the JEDP theory), the Pentateuch as a whole is composed of several different documents edited together by redactors, or editors. The Joseph story is no exception. Critics claim it is the product of multiple authors living between the 10^th and 6^th centuries B.C., if not later.

The Bible recognizes Moses as the author of the Pentateuch (Exodus 24:7,27-28; Numbers 33:2; Joshua 8:32; 2 Chronicles 34:14). Critics reject the Mosaic authorship of this material, with most denying the existence of Moses as well. This denial is built upon the assumptions inherent in the documentary hypothesis, whose adherents rarely take Egyptian evidence into account. The fine details of the Joseph story do not point to a Hebrew scribe writing in the 10^th-6^th centuries B.C. Rather, they point to an author who was intimately familiar with Egypt and who included Egyptian loanwords and other details of Egyptian culture in his work. To summarize some of the important Egyptian details in the Joseph story, consider the following points:

• Joseph is sold for 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28). Babylonian records indicate that this was the average going rate for a slave in the first half of the second millennium (Kitchen, 2003, pp. 344-345), but later rose due to inflation. The prices given in the Bible in later texts correspond to the prices at the time those texts were written. At the ancient cities of Nuzi and Ugarit in the mid- to late-second millennium, the price was 30 shekels and more, which is reflected in the Mosaic law (Mendelsohn, 1955, p. 68; cf. Exodus 21:32). Still later in the first millennium, the price went up to 50-60 shekels, which seems to be reflected in the ransom for Menahem of Israel (2 Kings 15:20). Later authors would not have been able to research these minute details in order to make the account believable, nor would anyone have thought about doing so. If the Joseph story had been written when critics claim (closer to the 6^th century B.C.), the price asked by his brothers should have been somewhere around 60 shekels instead of 20 (Kitchen, 2003, p. 345; cf. Kitchen, 1995, 21[02]). If the Joseph story was written after the exile, we would expect the price to have been as high as 90-120 shekels. On a further note, Leviticus 27:4 establishes the price of 20 shekels for a male slave younger than 20 years of age (Joseph was 17—Genesis 37:2; see Wenham, 1978, pp. 264-265).
• Joseph is thrown into prison, which the Egyptians called the “Place of Confinement” (Aling, 2002, p. 99). These were rare in the ancient Near East and seem to have been found only in Egypt. The Mosaic Law never mentions prisons, and does not seem to have a close parallel to our modern concept of them. If later Israelite authors had invented the Joseph story, it would have been highly unlikely that they would have included this feature.
• Joseph likely serves as an overseer (Egyptian imy-re per) in Potiphar’s house. His service and promotion fits very well in an Egyptian context (see the discussion of relevant titles for this office, as well as Joseph’s promotion, in Hoffmeier, 1996 and Kitchen, 2003).
• Joseph is able to interpret dreams. This was a vital aspect of life in ancient Egypt. Those who did so were specialists who consulted dream books, examples of which have been discovered by archaeologists (e.g., Papyrus Chester Beatty III, currently housed in the British Museum). Joseph proves his superiority by interpreting the king’s dreams without any access to these reference works.
• Joseph is brought before pharaoh after being shaved and dressed appropriately (Genesis 41:14), something that was done in Egypt but not among Semitic peoples (see Fried, 2007). The Beni Hasan tomb painting depicts Canaanite merchants around the same time as the patriarchs wearing beards and having full heads of hair. Although pharaohs were depicted wearing beards, it is clear that these were false (whether in paintings or on statuary, a close inspection will reveal the strap along the jawline that held the beard in place).
• Jacob and Joseph are both embalmed or mummified. The text also mentions Joseph’s coffin (Genesis 50:26). Although extremely sparse, the details given in the Bible match what scholars know about the process from ancient records. The biblical text states that 40 days were required for mummification (Genesis 50:3). This seems to be a rounded number that agrees with an Egyptian text known as “The Ritual of Embalming,” which states that the beginning of the embalming process began four days after death and continued for 42 days (Brier, 1994, p. 45).
• Joseph is described as being 110 years old. We know from ancient Egyptian records that this was the ideal age at the time of death, essentially a way of saying that a person had lived a rich, full life. The Bible later records this figure at 70 or 80 years (cf. Psalm 90:10). Over half of the references to this lifespan in Egyptian literature occur during the same general period as the one in which Moses lived (Kitchen, 2003, p. 351). Thus, this number preserves an expression that appears to have been the most popular during the period in which Moses received his education.
• Linguistic clues provide important insight into when the Joseph narrative may have been put into written form. The word for the Nile River used in the text when Pharaoh discusses his dreams is ye’or rather than the more common Hebrew term nahar. The word ye’or is an Egyptian loanword for “river” that was used in the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550-1295 B.C.) onward (Sarna, 1966, p. 218). Likewise, the term for the grass eaten by the cows is akhu, another Egyptian loanword. Sarna notes that the reference to cattle may be significant as well. They were an important part of the Egyptian economy, while sheep played a minor role. The situation was reversed in Palestine.
• One of the supports for the early second millennium devotion to writing of the Joseph material is the phrase “the land of Rameses” (Genesis 47:11) which came into common use in the 13^th century and fell into disuse after the 12^th century (Kitchen, 1991, p. 118).

The Egyptian details of the Joseph story are what we would expect to find if someone educated in Egypt had been the one to put this story into written form (cf. Acts 7:22). Alan R. Schulman states: “It is quite clear that the person who either wrote, or wrote down, the Joseph sagas had an exceedingly intimate knowledge of Egyptian life, literature, and culture, particularly in respect to the Egyptian court, and, in fact, may even have lived in Egypt for a time” (1975, p. 236). This is precisely what we find in the Bible’s statements about the life of Moses. Put simply, the Joseph story could not have been the invention of a Hebrew scribe in the first millennium.

Taken together, the details above generate some important questions about the authorship of the Joseph story and the assumptions made by many modern interpreters. Why does the text include terms popularized in the Egyptian language during the time in which Moses would have lived? Why do Egyptian concepts fill these stories when they are absent in later texts that critics claim to have been written at the same time as the Pentateuch? Why is it that chronologically-sensitive details in the Joseph story fit well within a context of the early second millennium, while critics claim it was written in the early first millennium? These questions demand a reevaluation of the skeptic’s position, which tends to be haunted by the twin spectres of unfounded skepticism and anti-biblical bias. The Bible presents a far more believable author of this material than the contrivances of its critics.

REFERENCES

Aling, Charles (2002), “Joseph in Egypt: Part III,” Bible and Spade, 15[4].

Brier, Bob (1994), Egyptian Mummies: Unraveling the Secret of an Ancient Art (New York: Quill).

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: The Free Press).

Fried, Lisbeth S. (2007), “Why Did Joseph Shave?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 33[4], July-August.

Hoffmeier, James K. (1996), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1991), “Israel Seen from Egypt: Understanding the Biblical Text from Visuals and Methodology,” Tyndale Bulletin, 42[1], May.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1995), “Patriarchal Age: Myth or History,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 21[02], March/April.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Mendelsohn, Isaac. (1955), “On Slavery in Alalakh,” Israel Exploration Journal, 5[2].

Sarna, Nahum M. (1966), Understanding Genesis: The World of the Bible in the Light of History (New York: Schocken Books).

Schulman, A. R. (1975), “On the Egyptian Name of Joseph: A New Approach,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 2.

Wenham, Gordon J. (1978), “Leviticus 27.2-8 and the Price of Slaves,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 90.

The post The Mosaic Authorship of the Joseph Story appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As could be expected, some who have read the story in Genesis 6-9 have questioned its validity. How could so many animals fit in the Ark? What would a global Flood even look like? How could the Ark float while being loaded down with so much cargo? Etc. When each of these questions is considered, sufficient answers are available to show that the biblical narrative is both scientifically accurate and historically correct (see Miller, 2014). One challenge that has been repeatedly brought against the biblical account of the Flood is that the author copied the story from previously written material. The most common claim is that the biblical Flood story is a rewrite of an ancient tale from Babylon titled The Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a 2,900-line poem, written on 12 tablets, describing the life of King Gilgamesh and his reign over an area near the perennial powerhouse of Babylon. The tablets date back to about 650 B.C.; and scholars suggest that the material they contain comes from legend and myth that dates back to between 1800-1600 B.C. (Kovacs, 1989, p. xxvi). The 11^th tablet of this work contains an account of a massive flood. Supposedly since it predates the biblical account, and is so similar to the story found in the Bible, then the author of Genesis must have copied material from Gilgamesh or its source material. Does this challenge to the biblical record hold up under a thorough investigation? Not at all.

Does the Fact that One Account is First Prove the Later Account is a Copy?

In discussions of this nature, it is often helpful to ask the simple question of what would the situation look like if there really was a global flood that destroyed all but a few people. If those people survived such a flood, what would they have told their descendants? What would have happened in the retelling of the events when their children and grandchildren moved farther away from each other? After such an event, and so many retellings of the story over hundreds of years, would we expect to find differing tales that trace their origins back to the actual event? A brief moment of thought about these questions reveals that if a universal flood occurred, we would expect to find differing stories with (certain similarities) that date hundreds or thousands of years apart, and that arise from various geographical locations and ethnic groups across the globe.

Interestingly, that is exactly what we find. There are over 200 flood legends in different cultures all over the world. For instance, the Aztecs tell of a worldwide flood in which only two people, Coxcox and his wife, survived. Immediately following the flood, giants constructed a pyramid in an attempt to touch the clouds. In China, the legend is told of God sending a messenger to Earth to warn three sons that a flood was coming. The oldest was the only one to heed the warning, and he built a boat. As a result of his hard work he survived the flood. After the flood, the boat landed on a mountain, and the son had three sons that repopulated the earth. These are just two of the numerous flood legends from around the world (see Lyons and Butt, 2003 for more information).

The fact that one of these stories (such as Gilgamesh or various others) was preserved or written down first cannot be used to argue that it is (a) the correct and accurate description of what happened, or (b) the basis for the text of any narrative that was recorded at a later date. To illustrate, suppose that a certain battle occurred in the American Civil War. One soldier who was not there, but heard about it, told his friend. His friend embellished the story as he retold it to many others. One of those to whom he told the story decided to write it down just a few years after the battle occurred. Decades later, however, a young officer who took part in the battle decided to write a history of it. His memory was exceptional and he related the events much more accurately than the story that was being passed around by the soldier who was not even at the battle. If such events are possible, even probable, then we can show that simply because one telling of a historical event predates another does not make it more accurate, and does not mean the later story copied from it in anyway.

How Similar is Gilgamesh to the Genesis Account?

Even though the two accounts of the global Flood have similarities, it is actually quite striking to see the differences that exist between the stories. For instance, Gilgamesh tells of a man named Utnapishtim who, as a result of various gods wanting to destroy all people, was warned to build a boat 120 cubits on four sides by 120 cubits high, making the vessel a giant cube. The boat was finished apparently in five-six days, having six decks, and was loaded with gold, silver, ale, beer, butchered meat, “wine as if it were river water,” and a host of living animals. Just before the boat launched, the god Shamash rained down loaves of bread and wheat from heaven. Utnapishtim and all his family got in the boat, and a massive flood broke apart the Earth and drenched the ground for seven days. When it stopped and Utanapishtim looked out, “all the human beings had turned to clay.” The survivor then waited seven days and sent forth a dove, a swallow, and a raven. The dove and swallow returned, but the raven did not. The survivors then exited the boat and sacrificed to the gods. When the god Enlil saw that humans had survived, he was furious because “no man was to survive the annihilation.” The god Enlil then blessed Utanapishtim and his wife with the ability to be like gods and live an extended life (these details are taken from Kovacs’ translation of the poem, 1989, pp. 99-103).

While the similarities between Gilgamesh and the account of the Flood in Genesis are striking, there are vast differences that the Genesis-copied-Gilgamesh theory does not adequately explain. Why are the number of decks and the dimensions of the Ark different? How does Utnapishtim finish such a massive boat in so brief a time? Why such a large difference in the two accounts between how long the flood lasted (in the Bible Noah and his family don’t exit the Ark for a year, while Utnapishtim seems to spend only two weeks or a little more on the cubical boat). Why doesn’t the Genesis account include the swallow? Why does Gilgamesh say that one of the gods is unaware of the survivors?

The skeptic who insists that Genesis plagiarized Gilgamesh is then obligated to account for the various and serious differences. Once it is admitted, and it must be, that the Genesis account had some other source than Gilgamesh for those differences (i.e. God), then it must be conceded that the Genesis account could also have gotten all the details from that source, including the ones that are similar to the Babylonian poem.

What Would We Expect?

A closer look at The Epic of Gilgamesh presents Gilgamesh as a pagan, idolatrous king who tyrannically imposed his will on the land. One of his laws was to participate in sexual intercourse with every girl in his territory before they were married. This literature is just what one would expect from a society that had departed from the worship of the true God and distorted His Laws as well as an accurate account of the past. When we evaluate the biblical record, we can know that it was penned by Moses (Lyons, et. al., 2003) and is the most historically reliable collection of writings from the ancient world (Butt, 2004). The discovery of The Epic of Gilgamesh and other ancient writings that contain Flood stories does not call the Genesis account into question. On the contrary, it provides evidence that verifies the fact of a global Flood, and is exactly what any person who has given the idea much thought would expect to happen if the Flood were a historic reality.

References

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Archaeology and the Old Testament,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1347.

Kovacs, Maureen Gallery (1989), The Epic of Gilgamesh (Standford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Lyons, Eric and A.P. Staff (2003), “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch: Tried and True,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=64.

Miller, Jeff (2014), “Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends, Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4801.

The post Noah’s Flood and The Epic of Gilgamesh appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In a way, Eichenwald’s attack on the Bible is reassuring to the Bible believer for the simple reason that Eichenwald uses information that has been refuted literally for centuries. His article consists of warmed-over skepticism that has so often been easily refuted; we at Apologetics Press already have articles on virtually every subject he mentions (www.apologeticspress.org). In another way, however, his article is troubling. Why, if his arguments are so easily answered, does the author feel that they will resonate with his audience or cause others to question the Bible? The most reasonable answer seems to be that he knows his audience is ignorant of the responses to his attacks. The Proverbs writer once stated, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). To those who have not given these matters much thought, Eichenwald’s information may seem legitimate and may cause one to doubt the Bible’s inspiration. However, when one examines this information, it will be seen for what it is—a thinly veiled, inept attack against the inspired Word of God.

The “Contradictions” in the Bible

The Birth of Jesus

One of the clearest examples of Eichenwald’s errant thinking is seen in his repetitious claim that the Bible is “loaded with contradictions.” In his section titled “No Three Kings,” he contends that the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. He writes: “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. No wise men showed up for the birth…. No angel appearing to Mary…. Not born in a manger….” Then he asks the reader: “Not the version you are familiar with…? You may not recognize this version, but it is a story of Jesus’ birth found in the Gospels. Two Gospels—Matthew and Luke—tell the story of when Jesus was born, but in quite different ways. Contradictions abound.”

Is it true that the versions of Jesus’ “birth” are filled with contradictions? Not at all. Let us see how he proceeds to fabricate contradictions that are not there. First, notice how he begins his section: “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem.” Note that he did not provide a verse reference for that claim—for good reason: there is no Bible passage that claims that Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. The account in Luke makes it clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (2:4) and, contrary to Eichenwald’s charge, in a manger (2:7,16)—i.e., a barn-animal feeding trough. Did an angel appear to Mary? The Gospels make no such claim, and therefore, cannot be said to contradict one another. An angel appeared to shepherds in the field at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8-13) and to Mary before Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:26-31), but this does not contradict any other passage. Did wise men come to the birth? When we turn to Matthew’s account, the chapter begins its narrative about the wise men: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King…” (2:1). How long after Jesus was born in Bethlehem? The text does not say. In fact, king Herod asked the wise men what time Jesus’ star appeared (vs. 7), and based on that information, the evil king issued a decree to kill the young males in Bethlehem who were from “two years old and under” (vs. 16). Obviously, between the time the star appeared, and the time the wise men arrived, several months had elapsed. In fact, from Herod’s calculations to kill two year olds, it could have been as much as 18 months to two years. So, the story in Matthew 2 is not even a “birth” story. The Bible makes no claim that wise men were at Jesus’ birth. The only contradiction that can be levied concerning the appearance of the wise men is not a contradiction in the Bible, but a contradiction between what the Bible says and what people have erroneously claimed the Bible says—as with the case of the appearance of the angel to Mary.

Eichenwald has committed the very mistake that he accuses so many evangelicals of committing. Early in the article he bemoans the fact that many people who call themselves Christians do not even know what the text says. Sadly, he is right. Many Christians do not study the Bible as they should. He insists that his article is “designed to shine a light on a book that has been abused by people who claim to revere it but don’t read it.” Ironically, Eichenwald’s attack is filled with heat, but very little light. His examples of obvious “contradictions” in the “birth” accounts of Jesus are attacks against information that is not even in the Bible. In an article that purports to straighten out those who are biblically illiterate, to boldly proclaim that the Bible states that “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem”—when the Bible nowhere makes such a statement—is inexcusable, slipshod scholarship. [For more information, see the A.P. article: “When Did Jesus Go to Egypt?” (Lyons, 2011).]

In addition, Eichenwald claims that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline through Joseph, “Except…Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father…. Mary, the mother of Jesus, can be the only parent with a bloodline to David, but neither Gospel makes mention of that.” This allegation has been decisively answered in the A.P. article titled, “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke.” Here is the short answer to this alleged discrepancy:

Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah (Miller, 2003, emp. in orig.).

Isn’t it interesting that Eichenwald left out the fact that Luke’s genealogy mentions Jesus “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:24)? By using the phrase “as was supposed,” Luke demonstrates that Jesus was not the actual son of Joseph, just the perceived one. In addition, the Newsweek author neglected to mention that in Matthew 1:16, when the text says that “Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,” the word “whom” (in the Greek) is in the feminine form. It could only be referring to Mary. Thus, neither of the genealogies states that Jesus was born to Joseph.

Alleged Contradictions in the Resurrection Accounts

Eichenwald continues his attack on the Bible, stating that the “stories in the four Gospels of Jesus’ death and resurrection differ as well.” He asserts: “And who went to anoint Jesus in his tomb? In Matthew, it was Mary and another woman named Mary, and an angel met them there. In Mark, it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and a young man met them. In John, it was Mary alone; no one met her.” Supposedly, these “differing” accounts are so blatantly contradictory that no further examination need be applied to them. When we apply proper reasoning to this allegation, however, we see there are no contradictions.

For instance, what if John mentions one Mary while Matthew mentions Mary and another woman named Mary? This difference is not a contradiction. John would have had to qualify his statement by saying that “only” Mary or Mary “alone” went to the tomb. Did you notice that Eichenwald includes the word “alone” with Mary, but the biblical text never does? Just because one writer gives additional or supplemental information does not make him contradict the other account. [For more information, see the A.P. article titled, “The Resurrection Narratives” (Butt, 2002).] Consider Eichenwald’s own statement that at the Council of Nicaea, “Constantine arrived wearing jewels and gold on his scarlet robe and pearls on his crown.” Suppose that another person were to say that Constantine arrived with numerous courtiers and was wearing boots. Would that statement be a contradiction? Not in any way. Such accusations barely deserve to be answered—if it were not for their prevalence.

Two Accounts of Creation?

Eichenwald further suggests that “biblical scholars have concluded that two Jewish sects wrote many of the books. Each prepared its version of the Old Testament, and the two were joined together without any attempt to reconcile the many contradictions” (2014). Once again, the Newsweek writer conveniently mentions only those “biblical scholars” who happen to agree with him. What about the thousands of scholars that do not agree with this specious position? As an example of these “doublets,” he states: “The next time someone tells you the biblical story of Creation is true, ask that person, ‘Which one?’ Few of the Christian faithful seem to know the Bible contains multiple creation stories…. Careful readers have long known that the two stories contradict each other.” In truth, careful readers have long known just the opposite. As Wayne Jackson concluded: “When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics” (See the A.P. article, “Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” [Jackson, 1991; Cf. McGarvey, 1910, p. 66]). [NOTE: In his section dealing with such doublets, Eichenwald mentions that “biblical scholars” have concluded that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. The evidence, however, reveals that Moses certainly did write these books. See the A.P. article “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True” (Lyons, 2003; cf. McGarvey, 1902).]

The article also uses the Flood story as an example of doublets causing contradictions. Eichenwald says the “water flooded the earth for 40 days (Genesis 7:17), or 150 days (Genesis 7:24).” His careless use of the Scripture is painful to endure. The text does not say in Genesis 7:17 that the Flood stopped after 40 days. It simply details things that occurred at that time, such as the waters lifting the ark off the ground. The text in Genesis 7:24 specifically says that at the end of 150 days the water began to decrease. The previous 7:17 says nothing about the complete duration of the Flood or when the waters stopped rising. [NOTE: For an exhaustive list of answers to these types of alleged contradictions, see A.P.’s Web site category titled “Alleged Discrepancies.”]

Sunday As the Christian Day of Worship

The title of the Newsweek article, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” explains much about the author’s method of bashing. He approaches the subject in light of the idea that many Christians do not read or understand the Bible. One of the author’s grievous faults, however, is that it is apparent that he does not read or understand the Bible either, and he writes in a way that betrays this fact. For instance, when discussing the Christian day of worship, Eichenwald suggests that Constantine was responsible for establishing it as Sunday instead of the Sabbath (or Saturday). He alleges:

Things that are today accepted without much thought were adopted or reinforced at Nicaea. For example, the Old Testament was clear in declaring that God rested on the seventh day, making it the Sabbath. The seventh day of the week is Saturday, the day of Jewish worship and rest. (Jesus himself invoked the holiness of the Jewish Sabbath.) The word Sunday does not appear in the Bible, either as the Sabbath or anything else. But four years before Nicaea, Constantine declared Sunday as a day of rest in honor of the sun God…. Many theologians and Christian historians believe that it was at this moment, to satisfy Constantine and his commitment to his empire’s many sun worshippers, that the Holy Sabbath was moved by one day, contradicting the clear words of what ultimately became the Bible (2014).

Notice the author’s tactic. First, he says that both the Old Testament and Jesus invoked the Sabbath (our Saturday) as holy. Then he states that the Bible never even uses the word Sunday. And, lastly, he implies that Christians were not “officially” worshiping on this day prior to Constantine, but that Constantine changed the day of Christian worship to Sunday.

Eichenwald’s assertions regarding the day of Christian worship contradict both biblical and historical fact—and are easily answered. First, he confuses the issue when he says that the word “Sunday” is not even used in the Bible, since none of our modern names for the days of the week are used in the Bible. The term “Saturday” does not appear. You will not read the terms “Friday” or “Monday” in the original text either. Such is to be expected. The real question is: did the writers of the Bible have their own designation for the day that we call Sunday? Of course they did; it was called “the first day of the week,” Saturday (or Sabbath), being the last or seventh day of their week. We could ask, then, do we read about anything in the New Testament happening on the first day of the week? Absolutely. In fact, Jesus rose early “after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Christians were to come together to give money to support the church’s work every “first day of the week” in the city of Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:2). And the book of Acts explains that the Christians gathered to partake of the Lord’s Supper (referred to as “breaking bread”) on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

Early Christian writers that lived in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries verify this truth. As Eric Lyons wrote in the A.P. article titled “Did Paul Want Christians to Come Together on Saturday or Sunday?”:

Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Magnesians (believed to be penned around A.D. 110) how Christians “have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day” (1:62, emp. added; cf. Revelation 1:5). And, in chapter 67 of his First Apology (written around A.D. 150), Justin Martyr noted how Christians would gather together “on the day called Sunday” to read the writings of the apostles and prophets, instruct, pray, give, and eat of bread and wine (2005; see also the A.P. article, “The First Day of the Week” [Lyons, 2006]).

Biblical scholar Robert Milligan wrote, “That the primitive Christians were wont to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on every first day of the week is evident…. During the first two centuries the practice of weekly communion was universal, and it was continued in the Greek church till the seventh century” (1975, p. 440).

In addition to these facts, Eichenwald seems to be totally unaware of the overwhelming testimony of the New Testament that the Old Testament has been fulfilled and removed. Yes, the Old Testament mandated worship on the Sabbath—for the Jews; but Christ’s death and resurrection changed the law. As the Hebrews writer so concisely observed, “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete” (8:13). And again Paul wrote that the Old Law, “was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:25). Christians no longer sacrifice animals as the Israelites did, they no longer celebrate the Passover, and they no longer hallow Saturday as the Holy Day. Those are vestiges of the Old Law that have been removed. For Eichenwald to misunderstand such clear and repetitive New Testament teaching is disappointing to say the least. The testimony of the New Testament and early Christian writers proves that Sunday was the Christian day of worship centuries before Constantine arrived on the scene.

Jesus and Family Values

In the first paragraph of his article, Eichenwald caricatures certain “Christian” fanatics and caustically attacks them, demanding that “they are God’s fraud’s, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch.” As we have seen throughout this review, Eichenwald is often guilty of the very tactics he condemns others for using. As an example, consider his statements concerning Jesus and family values. He wrote:

Some of the contradictions are conflicts between what evangelicals consider absolute and what Jesus actually said. For example, evangelicals are always talking about family values. But to Jesus, family was an impediment to reaching God. In the Gospel of Matthew, he states, “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life” (2014).

Talk about cafeteria style Bible interpretation! Eichenwald conveniently fails to include the fact that one of Jesus’ dying statements was to ensure that His mother was taken care of after His death (John 19:26-27). He leaves out the fact that Jesus’ apostles insisted that husbands are called to love their wives and give their very lives to protect them (Ephesians 5:25). In addition, children are to honor their parents (Ephesians 6:1), fathers are to train and discipline their children (Ephesians 6:4; Hebrews 12:7-11), families are to financially support their own (1 Timothy 5:8), and wives are to love their husbands and their children (Titus 2:4). In addition, Jesus insisted that God is like a loving Father who longs for the return of His children (Luke 15:11-32). It is only possible to question Jesus’ and the apostles’ family values if a handful of verses are ripped from their context.

What is Jesus really saying when He mentions that His followers are to “forsake” families or homes for His cause? The easy-to-understand message here is that a relationship with Jesus must be the most important relationship in the life of His followers. That means if a spouse were to demand that a Christian participate in pagan idol worship or the spouse was going to leave, then with much sadness but firm resolve, the Christian should let the spouse leave and not join in the pagan idol worship. If Hindu parents insist that if their college son becomes a Christian they will disown him, that son should follow Christ and be disowned by his parents. We can all understand that a person should never commit murder, theft, or adultery to preserve a close relationship with family or friends. Jesus was merely stating that the relationship with Him is the most important. [See the A.P. article “Hate Your Parents—or Love Them?” Butt, 2004).]

Has the Bible Been Corrupted?

One of the longest sections of the Newsweek article deals with the idea that the Bible has been corrupted over time, that we do not really know which books belong in the Bible, and that translation errors are so plentiful that we do not have the original message. Yet these allegations have been confronted and refuted time and time again. [Cf. A.P.’s soon-to-be released video series titled, “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” in which such assertions are debunked.] Many books over the years have masterfully answered the skeptic in this regard, including such volumes as J.W. McGarvey’s Evidences of Christianity, F.F. Bruce’s The Canon of Scripture, Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament, and a host of others. The Newsweek article manifests abysmal, inexcusable ignorance of the long established facts of the matter.

For example, Eichenwald states that we do not have the original message of the Bible because the originals are lost and the translations are filled with errors and variations. He claims that

no television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times (2014).

Supposedly, according to Eichenwald, since we don’t have the originals, and our translations are from copies that were written in other languages, there is no way we have actually read the Bible.

This naïve, uninformed view of message transmission cannot be maintained in light of the evidence. Are we to believe that since we have never seen Eichenwald’s original article that he personally typed or penned, then we cannot have the information he intended to present? Is it true that since some people read the article on-line, but others in printed form, then the original message is hopelessly lost? Is it true that anyone who reads the article in a language other than English has never really read the article, since it would be a translation? What Eichenwald and other skeptics are attempting to do is suggest that it is impossible to pass information accurately from one language to another, or from one printed page to another; but that suggestion is simply not true. If it is possible for a person to copy accurately a message once, it is possible to do so twice, and so on.

When we approach the Bible, we must simply ask, “Do we have the message that the original authors penned?” When we explore that question, we discover that the books of the New Testament are the most extensively verified books of ancient history. If we deny the Bible is verified, then we are saying that it is impossible for any information to be conveyed accurately from the past to the present. The skeptics’ attack is not against the Bible, per se; it is against the idea that we can know anything from ancient history. If it is possible to know what any writer has ever penned, then the skeptic’s accusations against the Bible cannot be sustained. When Eichenwald states, “And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones,” he implies there are so many variations in the manuscripts that the original message has been lost. This misleading exaggeration is a typical ploy by those who wish to discredit the integrity of the text of the Bible. What’s more, when he states, “Scribes added whole sections of the New Testament, and removed words and sentences that contradicted emerging orthodox beliefs,” he unwittingly admits that scholars have been able to identify and isolate those very words and sentences! In actuality, those manuscripts wherein scribes manifested doctrinal bias are in the small minority, do not represent the mass of manuscripts, and are identifiable.

Due to length constraints, a detailed analysis of textual variants is beyond the scope of this article. However, the sincere inquirer may easily access the analyses that have been made on each passage. For example, for a thorough discussion of the last 12 verses of Mark, see Miller, 2005; Scrivener, 1861, pp. 429ff; et al. For a discussion of the manuscript support pertaining to the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), see Scrivener, pp. 439-443; Woods, 1989, p. 162; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16; Metzger, 1971, pp. 219-222; Jackson, 2011, p. 161; et al. For 1 John 5:7, see Woods, 1962, pp. 324-326; Metzger, 1971, pp. 716-718. For Luke 22:17-20, see Metzger, 1971, pp. 173-177. Any standard text on textual criticism discusses these and many other variants (e.g., Aland and Aland, 1987). If the reader desires the truth regarding the authenticity and integrity of the Bible, the evidence is available—if the individual is willing to spend the time and effort to weigh that evidence and arrive at the proper conclusion (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1).

What Eichenwald fails to divulge are several facts that completely undermine and discredit his attack on the integrity and transmission of the Bible:

1. God knew that the original autographs would not survive, and that His Word would have to be transmitted through the centuries via copies. The transmission process is sufficiently flexible for God’s Word to be conveyed adequately by uninspired, imperfect copyists.
2. We know how the original New Testament books read because we have three surviving classes of evidence by which to reconstruct the original New Testament: Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations.
3. The current number of Greek manuscript copies containing all or part of the New Testament now stands at 5,795. This amount of manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament is far greater than that available for any ancient classical author.
4. The time between the writing of the original books of the New Testament and the earliest surviving copies is relatively brief.
5. Although no two manuscript copies agree in every detail, the degree of accuracy achieved by most scribes was remarkably high. The vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake.
6. Suitable solutions to these differences are detectable. Even if they weren’t, the original reading is one of the extant options. And even those variants that some might deem “doctrinally significant” pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness/certainty is unquestioned.
7. We can confidently affirm that we have 999/1000^ths of the original New Testament intact. The remaining 1/1000^th pertains to inconsequential details.

These observations have been verified by the greatest textual critics and linguistic scholars of the past two centuries. Their conclusions have not become outdated, but remain as valid today as when first formulated. If the integrity of the text of the Bible was fully authenticated in their day, it remains so today. Consider the following statements by some of these world class authorities.

Scholarly Verification of the Purity of the New Testament Text

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) was a biblical scholar who taught Greek at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Leeds, chaired the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, received an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Aberdeen University, and served as the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester. He wrote over 40 books and served as Editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Bruce declared: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the N.T. affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1975, pp. 19-20, emp. added). As if anticipating the Newsweek article, he also stated:

In view of theinevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament (1963, p. 178, emp. added).

Bruce further insisted:

Something more ought to be said, and said with emphasis. We have been discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims to be regarded as best representatives of the original New Testament. But there are not wide divergencies between these types, of a kind that could make any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness and guardian of Holy Writ…. If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice (1963, p. 189, emp. added).

Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was also a scholar of Greek, the New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism, serving as professor at Princeton Theological Seminary for 46 years. He was a recognized authority on the Greek text of the New Testament. He served on the board of the American Bible Society, was the driving force of the United Bible Societies’ series of Greek Texts, and served as Chairperson of the NRSV Bible Committee. He is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20^th century. Metzger stated:

…even if we had no Greek manuscripts today, by piecing together the information from these translations from a relatively early date, we could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers (as quoted in Strobel, 1998, p. 59).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was a British bishop, biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham and holding the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge. His colleague, Fenton John Anthony Hort(1828-1892), was an Irish theologian who served as a Professor at Cambridge. Together, they pioneered the widely recognized Greek text The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. They are still considered to be renowned textual critics. They forthrightly asserted:

With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament…there is no variation or other ground of doubt…. [T]he amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament…we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic’s labours (1882, pp. 2-3, emp. added).

These peerless scholars also insisted: “[I]n the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writing” (p. 278, emp. added). They add: “The books of the New Testament as preserved in extant documents assuredly speak to us in every important respect in language identical  with that in which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written” (p. 284).

Benjamin Warfield (1851-1921) was a Professor of Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. He is considered to be the last of the great Princeton theologians. In his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Warfield insightfully observed:

[S]uch has been the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivalled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes…. The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation (1886, pp. 12-13,14, emp. added).

Richard Bentley (1662-1742) was an English classical scholar, critic, and theologian who served as Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and was the first Englishman to be ranked with the great heroes of classical learning. He was well-known for his literary and textual criticism, even called the “Founder of Historical Philology,” and credited with the creation of the English school of Hellenism. Here are his comments on the integrity of the New Testament text:

[T]he real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. ‘Tis competently exact indeed even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them (1725, pp. 68-69, emp. added).

Sir Frederic George Kenyon (1863-1952) was a widely respected, imminent British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar who occupied a series of posts at the British Museum. He served as President of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921 and President of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. He made a lifelong study of the Bible as an historical text. In his masterful Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Kenyon affirmed:

One word of warning…must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading…might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world (1895, pp. 10-11, emp. added).

In his monumental The Bible and Archaeology, Kenyon further stated:

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established (1940, pp. 288-289, emp. added).

Indeed, “the Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear of hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, faithfully handed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries” (1895, pp. 10-11).

Samuel Davidson (1806-1898) was an Irish biblical scholar who served as Professor of Biblical Criticism at Royal College of Belfast and Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Lancashire Independent College at Manchester. He authored many books on the text of the Bible. Referring to the work of textual criticism, Davidson concluded:

The effect of it has been to establish the genuineness of the New Testament text in all important particulars. No new doctrines have been elicited by its aid; nor have any historical facts been summoned by it from their obscurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected.… [I]n the records of inspiration there is no material corruption…. [D]uring the lapse of many centuries the text of Scripture has been preserved with great care…. Empowered by the fruits of criticism, we may well say that the Scriptures continue essentially the same as when they proceeded from the writers themselves (1853, 2:147, emp. added).

Frederick H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) was a prominent and important New Testament textual critic of the 19^th century. Having graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, he taught classics at several schools in southern England. His expertise in textual criticism is self-evident in that he served as a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee (Revised Version), edited the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis and several editions of the Greek New Testament, collated the Codex Sinaiticus with the Textus Receptus, and was the first to distinguish the Textus Receptus from the Byzantine text. In his A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Scrivener admitted:

[O]ne great truth is admitted on all hands—the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of every argument and every narrative through the entire volume of Inspiration…. Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His church and people (1861, pp. 6-7, emp. added).

J.W. McGarvey (1829-1911) was a minister, author, educator, and biblical scholar. He taught 46 years in the College of the Bible in Lexington, Kentucky, serving as President from 1895 to 1911. He summarized the point: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1974, p. 17).

Elias Boudinot (1740-1821) was a prominent Founding Father of America. He served in the Continental Congress (1778-1779, 1781-1784), as its President in 1782-1783, and was the founding president of the American Bible Society. In his refutation of Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, Boudinot explained: “[T]he facts upon which the Christian religion is founded, have a stronger proof, than any facts at such a distance of time; and that the books which convey them down to us, may be proved to be uncorrupted and authentic, with greater strength than any other writings of equal antiquity” (1801, p. 239, emp. added). This Founding Father’s view of the purity of the text of the New Testament was the view of the vast majority of the Founders.

With all the kindness one can muster, these imminent, well-studied, competent, peerless scholars, whose expertise in the field of Textual Criticism is unsurpassed, are far more qualified and accurate in their assessment of the credibility, integrity, and authenticity of the biblical text than the author of the Newsweek article.

conclusion

Here is the deeply disturbing predicament of our day:

• Outstanding scholarship of bygone days fully demonstrated the authenticity and integrity of the text of the Bible, forcefully refuting the skeptics to the extent that the skeptics gained little traction in western civilization. The textual evidence that has come to light in recent decades has added even more weight to the arguments for biblical integrity.
• But in recent years, such honest biblical scholarship has been succeeded by those who do not possess the same burning desire to seek the truth, but instead want to maintain their own infidelic agenda.
• These biased unbelievers have the brazen effrontery to foist false information upon their unsuspecting victims who are completely unaware of the facts and ill-equipped to handle the onslaught.
• Due to the propaganda to which the average citizen has been subjected (in an education system that long ago abandoned the pursuit of the truth)—professors and magazine writers know they will go largely unchallenged by the bulk of society.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that such articles as Eichenwald’s even need answering. There was a time when this type of anemic propaganda against the Bible would have immediately been dismissed for the slanted, biased, foolishness that it is. IfChristians will arm themselves with the evidence, and “always be ready to give a defense” to those who are attacking the Truth, God may grant that we see those times again. [NOTE: Those who are fearful that the integrity of the text of the Bible is compromised by the reality of textual variants need to be reminded that the world’s foremost textual critics have demonstrated that currently circulating copies of the New Testament do not differ substantially from the original (see Miller, 2005a, “Is Mark…,” 25[12]:89-95; Miller, 2010).]

REFERENCEs

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland (1987), The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Bentley, Richard (1725), Remarks Upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking (Cambridge: Cornelius Crownfield).

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins), http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.

Bruce, F.F. (1963), The Books and the Parchments (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).

Bruce, F.F. (1975 reprint), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Butt, Kyle (2002), “The Resurrection Narratives,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=294.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Hate Your Parents or Love Them?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=781.

Davidson, Samuel (1853), A Treatise on Biblical Criticism (Boston: Gould & Lincoln).

Eichenwald, Kurt (2014), “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,”  http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html.

Ignatius (1973 reprint), “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Jackson, Wayne (1991), “Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131.

Jackson, Wayne (2011), A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier).

Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), “The First Apology of Justin,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1895), Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode).

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Row).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36.

Lyons, Eric (2005), “Did Paul Want Christians to Come Together on Saturday or Sunday?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=1575.

Lyons, Eric (2006), “The First Day of the Week,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2022.

Lyons, Eric (2011), “When Did Jesus Go to Egypt?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4132.

McGarvey, J.W. (1902), The Authorship of Deuteronomy (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press).

Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies).

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=932.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25(12):89-95, December, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433.

Milligan, Robert (1975 reprint), The Scheme of Redemption (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Scrivener, F.H.A. (1861), A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co.).

Strobel, Lee (1998), The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Warfield, Benjamin B. (1886), An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton).

Westcott, B.F. and F.J.A. Hort (1882), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers).

Woods, Guy (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Woods, Guy (1962), A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

The post Newsweek Article’s Attack on the Bible: So Misinformed It’s a Sin appeared first on Apologetics Press.