an_unshakeable_faith.. - Holy Bible Institute
an_unshakeable_faith.. - Holy Bible Institute
an_unshakeable_faith.. - Holy Bible Institute
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
CONTENTSCopyright <strong>an</strong>d Distribution Policy ................................................... 4Suggestions for Teachers/Private Study .......................................... 5The <strong>Bible</strong> Critics Were Wrong ......................................................... 7Introduction ...................................................................................... 9The <strong>Bible</strong> ........................................................................................ 21The <strong>Bible</strong>’s Nature ............................................................. 22The <strong>Bible</strong>’s Proof ............................................................... 35The Dead Sea Scrolls ......................................................... 44The <strong>Bible</strong>’s Difficulties ...................................................... 47Jesus Christ .................................................................................... 59Historical Evidence for Jesus ............................................. 60Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection .................................... 64Israel in Prophecy .......................................................................... 75Archaeology ................................................................................... 83Introduction to Archaeology .............................................. 84Import<strong>an</strong>t Old Testament Dates ....................................... 100Archaeological Treasures ................................................. 101Evolution ...................................................................................... 166Introduction to Evolution ................................................. 167History of Evolution ......................................................... 193Icons of Evolution ............................................................ 207Icons of Creation .............................................................. 302Predictions ........................................................................ 316Summary of Evidence against Evolution ......................... 330Suggested Material on Creation Science .......................... 332Noah’s Ark <strong>an</strong>d the Flood ............................................................ 333Soul Winning <strong>an</strong>d Apologetics ..................................................... 344Miscell<strong>an</strong>eous Questions Answered ............................................. 365Summary of “An Unshakeable Faith” Apologetics Course ......... 3863
COPYRIGHT AND DISTRIBUTIONPOLICYThis apologetics course is distributed in both print <strong>an</strong>d eBookeditions <strong>an</strong>d is part of a package that includes severalPowerPoint/Keynote presentations. The eBook <strong>an</strong>d PowerPointsare not for free distribution to one’s friends or for posting to theInternet, etc.Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable <strong>an</strong>dnon-sharable.Things that we encourage you to share include the audiosermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, <strong>an</strong>d thehundreds of FBIS articles that we place for free access at theweb site. You are welcome to make copies of these at your ownexpense <strong>an</strong>d share them with friends <strong>an</strong>d family. You are alsowelcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that yougive proper credit.Things we do not w<strong>an</strong>t copied <strong>an</strong>d distributed freely are itemslike the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, the print edition ofour books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken yearsto produce at enormous expense in time <strong>an</strong>d money, <strong>an</strong>d we usethe income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry.We trust that your Christi<strong>an</strong> honesty will preserve the integrityof this policy.4
SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHERS ANDPRIVATE STUDYThis apologetics course is sold as a package consisting of the course itself (in both print <strong>an</strong>deBook editions) <strong>an</strong>d a series of PowerPoint/Keynote presentations. (Keynote is the Apple versionof PowerPoint. The presentations were created in Keynote <strong>an</strong>d some quality was lost in theconversion to PowerPoint. If possible we advise using the Keynote editions on a Mac.)The 1,850 professional PowerPoint slides deal with archaeology, evolution/creation science, <strong>an</strong>dthe prophecies pertaining to Israel’s history.Archaeology 1 Introduction <strong>an</strong>d Writing (95 slides)Archaeology 2 Ur of the Chaldees (152 slides)Archaeology 3 Egypt (52 slides)Archaeology 4 Babylon (197 slides)Archaeology 5 Assyria (212 slides)Archaeology 6 Medo-Persia (70 slides)Archaeology 7 Israel (103 slides)Archaeology 8 Luke’s Writings (Luke <strong>an</strong>d Acts) (37 slides)Israel in Prophecy (100 slides)Icons of Evolution 1 - Intro Natural Selection Mutations (139 slides)Icons of Evolution 2 - Fossil Record (118 slides)Icons of Evolution 3 - Homology Peppered Moth Finch Fruit Fly (106 slides)Icons of Evolution 4 - Lucy Laetoli (73 slides)Icons of Evolution 5 - Vestigial Embryo (70 slides)Icons of Evolution 6 - Miller Experiment (75 slides)Icons of Evolution 7 - Horse Whale Bird (187 slides)Icons of Evolution 8 - Billions of Years (76 slides)Icons of Creation (147 slides)We suggest that when teaching these sections of the course, the teacher first go through theprinted material <strong>an</strong>d then use the PowerPoint or Keynote slides for the actual presentation to thestudents, since the graphics are a great aid in grasping this particular type of material. Aftershowing the PowerPoints, the teacher c<strong>an</strong> use the Sectional Summaries <strong>an</strong>d Review Questions tomake sure that the students took proper notes <strong>an</strong>d got a h<strong>an</strong>dle on the material. Since there ismore information in the printed material, the teacher will be better prepared to describe the slides<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>swer questions if he goes through the book’s outlines before showing the PowerPoints.The majority of the photos in the PowerPoint slides were taken by the author during visits tomajor museums <strong>an</strong>d on research trips to locations in America, Engl<strong>an</strong>d, Europe, Australia, Asia,<strong>an</strong>d the Middle East.5
The material in the course is extensive, <strong>an</strong>d the teacher c<strong>an</strong> decide whether to use all of it or toselect only some portion of it for his particular class <strong>an</strong>d situation.The section “Tips for Using Apologetics in Ev<strong>an</strong>gelism” is a brief course on soul winning.After most sections there are summaries <strong>an</strong>d review questions as teacher’s aids <strong>an</strong>d to help thestudents focus on the most import<strong>an</strong>t points. The teacher c<strong>an</strong> go through these with the class orhe c<strong>an</strong> assign the students to go through them on their own. Selections c<strong>an</strong> be made from thereview questions for sectional <strong>an</strong>d final tests.There is also a summary of the entire course at the end of the book. This section emphasizes themajor points that the students should master so well that they c<strong>an</strong> use them effectively inapologetic <strong>an</strong>d ev<strong>an</strong>gelistic situations.There is <strong>an</strong> introduction to the course itself, <strong>an</strong>d there are introductions to the sections of thecourse on archaeology <strong>an</strong>d evolution. These introductions are as import<strong>an</strong>t as the material itself<strong>an</strong>d we strongly suggest that they not be skipped over.The course c<strong>an</strong> be used for private study as well as in a classroom setting. In the case of privatestudy, the student c<strong>an</strong> go through the printed <strong>an</strong>d PowerPoint material <strong>an</strong>d then use thesummaries <strong>an</strong>d review questions to test himself/herself.6
THE BIBLE CRITICS WERE WRONGIt is the early 20th century, <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong> is under attack as never before.It is under attack by theological modernists with impressive credentials. They say that the <strong>Bible</strong>is filled with myths. They claim that Ur of the Chaldees, the Hittites, Nebuchadnezzar <strong>an</strong>d hisBabylon, Belshazzar, Sargon, King David, <strong>an</strong>d Solomon were mythical. They say that Mosescouldn’t have written the first five books of the <strong>Bible</strong> since writing was unknown in his day.They say there were no <strong>an</strong>cient complex law codes <strong>an</strong>d no Babyloni<strong>an</strong> captivity. They say thatparts of the New Testament were not written until at least 100 years after the events <strong>an</strong>d werebased on mythical stories passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. Theysay that the book of Acts is filled with historical inaccuracies. A chorus of voices have joined thatof the infidel Thomas Paine who wrote in his popular book The Age of Reason that Genesis is“<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>onymous book of stories, fables, <strong>an</strong>d traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downrightlies.”The <strong>Bible</strong> is also under attack by Darwinists. Charles Darwin claimed that his doctrine of naturalselection explains the origin of species. Thomas Huxley claimed that Archaeopteryx is evidencethat birds evolved from small dinosaurs. Ernst Haeckel, one of the world’s most influentialscientists, claims that the doctrine of recapitulation proves that evolution is true <strong>an</strong>d he hasimpressive embryo charts to demonstrate it. He says that life is continually formed at the bottomof the sea through simple lifeforms called monera <strong>an</strong>d that these primitive lifeforms are thefoundation of the “tree of life.” He has given monera a scientific name <strong>an</strong>d has drawings of themin his books. Othniel Marsh at Yale’s Peabody Museum claims that his horse chart provesevolution. Evidence is growing for the doctrine that m<strong>an</strong> ascended from apes. There isNe<strong>an</strong>derthal M<strong>an</strong>, Java M<strong>an</strong>, Piltdown M<strong>an</strong>, Peking M<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d Nebraska M<strong>an</strong>. Why, we evenhave drawings <strong>an</strong>d models of them <strong>an</strong>d their families <strong>an</strong>d entire books describing their culture<strong>an</strong>d habits!What would you do in such a time as this, confronted with such <strong>an</strong> onslaught of apparentevidence against the <strong>Bible</strong>’s authenticity?Those who held fast to their <strong>faith</strong> in God <strong>an</strong>d in the <strong>Bible</strong> as God’s Word were vindicated, whilethe skeptics <strong>an</strong>d the Darwinists were proven wrong.Archaeologists have unearthed evidence for Ur, the Hittites, Nebuchadnezzar <strong>an</strong>d his gloriousBabylon, Belshazzar, Sargon, King David, Solomon, <strong>an</strong>d so much more. They have proven thatwriting was prevalent at least 1,500 years before Moses <strong>an</strong>d that complex law codes were wellknown in <strong>an</strong>cient times. They have unearthed evidence for the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> captivity <strong>an</strong>d havedemonstrated that the book of Acts is historically accurate.7
As for the Darwinist claims, it is obvious that natural selection has no creative power <strong>an</strong>d thuscould not possibly account for the origin of species, that Archaeopteryx was just a bird <strong>an</strong>d not<strong>an</strong>y type of missing link, that Haeckel’s doctrine of recapitulation was as bogus as his embryochart <strong>an</strong>d his monera. Marsh’s horse evolution was based on assumption rather th<strong>an</strong> scientificevidence <strong>an</strong>d all kinds of horses have been found in the same time <strong>an</strong>d place in the fossil record.Ne<strong>an</strong>derthal was just a m<strong>an</strong>. Piltdown was a hoax. Java M<strong>an</strong> was a myth based on a fossil of <strong>an</strong>ape intermingled with that of a m<strong>an</strong>. Nebraska M<strong>an</strong> was a myth based on a pig’s tooth. PekingM<strong>an</strong> was <strong>an</strong> ape that was the unfortunate meal of <strong>an</strong> enclave of limestone workers.New skeptical challenges <strong>an</strong>d Darwini<strong>an</strong> myths have been proposed to replace those that havebeen disproven, but how m<strong>an</strong>y times do skeptics <strong>an</strong>d Darwinists have to be refuted before peoplerealize that they are the emperor without clothes? It is high time that God’s people give thecritics the respect they deserve, which is no respect at all!This course contains powerful evidence against skepticism <strong>an</strong>d Darwinism <strong>an</strong>d for the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>dJesus Christ, <strong>an</strong>d for that reason it is entitled “An Unshakeable Faith.”8
INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE1. What research went into the creation of this course?The author doesn’t include this information in order to boast but simply to explain the type ofresearch that has gone into the creation of the course so that the teacher <strong>an</strong>d student c<strong>an</strong> havesome level of confidence in the material.First, the course is built upon nearly 40 years of serious <strong>Bible</strong> study. The author has produced<strong>Bible</strong> study materials such as the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the <strong>Bible</strong> & Christi<strong>an</strong>ity, ThingsHard to Be Understood, <strong>an</strong>d the 20-volume Adv<strong>an</strong>ced <strong>Bible</strong> Studies Series.Second the course is built on 30 years of apologetics research <strong>an</strong>d writing. This has been a majorthrust of the author’s ministry since he beg<strong>an</strong> publication of the monthly O Timothy magazine in1984. M<strong>an</strong>y of his books also reflect this emphasis. The author’s personal library of 6,000volumes includes hundreds of titles on evolution <strong>an</strong>d archaeology <strong>an</strong>d general apologetics.Third, the course is built on visits to m<strong>an</strong>y major museums, including the Museum of M<strong>an</strong> in S<strong>an</strong>Diego, the Smithsoni<strong>an</strong> Natural History Museum, the Americ<strong>an</strong> Natural History Museum, theYale Peabody Museum, the Chicago Field Museum, the Burke Museum of Natural History inSeattle, the Pennsylv<strong>an</strong>ia University Museum, the Michig<strong>an</strong> State University Museum, theOriental <strong>Institute</strong> in Chicago, the Australia Museum, the National Archaeological Museum ofAthens, the Louvre in Paris, the British Museum, the British Museum of Natural History, theIst<strong>an</strong>bul Archaeology Museum, <strong>an</strong>d the homes of Charles <strong>an</strong>d Erasmus Darwin.Fourth, the course is built on archaeological <strong>an</strong>d historical research trips to Engl<strong>an</strong>d, Europe,Turkey, Greece, <strong>an</strong>d Israel.Fifth, the course is built on experiences prior to conversion when the author pursued the NewAge <strong>an</strong>d Hinduism, plus 20 years of experience as a missionary in the Hindu/Buddhist culture ofSouth Asia <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y years of experience in preaching to prisoners <strong>an</strong>d university students.Most of the photos <strong>an</strong>d video clips used in the course were taken in the context of this research.2. What are the objectives of this course?To protect youOur first objective in this apologetics course is to familiarize the student with commonly-heldarguments against the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d to prepare him to <strong>an</strong>swer those arguments. The first use ofapologetics is not to convince the unbeliever but to protect the believer, his family, <strong>an</strong>d fellowbelievers. Because we are grounded in apologetics, we are not confused when we hear arguments9
y evolutionists, atheists, new agers, <strong>an</strong>d cultists, either in person, in print, on the radio ortelevision, or on the Internet. When we visit natural history museums we c<strong>an</strong> see through theerror of the displays. Our objective is to provide the student of this course enough knowledge toprotect him.Churches must prepare the people to face the onslaught of end-time skepticism <strong>an</strong>d apostasy.M<strong>an</strong>y have become confused <strong>an</strong>d have even lost their <strong>faith</strong> in God’s Word after being confrontedwith theological modernism, atheism, <strong>an</strong>d evolution.The average Baptist church, whether Southern or Independent, is simply not preparing youngpeople to face the skepticism of the hour.The experience of Edward O. Wilson is all too typical. He is a prominent evolutionist, aprofessor in Entomology at Harvard University, a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,<strong>an</strong>d a Hum<strong>an</strong>ist Laureate of the International Academy of Hum<strong>an</strong>ism. He grew up in Alabama<strong>an</strong>d joined a Southern Baptist congregation at age 15 with “great fervor <strong>an</strong>d interest in thefundamentalist religion.” He “lost his <strong>faith</strong>” at age 17 when he “got to the University of Alabama<strong>an</strong>d heard about evolutionary theory” (Wilson, The Hum<strong>an</strong>ist, September/October 1982, p. 40).An ABC World News report in November 2010 focused on two Southern Baptist ministers whoare agnostics. They “lost their <strong>faith</strong>” when confronted by the writings of the “new atheists” suchas Richard Dawkins. The minister identified as Adam said, “I realized that everything I’d beentaught to believe was sort of sheltered, <strong>an</strong>d never really looked at secular teaching or otherphilosophies ... I thought, ‘Oh my... Am I believing the wrong things? Have I spent my entire life<strong>an</strong>d my career promoting something that is not true?’” (“Atheist Ministers Struggle with Leadingthe Faithful,” ABC World News, Nov. 9, 2010).The reason for this type of thing is that, first, churches are often careless about trying to makesure that young people are genuinely converted to Christ as opposed to just going through themotions of “believing” <strong>an</strong>d “praying a prayer.” Then, too, young people are being coddled <strong>an</strong>dentertained, but they are not being seriously discipled. As a result, children growing up in Baptistchurches are being devoured either by the world or the contemporary church philosophy. Biblical<strong>faith</strong> is not a blind leap in the dark. It is established upon solid historical evidence which Lukedescribed as “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). It is not difficult to defend the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the gospelagainst the railings of the “new atheists,” but most churches aren’t even trying.To prepare you to help other believersGod w<strong>an</strong>ts every believer to be a teacher (Heb. 5:12-14). We are to exhort one <strong>an</strong>other (Heb.10:25). Every child of God should have the objective of growing in Christ <strong>an</strong>d learning His Wordso that he c<strong>an</strong> help disciple others.10
To prepare you to challenge unbelieversWe are instructed to be ready to give <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>swer to the unbeliever (1 Peter 3:15). Paul believed ingiving a defense of his <strong>faith</strong> in Christ (Philippi<strong>an</strong>s 1:7, 17). His practice was to dispute with bothJews <strong>an</strong>d Gentile (Acts 17:17). He reasoned <strong>an</strong>d persuaded (Acts 18:4). His message on MarsHill in Athens was a masterly example of the use of biblical apologetics in ev<strong>an</strong>gelism (Acts17:18-34).We live in a needy world. And apologetics c<strong>an</strong> prepare the soil of the unbeliever’s heart so thathe or she will listen to God’s Word. That is what happened to the first friend God gave me after Iwas saved. Richard Tedder had grown up in a skeptical environment <strong>an</strong>d was educated at asecular university. He assumed evolution is true. It was after he read a booklet exposing some ofthe scientific errors of evolution that he beg<strong>an</strong> to rethink his philosophy of life. He decided toread the <strong>Bible</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d there he found truth <strong>an</strong>d salvation. The exposure of evolution was a step inhis conversion. Dr. Carl Werner was <strong>an</strong> evolutionist when he was in medical school, <strong>an</strong>d throughthe challenge of a fellow student he decided to investigate evolution to see if it is true. Throughthat process he became a creationist. Dr. Jobe Martin, who was once <strong>an</strong> evolutionist, became acreationist after some of his students challenged him to study the design of nature. Argumentsagainst evolution are effective for those willing to listen. The book Icons of Evolution byJonath<strong>an</strong> Wells (who has a Ph.D. in religion <strong>an</strong>d a Ph.D. in cell biology) which was published in2000, has ch<strong>an</strong>ged the thinking of m<strong>an</strong>y highly educated people, including those who have goneon to become Christi<strong>an</strong>s as well as those who have adopted some type of Intelligent Design ortheistic evolution position.We deal with this in the chapter “Tips for Using Apologetics in Ev<strong>an</strong>gelism.”3. The <strong>Bible</strong> warns of <strong>an</strong> explosion of unbelief <strong>an</strong>d skepticism at the end of the age <strong>an</strong>d wemust be prepared to face it.See Psalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13; 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:3-7; Jude 3-4.2 Timothy 3:13 says apostasy <strong>an</strong>d error will grow throughout the age, <strong>an</strong>d we c<strong>an</strong> see this inchurch history, but the <strong>Bible</strong> also indicates that there will be <strong>an</strong> explosion of apostasy at the endof the age. The 19th century witnessed this explosion, <strong>an</strong>d this is made plain in 2 Peter 3:3-7.Here Peter identifies the “last days” with a widespread rejection of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s teaching aboutcreation <strong>an</strong>d the global Flood. This occurred in the late 19th century.Skepticism was in the air. The 19th century witnessed the birth of theological modernism,hum<strong>an</strong>istic philosophy, Unitari<strong>an</strong>ism, Marxism, Darwinism, Mormonism, Psychology, <strong>an</strong>d NewAge.Consider some descriptions of the skeptical atmosphere of that time:11
“Every thinking m<strong>an</strong> I have met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious <strong>faith</strong>.And the unthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief” (Thomas Huxley, cited fromAdri<strong>an</strong> Desmond, Huxley, p. 160).“[It was a time] when speculations about the origin of species were most rife, when even the orthodoxdoctrines were being modified <strong>an</strong>d complicated until it was hardly possible to know where orthodoxy ended<strong>an</strong>d heresy started” (Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin <strong>an</strong>d the Darwini<strong>an</strong> Revolution, p. 234).“The unspiritual condition of the churches … <strong>an</strong>d the alarmingly prevalent skepticism, infidelity, <strong>an</strong>d atheismamong the masses of the people in Germ<strong>an</strong>y, Switzerl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d Holl<strong>an</strong>d is, without doubt, almost whollyattributable to the advocacy of these criticisms by a large majority of the prominent pastors <strong>an</strong>d theologicalprofessors in those l<strong>an</strong>ds. The same condition of affairs is measurably true in Engl<strong>an</strong>d, Scotl<strong>an</strong>d, NewEngl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d in every community where this criticism is believed by <strong>an</strong>y very considerable number of people<strong>an</strong>d openly advocated” (L.W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, 1896).“The flood-gates of infidelity are open, <strong>an</strong>d Atheism overwhelming is upon us” (George Rom<strong>an</strong>es, 1878,cited from I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 371).“Attend<strong>an</strong>ce at places of worship is declining <strong>an</strong>d reverence for holy things is v<strong>an</strong>ishing. We solemnlybelieve this to be largely attributable to THE SCEPTICISM WHICH HAS FLASHED FROM THE PULPITAND SPREAD AMONG THE PEOPLE” (C.H. Spurgeon, Sword <strong>an</strong>d Trowel, November 1887).Since the late 19th century, apostasy <strong>an</strong>d skepticism has spread like wildfire, both in secular <strong>an</strong>dChristi<strong>an</strong> circles.(We document this in the book The Modern Version Hall of Shame, which is available from Wayof Life Literature in print <strong>an</strong>d eBook formats.)The bottom line is that we live in <strong>an</strong> age of terrible apostasy, <strong>an</strong>d we must not hide our heads inthe s<strong>an</strong>d. Individual believers must wake up <strong>an</strong>d be informed <strong>an</strong>d alert. Christi<strong>an</strong> mothers <strong>an</strong>dfathers must protect their families. Pastors <strong>an</strong>d teachers must protect the flock.It is for this purpose that we are publishing this apologetics course. It is not just for youngpeople. It is for every age group from youth to “senior citizens.”4. The evidence for God’s existence is irrefutable <strong>an</strong>d only willful blindness accounts for itsrejection.The <strong>Bible</strong> does not argue for God’s existence, <strong>an</strong>d I believe that we should follow this example.The <strong>Bible</strong> simply begins with a statement of God’s existence as the Almighty Creator (Genesis1:1).The <strong>Bible</strong> twice says the atheist is a fool (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). This is because the evidence forGod is written in nature <strong>an</strong>d in m<strong>an</strong>’s own heart. See Rom<strong>an</strong>s 1:19-20.The only thing that we should do with the atheist is point him to creation. If he doesn’t believethe evidence that God has put before his very eyes, nothing but prayer will help him. He c<strong>an</strong>not12
e reasoned into belief in God through hum<strong>an</strong> philosophy. It won’t work <strong>an</strong>d it is a waste oftime.5. Some things that are necessary for effective apologetics.SalvationSalvation is the helmet that protects the believer’s mind <strong>an</strong>d heart as he st<strong>an</strong>ds against the devil.“And take the helmet of salvation...’ (Eph. 6:17).Knowledge alone won’t protect the individual from Sat<strong>an</strong>ic lies. Knowledge is import<strong>an</strong>t, butm<strong>an</strong>y knowledgeable people have fallen. Judas knew everything the other disciples knew, but hefell away. M<strong>an</strong>y professing believers have set out to defend the <strong>Bible</strong> only to fall to Sat<strong>an</strong>’s lies,because they were not grounded in a saving relationship with Christ. When the crowds turnedaway from Christ <strong>an</strong>d believed the lies of their religious leaders, Peter <strong>an</strong>d the apostles remainedbecause they knew Him personally <strong>an</strong>d were sure that He was the only Lord <strong>an</strong>d Saviour (John6:66-70).M<strong>an</strong>y today have prayed a sinner’s prayer without repent<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d without casting themselvesupon Christ from the heart. They have joined the church, but they don’t have a real personalrelationship with Christ.Knowledge of God’s Word“Above all, taking the shield of <strong>faith</strong>, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts ofthe wicked. And take ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:16-17).The Word of God is both the shield of <strong>faith</strong> (see Rom<strong>an</strong>s 10:17) <strong>an</strong>d the sword of the Spirit; it isboth defensive <strong>an</strong>d offensive, <strong>an</strong>d it is the chief weapon in the believer’s arsenal against Sat<strong>an</strong>.Each believer should become a teacher by being skilled in the Word of God (Hebrews 5:12-14).The pursuit of <strong>Bible</strong> knowledge should be a major objective of every believer’s life. Without this,he c<strong>an</strong>not know God’s will or defend himself properly against the wiles of the Devil. It is notnecessary to go off to a <strong>Bible</strong> College. What one needs is a good church, a habit of daily <strong>Bible</strong>study, <strong>an</strong>d the judicious use of study tools. Some churches offer <strong>Bible</strong> classes in the evenings,<strong>an</strong>d there are m<strong>an</strong>y courses that c<strong>an</strong> be used for private study, such as Way of Life’s Adv<strong>an</strong>ced<strong>Bible</strong> Studies Series (ABSS). The ABSS titles “How to Study the <strong>Bible</strong>” <strong>an</strong>d “Give Attend<strong>an</strong>ce toDoctrine” are good starting places in this pursuit.I recall with great fondness the m<strong>an</strong> who led me to Jesus Christ in the summer of 1973. His namewas Ron Walker, <strong>an</strong>d he knew his <strong>Bible</strong>. That was the thing that first impressed me about him<strong>an</strong>d that is the reason I was willing to travel with him <strong>an</strong>d hear more.13
I told him my religious <strong>an</strong>d philosophical views, <strong>an</strong>d he replied with Scripture.I said, “I believe in reincarnation.”He replied, “In Hebrews 9:27 the <strong>Bible</strong> says, ‘And as it is appointed unto men once to die, butafter this the judgment.’ Since the <strong>Bible</strong> says we die one time <strong>an</strong>d then the judgment, I don’tbelieve in reincarnation.”I said, “I believe a m<strong>an</strong> should follow his heart.”He replied, “The <strong>Bible</strong> says in Jeremiah 17:9, ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, <strong>an</strong>ddesperately wicked: who c<strong>an</strong> know it?’ We c<strong>an</strong>not trust in our own hearts.”I said, “I believe that as long as a m<strong>an</strong> is sincere in his beliefs God will accept him.”He replied, “Proverbs 14:12 says, ‘There is a way which seemeth right unto a m<strong>an</strong>, but the endthereof are the ways of death.’ According to the <strong>Bible</strong>, a m<strong>an</strong> c<strong>an</strong> be sincerely wrong <strong>an</strong>d bejudged by God.”I said, “If a m<strong>an</strong> c<strong>an</strong>’t trust his own heart <strong>an</strong>d sincerity, how is it possible, then, to know thetruth?”He replied, “Jesus Christ said, ‘I am the way, the truth, <strong>an</strong>d the life: no m<strong>an</strong> cometh unto theFather, but by me.’ Also God has given us His revelation in the <strong>Bible</strong>. It is the divinely inspiredWord of God.”I got so interested in the conversation <strong>an</strong>d so impressed with his knowledge of Scripture that Itraveled with him for about four days <strong>an</strong>d on our last night together I repented <strong>an</strong>d cast myselfupon Christ <strong>an</strong>d His Word.FaithHebrews 11:6 says that without <strong>faith</strong> it is impossible to please God. We must practice ev<strong>an</strong>gelism<strong>an</strong>d apologetics from a position of convinced <strong>faith</strong> <strong>an</strong>d not be moved by the doubt of those towhom we minister. We must have the testimony of Peter in John 6:69: “And we believe <strong>an</strong>d areSURE that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”When we show <strong>an</strong> unbeliever the argument of design from nature, how that the incrediblecomplexity of the 11 major systems of the hum<strong>an</strong> body, for example, point to <strong>an</strong> Almighty God,we must not be moved by a skeptical response. Richard Dawkins c<strong>an</strong> mock the “design theory”<strong>an</strong>d claim that life could come about by ch<strong>an</strong>ce, but I know in my heart of hearts that this isnonsense. My heart resonates with the truth of Rom<strong>an</strong>s 1:20 -- “For the invisible things of him14
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,even his eternal power <strong>an</strong>d Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” And all of the mocking<strong>an</strong>d scoffing in the world will not discourage me from my <strong>faith</strong> in God <strong>an</strong>d His Word. Withoutthis <strong>unshakeable</strong> <strong>faith</strong> in God’s Word, the apologist is in d<strong>an</strong>ger of being shaken like a leaf in thewind by the Devil’s attacks.Further, <strong>faith</strong> in God keeps us from being dragged down to the skeptic’s level on various issuessuch as questions pertaining the six-day creation <strong>an</strong>d Noah’s Ark. Though we c<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>swer m<strong>an</strong>yquestions, we c<strong>an</strong>not <strong>an</strong>swer all <strong>an</strong>d we don’t have to. The <strong>an</strong>swer to m<strong>an</strong>y questions is“Almighty God”! This is the <strong>an</strong>swer to questions about how light could travel so far so quickly atthe beginning of the creation week <strong>an</strong>d how all of the <strong>an</strong>imals could be brought into the Ark <strong>an</strong>dmaintained. We c<strong>an</strong> show that the ark was large enough to hold all of the “kinds” of l<strong>an</strong>dcreatures but there is no reason to assume that God didn’t do miracles in relation to Noah’s Ark.The global Flood used natural processes but it was far from a “natural” event. The same is truefor the mainten<strong>an</strong>ce of creation. Though the <strong>Bible</strong> says God ceased creating at the end of thecreation week, He did not cease to be involved with creation at every level. We are told thatChrist upholds all things by the power of His Word (Heb. 1:3) <strong>an</strong>d “by him all thingsconsist” (Col. 1:17). To me, this is the <strong>an</strong>swer to such puzzles as how the monarch butterfly c<strong>an</strong>know how to fly 2,500 miles from C<strong>an</strong>ada to a place in the Mexic<strong>an</strong> mountains without a guide<strong>an</strong>d how its offspring know how to fly back to C<strong>an</strong>ada even though they are born at some pointalong the migration route <strong>an</strong>d their parents are dead. All of that might be built into its geneticcode, but then again the omnipresent Christ might just guide the butterflies as part of Hisupholding <strong>an</strong>d consisting work.Humility“Pride goeth before destruction, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).“Wherefore let him that thinketh he st<strong>an</strong>deth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 10:12).Humility is <strong>an</strong>other necessity in the defense of the <strong>faith</strong>. Consider the case of Peter. He boastedto Christ, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended” (Mat.26:33). He was doubtless sincere in his profession, but he was trusting in the arm of flesh ratherth<strong>an</strong> in the Spirit of God, <strong>an</strong>d his fall was great. If <strong>an</strong> apologist is trusting in his intellect <strong>an</strong>d hisknowledge or his debating skills, he is in d<strong>an</strong>ger of falling.Conviction <strong>an</strong>d Courage“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world wouldlove his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the worldhateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The serv<strong>an</strong>t is not greater th<strong>an</strong> his lord. If they havepersecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also” (John15:18-20).15
“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me <strong>an</strong>d of my words in this adulterous <strong>an</strong>d sinful generation; ofhim also shall the Son of m<strong>an</strong> be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy<strong>an</strong>gels” (Mark 8:38).“... if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12).To st<strong>an</strong>d in defense of God’s truth in this wicked world we have to be ready to withst<strong>an</strong>d fierceresist<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d persecution. We must not be ashamed of Christ <strong>an</strong>d His Words. We must endurepersonal attacks, lies, unjustified discrediting of evidence, irrational statements.I recall how embarrassing it was for me in public school at the very thought that someone mightthink I was a Christi<strong>an</strong>. I would not have dreamed of carrying a <strong>Bible</strong>. There were a few godlybelievers who really stood out <strong>an</strong>d let their light shine, but I had nothing to do with them in orderto be accepted by the crowd.Walt Brown, who has a Ph.D. from MIT, came to a creationist position in his 30s. In lookingback on his youth he says one of the reasons he didn’t look into the issue earlier was thefollowing:“Those who accepted the biblical version of creation <strong>an</strong>d a global flood were a little embarrassing to bearound. I became a Christi<strong>an</strong> in high school, but held the above attitudes until my early 30s” (In the Beginning,p. 316).I think that the desire to be one of the crowd, to be in the majority, is one of the greatest reasonswhy people don’t submit to the truth. In fact, they don’t even w<strong>an</strong>t to examine it. This is not asmall thing. Fear of m<strong>an</strong> probably sends more people to hell th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>y other one thing.“But THE FEARFUL, <strong>an</strong>d unbelieving, <strong>an</strong>d the abominable, <strong>an</strong>d murderers, <strong>an</strong>d whoremongers, <strong>an</strong>dsorcerers, <strong>an</strong>d idolaters, <strong>an</strong>d all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire <strong>an</strong>d brimstone:which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8).Those who have the aforementioned things--salvation, knowledge of God’s Word, <strong>faith</strong>, humility,conviction <strong>an</strong>d courage--need not be intimidated by <strong>an</strong>y scientist. Most believers don’t have aPh.D. in the hard sciences but we have something that is much more import<strong>an</strong>t for the pursuit ofthe truth, <strong>an</strong>d that is spiritual enlightenment <strong>an</strong>d <strong>faith</strong> in God’s Word. You c<strong>an</strong> have a dozenPh.D.s from the most world’s prestigious universities, but if you aren’t saved <strong>an</strong>d don’t believeGod’s Word, you will never know the truth. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:<strong>an</strong>d the knowledge of the holy is underst<strong>an</strong>ding” (Proverbs 9:10).Wisdom in dealing with the devilI w<strong>an</strong>t to mention <strong>an</strong>other thing that is necessary for effective apologetics, <strong>an</strong>d that is wisdom indealing with the devil. When it comes to defending the Biblical <strong>faith</strong>, we are entering intospiritual warfare. The devil is real <strong>an</strong>d he is a clever deceiver. He was perhaps the highest, mostexalted <strong>an</strong>gel that God created. He has blinded the whole world of unbelievers. He is notsomeone to treat lightly. We must not think that we are capable in ourselves of defeating him <strong>an</strong>d16
of gaining the release of his captives. Those who trust in themselves are heading for a fall, likePeter who boasted, “Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never beoffended” (Mat. 26:33). The reason that I have never fallen even though I have done extensiveresearch into heresy <strong>an</strong>d unbelief <strong>an</strong>d have had four decades of experience in apologetics <strong>an</strong>dev<strong>an</strong>gelism is that I know that I c<strong>an</strong> fall, so I do my work in fear <strong>an</strong>d trembling <strong>an</strong>d in completedepend<strong>an</strong>ce on the Lord for protection.The arm of our strength is the Lord Himself <strong>an</strong>d His Word. Even Jesus defeated the devil by theWord of God <strong>an</strong>d not by hum<strong>an</strong> argumentation <strong>an</strong>d striving (Luke 4:1-12). We must approachapologetics in fear <strong>an</strong>d trembling lest we be devoured ourselves, as has happened to m<strong>an</strong>y. TheInternet is filled with testimonies of “former Christi<strong>an</strong>s.” We must put on the whole armor ofGod (Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s 6:10-18). We must heed God’s warnings about the d<strong>an</strong>ger of evil associations(Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 6:14-17). It is d<strong>an</strong>gerous to delve deeply into the waters ofskepticism <strong>an</strong>d infidelity. We must refuse to walk in the counsel of the ungodly or sit in the seatof the scornful but rather meditate in God’s Word day <strong>an</strong>d night (Psa. 1:1-3). We must walk inclose fellowship with Christ by the indwelling <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit.6. We must underst<strong>an</strong>d the limit to apologetics.God gives enough proof to satisfy <strong>an</strong>y reasonable person who is willing to submit to the truth,but not enough to convince the proud skeptic who is bent on unbelief.People are not the same when it comes to the reception of the truth (Acts 13:7-8; 17:11).Renowned Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf observed:“Christi<strong>an</strong>ity does not profess to convince the perverse <strong>an</strong>d head-strong, to bring irresistible evidence to thedaring <strong>an</strong>d prof<strong>an</strong>e, to v<strong>an</strong>quish the proud scorner, <strong>an</strong>d afford evidences from which the careless <strong>an</strong>dperverse c<strong>an</strong>not possibly escape. This might go to destroy m<strong>an</strong>’s responsibility. All that Christi<strong>an</strong>ity professes,is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the c<strong>an</strong>did, the serious inquirer” (TheTestimony of the Ev<strong>an</strong>gelists).The believer must not be discouraged by the willful skeptic <strong>an</strong>d must not waste a lot of time withhim. Jesus instructed us not to cast pearls before swine (Mat. 7:6).7. We don’t have to <strong>an</strong>swer every question.It is not necessary to <strong>an</strong>swer every question <strong>an</strong>d every challenge to the <strong>faith</strong>. All we have to do isst<strong>an</strong>d on God’s truth <strong>an</strong>d on solid evidence. The fact that I c<strong>an</strong>’t <strong>an</strong>swer every question about the<strong>Bible</strong> or God or evolution doesn’t discourage me. I c<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>swer the major ones, <strong>an</strong>d that is all thatis necessary.8. We must not lose sight of the reality of spiritual blindness.17
When dealing with unsaved people, we must not forget that these are spiritual issues <strong>an</strong>d theyc<strong>an</strong>not be understood without spiritual eyes. We must try to reach beyond the intellect to theheart <strong>an</strong>d soul. We must aim for spiritual conversion.“... <strong>an</strong>d none of the wicked shall underst<strong>an</strong>d; but the wise shall underst<strong>an</strong>d” (D<strong>an</strong>iel 12:10).“But the natural m<strong>an</strong> receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neitherc<strong>an</strong> he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 2:14).“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the oldtestament; which vail is done away in Christ. ... Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall betaken away” (2 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 3:14, 16).“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the gloriousgospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 4:4).9. M<strong>an</strong>’s will is the real battleground.The <strong>Bible</strong> says that m<strong>an</strong> guides his own heart <strong>an</strong>d mind (Prov. 23:19). M<strong>an</strong> chooses what he willbelieve, regardless of the evidence. 2 Peter 3:5 speaks of willful ignor<strong>an</strong>ce. Peter says that menscoff because they w<strong>an</strong>t to walk after their lusts (2 Pet. 3:3). Their motive for rejecting the holyGod is their desire to disobey His laws.Aldous Huxley, gr<strong>an</strong>dson of Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin’s “bulldog,” wrote, “For myself,the philosophy of me<strong>an</strong>inglessness was essentially <strong>an</strong> instrument of liberation, sexual <strong>an</strong>dpolitical” (Ends <strong>an</strong>d Me<strong>an</strong>s, p. 270). Huxley loved atheism because it allowed him to live as hepleased.It is not enough to convince <strong>an</strong> individual that the <strong>Bible</strong> is true <strong>an</strong>d that Jesus Christ is Lord <strong>an</strong>dSaviour; we must strive to reach the will <strong>an</strong>d we must trust God to do the miraculous work ofspiritual conviction <strong>an</strong>d conversion.Josh McDowell testifies how that even after he became convinced that the <strong>Bible</strong> is true, he didnot w<strong>an</strong>t to believe in Christ because he did not w<strong>an</strong>t to give up his partying lifestyle.“I beg<strong>an</strong> to realize that I was being intellectually dishonest. My mind told me that the claims of Christ wereindeed true, but my will was being pulled <strong>an</strong>other direction. I had placed so much emphasis on finding thetruth, but I wasn’t willing to follow it once I saw it. I beg<strong>an</strong> to sense Christ’s personal challenge to me inRevelation 3:20: ‘Here I am! I st<strong>an</strong>d at the door <strong>an</strong>d knock. If <strong>an</strong>yone hears my voice <strong>an</strong>d opens the door, I willcome in <strong>an</strong>d eat with him, <strong>an</strong>d he with me.’ But becoming a Christi<strong>an</strong> seemed so ego-shattering to me. Icouldn’t think of a faster way to ruin all my good times” (McDowell, “He Ch<strong>an</strong>ged My Life,” The New EvidenceThat Dem<strong>an</strong>ds a Verdict, Thomas Nelson, 1999, pp. xxv).Lee Strobel tells of a m<strong>an</strong> who listened to the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. At the endof the presentation, the m<strong>an</strong> told Strobel that he was convinced that the resurrection is ahistorical event but refused to do <strong>an</strong>ything about it because, “I don’t w<strong>an</strong>t a new master.”18
The <strong>Bible</strong> says that to be saved a m<strong>an</strong> must believe with his heart (Rom. 10:10). Philip told theEthiopi<strong>an</strong> eunuch that he must believe with all his heart (Acts 8:37). This refers to more th<strong>an</strong> amere mental ascent to the truth of the gospel; it refers to a heart-felt certainty <strong>an</strong>d surrender.10. We must focus on God <strong>an</strong>d Christ (Genesis 1:1; Acts 1:8).The foundational issue in apologetics is to introduce men <strong>an</strong>d women to God through Christ, <strong>an</strong>dwe must never lose sight of this objective.If you believe in the Almighty God of Scripture, it is a simple matter to accept what the <strong>Bible</strong>says, whether it is a six-day creation, Christ’s virgin birth, bodily resurrection, Second Coming,or <strong>an</strong>ything else. The fact is that these are all things that pertain to the supernatural <strong>an</strong>d theyc<strong>an</strong>not be tested by natural science.D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry <strong>an</strong>d D.Sc. from the University of London, writes:“It was about this time, in the mid-1960s, that my ideas of the greatness of God were tr<strong>an</strong>sformed. No longerwas He a ‘pocket’ God who did things as I could imagine from my ‘hum<strong>an</strong> viewpoint,’ but He had staggeringlygreat power, far beyond <strong>an</strong>ything I could possibly comprehend. If God is so great, then there is nothing Hecould not do” (In Six Days, p. 266).Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the 20th century, divided meninto two categories: big-godders <strong>an</strong>d little-godders, <strong>an</strong>d that pretty much sums it up.“One of the students of Princeton Theological Seminary professor Robert Dick Wilson had been invited topreach in Miller Chapel 12 years after his graduation. Dr. Wilson came <strong>an</strong>d sat near the front. When chapelended, the old professor came up to his former student, cocked his head to one side in his characteristic way,extended his h<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d said, ‘I'm glad that you're a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see ifthey're big-godders or little-godders. Then I know what their ministry will be.’“His former student asked him to explain. Wilson replied, ‘Well, some men have a little God, <strong>an</strong>d they'realways in trouble with Him. He c<strong>an</strong>'t do <strong>an</strong>y miracles. He c<strong>an</strong>'t take care of the inspiration <strong>an</strong>d tr<strong>an</strong>smission ofthe Scripture to us. He doesn't intervene on behalf of His people. Then, there are those who have a greatGod. He speaks <strong>an</strong>d it is done. He comm<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d it st<strong>an</strong>ds fast. He knows how to show Himself strong onbehalf of them that fear Him. You have a great God; <strong>an</strong>d He'll bless your ministry.’ He paused a moment,smiled, said, ‘God bless you,’ <strong>an</strong>d turned <strong>an</strong>d walked out” (John Huffm<strong>an</strong>, Who’s in Charge Here?).The Christi<strong>an</strong> apologist’s objective is to make “big-godders” of people.This comes through knowing God personally by <strong>faith</strong> in Jesus Christ. We are separated from Godby our sin, both inherited <strong>an</strong>d personal, <strong>an</strong>d Christ died to pay the price God’s Law dem<strong>an</strong>ds sothat we c<strong>an</strong> be reconciled to Him. When a sinner repents of his sin <strong>an</strong>d puts his <strong>faith</strong> in JesusChrist as only Lord <strong>an</strong>d Saviour, a dramatic ch<strong>an</strong>ge occurs. He is born again <strong>an</strong>d receives theindwelling <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit as his Teacher. His thinking is ch<strong>an</strong>ged. This happened to me in 1973when I was 23 years old. Before that I was <strong>an</strong>tagonistic toward the <strong>Bible</strong>. I doubted the <strong>Bible</strong>’steaching on things such as creation, judgment, salvation, <strong>an</strong>d the future, but those doubts wereresolved by my new relationship with God in Christ.19
Christ instructed us to be witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8). We must inform people of who He is <strong>an</strong>dwhy He came to earth. Apologetics c<strong>an</strong> remove barriers that have keep people from consideringChrist, but our goal is not to win arguments about evidences; our goal is to introduce people toChrist.20
THE BIBLE21
THE BIBLE’S NATUREMEMORY VERSES: Deuteronomy 29:29; Psalm 119:89; 1 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s 2:13; 2 Timothy3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21A Christi<strong>an</strong> apologetics course needs to begin with the <strong>Bible</strong>, because without a properunderst<strong>an</strong>ding of the <strong>Bible</strong> as the infallible Word of God, we don’t have <strong>an</strong> absolute spiritualauthority. Without <strong>an</strong> infallibly-inspired Revelation from God, we are adrift on the seas of lifewithout a sure <strong>an</strong>chor, a perfect chart, a divine compass. We are left with a hum<strong>an</strong> opinion ratherth<strong>an</strong> a “Thus saith the Lord.” We will not be able to refute philosophy <strong>an</strong>d science falsely socalledin <strong>an</strong> effectual m<strong>an</strong>ner. Without <strong>faith</strong> in the <strong>Bible</strong> as the infallible Word of God, we aresusceptible to the wiles of the devil <strong>an</strong>d the hurric<strong>an</strong>e force winds of false doctrine that areblowing in these last times.1. THE BIBLE WAS GIVEN BY DIVINE INSPIRATION.The foundational doctrine that we need to deal with is that pertaining to the <strong>Bible</strong> itself. If it isonly <strong>an</strong>other religious book, then the New Ager <strong>an</strong>d others have every right to pick <strong>an</strong>d choose,but if the <strong>Bible</strong> is God’s revelation to m<strong>an</strong>kind then it must be accepted as the sole authority for<strong>faith</strong> <strong>an</strong>d practice. Believing that the <strong>Bible</strong> is the sole divine revelation ch<strong>an</strong>ged my life in 1973<strong>an</strong>d put me on the path of truth <strong>an</strong>d life. It is the <strong>Bible</strong> that teaches me about Christ <strong>an</strong>d salvation<strong>an</strong>d enables me to discern truth from error.The following is what the <strong>Bible</strong> says about itself, what it claims to be:The <strong>Bible</strong> was predetermined in heaven (Psalm 119:89).The Scripture is not a m<strong>an</strong>-made collection of religious writings. It is <strong>an</strong> eternal, supernaturalbook from beginning to end. God chose the words in heaven before they were given to holy menon earth. John Wycliffe, who tr<strong>an</strong>slated the first English <strong>Bible</strong> in the fourteenth century, believedthat the Scripture is “a divine exemplar conceived in the mind of God before creation, <strong>an</strong>d beforethe material Scriptures were written down” (quoted from Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy:Popular Movements from the Gregori<strong>an</strong> Reform to the Reformation, 1998, p. 230).The <strong>Bible</strong> was written by divine inspiration through men chosen by God.This was the teaching of Christ <strong>an</strong>d His apostles. Consider four key passages:2 TIMOTHY 3:13-17 — “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which areable to make thee wise unto salvation through <strong>faith</strong> which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is givenby inspiration of God, <strong>an</strong>d is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction inrighteousness: That the m<strong>an</strong> of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”22
This is the foundational passage on the inspiration of the Scriptures, <strong>an</strong>d it teaches m<strong>an</strong>yimport<strong>an</strong>t truths. Note that the apostle Paul wrote these verses. Paul was utterly dedicated to theLord Jesus Christ <strong>an</strong>d suffered great persecution <strong>an</strong>d hardship because of his <strong>faith</strong>. He waspersonally called by Christ to be <strong>an</strong> apostle <strong>an</strong>d he had the signs of <strong>an</strong> apostle as evidence (2Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 12:12). Let us see what the apostle Paul taught concerning the nature of the <strong>Bible</strong>.a. The <strong>Bible</strong> is holy (2 Timothy 3:15). The term “holy <strong>Bible</strong>” me<strong>an</strong>s it is “set apart by God,”different in character from other writings. According to Paul’s teaching, the <strong>Bible</strong> c<strong>an</strong>not becompared with other books because it is the divinely inspired Word of God. Other books mightcontain the truth, but the <strong>Bible</strong> is the truth.b. The <strong>Bible</strong> was given by divine inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16). This verse literally says theScriptures are God-breathed. Though written by men, the <strong>Bible</strong> is a product of God. This is thebiblical doctrine of divine inspiration. When discussing its own inspiration the Scripture does notfocus on the mech<strong>an</strong>ics of inspiration but on the product. God spoke in m<strong>an</strong>y diverse ways(dreams, visions, <strong>an</strong>gels, directly as on Mount Sinai <strong>an</strong>d on the Mount of Tr<strong>an</strong>sfiguration, etc.)but the result in all cases was that the writings were God breathed. L. Gaussen rightly said of 2Timothy 3:16: “This statement admits of no exception <strong>an</strong>d of no restriction ... All Scripture is insuch wise a work of God, that it is represented to us as uttered by the divine breathing, just ashum<strong>an</strong> speech is uttered by the breathing of a m<strong>an</strong>’s mouth. The prophet is the mouth of theLord” (Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the <strong>Holy</strong> Scriptures, 1850).c. The <strong>Bible</strong> is from God in its entirety (2 Timothy 3:16). All Scripture is said to have come fromGod. The word for Scripture here, graphe, me<strong>an</strong>s “writing” or “book.” This is referred to as“plenary inspiration.” Plenary me<strong>an</strong>s full, complete, entire.d. The <strong>Bible</strong> is from God in its smallest detail (2 Timothy 3:15). The word for Scripture here isgramma, referring to a letter. This teaches us that even the smallest details of the <strong>Bible</strong> are fromGod. This is called “verbal inspiration.” Jesus taught that even the jots <strong>an</strong>d tittles of the OldTestament Hebrew words are authoritative <strong>an</strong>d preserved by God (Mat. 5:18).e. The <strong>Bible</strong> is one book with <strong>an</strong> all-encompassing theme: Salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy3:15). The <strong>Bible</strong> is not just a group of disconnected religious writings. It is a unified Book thatwas pl<strong>an</strong>ned <strong>an</strong>d delivered by God to teach God’s pl<strong>an</strong> of the ages <strong>an</strong>d to show m<strong>an</strong> the way ofsalvation through Jesus Christ. (Compare Luke 24:44-45; John 1:45; 5:39; Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s 3:11.)f. The <strong>Bible</strong> c<strong>an</strong> protect the believer from error (2 Timothy 3:13-15). If the <strong>Bible</strong> contains myths,mistakes, <strong>an</strong>d untrue claims concerning authorship, miracles, <strong>an</strong>d prophecies, it certainly is not abook that c<strong>an</strong> give sure protection from false teachings!g. The <strong>Bible</strong> is sufficient to make the believer perfect (2 Timothy 3:17). An imperfect book couldnot produce perfection, <strong>an</strong>d since the <strong>Bible</strong> is able to make the m<strong>an</strong> of God perfect it is obvious23
that nothing else is needed. The Scripture is thus the sole authority for <strong>faith</strong> <strong>an</strong>d practice. Itcontains everything we need to equip us for God’s service.2 PETER 1:19-21 — “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well thatye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, <strong>an</strong>d the day star arisein your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of <strong>an</strong>y privateinterpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of m<strong>an</strong>: but holy men of Godspake as they were moved by the <strong>Holy</strong> Ghost.”This is <strong>an</strong>other key passage that describes the divine inspiration of the <strong>Bible</strong>.a. Scripture is a light shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19). The dark place is the world. Thoughcontaining some truth mixed with the error, the world is described as dark because m<strong>an</strong> is notable to know spiritual truth in <strong>an</strong>y absolute sense without a sure revelation from God. The <strong>Bible</strong>is that infallible revelation which is shining in the midst of the darkness.b. God selected certain men as prophets <strong>an</strong>d He gave them His words. The expression “holymen” refers to men who are chosen <strong>an</strong>d set apart for God <strong>an</strong>d His business.c. The <strong>Bible</strong> is not a product of m<strong>an</strong>’s will (2 Peter 1:21). Other books are products of the will ofthe hum<strong>an</strong> author, but not the <strong>Bible</strong>. God chose certain men <strong>an</strong>d moved in them to deliver Hismessage. As the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit moved them, the things they wrote were the words of God.This passage explains the method by which the <strong>Bible</strong> was given. God used men, but He usedthem in such a way that what they wrote was God’s Word. When the <strong>Bible</strong> touches on inspiration<strong>an</strong>d revelation, it says very little about the actual mech<strong>an</strong>ism of how God accomplished thismiracle. It was accomplished mysteriously by the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit.The phrase “private interpretation” refers to the writers of the <strong>Bible</strong>. In the context this isreferring to the giving of revelation, rather th<strong>an</strong> to the underst<strong>an</strong>ding of it. The <strong>Bible</strong> writers didnot personally interpret God’s revelation to m<strong>an</strong>kind; they were given God’s revelation by the<strong>Holy</strong> Spirit. They did not always even underst<strong>an</strong>d what they were writing (1 Peter 1:10-12).1 CORINTHIANS 2:9-13 — “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither haveentered into the heart of m<strong>an</strong>, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. ButGod hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deepthings of God. For what m<strong>an</strong> knoweth the things of a m<strong>an</strong>, save the spirit of m<strong>an</strong> which is inhim? even so the things of God knoweth no m<strong>an</strong>, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received,not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that arefreely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which m<strong>an</strong>’s wisdomteacheth, but which the <strong>Holy</strong> Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”In this passage we see what Scripture is according to apostolic doctrine:24
It is God’s revelation (v. 10). Revelation concerns those things which m<strong>an</strong> c<strong>an</strong>not know by hisown investigation <strong>an</strong>d intellect (v. 9). God, by His Spirit, has chosen to reveal things aboutHimself, salvation, <strong>an</strong>d His pl<strong>an</strong>s (vv. 10-12).It is the deep things of God (v. 10). Theological modernists claim that the <strong>Bible</strong> is merely m<strong>an</strong>’sattempt to write his thoughts <strong>an</strong>d impressions about God, but Paul says the <strong>Bible</strong> contains thedeep things of God that were revealed supernaturally to men <strong>an</strong>d is not bound by m<strong>an</strong>’s naturallimitations.It is the very words of God (v. 13). In verse 13 we are told that this revelation extends to the verychoice of the words used to relate it. God did not merely give the <strong>Bible</strong> writers the generalthoughts they were to write; He gave them the very words. Paul claimed this verbal inspirationfor his own writings.It is the mind of Christ (v. 16). We c<strong>an</strong>not know Christ or His will apart from the Scriptures.1 THESSALONIANS 2:13 -- “For this cause also th<strong>an</strong>k we God without ceasing, because,when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men,but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”The first churches knew that the apostolic teaching was the Word of God <strong>an</strong>d not just the word ofmen. A plainer testimony of the divine inspiration of the apostolic epistles could not be made.The Word of God is effectual. It has the power to s<strong>an</strong>ctify the believer <strong>an</strong>d to fully equip him forGod’s service.2. THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.The c<strong>an</strong>on of the <strong>Bible</strong> refers to the authoritative list of the 66 books that comprise the Old <strong>an</strong>dNew Testaments. The word c<strong>an</strong>on me<strong>an</strong>s “a reed,” referring to a measuring stick, <strong>an</strong>d describesthe process of testing something by a set rule or st<strong>an</strong>dard.The C<strong>an</strong>onization of the Old TestamentIt was to the Jews that God assigned the task of collecting <strong>an</strong>d preserving the Hebrew OldTestament (Rom<strong>an</strong>s 3:1-2). In Rom<strong>an</strong>s 3 Paul describes the Old Testament as the very “oracles ofGod,” <strong>an</strong>d these oracles were committed to the Jews. Even though they did not always obey theScriptures, the Jews held them in reverence <strong>an</strong>d believed that each jot <strong>an</strong>d tittle was the inspiredWord of God.In particular, it was the Jewish priests who were responsible to care for the Scriptures(Deuteronomy 31:24-26; 17:18).25
Though there were periods of spiritual backsliding in which the Scripture was almost unknownamong the Jews (2 Chronicles 15:3), God preserved His Word in spite of m<strong>an</strong>’s failure (2 Kings22:8).After the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> captivity there was a revival within the Jewish priesthood (Ezra 7:10) <strong>an</strong>dthe Old Testament Scriptures continued to be preserved. “By Ezra <strong>an</strong>d his successors, under theguid<strong>an</strong>ce of the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit, all the Old Testament books were gathered together into one OldTestament c<strong>an</strong>on, <strong>an</strong>d their texts were purged of errors <strong>an</strong>d preserved until the days of our Lord’searthly ministry. By that time the Old Testament text was so firmly established that even theJews’ rejection of Christ could not disturb it” (Edward Hills, The King James <strong>Bible</strong> Defended,4th edition, p. 93).The C<strong>an</strong>onization of the New TestamentThe c<strong>an</strong>onization of the New Testament is part of the process of preservation that is theresponsibility of the churches. The church is the pillar <strong>an</strong>d ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).The Scriptures were c<strong>an</strong>onized <strong>an</strong>d preserved through the church age by congregations that havefulfilled the Lord’s Great Commission to teach all things by His power <strong>an</strong>d abiding presence(Matthew 28:18-20). This process has been led by the Spirit of God (John 16:13; 1 John 2:20).The New Testament believers knew they were receiving God’s Words from the Lord <strong>an</strong>d Hisapostles <strong>an</strong>d prophets (John 17:8; 1 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s 2:13).C<strong>an</strong>onization was not the haphazard process that is described in most books on the history of the<strong>Bible</strong>. Though the details of this history are largely hidden behind the mists of time, we know by<strong>faith</strong> that the Spirit of God guided the believers unfailingly in this matter because this is what theLord Jesus promised.Theological modernists beginning in the 19th century claimed that the New Testament writingswere not penned until long after the time of Christ, but this has been debunked.In his book Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson concluded that the whole of theNew Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.We also have the testimony of two of the foremost archaeologists:“We c<strong>an</strong> already say emphatically that there is no longer <strong>an</strong>y solid basis for dating <strong>an</strong>y book of the NewTestament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 <strong>an</strong>d 150 given by the moreradical New Testament critics of today” (William Ramsay, Recent Discoveries in <strong>Bible</strong> L<strong>an</strong>ds, 1955, p. 136).“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties <strong>an</strong>d theeighties of the first century A.D.” (Ramsay, Christi<strong>an</strong>ity Today, J<strong>an</strong>. 18, 1963).“Th<strong>an</strong>ks to the Qumr<strong>an</strong> discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed tobe: the teaching of Christ <strong>an</strong>d his immediate followers between cir. 25 <strong>an</strong>d cir. 80 A.D.” (William Albright, FromStone Age to Christi<strong>an</strong>ity, p. 23).26
Beginning with the first century itself we have solid historical evidence that the New Testamentwas commonly recognized as Scripture by the believers. We have the ext<strong>an</strong>t writings of men whoknew the apostles personally. These include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, <strong>an</strong>d Polycarp. Thusthere is absolutely no gap between the writing of the New Testament <strong>an</strong>d the historical recordthat exists of it.Dr. Don Bierle observes:“[The Gospels] did not go through a long period of oral tr<strong>an</strong>smission during which they took on legendarytraditions. No other <strong>an</strong>cient writing c<strong>an</strong> trace its m<strong>an</strong>uscript copies all the way back to the generation of theeyewitnesses <strong>an</strong>d its original authors” (Surprised by Faith, p. 33).Consider some of the early historical evidences witnessing to the authenticity of the NewTestament:Clement of Rome. “Clement of Rome, whose first letter to the Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s is usually dated aboutA.D. 96, made liberal use of Scripture, appealing to its authority, <strong>an</strong>d used New Testamentmaterial right alongside Old Testament material. He clearly quotes from Hebrews, 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s<strong>an</strong>d Rom<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d possibly from Matthew, Acts, Titus, James <strong>an</strong>d 1 Peter. Here is the bishop[pastor] of Rome, before the close of the first century, writing <strong>an</strong> official letter to the church atCorinth wherein a selection of New Testament books are recognized <strong>an</strong>d declared by episcopalauthority to be Scripture, including Hebrews” (Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the NewTestament Text). Clement was writing only a few years after the New Testament gospels <strong>an</strong>depistles were written.Ignatius (c. A.D. 110) referred to “all the epistles of Paul.”Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippi<strong>an</strong> church in about 115 A.D., “weaves <strong>an</strong> almost continuousstring of clear quotations <strong>an</strong>d allusions to New Testament writings. ... There are perhaps fiftyclear quotations taken from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Rom<strong>an</strong>s, 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s, Galati<strong>an</strong>s,Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s, Philippi<strong>an</strong>s, Colossi<strong>an</strong>s, 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s, 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2 Timothy, 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2 Peter, <strong>an</strong>d 1John, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y allusions including to Mark, Hebrews, James, <strong>an</strong>d 2 <strong>an</strong>d 3 John. (The only NTwriter not included is Jude!)” (Pickering).Justin Martyr (died 165 A.D.) testified that the churches of his day met on Sundays <strong>an</strong>d “read thememoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets” (Apology, I, 67).Irenaeus (died in 202 A.D.) left m<strong>an</strong>y works which are still ext<strong>an</strong>t. Their tr<strong>an</strong>slation into Englishcovers between 600-700 pages in the Ante-Nicene Library. “Irenaeus stated that the apostlestaught that God is the Author of both Testaments (Against Heretics IV, 32.2) <strong>an</strong>d evidentlyconsidered the New Testament writings to form a second C<strong>an</strong>on. He quoted from every chapterof Matthew, 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s, Galati<strong>an</strong>s, Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s, Colossi<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d Philippi<strong>an</strong>s, from all but one ortwo chapters of Luke, John, Rom<strong>an</strong>s, 2 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s, 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2 Timothy, <strong>an</strong>d Titus, from most27
chapters of Mark (including the last twelve verses), Acts, 2 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s, <strong>an</strong>d Revelation, <strong>an</strong>dfrom every other book except Philemon <strong>an</strong>d 3 John. These two books are so short that Irenaeusmay not have had occasion to refer to them in his ext<strong>an</strong>t works--it does not necessarily followthat he was ignor<strong>an</strong>t of them or rejected them. Evidently the dimensions of the New TestamentC<strong>an</strong>on recognized by Irenaeus are very close to what we hold today” (Pickering).Even some naturalistic textual critics have concluded that the New Testament in its current 27-book c<strong>an</strong>on existed in Greek no later th<strong>an</strong> the middle of the 2nd century. See David Trobisch,The First Edition of the New Testament, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.From the second century we have evidence that it was customary for each church to have its owncopy of the writings of the apostles that they might read <strong>an</strong>d preach from them. “And on the daycalled Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, <strong>an</strong>d thememoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. Whenthe reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges <strong>an</strong>d invites us to the imitation of thesenoble things” (Justin Martyr, Apology).Wilbur Pickering observes: “Both Justin Martyr <strong>an</strong>d Irenaeus claimed that the Church was spreadthroughout the whole earth, in their day ... IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE MUST HAVEBEEN THOUSANDS OF COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS IN USE BY 200A.D.” (The Identity of the New Testament Text).In about the year 208, Tertulli<strong>an</strong> mentioned churches founded by the apostles <strong>an</strong>d indicated thatthe “authentic writings” were still ext<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d were the absolute st<strong>an</strong>dard by which the truth wasmeasured in the believing churches. He urged heretics to “run to the apostolic churches, in whichthe very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, IN WHICH THEIR OWNAUTHENTIC WRITINGS ARE READ, UTTERING THE VOICE AND REPRESENTINGTHE FACE OF EACH OF THEM SEVERALLY. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you findCORINTH. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have PHILIPPI; (<strong>an</strong>d there too) you havethe THESSALONIANS. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get EPHESUS. Since,moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have ROME, from which there comes even into our ownh<strong>an</strong>ds the very authority (of the apostles themselves)” (Tertulli<strong>an</strong>, Prescription against Heretics,36, cited from Pickering).Pickering observes: “Some have thought that Tertulli<strong>an</strong> was claiming that Paul’s Autographswere still being read in his day (208), but at the very least he must me<strong>an</strong> they were using <strong>faith</strong>fulcopies. Was <strong>an</strong>ything else to be expected? for example, when the Ephesi<strong>an</strong> Christi<strong>an</strong>s saw theAutograph of Paul’s letter to them getting tattered, would they not carefully execute <strong>an</strong> identicalcopy for their continued use? Would they let the Autograph perish without making such a copy?(There must have been a const<strong>an</strong>t stream of people coming either to make copies of their letter orto verify the correct reading.) I believe we are obliged to conclude that in the year 200 theEphesi<strong>an</strong> Church was still in a position to attest the original wording of her letter (<strong>an</strong>d so for theothers)...”28
The <strong>Bible</strong> was multiplied <strong>an</strong>d went into all the world.See Acts 1:8; 12:24; 19:20; Rom<strong>an</strong>s 10:18; 16:25-26; Colossi<strong>an</strong>s 1:5-6.This great multiplication worked to safeguard the text of Scripture from the efforts of heretics tocorrupt it. The fact that the Gospel was preached to all nations <strong>an</strong>d tongues reminds us that theNew Testament was tr<strong>an</strong>slated into other l<strong>an</strong>guages at a very early period (e.g., Syriac <strong>an</strong>d oldLatin date to the 2nd century).The popular modern idea that things were taken out of the <strong>Bible</strong> after it was completed isridiculous. Even by the second century the <strong>Bible</strong> had been multiplied by the thous<strong>an</strong>ds of copies<strong>an</strong>d distributed throughout the world. It had gone throughout the Middle East, as well as to Asia,Africa, Asia Minor, <strong>an</strong>d to Europe, as far as Engl<strong>an</strong>d. No “council” could have effectivelyremoved <strong>an</strong>ything from the <strong>Bible</strong>.“F.E. Peters states that ‘on the basis of m<strong>an</strong>uscript tradition alone, the works that made up the Christi<strong>an</strong>s’ NewTestament were the most frequently copied <strong>an</strong>d widely circulated books of <strong>an</strong>tiquity’ (The Harvest ofHellenism, 1971, p. 50). As a result, the fidelity of the New Testament text rests on a multitude of m<strong>an</strong>uscriptevidence” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Dem<strong>an</strong>ds a Verdict, p. 34).There are more th<strong>an</strong> 5,600 Greek m<strong>an</strong>uscripts of the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d portions thereof that date from thesecond to the 15th centuries. There are <strong>an</strong>other 10,000 copies in Latin <strong>an</strong>d more th<strong>an</strong> 9,000 inother l<strong>an</strong>guages.We have portions of the New Testament written on papyri that date to the early second century.This is only about 50 years after the New Testament was written, <strong>an</strong>d there are m<strong>an</strong>y otherportions in existence that date to the third century. There is a nearly complete New Testamentthat dates to about 250 A.D.The New Testament is also preserved in the writings of early church leaders. There are tens ofthous<strong>an</strong>ds of quotations of the New Testament in the writings of church leaders that date to theearly centuries after Christ. J. Harold Greenlee observes, “These quotations are so extensive thatthe New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testamentm<strong>an</strong>uscripts” (Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 54).John William Burgon, one of the greatest scholars of the 19th century, indexed 86,000 quotationsfrom <strong>an</strong>cient church writings, 4,383 of which date to before 400 A.D. The index resides in theBritish Library. Burgon <strong>an</strong>d his co-worker Edward Miller demonstrated that the text quoted mostfrequently is the Greek Received Text which was published in the 16th century <strong>an</strong>d formed thebasis of all of the old Protest<strong>an</strong>t versions such as the English King James <strong>an</strong>d the Germ<strong>an</strong> Luther.(See our book Faith vs. the Modern <strong>Bible</strong> Versions for documentation of this.)29
Compare this wealth of <strong>an</strong>cient m<strong>an</strong>uscript evidence for the <strong>Bible</strong> with that of other famousbooks of <strong>an</strong>tiquity.date written earliest copy time sp<strong>an</strong> # copiesPlato 350 B.C. 900 A.D. 1250 years 7Herodotus 450 B.C. 900 A.D. 1350 years 8Euripedes 450 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1500 years 9Caesar 50 B.C. 900 A.D. 950 years 10Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 years 20Aristotle 350 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1450 years 49Sophocles 450 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1550 years 193Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 643N.T. 50-90 A.D. 110-125 A.D. 20-30 years 5600The same is true for the Hindu scriptures. The Vedic texts, such as the Up<strong>an</strong>ishads, weretr<strong>an</strong>smitted orally for hundreds of years before being committed to writing, <strong>an</strong>d there isabsolutely no way to know if the ext<strong>an</strong>t texts are accurate representations of the originalstatements. It isn’t even known for sure who created them.J. Harold Greenlee observes:“Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the <strong>an</strong>cient classics even though the earliestMSS were written so long after the original writings <strong>an</strong>d the number of ext<strong>an</strong>t MSS is in m<strong>an</strong>y inst<strong>an</strong>ces sosmall, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the N.T. is likewise assured” (Introduction to New TestamentTextual Criticism, p. 16).(For more on c<strong>an</strong>onization <strong>an</strong>d preservation see Faith vs. the Modern <strong>Bible</strong> Versions, which isavailable from Way of Life Literature.)3. THE BIBLE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY APART FROM THE NEWBIRTH AND RIGHT LIVING.The reason that the aforementioned evidence is not more widely appreciated is the spiritualblindness that has come upon the hum<strong>an</strong> race.Paul refers to three types of men in 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 2:14 - 3:2.There is the natural m<strong>an</strong>, the spiritual m<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d the carnal m<strong>an</strong>.The natural m<strong>an</strong> is the unsaved person. He is spiritually dead <strong>an</strong>d blind because of sin (Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s2:1-3; 2 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 4:4). He c<strong>an</strong>not underst<strong>an</strong>d the things of God. When the heart turns to theLord, though, in repent<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d <strong>faith</strong> <strong>an</strong>d receives Jesus Christ, the blindness is lifted (2Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 3:14-17).30
The reason that unbelievers c<strong>an</strong>not underst<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong> properly is that they are not born again<strong>an</strong>d do not have the indwelling <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit as their teacher. They try to underst<strong>an</strong>d it by theirown natural thinking, <strong>an</strong>d that is impossible.That was my condition before my conversion the summer of 1973. I didn’t underst<strong>an</strong>d most ofthe <strong>Bible</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d the parts I did underst<strong>an</strong>d I didn’t agree with! As Mark Twain said, “It’s not thethings in the <strong>Bible</strong> that I don’t underst<strong>an</strong>d that bother me, it’s the things I do underst<strong>an</strong>d.”The spiritual m<strong>an</strong> (1 Cor. 2:15-16) refers to the born again believer who is walking with the Lordin obedience to His Word <strong>an</strong>d depending upon the Spirit rather th<strong>an</strong> the flesh (Gal. 5:16-25).The carnal m<strong>an</strong> is the worldly believer who is walking in the flesh rather th<strong>an</strong> the Spirit. Hec<strong>an</strong>not underst<strong>an</strong>d the more difficult teaching of Scripture. He c<strong>an</strong> take milk but not meat. This iswhat Paul said in 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 3:2, <strong>an</strong>d it is confirmed in Hebrews 5:12-14.If we w<strong>an</strong>t to study the <strong>Bible</strong> fruitfully, we must make certain that we are born again throughrepent<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d <strong>faith</strong> in Jesus Christ <strong>an</strong>d we must walk in close fellowship with the Author of theBook. This is the first <strong>an</strong>d foremost requirement.Studying the <strong>Bible</strong> is something like tuning to a radio ch<strong>an</strong>nel. Heaven is far away, but Godbroadcasts His glorious message to earth on a clear <strong>an</strong>d powerful station with the call lettersBIBLE. If the believer is in fellowship with Christ, he has <strong>an</strong> open ch<strong>an</strong>nel to Heaven throughthe Scriptures. The closer one’s fellowship with Christ, the sharper the reception <strong>an</strong>d the moreplainly the <strong>Bible</strong> speaks. If, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, a believer walks in carnality <strong>an</strong>d in fellowshipwith the world <strong>an</strong>d in spiritual <strong>an</strong>d moral compromise, the reception becomes poor, because the<strong>Holy</strong> Spirit is grieved (Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s 4:30). Fleshly lusts war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11). Thestatic of the flesh <strong>an</strong>d the things of this world hinder the reception of the spiritual broadcast.SUMMARY OF “THE NATURE OF THE BIBLE”1. The <strong>Bible</strong> claims to be the divinely-inspired Word of God. Four key passages are 2 Timothy3:13-17, which says all Scripture was given by inspiration of God; 2 Peter 1:19-21, which saysthe Word of God was given to holy prophets chosen by God; 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 2:9-13, which saysthat God chose the words that the prophets wrote; <strong>an</strong>d 1 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s 2:13, which says that theearly churches recognized the apostolic writings as the Word of God.2. Though we don’t know all of the details of how God’s people selected the books that make upthe c<strong>an</strong>on of the <strong>Bible</strong>, we know that they were guided by the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit. The Jewish priestswere responsible to org<strong>an</strong>ize <strong>an</strong>d keep the Old Testament, while the apostles <strong>an</strong>d early churcheswere responsible for org<strong>an</strong>izing <strong>an</strong>d keeping the New Testament. Jesus promised that the <strong>Holy</strong>Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).31
3. The New Testament was written during the lifetime of those who witnessed the events <strong>an</strong>d thebooks of the New Testament were quoted as Scripture by preachers in the late first <strong>an</strong>d earlysecond century. In A.D. 96 Clement of Rome quotes m<strong>an</strong>y books. In A.D. 110, Ignatius quotesall of Paul’s epistles. In A.D. 115, Polycarp, who was a personal disciple of the apostle John,quoted from <strong>an</strong>d alluded to most of the books of the New Testament. In A.D. 208 Tertulli<strong>an</strong> saidthat the churches founded by the apostles were still in possession of the original writings of theNew Testament.4. The books of the New Testament were the most widely circulated books of <strong>an</strong>tiquity; theywere copied <strong>an</strong>d tr<strong>an</strong>slated more th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>y other writings by far. This multiplication served toprotect the text of the <strong>Bible</strong> from corruption.5. The New Testament is preserved in more th<strong>an</strong> 5,600 Greek m<strong>an</strong>uscripts that date from thesecond to the 15th centuries, as well as in 10,000 copies in Latin <strong>an</strong>d more th<strong>an</strong> 9,000 in otherl<strong>an</strong>guages.6. The New Testament is also preserved in the writings of early churches leaders. From the tensof thous<strong>an</strong>ds of quotations that have survived, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed.7. Other <strong>an</strong>cient writings don’t have the powerful textual evidence that the <strong>Bible</strong> has. Betweenthe original writing of works such as Homer’s Iliad <strong>an</strong>d Plato’s philosophy <strong>an</strong>d the earliestcopies that exist there is a gap of hundreds of years. The number of surviving copies of these isalso very small compared to those of the New Testament.8. The reason that the aforementioned evidence is not more widely appreciated is the spiritualblindness that has come upon the hum<strong>an</strong> race. Paul says the natural m<strong>an</strong> receiveth not the thingsof the Spirit of God because he doesn’t have spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:14).REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE BIBLE'S NATURE1. What does Psalm 119:89 me<strong>an</strong> when it says that God’s Word was settled in heaven?2. What passage says all Scripture is given by inspiration from God?3. What does “holy <strong>Bible</strong>” me<strong>an</strong>?4. What does Paul me<strong>an</strong> when he says the Scripture is given by inspiration?5. What is the me<strong>an</strong>ing of plenary inspiration?6. What is the me<strong>an</strong>ing of verbal inspiration?7. How do we know that the <strong>Bible</strong> is not merely a collection of disconnected religious writings?8. What is the theme of the <strong>Bible</strong>?9. How c<strong>an</strong> the <strong>Bible</strong> make the child of God perfect?10. In what passage did Peter say that the <strong>Bible</strong> is a light shining in a dark world?11. According to Peter, how did God give His revelation to m<strong>an</strong>kind?32
12. What did Peter me<strong>an</strong> when he said that “the prophecy came not in old time by the will ofm<strong>an</strong>”?13. What did Peter me<strong>an</strong> when he said that “no prophecy of the scripture is of <strong>an</strong>y privateinterpretation”?14. In what passage did Paul say that God has given His revelation in “words”?15. How do we know that the <strong>Bible</strong> contains the deep things of God?16. Where c<strong>an</strong> we find the mind of Christ?17. What <strong>Bible</strong> passage says the early churches considered the writings of Paul as “the word ofGod”?18. What did Paul me<strong>an</strong> when he said that the word of God “effectually worketh in you”?19. What does “c<strong>an</strong>on” me<strong>an</strong>?20. What passage says that God committed the Scriptures to the Jews for safekeeping?21. When was the Old Testament collected together in its final c<strong>an</strong>on?22. What verse says the church is the pillar <strong>an</strong>d ground of the truth?23. What does Matthew 28:18-20 have to do with the preservation of Scripture?24. In what verse did Jesus promise that the Spirit of God would guide the apostles into all truth?25. In what verse did Jesus say that He had given his words to the apostles?26. In what verse did John say that the early churches had the unction of the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit to teachthem?27. William Albright said the New Testament was written between when <strong>an</strong>d when?28. What is the signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the writings of Clement, Ignatius, <strong>an</strong>d Polycarp in regard to thec<strong>an</strong>on of the New Testament?29. What m<strong>an</strong> said in A.D. 208 that the writings of the apostles still existed in Philippi,Thessalonica, Ephesus, <strong>an</strong>d Rome?30. Why is it impossible that things were removed from the <strong>Bible</strong> after it was completed?31. In what verse did Paul say that the words of the gospel went unto the ends of the earth?32. In what verse did Paul say that the Scripture had gone to all nations?33. What were the most frequently copied <strong>an</strong>d widely circulated books of <strong>an</strong>tiquity?34. How m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>cient m<strong>an</strong>uscripts of the New Testament in Greek still exist? How m<strong>an</strong>y inLatin?35. How old is the oldest portion of the New Testament?36. How old is the oldest complete New Testament?37. If all of the <strong>an</strong>cient New Testament m<strong>an</strong>uscripts did not exist, the New Testament could bereconstructed through what me<strong>an</strong>s?38. What scholar indexed 86,000 quotations from <strong>an</strong>cient church writings?39. What did his research prove about the Greek Received Text?40. A gap of how m<strong>an</strong>y centuries exists between the writing of Homer’s Iliad <strong>an</strong>d the earliestexisting copies?41. A gap of how m<strong>an</strong>y centuries exists between Plato’s writings <strong>an</strong>d the earliest existing copies?42. How long were the Hindu scriptures tr<strong>an</strong>smitted orally before being committed to writing?43. What New Testament passage divides men into three categories?44. What are these categories?45. What is the “natural m<strong>an</strong>”?33
46. Why c<strong>an</strong> the “natural m<strong>an</strong>” not underst<strong>an</strong>d the things of God?47. Why does the “carnal m<strong>an</strong>” only underst<strong>an</strong>d simple <strong>Bible</strong> teaching?34
THE BIBLE’S PROOFMEMORY VERSES: Acts 1:3; 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 15:6; Hebrews 11:1, 6; 2 Peter 1:16The individual must accept that the <strong>Bible</strong> is the Word of God by <strong>faith</strong>, for “without <strong>faith</strong> it isimpossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, <strong>an</strong>d that he is arewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).At the same time, <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>faith</strong> is not a blind leap into the dark. It is confidence in the Record thatGod has given, for “<strong>faith</strong> cometh by hearing, <strong>an</strong>d hearing by the word of God” (Rom<strong>an</strong>s 10:17).The writers of the <strong>Bible</strong> explain to us that they were not delivering cunningly devised fables buta divinely-inspired record based on “m<strong>an</strong>y infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3; 2 Peter 1:16).Following are some of the objective, time-proven reasons why we c<strong>an</strong> have complete confidencein the <strong>Bible</strong>:1. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s unique construction proves that it is the Word of God.The <strong>Bible</strong> was written by at least 40 different authors representing some 19 different occupations(shepherd, soldier, farmer, fisherm<strong>an</strong>, tax collector, medical doctor, king, etc.) who lived during aperiod covering some 1,600 years. That is approximately 50 generations. The first 39 books ofthe <strong>Bible</strong> were written in the Hebrew l<strong>an</strong>guage over a period of about 1,000 years. There wasthen a 400-year gap when no Scriptures were written. After that, the last 27 books of the <strong>Bible</strong>were written in the Greek l<strong>an</strong>guage during a period covering roughly 50 years. The writers of theOld Testament could not have collaborated with one <strong>an</strong>other <strong>an</strong>d the writers of the NewTestament could not have collaborated with those of the Old Testament.Yet the product is one book that fits together perfectly, has one all-encompassing message, <strong>an</strong>dcontains no contradictions or errors. There is nothing else remotely like this in all of m<strong>an</strong>’shistory. The one message of the <strong>Bible</strong> from beginning to end is the eternal pl<strong>an</strong> of God in JesusChrist. The earliest books of the <strong>Bible</strong> teach the same doctrine about God, creation, m<strong>an</strong>, sin,life, death, salvation, <strong>an</strong>d judgment as the last books of the <strong>Bible</strong>. The genealogy of Jesus Christappears in the first book <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong> be traced throughout the rest of the <strong>Bible</strong>.Some have claimed to have found mistakes in the <strong>Bible</strong>, but I have studied it for 38 years <strong>an</strong>deach time I have examined a supposed error or contradiction, I have found that the <strong>Bible</strong> is true<strong>an</strong>d the critic is wrong. (See our book Things Hard to Be Understood: A H<strong>an</strong>dbook of BiblicalDifficulties.)35
2. The confidence <strong>an</strong>d sincerity of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s authors prove that it is the Word of God.The <strong>Bible</strong> testifies that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the <strong>Holy</strong> Ghost” (2 Peter1:21), <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> examination of the lives of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s writers proves this testimony. These wereholy, serious men. They came from all walks of life. They were men of good reputation <strong>an</strong>dsound mind. They were not enriched by the prophecies they gave. Far from it; some wereimpoverished <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y were viciously persecuted <strong>an</strong>d killed for the testimony they held. Moses,the author of the first five books of the <strong>Bible</strong>, chose to live a life of terrific hardship in theservice of God as opposed to the millionaire’s life he could have lived as the adopted son ofPharaoh. M<strong>an</strong>y <strong>Bible</strong> writers made similar choices. Their motivation certainly was notcovetousness <strong>an</strong>d worldly adv<strong>an</strong>tage. These were not perfect men, but they were holy men. Theyall claimed that God had put His h<strong>an</strong>d upon them to speak His Word. The lives they lived, <strong>an</strong>dthe testimonies they held, <strong>an</strong>d the deaths they died gave evidence that they were telling the truth.3. Fulfilled prophecy proves the <strong>Bible</strong> is the Word of God.The <strong>Bible</strong> contains a vast amount of prophecy, much of which has been fulfilled. TheEncyclopedia of Biblical Prophecies by J. Barton Payne lists 1817 specific prophecies, 1239 inthe Old Testament <strong>an</strong>d 578 in the New. The predictions are precise <strong>an</strong>d detailed, <strong>an</strong>d thefulfillment is exact.Isaiah says that fulfilled prophecy is evidence of divine inspiration, <strong>an</strong>d this should be obvioussince only God knows the future (Isaiah 41:21-23).The God of Israel challenges the idols to prove their divinity by foretelling the future. No pag<strong>an</strong>religious book has ever done this. The so-called prophecies of Nostradamus, for example, are sovague that they could me<strong>an</strong> almost <strong>an</strong>ything. The same is typically true for astrological forecasts.<strong>Bible</strong> prophecy, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, is clear <strong>an</strong>d precise, <strong>an</strong>d its prophecies have never failed.Prophecies Pertaining to Jesus ChristJesus’ entire life was written down in the Old Testament before He was born. There are 191Messi<strong>an</strong>ic prophecies. The following examples are from three great prophecies: Psalm 22; Micah5:2; <strong>an</strong>d Isaiah 53:born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 - Luke 2:4-7)rejected by his own people (Isa. 53:3 - Mark 15:12-14)not resisting arrest <strong>an</strong>d death (Isa. 53:7 - Mat. 26:51-54)justice perverted (Isa. 53:8 - Mat. 26:59)numbered with tr<strong>an</strong>sgressors (Isa. 53:12 - Mat. 26:57-60; 27:11-14)death by crucifixion (Psa. 22:14-16 - Jn. 19:16-18)soldiers gambling for His robe (Psa. 22:18 - Mat. 27:35)words he would speak from the cross (Psa. 22:1 - Mat. 27:46)36
mocked by the people (Psa. 22:6-8 - Mat. 27:39, 41-43)people sitting <strong>an</strong>d staring at Him (Psa. 22:17 - Mat. 27:36)no bones broken (Psa. 34:20 - John 19:32-33)burial in a rich m<strong>an</strong>’s tomb (Isa. 53:9 - Mat. 27:57-60)We know that these prophecies were written before Christ was born, because copies of the OldTestament books were found in the Dead Sea caves dating to at least 100 <strong>an</strong>d more years B.C.Prophecies about IsraelThe continued existence of Israel is one of history’s most amazing stories, <strong>an</strong>d the last 2,000years of her history was described in <strong>an</strong>cient Scripture in great detail. The fulfillment of theseprophecies is irrefutable evidence of the divine inspiration of the <strong>Bible</strong>. We deal with this in aseparate chapter.4. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s factualness <strong>an</strong>d scientific accuracy prove that it is the Word of God.Everything the <strong>Bible</strong> says is true <strong>an</strong>d factual.For example, the <strong>Bible</strong> says m<strong>an</strong> is a sinner, <strong>an</strong>d that is not difficult to confirm. Just look at theworld! When asked for his opinion on original sin, Samuel Johnson, the famous Britishlexicographer, replied, “With respect to original sin, the inquiry is not necessary, for whatever isthe cause of hum<strong>an</strong> corruption, men are evidently <strong>an</strong>d confessedly so corrupt, that all the laws ofheaven <strong>an</strong>d earth are insufficient to restrain them from crimes.” David Berlinski, a Princetoneducated“secular Jew,” says, “One need hardly be a Christi<strong>an</strong> to appreciate the wisdom in theseremarks” (The Devil’s Delusion, p. 33).The <strong>Bible</strong> is true not only in its statements about m<strong>an</strong>, but also in its statements about everything.Though the <strong>Bible</strong> is not a scientific m<strong>an</strong>ual, it is scientifically accurate, even from its earliestpages, which were written nearly 4,000 years ago. Though the <strong>Bible</strong> contradicts evolutionarytheories, it does not contradict <strong>an</strong>y established scientific fact.Following are some examples of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s scientific accuracy, beginning with statements fromthe pages of Job, probably the oldest book in the <strong>Bible</strong>. The late Henry Morris, who had a Ph.D.in geology, said:“These references are modern in perspective, with never a hint of the mythical exaggerations <strong>an</strong>d errorscharacteristic of other <strong>an</strong>cient writings ... perhaps of even greater signific<strong>an</strong>ce is the fact that in a 4000-yearoldbook filled with numerous references to natural phenomena, there are no scientific mistakes orfallacies” (The Remarkable Record of Job).Job said the earth is hung upon nothing (Job 26:7). This is obvious to our modern generation, aswe have seen the actual pictures of the earth h<strong>an</strong>ging in space, but to previous generations it was37
not obvious <strong>an</strong>d there were m<strong>an</strong>y commonly-held myths about the earth sitting on the back ofAtlas or a turtle or <strong>an</strong> eleph<strong>an</strong>t, etc.Job said the air has weight (“the weight for the winds,” Job 28:25). It was not until the 17thcentury that Galileo discovered that atmosphere has weight, <strong>an</strong>d the modern science ofaerodynamics is based on this scientific fact. Further, the weight of air is import<strong>an</strong>t in thefunction of the earth’s weather. “The ‘weight of the winds’ controls the worldwide air massmovements that tr<strong>an</strong>sport the waters evaporated from the oce<strong>an</strong>s inl<strong>an</strong>d over thecontinents” (Morris, The Remarkable Record of Job).Job described the springs of the sea (Job 38:16). M<strong>an</strong> had no way to know about the fresh-watersprings on the oce<strong>an</strong> floor by firsth<strong>an</strong>d observation until recent times. Modern science hasdiscovered that there are thous<strong>an</strong>ds of underwater springs that add millions of metric tons ofwater to the oce<strong>an</strong>s each year.Job understood that light has a way <strong>an</strong>d that darkness has a place (Job 38:19). “That is, light isnot to be located in a certain place or situation. Neither does it simply appear, or disappear,inst<strong>an</strong>t<strong>an</strong>eously. Light is traveling! It dwells in a ‘way,’ always on the way to someplace else.Though usually traveling in waves, sometimes it seems to move as a stream of particles, but it isalways moving. When light stops, there is darkness. Thus, darkness is static, staying in place; butlight is dynamic, dwelling in a way” (Morris).The <strong>Bible</strong> says that the light creates wind (Job 38:24), but it is only in recent times that modernweather science has discovered that wind is created as the sun heats up the surface of the earth,causing the hot air to rise <strong>an</strong>d cooler air to fall, creating weather systems.Job describes the amazing hydrological cycle (evaporation, atmospheric circulation,condensation, precipitation, run-off) (Job 36:27-28; Ecc. 1:7; Jer. 51:16). The process ofevaporation <strong>an</strong>d condensation was not discovered until the 17th century <strong>an</strong>d not well understooduntil the 20th.The <strong>Bible</strong> says pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals reproduce after their kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thisis in perfect harmony with everything that c<strong>an</strong> be observed <strong>an</strong>d tested by modern science. Thereis great variety within kinds, different types of roses <strong>an</strong>d dogs, but there is no reproductionbetween kinds, between roses <strong>an</strong>d d<strong>an</strong>delions or dogs <strong>an</strong>d penguins. Breeding experiments havedemonstrated that there are genetic barriers that restrict ch<strong>an</strong>ge. The fruit fly has been used ingenetic experiments since the early 1900s. Tens of millions of fruit flies have been bombardedwith x-rays, doctored, <strong>an</strong>d poisoned. The result has been a variety of mut<strong>an</strong>t fruit flies but noevidence that the fruit fly could evolve into some other type of insect or <strong>an</strong>imal. This is proof ofthe <strong>Bible</strong>’s 3500-year-old statement that all creatures reproduce according to kind.The <strong>Bible</strong> says the heavens c<strong>an</strong>not be measured <strong>an</strong>d the stars are without number (Genesis22:17; Jeremiah 31:37). Before the invention of the telescope, m<strong>an</strong> could see only a few hundred38
stars with the naked eye, but the very first book of the <strong>Bible</strong> says they are without number. Thishas been confirmed by modern science. There are 300 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxyalone. In 1999, observations by NASA astronomers, using the Hubble Space Telescope,suggested that there are 125 billion galaxies in the universe. The most up-to-date star count was<strong>an</strong>nounced in July 2003 as 70 sextillion observable stars (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Thiswas the conclusion of the world’s largest galaxy study, the Two-Degree Field Galaxy RedshiftSurvey, which is considered 10 times more accurate th<strong>an</strong> previous ones. The team of scientistsdid not physically count the stars. Instead they used some of the world’s most powerfultelescopes to count all of the galaxies in one region of the universe <strong>an</strong>d to estimate how m<strong>an</strong>ystars each galaxy contained by measuring its brightness. They then extrapolated these figures outto the whole universe visible through telescopes. This massive figure, of course, probablyaccounts for only a tiny percentage of the actual stars.The <strong>Bible</strong> says there are paths in the sea (Isaiah 43:16; Psalm 8:8). Since the 19th century theoce<strong>an</strong> currents or paths have been charted <strong>an</strong>d ships travel these paths just as trucks travel onroads. Writing in the mid-1800s, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Superintendent of the U.S. Navy’sDepot of Charts <strong>an</strong>d Instruments in Washington, D.C., observed, “There is a river in the oce<strong>an</strong>: inthe severest droughts it never fails, <strong>an</strong>d in the mightiest floods it never overflows; its b<strong>an</strong>ks <strong>an</strong>dits bottom are of cold water, while its current is of warm; the Gulf of Mexico is its fountain, <strong>an</strong>dits mouth is in the Arctic Seas. It is the Gulf Stream” (Maury, The Physical Geography of theSea, 6th ed., 1856, p. 25). Since then, other sea paths have been discovered.The <strong>Bible</strong> says the life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). This was written about 3,500 years ago,but it was not understood scientifically until recent times. For centuries doctors used“bloodletting” as a healing method. George Washington, America’s first president, probably diedprematurely because of this bogus practice. Modern medicine has learned what the <strong>Bible</strong> hastaught all along, that the life of the flesh is in the blood. The amazing system of vessels <strong>an</strong>dcapillaries tr<strong>an</strong>sports the marvelous blood cells with their life-giving oxygen <strong>an</strong>d other necessaryelements to every part of the body. The blood also forms a major part of the infection fighting<strong>an</strong>d clotting systems, which are necessary for the “life of the flesh.”The <strong>Bible</strong> is not a book of science, but wherever the <strong>Bible</strong> touches on science it is accurate. Thisproves its divine origin, because all other <strong>an</strong>cient books are filled with gross scientific blunders.Even science books written a mere 100 years ago are filled with errors.5. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s c<strong>an</strong>dor proves that it is the Word of God.When men write biographies of their heroes, they commonly omit or whitewash their faults; butthe <strong>Bible</strong> exhibits its divine quality by showing m<strong>an</strong> as he is. Even the best of men in the <strong>Bible</strong>are described with all their faults. We read of Adam’s rebellion, Noah’s drunkenness, David’sadultery, Solomon’s apostasy, Jonah’s pity party, Peter’s disavowal of his Master, Paul <strong>an</strong>dBarnabas’ petty strife, <strong>an</strong>d the disciples’ unbelief in the face of Christ’s resurrection. The <strong>Bible</strong>was written by Jews, yet it c<strong>an</strong>didly describes the faults of the Jewish people: their stubbornness39
<strong>an</strong>d unbelief that caused them to have to w<strong>an</strong>der in the wilderness for 40 years; their idolatryduring the period of the judges; their rebellion that caused them to be rejected from the l<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>dscattered throughout the earth for two millennia; their rejection of the Messiah.6. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s indestructibility proves that it is the Word of God.Above all other books combined, the <strong>Bible</strong> has been hated, vilified, ridiculed, criticized,restricted, b<strong>an</strong>ned, <strong>an</strong>d destroyed, but it has been to no avail. As one rightly said, “We might aswell put our shoulder to the burning wheel of the sun, <strong>an</strong>d try to stop it on its flaming course, asattempt to stop the circulation of the <strong>Bible</strong>” (Sidney Collett, All about the <strong>Bible</strong>, p. 63).In A.D. 303, the Rom<strong>an</strong> Emperor Diocleti<strong>an</strong> issued <strong>an</strong> edict to stop Christi<strong>an</strong>s from worshippingJesus Christ <strong>an</strong>d to destroy their Scriptures. Every official in the empire was ordered to razechurches to the ground <strong>an</strong>d burn every <strong>Bible</strong> found in their districts (St<strong>an</strong>ley Greenslade,Cambridge History of the <strong>Bible</strong>). Twenty-five years later his successor, Const<strong>an</strong>tine, issued<strong>an</strong>other edict ordering fifty <strong>Bible</strong>s to be published at government expense (Eusebius).In 1778, the French infidel Voltaire boasted that in 100 years Christi<strong>an</strong>ity would cease to exist,but within 50 years the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> Society used his printing press <strong>an</strong>d house to publish <strong>Bible</strong>s(Geisler <strong>an</strong>d Nix, A General Introduction to the <strong>Bible</strong>, 1986, pp. 123, 124).Robert Ingersoll once boasted, “Within 15 years I’ll have the <strong>Bible</strong> lodged in a morgue.” ButIngersoll is long dead, <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong> is alive <strong>an</strong>d well.The communist regimes in Russia <strong>an</strong>d China tried to destroy the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d its influence, but theyhave been completely unsuccessful. There are more churches in Russia today th<strong>an</strong> ever before inits history, <strong>an</strong>d the presses c<strong>an</strong>not print enough <strong>Bible</strong>s to satisfy the insatiable dem<strong>an</strong>d incommunist China.In fact, m<strong>an</strong>y who set out to disprove the <strong>Bible</strong> have been converted, instead. The following are afew examples:Gilbert West, <strong>an</strong> English poet who was included in Samuel Johnson’s Lives of the Most EminentEnglish Poets, while a student at Oxford set out to debunk the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account of Christ’sresurrection. Instead he proved to his own satisfaction that Christ did rise from the dead <strong>an</strong>dpublished Observations on the History <strong>an</strong>d Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.George Lyttelton, <strong>an</strong> English Statesm<strong>an</strong>, author, <strong>an</strong>d poet who was educated at Oxford,determined to prove that Paul was not converted as the <strong>Bible</strong> states. Instead, Lyttelton wrote abook providing evidence that Paul’s conversion was real <strong>an</strong>d that it is evidence that Jesusactually rose from the dead. The book was titled Observations on the Conversion <strong>an</strong>dApostleship of St. Paul.40
Fr<strong>an</strong>k Morison, a lawyer, journalist, <strong>an</strong>d novelist, set out to write a book to disprove theresurrection of Christ. Instead he was converted <strong>an</strong>d wrote a book in defense of the resurrectionentitled Who Moved the Stone?Simon Greenleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University <strong>an</strong>d one of the most celebratedlegal minds of America, determined to expose the “myth” of the resurrection of Christ once <strong>an</strong>dfor all, but his thorough examination forced him to conclude that Jesus did rise from the dead. In1846 he published An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Ev<strong>an</strong>gelists by the Rules ofEvidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.William Ramsay, a renowned archaeologist <strong>an</strong>d New Testament scholar, beg<strong>an</strong> his historicalresearch in Asia Minor with the assumption that he would find evidence to disprove the <strong>Bible</strong>’shistoricity. He concluded, though, that the book of Acts was written during the lifetime of theapostles <strong>an</strong>d that it is historically accurate. His discoveries led to his conversion to Christi<strong>an</strong>ity.Josh McDowell was a skeptic when he entered university to pursue a law degree, but he accepteda challenge by some Christi<strong>an</strong>s to examine the claim that Jesus Christ is God’s Son. He says, “Idecided to write a book that would make <strong>an</strong> intellectual joke of Christi<strong>an</strong>ity.” He traveledthroughout the U.S. <strong>an</strong>d Europe to gather evidence to prove his case, but instead he wasconverted to Christ <strong>an</strong>d wrote a book defending the <strong>Bible</strong> entitled Evidence That Dem<strong>an</strong>ds aVerdict. McDowell concluded: “After trying to shatter the historicity <strong>an</strong>d validity of theScripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the <strong>Bible</strong> asbeing unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of <strong>an</strong>tiquity. ... I believe we c<strong>an</strong> holdthe Scriptures in our h<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d say, ‘The <strong>Bible</strong> is trustworthy <strong>an</strong>d historically reliable” (The NewEvidence, p. 68).Dr. Richard Lumsden, professor of parisitology <strong>an</strong>d cell biology, was de<strong>an</strong> of the graduate schoolat Tul<strong>an</strong>e University <strong>an</strong>d trained 30 Ph.D.s. When he was challenged by a student about theevidence for evolution, he sought to refute the student by demonstrating evolution’s scientificevidence. Instead, he became convinced that the evidence is lacking. This led to <strong>an</strong> examinationof the <strong>Bible</strong>, which led to his conversion to Jesus Christ.“Down through the years, the <strong>Bible</strong> has been a mighty <strong>an</strong>vil that has worn out the puny hammersof the scoffers” (Christi<strong>an</strong> Home <strong>Bible</strong> Course).7. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s universal appeal proves that it is the Word of God.In spite of the aforementioned attacks, the <strong>Bible</strong> is the most popular book in the world, by far.Some books have been tr<strong>an</strong>slated into a few dozen l<strong>an</strong>guages, but the <strong>Bible</strong> in whole or in parthas been tr<strong>an</strong>slated into every major l<strong>an</strong>guage of the world, plus most minor ones--more th<strong>an</strong>2,450 so far. Tr<strong>an</strong>slation work is progressing in <strong>an</strong>other 2,000 l<strong>an</strong>guages. Compare this withother religious books. The Hindu scriptures have been tr<strong>an</strong>slated into 46 l<strong>an</strong>guages, <strong>an</strong>d theMuslim Qur<strong>an</strong> into about 40.41
8. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s doctrine of salvation proves it is the Word of God.The <strong>Bible</strong> is the only religious Scripture that teaches the doctrine of salvation by grace. Everyother one teaches salvation by works. Hinduism says salvation is attained by practicing dharma<strong>an</strong>d working out one’s karma. Islam says salvation is by surrender to Allah <strong>an</strong>d obedience to hiscomm<strong>an</strong>ds. Buddhism says salvation is by reaching nirv<strong>an</strong>a through life works <strong>an</strong>d meditation<strong>an</strong>d asceticism. If you visit the Buddhist monastery at Boudha in Kathm<strong>an</strong>du <strong>an</strong>y time of the dayyou will find Buddhists walking clockwise, fingering their prayer beads <strong>an</strong>d twirling their prayerwheels. They do this because they are trying to work out their salvation.The <strong>Bible</strong>, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, says that salvation is God’s free gift to sinners. This gift was verycostly for the Giver. It was purchased with a great price, which was the atoning sacrifice ofGod’s Son on the cross. But for the sinner it is free.“For by grace are ye saved through <strong>faith</strong>; <strong>an</strong>d that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest <strong>an</strong>ym<strong>an</strong> should boast” (Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s 2:8-9).The <strong>Bible</strong> says there is nothing that the sinner c<strong>an</strong> offer God in order to atone for his sins. Whatcould we offer? Righteous works? The <strong>Bible</strong> says our righteousness is as filthy rags before God’sgreat holiness (Isaiah 64:6). Money? What would the God of creation do with our patheticcurrency? A pure heart? The <strong>Bible</strong> says the heart is deceitful above all things <strong>an</strong>d desperatelywicked (Jeremiah 17:9). How, then, could we purchase our own salvation?“But we are all as <strong>an</strong> uncle<strong>an</strong> thing, <strong>an</strong>d all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; <strong>an</strong>d we all do fade as a leaf;<strong>an</strong>d our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6).No, salvation is the free unmerited gift of a loving <strong>an</strong>d deeply compassionate God. As theChristi<strong>an</strong> hymn says, “We owed a debt we could not pay; He paid a debt He did not owe.”“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should notperish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).The <strong>Bible</strong>! What a Book!REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE BIBLE'S PROOF1. What verse says that without <strong>faith</strong> it is impossible to please God?2. What verse says that <strong>faith</strong> comes by hearing <strong>an</strong>d hearing by the Word of God?3. What verse says that the <strong>Bible</strong> is based on m<strong>an</strong>y infallible proofs?4. In what verse did Peter say that the <strong>Bible</strong> does not contain cunningly devised fables?5. How does the <strong>Bible</strong>'s unique construction prove that it is the Word of God?6. What is one of the books <strong>an</strong>d chapters in the Old Testament that says predictive prophecyproves that the prophets were of God?7. What are three great Messi<strong>an</strong>ic prophetic passages?42
8. What are five specific things about Jesus’ first coming that were prophesied?9. What are five details of Jesus death that were foretold by the prophets?10. What are some of the scientifically-accurate statements in the <strong>Bible</strong>?11. What does the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" me<strong>an</strong>?12. In what way does the <strong>Bible</strong>'s c<strong>an</strong>dor prove that it is the Word of God?13. In what way does the <strong>Bible</strong>'s doctrine of salvation prove that it is the Word of God?43
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSThe facts about the Dead Sea ScrollsThe Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered between 1947 <strong>an</strong>d 1956 in 11 caves near the northwestshore of the Dead Sea, 13 miles southeast of Jerusalem. They were preserved by the dry climateof the caves, which are 1,300 feet below sea level.Four-fifths of the scrolls are written in Hebrew, <strong>an</strong>d 25% of them are books of the <strong>Bible</strong>. Thereare 15 copies of Genesis, 17 of Exodus, 13 of Leviticus, 8 of Numbers, 29 of Deuteronomy, 2 ofJoshua, 3 of Judges, 21 of Isaiah, 6 of Jeremiah, 6 of Ezekiel, 36 of Psalms, 2 of Proverbs, <strong>an</strong>d 4of Ruth.Adv<strong>an</strong>ced dating tests in the early 1990s found that the biblical scrolls date to the two centuriesbefore Christ (George Bon<strong>an</strong>i, “Carbon-14 Tests Subst<strong>an</strong>tiate Scroll Dates,” BiblicalArchaeology Review, November/December 1991, p. 72).The most import<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d complete O.T. book among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Great IsaiahScroll, which contains all 66 books of Isaiah. It was found in the first cave <strong>an</strong>d was written on 17pieces of sheepskin sewn together to form a scroll measuring about 24 feet in length. It has beendated at least four times by the carbon-14 method <strong>an</strong>d the results have r<strong>an</strong>ged from 335 to 107B.C. Other techniques (e.g., writing material <strong>an</strong>d style, associated coins <strong>an</strong>d other artifacts) havedated it to 150-100 B.C. Thus it was written at least a century before Christ.The signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Christi<strong>an</strong> apologetics1. The scrolls confirm the traditional c<strong>an</strong>on of the 39 books of the Old Testament.There are portions of every Old Testament book except Esther, thus confirming the traditionalc<strong>an</strong>on of Scripture.2. The scrolls provide evidence that <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy was pre-written.The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Messi<strong>an</strong>ic prophecies in the Old Testament were writtenbefore the birth of Jesus <strong>an</strong>d thus authenticate their divine origin!3. The scrolls authenticate the Masoretic Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>.The Dead Sea Scrolls provide powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Masoretic Hebrewtext that was the basis for the great Reformation <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the Luther in Germ<strong>an</strong>, the KingJames in English, <strong>an</strong>d the Reina Valera in Sp<strong>an</strong>ish.44
The Masoretic Hebrew text was preserved by the meticulous labor of Hebrew scribes prior to theinvention of printing by moveable type in the 15th century. (The first printed Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>appeared in 1488.)The word “masoret” refers to the <strong>faith</strong>ful tr<strong>an</strong>smission of the <strong>Bible</strong>. The Masoretic scribesactually counted each word of the m<strong>an</strong>uscripts, <strong>an</strong>d if a mistake was made that section had to bedestroyed. Sixty to sixty-five percent of the <strong>Bible</strong> scrolls found at the Dead Sea represent thesame text reproduced by the Masoretic scribes. This is amazing since more th<strong>an</strong> 1,000 yearsseparate the earliest Hebrew codexes of the Masoretic text (such as the Aleppo) <strong>an</strong>d the Dead SeaScrolls. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll dates to 100-150 B.C., whereas the Aleppo Codexdates to about A.D. 920.The differences between the Dead Sea scrolls <strong>an</strong>d the Masoretic text are extremely minor, largelypertaining to spelling or grammar, the omission or addition of a word, or the mixing of Hebrewletters. For example, one of the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 leaves out one “holy” fromIsaiah 6:3, obviously a scribal oversight.Comparing Isaiah 53 in the Great Isaiah Scroll to the Aleppo Codex, there are only three lettersthat differ signific<strong>an</strong>tly. Dr. Ernst Wurthwein calls the agreement of the Great Isaiah Scroll <strong>an</strong>dthe Masoretic text “striking” <strong>an</strong>d Adolfo Roitm<strong>an</strong> calls it “extraordinarily close” (Wurthwein,The Text of the Old Testament, 1979, p. 144; Roitm<strong>an</strong>, The <strong>Bible</strong> in the Shrine of the Book, 2006,p. 43).The Shrine of the BookIn light of Paul’s statement in Rom<strong>an</strong>s 3:1-2 that God committed the keeping of the Scripture tothe Jews, it is fascinating that the two greatest historical witnesses to the authority of theMasoretic Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> are located in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem, <strong>an</strong> arm of the IsraelMuseum. They are the keepers of both the Great Isaiah Scroll, found in the Dead Sea caves, <strong>an</strong>dthe Aleppo Codex, which is the most import<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>cient complete Masoretic Old Testament.The Aleppo Codex (known in Hebrew as Ha-Keter, me<strong>an</strong>ing the Crown) was made in the 10thcentury A.D. in Tiberias, which was a center of Jewish scholarship after the razing of Jerusalem.This was also a center for the creation of the Talmud, which is a collection of Jewish traditionthat was raised (in practice) to <strong>an</strong> authority equal to that of the Scripture, something that Jesuscondemned in Matthew 15 <strong>an</strong>d 23. The Aleppo m<strong>an</strong>uscript is the Masoretic Text. It was copiedby Shlomo Ben Boya’a, <strong>an</strong>d the vowel markings were added by renowned master scribe Aaronben Asher. (The Masoretic Text is also called the Ben Asher Text.) For nearly 1,000 years it “wasused as the st<strong>an</strong>dard text in the correction of books” while “generations of scribes madepilgrimages to consult” it (Roitm<strong>an</strong>, p. 62). It resided at the synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, fromabout A.D. 1099 to 1375, when it was moved to the synagogue in Aleppo, Syria, where it residedin a double-locked metal box in “the Cave of Elijah.” (According to their tradition, Elijah theprophet was exiled there.) The keys were held by two prominent men <strong>an</strong>d the box could only be45
opened in the presence of both men on the authority of the synagogue’s leaders. On December 2,1947, after the adoption of the UN resolution to establish a Jewish state, the Aleppo synagoguewas destroyed by rampaging Muslims during the riots that broke out all over the Arab world. Therioters broke into the iron box <strong>an</strong>d ripped pages from the Codex <strong>an</strong>d threw it on the floor. Mostof the Pentateuch was lost, as well as some other portions. Someone recovered the damagedCodex <strong>an</strong>d it was hidden for the next several years. In 1958 the Aleppo Codex was smuggled toTurkey hidden in a washing machine, <strong>an</strong>d from there brought to Jerusalem (Roitm<strong>an</strong>, p. 65). Itwas laboriously restored over a six-year period by the Israel Museum <strong>an</strong>d today is on display inthe Shrine of the Book.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS1. When were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered?2. Where were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered?3. In what l<strong>an</strong>guage were most of the scrolls written?4. What percentage of the scrolls are books of the <strong>Bible</strong>?5. The biblical Dead Sea Scrolls date to when?6. What is the most import<strong>an</strong>t book among the Dead Sea Scrolls?7. How long is this scroll?8. What are the three ways that the Dead Sea Scrolls are signific<strong>an</strong>t for Christi<strong>an</strong> apologetics?9. There are portions of how m<strong>an</strong>y of the Old Testament books?10. How m<strong>an</strong>y years separate the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Masoretic Hebrew text?11. How m<strong>an</strong>y letters differ between Isaiah 53 in the Great Isaiah Scroll <strong>an</strong>d the Aleppo Codex?12. What did Paul say about the adv<strong>an</strong>tage of the Jews in Rom<strong>an</strong>s 3:1-2?13. In what century was the Aleppo Codex made?14. In what city was the Aleppo Codex made?15. Why was the Codex named “Aleppo”?16. Who was Aaron ben Asher?17. What is the Hebrew name for the Aleppo Codex <strong>an</strong>d what does this me<strong>an</strong>?18. Where does the Aleppo Codex reside today?46
Introductory PointsTHE BIBLE’S DIFFICULTIES1. Peter stated that the <strong>Bible</strong> contains some “things hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Hewas specifically referring to Paul’s epistles, but the same is true for the whole <strong>Bible</strong>. These arethe types of difficulties that skeptics use in their attempt to discredit the <strong>Bible</strong>.2. We should not be surprised at the great assault upon Scripture today.When the devil tempted Eve, he questioned the authority of God’s Word, <strong>an</strong>d this has been oneof his major tactics ever since.In fact, the broad assault on the <strong>Bible</strong> today is a fulfillment of prophecy <strong>an</strong>d is therefore <strong>an</strong>evidence that the <strong>Bible</strong> is true. The Lord <strong>an</strong>d His apostles warned of the coming of m<strong>an</strong>y falseteachers <strong>an</strong>d of a great apostasy or falling away from the New Testament <strong>faith</strong>. See Matthew7:15; 2 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 11:1-4, 13-15; Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s 4:14; Philippi<strong>an</strong>s 3:17-19; Colossi<strong>an</strong>s 2:8; 1Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-13; 4:4-5; 2 Peter 2:1-2; Jude 3-4.2 Timothy 3:7-8 warns that apostates will be ever learning <strong>an</strong>d never able to come to theknowledge of the truth, <strong>an</strong>d in fact, they will resist the truth. This is a perfect description ofChristi<strong>an</strong> higher education today, even among “ev<strong>an</strong>gelicals” (as we have documented in thebook New Ev<strong>an</strong>gelicalism). The typical seminary takes a syncretistic approach, entertaining <strong>an</strong>endless stream of <strong>an</strong>cient <strong>an</strong>d end-times heresies, while despising a dogmatic approach todoctrine <strong>an</strong>d attacking those who hold the <strong>Bible</strong> as the infallibly inspired Word of God.2 Timothy 4:3-4 says end-time Christi<strong>an</strong>s will trade sound doctrine for fables <strong>an</strong>d will be led inthis diabolical business by heaps of teachers who are willing to scratch people’s ears with newthings.In 2 Peter 2:1-2, Peter warned that m<strong>an</strong>y will teach damnable heresies, even attacking the person<strong>an</strong>d character of Christ; <strong>an</strong>d by their false teaching <strong>an</strong>d sensual lifestyle they will bring greatreproach upon Christi<strong>an</strong>ity. A damnable heresy is a heresy that a true believer c<strong>an</strong>not hold. It is aheresy that damns the soul to eternal judgment. Examples are works gospels <strong>an</strong>d false christs.In 2 Peter 3:3-6, Peter further warned that at the end of the age there will be widespread unbelieftoward the global flood <strong>an</strong>d the second coming of Christ; there will be scoffing <strong>an</strong>d flagr<strong>an</strong>trejection of God’s moral laws.2 Timothy 3:13 teaches that this apostasy, which beg<strong>an</strong> in the days of the apostles, will grow inintensity as the church age progresses.47
3. The scoffing unbeliever is unreasonable in treating the <strong>Bible</strong> differently th<strong>an</strong> other books.While he gives other books the benefit of the doubt <strong>an</strong>d tries to find a solution to apparentproblems, he treats the <strong>Bible</strong> with disdain <strong>an</strong>d suspicion <strong>an</strong>d often refuses to accept the mostreasonable solution to a difficulty. George DeHoff rightly observes, “Even when there are severalexpl<strong>an</strong>ations for <strong>an</strong> alleged discrep<strong>an</strong>cy (<strong>an</strong>y one of which could be the truth) skeptics claim tobe unable to find <strong>an</strong>y of them.”“When we meet with seeming discrep<strong>an</strong>cies in other writers, we try to find some way of explaining themwithout charging the author with inaccuracy, especially if he has shown himself generally trustworthy. Withregard to m<strong>an</strong>y matters in <strong>an</strong>cient history which c<strong>an</strong>not be satisfactorily explained, we suppose that if otherfacts were known to us, the difficulties would be cleared away. But, unfortunately, it is the habit of m<strong>an</strong>y totreat the Scriptures in exactly the reverse way. They magnify the difficulties; they ignore or reject all attemptsat expl<strong>an</strong>ation; they jump at once to the conclusion that the writers are mistaken. Now, surely this is mostunscientific. If it is possible to find a way of explaining the difficulty, we are bound to do so; <strong>an</strong>d if, after all, weare not sure that the difficulty is removed, we surely ought, in view of the general trustworthiness of the <strong>Bible</strong>histori<strong>an</strong>s, to believe that if we knew other facts, which are now hidden from us, all would be clear” (A.McCaig, The Gr<strong>an</strong>d Old Book, 1923).4. Typically, the scoffing unbeliever has not made the necessary effort to underst<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong>properly.We don’t expect to be able to pick up a training m<strong>an</strong>ual for <strong>an</strong> F-16 fighter jet <strong>an</strong>d underst<strong>an</strong>d itwithout the proper education, but scoffing unbelievers pretend that without <strong>an</strong>y serious training<strong>an</strong>d without proper experience in h<strong>an</strong>dling the <strong>Bible</strong>, they are capable not only of underst<strong>an</strong>dingit but also of infallibly finding its imperfections.Requirements for underst<strong>an</strong>ding the <strong>Bible</strong>To underst<strong>an</strong>d a book of mathematics requires the development of a mathematical mindset, <strong>an</strong>dto underst<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong> requires the development of a spiritual mindset. The <strong>Bible</strong> tells usexactly how this is done.First, the new birth is required (1 Cor. 2:12-16; 1 John 2:27). Those who are unregenerate c<strong>an</strong>notinterpret the <strong>Bible</strong> correctly; they will find conflicts <strong>an</strong>d problems because they do not have theindwelling <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit <strong>an</strong>d therefore do not have a spiritual mind. Before I c<strong>an</strong> underst<strong>an</strong>d the<strong>Bible</strong> properly, I must humble myself before God as a needy sinner <strong>an</strong>d receive Jesus Christ asmy only Saviour <strong>an</strong>d Lord. This is how one is born again, <strong>an</strong>d at that time spiritual life isimparted; the darkened mind is enlightened; <strong>an</strong>d the individual is sealed with the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit whobecomes his spiritual Teacher (Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s 1:13; 2:2). “The deepest biblical scholar, if he fails tofind Christ, knows less of the real me<strong>an</strong>ing of the Gospel th<strong>an</strong> the humblest Christi<strong>an</strong> who isliving in the <strong>faith</strong> of the Son of God” (Pulpit Commentary).Second, <strong>faith</strong> is required (Heb. 11:6). M<strong>an</strong>y of the emerging church teachers glorify unbelief, butGod rewards <strong>faith</strong>.48
Third, obedience is required (John 7:17). The <strong>Bible</strong> is not merely a book to study as <strong>an</strong>intellectual exercise; it is first <strong>an</strong>d foremost the Word of God to obey. Unless I am saved <strong>an</strong>dwalking in obedience to the will of God, I will not grow in knowledge <strong>an</strong>d truth. The Christi<strong>an</strong>sat Corinth did not grow properly in underst<strong>an</strong>ding because of their carnality <strong>an</strong>d worldliness (1Cor. 3:1-2). The same was true for the Christi<strong>an</strong>s addressed in the book of Hebrews (Heb.5:11-14). “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even THOSE WHO BYREASON OF USE HAVE THEIR SENSES EXERCISED to discern both good <strong>an</strong>d evil” (Heb.5:14). The Lord Jesus Christ taught that the one whose heart is set to obey God is the one whowill know true doctrine (John 7:17). A Christi<strong>an</strong> who is worldly <strong>an</strong>d spiritually careless, who isun<strong>faith</strong>ful to the house of God, who is not busy in the service of the Lord, will not have a strongunderst<strong>an</strong>ding of biblical truth. Such a one is also vulnerable to the wiles of false teachers, who“by good words <strong>an</strong>d fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom<strong>an</strong>s 16:18).Fourth, diligence is required (2 Tim. 2:15; Prov. 2:1-5). If you desire to underst<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong>properly, you must set out to obtain a thorough knowledge of it from beginning to end. You mustlearn to rightly divide it. You must learn to exercise spiritual discernment. You must obtain thenecessary tools <strong>an</strong>d use them diligently. It is one thing to own concord<strong>an</strong>ces <strong>an</strong>d dictionaries <strong>an</strong>dcommentaries; it is quite <strong>an</strong>other thing to use them! You must apply great diligence in thisendeavor. You must be willing to read <strong>an</strong>d study a passage repeatedly. The practice of reading the<strong>Bible</strong> through at least once per year is import<strong>an</strong>t because it keeps the Scriptures fresh in one’smind.Fifth, patience <strong>an</strong>d persistence is required (Proverbs 25:2; John 8:31-32). The <strong>Bible</strong> is the Wordof the eternal God, <strong>an</strong>d it is not possible that we will underst<strong>an</strong>d all of it in a short time. It isdesigned to be the Book of a m<strong>an</strong>’s entire life, <strong>an</strong>d no m<strong>an</strong> will ever exhaust its treasures.Sixth, humility is required (Luke 10:21). “What will a pious, obedient, loving child do when hehears the father make a remark which on the surface appears objectionable? Instead of criticizinghim <strong>an</strong>d condemning his utter<strong>an</strong>ce as wrong, the child will ask him for <strong>an</strong> expl<strong>an</strong>ation. If we findstumbling blocks in the <strong>Holy</strong> Scriptures, let us take the attitude of such a loving child” (WilliamArndt).Seventh, spiritual passion is required (Prov. 2:3-6). To underst<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong> properly, one mustseek God <strong>an</strong>d His truth passionately, “crying out” for underst<strong>an</strong>ding.The reason for <strong>Bible</strong> difficulties1. The <strong>Bible</strong> is God’s Word. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways myways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher th<strong>an</strong> the earth, so are my ways higher th<strong>an</strong>your ways, <strong>an</strong>d my thoughts th<strong>an</strong> your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). It is not surprising that the<strong>Bible</strong> contains things hard to be understood, because it is the revelation of the omniscient,omnipotent, eternal God. “A revelation coming down from <strong>an</strong> infinite Mind to finite minds mustnecessarily involve difficulties. This is true of all Christi<strong>an</strong> doctrine. Take for inst<strong>an</strong>ce the49
doctrine of God, or immortality, or the incarnation. There is no Christi<strong>an</strong> doctrine altogether freefrom intellectual difficulties. ... Once we begin to reject the doctrines of Christi<strong>an</strong>ity becausethey involve some intellectual difficulty, then we shall finally reject them all. But when we havedone this, when we have sought refuge in atheism, we shall find ourselves no better off th<strong>an</strong>before. For the intellectual difficulties of unbelief are immensely greater th<strong>an</strong> those of Christi<strong>an</strong><strong>faith</strong>. Let us settle one thing right here—we live in a universe of thought, <strong>an</strong>d there is no place inthis universe of thought where we c<strong>an</strong> escape from all intellectual difficulties” (Alva J. McClain,The “Problems” of Verbal Inspiration).2. We are separated from <strong>Bible</strong> events by thous<strong>an</strong>ds of years <strong>an</strong>d by vast cultural <strong>an</strong>d linguisticdifferences. God gave the Scriptures for all people of all centuries <strong>an</strong>d He was in control of thetime <strong>an</strong>d context of its giving, but it is not reasonable to expect there will be no problems inunderst<strong>an</strong>ding the Scriptures.3. Some things are purposely hidden from the scoffer. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did notspeak in parables to make the truth clear to simple people; He spoke in parables to hide the truthfrom willful unbelievers (Mat. 13:13-17). God is not mocked; He has ordained that men reapwhat they sow (Gal. 6:7). He has designed His Word in such a way that those who willfullyreject Him are unable to discern the truth properly.4. Proper <strong>Bible</strong> underst<strong>an</strong>ding requires spiritual perception (1 Cor. 2:12-15; Heb. 5:11-14). It isthe unsaved, the spiritually immature, <strong>an</strong>d the carnal who find inconsistencies in the <strong>Bible</strong>. Godhas ordained that it be so.5. God requires m<strong>an</strong> to study (2 Timothy 2:15; Prov. 2:1-6; 25:2). The <strong>Bible</strong> does not read like amorning newspaper because it is not a morning newspaper! It is the eternal Word of God, <strong>an</strong>dGod has ordained that a m<strong>an</strong> must dig into it diligently or he will not underst<strong>an</strong>d it properly. Thechief solution to <strong>Bible</strong> difficulties is diligent, believing STUDY of the <strong>Holy</strong> Scriptures!6. The <strong>Bible</strong> is for all men <strong>an</strong>d all times. It is possible that some things are difficult for me tounderst<strong>an</strong>d because they are intended to be better understood by someone else in <strong>an</strong>othersituation. Some of the prophetic discourses fall into this category (D<strong>an</strong>. 12:4; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).Sound Principles of <strong>Bible</strong> InterpretationTo deal with difficulties in the <strong>Bible</strong> requires at least a basic knowledge of the principles of <strong>Bible</strong>interpretation. We will look at four of these.1. Context is essential in defining words <strong>an</strong>d interpreting passages.The first <strong>an</strong>d foremost rule of <strong>Bible</strong> interpretation is to define its me<strong>an</strong>ing according to context.Absolutely nothing is more import<strong>an</strong>t th<strong>an</strong> this. It is therefore necessary to know the theme <strong>an</strong>dmessage of the immediate passage, chapter, <strong>an</strong>d book. The <strong>Bible</strong> is a self-interpreting Book if we50
allow the context to rule. False teachers, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, twist verses out of their contexts <strong>an</strong>dforce pre-determined me<strong>an</strong>ings upon them. For example, there are Kore<strong>an</strong> false teachers inNepal who are aggressive in having home <strong>Bible</strong> studies with people, but they don’t let the peoplewrite down the verses they use <strong>an</strong>d they don’t let them look at the verses before <strong>an</strong>d after theones they are discussing. That is a recipe for spiritual disaster!Following are some examples of how to interpret the <strong>Bible</strong> according to context:a. Consider the phrase “judge not that ye be not judged” in Matthew 7:1. This is frequentlytaken out of context today to support the doctrine that it is wrong to judge sin <strong>an</strong>d doctrine,but if we honor the context we see that Jesus was warning against only one type ofjudgment--hypocritical judgment (see Matthew 7:1-5). That He was not warning againstevery type of judgment is evident by the fact that in the same passage He comm<strong>an</strong>ded Hislisteners to “beware of false prophets” (Mat. 7:15). The way to beware of false prophets isto carefully judge or examine a m<strong>an</strong>’s life <strong>an</strong>d teaching by comparing it to Scripture.b. Consider the phrase “foolish questions” in Titus 3:9. What is this? The context provides thedefinition. Foolish questions are questions (1) that produce only strife <strong>an</strong>d do not edify (v.9), (2) that are unprofitable (v. 9), <strong>an</strong>d (3) that are used by false teachers (v. 10). Foolishquestions are used insincerely by false teachers to bring doubt to people’s minds aboutsound doctrine so they c<strong>an</strong> lead them away from the truth.c. Consider the phrase “that no prophecy of the scripture is of <strong>an</strong>y private interpretation” in 2Peter 1:20. This has been interpreted in several ways, but the me<strong>an</strong>ing is clearly given inthe context. See the next verse. It me<strong>an</strong>s that the words written by the hum<strong>an</strong> authors of the<strong>Bible</strong> were given by the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit.d. Consider the phrase “all things are lawful unto me” in 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 6:12. If we ignore thecontext, we might be led to think that the believer is free from all laws <strong>an</strong>d is therefore atliberty to live as he pleases. This statement is so used by the “Christi<strong>an</strong> rock” crowd. Butthe context corrects this interpretation. In the next verse, we see that Paul is talking aboutthings such as dietary matters. He is saying that all things are lawful that are not forbiddenin Scripture.2. Scripture must be compared with Scripture.Another import<strong>an</strong>t rule of <strong>Bible</strong> interpretation is to compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor.2:13). That is why it is good to have a <strong>Bible</strong> with cross-references. Even more import<strong>an</strong>t is theTreasury of Scripture Knowledge, which has hundreds of thous<strong>an</strong>ds of cross-references. Goodcomputer <strong>Bible</strong> software packages such as Swordsearcher have the Treasury of ScriptureKnowledge built into the search system so it is very easy to run down cross references.51
Comparing Scripture with Scripture is essential for developing sound doctrine. If Scripture isinterpreted in <strong>an</strong> isolated fashion, the result will often be a wrong interpretation. False teacherslove to isolate verses. Arthur T. Pierson wisely warns: “No investigation of Scripture, in itsvarious parts <strong>an</strong>d separate texts, however import<strong>an</strong>t, must impair the sense of the supreme valueof its united witness. There is not a form of evil doctrine or practice that may not claim apparents<strong>an</strong>ction <strong>an</strong>d support from isolated passages; but nothing erroneous or vicious c<strong>an</strong> ever findcounten<strong>an</strong>ce from the Word of God when the whole united testimony of Scripture is weighedagainst it. Partial examination will result in partial views of truth which are necessarilyimperfect; only careful comparison will show the complete mind of God.”Not only does the proper me<strong>an</strong>ing of a verse or passage become clear by comparing it with otherScriptures, but <strong>Bible</strong> difficulties often melt away by this me<strong>an</strong>s.Consider Luke 14:26, “If <strong>an</strong>y m<strong>an</strong> come to me, <strong>an</strong>d hate not his father, <strong>an</strong>d mother, <strong>an</strong>d wife, <strong>an</strong>dchildren, <strong>an</strong>d brethren, <strong>an</strong>d sisters, yea, <strong>an</strong>d his own life also, he c<strong>an</strong>not be my disciple.” Whatdoes it me<strong>an</strong> to “hate” one’s own loved ones? This is explained in a comp<strong>an</strong>ion passage inMatthew 10:37, “He that loveth father or mother more th<strong>an</strong> me is not worthy of me: <strong>an</strong>d he thatloveth son or daughter more th<strong>an</strong> me is not worthy of me.” It me<strong>an</strong>s we must love Christ farmore th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>yone else <strong>an</strong>d we must obey Him in all things.3. Clear passages must interpret the obscure.A third import<strong>an</strong>t principle of <strong>Bible</strong> interpretation is that clear passages must interpret the lessclear. False teachers disregard this principle by building their peculiar doctrines from difficult<strong>an</strong>d obscure passages <strong>an</strong>d using such verses to overthrow the teaching of m<strong>an</strong>y clear ones.For example, Seventh-day Adventists build their doctrine of “soul sleep” on a few verses in theOld Testament. They point to Job 27:3, for example, which says that the breath is the spirit. Theythen say that since the breath is the spirit, m<strong>an</strong> does not have a spirit that c<strong>an</strong> live after he dies.Thus, when m<strong>an</strong> dies, he is simply dead <strong>an</strong>d non-existent until the resurrection. But when welook at the clear teaching of other verses, we see that m<strong>an</strong> is a three-part being (body, soul, <strong>an</strong>dspirit) <strong>an</strong>d the spirit of m<strong>an</strong> lives after he is dead. Compare 1 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s 5:23 <strong>an</strong>d James 2:26.The Seventh-day Adventists also use Ecclesiastes 9:5, which says the “dead know not <strong>an</strong>y thing.”They claim that this supports their doctrine that the dead merely sleep in the grave until theresurrection, but they ignore the rest of the <strong>Bible</strong> which teaches that the dead are conscious. Forexample, compare Luke 9:28-33; 1 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s 4:14; <strong>an</strong>d Revelation 6:9-11.4. The literal sense of Scripture must rule.Dr. David Cooper said, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no othersense, but take every word at its primary literal me<strong>an</strong>ing unless the facts of the immediatecontext clearly indicate otherwise.”52
Following are three reasons why we must use the literal method of interpretation:a. God gave the Scripture to reveal truth to m<strong>an</strong>, not to hide it or confuse it (Deut. 29:29). Hetherefore used the normal rules of hum<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage.b. If the literal sense is not followed, no one c<strong>an</strong> be certain of the me<strong>an</strong>ing. By the allegoricalmethod the mind of the interpreter becomes the authority. Consider Revelation 20:1-3. Ifthis passage does not me<strong>an</strong> that a literal <strong>an</strong>gel binds a literal devil in a literal bottomless pitfor a literal thous<strong>an</strong>d years, we have no way of knowing what it does me<strong>an</strong>. If it does notme<strong>an</strong> what it says, it could me<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>ything that <strong>an</strong>y interpreter says it me<strong>an</strong>s. Thus, theteaching of the <strong>Bible</strong> is thrown into complete <strong>an</strong>d perm<strong>an</strong>ent confusion by the allegoricalmethod.c. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s prophecies have been fulfilled literally. Consider the prophecy of Christ’s firstcoming in Psalm 22.Psa. 22:1 – Jesus’ words on the cross (Mat. 27:46)Psa. 22:6-8, 12-13 – The people reviled Jesus (Mat. 27:39-44)Psa. 22:11 – There were none to help Him (Mk. 14:50; Heb. 1:3)Psa. 22:14-16 – They crucified Him (Mat. 27:35)Psa. 22:17a – They did not break his bones (Jn. 19:33)Psa. 22:17b – They stared at Him (Mat. 27:36)Psa. 22:18 – They gambled for his garments (Mat. 27:35; Jn. 19:24)In contrast to the literal approach to <strong>Bible</strong> interpretation is the ALLEGORICAL METHOD,which finds a “deeper me<strong>an</strong>ing.” The allegorical method of interpretation is particularly appliedto the prophetic portions of Scripture.a. For example, the Geneva <strong>Bible</strong> note at Revelation 9:11 identifies “the <strong>an</strong>gel of thebottomless pit” as “Antichrist the Pope, king of hypocrites <strong>an</strong>d Sat<strong>an</strong>’s ambassador.” Thereis no reason, though, to see the <strong>an</strong>gel of the bottomless pit as <strong>an</strong>ything other th<strong>an</strong> a literalfallen <strong>an</strong>gel in a literal bottomless pit.b. Harold Camping, founder of Family Christi<strong>an</strong> Radio, came up with the followingallegorical interpretation of Revelation 11:7. He says the two witnesses represent thechurch. The church has been in the great tribulation but has now been killed. Therefore, thechurch is dead; God is through with churches <strong>an</strong>d pastors <strong>an</strong>d they have no more Scripturalauthority.Of course, the <strong>Bible</strong> contains types <strong>an</strong>d figures of speech, but even these must be interpreted bythe normal rules of l<strong>an</strong>guage.53
We explain how to do this <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y other such things in the Adv<strong>an</strong>ced <strong>Bible</strong> Studies Seriescourse “How to Study the <strong>Bible</strong>,” which is available from Way of Life Literature.Examples of how scoffers misuse the <strong>Bible</strong> to create problems <strong>an</strong>d errorsFollowing are a few examples of how scoffers misuse the <strong>Bible</strong>. We have dealt with hundreds ofthese in the book Things Hard to Be Understood: A H<strong>an</strong>dbook of Biblical Difficulties, which wewould recommend to each student as <strong>an</strong> apologetics resource.1. The alleged two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2M<strong>an</strong>y scoffers claim that there is a contradiction between the accounts of creation in Genesis one<strong>an</strong>d Genesis two. They point out, for example, that Genesis 1 says the <strong>an</strong>imals were created onthe sixth day before the m<strong>an</strong> was made (Gen. 1:24-31), whereas Genesis two seems to say thatGod made the m<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d then made the <strong>an</strong>imals <strong>an</strong>d brought them to him to be named (Gen.2:18-19).The apparent contradiction disappears when one underst<strong>an</strong>ds that the two accounts are me<strong>an</strong>t tobe complementary. They give two different perspectives of the account of creation. Genesis 1 isthe floodlight, whereas Genesis 2 is the spotlight. Genesis 1 gives the big picture <strong>an</strong>d describesthe general events that occurred in the six days of creation. Genesis 2 focuses on m<strong>an</strong>’s creation.Genesis 1 tells us when the <strong>an</strong>imals were made, whereas Genesis 2 shows the associationbetween the <strong>an</strong>imals <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d tells us what happened after the <strong>an</strong>imals <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong> were made.Genesis 1 tells us that God made m<strong>an</strong> male <strong>an</strong>d female, <strong>an</strong>d Genesis 2 tells us how this wasdone.2. The alleged mistake in the statement that Adam would die the day he ate of the tree (Gen.2:16-17)Since Adam did not die physically that day, it has been alleged that this is a mistake in the <strong>Bible</strong>.In fact, though, Adam did die that day. Death me<strong>an</strong>s separation, <strong>an</strong>d there are three deaths spokenof in Scripture. There is spiritual death, which is separation from God. There is physical death,which is separation of the spirit from the body. And there is eternal death, which is eternalseparation from God <strong>an</strong>d punishment in the lake of fire. Adam died spiritually the very day thathe disobeyed God. His spirit died <strong>an</strong>d he became separated from God (“dead in trespasses <strong>an</strong>dsins,” Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s 2:1), <strong>an</strong>d every individual who is born into the world is born in this frightfulcondition. This is why Jesus said that we must be born again in order to be saved (John 3:3). Wemust be born spiritually <strong>an</strong>d receive spiritual life from God.3. The alleged injustice <strong>an</strong>d cruelty of God in the Old TestamentUnbelievers have long used Israel’s destruction of pag<strong>an</strong> nations in C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong> as evidence that theGod of the Old Testament is unjust <strong>an</strong>d cruel (Deut. 7:2). What they refuse to take into54
consideration are the following facts: First, God waited 400 years before judging these wickednations, which reminds us that He is longsuffering with m<strong>an</strong> (Genesis 15:13-16). These nationshad the light of creation <strong>an</strong>d conscience <strong>an</strong>d had prophetic light as well (e.g., Noah’s sons,Melchisidek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) <strong>an</strong>d could have repented as Nineveh did. Second, thenations in question were devoted to every sort of vile moral perversion, including incest,homosexuality, bestiality, <strong>an</strong>d the burning of their children. It is not morally wrong for a holy,lawgiving God to punish those who willfully, flagr<strong>an</strong>tly, <strong>an</strong>d unrepent<strong>an</strong>tly break His laws.Those who charge God with injustice <strong>an</strong>d cruelty for punishing wicked nations are hypocritical,because they themselves believe in law <strong>an</strong>d order <strong>an</strong>d support the punishment of those whocommit crimes such as rape <strong>an</strong>d child molestation <strong>an</strong>d murder. Third, God was merciful to thoselike Rahab who believed (Joshua 2). The whole tenor of Scripture teaches that God delights inmercy more th<strong>an</strong> in punishment. He “is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that <strong>an</strong>y shouldperish, but that all should come to repent<strong>an</strong>ce” (2 Peter 3:9). He w<strong>an</strong>ts all men to be saved (1Timothy 2:4). Fourth, it was necessary for those wicked pag<strong>an</strong> nations to be overthrown so thatIsrael could be established in that l<strong>an</strong>d as a light to the world. Had they been left alone, Israelwould have been corrupted morally <strong>an</strong>d religiously within a very short time (Deut. 7:2-6).Through Israel God gave the world His divine revelation in the <strong>Bible</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d through Israel Hebrought the Saviour into the world to provide salvation (John 3:16). Those who charge God withinjustice <strong>an</strong>d cruelty ignore the fact that God Himself paid the price dem<strong>an</strong>ded of His own holylaw so that men c<strong>an</strong> be saved. The heart of God was revealed in the amazing words that Jesusspoke from the cross in regard to the people who had so terribly, unjustly abused him: “Father,forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The God revealed in the <strong>Bible</strong> is the mostcompassionate Person in the universe. In fact, He is the source of all true love <strong>an</strong>d compassion,but He is also a thrice holy, lawgiving God, <strong>an</strong>d He c<strong>an</strong>not be judged by m<strong>an</strong>’s puny, inconsistentst<strong>an</strong>dards.4. The alleged contradictions in the <strong>Bible</strong>Following are a few examples of these:The alleged contradiction about God’s <strong>an</strong>ger (Jeremiah 3:12 vs. Jeremiah 17:4)Jeremiah 3:12 says God will not keep His <strong>an</strong>ger forever, whereas Jeremiah 17:4 says God’s<strong>an</strong>ger will burn forever. By examining the contexts we see that there is no contradiction.Jeremiah 3:12 refers to God’s <strong>an</strong>ger being appeased by repent<strong>an</strong>ce; whereas Jeremiah 17:4 refersto God’s <strong>an</strong>ger unappeased burning forever in punishment. The satisfaction of m<strong>an</strong>’s sin debtwas paid by Jesus Christ on the cross, but salvation is obtained through repent<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d <strong>faith</strong> <strong>an</strong>dthose who neglect God’s salvation will suffer God’s wrath forever. God’s wrath does burnforever, but in the case of the believer it fell on Christ <strong>an</strong>d thus was quenched.55
The alleged contradiction about the earth’s future (Psalm 78:69 vs. Psalm 102:25-26)Psalm 78:69 says the earth is established forever, whereas Psalm 102:25-26 says the earth will beburned up. As <strong>an</strong>y <strong>Bible</strong> believer knows, there is no contradiction here, because Psalm 78:69refers to the earth in general, whereas Psalm 102:25-26 refers to the burning up of this presentearth, which will be replaced by a new earth (2 Peter 3:12-13).The alleged contradiction about rejoicing when one’s enemy falls (Proverbs 24:17 vs. Psalm58:10)Proverbs 24:17 refers to rejoicing at a fellow m<strong>an</strong>’s misfortune, whereas Psalm 58:10 refers torejoicing at God’s righteous judgment upon sinners in the day of wrath. Psalm 58:10 makes thisplain. We have to interpret the Scripture dispensationally (according to the prophetic timeelement). Another example of this is seen in comparing Luke 9:54-56 <strong>an</strong>d Revelation 11:4-6.Jesus did not allow James <strong>an</strong>d John to call down fire on Christ rejectors, because in this presentdispensation He is offering salvation to sinners. But the Two Witnesses who will preach inJerusalem during the Great Tribulation will burn their enemies up with fire, because that is theDay of the Lord, the Day of God’s venge<strong>an</strong>ce.The alleged contradiction about the efficacy of sacrifices (Numbers 15:25 vs. Hebrews 10:11)Numbers 15 says that Israel was “forgiven” through the offering of sacrifices, whereas Hebrews10:11 says those sacrifices “c<strong>an</strong> never take away sins.” The seeming contradiction is solved byunderst<strong>an</strong>ding the purpose of the Old Testament sacrifices <strong>an</strong>d their relationship to Christ’ssacrifice. The sacrifices under the Law of Moses were types <strong>an</strong>d pictures which pointed to theultimate fulfillment in Christ. This is clearly explained in the book of Hebrews 9-10. See 10:1-3.God forgave those who offered the sacrifices in <strong>faith</strong>, but He forgave them on the basis ofChrist’s sacrifice <strong>an</strong>d not on the basis of the <strong>an</strong>imal sacrifices themselves.The alleged contradiction between Christ’s genealogy in Matthew <strong>an</strong>d LukeRichard Dawkins says, “Shouldn’t a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Joseph’sdescent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-onegenerations? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists!” (The GodDelusion). The following are the facts which the skeptic overlooks. First, the genealogies havetwo different purposes. Matthew traces Christ’s ROYAL GENEALOGY to Abraham (Mat. 1:1),whereas Luke traces Christ’s NATURAL GENEALOGY to Adam (Lk. 3:28). Second, thegenealogies are traced through different men. Matthew traces Christ’s genealogy throughJoseph’s father Jacob (Mat. 1:15-16), whereas Luke traces it through Mary’s father Heli (Lk.3:23). While Jacob was Joseph’s natural father, Heli was his adopted father. “Mary was the onlychild <strong>an</strong>d heir of Heli (see the Talmus) hence when Joseph married her he became the only son<strong>an</strong>d heir of Heli” (George DeHoff, Alleged <strong>Bible</strong> Contradictions Explained). Third, it is byme<strong>an</strong>s of Mary’s genealogy that Christ’s lineage bypassed Jechonias, because he was cursed so56
that his seed could not inherit the throne (Jer. 22:30; Mat. 1:12). This problem was solved bytracing Christ’s genealogy through <strong>an</strong>other of David’s sons, Nath<strong>an</strong>, to Mary’s father Heli (Lk.3:31). Therefore, instead of being evidence against the <strong>Bible</strong>’s divine inspiration, the twogenealogies provide wonderful evidence FOR it!The alleged contradiction about the sign on Jesus’ crossSome claim that the Gospel writers give contradictory accounts as to what was written on thesign that Pilate hung on Jesus’ cross:Matthew 27:37 - “This is Jesus the king of the Jews”Mark 15:26 - “The king of the Jews”Luke 23:38 - “This is the king of the Jews”John 19:19 - “Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews”Actually, the accounts are complementary rather th<strong>an</strong> contradictory. The full title was “This isJesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews,” <strong>an</strong>d the individual Gospel writers focus on various partsof the sign according to their individual purposes <strong>an</strong>d objectives.This is like four witnesses to a hit <strong>an</strong>d run traffic accident which involved a blue Ford Must<strong>an</strong>gwith wire rim wheels, a white racing stripe down the center, <strong>an</strong> air foil in the rear, <strong>an</strong>d fog lightson the front. One witness says he saw a Ford Must<strong>an</strong>g. Another says he saw a blue car. Anothersays he saw a blue car with fog lights on the front <strong>an</strong>d a white racing stripe. Another said he sawa blue Ford Must<strong>an</strong>g with wire rim wheels. There is no contradiction between these testimonies.Each of the Gospels was written to show a specific aspect of Christ’s life <strong>an</strong>d character <strong>an</strong>dministry, so the Gospel writers were led by the <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit to emphasize various aspects of thesame accounts. Matthew emphasizes Christ as King; Mark, Christ as Serv<strong>an</strong>t; Luke, Christ asM<strong>an</strong>; John, Christ as God. Most of the seeming contradictions c<strong>an</strong> be solved with thisunderst<strong>an</strong>ding, as we have demonstrated in the book Things Hard to Be Understood.SUMMARY OF “THE BIBLE’S DIFFICULTIES”1. The attack upon the <strong>Bible</strong> was prophesied by the apostles <strong>an</strong>d prophets in passages such as 2Timothy 3-4 <strong>an</strong>d 2 Peter 2-3.2. The <strong>Bible</strong> c<strong>an</strong>not be understood properly apart from salvation, s<strong>an</strong>ctified Christi<strong>an</strong> living, <strong>an</strong>ddiligent study.3. Four great principles of <strong>Bible</strong> interpretation are honoring the context, comparing Scripturewith Scripture, interpreting obscure passages with clear, <strong>an</strong>d using a literal rather th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>allegorical approach.57
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE BIBLE'S DIFFICULTIES1. In which book <strong>an</strong>d chapter in Paul’s epistles does one of the <strong>Bible</strong> writers say that there are“things hard to be understood”?2. When did the attack upon God’s Word begin?3. What does “apostasy” me<strong>an</strong>?4. What passage says that apostates will be “ever learning, <strong>an</strong>d never able to come to theknowledge of the truth”?5. What passage says end-times Christi<strong>an</strong>s will reject sound doctrine <strong>an</strong>d be turned unto fables?6. What passage describes preachers who will scratch the tickling ears of apostates?7. In what book <strong>an</strong>d chapter did one of the New Testament writers warn of false teachers whowill teach “damnable heresies”?8. What is a “damnable heresy”?9. In what chapter <strong>an</strong>d book does the New Testament warn about mockers who will deny theglobal flood <strong>an</strong>d the second coming of Christ?10. In what way does the scoffer treat the <strong>Bible</strong> differently th<strong>an</strong> other books?11. What seven things are required to develop a spiritual mindset so that we c<strong>an</strong> underst<strong>an</strong>d the<strong>Bible</strong> properly?12. Why is it necessary to be born again in order to underst<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong>?13. What are six reasons why there are difficulties in the <strong>Bible</strong>?14. What are four great principles of <strong>Bible</strong> interpretation?15. How do the Seventh-day Adventists build their doctrine of soul sleep?16. What are three reasons why the <strong>Bible</strong> must be interpreted by the literal method?17. What is the allegorical method of <strong>Bible</strong> interpretation?18. Why are there two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2?19. In what way did Adam die the day he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good <strong>an</strong>d evil?20. How was God justified in having the Israelites destroy the pag<strong>an</strong> nations in C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>?58
JESUS CHRIST59
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUSSome of the more radical skeptics deny that Jesus was <strong>an</strong> historical person. This is <strong>an</strong> ignor<strong>an</strong>tposition for the following reasons:1. The historicity of Jesus was not disputed until recent times.The Encyclopedia Brit<strong>an</strong>nica says:“These independent accounts prove that in <strong>an</strong>cient times even the opponents of Christi<strong>an</strong>ity never doubtedthe historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time <strong>an</strong>d on inadequate grounds by several authors atthe end of the 18th, during the 19th, <strong>an</strong>d at the beginning of the 20th centuries” (“Jesus Christ,” EncyclopediaBrit<strong>an</strong>nica, 1974).Jaroslav Pelik<strong>an</strong> observes:“Regardless of what <strong>an</strong>yone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been thedomin<strong>an</strong>t figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries” (Jesus Through the Centuries, p.1).D. James Kennedy adds:“All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kingsthat ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of m<strong>an</strong> on this earth as much as that one solitarylife” (What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? p. 8).2. The New Testament, which is the major witness of Jesus, is <strong>an</strong> historical record of thehighest authority, even from a secular st<strong>an</strong>dpoint.The evidence that the New Testament was written soon after Christ’s death is irrefutable. Wehave already examined this evidence in the section on the <strong>Bible</strong>’s Nature.In his book Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson concluded that the whole of theNew Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.William Ramsay, one of the most renowned archaeologists, wrote:“We c<strong>an</strong> already say emphatically that there is no longer <strong>an</strong>y solid basis for dating <strong>an</strong>y book of the NewTestament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 <strong>an</strong>d 150 given by the moreradical New Testament critics of today” (Recent Discoveries in <strong>Bible</strong> L<strong>an</strong>ds, 1955, p. 136).“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties <strong>an</strong>d theeighties of the first century A.D.” (Christi<strong>an</strong>ity Today, J<strong>an</strong>. 18, 1963).William Albright, <strong>an</strong>other influential archaeologist, stated:“Th<strong>an</strong>ks to the Qumr<strong>an</strong> discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed tobe: the teaching of Christ <strong>an</strong>d his immediate followers between cir. 25 <strong>an</strong>d cir. 80 A.D.” (From Stone Age toChristi<strong>an</strong>ity, p. 23).60
The New Testament is the most copied <strong>an</strong>d quoted document in the history of m<strong>an</strong>.As we have seen, portions exist that date to the late first <strong>an</strong>d early second century, only a fewdecades after the books were written. And the great multiplicity of copies that exist are unique inhistory. No other <strong>an</strong>cient book even comes close to having such extensive m<strong>an</strong>uscript authority.3. There is early evidence for the existence of Jesus from extra-biblical, secular sources.The following examples are from Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Dem<strong>an</strong>ds a Verdict:Cornelius Tacitus, a first century Rom<strong>an</strong> histori<strong>an</strong>“Christus, from whom the name [Christi<strong>an</strong>ity] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign ofTiberius at the h<strong>an</strong>ds of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...” (Annals XV, c. 115 A.D.).Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadri<strong>an</strong> (who reigned from A.D. 117-138)“As the Jews were making const<strong>an</strong>t disturb<strong>an</strong>ces at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them fromRome” (Life of Claudius, 25:4).Werner Keller observes:“The writer Orosius mentions that this expulsion took place in the ninth year of Claudius’ reign, i.e., A.D. 49.That me<strong>an</strong>s that a Christi<strong>an</strong> community is attested in Rome not more th<strong>an</strong> fifteen to twenty years after theCrucifixion. There is, in the Acts of the Apostles, <strong>an</strong> amazing corroboration of this Rom<strong>an</strong> evidence. WhenPaul came from Athens to Corinth he found there ‘a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately comefrom Italy, with his wife Priscilla: because that Claudius had comm<strong>an</strong>ded all Jews to depart from Rome’ (Acts18:2)” (The <strong>Bible</strong> as History, pp. 390, 391).Josephus (A.D. 37-100)He was a Jewish leader who served under Rom<strong>an</strong> emperors <strong>an</strong>d wrote two histories about theJews: Jewish Wars <strong>an</strong>d Antiquities of the Jews. In the following passages he acknowledges theexistence of Jesus, of John the Baptist <strong>an</strong>d his baptism, <strong>an</strong>d of Jesus’ brother James <strong>an</strong>d hismartyrdom.“... he [An<strong>an</strong>ias the high priest] assembled the S<strong>an</strong>hedrin of the judges, <strong>an</strong>d brought before them the brotherof Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, <strong>an</strong>d some others, <strong>an</strong>d when he had formed <strong>an</strong>accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Antiquities, 20.9.1).“Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, <strong>an</strong>d very justly, as apunishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a goodm<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d comm<strong>an</strong>ded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one <strong>an</strong>other <strong>an</strong>d pietytowards God, <strong>an</strong>d so to come to baptism” (Antiquities, 28.5.2).61
ThallusThallus wrote a history in about A.D. 52 in which he describes the darkness <strong>an</strong>d earthquake thatfollowed Christ’s resurrection.Mara Bar-SerapionHe was a Syri<strong>an</strong> philosopher who wrote about A.D. 70. In a letter to his son he said:“What adv<strong>an</strong>tage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdomwas abolished” (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, p. 114).Pliny the YoungerHe was a Rom<strong>an</strong> author <strong>an</strong>d administrator. In a letter to the Emperor Traj<strong>an</strong> in about A.D. 112 hementions Christ <strong>an</strong>d the worship practices of early Christi<strong>an</strong>s.“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they s<strong>an</strong>g in alternateverses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, <strong>an</strong>d bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do <strong>an</strong>y wicked deeds,but never to commit <strong>an</strong>y fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they shouldbe called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, <strong>an</strong>d then reassemble to partake offood--but food of <strong>an</strong> ordinary <strong>an</strong>d innocent kind.”TalmudThe Jewish Talmudic writings dating from A.D. 70 to 200 mention Jesus. If there were <strong>an</strong>y doubtabout Jesus’ existence, we c<strong>an</strong> be sure that the Jewish rabbinical writers would have said so!“It has been taught: On the eve of Passover Yeshu was h<strong>an</strong>ged. ... not having found <strong>an</strong>ything in his favor, theyh<strong>an</strong>ged him on the eve of Passover“ (Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Talmud, S<strong>an</strong>hedrin 43a).Luci<strong>an</strong> of SamosataLuci<strong>an</strong> was a second-century Greek writer who ridiculed Christi<strong>an</strong>s.“The Christi<strong>an</strong>s, you know, worship a m<strong>an</strong> to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novelrites, <strong>an</strong>d was crucified on that account ... [they] worship the crucified sage, <strong>an</strong>d live after his laws.”Norm<strong>an</strong> Geisler summarizes the evidence as follows:The primary sources for the life of Christ are the four Gospels. However there are considerable reports fromnon-Christi<strong>an</strong> sources that supplement <strong>an</strong>d conform to the Gospel accounts. These come largely from Greek,Rom<strong>an</strong>, Jewish, <strong>an</strong>d Samarit<strong>an</strong> sources of the first century. In brief they inform us that:* Jesus was <strong>an</strong> historical m<strong>an</strong> from Nazareth.* He lived a wise <strong>an</strong>d virtuous life.* He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time,being considered the Jewish King.* He was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later.* His enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called ‘sorcery.’62
* His small b<strong>an</strong>d of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome.* His disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, <strong>an</strong>d worshiped Christ as Divine.This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels (Geisler, BakerEncyclopedia of Christi<strong>an</strong> Apologetics).Edwin Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University, says that we have more <strong>an</strong>d betterhistorical documentation for Jesus th<strong>an</strong> for <strong>an</strong>y other religious founder (e.g., Zoroaster, Buddha,or Mohammed) (“Jesus Outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence?” Jesus Under Fire,edited by Michael Wilkins <strong>an</strong>d J.P. Morel<strong>an</strong>d, 1995).There are scoffers who reject all of this evidence, but this is the result of self-willed blindness.The hum<strong>an</strong> heart is so corrupt <strong>an</strong>d deceitful that it is possible to persist in unbelief in the face ofa mountain of evidence (Jeremiah 17:9). On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, m<strong>an</strong>y men <strong>an</strong>d women who set outto discredit the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d to disprove that Christ is God have accepted the evidence as irrefutable<strong>an</strong>d have bowed before Christ as Lord <strong>an</strong>d Saviour. We have given some examples of this in thereport “Men Who Were Converted Trying to Disprove the <strong>Bible</strong>,” available at the Way of Lifeweb site -- www.wayoflife.org.For more on this subject see the following:Norm<strong>an</strong> Geisler -- Baker Encyclopedia of Christi<strong>an</strong> Apologetics, When Critics Ask, WhenSkeptics AskGary Habermas -- The Historical JesusJosh McDowell - The New Evidence that Dem<strong>an</strong>ds a VerdictREVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS1. What are three reasons why we do not doubt the existence of Jesus?2. When did scoffers first begin to express doubt about the historical existence of Jesus?3. Name four secular writers who mentioned Jesus before the end of the first century.63
EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST’SRESURRECTION“The tomb was empty; <strong>an</strong>d the foes of Christ were unable to deny it” (Ernest Kev<strong>an</strong>, The Resurrection ofChrist, 1961, p. 14).“I know pretty well what evidence is; <strong>an</strong>d I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never beenbroken down yet” (Lord Lyndhurst or John Singleton Copley, Attorney General of Great Britain, LordCh<strong>an</strong>cellor of Engl<strong>an</strong>d, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, original source probably from TheodoreMartin, A Life of Lord Lyndhurst).“Let it simply be said that we know more about the details of the hours immediately before <strong>an</strong>d the actualdeath of Jesus, in <strong>an</strong>d near Jerusalem, th<strong>an</strong> we know about the death of <strong>an</strong>y other one m<strong>an</strong> in all the <strong>an</strong>cientworld” (Wilbur Smith, Therefore St<strong>an</strong>d, p. 360).“Non-miraculous expl<strong>an</strong>ations of what happened at the empty tomb have to face a cruel choice: either theyhave to rewrite the evidence in order to suit themselves or they have to accept the fact that they are notconsistent with the present evidence. The only hypothesis that fits the evidence is that Jesus was reallyresurrected. Could the M<strong>an</strong> who predicted His death <strong>an</strong>d resurrection, only to have it come to pass exactly asHe had said, be <strong>an</strong>ything but God?” (Winfred Cordu<strong>an</strong>, No Doubt about It: The Case for Christi<strong>an</strong>ity, p. 227).Introduction1. The <strong>Bible</strong> says there are “m<strong>an</strong>y infallible proofs” of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:3). In fact, itis one of the best documented events of <strong>an</strong>cient history. <strong>Bible</strong>-believing Christi<strong>an</strong>ity is notBLIND RELIGIOUS FAITH!2. Jesus <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Christi<strong>an</strong>ity rise or fall on Christ’s resurrection!The <strong>Bible</strong>’s accounts of Jesus claim to be historical, eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter1:15-16; 1 John 1:3). If the accounts are not historically accurate, then they c<strong>an</strong> rightly berejected.Christ staked His authority on the resurrection (at least seven times He said He would die <strong>an</strong>drise from the dead -- Matthew 16:11; 17:9, 22-23; 20:18-19; 26:32; Luke 9:22-27; John 2:18-22).Paul said that the Christi<strong>an</strong> <strong>faith</strong> depends on Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 15:14-17).Three great evidences for the resurrection of Christ:1. The character of the Gospel accountsThe Gospel accounts themselves give every evidence that they were written by eyewitnesseswho believed what they wrote <strong>an</strong>d who were speaking the truth without embellishment <strong>an</strong>dmyth-making.Consider the details of the accounts.64
“John’s Gospel is characterized throughout by the personal touch; it has all the marks of the evidence not onlyof <strong>an</strong> eyewitness, but of a careful observer ... The running of the disciples, the order of their arrival at thesepulchre <strong>an</strong>d their entry, the fact that John first stopped down <strong>an</strong>d looking through the low doorway saw thelinen clothes lying, while Peter, more bold, was the first to enter ... the description of the position of the linenclothes <strong>an</strong>d the napkin ... this c<strong>an</strong> surely be nothing else th<strong>an</strong> the description of one who actually saw, uponwhose memory the scene is still impressed, to whom the sight of the empty grave <strong>an</strong>d the relinquished graveclotheswas a critical point in <strong>faith</strong> <strong>an</strong>d life” (E. Day, On the Evidence of the Resurrection, pp. 16-17).Consider the c<strong>an</strong>dor of the accounts. When someone invents a religion, he glorifies its leaders,but the Gospels paint the founders of Christi<strong>an</strong>ity as very weak (e.g., Peter having to be rebukedby Christ as Sat<strong>an</strong>--Mat. 16:23; Peter denying Christ thrice; the disciples fleeing <strong>an</strong>d hiding;Thomas <strong>an</strong>d others doubting Christ even after He appears to them).Further, if men had made up the accounts of Christ’s resurrection, they would not have said thatthe women were the first to believe. In that day women had no authority in the eyes of society.They could not even testify in a court of law in those days, except in rare occasions (J.P.Morel<strong>an</strong>d, Scaling the Secular City, p. 168). The account of the women believing first is notsomething that would have been written unless it actually happened <strong>an</strong>d the writers werecommitted wholeheartedly to recording the truth <strong>an</strong>d nothing but the truth. This striking c<strong>an</strong>doris powerful evidence that the Gospels are true, unvarnished accounts.2. The empty tombThat the tomb of Jesus was empty is proven by two facts:First, the Jewish leaders had to invent the lie that the disciples had stolen His body (Mat.28:11-15). If Jesus’ body was located <strong>an</strong>ywhere, they would have searched it out <strong>an</strong>d produced it.Second, just weeks after the crucifixion, only a stone’s throw from the empty tomb itself, Peterpublicly proclaimed the resurrection <strong>an</strong>d 3,000 believed, followed a little later by “a greatcomp<strong>an</strong>y of priests” <strong>an</strong>d “a great number” more (Acts 2:37-42; 6:7; 1:21). If <strong>an</strong>yone could haveproduced the body or come up with a reasonable account for it being missing, they would have!The following are theories that have been proposed to account for the empty tomb:“The field of biblical criticism resembles a vast graveyard filled with the skeletons of discarded theoriesdevised by highly imaginative skeptics. ... One might think that so m<strong>an</strong>y repeated failures ... would lead theopposition to ab<strong>an</strong>don their efforts, but not so. They continue unabated, <strong>an</strong>d men are still wracking theirbrains, working their imaginations overtime, <strong>an</strong>d parading a vast amount of erudition <strong>an</strong>d ingenuity in their, tous, futile attempts to destroy the impregnable rock of historical evidence on which the Christi<strong>an</strong> <strong>faith</strong> in theresurrection st<strong>an</strong>ds proud <strong>an</strong>d unshaken” (John Lilly).Some say Jesus just swooned <strong>an</strong>d recovered in the cool of the tombThis is refuted by the fact that the professional soldiers had ascertained that he was dead (John19:31-34).65
Further, how could a near-dead m<strong>an</strong> remove the heavy stone <strong>an</strong>d convince his followers that hehad risen from the dead? Consider what Christ endured: severe beating; nails piercing His h<strong>an</strong>ds<strong>an</strong>d feet; spear piercing His side (John 19:34); great loss of blood <strong>an</strong>d bodily fluids.Some say that the women went to the wrong tombIn The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Kirsopp Lake claimed that thewomen were confused in the dark <strong>an</strong>d went to the wrong tomb. Not only is this contrary to whatthe Gospel accounts say, it makes no sense whatsoever. If the women had gone to the wrongtomb <strong>an</strong>d reported that Christ had risen based on that mistake, the matter would soon have beencleared up. First, the disciples were not stupid. They would not have given their lives for thetestimony of a few geographically-challenged women. They would have checked out the storythoroughly <strong>an</strong>d would have come to the truth of the matter. Further, the Jewish leaders wouldhave made certain that the matter was cleared up by producing the right tomb, <strong>an</strong>d the body!Some say the disciples were hallucinatingIf they were hallucinating, it was a mass hallucination, because Paul said that the resurrectedChrist was seen by above 500 people at once (1 Cor. 15:5-8)!When Paul wrote the epistle of 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s, most of these eyewitnesses were still alive. Paulwas not writing about things that had happened long ago.Josh McDowell observes: “Let’s take the more th<strong>an</strong> 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after Hisdeath <strong>an</strong>d burial, <strong>an</strong>d place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 peoplewere to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have <strong>an</strong> amazing 50hours of firsth<strong>an</strong>d testimony? Add to this the testimony of m<strong>an</strong>y other eyewitnesses <strong>an</strong>d youwould well have the largest <strong>an</strong>d most lopsided trial in history” (“Evidence for the Resurrection”).It has been rightly said that “this theory makes Christ a fraud <strong>an</strong>d his disciples near idiots.”“Somehow the rugged fisherm<strong>an</strong> Peter <strong>an</strong>d his brother Andrew, the characteristically doubting Thomas, theseasoned <strong>an</strong>d not too sensitive tax gatherer, Matthew, the rather dull Philip, intensely loyal but a little slow ofapprehension, do not fit easily into the conditions required for <strong>an</strong> absolutely unshakable collectivehallucination. And if it is not both collective <strong>an</strong>d unshakable it is of no use to us. The terrors <strong>an</strong>d thepersecutions these men ultimately had to face <strong>an</strong>d did face unflinchingly, do not admit of a halfheartedadhesion secretly honeycombed with doubt” (Morison).Some say they saw someone disguised as Jesus (Hugh Schonfield, The Passover Plot)This is too ridiculous to waste time refuting. Having spent three years with Jesus, wouldn’t thedisciples know Him? They might be confused for a moment or even a short while, but eventuallythey would recognize that the individual was <strong>an</strong> impostor.66
Some say the body was stolenThis was the story invented by the Jewish leaders. They paid the guards to lie <strong>an</strong>d to say that thedisciples stole Jesus’ body (Mat. 28:11-15). This is <strong>an</strong> impossible story.First, if they were asleep how could they know what happened to the body, or if stolen, who stoleit?Second, sleeping on guard duty brought the death penalty in that day. That one of the guardsmight fall asleep is perhaps conceivable, but that all of them would fall asleep is not. As RichardDickinson observes: “That without <strong>an</strong> exception all should have fallen asleep when they werestationed there for so extraordinary a purpose, to see that that body was not stolen, lest it shouldbe said that the crucified Jesus had risen from the dead, may be possible; but it is not credible:especially when it is considered that these guards were subjected to the severest discipline in theworld. It was death for a Rom<strong>an</strong> sentinel to sleep on his post. Yet these guards were notexecuted; nor were they deemed culpable even by the rulers, woefully chagrined <strong>an</strong>d exasperatedas they must have been by the failure of their pl<strong>an</strong> for securing the body” (The Resurrection ofJesus Christ Historically <strong>an</strong>d Logically Viewed, 1865).(That the guard was a Rom<strong>an</strong> guard is clear from the passage. The Greek word for “watch” inMatthew 27:65, koustodia, is the word for a Rom<strong>an</strong> sentry. A.T. Robertson says that “ye have awatch” is present imperative <strong>an</strong>d refers to “a guard of Rom<strong>an</strong> soldiers, not mere temple police.”In Matthew 28:12 they are called “soldiers,” which would not be the case if they were templepolice. Further, Matthew 28:14 indicates that they were Rom<strong>an</strong> guards, because they were afraidof what Pilate would do if he heard of the matter.)Third, by their actions it is evident that the Jewish leaders didn’t believe their own story. Theydidn’t call the disciples to examine them when they found out the body was missing, <strong>an</strong>d theymade no effort to find the body. John Chrysostom, in the fourth century, observed that the storyof the stealing of the body actually establishes the resurrection. “For this is the l<strong>an</strong>guage of menconfessing, that the body was not there. When therefore they confess the body was not there, butthe stealing is shown to be false <strong>an</strong>d incredible--by their watching by it, <strong>an</strong>d by the seals, <strong>an</strong>d bythe timidity of the disciples--the proof of the resurrection even hence appearsincontrovertible” (The New Evidence that Dem<strong>an</strong>ds a Verdict, p. 264).Further, who could have stolen Christ’s body?The Jews certainly didn’t steal it, because they w<strong>an</strong>ted to prove that He did not rise.The Rom<strong>an</strong> government certainly didn’t steal it, because the government sealed the tomb <strong>an</strong>d hadno reason to steal it <strong>an</strong>d thus allow the Christi<strong>an</strong>s to say He had risen.67
Joseph of Arimathea certainly didn’t steal it. He was Jesus’ disciple <strong>an</strong>d had no motive to stealHis body. Further, he couldn’t have stolen it alone, because he couldn’t have removed the greatstone, so he would have needed help, <strong>an</strong>d doubtless someone would have reported the deedsooner or later.The disciples certainly didn’t steal it. First, they were hiding in fear for their lives. Second, theyhad no opportunity, because the tomb was sealed <strong>an</strong>d guarded. Third, they had no leader whocould have envisioned <strong>an</strong>d accomplished such a thing. Their leader, Peter, was a broken m<strong>an</strong> atthat point <strong>an</strong>d had given up his discipleship to Jesus to go back to fishing (John 21:3). Fourth,they would have been fools to have suffered <strong>an</strong>d died for a lie! The disciples didn’t suffer forwhat others had seen, such as Muslims who die for the Kor<strong>an</strong>, but they died for what they hadprofessedly seen themselves (Acts 4:18-20). Fifth, it would have been impossible for such a largenumber of people to have kept the secret hidden. “Even if it had been possible, <strong>an</strong>d the disciplesthe men to do it, the subsequent history of Christi<strong>an</strong>ity would have been different. Sooner orlater, someone who knew the facts would have been unable to keep them hidden” (Fr<strong>an</strong>kMorison, Who Moved the Stone?). Sixth, a great moral religion like we find in the NewTestament, which exalts truth <strong>an</strong>d honesty, could not have been founded upon a despicabledeception.“It is the complete failure of <strong>an</strong>yone to produce the remains, or to point to <strong>an</strong>y tomb, official or otherwise, inwhich they were said to lie, <strong>an</strong>d this ultimately destroys every theory based on the hum<strong>an</strong> removal of thebody” (Morison).We must not forget exactly what the early Christi<strong>an</strong>s suffered for their testimony that Christ hadrisen from the dead.They were denounced by family <strong>an</strong>d friends, hated by <strong>an</strong>d considered the enemies of society,tortured, kept imprisoned for years in dark, rat-infested cells. Their property confiscated; theywere crucified, burned alive, torn apart by wild beasts, chopped into pieces, roasted on racks;their tongues were torn out <strong>an</strong>d their eyes put out. The also had to endure the torture <strong>an</strong>d death ofbeloved family members.“Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought tooverthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of Hisdisciples. The interests <strong>an</strong>d passions of all the rulers <strong>an</strong>d great men in the world were against them. Thefashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new <strong>faith</strong>, even in the most inoffensive <strong>an</strong>d peacefulm<strong>an</strong>ner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes,imprisonments, torments, <strong>an</strong>d cruel deaths. Yet this <strong>faith</strong> they zealously did propagate; <strong>an</strong>d all these miseriesthey endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after <strong>an</strong>other was put to a miserable death, the survivorsonly prosecuted their work with increased vigor <strong>an</strong>d resolution. The <strong>an</strong>nals of military warfare afford scarcely<strong>an</strong> example of the like heroic const<strong>an</strong>cy, patience, <strong>an</strong>d unblenching courage. They had every possible motiveto review carefully the grounds of their <strong>faith</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d the evidences of the great facts <strong>an</strong>d truths which theyasserted; <strong>an</strong>d these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most mel<strong>an</strong>choly <strong>an</strong>d terrificfrequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they havenarrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, <strong>an</strong>d had they not known this fact as certainly a theyknew <strong>an</strong>y other fact. ... If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for itsfabrication” (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Ev<strong>an</strong>gelists by the Rules ofEvidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, 1846).68
Some say the disciples made up the accountsThis would me<strong>an</strong> that they all suffered <strong>an</strong>d died on the basis of a lie, which makes no sense. It isone thing to found a religion or cult when you will benefit from it materially, but it is quite<strong>an</strong>other thing to invent one if you will only suffer for it.Further, as we have already noted, it is obvious from their very nature that the Gospel accountswere not made up. They are filled with lifelike detail <strong>an</strong>d they are too c<strong>an</strong>did to be mythical.Some say Jesus rose spiritually but not bodilyJesus specifically refuted this by eating <strong>an</strong>d letting the disciples touch Him (Luke 24:37-43).Fr<strong>an</strong>k Morison set out to discredit the Gospel accounts of Christ’s resurrection, <strong>an</strong>d instead heconcluded that the only thing that c<strong>an</strong> satisfy the historical facts is that Jesus actually did risefrom the dead.We agree <strong>an</strong>d we find it much easier to believe in Christ’s resurrection, th<strong>an</strong> to believe in theattempts to discredit it.“The simple <strong>faith</strong> of the Christi<strong>an</strong> who believes in the resurrection is nothing compared to the credulity of theskeptic who will accept the wildest <strong>an</strong>d most improbable rom<strong>an</strong>ces rather th<strong>an</strong> admit the plain witness ofhistorical certainties. The difficulties of belief may be great; the absurdities of unbelief are greater” (GeorgeH<strong>an</strong>son, The Resurrection <strong>an</strong>d the Life).The reason why there are so m<strong>an</strong>y theories that attempt to discredit the Gospel accounts is thatmen are willfully blind sinners who do not w<strong>an</strong>t to submit to God (2 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 4:4).Further, the unbelief of “Christi<strong>an</strong> preachers” such as Kirsopp Lake was prophesied in Scripture(2 Peter 2:1-2).3. The ch<strong>an</strong>ged lives“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut whereTHE DISCIPLES WERE ASSEMBLED FOR FEAR OF THE JEWS, came Jesus <strong>an</strong>d stood inthe midst, <strong>an</strong>d saith unto them, Peace be unto you” (John 20:19).Something dramatic happened to turn the disciples from fear to courage.Consider the testimony of PeterAfter denying Christ the night of His arrest, Peter was a defeated m<strong>an</strong>. He determined to go backto fishing (John 21:3). A few weeks later, the m<strong>an</strong> who had denounced Christ before a h<strong>an</strong>dful ofJews on the eve of Christ’s crucifixion, preached boldly to a multitude of them on the day of69
Pentecost <strong>an</strong>d 3,000 were converted. What could have wrought such a mighty ch<strong>an</strong>ge other th<strong>an</strong>that he had become convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead?Consider the testimony of James, Jesus’ half brotherJesus’ brothers were opposed to Him during His lifetime (John 7:7), but after Jesus rose from thedead, James believed <strong>an</strong>d became a leader in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18;Gal. 1:19). James’ conversion was prompted by Christ’s resurrection appear<strong>an</strong>ce to him (1 Cor.15:7).Consider the testimony of PaulWhat converted Paul from being a bitter enemy of Christ to being one of His most zealousfollowers? From <strong>an</strong> earthly perspective, Paul had absolutely nothing to gain <strong>an</strong>d everything tolose by following Christ. He admitted that he had “profited in the Jews’ religion abovem<strong>an</strong>y” (Gal. 1:14). Paul testified that it was the resurrected Christ who convinced him (Acts22:3-21).As a zealous Pharisee <strong>an</strong>d leader of Christ’s enemies among the Jews, Paul was in a position toknow all about the story about the disciples stealing the body. Had he thought that Jesus’ deadbody actually lay hidden somewhere, he would never have believed in the resurrection. It isobvious that even he did not give <strong>an</strong>y credence to this story.Consider the testimony of lawyers <strong>an</strong>d judgesThomas Sherlock wasn’t a lawyer but he was trained in law. He was a Cambridge-educatedtheologi<strong>an</strong> in the Church of Engl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d he wrote a classic book that examines the evidence forthe resurrection of Christ from a courtroom perspective. It is titled The Trial of the Witnesses ofthe Resurrection of Jesus (1729). Sherlock wrote the book to rebut Deist Thomas Woolston’sskeptical book Discourses of the Miracles of Jesus Christ.“Within the framework of a courtroom proceeding in which the Apostles are on trial for faking the Resurrection,Sherlock pits Woolston’s own arguments against his own powerful defense of the ‘accused.’ Applying the logic<strong>an</strong>d reason of the law to the <strong>Bible</strong>, this is a provocative <strong>an</strong>d original interpretation of the story of Jesus' life <strong>an</strong>ddeath” (Bookkilden.no).Simon Greenleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the most celebratedlegal minds of America. He is the author of the three-volume A Treatise on the Law of Evidence,which is “still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legalprocedure” (Wilbur Smith, Therefore St<strong>an</strong>d, 1972, p. 463). After a thorough examination,Greenleaf concluded that Jesus did rise from the dead. In 1846 he published An Examination ofthe Testimony of the Four Ev<strong>an</strong>gelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts ofJustice.70
“All that Christi<strong>an</strong>ity asks of men is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat itsevidences as they treat the evidence of other things; <strong>an</strong>d that they would try <strong>an</strong>d judge its actors <strong>an</strong>dwitnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to hum<strong>an</strong> affairs <strong>an</strong>d actions, in hum<strong>an</strong> tribunals.Let the witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, <strong>an</strong>d with surroundingfacts <strong>an</strong>d circumst<strong>an</strong>ces; <strong>an</strong>d let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side ofthe adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidentlybelieved, will be <strong>an</strong> undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability <strong>an</strong>d truth” (An Examination of the Testimonyof the Four Ev<strong>an</strong>gelists).Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of Engl<strong>an</strong>d, said:“The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surelydepend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have<strong>faith</strong>. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive <strong>an</strong>d negative, factual <strong>an</strong>dcircumst<strong>an</strong>tial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story istruth” (cited from Michael Green, M<strong>an</strong> Alive, 1969, p. 54).Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of Engl<strong>an</strong>d, testified that,“<strong>an</strong> overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence. ... [Christ’s]Resurrection has led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyonddispute” (cited by Irwin Linton, A Lawyer Examines the <strong>Bible</strong>, p. xxiv, xxv).Edmund Hatch Bennett was de<strong>an</strong> of the Boston University School of Law for more th<strong>an</strong> 20years, as well as a judge in the Massachusetts Probate Court. In 1899 he wrote The Four Gospelsfrom a Lawyer’s St<strong>an</strong>dpoint. He begins by saying:“... this paper is the result of <strong>an</strong> effort, on my own part, to ascertain whether or not, independently of theexercise of a devout Christi<strong>an</strong> <strong>faith</strong>, independently of <strong>an</strong>y appeal to our religious sentiments, the truth of thestory told in the four Gospels could be satisfactorily established by a mere reasoning process, <strong>an</strong>d by applyingthe same principles <strong>an</strong>d the same tests to the Gospel narratives that we observe in determining the truth orfalsity of <strong>an</strong>y other documents, or <strong>an</strong>y other historical accounts.”Bennett makes the following argument:“These stories beg<strong>an</strong> to be published not long after the alleged crucifixion. M<strong>an</strong>y persons were then living whocould have easily refuted the statements of the ev<strong>an</strong>gelists had they been untrue. The enemies of Jesus werestill alive <strong>an</strong>d active. The Scribe <strong>an</strong>d the Pharisee, the Priest <strong>an</strong>d the Levite, still smarted under his repeateddenunciations. They had the disposition, the opportunity, <strong>an</strong>d the incentive to deny the story of the miraculousbirth, the spotless life, the marvelous works, the sublime death, the astounding resurrection, <strong>an</strong>d the gloriousascension of our Lord, had the then published description of these events been totally fabulous. But so far aswe know, no person then living ever uttered a protest against these accounts, <strong>an</strong>d for two thous<strong>an</strong>d years theyhave been received <strong>an</strong>d treated as veritable history.”Irwin Linton, a Washington D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, publishedA Lawyer Examines the <strong>Bible</strong>: An introduction to Christi<strong>an</strong> Evidences in 1929.“Lawyers regularly sift through testimonies in order to separate falsehood from truth. A unique feature of thisbook is its weighing of testimonies in support of the <strong>Bible</strong>. Linton points out that lawyers ask witnessesseemingly trivial details because, while the main outlines of false testimony c<strong>an</strong> be agreed upon in adv<strong>an</strong>ce,the innumerable trifling details c<strong>an</strong>not. Apparent contradictions between the Resurrection accounts prove theabsence of collusion, <strong>an</strong>d the fact that they c<strong>an</strong> be resolved adds credibility to the testimonies. So, far frombeing fatal, the apparent contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection turn out to besupport for the authenticity of the event. On this, Linton cites Paley: ‘The existence of the difficulty proves thew<strong>an</strong>t or absence of that caution which usually accomplishes the consciousness of fraud; <strong>an</strong>d the solution71
proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread oftruth winds through the whole, which preserved every circumst<strong>an</strong>ce in its place’” (A Lawyer Examines the<strong>Bible</strong>, 1949 edition, p. 75).J.N.D. Anderson (Sir Norm<strong>an</strong> Anderson) is de<strong>an</strong> of the faculty of law in the University ofLondon <strong>an</strong>d director of the <strong>Institute</strong> of Adv<strong>an</strong>ced Legal Studies. He wrote Christi<strong>an</strong>ity theWitness of History: A Lawyer’s Approach (1969).“The most radical theory of all is to dismiss the whole story as deliberate invention. But there is scarcely asingle intelligent critic who would go so far. The adverse evidence is overwhelming. Think, first, of the numberof witnesses. Paul tells us that in 56 A.D. the majority of some 500 original witnesses were still alive; <strong>an</strong>d wemust remember that most of the early records went out, as it were, with the collective authority of the primitiveChurch. Think, too, of the character of the witnesses. Not only did they give the world the highest moral <strong>an</strong>dethical teaching it has ever known, but they lived it out, as even their opponents were forced to admit. Again,think of the phenomenal ch<strong>an</strong>ge which these men underwent because of this alleged invention. Is itconceivable that a deliberate lie would ch<strong>an</strong>ge a comp<strong>an</strong>y of cowards into heroes, <strong>an</strong>d inspire them to a life ofsacrifice, often ending only in martyrdom? Surely psychology teaches that nothing makes a m<strong>an</strong> more proneto cowardice th<strong>an</strong> a lie which preys on his conscience? Is it likely, moreover, that even in disillusionment oragony not a single one of these conspirators would ever have divulged the secret?” (Anderson, “The Evidencefor the Resurrection,” London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1950).Albert Roper was a prominent Virginia attorney, a graduate of the University of Virginia lawschool, <strong>an</strong>d one-time mayor of Norfolk. He made a thorough investigation into the evidence forthe resurrection of Christ, asking the question, “C<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>y intelligent person accept theresurrection story?” At the end of his research he concluded, “C<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>y intelligent person denythe weight of this evidence?” He wrote the book Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?In this age of science, how is it possible to believe in a bodily resurrection from the dead;isn’t this biologically impossible?Without doubt the resurrection from the dead is biologically impossible from the st<strong>an</strong>dpoint ofwhat is natural <strong>an</strong>d observable, but Christ’s resurrection wasn’t natural; it was a divine miracle.The Creator is not limited by or subject to natural things that He Himself created.If the evidence is so strong, why doesn’t everyone believe?1. M<strong>an</strong>y have never heard the evidence. I have had the privilege of preaching on the resurrectionof Christ to hundreds of university students in Nepal who had never before heard <strong>an</strong>ything aboutit.2. M<strong>an</strong>y are willfully blind; they refuse to believe in miracles (“willfully ignor<strong>an</strong>t,” 2 Pet. 3:5).3. M<strong>an</strong>y do not w<strong>an</strong>t to submit to God. Lee Strobel tells of <strong>an</strong> acquaint<strong>an</strong>ce who agreed that theevidence for Christ’s resurrection is overwhelming but he refused to believe, saying, “I don’tw<strong>an</strong>t a new master.”72
4. M<strong>an</strong>y have believed. The <strong>Bible</strong> is the most popular book in world. It is expected that by 2020at least a portion of it will be available in every l<strong>an</strong>guage, which testifies mightily to itspopularity <strong>an</strong>d to the fact that multitudes do believe that Christ rose from the dead.Conclusion1. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the heart of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-8), <strong>an</strong>d this isthe gospel we are to preach to every person (Mark 16:15).2. All men will be resurrected, either to eternal life or eternal punishment (John 5:28-29; Acts24:15). An individual’s destiny depends on his relationship with Jesus Christ. M<strong>an</strong>’s existence iseternal, <strong>an</strong>d he c<strong>an</strong>not escape the reality of this fact by not believing.SUMMARY OF “EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST’S RESURRECTION”1. Christ staked his claim as the Son of God on the resurrection, repeatedly stating that He woulddie <strong>an</strong>d rise from the dead.2. Three proofs of the resurrection are the following: First, the character of the Gospel accountsas to their lifelike detail <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong>dor. Second, the empty tomb which c<strong>an</strong> only be explained by theresurrection. Third, the ch<strong>an</strong>ged lives, such as that of Paul who had nothing to gain <strong>an</strong>deverything to lose, hum<strong>an</strong>ly speaking, by claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE CHRIST’S RESURRECTION1. What verse says there are “m<strong>an</strong>y infallible proofs” of Christ’s resurrection?2. Why do Jesus <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Christi<strong>an</strong>ity rise or fall on Christ’s resurrection?3. In what book <strong>an</strong>d chapter did Paul say that the Christi<strong>an</strong> <strong>faith</strong> depends on the reality ofChrist’s resurrection?4. What are three great evidences for the resurrection of Christ?5. What are two facts that prove that Jesus’ tomb was empty?6. What are seven theories that have been proposed to account for the empty tomb?7. What are two reasons why we believe that the tomb guard was composed of Rom<strong>an</strong> soldiers asopposed to temple police?8. Why is it impossible for Jesus to have merely swooned on the cross <strong>an</strong>d to have recovered inthe tomb?9. In what passage did Paul say that the resurrected Christ was seen by more th<strong>an</strong> 500 people atone time?10. Why is it unreasonable to think that the guards fell asleep while guarding Jesus’ tomb?11. What tells us that the Jewish leaders didn’t believe their own story about Jesus’ body beingstolen?12. What type of things did the early disciples suffer for their testimony that Jesus rose from thedead?73
13. How did Jesus prove that He had risen bodily <strong>an</strong>d not merely as a spirit?14. How do Peter’s actions before <strong>an</strong>d after the resurrection prove that Christ rose from the dead?15. Hum<strong>an</strong>ly speaking, what did Paul have to gain by testifying that he had seen the resurrectedChrist?16. Name three lawyers <strong>an</strong>d judges who examined the evidence for Christ’s resurrection <strong>an</strong>ddeclared it to be a fact of history.17. Name three men who were converted trying to refute the <strong>Bible</strong>.18. What are four reasons why men do not believe in Christ’s resurrection?74
ISRAEL IN PROPHECY☛ A PowerPoint presentation of this material on Israel in Prophecy is included in theUnshakeable Faith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d PrivateStudy” at the beginning of the course for tips on using this material.The <strong>Bible</strong>’s amazing prophecies are evidence of its divine inspiration. They are clear <strong>an</strong>d detailed<strong>an</strong>d unfailing.This is in contrast to extra-biblical prophecies, which are typically vague <strong>an</strong>d inaccurate.Consider the Sibyl prophetesses in the fourth century. When Maxentius consulted these beforemeeting Const<strong>an</strong>tine in the battle on the b<strong>an</strong>ks of the Tiber, he was told, “On that day the enemyof Rome will perish.” This prophecy is so vague that it would apply to whoever won!The prophecies of Nostradamus were “cryptic” <strong>an</strong>d “obscure.” Consider the following prophecythat is alleged to describe Hitler: “Beasts ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers: Thegreater part of the region will be against the Hister. The great one will cause it to be dragged in<strong>an</strong> iron cage, when the Germ<strong>an</strong> child will observe nothing” (centuries #2, quatrain #24). This isso vague that it is me<strong>an</strong>ingless.Consider astrology. The forecasts are usually very vague, such as, “Some friends may have thefeeling that you’ve been ignoring them.” And when the astrological forecasts are more precise,they are usually wrong. Two famous astrologers in Britain predicted that Hitler would not startWorld War II. Edward Lyndoe said, “The Nazis attacking Britain? Don’t make me laugh! Not asign in my charts” (June 25, 1939).Consider Je<strong>an</strong> Dixon. She prophesied that the Soviets would beat the U.S. to the moon, thatWorld War III would begin in 1958, <strong>an</strong>d that a cure would be found for c<strong>an</strong>cer in 1967.Consider Edgar Cayce. He prophesied that China would be converted to Christi<strong>an</strong>ity in 1968 <strong>an</strong>dthat Armageddon would occur in 1999.Consider Islamic prophecy. The following refers to the “Dajjal” or the Islamic messiah. “TheDajjal will come forth having with him water <strong>an</strong>d fire, <strong>an</strong>d what m<strong>an</strong>kind see as water will befire which burns <strong>an</strong>d what they see as fire will be cold, sweet water” (Hadiths of Bukhari).Consider Hindu prophecy. The following describes the Age of Kali: “When deceit, falsehood,lethargy, sleepiness, violence, despondency, grief, delusion, fear, <strong>an</strong>d poverty prevail, that is theKali Yuga.” This is so vague that it could describe <strong>an</strong>y time since the fall of m<strong>an</strong>.75
In contrast, <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy is clear <strong>an</strong>d detailed <strong>an</strong>d detailed, <strong>an</strong>d it has never failed. Forexample, the prophecies about Christ’s first coming described the exact time of His coming, theexact place of His birth, the piercing of His h<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d feet on the cross, the words that He spokefrom the cross, the soldiers gambling for His garments, <strong>an</strong>d His burial in a rich m<strong>an</strong>’s tomb,among m<strong>an</strong>y other details.The prophecies about Israel are equally precise.It is said that Frederick the Great once dem<strong>an</strong>ded proof in one word that the <strong>Bible</strong> is divinelyinspired. The <strong>an</strong>swer provided by his chaplain was “the JEW, your majesty” (Robert Newm<strong>an</strong>,“Israel’s History Written in Adv<strong>an</strong>ce,” Evidence for Faith, edited by John Montgomery, pp.193-201).At the dawn of Israel’s experience as a nation, before she entered the Promised L<strong>an</strong>d, Mosesprophesied her complete history. God warned that if Israel turned from His Law, He would judgeher.See Deuteronomy 28:25-32, 36-37, 63-67; 30:1-6.This prophecy was written in about 1450 B.C., or nearly 3,500 years ago.The prophecy describes Israel’s defeat at the h<strong>an</strong>ds of foreign powers, her eviction from the l<strong>an</strong>d<strong>an</strong>d dispersion to the ends of the earth, <strong>an</strong>d her return.1. Desertification of the L<strong>an</strong>dMoses said Israel would become a desert. The rain would be powder <strong>an</strong>d dust (Deut. 28:23-24),<strong>an</strong>d the l<strong>an</strong>d would become “brimstone, salt, <strong>an</strong>d burning” (Deut. 29:23).When Israel entered the l<strong>an</strong>d in the 15th century B.C. it was fruitful like a garden, <strong>an</strong>d God gavethe l<strong>an</strong>d the early <strong>an</strong>d latter rains. In Abraham’s day, 400 years earlier, the plain of Jord<strong>an</strong> insouthern Israel was “well watered every where ... even as the garden of the LORD” (Gen. 13:10).God described it as a l<strong>an</strong>d “flowing with milk <strong>an</strong>d honey,” which speaks of a well-watered l<strong>an</strong>dfull of cattle <strong>an</strong>d flowering pl<strong>an</strong>ts (Deut. 31:20). The tribes of Reuben <strong>an</strong>d Gad stayed on theeastern side of the Jord<strong>an</strong> because they “had a very great multitude of cattle” <strong>an</strong>d they saw that“the place was a place for cattle” (Num. 32:1).They were describing a place in the southern part of the modern nation of Jord<strong>an</strong> that is harshdesert today. Obviously it was not a desert then, but because of Israel’s sin <strong>an</strong>d idolatry, Godstopped the rains <strong>an</strong>d the l<strong>an</strong>d became a barren desert, <strong>an</strong>d most of it remains that today. Cropsc<strong>an</strong> be grown in most parts of Israel only through irrigation. You c<strong>an</strong> eke out a living with a fewsheep today (apart from irrigated r<strong>an</strong>ches), but not with multitudes of them.76
Israel’s very l<strong>an</strong>d is a powerful witness to the accuracy of <strong>an</strong>cient <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy. Modern Israelhas performed <strong>an</strong> agricultural wonder through technology, but she has not been able to ch<strong>an</strong>gethe fact that 80% of the l<strong>an</strong>d remains arid or semi-arid. And this was God’s judgment infulfillment of <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy.2. Dispersion <strong>an</strong>d PersecutionMoses prophesied that Israel would “be plucked from off the l<strong>an</strong>d” <strong>an</strong>d scattered “among allpeople, from the one end of the earth even unto the other,” <strong>an</strong>d there she would “find no ease,neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart,<strong>an</strong>d failing of eyes, <strong>an</strong>d sorrow of mind; <strong>an</strong>d thy life shall h<strong>an</strong>g in doubt before thee; <strong>an</strong>d thoushalt fear day <strong>an</strong>d night, <strong>an</strong>d shalt have none assur<strong>an</strong>ce of thy life” (Deut. 28:63-67).The prophecy beg<strong>an</strong> to be fulfilled with the destruction of Israel’s First Temple <strong>an</strong>d her 70-yearcaptivity to Babylon in 586 B.C., but that was only the beginning. Moses said that theDeuteronomy prophecy would be fulfilled “in the latter days” (Deut. 31:29), which did not beginuntil the first coming of Christ.In 70 A.D. Israel’s Second Temple was destroyed by Rom<strong>an</strong> armies <strong>an</strong>d 65 years later Jerusalemwas razed after Rome put down the Bar Kokhba revolt. A pag<strong>an</strong> city was built on the site,dedicated to Jupiter. The Emperor Hadri<strong>an</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ged Judea’s name to Syria Palestina. Multitudesof Jews were slaughtered <strong>an</strong>d most of the rest were carried away captive or fled to other parts ofthe world.For 1,900 years Israel has been dispersed, <strong>an</strong>d she has been persecuted <strong>an</strong>d tormented wherevershe has w<strong>an</strong>dered.She has been hated by the Rom<strong>an</strong>s, the Greeks, the Muslims, the Rom<strong>an</strong> Catholic Church, theByz<strong>an</strong>tines <strong>an</strong>d the Orthodox Church, the Sp<strong>an</strong>ish (the Jews were evicted from Spain in 1492),the Veneti<strong>an</strong>s (Jews were forced to live in the ghetto), the English (Jews were expelled fromEngl<strong>an</strong>d in 1290), the Russi<strong>an</strong>s (Jews were driven out of Russia in the 1880s), the Germ<strong>an</strong>s, theearly Luther<strong>an</strong>s, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y others. And <strong>an</strong>ti-semitism is on the rise again today.The Holocaust of World War II was <strong>an</strong>other fulfillment of the <strong>an</strong>cient prophecy in Deuteronomy28. The Holocaust museum in Jerusalem witnesses to the bitter sorrow that Israel experienced atthe h<strong>an</strong>ds of the Germ<strong>an</strong>s. The nine galleries in the main museum are devoted to differentchapters of the Holocaust, from the rise of Hitler to his death. There are hundreds of disturbingphotos <strong>an</strong>d artifacts. Arrests in the middle of the night. Destroyed synagogues. Jews marked witharmb<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d the star of David. Jews mocked, beaten, spit on, burned, shot, poisoned. Heaps ofcorpses. Frightened children. Pathetic faces peering out of cattle cars. Starved men.Yet Israel remained a distinct people through the long centuries of her dispersion. In 1754 BishopThomas Newton wrote of the Jews:77
“Their preservation is really one of the most illustrious acts of Divine Providence. They are dispersed amongall nations, yet not confounded with <strong>an</strong>y. ... They c<strong>an</strong> produce their pedigree from the beginning of theworld. ... After wars, massacres <strong>an</strong>d persecutions they still subsist; they are still quite numerous. What but asupernatural power could have preserved them in such a m<strong>an</strong>ner as no other nation on earth has beenpreserved?” (Dissertation on the Prophecies, VIII, section 2).Walter Scott wrote:“The once mighty monarchies of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, <strong>an</strong>d Rome have risen, flourished,<strong>an</strong>d fallen, leaving no perm<strong>an</strong>ent results behind. But the Jews, whose reliable history goes further back th<strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>y of those <strong>an</strong>cient kingdoms, are with us today. In physiognomy <strong>an</strong>d national characteristics the Jew isunch<strong>an</strong>ged in a history of nigh four thous<strong>an</strong>d years. ... The Jews as a people c<strong>an</strong>not be destroyed. God istheir keeper <strong>an</strong>d preserver, even while under His governmental judgment as they are today. The Jews, withouta home, without a country, without a government, without a head, are yet a people as distinct from theGentiles in national <strong>faith</strong>, feeling, <strong>an</strong>d hope, as in the days of David <strong>an</strong>d Solomon” (Walter Scott, At H<strong>an</strong>d, Or,Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, 1910)3. The Return to the L<strong>an</strong>d<strong>Bible</strong> prophecy not only described Israel’s dispersion <strong>an</strong>d trouble, it foretold that Israel would bebrought back into her l<strong>an</strong>d (Deuteronomy 30:1-5).M<strong>an</strong>y other prophecies describe Israel’s return.<strong>Bible</strong> believers knew that Israel was going to be restored because the prophecies required it. In1910, for example, when the Ottom<strong>an</strong> Empire still ruled the l<strong>an</strong>d of Israel <strong>an</strong>d only a few Jewslived there, Walter Scott wrote:“The Restoration of the Hebrew Commonwealth is the first <strong>an</strong>d indispensable necessity for the arr<strong>an</strong>gement ofthe situation to suit the requirements of the prophetic orderly system mapped out in the Word. The wholeprophetic future depends on that primary fact. The Jew, <strong>an</strong>d not the Gentile, is the centre of God’s governmentof the earth; hence all take shape <strong>an</strong>d colour from the settlement of Judah in her l<strong>an</strong>d. This will be the greatpolitical event of the centuries, <strong>an</strong>d one which will attract universal attention. ... whenever, <strong>an</strong>d bywhomsoever, the return of Judah is effected, the result will be to ch<strong>an</strong>ge the whole political government of theworld. ... The Restoration of Israel to Palestine is the first <strong>an</strong>d fundamental necessity dem<strong>an</strong>ded byprophecy” (Walter Scott, At H<strong>an</strong>d, Or, Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, 1910).What Walter Scott <strong>an</strong>d other <strong>Bible</strong> believers long envisioned because of their <strong>faith</strong> in <strong>Bible</strong>prophecy, happened in 1948. Israel was not only restored to the <strong>Holy</strong> L<strong>an</strong>d, but she <strong>an</strong>nouncedthe establishment of a modern state.Restoration in two stagesIsrael’s return is described in the amazing prophecy of Ezekiel 37:1-14.Here Israel is described as a valley of dry bones. Verse 11 gives the interpretation: “these bonesare the whole house of Israel.” Dry bones was her condition for the past 2,000 years. She wasscattered to the ends of the earth, <strong>an</strong>d it appeared that she was dead <strong>an</strong>d finished.78
Ezekiel is told that Israel will be brought to life <strong>an</strong>d restored in two stages. First, she will bebrought back to the l<strong>an</strong>d but in a spiritually dead condition. Verse 8 says the dead bones wereraised but “there was no breath in them.” Then, she would experience spiritual revival. This willhappen during the Great Tribulation just prior to Christ’s return.This is where Israel st<strong>an</strong>ds today. At midnight on May 14, 1948, the new state of Israel was<strong>an</strong>nounced. The official declaration said:“We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Medinath Yisrael (TheState of Israel). ... The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of theirdispersion ... Our call goes out to the Jewish people all over the world to rally to our side in the task ofimmigration <strong>an</strong>d development <strong>an</strong>d to st<strong>an</strong>d by us in the great struggle for the fulfillment of the dream ofgenerations for the redemption of Israel. With trust in Almighty God, we set our h<strong>an</strong>d to this Declaration, at thisSession of the Provisional State Council, on the soil of the Homel<strong>an</strong>d, in the city of Tel Aviv, on this Sabbatheve, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth of May, 1948.”Eleven minutes later U.S. President Harry Trum<strong>an</strong>, a Baptist, <strong>an</strong>nounced his recognition ofIsrael.The Jews celebrated throughout the world. Th<strong>an</strong>ksgiving services were held in synagogueseverywhere. In Rome the Jews paraded under the Arch of Titus, which memorializes thedestruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They were saying, “We’re back from the dead!” It was a mostdramatic fulfillment of Ezekiel 37. The <strong>an</strong>cient Rom<strong>an</strong> Empire with all of its glory is gone, butIsrael remains.Immediately the new Jewish state was plunged into the War of Independence as the Jews wereforced to defend itself against large, well-supplied Arab armies. The Arab League was composedof Egypt, Jord<strong>an</strong>, Syria, Leb<strong>an</strong>on, <strong>an</strong>d Iraq. Britain had done everything it could to arm the Arabs<strong>an</strong>d to disarm the Jews. Israel’s enemies not only attacked from outside the country; they werealready entrenched within the country when the fighting started.Israel won the War of Independence against all odds, but that was only the beginning of herstruggle. In 1956 the Suez War was fought to force Egypt to allow access for Israel’s shipsthrough the Suez C<strong>an</strong>al. Then there was the Six-Day War in 1967 against the coalition of Egypt,Jord<strong>an</strong>, Syria, <strong>an</strong>d Iraq, with Saudi Arabia, Sud<strong>an</strong>, Tunisia, Morocco, <strong>an</strong>d Algeria contributingtroops <strong>an</strong>d arms. The Six-Day War was followed by Egypt’s War of Attrition against Israel from1968-70. Then there was the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Israel was attacked on YomKippur, or the Day of Atonement, by Egypt in the south <strong>an</strong>d Syria in the north. These twoMuslim nations were joined in a support role by Leb<strong>an</strong>on, Iraq, Kuwait, Jord<strong>an</strong>, Saudi Arabia,Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sud<strong>an</strong>, Ug<strong>an</strong>da, Cuba, Morocco, <strong>an</strong>d Pakist<strong>an</strong>. The Soviet Unionprovided pl<strong>an</strong>es, t<strong>an</strong>ks, <strong>an</strong>d armaments of all sorts, including thous<strong>an</strong>ds of missiles targetingIsrael’s air force. Israel was massively outgunned.79
These major wars against Israel are only the tip of the iceberg. There has been continual militaryconflict with Muslim groups such as the Palestine Authority, the Palestine LiberationOrg<strong>an</strong>ization, Hamas, Hezbollah, <strong>an</strong>d the Islamic Jihad.Thus, it is in the face of great opposition that Israel is back in the l<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d her continuedpresence there has been a const<strong>an</strong>t miracle.But Israel is spiritually blind <strong>an</strong>d dead, just as Ezekiel prophesied.The signs are all too evident.Israel’s spiritual blindness is evident in her stubborn rejection of the Messiah. We were told byour Jewish guide that it is against the law in Israel to preach Christ publicly or to distributeGospel tracts. When we tried to talk to him about Jesus the Messiah, he refused to listen, curtlyending the conversation with the statement, “That is your opinion.” This exemplifies the frightfulcondition of the vast majority of Jews today.Israel’s spiritual blindness is evident in Israel’s overweening pride. For the most part, Israel ispuffed up <strong>an</strong>d does not glorify God even for the miracle of her restoration <strong>an</strong>d the winning of hermodern wars. While throwing a few crumbs of th<strong>an</strong>ksgiving <strong>an</strong>d acknowledgment to God forthese great miracles, Israel’s leaders <strong>an</strong>d military heroes <strong>an</strong>d technology typically get the bulk ofthe credit. Nothing has ch<strong>an</strong>ged since Gideon’s day, when God had to take away the vastmajority of Israel’s army <strong>an</strong>d leave only 300 fighting men so that she would not glorify herselffor the victory.Israel’s spiritual death <strong>an</strong>d blindness is evident in that a large percentage of Jews today are“secular,” me<strong>an</strong>ing they care little or nothing about the Old Testament Scripture. They follow afew religious traditions <strong>an</strong>d rituals, but their hearts are far from God. They talk about God, butthey don’t obey Him. M<strong>an</strong>y of Israel’s most revered modern war heroes were adulterers <strong>an</strong>dsabbath breakers.Israel’s spiritual death is evident in that she has exalted rabbinic tradition to <strong>an</strong> authority aboveGod’s Word. Even the ultra-orthodox are no better th<strong>an</strong> the Pharisees of old. They pray, but theirprayers are vain showy rituals. They visit the Wailing Wall to be near the old <strong>Holy</strong> of Holies <strong>an</strong>dmake a great show of putting on their phylacteries in just the right m<strong>an</strong>ner <strong>an</strong>d praying in acertain posture <strong>an</strong>d with certain movements. They keep dietary laws (kosher), but they go farbeyond what the <strong>Bible</strong> comm<strong>an</strong>ds. For example, the <strong>Bible</strong> says you must not seethe a kid in hismother’s milk (Deut. 14:21). Jewish tradition adds to this by concluding that it is wrong to mixmeat with <strong>an</strong>y dairy product such as cheese. (No cheeseburgers!) God’s Law does not requirethis. It is vain hum<strong>an</strong> tradition that has been added to God’s holy Law. As in Jesus’ day, the Jewsstill strain at gnats <strong>an</strong>d swallow camels (Mat. 23:24).80
Israel’s spiritual blindness is evident in the field of archaeology. Jewish archaeologists, whoshould be at the forefront of finding evidence for the truth of the <strong>Bible</strong>, are among its fiercestenemies. We are told that the archaeologists in Tel Aviv are at the forefront of biblicalskepticism. Adam Zertal, who has excavated Joshua’s Altar at Mt. Ebal, told Steve Rudd that“the most <strong>an</strong>ti-Biblical forces in archeology are the professors in the various universities inIsrael” (“Joshua’s Altar,” http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-of-joshua.htm).In spite of her blindness, Israel is fulfilling <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy. She is back in the l<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d she ispreparing for the building of the Third Temple, which is prophesied in Scripture. A $2 milliongolden c<strong>an</strong>dlestick sits just across from the Temple Mount, waiting for the Third Temple, as mutewitness to the divine inspiration of the <strong>Bible</strong>. The <strong>Bible</strong> says this temple will be occupied by theAntichrist (Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessaloni<strong>an</strong>s 2:4).The revival of Israel will occur during the Great Tribulation after the Rapture of church-agesaints.SUMMARY OF “ISRAEL IN PROPHECY”1. In contrast to pag<strong>an</strong> prophecies, <strong>Bible</strong> prophecies are clear <strong>an</strong>d detailed <strong>an</strong>d unfailing.2. The great prophecy in Deuteronomy 28 described Israel’s entire 3,500 year history before sheeven entered the l<strong>an</strong>d of C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>. It says that she would disobey God’s Word <strong>an</strong>d be evicted fromthe l<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d be dispersed among the nations where she would have continual trouble. It says herfertile l<strong>an</strong>d would become a desert. It says she would eventually return to the l<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d berestored to the place of God’s blessing, but her return would occur in two stages: first in unbelief,then in spiritual revival. Every part of this <strong>an</strong>cient prophecy has been fulfilled except for the finalrevival.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ISRAEL IN PROPHECY1. What is the difference between <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy <strong>an</strong>d pag<strong>an</strong> prophecy?2. In what book of the <strong>Bible</strong> was Israel’s entire history pre-written before she entered thePromised L<strong>an</strong>d?3. When was this prophecy written?4. What three major events did this prophecy foretell?5. How is Israel’s l<strong>an</strong>d different today th<strong>an</strong> it was when she entered it under Joshua’s leadership?6. God said that if Israel sinned against Him her rain would become what?7. Moses prophesied that after Israel was plucked from the l<strong>an</strong>d, what would happen to her?8. When <strong>an</strong>d with what event did the dispersion of Israel from the l<strong>an</strong>d begin?9. When was the Second Temple destroyed <strong>an</strong>d by whose armies?10. Why is it miraculous that the Jews have survived as a people through 2,000 years ofdispersion <strong>an</strong>d persecution?11. Why did <strong>Bible</strong> believers in the 19th century know that Israel would return to her l<strong>an</strong>d?81
12. What chapter in Deuteronomy prophesies the return of Israel?13. What prophet described the return of Israel in two stages?14. What is the name of this prophecy?15. In what chapter of his book does he describe this?16. What are those two stages?17. In what year did Israel <strong>an</strong>nounce her new statehood?18. What U.S. president recognized Israel’s new state?19. Name three major wars that Israel has fought with her Muslim neighbors.20. What is Yom Kipper?21. What is the first reason that we know that Israel is spiritually dead today?22. Who are the “most <strong>an</strong>ti-Biblical forces in archaeology” today?82
ARCHAEOLOGY☛ NOTE TO TEACHERSWe recommend that you first go through the introduction to evolution with the class <strong>an</strong>d thenuse the PowerPoint/Keynote presentations for the section on Archaeological TreasuresConfirming the <strong>Bible</strong>. After each PowerPoint presentation use the summary <strong>an</strong>d review questionsfrom the book.83
INTRODUCTION TO ARCHAEOLOGY1. The explosion of archaeological research in the last 150 yearsIn 1784, Germ<strong>an</strong> philosopher Joh<strong>an</strong>n Gottfried von Herder wrote:“In the Near East <strong>an</strong>d neighboring Egypt everything from the <strong>an</strong>cient times appears to us as ruins or as adream which has disappeared ... The archives of Babylon, Phoenicia <strong>an</strong>d Carthage are no more; Egypt hadwithered practically before the Greeks saw its interior; thus, everything shrinks to a few faded leaves whichcontain stories about stories, fragments of history, a dream of the world before us” (Joh<strong>an</strong>n Gottfriedvon Herder, Ideas for the Philosophy of History of Hum<strong>an</strong>ity, 1784-91, cited from M. Larsen, “Orientalism <strong>an</strong>dthe Ancient Near East,” Culture <strong>an</strong>d History 2, 1987, p. 96).As we will see, this is no longer the case. Today we know a great deal about <strong>an</strong>cient nations <strong>an</strong>dkingdoms described in the <strong>Bible</strong>’s earliest pages. We don’t have just “a few faded leaves” ormere stories about stories; we have museums <strong>an</strong>d libraries full of historical information. We haveentire <strong>an</strong>cient cities that have been earthed.2. The major benefits of archaeology for the Christi<strong>an</strong>First, archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d thus encourages <strong>faith</strong> ineverything the <strong>Bible</strong> states.Beware of archaeologists who w<strong>an</strong>t to separate historical from theological evidence. Forexample, consider the following statement by Alfred Hoerth, retired director of archaeology atWheaton College, where he taught for almost 30 years:“Some people mistakenly use archaeology to confirm, authenticate, or prove the <strong>Bible</strong>. ... Even if everyhistorical statement in the <strong>Bible</strong> could be proven true--confirmed--this would still not prove the theologicalmessage of the <strong>Bible</strong>. There is a tendency by some Christi<strong>an</strong>s to assume too much from archaeology.Sometimes the words confirm, prove, authenticate, <strong>an</strong>d subst<strong>an</strong>tiate c<strong>an</strong> be employed. ... It must berecognized that there is a clear separation between historical <strong>an</strong>d theological proof” (Hoerth,Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d the Old Testament, pp. 18, 20).This is actually a sap toward liberalism. It is a half-truth that tends to be a smokescreen for thefact that the author does not believe in the infallible inspiration of Scripture <strong>an</strong>d holds to theisticevolution.While it is true that historical evidence does not absolutely prove the theological message of the<strong>Bible</strong>, the <strong>Bible</strong> itself leads us to expect historical evidence. The <strong>Bible</strong> claims to be <strong>an</strong> historicalrecord. It claims to be founded upon infallible historical proofs (Acts 1:3). Thus, history <strong>an</strong>dtheology are friends. Every historical evidence for the <strong>Bible</strong> confirms its theology.It is true that archaeology c<strong>an</strong>not prove that Christ was born of a virgin or that He walked on thewater, but it c<strong>an</strong> demonstrate that the <strong>Bible</strong>’s history is accurate <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong> thus give us confidencethat whatever the <strong>Bible</strong> says is true.84
The <strong>Bible</strong> is like a very old friend with vast knowledge <strong>an</strong>d experience. Since he has proven tobe honest <strong>an</strong>d <strong>faith</strong>ful in all of his dealings with us <strong>an</strong>d accurate in all of the statements that hehas made, we have no reason to suspect him of fabricating things or creating myths. To thecontrary, we have every reason to believe whatever he tells us.Second, archaeology provides background information to better underst<strong>an</strong>d the <strong>Bible</strong>.For example, archaeology has thrown great light on the <strong>an</strong>cient civilizations such as Egypt,Babylon, <strong>an</strong>d Assyria. Knowledge of these discoveries is a great aid to underst<strong>an</strong>ding thebackground of Old Testament times <strong>an</strong>d events.Consider the excavations of Ur. Today we know a lot about the city that Abraham grew up in, theeducation he received, perhaps even the type of house that he lived in. In fact, at thearchaeological site of Ur in Iraq, we c<strong>an</strong> see the very streets on which he might have strolled <strong>an</strong>ddoorways through which he walked <strong>an</strong>d the temples upon which he gazed.Consider the excavations of Shush<strong>an</strong> (Susa). At the Louvre in Paris we c<strong>an</strong> see actual artifactsfrom the throne room of the Palace of Shush<strong>an</strong>, articles that would have been seen by Esther <strong>an</strong>dD<strong>an</strong>iel <strong>an</strong>d Nehemiah. We c<strong>an</strong> much better underst<strong>an</strong>d the environment in which the events ofthe biblical book of Esther tr<strong>an</strong>spired.3. The sufficiency of evidenceGod gives enough evidence to prove that the <strong>Bible</strong> is true for the unbiased, but enough is leftunproven <strong>an</strong>d enough questions remain to give the willful unbeliever rope to h<strong>an</strong>g himself.As the renowned Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf stated:“Christi<strong>an</strong>ity does not profess to convince the perverse <strong>an</strong>d head-strong, to bring irresistible evidence to thedaring <strong>an</strong>d prof<strong>an</strong>e, to v<strong>an</strong>quish the proud scorner, <strong>an</strong>d afford evidences from which the careless <strong>an</strong>dperverse c<strong>an</strong>not possibly escape. This might go to destroy m<strong>an</strong>’s responsibility. All that Christi<strong>an</strong>ity professes,is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the c<strong>an</strong>did, the serious inquirer” (TheTestimony of the Ev<strong>an</strong>gelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence).In His story of the rich m<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Lazarus in Luke 16, Jesus warned that no amount of evidencewill convince a committed skeptic. The Word of God itself is the ultimate evidence, <strong>an</strong>d men arerequired to believe it (Luke 16:27-31).A committed skeptic would not be convinced if he saw Noah’s ark with his own eyes <strong>an</strong>d if Noahhimself rose from the dead to tell the story.85
4. The limitations of archaeologyArchaeology is a friend to the <strong>Bible</strong> as long as its evidence is not misinterpreted throughevolutionary bias <strong>an</strong>d as long as its limitations are clearly understood.Kaveh Farrokh, a histori<strong>an</strong> of <strong>an</strong>cient Persia, has likened archaeological findings to “shadows inthe desert.” This is <strong>an</strong> apt description. We c<strong>an</strong> learn something from a shadow, but we c<strong>an</strong>notlearn everything. The archaeological shadow of <strong>an</strong>cient times should never be used to overthrowthe sharp details of reality found in Scripture!Of archaeological dating systems, the renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley said:“Archaeological excavation provides us with a relative sequence ... but it does not of itself offer <strong>an</strong> absolutechronology in years ... Even when written records provide information upon which such <strong>an</strong> absolutechronology c<strong>an</strong> be constructed, the further this goes back in time the greater grows the possible margin oferror. Any system we adopt still has to be regarded as tentative <strong>an</strong>d liable to revision, possibly major onesbefore the middle of the second millennium B.C.” (Ur of the Chaldees, revised by P.R.S. Moorey, p. 16).In his biography of King Hammurabi of Babylon, Marc V<strong>an</strong> De Mieroop admits that the dates hegives for Hammurabi’s reign (1792-1750 B.C.) are not certain <strong>an</strong>d adds, “The chronology ofearly Mesopotami<strong>an</strong> history <strong>an</strong>d how it relates to the Common Era is not fully clear...” ThoughHammurabi is one of the best known rulers of the <strong>an</strong>cient Mesopotami<strong>an</strong> world, actually little isknown about him. V<strong>an</strong> De Mieroop says, “the material on Hammurabi is so fragmentary that itleaves much of his life in the dark.”Alex<strong>an</strong>der the Great built one of the greatest <strong>an</strong>cient empires <strong>an</strong>d left his name everywhere, butonly a few archaeological documents have survived that actually contain his name. If this is sofor someone like Alex<strong>an</strong>der, how much more is it true for someone like Abraham, Moses, orDavid.It is ridiculous to allow such <strong>an</strong> inexact science to correct the <strong>Bible</strong>!Consider some of the specific limitations of archaeology:First, archaeology is limited by the material it has to work with.Some of the following is adapted from Edwin Yamauchi:a. Ancient pag<strong>an</strong> empires did not record their defeats.“The peoples of the <strong>an</strong>cient Near East kept historical records to impress their gods <strong>an</strong>d also potentialenemies, <strong>an</strong>d therefore rarely, if ever, mentioned defeats or catastrophes” (Charles Aling, Egypt <strong>an</strong>d <strong>Bible</strong>History from Earliest Times, p. 103).86
Thus, we would not expect to find extra-biblical evidence of such things as Israel’s exodus fromEgypt or the destruction of Sennacherib’s army outside of Jerusalem.b. Only the minutest fraction of what has been made or written has survived.“The marvel was that <strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>cient Egypti<strong>an</strong> monuments were left at all, for such destruction <strong>an</strong>d dispersionhad been practiced both by the <strong>an</strong>cient Egypti<strong>an</strong>s themselves <strong>an</strong>d for several thous<strong>an</strong>d years thereafter bythe Greeks, Rom<strong>an</strong>s, Copts, Turks <strong>an</strong>d Arabs, not to mention frequent Europe<strong>an</strong> v<strong>an</strong>dals” (Charles Breasted,Pioneer to the East, p. 191).“The <strong>an</strong>cient written documents we read today survive by accident. Often they are not ones which modernscholars would have chosen if they had had <strong>an</strong>y say. ... Even when a wide variety of documents is available,as in Egypt or Babylonia, they are still a selection, <strong>an</strong>d they give incomplete <strong>an</strong>d unbal<strong>an</strong>ced pictures” (Al<strong>an</strong>Millard, Treasures from <strong>Bible</strong> Times, p. 25).Consider, for example, the fact that hundreds of years of <strong>an</strong>cient Egypti<strong>an</strong> records are missingentirely.Consider the fact that for the reign of the Persi<strong>an</strong> king Cyrus the Great, his rise to power, <strong>an</strong>d thefall of Babylon, a MAIN SOURCE of information is the Nabonidus Chronicle at the BritishMuseum, which is a mere fragment of a tablet. “It provides a rare contemporary account ofCyrus’s rise to power <strong>an</strong>d is the main source of information on this period. Amelie Kuhrtdescribes it as ‘the most reliable <strong>an</strong>d sober account of the fall of Babylon’” (“NabonidusChronicle,” Wikipedia).How pathetic that a mere fragment of a tablet would be called “the main source of information”for that period, but this is the reality of archaeology.Consider the Stele of Ur-Nammu. Dating to about 2100 B.C. it is the oldest known tabletcontaining a law code. Originally 10 feet high, what exists today is just fragments. Evenreconstructing portions of it has been difficult <strong>an</strong>d some parts of the reconstruction arequestionable. Yet countless reports <strong>an</strong>d some entire books have been written about thisfragmented item, <strong>an</strong>d the reason is that as pathetic as it is as a solid historical document, it is oneof the best witnesses we have of that era.Vast numbers of <strong>an</strong>cient documents were written on perishable material such as parchment <strong>an</strong>dwax boards, which survive from <strong>an</strong>cient times only in extremely unusual circumst<strong>an</strong>ces such asthe dry caves of the Dead Sea region. Even there, most of the <strong>an</strong>cient scrolls had degeneratedinto a bewildering jumble of parchment scraps by the time they were discovered in the 1940s.Only a pathetic pitt<strong>an</strong>ce of such documents dating before Christ have survived from Egypt,Israel, <strong>an</strong>d neighboring l<strong>an</strong>ds.“Palestine has a damp climate in winter on account of its rainfall. In such a climate ink is very quickly washedoff hard clay, <strong>an</strong>d papyrus soon disintegrates. Greatly to the distress of archaeologists, scientists <strong>an</strong>dhistori<strong>an</strong>s, all of them thirsting for knowledge, practically the sum total of C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>’s records <strong>an</strong>d documentshas been lost to posterity for this reason” (Werner Keller, The <strong>Bible</strong> as History, p. 202).87
What we have from <strong>an</strong>cient times are a few scraps, fragments. The British Museum, the Louvrein Paris, <strong>an</strong>d other prominent museums display the most import<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>cient documents, <strong>an</strong>dthough they are great treasures, they are also pathetic broken scraps of things. Of the <strong>an</strong>cientrecord, we have only bits <strong>an</strong>d pieces.c. Only a fraction of archaeological sites have been surveyed or excavated, <strong>an</strong>d only a fraction of<strong>an</strong> excavation site is actually examined.“The Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin once estimated that at the rate he was excavating the 200-acre biblicalsite of Hazor it would take eight thous<strong>an</strong>d years to finish. How long would it take to completely excavate theeight thous<strong>an</strong>d acres of Caesarea Maritima!” (Hoerth <strong>an</strong>d McRay, <strong>Bible</strong> Archaeology,d. Only a fraction of what excavators find actually survives.M<strong>an</strong>y of the materials unearthed by Botta <strong>an</strong>d Layard, the first excavators of Babylon <strong>an</strong>dAssyria, perished when exposed to the air.“M. Botta was not long in perceiving that the building which had been thus partly excavated, unfortunatelyowed its destruction to fire; <strong>an</strong>d that the gypsum slabs, reduced to lime, were rapidly falling to pieces onexposure to the air. No precaution could arrest this rapid decay; <strong>an</strong>d it was to be feared that this wonderfulmonument had only been uncovered to complete its ruin. The records of victories <strong>an</strong>d triumphs, which hadlong attested the power <strong>an</strong>d swelled the pride of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> kings, <strong>an</strong>d had resisted the ravages of ages,were now passing away for ever. They could scarcely be held together until <strong>an</strong> inexperienced pencil couldcopy them, <strong>an</strong>d thus secure evidence of their existence. Almost all that was first discovered thus speedilydisappeared; <strong>an</strong>d the same fate has befallen nearly everything subsequently found at Khorsabad” (Nineveh<strong>an</strong>d Its Remains, p. 9).“The colours, particularly the blues <strong>an</strong>d reds, were still fresh <strong>an</strong>d vivid when first discovered; but on exposureto the air they faded rapidly” (p. 95).“Several helmets of other shapes, some with arched crests, were also dug out; but they fell to pieces almostas soon as exposed to the air; <strong>an</strong>d I was only able to collect a few of the fragments” (p. 241).e. Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported <strong>an</strong>d published.“This increasing fractional improbability creates odds that are extremely heavy against tradition interlockingwith inscriptions or materials” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d the Old Testament).Second, archaeology is limited by the fact that it is <strong>an</strong> evolving science.“Archaeological interpretations are in a const<strong>an</strong>t state of flux <strong>an</strong>d often wither as grass, but God’s Word abidesforever” (Garry Br<strong>an</strong>tley, “Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Christi<strong>an</strong>ity,” ApologeticsPress.org).The books A Century of Biblical Archaeology by P. Moorey <strong>an</strong>d Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds by Thomas Davisdocument the fact that each generation of archeologists since the early 19th century has sharplycriticized the previous generation. The title “Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds” does not refer to actual s<strong>an</strong>d but tothe shifting theories <strong>an</strong>d methodology of archaeology.That archaeology is not <strong>an</strong> exact science is evident by the fact that archaeologists disagree, oftenvehemently, among themselves on a large number of points. For example, the original excavators88
of Ebla, Paolo Matthiae <strong>an</strong>d Giov<strong>an</strong>ni Pettinato, so strongly disagreed on the interpretation of theartifacts that their friendship <strong>an</strong>d scientific cooperation was destroyed (Hoerth, Archaeology <strong>an</strong>dthe Old Testament, p. 74).Third, archaeology is limited by its unreasonable predilection to doubt the <strong>Bible</strong>.The skepticism that is ramp<strong>an</strong>t in the field of archaeology deeply colors its interpretation of theevidence. The unwillingness to give the <strong>Bible</strong> the benefit of the doubt is unreasonable <strong>an</strong>d iscontrary to the way that archaeologists typically treat extra-biblical material.Dr. Bry<strong>an</strong>t Wood observes:“Secular scholars are generally of the opinion that <strong>an</strong>y aspect of the early history of Israel prior to the kingdomperiod c<strong>an</strong>not be taken at face value unless the veracity of the events described c<strong>an</strong> be validated by me<strong>an</strong>s ofindependent witnesses. This approach is strongly biased <strong>an</strong>d nonscientific. Other <strong>an</strong>cient documentsare assumed to be accurate unless there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. These documentsare just as religious as the <strong>Bible</strong>, as the writers of <strong>an</strong>cient texts regularly mention their pag<strong>an</strong> gods <strong>an</strong>dwhat the gods did on their behalf” (“Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Conquest,” <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Spade, Fall 2005).Garry Br<strong>an</strong>tley adds:“We must be aware [of archaeology’s] limitations, <strong>an</strong>d deficiencies. The dating methods employed (e.g.,radiocarbon, dendrochronology, pottery, <strong>an</strong>d others) are imperfect, <strong>an</strong>d are always based upon certainassumptions. Further, we should be aware of the current <strong>an</strong>ti-biblical trend among m<strong>an</strong>y archaeologists.As with <strong>an</strong>y scientific discipline, we need not sift God’s Word through the sieve of archaeological inquiry.Archaeological interpretations are in a const<strong>an</strong>t state of flux <strong>an</strong>d often wither as grass, but God’s Word abidesforever” (“Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Christi<strong>an</strong>ity,” ApologeticsPress.org).5. The skepticism that permeates the field of archaeologyThe <strong>Bible</strong> warns that skepticism will be ramp<strong>an</strong>t before the return of Christ.Psalm 2 describes the entire world in open rebellion to God <strong>an</strong>d Christ <strong>an</strong>d to God’s Word.In his second epistle, Peter described scoffers in the last days who will deny the worldwide Flood<strong>an</strong>d hold to the evolutionary doctrine of uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism (2 Peter 3:3-6). Verse three indicatesthat the scoffers are motivated by their desire to live according to their own lusts instead of insubmission to God’s Word. They are “willfully ignor<strong>an</strong>t,” me<strong>an</strong>ing that they refuse to believeeven when confronted with the truth.It is not surprising, then, that the field of archaeology has been rife with unbelief since itsinception <strong>an</strong>d this skepticism has increased steadily.Consider R<strong>an</strong>dall Price’s account of his first day at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:“On my first day in a course on the history of early Israel, the teacher, who was one of Israel’s foremosthistorical archaeologists, stated with complete conviction: ‘Abraham never existed, but his cousins did!’ Theprofessor went on to explain that the biblical stories about Abraham, Isaac, <strong>an</strong>d Jacob were simply campfire89
accounts that had been passed down through the centuries <strong>an</strong>d had grown into legends (he used the wordsaga). He said the Patriarchs were only a backward projection created by nationalist Jews during the mid-firstmillennium (600-400 B.C.). These nationalists were seeking to create a glorified though nonhistoricalpast” (The Stones Cry Out, p. 90).Archaeology grew up in <strong>an</strong> atmosphere of theological <strong>an</strong>d spiritual skepticism. In the 19thcentury, theological modernism, unitari<strong>an</strong>ism, evolution, <strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong>istic philosophy weremaking great strides both in church <strong>an</strong>d society. From its inception, archeology was influencedby this skepticism.Consider some prominent examples:James BreastedHe was founder of the Oriental <strong>Institute</strong> in Chicago where m<strong>an</strong>y artifacts from <strong>an</strong>cient Assyria,Babylon, <strong>an</strong>d Egypt are housed, <strong>an</strong>d he occupied the first chair of Egyptology in America. Hisexpeditions to Egypt were funded by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.The following information is from Pioneer to the Past: The Story of James Henry Breasted byCharles Breasted, 2009:James Breasted’s mother believed in the infallible inspiration of Scripture. “Like all her family,she had been brought up to respect the Scriptures as infallible, the one perfect thing in a sinfulworld” (p. 22).In his youth, James felt called to preach “... it suddenly flashed into my mind as if conveyed by<strong>an</strong> electric spark, that I ought to preach the gospel. From that time to this, this consciousness hasnever left me. ... I could hardly think of a verse of scripture but it was fraught with some occult[hidden] message to me, <strong>an</strong>d one followed me continually, ‘The Lord hath need of me’” (p. 16).His sense of divine calling <strong>an</strong>d his <strong>faith</strong> in God’s Word was ruined by the skeptical environmentinto which he was immersed at Chicago Theological Seminary, Yale University, <strong>an</strong>d theUniversity of Berlin. He came to believe that “m<strong>an</strong> himself had created the concepts he attributedto divinity...” (p. 29)Eventually he subscribed “almost milit<strong>an</strong>tly” to “a new hum<strong>an</strong>ism” (p. 85). He believed that m<strong>an</strong>has entered a new age. His communion with devils led to a belief in p<strong>an</strong>theism. He believed thatdeath is the end of the soul, saying to his son that he was content to “go out like a spark forever.”Breasted accepted Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution <strong>an</strong>d promoted <strong>an</strong> evolutionary “theory” of hum<strong>an</strong> historyin his influential textbook Ancient Times. It became a classic in its field <strong>an</strong>d was tr<strong>an</strong>slated inChina, Jap<strong>an</strong>, Malay, Palestine, Syria, <strong>an</strong>d Iraq (p. 231). Of his own evolutionary history, H.G.Wells said he had “stolen a lot from Breasted” (p. 245). Breasted’s book was even cited byClarence Darrow in the Scopes Trial. Darrow’s opponent, William Jennings Bry<strong>an</strong>, rightly90
“pilloried the book as a consummate example of the kind of iniquitous falsity which he insistedwas destroying Americ<strong>an</strong> religious <strong>faith</strong>” (p. 230).Breasted said of himself, “I am a proud fellow, proud as Lucifer, <strong>an</strong>d my pride <strong>an</strong>d my will, willcarry me through almost <strong>an</strong>ything” (p. 241).Frederic KenyonKenyon treated the <strong>Bible</strong> in a very naturalistic fashion, denying its divine inspiration <strong>an</strong>dpreservation. He claimed that the Pentateuch was written by unknown authors <strong>an</strong>d was not puttogether in its present form until the time of Ezra or even later (Our <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the AncientM<strong>an</strong>uscripts, p. 32). He theorized that the author of the book of Acts was some unknowncomp<strong>an</strong>ion of Paul who edited Luke’s history by his own authority.Edward RobinsonThe son of a clergym<strong>an</strong>, Robinson came under the influence of Moses Stuart at AndoverSeminary. Stuart is called “the father of modern biblical study in America,” referring to the factthat he introduced Germ<strong>an</strong> critical scholarship to the U.S. Stuart “had serious reservationsregarding the accepted doctrine of verbal inspiration” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds).William AlbrightThe “The Albright School” of archaeology is named after William Foxbright Albright.Thoughreputed to have been very conservative, it was quite liberal when viewed from a <strong>Bible</strong>-believingperspective.Albright was trained at Johns Hopkins University under Paul Haupt, who held the evolutionarydoctrine of the formation of the Old Testament. His view, known as p<strong>an</strong>-Babyloni<strong>an</strong>ism, heldthat the authors of the <strong>Bible</strong> were influenced by pag<strong>an</strong>ism. Haupt was a follower of JuliusWellhausen <strong>an</strong>d held the documentary doctrine of the Pentateuch. He was a contributor to thePolychrome <strong>Bible</strong>, which was color-coded to identify the alleged source documents that werepieced together to form the first six books of the <strong>Bible</strong>.Albright eventually rejected Wellhausen’s position on the almost complete non-historicity of theOld Testament, but Albright also denied the divine inspiration of Scripture. His opposition toWellhausen’s work was “not with the purpose of supporting the <strong>Bible</strong> as the Word ofGod” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds).Albright claimed that “the theory of verbal inspiration--sometimes miscalled a doctrine--hasbeen proved erroneous” (The Archaeology of Palestine, 1954 edition, p. 128).91
As soon as one gives up the infallible inspiration of Scripture, the battle has been lost. TheScripture c<strong>an</strong> be defended successfully only on the basis of what it claims to be <strong>an</strong>d what JesusChrist <strong>an</strong>d the apostles said it was: the infallible Word of God. Any other position is unbelief, <strong>an</strong>dwithout <strong>faith</strong> it is impossible to please God or to defeat the devil (Hebrews 11:6; Ephesi<strong>an</strong>s6:16). Christ said the Word of God c<strong>an</strong>not be broken (John 10:35) <strong>an</strong>d He defeated the devil bythe absolute authority of Scripture (Luke 4:4, 8, 12).We must underst<strong>an</strong>d that those who defend a partially-inspired <strong>Bible</strong> are not the friends of truth.Their writings should be used only with great caution.Albright helped <strong>Bible</strong> believers in m<strong>an</strong>y ways through his research, but he also hurt them greatlywhen he led the charge to re-date the conquest of Palestine by Israel.“Initially, both Garst<strong>an</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d Albright held to the early date of the conquest (1400 B.C.). However, duringexcavations at Beitin, which he assumed was Bethel, Albright faltered <strong>an</strong>d finally moved to a later date for theconquest (c. 1250 B.C.; Albright, 1957, p. 13). ... Due to this evidence, <strong>an</strong>d similar finds at other sites, coupledwith Albright’s pervasive influence, the date of 1220-1230 B.C. for the conquest has prevailed since the1950s” (Garry Br<strong>an</strong>tley, Digging for Answers, p. 52).Eventually, Albright was influenced by neo-orthodox theologi<strong>an</strong>s such as Karl Barth, <strong>an</strong>d hiswife converted to Rom<strong>an</strong> Catholicism.Archibald SayceSayce, president of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, was considered to be conservative, buthe accepted the liberal documentary doctrine of the Pentateuch. He viewed archaeology, ratherth<strong>an</strong> the <strong>Bible</strong>, as the final arbiter of truth. Thus, he rejected the use of “Philistine” in the book ofGenesis because archaeology did not support the presence of the Philistines at that time (ShiftingS<strong>an</strong>ds).George Ernest WrightWright felt a call to the Presbyteri<strong>an</strong> ministry <strong>an</strong>d trained at McCormick Theological Seminary inChicago. He was subsequently ordained in the liberal United Presbyteri<strong>an</strong> Church. After workingunder William Albright’s tutelage at the Bethel excavations in Israel, Wright studied archaeologyat Johns Hopkins. He completed his Ph.D. in 1937 <strong>an</strong>d beg<strong>an</strong> teaching Old Testament atMcCormick in 1939.Wright tried to form a synthesis between ev<strong>an</strong>gelicalism <strong>an</strong>d modernism. He accepted the criticaldocumentary approach to the Old Testament, believing that Joshua was the work of “aDeuteronomic editor who used several preexisting sources” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds). He did not believein the historicity of the m<strong>an</strong> Joshua. He rejected the evolutionary approach to the development ofIsrael’s religion, but he was willing to allow archeology to overthrow the <strong>Bible</strong>. He said, “We92
must study the history of the Chosen people in exactly the same way as we do <strong>an</strong>y other people,running the risk of destroying the uniqueness of that history” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds).By the end of his life, Wright concluded that “the problem of the Scripture’s truth <strong>an</strong>d validityc<strong>an</strong>not be solved” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds).This is a brash <strong>an</strong>d sad denial of the necessity of <strong>faith</strong> (Hebrews 11:6).The students of Albright-WrightAlbright <strong>an</strong>d Wright’s influence on their own students was very negative.They were nearly all ordained ministers, but they “left the pulpit to focus on archaeology.” Theyalso rejected <strong>faith</strong> in <strong>an</strong> infallible <strong>Bible</strong> for the shifting s<strong>an</strong>d of theological liberalism. “Thesestudents felt the need to dist<strong>an</strong>ce themselves from their mentors. The result was cataclysmic forbiblical archaeology” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds).William Dever was a prominent example of this new approach. He totally rejected the validityof biblical archaeology, saying, “... we ought to stop talking about ‘Biblical archaeology.’”Paul Lapp was <strong>an</strong>other one of Wright’s students who rejected his teacher’s position. He statedthat “history is ultimately a personal construction” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds). This is a relativisticapproach to history that does not allow for <strong>an</strong> infallible divine revelation. Lapp drowned at age39.Nelson GlueckGlueck has been widely quoted as stating, “It may be categorically stated that no archaeologicaldiscovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference,” but he was not a <strong>Bible</strong> believer in the truesense of the word. An ordained Jewish rabbi, Glueck “accepted the existence of legend <strong>an</strong>dfolklore in the <strong>Bible</strong>” (Shifting S<strong>an</strong>ds). He believed that the <strong>Bible</strong> contains “saga, legend <strong>an</strong>dmyth, fact <strong>an</strong>d folklore” (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31).Israel Finkelstein <strong>an</strong>d Neil Silberm<strong>an</strong>Throughout the 20th century, skepticism increased dramatically within the field of archaeology.Today the dominating “minimalist movement” is more liberal th<strong>an</strong> ever in its approach toScripture.Israel Finkelstein <strong>an</strong>d Neil Silberm<strong>an</strong> represent the apex of Jewish archaeology today.Finkelstein is the director of Tel Aviv University’s excavations at Megiddo. Their book The <strong>Bible</strong>Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel <strong>an</strong>d the Origin of Its Sacred Texts is avicious attack on the <strong>Bible</strong>’s divine inspiration <strong>an</strong>d historicity. The conclusion of this book is93
that “there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or <strong>an</strong>y of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses<strong>an</strong>d the Exodus; <strong>an</strong>d the same goes for the whole period of Judges <strong>an</strong>d the united monarchy ofDavid <strong>an</strong>d Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of <strong>an</strong>ything about<strong>an</strong>cient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of KingJosiah” (“Joshua’s Altar,” http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-ofjoshua.htm).The Ev<strong>an</strong>gelicalsMost “ev<strong>an</strong>gelical” archaeologists c<strong>an</strong>not be trusted, either. Afflicted with the pride ofscholarship <strong>an</strong>d not w<strong>an</strong>ting to be thought of as <strong>Bible</strong> “hicks” in the eyes of the big names in thefield, who happen to be skeptics, even professing ev<strong>an</strong>gelicals have shied away from boldlyst<strong>an</strong>ding for the <strong>Bible</strong>’s absolute incorruptible infallibility. The <strong>Bible</strong> warns that “evilcommunications corrupt good m<strong>an</strong>ners” (1 Cor. 15:33), <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y ev<strong>an</strong>gelicals have beennegatively influenced through their training at the feet of modernists.The ev<strong>an</strong>gelicals who have tried to hold on to a belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, haveoften compromised with modernism by rejecting a six-day creation, holding to at least partlynaturalistic expl<strong>an</strong>ations for such things as the judgments on Egypt, the journey through the RedSea (capitulating to the Reed Lake theory), the destruction of Sodom <strong>an</strong>d Gomorrah (theearthquake theory), <strong>an</strong>d the universal Flood.For example, Alfred Hoerth, who taught archaeology at Wheaton College for almost 30 years,believes in the mythical evolutionary ages of development, such as the neolithic period, claimingthat m<strong>an</strong> gradually developed the use of metal working (Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d the Old Testament, pp.36, 82), whereas the <strong>Bible</strong> plainly states that this was known by Adam’s immediate sons(Genesis 4). Hoerth says that “fossils <strong>an</strong>d mastodons date to prehistoric times” (p. 15). He allowsfor a naturalistic expl<strong>an</strong>ation of the destruction of Sodom (p. 98), says the crossing of the RedSea was actually the crossing of the Reed Sea (p. 167), questions the number of Israelites in thewilderness (p. 178), is neutral about the extent of the Flood (p. 189), <strong>an</strong>d allows for billions ofgeological years, considering it a non-issue (p. 199).6. The import<strong>an</strong>ce of checking the skepticsIn light of the previous point, it is necessary to double check <strong>an</strong>y claim that the <strong>Bible</strong> has beendebunked. The <strong>Bible</strong> believer must be very skeptical of the skeptics!For example, Wikipedia’s article on Bry<strong>an</strong>t Wood says, “He is known for his 1990 proposedredating of the destruction of Jericho to accord with the biblical chronology of c. 1400 B.C. Theproposal was later (1995) contradicted by new radiocarbon evidence, <strong>an</strong>d Kathleen Kenyon'sdating of c. 1550 B.C. remains the date accepted in scholarly publications.”94
(In my experience, Wikipedia should never be trusted when it deals with people <strong>an</strong>d topicstouching on the defense of the <strong>Bible</strong>.)Actually, the radiocarbon evidence is inconclusive (which is typical) but it actually falls againstKenyon’s dating <strong>an</strong>d gives support for Wood’s position! See http://creationwiki.org/Jericho_chronology_disputeFurther, Wood gives several import<strong>an</strong>t reasons why Kenyon’s <strong>an</strong>alysis should be rejected, noneof which are mentioned in the Wikipedia “hit piece.” Consider the following:First, she only excavated one-third of the territory that her predecessor John Garst<strong>an</strong>g hadexcavated in the 1930s.Second, she claimed that Cypriot bichrome pottery was absent from the site <strong>an</strong>d that this wasevidence that Jericho had ceased to exist by 1400 B.C., but Garst<strong>an</strong>g had published descriptionsof a “considerable qu<strong>an</strong>tity of pottery decorated with red <strong>an</strong>d black paint which appears to beimported Cypriot bichrome ware, the type of pottery Kenyon was looking for <strong>an</strong>d did notfind” (Wood, 1990, 16[2]:52).Third, she ignored evidence that she herself had unearthed that points to a 1400 B.C. destructionof the city. This consisted of bowls, cooking pots, <strong>an</strong>d small dipper juglets “all of which werecharacteristic of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1400 B.C.)” (Garry Br<strong>an</strong>tley, Digging forAnswers, p. 61).Fourth, she ignored the amazing archaeological facts that confirm the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account of the fallof Jericho. The wall was fallen down in the m<strong>an</strong>ner described in the <strong>Bible</strong>. “What she did findwas a large deposit of red bricks outside the revetment wall, which formed a sloping incline fromthe top of this retaining structure to ground level. Both Kenyon <strong>an</strong>d other archaeologists believethese bricks were the remains of the walls surrounding the city” (Br<strong>an</strong>tley, p. 62). The walls fellbefore the city was set afire. Large amounts of grain were still in the storage bins in the houses,which confirms the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account which says it was harvest time (Joshua 2:6) <strong>an</strong>d is consistentwith Joshua’s comm<strong>an</strong>d not to take <strong>an</strong>ything from the city (Joshua 6:17-18).7. Archaeology’s evolutionary mythsArchaeology is typically built upon the evolutionary assumption that m<strong>an</strong> evolved from a stoneage to a bronze age to <strong>an</strong> iron age, each evolutionary ascent being accomp<strong>an</strong>ied by ch<strong>an</strong>ges inculture <strong>an</strong>d religion. Typically the iron age is said to have begun in about 1200 B.C.For example, Frederic Kenyon attributed the features of the Jord<strong>an</strong> Valley to vast terrestrialmovements two million years ago, <strong>an</strong>d William Albright claimed that “Homo sapiens” evolvedartistic abilities sometime around 30,000 to 20,000 B.C.95
As we have seen, even “ev<strong>an</strong>gelicals” commit this heresy. Consider the following statements byAlfred Hoerth, former director of archaeology at Wheaton College:““Fossils <strong>an</strong>d mastodons date to prehistoric times. ... The term neolithic is used to designate a periodbeginning with the domestication of pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals <strong>an</strong>d ending with the introduction of metals ... TheNeolithic period was a time of profound ch<strong>an</strong>ge in hum<strong>an</strong> society as the focus ch<strong>an</strong>ged from hunting <strong>an</strong>dgathering to domestication <strong>an</strong>d farming. ... there were no metal tools in Neolithic times” (Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d theOld Testament, Gr<strong>an</strong>d Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998, pp. 15, 36, 38, 82).Actually, there were no “prehistoric” times <strong>an</strong>d no times when m<strong>an</strong> did not use metal. This is amythical evolutionary concept. The <strong>Bible</strong> plainly states that Adam’s immediate children knewhow to domesticate pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals <strong>an</strong>d work with brass <strong>an</strong>d iron (Gen. 4:20-22).In fact, there is archaeological evidence of iron instruments more th<strong>an</strong> 1,500 years before thesupposed iron <strong>an</strong>d bronze age.“At a site in Mesopotamia about fifty miles northeast of Baghdad, called Tell Asmar today, but known in <strong>an</strong>cienttimes as Eshnuna, Henri Fr<strong>an</strong>kfort of the Oriental <strong>Institute</strong> at the University of Chicago found evidence of <strong>an</strong>iron blade from the level of 2700 B.C. A small steel ax from Ur <strong>an</strong>d other very early objects of iron have alsobeen found. The fact that a greater abund<strong>an</strong>ce of iron has not been found seems to indicate that it was notwidely used in early times, but <strong>an</strong>other contributing factor may be that iron oxidizes more quickly <strong>an</strong>dcompletely th<strong>an</strong> copper <strong>an</strong>d, having disintegrated, would not be as readily detected in excavating. Numerousarchaeological discoveries give evidence of the use of copper during the period 4300-3000” (Joseph Free,Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d <strong>Bible</strong> History, p. 37).8. Archaeological dating methodsArchaeological dating methods are based on evolutionary assumptions <strong>an</strong>d inexact methodology.Since the late 1800s, pottery has been viewed as one of the most trusted me<strong>an</strong>s of dating <strong>an</strong>cientsites. It is called “ceramic typology.” In 1890, Flinders Petrie observed that each layer at Tel Hesicontained its own unique type of pottery. The method is based on the hypothesis that types ofpottery ch<strong>an</strong>ged with time <strong>an</strong>d that the prevalence of a certain type of pottery in a certainarchaeological strata indicate a unique time period. The method was further developed byWilliam Albright in the 1920s <strong>an</strong>d 1930s at Tel Beit Mirsim in southern Palestine. “His workremains the basis of all modern ceramic typology, which is const<strong>an</strong>tly being refined bycontinuing excavation” (Hoerth <strong>an</strong>d McRay, <strong>Bible</strong> Archaeology, p. 15).The pottery dating method has some benefit, but it is very inexact <strong>an</strong>d leaves room for subjectiveinterpretation.Archaeologist John Laughlin lists two problems:First, a st<strong>an</strong>dard pottery type might have had m<strong>an</strong>y vari<strong>an</strong>ts.96
Second, similar ceramic types might not date to the same era; some types may have survivedlonger th<strong>an</strong> others, <strong>an</strong>d different m<strong>an</strong>ufacturing techniques <strong>an</strong>d styles might have beenintroduced at different times in different locales.Al<strong>an</strong> Millard warns: “[Pottery] c<strong>an</strong>not be very precise, for a fashion may last longer in one placeth<strong>an</strong> in <strong>an</strong>other, <strong>an</strong>d some evidence may be missed” (Treasures from <strong>Bible</strong> Times, p. 92).As for the Carbon-14 dating method, it is based on evolutionary assumptions. Chiefly, it assumesthat the earth is millions of years old <strong>an</strong>d that the rate of radiocarbon decay has remained steady,but none of this has been proven. We have discussed the problem of radiometric dating in thebook Seeing the Non-existent. A good article on this is “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon <strong>an</strong>dTree-Ring Dating” by Trevor Major, ApologeticsPress.org.9. Skeptical misinterpretation of the <strong>Bible</strong>Though liberals <strong>an</strong>d skeptics refer to the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d pretend to disprove it, it is typical for them togrossly misinterpret it. Being predisposed to skepticism, they see errors where none exist. GarryBr<strong>an</strong>tley gives two examples of this:“The meager appreciation for the historical thrust of these books has led to <strong>an</strong> imprecise reading of theirinformation. The prevailing perception among critical scholars, for example, is that Joshua <strong>an</strong>d Judges presentconflicting pictures of the conquest, which further heightens skepticism regarding their historical credibility.Allegedly, Joshua presents a largely successful military penetration into C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>, whereas Judges indicatesthat it was a much more protracted <strong>an</strong>d complex affair. Critical scholars argue that, due to these apparentconflicts between the accounts, Joshua <strong>an</strong>d Judges mutually undermine each other’s historical credibility. ...However, once the purposes of both Joshua <strong>an</strong>d Judges are understood, <strong>an</strong>d when the totality of biblicalinformation regarding the conquest is considered, these objections to the historicity of the conquest aspresented in the <strong>Bible</strong> largely are <strong>an</strong>swered” (Br<strong>an</strong>tley, Digging for Answers, pp. 56, 57).“Scholars generally assume that the <strong>Bible</strong> presents a violent, military conquest of C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong> involvingwidespread destruction. Yet the archaeological evidence does not paint such a picture. ... Yes, the <strong>Bible</strong>indicates that, in certain inst<strong>an</strong>ces, there was total destruction of a city, including all its inhabit<strong>an</strong>ts. But it alsorecords that, in general, the total destruction of property was relatively limited. ... Joshua explicitly mentionsproperty destruction in only three cases: Jericho (Joshua 6:34); Ai (Joshua 8:28; 10:1); <strong>an</strong>d Hazor (Joshua11:12-14). ... Immediately following this report, however, <strong>an</strong> import<strong>an</strong>t qualification is added: ‘But as for thecities that stood on the mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only, which Joshuaburned’ (Joshua 11:13)” (Br<strong>an</strong>tley, pp. 58, 59).10. The non-evidence of silenceAs we will see in these studies, archaeologists have often tried to discredit the <strong>Bible</strong> on the basisof silence from extra-biblical sources. This was a prominent method used by liberals in the 19thcentury. Since, for example, they had no extra-biblical evidence of writing dating to earlier th<strong>an</strong>about 1000 B.C., they claimed that the biblical account of writing in <strong>an</strong>cient times was wrong,<strong>an</strong>d since there was no extra-biblical evidence for camels in Palestine in Abraham’s day, the<strong>Bible</strong> must be wrong, <strong>an</strong>d since there was no extra-biblical evidence for the Hittites or Ur or thePhilistines or King David, etc., they must not have existed.97
It should be obvious by now that silence from extra-biblical sources is not evidence against the<strong>Bible</strong>. In all of these cases, archaeology has subsequently provided extra-biblical evidence <strong>an</strong>dthe argument from silence was proven to be bogus.The problem is that silence is still used to discredit the <strong>Bible</strong>. One must give liberals credit forpersistency! Like one positive-minded wom<strong>an</strong> once said when challenged as to what good thingcould be said for the devil, “He’s always on the job.”11. Supportive background evidenceEven when there is no direct archaeological evidence for biblical events, there is supportivebackground evidence.Though there is no direct archaeological record of such things as Joseph in Egypt or Abraham inC<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>, the biblical account fits everything archaeologists have learned about those eras.The following statement about the times of Joseph could be said about every other era describedin Scripture:“The chapters relating to the life of Joseph in Egypt, from his servitude in Potiphar’s house, through his rise asa non-Egypti<strong>an</strong> to high office, to the embalming <strong>an</strong>d mourning for Jacob <strong>an</strong>d then for Joseph himself, <strong>faith</strong>fullymirror what is known of the culture of that country” (Hoerth <strong>an</strong>d McRay, <strong>Bible</strong> Archaeology, p. 79).This is powerful evidence for the authority of the <strong>Bible</strong>, because it proves that the writers knewexactly what they were talking about <strong>an</strong>d that they lived in direct connection with the eventsabout which they were writing. If they were inventing things or writing long after the events, thiswould be evident by the lack of accuracy in the details.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON INTRODUCTION ON ARCHAEOLOGY1. Before the explosion of modern archaeology Joh<strong>an</strong>n Gottfried von Herder described theevidence for <strong>an</strong>cient civilizations as “a few _________ leaves which contain stories aboutstories, ____________ of history...”2. What are two benefits of archaeology for the Christi<strong>an</strong>?3. Why is the <strong>Bible</strong>’s theological message authenticated when its history is authenticated?4. Simon Greenleaf said, “Christi<strong>an</strong>ity does not profess to convince the _________ <strong>an</strong>d___________.”5. In what book <strong>an</strong>d chapter of the <strong>Bible</strong> does Jesus say that if men will not believe the Scripturethey will not believe even if someone rose from the dead?6. What are three limitations of archaeology?7. Most <strong>an</strong>cient documents perished because they were written on material such as ___________<strong>an</strong>d ________________.8. Why did the Dead Sea Scrolls survive?9. Why is it unreasonable for archaeologists to refuse to give the <strong>Bible</strong> the benefit of the doubt?98
10. What Psalm describes the world in open rebellion against God <strong>an</strong>d Christ?11. James Breasted subscribed to a _____ ______________.12. Where did Jesus say the Word of God c<strong>an</strong>not be broken?13. How did Christ defeat the devil?14. How did William Albright hurt the cause of <strong>Bible</strong> believers?15. Was Nelson Glueck a <strong>Bible</strong>-believing Christi<strong>an</strong>?16. What verse warns that evil communications corrupts good m<strong>an</strong>ners?17. Where does the <strong>Bible</strong> say that Adam’s first children knew how to work with metal?18. The <strong>Bible</strong> believer must be very _______________ of the skeptic.19. Where does the <strong>Bible</strong> teach that m<strong>an</strong> adv<strong>an</strong>ced gradually from the stone age?20. Where does the <strong>Bible</strong> describe “prehistoric times”?21. What supportive background evidence has archaeology found for the times of Joseph?99
IMPORTANT OLD TESTAMENT DATESThe following dates were developed by the brilli<strong>an</strong>t biblical scholar James Ussher (1581-1656),author of The Annals of the World. He used the genealogies in the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> instead of thecorrupt Greek Septuagint, as well as the best extra-biblical sources available, <strong>an</strong>d we have noreason to believe that he erred signific<strong>an</strong>tly in the following dates. His dating system hasappeared in <strong>an</strong>notated editions of the King James <strong>Bible</strong> since about 1700 <strong>an</strong>d was widelyaccepted until theistic evolutionists <strong>an</strong>d other long-age theorists compromised <strong>Bible</strong> history in avain attempt to reconcile it with evolutionary science.These dates may not be exact, but they are doubtless very near correct, because the <strong>Bible</strong>provides explicit chronological information.“There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providinginformation on the age of the Earth <strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong>ity. But the numerous chronological tables permeating the <strong>Bible</strong>prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about giving m<strong>an</strong> exactchronological data <strong>an</strong>d, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledge of the period back toAbraham, plus two tables—with ages—from Abraham to Adam. The <strong>an</strong>cient Jewish histori<strong>an</strong>s (1 Chronicles1:1-27) <strong>an</strong>d the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understood the tables of Genesis 5 <strong>an</strong>d 11 as literal<strong>an</strong>d consecutive. The <strong>Bible</strong> explains quite explicitly that God created the Sun <strong>an</strong>d Moon to be timekeepers(Genesis 1:16) for Adam <strong>an</strong>d his descend<strong>an</strong>ts (notice how Noah logged the beginning <strong>an</strong>d the ending of theFlood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11; 9:14)” (Bert Thompson, “The <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the Age of the Earth,”August 1999, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/85).4004 Creation3074 Adam’s death2348 The Flood2289 Nimrod’s birth2247 The Tower of Babel1996 Abraham’s birth1994 Noah’s death1926 Abraham departs Ur1890 Destruction of Sodom <strong>an</strong>d Gomorrah1491 The Exodus1451 Israel enters C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>1095 Saul <strong>an</strong>ointed king1055 David takes throne975 Kingdom divided957 Solomon’s Temple built721 Northern kingdom destroyed by Assyria612 Nineveh’s destruction586 First Temple destroyed by Babylon516 Second Temple built100
ARCHAEOLOGICAL TREASURESCONFIRMING THE BIBLEThis report is a survey of import<strong>an</strong>t artifacts confirming the <strong>Bible</strong> that are found in prominentmuseums <strong>an</strong>d archaeological sites. In the context of this research we have visited the BritishMuseum, the Louvre in Paris, the Oriental <strong>Institute</strong> in Chicago, the University of Pennsylv<strong>an</strong>iaMuseum, the <strong>Bible</strong> Museum in Brussels, the Ist<strong>an</strong>bul Archaeological Museum, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>ymuseums <strong>an</strong>d sites in Rome, Israel, Turkey, <strong>an</strong>d Greece.Archaeology has confirmed the <strong>Bible</strong>’s historical accuracy to <strong>an</strong> amazing degree, in spite of thefact that most archaeologists have been infected with various levels of end-times skepticism.Joseph Free testifies,“I do not know of <strong>an</strong>y cases where the <strong>Bible</strong> has been proved wrong” (Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d <strong>Bible</strong> History, p. 114).Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck agreed, even though he was not a Christi<strong>an</strong>,“... it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historicalstatements in the <strong>Bible</strong>” (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31).While it is true that historical evidence does not absolutely prove the theological message ofScripture, the <strong>Bible</strong> itself leads us to expect historical evidence. The <strong>Bible</strong> claims to be foundedupon infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). Therefore, history <strong>an</strong>d theology are friends. Every historicalevidence for the <strong>Bible</strong> should strengthen our <strong>faith</strong> in its teaching.It is true that archaeology c<strong>an</strong>not prove that Jesus was born of a virgin or that He rose bodilyfrom the dead, but it c<strong>an</strong> demonstrate that the <strong>Bible</strong>’s history is accurate <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong> thus give usconfidence that everything else the <strong>Bible</strong> says is true.The <strong>Bible</strong> is like a very old friend with vast knowledge <strong>an</strong>d experience whose statements havestood the test of repeated <strong>an</strong>d strenuous attempts at discreditation. We thus have every reason tobelieve whatever he tells us.ANCIENT WRITING☛ A PowerPoint presentation of this material on Ancient Writing is included in the UnshakeableFaith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at thebeginning of the course for tips on using this material.101
In the 19th century it was believed by theological modernists that writing was not sufficientlydeveloped by Moses’ day for him to have written the early books of the <strong>Bible</strong>. Writing forliterary purposes supposedly was not invented until the classical period of Greek history in about1000 B.C. This view originated with Andrew Wolf <strong>an</strong>d first appeared in 1795 in his Prolegomenato Homer. H. Schultz is <strong>an</strong> example of the 19th-century skeptics who were promoting Wolf’sdoctrine. In Old Testament Theology (Vol. 1, p. 25) Schultz wrote: “The time, of which the pre-Mosaic narrations treat, is a sufficient proof of their legendary character. It was a time prior to allknowledge of writing.” Infidels such as Robert Ingersolls used this argument against the <strong>Bible</strong>.Archaeologists now know that writing was developed around 3150 B.C., at the latest. In Originsof the Alphabets, Joseph Naveh says, “Inscribed artifacts from archaeological excavations showthat m<strong>an</strong> had a knowledge of writing as early as the late 4th millennium B.C.” (p. 6).There is vast evidence for this at the British Library, the Gutenberg Museum in Germ<strong>an</strong>y, theLouvre in Paris, <strong>an</strong>d the Oriental <strong>Institute</strong> in Chicago, among other places.3150 B.C. was more th<strong>an</strong> 1,500 years before Moses <strong>an</strong>d in fact carries us back to the lifetime ofAdam by biblical chronology. Adam died in about 3075 B.C., <strong>an</strong>d Noah’s Flood was about 2500B.C.Since the late 19th century, archaeology has discovered that the <strong>an</strong>cient kingdoms in the l<strong>an</strong>ds ofthe <strong>Bible</strong>--Egypt, C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d Mesopotamia--were literate societies full of schools <strong>an</strong>d libraries<strong>an</strong>d international correspondence. Writing in 1904, A.H. Sayce could say:“The Babylonia of the age of Abraham was a more highly educated country th<strong>an</strong> the Engl<strong>an</strong>d of George III. ...The Mosaic age, instead of being <strong>an</strong> illiterate one, was <strong>an</strong> age of high literary activity <strong>an</strong>d educationthroughout the civilized East. ... From one end of the civilized <strong>an</strong>cient world to the other men <strong>an</strong>d women werereading <strong>an</strong>d writing <strong>an</strong>d corresponding with one <strong>an</strong>other; schools abounded <strong>an</strong>d great libraries were formed,in <strong>an</strong> age which the ‘critic’ only a few years ago dogmatically declared was almost wholly illiterate. ... Thecivilized world was a world of books, <strong>an</strong>d a knowledge of writing extended even to the classes of thepopulation who were engaged in m<strong>an</strong>ual labour” (Monument Facts <strong>an</strong>d Higher Critical F<strong>an</strong>cies, 1904, pp. 35,40, 42, 43).Ancient libraries have been unearthed at Ugarit, Mari, Ur, Ebla, Nippur, Nineveh, <strong>an</strong>d elsewhere.Tens of thous<strong>an</strong>ds of <strong>an</strong>cient documents dating to Abraham’s age <strong>an</strong>d earlier prove the existenceof a highly literate civilization. Extensive government <strong>an</strong>d business records were kept <strong>an</strong>dinternational correspondence was conducted in multiple l<strong>an</strong>guages.The <strong>an</strong>cient books include royal inscriptions, historical chronicles, mythological <strong>an</strong>d religioustexts, legal contracts, royal gr<strong>an</strong>ts, letters, <strong>an</strong>d decrees, administrative documents, textbooks,mathematical tables, farmer’s alm<strong>an</strong>acs, architectural drawings, <strong>an</strong>d construction methods.Sumeri<strong>an</strong> dates to the 4th millennium B.C., which takes us back to the earliest days of m<strong>an</strong> bythe <strong>Bible</strong>’s reckoning.102
Egypti<strong>an</strong> in hieroglyphic <strong>an</strong>d hieratic dates to about 3200 B.C.Akkadi<strong>an</strong> dates to about 2500 B.C. <strong>an</strong>d was a Semitic l<strong>an</strong>guage akin to Hebrew. It was used inthe Babyloni<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Assyri<strong>an</strong> empires. More th<strong>an</strong> 40,000 tablet fragments in Akkadi<strong>an</strong> wererecovered from the <strong>an</strong>cient city of Nippur alone.Hurri<strong>an</strong> dates to about 2300 B.C. <strong>an</strong>d was spoken in northern Mesopotamia in the Mit<strong>an</strong>ni <strong>an</strong>dHittite empires.Eblaite, <strong>an</strong>other Semitic l<strong>an</strong>guage, dates to the third millennium B.C. It was the chief l<strong>an</strong>guage ofthe city state of Ebla. 17,000 tablets were excavated from there in the 1970s.Hittite dates to about 2000 B.C. <strong>an</strong>d was the chief l<strong>an</strong>guage of the Hittite kingdom.Ugaritic dates to about 1400 B.C. A library was unearthed at the <strong>an</strong>cient city of Ugarit in the1930s.The keys to unlocking the <strong>an</strong>cient l<strong>an</strong>guagesPrior to the 19th century archaeologists <strong>an</strong>d histori<strong>an</strong>s could not read the most <strong>an</strong>cient l<strong>an</strong>guages.The Egypti<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage was written in hieroglyphic, which used word pictures <strong>an</strong>d symbols, <strong>an</strong>din hieratic which was sort of a cursive form of hieroglyphic.The Mesopotami<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guages were written in cuneiform, which was a wedge-shaped script.Hieroglyphic <strong>an</strong>d cuneiform were not l<strong>an</strong>guages; they were types of script in which <strong>an</strong>cientl<strong>an</strong>guages were written.The Rosetta Stone: Unlocking Egypti<strong>an</strong>The discovery of the Rosetta Stone in the late 18th century <strong>an</strong>d its tr<strong>an</strong>slation in the early 19thwas the key to unlocking Egypti<strong>an</strong> hieroglyphic writing. The stone was inscribed in the secondcentury B.C. with a decree by King Ptolemy V of Egypt. Since it was written in three l<strong>an</strong>guages--hieroglyphic, demotic (a cursive form of hieroglyphic), <strong>an</strong>d Greek -- it allowed linguists todecipher the unknown hieroglyphic by me<strong>an</strong>s of the known Greek.The 4 x 2-foot stone, weighing 1,600 pounds, was found in the Nile Delta by a French armyofficer named P.F. Bouchard in 1799 while Napoleon Bonaparte was in control of Egypt. It gotits name from the town in which it was found. Napoleon’s expeditionary force numbering 40,000included m<strong>an</strong>y of Fr<strong>an</strong>ce’s best scientists.In 1801 the British routed the French, confiscated the Rosetta Stone, <strong>an</strong>d shipped it to the BritishMuseum, where it has been on display ever since.103
The hieroglyphic l<strong>an</strong>guage was deciphered by Je<strong>an</strong>-Fr<strong>an</strong>cois Champollion in 1822. Hediscovered that the hieroglyphic signs were not merely individual symbols, but had phoneticvalue forming a readable l<strong>an</strong>guage (R<strong>an</strong>dall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 56).The Rock of Behistun: Unlocking Babyloni<strong>an</strong>In the mid-19th century Henry Rawlinson, a major in the British army, found the key to unlockthe cuneiform l<strong>an</strong>guages. His discovery, the Behistun Relief, has been called the “Rosetta Stoneof the East.” (It is located in modern-day Iraq.)The Relief contains <strong>an</strong> account of the conquests of the Medo-Persi<strong>an</strong> king Darius carved in threel<strong>an</strong>guages on a 400-foot-high rock face. It was visible from Ecbat<strong>an</strong>a, Darius’s headquarters, <strong>an</strong>dis located about 200 miles northeast of Babylon. The inscription is written in Old Persi<strong>an</strong>,Babyloni<strong>an</strong> (Akkadi<strong>an</strong>), <strong>an</strong>d Elamite (or Susi<strong>an</strong>, named after Susa, the capital of <strong>an</strong>cient Elam).The Old Persi<strong>an</strong> was used to decipher Babyloni<strong>an</strong>.The Relief features a life-sized image of Darius with upraised h<strong>an</strong>d. Darius is st<strong>an</strong>ding with onefoot on <strong>an</strong> enemy. Ten captives face him while two men st<strong>an</strong>d behind him, one of these beingDarius’ son Xerxes who married Esther.The writing is chiseled into polished stone above <strong>an</strong>d below the figures. It contains <strong>an</strong> account ofDarius’ rise to power. Part of it says, “I am Darius, Great King, King of Kings, the King ofPersia.” He was thus a worthy successor to the proud Nimrod, founder of the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>dAssyri<strong>an</strong> kingdoms.Working at great physical risk, Rawlinson spent 12 years copying the inscriptions between1835-47.“Rawlinson repeatedly scaled the sheer cliff of Behistun to copy the inscriptions. His normal precariousposture while copying the cuneiform text was to poise himself on the top rung of a ladder with no support otherth<strong>an</strong> one arm on the rock face! On one occasion the rope ladder he was using broke <strong>an</strong>d left him h<strong>an</strong>gingfrom a narrow ledge until he was rescued” (R<strong>an</strong>dall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 59).When the <strong>an</strong>cient Babyloni<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage was deciphered, it opened up the records of the entire<strong>an</strong>cient Mesopotami<strong>an</strong> world (biblical Shinar) to histori<strong>an</strong>s.HAMMURABI’S LAWIn the 19th century, theological liberals claimed that Moses could not have created the elaboratelegal code that bears his name because such laws were unknown in the <strong>an</strong>cient world until thetime of the Israelite kings.104
That was before the Code of Hammurabi was discovered in the Persi<strong>an</strong> palace at Susa duringexcavations in 1901-1902. It is a block of polished black marble covered with cuneiform writing.Hammurabi was a prominent ruler of Babylon in the 2nd millennium B.C. (c. 1792-1750 B.C).He built <strong>an</strong> extensive empire of thous<strong>an</strong>ds of square miles by conquering neighboring kingdoms.The Code of Hammurabi st<strong>an</strong>ds about 7 feet 5 inches high. The original resides in the Louvre inParis, but there are copies in the Oriental <strong>Institute</strong> in Chicago, the University of Pennsylv<strong>an</strong>iamuseum <strong>an</strong>d elsewhere.At the top of the block is a depiction of King Hammurabi of Babylon receiving the laws from thesun god Shamash, who is seated on a throne. Hammurabi raises his right arm in a posture ofworship, while Shamash holds a ruler <strong>an</strong>d a rope symbolizing equity <strong>an</strong>d justice.The introduction to the code describes how that Hammurabi promoted <strong>an</strong>d supported the gods ofthe various cities under his rule, such as Marduk in Babylon.It is a lengthy code of law dating to about 300 years before Moses. It is now known that theselaws were disseminated throughout Western Asia wherever Babylon held power.For the <strong>Bible</strong> believer, the existence of a legal code before Moses is interesting but largelyirrelev<strong>an</strong>t, because we know that his law was not based on <strong>an</strong>y hum<strong>an</strong> code. It was divinelyrevealed by God on Mt. Sinai.There are m<strong>an</strong>y signific<strong>an</strong>t differences between Hammurabi’s law <strong>an</strong>d God’s. For one,Hammurabi’s laws are not perfectly just <strong>an</strong>d equal. For example, penalties differ according to thesocial st<strong>an</strong>ding of the victim <strong>an</strong>d the perpetrator. In contrast, God’s law says:“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour theperson of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour” (Leviticus 19:15).“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not beafraid of the face of m<strong>an</strong>; for the judgment is God's” (Deuteronomy 1:17).The Code of Hammurabi is evidence that God put His moral law into m<strong>an</strong>’s heart <strong>an</strong>dconscience, but it has become corrupted with m<strong>an</strong>’s fall.SUMMARY OF ANCIENT WRITING AND HAMMURABI’S LAW1. According to skeptics in the 19th century, writing was not invented until about 1000 B.C., butthis has been entirely debunked by archaeology.2. Archaeologists now know that writing was developed around 3150 B.C., at the latest. This ismore th<strong>an</strong> 1,500 years before Moses. Archaeology has proven that the <strong>an</strong>cient kingdoms in <strong>Bible</strong>l<strong>an</strong>ds were highly literate.105
3. Ancient l<strong>an</strong>guages include Sumari<strong>an</strong>, Egypti<strong>an</strong>, Akkadi<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d Hittite.4. The key to unlocking Egypti<strong>an</strong> hieroglyphic was the Rosetta Stone, which was discovered in1799 by a French army officer. It was inscribed in three l<strong>an</strong>guages--hieroglyphic, demotic, <strong>an</strong>dGreek--<strong>an</strong>d the Greek was used to decipher the unknown hieroglyphic.5. The key to unlocking Babyloni<strong>an</strong> cuneiform was the Rock of Behistun, which was tr<strong>an</strong>scribedby Henry Rawlinson in the 19th century. It was inscribed in Old Persi<strong>an</strong>, Babyloni<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>dElamite, <strong>an</strong>d the Old Persi<strong>an</strong> was used to decipher Babyloni<strong>an</strong>.6. The discovery of Hammurabi’s Law debunked the skeptics who claimed that complex lawswere not known in the days of Moses. Hammurabi was the king of Babylon, <strong>an</strong>d his law dates toabout 300 years before Moses.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON IMPORTANT DATES, ANCIENT WRITING,HAMMURABI’S LAW1. What is the date of the Flood?2. What is the date when Abraham departed Ur?3. What is the date of the Exodus?4. What is the date when Israel’s kingdom was divided?5. What is the date when the First Temple was destroyed?6. Why did modernists in the 19th century say that Moses could not have written the early booksof the <strong>Bible</strong> in about 1500 B.C.?7. Archaeologists today believe that writing was developed in about when?8. Since the late 19th century, archaeology has discovered that the <strong>an</strong>cient kingdoms in the l<strong>an</strong>dsof the <strong>Bible</strong> were ____________ societies full of __________ <strong>an</strong>d ____________ <strong>an</strong>dinternational _____________________.9. Egypti<strong>an</strong> dates to about when?10. What were two great keys that led to the unlocking of <strong>an</strong>cient l<strong>an</strong>guages?11. What was cuneiform?12. What was hieroglyphic?13. Where was the Rosetta Stone found?14. What three l<strong>an</strong>guages does it contain?15. What was its signific<strong>an</strong>ce?16. Where does the Rosetta Stone reside today?17. Where was the Behistun Relief found?18. The Behistun Relief contains <strong>an</strong> account of what king?19. Who tr<strong>an</strong>scribed the Behistun Relief?20. What is the signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the Code of Hammurabi?21. Where was the Code of Hammurabi first found?22. Who was Hammurabi?106
23. When was the Code of Hammurabi written in connection with Moses?24. Why is the Code of Hammurabi irrelev<strong>an</strong>t for the <strong>Bible</strong> believer?UR OF THE CHALDEES☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Ur is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.Skeptics claimed that Ur, the birthplace of Abraham, was a <strong>Bible</strong> myth, but the <strong>an</strong>cient city wasunearthed in the 1920s <strong>an</strong>d 1930s under the direction of Charles Leonard Woolley. The amazingartifacts that have been recovered are housed in the British Museum <strong>an</strong>d the University ofPennsylv<strong>an</strong>ia archaeology museum <strong>an</strong>d elsewhere.The excavations at Ur provide a wonderful glimpse into the civilization that spread across thatpart of the world after the Flood <strong>an</strong>d reveal the glories of the kingdoms established by Nimrod<strong>an</strong>d his fellow kings <strong>an</strong>d successors (Genesis 10:1-12; 11:1-4).We c<strong>an</strong> better underst<strong>an</strong>d the world in which Abraham grew up <strong>an</strong>d from which God called himin about 1920 B.C.We also see the type of pag<strong>an</strong> gods that Abraham’s father Terah worshipped (Joshua 24:2).Ur’s Technologically Adv<strong>an</strong>ced <strong>an</strong>d Wealthy CivilizationUr was a great city of perhaps a quarter of a million people, perhaps twice that.The following is a description of the city from about 2500 B.C. to the time of Abraham:“It was <strong>an</strong> urb<strong>an</strong> civilization of a highly evolved type; its artists, capable at times of a very vivid realism ...followed for the most part st<strong>an</strong>dards <strong>an</strong>d conventions whose excellence had been approved by m<strong>an</strong>ygenerations working before them; its craftsmen in metal possessed a knowledge of metallurgy <strong>an</strong>d a technicalskill which few <strong>an</strong>cient peoples have ever rivaled <strong>an</strong>d which it must have taken long years to perfect; itsmerch<strong>an</strong>ts carried a far-flung trade, its agriculture prospered, its armed forces were well org<strong>an</strong>ized, <strong>an</strong>d menpractised freely the art of writing. ...“Ur was a trading <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>ufacturing centre <strong>an</strong>d its business extended far afield ... Raw materials wereimported, sometimes from overseas, to be worked up in the Ur factories; the bill of lading of a merch<strong>an</strong>t shipwhich came up the c<strong>an</strong>al from the Gulf to discharge its cargo on the wharves of Ur details gold, copper ore,hard woods, ivory, pearls, <strong>an</strong>d precious stones” (Ur of the Chaldees, pp. 103, 213).“Broad fields of corn <strong>an</strong>d barley swayed here. Market gardens, groves of date-palms <strong>an</strong>d fig tees stretched asfar as the eye could see. These specious estates could cheerfully bear comparison with C<strong>an</strong>adi<strong>an</strong> wheatfarms or the market gardens <strong>an</strong>d fruit farms of California. The lush green fields <strong>an</strong>d beds were interlaced by asystem of dead straight c<strong>an</strong>als <strong>an</strong>d ditches, a masterpiece of irrigation. ...“M<strong>an</strong>y goods were m<strong>an</strong>ufactured in factories owned by the temple, for example in the spinning-mills which thepriests m<strong>an</strong>aged. One workshop produced twelve different kinds of fashionable clothing. Tablets found in this107
place gave the names of the mill-girls <strong>an</strong>d their quota of rations. Even the weight of the wool given to eachworker <strong>an</strong>d the number of garments made from it were meticulously recorded.“In one of the legal buildings they found copies of the sentences carefully stacked exactly as they are in theadministrative offices of modern law courts. ...“Ur of the Chaldees was a powerful, prosperous colourful <strong>an</strong>d busy capital city in the beginning of the secondmillennium B.C.” (Werner Keller, The <strong>Bible</strong> as History, pp. 8, 16-19).The homes in Ur were impressive. The following is likely the type of house in which Abrahamgrew up:“An average dwelling measured forty by fifty-two feet. The lower walls were built of burned brick, the upper ofmud brick, <strong>an</strong>d the whole wall was usually plastered <strong>an</strong>d whitewashed. An entr<strong>an</strong>ce lobby led into the centralcourt, onto which all the rooms opened. On the lower floor were located the serv<strong>an</strong>ts’ room, the kitchen, thelavatory, the guest chamber, <strong>an</strong>d also a lavatory <strong>an</strong>d wash place reserved for visitors. Thus all of the first floorwas utilized for the serv<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d guests; the second floor housed the family. The entire house of the averagemiddle-class person had from ten to twenty rooms” (Free <strong>an</strong>d Vos, Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d <strong>Bible</strong> History, p. 46).The rooms of the houses were filled with such things as tables, chairs (even of the foldingvariety), beds with wooden bedsteads, chests, ornate pottery, wickerwork, <strong>an</strong>d rugs. The houseshad private wells, <strong>an</strong>d some had a plumbing system to provide running water to kitchens <strong>an</strong>dtoilets. Water <strong>an</strong>d waste were carried away by a city drainage system.(The next few paragraphs are adapted from The Sumeri<strong>an</strong>s: Their History, Culture <strong>an</strong>dCharacter by Samuel Kramer.)Ur’s skilled carpenters used hammers, saws, chisels, <strong>an</strong>d drill bits. Metalworkers fashioned gold,silver, tin, lead, iron, copper, bronze, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>timony. They used techniques such as casting,hammering, <strong>an</strong>nealing, filigree, <strong>an</strong>d gr<strong>an</strong>ulation.Leatherworkers t<strong>an</strong>ned <strong>an</strong>d fashioned the skins of bulls, calves, pigs, <strong>an</strong>d sheep, making waterbags, harnesses, saddles, tires for chariot wheels, slings, shoes <strong>an</strong>d s<strong>an</strong>dals, <strong>an</strong>d other types ofclothing. They used alkalies, sumac, <strong>an</strong>d other ingredients for t<strong>an</strong>ning <strong>an</strong>d fat to make the skinssupple <strong>an</strong>d impermeable.The huge textile industry at Ur consumed the wool of huge flocks of goats, sheep, <strong>an</strong>d lambs, aswell as massive qu<strong>an</strong>tities of flax for linen. Using spindles <strong>an</strong>d looms, a team of three womencould produce a piece of cloth 9 x 12 feet in eight days.Goods were tr<strong>an</strong>sported by sledges, wagons (both two- <strong>an</strong>d four-wheeled), chariots, <strong>an</strong>d boats.On the rivers <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong>als boats were propelled by oars <strong>an</strong>d sails, <strong>an</strong>d some were pulled by men oroxen teams walking along the b<strong>an</strong>ks.An intricate system of c<strong>an</strong>als, reservoirs, dikes, <strong>an</strong>d ditches provided irrigation for the crops.108
The Ur civilization was skilled in the use of leveling instruments <strong>an</strong>d measuring rods, in drawing<strong>an</strong>d map making.Farming techniques were methodical <strong>an</strong>d complex. There was a farmer’s alm<strong>an</strong>ac that providedinformation on weather <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>nual flooding <strong>an</strong>d guidelines for pl<strong>an</strong>ting <strong>an</strong>d harvesting. Pl<strong>an</strong>tingbeg<strong>an</strong> with a double plowing up of the field, followed by a harrowing, raking, <strong>an</strong>d pulverizingprocess. They used plows with seeder attachments, so that they could plow <strong>an</strong>d sowsimult<strong>an</strong>eously, the depth of seeding being precisely measured. They understood how to growbelts of trees for wind breaks. The farmers grew barley, wheat, millet, lentils, chick-peas, garlic,onions, lettuce, turnips, cress, leeks, mustard, <strong>an</strong>d cucumbers, among other things.They raised sheep, goats, pigs, cows, <strong>an</strong>d oxen, <strong>an</strong>d consumed over 50 different types of fish thatwere caught with nets.(To here adapted from The Sumeri<strong>an</strong>s: Their History, Culture <strong>an</strong>d Character by SamuelKramer.)The graves of the kings of Ur contained golden drinking cups, dishes, <strong>an</strong>d goblets, wonderfullyshaped jugs <strong>an</strong>d vases, bronze tableware, mother of pearl mosaics, ornaments made of gold,silver, <strong>an</strong>d lapis lazuli (a semi-precious stone of <strong>an</strong> intense blue color). “Even the famous tombsof Nofretete <strong>an</strong>d Tut<strong>an</strong>khamun [the Egypti<strong>an</strong> King Tut] contained no more beautiful objects. Thegraves of the kings of Ur are moreover 1,000 years older at least” (Keller, pp. 23, 24).There were harps <strong>an</strong>d lyres <strong>an</strong>d musical pipes. There were spears <strong>an</strong>d helmets, daggers with goldblades <strong>an</strong>d hilts of blue lapis lazuli decorated with gold studs with accomp<strong>an</strong>ying gold sheaths ofintricate design. There were game boards (British Library, Room 56, Case 16). There were modelboats <strong>an</strong>d chariots.There was <strong>an</strong> amazing bright headdress of flowers <strong>an</strong>d leaves fashioned from gold <strong>an</strong>d silversheets <strong>an</strong>d lapis lazuli (British Museum, Room 56, Case 12).One lyre was decorated with the head of a bull fashioned of gold with eyes, beard, <strong>an</strong>d horn tipsof deep blue lapis lazuli (British Museum, Room 56, Case 9).An Ur king was buried with <strong>an</strong> amazing gold helmet, which is in Room 56 of the BritishMuseum (Case 17, WA 119296).“It was a helmet of beaten gold made to fit low over the head with cheek-pieces to protect the face, <strong>an</strong>d it wasin the form of a wig, the locks of hair hammered up in relief, the individual hairs shown by delicate engravedlines. Parted down the middle, the hair covers the head in flat wavy tresses <strong>an</strong>d is bound round with a twistedfillet; behind it is tied into a little chignon, <strong>an</strong>d below the fillet h<strong>an</strong>gs in rows of formal curls about the ears” (Urof the Chaldees, p. 58).109
Woolley observed that on the basis of these items we should accord the people of Ur “high r<strong>an</strong>kin the role of civilized races.”A mosaic from one of the tombs (called the Royal St<strong>an</strong>dard of Ur) was made of shell, redlimestone <strong>an</strong>d lapis lazuli. One side depicts scenes of war <strong>an</strong>d the other, a victory feast. It islocated in Room 56 of the British Museum.The war scene’s three rows are described as follows by the object’s discoverer, Woolley:“In the top row the king st<strong>an</strong>ds in the center, distinguished by his greater height, with behind him threeattend<strong>an</strong>ts or members of his house, <strong>an</strong>d a dwarf-like groom who holds the heads of the two asses whichdraw the monarch’s empty chariot while the driver of it walks behind holding the reins; in front of the kingsoldiers are bringing up prisoners, naked <strong>an</strong>d with their arms bound behind their backs, to him to decide theirfate. In the second row, come the phal<strong>an</strong>x of the royal army, heavily-armed inf<strong>an</strong>try in close order with copperhelmets exactly like those found by us in the king’s grave, <strong>an</strong>d long cloaks of some stiff material which I taketo be felt, just such cloaks as are worn by the shepherds of Turkey today, holding axes in their h<strong>an</strong>ds; in frontof them are the light-armed inf<strong>an</strong>try without cloaks, wielding axes or short spears, already engaged with <strong>an</strong>enemy whose naked warriors are either fleeing or being struck down. In the lowest row we have the chariotryof Sumer, each car drawn by two asses <strong>an</strong>d carrying two men, of whom one is the driver <strong>an</strong>d the other awarrior who flings light javelins, of which four are kept in a quiver tied in the front of the car” (Ur of theChaldees, pp. 101, 102).The feast scene on the other side depicts the king <strong>an</strong>d his courtiers b<strong>an</strong>queting in the top row. Theb<strong>an</strong>queters are seated on chairs while serv<strong>an</strong>ts attend them <strong>an</strong>d a male harpist <strong>an</strong>d female singerprovide musical entertainment. In the two lower rows “attend<strong>an</strong>ts are shown bringing in spoilscaptured from the enemy <strong>an</strong>d food supplies for the b<strong>an</strong>quet--one is driving a goat, <strong>an</strong>other carriestwo fish, <strong>an</strong>other is bent under the weight of a corded bale, <strong>an</strong>d so on, several of the figures beingrepeated” (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 101).A statuette recovered from a soldier’s grave depicts a wom<strong>an</strong>, thought to be his wife, wearing arobe composed of four flounces of decorative material. In real life each flounce would have beenabout a foot tall.The Ur women loved ornaments, such as “bronze <strong>an</strong>d iron b<strong>an</strong>gles <strong>an</strong>d armlets, <strong>an</strong>d bracelets ofrings or beads, ear-rings, <strong>an</strong>d rings for the toes.” Rawlinson observes that in the tombs, fewfemale skeletons are without them. The wealthy had jewelry made of gold <strong>an</strong>d silver <strong>an</strong>d gems(British Library, Room 56, Case 12).Ur was involved in far-reaching shipping enterprise. Early inscriptions make frequent mention ofthe “ships of Ur” (George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies, Vol. 1). They were able tonavigate to considerable dist<strong>an</strong>ces, <strong>an</strong>d Rawlinson says that it may have been the astronomicalknowledge of the Chaldae<strong>an</strong>s which gave them the confidence to adventure on import<strong>an</strong>tvoyages. One bill of lading from about 2040 B.C. was from a ship that had come up the Persi<strong>an</strong>Gulf to southern Mesopotamia after a two-year cruise to dist<strong>an</strong>t l<strong>an</strong>ds. The cargo included copperore, gold, ivory, hardwoods for the cabinet maker, <strong>an</strong>d diorite <strong>an</strong>d alabaster for making statuary(Free <strong>an</strong>d Vos, pp. 46, 47).110
Ur’s LiteracyThous<strong>an</strong>ds of cuneiform tablets <strong>an</strong>d fragments were found at Ur.Among these were student exercise books for learning how to read <strong>an</strong>d write. There are tables ofverbs <strong>an</strong>d tables of square <strong>an</strong>d cube roots. The students at Ur had “a correct underst<strong>an</strong>ding of‘Pythagoras Theorem’--1,200 years before Pythagoras formulated it!” (Al<strong>an</strong> Millard, Treasuresfrom <strong>Bible</strong> Times, p. 53).The tablets at Ur also include religious myths, proverbs, riddles, essays, moral precepts,historical writings, medical, agricultural, legal, <strong>an</strong>d business documents.Ur’s IdolatryUr was steeped in idolatry. The people worshipped m<strong>an</strong>y gods <strong>an</strong>d goddesses, the chief of whichwere the moon god Sin (also called N<strong>an</strong>na) <strong>an</strong>d his wife, Ningal. Sin was also the chief god inHar<strong>an</strong> where Abraham’s father Terah died (Gen. 11:31-32).The symbol of the moon god was the crescent (Woolley, p. 175), which became the symbol ofIslam after Mohammed exalted the moon-god as Allah. E.M. Wherry, who tr<strong>an</strong>slated a st<strong>an</strong>dardedition of the Qur<strong>an</strong>, said that in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal,were both involved in the worship of the sun, the moon, <strong>an</strong>d the stars (A ComprehensiveCommentary on the Qur<strong>an</strong>, 1973, p. 36).There was also Shamash, the sun god.Ningal was only one of m<strong>an</strong>y goddesses worshipped in Ur <strong>an</strong>d its neighboring cities. There wasIshtar, Lama, Gula, Bau, among others. As we will see in the study on Babylon, goddess worshipbeg<strong>an</strong> in Babel <strong>an</strong>d spread throughout the earth. It still plays a large role in Hinduism, Buddhism,<strong>an</strong>d New Age. In the first millennium A.D. it was Christi<strong>an</strong>ized by Rom<strong>an</strong> Catholicism asMariolatry.There were idolatrous shrines scattered throughout Ur <strong>an</strong>d in the individual homes.“We may safely imagine that throughout the whole of the sprawling town there were scattered templesdedicated to one or <strong>an</strong>other of the innumerable gods. ... Such shrines appear to have been a particular resortof women” (Woolley, pp. 183, 212).Ur’s TowerThe central structure of <strong>an</strong>cient Ur was a gig<strong>an</strong>tic staged tower or ziggurat devoted to Sin <strong>an</strong>dNingal <strong>an</strong>d the worship of the heavens (astrology).111
Originally it was 200 by 150 feet at the base <strong>an</strong>d stood at least 75 feet high. Today it st<strong>an</strong>ds halfthat tall. The inner core was made of mud brick which was protected by a thick outer layer ofbaked bricks set in bitumen or asphalt (Hoerth <strong>an</strong>d McRay, <strong>Bible</strong> Archaeology, p. 38). The use ofbitumen fits the description of the building of the first tower at Babel. There, too, they used burntbrick <strong>an</strong>d slime or bitumen (Gen. 11:3). The word slime is tr<strong>an</strong>slated “asphaltos” in theSeptuagint.The Ur tower had four stages, built one upon <strong>an</strong>other in diminishing size, <strong>an</strong>d on the top was ashrine room for the moon god.The tower was called “the mountain of God” <strong>an</strong>d the stages depicted “as it were, a ladder to <strong>an</strong>dfrom heaven” (Woolley, pp. 138, 139, 236), which reminds us of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account of Ur’sneighbor Babel which says the people w<strong>an</strong>ted to build a tower to reach to heaven (Gen. 11:4).The tower was very beautiful. None of the reconstructions I have seen do justice to this. Eachstage was a different color, the foundation was black <strong>an</strong>d the upper stages, red <strong>an</strong>d blue. Eachstage probably <strong>an</strong>swered to the astrological colors associated with the pl<strong>an</strong>ets (Woolley, p. 235).The shrine at the apex was built of bright blue-glazed bricks topped with a golden dome.Some of the doors of the temple were overlaid with gold (p. 164) <strong>an</strong>d some of the walls <strong>an</strong>dceilings were covered with sheets of gold “cut into openwork patterns with shield-shaped holesinto which were set inlays of agate or lapis lazuli” (p. 165).Parts of the temple buildings were decorated with beautiful designs fashioned from coloredcones pressed into thick plaster (Woolley, p. 37).The terraces of each stage of the tower were covered with soil <strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ted with trees. The towerhad <strong>an</strong> ingenious <strong>an</strong>d complex irrigation <strong>an</strong>d drainage system (Woolley, p. 145). “Thus we haveto imagine trees clothing every terrace with greenery, h<strong>an</strong>ging gardens which brought morevividly to mind the original conception of the Ziggurat as the Mountain of God.”From that time forward, idolatry was associated with high places <strong>an</strong>d “groves” <strong>an</strong>d astralworship (Exodus 34:16; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; 2 Chron. 33:3).As the confounded Babel workers spread out <strong>an</strong>d associated together by l<strong>an</strong>guage, they carriedtheir idolatry <strong>an</strong>d love for mystical religious towers with them, constructing them wherever theysettled. Woolley said the “great staged towers characterized the cities of Sumer” <strong>an</strong>d were “apeculiar feature of Mesopotami<strong>an</strong> architecture” (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 118).112
Mass Suicide <strong>an</strong>d Hum<strong>an</strong> sacrificeBuried with the kings of Ur were entire retinues consisting of teams of oxen harnessed to greatwagons laden with household furniture <strong>an</strong>d accomp<strong>an</strong>ied by attend<strong>an</strong>ts. These apparently tooksome type of drug <strong>an</strong>d died with their master.“All the bodies were so neatly placed, Woolley concluded the people had walked down the ramp to theirpositions, lain down, <strong>an</strong>d drunk poison from a small cup. (Some of the cups were beside the bodies.)Undertakers then tidied the scene, killing the oxen, some of which lay on top of their hum<strong>an</strong> attend<strong>an</strong>ts, <strong>an</strong>dleft. With great ceremonies <strong>an</strong>d offerings, the shaft was refilled with earth” (Millard, Treasures from <strong>Bible</strong>Times, p.p. 44, 45).Accomp<strong>an</strong>ying the dead kings in these amazing mass hum<strong>an</strong> sacrifices or suicides were grooms,soldiers, musici<strong>an</strong>s, court attend<strong>an</strong>ts, <strong>an</strong>d female serv<strong>an</strong>ts. Hundreds of people were buried withthe Ur kings in this m<strong>an</strong>ner.Woolley, who headed up the excavation of the tombs, describes the scene of one of these burialsas follows:“The royal body was carried down the sloping passage <strong>an</strong>d laid in the chamber, sometimes, perhapsgenerally, inside a wooden coffin, though Queen Puabi lay upon <strong>an</strong> open wooden bier <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>other queen inthe only other undisturbed burial was apparently stretched upon the floor of the tomb. Three or four of thepersonal attend<strong>an</strong>ts of the dead had their place with him or her in the tomb-chamber; thus, two were crouchedby Puabi’s bier <strong>an</strong>d one lay a little apart <strong>an</strong>d four shared the tomb of the other (nameless) queen; in theplundered tombs scattered bones betrayed the presence of more th<strong>an</strong> one body. These attend<strong>an</strong>ts must havebeen killed, or drugged into insensibility, before the door of the tomb-chamber was walled up. The owner ofthe tomb was decked with all the finery befitting his station <strong>an</strong>d with him in the chamber were set all suchobjects as we find in the graves of commoners, the only difference being that they are more numerous <strong>an</strong>d ofmore precious material--the vessels for food <strong>an</strong>d drink may be of gold <strong>an</strong>d silver instead of clay--theattend<strong>an</strong>ts, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, while they wear what we may call their court dresses, are not laid out properlyas for burial but are in the attitudes of those who serve, <strong>an</strong>d they are unprovided with <strong>an</strong>y grave equipment oftheir own; they are part of the tomb furniture.“When the door had been blocked with stone <strong>an</strong>d brick <strong>an</strong>d smoothly plastered over, the first phase of theburial ceremony was complete. The second phase, as best illustrated by the tomb of Puabi <strong>an</strong>d by RT789,was more dramatic.“Down into the open pit, with its mat-covered floor <strong>an</strong>d mat-lined walls, empty <strong>an</strong>d unfurnished, there comes aprocession of people, the members of the dead ruler’s court, soldiers, men-serv<strong>an</strong>ts, <strong>an</strong>d women, the latter inall their finery of brightly coloured garments <strong>an</strong>d head-dresses of carneli<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d lapis lazuli, silver <strong>an</strong>d gold,officers with the insignia of their r<strong>an</strong>k, musici<strong>an</strong>s bearing harps or lyres, <strong>an</strong>d then, driven or backed down theslope, the chariots drawn by oxen, the drivers in the cars, the grooms holding the heads of the draught<strong>an</strong>imals, <strong>an</strong>d all take up their allotted places at the bottom of the shaft <strong>an</strong>d finally a guard of soldiers forms upat the entr<strong>an</strong>ce. Each m<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d wom<strong>an</strong> brought a little cup of clay or stone or metal, the only equipmentneeded for the rite that was to follow. There would seem to have been some kind of service down there, atleast it is certain that the musici<strong>an</strong>s played up to the last, then each of them dr<strong>an</strong>k from their cups a potionwhich they had brought with them or found prepared for them on the spot--in one case we found in the middleof the pit a great copper pot into which they could have dipped--<strong>an</strong>d they lay down <strong>an</strong>d composed themselvesfor death. Somebody came down <strong>an</strong>d killed the <strong>an</strong>imals (we found their bones on the top of those of thegrooms, so they must have died later) <strong>an</strong>d perhaps saw to it that all was decently in order--thus, in the king’sgrave the lyres had been placed on the top of the bodies of the women players, le<strong>an</strong>t against the tomb wall--<strong>an</strong>d when that was done, earth was flung in from above, over the unconscious victims, <strong>an</strong>d the filling-in of thegrave-shaft was begun. ...“The best example of the death-pit was that of our royal grave RT1237 ... The pit measured, at the bottom, 27feet by 24, <strong>an</strong>d had the usual sloped approach <strong>an</strong>d its sides had been mud-plastered <strong>an</strong>d hung with matting.Six men-serv<strong>an</strong>ts carrying knives or axes lay near the entr<strong>an</strong>ce, lined up against the wall; in front of them113
stood a great copper basin, <strong>an</strong>d by it were the bodies of four women harpists, one with her h<strong>an</strong>ds still on thestrings of her instrument. Over the rest of the pit’s area there lay in ordered rows the bodies of sixty-four ladiesof the court. All of them wore some sort of ceremonial dress; a few threads <strong>an</strong>d patches preserved by being incontact with stone or metal showed that this had included a short-sleeved coat of scarlet, the cuffs enriched inbeadwork in lapis lazuli, carneli<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d gold, with sometimes a belt of white shell rings; it may have beenfastened in front with a long pin of silver or copper; round the neck was worn a ‘dog-collar’ of lapis lazuli <strong>an</strong>dgold together with other looser necklaces of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, <strong>an</strong>d carneli<strong>an</strong> beads; in the ears werevery large crescent-shaped ear-rings of gold or silver <strong>an</strong>d twisted spirals of gold or silver wire kept in order thecurls above the ears. The head-dress was much like that of Queen Puabi; a long ribbon of gold or silver waslooped several times round the hair <strong>an</strong>d, at <strong>an</strong>y rate with those of higher r<strong>an</strong>k, a triple b<strong>an</strong>d of gold, lapislazuli, <strong>an</strong>d carneli<strong>an</strong> beads was fastened below the ribbon with gold beech-leaf pend<strong>an</strong>ts h<strong>an</strong>ging across theforehead. Twenty-eight of these court ladies wore golden hair-ribbons, the rest silver. ...“It must have been a very gaily dressed crowd that assembled in the open mat-lined pit for the royalobsequies, a blaze of colour with the crimson coats, the silver, <strong>an</strong>d the gold; clearly these people were notwretched slaves killed as oxen might be killed, but persons held in honour, wearing their robes of office, <strong>an</strong>dcoming, one hopes, voluntarily to a rite which would in their belief be but a passing from one world to <strong>an</strong>other,from the service of a god on earth to that of the same god in <strong>an</strong>other sphere” (Ur of the Chaldees, pp. 72-78,80).Though it is possible that the higher-r<strong>an</strong>king attend<strong>an</strong>ts in the main chamber went willingly totheir deaths, it is apparent that at least some people were killed as hum<strong>an</strong> sacrifices in theconclusion to the gruesome pag<strong>an</strong> ritual.“The royal body with its attend<strong>an</strong>ts, m<strong>an</strong>y or few, was laid in the tomb, <strong>an</strong>d the door was sealed <strong>an</strong>d sacrificewas made in the little court before the entr<strong>an</strong>ce, <strong>an</strong>d then this was filled in until only the crown of the domewas left above ground. Round it fires were lit <strong>an</strong>d a funeral feast was held, <strong>an</strong>d libations to the dead werepoured into the clay drain which r<strong>an</strong> down into the soil beside the tomb, <strong>an</strong>d then more earth was thrown intothe shaft. Next <strong>an</strong> offering to the underworld gods was set out <strong>an</strong>d covered with a clay bowl to shield it fromthe fresh earth which buried it; <strong>an</strong>d then, in the half-filled pit, there was constructed in mud-brick what was tobe a subterr<strong>an</strong>e<strong>an</strong> building.“The filling-up of this building was done by degrees; clay was brought <strong>an</strong>d trampled hard to make a floor overwhich offerings were spread <strong>an</strong>d on which was laid the body of a hum<strong>an</strong> victim sacrificed in these later rites;earth buried these, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>other floor was made <strong>an</strong>d more offerings placed in order <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>other victim didhonour to the dead below, <strong>an</strong>d this went on till the top of the walls was nearly reached...” (Ur of the Chaldees,pp. 85, 86).Confirmation of the <strong>Bible</strong>Everything that has been discovered about Ur fits the <strong>an</strong>cient Mesopotami<strong>an</strong> world as describedin the <strong>Bible</strong>.An adv<strong>an</strong>ced literate civilization is exactly what we would expect in light of the Genesis record,which says that Adam’s first children built cities <strong>an</strong>d practiced such things as agriculture, <strong>an</strong>imalhusb<strong>an</strong>dry, music, <strong>an</strong>d metal working (Genesis 4:16-22).The pag<strong>an</strong> idolatry, astral worship, <strong>an</strong>d the religious towers are described in Genesis 10-11 <strong>an</strong>dRom<strong>an</strong>s 1:21-23.The spread of city-states across Shinar or Mesopotamia is described in Genesis 10:8-12.114
The timetable also fits the biblical scenario. When the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> ruler Nabonidus restored theUr tower in his day (556-539 B.C.) he stated that it was originally built some 1,500 years earlier,which would have been about 2050 B.C. (Woolley found Nabonidus’ accounts of this on tablesin Babylon, The <strong>Bible</strong> in the British Museum, p. 89). By the biblical timeline, this takes us backto about two centuries after God confounded Nimrod’s Babel project. By then, the shock of thedivision of tongues had worn off, men were gathered together according to l<strong>an</strong>guage <strong>an</strong>d werealso learning to communicate cross-lingually, astral idolatry was spreading <strong>an</strong>d religious towerswere being built in various places.Undying UnbeliefThough it is now obvious that Ur existed as a great city in Abraham’s day, unbelievingarchaeologists have found <strong>an</strong>other way to discredit the <strong>Bible</strong>. They claim that Ur was notassociated with the Chaldees until centuries later; therefore, the <strong>Bible</strong> is wrong to use that term inreference to Abraham’s day. Archaeologists c<strong>an</strong>not prove that the <strong>Bible</strong> is wrong here, but sincethey have not found corroborating evidence they are quick to charge the <strong>Bible</strong> with error.This reminds us that there is never enough evidence for those who are willfully blind. Jesus saidthat if men do not believe the Scripture, they will not believe even if someone rose from the dead<strong>an</strong>d appeared to them (Luke 16:27-31).SUMMARY OF UR1. Skeptics were debunked when Ur was unearthed by archaeologists in the 1920s <strong>an</strong>d 1930s.2. Ur was a city state ruled by a king <strong>an</strong>d was technologically adv<strong>an</strong>ced <strong>an</strong>d wealthy. It was am<strong>an</strong>ufacturing center <strong>an</strong>d had far-reaching trading enterprises. It was <strong>an</strong> agricultural powerhousewith <strong>an</strong> intricate irrigation system <strong>an</strong>d a farmer’s alm<strong>an</strong>ac. The typical homes were two story <strong>an</strong>dsome had plumbing. There was a city drainage system. There were metal works, carpentry,leather works, jewelry making, spinning mills, <strong>an</strong>d pottery. There was music <strong>an</strong>d a variety ofmusical instruments.3. Ur was a highly literate society.4. Ur was steeped in idolatry, with the chief gods being the moon god Sin <strong>an</strong>d his wife, thegoddess Ningal. Another chief god was Shamash, the sun god. Following the example ofBabylon, Ur had a gig<strong>an</strong>tic tower devoted to Sin <strong>an</strong>d Ningal <strong>an</strong>d the worship of the heavens.Originally it was 200 by 150 feet at the base <strong>an</strong>d stood at least 75 feet high <strong>an</strong>d had four stages.5. At death, the kings of Ur were accomp<strong>an</strong>ied by a large retinue of attend<strong>an</strong>ts.115
6. The archaeology pertaining to Ur has confirmed the Genesis account. It was a city state afterthe fashion of what we read in Genesis 9-10. It was <strong>an</strong> adv<strong>an</strong>ced literate civilization, <strong>an</strong>d it wasdevoted to idolatry.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON UR1. Ur was the birthplace of what famous <strong>Bible</strong> figure?2. When was Ur unearthed by archaeologists?3. The excavations at Ur provide a glimpse into what?4. How large was <strong>an</strong>cient Ur?5. Ur was a _______________ <strong>an</strong>d _______________ center.6. Ur’s great agricultural fields have been compared to ____________ wheat farms or the marketgardens <strong>an</strong>d fruit farms of __________________.7. The typical home in <strong>an</strong>cient Ur was how m<strong>an</strong>y stories <strong>an</strong>d had how m<strong>an</strong>y rooms?8. Water <strong>an</strong>d waste were carried away by a city _______________ ____________.9. What are three types of industry that thrived in <strong>an</strong>cient Ur?10. How were the crops irrigated?11. How did the Ur farmers get information on weather <strong>an</strong>d guidelines for pl<strong>an</strong>ting?12. What types of musical instruments were used in Ur?13. What is the Royal St<strong>an</strong>dard of Ur <strong>an</strong>d what does it depict?14. What type of <strong>an</strong>imals pulled the Ur war chariots?15. The chariots carried how m<strong>an</strong>y warriors?16. What type of weapons were used by the Ur soldiers?17. How do we know that music was used in the Ur b<strong>an</strong>quets?18. Ur was involved in far-reaching ________________ enterprise.19. How do we know that <strong>an</strong>cient Ur was a literate society?20. What was Ur’s chief god?21. This god was also the chief god of __________ where Abraham’s father died.22. What was the symbol of Ur’s chief god?23. What was the name of the chief goddess worshipped at Ur?24. What was <strong>an</strong>other chief god of Ur?25. What was the central building at Ur?26. How m<strong>an</strong>y stages did it have?27. How were the kings of Ur buried?28. In what four ways does the archaeological excavation of Ur confirm the <strong>Bible</strong>?116
EGYPT☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Egypt is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.The following overview of Egypt’s <strong>an</strong>cient history under the pharaohs is adapted from All<strong>an</strong>McRae:It is usual to think of <strong>an</strong>cient Egypti<strong>an</strong> history as divided into 30 dynasties. This idea is taken from a book onEgypti<strong>an</strong> history by M<strong>an</strong>etho, <strong>an</strong> Egypti<strong>an</strong> priest, who wrote about 250 B.C. Selections from M<strong>an</strong>etho’s bookhave been preserved in extensive quotations by later writers.The Old Kingdom is the title given to the first time of great royal power (about 2700 to 2200 B.C.), runningfrom dynasties three to six. At this period the pharaohs were very dictatorial. They were able to gatherhundreds of thous<strong>an</strong>ds of people each year during the season when the Nile overflowed its b<strong>an</strong>ks <strong>an</strong>d madeagricultural work impossible <strong>an</strong>d compel them to work energetically for long periods in order to build thosetremendous burial monuments called the pyramids. During this time the religion glorified the sun god, butthere were m<strong>an</strong>y subordinate deities.The Middle Kingdom (about 1991 to 1786 B.C.) was a new time of great power beginning when the kings of aregion in the S, centering around the town later known as Thebes, became supreme over all Egypt <strong>an</strong>destablished their power in the delta. They worshiped a local god called Amun (formerly written Amen or Amon).This was the period of the Twelfth Dynasty. These kings put foreign l<strong>an</strong>ds under tribute <strong>an</strong>d directed a hightype of civilization. It ends with the coming from Asia of a foreign group that possessed a new weapon, that ofhorse-drawn chariots which enabled them to make a lightning attack <strong>an</strong>d to conquer a large section of Egypt.These Hyksos (sometimes called Shepherd-kings), held much of the l<strong>an</strong>d in subjection for over a century.Eventually they were driven out.The New Kingdom, also called the Empire, followed the expulsion of the Hyksos. It lasts from about 1570 to1078 B.C. These kings worshiped the god Amun, whom they considered to be identical with the earlier sungod,Re, <strong>an</strong>d therefore often referred to as Amun-Re. A multitude of other gods were also worshiped in Egypt,but the priests of Amun-Re became so import<strong>an</strong>t that eventually a very large proportion of the l<strong>an</strong>d of Egyptcame to be the property of the temples of the god Amun. The 18th dynasty includes a series of great rulers, <strong>an</strong>umber of whom went by one of two names: Thutmose or Amenhotep. This was a time of Egypti<strong>an</strong> militaryprowess, <strong>an</strong>d the erection of great monuments <strong>an</strong>d temples. The 19th dynasty (about 1303 to 1197), evenmore th<strong>an</strong> the 18th, was a period of great building. Largely as a result of the activities of the kings of these twodynasties, tremendous ruins st<strong>an</strong>d at Thebes today, making it the great outdoor museum of the world. Therewere a series of kings named Ramses (or Ramesses). Ramses II, also known as Ramses the Great, builtmore temples <strong>an</strong>d erected more statues <strong>an</strong>d obelisks th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>y other pharaoh in history.Between the 7th <strong>an</strong>d 4th centuries B.C. Egypt was harassed <strong>an</strong>d sometimes partly conquered by theAssyri<strong>an</strong>s, the Babyloni<strong>an</strong>s, <strong>an</strong>d the Persi<strong>an</strong>s. In 332 Alex<strong>an</strong>der the Great conquered Egypt, <strong>an</strong>d after hisdeath a year later, one of his generals, named Ptolemy, seized Egypt <strong>an</strong>d established a dynasty thatcontinued for three centuries (adapted from MacRae, Biblical Archaeology, 2005, pp. 9, 10).The first mention of Egypt in the <strong>Bible</strong> is in Genesis 12 when Abraham went there to escape thefamine in C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>. That was about 1900 B.C.It was to Egypt that Jacob <strong>an</strong>d his sons moved to escape the great famine after Joseph becamevice-ruler. Israel dwelt in Egypt for 400 years before departing under the leadership of Moses inabout 1490 B.C.Egypt was often used by God to judge Israel during the time of the Judges <strong>an</strong>d the Kingdom.117
Joseph in EgyptNo direct evidence of Joseph’s rule in Egypt or of Israel’s sojourn there have been uncoveredthrough archaeology, but this is not surprising for three reasons:First, the archaeological record from that time period is sc<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>an</strong>cient documents writtenon papyri have perished.Second, the Egypti<strong>an</strong>s did not leave historical narrative writings similar to the book of Genesis orthe books of Samuel <strong>an</strong>d the Kings.“No attempt is made to give a full picture of a historical situation or development. A continuous account of thereign of successive kings has nowhere been found. ... A great h<strong>an</strong>dicap in the study of Egypti<strong>an</strong> literature, asfar as its use for history is concerned, is the fact that most of it was written for <strong>an</strong> immediate purpose, oftenmerely to glorify the person involved, <strong>an</strong>d never simply to preserve historical records” (All<strong>an</strong> MacRae, BiblicalArchaeology).Third, most of the <strong>an</strong>cient Egypti<strong>an</strong> records are from the accounts of military victories, <strong>an</strong>d nopharaoh would have recorded a great defeat such as they were dealt by the God of Israel.Though there is no direct confirmation of Joseph from archaeology, there is a great deal ofindirect evidence authenticating the biblical record.“The background of the story of Joseph contains m<strong>an</strong>y passages that c<strong>an</strong> be vividly illustrated by Egypti<strong>an</strong>circumst<strong>an</strong>ce at this general period. Thus we find in Egypti<strong>an</strong> records that the position that Potiphar gaveJoseph when he put him over his household was one that existed in the houses of great Egypti<strong>an</strong> nobles ofthe time; that the king of Egypt was called ‘pharaoh,’ the term used in the <strong>Bible</strong>; that ‘chief of the butlers’ <strong>an</strong>d‘chief of the bakers’ were titles given to import<strong>an</strong>t officers in pharaoh’s court; that the signet ring, the ‘vesturesof fine linen,’ <strong>an</strong>d the ‘gold chain about his neck’ were just what <strong>an</strong> Egypti<strong>an</strong> king would be apt to give to onewhom he was placing in authority over the whole country; <strong>an</strong>d that the mummification of Jacob <strong>an</strong>d of Josephwas in accord<strong>an</strong>ce with Egypti<strong>an</strong> custom. These <strong>an</strong>d other elements of the general background c<strong>an</strong> beabund<strong>an</strong>tly verified from <strong>an</strong>cient Egypti<strong>an</strong> records. All this is general corroboration” (MacRae, BiblicalArchaeology, p. 11).Moses’ PharaohThere were probably at least two pharaohs associated with Moses’ life, one who ruled when hewas born <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>other who ruled during the Exodus.Israel was in Egypt from about 1876-1446 B.C. <strong>an</strong>d at the end of this period God raised upMoses to lead them to the Promised L<strong>an</strong>d.“Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8).“And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, <strong>an</strong>d everydaughter ye shall save alive” (Exodus 1:22).“And there went a m<strong>an</strong> of the house of Levi, <strong>an</strong>d took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the wom<strong>an</strong> conceived,<strong>an</strong>d bare a son: <strong>an</strong>d when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she118
could not longer hide him, she took for him <strong>an</strong> ark of bulrushes, <strong>an</strong>d daubed it with slime <strong>an</strong>d with pitch, <strong>an</strong>dput the child therein; <strong>an</strong>d she laid it in the flags by the river's brink. And his sister stood afar off, to wit whatwould be done to him. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; <strong>an</strong>d her maidenswalked along by the river's side; <strong>an</strong>d when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. Andwhen she had opened it, she saw the child: <strong>an</strong>d, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, <strong>an</strong>dsaid, This is one of the Hebrews' children. Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go <strong>an</strong>d call tothee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee? And Pharaoh's daughter said toher, Go. And the maid went <strong>an</strong>d called the child's mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take thischild away, <strong>an</strong>d nurse it for me, <strong>an</strong>d I will give thee thy wages. And the wom<strong>an</strong> took the child, <strong>an</strong>d nursedit” (Exodus 2:1-9).“By <strong>faith</strong> Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter” (Hebrews11:24).The daughter of Pharaoh who rescued Moses from the river is thought to have been Hatshepsut.“Hatshepsut (around the 1550s to 1483 B.C.) was the daughter of Pharaoh Tuthmosis I, who probably issuedthe two decrees that all Israelite baby boys be killed. If so, it was Hatshepsut who rescued Moses. A notedhistori<strong>an</strong> wrote: ‘only she of all known women of the period possessed the presumption <strong>an</strong>d independence toviolate <strong>an</strong> ordin<strong>an</strong>ce of the king, <strong>an</strong>d under his very nose at that.’ She married her younger half-brother whobecame Tuthmosis II. Moses, by this construction, was her ‘foster-son’” (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidencein the British Museum, p. 99).There is a red gr<strong>an</strong>ite obelisk inscribed with the name of Queen Hatshepsut in the BritishMuseum (Room 65).There is a statue of Tuthmosis I in the British Museum, Room 4.When Moses was 40 years old he killed <strong>an</strong> Egypti<strong>an</strong> for abusing a Jewish slave <strong>an</strong>d had to flee tothe desert, where he lived for 40 years (Exodus 2:11-22; Acts 7:23-30). At this time Godappeared to him in the burning bush <strong>an</strong>d called him to lead Israel out of Egypt. Thus, the Exodusoccurred 80 years after Moses was rescued from the river as <strong>an</strong> inf<strong>an</strong>t.It is not a simple matter to identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Liberal archaeologists havenamed Ramesses II (also written Ramses), but he lived after Moses according to the biblicaltimeline. The reason they make this claim is that they have rejected the <strong>Bible</strong>’s dating. Theybelieve that Israel entered the l<strong>an</strong>d of C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong> in about 1250 B.C., whereas it was actually around1450 B.C. According to biblical dating, Moses appeared before pharaoh in about 1490 B.C.Some say the pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenophis II.The bottom line is that while it is interesting to speculate about which Pharaoh Mosesconfronted, since the <strong>Bible</strong> does not give his name, it is not therefore import<strong>an</strong>t for us know it.See Deuteronomy 29:29.“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us <strong>an</strong>d toour children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”The very fact that the <strong>Bible</strong> does not name the pharaohs until Shishak in the 10th century B.C. (1Kings 11:40) demonstrates its infallible accuracy.119
“Some scholars have faulted the <strong>Bible</strong> for not naming the pharaohs involved with Abraham, Joseph, <strong>an</strong>dMoses, <strong>an</strong>d have used this silence as evidence that the <strong>Bible</strong>’s early history is suspect. Egyptologists have,however, established that until the tenth century B.C. the title ‘pharaoh’ stood alone in Egypti<strong>an</strong> texts. It wasonly then that the title beg<strong>an</strong> to be followed by the name of the specific king. The biblical writers were simplyfollowing Egypti<strong>an</strong> precedent. Shishak is the first Egypti<strong>an</strong> pharaoh to be named in the <strong>Bible</strong> (1 Kings 11:40).In 925 B.C. his army marched into Palestine (1 Kings 14:25)” (Hoerth <strong>an</strong>d McRay, <strong>Bible</strong> Archaeology, p. 19).King TutThe <strong>Bible</strong> says that Moses gave up his life as <strong>an</strong> adopted son of Pharaoh <strong>an</strong>d chose to sufferaffliction with God’s people. He took this step by <strong>faith</strong>.“By <strong>faith</strong> Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosingrather to suffer affliction with the people of God, th<strong>an</strong> to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming thereproach of Christ greater riches th<strong>an</strong> the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of thereward. By <strong>faith</strong> he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who isinvisible” (Hebrews 11:24-27).This momentous decision c<strong>an</strong> better be understood in light of the discovery of the intact burialchambers of King Tut<strong>an</strong>khamun. Here we have a glimpse into the wealth <strong>an</strong>d culture of Egypti<strong>an</strong>royalty during the time of Israel’s captivity. Tut died in about 1350 B.C., which is some 150years after Moses led Israel out of the l<strong>an</strong>d in 1491 B.C.Tut’s burial chambers also gives us a better underst<strong>an</strong>ding of the challenge that Moses facedwhen he obeyed God <strong>an</strong>d opposed Pharaoh.“Come now therefore, <strong>an</strong>d I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the childrenof Israel out of Egypt” (Exodus 3:10).“And afterward Moses <strong>an</strong>d Aaron went in, <strong>an</strong>d told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let mypeople go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that Ishould obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:1-2).Moses was st<strong>an</strong>ding before one of the mightiest kings of <strong>an</strong>cient history, who held life <strong>an</strong>d deathpower over all his subjects, with vast riches <strong>an</strong>d a superpower military machine.In 1922 Howard Carter located four underground burial chambers containing the king’s remains.Three of the chambers were fitted with equipment for the king’s journey into death, while thefourth housed the mummy.The wealth represented in this one grave is staggering. There is a solid gold coffin weighingabout 243 pounds, a golden death mask, golden daggers, gold-plated bows, exquisite gold <strong>an</strong>dgem-encrusted jewelry. There is a carved wooden throne encased in gold with details inlaced insilver <strong>an</strong>d glass, <strong>an</strong>d colored blue, green, <strong>an</strong>d reddish-brown. It is estimated that the tomb’s goldplate alone weighs 400 pounds.120
For the king’s pleasure <strong>an</strong>d protection in the next life, the tomb held four dism<strong>an</strong>tled chariots,one of which was encased in gold, plus 29 bows. Magic texts from the Egypti<strong>an</strong> Book of theDead were engraved in the tomb <strong>an</strong>d carved on idols.The gold-encased mummy was housed in three coffins. The outer coffin was yellow stone. Insidethis was a mummy-shaped coffin of wood covered with gold, <strong>an</strong>d inside this a gold-platedwooden coffin.The glory represented by Tut gives the background for the choice that Moses made as a youngm<strong>an</strong>, when he rejected life as <strong>an</strong> adopted son of pharaoh, with its pag<strong>an</strong> wealth, <strong>an</strong>d pleasure,choosing rather to serve the true <strong>an</strong>d living God <strong>an</strong>d to cast his lot with God’s despised people(Hebrews 11:24-26).The Egypti<strong>an</strong> Doctrine of SalvationThe Egypti<strong>an</strong> doctrine of salvation dates back to Cain <strong>an</strong>d his offering of good works to God. Itis the same doctrine that most people believe today.The Egypti<strong>an</strong> Book of the Dead describes the deceased led into a hall of judgment by Anubis.There his heart is weighed against the feather of Maat, signifying the weighing of his good worksagainst the bad. If he passes the judgment he is received into the presence of the gods.The vast majority of people everywhere believe this <strong>an</strong>cient Egypti<strong>an</strong> lie, thinking that salvationis by good deeds, sincerity, religion, etc. The truth is that m<strong>an</strong> is totally condemned by God’srighteous st<strong>an</strong>dards <strong>an</strong>d only through the sacrifice of Christ c<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>y sinner be accepted beforeAlmighty God (Rom<strong>an</strong>s 3:23-24). This gospel was not hidden in the days of Egypt’s might. Ithas been proclaimed through the prophets since the days of Abel <strong>an</strong>d was typified by Israel’ssacrificial system.The Merneptah SteleThe most <strong>an</strong>cient extra-biblical reference to Israel is the Merneptah Stele, which dates to 1229B.C. It was erected by the Egypti<strong>an</strong> Pharaoh Merneptah to celebrate a military campaign inC<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>.The 7 1/2 foot tall monument, which was discovered in 1896 at Thebes, is in the Cairo Museum.It reads:“C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong> is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Y<strong>an</strong>oam made nonexistent; Israel iswasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued. By the King ofUpper <strong>an</strong>d Lower Egypt, B<strong>an</strong>ere-meramun, Son of Re, Merneptah, content with Maat, given life like Re everyday.”121
This event occurred during the period of the Judges. The reference to Israel having no seed is areference to the destruction of the nation’s food supply.Though brief, the inscription is highly signific<strong>an</strong>t. It was written during the time of the Judges<strong>an</strong>d proves that even then Israel was a nation of some import<strong>an</strong>ce. Otherwise, the proud king ofEgypt would not have mentioned her. It also confirms the description given in the <strong>Bible</strong> of howthat Israel was often harassed by neighboring nations because of her sin.This refutes the commonly held liberal view that Israel did not enter the l<strong>an</strong>d of C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong> untilabout 1230 B.C., which is two centuries later th<strong>an</strong> the <strong>Bible</strong>’s timeline of about 1450 B.C.This also refutes the modernistic “12th century emergence theory” which says Israel emergedfrom the C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>ite people in about 1150 B.C. (instead of coming into the l<strong>an</strong>d from Egypt in the15th century).SUMMARY OF EGYPT1. That there is no direct evidence of Joseph’s rule in Egypt is not surprising for three reasons:First, the archaeological record from that time is extremely sc<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>an</strong>cient papyridocuments have perished. Second, the Egypti<strong>an</strong>s did not leave historical narrative writings.Third, no pharaoh would have recorded his defeats.2. The indirect evidence authenticating the <strong>Bible</strong>’s record of Joseph is extensive. These includeevidence that the position Joseph held in Potiphar’s household was common in that day, that theterm “pharaoh” is accurate, <strong>an</strong>d that the mummification of Joseph was in accord<strong>an</strong>ce withEgypti<strong>an</strong> custom.3. It is not possible to identify with certainty the Pharaoh of the Exodus.4. King Tut illustrates the great wealth <strong>an</strong>d power of the Egypti<strong>an</strong> pharaoh’s of Moses’ day <strong>an</strong>dgives the background of the choice that Moses made as a young m<strong>an</strong> when he rejected life as <strong>an</strong>adopted son of pharaoh <strong>an</strong>d chose rather to serve the true <strong>an</strong>d living God.5. The Merneptah Stele, which was erected in 1229 B.C., is evidence that Israel was in the l<strong>an</strong>dof C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong> then <strong>an</strong>d was already a nation of note, which refutes the critics who say that Israel didnot enter the l<strong>an</strong>d until 1230 B.C. It was erected by Pharaoh Merneptah to celebrate his militarycampaign in C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON EGYPT1. What is the first mention of Egypt in the <strong>Bible</strong>?2. For what four reasons is it not surprising that no direct archaeology evidence of Joseph’s rulein Egypt have been found?122
3. Why does it not matter that we c<strong>an</strong>’t be certain of the identity of the pharaohs of the book ofExodus?4. What verse says we must be content with the things God has revealed in Scripture?5. Why is it signific<strong>an</strong>t that the <strong>Bible</strong> does not name the pharaohs until Shishak in the 10thcentury B.C.?6. When did King Tut die? How long was that after Moses left Egypt?7. Why are the artifacts from Tut’s tomb signific<strong>an</strong>t for <strong>Bible</strong> believers?8. What is the most <strong>an</strong>cient extra-biblical reference to Israel?9. How old is the stele containing this reference?10. What does this stele say about Israel?11. How does this fit the description of Israel in the <strong>Bible</strong>?12. How does this stele refute the liberal view that Israel did not enter the l<strong>an</strong>d of C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong> untilabout 1230 B.C.?13. What is the “12th century emergence theory”?BABYLON☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Babylon is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.Babylon is a major theme of Scripture. It appears in the early chapters of Genesis <strong>an</strong>d does notdisappear until the last the chapters of Revelation.Babylon’s beginningThe beginning of Babylon’s history is recorded in Genesis 10-11 with the founding of Nimrod’skingdom <strong>an</strong>d the building of the Tower of Babel.God comm<strong>an</strong>ded Noah <strong>an</strong>d his sons to spread abroad <strong>an</strong>d replenish the earth, but the majority ofthem congregated in a place called Shinar, which is a huge fertile valley watered by the Tigris<strong>an</strong>d Euphrates rivers. (It was still called Shinar in D<strong>an</strong>iel’s day 1,600 years later, D<strong>an</strong>. 1:2). Thiswas the beginning of the kingdom of Babylon, which became a powerful empire centuries later<strong>an</strong>d which in mystery form continues to exist in the world today.Instead of fearing the true <strong>an</strong>d living God <strong>an</strong>d acknowledging that He was righteous <strong>an</strong>d just indestroying the world with a flood because of m<strong>an</strong>’s wickedness <strong>an</strong>d instead of praising God’sgrace in saving a remn<strong>an</strong>t through Noah, the majority of m<strong>an</strong>kind rebelled even more th<strong>an</strong> theirforefathers <strong>an</strong>d tried to put the holy Creator God completely out of mind. In the description ofthe Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-4, Jehovah God’s name is nowhere mentioned. Babel was(<strong>an</strong>d is) all about m<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>y “god” involved in the enterprise is one of m<strong>an</strong>’s devise, one made123
in m<strong>an</strong>’s image, <strong>an</strong>d one that m<strong>an</strong> c<strong>an</strong> control. Ever since the Garden of Eden, men have beensaying to God, “Depart from us” (Job 21:17).Babylon’s First LeaderThe first leader in Babyloni<strong>an</strong> wickedness was NIMROD (Gen. 10:8-12).Liberals <strong>an</strong>d unbelievers consider Nimrod a mythical figure, but this is willful skepticism. The<strong>Bible</strong> is a far more dependable historical record th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>ything that has been dug from the s<strong>an</strong>dsof Egypt or the tells of Mesopotamia. In fact, the extra-biblical record of that time is a jumbled,contradictory mess <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>y real history is hidden deep beneath a thick slathering of pag<strong>an</strong>mythology.The <strong>Bible</strong> says that Nimrod was a “mighty one in the earth,” describing his prominence. He wasthe first leader of <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>ti-God confederacy, the first ruler of a hum<strong>an</strong>istic empire, the forerunnerof the end-times <strong>an</strong>tichrist. Nimrod probably dem<strong>an</strong>ded worship as god. This trait was imitatedby his successors down to the Caesars in Rome.The description of Nimrod as a “mighty hunter” refers to his prowess as a hunter of <strong>an</strong>imals aswell as a hunter of men. He was a lion killer <strong>an</strong>d a m<strong>an</strong> killer. He was a conqueror, <strong>an</strong> emperor,<strong>an</strong> empire builder.The <strong>Bible</strong>’s description of Nimrod fits several men in <strong>an</strong>cient secular records. Consider some ofthese:Consider NARAM-SIN. A stele in the Louvre in Paris depicts the Mesopotami<strong>an</strong> king Naram-Sin. His reign is dated by archaeologists to about 2250 B.C., which is the time that the Tower ofBabel was built. Naram-Sin is the first god-king known to secular history. Enrico Ascalone says,“This is the first image of a king who m<strong>an</strong>ifested his own successful self-divinization, which isalso widely documented in the king’s own celebratory inscriptions” (Mesopotamia, University ofCalifornia Press, 2005, p. 30).The ruler’s name probably refers to Sin the moon god. Carrying a bow <strong>an</strong>d spear, the king isdepicted as destroying a group of people called the Lullubi.He wears a horned helmet signifying deity <strong>an</strong>d he carries a bow <strong>an</strong>d a spear.Thus Naram-Sin has the characteristics of the biblical Nimrod: bold leadership, pride, aspiring todivinity, hunting/military prowess.Consider ASSHUR. The Assyri<strong>an</strong> empire was named after Asshur, the original builder ofNineveh <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> associate of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10-11). Asshur became a mythological god, butthere is no reason to think that he was not also the real m<strong>an</strong> mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong>. Asshur had124
the characteristics of Nimrod. A mighty leader <strong>an</strong>d hunter/warrior, his symbol was a bow. He wasalso associated with astrology, being worshipped as the sun god, which was symbolized by awinged disc or wheel encompassing the rays of the sun.Consider GILGAMESH. Sumari<strong>an</strong> records claim that Gilgamesh was the king of Erech (Urukin Akkadi<strong>an</strong>) in about 2,500 B.C. This carries us back to the time near the Flood, <strong>an</strong>d it isprobable that the Gilgamesh mythology has <strong>an</strong> historical basis in Nimrod, as the <strong>Bible</strong> says(Genesis 10:10) that Erech was as the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom. The Gilgamesh Epicdescribes the Flood from a pag<strong>an</strong> perspective. Gilgamesh is described as part-m<strong>an</strong>, part-god,proud, <strong>an</strong>d a cruel conqueror, the very characteristics modeled by Nimrod.Nimrod’s traits were reproduced in the Babyloni<strong>an</strong>, Assyri<strong>an</strong>, Persi<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d Greek kings that rosein succession across the pages of history in that part of the world. Henry Layard, who unearthedm<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>cient bas-reliefs depicting the Assyri<strong>an</strong> kings as hunters <strong>an</strong>d warriors, made thefollowing observation linking them to Nimrod:“A conqueror <strong>an</strong>d the founder of <strong>an</strong> empire was, at the same time, a great hunter. His courage, wisdom, <strong>an</strong>ddexterity were as much shown in encounters with wild <strong>an</strong>imals as in martial exploits; he rendered equalservices to his subjects, whether he cleared the country of beasts of prey, or repulsed <strong>an</strong> enemy. Thescriptural Nimrod, who laid the foundation of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> monarchy, was ‘a mighty hunter before the Lord;’<strong>an</strong>d the Ninus of history <strong>an</strong>d tradition, the builder of Nineveh, <strong>an</strong>d the greatest of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> kings, was asrenowned for his encounters with the lion <strong>an</strong>d the leopard, as for his triumphs over warlike nations” (Nineveh<strong>an</strong>d Its Remains, p. 94).Babylon’s religionThe Tower of Babel was preeminently <strong>an</strong> act of idolatry. It was the beginning of the mysteryreligions that eventually permeated the world. Revelation 17:5 says Babylon is the “mother ofharlots <strong>an</strong>d abominations of the earth,” which me<strong>an</strong>s the world’s dark religions had their evilbeginning with her.The development of idolatry is described in Rom<strong>an</strong>s 1:21-23. The people rejected the CreatorGod <strong>an</strong>d worshipped <strong>an</strong>d served the creation.Some of the major characteristics of Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion are as follows:1. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is self-worship.The people said, “let us make us a name” (Gen. 11:4). They were not glorifying God; they wereglorifying themselves. Pride <strong>an</strong>d self-will is at the heart of idolatry. It is not about m<strong>an</strong>worshipping God; it is about m<strong>an</strong> worshipping himself. The “gods” are not in authority over m<strong>an</strong>in the sense of a Creator-creature relationship, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong> is not subject to them in that sense. Hefears what the gods c<strong>an</strong> do to him, but he is not directly accountable to them. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religionpromises that m<strong>an</strong> will be his own god, thus freeing him from accountability to the AlmightyGod. This is the devil’s age-old lie. He said to Eve, “ye shall be as gods” (Gen. 3:5). Babyloni<strong>an</strong>125
idolatry is about the pursuit of self-will, self-fulfillment, self-empowerment, self-esteem. Idolatryis not about God; it is about me.This is a chief characteristic of end-times apostasy: “in the last days ... men shall be lovers oftheir own selves” (2 Timothy 3:1-2). Self-expression, self-fulfillment, self-satisfaction are at theheart of the modern pop culture. It is narcissistic to the core. As the Rolling Stones s<strong>an</strong>g, “I’mfree to do what I w<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>y old time...”2. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is luck worship.Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is the pursuit of luck, good fortune, success. Tyche was the goddess of luck.The Hindu goddess Lukshmi is the goddess of fortune. This was one of the major attractions ofBaal worship. Sacrifices were offered to Baal in hope that he would provide the worshipers withgood weather, good crops, good jobs, happiness, success. The pursuit of good luck appealsdeeply to fallen m<strong>an</strong> who is covetous <strong>an</strong>d lives only for this present world. This is a major part ofthe modern New Age Babyloni<strong>an</strong> rock & roll culture. The modern gods of luck are such things ashigher education, the stock market, <strong>an</strong>d casinos.3. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is good works worship.This appeals to fallen m<strong>an</strong>’s pride <strong>an</strong>d natural sense of religion <strong>an</strong>d his innate sense of morality.Cain, the inventor of the first false religion, tried to offer the fruit of his own works to God,falsely thinking that God would be satisfied (Gen. 4:3-5). Natural m<strong>an</strong> does not w<strong>an</strong>t toacknowledge that he is a fallen creature <strong>an</strong>d that even his very righteousness is as filthy ragsbefore God (Isaiah 64:6; Rom<strong>an</strong>s 3:10-18, 23).The works aspect of Babyloni<strong>an</strong> idolatry is illustrated by Egypt’s god Anubis. It was thought thatafter death the soul was brought before Anubis <strong>an</strong>d its good deeds were weighed against the bad.A demonic creature named Ammit (composed of a crocodile, lion, <strong>an</strong>d hippopotamus) waitedbelow the scales to devour the individual’s heart if wickedness prevailed. If the individual passedthe judgment, he was ushered into the presence of the gods.The Hindu-Buddhist belief in dharma <strong>an</strong>d karma descended from Babyloni<strong>an</strong>ism.The New Age is also a works religion, the most acceptable works being things such as saving theenvironment, ending poverty, striving for gender equality, promoting gay rights, <strong>an</strong>d solving theAIDS crisis.4. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is star worship.The desire to build a tower to heaven had a religious implication associated with astrology, theworship of the sun <strong>an</strong>d moon <strong>an</strong>d stars. That the top was to “reach unto heaven” (Gen. 11:4),126
does not me<strong>an</strong> that the <strong>an</strong>cient Babyloni<strong>an</strong>s believed they could actually build a tower to heaven;it me<strong>an</strong>s that they were using the tower as a religious path to God.Astrology--which permeates Hinduism, Buddhism, <strong>an</strong>d the New Age--finds its roots here. It isthe pseudo-science of studying the stars in <strong>an</strong> attempt to determine their alleged influence uponm<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d to delve into the future. It is a form of occultism <strong>an</strong>d should not be confused withastronomy, which (modern evolutionary theories aside) is the legitimate science of the study ofthe stars.The sun god was called Shamash, Marduk, Asshur, <strong>an</strong>d other names. One of his symbols was adisc or a wheel encircling a star <strong>an</strong>d/or rays.The moon was worshipped as Sin <strong>an</strong>d other names. His symbol was the crescent. There was alsoa goddess aspect of sun <strong>an</strong>d moon worship.The moon <strong>an</strong>d sun were worshiped in Medo-Persia, Greece, <strong>an</strong>d Rome. In Rome, the moongoddess was Luna, <strong>an</strong>d in Greece, Selene.In Hinduism the sun god is Surya <strong>an</strong>d the moon god is Ch<strong>an</strong>dra. Their symbols are still the wheelof rays <strong>an</strong>d the crescent.The moon goddess is worshipped in Buddhism as Tara.Moon worship is also a part of the New Age.5. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is goddess worship.Goddess worship originated in <strong>an</strong>cient Babylon <strong>an</strong>d spread throughout the earth. The goddesswas known by m<strong>an</strong>y names such as Rhea, Inn<strong>an</strong>a, Beltis, Isis, Ishtar, Nina, Ningal, Anat, Hera,Ashtoreth, Juno, Di<strong>an</strong>a, Aphrodite, Minerva, Fortuna, Ceres, Hygiela, Athena, Artemis, <strong>an</strong>dVenus.One of the greatest of the Babyloni<strong>an</strong>-Assyri<strong>an</strong> goddesses was Ishtar. Her symbols were the lion<strong>an</strong>d the star. The lions decorating the gates of <strong>an</strong>cient Babylon <strong>an</strong>d guarding the thrones of theAssyri<strong>an</strong> kings were associated with her.Goddess worship is still prominent in Hinduism <strong>an</strong>d Buddhism, as well as in the New Age. Asearch at Amazon books brings up more th<strong>an</strong> 10,000 titles. Sue Monk Kidd, a popular writer whoused to be a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher, journeyed from Catholic contemplativemysticism to New Age <strong>an</strong>d now worships goddesses. She built <strong>an</strong> altar in her study <strong>an</strong>dpopulated it with statues of goddesses, plus a mirror to reflect her own image.127
Goddess worship was typically steeped in immorality. The goddess “was the deification of thesex passion; her worship required licentiousness; sacred prostitution in connection with hers<strong>an</strong>ctuaries was a universal custom among the women of Babylonia” (Halley’s <strong>Bible</strong> H<strong>an</strong>dbook).The term “Babylon” as a byword for immorality “is rooted in the vocabulary of every modernl<strong>an</strong>guage” (Werner Keller, The <strong>Bible</strong> as History).Wherever Babyloni<strong>an</strong> idolatry is practiced, society is morally debased.Goddess worship appeals to the lusts of the flesh <strong>an</strong>d in the description of these lusts in Galati<strong>an</strong>s5, sexual sins are mentioned first. “Now the works of the flesh are m<strong>an</strong>ifest, which are these;Adultery, fornication, uncle<strong>an</strong>ness, lasciviousness” (Galati<strong>an</strong>s 5:19). This list refers to every typeof sexually titillating thought <strong>an</strong>d act apart from the lawful bonds of holy matrimony.Idolatry’s filthy sensuality was the enticement that caused Israel to sin repeatedly (Numbers25:1-3; 31:15-16).The Babyloni<strong>an</strong> world system is very much in place in modern society, <strong>an</strong>d its sensuality remainsa major temptation to God’s people today as it was in the early churches (Revelation 2:14).Hinduism, which is practiced by hundreds of millions of people, is a direct descend<strong>an</strong>t of theBabyloni<strong>an</strong> mystery religion, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y Hindu temples are adorned with pornographic images ofthe gods <strong>an</strong>d goddesses. Shiva worship, Krishna worship, <strong>an</strong>d T<strong>an</strong>tric yoga are deeply immoral.Immorality is also <strong>an</strong> integral part of the New Age. It is accomp<strong>an</strong>ied by the New Ethics thatencourages m<strong>an</strong> to “live <strong>an</strong>d let live” <strong>an</strong>d promotes a judge-not attitude toward moral perversion.According to the st<strong>an</strong>dard of the New Ethics, the only real sin is intoler<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d moralabsolutism. The New Age is filthy. Its ch<strong>an</strong>nelers talk of sexual exploits in past lives; its “healingtouch” often turns sensual; its occultic secrets are often of a sexual nature; its Freudi<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>dJungi<strong>an</strong> psychology is riddled with sexual elements.“Free love” is also <strong>an</strong> integral part of the end-times rock & roll/Hollywood pop culture. As with<strong>an</strong>cient Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Baal worship, the pop culture’s “love” c<strong>an</strong> be defined better as lust. It isselfish <strong>an</strong>d self-willed rather th<strong>an</strong> self-denying <strong>an</strong>d self-giving. It tends to destroy marriagesrather th<strong>an</strong> build them. The pop culture is Babyloni<strong>an</strong> idolatry <strong>an</strong>d it is no surprise that it hasfilled society with adultery, fornication, divorce, pornography, child abuse, homosexuality, babymurder, <strong>an</strong>d demonic violence.6. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is mother-goddess worship.The mother-goddess <strong>an</strong>d child were known by names such as Astarte <strong>an</strong>d Tammuz, Isis <strong>an</strong>dHorus, Venus <strong>an</strong>d Adonis, Fortuna <strong>an</strong>d Jupiter, Irene <strong>an</strong>d Plutus.128
The mother-child were a part of the <strong>an</strong>cient Babyloni<strong>an</strong>-Egypti<strong>an</strong> zodiac.In China, the mother goddess was Shing moo, who was depicted holding a child.A favorite title of the mother-goddess was “the Mother of the Gods” <strong>an</strong>d the “Queen of heaven,”both of which were incorporated into Rome’s Madonna worship. The images of Isis <strong>an</strong>d the babyHorus were the models for the Madonna <strong>an</strong>d child.Mother-goddess worship is found today in Hinduism. An example is Saptamatrika <strong>an</strong>d child. Sheeven wears a halo just as in Catholic art. Other mother-goddesses in Hinduism are Parvati <strong>an</strong>dIswara <strong>an</strong>d Indr<strong>an</strong>i <strong>an</strong>d Murug<strong>an</strong>.Mother-goddess worship also exists in Buddhism. Gu<strong>an</strong>yin is depicted holding a baby.Mother-goddess worship was associated with death <strong>an</strong>d resurrection. The son (<strong>an</strong>d husb<strong>an</strong>d) ofIsis (or Ishtar), who is known as Horus or Tammuz, died <strong>an</strong>d rose again. This is a usurpation ofChrist’s death <strong>an</strong>d resurrection <strong>an</strong>d points to the coming <strong>an</strong>tichrist who will be wounded untodeath <strong>an</strong>d be resurrected (Rev. 13:3, 12).7. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is serpent worship.Idolatry is the worship of Sat<strong>an</strong> under a thin veil (Deut. 32:17; 1 Cor. 10:20-21).The fact that the snake has been a prominent feature of idolatry from the time of Babel untiltoday is evidence of this. The snake was the creature chosen by Sat<strong>an</strong> in his attack upon Eve(Gen. 3:1). The devil is called “the old serpent ... which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation12:9).Marduk or Merodach, one of Babylon’s chief gods, was worshipped as a dragon. In pag<strong>an</strong> hymnshe was addressed as the “great serpent dragon” (Stephen Herbert L<strong>an</strong>gdon. The Mythology of AllRaces: Semitic, Volume 5, 1931).The serpent or dragon is part of the Chinese zodiac.In Greek mythology Asclepius was associated with the serpent, which was worshipped as ahealer. The serpents in Asclepius temples were thought to bring healing to the devotees. Theserpent coiled around Asclepius’ staff became a symbol for the modern medical profession.The May<strong>an</strong>s worshipped Quetzalcoatle as the “plumed serpent.”The serpent is prominent in Hinduism. An <strong>an</strong>cient golden throne of a Hindu king in Kathm<strong>an</strong>duat the Pat<strong>an</strong> Museum features nine coiled serpents. Serpents are intertwined around the templesin Pashupati, Nepal’s holiest Hindu shrine.129
The serpent is also prominent in Buddhism. Buddha is sometimes depicted sitting on a coilednaga or serpent <strong>an</strong>d shielded by its hood.8. Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion is mystical worship.Mysticism is the attempt to penetrate the unseen spiritual world <strong>an</strong>d to experience directcommunion with the divine. Every aspect of <strong>an</strong>cient idolatry was mystical. It involved all sortsof rituals <strong>an</strong>d practices, such as prayer wheels, prayer beads, water rituals, lighting c<strong>an</strong>dles,ringing bells, ascending temple steps, <strong>an</strong>d meditation.Hinduism is steeped in mystical practices, including ch<strong>an</strong>ting, c<strong>an</strong>dles, bells, prayer beads, <strong>an</strong>dparticularly yoga.Buddhism is also steeped in mysticism, including ch<strong>an</strong>ting, prayer wheels, circumnavigatingstupas, <strong>an</strong>d meditation.Babyloni<strong>an</strong> mysticism was christi<strong>an</strong>ized by the Rom<strong>an</strong> Catholic Church to form a major part ofits monastic spirituality. It was practiced by Catholic mystics such as Teresa of Avila <strong>an</strong>d IgnatiusLoyola. Today Rom<strong>an</strong> Catholic Babyloni<strong>an</strong> mysticism is spreading throughout Christi<strong>an</strong>ity <strong>an</strong>dis at the heart of the end-times Harlot Church. It is promoted by Richard Foster, Dallas Willard,Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Beth Moore, Max Lucado, Phillip Y<strong>an</strong>cy, Lee Strobel,David Jeremiah, Chuck Swindoll, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y other ev<strong>an</strong>gelical leaders.It is communion with devils masquerading as God, <strong>an</strong>d it leads to spiritual shipwreck.Oftentimes it results in a belief in p<strong>an</strong>theism (God is everything) or p<strong>an</strong>entheism (God is ineverything). (For more on this see the book Contemplative Mysticism, which is available in print<strong>an</strong>d eBook formats from Way of Life Literature.)Babylon’s TowerUnder Nimrod’s leadership the confederacy determined to build a great Tower to “reach untoheaven.”It was probably a ziggurat, which is a stepped pyramid. Remn<strong>an</strong>ts of these have been foundthroughout Mesopotamia. At least 34 have been unearthed at Babylon, Nineveh, Erech, Calah,Asshur, Ur, <strong>an</strong>d other places.After a visit to Babylon in 460 B.C., the Greek histori<strong>an</strong> Herodotus described the Tower of Babelas follows:“It has a solid central tower, one furlong square [one-eighth of a mile], with a second erected on top of it <strong>an</strong>dthen a third, <strong>an</strong>d so on up to eight. All eight towers c<strong>an</strong> be climbed by a spiral way running around the outside,<strong>an</strong>d about halfway up there are seats for those who make the journey to rest on.”130
In Nebuchadnezzar’s day the tower was named for the god Marduk or Merodach, who ismentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong> (Jeremiah 50:2). The shrine at the top had a 40-foot-high gold image ofMarduk.According to <strong>an</strong> architectural tablet found at Babylon, the ziggurat in Nebuchadnezzar’s day was295 feet square at the base <strong>an</strong>d about 300 feet high.The <strong>an</strong>cient religious towers were not bl<strong>an</strong>d structures; they were colorful <strong>an</strong>d pleasing to thesenses. Each stage was a different color, <strong>an</strong>swering to the colors associated with the pl<strong>an</strong>ets. Theshrines at the apex were typically built of bright blue-glazed bricks topped with a golden dome.The Elamite tower at Choghaz<strong>an</strong>bil near Susa was made of glazed brick <strong>an</strong>d enameled tiles insilver, gold, black, green, blue <strong>an</strong>d azure colors, further decorated with white obsidi<strong>an</strong> stones <strong>an</strong>dmarble.The terraces of each stage were sometimes covered with soil <strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ted with trees, so that thestructure had the appear<strong>an</strong>ce of a forested mountain.The construction of the tower in Genesis 11 fits the description from archaeology of the <strong>an</strong>cientziggurats. It was made with burnt brick <strong>an</strong>d slime, which refers to kiln-fired bricks <strong>an</strong>d bitumenor tar as opposed to sun-dried mud bricks <strong>an</strong>d mud mortar. Kiln-fired bricks have been datedarchaeologically to the third millennium B.C., which is the time period of Genesis 11.“This very precisely reflects Sumeri<strong>an</strong> building practices in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley where the firstcivilizations were, where there is virtually no stone, but clay was some forty feet thick. ... Bitumen is the usualmortar used with kiln-fired bricks. By contrast, the later building technology of Israel/Palestine used a mudmortar. Bitumen of <strong>an</strong>y kind was very expensive in Israel though it was st<strong>an</strong>dard in the earlier Mesopotami<strong>an</strong>period” (“The Tower of Babel <strong>an</strong>d Ancient Near Eastern Ziggurats,” Dec. 22, 2007).The bitumen was also used to waterproof the base of the tower.“The bricklaying technique described in the <strong>Bible</strong> at the building of the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:3-4]corresponds with the findings of the archaeologists. As the investigations confirmed, actually only asphaltedbricks were used in the construction, especially in the foundations. That was clearly necessary for the securityof the structure in accord<strong>an</strong>ce with building regulations. In the neighbourhood of the river the regular rise inthe level of the water <strong>an</strong>d the const<strong>an</strong>t dampness of the ground had to be borne in mind. Foundations <strong>an</strong>dstonework were therefore made waterproof <strong>an</strong>d damp-proof with ‘slime’, i.e., asphalt” (Werner Keller, The<strong>Bible</strong> as History).The Babyloni<strong>an</strong> bitumen was described by Bishop Prideaux as “a glutinous slime arising out ofthe earth in that country, which binds in building much stronger <strong>an</strong>d firmer th<strong>an</strong> lime, <strong>an</strong>d soongrows much harder th<strong>an</strong> the bricks or stones themselves, which they cement together.”131
Nebuchadnezzar <strong>an</strong>d the New BabylonThroughout much of the 19th century, skeptics doubted the very existence of Nebuchadnezzar,but bricks were discovered in 1880 at Babylon that bear his name. Since then hundreds ofthous<strong>an</strong>ds of such bricks have been unearthed, <strong>an</strong>d archaeologists have even discoveredarchitectural pl<strong>an</strong>s for his buildings.An 18-year excavation in the early 20th century by the Germ<strong>an</strong> Oriental Society confirmed thatNebuchadnezzar created the new Babylon of his day, just as the <strong>Bible</strong> says in D<strong>an</strong>iel 4:30 (R.Koldeway, Excavations at Babylon 1915).“Babylon surpassed all of the cities of the <strong>an</strong>cient orient: it was greater th<strong>an</strong> Thebes, Memphis <strong>an</strong>d Ur, greatereven th<strong>an</strong> Nineveh. ‘The centre of the city, which is full of three <strong>an</strong>d four-storied buildings, is traversed by deadstraight streets not only those that run parallel to the river but also the cross streets which lead down to thewater side.’ So Herodotus described what he himself had seen. The town pl<strong>an</strong> of Babylon is reminiscent of theblueprints for large Americ<strong>an</strong> cities.“In Babylon they made the acquaint<strong>an</strong>ce of streets as broad as avenues <strong>an</strong>d as straight as if they had beendrawn with a ruler. Every one of them bore the name of one of the gods in the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> p<strong>an</strong>theon. Therewas a Marduk street <strong>an</strong>d a Zababa street on the left b<strong>an</strong>k of the river. In the right-h<strong>an</strong>d corner of the city theycrossed the streets of the moon god Sin <strong>an</strong>d of Enlil, the ‘Lord of the World.’ On the right b<strong>an</strong>k Adad street r<strong>an</strong>from east to west, <strong>an</strong>d intersected the street of the sun-god Shamash.“Babylon was not only a commercial but a religious metropolis as c<strong>an</strong> be seen from <strong>an</strong> inscription: ‘Altogetherthere are in Babylon 53 temples of the chief gods, 55 chapels of Marduk, 300 chapels for the earthly deities,600 for the heavenly deities, 180 altars for the goddess Ishtar, 180 for the gods Nergal <strong>an</strong>d Adad <strong>an</strong>d 12 otheraltars for different gods.’“Polytheisms of this kind with worship <strong>an</strong>d ritual which extended to public prostitution must have given the city,in terms of the present day, the appear<strong>an</strong>ce of <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>nual fair. The idea of Babylon as a cesspool of vice isrooted in the vocabulary of every modern l<strong>an</strong>guage.“On the street <strong>an</strong>d squares between the temples, the chapels <strong>an</strong>d the altars, trade <strong>an</strong>d commerce flourished.Solemn processions, heavily laden carav<strong>an</strong>s, traders’ barrows, priests, pilgrims, merch<strong>an</strong>ts surged to <strong>an</strong>d fro,colourful <strong>an</strong>d noisy. Religious life <strong>an</strong>d business life were so closely associated in Babylon’s everyday affairsthat they often dovetailed into each other, as they did in the temples. ... Just as in Ur, the temple authorities inBabylon r<strong>an</strong> their own department stores <strong>an</strong>d warehouses. They also r<strong>an</strong> their own b<strong>an</strong>ks to invest theirrevenues to the best adv<strong>an</strong>tage.“Outside the double walls of the city ... lay the ‘Chambers of Commerce.’ It was on the river-b<strong>an</strong>k that priceswere fixed <strong>an</strong>d exch<strong>an</strong>ge rates established for the commodities that arrived by boat. ‘Karum,’ ‘quay,’ was thename the Babyloni<strong>an</strong>s gave to what we now call the Exch<strong>an</strong>ge. As well as taking over the Quay, or Exch<strong>an</strong>ge,from the Babyloni<strong>an</strong>s the old world has also taken over its system of weights <strong>an</strong>d measurements”“Observing the sky in the interest of astrology led to undreamt of adv<strong>an</strong>ces. They were able to predict eclipsesof the sun <strong>an</strong>d moon. In the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> School of Astronomy about 750 B.C. observations of heavenly bodieswere recorded <strong>an</strong>d continued without interruption for over 350 years, the longest series of astronomicalobservations ever made. The accuracy of their reckoning exceeded that of Europe<strong>an</strong> astronomers until wellinto the 18th century” (Werner Keller, The <strong>Bible</strong> as History, pp. 316-319, 322).Babylon’s walls were <strong>an</strong> amazing architectural feat. According to the Greek histori<strong>an</strong> Herodotus(writing in about 450 B.C. which was some 65 years after the building of the Second Temple atJerusalem), Babylon’s double walls were 56 miles long <strong>an</strong>d 320 feet high. Modern archaeologiststypically doubt that they were that high, but Herodotus was writing a firsth<strong>an</strong>d account, plus wehave Nebuchadnezzar’s own record of the wall, in which he described it as “mountainhigh” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d the Old Testament). There were actually three walls, the132
outer being about 80 feet wide so that a chariot drawn by four horses could easily turn around onthe road that r<strong>an</strong> along the top. Beyond the walls was a deep, brick-lined moat filled with water.Two hundred <strong>an</strong>d fifty defensive towers were constructed along the outer wall <strong>an</strong>d extended 10feet above it.There were m<strong>an</strong>y gates into the city with doors made of brass <strong>an</strong>d iron (Isaiah 45:2). The mostimport<strong>an</strong>t was the beautiful blue <strong>an</strong>d white monumental Ishtar Gate, which has beenreconstructed at the site of <strong>an</strong>cient Babylon <strong>an</strong> hour south of Baghdad <strong>an</strong>d also at the BerlinMuseum using excavated bricks. Named for the goddess Ishtar, her symbol (the lion) wasfeatured prominently. The gate also flaunted the symbols for the gods Adad (a bull) <strong>an</strong>d Marduk(a dragon).On the city side of the gate was a courtyard about 200 by 180 feet. One wall was covered withblue glaze with designs of trees <strong>an</strong>d flowers in yellow, white, red, <strong>an</strong>d blue. A central doorwayled into the king’s throne-room, which was 170 by 56 feet.Beyond the courtyard was the Procession Way which was a causeway built higher th<strong>an</strong> thehouses. Pompously called Aibur-Shab, or “the enemy shall never pass,” it was at least 50 feetwide <strong>an</strong>d hundreds of yards long, running from the Ishtar Gate to the Babel Tower. It was linedon both sides with walls covered with blue, yellow, white, <strong>an</strong>d black tiles forming bold designs<strong>an</strong>d representations of life-size lions. The street was paved with huge imported stones, limestoneblocks r<strong>an</strong> down the center with slabs of red breccia veined with white on either side. TheIst<strong>an</strong>bul Museum of Archaeology displays samples of the tiles that lined the causeway.It was used for the procession of the gods on New Year’s Day <strong>an</strong>d for military processions.Captive Jews <strong>an</strong>d artifacts from Solomon’s Temple were probably carried in procession under theIshtar Gate <strong>an</strong>d down this causeway after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar’sarmy.A br<strong>an</strong>ch of the Euphrates r<strong>an</strong> through the city, dividing the old city from Nebuchadnezzar’s newBabylon, <strong>an</strong>d a beautiful bridge 30 feet wide <strong>an</strong>d more th<strong>an</strong> 200 yards long connected the twoparts of the city. The old Babyloni<strong>an</strong> palace was on the east side of the bridge <strong>an</strong>d the new palaceon the west.At least three c<strong>an</strong>als r<strong>an</strong> through the city.Nebuchadnezzar built a gr<strong>an</strong>d palace made of marble, rare wood, <strong>an</strong>d bronze, <strong>an</strong>d decoratedwith gold <strong>an</strong>d silver, precious stones, <strong>an</strong>d colorful tiles. The roof of the palace was made of cedar<strong>an</strong>d the doors were of cedar covered with bronze. He called it the “shining residence, thedwelling majesty” <strong>an</strong>d referred to it as “mountainlike.”Nebuchadnezzar built the renowned H<strong>an</strong>ging Gardens as a gift to one of his wives, the daughterof the king of the Medes. It is said that she was from the mountains <strong>an</strong>d was depressed by living133
on the flat, dry Babyloni<strong>an</strong> plains, so the king built her <strong>an</strong> artificial mountain complete with aforest <strong>an</strong>d glorious gardens which hung over the heads of the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> citizens. Greekhistori<strong>an</strong> Diodorus Siculus said the gardens were 400 feet square <strong>an</strong>d more th<strong>an</strong> 80 feet high.Strabo said the structure was made with baked brick <strong>an</strong>d bitumen <strong>an</strong>d consisted of a series ofvaulted terraces resting on cube-shaped pillars that were hollow <strong>an</strong>d filled with earth to allow forthe growth of the largest trees. The top of the gardens was roofed <strong>an</strong>d ascent was made by stairs.Pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d trees were imported from foreign l<strong>an</strong>ds, <strong>an</strong>d there would have been a glorious varietyof habits <strong>an</strong>d color, with vegetation h<strong>an</strong>ging over the terraces <strong>an</strong>d vaults. The water, whichflowed throughout the structure in streams <strong>an</strong>d fountains, was raised from the Euphrates to a poolat the top of the structure by slave-powered machines. From there it was released to ch<strong>an</strong>nels thattr<strong>an</strong>sported the water to every part of the gardens by gravity.Greek histori<strong>an</strong>s Strabo <strong>an</strong>d Philo described the gardens like this:“The H<strong>an</strong>ging Garden has pl<strong>an</strong>ts cultivated above ground level, <strong>an</strong>d the roots of the trees are embedded in <strong>an</strong>upper terrace rather th<strong>an</strong> in the earth. The whole mass is supported on stone columns. ... Streams of wateremerging from elevated sources flow down sloping ch<strong>an</strong>nels... These waters irrigate the whole gardensaturating the roots of pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d keeping the whole area moist. Hence the grass is perm<strong>an</strong>ently green <strong>an</strong>dthe leaves of trees grow firmly attached to supple br<strong>an</strong>ches. ... This is a work of art of royal luxury <strong>an</strong>d its moststriking feature is that the labor of cultivation is suspended above the heads of the spectators.”Some archaeologists have doubted the existence of the H<strong>an</strong>ging Gardens in Babylon, but there isnot only the aforementioned historical evidence, there is also archaeological evidence. TheGerm<strong>an</strong> archaeologist Robert Koldewey, working in the early 20th century, was convinced thathe had found part of the foundation of the gardens <strong>an</strong>d evidence of the water pumps.Archaeologists found a record of Nebuchadnezzar’s proud description of Babylon, which reflectsthe <strong>Bible</strong>’s record in D<strong>an</strong>iel 4:29-30.“At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The king spake, <strong>an</strong>d said, Isnot this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, <strong>an</strong>d for thehonour of my majesty?”Following is from the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> account:“A great wall which like a mountain c<strong>an</strong>not be moved I made of mortar <strong>an</strong>d brick ... Its foundation upon thebosom of the abyss ... its top I raised mountain high. I triplicated the city wall in order to strengthen it. I causeda great protecting wall to run at the foot of the wall of burnt brick. ... A third great moat wall ... I built with mortar<strong>an</strong>d brick. ... The produce of the l<strong>an</strong>ds, the products of the mountains, the bountiful wealth of the sea, withinBabylon I gathered. ... The palace ... I rebuilt in Babylon with great cedars I brought from Leb<strong>an</strong>on, thebeautiful forest, to roof it. ... Huge cedars from Leb<strong>an</strong>on, their forest with my cle<strong>an</strong> h<strong>an</strong>ds I cut down. Withradi<strong>an</strong>t gold I overlaid them, with jewels I adorned them” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d the Old Testament).Nebuchadnezzar’s Capture of JerusalemIn 1955 a clay tablet from the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Chronicle was tr<strong>an</strong>slated by D.J. Wisem<strong>an</strong> at theBritish Museum <strong>an</strong>d found to contain a record of Nebuchadnezzar’s second capture of Jerusalem.134
In his first raid on the Jewish capitol, Nebuchadnezzar (who was crown prince at the time) madeKing Jehoiakim his slave, robbed the temple of some of its treasures, <strong>an</strong>d took captive m<strong>an</strong>y ofIsrael’s elite (2 Chron. 36:5-7; 2 Kings 24:1). It was at this time that D<strong>an</strong>iel <strong>an</strong>d his friends weretaken to Babylon (D<strong>an</strong>. 1:1-3).In his second military action against the city, Nebuchadnezzar took King Jehoiachin captive toBabylon <strong>an</strong>d appointed Zedekiah in his place. On this occasion Nebuchadnezzar looted thetemple of all its treasures <strong>an</strong>d carried away captive all of the “men of might <strong>an</strong>d craftsmen.” Itwas probably at this time that the prophet Ezekiel was taken captive (Ezek. 1:1-2).Following is the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> record of this event, which refers to kings Jehoiachin <strong>an</strong>d Zedekiah,though not by name:“In the seventh year, in the month Chislev, the king assembled his army <strong>an</strong>d adv<strong>an</strong>ced on Hatti-l<strong>an</strong>d [Syria].He encamped over against the city of the Jude<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d conquered it on the second day of Adar [March 16,597 B.C.]. He took the king [Jehoiachin] prisoner, <strong>an</strong>d appointed in his stead a king after his own heart[Zedekiah]. He exacted heavy tribute <strong>an</strong>d had it brought to Babylon” (Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Chronicle for 605-594 B.C.,British Museum, Room 55, Case 15, WA 21946).This is powerful extra-biblical confirmation of 2 Kings 24:10-17.There is also <strong>an</strong> amazing account in the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> archives that describes Jehoiachin’s captivityin Babylon. It mentions him <strong>an</strong>d his five sons as captives who received special rations. Thisrecord was tr<strong>an</strong>slated by E. F. Weidner in the 1930s. The tablets were brought to Berlin duringthe Germ<strong>an</strong> Oriental Society’s excavations of Babylon, the same excavations that discoveredBabylon’s famous Ishtar Gate. The receipts pertaining to the rations given to Jehoiachin date tothe 13th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which was 592 B.C., five years after the fall ofJerusalem. The “Ration Dockets” are in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. Following are some ofthe statements from the documents:10 [sila of oil] to the king of Judah, Yaukin2 1/2 sila to the offspring of Judah’s king10 sila to Iakuukinu, the king of Judah’s son2 1/2 sila for the five sons of the Jude<strong>an</strong> kingThe Babyloni<strong>an</strong> archives state that Jehoiachin received 20 times more food rations th<strong>an</strong> othersthat were listed, which corresponds to 2 Kings 25:27-30.BelshazzarSkeptics such as Ferdin<strong>an</strong>d Hitzig doubted the existence of Belshazzar, mentioned in D<strong>an</strong>iel 5,because his name had not been confirmed through extra-biblical evidence <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>cient secularhistori<strong>an</strong>s had named Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. Hitzig claimed that Belshazzar wasa biblical myth.135
This supported the liberal doctrine that D<strong>an</strong>iel was not written until after the time of AntiochusEpiph<strong>an</strong>es in 164 B.C., a view invented by skeptics who rejected the <strong>Bible</strong>’s supernaturalinspiration. They didn’t believe that a Jewish prophet writing in the sixth century B.C. coulddescribe events of the second century B.C., 400 years in the future.But in 1854 J.G. Taylor found the NABONIDUS CYLINDER at the <strong>an</strong>cient site of Ur bearingthe name Belshazzar. It was commissioned by Nabonidus as a dedication of the Ur zigguratwhich he rebuilt for his moon god, <strong>an</strong>d it plainly states that Belshazzar was his son.“As for Belshazzar my firstborn son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his heart, <strong>an</strong>d may hecommit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life” (The Nabonidus Cylinder, British Museum, Room 55, Case 14,WA 91128).Further, the NABONIDUS CHRONICLE 556-539 B.C., which was tr<strong>an</strong>slated in 1924, statesthat Nabonidus <strong>an</strong>d Belshazzar shared co-regency. It says that Nabonidus was in the city of Temain the Arabi<strong>an</strong> desert for 10 years, while Belshazzar was with the army in Babylon.“He [Nabonidus] entrusted the army [in Babylon] to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country heordered under his comm<strong>an</strong>d. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, <strong>an</strong>d, himself, he started outfor a long journey [to Tema]” (Nabonidus Chronicle, British Museum, Room 55, Case 15, WA 35382).The Nabonidus Chronicle is powerful confirmation of the historical accuracy of D<strong>an</strong>iel chapter5. It confirms the <strong>Bible</strong>’s accuracy in calling Belshazzar king, its accuracy in not mentioningNabonidus in reference to the fall of Babylon, <strong>an</strong>d its accuracy in saying that Belshazzar offeredD<strong>an</strong>iel the position as third ruler in the kingdom (Nabonidus being first <strong>an</strong>d Belshazzar thesecond).Why, then, does the <strong>Bible</strong> call Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar (D<strong>an</strong>iel 5:2, 11)?“It is worth mentioning that the description of Nebuchadnezzar as the ‘father’ of Belshazzar in the OldTestament (D<strong>an</strong>. 5:2, 11) is probably simply <strong>an</strong> example of the use of ‘father’ to me<strong>an</strong> ‘forebear’” (T.C. Mitchell,The <strong>Bible</strong> in the British Museum, p. 89).SUMMARY OF BABYLON1. There is evidence for the biblical Nimrod in the personages that archaeology has discovered inthat exact place <strong>an</strong>d time. Men such as Naram-Sin <strong>an</strong>d Gilgamesh had the same character asNimrod.2. The idolatrous religion founded in Babylon has spread throughout the earth <strong>an</strong>d is on the risein these last days in the form of Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, <strong>an</strong>d Contemplative Mysticism.3. The religious tower described in Genesis 11 was duplicated throughout that part of the world<strong>an</strong>d remn<strong>an</strong>ts of m<strong>an</strong>y of these have been found by archaeologists.136
4. The existence of Nebuchadnezzar <strong>an</strong>d his glorious Babylon has been confirmed througharchaeology, refuting the 19th-century skeptics who claimed this was a myth.5. Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem <strong>an</strong>d Israel’s Babyloni<strong>an</strong> captivity have been confirmedin <strong>an</strong>cient Babyloni<strong>an</strong> documents.6. The existence of Belshazzar <strong>an</strong>d his position as king of Babylon at its downfall have beenconfirmed by archaeology through the chronicles of his father Nabonidus.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON BABYLON1. In what two chapters of the <strong>Bible</strong> do we find the record of the beginning of Babylon’s history?2. Where was Shinar?3. The Tower of Babel was about what kind of “god”?4. When was the Tower of Babel constructed in relation to the Flood?5. Who was the first leader of the Babel kingdom?6. What does the <strong>Bible</strong> me<strong>an</strong> when it says that this m<strong>an</strong> was “a mighty one in the earth”?7. What does the <strong>Bible</strong> me<strong>an</strong> when it says that this m<strong>an</strong> was “a mighty hunter”?8. Who are three historical figures from secular history that might have been Nimrod or one ofhis associates?9. What were the characteristics of Naram-Sin that remind us of Nimrod?10. The Tower of Babel was preeminently <strong>an</strong> act of what?11. The book of Revelation says that Babylon was the mother of ___________ <strong>an</strong>d______________.12. The development of idolatry is described in what New Testament passage?13. What are eight characteristics of Babyloni<strong>an</strong> religion?14. Who was Shamash <strong>an</strong>d what was his symbol?15. Who was Sin <strong>an</strong>d what was his symbol?16. What were two major symbols of Ishtar?17. What is the major attraction of goddess worship?18. Where did the Rom<strong>an</strong> Catholic Church get its doctrine of the Madonna?19. What verse says idolators worship the devil?20. What verse speaks of “the old serpent ... which deceiveth the whole world”?21. What was the symbol of Merodach?22. Where did the modern medical profession get the symbol of a serpent coiled around a staff?23. What is a ziggurat?24. How m<strong>an</strong>y stages did the Tower of Babylon have in 460 B.C.?25. What did the different colors of the tower stages signify?26. What is burnt brick?27. What was the slime that was used to construct the Tower of Babel?28. Where do the modern system of weights <strong>an</strong>d measures come from?29. How wide was Babylon’s outer wall in the days of Nebuchadnezzar?30. What goddess was Babylon’s major gate named after?137
31. What evidence is there for the H<strong>an</strong>ging Gardens?32. What record is contained in Nebuchadnezzar’s Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Chronicle?33. What is Jerusalem called in this account?34. The “Ration Dockets” describe the captivity of what Hebrew king?35. What is the signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the Nabonidus Cylinder <strong>an</strong>d the Nabonidus Chronicle?36. Why does the <strong>Bible</strong> call Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar when he was actually the sonof Nabonidus?ASSYRIA☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Assyria is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.The name Assyria is from Asshur (also spelled Assur), who founded Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d who became agod in Assyri<strong>an</strong> mythology. This is in accord<strong>an</strong>ce with the <strong>Bible</strong>’s statement that Asshur foundedNineveh (Gen. 10:11). Asshur was associated with Nimrod, <strong>an</strong>d the Assyri<strong>an</strong> symbol for Asshur--a warrior with a bow in his h<strong>an</strong>d--reminds us of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s description of Nimrod as a mightyhunter (Gen. 10:9). Asshur was worshipped as the sun god <strong>an</strong>d his symbol was a winged disk.Assyria’s PalacesBetween 1845-51 Austen Henry Layard uncovered the ruins of eight palaces of five Assyri<strong>an</strong>kings: Ashurnasirpal, Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser III, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, <strong>an</strong>d Ashurb<strong>an</strong>ipal (Asnappar).Four of these are mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong> (all except Ashurnasirpal).In his book Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d Babylon (1853), Layard listed 55 rulers,cities, <strong>an</strong>d countries that appear both in the Old Testament <strong>an</strong>d in the <strong>an</strong>cient Assyri<strong>an</strong> recordsunearthed through archaeology.Assyri<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>nals give extra-biblical witness to nine Hebrew kings: Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Menahem,Pekah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, <strong>an</strong>d M<strong>an</strong>asseh.The Assyri<strong>an</strong> Empire was prosperous, technologically adv<strong>an</strong>ced, literate, <strong>an</strong>d very wicked.The <strong>Bible</strong> describes its chief moral characteristics as pride (Isa. 10:12), violence, deception, <strong>an</strong>dcovetousness (Nah. 3:1) <strong>an</strong>d idolatrous witchcraft (Nah. 3:4), <strong>an</strong>d this description is confirmedperfectly by archaeology.Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh was 1680 feet long by 810 feet wide. He named it “Palacewithout a Rival.” Its 71 rooms were lined with stone slabs eight feet high by four to six feet widecovered with bas-reliefs depicting the hunting <strong>an</strong>d military exploits of the <strong>an</strong>cient kings.138
In Sennacharib’s day Nineveh was larger th<strong>an</strong> Babylon, with 100,000 to 150,000 inhabit<strong>an</strong>ts. Itswalls were 30 feet high <strong>an</strong>d 45 feet thick <strong>an</strong>d had 15 great gates. The inner city wall r<strong>an</strong> sevenmiles in circuit <strong>an</strong>d was fronted by a deep moat. He called this “the wall that terrifies the enemy.”Water was brought into the city by c<strong>an</strong>als <strong>an</strong>d aqueducts from as far as 25 miles away.The bas-reliefs contain detailed depictions of social life <strong>an</strong>d military scenes, including personalarmaments, battle chariots, <strong>an</strong>d war engines. There is even a depiction of how the Assyri<strong>an</strong>str<strong>an</strong>sported massive stone statues.Assyria’s Gr<strong>an</strong>d LibraryArchaeologists unearthed a 30,000-volume library belonging to Ashurb<strong>an</strong>ipal.The surviving books are written on clay tablets, which were partially baked when the library wasburned by the Babyloni<strong>an</strong>s in the 7th century B.C., thus helping to preserve them. The originallibrary would have been vastly larger, as it would have contained books written on leatherscrolls, wax boards, <strong>an</strong>d papyri, all of which have perished. The surviving collection is housed inthe British Museum.The books include such things as royal letters <strong>an</strong>d decrees; mythological <strong>an</strong>d religious texts;business contracts; administrative documents; <strong>an</strong>d material relating to medicine, history,astronomy, <strong>an</strong>d literature. There were creation <strong>an</strong>d flood myths.The following is from “Welcome to the Library of King Ashurb<strong>an</strong>ipal”http://web.utk.edu/~giles/“Like a modern library this collection was spread out into m<strong>an</strong>y rooms according to subject matter. Somerooms were devoted to history <strong>an</strong>d government, others to religion <strong>an</strong>d magic <strong>an</strong>d still others to geography,science, poetry, etc. Ashurb<strong>an</strong>ipal's collection even held what could be called classified government materials.The findings of spies <strong>an</strong>d secret affairs of state were held secure from access in deep recesses of the palacemuch like a modern government archive. Each group of tablets contained a brief citation to identify thecontents <strong>an</strong>d each room contained a tablet near the door to classify the general contents of each room inAshurb<strong>an</strong>ipal's library. The actual cataloging activities under Ashurb<strong>an</strong>ipal's direction would not be seen inEurope for centuries.”Assyria’s CrueltyThe Assyri<strong>an</strong>s were exceedingly cruel. It is no wonder that God’s Word called Nineveh “thebloody city” (Nahum 3:1).Consider the following description of Assurnasirpal’s military venture into Syria. This Assyri<strong>an</strong>king filled his palace at Calah with depictions of these terrible scenes.139
“I built a pillar over against his city gate, <strong>an</strong>d I flayed all the chief men ... <strong>an</strong>d I covered the pillar with theirskins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, <strong>an</strong>d others I bound tostakes round about the pillar ... <strong>an</strong>d I cut off the limbs of the officers. ... M<strong>an</strong>y captives from among them Iburned with fire, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y I took as living captives. From some I cut off their h<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d from others I cut offtheir noses, their ears, <strong>an</strong>d their fingers, of m<strong>an</strong>y I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>otherof heads, <strong>an</strong>d I bound their heads to posts round about the city” (Hoerth <strong>an</strong>d McRay, <strong>Bible</strong> Archaeology, p.48).This wicked Assyri<strong>an</strong> king particularly delighted in flaying people alive <strong>an</strong>d burning children infires.No wonder Jonah didn’t w<strong>an</strong>t to go to Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d preach!Assyria’s MilitaryThrough archaeology we know a great deal about Assyria’s military, including its equipment <strong>an</strong>dtactics. This provides a fascinating background to the military accounts in the Old Testament.The following is excerpted from Henry Layard’s Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d It’s Remains:Cavalry“Judging from the sculptures, cavalry must have formed a large <strong>an</strong>d import<strong>an</strong>t portion of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> armies.The Assyri<strong>an</strong> horsemen are frequently mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong>. Ezekiel 23:6 describes ‘the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s clothed inblue, captains <strong>an</strong>d rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses;’ <strong>an</strong>d Holofernes isdeclared to have had no less th<strong>an</strong> 12,000 archers on horseback. The rider is represented as seated on thenaked back of the horse, which is only adorned with a cloth when led behind the chariot of the king” (p. 234).“The horses represented in the sculptures appear to be of noble breed. Assyria, <strong>an</strong>d particularly that part ofthe empire which was watered by the Tigris <strong>an</strong>d Euphrates, was celebrated at a very early period for itshorses, as the same plains are to this day for the noblest breeds of Arabia. ... The horses of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> basreliefswere evidently drawn from the finest models, <strong>an</strong>d the Assyri<strong>an</strong> sculptor has not been altogetherunsuccessful in their delineation. The head is small <strong>an</strong>d well-shaped, the nostrils large <strong>an</strong>d high, the neckarches, the body long, <strong>an</strong>d the legs slender <strong>an</strong>d sinewy. The prophet exclaims of the horses of theChaldae<strong>an</strong>s, ‘They are swifter th<strong>an</strong> the leopards, <strong>an</strong>d more fierce th<strong>an</strong> the evening wolves;’ [Habakkuk 1:8]<strong>an</strong>d the magnificent description of the war-horse in the book of Job is familiar to every reader [Job 39:19]” (p.235).“In these bas-reliefs the harness <strong>an</strong>d trappings of the horses <strong>an</strong>d chariots are remarkable for their richness<strong>an</strong>d even eleg<strong>an</strong>ce. The heads of the horses are adorned with plumes <strong>an</strong>d f<strong>an</strong>ciful crests, <strong>an</strong>d with longrib<strong>an</strong>ds or streamers, which were probably of m<strong>an</strong>y colours. Like the Arabs <strong>an</strong>d Persi<strong>an</strong>s of the present day,the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s appear to have been lavish of tassels of silk <strong>an</strong>d wool, which were attached to all parts of theharness, as were also small bells <strong>an</strong>d ornaments in ivory, m<strong>an</strong>y of which were afterwards found in the ruins.The bridle consisted of a headstall, a strap divided into three parts joining the bit, <strong>an</strong>d straps over theforehead, under the cheeks, <strong>an</strong>d behind the ears. We find sacred emblems used as ornaments in thetrappings of horses, as on the robes of figures; the winged bull, the sun, moon, stars, <strong>an</strong>d horned cap beingfrequently introduced. They were probably of ivory, gold, <strong>an</strong>d copper, or sometimes worked on cloth or silk.Three richly embroidered straps, passing round the body of the horse, kept the harness <strong>an</strong>d chariot-pole intheir places, <strong>an</strong>d were attached to a highly decorated breast-b<strong>an</strong>d. To the yoke was suspended <strong>an</strong> eleg<strong>an</strong>tornament, in the form of the head of <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>imal, <strong>an</strong>d a ring which generally enclosed a winged bull, a star, orsome other sacred device.“Embroidered trappings, such as are described by Ezekiel [27:20] as the precious clothes for chariots, comingfrom Ded<strong>an</strong>, covered the backs of the horses. Their bits, as well as the metal used in the harness, mayfrequently have been of gold <strong>an</strong>d other precious materials, like those of the <strong>an</strong>cient Persi<strong>an</strong>s. Their m<strong>an</strong>eswere either allowed to fall loosely on the neck or were plaited, <strong>an</strong>d their tails were tied in the middle withrib<strong>an</strong>ds adorned with tassels” (pp. 237, 238).140
Chariots“In the <strong>Bible</strong> frequent mention is made of the use of chariots <strong>an</strong>d horsemen both in sieges <strong>an</strong>d battles, asrepresented in the Assyri<strong>an</strong> sculptures. ‘The choicest valleys shall be full of chariots, <strong>an</strong>d the horsemen shallset themselves in array against the gate.’ [Isaiah 22:7] Amongst the tributaries of the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s, the Elamiteswere celebrated for their chariots carrying archers” ( p. 238).Siege Instruments“The lower series of bas-reliefs contained three subjects--the siege of a castle, the king receiving prisoners,<strong>an</strong>d the king, with his army, crossing a river. ... The castle had equidist<strong>an</strong>t towers, <strong>an</strong>d apparently severalwalls, one behind the other, all surmounted by tri<strong>an</strong>gular pointed battlements. The besiegers having brought abattering-ram to the outer wall, one of the besieged was endevouring to catch the ram, <strong>an</strong>d to break theblows, by a chain lowered from the walls; whilst two warriors of the assailing party were seeking to hold theram in its place by hooks. This part of the bas-relief illustrates the account in the book of Chronicles <strong>an</strong>d inJosephus, of the machines for battering walls, instruments to cast stones, <strong>an</strong>d grappling irons made by Uzziah[2 Chron. 26:15, <strong>an</strong>d Josephus, lib. ix, c. 10]. A warrior on the castle walls was throwing fire (traces of the redpaint with which the flame was coloured, being still visible in the sculpture) from above upon the battering-ram;whilst the besiegers endeavoured to quench the flames, by pouring water upon them from the moveabletower. Two soldiers, in full armour, were undermining the walls with instruments like blunt spears; whilst twoothers appear to have found a secret passage into the castle. Wounded men were falling from thebattlements; <strong>an</strong>d upon one of the towers were women, tearing their hair <strong>an</strong>d extending their h<strong>an</strong>ds to ask forquarter. The enemy were mounting to the assault, by scaling ladders placed against the walls. The king,discharging <strong>an</strong> arrow, <strong>an</strong>d protected by a shield held by a warrior in complete armour, stood on one side of thecastle. He was attended by two eunuchs, one holding <strong>an</strong> open umbrella over his head, the other his quiver<strong>an</strong>d mace. Behind them was <strong>an</strong> Assyri<strong>an</strong> warrior driving away three women, a child, <strong>an</strong>d three bullocks,forming part of the spoil. It was thus that the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s carried away captive the people of Samaria, replacingthe population of the conquered country by colonies of their own. The women were represented as tearingtheir hair <strong>an</strong>d throwing dust upon their heads, the usual signs of grief in the East.“On the other side of the castle were two kneeling soldiers, one using his bow, the other holding a shield forhis comp<strong>an</strong>ion’s defence. Behind them was the vizir, also discharging <strong>an</strong> arrow, <strong>an</strong>d protected by the shield ofa second warrior, <strong>an</strong> archer kneeling, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> archer <strong>an</strong>d his shield-bearer in complete armour, st<strong>an</strong>ding. Theywere followed by a chariot, in which a charioteer was st<strong>an</strong>ding, whilst the horses were held by a groom.Behind the chariot were two warriors, each carrying a bow <strong>an</strong>d a mace.“The shields represented in this bas-relief were probably made of wicker-work, <strong>an</strong>d were chiefly used during asiege. They were large enough to cover the whole person of the archer, who was thus able to discharge hisarrows in comparative security. Such may have been the bucklers which Herodotus describes as forming acomplete fence before the Persi<strong>an</strong> archers at the battle of Platea” (pp. 235, 236, 237).Personal Armor“The Arabs employed in removing the rubbish from the chamber with the kneeling winged figures, discovereda qu<strong>an</strong>tity of objects in iron, in which I soon recognised the scales were from two to three inches in length,rounded at one end, <strong>an</strong>d square at the other, with a raised or embossed line in the centre, <strong>an</strong>d had probablybeen fastened to a shirt of linen or felt” (Layard, Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d Its Remains, p. 241).H<strong>an</strong>d-to-h<strong>an</strong>d combat with clubs <strong>an</strong>d spears <strong>an</strong>d swords was common in that era, but as we haveseen, there was also plenty of death served up from long dist<strong>an</strong>ces by arrows <strong>an</strong>d machines thatthrew huge stones. There were also the skilled slingers, which are also mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong> (2Kings 3:25). The Israeli slingers were accurate to the breadth of a hair (Judges 20:16).“In Old Testament times, slingers were regular components of <strong>an</strong> army <strong>an</strong>d were often used together witharchers; during siege warfare their role was to pick off the enemy from the besieged city’s ramparts. Suchslingers were capable of hurling a projectile at over one hundred miles <strong>an</strong> hour <strong>an</strong>d their effective r<strong>an</strong>ge waswell in excess of one hundred yards” (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology <strong>an</strong>d the Old Testament).141
The Gilgamesh Flood EpicOne of the 19th-century discoveries in the <strong>an</strong>cient Assyri<strong>an</strong> library at Nineveh was theGilgamesh flood account. Henry Layard found the tablets <strong>an</strong>d sent them to the British Museum,where the text was tr<strong>an</strong>slated in 1872 by George Smith.It is believed that the account originated in about 1800 B.C. in Babylon, which is near the time ofAbraham <strong>an</strong>d about 500 years after the Flood.A portion of the Gilgamesh Epic is on display at the British Museum (Room 55, Case 10, WA K3375).It purports to be the account that Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh of how he survived the flood <strong>an</strong>dgained immortality.Sumari<strong>an</strong> records claim that Gilgamesh was the king of Erech (Uruk in Akkadi<strong>an</strong>) in about 2,500B.C. This carries us back to the time near the Flood, <strong>an</strong>d it is probable that the Gilgameshmythology has <strong>an</strong> historical basis in Nimrod, as Erech is mentioned in Genesis 10:10 as thebeginning of Nimrod’s kingdom.Gilgamesh is described as part-m<strong>an</strong>, part-god <strong>an</strong>d is so proud <strong>an</strong>d cruel <strong>an</strong>d morally depravedthat the citizens of the l<strong>an</strong>d plead to the god Anu for protection. The <strong>Bible</strong> indicates that Nimrodmodeled these very characteristics. Nimrod <strong>an</strong>d Gilgamesh portray the moral character that wasexhibited in later Babyloni<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Assyri<strong>an</strong> kings such as Nebuchadnezzar <strong>an</strong>d Sennacherib.Skeptics immediately used the Gilgamesh Epic as evidence that the <strong>Bible</strong>’s flood account is justone among m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>cient legends.This willful unbelief is described in Peter’s amazing prophecy in 2 Peter 3:5-6.How did Peter, writing 2,000 years ago, know about the unbelief that would characterize modernscience? Such unbelief did not exist in his day. In fact, it was not until the 19th century that thiswillful ignor<strong>an</strong>ce came to the fore. Fulfilled prophecy is indisputable evidence of the divineinspiration of Scripture, <strong>an</strong>d the very unbelief of modern archaeology witnesses to the <strong>Bible</strong>’struth!The fact is that the <strong>Bible</strong>’s flood account is of <strong>an</strong> entirely different character th<strong>an</strong> the Gilgameshepic. The <strong>Bible</strong>’s account is not a wild-eyed fable, whereas that is exactly what we find inGilgamesh.First, consider the gods of the Gilgamesh Epic. It is <strong>an</strong> account of pag<strong>an</strong> gods who are weak <strong>an</strong>dm<strong>an</strong>-like <strong>an</strong>d competitive. They are also dishonest <strong>an</strong>d deceptive. After the chief god Ea takes <strong>an</strong>oath from the other gods not to tell m<strong>an</strong>kind about the decision to send the flood, he decides to142
tell one m<strong>an</strong> named Utnapishtim. Ea instructs him to keep the flood a secret from all other men.In fact, he is instructed to deceive others by giving them the impression that the gods are going tobless them instead of destroy them. When the storm comes, the gods are so frightened that theyflee to heaven <strong>an</strong>d cower like dogs, crouching outside the door of the god Anu.Second, consider the ark of the Gilgamesh Epic. It is a CUBE 200 feet square <strong>an</strong>d six stories tall,which would have been incredibly unstable <strong>an</strong>d probably could not have survived the powerfulflood conditions. This is in contrast to the ark described in Genesis, which was 450 feet long by75 feet wide by 30 feet high, similar to the proportion of large modern sea-going vessels such asoil t<strong>an</strong>kers <strong>an</strong>d cargo containers.As <strong>an</strong> adopted son of Pharaoh, Moses was educated in all of the learning of the Egypti<strong>an</strong>s (Acts7:22), who in turn were familiar with the learning of the <strong>an</strong>cient Babyloni<strong>an</strong>s. Yet not a hint ofthe ridiculous fables of these pag<strong>an</strong> people appear <strong>an</strong>ywhere in Moses’ writings.This is because Moses wrote by divine inspiration <strong>an</strong>d not by his own wisdom <strong>an</strong>d training.Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser’s Black ObeliskThe Black Obelisk of Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser III, king of Assyria (859-824 B.C.), was found in the ruins of<strong>an</strong> Assyri<strong>an</strong> palace by Austen Layard in 1846.Of polished basalt six feet high, two feet wide, <strong>an</strong>d sculpted on all four sides, the stele depictsfive foreign kings bringing tribute to the Assyri<strong>an</strong> monarch. There are five series of bas-reliefs(20 p<strong>an</strong>els in all), each depicting a foreign king bringing tribute.The second series of p<strong>an</strong>els from the top depicts King Jehu of northern Israel bowing beforeShalm<strong>an</strong>eser.The king of Assyria is st<strong>an</strong>ding before the humbled Jewish king <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> attend<strong>an</strong>t is holding <strong>an</strong>umbrella to shade him. Two other attend<strong>an</strong>ts are armed with swords. One of these is beckoningfor Jehu’s 13 serv<strong>an</strong>ts to bring the tributes forward. Jehu <strong>an</strong>d his serv<strong>an</strong>ts have beards <strong>an</strong>d arewearing long robes with decorated hems, peaked caps, <strong>an</strong>d pointed shoes.The writing says, “The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a goldenbowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king[<strong>an</strong>d] spears” (the British Museum’s web site).The <strong>Bible</strong> does not describe Jehu’s tribute to the king of Assyria, but it does say that Jehu did notobey God <strong>an</strong>d that he was given over to his enemies (2 Kings 10:31-33).143
Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser’s StelaThe Stela of Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser III, which describes the first six military campaigns of the Assyri<strong>an</strong>king, mentions Ahab (king of Israel) <strong>an</strong>d Benhadad (king of Syria).“I approached Karkara. I destroyed, tore down, <strong>an</strong>d bound Karkara, his royal residence. He brought along tohelp him 1,200 chariot, 1,200 cavalrymen, 20,000 foot soldiers belonging to Hadadezer [BENHADAD] ofDamascus ... 2000 chariots, 10,000 foot soldiers belonging to AHAB the Israelite.”Tiglath-pileser <strong>an</strong>d Israel’s KingsTiglath-pileser (also known as Pul, which was his Babyloni<strong>an</strong> name), was king of Assyria from744-727 B.C. His portrait is in Room 8 of the British Museum.Four of Israel’s kings are mentioned in his records.He describes the tribute dem<strong>an</strong>ded from King Menahem:“As for MENAHEM, I overwhelmed him like a snowstorm <strong>an</strong>d he fled like a bird alone, <strong>an</strong>d bowed to my feet. Ireturned him to his place <strong>an</strong>d imposed tribute upon him.”This is mentioned in 2 Kings 15:19-20. Menahem raised the tribute money by imposing a tax of50 shekels on each wealthy m<strong>an</strong> in his kingdom.Tiglath-pileser’s <strong>an</strong>nals also confirm the events of 2 Kings 15:29-30 <strong>an</strong>d 16:7-9.The Assyri<strong>an</strong> records describe the captivity of the Galilee region in northern Israel; theassassination of Pekah; the enthronement of Hoshea; Ahaz’s tribute; Rezin of Syria’s slaying.“Tiglath-pileser’s <strong>an</strong>nals confirm all this, referring to the following people <strong>an</strong>d events. In <strong>an</strong> inscription he tellshow Ahaz (of Judah) paid him <strong>an</strong> enormous tax of royal treasure, gold, silver, lead, tin, iron, woollen goods,linen, purple, trained horses <strong>an</strong>d mules. Tiglath also gives details of how he took Syria, conquering all the wayto Damascus. He tells of how King Rezin fled into the city, <strong>an</strong>d how, amidst scenes of devastation <strong>an</strong>ddestruction, Rezin’s advisers were impaled. Tiglath-pileser’s <strong>an</strong>nals also refer to the assassination of Pekah,claiming a part in the conspiracy. The historical nature of the biblical narrative could not be morecomprehensively confirmed” (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidence, pp. 24, 25).Following is part of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> record:“BET-OMRI [the house of Omri] all of whose cities I had added to my territories on my former campaigns, <strong>an</strong>dhad left out only the city of Samaria. ... The whole of Naphtali I took for Assyria. I put my officials over them asgovernors. The l<strong>an</strong>d of Bet-Omri, all its people <strong>an</strong>d their possessions I took away to Assyria. They overthrewPEKAH their king <strong>an</strong>d I made HOSHEA to be king over them” (Werner Keller, The <strong>Bible</strong> as History, pp. 260,261).The Annals of Tiglath-pileser III are in Room 89 of the British Museum (WA K 3751).Northern Israel is called the house of Omri after the name of the king who built the city ofSamaria (1 Kings 16:23-24).144
The capture of Astartu, a city in Gilead, is depicted on the Astartu Relief in the British Museum.The bottom of the relief shows the king being driven in his chariot which is led by honor guards.An attend<strong>an</strong>t holds <strong>an</strong> umbrella over his head. At the top of the relief, Jews, goods <strong>an</strong>d livestockare being taken captive. The bearded Jews, wearing fringed robes <strong>an</strong>d skull caps <strong>an</strong>d pointedshoes, with bags slung over their shoulders, are driven by <strong>an</strong> armed Assyri<strong>an</strong> soldier.Sargon II <strong>an</strong>d the fall of SamariaSargon’s existence was doubted by skeptics, but the palace of Sargon II (722-705 B.C.) inKhorsabad was discovered by Paul Emile Botta in 1840. A depiction of Sargon recovered fromhis palace is in Room 23 of the British Museum. Sargon is on the left, <strong>an</strong>d a noblem<strong>an</strong>, probablycrown prince Sennacherib, is on the right.The <strong>an</strong>cient records of this pag<strong>an</strong> king confirm the destruction of Samaria as described in 2Kings 17:4-6, 24; Hosea 13:16; Amos 3:9-11; <strong>an</strong>d Micah 1:6-8.The Assyri<strong>an</strong> records confirm (1) that Samaria was conquered, (2) the Jews were taken awaycaptive (2 Kings 17:5-6), <strong>an</strong>d (3) that pag<strong>an</strong> people were brought in from other countries torepopulate Samaria (2 Kings 17:24).Sargon’s account of his expedition into Israel reads:“In the first year of my reign I besieged <strong>an</strong>d conquered Samaria. ... I surrounded <strong>an</strong>d deported as prisoners27,290 of its inhabit<strong>an</strong>ts ... From them I equipped 200 chariots for my own army units. ... I restored the city ofSamaria. ... I made the remaining inhabit<strong>an</strong>ts assume their social positions. I installed over them <strong>an</strong> officer ofmine <strong>an</strong>d imposed upon them the tribute of the former king ... I brought into it people from the countriesconquered by my own h<strong>an</strong>ds” (Sargon Inscription from Khorsabad, Louvre, Paris).Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser V beg<strong>an</strong> the siege of Samaria, as the <strong>Bible</strong> says in 2 Kings 18:9, but he died duringthe three-year siege <strong>an</strong>d it was concluded by Sargon II.The fortifications of the city had been strengthened a half century earlier by King Jeroboam, whobuilt a double wall with <strong>an</strong> overall thickness of 32 feet.Sennacherib’s description of the destruction of LachishSennacherib (704-680 B.C.) led a military campaign into Israel in 701 B.C. to regain controlover the cities that had revolted against Assyria upon the death of Sargon.The siege of the city of Lachish is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 32:9; <strong>an</strong>d Isaiah 36:2.This event is described from the Assyri<strong>an</strong> perspective in a series of bas-reliefs found at Ninevehin the mid-1800s. The 90-foot-long bas-reliefs from the <strong>an</strong>cient palace of Sennacherib were145
discovered by Henry Layard <strong>an</strong>d sent to the British Museum. They form the prominent feature ofThe Lachish Room or Room 10. The conquest of the Jewish city is recorded from left to rightaround the room.The reliefs show the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s attacking the city, building a siege ramp, using battering rams todestroy the walls, <strong>an</strong>d brutally treating the Jewish prisoners.“On the turrets <strong>an</strong>d breastwork of the stronghold of Lachish with its stout high walls the Judahite defendersfought with clenched teeth. They showered a hail of arrows on the attackers, hurled stones down upon them,threw burning torches--the fire-bombs of the <strong>an</strong>cient world--among the enemy. The faces, curly hair, <strong>an</strong>d shortbeards are easily recognisable. Only a few wear <strong>an</strong>y protection for head or body.“At the foot of the wall the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s are attacking with the utmost violence <strong>an</strong>d with every type of weapon.Sennacherib had deployed the whole r<strong>an</strong>ge of approved assault-tactics. Every Assyri<strong>an</strong> is armed to the teeth:each one wears shield <strong>an</strong>d helmet. Their engineers have built sloping ramps of earth, stones <strong>an</strong>d felled trees.Siege-engines, the first t<strong>an</strong>ks in history, push forward up the ramps against the walls. They are equipped infront with a battering ram which sticks out like the barrel of a c<strong>an</strong>non. The crew consists of three men. Thearcher shoots his arrows from behind a sheltering c<strong>an</strong>opy. A warrior guides the ram, <strong>an</strong>d under its violentblows stones <strong>an</strong>d bricks crash down from the walls. The third m<strong>an</strong> douses the t<strong>an</strong>ks with ladlefuls of water,extinguishing the smouldering fire-bombs. Several t<strong>an</strong>ks are attacking at the same time. Tunnels are beingdriven into the rock beneath the foundations of the walls. Behind the t<strong>an</strong>ks come the inf<strong>an</strong>try, bowmen, someof them kneeling, some stooping, protected by a shield-bearer. The first captives, men <strong>an</strong>d women, are beingled off. Lifeless bodies are h<strong>an</strong>ging on pointed stakes--impaled” (Keller, The <strong>Bible</strong> as History, pp. 278, 279).“A chariot <strong>an</strong>d other items are shown being carried out of the city along with numerous prisoners, includingcarts with families <strong>an</strong>d small children. Dead defenders are shown spiked on poles <strong>an</strong>d paraded about todemoralise others. Some prisoners are being tortured, flayed until the muscles are visible. On the end wall ofthe gallery Sennacherib is seen on a portable throne receiving the surrender of the city. An inscription reads,‘Sennacherib, supreme king, king of Assyria, sits upon a throne while the booty of Lachish passes beforehim’” (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidence, p. 36).An eight-sided prism (British Museum, WA 103000, Room 10) records five of Sennacherib’scampaigns, including the capture of Lachish.Sennacherib’s description of the siege of JerusalemSennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem is described in 2 Kings 18-19; 2 Chronicles 32; <strong>an</strong>d Isaiah36-37.The Assyri<strong>an</strong> army surrounded the city <strong>an</strong>d would have destroyed it except that God <strong>an</strong>sweredHezekiah’s prayer <strong>an</strong>d the <strong>an</strong>gel of the Lord killed 185,000 soldiers (2 Kings 19:35).A hexagonal clay cylinder from Nineveh called the TAYLOR PRISM, discovered in 1830,records this event from the Assyri<strong>an</strong> perspective. It is in Room 55 of the British Library (Case11).Another inscription found in the southwest palace at Nineveh records the same event, as follows:“As for Hezekiah the Jew, who did not submit to my yoke, 46 of his strong, walled cities ... by escalade <strong>an</strong>d bybringing up siege engines, by attacking <strong>an</strong>d storming ... by mines, tunnels <strong>an</strong>d breaches, I besieged <strong>an</strong>d took,200,150 people ... horses ... cattle <strong>an</strong>d sheep without number I brought away146
“[Hezekiah] himself like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. Earthworks I threw up against him;the one coming out of his city gate I turned back to his mercy. ...“As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendour of my majesty overcame him ... <strong>an</strong>d his troops ... deserted him. Inaddition to 30 talents of gold <strong>an</strong>d 800 talents of silver [I took] gems, <strong>an</strong>timony, jewels ... ivory ... valuabletreasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male <strong>an</strong>d female musici<strong>an</strong>s which I sent to Nineveh, myroyal city” (from WA 118815, Room 10, British Museum).The Assyri<strong>an</strong> account agrees with the <strong>Bible</strong> in five major points.1. It confirms the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account that Sennacherib was a proud boaster.2. It confirms the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account that Sennacherib shut up Jerusalem like a caged bird.3. It confirms the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account that Hezekiah gave tribute to the Assyri<strong>an</strong> king (2 Kings18:14-15).4. It confirms the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account that the tribute in gold was 30 talents (2,250 pounds).5. It confirms the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account that Sennacherib did not conquer Jerusalem. The Assyri<strong>an</strong>account merely says that he besieged Jerusalem, which is exactly what the <strong>Bible</strong> says. It is notsurprising that the Assyri<strong>an</strong> account leaves out the destruction of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> army (2 Kings19:35-36), because pag<strong>an</strong> kings did not record their defeats.The only point of disagreement pertains to the tribute in silver. The <strong>Bible</strong> says it was 300 talents(22,500 pounds), whereas the Assyri<strong>an</strong> account says 800. We don’t know why the Assyri<strong>an</strong> says800, but we have every reason to believe that the <strong>Bible</strong> is the accurate record, since it has provenitself dependable.In Hezekiah’s tribute we are given a glimpse into the great wealth of Judah even in this reduced,apostate stage in her history.The destruction of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> kingdom <strong>an</strong>d <strong>Bible</strong> prophecyGod used Assyria as <strong>an</strong> instrument to punish Israel, but her day of judgment came <strong>an</strong>d it wasterrible to behold. Israel still lives, but Assyria is only a vague memory.The destruction of Assyria was prophesied in Isaiah 10:5-19 <strong>an</strong>d Ezekiel 31:3-13, <strong>an</strong>d thedestruction of Nineveh in particular was prophesied in Nahum 2-3 <strong>an</strong>d Zeph<strong>an</strong>iah 2:13-15.Nahum prophesied about 713 B.C., which was more th<strong>an</strong> a century before Nineveh fell in 612B.C., <strong>an</strong>d her fall occurred precisely according to the <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy.Consider the following dramatic examples:147
1. The city endured a long siege. “Draw thee waters for the siege, fortify thy strong holds: go intoclay, <strong>an</strong>d tread the mortar, make strong the brickkiln” (Nah. 3:14). Indeed, the city was besiegedfor over two years.2. Nineveh’s palace was breached by a flood. “The gates of the rivers shall be opened, <strong>an</strong>d thepalace shall be dissolved” (Nah. 2:6). “There was a floodgate at the N.W. <strong>an</strong>gle of the city, whichwas swept away; <strong>an</strong>d the water pouring into the city ‘dissolved’ the palace foundation platform,of sundried bricks” (Fausset’s <strong>Bible</strong> Dictionary).3. Nineveh’s defenders were drunk. “For while they be folden together as thorns, <strong>an</strong>d while theyare drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry” (Nah. 1:10). “Thehistori<strong>an</strong> [Diodorus Siculus] relates that the king of Assyria, elated with his former victories, <strong>an</strong>dignor<strong>an</strong>t of the revolt of the Bactri<strong>an</strong>s, had ab<strong>an</strong>doned himself to sc<strong>an</strong>dalous inaction; hadappointed a time of festivity, <strong>an</strong>d supplied his soldiers with abund<strong>an</strong>ce of wine; <strong>an</strong>d that thegeneral of the enemy, appraised, by deserters, of their negligence <strong>an</strong>d drunkenness, attacked theAssyri<strong>an</strong> army while the whole of them were giving way to indulgence, destroyed a great part ofthem, <strong>an</strong>d drove the rest into the city” (Alex<strong>an</strong>der Keith, Christi<strong>an</strong> Evidences: Fulfilled <strong>Bible</strong>Prophecy, 1831). This also reminds us of the fall of Babylon when the king <strong>an</strong>d his princes wereengaged in a drunken party as described in D<strong>an</strong>iel 5.4. Nineveh’s fortifications were destroyed by fire. “the fire shall devour thy bars” (Nah. 3:13,15). “Saracus the last king, Esarhaddon’s gr<strong>an</strong>dson, set fire to the palace <strong>an</strong>d perished in theflames, as Ctesias states, <strong>an</strong>d as the marks of fire on the walls still confirm. Charred wood,calcined alabaster, <strong>an</strong>d heat splintered figures abound” (Fausset). Burnt bas-reliefs fromNineveh’s palace are on display in Room 9 at the British Museum (WA 124785).5. The enemy r<strong>an</strong> over the city unopposed <strong>an</strong>d chariots r<strong>an</strong> abreast in the city’s wide streets. “Thechariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against <strong>an</strong>other in the broad ways: theyshall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings” (Nah. 2:4). “The picture of the scenesin her streets--the noise of the whip, the rattling wheels, the pr<strong>an</strong>cing horses, the boundingchariots, followed by a vivid description of the carnage of the battlefield--is exceedingly striking,<strong>an</strong>d true to their records <strong>an</strong>d their sculptures” (International St<strong>an</strong>dard <strong>Bible</strong> Encyclopedia). Eventhe road on top of Nineveh’s walls was wide enough for three chariots abreast (Fausset).6. Nineveh would be left utterly waste.“I will make thy grave” (Nah. 1:14)“She is empty, <strong>an</strong>d void, <strong>an</strong>d waste” (Nah. 2:10)“Nineveh is laid waste” (Nah. 3:7)“And he will stretch out his h<strong>an</strong>d against the north, <strong>an</strong>d destroy Assyria; <strong>an</strong>d will make Nineveh a desolation,<strong>an</strong>d dry like a wilderness” (Zeph. 2:13)148
“how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in” (Zeph. 2:15)The Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Chronicle described Nineveh’s destruction as follows:“... the city was reduced to a mount of ruin <strong>an</strong>d heaps of debris” (Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Chronicle for 615-609 B.C.,British Museum, Room 55, Case 11, WA 21901).M<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>cient cities that were overrun by foreign armies, sometimes repeatedly, have survived,but Nineveh disappeared just as Scripture predicted. By 400 B.C. the city “had become a thing ofthe past” <strong>an</strong>d was gradually buried out of sight under the desert s<strong>an</strong>ds.Its exact location was forgotten until Austen Henry Layard’s excavations in the mid-19th century.His description of the desolation of Nimrod (Calah) in those days could also have been written ofnearby Nineveh, <strong>an</strong>d it is a powerful confirmation of <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy.“The lofty cone <strong>an</strong>d broad mound of Nimroud rose like a dist<strong>an</strong>t mountain in the morning sky. ... [there were]no signs of hum<strong>an</strong> habitation, not even the black tent of the Arab, were seen upon the plain. The eyew<strong>an</strong>dered over a parched <strong>an</strong>d barren waste, across which occasionally swept the whirlwind, dragging with it acloud of s<strong>an</strong>d. About a mile from us was the small village of Nimroud, like Naifa, a heap of ruins. ... The luxury<strong>an</strong>d civilisation of a mighty nation had given place to the wretchedness <strong>an</strong>d ignor<strong>an</strong>ce of a few half-barbaroustribes. The wealth of temples, <strong>an</strong>d the riches of great cities, had been succeeded by ruins <strong>an</strong>d shapelessheaps of earth” (Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d Its Remains, pp. 15, 16, 55).SUMMARY OF ASSYRIA1. According to archaeology, Assyria was founded by Asshur, which is in accord<strong>an</strong>ce with the<strong>Bible</strong>’s statement that Asshur founded Nineveh (Gen. 10:11). The Assyri<strong>an</strong> symbol for Asshur--awarrior with a bow in his h<strong>an</strong>d--reminds us of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s description of Nimrod as a mightyhunter (Gen. 10:9).2. Archaeology has found evidence of m<strong>an</strong>y of the Assyri<strong>an</strong> kings mentioned in the <strong>Bible</strong>:Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser II, Tiglath-pileser III, Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser V, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, <strong>an</strong>dAshurb<strong>an</strong>ipal (Asnappar).3. In his book Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d Babylon (1853), Layard listed 55 rulers,cities, <strong>an</strong>d countries that appear both in the Old Testament <strong>an</strong>d in the <strong>an</strong>cient Assyri<strong>an</strong> recordsunearthed through archaeology.4. Assyri<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>nals give extra-biblical witness to nine Hebrew kings: Omri, Ahab, Jehu,Menahem, Pekah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, <strong>an</strong>d M<strong>an</strong>asseh.5. Archaeology has confirmed the <strong>Bible</strong>’s description of Assyria’s chief moral characteristics aspride (Isa. 10:12), violence, deception, <strong>an</strong>d covetousness (Nah. 3:1) <strong>an</strong>d idolatrous witchcraft(Nah. 3:4).6. Archaeology has confirmed Assyria’s cruel military might as described in the <strong>Bible</strong>.149
7. The Gilgamesh flood epic is a fable. It depicts a plurality of weak, deceptive gods. The ark is acube 200 feet square <strong>an</strong>d six stories tall.8. Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser’s Black Obelisk portrays Israel’s King Jehu offering tribute to the Assyri<strong>an</strong> king.9. Assyri<strong>an</strong> records confirm Sargon’s destruction of Samaria, the carrying away of the Israelites,<strong>an</strong>d the repopulating of the l<strong>an</strong>d with pag<strong>an</strong> people.10. Assyri<strong>an</strong> records confirm the siege <strong>an</strong>d destruction of Lachish. Bas-reliefs depicting thisevent were found at Nineveh <strong>an</strong>d are in the British Museum’s Lachism Room.11. Assyri<strong>an</strong> records (the Taylor Prism) confirm Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem.12. Archaeology confirms the description of the destruction of Nineveh written in <strong>Bible</strong>prophecy.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ASSYRIA1. Who was the founder of Nineveh according to the <strong>Bible</strong>?2. What <strong>an</strong>cient kingdom got its name from this m<strong>an</strong>?3. He was worshipped as the ______ god <strong>an</strong>d his symbol was a ______________________.4. He was depicted as a warrior with a _________ in h<strong>an</strong>d.5. How does this depiction fit the <strong>Bible</strong>’s description of Nimrod?6. What book <strong>an</strong>d chapter of the <strong>Bible</strong> describes Nimrod’s kingdom?7. What archaeologist discovered the ruins of eight Assyri<strong>an</strong> palaces?8. When was this?9. What were four moral characteristics of Assyria as found in the <strong>Bible</strong>?10. The Assyri<strong>an</strong> king’s palaces were lined with stone slabs that depicted what?11. What Assyri<strong>an</strong> king built a gr<strong>an</strong>d library?12. Why have most of the books in the library perished?13. The prophet Nahum called Nineveh the ____________ city.14. How did the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s treat the people they defeated?15. What type of siege engine did the Assyri<strong>an</strong>s use to break down walls?16. Traces of red paint have been found on the depictions of a castle siege. What did the reddepict?17. When <strong>an</strong>d where did the Gilgamesh Epic originate?18. Gilgamesh was the king of what city?19. According to the <strong>Bible</strong>, this city was the beginning of the kingdom of what m<strong>an</strong>?20. What <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy specifically describes the skepticism of the end times?21. What are two major ways that the Gilgamesh Epic shows itself to be a pag<strong>an</strong> fable ascontrasted with the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account of the Flood.22. When was the Black Obelisk of Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser found?150
23. What does it depict?24. What Hebrew king is depicted?25. How are this king <strong>an</strong>d his serv<strong>an</strong>ts dressed?26. Does the <strong>Bible</strong> describe Jehu’s tribute to the king of Assyria?27. The Stela of Shalm<strong>an</strong>eser mentions what Hebrew king?28. What four Hebrew kings are mentioned in the records of Tiglath-pileser?29. What was the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> name for Tiglath-pileser?30. What does Bet-Omri me<strong>an</strong>?31. Why is the northern kingdom of Israel called Bet-Omri?32. How are the Jews dressed in the Astartu Relief?33. In what three ways do the Assyri<strong>an</strong> records agree about the fall of Samaria?34. The siege of Samaria was begun by what Assyri<strong>an</strong> king <strong>an</strong>d ended by what Assyri<strong>an</strong> king?35. What are three facts about the destruction of Nineveh that were written beforeh<strong>an</strong>d in <strong>Bible</strong>prophecy?MEDO-PERSIA☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Medo-Persia is included in the UnshakeableFaith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at thebeginning of the course for tips on using this material.The Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Empire was conquered in 539 B.C. by the Medo-Persi<strong>an</strong>s. This is described inD<strong>an</strong>iel 5:30-31.The Medo-Persi<strong>an</strong> Empire was truly great. It encompassed 127 provinces <strong>an</strong>d spread from Indiato Ethiopia (Esther 1:1).The Persi<strong>an</strong>s maintained a major road system with rest stations, inns, <strong>an</strong>d guarded garrisons thatkept the highways free from b<strong>an</strong>dits.The Royal Road stretched 1,600 miles from Susa to Sardis <strong>an</strong>d post stations with fresh horseswere placed about every 15 miles along its length. A carav<strong>an</strong> could travel the length of the roadin 90 days, but a courier could make the same trip in a week.The Persi<strong>an</strong>s invented horseshoes to facilitate mail moving over the Royal Road.In the 5th century B.C., Greek histori<strong>an</strong> Herodotus coined the famous saying that has often beenwrongly attributed to the U.S. postal system. Referring to the Persi<strong>an</strong>s he said, “Neither snow norrain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointedrounds.”151
CyrusThe Medo-Persi<strong>an</strong> king Cyrus the Great (also known as the king of Babylon) (576-530 B.C.) ismentioned 23 times in Scripture. The prophet D<strong>an</strong>iel was still living at the beginning of his reign(D<strong>an</strong>. 6:28; 10:1).Cyrus was called by name in prophecy before he was born. Isaiah prophesied in about 574 B.C.that he would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1).Jeremiah also prophesied of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, though he didn’t name Cyrus. Jeremiahsaid that the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> captivity would last 70 years after which Israel would be restored(Jeremiah 29:10).Seventy years after the Babyloni<strong>an</strong>s destroyed Jerusalem, Cyrus issued a proclamation orderingthe rebuilding of the Jewish temple (Ezra 1:1-4). Cyrus provided cedar trees <strong>an</strong>d other materialsfor the temple’s construction (Ezra 3:7) <strong>an</strong>d even restored the articles that had been taken fromthe First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezra 1:7-11).It was once thought by skeptics that the <strong>Bible</strong>’s record of Cyrus’ release of the Jews <strong>an</strong>d hisgr<strong>an</strong>ting of religious liberty was mythical, but archaeology has confirmed that this was inaccord<strong>an</strong>ce with his st<strong>an</strong>ding practice. The Cyrus Cylinder, while not specifically mentioningIsrael, states that this king had the policy of restoring captives to their l<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d assisting them inrebuilding their temples. The cylinder, which is inscribed in the Akkadi<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>guage, was found inthe temple of Marduk in Babylon in 1879. It reads:“I returned to [these] sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris the s<strong>an</strong>ctuaries of which have been in ruinsfor a long time, the images which [used] to live therein <strong>an</strong>d established for them perm<strong>an</strong>ent s<strong>an</strong>ctuaries. I[also] gathered all their [former] inhabit<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d returned their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon thecomm<strong>an</strong>d of Marduk the great lord, all the gods of Sumer <strong>an</strong>d Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought intoBabylon to the <strong>an</strong>ger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their [former] chapels, the places which made themhappy. May all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities ask daily Bel <strong>an</strong>d Nebo for long life for me<strong>an</strong>d may they recommend me ... to Marduk, my lord, may they say thus: Cyrus, the king who worships you,<strong>an</strong>d Cambyses, his son ... all of them I settled in a peaceful place” (Cyrus Cylinder, British Museum, Room 52,Case 6, WA 1880-6-17).Xerxes (Asasuerus), Esther <strong>an</strong>d the Shush<strong>an</strong> PalaceThe Persi<strong>an</strong> king during the time of Esther was Darius’ son Xerxes (485-465 B.C.). This was theGreek form of his name; it is Ahasuerus in Hebrew.Xerxes’ image appears on the Behistun Relief, st<strong>an</strong>ding behind Darius. He also appears st<strong>an</strong>dingbehind Darius in a relief from Persepolis which is at the Oriental <strong>Institute</strong>.Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the book of Esther <strong>an</strong>d identifiedMordecai.152
“It is generally accepted that Mordecai c<strong>an</strong> be identified with Marduka, a high official working in Susa. Somewould identify Esther with Queen Amestris. ... The book of Esther fits nicely within what is known from Persi<strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>d Greek history, <strong>an</strong>d numerous scholars have remarked on the book’s great ‘familiarity with both general<strong>an</strong>d specific features of Persi<strong>an</strong> life.’ The book is sprinkled with lo<strong>an</strong> words <strong>an</strong>d personal names of Persi<strong>an</strong>origin” (Hoerth <strong>an</strong>d McRay, <strong>Bible</strong> Archaeology, p. 145).The Medo-Persi<strong>an</strong> palace at Susa (Shush<strong>an</strong>) is mentioned in three books of the <strong>Bible</strong>. D<strong>an</strong>iel,Nehemiah, <strong>an</strong>d Esther lived in this palace.“The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year,as I was in Shush<strong>an</strong> the palace” (Nehemiah 1:1).“That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shush<strong>an</strong> thepalace” (Esther 1:2).“And I saw in a vision; <strong>an</strong>d it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shush<strong>an</strong> in the palace, which is in theprovince of Elam; <strong>an</strong>d I saw in a vision, <strong>an</strong>d I was by the river of Ulai” (D<strong>an</strong>iel 8:2).The palace beg<strong>an</strong> to be built by Darius <strong>an</strong>d was completed by Xerxes. A Darius tablet at theLouvre says, “This palace which I built at Susa...”The <strong>Bible</strong> describes the palace as a glorious place with pillars of marble, beds of gold <strong>an</strong>d silver,<strong>an</strong>d pavements of red, blue, white, <strong>an</strong>d black marble (Esther 1:6).Archaeology has confirmed this. The palace measured 820 x 490 feet <strong>an</strong>d its throne room had 72majestic columns <strong>an</strong>d was surrounded on three sides by porticoes with columns topped with hugedouble-bull capitals on which the cedar beams of the roof rested. These columns sat on bellshapedbases. The palace was decorated with p<strong>an</strong>els of beautiful glazed brick featuring reliefs ofsoldiers <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals. Some of these are in the British Museum (Room 52). Others are in the SusaRoom at the Louvre in Paris.M<strong>an</strong>y beautiful objects have been recovered from the <strong>an</strong>cient palace that give us a glimpse intolife in that day. Some of these would have been seen by D<strong>an</strong>iel, Nehemiah, <strong>an</strong>d Esther. Theyinclude beautiful rhytons which were used to pour wine <strong>an</strong>d which Nehemiah might have used.SUMMARY OF MEDO-PERSIA1. Archaeology has confirmed that it was Cyrus’ practice to gr<strong>an</strong>t religious liberty <strong>an</strong>d returnreligious objects to the conquered people.2. The glory of the Shush<strong>an</strong> Palace, which is mentioned in three books of the <strong>Bible</strong>, has beenconfirmed by archaeology.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON MEDO-PERSIA1.Who conquered the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> Empire?2. King Cyrus was named before his birth by what Hebrew prophet?153
3. What is the signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the Cyrus Cylinder?4. What is the biblical name for the Palace at Susa?5. What three Biblical figures lived in this palace?6. Who built the palace?7. What was the Persi<strong>an</strong> name of King Ahasuerus?ISRAEL☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Israel is included in the Unshakeable Faithapologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at the beginningof the course for tips on using this material.Evidence of Israel’s history as recorded in the <strong>Bible</strong> is found throughout the l<strong>an</strong>d today.Following are a few examples:EVIDENCE AT THE ISRAEL MUSEUMThere are items in ivory excavated from Ahab’s palace in Samaria. The <strong>Bible</strong> mentions Ahab’sivory palace (1 Kings 22:39), <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y fragments of carved ivory items have been found. Alsofound in the palace area was <strong>an</strong> opal signet ring (<strong>an</strong> official seal) containing the name Jezebel.Research in 2007 by Dutch Ugaritologist Marjo Korpel confirmed that the seal belonged to thewicked queen. The seal has idolatrous symbols, including a double cobra, symbolic of Sat<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>dthe Egypti<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>kh, which is a sign of sun worship <strong>an</strong>d is associated with the goddess Isis.There is a piece of basalt (volc<strong>an</strong>ic) rock inscribed with the words “Beit David,” me<strong>an</strong>ing“House of David.” It was part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria to celebrate thedefeat of his enemies, <strong>an</strong>d it dates to about the 9th century B.C. which is less th<strong>an</strong> 100 years afterDavid lived.There are coins from the Bar Kokhba revolt to liberate Jerusalem from the Rom<strong>an</strong> armies from132-135 A.D., only a few decades after the destruction of the Temple. These depict the façade ofthe Second Temple with the Ark of the Coven<strong>an</strong>t between the pillars. Others depict the silvertrumpets <strong>an</strong>d a temple harp.EVIDENCE AT THE SHRINE OF THE BOOKThe Shrine of the Book, in Jerusalem, operated by the Israel Museum, features two of thegreatest historical witnesses to the authority of the Masoretic Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>, which is the basisfor the great Protest<strong>an</strong>t <strong>Bible</strong>s such as the Luther Germ<strong>an</strong>, the Reina Valera Sp<strong>an</strong>ish, <strong>an</strong>d theKing James English. These are both the Great Isaiah Scroll <strong>an</strong>d the Aleppo Codex.154
The roof of the museum is in the shape of the lid of the clay jars that protected the Dead SeaScrolls, <strong>an</strong>d the corridor leading into the museum resembles a cave.It is most amazing <strong>an</strong>d wonderful that the two greatest witnesses to the authenticity of theMasoretic <strong>Bible</strong> are located in the Jewish Shrine of the Book in the modern state of Israel,because it was to the Jews that God assigned the task of preserving the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>. In Rom<strong>an</strong>s3:1-2 Paul calls the Hebrew Old Testament the “oracles of God” (“oracles” me<strong>an</strong>s utter<strong>an</strong>ce), <strong>an</strong>dtells us that these oracles were committed to the Jews. Though the Jews did not obey theScripture, they revered it. Josephus <strong>an</strong>d Philo “assure us that they would have undergone all sortsof torments rather th<strong>an</strong> have taken a letter from the Scripture, or altered a word of it” (John Kitto,Illustrated History of the <strong>Bible</strong>, edited by Alv<strong>an</strong> Bond, 1908, p. 39). Countless Jews have died intheir zeal to protect <strong>an</strong>d preserve the Old Testament <strong>Bible</strong>.This reverence was placed in theirhearts by the God of the <strong>Bible</strong> for the purpose of its preservation.In particular, it was the Jewish priests who were assigned as the keepers of the Scriptures (Deut.31:24-26; 17:18).After the destruction of the Jewish Temple, Hebrew scholars called THE MASORETES(Traditionalists) jealously guarded the Hebrew text <strong>an</strong>d passed it down from generation togeneration.It is the Masoretic Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> that was adopted by Christi<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d used in the first printed<strong>Bible</strong>s.One of the most famous Masorete scholars was Aaron Ben Asher at Tiberias. From the 12thcentury forward the Ben Asher Hebrew text was the received Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong>.The ALEPPO CODEX*, at the Shrine of the Book, is the most revered copy of the Ben Asher<strong>Bible</strong>. It was produced in about A.D. 920 in Tiberias, <strong>an</strong>d the vowel markings were added by benAsher. (* The term “codex” refers to a bound book as contrasted with a rolled scroll.)In about 1375 it was moved to the synagogue in Aleppo, Syria, where it got its name. There itwas kept in a double-locked metal box in a room called “the Cave of Elijah.” In 1947, thesynagogue was destroyed by rampaging Muslims who were <strong>an</strong>gry at the U.N. resolution toestablish a Jewish state. The Aleppo Codex was ripped apart <strong>an</strong>d desecrated. The survivingportions were hidden away <strong>an</strong>d smuggled into Turkey in a washing machine in 1958. From thereit was brought to Jerusalem <strong>an</strong>d restored by the Shrine of the Book.Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, this was the oldest surviving copy ofthe Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the one considered the most authoritative. Thus, until the discovery of theDead Sea Scrolls, the oldest copy of the Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> was only 1000 years old.155
Then in the 1940s, the GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL was found in the first Dead Sea cave. Todayit resides in the Shrine of the Book. It contains the entire book of Isaiah written on 17 pieces ofsheepskin forming a scroll measuring 24.5 feet long. Though 1,000 years older, it is almostexactly the same as the Aleppo Codex <strong>an</strong>d the Masoretic Hebrew text of the old Protest<strong>an</strong>t<strong>Bible</strong>s. The differences are extremely minor. There are only three letters that differ between theGreat Isaiah Scroll of 100 B.C. <strong>an</strong>d the Aleppo Codex of 900 A.D. Adolfo Roitm<strong>an</strong> calls it“extraordinarily close” (The <strong>Bible</strong> in the Shrine of the Book, p. 43).Here we see a wonderful confirmation of God’s promise to preserve His Word. There isabsolutely nothing like this level of preservation in <strong>an</strong>y other <strong>an</strong>cient book.“For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; <strong>an</strong>d his truth endureth to allgenerations” (Psalms 100:5).EVIDENCE OF JEREMIAH’S PROPHECYSeveral people mentioned in the book of Jeremiah have been authenticated by amazing extrascripturalartifacts.There is a clay bulla (used to seal scrolls) brought to light in 1975 contains the name ofJeremiah’s scribe Baruch. It says, “Belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah.” See Jeremiah 36 <strong>an</strong>d45.There is a clay seal “belonging to Gemariah son of Shaph<strong>an</strong>.” It was in Gemariah’s chamber inthe temple where Baruch first read Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer. 36:5-10). Gemariah was one ofthree men who tried to dissuade the king from burning the scroll, “but he would not hearthem” (Jer. 36:25).There is a eal with name of Jehucal ben Shelemiah, who is mentioned in Jeremiah 37:3 <strong>an</strong>d 38:1.Jehucal was one of the emissaries sent by King Zedekiah to ask Jeremiah to pray for God’s help.Later Jehucal joined with those who urged the king to kill Jeremiah, claiming that he wasdiscouraging the people (Jer. 38:1-4).There is a seal with the name of “Elishama serv<strong>an</strong>t of the king,” mentioned in Jeremiah 36:12.There are the LACHISH LETTERS. In the 1930s <strong>an</strong> archaeological team discovered 21 letterswritten on pottery in Lachish. The letters confirm the statement in Jeremiah 34:7 that Lachish<strong>an</strong>d Azekah were the last cities to fall. The letters mention Gemariah (Jer. 36:10), Jaaz<strong>an</strong>iah (Jer.35:3), Baruch (Jer. 36:4), <strong>an</strong>d Matt<strong>an</strong>iah (King Zedekiah, 2 Kings 24:17).It was Jeremiah’s prophecies that King Jehoiakim cut up <strong>an</strong>d burned in the fire as he warnedhimself in the palace. God instructed Jeremiah to write the prophecies again, <strong>an</strong>d they have beenmeticulously preserved, whereas Jehoiakim is long gone <strong>an</strong>d forgotten.156
EVIDENCE AT MEGIDDOThe hill of Megiddo played <strong>an</strong> import<strong>an</strong>t role in Israel’s history. It is located on the main routethrough the <strong>Holy</strong> L<strong>an</strong>d overlooking the valley of Jezreel, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>y army traveling north to southwould travel through this area because of the mountainous terrain on both sides. It is believedthat more battles have been fought here th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>ywhere else on earth.Deborah <strong>an</strong>d Barak defeated the C<strong>an</strong>a<strong>an</strong>ites here in about 1300 B.C. (Judges 4-5). King Solomonconquered Megiddo <strong>an</strong>d built a fortress city here in 1000 B.C. (1 Kings 4:12; 9:15). Megiddowas lost to foreign powers <strong>an</strong>d retaken numerous times during the divided kingdom. Three ofIsrael’s kings died here: Saul at the h<strong>an</strong>ds of the Philistines in the 10th century B.C. (1 Samuel31), Ahaziah at the h<strong>an</strong>ds of Jehu in the 9th century B.C. (2 Kings 9:27), <strong>an</strong>d Josiah at the h<strong>an</strong>dsof the king of Egypt in the 7th century B.C. (2 Kings 23:29).The location of Megiddo was lost for centuries. When Edwin Robinson visited the area in 1838he wrote in his diary, “I wonder where Megiddo could have been.” Actually it was right underhis feet. Since 1903 extensive archaeological excavations have found evidence of 20 or more<strong>an</strong>cient cities at Megiddo, one built upon <strong>an</strong>other, going back to thous<strong>an</strong>ds of years B.C.Though disputed by those who are predisposed to doubt <strong>an</strong>ything the <strong>Bible</strong> says, there isextensive evidence for the h<strong>an</strong>diwork of King Solomon (1 Kings 9:15) <strong>an</strong>d the kings of northernIsrael. The gate to Solomon’s city has been uncovered, as well as Solomon’s stables <strong>an</strong>d hispalace.EVIDENCE AT CAESAREA MARITIMAM<strong>an</strong>y biblical events occurred at Caesarea Maritima. It is mentioned 15 times in the book ofActs. (It should not be confused with Caesarea Philippi located at the foot of Mt. Hermon <strong>an</strong>dbuilt by Herod the Great’s son Philip.)It was here that the Rom<strong>an</strong> Tenth Legion was stationed, <strong>an</strong>d there is archaeological evidence forthis. Cornelius the centurion, who comm<strong>an</strong>ded 100 soldiers in the legion, was saved <strong>an</strong>d baptizedhere by Peter (Acts 10).After Paul was arrested in Jerusalem he was sent to Caesarea <strong>an</strong>d spent two years imprisonedthere until he was sent to Rome. It was here that he appeared before Felix, Festus, <strong>an</strong>d KingAgrippa (Acts 23:23 - 26:32).This city was enlarged <strong>an</strong>d glorified by Herod the Great, who was king of Judea at Jesus’ birth(Mat. 2:1; Lk. 1:5). (This is the Herod who ordered the murder of male Jewish children undertwo years old in his demonic attempt to destroy Jesus.) A gift to Herod from Caesar Augustus(for whom the city was named), Caesarea became the capital of the Rom<strong>an</strong> province of Judea. It157
was one of the crown jewels of the Rom<strong>an</strong> Empire <strong>an</strong>d its 40-acre m<strong>an</strong>-made harbor was “thegreatest engineering wonder of its time.” There was a 4,000-seat theater, a 5,000-seat chariotracetrack, mosaic walkways, colonnaded streets, <strong>an</strong>d all sorts of magnificent buildings, includingHerod’s palace <strong>an</strong>d temples dedicated to Caesar worship. Other th<strong>an</strong> the harbor at Alex<strong>an</strong>dria,Egypt, Caesarea’s was the finest on the eastern Mediterr<strong>an</strong>e<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d ships could make the trip fromRome in 10 days.Water was brought to Caesarea from miles away by a double aqueduct, <strong>an</strong> impressiveengineering feat in its own right. This provided plenty of water for the city’s pools, fountains,baths, <strong>an</strong>d sewer system. The name of the Tenth Legion is inscribed on the aqueduct.The Pilate Stone (shown right) found at Caesarea in 1961 during reconstruction of the theaterproves that Pilate was the governor of Judea as the <strong>Bible</strong> says. Written in Latin, the inscriptionon the limestone block reads “Pontius Pilatus prefect of Judea, erected the Tiberium [temple inhonor of Tiberius Caesar] to the August Gods.” This agrees with Luke’s statement that Pilateruled during the lifetime of Tiberius (Luke 3:1). The stone is housed in the Israel Museum, whilea copy is on display at Caesarea.EVIDENCE AT MASADAMasada is a rocky mountain in the Jude<strong>an</strong> desert overlooking the Dead Sea. Herod the Greatbuilt a fortified palace at Masada three decades before the birth of Christ. During the Jewishrevolt against Rome 100 years later the Jews captured the fortress. They believed that theMessiah was going to deliver them <strong>an</strong>d establish the Davidic kingdom, but in fact they hadrejected the Messiah decades earlier. After the fall of Jerusalem <strong>an</strong>d the destruction of the templein 70 A.D., Masada was the only site that remained under Jewish control. The rebels used it as abase of operation for raiding parties. In 74 A.D. Flavius Silva, at the head of 10,000 soldiers ofthe Rom<strong>an</strong> Tenth Legion, conquered Masada, after a siege of several months. The Rom<strong>an</strong> armiesbuilt eight camps around the citadel <strong>an</strong>d with Jewish slave labor constructed <strong>an</strong> assault ramp tothe top. According to the histori<strong>an</strong> Josephus, the remaining 1,000 Jews decided to commitsuicide rather th<strong>an</strong> fall into the h<strong>an</strong>ds of the Rom<strong>an</strong>s. They had determined that God hadab<strong>an</strong>doned them, whereas in reality they had ab<strong>an</strong>doned God. Ten men were chosen by lot to killthe others. Then the insurrection leader, Eleazar ben Yair, <strong>an</strong>d the remaining ten men drew lotsagain <strong>an</strong>d one was chosen to kill the others <strong>an</strong>d end his own life. Two women <strong>an</strong>d five childrenwho survived by hiding in a cave told the story of the last hours of the defenders as recounted byJosephus. This account has been disputed by some modern histori<strong>an</strong>s (someone is always tryingto make a name for himself by disputing well-established facts of history), but there is no goodreason to doubt it other th<strong>an</strong> perhaps to question the number of Jews that were involved in thefinal suicide pact.The identity of Masada was lost for centuries until the site was discovered by two Americ<strong>an</strong>s in1838.158
Since the early 1960s extensive archaeological excavations have been carried out at Masada bythe Israel Department of Antiquities. The evidence for Herod’s first century B.C. palaces <strong>an</strong>d thefirst century A.D. battle is irrefutable. There is the inscription “To Herod King of the Jews” on apiece of pottery that was used to import wine. These wine containers also feature the name C.Sentius Saturninus, who was the Rom<strong>an</strong> consul in 19 B.C. Of the palaces, portions of some ofthe rooms remain, including Herod’s throne room <strong>an</strong>d the bath house with its furnace room.There are remn<strong>an</strong>ts of marble columns, beautiful mosaic pavements, tiles, bathing pools, <strong>an</strong>dm<strong>an</strong>y other things. The place was very elaborate. The walls were covered with frescoes thatlooked like marble. The ruins also contain the remains of a Jewish synagogue that Herod built,one of the oldest known synagogues in Israel <strong>an</strong>d the only one dating to the time of the SecondTemple. It is also the best preserved.Portions of <strong>Bible</strong> scrolls were found at Masada, including Joshua, fragments of Deuteronomy,<strong>an</strong>d Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones. The Joshua scroll was originally dated to 30 A.D., butcarbon-14 dating has attributed it to 150-75 B.C., which me<strong>an</strong>s it is as old as the <strong>Bible</strong> scrollsfound in the Dead Sea caves (“The Dead Sea Scrolls Support the Masoretic Text,” J<strong>an</strong>. 15, 2009,Soulcast.com, viewed April 28, 2010). And like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masada scrolls largelyagree with the Masoretic Text.There is a piece of pottery with the words “tithe for the priest.”M<strong>an</strong>y coins found at Masada attest to the <strong>an</strong>cient history of the place. There are coins from eachyear of the Revolt, including 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed. They are inscribed with“Jerusalem the holy.”As for the battle, the Rom<strong>an</strong> encampments are still evident, as is the attack ramp. There is even apiece of pottery with the name Ben Yair, the leader of the rebels. This was discovered togetherwith ten other pieces of pottery, each bearing a name, which is striking confirmation ofJosephus’ account of the lots.EVIDENCE IN JERUSALEMAn inscription found in THE SILOAM TUNNEL celebrated the completion of the constructionof a water tunnel in the time of King Hezekiah described in 2 Kings 20:20. The Hebrew writingis in the early <strong>an</strong>gular script used before the Babyloni<strong>an</strong> exile. The tunnel was discovered in the19th century by two Arab boys who were swimming in the Siloam pool. It is about two feet wide<strong>an</strong>d five feet high <strong>an</strong>d ends at the Fountain of Gihon (today called the Virgin’s Fountain), whichwas Jerusalem’s water supply since <strong>an</strong>cient times.Part of NEHEMIAH’S WALL has been unearthed. It matches the description in Nehemiah thatthe poor Jews who had returned from Babylon used whatever was at h<strong>an</strong>d to rebuild the wallsrather th<strong>an</strong> rebuild it with quarried stones.159
THE PAVEMENT IN PILATE’S COURT mentioned in John 19:13 was found byarchaeologist L. H. Vincent in the 1920s. The pavement was located in the court of the Tower ofAtonia, which was buried when the city was rebuilt in the time of the Rom<strong>an</strong> Emperor Hadri<strong>an</strong>.The TEMPLE MOUNT itself <strong>an</strong>d the Western Wall attests to the Second Temple, built in the6th century B.C. <strong>an</strong>d exp<strong>an</strong>ded under Herod the Great in the 1st century B.C. The Western Wallcontains original stones from the foundation of the Temple Mount in the days when the NewTestament was written.The SOUTHERN STEPS which c<strong>an</strong> be seen today near the Western Wall are the steps thatexisted in Jesus’ day leading to the main gates to the Temple from the old city. Renownedarchaeologist Benjamin Mazar, president of the Hebrew University, excavated the southern stepsbetween 1968-78. Because of his labor, visitors today c<strong>an</strong> see the actual steps upon which Jesuswalked <strong>an</strong>d where He preached at the main entr<strong>an</strong>ce to the temple area <strong>an</strong>d where the Psalms ofDegrees were probably sung.There are also THE TEMPLE STONES. The Lord Jesus prophesied that the beautiful temple<strong>an</strong>d the surrounding buildings would be destroyed <strong>an</strong>d “there shall not be left one stone upon<strong>an</strong>other, that shall not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2). This was fulfilled 40 years later when theRom<strong>an</strong> army under Titus conquered the city <strong>an</strong>d destroyed the temple. Some of the stones thattumbled off the mount during this epoch event have been unearthed along the Western Wall.Most of the stones weigh two to four tons, with some weighing as much as 15 tons.One of these stones with the inscription “TO THE PLACE OF TRUMPETING” wasdiscovered by Benjamin Mazar. This corresponds with Josephus’ description in his Jewish Warsof a corner of the Temple Mount where the trumpet was blown to mark the beginning <strong>an</strong>d endingof the Sabbath. “And the last [tower] was erected above the roof of the Priest’s Chambers, whereit was the custom for one of the priests to st<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d to give notice, by the sound of a trumpet, inthe afternoon of the approach, <strong>an</strong>d on the following evening of the close, of every seventh day,<strong>an</strong>nouncing to the people the respective hours for ceasing work <strong>an</strong>d for resuming their labors.”The original is in the Israel Museum, but a copy is on display near the temple stones along theWestern Wall.Stone plaques with Greek inscriptions from the time of King Herod WARNING NON-JEWSNOT TO ENTER CERTAIN AREAS OF THE TEMPLE have also been uncovered. Theplaque reads: “No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade <strong>an</strong>d emb<strong>an</strong>kment around thes<strong>an</strong>ctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows.” Acomplete plaque is housed in the archaeological museum in Ist<strong>an</strong>bul <strong>an</strong>d a partial one is housedin the Israel Museum.In 2009 Dr. Eilat Mazar, world authority on Jerusalem’s <strong>an</strong>cient archaeology, discovered theruins of DAVID’S PALACE. Though skeptics have predictably tried to discredit the find, Mazarfound evidence that this was David’s palace <strong>an</strong>d that it was occupied up until the destruction of160
Solomon’s Temple (“The World of Archeology Is Rocked,” aish.com, July 6, 2009). Eilat is thegr<strong>an</strong>ddaughter of Benjamin Mazar, <strong>an</strong>d in their last conversation before his death in 1995, theydiscussed the recovery of David’s palace.In the 1990s two small SILVER SCROLLS were found in <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>cient tomb on Ketef Hinnom(the shoulder of Hinnom), on the side of the Valley of Hinnom. After being unrolled at the IsraelMuseum, the scrolls were found to contain the priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-26. Datingto the 7th century B.C., these are the oldest portions of Scripture in existence, predating the O.T.scrolls from the Dead Sea caves by four or five hundred years.THE ARCH OF TITUSLeaving the l<strong>an</strong>d of Israel itself for a moment, there is powerful evidence in Rome for the SecondTemple <strong>an</strong>d its destruction according to Jesus’ prophecy. It was a Rom<strong>an</strong> army that destroyed theTemple under the leadership of Titus, <strong>an</strong>d the artifacts were tr<strong>an</strong>sported to Rome. Titus becameemperor, <strong>an</strong>d in 85 A.D. a monumental arch was dedicated in commemoration of his victory overthe Jews. A bas-relief inside the arch depicts the spoils from the Jerusalem Temple carried in avictory procession after Jerusalem’s fall. Clearly seen are the c<strong>an</strong>dlestick <strong>an</strong>d the silver trumpets.This 1900-year-old monument thus st<strong>an</strong>ds as a silent witness to the accuracy of <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy,as the destruction depicted on it was prophesied nearly a half century earlier by the Lord JesusChrist in Luke 19:41-44:“And when he was come near, he beheld the city, <strong>an</strong>d wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, atleast in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For thedays shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, <strong>an</strong>d compass thee round, <strong>an</strong>dkeep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, <strong>an</strong>d thy children within thee; <strong>an</strong>d theyshall not leave in thee one stone upon <strong>an</strong>other; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”SUMMARY OF ISRAEL1. Archaeological evidence of Israel’s <strong>an</strong>cient history found in Israel itself include artifacts fromAhab’s palace, the inscription of “House of David” on a Syri<strong>an</strong> victory pillar, the LachishLetters, <strong>an</strong>d evidence of Solomon’s fortress at Megiddo.2. At Caesarea Maritima, there is evidence of the Rom<strong>an</strong> Tenth Legion <strong>an</strong>d of Pilate.3. At Masada, archaeologists have found evidence of Herod’s fortified palace, portions of <strong>Bible</strong>scrolls, <strong>an</strong>d coins dating to the destruction of the Temple.4. In Jerusalem, archaeology has discovered Nehemiah’s Wall, the pavement in Pilate’s court, theSiloam tunnel, the Temple Mount, Temple stones, the Southern Steps, <strong>an</strong>d the inscription “to theplace of trumpeting.”161
5. The Arch of Titus in Rome depicts the artifacts removed from the Temple before it wasdestroyed in 70 A.D.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON ISRAEL1. What evidence of Jezebel exists from Ahab’s ivory palace?2. What type of symbols are engraved on this object?3. What evidence of King David was found on a Syri<strong>an</strong> victory pillar?4. What does the word “beit” me<strong>an</strong>?5. What was the Bar Kokhba revolt?6. What images from the Jewish Temple were engraved on the Bar Kokhba coins?7. What two great historical witnesses to the authority of the Masoretic Hebrew <strong>Bible</strong> are in theShrine of the Book museum?8. What passage says that God assigned the Jews the task of keeping the Scripture?9. Though the Jews did not _________ the Scripture, they __________ it.10. Who were the Masoretes?11. Who was Aaron Ben Asher?12. When was the Aleppo Codex written?13. What does the word “codex” me<strong>an</strong>?14. What is “Aleppo”?15. When was the Great Isaiah Scroll found <strong>an</strong>d where?16. How old is the Great Isaiah Scroll?17. How does the Great Isaiah Scroll confirm God’s promise to preserve His Word?18. Who was Baruch <strong>an</strong>d what archaeological evidence was found for his existence?19. What are the Lachish Letters?20. What are three import<strong>an</strong>t events in Jewish history that occurred at Megiddo?21. What archaeologist rediscovered the site of <strong>an</strong>cient Megiddo <strong>an</strong>d when was this?22. Where was Caesarea Maritima located?23. What are two biblical events that occurred here?24. What evidence for Pilate was found here?25. What event described by Josephus occurred at Masada?26. What evidence for the Jewish temple was found at Masada?27. Where in Israel was Caesarea Maritima located?28. What are three <strong>Bible</strong> events that took place there?29. What is the signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the Pilate Stone?30. The Siloam tunnel was built for what purpose?31. What type of material went into the construction of Nehemiah’s Wall?32. When was the pavement in Pilate’s Court located by archaeologists?33. What part of the Temple Mount contains original stones from the days when the NewTestament was written?34. The Southern Steps were excavated when?35. The Southern Steps led to what?36. What are the Temple Stones that were unearthed along the Western Wall?162
37. What is the signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the stone with the inscription “to the place of trumpeting”?38. What warning did the Jews give to non-Jews in the Temple area?39. David’s Palace was excavated by what Hebrew archaeologist?40. What is the signific<strong>an</strong>ce of the two silver scrolls that were discovered in Jerusalem in the1990s?41. In what valley were the scrolls discovered?42. What Scripture portion do they contain?LUKE’S WRITINGS☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Luke’s Writings is included in the UnshakeableFaith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d Private Study” at thebeginning of the course for tips on using this material.Critics in the 19th century attacked Luke’s Gospel <strong>an</strong>d the book of Acts as historically unreliabledocuments that weren’t written until m<strong>an</strong>y generations after Christ. Germ<strong>an</strong> critic F. C. Baur(1792-1860), for example, claimed that the book of Acts was not written until the second half ofthe 2nd century. The critics claimed that most of the New Testament is based on myths that werepassed along by word of mouth for generations before being committed to writing.But the book of Acts is clearly written as a historical document. Luke mentions 32 countries, 54cities, nine isl<strong>an</strong>ds, <strong>an</strong>d 95 different people, including m<strong>an</strong>y civil <strong>an</strong>d military officials. Likewise,Luke’s Gospel is filled with references to places <strong>an</strong>d historical personages, such as the Herods,Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Philip tetrarch of Ituraea, <strong>an</strong>d Cyrenius,governor of Syria.Luke claims to base his writings on the accounts of eyewitnesses who were still alive (Luke1:1-2).If the <strong>Bible</strong> is historically inaccurate, it is obviously not the divinely-inspired Word of God.The liberal view was debunked by renowned archaeologist William Ramsay (1851-1939), amongothers. Ramsay was taught liberal theories at the University of Aberdeen <strong>an</strong>d Oxford University<strong>an</strong>d assumed that liberals such as Baur were correct. When he went to Asia Minor <strong>an</strong>d Palestineon his first archaeological expedition he fully intended to prove that the <strong>Bible</strong> is “not the bookfrom heaven it claimed to be.”"He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul's travels. These had neverbeen thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other m<strong>an</strong> had been, he went to the home ofthe <strong>Bible</strong>. Here he spent fifteen years digging. Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul, theTraveler <strong>an</strong>d the Rom<strong>an</strong> Citizen. ... The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Itsattitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the <strong>an</strong>nounced intention of the author years before.For twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additionalevidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot.163
And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even <strong>an</strong>y attemptto refute them” (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Dem<strong>an</strong>ds a Verdict, p. 62).In 1915 Ramsay testified:“Luke is a histori<strong>an</strong> of the first r<strong>an</strong>k; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of thetrue historic sense … In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of histori<strong>an</strong>s” (TheBearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915).“The present writer takes the view that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. At thispoint we are describing what reasons <strong>an</strong>d arguments ch<strong>an</strong>ged the mind of one who beg<strong>an</strong> under theimpression that the history was written long after the events <strong>an</strong>d that it was untrustworthy as a whole” (Ibid.).Ramsay debunked the idea that the New Testament was written long after the events.“We c<strong>an</strong> already say emphatically that there is no longer <strong>an</strong>y solid basis for dating <strong>an</strong>y book of the NewTestament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 <strong>an</strong>d 150 given by the moreradical New Testament critics of today” (Recent Discoveries in <strong>Bible</strong> L<strong>an</strong>ds, 1955, p. 136).“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties <strong>an</strong>d theeighties of the first century A.D.” (Christi<strong>an</strong>ity Today, J<strong>an</strong>. 18, 1963).Following are other examples of how the New Testament has been authenticated over theskeptics:The critics said Luke was wrong in Acts 14:6 when he wrote that Lystra <strong>an</strong>d Derbe were locatedin Lycaonia <strong>an</strong>d that Iconium was not in Lycaonia. Paul <strong>an</strong>d Barnabas were in Iconium whenthey fled to Lystra <strong>an</strong>d Derbe, which was said to be in Lycaonia, thus implying that Iconium wasnot in Lycaonia. In 1910, Ramsay unearthed a monument proving that Iconium was a Phrygi<strong>an</strong>city rather th<strong>an</strong> a Lycaoni<strong>an</strong> city (The New Evidence That Dem<strong>an</strong>ds a Verdict, p. 64).The critics said that Luke was wrong about the census described Luke 2:1-3. They claimed thatQuirinius (Cyrenius) was not governor of Syria at that time, because Josephus placed him asgovernor in 6 A.D., which was several years later. Archaeology disproved these charges. Ramsayunearthed <strong>an</strong> inscription in Antioch that stated that Quirinius was the governor of Syria in about7 B.C. (The New Evidence, p. 63). Thus, Quirinius was governor of Syria for two terms, in 7B.C. when Christ was born, <strong>an</strong>d again in 6 A.D.The critics further claimed that everyone did not have to return to his <strong>an</strong>cestral home for thecensus, contrary to what the <strong>Bible</strong> says. But a papyrus document found in Egypt says that allresidents were required to travel to their <strong>an</strong>cestral homes (The New Evidence, p. 63).Critics said that Luke was wrong when he said in Luke 3:1 that Lys<strong>an</strong>ias was the tetrarch ofAbilene in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which was A.D. 27. Ancient histori<strong>an</strong>shad stated that Lys<strong>an</strong>ias was killed in 36 B.C. But <strong>an</strong> inscription found at Abila near Damascusdating to between A.D. 14 <strong>an</strong>d 29 says that Lys<strong>an</strong>ias was the tetrarch” (The New Evidence, p.64). Thus, Luke was right.164
Critics said that Luke was wrong in using the Greek term politarchs (tr<strong>an</strong>slated “rulers of thecity” in Acts 17:6) to denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica because the term is not found inclassical literature. Archaeology has since uncovered 19 inscriptions that use the title after thesame fashion as Luke (The New Evidence, p. 65). The British Museum displays one of theseinscriptions from <strong>an</strong> arch in Thessalonica (Room 78, GR 1877.5-11.1).In these <strong>an</strong>d other cases the critics were wrong, <strong>an</strong>d Luke was right. Skeptics have repeatedly <strong>an</strong>dridiculously acted as if they have <strong>an</strong> omniscient knowledge of <strong>an</strong>cient history <strong>an</strong>d thus are in aposition to criticize the <strong>Bible</strong>, but they have been proven wrong countless times. The fact thatthis has not humbled most of them is further evidence of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s divine inspiration, because itprophesied their willful ignor<strong>an</strong>ce (2 Peter 3:3-5).In 1963, classical histori<strong>an</strong> A.N. Sherwin-White confirmed Ramsay’s view of Acts:“Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Rom<strong>an</strong> histori<strong>an</strong>shave long taken it for gr<strong>an</strong>ted” (Rom<strong>an</strong> Society <strong>an</strong>d Rom<strong>an</strong> Law in the New Testament, p. 189).SUMMARY OF LUKE’S WRITINGS1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of Luke’s Gospel <strong>an</strong>d the book of Acts.William Ramsay set out to disprove the <strong>Bible</strong> but authenticated it, instead. He said, “Luke is ahistori<strong>an</strong> of the first r<strong>an</strong>k” <strong>an</strong>d “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”2. Ramsay debunked the liberal idea that the New Testament was written long after the events.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON LUKE’S WRITINGS1. What Germ<strong>an</strong> critic said that Acts is not a reliable historical document?2. According to the critics, when was most of the New Testament written?3. What archaeologist debunked this idea?4. Did this archaeologist start out his career as a <strong>Bible</strong> believer?5. What convinced him that the book of Acts is accurate?6. How did this archaeologist debunk the idea that Acts 14:6 was wrong in saying that Iconiumwas not in Lycaonia.7. How did he debunk the idea that Quirinius was not governor of Syria during the censusdescribed in Luke 2?8. How did he confirm Luke’s use of the Greek term politarchs in Acts 17:6?165
EVOLUTION☛ NOTE TO TEACHERSWe recommend that you first go through the introduction to evolution with the class <strong>an</strong>d thenuse the PowerPoint/Keynote presentations for the sections on Icons of Evolution <strong>an</strong>d Icons ofCreation. After each PowerPoint presentation use the summary from the book for review. EachIcon has a summary <strong>an</strong>d review questions.The section on history of evolution c<strong>an</strong> be taught in class or c<strong>an</strong> be used as a reading assignment.166
EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION1. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to refute Darwinism.The believer should not be intimidated by scientists.Dr. Lowell Ponte, former science <strong>an</strong>d technology editor for Reader’s Digest, reminds us thatscientists are not gods, though they sometimes pretend to be:“Outside their narrow field of expertise, scientists are often no wiser th<strong>an</strong> the drunk at the end of the bar inyour local saloon. In fact they are often more foolish th<strong>an</strong> this drunk, because with the power of science,commissars often become intoxicated with the notion that knowledge <strong>an</strong>d intellect in one field empowers themto speak with the authority of gods in all fields” (“Science Wars,” FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 27, 2004).Phillip Johnson, a law professor who has critiqued Darwinism, rightly says:“Being a scientist is not necessarily <strong>an</strong> adv<strong>an</strong>tage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, whichcuts across m<strong>an</strong>y scientific disciplines <strong>an</strong>d also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are ofnecessity highly specialized, <strong>an</strong>d a scientist outside his field of expertise is just <strong>an</strong>other laym<strong>an</strong>” (Darwin onTrial, p. 13).In fact, you c<strong>an</strong> be your own scientist. You have the God-given ability to make observations <strong>an</strong>dto make decisions based on those observations. Richard Tedder is <strong>an</strong> example of those who cameto Christ when he stopped depending on his university professors <strong>an</strong>d started <strong>an</strong>alyzing theevidence for evolution <strong>an</strong>d studying the <strong>Bible</strong> for himself. He told me that when he startedreading the <strong>Bible</strong> he was amazed that everything it said “r<strong>an</strong>g true” because he could see itreflected in life.We must remember that divine truth has been revealed to the weak rather th<strong>an</strong> to the mighty(Mat. 11:25; 1 Cor. 1:26-28). Further, the “poor m<strong>an</strong>” who has underst<strong>an</strong>ding c<strong>an</strong> examine the“rich m<strong>an</strong>” who is wise in his conceit (Prov. 28:11).The believer has everything he needs to test the doctrine of evolution: We have God’s Word (2Tim. 3:16-17) <strong>an</strong>d we have God’s Spirit (1 John 2:27).Every philosophy must be brought to this Touchstone (2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20-21).Common sense refutes evolution at every turn. Consider, for example, the concept of evolutionthrough r<strong>an</strong>dom genetic mutations. Nothing in life works like this. Take a piece of writing, suchas Genesis chapter one. It could never be created through r<strong>an</strong>dom typing, <strong>an</strong>d if accidentalch<strong>an</strong>ges were introduced to the existing text, the result would invariably be degradation <strong>an</strong>d notimprovement. Take a machine such as the Space Shuttle. It has two million parts (<strong>an</strong>d is far lesscomplex th<strong>an</strong> a bacterial cell). R<strong>an</strong>dom blind ch<strong>an</strong>ges would never create such a machine norimprove <strong>an</strong> existing one. Complicated things are not built by r<strong>an</strong>dom, accidental events. At thefundamental level, the evolution issue is not rocket science!167
2. Benefits of creation science materialCreation science materials are tremendously helpful in fortifying God’s people, particularlyyoung people, against the devil’s lies. Titus 1:9-11 says that preachers <strong>an</strong>d teachers are necessaryto stop the mouths of false teachers. This is the first purpose of creation science materials. Youngpeople need to see that Darwinism c<strong>an</strong> be rejected because there are no proven scientific factssupporting it.Creation science materials teach <strong>an</strong>alytical thinking <strong>an</strong>d sound argumentation. The writer ofHebrews says that the spiritual <strong>an</strong>d moral senses must be trained through use.“But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their sensesexercised to discern both good <strong>an</strong>d evil” (Hebrews 5:14).We do not naturally know how to refute error. Like most other things in life, this must be learned<strong>an</strong>d we must grow in it. By learning God’s Word <strong>an</strong>d weighing everything in life by God’s holySt<strong>an</strong>dard, proving what is right <strong>an</strong>d what is wrong, what is good <strong>an</strong>d what is evil, we strengthenour spiritual <strong>an</strong>d moral senses so that we c<strong>an</strong> know God’s will <strong>an</strong>d be approved by Him. Wellprepared creation science material is a tremendous help in this education so that we c<strong>an</strong> learnhow to h<strong>an</strong>dle the wiles of the devil.Creation science materials lift the believer’s heart to God, the Almighty Creator, <strong>an</strong>d teachlessons about His character <strong>an</strong>d power. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of theworld are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power <strong>an</strong>dGodhead” (Rom<strong>an</strong>s 1:20). Everything God has created teaches us lessons about the CreatorHimself, <strong>an</strong>d the creation-science issue covers every aspect of God’s creation, from biology toastrology. It is thrilling research.Creation science materials are useful in ev<strong>an</strong>gelism. Creation science has been called “preev<strong>an</strong>gelism,”<strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y people have been saved after first being confronted with creation sciencearguments against evolution. This caused them to doubt what they had been taught from thesecular sphere <strong>an</strong>d to become receptive to examining the claims of the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the Person ofJesus Christ. Consider the following example:“I was raised in a Christi<strong>an</strong> home, believing in God <strong>an</strong>d His creation. However, I was taught evolution whileattending high school, <strong>an</strong>d beg<strong>an</strong> to doubt the authority of the <strong>Bible</strong>. If evolution is true, I reasoned, the <strong>Bible</strong>c<strong>an</strong>not also be true. I eventually rejected the entire <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d believed that we descended from lowercreatures; there was no afterlife <strong>an</strong>d no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. Mycollege years at Penn State were spent as <strong>an</strong> atheist, or at best as <strong>an</strong> agnostic. Fortunately, <strong>an</strong>d by the graceof God, I beg<strong>an</strong> to read articles <strong>an</strong>d listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation. Over a period of acouple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, <strong>an</strong>dthat scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followedby a global flood. Suddenly I realized that the <strong>Bible</strong> might actually be true! It wasn’t until I could believe thefirst page of the <strong>Bible</strong> that I could believe the rest of it. Once I accepted the fact that there is a creator God, itwas <strong>an</strong> easy step for me to accept His pl<strong>an</strong> of salvation through Jesus Christ as well” (John Cimbala, Ph.D. inaeronautics from California <strong>Institute</strong> of Technology, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe inCreation, edited by John Ashton, pp. 200, 201).168
3. Beware of the myth that the <strong>Bible</strong> has been discredited.The outcome of a murder trial in a U.S. courtroom requires evidence “beyond a reasonabledoubt,” because so much is at stake, <strong>an</strong>d we should require no less on the issue of creation vs.evolution, which has grave consequences that are not only earthly but also eternal.The <strong>Bible</strong> claims to be the revelation of God to m<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d if the <strong>Bible</strong> is true, there is <strong>an</strong> AlmightyCreator God <strong>an</strong>d a heaven <strong>an</strong>d a hell; m<strong>an</strong> will live forever in one place or <strong>an</strong>other; <strong>an</strong>d salvationis only through personal <strong>faith</strong> in Jesus Christ.This issue is too serious to be decided on the basis of <strong>an</strong>ything other th<strong>an</strong> solid proof that the<strong>Bible</strong> is not trustworthy, yet no such proof exists. In fact, the critics have been proven wrongtime <strong>an</strong>d time <strong>an</strong>d time again.Charles Darwin said, “The clearest evidence would be requisite to make <strong>an</strong>y s<strong>an</strong>e m<strong>an</strong> believe inthe miracles by which Christi<strong>an</strong>ity is supported” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, editedby Nora Barlow).Like m<strong>an</strong>y others since then, Darwin FALSELY ASSUMED that the “clearest evidence” islacking. They have falsely assumed that the <strong>Bible</strong> has been discredited by modern science <strong>an</strong>d bythe “higher criticism” of theological liberalism, but the fact is that the modernistic theories havebeen repeatedly disproven whereas the <strong>Bible</strong> has been repeatedly authenticated.Those who have maintained <strong>faith</strong> in the <strong>Bible</strong> have never been disappointed.Consider the situation that existed in 1859 when Darwin published On the Origin of Species.Theological skeptics such as F.C. Baur claimed that the New Testament was not written until acentury <strong>an</strong>d more after the events <strong>an</strong>d that it was based on myths that had taken shape as theywere h<strong>an</strong>ded down by word of mouth for generations. Skeptics claimed that the book of Acts wasfilled with historical errors. They claimed that writing was not sufficiently developed by Moses’time for him to have written the early books of the <strong>Bible</strong>.But it was the critical views that turned out to be mythical, whereas the <strong>Bible</strong> was authenticated.Those who maintained their trust in the <strong>Bible</strong> were vindicated.The critical views about the date when the New Testament was written <strong>an</strong>d about the historicalinaccuracies of the book of Acts were decidedly refuted by the renowned archaeologist WilliamRamsay, among others. As for writing, archaeologists now know that it was developed around3150 B.C., at the latest, <strong>an</strong>d we have personally seen the evidence for this at m<strong>an</strong>y famouslibraries <strong>an</strong>d museums. This was was more th<strong>an</strong> 1,500 years before Moses <strong>an</strong>d in fact carries usback to the lifetime of Adam by biblical chronology. Since the late 19th century, archaeologistshave discovered that the <strong>an</strong>cient kingdoms in Egypt <strong>an</strong>d Mesopotamia were literate societies full169
of schools <strong>an</strong>d libraries. Ancient libraries have been unearthed at Ugarit, Mari, Ur, Ebla, Nippur,Nineveh, <strong>an</strong>d elsewhere. (For documentation of these things see the section on “ArchaeologicalTreasures.”)The skeptics were not only wrong about these things; they were terribly wrong.In spite of this, multitudes have gone out into eternity believing that the <strong>Bible</strong> is untrustworthy<strong>an</strong>d that evolution is true.Consider the sad case of Arthur Keith. He was one of the greatest <strong>an</strong>atomists of the 20th century,but he was duped by the Piltdown hoax. His book The Antiquity of M<strong>an</strong> treated Piltdown as thepreeminent missing link. In his autobiography Keith described attending ev<strong>an</strong>gelistic meetings<strong>an</strong>d being on the verge of converting to Christ, but he rejected the gospel because he felt that theGenesis account of creation had been proven to be a myth (Melvin Lubenow, Bones ofContention, p. 59). In reality, the myths were on the side of evolution, <strong>an</strong>d Keith gambled hiseternal soul on them. In 1953, he was informed that the Piltdown fossils were a hoax, but by thenhe was <strong>an</strong> old m<strong>an</strong> steeped in hum<strong>an</strong>istic rationalism <strong>an</strong>d a “pronounced opponent of theChristi<strong>an</strong> <strong>faith</strong>.” As far as we know, he went to his grave in that condition. He should havelooked at the evidence for the <strong>Bible</strong> much more carefully <strong>an</strong>d prayerfully. He should not havebeen so ready to believe what <strong>Bible</strong> critics <strong>an</strong>d evolutionists taught. The stake is far too high.I, for one, refuse to stake my eternal destiny on unproven “theories” that are const<strong>an</strong>tly ch<strong>an</strong>ging.I don’t care if the entire scientific world believes that evolution is true (which is most definitelynot the case); they must provide real evidence to support their doctrine, <strong>an</strong>d they have never donethis.4. Evolution is not a “theory.”We have tried to avoid describing evolution as a “theory.” While m<strong>an</strong>y of the men we quote usethat term to describe evolution, we do not use it ourselves, <strong>an</strong>d if we do use it we put it withinquotation marks. This is because evolution does not rate as a scientific theory or even as ahypothesis. As David Stone, Ph.D. physics, says:“Scientific theories involve qu<strong>an</strong>titative modeling, experimental data, <strong>an</strong>d repeated validation by prediction <strong>an</strong>dobservation. In <strong>an</strong>y aspect of the philosophy / f<strong>an</strong>tasy of evolution, there is no ‘theory.’ There is no theory forformation of the first protein, first DNA, first cellular sub-structures, first cell, multi-celled creatures, tr<strong>an</strong>sitionsbetween kinds, etc. Just stories. There are no genetic data, not a single observed case of mutations <strong>an</strong>dnatural selection producing new, complex tissues, org<strong>an</strong>s, or creatures. Evolution is also not a hypothesis,which is a reasonable expl<strong>an</strong>ation of observed facts, consistent with known physical laws, employingexperimental data <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>alysis. It has been tested at least to some degree to see whether it holds up undercertain conditions. A theory arises when a hypothesis has stood up to repeated tests under a wide variety ofconditions <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong>not be broken. Evolution warr<strong>an</strong>ts neither term. Evolution qualifies merely as aphilosophical, even a religious idea, void of scientific support, <strong>an</strong>d intended to replace biblical truth withstories” (e-mail to author, August 21, 2011).5. The evidence for evolution is so flimsy that even m<strong>an</strong>y secular scientists disbelieve it.170
In 1922, William Jennings Bry<strong>an</strong> warned,“It is no light matter to impeach the veracity of the Scriptures in order to accept, not a truth--not even atheory--but a mere hypothesis” (In His Image, 1922, p. 94).Bry<strong>an</strong> was right, <strong>an</strong>d nearly a century later, evolution remains “a mere hypothesis.” This is plainfrom the fact that evolution’s major “evidences” are disputed even by scientists who aren’tcreationists.I have m<strong>an</strong>y books in my library by evolutionists questioning the major principles of evolution.Consider a few examples:I.L. Cohen, a mathematici<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d researcher, a member of the New York Academy ofSciences. “… every single concept adv<strong>an</strong>ced by the theory of evolution (<strong>an</strong>d amended thereafter)is imaginary <strong>an</strong>d it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology,fossils, <strong>an</strong>d mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ... The theory of evolutionmay be the worst mistake made in science” (Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study inProbabilities, 1984, pp. 209, 210).David Berlinski, Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton <strong>an</strong>d post doctoral work inmathematics <strong>an</strong>d biology from Columbia University. “The structures of life are complex, <strong>an</strong>dcomplex structures get made in this, the purely hum<strong>an</strong> world, only by a process of deliberatedesign. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should theartifacts of life be different? ... For m<strong>an</strong>y years, biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticismon the circumference of evolutionary thought, where paleontologists, taxonomists, <strong>an</strong>dphilosophers linger. But the burning fringe of criticism is now contracting, coming ever closer tothe heart of Darwin’s doctrine” (The Deniable Darwin, June 1, 1996).Michael Denton, Ph.D. in biochemistry from King’s College London, Senior ResearchFellow in molecular biology at the University of Otago, New Zeal<strong>an</strong>d. “My fundamentalproblem with the theory is that there are so m<strong>an</strong>y highly complicated org<strong>an</strong>s, systems <strong>an</strong>dstructures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I c<strong>an</strong>notconceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of r<strong>an</strong>domch<strong>an</strong>ges. It strikes me as being a flagr<strong>an</strong>t denial of common sense to swallow that all these thingswere built up by accumulative small r<strong>an</strong>dom ch<strong>an</strong>ges. This is simply a nonsensical claim,especially for the great majority of cases, where nobody c<strong>an</strong> think of <strong>an</strong>y credible expl<strong>an</strong>ation ofhow it came about. And this is a very profound question which everybody skirts, everybodybrushes over, everybody tries to sweep under the carpet” (“An interview with Michael Denton,”Access Research Network, Vol. 15. No. 2, 1995; the interview was produced in conjunction withthe University of California <strong>an</strong>d was the first in a series of interviews with noted scientists <strong>an</strong>deducators entitled Focus on Darwinism).171
Soren Lovtrup, Swedish biologist <strong>an</strong>d the author of Epigenetics: A Treatise on TheoreticalBiology <strong>an</strong>d The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. “I believe that one day the Darwini<strong>an</strong> myth will ber<strong>an</strong>ked the greatest deceit in the history of science” (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth,1987).Richard Milton, science journalist <strong>an</strong>d design engineer <strong>an</strong>d a member of Mensa, has been amember of the Geologists’ Association for over 30 years. “I am seriously concerned, on purelyrational grounds, that generations of school <strong>an</strong>d university teachers have been led to acceptspeculation as scientific theory <strong>an</strong>d faulty data as scientific fact; that this process hasaccumulated a mountainous catalog of mingled fact <strong>an</strong>d fiction that c<strong>an</strong> no longer be containedby the sparsely eleg<strong>an</strong>t theory; <strong>an</strong>d that it is high time that the theory was taken out of its ornateVictori<strong>an</strong> glass cabinet <strong>an</strong>d examined with a fresh <strong>an</strong>d skeptical eye” (Shattering the Myths ofDarwinism, 1992, p. 4).Michael Pitm<strong>an</strong>, a chemistry professor at Cambridge. “Neither observation nor controlledexperiment has shown natural selection m<strong>an</strong>ipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene,hormone, enzyme system or org<strong>an</strong>” (Pitm<strong>an</strong>, Adam <strong>an</strong>d Evolution, 1984, pp. 67, 68).Wolfg<strong>an</strong>g Smith, Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, mathematics professorat MIT, UCLA, <strong>an</strong>d Oregon State University: “The point, however, is that the doctrine ofevolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in itscapacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is,in essence, a metaphysical claim. ... Thus, in the final <strong>an</strong>alysis, evolutionism is in truth ametaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb” (Teilhardism <strong>an</strong>d the New Religion, p. 24).Lee Spetner, Ph.D. in physics from MIT, worked with the Applied Physics Laboratory ofthe Johns Hopkins University from 1951-70. “Despite the insistence of evolutionists thatevolution is a fact, it is really no more th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong> improbable story. No one has ever shown thatmacroevolution c<strong>an</strong> work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequenceof microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so” (“Lee Spetner/Edward MaxDialogue,” 2001, The True Origin Archive).David Stove, Australi<strong>an</strong> philosopher, educator, <strong>an</strong>d author who taught philosophy at theUniversity of New South Wales <strong>an</strong>d the University of Sydney. “Huxley should not haveneeded Darwinism to tell him--since <strong>an</strong>y intelligent child of about eight could have told him--that in a ‘continual free fight of each other against all’ there would soon be no children, nowomen, <strong>an</strong>d hence, no men. In other words, that the hum<strong>an</strong> race could not possibly exist now,unless cooperation had always been stronger th<strong>an</strong> competition, both between women <strong>an</strong>d theirchildren, <strong>an</strong>d between men <strong>an</strong>d the children <strong>an</strong>d women whom they protect <strong>an</strong>d provide for. ...Such cases, I need hardly say, never bother armor-plated neo-Darwini<strong>an</strong>s. But then no cases,possible or even actual, ever do bother them. ... In neo-Darwinism’s house there are m<strong>an</strong>ym<strong>an</strong>sions: so m<strong>an</strong>y, indeed, that if a certain awkward fact will not fit into one m<strong>an</strong>sion, there is172
sure to be <strong>an</strong>other one into which it will fit to admiration” (Darwini<strong>an</strong> Fairytales: Selfish Genes,Errors of Heredity, <strong>an</strong>d Other Fables of Evolution, pp. 9, 39).William Thompson, Entomologist <strong>an</strong>d Director of the Commonwealth <strong>Institute</strong> ofBiological Control, Ottawa, C<strong>an</strong>ada. “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinionamong biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. Thisdivergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory <strong>an</strong>d does not permit <strong>an</strong>y certainconclusion. It is therefore right <strong>an</strong>d proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to thedisagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they thinkthis unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they areunable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting tomaintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism <strong>an</strong>d the elimination ofdifficulties, is abnormal <strong>an</strong>d undesirable in science” (Introduction to The Origin of Species, 6thedition, 1956, p. xxii).Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History, London. “Theexpl<strong>an</strong>ation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not onlyconveys no knowledge, it seems to convey <strong>an</strong>ti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution tenyears <strong>an</strong>d learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last tenyears we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to <strong>faith</strong>! It does seem that the level ofknowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in highschool, <strong>an</strong>d that’s all we know about it” (Patterson, in <strong>an</strong> address given at the Americ<strong>an</strong> Museumof Natural History, Nov. 5, 1981; cited from White <strong>an</strong>d Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise, p. 47).The report “Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the <strong>Bible</strong>” (available at the Way of Lifeweb site) features more th<strong>an</strong> 50 Ph.D.s who state that evolution is not scientifically proven.Consider a few examples. Most of these once believed in evolution:“Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications--from journal articles to textbooks to popularmagazine stories--which assume <strong>an</strong>d imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplishmacroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief” (John Baumgardner, Ph.D. ingeophysics <strong>an</strong>d space physics from UCLA, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,edited by John Ashton, p. 230).“I reviewed m<strong>an</strong>y books on Darwinism <strong>an</strong>d from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which includedvestigial org<strong>an</strong>s, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design,the fossil record, atavisms, nascent org<strong>an</strong>s, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolutionversus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, <strong>an</strong>d other topics. ... Slowly, butsurely, I WAS ABLE TO ELIMINATE ALL OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS USED TO SUPPORT EVOLUTIONISMBY RESEARCHING SECULAR LITERATURE ONLY. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the caseagainst evolutionism was overwhelming <strong>an</strong>d conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative,creationism” (Jerry Bergm<strong>an</strong>, Ph.D. in hum<strong>an</strong> biology from Columbia Pacific University <strong>an</strong>d Ph.D. inmeasurement <strong>an</strong>d evolution from Wayne State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, chapter 4).“There is not one single inst<strong>an</strong>ce whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientificvalidity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, gr<strong>an</strong>diose models, suppositions, <strong>an</strong>dinferences, all of which are formulated <strong>an</strong>d reinforced within the collective <strong>an</strong>d self-serving collaborations ofthe evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution. It was in the1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, <strong>an</strong>d disgust, I became enlightened to this. Up until that time Ihad not given the evolution matter very much thought. On the contrary, I presumed that researchers173
committed to the study of evolution possessed the same integrity as that expected of <strong>an</strong>y credible scientist. ...Subsequently, the greatest embarrassment of all was for me to find that THERE SIMPLY WAS NO VALIDSCIENCE WHATEVER, in <strong>an</strong>y of these numerous publications touting evolution” (Edward Boudreaux, Ph.D. inchemistry from Tul<strong>an</strong>e University, professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orle<strong>an</strong>s, In SixDays, edited by John Ashton, pp. 205, 206).“Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimatefactual evidence” (John Cimbala, Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California <strong>Institute</strong> of Technology, In SixDays, edited by John Ashton, p. 201).“As I looked at the evidence--trying to be a dispassionate scientist--I could not find the evidence for themultitudes of intermediate forms which should exist if evolution was true” (Raymond Jones, Ph.D. inbiology, “St<strong>an</strong>ding Firm,” The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wiel<strong>an</strong>d, p. 28).“It is my conviction that if <strong>an</strong>y professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully theassumptions upon which the macro-evolutionary doctrine rests, <strong>an</strong>d the observational <strong>an</strong>d laboratory evidencethat bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are subst<strong>an</strong>tial reasons for doubtingthe truth of this doctrine” (De<strong>an</strong> Kenyon, Ph.D. in biophysics from St<strong>an</strong>ford University, “The Creationist Viewof Biological Origins,” NEX4 Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33).“I have never seen <strong>an</strong>y evidence for evolution. All that I see around me in nature points to a divinedesigner” (Angela Meyer, Ph.D. in horticultural science from the University of Sydney, In Six Days, edited byJohn Ashton, p. 143).“How secure is the idea that there is <strong>an</strong> uninterrupted creative sequence from the big b<strong>an</strong>g through theformation of the solar system, the solidification of the earth, the spont<strong>an</strong>eous generation of life, <strong>an</strong>d theevolution of pl<strong>an</strong>ts, <strong>an</strong>imals, <strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong>s to end in the world around us today? Is this scheme impregnable?By no me<strong>an</strong>s. It has fatal gaps <strong>an</strong>d inconsistencies” (Colin Mitchell, Ph.D. in desert terrain geography fromCambridge University, In Six Days, pp. 318, 319).“I no longer believed there was <strong>an</strong>y validity to Darwinism, having become convinced of this as much by theevolutionist literature I had read as by the creationist books. The st<strong>an</strong>dards of evidence supportingevolution seemed trivial compared to the evidence on which engineers have to base their work” (HenryMorris, Ph.D. in hydraulics <strong>an</strong>d hydrology from the University of Minnesota, Persuaded by the Evidence, p.222).“I have studied a lot of arguments from evolutionists; I have had seven formal debates with evolutionaryprofessors at universities, <strong>an</strong>d I have never read or heard <strong>an</strong>y scientific fact that contradicts what the<strong>Bible</strong> says. There are evolutionist’s interpretations of the facts, but the facts themselves are not contrary toScripture” (Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University, interview with DavidCloud at the Creation Museum, June 23, 2009).“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature--in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or books--that describes how molecular evolution of <strong>an</strong>y real,complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. ... In the face of the enormouscomplexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed” (MichaelBehe, Ph.D. in biology from the University of Pennsylv<strong>an</strong>ia, Darwin’s Black Box, chapters 8, 9).“For three years, I used all the evolutionary arguments I knew so well [to debate chemistry professor Dr.Charles Signorino]. For three years, I lost every scientific argument. In dismay, I watched the myth ofevolution evaporate under the light of scientific scrutiny, while the scientific case for Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ just got better <strong>an</strong>d better. It’s no wonder that the ACLU (actually the <strong>an</strong>ti-Christi<strong>an</strong> lawyersunion) fights by <strong>an</strong>y me<strong>an</strong>s to censor <strong>an</strong>y scientific challenge to evolution!” (Gary Parker, Ph.D. in biology/geology from Ball State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 254).“After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in theuniverse from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactoryexpl<strong>an</strong>ation of evolutionary galactic origins th<strong>an</strong> we were when we started to study the subject, using modernphysical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of thebeautiful <strong>an</strong>d complex realities of this world from <strong>an</strong> evolutionist approach” (John R<strong>an</strong>kin, Ph.D. inmathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe inCreation, p. 122).174
“Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as theevidence is picked <strong>an</strong>d chosen <strong>an</strong>d the great poll of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As thedepth <strong>an</strong>d breadth of hum<strong>an</strong> knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep <strong>an</strong>d wide, allpointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design” (Timothy St<strong>an</strong>dish, Ph.D. in biology <strong>an</strong>d public policyfrom George Mason University, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 117).“If the evolution or creationism discussion were decided by sensible appeals to reason, evolution would longago have joined the great philosophical foolishnesses of the past, with issues such as how m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>gels c<strong>an</strong>d<strong>an</strong>ce on the head of a pin, or the flat-earth concept. ... evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all.Rather, it is clung to though flying in the face of reason, with <strong>an</strong> incredible, f<strong>an</strong>atical, <strong>an</strong>d irrational religiousfervor. It loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name” (Ker Thomson,D.Sc. in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines, former director of the U.S. Air Force TerrestrialSciences Laboratory, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 217).“The principles <strong>an</strong>d observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1,but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days!” (Jeremy Walter, Ph.D. in mech<strong>an</strong>icalengineering, Pennsylv<strong>an</strong>ia State University, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,edited by John Ashton, pp. 21, 22).“I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creation<strong>an</strong>d global Flood th<strong>an</strong> there is <strong>an</strong> old earth <strong>an</strong>d evolution” (Keith W<strong>an</strong>ser, Ph.D. in condensed matterphysics from the University of California, Irvine, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 103, 104).“I became convinced that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to dowith evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as so m<strong>an</strong>y bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for theevolution of life on earth” (A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. in gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, InSix Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 257, 259, 260, 263).There is indeed no evidence that a self-replicating living cell could arise from non-life. There isno evidence that mutations <strong>an</strong>d natural selection could account for the vast complexity of life.There is no evidence that m<strong>an</strong> ascended from the <strong>an</strong>imal kingdom.6. The doctrine of evolution is a product of end-time apostasy.The 19th century witnessed <strong>an</strong> explosion of apostasy. Skepticism was in the air. TheologicalModernism, Hum<strong>an</strong>ism, <strong>an</strong>d Unitari<strong>an</strong>ism prepared the soil for the accept<strong>an</strong>ce of Darwini<strong>an</strong>evolution.Consider some descriptions of this unbelieving atmosphere:“[It was a time] when speculations about the origin of species were most rife, when even the orthodoxdoctrines were being modified <strong>an</strong>d complicated until it was hardly possible to know where orthodoxy ended<strong>an</strong>d heresy started” (Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin <strong>an</strong>d the Darwini<strong>an</strong> Revolution, p. 234).“Every thinking m<strong>an</strong> I have met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious <strong>faith</strong>.And the unthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief” (Thomas Huxley, cited fromAdri<strong>an</strong> Desmond, Huxley, p. 160).“The unspiritual condition of the churches … <strong>an</strong>d the alarmingly prevalent skepticism, infidelity, <strong>an</strong>d atheismamong the masses of the people in Germ<strong>an</strong>y, Switzerl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d Holl<strong>an</strong>d is, without doubt, almost whollyattributable to the advocacy of these criticisms by a large majority of the prominent pastors <strong>an</strong>d theologicalprofessors in those l<strong>an</strong>ds. The same condition of affairs is measurably true in Engl<strong>an</strong>d, Scotl<strong>an</strong>d, NewEngl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d in every community where this criticism is believed by <strong>an</strong>y very considerable number of people<strong>an</strong>d openly advocated” (L.W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, 1896).175
“The flood-gates of infidelity are open, <strong>an</strong>d Atheism overwhelming is upon us” (George Rom<strong>an</strong>es, 1878,cited from I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 371).“Attend<strong>an</strong>ce at places of worship is declining <strong>an</strong>d reverence for holy things is v<strong>an</strong>ishing. We solemnlybelieve this to be largely attributable to THE SCEPTICISM WHICH HAS FLASHED FROM THE PULPITAND SPREAD AMONG THE PEOPLE” (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sword <strong>an</strong>d Trowel, November 1887).It was within this atmosphere of spiritual skepticism that the doctrine of evolution was born <strong>an</strong>dthrived.We document this extensively in the book The Modern <strong>Bible</strong> Version Hall of Shame.7. Evolution is a fulfillment of <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy <strong>an</strong>d therefore is evidence of the divine originof the <strong>Bible</strong>.Consider 2 Peter 3:3-7. Written 2,000 years ago, this prophecy describes the prevailingnaturalistic evolutionary philosophy of our day. The prophecy says that scoffers will come whowill deny the global flood <strong>an</strong>d the second coming of Christ. The prophecy charges the scofferswith willful ignor<strong>an</strong>ce (verse 5). It says they are motivated by the desire to throw off God’s law<strong>an</strong>d to walk after their own lusts (verse 3). The prophecy describes the Darwinist’s naturalistic,uniformitari<strong>an</strong> view (“all things continue as they were,” verse 4). The scoffers have a naturalistic<strong>faith</strong>, rejecting the supernatural, the miraculous, the Divine. As Richard Lewontin admitted, “Wehave a prior commitment to materialism. ... we c<strong>an</strong>not allow a Divine Foot in thedoor” (“Billions <strong>an</strong>d Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, J<strong>an</strong>. 9, 1997, p. 31).8. Theistic evolution is not a viable option.Probably the majority of professing Christi<strong>an</strong>s today believe in some type of theistic evolution.They believe in a Creator God <strong>an</strong>d they believe in salvation through Christ but they don’t believethe <strong>Bible</strong>’s account of six-day creation <strong>an</strong>d they give credence to evolutionary doctrines such asthe <strong>an</strong>cient age of the earth <strong>an</strong>d the gradual evolution of creatures. Theistic evolutionists whoprofess Christi<strong>an</strong>ity believe that it is possible to reconcile the <strong>Bible</strong> with evolution, but in realitythis is <strong>an</strong> impossibility.First, the early chapters of Genesis are written as history rather th<strong>an</strong> poetry or allegory.“There are 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names <strong>an</strong>d at least 21 identifiable culturalitems (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities,towers) in those opening chapters. The signific<strong>an</strong>ce of this list may be seen by comparing it, for example, with‘the paucity of references in the Kor<strong>an</strong>. The single tenth chapter of Genesis has five times more geographicaldata of import<strong>an</strong>ce th<strong>an</strong> the whole of the Kor<strong>an</strong>.’ Every one of these items presents us with the possibility ofestablishing the reliability of our author. The content runs head on into a description of the real world ratherth<strong>an</strong> recounting events belonging to <strong>an</strong>other world or level of reality” (Walter Kaiser, Jr., “The Literary Form ofGenesis 1-11,” New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. by J. Barton Payne, 1970, p. 59).Genesis is cited as history by Jesus. In Luke 17:26-32, for example, Jesus mentions Noah, theArk, the Flood, Lot, the destruction of Sodom by fire, <strong>an</strong>d Lot’s wife. Elsewhere Jesus mentions176
the Creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam <strong>an</strong>d Eve (Mat. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain <strong>an</strong>d Abel (Mat. 23:35;Lk. 11:50-51), <strong>an</strong>d Abraham (John 8:39-40). In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24. Christalways treats Genesis as history, <strong>an</strong>d it is impossible to honor Him as Lord <strong>an</strong>d Saviour <strong>an</strong>ddisregard His teaching. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ mentions both “accounts” of creation inGenesis 1 <strong>an</strong>d 2 <strong>an</strong>d treats them as historical. M<strong>an</strong>y theistic evolutionists, such as Fr<strong>an</strong>cisCollins, head of the Hum<strong>an</strong> Genome Project, claim to be “ev<strong>an</strong>gelical” <strong>an</strong>d to honor Christ asLord <strong>an</strong>d Saviour, but this is not consistent with the rejection of Christ’s teaching about Genesis<strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong> origins.Genesis 1-11 is cited as history by seven of the eight New Testament writers (all but James).Altogether the first eleven chapters of Genesis are quoted from or referred to 100 times in theNew Testament, <strong>an</strong>d Genesis is always treated as historical.Genesis 1-3 forms the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Adam was not a real m<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>dthere was no literal Fall, the gospel becomes <strong>an</strong> empty religious myth.Jesus’ hum<strong>an</strong> genealogy is traced from Adam (Luke 3:23-38). We know that this genealogy ispopulated with the names of real historical people, <strong>an</strong>d there is no reason to treat Adamdifferently. Further, there is no room within this genealogy for millions of years of time.Adam is compared to Christ (Rom<strong>an</strong>s 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). It is obvious that the apostle Paulconsidered Adam <strong>an</strong> actual m<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the Genesis account literal history.Second, the teaching of Genesis c<strong>an</strong>not be reconciled with the teaching of evolution.a. Genesis says God created the world <strong>an</strong>d everything in it in six days. The days of creation inGenesis 1 were regular 24-hour days, days with <strong>an</strong> evening <strong>an</strong>d a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13,19, 23, 31). This is repeated in Exodus 20:10-11.b. Genesis says everything was made to reproduce after its kind. The statement “after theirkind” is repeated ten times in Genesis chapter one (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This isprecisely what we observe in the world. Dogs reproduce dogs, spiders reproduce spiders,birds reproduce birds, <strong>an</strong>d pe<strong>an</strong>uts reproduce pe<strong>an</strong>uts. Animals c<strong>an</strong> interbreed <strong>an</strong>d adaptwithin kinds (e.g., dogs c<strong>an</strong> be interbred to produce different kinds of dogs), but kindsc<strong>an</strong>not be bridged. This is what the <strong>Bible</strong> teaches <strong>an</strong>d this is what we c<strong>an</strong> observeeverywhere in nature, yet evolution teaches that the kinds are not stable, that the fishevolved into the amphibi<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d the amphibi<strong>an</strong> into the reptile, <strong>an</strong>d the reptile into the bird,etc.c. Genesis says the first m<strong>an</strong> was created directly by God (Genesis 2) <strong>an</strong>d was not the productof gradual evolution from the <strong>an</strong>imal kingdom. The <strong>Bible</strong> says Adam was the first m<strong>an</strong> (1Cor. 15:45). And Eve is the mother of all men (Gen. 3:20).177
d. Genesis says m<strong>an</strong> is made in God’s image <strong>an</strong>d is not a part of the <strong>an</strong>imal kingdom (Gen.1:27). Evolution says m<strong>an</strong> is <strong>an</strong> evolved <strong>an</strong>imal.e. Genesis says the world was created perfect, then fell under sin <strong>an</strong>d has been deterioratingever since. This is consistent with everything we c<strong>an</strong> observe. Everything is moving fromorder to disorder. Everything is deteriorating, running down. This is what the Second Lawof Thermodynamics describes, as even secular evolutionists admit. Isaac Asimov was <strong>an</strong>evolutionist, but his definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as follows, actuallyrefutes evolution <strong>an</strong>d proves the <strong>Bible</strong>: “The universe is const<strong>an</strong>tly getting more disorderly!Viewed that way, we c<strong>an</strong> see the Second Law all about us. How difficult to maintainhouses, <strong>an</strong>d machinery, <strong>an</strong>d our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let themdeteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, <strong>an</strong>d everything deteriorates, collapses,breaks down, wears out, all by itself <strong>an</strong>d that is what the Second Law is all about” (Asimov,“In the Game of Energy <strong>an</strong>d Thermodynamics You C<strong>an</strong>’t Break Even,” Smithsoni<strong>an</strong><strong>Institute</strong> Journal, June 1970, p. 10). How contrary this is to the doctrine of evolution,which says that things have gradually evolved from chaos to order, from non-life to life!f. Genesis says everything was designed to fulfill God’s purposes. Wherever we look in nature,from the microscopic to the astronomic, we see the appear<strong>an</strong>ce of design, which is contraryto the principle of evolution, which says the world is the product of blind naturalisticprocesses. Study the cell, the eye, the ear, the leaf, the flying wing, the atom, light, sound,water--everywhere you find evidence of purpose <strong>an</strong>d design. Dr. Michael Denton observes,“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whateverdepth we look, we find <strong>an</strong> eleg<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d ingenuity of <strong>an</strong> absolutely tr<strong>an</strong>scending quality,which so mitigates against the idea of ch<strong>an</strong>ce” (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1983, p.342). Even a “simple” microscopic one-celled bacterium (E. Coli) contains DNAinformation units equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Brit<strong>an</strong>nica, <strong>an</strong>d allof that information works together in perfect harmony <strong>an</strong>d is self-replicating! Purpose <strong>an</strong>ddesign is what one would expect if God created the world as the Genesis record says Hedid, but if evolution were true, we would find chaos <strong>an</strong>d haphazardness.g. Genesis indicates that the earth’s history is only about 6,000 years old, whereas evolutionclaims that it is billions of years old.Consider the following statement by Bert Thompson. (The documentation, which has beenremoved from the quotation, c<strong>an</strong> be found in the original article online.)The truth of the matter is that the <strong>Bible</strong>, being a book grounded in history, is filled with chronologicaldata that may be used to establish a relative age for the Earth. It is not ‘silent’ on this topic. ...The <strong>Bible</strong>, for example, provides exact chronological data from Adam to Solomon. Combininginformation from the Assyri<strong>an</strong> Eponym Lists <strong>an</strong>d the Black Obelisk, the death of Ahab has beendetermined to be 853-852 B.C. <strong>an</strong>d therefore the reign of Solomon (some 40 years, 1 Kings 11:42)c<strong>an</strong> be dated at 971-931 B.C. According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years before Solomon’s fourth year ofreign (967-966 B.C.), Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The date of the Exodus is 1446/1445 B.C.178
To this date is added the time of the sojourn in Egypt (430 years, Exodus 12:40), thereby producingthe date of 1876 B.C. as the year Jacob went to Egypt. Interestingly, the <strong>Bible</strong> records Pharaoh’squery of Jacob’s age (<strong>an</strong>d Jacob’s <strong>an</strong>swer—130 years) in Genesis 47:9, which would make the yearof Jacob’s birth 2006 B.C. (Genesis 25:26). Abraham was 100 years old when he begat Isaac, givingthe date of 2166 B.C. for Abraham’s birth. The chronology from Abraham to Adam is recorded verycarefully in two separate chronological tables—Genesis 5 <strong>an</strong>d 11. According to Genesis 12:4,Abraham was 75 when he left Har<strong>an</strong>, presumably after Terah died at 205 years; thus, Abraham wasborn when Terah was 130 years old, albeit he is mentioned first by import<strong>an</strong>ce when Terah beg<strong>an</strong>having sons at the age of 70 (Genesis 11:27; 12:4; Acts 7:4).Having established the birth date of Abraham at 2166 B.C. (Archer, 1970, pp. 203-204), it is possibleto work from the time of Adam’s creation to Abraham in order to discern the chronology of ‘thebeginning.’ The time from the creation of Adam to Seth was 130 years (Genesis 5:3), the time fromAdam to Noah was 1056 years (Packer, et al., 1980, pp. 56-57), <strong>an</strong>d the time from Noah’s birth to theFlood was 600 years (Genesis 7:6), or 1656 A.A. (After Adam). It appears that Shem was about 100years old at the time of the Flood (Genesis 5:32; 11:10) <strong>an</strong>d begat Arphaxad two years after theFlood (the Earth was not dry for more th<strong>an</strong> a year; cf. Genesis 7:11 with 8:14; see also Genesis11:10) in approximately 1659 A.A.Arphaxad begat Salah in his thirty-fifth year; however, Luke 3:36 complements the chronologicaltable of Genesis 11 with the insertion of Cain<strong>an</strong> between Arphaxad <strong>an</strong>d Salah, which indicates thatlikely Arphaxad was the father of Cain<strong>an</strong>. Proceeding forward, one observes that Terah was born in1879 A.A., <strong>an</strong>d bore Abraham 130 years later (in the year 2009 A.A.). Simple arithmetic—2166 B.C.added to 2009 A.A.—would place the creation date at approximately 4175 B.C. The Great Flood,then, would have occurred around 2519 B.C. (i.e., 1656 A.A.).Numerous objections have been leveled at the literal <strong>an</strong>d consecutive chronological interpretation ofScripture. For example, some have suggested that the tables of Genesis 5 <strong>an</strong>d 11 are neither literalnor consecutive. Yet five of the Patriarchs clearly were the literal fathers of their respective sons:Adam named Seth (Genesis 4:25), Seth named Enos (4:26), Lamech named Noah (5:29), Noah’ssons were Shem, Ham <strong>an</strong>d Japheth (cf. 5:32 with 9:18), <strong>an</strong>d Terah fathered Abraham directly(11:27,31). Jude’s record in the New Testament counts Enoch as ‘the seventh from Adam’ (Jude1:14), thereby acknowledging the genealogical tables as literal <strong>an</strong>d consecutive. Moreover, howbetter could Moses have expressed a literal <strong>an</strong>d consecutive genealogy th<strong>an</strong> by using the terms‘lived...<strong>an</strong>d begat...begat...after he begat...all the days... <strong>an</strong>d he died’? Without question, Mosesnoted that the first three individuals (Adam, Seth, <strong>an</strong>d Enos) were consecutive, <strong>an</strong>d Jude stated byinspiration that the first seven (to Enoch) were consecutive. Enoch’s son, Methuselah, died the yearof the Flood, <strong>an</strong>d so by three steps the chronology of Adam to Noah is literal <strong>an</strong>d consecutive,producing a trustworthy genealogy/chronology.There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providinginformation on the age of the Earth <strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong>ity. But the numerous chronological tables permeatingthe <strong>Bible</strong> prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about givingm<strong>an</strong> exact chronological data <strong>an</strong>d, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledgeof the period back to Abraham, plus two tables—with ages—from Abraham to Adam. The <strong>an</strong>cientJewish histori<strong>an</strong>s (1 Chronicles 1:1-27) <strong>an</strong>d the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understoodthe tables of Genesis 5 <strong>an</strong>d 11 as literal <strong>an</strong>d consecutive. The <strong>Bible</strong> explains quite explicitly that Godcreated the Sun <strong>an</strong>d Moon to be timekeepers (Genesis 1:16) for Adam <strong>an</strong>d his descend<strong>an</strong>ts (noticehow Noah logged the beginning <strong>an</strong>d the ending of the Flood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11;9:14). ...While it is true that genealogies (<strong>an</strong>d chronologies) serve various functions in Scripture, one of theirmain purposes is to show the historical connection of great men to the unfolding of Jehovah’sredemptive pl<strong>an</strong>. These lists, therefore, are a link from the earliest days of hum<strong>an</strong>ity to the completionof God’s salvation system. In order to have <strong>an</strong>y evidential value, they must be subst<strong>an</strong>tially complete(Bert Thompson, “The <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the Age of the Earth,” August 1999, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/85).Various biblical dating chronologies differ slightly--a few years here or even a hundredyears there--but no biblical dating chronology allows for a date of creation older th<strong>an</strong>several thous<strong>an</strong>d years.179
h. Genesis says m<strong>an</strong> had the ability to use l<strong>an</strong>guage from the beginning, so that he mightcommunicate with God. But according to evolution, l<strong>an</strong>guage evolved from <strong>an</strong>imal grunts<strong>an</strong>d squeals. It is import<strong>an</strong>t to underst<strong>an</strong>d that even modern archaeology says that writingbeg<strong>an</strong> about 5,000 years ago, which fits the <strong>Bible</strong>’s record exactly (Joseph Naveh, Originsof the Alphabets: Introduction to Archaeology, Jerusalem: The Jerusalem PublishingHouse, p. 6).i. Genesis says m<strong>an</strong> had the ability to create <strong>an</strong> intelligent civilization from the verybeginning. Adam’s first children built cities, raised cattle, created musical instruments, <strong>an</strong>dworked in brass <strong>an</strong>d iron (Gen. 4:17-22). Evolution, on the other h<strong>an</strong>d, claims that m<strong>an</strong>’scivilization beg<strong>an</strong> with a “stone age” during which “cave men” lived like <strong>an</strong>imals.9. Most people, even the most educated, know little about evolution <strong>an</strong>d are not prepared todefend it.The <strong>Bible</strong> believer does not need to be intimidated by evolutionists. They are usually ill preparedto defend it.High school biology textbooks deal with the subject almost in passing <strong>an</strong>d typically toss out afew of the shopworn icons--such as the embryo <strong>an</strong>d horse charts, the Miller experiment, <strong>an</strong>d fruitfly mutations--that are refuted in this course.On a flight from S<strong>an</strong> Diego to Seattle in 2010, I had a conversation with a Ph.D. c<strong>an</strong>didate inbiology, <strong>an</strong>d he admitted to me that the only thing he knew about Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution is the littlehe learned in college biology textbooks. Though he believed it, he was unprepared to defend it.The Christi<strong>an</strong> who studies the facts presented in this book will be more knowledgeable aboutDarwini<strong>an</strong> evolution th<strong>an</strong> the vast percentage of people he will meet along life’s way.10. Darwin <strong>an</strong>d his followers use a bait <strong>an</strong>d switch technique.The bait <strong>an</strong>d switch routine is used continually. They try to prove the evolution of creatures, suchas a reptile turning into a bird, from evidence of minor ch<strong>an</strong>ges within species, such as differenttypes of beaks on finches or different colorings of peppered moths or the ch<strong>an</strong>ge in the eatinghabit of a caterpillar or the adaptation of a bacterium.Adaptation within species is dramatically different from the ch<strong>an</strong>ges required for the creation ofnew kinds of creatures. The difference has been referred to as “microevolution” vs.“macroevolution,” but we are not happy with the term “microevolution” since it falsely impliesthat some type of real evolution is happening.180
Darwin pointed to the variety among pigeons to prove that “natural selection” c<strong>an</strong> producech<strong>an</strong>ges. Yet there is zero evidence that such modifications c<strong>an</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ge a pigeon into somethingelse, or that such modifications c<strong>an</strong> create a wing or produce flight. This is to compare apples toor<strong>an</strong>ges.Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species is a masterpiece of bait <strong>an</strong>d switch. He gave no evidencethat species could originate through his proposition. As James Perloff says, “Darwin’s On theOrigin of Species discussed survival of the fittest--but not arrival of the fittest” (Tornado in aJunkyard, p. 47).11. The term “science” must be clearly defined.It is import<strong>an</strong>t to underst<strong>an</strong>d that there are two types of “science” practiced today: operational(or empirical or observational) <strong>an</strong>d historical.“Operational science deals with testing <strong>an</strong>d verifying ideas in the present <strong>an</strong>d leads to the production of usefulproducts like computers, cars, <strong>an</strong>d satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence fromthe past <strong>an</strong>d includes the models of evolution <strong>an</strong>d special creation. Recognizing that everyone haspresuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is <strong>an</strong> import<strong>an</strong>t step in realizing that historicalscience is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), wemust interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions” (Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, p. 20).Scientists have accomplished wonderful things through empirical science, such as buildingtechnological devices <strong>an</strong>d exploring the living cell, but when they try to look beyond the physicalworld <strong>an</strong>d beyond the constraints of time, they enter into a sphere about which they are notqualified to speak. They leave the evidence <strong>an</strong>d enter into speculation.For example, the February 5, 2004 issue of Jap<strong>an</strong> N<strong>an</strong>onet Bulletin featured <strong>an</strong> interview withDr. Keiichi Namba, professor, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University, on theflagellum motor. Notice the introductory paragraph:“Nature created a rotary motor with a diameter of 30 nm. Motility of bacteria, such as Salmonella <strong>an</strong>d E. coliwith a body size of 1-2 microns, is driven by rapid rotation of a helical propeller by such a tiny little motor at itsbase. This org<strong>an</strong>elle is called the flagellum, made of a rotary motor <strong>an</strong>d a thin helical filament that grows up toabout 15 microns. It rotates at around 2,000 rpm ... <strong>an</strong>d with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%.”This paragraph is a mixture of empirical <strong>an</strong>d historical science. The description of the flagellummotor is based on observational science, but the statement that “nature created” this motor is notbased on <strong>an</strong>y scientific evidence. It is pure speculation based on evolutionary assumption. TheJap<strong>an</strong> N<strong>an</strong>onet Bulletin is qualified to report on the construction of biological n<strong>an</strong>o motors, but itis not qualified to tell us how these motors came into existence. For that, we must look beyondm<strong>an</strong>’s mind. We must look to God <strong>an</strong>d His divine Revelation.12. Evolution is based upon unproven assumptions.181
One thing that will become evident in this course is that evolution is based upon unprovenassumptions. If evolutionists are not allowed to assume their doctrine, they have no evidence.In 1887, John Dawson wisely observed:“Let the reader take up either of Darwin’s great books, or Spencer’s ‘Biology,’ <strong>an</strong>d merely ask himself as hereads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here <strong>an</strong>d what is proved?’ <strong>an</strong>d he will find the whole fabric meltaway like a vision” (John William Dawson, The Story of Earth <strong>an</strong>d M<strong>an</strong>, 1887, p. 330).Dawson was correct, <strong>an</strong>d nothing has ch<strong>an</strong>ged in this regard since his day.Consider some examples:HomologyOne of the most-used icons of evolution is homology or similarity between creatures, limbs, <strong>an</strong>dorg<strong>an</strong>s. Darwin made so much of homology that he said that it would cause him to believe inevolution even if there was no other evidence.Practically every modern biology textbook <strong>an</strong>d every natural history museum uses homology asa chief evidence for evolution. For example, the Prentice Hall Biology 2002 textbook features adrawing of a limb of a turtle, <strong>an</strong> alligator, a bird, <strong>an</strong>d a mammal accomp<strong>an</strong>ied by the followingnote, “[These] homologous structures ... provide evidence of a common <strong>an</strong>cestor whose bonesmay have resembled those of the <strong>an</strong>cient fish shown here.”In reality, the similarity of limbs, such as the bone structure of a hum<strong>an</strong> arm, <strong>an</strong> alligator’s leg,<strong>an</strong>d a bird’s wing, provides zero evidence for evolution, unless one assumes that evolution hasoccurred. Similarity of structures is not evidence for common descent nor evidence againstcommon design. Who is to say scientifically that the limbs were not created for their individualpurposes <strong>an</strong>d that the similarities of form exist because these function best to fulfill a variety ofneeds? It would be reasonable for the creator to use similar structures <strong>an</strong>d processes in creaturesdesigned to live in the same environment.Radiometric DatingDr. Don DeYoung, in Thous<strong>an</strong>ds Not Billions, shows that radiometric dating techniques arebased on evolutionary assumptions, <strong>an</strong>d if the assumptions are wrong the dates will also bewrong.The Big B<strong>an</strong>gThe only reason evolutionists think they c<strong>an</strong> trace <strong>an</strong> exp<strong>an</strong>ding universe back to a “singularity,”is because they assume there was no creation 6,000 years ago. Like radiometric dating methods,the Big B<strong>an</strong>g is premised upon <strong>an</strong> evolutionary “uniformitari<strong>an</strong>” view of the universe that denies182
divine creation a priori. Astrophysicist George Ellis admits that “there is a r<strong>an</strong>ge of models thatcould explain the observations” (W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” ScientificAmeric<strong>an</strong>, Oct. 1995, p. 55). Ellis admits that evolutionists “are using philosophical criteria inchoosing our models” <strong>an</strong>d that “a lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”The fossil record as evidence of descent with modificationAll supposed evidence for evolution from the fossil record is mere assumption. It is impossible toprove scientifically that one fossilized creature evolved from <strong>an</strong>other. This was admitted byColin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum:“THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL FOR WHICH ONE COULD MAKE A WATERTIGHT ARGUMENT [astr<strong>an</strong>sitional]. The reason is that statements about <strong>an</strong>cestry <strong>an</strong>d descent are not applicable in the fossil record.Is Archaeopteryx the <strong>an</strong>cestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of <strong>an</strong>swering thequestion. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to <strong>an</strong>other, <strong>an</strong>d to find reasons whythe stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no wayof putting them to the test” (Colin Patterson, letter to Luther Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d, April 10, 1979, cited fromSunderl<strong>an</strong>d’s Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 101, 102).Tr<strong>an</strong>sposons are evolutionary remn<strong>an</strong>ts of <strong>an</strong>cient virusesFor years tr<strong>an</strong>sposons in the DNA were “almost universally interpreted by evolutionary scientistsas remn<strong>an</strong>ts of <strong>an</strong>cient viruses.” Tr<strong>an</strong>sposons are segments of DNA that “utilize cellularmachines to replicate themselves <strong>an</strong>d then splice the copies back into the host DNA” (Bri<strong>an</strong>Thomas, “Science Overturns Evolution’s Best Arguments,” <strong>Institute</strong> for Creation Research, Dec.29, 2009). Since chimp<strong>an</strong>zees <strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong>s share some tr<strong>an</strong>sposons, this was supposed to beevidence that the tr<strong>an</strong>sposons were created by the same virus before the two “species” divergedfrom <strong>an</strong> ape-like <strong>an</strong>cestor. It is now known that tr<strong>an</strong>sposons contain functional code that is usefulto the org<strong>an</strong>ism <strong>an</strong>d are not mere evolutionary “junk,” which is solid scientific evidence againstthe evolutionary assumption. There was no real evidence all along. The facts were merelyinterpreted through evolutionary assumptions <strong>an</strong>d those assumptions were then used as evidencefor evolution!Armed with the knowledge that evolutionists assume their doctrine to be true <strong>an</strong>d conduct their“science” on this basis, the <strong>Bible</strong> believer will not be led astray by evolutionary mediapresentations, whether in print, in museums, on the web, or in documentaries.For example, the National Geographic documentary The Known Universe 2 examines the“evidence” for extra-terrestrial life. With its spectacular graphics <strong>an</strong>d interviews with scientistswith impressive credentials, it has the air of great scientific authority, but it lacks real subst<strong>an</strong>ce.In reality, it is based upon evolutionary assumptions combined with speculation. Some majorassumptions are as follows:• Life evolved on earth; therefore, life could evolve elsewhere. “With billions of stars outthere, surely there’s life.” This is mere assumption.183
• Inert molecules c<strong>an</strong> form life if a liquid is present to agitate them; therefore, life could formelsewhere if liquid water or even liquid meth<strong>an</strong>e is present. “Molecules must move around<strong>an</strong>d interact to form the chemistry for life. Liquid allows the atoms to mix together to formthe building blocks of life.” This is mere assumption. In fact, as Dr. David Stone says, “It’seven worse. It’s just word games. No one has ever offered a system of chemical reactions, aproposed scientific model, at all. There is no science to support this.”• Since life exists in harsh environments on earth this me<strong>an</strong>s life c<strong>an</strong> evolve in harshenvironments elsewhere. “We have to underst<strong>an</strong>d that life will evolve under conditions thatare horribly hostile.” This is mere assumption.• Life on earth formed by adapting to the environment; therefore, extra-terrestrial life will beadapted to its environment. “Over hundreds of millions of years all of the life forms on ourpl<strong>an</strong>et have adapted to their environment.” Scientists are quoted as imagining that life on ahigh gravity pl<strong>an</strong>et would be squat <strong>an</strong>d have m<strong>an</strong>y thick legs, whereas life on a low-gravitypl<strong>an</strong>et would be spindly like a spider. It is pure assumption <strong>an</strong>d speculation.13. Scientists are highly motivated not to criticize evolution.This is because Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution is the religion of modern science <strong>an</strong>d it is not acceptable toquestion it. M<strong>an</strong>y have lost promotions <strong>an</strong>d jobs <strong>an</strong>d been denied degrees, awards, <strong>an</strong>d gr<strong>an</strong>ts foreven questioning evolution, not to speak of rejecting it.In the video documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein examines the persecutionof scientists <strong>an</strong>d professors who dare to question Darwinism or to promote even the slightestevidence for intelligent design.In Slaughter of the Dissidents (Southworth, WA: Leafcutter Press, 2008), Jerry Bergm<strong>an</strong> (Ph.D.in hum<strong>an</strong> biology from Columbia Pacific University <strong>an</strong>d Ph.D. in measurement <strong>an</strong>d evaluationfrom Wayne State University) tells the “shocking truth about killing the careers of Darwindoubters.” In the Introduction, John Eidsmoe says: “In this fascinating book, Dr. Jerry Bergm<strong>an</strong>--himself a victim--chronicles the history of modern religious persecution in America. A highlyrespected, credentialed, <strong>an</strong>d published professor, he was denied tenure--<strong>an</strong>d subsequently fired--admittedly because of his creationist beliefs <strong>an</strong>d writings. Dr. Bergm<strong>an</strong> describes numerous othercases, often concealing names to protect those who do not wish to risk losing their currentpositions (a common me<strong>an</strong>s of persecuting those with minority views)” (p. xv).Dr. Bergm<strong>an</strong> testifies:“[A] factor that moved me to the creationist side was the underh<strong>an</strong>ded, often totally unethical techniques thatevolutionists typically used to suppress disson<strong>an</strong>t ideas, primarily creationism. Rarely did they carefully <strong>an</strong>dobjectively examine the facts, but usually focused on suppression of creationists, denial of their degrees,denial of their tenure, ad hominem attacks, <strong>an</strong>d in general, irrational attacks on their person. In short, theirresponse in general was totally unscientific <strong>an</strong>d one that reeks of intoler<strong>an</strong>ce, even hatred” (Persuaded by theEvidence, chapter 4).William Dembski adds:184
“As Michael Behe pointed out in <strong>an</strong> interview with the Harvard Political Review for a biologist to questionDarwinism end<strong>an</strong>gers one’s career. ‘There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job,you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical ofDarwini<strong>an</strong> theory not to make their views known.’ ... Doubting Darwini<strong>an</strong> orthodoxy is comparable to opposingthe party line of a Stalinist regime. ... Overzealous critics of intelligent design regard it as their moral duty tokeep biology free from intelligent design, even if that me<strong>an</strong>s taking extreme measures. I’ve known such criticsto contact design theorists’ employers <strong>an</strong>d notify them of the ‘heretics’ in their midst. Once ‘outed,’ the designtheorists themselves get harassed <strong>an</strong>d har<strong>an</strong>gued with e-mails. Next, the press does a story mentioning theirunsavory intelligent design associations. (The day one such story appeared, a close friend <strong>an</strong>d colleague ofmine mentioned in the story was dismissed from his research position at a prestigious molecular biologylaboratory. He had worked in that lab for ten years. ... Welcome to the inquisition” (The Design Revolution, pp.304, 305).Walt Brown, who has a Ph.D. in mech<strong>an</strong>ical engineering from MIT, describes the way thatevolutionists have controlled the scientific fields since the day of Thomas Huxley. He uses thefield of geology as <strong>an</strong> example:“Professors in the new <strong>an</strong>d growing field of geology were primarily selected from those who supported the<strong>an</strong>ti-catastrophe principle. These professors did not adv<strong>an</strong>ce students who espoused catastrophes. Anadvocate of a global flood was br<strong>an</strong>ded a ‘biblical literalist’ or ‘fuzzy thinker’--not worthy of <strong>an</strong> academicdegree. Geology professors also influenced, through the peer review process, what papers could bepublished. Textbooks soon reflected their orthodoxy, so few students became ‘fuzzy thinkers.’ This practicecontinues to this day, because a major criterion for selecting professors is the number of their publications” (Inthe Beginning, p. 253).Consider Dr. Caroline Crocker, a cell-biologist <strong>an</strong>d full-time visiting faculty member at GeorgeMason University. After she showed several slides about intelligent design in a class on cells, shewas reprim<strong>an</strong>ded, pulled from lecture duties, <strong>an</strong>d her contract was not renewed the followingsemester. She testified: “Students are not allowed to question Darwinism. There are universitieswhere they poll students on what they believe <strong>an</strong>d single them out.”Some Darwinists have even hinted at or openly called for the imprisonment of creationists.“Richard Dawkins has written that <strong>an</strong>yone who denies evolution is either ‘ignor<strong>an</strong>t, stupid or ins<strong>an</strong>e (orwicked--but I’d rather not consider that’) (New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p. 34). It isn’t a big step fromcalling someone wicked to taking forceful measures to put <strong>an</strong> end to their wickedness. John Maddox, theeditor of Nature, has written in his journal that ‘it may not be long before the practice of religion must beregarded as <strong>an</strong>ti-science’ (‘Defending Science Against Anti-Science,’ Nature, 368, 185). In his recent bookDarwin’s D<strong>an</strong>gerous Idea, philosopher D<strong>an</strong>iel Dennett compares religious believers--90 percent of thepopulation--to wild <strong>an</strong>imals who may have to be caged, <strong>an</strong>d he says that parents should be prevented(presumably by coercion) from misinforming their children about the truth of evolution, which is so evident tohim” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, chapter 11).As a response to this persecution, IDEA was founded in 2001. It st<strong>an</strong>ds for Intelligent Design <strong>an</strong>dEvolution Awareness. It seeks to promote the free discussion of ID <strong>an</strong>d has encouraged theestablishment of clubs on college <strong>an</strong>d high school campuses.14. Evolution is a religion that has been biased against the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the God of the <strong>Bible</strong>from its inception; it is more about rejecting God th<strong>an</strong> it is about science.In 2000, Dr. Michael Ruse wrote:185
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more th<strong>an</strong> mere science. Evolution is promulgated as <strong>an</strong>ideology, a secular religion: a full-fledged alternative to Christi<strong>an</strong>ity, with me<strong>an</strong>ing <strong>an</strong>d morality. Evolution is areligion” (The National Post, May 13, 2000).Dr. Ruse was one of the main witnesses for the evolutionists in the 1981 federal court trial inLittle Rock, Ark<strong>an</strong>sas. There he argued that creationism is religion, whereas evolution is science,but by 2000 he had reversed himself <strong>an</strong>d acknowledged that evolution is also a religion.Paul Beck is one of m<strong>an</strong>y scientists who have rejected evolution after discovering that it is moreabout metaphysics th<strong>an</strong> physics.“My studies led me to the ever greater conviction that evolutionism was a deeply flawed theory sustained notby science, but by those who were determined to find <strong>an</strong>y expl<strong>an</strong>ation--no matter how absurd--that b<strong>an</strong>ishedGod from the scene” (Paul Beck, doctorate in engineering science from Oxford, Persuaded by the Evidence,p. 117).The presentation of evolution as <strong>an</strong> alternative metaphysical <strong>faith</strong> beg<strong>an</strong> with the fathers of themodern evolutionary theories.Charles Lyell (1799-1873), the father of geological uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism which became a bedrockof evolution, hated the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis <strong>an</strong>d hoped to use hisuniformitari<strong>an</strong> principle to drive men “out of the Mosaic record” (Life, Letters, <strong>an</strong>d Journals ofSir Charles Lyell, I, pp. 253, 256, 328).Charles Darwin hated the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d the God of the <strong>Bible</strong>. In his Autobiography he said that the<strong>Bible</strong> “was no more to be trusted th<strong>an</strong> the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of <strong>an</strong>ybarbari<strong>an</strong>” <strong>an</strong>d called the doctrine of eternal torment a damnable doctrine (pp. 85, 87).Thomas Huxley, who had a major role in the popularizing of Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution, was very boldin his rejection of the <strong>Bible</strong>. He mocked biblical creation in Zoological Evidences as to M<strong>an</strong>’sPlace in Nature (1863) <strong>an</strong>d The Physical Basis of Life (1868). In 1893, Huxley boasted, “...history records that whenever science <strong>an</strong>d [biblical] orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, thelatter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding <strong>an</strong>d crushed if not <strong>an</strong>nihilated; scotched, ifnot slain.” In his correspondence Huxley viciously said of <strong>Bible</strong> believers who resistedDarwinism, “I should like to get my heel into their mouths <strong>an</strong>d scr-r-unch it round” (Lord Ernie,“Victori<strong>an</strong> Memoirs <strong>an</strong>d Memories,” The Quarterly Review, 1923; cited from I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, In theMinds of Men, p. 363).Ever since Darwin <strong>an</strong>d Huxley, the evolutionary establishment has been committed to <strong>an</strong>aturalistic <strong>an</strong>ti-God viewpoint <strong>an</strong>d has been aligned solidly against the <strong>Bible</strong>.It was to avoid the implications of biblical creationism <strong>an</strong>d the God of the <strong>Bible</strong> that scientistslike Fred Hoyle <strong>an</strong>d Fr<strong>an</strong>cis Crick <strong>an</strong>d Richard Dawkins came to believe in space aliens. MichaelBehe says, “The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view [life was seeded on186
earth by aliens] is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountableobstacle, but he w<strong>an</strong>ts a naturalistic expl<strong>an</strong>ation” (Darwin’s Black Box, chapter 11).Consider some statements that reflect the religious aspect of evolution:“Darwin’s real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as the Creator of org<strong>an</strong>isms from the sphereof rational discussion” (Juli<strong>an</strong> Huxley, gr<strong>an</strong>dson of Thomas Huxley, Keynote address, Darwin Centennial,1959).“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud <strong>an</strong>d clear. ... There are nogods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of <strong>an</strong>y kind. There is no life after death. ... There is no ultimatefoundation for ethics, no ultimate me<strong>an</strong>ing to life, <strong>an</strong>d no free will for hum<strong>an</strong>s, either” (William Provine, biologyprofessor at Cornell University, Origins Research, 1994, quoted from In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p.379).“M<strong>an</strong> st<strong>an</strong>ds alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process withunique underst<strong>an</strong>ding <strong>an</strong>d potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, <strong>an</strong>d it is to himself that he isresponsible. He is ... his own master. He c<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d must decide <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>age his own destiny” (GeorgeSimpson, Life of the Past, 1953, p. 155).“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to <strong>an</strong> underst<strong>an</strong>ding ofthe real struggle between science <strong>an</strong>d the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patentabsurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill m<strong>an</strong>y of its extravag<strong>an</strong>t promises of health <strong>an</strong>dlife, in spite of the toler<strong>an</strong>ce of the scientific community for unsubst<strong>an</strong>tiated just-so stories, because we have aprior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods <strong>an</strong>d institutions of sciencesomehow compel us to accept a material expl<strong>an</strong>ation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that weare forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create <strong>an</strong> apparatus of investigation <strong>an</strong>d a set ofconcepts that produce material expl<strong>an</strong>ations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to theuninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is <strong>an</strong> absolute, for we c<strong>an</strong>not allow a Divine Foot in thedoor” (Richard Lewontin, “Billions <strong>an</strong>d Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, J<strong>an</strong>. 9, 1997, p. 31;Lewontin was reviewing Carl Sag<strong>an</strong>’s The Demon-Haunted World).“I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering: for me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set ofmathematical laws c<strong>an</strong> be so clever as to bring all these things into being” (Paul Davies, cited by CliveCookson, “Scientists Who Glimpsed God,” Fin<strong>an</strong>cial Times, April 29, 1995, p. 20).“Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable originfor life have failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appear<strong>an</strong>ce of lifeon the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe <strong>an</strong>d found no trace of life, or process leading to life,elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to turn to religion for <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>swer. Others, however,myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific expl<strong>an</strong>ations in the hope ofselecting one that was still more likely th<strong>an</strong> the remainder” (Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide).“Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet thoseforces must be natural; they c<strong>an</strong>not be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whoseexistence, in scientific terms, is unproved” (“15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense,” Scientific Americ<strong>an</strong>, July2002).“Even if all the data point to <strong>an</strong> intelligent designer, such <strong>an</strong> hypothesis is excluded from science because it isnot naturalistic” (Scott Todd, immunologist at K<strong>an</strong>sas State University, correspondence to Nature, Sept. 30,1999, www.<strong>an</strong>swersingenesis.org/todd).The fact that evolution is <strong>an</strong> alternative metaphysical <strong>faith</strong> explains why that even when its pettheories are proven wrong, it refuses to consider the biblical account. For example, Lyle’suniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism has been replaced with catastrophic views such as the moving of continents byplate tectonics, the destruction of dinosaurs by meteorites, <strong>an</strong>d the creation of the Gr<strong>an</strong>d C<strong>an</strong>yonby flooding through the broaching of <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>cient lake, all of which are a repudiation of187
uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism. Geologist Davis A. Young observes, “The geologic community gave upsubst<strong>an</strong>tive uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism long ago.” But at no point do evolutionists consider the possibilitythat the <strong>Bible</strong>’s account of a worldwide Flood might, in fact, be true. The reason is that they arecommitted to a naturalistic religion.15. Science has not <strong>an</strong>swered <strong>an</strong>y of the import<strong>an</strong>t questions of life.Science has staked out a near-God status in modern society, but in reality it c<strong>an</strong>not <strong>an</strong>swer <strong>an</strong>y ofthe import<strong>an</strong>t questions of life: Where did life come from? What is m<strong>an</strong>? Is there a purpose tohum<strong>an</strong> life? Is there a God? If so, c<strong>an</strong> we know Him? How c<strong>an</strong> we know Him? What lies beyonddeath?David Berlinski is a Jewish agnostic but he underst<strong>an</strong>ds that modern science does not hold the<strong>an</strong>swers to life:“If science st<strong>an</strong>ds opposed to religion, it is not because of <strong>an</strong>ything contained in either the premises or theconclusions of the great scientific theories. ... We know better th<strong>an</strong> we did what we do not know <strong>an</strong>d have notgrasped. We do not know how the universe beg<strong>an</strong>. We do not know why it is there. Charles Darwin talkedspeculatively of life emerging from a ‘warm little pond.’ The pond is gone. We have little idea how life emerged,<strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong>not with assur<strong>an</strong>ce say that it did. We c<strong>an</strong>not reconcile our underst<strong>an</strong>ding of the hum<strong>an</strong> mind with <strong>an</strong>ytrivial theory about the m<strong>an</strong>ner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial, we have no other theories. Wec<strong>an</strong> say nothing of interest about the hum<strong>an</strong> soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct or wherethe form of the good is found” (David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion, pp. xiv, xv).“The hypothesis that we are nothing more th<strong>an</strong> cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientificcommunity. Figures as diverse as Bertr<strong>an</strong>d Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, <strong>an</strong>d Richard Dawkinshave said it is so. It is <strong>an</strong> article of their <strong>faith</strong>, one adv<strong>an</strong>ced with the confidence of men convinced that naturehas equipped them to face realities the rest of us c<strong>an</strong>not bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reasonto think this is so” (Berlinski, p. xvi).16. Evolution is elastic <strong>an</strong>d is never refuted in the eyes of convinced Darwinists.Darwinists have <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>swer for everything. If it is demonstrated that evolution is not occurringtoday, Darwinists run to mind-boggling eons of time in the past. If it is demonstrated that blindprocesses c<strong>an</strong>not create, Darwinists protest that the processes are not really blind. If it isdemonstrated that natural selection c<strong>an</strong>not account for the formation of new org<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>dcreatures, Darwinists run to genetic mutations. If it is demonstrated that mutations are notcreative mech<strong>an</strong>isms, Darwinists run to the mysteries of unknown genetic processes. If it isdemonstrated that the fossil record does not display const<strong>an</strong>t ch<strong>an</strong>ge, Darwinists run to hopefulmonsters <strong>an</strong>d punctuated equilibrium. If it is demonstrated that no naturalistic process c<strong>an</strong>explain the origin of life, Darwinists run to extra-terrestrials <strong>an</strong>d to multiverses.Because of this, refuting evolution c<strong>an</strong> be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.Even some evolutionists have complained that Darwinism c<strong>an</strong>not be “falsified.”17. Science is extremely fallible <strong>an</strong>d has erred countless times.188
Ju<strong>an</strong> Arsuaga c<strong>an</strong>didly advises,“... those seeking absolute truth or <strong>an</strong> immutable <strong>an</strong>d unassailable dogma should look in a field other th<strong>an</strong>science” (Ne<strong>an</strong>derthal’s Necklace, p. 17).This is true, because science is so incredibly fallible. Consider the case of Ignaz PhilippSemmelweis:“On July 1, 1818, a little boy was born in Budapest, Hungary. His mother named him Ignaz. As the boy grew,so did his interest in medicine <strong>an</strong>d the sciences. Eventually, he became a doctor. In his work at the ViennaGeneral Hospital, Ignaz saw m<strong>an</strong>y victims of the highly contagious <strong>an</strong>d often deadly puerperal fever. Slowlyhe beg<strong>an</strong> to suspect <strong>an</strong> increased risk for <strong>an</strong>yone having contact with fever victims. In time his tentativesuspicions became firm convictions. Reasoning that physici<strong>an</strong>s in the hospital were somehow carrying thedisease from the autopsy room <strong>an</strong>d tr<strong>an</strong>smitting it to women in the maternity ward, Ignaz ordered all of thephysici<strong>an</strong>s in his service to wash their h<strong>an</strong>ds thoroughly in a solution of chlorinated lime before examiningpatients. This was a radical <strong>an</strong>d controversial move, <strong>an</strong>d it resulted in big trouble for the young doctor.“Keep in mind that Ignaz took this st<strong>an</strong>d years before Louis Pasteur, with his microscope, ever scientificallydocumented the d<strong>an</strong>ger of infectious bacteria. To say the least, at the time in which Ignaz lived, such a radicalposition was just not politically-scientifically correct. As a result, great pressure was brought to bear on theyoung m<strong>an</strong>. He was ridiculed, hounded, <strong>an</strong>d even viciously attacked. His character was smeared mercilessly.‘Crazy old Ignaz’ was the growing sentiment of young <strong>an</strong>d old that seemed to follow him everywhere he went.Yet he stood his ground, entirely alone--one m<strong>an</strong> against the entire scientific establishment of his day. Noone--absolutely no one--agreed with him. He was universally regarded as a nut.“In the end, although he never gave ground scientifically, the incredible, relentless, pressure got to him. Ignazlapsed into ins<strong>an</strong>ity. His death followed on August 1, 1865. At the age of 47, Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis wasjust as right as he could be, though the entire world <strong>an</strong>d all of the scientific experts thought otherwise. Shortlythereafter, Joseph Lister performed his first <strong>an</strong>tiseptic operation <strong>an</strong>d Semmelweis, dead less th<strong>an</strong> a year, wason his way to a full vindication” (“When Science Errs: The Oft Times Lonely St<strong>an</strong>d for Truth,” http://aiia.christi<strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>swers.net/resources/thoughtletters/27/).A recent example of how science has erred is the so-called junk DNA. The term, which wasintroduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno, refers to the alleged “non-coding” part of DNA “consistedof r<strong>an</strong>domly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genesthat were non-functional.” Evolutionists argued that God would not make “flawed” DNA.A 1980 article by Leslie Orgel <strong>an</strong>d Fr<strong>an</strong>cis Crick said non-coding DNA “has little specificity <strong>an</strong>dconveys little or no selective adv<strong>an</strong>tage to the org<strong>an</strong>ism.” Junk DNA as <strong>an</strong> evolutionary“vestigial” was argued by Darrel Falk in Coming to Peace with Science.It turns out that “junk” DNA isn’t junk, <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>y creationist could have predicted that this is thecase.Gretchen Vogel said, “The term ‘junk DNA’ is a reflection of our ignor<strong>an</strong>ce” (“Why Sequencethe Junk?” Science, Vol. 291, Feb. 16, 2001, p. 1184).John Mattick observed, “The failure to recognize the import<strong>an</strong>ce of introns [so-called junk DNA]may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology” (quote byW. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome,” Scientific Americ<strong>an</strong>, Vol. 289, Nov. 2003, pp. 49-50).189
18. The foundational issue is God <strong>an</strong>d a personal relationship with Him through Christ.We must not forget that the foundational issue in apologetics is to introduce men <strong>an</strong>d women toGod through Christ. It is “a supporting discipline for the overriding goal of the GreatCommission” (David Stone).If you believe in the Almighty God of Scripture, it is a simple matter to accept what the <strong>Bible</strong>says, whether it is a six-day creation or Christ’s virgin birth, bodily resurrection <strong>an</strong>d SecondComing, or <strong>an</strong>ything else. The fact is that these are all things that pertain to the supernatural <strong>an</strong>dthey c<strong>an</strong>not be tested by natural science.D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry <strong>an</strong>d D.Sc. from the University of London, writes:“It was about this time, in the mid-1960s, that my ideas of the greatness of God were tr<strong>an</strong>sformed. No longerwas He a ‘pocket’ God who did things as I could imagine from my ‘hum<strong>an</strong> viewpoint,’ but He hadstaggeringly great power, far beyond <strong>an</strong>ything I could possibly comprehend. If God is so great, then there isnothing He could not do” (In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 266).This hits the nail on the head. The problem with people who c<strong>an</strong>’t believe in the miracles of the<strong>Bible</strong> is that they believe either in no God or a “pocket” God. When you believe in the AlmightyGod revealed in Scripture, it is easy to believe that the world was made in six days. In fact, it iseasy to believe that it was made in six micro-seconds, if the <strong>Bible</strong> said so.Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the 20th century, proficient indozens of <strong>an</strong>cient l<strong>an</strong>guages, divided men into two categories: big-godders <strong>an</strong>d little-godders,<strong>an</strong>d that pretty much sums it up.“One of the students of Princeton Theological Seminary professor Robert Dick Wilson had been invited topreach in Miller Chapel 12 years after his graduation. Dr. Wilson came <strong>an</strong>d sat near the front. When chapelended, the old professor came up to his former student, cocked his head to one side in his characteristic way,extended his h<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d said, ‘I'm glad that you're a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see ifthey're big-godders or little-godders. Then I know what their ministry will be.’“His former student asked him to explain. Wilson replied, ‘Well, some men have a little God, <strong>an</strong>d they'realways in trouble with Him. He c<strong>an</strong>'t do <strong>an</strong>y miracles. He c<strong>an</strong>'t take care of the inspiration <strong>an</strong>d tr<strong>an</strong>smission ofthe Scripture to us. He doesn't intervene on behalf of His people. Then, there are those who have a greatGod. He speaks <strong>an</strong>d it is done. He comm<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d it st<strong>an</strong>ds fast. He knows how to show Himself strong onbehalf of them that fear Him. You have a great God; <strong>an</strong>d He'll bless your ministry’” (John Huffm<strong>an</strong>, Who’s inCharge Here?).The Christi<strong>an</strong> apologist’s objective is to make “big-godders” of people.This comes through knowing God personally by <strong>faith</strong> in Jesus Christ. We are separated from Godby our sin, both inherited <strong>an</strong>d personal, <strong>an</strong>d Christ died to pay the price God’s Law dem<strong>an</strong>ds sothat we c<strong>an</strong> be reconciled to Him. When a sinner repents of his sin <strong>an</strong>d puts his <strong>faith</strong> in JesusChrist as only Lord <strong>an</strong>d Saviour, a dramatic ch<strong>an</strong>ge occurs. He is born again <strong>an</strong>d receives theindwelling <strong>Holy</strong> Spirit as his Teacher. His thinking is ch<strong>an</strong>ged. This happened to me in 1973when I was 23 years old. Before that I was <strong>an</strong>tagonistic toward the <strong>Bible</strong>. I doubted the <strong>Bible</strong>’s190
teaching on things such as judgment, salvation, <strong>an</strong>d the future, but those doubts were resolved bymy new relationship with God in Christ.Christ instructed us to be witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8). We must inform people of who He is <strong>an</strong>dwhy He came to earth. Apologetics c<strong>an</strong> remove barriers that people have that keep them fromconsidering Christ, but our goal is not to win arguments about evidences; our goal is to introducepeople to Christ.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON EVOLUTION INTRODUCTION1. What verse says God has revealed the truth to babes?2. What book <strong>an</strong>d chapter says God has chosen the weak in this world to confound the mighty?3. What does the believer have that allows him to test the doctrine of evolution?4. What are three benefits of creation science material?5. What is one of the ways that modernists <strong>an</strong>d skeptics were wrong about the <strong>Bible</strong>?6. Why did Arthur Keith turn away from Christ?7. Why is it wrong to call evolution a “theory”?8. Is it correct to call evolution <strong>an</strong> hypothesis?9. List four evolutionists who doubt Darwinism.10. In what century was “skepticism in the air”?11. Thomas Huxley said that every thinking m<strong>an</strong> he met was in a state of _________.12. How is evolution itself <strong>an</strong> evidence of the divine origin of the <strong>Bible</strong>?13. What <strong>Bible</strong> prophecy describes end-times skeptics?14. What are two major reasons why it is impossible to reconcile evolution with the <strong>Bible</strong>?15. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are quoted or referred to _______ times in the NewTestament.16. Why does it affect the Gospel if Adam was not a real m<strong>an</strong>?17. Jesus’ genealogy begins with what m<strong>an</strong>?18. What are four ways that the Genesis account of creation contradicts evolution.19. How m<strong>an</strong>y times does Genesis say that things were made to reproduce “after their kind”?20. How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics support the Genesis account of creation?21. What bait <strong>an</strong>d switch techniques do Darwinists use?22. What are two types of “science”?23. If evolutionists are not allowed to ____________ their doctrine, they have no evidence.24. Why are scientists motivated not to criticize evolution?25. In what video documentary does Ben Stein examine the persecution of scientists <strong>an</strong>dprofessors who dare to question Darwinism?26. Evolution is more about _________________________ th<strong>an</strong> it is about science.27. Who was Charles Lyell <strong>an</strong>d what was his objective?28. What did Charles Darwin call the doctrine of eternal torment?29. What has driven some evolutionists to believe in space aliens?30. Juli<strong>an</strong> Huxley said that Darwin’s achievement was what?31. Who said, “We c<strong>an</strong>not allow a Divine Foot in the door”?191
32. What are some questions that science c<strong>an</strong>not <strong>an</strong>swer?33. How did scientists err by saying that some DNA is “junk”?34. What is the foundational issue in the creation science debate?192
A HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONIn this section we give a brief summary of evolution.BEFORE THE 19TH CENTURYThe doctrine of evolution is <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>cient heresy.Anaxim<strong>an</strong>der (611-546 B.C.) taught that m<strong>an</strong> evolved from fish (“Evolution <strong>an</strong>d Paleontology inthe Ancient World,” http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/<strong>an</strong>cient.html).Xenoph<strong>an</strong>es (d. 490 B.C.) believed that life arose from the “primordial mud.”Empedocles of Acragas (5th century B.C.) taught that the earth gave birth to living creatures thatwere first disembodied org<strong>an</strong>s, which eventually joined into whole org<strong>an</strong>isms.The Greek Epicure<strong>an</strong>s believed that the universe evolved through naturalistic mech<strong>an</strong>isms apartfrom God or the supernatural. The Rom<strong>an</strong> philosopher Titus Lecretius Carus (95-55 B.C.)described the Epicure<strong>an</strong> view in the influential poem On the Nature of Things.The Taoists (founded in the 4th century B.C. by Chu<strong>an</strong>g Tzu) denied the fixity of species. Taoismregards nature as existing in a state of “const<strong>an</strong>t tr<strong>an</strong>sformation” known as the tao (James Miller,“Taoism <strong>an</strong>d Nature,” Royal Asiatic Society, J<strong>an</strong>. 8, 2008).Some Muslim scholars from the 8th to the 14th centuries A.D. held to the tr<strong>an</strong>smutation ofcreatures from non-living to living: “from mineral to pl<strong>an</strong>t, from pl<strong>an</strong>t to <strong>an</strong>imal, <strong>an</strong>d from<strong>an</strong>imal to m<strong>an</strong>.” In 1377, for example, Ibn Khaldun said that hum<strong>an</strong>s developed from “the worldof monkeys” in his book Muqaddimah.ERASMUS DARWINThe history of modern evolution begins with Charles Darwin’s influential paternal gr<strong>an</strong>dfather,Erasmus.There was a “vein of skepticism in the Darwin family” (John Wehler, Charles Darwin: Growingup in Shrewsbury).Erasmus (1731-1802) was a materialist who “discarded the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Jesus” <strong>an</strong>d “adored in theTemple of Nature.” For him “Reason was divine, <strong>an</strong>d Progress its prophet” (Adri<strong>an</strong> Desmond,Darwin, pp. 5, 9).193
Erasmus was a tremendously influential m<strong>an</strong>, a pioneering medical doctor, inventor, poet,philosopher, <strong>an</strong>d naturalist. He invented a speaking machine, a copying machine, <strong>an</strong>d the steeringmech<strong>an</strong>ism used in modern cars. His close friends consisted of men such as Benjamin Fr<strong>an</strong>klin,one of America’s founding fathers; John Michell, the father of seismology; John Whitehurst,inventor of the factory time clock; John Baskerville, famous printer <strong>an</strong>d type font designer;James Watt, perfecter of the steam engine; <strong>an</strong>d James Brindley, creator of Engl<strong>an</strong>d’s c<strong>an</strong>alsystem.Erasmus was a Fellow of the Royal Society, the first in a line of six generations of Darwins to beso honored.Erasmus’ wife, Polly, the mother of Charles Darwin’s father, Robert, was non-religious in areligious age, <strong>an</strong>d she “faced death calmly without supernatural assist<strong>an</strong>ce” (Desmond King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin, p. 94).Erasmus was a moral scoundrel who was “fond of sacrificing to both Bacchus <strong>an</strong>d Venus” (King-Hele, p. 18), me<strong>an</strong>ing he loved alcohol <strong>an</strong>d women. After the death of Polly, Erasmus bore twodaughters out of wedlock with his live-in governess, who was 22 years his junior. He alsocomposed lush erotic verse” (Desmond, p. 6).Erasmus’ god was a First Cause that had some vague part in bringing life into existence but hadno role in men’s lives. Rejecting the true <strong>an</strong>d living God, Erasmus worshipped “a dist<strong>an</strong>t Deity ...the vast Unknown.” By his student years at Cambridge, he had rejected the biblical view of God.There he was deeply influenced in Deism by Albert Reimarus, the son of Germ<strong>an</strong> philosopherHerm<strong>an</strong>n Reimarus. This is the doctrine of <strong>an</strong> absentee God who merely set things in motion, aGod who has not intervened in hum<strong>an</strong> affairs nor revealed Himself in Scripture. Deism has beendescribed as the Clockwork universe “theory,” in which God builds the universe <strong>an</strong>d then lets itrun on its own.Erasmus believed in the evolution of life from <strong>an</strong> original microscopic biological speck to m<strong>an</strong>.His family coat of arms consisted of three scallop shells with the motto E conchis omnia or“everything from shells,” referring to his belief in the evolution of life from the sea.Erasmus was influenced by his friend James Hutton’s view of long geological ages <strong>an</strong>duniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism (King-Hele, p. 245). Without this doctrine, the “theory” of evolution wouldnot be possible.Erasmus proclaimed his doctrine of evolution in a popular two-volume set of books entitledZoonomia; or, the Laws of Org<strong>an</strong>ic Life (1794-96). The books went through m<strong>an</strong>y editions inEngl<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d America, with tr<strong>an</strong>slations into Germ<strong>an</strong>, Itali<strong>an</strong>, French, <strong>an</strong>d Portuguese.Zoonomia promotes the very concepts later popularized by Charles Darwin: natural selection,survival of the fittest, sexual selection, homology, <strong>an</strong>d vestigial org<strong>an</strong>s.194
Erasmus believed that everything has risen from <strong>an</strong> original “living filament” which was formedby “spont<strong>an</strong>eous vitality” in “the primeval oce<strong>an</strong>.” He wrote:“Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time since the earth beg<strong>an</strong> to exist, perhapsmillions of ages before the commencement of the history of m<strong>an</strong>kind, would it be too bold to imagine, that allwarm-blooded <strong>an</strong>imals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with<strong>an</strong>imality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations,sensations, volitions, <strong>an</strong>d associations; <strong>an</strong>d thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its owninherent activity, <strong>an</strong>d of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world withoutend!” (Zoonomia, Vol. 2, p. 240).Erasmus Darwin’s book The Temple of Nature was published the year following his death. Itpresents the doctrine of evolution under the guise of lessons he supposedly learned from thegoddess Ur<strong>an</strong>ia, Priestess of Nature.Ere Time beg<strong>an</strong>, from flaming Chaos hurl’dRose the bright spheres, which form the circling world ...Nurs’d by warm sun-beams in primeval caves,Org<strong>an</strong>ic Life beg<strong>an</strong> beneath the waves. ...Hence without parent by spont<strong>an</strong>eous birthRise the first specks of <strong>an</strong>imated earth;From Nature’s womb the pl<strong>an</strong>t or insect swims,And buds or breathes, with microscopic limbs. ...New powers acquire, <strong>an</strong>d larger limbs assume;Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,And breathing realms of fin, <strong>an</strong>d feet, <strong>an</strong>d wing.In the second volume of Zoonomia, Erasmus labeled religion by various psychological diseases.One of these was “spes religiosa” or “superstitious hope.” He called this a “m<strong>an</strong>iacalhallucination,” <strong>an</strong> ins<strong>an</strong>ity that has produced “cruelties, murders, massacres” into the world.Thus, Erasmus Darwin, the God hater who did not distinguish false religion from true, predatedthe so-called “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins by more th<strong>an</strong> two centuries.Another alleged psychological disease that Erasmus identified was “orci timor” or “the fear ofhell.” After his death, <strong>an</strong> obituary in the Monthly Magazine stated that Erasmus told a friend “letus not hear <strong>an</strong>ything about hell.”Erasmus was a close associate of Unitari<strong>an</strong> Christ-denier Joseph Priestley, the French DeistVoltaire, <strong>an</strong>d other skeptics who rejected divine Revelation. One of Erasmus’ closest friends wasthe Unitari<strong>an</strong> Josiah Wedgwood, the gr<strong>an</strong>dfather of Charles Darwin’s wife. Wedgwood was adisciple of Priestly. Josiah’s famous Wedgwood pottery firm even honored Priestly with amedallion featuring his likeness.The two gr<strong>an</strong>dfathers bequeathed “a mixture of free thought <strong>an</strong>d radical Christi<strong>an</strong>ity to theirgr<strong>an</strong>dchildren” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 5).195
Erasmus died seven years before Charles’ birth, but the gr<strong>an</strong>dson read Zoonomia twice in hisyouth (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, p. 49).“Belief in evolution, passed on to his son Robert <strong>an</strong>d reincarnated in his gr<strong>an</strong>dson Charles, c<strong>an</strong>be seen as the finest of Erasmus’s legacies” (Desmond King-Hele, p. 363).CHARLES DARWINCharles Darwin (1809-82) is the most prominent name in the field of modern evolution. Hisbooks are considered pivotal in popularizing the evolutionary doctrine. These are On the Originof Species by Me<strong>an</strong>s of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Strugglefor Life (1859) <strong>an</strong>d The Descent of M<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>d Selection in Relation to Sex (1871).Kimball’s high school biology textbook (1965) said that On the Origin of Species “r<strong>an</strong>ks secondonly to the <strong>Holy</strong> <strong>Bible</strong> in its impact on m<strong>an</strong>’s thinking.”Charles’ mother, Sus<strong>an</strong>nah, was a Unitari<strong>an</strong>, following in the footsteps of her father JosiahWedgwood. Sus<strong>an</strong>nah attended High Street Chapel in Shrewsbury, which had become a fullblownUnitari<strong>an</strong> congregation during the pastorate of George Case (1797-1831). Unitari<strong>an</strong>sdenied the Trinity, believing that Jesus is not God. Charles was educated for a short time at aschool operated by Case. Today the church is called Shrewsbury Unitari<strong>an</strong> Church, High Street,<strong>an</strong>d a plaque inside the building says: “To the memory of Charles Robert Darwin, author of ‘TheOrigin Of Species,’ born in Shrewsbury, February 12, 1809, in early life a member of <strong>an</strong>d aconst<strong>an</strong>t worshipper in this church.”Charles’ father, Robert, was also a skeptic. His “disbelief extended to the borders ofatheism” (I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 113). He adopted his father Erasmus’ motto EConchis Omnia (“all things out of shells”) as his own <strong>an</strong>d displayed it on his bookplate. ErasmusDarwin’s biographer says that Robert “never ab<strong>an</strong>doned his belief in evolution <strong>an</strong>d that hedeserves much credit for bringing up Charles in <strong>an</strong> evolution-friendly atmosphere. ... Robertgreatly helped Charles to bring himself to believe in evolution in defi<strong>an</strong>ce of orthodox scientificthinking” (Desmond King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin, p. 359).Robert was not brave, though, <strong>an</strong>d hid his skepticism behind a public mask of Anglic<strong>an</strong>respectability. Charles inherited his father’s reticence about being forthright in his religiousskepticism <strong>an</strong>d largely left it to others, such as Thomas Huxley, to fight publicly for what hebelieved.Darwin’s elder brother Erasmus, named after their famous gr<strong>an</strong>dfather, was a radical skeptic inhis own right. As a young m<strong>an</strong> Charles loved to spend time there, where “the buzz was radical<strong>an</strong>d Dissenting <strong>an</strong>d ‘heterodoxy was the norm’” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 216). This crowd wasdeeply influenced by Germ<strong>an</strong> biblical criticism <strong>an</strong>d its accomp<strong>an</strong>ying theological modernism.196
Charles’ father w<strong>an</strong>ted him to be a doctor <strong>an</strong>d sent him to Edinburgh University for thatpurpose. There he cast his lot with the most radical, skeptical crowd. He was elected to thePlini<strong>an</strong> Society in 1826, at a time when “it had been penetrated by radical students--fiery,freethinking democrats who dem<strong>an</strong>ded that science be based on physical causes, not supernaturalforces” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 31). Darwin’s membership was sponsored by William Browne,who “had no time for souls <strong>an</strong>d saints.”Darwin’s closest friend at Edinburgh was professor Robert Edmond Gr<strong>an</strong>t, <strong>an</strong>other member ofthe Plini<strong>an</strong> society. He was “<strong>an</strong> uncompromising evolutionist” who believed that “the origin <strong>an</strong>devolution of life were due simply to physical <strong>an</strong>d chemical forces, all obeying naturallaws” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 34). A m<strong>an</strong> for whom “nothing was sacred,” he was “savagely <strong>an</strong>ti-Christi<strong>an</strong>” (p. 40). Gr<strong>an</strong>t loved Erasmus Darwin’s Zoonomia. He believed in spont<strong>an</strong>eousgeneration of life from “monads” or “elementary living particles” <strong>an</strong>d that the sponge is theparent of higher <strong>an</strong>imals.Darwin also attended Robert Jameson’s lectures at Edinburgh entitled “Origin of Species ofAnimals,” promoting the “theory” that the higher <strong>an</strong>imals evolved from the “simplest worms.”Jameson, “wild-haired Regis Professor of Natural History,” was the founder of the Plini<strong>an</strong>Society.Not being able to stomach the blood <strong>an</strong>d guts aspect of the medical field (at a time whenoperations were conducted without <strong>an</strong>esthesia), Darwin sought his father’s counsel <strong>an</strong>d wasadvised to study for the Anglic<strong>an</strong> ministry at Cambridge University. Neither m<strong>an</strong> believed the<strong>Bible</strong> or the Gospel of Christ, but that was not necessary for <strong>an</strong> Anglic<strong>an</strong> rector in that day. “TheAnglic<strong>an</strong> Church, fat, complacent, <strong>an</strong>d corrupt, lived luxuriously on its tithes <strong>an</strong>d endowments,as it had for a century. Desirable parishes were routinely auctioned to the highestbidder” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 47). If Darwin obtained a country rectory he could live theleisurely <strong>an</strong>d respected life of a gentlem<strong>an</strong>.Darwin claimed that at this point in his life he fully accepted the Anglic<strong>an</strong> creed, <strong>an</strong>d much hasbeen made of this by some biographers, but he didn’t take the creed literally. He was convincedthat he could “accept” the Thirty-Nine Articles without maintaining “actual belief of each <strong>an</strong>devery separate proposition contained in them” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 86). At no point in his lifedid Charles Darwin believe the <strong>Bible</strong>!Darwin “was unconcerned about his soul” (p. 57) <strong>an</strong>d made no personal commitment to JesusChrist.M<strong>an</strong>y biographers have noted that Darwin enjoyed William Paley’s writings in his student days,implying that this was a strong Christi<strong>an</strong> influence, but this is not the case. Paley’s “watchmaker”argument is famous, but he was not defending the <strong>Bible</strong>; he was defending natural revelation. (Ifyou find a watch lying in the woods, you would assume it was made by <strong>an</strong> intelligent being;197
likewise, the design of creation points to <strong>an</strong> intelligent creator.) Paley, a senior Anglic<strong>an</strong>clergym<strong>an</strong>, did not believe that the <strong>Bible</strong> is divinely inspired. His God was “Aristotle’s God--amaster designer but now remote from his creation” <strong>an</strong>d that he “tended to leave God ‘out there’remote from his creation” (I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, In the Minds of Men, pp. 115, 349).In 1831, Darwin beg<strong>an</strong> his famous five year journey on the H.M.S. Beagle. The captain, RobertFitz-Roy, believed the <strong>Bible</strong> <strong>an</strong>d personally conducted the m<strong>an</strong>datory Sunday services.Ironically, one of Fitz-Roy’s objectives (beyond the official one of mapping coast lines for theBritish navy) was to subst<strong>an</strong>tiate the book of Genesis. In his journal, FitzRoy said that geologyrightly understood is compatible with the Genesis Flood.Darwin was heavily influenced during the voyage by reading the Principles of Geology byCharles Lyell, which he “studied attentively” (Autobiography, p. 77). Lyells’s uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ismwas a bold <strong>an</strong>d brash denial of the <strong>Bible</strong>’s teaching of divine Creation <strong>an</strong>d the universal Flood,<strong>an</strong>d this was his express objective. Darwin described Lyell as “thoroughly liberal in his religiousbeliefs or rather disbeliefs” (Autobiography, p. 100). Lyell was a supporter of John WilliamColenso, the Anglic<strong>an</strong> Bishop of Natal, who likened the Pentateuch to the mythical accounts ofKing Arthur’s Court (Di Gregorio, From Here to Eternity, p. 240).Darwin claims that he was “quite orthodox” during the Beagle journey, but he was grosslyabusing the term “orthodox.” Note the full quotation from his Autobiography:“Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox ... But I had gradually come, by this time, to see thatthe Old Testament from its m<strong>an</strong>ifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbowas a sign, etc., etc., <strong>an</strong>d from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyr<strong>an</strong>t, was no moreto be trusted th<strong>an</strong> the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of <strong>an</strong>y barbari<strong>an</strong>. ... By furtherreflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make <strong>an</strong>y s<strong>an</strong>e m<strong>an</strong> believe in the miracles bywhich Christi<strong>an</strong>ity is supported,--that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredibledo miracles become,--that the men at that time were ignor<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d credulous to a degree almostincomprehensible by us,--that the Gospels c<strong>an</strong>not be proved to have been written simult<strong>an</strong>eously with theevents ... by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as theyinfluenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christi<strong>an</strong>ity as a divine revelation” (Autobiography, pp. 85,86).Like his gr<strong>an</strong>dfather Erasmus, Charles Darwin especially hated the doctrine of eternal torment.“I c<strong>an</strong> indeed hardly see how <strong>an</strong>yone ought to wish Christi<strong>an</strong>ity to be true; for if so the plain l<strong>an</strong>guage of thetext seems to show that the men who do not believe, <strong>an</strong>d this would include my Father, Brother, <strong>an</strong>d almostall my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (Autobiography, p. 87).In rejecting God <strong>an</strong>d promoting life as a product of blind evolution, Darwin was sinning againsthis conscience <strong>an</strong>d he suffered greatly for it. He was “destitute of <strong>faith</strong>, yet terrified atscepticism” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 268). He felt like he was committing murder. “When Darwindid come out of his closet <strong>an</strong>d bare his soul to a friend, he used a telling expression. He said itwas ‘like confessing a murder’” (Desmond, p. xviii). The title to Adri<strong>an</strong> Desmond’s biography isDarwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.198
“He cut himself off, ducked parties <strong>an</strong>d declined engagements; he even installed a mirror outside his studywindow to spy on visitors as they came up his drive. ... for years after reaching his rural retreat he refused tosleep <strong>an</strong>ywhere else, unless it was a safe house, a close relative’s home. This was a worried m<strong>an</strong>. ... Hewas living a double life with double st<strong>an</strong>dards, unable to broach his species work with <strong>an</strong>yone exceptErasmus, for fear he be br<strong>an</strong>ded irresponsible, irreligious, or worse. It beg<strong>an</strong> to tell in the pit of hisstomach” (pp. xix, 233).Darwin suffered much of his life from debilitating sickness, so much so that he was largely arecluse during his last 30 years. His sickness took the form of stomach problems, heartpalpitations, vomiting, <strong>an</strong>d eczema (chronic skin disorder). “... a third of his working life wasspent doubled up, trembling, vomiting, <strong>an</strong>d dowsing himself in icy water” (Desmond, Darwin, p.xviii).Before the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had “uncomfortable palpitation of theheart” <strong>an</strong>d a “terrible long fit of vomiting,” <strong>an</strong>d upon the first sight of the book “one leg swelledlike eleph<strong>an</strong>tiasis--eyes almost closed up--covered with a rash <strong>an</strong>d fiery boils” (Desmond,Huxley, p. 257, Darwin, p. 233). He hid out for the next two months at a hydropathic spa, “livingin Hell,” waiting for the furor to die down.Darwin sought relief from a variety of quacks. He experimented with electric chains made ofbrass <strong>an</strong>d zinc wires, which he looped around his neck <strong>an</strong>d waist. He drenched his skin withvinegar. He followed a regimen of ice-bags in the small of the back three times a day for 90minutes at a time. He half-starved himself on crash diets. He spent months at hydropathic spas,particularly James Gully’s at Malvern, Worcestershire. There he was wrapped in wet sheets,drenched with buckets of cold water, lounged for hours in mineral springs, <strong>an</strong>d fed cold biscuits<strong>an</strong>d water for breakfast.By 1871, the year he published The Descent of M<strong>an</strong>, Darwin was “a confirmed invalid” who “satengulfed in fog, downhearted, drawing up his will” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 597).Darwin started a myth that has been repeated ad infinitum by his disciples, <strong>an</strong>d that is that hewas a <strong>Bible</strong>-believing Christi<strong>an</strong> who was <strong>an</strong> unwilling convert to evolution, capitulating to itonly because of the overwhelming scientific facts. In his autobiography, Darwin presentedhimself as a m<strong>an</strong> who was not deeply influenced by the skeptical environment in which he grewup. He claimed, in fact, to have believed the <strong>Bible</strong> as a Cambridge student <strong>an</strong>d even during hisvoyage on the Beagle <strong>an</strong>d only gradually to have become a skeptic solely as the product ofindependent scientific investigation.This is a self-serving myth. In fact, as we have seen, he never was a true <strong>Bible</strong> believer, neverprofessed Christ as his Saviour, <strong>an</strong>d was influenced deeply by skepticism from a young age.Darwin claimed that he came to his evolutionary theories “quite independently.” But evensympathetic biographers such as Gertrude Himmelfarb characterize that as “not entirely c<strong>an</strong>did.”Indeed, it was a bold lie. Darwin had read m<strong>an</strong>y books <strong>an</strong>d attended lectures promoting199
evolutionary ideas very similar to those he later promoted, <strong>an</strong>d it is impossible to form <strong>an</strong> ideaindependently of things you have actually heard!The fact is that Darwin’s views <strong>an</strong>d his book were most definitely the products of a skepticalenvironment. Jacques Barzun rightly says, “Clearly, the spirit of evolution hovered over thecradle of the new century” (Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 46). Unitari<strong>an</strong>ism, Germ<strong>an</strong> “highercriticism,” <strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong>istic philosophy had greatly weakened biblical <strong>faith</strong> within the Church ofEngl<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d throughout society at large.Darwin could have believed the <strong>Bible</strong>, because he had it in his possession <strong>an</strong>d knew men thatbelieved it, but he chose to reject it. There is no evidence that he even tried to find <strong>an</strong>swers to theskeptical attacks upon Scripture. The <strong>an</strong>swers were available, but Darwin was not interested inproving the <strong>Bible</strong>, only in disproving it. This willful skepticism has characterized committedDarwinists ever since <strong>an</strong>d is a fulfillment of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:3-6.“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days SCOFFERS, walking after their own lusts, Andsaying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they werefrom the beginning of the creation. For this they WILLINGLY ARE IGNORANT of, that by the word of Godthe heavens were of old, <strong>an</strong>d the earth st<strong>an</strong>ding out of the water <strong>an</strong>d in the water: Whereby the world thatthen was, being overflowed with water, perished.”Some have pointed to Darwin’s reference to creation at the end of On the Origin of Species asevidence that he continued to believe in God, but that was a mere sap thrown out by a weak m<strong>an</strong>who feared the social <strong>an</strong>d fin<strong>an</strong>cial consequences of his own views. It must never be forgottenthat Darwin was not a brave m<strong>an</strong>. To reference “creation” in Origin of Species when he hadrejected the concept of <strong>an</strong> intelligent creator was hypocrisy <strong>an</strong>d cowardice. In fact, he came toregret it privately <strong>an</strong>d expressed this in a letter to a friend to whom he admitted that he hadfeared public opinion: “I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, <strong>an</strong>d used thePentateuchal term of creation, by which I really me<strong>an</strong>t ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknownprocess” (Darwin, Autobiography. p. 272).Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey with a full-blown Anglic<strong>an</strong> funeral. The “elders ofscience, State, <strong>an</strong>d Church, the nobility of birth <strong>an</strong>d talent” were in attend<strong>an</strong>ce. The coffin wasdraped in black velvet <strong>an</strong>d covered with white flowers. Choristers hypocritically s<strong>an</strong>g “I am theresurrection.” A special hymn composed for the occasion was taken from the book of Proverbs.Incongruously, it beg<strong>an</strong>, “Happy is the m<strong>an</strong> that findeth wisdom, <strong>an</strong>d getting underst<strong>an</strong>ding” <strong>an</strong>dended with, “His ways are ways of pleas<strong>an</strong>tness, <strong>an</strong>d all her paths are peace.” As the coffin waslowered into the grave, the choristers s<strong>an</strong>g, “His body is buried in peace, but his name livethevermore.”There is a popular myth that Darwin was converted on his deathbed. It is said that this occurredduring a visit by a Lady Hope to Darwin’s house in 1881, but it isn’t true. Darwin biographerJames Moore calls this “the Darwin Legend.” Charles’s daughter (Henrietta Litchfield) wrote onpage 12 of the London ev<strong>an</strong>gelical weekly, The Christi<strong>an</strong>, dated February 23, 1922, “I was200
present at his deathbed. ... He never rec<strong>an</strong>ted <strong>an</strong>y of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”Even Lady Hope’s own account of the story did not claim that Darwin actually renouncedevolution or embraced Christi<strong>an</strong>ity. She merely said that he expressed concern over the fate ofhis youthful speculations.THOMAS HUXLEYThomas Huxley (1825-1895) was called “Darwin’s Bulldog” because he was the premier publicdefender of Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution in Darwin’s day. Whereas Charles Darwin was reclusive <strong>an</strong>dmild tempered <strong>an</strong>d fearful of conflict, Huxley was combative <strong>an</strong>d loved the limelight. “Neverone to enter the public fray, Darwin needed a champion as Huxley needed a cause” (Desmond,Huxley, p. 260).When his first son died at age four, the grieving Huxley rejected the idea that he needed “thehope <strong>an</strong>d consolation” of Christ <strong>an</strong>d considered the temptation to turn to such a hope “a scoffingdevil.” When the preacher read about the bodily resurrection from 1 Corinthi<strong>an</strong>s 15 at thefuneral, Huxley said, “They shocked me,” <strong>an</strong>d, “I could have laughed with scorn” (Desmond, pp.287, 288). Calling good evil <strong>an</strong>d evil good, Huxley claimed that biblical <strong>faith</strong> is “theunpardonable sin” (p. 345).Huxley’s life sp<strong>an</strong>ned a time of great ch<strong>an</strong>ge. It looked like science would conquer every hum<strong>an</strong>problem <strong>an</strong>d carry men into a glorious millennium. The tr<strong>an</strong>satl<strong>an</strong>tic cable carried messagesinst<strong>an</strong>tly across vast oce<strong>an</strong>s. Railroads crisscrossed Engl<strong>an</strong>d on 6800 miles of track by 1851,drawing far-flung towns together <strong>an</strong>d accelerating the pace of life. The newly opened LondonUnderground carried men quickly from one side of the great city to the other. Cities werebuilding modern sewage systems to “flush out medieval diseases.” Alex<strong>an</strong>der Graham Bell’stelephone was the first step toward the Internet. The typewriter revolutionized writing, <strong>an</strong>dThomas Edison’s light bulb turned night into day, allowing men to work around the clock <strong>an</strong>dcarry forth the scientific revolution with even greater speed.In this time of ch<strong>an</strong>ge, skepticism was in the air. It seemed like the <strong>Bible</strong> would become just<strong>an</strong>other religious fable to fall before mighty science. Huxley said, “Every thinking m<strong>an</strong> I havemet with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious <strong>faith</strong>. And theunthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief” (Huxley, 1851, cited fromDesmond, p. 160).Huxley counted radical God-hating skeptics such as Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, <strong>an</strong>dGeorge Eliot as his best friends. “Secularity” was their watchword.They w<strong>an</strong>ted “a hammer to break the creationist shackles” (Desmond, p. 186), <strong>an</strong>d Darwinismbecame that hammer. It was also described as “a cle<strong>an</strong>sing solvent, dissolving the dross” ofbiblical miracles (p. 306).201
Huxley thrived in this “sea-mist of rationalism” (Desmond, p. 169), <strong>an</strong>d became one of theprominent voices in Engl<strong>an</strong>d for the overthrow of the Christi<strong>an</strong> <strong>faith</strong>. He called Darwinism the“New Reformation.” Huxley w<strong>an</strong>ted to “see the foot of Science on the necks of her Enemies” (p.253), <strong>an</strong>d his children in the evolutionary <strong>faith</strong> have lived to see that dream fulfilled to a greatdegree.Huxley eventually attacked the resurrection of Christ. In his article “The Evolution of Theology,”which was published in Nineteenth Century magazine, Huxley claimed that Jehovah God was aproduct of evolution. He blasphemously hated the “Elohim ghost-deity” of the Old Testamentwho “policed moral behaviour with promises of rewards <strong>an</strong>d threats of unearthly torment” (p.547). It is obvious that he did not underst<strong>an</strong>d either God or His Gospel. Huxley called theaccount of Jesus casting out the demons in Gadarene “preposterous <strong>an</strong>d immoral.” He claimedthat Jesus was just <strong>an</strong>other orthodox Jewish teacher. He called Paul’s theology “Neoplatonicmystigogy” (p. 571). Huxley’s largest book, Controverted Questions, was on Biblical criticism.Huxley had a great capacity for hatred, <strong>an</strong>d he loved “trashing reputations <strong>an</strong>d receivedwisdom” (Desmond, p. 227). The Pall Mall Gazette said that “cutting up monkeys was his forte,<strong>an</strong>d cutting up men was his foible.” He said, “There is no doubt I have a hot bad temper. If I hatea m<strong>an</strong>, I despise him” (p. 213), <strong>an</strong>d he aimed the full force of that temper at <strong>Bible</strong> believers. Hewas a “parson hater.” Huxley said of scientists who resisted Darwinism, “I should like to get myheel into their mouths <strong>an</strong>d scr-r-unch it round” (Lord Ernie, “Victori<strong>an</strong> Memoirs <strong>an</strong>d Memories,”The Quarterly Review, 1923, cited from I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 363). Of RichardOwen, one of the scientists holding out against Darwinism, Huxley said, “Before I have donewith that mendacious humbug I will nail him out, like a kite to a barn door, <strong>an</strong> example to all evildoers” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 504).Of <strong>an</strong>yone who attempted to defend the <strong>Bible</strong> at <strong>an</strong>y level, even those compromisers who weretrying to reconcile it with evolution, proud Huxley said that if he “were Comm<strong>an</strong>der in Chief intheir universe” he would dump them in a “hot locus in the lower regions” (p. 505). Thus, the m<strong>an</strong>who mocked the doctrine of a God of judgment who would send men to hell, would have sent hisown enemies to such a place if he had the power! What unmitigated hypocrisy!Huxley intended to take control of science in Engl<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d he was largely successful. He foundedthe secretive X-Club, which was dedicated to “science, pure <strong>an</strong>d free, untrammeled by religiousdogmas.” “Opponents were locked out, ignored, <strong>an</strong>d mocked” (Wiker, The Darwin Myth, p.105). From X-Club r<strong>an</strong>ks came three presidents of the Royal Society <strong>an</strong>d five presidents of theBritish Association (Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 35). Cambridge biology teacherMichael Pitm<strong>an</strong> observes: “It is certain that the ‘gay <strong>an</strong>d conspiratorial’ X Club, which wasstrongly evolutionist in character, not only influenced the appointments made for senior positionsin the newly formed universities of the Victori<strong>an</strong> era but also, until its demise in the 1890s,practically controlled the business of the Royal Society” (Adam <strong>an</strong>d Evolution, p. 64).202
The X-Club published its own periodical called Nature as part of their aggressive campaign ofselling Darwinism to the public. As of 2009, Nature was still st<strong>an</strong>ding true to its founding vision.In J<strong>an</strong>uary of that year Nature published a free online packet entitled “15 Evolutionary Gems.”One report observed that it might have been subtitled “An ev<strong>an</strong>gelism packet for those wishingto spread the good news about Darwinism.”Pope Huxley <strong>an</strong>d his fellow bishops in the Church of Science brought back the inquisition bydisallowing challenges to evolutionary doctrine <strong>an</strong>d excommunicating those who dared toquestion it. Consider St. George Mivart. He started out as <strong>an</strong> ardent evolutionist <strong>an</strong>d a disciple ofHuxley, but he was savaged when he had the audacity to publish a book debunking Darwinism<strong>an</strong>d warning that it would destroy morality <strong>an</strong>d produce despair (Desmond, p. 455). The Huxleyinquisitors had Mivart’s membership in the prestigious Athenaeum Club nixed. Mivart wasshunned as a leper by the Darwini<strong>an</strong> elite, <strong>an</strong>d he wasn’t even a <strong>Bible</strong> believer; he was a liberalRom<strong>an</strong> Catholic who held to theistic evolution.Mivart was only the first victim of the Darwini<strong>an</strong> inquisition, a phenomenon that has broadenedin scope <strong>an</strong>d intensity in our day. By 1995, Phillip Johnson observed:“Darwini<strong>an</strong> theory is the creation myth of our culture. It’s the officially sponsored, government fin<strong>an</strong>cedcreation myth that the public is supported to believe in, <strong>an</strong>d that creates the evolutionary scientists as thepriesthood. ... So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, <strong>an</strong>d of course hasto protect its mystery that gives it that authority--that’s why they’re so vicious towards critics” (In theBeginning: The Creationist Controversy, PBS documentary, May 30-31, 1995).The Darwini<strong>an</strong> inquisition has largely shut creationists out of the public school/scientificestablishment. Dr. Henry Morris described this extreme bias:“It is not that creationist scientists have not published in their own scientific fields. For example, beforecoming to ICR, Dr. Du<strong>an</strong>e Gish had published at least 25 articles on biochemistry in secular sciencejournals, Dr. Ken Cumming over 18 articles in biology, <strong>an</strong>d Dr. Larry Vardim<strong>an</strong> at least 10 articles inatmospheric physics. My own publications in engineering include five books <strong>an</strong>d 20 articles. One of thebooks, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, has been continuously in print since 1963 <strong>an</strong>d has been used asa textbook in scores of universities.“But none of us c<strong>an</strong> get a scientific article promoting creationism published in the secular journals, whethertechnical journals or popular magazines such as Reader's Digest or National Geographic. In fact, very fewreligious magazines will accept <strong>an</strong> article on creationism, especially one that promotes six-day creation <strong>an</strong>da global Flood.“On one occasion, a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists was able to get <strong>an</strong> invitation for meto speak at their convention, with <strong>an</strong> agreement that the Society would publish the paper in its journal. Whenthey saw my paper, however, they quickly reneged, even though the article had no religious material in it atall, only science. It was later published by ICR as the small book, The Scientific Case for Creation” (Morris,“Bigotry in Science,” <strong>Institute</strong> for Creation Research, n.d.).Countless other examples could be given. In fact, entire books have been written to document theDarwini<strong>an</strong> inquisition. In his book Darwin Day in America, John Day devotes a chapter to thisentitled “B<strong>an</strong>ned in Burlington.”203
Huxley coined the term “agnostic” to describe the state of supposedly not knowing whether thereis a God <strong>an</strong>d glorifying a skeptical mindset. The word me<strong>an</strong>s “no knowledge.” Darwin adoptedthis term for himself. In fact, Huxley’s biographer said, “Agnosticism was to become the new<strong>faith</strong> of the West.”In Huxley’s lifetime a radical ch<strong>an</strong>ge came over Engl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d he played a large part in thisphenomenon. His biographer describes him as <strong>an</strong> “evolutionary propag<strong>an</strong>dist <strong>an</strong>d proselytizer ofa new scientific authority” (p. 617). He was a revolutionist.Huxley realized that education was the key to the promotion of evolution <strong>an</strong>d the overthrow ofthe <strong>Bible</strong> in men’s hearts. Huxley called for the removal of the <strong>Bible</strong> from public schoolclassrooms (Desmond, p. 580). Since Huxley’s day Darwin’s disciples have taken over the publiceducation systems <strong>an</strong>d brainwashed generation after generation of gullible, unsuspectingstudents. This is why Darwinists have fought so hard <strong>an</strong>d have been willing to use <strong>an</strong>y trick inthe book, including deception, to keep “intelligent design” from being taught in America’sclassrooms.Huxley <strong>an</strong>d Darwin both believed that a moral code c<strong>an</strong> be maintained even if one rejects God<strong>an</strong>d believes in naturalistic evolution. Huxley proclaimed that though m<strong>an</strong> descended from“brutes,” he is assuredly not of them,” which makes no sense whatsoever. He held out for a highmoral code that included traditional marriage, but Huxley was wrong to pretend that the doctrineof evolution would not destroy morality. If there is no law-giving creator God, there is no basisfor absolute morality. If m<strong>an</strong> is a product of the blind forces of nature, he is no better th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>imal <strong>an</strong>d there is no ultimate reason why he should not act out <strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>d every impulse. Thecentury that followed Darwin <strong>an</strong>d Huxley has demonstrated the truth of this to <strong>an</strong>yone notwillfully blind.In fact, Huxley lived to despise the nihilistic culture that he helped create. Darwin biographerJacques Barzun said, “He was trying to lay the ghost he had raised, but lacked theformula” (Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 103). One evening the flamboy<strong>an</strong>t homosexual Oscar Wildecame to the sixty-year-old Huxley’s house with a coterie of his daughter Nettie’s “self-obsessedhedonist” artsy friends. Wilde projected all the “petul<strong>an</strong>ces <strong>an</strong>d flipp<strong>an</strong>cies of the decadence, thefebrile self-assertion, the voluptuousness, the perversity of the new Hedonism” (Desmond, p.540). Huxley responded, “That m<strong>an</strong> never enters my house again.” Both Darwin <strong>an</strong>d Huxleywere <strong>faith</strong>ful husb<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d moralists. Neither liked flaming homosexuals <strong>an</strong>d moral decadence,but no-fault divorce <strong>an</strong>d homosexual rights <strong>an</strong>d legalized abortion <strong>an</strong>d the pornographyrevolution are direct products of their evolutionary doctrine <strong>an</strong>d religious skepticism.Huxley’s views “left him <strong>an</strong>d his world naked before moral adversity ... <strong>an</strong>d he diedheavyhearted with forebodings of the kind of future he had helped to prepare” (Jacques Barzun,Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 64). He became increasingly depressed <strong>an</strong>d nihilistic. “A death shrouddescended over Huxley’s philosophy” (Desmond, p. 560). He <strong>an</strong>d Darwin believed that m<strong>an</strong>kindwas destined to perish in a final “universal winter” when the universe ceased to sustain life.204
Ins<strong>an</strong>ity <strong>an</strong>d depression run deeply in the skeptical Huxley family.Huxley’s father died in <strong>an</strong> asylum. His two brothers suffered “extreme mental <strong>an</strong>xiety” <strong>an</strong>d “nearmadness.”Thomas himself had m<strong>an</strong>y debilitating bouts with deep depression, periods when he was unableto face the world <strong>an</strong>d “a deadness h<strong>an</strong>gs about me.” He was said to carry “a strain of madness inhim” <strong>an</strong>d to carry on “lengthy conversations between unknown persons living within hisbrain” (p. 555).Huxley’s daughter Mady was troubled by mental illness for years, “prey to gloom <strong>an</strong>d horrors,”before her death in her mid-twenties. She “hardly knew her three-year-old.” She died in nearmadness<strong>an</strong>d despair, “desperately w<strong>an</strong>ting to believe in <strong>an</strong>other happier world that shall makeup for all the cruelties of this” (p. 558). Her own father’s philosophy provided no comfort, nopurpose, no hope, no salvation.One of Huxley’s gr<strong>an</strong>dsons, Noel Trevely<strong>an</strong>, committed suicide at age 25 <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>other, Juli<strong>an</strong>Huxley, suffered six mental breakdowns.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON A HISTORY OF EVOLUTION1. Name three <strong>an</strong>cient philosophers who taught evolution.2. In what year did Erasmus Darwin die?3. What relation was Erasmus Darwin to Charles?4. Erasmus’ wife was _____________ in a religious age.5. Erasmus’ god was a _______________.6. At Cambridge Erasmus was deeply influenced by what philosophy?7. What is Deism?8. What did Erasmus’ coat of arms consist of <strong>an</strong>d what did it me<strong>an</strong>?9. Without the doctrine of ______________, the doctrine of evolution would not be possible.10. What was the title of Erasmus’ popular set of books in which he preached evolution?11. Erasmus believed that everything has risen from <strong>an</strong> original ___________________.12. Erasmus called religion _____________ hope.13. Erasmus did not w<strong>an</strong>t to hear <strong>an</strong>ything about _____.14. Josiah Wedgwood was the gr<strong>an</strong>dfather of Charles Darwin’s ______.15. Who was Joseph Priestley?16. In what year did Charles Darwin die?17. What were Darwin’s two most popular books?18. Charles’ mother was a _____________.19. Who was Robert Darwin?20. He hid his skepticism behind a public mask of ______________________.21. At Edinburgh University Darwin joined what skeptical org<strong>an</strong>ization?205
22. Who was Darwin’s closest friend at Edinburgh <strong>an</strong>d what did he believe about the sponge?23. How could Darwin study for the Anglic<strong>an</strong> ministry when he did not believe the <strong>Bible</strong>?24. In what way did Darwin believe the Anglic<strong>an</strong> creed when he was at Cambridge?25. William Paley was the author of what famous argument?26. Did Paley defend the <strong>Bible</strong> as divinely inspired?27. What was the name of the ship on which Darwin made a five-year voyage?28. Who was the captain of this ship <strong>an</strong>d what did he believe about the book of Genesis?29. What is the name of the m<strong>an</strong> who influenced Darwin about uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism?30. Darwin said the Old Testament was “no more to be trusted th<strong>an</strong> the sacred books of the__________.”31. Darwin called the doctrine of eternal torment a _____________ doctrine.32. Darwin felt like he was committing _____________ by rejecting the <strong>Bible</strong> for the doctrine ofevolution.33. Darwin was largely a ___________ during his last 30 years.34. Darwin’s favorite quack remedy was _______________.35. What myth did Darwin create?36. The skepticism of Darwin <strong>an</strong>d his followers is a fulfillment of what prophecy?37. Where was Darwin buried?38. Is there evidence to suggest that Darwin was converted on his death bed?39. Thomas Huxley was called Darwin’s _____________.40. Huxley called the biblical <strong>faith</strong> the _____________________.41. Huxley said that thinking men in his day were in a state of __________.42. The watchword of Huxley <strong>an</strong>d his friends was _______________.43. They w<strong>an</strong>ted to break the _______________ shackles.44. What was the hammer they used for this purpose?45. Huxley thrived in a “sea-mist of __________________.”46. Huxley called Darwinism the _______________________.47. Huxley hated God’s ________________ <strong>an</strong>d _______________.48. What did Huxley think of Jesus?49. Huxley said, “There is no doubt I have a ____________________.”50. He was a __________ hater.51. What was the name of the org<strong>an</strong>ization that Huxley founded to control science in Engl<strong>an</strong>d?52. What is the name of the periodical published by this org<strong>an</strong>ization?53. Who was the first victim of the Darwini<strong>an</strong> inquisition?54. Phillip Johnson warns about the _______________ of ______________ that is vicioustowards its critics.55. What term did Huxley coin to describe his view of God?56. Huxley realized that _______________ was the key to the promotion of evolution <strong>an</strong>d theoverthrow of the <strong>Bible</strong>.57. Why is it not possible to defend a code of absolute morality while believing in evolution?58. Huxley died ______________ with _______________ of the kind of future he helped toprepare.206
ICONS OF EVOLUTION☛ A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Icons of Evolution is included in theUnshakeable Faith apologetics course package. See “Suggestions for Teachers <strong>an</strong>d PrivateStudy” at the beginning of the course for tips on using this material.Kenneth Poppe, a career biology instructor who has taught science in public school classroomsfor 30 years, says,“I have never seen a biology textbook that did not examine a few of the old-time scientific myths <strong>an</strong>dsuperstitions that have since been debunked” (Reclaiming Science from Darwinism, 2006, p. 27).In 2010, I examined five high school textbooks <strong>an</strong>d found that each one used debunked icons--such as the peppered moth, the horse chart, the four-winged fruit fly, <strong>an</strong>d the embryo chart.For a much exp<strong>an</strong>ded list of icons of evolution see the book Seeing the Non-existent: Evolution’sMyths <strong>an</strong>d Hoaxes, available from Way of Life Literature.NATURAL SELECTIONNatural selection is a concept developed in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species as themajor mech<strong>an</strong>ism of evolution. It is considered to be Darwin’s most brilli<strong>an</strong>t discovery.In Darwini<strong>an</strong> terms, natural selection refers to “survival of the fittest.” It says that traits thatimprove a creature’s ch<strong>an</strong>ce for survival are preserved for future generations, <strong>an</strong>d in this waysmall beneficial ch<strong>an</strong>ges direct evolution. Over millions of years tiny ch<strong>an</strong>ges produce newstructures <strong>an</strong>d new creatures. Darwin called this “descent with modification.”For example, a drought on the Galapagos Isl<strong>an</strong>ds in 1977 caused a shortage of small seeds whichfinches prefer <strong>an</strong>d they were forced to eat larger <strong>an</strong>d tougher ones. In one generation the averagesize of the birds increased slightly because the smaller ones did not survive. Only the “fittest”survived, <strong>an</strong>d according to Darwinism this slight environment-induced ch<strong>an</strong>ge would eventuallyproduce not only different types of birds but also different types of creatures.Darwin, a pigeon breeder, used artificial selection to prove natural selection. Through selectivebreeding techniques <strong>an</strong> amazing variety of pigeons have been produced, including ones with tailfeathers that f<strong>an</strong> out like a peacock’s, hooded pigeons, hen-shaped pigeons, beautiful multicoloredpigeons, even owl-like pigeons.207
To Darwin, the breeding experiments are evidence that environmental pressures c<strong>an</strong> produce thesame type of ch<strong>an</strong>ge through “natural selection” <strong>an</strong>d that eventually the accumulation of smallch<strong>an</strong>ges over great periods of time would produce new limbs, org<strong>an</strong>s, <strong>an</strong>d creatures.It is import<strong>an</strong>t to underst<strong>an</strong>d that Darwin emphasized the word “natural.” Darwinism emphasizesthe word “natural.” Darwin rejected <strong>an</strong>y idea of design by <strong>an</strong> outside intelligence. He said,“There seems to be no more design in the variability of org<strong>an</strong>ic beings <strong>an</strong>d the action of naturalselection, th<strong>an</strong> in the course which the wind blows” (Autobiography).Darwin’s objective was to provide a mech<strong>an</strong>ism to explain life apart from God. The fierce debatetoday between Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolutionists <strong>an</strong>d proponents of Intelligent Design prove this. Any hintthat there might be <strong>an</strong> intelligent designer involved in life makes establishment Darwinistsfighting mad <strong>an</strong>d has resulted in the blacklisting of fellow scientists who dare to questionwhether purely naturalistic processes c<strong>an</strong> explain the origin of life. Evolutionists in America haveeven argued this point before the Supreme Court. The National Academy of Sciences told thecourt that the basic characteristic of modern science is “reli<strong>an</strong>ce upon naturalistic expl<strong>an</strong>ations.”It is, therefore, a fundamental fact that Darwini<strong>an</strong> natural selection is a blind, non-intelligentprocess.Consider the following statements by prominent Darwinists:Darwinism is the “theory of r<strong>an</strong>dom, purposeless variations acted on by blind, purposeless naturalselection” (Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology textbook).“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, <strong>an</strong>d which we nowknow is the expl<strong>an</strong>ation for the existence <strong>an</strong>d apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind<strong>an</strong>d no mind’s eye. It does not pl<strong>an</strong> for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it c<strong>an</strong> besaid to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker” (Richard Dawkins, The BlindWatchmaker, p. 5).“If the history of life teaches us <strong>an</strong>y lesson, it is that hum<strong>an</strong> beings arose as a kind of glorious accident ...surely a kind of glorious cosmic accident resulting from the catenation [linking] of thous<strong>an</strong>ds of improbableevents” (Stephen Jay Gould, April 22, 1984, 60 Minutes television program).“M<strong>an</strong> is the result of a purposeless <strong>an</strong>d natural process that did not have him in mind” (George GaylordSimpson, The Me<strong>an</strong>ing of Evolution, 1949, p. 344).“Science has no need of purpose ... all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of the world c<strong>an</strong> be expressedas growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption” (Peter Atkins, cited from T. Schick Jr.,Readings in the Philosophy of Science, p. 351).Darwinists must, therefore, explain how their processes work without regard to <strong>an</strong>y type ofintelligence or design, which, as we will see, puts them into a serious qu<strong>an</strong>dary.A century <strong>an</strong>d a half after the publication of On the Origin of Species, natural selection remainsthe major mech<strong>an</strong>ism of evolution. Stuart Kauffm<strong>an</strong> says, “Biologists now tend to believeprofoundly that natural selection is the invisible h<strong>an</strong>d that crafts well-wrought forms. ... If current208
iology has a central c<strong>an</strong>on, you have now heard it” (At Home in the Universe: The Search forthe Laws of Self-org<strong>an</strong>ization <strong>an</strong>d Complexity, 1995).In <strong>an</strong>swering Darwini<strong>an</strong> natural selection, we observe:1. Natural selection c<strong>an</strong> only explain minor variations within a species.Natural selection might explain something like the size of a finch’s beak, but it has never provento be a mech<strong>an</strong>ism for the supposed tr<strong>an</strong>smigration of species.Though Charles Darwin titled his book On the Origin of Species, in reality he did not give <strong>an</strong>yevidence of how one type of <strong>an</strong>imal could evolve into <strong>an</strong>other. His evidence only demonstratedthat there c<strong>an</strong> be variety within one kind of <strong>an</strong>imal.The ch<strong>an</strong>ge in the size of a finch’s beak is interesting, but no matter what size of beak it has, itremains a finch. The same is true for the ch<strong>an</strong>ge in the color of the peppered moth. It is still amoth; in fact it is still a peppered moth. Centuries of pigeon breeding experiments have neverproduced <strong>an</strong>ything other th<strong>an</strong> pigeons.A recent example of the type of minor ch<strong>an</strong>ge that is offered as evidence of evolution is the applemaggot. This example is found under the evidence section of the British Natural HistoryMuseum’s web site.“One example of evolution in recent history is that of the apple maggot in North America. Apple maggots, astheir name suggests, eat apples, but this has not always been true. They used to feed on a pl<strong>an</strong>t calledhawthorn (<strong>an</strong>d were called hawthorn maggots), but in the 1700s when apples were introduced to NorthAmerica some hawthorn maggots started to feed on apples. Nearly identical as adult flies, the apple maggotevolved from hawthorn maggots when apple trees were introduced to North America. This shift in dietseparated the maggots into two groups, hawthorn maggots <strong>an</strong>d apple maggots. Both groups are stillbiologically very similar, but because of their food preferences they will no longer breed with one<strong>an</strong>other” (“Living Evidence,” April 27, 2005, www.nhm.ac.uk).The apple-loving hawthorn maggot is still a maggot <strong>an</strong>d it still produces the same kind of fly asthe hawthorn maggot. Giving it a new name does not ch<strong>an</strong>ge the fact that nothing of signific<strong>an</strong>cehas “evolved” beyond its diet. It has not evolved; it has adapted. The admission that “both groupsare biologically very similar” is <strong>an</strong> understatement.The fact that this type of thing is offered as evidence of evolution by one of the world’s premiernatural history museums demonstrates the b<strong>an</strong>kruptcy of Darwinism.The process that produces minor adaptive ch<strong>an</strong>ges in a creature <strong>an</strong>d the isolation of variousinherent genetic traits has never been demonstrated to be a process that c<strong>an</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ge one type of<strong>an</strong>imal or pl<strong>an</strong>t into <strong>an</strong>other.2. Natural selection c<strong>an</strong> only “select,” as its name implies; it c<strong>an</strong>not build.209
Being “natural” <strong>an</strong>d therefore blind <strong>an</strong>d unintelligent, natural selection c<strong>an</strong>not see the future <strong>an</strong>dwork toward a goal. It c<strong>an</strong>not produce new genetic information or new structures. Naturalselection knows nothing about propulsion, flight, swimming, breathing, hearing, seeing, bloodclotting.......(Neo-evolutionists add the mech<strong>an</strong>ism of “mutations” to provide new information for naturalselection to act on, but we will see that mutations provide no such thing.)Consider the bacterial flagellum. This microscopic motor-driven propeller drives certainbacteria. Molecular scientists are amazed at its “apparent” design. Harvard biologist HowardBerg calls it “the most efficient machine in the universe.” It is composed of a propeller, driveshaft, stator, bushing, u-joint, <strong>an</strong>d a hydrogen ion powered rotary engine. It turns at up to100,000 revolutions per minute, <strong>an</strong>d c<strong>an</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ge direction in a quarter of a turn. It c<strong>an</strong> propelitself at speeds up to 60 cell lengths per second, which by proportion is more th<strong>an</strong> twice as fast asa cheetah. “They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mech<strong>an</strong>isms, <strong>an</strong>d a short-termmemory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit insidethe circular cross section of a hum<strong>an</strong> hair” (Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning).How could natural selection produce such a thing? The evolutionist’s <strong>an</strong>swer is that naturalselection used parts from other cellular machinery, but this is ridiculous on its face. How couldblind natural selection, which c<strong>an</strong>’t see the future <strong>an</strong>d doesn’t work toward a goal <strong>an</strong>d has nointelligence, “co-opt” various parts to build something like this (even if all of the “parts” existelsewhere, which they don’t)? How could natural selection even see the need for such a thing, letalone produce it? As Dr. Phillip Johnson says:“... natural selection doesn’t know a thing about bacterial flagella. ... natural selection c<strong>an</strong> only select forpreexisting function. ... for co-option to result in a structure like the bacterial flagellum, we are not talkingabout enh<strong>an</strong>cing the function of <strong>an</strong> existing structure or reassigning <strong>an</strong> existing structure to a differentfunction. Rather, we are talking about reassigning multiple structures previously targeted for differentfunctions to a novel structure exhibiting a novel function” (Darwin on Trial, pp. 276, 277).3. Natural selection, not being able to see or work toward a future goal, would not selectsomething that would not be helpful for the creature’s immediate survival.Charles Darwin wrote:“On the other h<strong>an</strong>d, we may feel sure that <strong>an</strong>y variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidlydestroyed. This preservation of favourable variations <strong>an</strong>d the rejection of injurious variations, I call NaturalSelection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, <strong>an</strong>d would be lefta fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic” (On the Origin of Species, p.502)This me<strong>an</strong>s that partly-formed <strong>an</strong>d therefore presently-useless structures such as a “developing”wing or leg or flipper or lung or heart would not be preserved.210
Some clever Darwinists c<strong>an</strong> create a just-so story that finds a beneficial function in some partlyformedstructure or org<strong>an</strong>; but what is required from Darwinism is to demonstrate that everypartly-formed structure or org<strong>an</strong> is beneficial <strong>an</strong>d is therefore something that would be “selected”because Darwinism requires the routine selection of billions of such things.Take the example of the bird’s marvelous flying wing. Evolutionists theorize that it developedgradually as a reptile became a bird. But a part wing would provide no benefit <strong>an</strong>d would, in fact,be a definite hindr<strong>an</strong>ce. If scales somehow gradually lost their hardness on the way to somehowbecoming feathers, the protective benefit of the scale would be lost eons before <strong>an</strong>y benefit offlight was achieved.4. Natural selection requires competition for “survival of the fittest,” but nature showsmore symbiosis <strong>an</strong>d interrelatedness th<strong>an</strong> struggle.Darwin described nature as being everywhere “red in tooth <strong>an</strong>d claw,” but this is not what wesee. Evolutionists such as Pierre-Paul Grassé <strong>an</strong>d Michael Pitm<strong>an</strong> have acknowledged this:“Far from nature ‘red in tooth <strong>an</strong>d claw’, each creature is skilled at extracting energy in a different way fromits own particular niche in the environment; m<strong>an</strong>y of them have roles in the ecosystem that avoidcompetition. As Grassé noted, even in the mud of a pond ‘... cohabitation of species belonging to groupswidely different in system teaches us that in one <strong>an</strong>d the same environment separate types of biologicalsystem ensure the survival of one <strong>an</strong>d all’” (Michael Pitm<strong>an</strong>, Adam <strong>an</strong>d Evolution, p. 78).Consider pollination. Here we see amazing harmony between flowering pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d thepollinating creatures.Though nature does demonstrate “tooth <strong>an</strong>d claw” since the fall of m<strong>an</strong>, we do not observe theconst<strong>an</strong>t, everywhere-fought struggle for survival via competition that Darwin’s doctrinedem<strong>an</strong>ds.5. There are countless examples in nature where “the fittest” are not the ones that survive.“It is remarkable that Darwin failed to notice the truth in the converse of what he had said; the catastrophesthat end lives--drought, flood, starvation, plague--are non-selective. The strong are struck down with theweak. Is the blackbird’s early worm less fit? It has been shown, by night-time photography that lions do notnecessarily seek out the smallest, weakest buffalo. They may take fully adult males” (Michael Pitm<strong>an</strong>, Adam<strong>an</strong>d Evolution, p. 78).This is true throughout life. When men go to war, it is not the weakest that go; it is the fittest; <strong>an</strong>dthey are the ones who are killed in disproportionate numbers.In fact, the strongest often sacrifice themselves to secure the survival of the weakest, such aswhen mother creatures die to protect their young.Further, there are m<strong>an</strong>y creatures <strong>an</strong>d living processes that have survived even though theydisplay no evidence of being the fittest.211
Consider the koala. It is perpetually slow <strong>an</strong>d sleepy!Consider the peacock. Its massive, brilli<strong>an</strong>t array of tail feathers do not give it <strong>an</strong>y adv<strong>an</strong>tage inthe forest. It is cumbersome for flying; it is the opposite of camouflage; <strong>an</strong>d scientific studieshave shown that it is not even attractive to the pea hen!Consider the hum<strong>an</strong> child. It requires nearly two decades of nurture before it is ready to live onits own.6. Natural selection c<strong>an</strong>not explain the fact that pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals have remained thesame for supposed “millions” of years.If natural selection were true, it would me<strong>an</strong> that creatures are in a perpetual state ofenvironment-induced ch<strong>an</strong>ge, but m<strong>an</strong>y of the creatures observed in the so-called Cambri<strong>an</strong>layer, which is supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old, are still with us today <strong>an</strong>dhaven’t ch<strong>an</strong>ged at all.Consider the bat. There are fossils of bats that are dated at 54 million years old, but it is the samecreature that flies in “modern” skies. The 54-million-year-old bat looked exactly like a “modern”bat <strong>an</strong>d had the same complex echolocation equipment in its inner ears.Consider the Lungfish. It is supposed to be 360 million years old, but it hasn’t ch<strong>an</strong>ged at all. Areport in Nature magazine observed that the Lungfish’s teeth structure has not ch<strong>an</strong>ged in all that(supposed) time (“Lungfish dental pattern conserved for 360 million years,” May 31, 2001). Ashatchlings, Lungfish have small teeth which fuse into a bony dental plate as it matures. There arethous<strong>an</strong>ds of well-preserved fossils of hatchlings <strong>an</strong>d adult Lungfish that exhibit this exact dentaldevelopment.Creation Moments well observes, “One c<strong>an</strong>not escape the conclusion that there has been noevolution of Lungfish since they first swam the seas. This agrees with Scripture” (“Lungfishtakes a bite out of evolution,” Creation Moments, J<strong>an</strong>. 8, 2011).7. Natural selection is utterly helpless to produce life in the first place.Even if natural selection were true <strong>an</strong>d even if it could account for the development of creatures,it would not explain the origin of life. Natural selection c<strong>an</strong> only select; it c<strong>an</strong>not create. AsMichael Pitm<strong>an</strong> writes, “to observe that ‘nature selects the fittest’ is far from explaining wherethe fittest come from” (Adam <strong>an</strong>d Evolution, p. 78).We see that natural selection offers zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life, <strong>an</strong>devolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even a hypothesis. It is a mythical story.212
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION1. Natural selection has no creative power. It c<strong>an</strong> sometimes possibly explain minor ch<strong>an</strong>geswithin a type of creature, but it c<strong>an</strong>not explain how creatures came into existence.2. Natural selection would not preserve something that would not be helpful for the creature’simmediate survival, such as a partial wing.3. Natural selection as <strong>an</strong> evolutionary mech<strong>an</strong>ism is disproven by the fact that creatures remainthe same.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON NATURAL SELECTION1. In Darwini<strong>an</strong> terms, natural selection refers to _____________________________.2. According to Darwin, how does natural selection produce new creatures?3. How do the Galapagos finches supposedly prove the “theory” of natural selection?4. According to Darwin, how do artificial breeding experiments provide evidence for naturalselection?5. Darwin’s objective was to provide a mech<strong>an</strong>ism to explain life apart from _______.6. The National Academy of Sciences says the basic characteristic of modern science is itsreli<strong>an</strong>ce upon ________________ expl<strong>an</strong>ations.7. Richard Dawkins wrote “The ____________ Watchmaker.”8. What are four reasons why we reject natural selection?9. What evidence did Darwin give that one type of <strong>an</strong>imal could evolve into <strong>an</strong>other?10. Why do evolutionists say that the apple maggot proves evolution?11. Why does the apple maggot not prove evolution?12. How do we know that natural selection could not build complex structures?13. What is the bacterial flagellum?14. Why would natural selection not “select” a half-formed wing?15. Nature shows more ________________ <strong>an</strong>d ____________________ th<strong>an</strong> struggle.16. How does pollination disprove natural selection?17. What are two examples of how the fittest are not always the ones that survive?18. How does the fact that creatures remain unch<strong>an</strong>ged over long periods of time disproveevolution?19. What is <strong>an</strong> example of a creature that has remained unch<strong>an</strong>ged since it first appears in the“fossil record”?20. How does natural selection account for the origin of life?MUTATIONSEvolutionists believe that genetic mutation is the mech<strong>an</strong>ism that adds information to a creature’sgenome so that it c<strong>an</strong> be naturally selected as adv<strong>an</strong>tageous <strong>an</strong>d thus produce new types of213
iological structures <strong>an</strong>d creatures. A mutation is “<strong>an</strong> error in the DNA of a living org<strong>an</strong>ism, <strong>an</strong>alteration of the genetic code.”“The theory proposes that there is the infrequent appear<strong>an</strong>ce of a mutation where by ch<strong>an</strong>ce the individual ismore favorably suited to its environment. While admitted to be rare, the mut<strong>an</strong>t then finds <strong>an</strong> exactly matchingmate. Then, since they are slightly better fitted to the environment, it is supposed they tend to have moreoffspring th<strong>an</strong> the normal vari<strong>an</strong>ts. This ch<strong>an</strong>ce process is repeated over countless generations, <strong>an</strong>d the smallmut<strong>an</strong>t ch<strong>an</strong>ges accumulate <strong>an</strong>d eventually lead to the appear<strong>an</strong>ce of <strong>an</strong> entirely new species” (I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, Inthe Minds of Men, p. 159).Richard Dawkins says:“... mutation is, ultimately, the only way in which new variation enters the species. All that natural selection c<strong>an</strong>do is accept certain new variations, <strong>an</strong>d reject others” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 125).The problem is that mutations are very rare, are almost always harmful, <strong>an</strong>d have never proven toprovide the type of positive, creative genetic ch<strong>an</strong>ge necessary for evolution. Mutations don’tcreate!1. Scientists generally agree that known mutations are either neutral in their effect orharmful. Further, they do not add new information to the genome.Consider the following statements by Theodosius Dobzh<strong>an</strong>sky of Columbia University, whosucceeded T.H. Morg<strong>an</strong>, father of the fruit fly mutation experiments:“A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories <strong>an</strong>d those stored in natural populations, producedeteriorations of viability, hereditary disease, <strong>an</strong>d monstrosities. Such ch<strong>an</strong>ges, it would seem, c<strong>an</strong> hardlyserve as evolutionary building blocks” (Genetics <strong>an</strong>d the Origin of Species, p. 73).“The mass evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological <strong>an</strong>dthe few remaining ones are highly suspect” (Evolution of Living Org<strong>an</strong>isms, 1977, pp. 88-103, 170).Du<strong>an</strong>e Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry, worked for m<strong>an</strong>y years in pharmaceutical research at CornellUniversity, the University of California, <strong>an</strong>d the Upjohn Comp<strong>an</strong>y. He co-authored a number ofpublications in the peptide chemistry. Of mutations, Dr. Gish says:“The genes are ordinarily very stable. A particular gene (in the form of its successors) may exist m<strong>an</strong>ythous<strong>an</strong>ds of years without alteration in its structure. Very rarely, however, the chemical structure of a genedoes undergo a ch<strong>an</strong>ge. Such a ch<strong>an</strong>ge is called a mutation. Mutations may be caused by chemicals, X-rays,ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, <strong>an</strong>d other causes. Some may occur during cell reproduction due to copyingerrors. Very often a mutation proves to be lethal, <strong>an</strong>d they are almost universally harmful” (The FossilRecord Still Says No, p. 37).For mutations to create new structures, org<strong>an</strong>s, <strong>an</strong>d creatures, they would need to addinformation to the genetic code. A vast amount of new information would be required to turn a“simple” ameba into a m<strong>an</strong> or even a wolf into a whale. But in fact mutations either subtractfrom the existing genetic code or simply modify it.“Moreover, the mutation does not introduce a new level of complexity, <strong>an</strong>d it c<strong>an</strong>not be known that it is a‘step in the right direction’--that it will integrate with other mutations in the future for <strong>an</strong> increase in functional214
information that will code for adaptations for greater complexity” (Davis <strong>an</strong>d Kenyon, Of P<strong>an</strong>das <strong>an</strong>d People,p. 66).Dr. I<strong>an</strong> Macreadie, principal research scientist at the Biomolecular Research <strong>Institute</strong> of Australia<strong>an</strong>d one of the southern hemisphere’s top AIDS researchers, says:“All you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a lossof information) that might help a bug to survive--say by not being able to fight the drug as effectively. But younever see <strong>an</strong>y new information arising in a cell. Sometimes a bacterium c<strong>an</strong> ‘inject’ information into<strong>an</strong>other one, so it’s ‘new’ to that bacterium--but that information had to arise somewhere, <strong>an</strong>d we just don’tobserve it happening. It’s hard to see how <strong>an</strong>y serious scientist could believe that real information c<strong>an</strong> arisejust by itself, from nothing” (“Creation in the Research Lab,” The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wiel<strong>an</strong>d, p. 36).Dr. Lee Spetner, a biophysicist who worked at Johns Hopkins University, says:“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that addedinformation. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the geneticinformation <strong>an</strong>d not to increase it. ... Information c<strong>an</strong>not be built up by mutations that lose it. A business c<strong>an</strong>’tmake money by losing it a little at a time. The neo-Darwini<strong>an</strong>s would like us to believe that large evolutionarych<strong>an</strong>ges c<strong>an</strong> result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all loseinformation they c<strong>an</strong>’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [neo-Darwini<strong>an</strong> theory] is supposed toexplain, no matter how m<strong>an</strong>y mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution c<strong>an</strong> be made by mutationsthat lose information is like the merch<strong>an</strong>t who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it upin volume. ... Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theorydem<strong>an</strong>ds. There may well not be <strong>an</strong>y. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds informationis more th<strong>an</strong> just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory” (Not ByCh<strong>an</strong>ce, 1997, pp. 131, 132, 159, 160).The million-dollar question is this: where does genetic information come from? Evolution has no<strong>an</strong>swer. Top geneticists say that it does not come through mutations, <strong>an</strong>d obviously it doesn’tcome through natural selection. The <strong>Bible</strong> believer has a simple <strong>an</strong>d effective reply which fits allthe evidence. The information in the living cell was placed there by the Creator. Each pl<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d<strong>an</strong>imal has the exact genetic information needed for its operation survival, <strong>an</strong>d reproduction.There is a certain elasticity within the genetic code to allow the entity to adapt to a ch<strong>an</strong>gingenvironment, but there is no ch<strong>an</strong>ge or “evolution” beyond this simple adaptation.Consider the mutation that produces sickle-cell <strong>an</strong>emia. This has been offered as <strong>an</strong> example ofa “beneficial mutation,” but we need to look at the whole picture. The mutation does providesome protection from the effects of malaria (the distorted blood cells are not as suitable for themalaria pathogen), but it does so at the expense of a serious <strong>an</strong>d painful impairment to the body’sability to tr<strong>an</strong>sport oxygen, <strong>an</strong> impairment that causes such things as <strong>an</strong>emia, poor circulation,lack of resist<strong>an</strong>ce to infection, <strong>an</strong>d damage to org<strong>an</strong>s. Thus, overall this mutation is much moreharmful to the creature th<strong>an</strong> beneficial <strong>an</strong>d would definitely not be the path toward turning areptile into a bird!Another example offered by evolutionists to demonstrate that mutations c<strong>an</strong> drive evolution isbacterial resist<strong>an</strong>ce to <strong>an</strong>tibiotics.215
For example, the Staphyloccus bacterium builds resist<strong>an</strong>ce to penicillin. This is said to prove thatbacteria evolved by adapting to the environment.In fact, though, there is no addition of genetic information <strong>an</strong>d therefore no support for creatureto creature evolution. This is <strong>an</strong>other example of the evolutionist’s bait <strong>an</strong>d switch tactic. Theyuse the term “evolution” to describe simple adaptability within a species, <strong>an</strong>d then use this toprove that kind to kind “evolution” is possible. The first c<strong>an</strong> be proven, while the second is merepresumption. No matter what type of resist<strong>an</strong>ce it develops or what adaptations it makes, thebacterium remains a bacterium; in fact, it remains the same basic kind of bacterium.Consider two of the major ways that bacteria achieve immunity to <strong>an</strong>tibiotics.First, some of the bacteria within a certain strain already have immunity to a certain <strong>an</strong>tibiotic.These bacteria therefore survive <strong>an</strong>d multiply, while those lacking this immunity die out. LeeSpetner observes:“The acquisition of <strong>an</strong>tibiotic resist<strong>an</strong>ce in this m<strong>an</strong>ner ... is not the kind that c<strong>an</strong> serve as a prototype for themutations needed to account for Evolution. ... The genetic ch<strong>an</strong>ges that could illustrate the theory must notonly add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. Thehorizontal tr<strong>an</strong>sfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species” (“Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue,” 2001, www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp).A few years ago the bodies of three Arctic explorers who died in 1845 were recovered. “Samplesof bacteria were taken from their intestines <strong>an</strong>d it was found that some of the bacteria wereindeed resist<strong>an</strong>t to modern-day <strong>an</strong>tibiotics. This is just as the creation scientist would predict.There have always been some populations of bacteria that have had genes conferring a resist<strong>an</strong>ceto <strong>an</strong>tibiotics” (Al<strong>an</strong> Gillen, M.D., Body by Design, p. 141).The Staphyloccus bacterium isn’t “evolving.” It isn’t turning into something else. It is simplyresponding to the environment according to the way that God made it.Second, some bacteria gain immunity by a loss of genetic information. Dr. Lee Spetner gives theexample of bacteria that become immune to streptomycin by the decomposition of the ribosomein its cell due to a destructive mutation.“This ch<strong>an</strong>ge in the surface of the microorg<strong>an</strong>ism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule fromattaching <strong>an</strong>d carrying out its <strong>an</strong>tibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity <strong>an</strong>dtherefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution … c<strong>an</strong>not be achieved by mutations of thissort, no matter how m<strong>an</strong>y of them there are. Evolution c<strong>an</strong>not be built by accumulating mutations that onlydegrade specificity” (“Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue,” 2001, www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp).Far from being a genetic adv<strong>an</strong>ce for the bacterium, the mutation causes it to become lessfunctional overall.Mutations of this sort are the path toward gradual degradation of the creature rather th<strong>an</strong> the pathof <strong>an</strong> upward evolution.216
We would warn our readers to beware of Darwinist’s citation of genetic research. In spite ofthe powerful evidence that has built up over the past century against mutations being amech<strong>an</strong>ism of evolution, some Darwinists still cling to this myth. And they regularly cite newresearch as proof. In fact, they appear to be fleeing to genetics as the final <strong>an</strong>d ultimate proof ofevolution. I believe that this is for two reasons. First, the traditional evidences for evolution (e.g.,ape-men, dino-bird, Darwin’s finches, peppered moth, Miller experiment, embryonic chart) havebeen effectively challenged in popular books such as Jonath<strong>an</strong> Well’s Icons of Evolution. Second,very few people are equipped to <strong>an</strong>alyze genetic research. Therefore, the average person c<strong>an</strong>’trefute Darwinist’s claims in this area. This is why they typically make no effort to simplify theresults of genetic research <strong>an</strong>d they strive to be as technical as possible even in describing it.Th<strong>an</strong>kfully, there are qualified geneticists who are skeptical of Darwinism <strong>an</strong>d who are capableof <strong>an</strong>alyzing the new claims.For example, in the book The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins says that RichardLenski’s work with the E. coli virus has proven that mutations do add information to the geneticcode, but in The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe, Ph.D. in Biochemistry, has demonstrated thatthis is not true. “After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that theobserved adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of FunctionalCoding Elements (FCTs)” (“Michael Behe’s Quarterly Review,” Evolution News & Views,Discovery <strong>Institute</strong>, Dec. 8, 2010).Even some scientists who believe in evolution have rejected the doctrine that it could be drivenby mutations.I. L. Cohen, mathematici<strong>an</strong>, member of the New York Academy of Sciences, called evolution bymutation a “metaphysical theory.”“Micro mutations do occur, but the theory that these alone c<strong>an</strong> account for evolutionary ch<strong>an</strong>ge is eitherfalsified or else it is <strong>an</strong> unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is agreat misfortune if <strong>an</strong> entire br<strong>an</strong>ch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is whathappened in biology ... I believe that one day the Darwini<strong>an</strong> myth will be r<strong>an</strong>ked the greatest deceit in thehistory of science” (Cohen, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, p. 422).“To propose <strong>an</strong>d argue that mutations even t<strong>an</strong>dem with ‘natural selection’ are the root causes for 6,000,000viable, enormously complex species is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, <strong>an</strong>d reject thefundamentals of mathematical probability” (Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1984, p.81).Theodosius Dobzh<strong>an</strong>sky called the hypothesis of evolution by mutation “day dreaming.”“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce <strong>an</strong>y kind of evolution. ... A single pl<strong>an</strong>t or asingle <strong>an</strong>imal would require thous<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d thous<strong>an</strong>ds of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles wouldbecome the rule: events with infinitesimal probability could no longer fail to occur. ... There is no law againstday dreaming, but science must not indulge in it” (Evolution of Living Org<strong>an</strong>isms, 1977, pp. 88-103, 170).2. There are amazing repair mech<strong>an</strong>isms within the cell to thwart the distribution ofmutations.217
Even if it could be proven that a few mutations are somehow beneficial to the creature, the fact isthat there are m<strong>an</strong>y mech<strong>an</strong>isms within the cell that thwart their distribution.Biologists have identified more th<strong>an</strong> 50 different types of repair enzymes.Lowell Coker, Ph.D. in microbiology <strong>an</strong>d biochemistry, writes:“Numerous repair mech<strong>an</strong>isms have been found which ensure the accuracy of the replication process bycorrecting <strong>an</strong>y errors that occur, even those that occur after replication in the complete DNA molecule. Pleaseobserve that these repair mech<strong>an</strong>isms work against the hypothesized mech<strong>an</strong>ism of mutation as a principalme<strong>an</strong>s for operation in the theory of evolution. ... Each cell continuously monitors <strong>an</strong>d repairs its geneticmaterial. ... The universal existence of repair mech<strong>an</strong>isms in DNA not only ensures <strong>faith</strong>ful replicationof this master blueprint of life, but also ensures stasis in its function in the m<strong>an</strong>ner intended incontinuing generations. This strong evidence falsifies the mech<strong>an</strong>ism of evolution which requires multiple<strong>an</strong>d continued mutation or ch<strong>an</strong>ge over vast periods of time in the DNA molecule, the blueprint of life, to effectthe kinds <strong>an</strong>d diversity of life that we see” (Lowell Coker, Darwin’s Design Dilemma, pp. 120, 121).Bacteriologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago says the cell even has the ability tomodify its repair systems:“It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds ofaccidental genetic ch<strong>an</strong>ge that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. Byvirtue of their proofreading <strong>an</strong>d repair systems, living cells are not the passive victims of the r<strong>an</strong>dom forces ofchemistry <strong>an</strong>d physics. They devote large resources to suppressing r<strong>an</strong>dom genetic variation <strong>an</strong>d have thecapacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repairsystems” (A Third Way, p. 33).Even “simple” bacteria have incredibly effective error-correcting systems. Shapiro writes:“The fast-growing bacterial cell is the ultimate just in time production facility. When <strong>an</strong> E. coli cell divides every20 minutes, exquisitely reliable coordination has been achieved for hundreds of millions of biochemicalreactions <strong>an</strong>d biomech<strong>an</strong>ical events. ... This incredible precision is accomplished not by rigid mech<strong>an</strong>icalprecision -but rather by using two layers of expert error monitoring <strong>an</strong>d correction systems: (1)exonuclease proofreading in the polymerase itself, which catches <strong>an</strong>d corrects over 99.9% of all mistakes assoon as they are made (Kunkel & Bebenek, 2000), <strong>an</strong>d (2) the methyl-directed mismatch repair (MMR)system, which subsequently detects <strong>an</strong>d fixes over 99% of <strong>an</strong>y errors that escaped the exonuclease (Modrich,1991). Together, this multilayered proofreading system boosts the 99.999% precision of thepolymerase to over 99.99999999%” (Shapiro, “Bacteria are small but not stupid,” Exeter Meeting, 2006).In commenting on these facts, the blog Truthmatters.info says:“All cells on pl<strong>an</strong>et earth are working very hard to prevent the very thing that supposedly createdthem!! [e.g. genetic mutations] Think about that!! If that isn’t evidence against the non-Intelligent Design viewof Origins then I don’t know what is” (“Did DNA Copying Errors Create Systems for Preventing DNA CopyingErrors?” Truthmatters.info, Sept. 12, 2010).3. The fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not produce positive ch<strong>an</strong>ge in species.As we will see in the section on the fruit fly, for one hundred years these creatures have beensubjected to every scheme that m<strong>an</strong> c<strong>an</strong> devise to produce mutations. One objective of theexperiments has been to prove that evolution is true, but the result has been to disprove it. The218
only thing that has been produced is crippled <strong>an</strong>d mut<strong>an</strong>t fruit flies. No beneficial mutation hasresulted. No different type of fly or different type of creature has been produced. Mutationsproduce crippled monsters rather th<strong>an</strong> the beautifully “adapted” creatures we observe in nature.As E.W. MacBride stated,“Creatures with shrivelled-up wings <strong>an</strong>d defective vision, or no eyes, offer poor material for evolutionaryprogress” (quoted in H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation, 1966, p. 75).The scientific facts pertaining to genetic mutations refute the doctrine of evolution <strong>an</strong>ddemonstrate that it is not qualified as a theory or even a hypothesis.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MUTATIONS1. Mutations are overwhelmingly either neutral in their effect or harmful. Du<strong>an</strong>e Gish, Ph.D. inbiochemistry, says, “Very often a mutation proves to be lethal, <strong>an</strong>d they are almost universallyharmful” (The Fossil Record Still Says No, p. 37).2. Mutations do not add new genetic information. They either subtract from the existing geneticcode or simply modify it. Mutations could not have produced the vast amount of newinformation required to turn <strong>an</strong> ameba into a m<strong>an</strong> or even a wolf into a whale.3. The amazing repair mech<strong>an</strong>isms within the cell thwart the distribution of mutations <strong>an</strong>d workagainst evolution.4. The fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not result in new org<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d creatures.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON MUTATIONS1. Scientists generally agree that mutations are either ___________ or _____________.2. Who was Theodosius Dobzh<strong>an</strong>sky?3. He said that “all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably ______________” <strong>an</strong>d thefew remaining ones are ________________ _______________.4. Dr. Du<strong>an</strong>e Gish says that mutations are almost universally _________________.5. Dr. I<strong>an</strong> Macreadie says that “you never see <strong>an</strong>y new _____________ arising in a cell.”6. Dr. Lee Spetner says that “not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little__________ to the genome.”7. If new information doesn’t come from mutations, where does it come from?8. Why is sickle-cell <strong>an</strong>emia offered as <strong>an</strong> example of a “beneficial mutation”?9. Why is sickle-cell <strong>an</strong>emia not a good evidence for evolution?10. What are two ways that bacteria gain resist<strong>an</strong>ce to <strong>an</strong>tibiotics?11. Why is bacterial resist<strong>an</strong>ce to <strong>an</strong>tibiotics not <strong>an</strong> evidence for evolution?12. What are two reasons why Darwinists are fleeing to genetics as evidence for evolution?13. What did Theodosius Dobzh<strong>an</strong>sky call the hypothesis of evolution by mutation?219
14. The repair mech<strong>an</strong>isms in the cell ensure <strong>faith</strong>ful _____________ of the master blueprint oflife as well as ensuring ___________ in its function.15. The two layers of error monitoring proofreading in the E. coli bacterium boosts the perfectionof genetic copying to what percentage?16. How c<strong>an</strong> mutations be the path of evolution when the living cell is designed to keepmutations from happening <strong>an</strong>d from being distributed to the next generation?17. How do the fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not produce positive ch<strong>an</strong>ge inspecies?THE FOSSIL RECORDMuseums, textbooks, <strong>an</strong>d documentaries use the fossil record as a major icon of evolution, butthe fact is that if you remove the evolutionary presumptions, the evidence refutes evolution <strong>an</strong>dsupports creationism.By way of introduction, we observe that the fossil record is vast.Charles Darwin knew that the fossil record did not provide evidence for his doctrine, because itdid not provide evidence for a vast number of “missing links,” but he believed this “problem”could be explained by the incompleteness of the record <strong>an</strong>d the rudimentary state of paleontologyin his day.This c<strong>an</strong> no longer be used as <strong>an</strong> excuse. Driven largely by the desire to find evidence forevolution, paleontologists launched a frenzy of activity throughout the 20th century. Today thereare <strong>an</strong> estimated 200 million fossils in museums worldwide, including 100 million invertebrates,one million vertebrates, <strong>an</strong>d one million pl<strong>an</strong>ts (Carl Werner, Evolution: The Gr<strong>an</strong>d Experiment,Vol. 1, p. 77). Evolution: The Gr<strong>an</strong>d Experiment (volume 1) by Carl Werner breaks down thefossil evidence by pl<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imal, giving the statistics for specimens in museums worldwide(pp. 76-85).1. The fossil record c<strong>an</strong>not prove evolutionary descent.This point c<strong>an</strong>not be emphasized too much. An evolutionary view of the fossil record is pureassumption. It is impossible to prove that long-dead creatures have some sort of evolutionarygenealogy. Some evolutionists have admitted this.Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum said:“... statements about <strong>an</strong>cestry <strong>an</strong>d descent are not applicable in the fossil record. ... It is easy enough to makeup stories of how one form gave rise to <strong>an</strong>other, <strong>an</strong>d to find reasons why the stages should be favored bynatural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test” (letterto Luther Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d, April 10, 1979, cited from Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d’s Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 101, 102).Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature magazine, said:220
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. ... [Each fossil] is <strong>an</strong> isolated point, with no knowable connection to<strong>an</strong>y other given fossil, <strong>an</strong>d all float around in <strong>an</strong> overwhelming sea of gaps. ... To take a line of fossils <strong>an</strong>dclaim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that c<strong>an</strong> be tested, but <strong>an</strong> assertion thatcarries the same authority as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific” (In Searchof Deep Time).Laying out a line of fossils that have similarities (homology) does not prove that creaturesevolved. As Dr. David Stone says: “A fossil record displaying creatures with some modestsimilarities in form, but enormous differences in other org<strong>an</strong>s, functions, genetics, embryologicaldevelopment, etc., speak directly to special creation <strong>an</strong>d against evolution. If evolution were true,the fossil record would show a continually smooth variation of forms, <strong>an</strong>d classification intospecies, genera, etc., would be impossible.”All of the creatures in the fossil record are fully-developed pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals. To proveDarwini<strong>an</strong> evolution would require the existence of a vast number of partly-formed creatures <strong>an</strong>dorg<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d structures, but apart from a few questionable examples the record does notdemonstrate this.2. The fossil record’s “geological column” has major problems.The “column” supposedly consists of the Paleozoic, the supposed age of multi-celled org<strong>an</strong>isms,fish, <strong>an</strong>d amphibi<strong>an</strong>s, the Mesozoic, the age of reptiles <strong>an</strong>d dinosaurs, <strong>an</strong>d the Cenozoic, the ageof mammals <strong>an</strong>d birds. These three major time periods are further divided into 12 divisions: ThePaleozoic consists of Cambri<strong>an</strong>, Ordovici<strong>an</strong>, Siluri<strong>an</strong>, Devoni<strong>an</strong>, Mississippi<strong>an</strong>, Pennsylv<strong>an</strong>i<strong>an</strong>,Permi<strong>an</strong>. The Mesozoic consists of Triassic, Jurassic, <strong>an</strong>d Cretaceous. The Cenozoic consists ofTertiary <strong>an</strong>d Quaternary.One major problem with this is the missing strata.William Corliss, <strong>an</strong> evolutionist, acknowledges:“Potentially more import<strong>an</strong>t to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks ofgeological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel<strong>an</strong>d show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible thoughcontroversial inference is that our geological clocks <strong>an</strong>d stratigraphic concepts need working on” (UnknownEarth, 1980, p. 219).It would be wiser to admit that the entire principle needs to be discarded because it doesn’t fit theevidence.Another problem is that the “geological column” is often jumbled together.“Since 1840 there have been m<strong>an</strong>y rock formations discovered with fossils completely out of order accordingto the geologic column--like Precambri<strong>an</strong> sitting on dinosaur-age Cretaceous--but these have been eitherexplained away or simply ignored” (Luther Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 51).221
Another problem is the fossilized trees that pierce geological layers.This contradicts the idea that the strata were laid down gradually over millions of years. Thetrees would have rotted away had this been the case. These have been found in Alaska, Alabama,Kentucky, Illinois, Indi<strong>an</strong>a, Pennsylv<strong>an</strong>ia, Missouri, Mont<strong>an</strong>a, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia,Washington state, Engl<strong>an</strong>d, Germ<strong>an</strong>y, Fr<strong>an</strong>ce, Nova Scotia, <strong>an</strong>d elsewhere. Near Joggins, NovaScotia, 14,000 feet of sedimentary strata is exposed in the cliff faces along the Bay of Fundy <strong>an</strong>dthere are m<strong>an</strong>y fossilized trees piercing 2,500 feet of geological layers. M<strong>an</strong>y others have beenfound in L<strong>an</strong>cashire, Engl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d in the coal fields of Rhein-Westfalen in Germ<strong>an</strong>y (RichardMilton, Shattering the Myths, p. 84).Another problem is the out-of-place fossils.M<strong>an</strong>y out-of-place fossils have been found that disprove the evolutionary fossil column, but theyare usually ignored. In the m<strong>an</strong>y natural history museums I have visited, I have never seen adiscussion of this contradictory evidence.Walt Brown, Ph.D. in mech<strong>an</strong>ical engineering from MIT <strong>an</strong>d former Chief of Science <strong>an</strong>dTechnology Studies at the Air War College, provides the following examples of out-of-placefossils in his book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation <strong>an</strong>d the Flood:“For example, at Uzbekist<strong>an</strong>, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to thedinosaurs. Hoofprints of some other <strong>an</strong>imal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia. A leadingauthority on the Gr<strong>an</strong>d C<strong>an</strong>yon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, accordingto the theory of evolution predate hoofed <strong>an</strong>imals by more th<strong>an</strong> 100 million years. Dinosaur <strong>an</strong>d hum<strong>an</strong>likefootprints were found together in Turkmenist<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Arizona. Sometimes, l<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals, flying <strong>an</strong>imals, <strong>an</strong>dmarine <strong>an</strong>imals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, eleph<strong>an</strong>t, horse, <strong>an</strong>d otherfossils, plus crude hum<strong>an</strong> tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal bedscontain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering pl<strong>an</strong>ts that allegedly evolved 100million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Gr<strong>an</strong>d C<strong>an</strong>yon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, <strong>an</strong>d in Guy<strong>an</strong>a,spores of ferns <strong>an</strong>d pollen from flowering pl<strong>an</strong>ts are found in Cambri<strong>an</strong> rocks--rocks supposedly depositedbefore flowering pl<strong>an</strong>ts evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambri<strong>an</strong> rocks deposited before lifeallegedly evolved. Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees<strong>an</strong>d cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (<strong>an</strong>d floweringpl<strong>an</strong>ts, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later. Pollinating insects <strong>an</strong>d fossilflies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowersare assumed to have evolved” (Brown, In the Beginning, p. 12).The documentation for these c<strong>an</strong> be found in Dr. Brown’s book on pages 67-68.A list of nearly 200 wrong-order formations in the U.S. alone c<strong>an</strong> be found in <strong>an</strong> eight-part seriesby Walter Lammerts (“Recorded Inst<strong>an</strong>ces of Wrong-Order Formations,” Creation ResearchSociety Quarterly, September 1984, December 1984, March 1985, December 1985, March 1986,June 1986, December 1986, June 1987).3. The fossil record disproves evolution in that the fossilization itself is evidence of a greatworldwide catastrophe.222
The massive worldwide fossil beds are evidence for the biblical account of the worldwide Flood.rather th<strong>an</strong> for a uniformitari<strong>an</strong> evolutionary process.There is no large-scale fossilization happening today. Fossilization does not naturally occur.Instead, dead <strong>an</strong>imals are quickly consumed by <strong>an</strong>imals, insects, worms, <strong>an</strong>d bacteria, <strong>an</strong>d aredestroyed through the action of the environment (sun, rain, wind, moving water, etc.).This is true even for the largest creatures on earth. The video Blue Oce<strong>an</strong>, produced by theBritish Broadcasting Corporation, shows a huge dead whale being devoured by fish, worms, <strong>an</strong>dbacteria at the bottom of the sea.The vast western plains of the United States were once populated with millions of bison, whichroamed in enormous herds until they were nearly slaughtered to extinction during a short periodof a time in the late 19th century. Today there is zero evidence of fossil bison. The countlessbison skeletons that once littered the l<strong>an</strong>dscape simply disappeared through the aforementionedactions.The Old Testament indicates that the l<strong>an</strong>d of Israel was infested with lions for centuries (Job38:38; Prov. 22:13; 2 Kings 17:25), but there are no fossilized lions there (John Whitcomb, TheWorld That Perished, p. 76).The facts about the true nature of fossilization are typically ignored in natural history museums.For example, the Chicago Field Museum has a display allegedly proving that fossilization c<strong>an</strong>occur naturally by dead creatures “soaking in ground water for a long, long time.” This doesn’tproduce fossilization; it produces disintegrated <strong>an</strong>imals!The British Museum of Natural History has the same fallacy in its display on fossilization. Thefollowing statements are found near a slab of rock containing the fossils of a school of fish:“Fishy death -- The fossils in this slab belong to a school of fish that died in the same place at the sametime. Their freshwater lake dried out during a hot spell leaving the trapped fish to die.”“How was this fossil fish preserved? When the fish dies, it falls to the sea floor <strong>an</strong>d becomes buried insediments. The soft body parts rot away leaving the hard bones. Sediment layers accumulate <strong>an</strong>d becomecompacted over time, forming a rock mould around the skeleton. The skeleton is gradually replaced by otherminerals. Over millions of years the sediments may be eroded away exposing the rock containing the fossil.”These are unscientific statements. Fossilization doesn’t happen this way. When fish die, they areconsumed flesh <strong>an</strong>d bone by fish <strong>an</strong>d birds, crabs, worms, bacteria, <strong>an</strong>d by the action of theenvironment. Dead fish don’t lie on the bottom of the sea or a dry lake bed waiting for millionsof years of fossilization.223
The fossil record shows fossilization occurring so rapidly <strong>an</strong>d involving such immense qu<strong>an</strong>titiesof creatures <strong>an</strong>d preserving such amazing details that it is obvious that they were buried alive in aprocess that was cataclysmic <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>ything but gradual.Clams, for inst<strong>an</strong>ce, open up soon after they die, but there are fossil graveyards in m<strong>an</strong>y parts ofthe world containing millions of clams that are closed (Luther Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d, Darwin’s Enigma, p.129).The coal deposits are said by evolutionists to have formed over millions of years, but theycontain the fossils of perfectly-preserved skeletons, including two-ton dinosaurs, which wouldhave had to have been covered almost inst<strong>an</strong>tly. In 1878, miners working in the Mons coalfieldin Belgium discovered 39 igu<strong>an</strong>odon dinosaur skeletons, m<strong>an</strong>y of them complete, at a depth of322 meters. They were 10 meters long <strong>an</strong>d weighed two tons each. “For their bodies to be rapidlyburied would require rates of deposition thous<strong>an</strong>ds or even millions of times greater th<strong>an</strong> theaverage 0.2 millimeters per year proposed by uniformitari<strong>an</strong>s” (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p.84).There is a seven-foot ichthyosaur that was fossilized while giving birth (Carl Wiel<strong>an</strong>d, Stones<strong>an</strong>d Bones, 1994).Amazingly, the fossil record includes millions of “soft-bodied org<strong>an</strong>isms,” including bacteria,embryos, pl<strong>an</strong>ts, leaves, flowers, worms, jellyfish, fish eggs, <strong>an</strong>d insects, including butterflies.Pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals have been preserved in the most incredible detail.Throughout the earth there are massive fossil graveyards that offer profound witness to a globalFlood. Consider some examples:The Burgess Shale in British Columbia contains countless thous<strong>an</strong>ds of marine invertebratesthat have been preserved in exquisite detail, “with soft parts intact, often with food still in theirguts” (Dr. Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 537). It is obvious that theywere buried in a highly unusual <strong>an</strong>d catastrophic m<strong>an</strong>ner.“The Burgess Shale is, therefore, <strong>an</strong> enormous fossil graveyard, produced by countless <strong>an</strong>imals living on thesea floor being catastrophically swept away in l<strong>an</strong>dslide-generated turbidity currents, <strong>an</strong>d then buried almostinst<strong>an</strong>tly in the result<strong>an</strong>t massive turbidite layers, to be exquisitely preserved <strong>an</strong>d fossilized” (Snelling, p. 538).The Ordovici<strong>an</strong> Soom Shale in South Africa is 30 feet thick <strong>an</strong>d stretches hundreds of miles. Itcontains thous<strong>an</strong>ds of exceptionally-preserved fossils. The eurypterids even show “walkingappendages that are normally lost to early decay after death” <strong>an</strong>d “some of the fibrous muscularmasses that operated these appendages” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 538).“The evidence is clearly consistent with catastrophic burial of countless thous<strong>an</strong>ds of these org<strong>an</strong>isms overthous<strong>an</strong>ds of square kilometers, which implies that the shale itself had to be catastrophically deposited <strong>an</strong>dcovered under more sediments before burrowing org<strong>an</strong>isms could destroy the laminations” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p.539).224
The Devoni<strong>an</strong> Thunder Bay Limestone formation in Michig<strong>an</strong> is 12 feet thick <strong>an</strong>d stretches form<strong>an</strong>y hundreds of miles. It contains billions of fossils that were catastrophically buried.The Carboniferous Montceau Shale in central Fr<strong>an</strong>ce has yielded the fossilized remains ofnearly 300 species of pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d 16 classes of <strong>an</strong>imals. There are fossilized scorpions with theirvenomous vesicle <strong>an</strong>d sting preserved.“ ... numerous footprints of amphibi<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d reptiles have been found, complete with finger <strong>an</strong>d claw marks,<strong>an</strong>d sinuous lines made by tails trailing in the mud. Even raindrop imprints <strong>an</strong>d ripple marks have been foundpreserved, signifying that burial <strong>an</strong>d lithification must have been extremely rapid. Similarly, the preservation ofthe fragile hinges in the bivalve mollusk fossils suggests that these <strong>an</strong>imals were not tr<strong>an</strong>sported before burial,but were entombed abruptly by rapid deposition of sediment” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 540).The Carboniferous Fr<strong>an</strong>cis Creek Shale in Illinois forms a fossil graveyard containingspecimens representing more th<strong>an</strong> 400 species of a mixture of terrestrial, freshwater, <strong>an</strong>d marineorg<strong>an</strong>isms. The preservation of soft part details is evidence of rapid burial.The Triassic Mont S<strong>an</strong> Giorgio Basin in Italy <strong>an</strong>d Switzerl<strong>an</strong>d, 300 feet deep <strong>an</strong>d about fourmiles in diameter, contains thous<strong>an</strong>ds of well-preserved fossils of fish <strong>an</strong>d reptiles. Details ofdelicate bones, tiny spines, <strong>an</strong>d scales are distinctly visible. Fossilized fish contain embryosinside their abdomens. The fossilized T<strong>an</strong>ystropheus, a 4.5-meter giraffe-necked sauri<strong>an</strong>, alsocontains the remains of unborn young.“Fish, like so m<strong>an</strong>y other creatures, do not naturally become entombed like this, but are usually devoured byother fish or scavengers after dying. Furthermore, when most fish die their bodies float. In the fossilassemblage at Mont S<strong>an</strong> Giorgio are some indisputable terrestrial reptiles among the marine reptiles <strong>an</strong>dfishes. Thus, to fossilize all those fish with the large marine <strong>an</strong>d terrestrial reptiles, so that they are allexquisitely preserved, would have required a catastrophic water flow to sweep all these <strong>an</strong>imals together <strong>an</strong>dbury them in fine-grained mud” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 543).The Triassic Cow Br<strong>an</strong>d Formation in Virginia also contains a mixture of fossilized terrestrial,freshwater, <strong>an</strong>d marine pl<strong>an</strong>ts, insects, <strong>an</strong>d reptiles that were buried together in a massivegraveyard. “Microscopic details are preserved with great fidelity, <strong>an</strong>d the resolution of preserveddetail is approximately 1 micron” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 543).The Cretaceous S<strong>an</strong>t<strong>an</strong>a Formation in Brazil preserves fossils of marine <strong>an</strong>d l<strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d<strong>an</strong>imals, including shrimp, bivalves, fish, sharks, crocodiles, spiders, frogs, turtles, dinosaurs,<strong>an</strong>d pterosaurs [extinct flying reptiles], including pterodactyles with wingsp<strong>an</strong>s of over nine feet.“Preservation has been so rapid, <strong>an</strong>d so perfect, that structures such as muscle fibers with b<strong>an</strong>ding present,some displaying ultrastructure, fibrils, <strong>an</strong>d even cell nuclei arr<strong>an</strong>ged in neat rows, have been fossilized.Underneath the scales, small pieces of skin are preserved <strong>an</strong>d show thin sheets of muscle <strong>an</strong>d connectivetissue. In a female specimen the ovaries have been preserved with developing eggs inside, <strong>an</strong>d one egg evenhad phosphatized yolk. M<strong>an</strong>y specimens display the stomach wall with all its reticulations, <strong>an</strong>d often with thelast meal still in the stomach. One specimen has no fewer th<strong>an</strong> 13 small fish in its alimentary tract, with <strong>an</strong>umber of shrimps, that even had their compound eyes preserved with the lenses in place. But the mostspectacular tissues found in these fish specimens are the gills, m<strong>an</strong>y having the arteries <strong>an</strong>d veins of the gillspreserved with the secondary lamellae intact. ... It is clear, therefore, that the fossilization process took place225
moments after the fish had died, <strong>an</strong>d was completed within only a few (probably less th<strong>an</strong> five)hours” (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 545).The Siwalki Hills north of Delhi, India, 2,000 to 3,000 feet high <strong>an</strong>d several hundred mileslong, are composed of sediment laid down by water <strong>an</strong>d are packed with fossils of l<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals.Similar deposits thous<strong>an</strong>ds of feet thick are located in central Burma. These are packed with thefossils of large <strong>an</strong>imals such as mastodon, hippopotamus, <strong>an</strong>d ox, plus fossilized tree trunks.The Morrison Formation covers <strong>an</strong> area of about a million square miles in 13 U.S. states <strong>an</strong>dthree C<strong>an</strong>adi<strong>an</strong> provinces, stretching from M<strong>an</strong>itoba to Arizona, <strong>an</strong>d from Alberta to Texas.Dinosaur bones have been found at hundreds of sites, fossilized together with fish, turtles,crocodiles, <strong>an</strong>d mammals.The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Utah, <strong>an</strong>d Colorado contains fossils of palms,sycamores, maples, poplars, deep-sea bass, sunfish, herring, alligators, turtles, lizards, frogs,snakes, crocodiles, birds, bats, beetles, flies, dragonflies, grasshoppers, moths, butterflies, wasps,<strong>an</strong>ts, <strong>an</strong>d other pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals, terrestrial <strong>an</strong>d marine.A fossil graveyard near Floriss<strong>an</strong>t, Colorado, contains fossilized fish, birds, insects, <strong>an</strong>dhundreds of species of pl<strong>an</strong>ts. Fruit <strong>an</strong>d even blossoms have been found.The lignite beds of Geiseltal in Germ<strong>an</strong>y contain “a complete mixture of pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d insects fromall climatic zones <strong>an</strong>d all recognized regions of the geography of pl<strong>an</strong>ts or <strong>an</strong>imals.” Leaves havebeen so well preserved that alpha <strong>an</strong>d beta types of chlorophyll c<strong>an</strong> be recognized.“[Also preserved are] the soft parts of insects: muscles, corium, epidermis, keratin, color stuffs as melamine<strong>an</strong>d lipochrome, gl<strong>an</strong>ds, <strong>an</strong>d the contents of the intestines. Well preserved bits of hair, feathers <strong>an</strong>d scales ...stomach contents of beetles, amphibia, fishes, birds <strong>an</strong>d mammals ... Fungi were identified on leaves <strong>an</strong>d theoriginal pl<strong>an</strong>t pigments, chlorophyll <strong>an</strong>d coproporphyrin, were found preserved in some of the leaves” (N. O.Newell, “Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” Journal of Paleontology, 1959, 33: 496).These are merely a few examples of the amazing fossil graveyards that bl<strong>an</strong>ket the earth.As noted, the fossil record contains incredible detail. The trilobite’s compound eye has beenfossilized in such detail that scientists have been able to study it microscopically to determinethat some of these creatures had 15,000 lenses in one eye, with each lens being double!There are fossilized “soft bodied” non-vertebrate creatures <strong>an</strong>d even fossilized microscopicbacteria!So much for Darwin’s claim that the fossil record has not preserved such detail. In On the Originof Species he proclaimed, “No org<strong>an</strong>ism wholly soft c<strong>an</strong> be preserved.”226
The fossilization that is evident throughout the earth could occur only by a rapid cataclysmicprocess such as in a global Flood.4. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it does not contain the countless tr<strong>an</strong>sitionalcreatures that Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution requires.In On the Origin of Species Darwin acknowledged that his proposition requires ENORMOUSnumbers of intermediate links. He wrote:“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on <strong>an</strong> enormous scale, so must the numberof intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly ENORMOUS. Why then is not everygeological formation <strong>an</strong>d every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal <strong>an</strong>ysuch finely graduated org<strong>an</strong>ic chain; <strong>an</strong>d this, perhaps, is the most obvious <strong>an</strong>d serious objection which c<strong>an</strong>be urged against my theory. The expl<strong>an</strong>ation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologicalrecord.”Darwin devoted two chapters of his book to <strong>an</strong> attempt to explain this problem. His <strong>an</strong>swer to theissue of the missing links was that the fossil record was too incomplete in his day. He predictedthat subsequent research would unearth the missing links to prove his doctrine. We have seen,though, that the evidence has failed to materialize.In fact, subsequent research into the fossil record has refuted Darwin’s proposition for those wholook at the evidence without bias. Instead of countless numbers of tr<strong>an</strong>sitional limbs <strong>an</strong>dcreatures, evolutionists c<strong>an</strong> only point to a few highly questionable ones.This has been admitted by some evolutionists, though they have hesitated to say it too loudly lestthey give ammunition to the despised creationists <strong>an</strong>d draw upon themselves the wrath of theevolutionary gestapo.In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle <strong>an</strong>d Ch<strong>an</strong>dra Wickramasinghe, highly respected physicists, wrote:“... either there were no tr<strong>an</strong>sitions or the tr<strong>an</strong>sitions were so rapid as to be <strong>an</strong>alogous to qu<strong>an</strong>tum jumps. ...[For flying insects] it is particularly remarkable that no forms with the wings at <strong>an</strong> intermediate stage ofdevelopment have been found. Where fossil insects have wings at all they are fully functional to serve thepurposes of flight, <strong>an</strong>d often enough in <strong>an</strong>cient fossils the wings are essentially identical to what c<strong>an</strong> be foundtoday. ... WHEREVER ONE WOULD LIKE EVIDENCE OF MAJOR CHANGES AND LINKAGES ... THEEVIDENCE IS CONSPICUOUSLY MISSING FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD. ... These conclusions dispose ofDarwinism” (Evolution from Space, pp. 82, 86, 89, 94).Hoyle was not a creationist; neither is Wickramasinghe. In making this statement they had noagenda of discrediting Darwinism; they were simply being honest with the facts; <strong>an</strong>d the factsare that the fossil record provides no evidence of the myriad of tr<strong>an</strong>sitional structures <strong>an</strong>dcreatures that the doctrine of Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution requires. By the way, for their honesty theywere persecuted by the evolutionary gestapo.227
M<strong>an</strong>y evolutionists claim to have found missing links, but when those “links” are examined theyare invariably found to have serious problems, <strong>an</strong>d even the evolutionists themselves c<strong>an</strong>notagree about them.Fr<strong>an</strong>cis Hitching, who is <strong>an</strong> evolutionist, says:“It takes a while to realize that the ‘thous<strong>an</strong>ds’ of intermediates being referred to have no obvious relev<strong>an</strong>ce tothe origin of lions <strong>an</strong>d jellyfish <strong>an</strong>d things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind ofcreature, artificially arr<strong>an</strong>ged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work, <strong>an</strong>d thenrearr<strong>an</strong>ged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the arr<strong>an</strong>gement. ... The ‘thous<strong>an</strong>ds’ ofintermediates also include a number of creatures of about the same expl<strong>an</strong>atory value as the crossopterygi<strong>an</strong>fish--this is, almost none. They are simply speculative c<strong>an</strong>didates in the evolutionary ladder--disconnectedlinks in a hypothetical chain” (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 19).In Evolution: The Gr<strong>an</strong>d Experiment (volume 1), Dr. Carl Werner examines the fossil record forevidence of the evolution of invertebrates, fish, bats, pinnipeds, flying reptiles, dinosaurs,whales, birds, <strong>an</strong>d flowering pl<strong>an</strong>ts. He traveled to major natural history museums <strong>an</strong>dinterviewed the experts. The book provides evidence that all of the “links” are still missing.Consider the following quotes from scientists who were interviewed for Dr. Werner’s book. Asfar as we know, all of these experts are evolutionists.Evidence for the evolution of Invertebrates:“Despite 30 years of research on Ediacar<strong>an</strong> fossils, there are very few, if <strong>an</strong>y, unambiguous <strong>an</strong>cestors ofthings that appear in the Cambri<strong>an</strong>” (Dr. Andrew Knoll, Paleontologist <strong>an</strong>d Professor of Biology, HarvardUniversity).Evidence for the evolution of fish:“... the tr<strong>an</strong>sition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, <strong>an</strong>dm<strong>an</strong>y theories abound as to how the ch<strong>an</strong>ges took place” (Dr. John Long, <strong>an</strong> evolutionist <strong>an</strong>d the author ofThe Rise of Fishes).Evidence for the evolution of bats:“There’s a ten-million-year period of early mammal evolution where you would guess that there’d be some sortof bat precursor, but once again, nothing” (Dr. Gary Morg<strong>an</strong>, Assist<strong>an</strong>t Curator of Paleontology, New MexicoMuseum of Natural History <strong>an</strong>d Science <strong>an</strong>d a specialist in bat evolution).Evidence for the evolution of pterosaurs:“The <strong>an</strong>cestors are not known” (Dr. Gunter Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germ<strong>an</strong>y).Evidence for the evolution of dinosaurs:“Early on, again, I think researchers <strong>an</strong>d even maybe lay people really felt that we had more <strong>an</strong>cestors in thefossil record th<strong>an</strong> we actually do ... WE DON’T HAVE A LOT OF ANCESTORS; WE HAVE A LOT OFTWIGS” (Dr. Paul Sereno, Paleontologist <strong>an</strong>d Professor at the University of Chicago <strong>an</strong>d a leading expert ondinosaur evolution).228
This quote debunks the evolutionary “Tree of Life.” There is no trunk <strong>an</strong>d no br<strong>an</strong>ches, onlytwigs! This, of course, is evidence for creation <strong>an</strong>d not evolution.Evidence for the evolution of pl<strong>an</strong>ts:“It has long been hoped that extinct pl<strong>an</strong>ts will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existinggroups have passed during the course of their development, but it must freely be admitted that this aspirationhas been fulfilled to a very slight extent” (Dr. Chester Arnold, Professor of Bot<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>d Curator of Fossil Pl<strong>an</strong>ts,University of Michig<strong>an</strong>).We see, therefore, that the fossil record disproves evolution in that it does not contain thecountless tr<strong>an</strong>sitional creatures that Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution requires.5. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it shows creatures appearing suddenly, fullyformed, with no evolutionary history.Jeffrey Schwartz says the major <strong>an</strong>imal groups “appear in the fossil record as Athena did fromthe head of Zeus--full blown <strong>an</strong>d raring to go” (Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 41).The testimony of Stephen Gould (d. 2002), one of the most influential evolutionists of the 20thcentury:“In <strong>an</strong>y local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady tr<strong>an</strong>sformation of its <strong>an</strong>cestors; it appearsall at once <strong>an</strong>d ‘fully formed’” (Gould, Wonderful Life, cited from Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 50).The testimony of D. M. Raup <strong>an</strong>d S. M. St<strong>an</strong>ley:“Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new highercategories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of tr<strong>an</strong>sitional forms” (Raup <strong>an</strong>d St<strong>an</strong>ley,Principles of Paleontology, 1971, p. 306).Eugene Koonin of the National <strong>Institute</strong>s of Health says:“Major tr<strong>an</strong>sitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at <strong>an</strong>ew level of complexity. ... In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history [e.g., viruses, bacteria, <strong>an</strong>imalphyla], the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly <strong>an</strong>d fully equipped with the signature features of therespective new level of biological org<strong>an</strong>ization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms betweendifferent types are detectable” (“The Biological Big B<strong>an</strong>g Model for the Major Tr<strong>an</strong>sitions in Evolution,” 2007).The suddenness of the appear<strong>an</strong>ce of creatures has even been given the name “Cambri<strong>an</strong>explosion” or “biology’s big b<strong>an</strong>g.”The Cambri<strong>an</strong> layer is named after rocks in Cambria, Wales. This “layer” is supposed to be 500to 600 million years old <strong>an</strong>d to represent the beginning of life on earth.Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells, Ph.D. in cell biology from the University of California, Berkeley, states:229
“Although the abrupt appear<strong>an</strong>ce of <strong>an</strong>imal fossils in the Cambri<strong>an</strong> was known to Darwin, the full extent of thephenomenon wasn’t appreciated until the 1980s, when fossils from the previously-discovered Burgess Shalein C<strong>an</strong>ada were re-<strong>an</strong>alyzed by paleontologists Harry Whittington, Derek Briggs, <strong>an</strong>d Simon Conway Morris.The 1980s also marked the discovery of two other fossil locations similar to the Burgess Shale: the SiriusPasset in northern Greenl<strong>an</strong>d, <strong>an</strong>d the Chengji<strong>an</strong>g in southern China. All of these locations document thebewildering variety of <strong>an</strong>imals that appeared in the Cambri<strong>an</strong>” (Icons of Evolution, pp. 38, 39).SpidersSpiders appear fully developed in the “Cambri<strong>an</strong>.” There are even fossilized spider webs withbugs caught on them (e.g., on display at the Americ<strong>an</strong> Museum of Natural History).TrilobitesBats“... the trilobites appear in the geological record suddenly, fully formed ... without <strong>an</strong>y hint or trace of <strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>cestor in the m<strong>an</strong>y rock layers beneath” (Andrew Snelling, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 294,295; Snelling has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney).“Bingo, they just show up” (Dr. Gary Morg<strong>an</strong>, Assist<strong>an</strong>t Curator of Paleontology, New Mexico Museum ofNatural History <strong>an</strong>d Science <strong>an</strong>d a specialist in bat evolution, quoted in Evolution: The Gr<strong>an</strong>d Experiment, Vol.1, by Dr. Carl Werner).“The bats appear perfectly developed in the Eocene” (Dr. Gunter Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum inEichstatt, Germ<strong>an</strong>y, quoted in Evolution: The Gr<strong>an</strong>d Experiment, Vol. 1, by Dr. Carl Werner).Pterosaurs“When the pterosaurs first appear in the geological record, they were completely perfect” (Dr. GunterViohl, Curator of the Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germ<strong>an</strong>y, quoted in Evolution: The Gr<strong>an</strong>d Experiment, Vol. 1, byDr. Carl Werner).Some evolutionists have pointed to relatively recent discoveries of life at the so-called pre-Cambri<strong>an</strong> level, but this “does not provide <strong>an</strong>ything like the long history of gradual divergencerequired by Darwin’s theory” (Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells, The Icons of Evolution, p. 38).Darwinism predicts that the fossil record will show that creatures gradually evolve, but in fact itshows creatures appearing fully formed.6. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it demonstrates complexity from its earliestlayers.According to the Darwini<strong>an</strong> doctrine of evolution, life arose from a “simple” creature such as abacterium to higher <strong>an</strong>d higher life forms.The fossil record disproves this, even if you allow for evolutionary dating schemes. Creaturesappear not only fully developed but with incredibly complex features such as the bat’secholocation equipment.230
“The oldest bat fossils, belonging to <strong>an</strong> extinct lineage, were unearthed from rocks about 54 million years old,but the creatures that they represent aren’t dramatically different from living bats, says Mark S. Springer, <strong>an</strong>evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Riverside. Hallmark features of these creatures includethe elongated fingers that support the wing membr<strong>an</strong>es <strong>an</strong>d the extensive coiling of bony structures in theinner ears, a sign that they were capable of detecting the high-frequency chirps used in echolocation” (J.Bergm<strong>an</strong>, “Evidence for the Evolution of Bats,” Origins, Feb. 2008, cited from Jonath<strong>an</strong> Sarfati, By Design, p.49).“The fossil record does not provide evidence for the tr<strong>an</strong>sition towards either pterosaurs or bats: The earliestknown members of these groups had already evolved <strong>an</strong> adv<strong>an</strong>ced flight apparatus” (R. Carroll, Patterns <strong>an</strong>dProcesses of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 277).Consider the trilobite, which is found at the earliest stages of life by evolutionary thinking. It is<strong>an</strong> amazingly complex creature. It is thought to have had a set of gills associated with each of itsjointed legs. It would have had complex muscle systems to move its legs. It is thought to havehad a circulation system, including a heart. It had <strong>an</strong>tennae which probably had a sensoryfunction. It had a complex brain <strong>an</strong>d nervous system to control all of these org<strong>an</strong>s. The trilobitehad a compound eye with as m<strong>an</strong>y as 15,000 lenses per eye, all of which worked together inperfect harmony to provide exceptional vision for this “simple” creature. Dr. Andrew Snellingcalls it “the most sophisticated optical system ever utilized by <strong>an</strong>y org<strong>an</strong>ism” (cited from In SixDays, edited by John Ashton, p. 295).The mind-boggling complexity of creatures at every level of the fossil record disprovesevolution.In fact, microbiology has taught us that there is no such thing as a “simple creature.” A bacteriumis more complex th<strong>an</strong> a modern city.Darwinism predicts that the earliest forms of life found in the fossil record will be very simple,but in fact what we find is mind-boggling complexity from the beginning.7. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it exhibits stasis or stability of species ratherth<strong>an</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ge.Creatures not only appear in the fossil record fully formed but they also retain the same form <strong>an</strong>dhabits throughout their existence, even over supposed “millions of years.”Paleontologists call this observable phenomenon “stasis.”Steven St<strong>an</strong>ley, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, pulled no punches in his admission thatthe fossil record shows stasis rather th<strong>an</strong> gradualism:“Having carefully scrutinized data from the fossil record during the past decade, however, I have demonstrateda biological stability for species of <strong>an</strong>imals <strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ts that I think would have shocked Darwin.Certainly it has jolted m<strong>an</strong>y modern evolutionists. ... Once established, <strong>an</strong> average species of <strong>an</strong>imal orpl<strong>an</strong>t will not ch<strong>an</strong>ge enough to be regarded as a new species, even after surviving for something likea hundred thous<strong>an</strong>d, or a million, or even ten million generations. ... Something tends to prevent the231
wholesale restructuring of species, once it has become well established on earth” (“The New Evolution,”Johns Hopkins Magazine, June 1982, cited from Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d, Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 117, 118).Prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was equally c<strong>an</strong>did:“Most species exhibit no directional ch<strong>an</strong>ge during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil recordlooking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological ch<strong>an</strong>ge is usually limited <strong>an</strong>ddirectionless” (Gould, Wonderful Life, cited from Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 50)In February 1980, at a conference at Hobart <strong>an</strong>d William Smith College in honor of MaryLeakey, Gould said:“The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not <strong>an</strong> adequate expl<strong>an</strong>ation ... one thing it does show thatc<strong>an</strong>not be attributed to its imperfection is that most species don’t ch<strong>an</strong>ge. ... They may get a little bigger orbumpier but they remain the same species <strong>an</strong>d that’s not due to imperfection <strong>an</strong>d gaps but stasis. ...“The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don’t care much for gradualism is because the fossilrecord doesn’t show gradual ch<strong>an</strong>ge <strong>an</strong>d every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If youw<strong>an</strong>t to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knowsthat most species don’t ch<strong>an</strong>ge. That’s bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to begradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again,because you don’t see it, that brings terrible distress” (Luther Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d, Darwin’s Enigma, pp. 121, 122).This statement is consistent with creation but entirely inconsistent with Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution.Gould refused to believe in divine creation, though, so he invented a “theory” of evolution bygi<strong>an</strong>t leaps through “punctuated equilibrium,” even though there is no scientific evidence forsuch a thing.Luther Sunderl<strong>an</strong>d, who was <strong>an</strong> aeronautics engineer with General Electric for 30 years,observed:“Fr<strong>an</strong>k statements like these by Dr. Gould are censored for school materials. Textbooks frequently containdogmatic statement about how well the fossil record documents evolution, so instead of experiencing ‘terribledistress,’ students develop a comforting <strong>faith</strong> that there must be some good evidence somewhere that wouldsubst<strong>an</strong>tiate common-<strong>an</strong>cestry evolution” (Darwin’s Enigma, p. 122).Consider the bat. A fossil bat, Icaronycteris index, dated at 50 million years old, is on display atthe Museum of Natural History at Princeton University, <strong>an</strong>d it looks the same as a “modern” bat.Consider pl<strong>an</strong>ts. At the Burke Museum of Natural History in Seattle there is a display ofsupposed 50 million year old fossilized leaves of cedar, pine, ginkgo, birch, <strong>an</strong>d dawn redwood,<strong>an</strong>d they look exactly like the “modern” varieties. While living on <strong>an</strong> isl<strong>an</strong>d in the PacificNorthwest for a decade I had a hobby of studying the regional trees, <strong>an</strong>d in examining the fossilleaves at the Burke Museum it is evident to me that they simply haven’t ch<strong>an</strong>ged.Not only do creatures look the same throughout their history, they act the same. In 2010,Discovery News r<strong>an</strong> a report on a supposed 100 million-year-old lizard <strong>an</strong>d dragonfly fossilizedinto amber. The lizard had caught the dragonfly <strong>an</strong>d bit off its head just before being frozen intime by tree rosin. The report quotes George Poinar, professor emeritus at Oregon State232
University: “This shows once again how behaviors of various life forms are retained over vastamounts of time...” (“Lizard Entombed with Dragonfly Head in Mouth,” Discovery News, Oct.27, 2010).This stability of behavior is not consistent with <strong>an</strong> evolutionary view of life, but it is entirelyconsistent with creation. Creatures remain unch<strong>an</strong>ged because God created them to reproduceafter their own kind.Darwinism predicts that the fossil record will demonstrate const<strong>an</strong>t ch<strong>an</strong>ge <strong>an</strong>d non-stability ofspecies, but in fact it shows sudden appear<strong>an</strong>ce followed by amazing stability.A creationist view of the fossil recordThe global Flood explains why we find massive beds of fossils throughout the earth. It explainswhy certain bottom-dwelling sea creatures are often found at the lower levels of the fossil strata,as these creatures would typically have been buried first.M<strong>an</strong>y books have been written to present the creationist view of the fossil record, including thefollowing by men who hold Ph.D.s in geology, hydraulics, <strong>an</strong>d mech<strong>an</strong>ical engineering:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation <strong>an</strong>d the Flood by Walt BrownEarth’s Catastrophic Past (2 volumes) by Andrew SnellingThe uniformitari<strong>an</strong> “theory” that has dominated geology since Darwin’s day is beingrejected even by evolutionists.The uniformitari<strong>an</strong> doctrine, devised in Darwin’s day by Charles Lyell, says that the successivegeological layers represent millions of years of gradual buildup. He said “the past is the key tothe present,” me<strong>an</strong>ing that conditions have remained the same over eons of time. Darwinenthusiastically accepted Lyell’s principle, saying that Lyell had “produced a revolution innatural science.”By the mid-20th century, uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism was being rejected.“The geologic community gave up subst<strong>an</strong>tive uniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism long ago” (David Young, Christi<strong>an</strong>ity <strong>an</strong>d theAge of the Earth, p. 142).Uniformitarinism is under assault today from the growing evidence that things formerly thoughtto have required thous<strong>an</strong>ds or millions of years c<strong>an</strong> actually occur quickly.Consider some examples:233
SedimentationGuy Berthault conducted extensive laboratory experiments demonstrating that sedimentsnaturally <strong>an</strong>d quickly form layers in moving water <strong>an</strong>d that the sediment is sorted in the samem<strong>an</strong>ner that is found in the “geological column.” The results of this research was published in thelate 1980s <strong>an</strong>d presented to the National Congress of Sedimentologists at Brest in 1991.“What Berthault found was that when the sediments settled on the bottom they recreated the appear<strong>an</strong>ce ofthe original rocks from which they had come. But the strata were not formed by the deposition of a successionof layers as had been formerly assumed. Instead, the sediments settled on the bottom more or lessimmediately, but the fine particles were separated from larger particles by current flow, giving the appear<strong>an</strong>ceof layers. Moreover, the lamination was found to have a thickness that was independent of the length of timetaken to deposit that sediment--<strong>an</strong>other fundamental assumption of classic geology. ‘It follows,’ observedBerthault, ‘that no deduction of the duration of sedimentation c<strong>an</strong> be made by simple observation of rocklaminae’” (Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 77).The laboratory work was supplemented by field observations from Mount St. Helens <strong>an</strong>d otherplaces, proving that phenomena such as the formation of c<strong>an</strong>yons previously thought to requirethous<strong>an</strong>ds or millions of years c<strong>an</strong> occur in a matter of days or even hours.StalagmitesIt was long thought that stalagmites were formed at <strong>an</strong> incredibly slow rate <strong>an</strong>d that this provedthe <strong>an</strong>cient age of caves. In fact, stalagmites were used as <strong>an</strong> icon of evolution for m<strong>an</strong>y decades.It is now known that they c<strong>an</strong> form very quickly.“In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches or 1 inch / year. Atthis rate they could have grown 300 ft. in just 3600 years. The picture at right is of a bat discovered in 1953 ina stalagmite, in Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. The stalagmite grew around the bat before it could decay orbe eaten. The temperature where this bat is found is just above freezing at a const<strong>an</strong>t 40 o F. The waterdripping from the stalactite above it is very salty. This would impede but not prevent decay. Also it would notprevent the bat from being eaten. So this stalagmite still had to form quite rapidly, certainly far less th<strong>an</strong> 5,000years” (http://creationwiki.org/Stalactites_<strong>an</strong>d_Stalagmites).Petrified treesIt has also been learned that wood c<strong>an</strong> petrify quickly <strong>an</strong>d that formations such as those in thePetrified Forest National Park of Arizona did not necessarily take long periods of time to form,as previously thought.“Indeed, as part of a study of the petrified wood in the Petrified Forest National Park of Arizona, <strong>an</strong> experimentwas conducted in which blocks of wood were placed in hot alkaline springs in the Yellowstone National Park totest the rate at which silica is deposited in the cellular structure of the wood. The measured rate was between0.1 <strong>an</strong>d 4.0 mm/year. Other similar experiments have been conducted in laboratories. Furthermore, as a resultof testing for petrification in a Jap<strong>an</strong>ese volc<strong>an</strong>ic spring, it was concluded that petrified wood in <strong>an</strong>cientvolc<strong>an</strong>ic ash beds in sedimentary strata in volc<strong>an</strong>ic regions could have thus been silicified by hot flowingground water with high silica content in a fairly short period of time, in the order of several tens to hundreds ofyears. Such rapid petrification of wood is confirmed by m<strong>an</strong>y field observations of trees cut down by earlysettlers in Australia that were subsequently buried in the soil, then later dug up <strong>an</strong>d found to be petrified,including the axe marks” (Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 958).234
CoalEvolutionists have long used the massive coal beds that are scattered throughout the earth asevidence of <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>cient age for the earth, because it is believed that millions of years wererequired for their formation. It has been demonstrated scientifically, though, that this is a falseassumption. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology, writes:“Laboratory experiments have been quite successful in artificially producing coal-like materials relativelyrapidly, under conditions designed to simulate those present in sedimentary basins where coal measure stratahave accumulated. ...“A research team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois made insoluble material resembling coalmacerals (components) by heating lignin with clay minerals at 150 degrees C for 2 to 8 months in the absenceof oxygen. It was discovered that the longer heating times produced higher r<strong>an</strong>k coal macerals, <strong>an</strong>d the claysappeared to serve as catalysts that speed the coalification reactions...“More recent coalification experiments have tried to more closely simulate the natural geologic conditions, withtemperatures of only 125 degrees C in both lithostatic <strong>an</strong>d fluid pressures equivalent to burial under 1,800meters of wet sediments, yet maintained as a geologically open system which allowed by-products that mayretard coalification to escape. In that experiment, after only 75 days, the original peat <strong>an</strong>d petrified wood hadbeen tr<strong>an</strong>sformed into coalified peat <strong>an</strong>d coalified wood, comparable chemically <strong>an</strong>d structurally to lignite <strong>an</strong>dcoalified wood from the same geographical region as the original peat <strong>an</strong>d petrified wood samples” (Earth’sCatastrophic Past, Vol. 2, pp. 584-586).C<strong>an</strong>yons <strong>an</strong>d StratificationThe explosion of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 <strong>an</strong>d the subsequent tr<strong>an</strong>sformation of the surroundingl<strong>an</strong>dscape have provided a laboratory to study the formation of c<strong>an</strong>yons <strong>an</strong>d stratification.A c<strong>an</strong>yon 700 feet deep <strong>an</strong>d several miles long was carved (at some places even into solidbedrock) by the violent mudflows. One series of c<strong>an</strong>yons are one fortieth the scale of the Gr<strong>an</strong>dC<strong>an</strong>yon in Arizona, with individual c<strong>an</strong>yons having depths of up to 140 feet, with sheer cliffs ofup to almost 100 feet (Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 718).The blast also caused the formation of up to 600 feet of strata, caused by l<strong>an</strong>dslides, flowingwater from Spirit Lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, <strong>an</strong>d stream water.“In less th<strong>an</strong> five hours, 25 feet of very extensive strata had accumulated, even containing thin laminae <strong>an</strong>dcross-bedding from 1 mm thick to >1 meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes ofaccumulation” (Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 724).It is evident that large c<strong>an</strong>yons <strong>an</strong>d massive stratification c<strong>an</strong> occur very quickly <strong>an</strong>d that thesedo not require millions of years to form.The uniformitari<strong>an</strong> model has also been undermined by newer theories that the world haswitnessed a series of global catastrophes, such as the one that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs.The fossil section of the Field Museum in Chicago is arr<strong>an</strong>ged around a series of six “massextinctions” that supposedly wiped out most life forms. These are said to have been caused bythings such as shifting continents, volc<strong>an</strong>ic activity, meteors, <strong>an</strong>d “global warming.”235
If mass extinctions were caused by dramatic, global events, it is obvious that the earlier view ofuniformitari<strong>an</strong>ism was fundamentally wrong, but it was this very doctrine that caused scientiststo reject the <strong>Bible</strong> in the first place! The fact that they won’t admit that a terrible mistake wasmade <strong>an</strong>d that the <strong>Bible</strong> needs to be reconsidered is evidence that we are not dealing withrational, empirical science but with religion disguised as science.The fossil record demonstrates that evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even as ahypothesis. It is a mythical story.SUMMARY OF THE WAYS THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD DISPROVES EVOLUTIONFar from providing evidence for the evolution of life, the fossil record disproves evolution.1. The fossilization itself is evidence of a great worldwide catastrophe.2. The fossil record does not contain the countless tr<strong>an</strong>sitional creatures that Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolutionrequires.3. The fossil record shows creatures appearing suddenly, fully formed, with no evolutionaryhistory.4. The fossil record demonstrates complexity from its earliest layers.5. The fossil record exhibits stasis or stability of species rather th<strong>an</strong> ch<strong>an</strong>ge.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON THE FOSSIL RECORD1. Why did Darwin know that the fossil record did not provide evidence for his “theory”?2. How did he <strong>an</strong>swer this problem?3. Why c<strong>an</strong> this no longer be used as <strong>an</strong> excuse?4. How c<strong>an</strong> someone prove for sure that one fossil evolved from <strong>an</strong>other?5. Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum said “statements about ____________<strong>an</strong>d _____________ are not applicable in the fossil record.”6. Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature magazine, said that “o take a line of fossils <strong>an</strong>dclaim that they represent a lineage is not a _______________ ________________ that c<strong>an</strong> betested, but <strong>an</strong> assertion that carries the same authority as a _______________.”7. To prove Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution would require the existence of a _____ number of _________creatures <strong>an</strong>d org<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d structures.8. What are the three major evolutionary ages?9. What are four problems with the evolutionary geological column?10. How do the multi-strata fossilized trees disprove evolution?11. How do out-of-place fossils disprove evolution?12. How does the fossil record give evidence of a worldwide Flood?13. Why does fossilization not occur by <strong>an</strong>imals “soaking in ground water for a long time”?14. Why is it signific<strong>an</strong>t that m<strong>an</strong>y fossil clams are closed?15. What type of “soft-bodied org<strong>an</strong>isms” are found in the fossil record?236
16. How could a fragile creature like a butterfly be fossilized?17. In what area of the world do we find fossil graveyards?18. List three great fossil graveyards.19. Darwin said that if evolution is true the number of intermediate varieties of creatures wouldbe “truly _____________.”20. Physicist Fred Hoyle said that the evidence for major ch<strong>an</strong>ges <strong>an</strong>d linkages is conspicuously_______________ from the fossil record.21. Fr<strong>an</strong>cis Hitching said the fossil “intermediates” offered by evolutionists are “simply______________ c<strong>an</strong>didates.”22. How does the fact that creatures appear in the fossil record suddenly, fully formed disproveevolution?23. How does the trilobite disprove evolution?24. What is “stasis”?25. How does stasis disprove evolution?26. Stephen Jay Gould said that “most species exhibit “no directional _________ during theirtenure on earth.”27. What evidence at the Burke Museum in Seattle disproves evolution?28. What <strong>Bible</strong> event explains the massive fossil beds throughout the earth?29. What is the uniformitari<strong>an</strong> “theory” of geology?30. Who was the inventor of the uniformitari<strong>an</strong> “theory”?31. What evidence do we have that stalagmites c<strong>an</strong> form quickly?32. What evidence did the explosion of Mt. St. Helens provide against evolution?33. What are the five ways that the fossil record disproves evolution?HOMOLOGYOne of the most-used icons of evolution is homology or similarity between creatures, limbs, <strong>an</strong>dorg<strong>an</strong>s. This is supposed to show evolutionary descent. Darwin said,“I should infer from <strong>an</strong>alogy that probably all the org<strong>an</strong>ic beings which have ever lived on this earth havedescended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed” (On the Origin of Species).Practically every modern biology textbook <strong>an</strong>d every natural history museum uses homology asa chief evidence for evolution.The Prentice Hall Biology 2002 textbook is typical. It features a drawing of a limb of a turtle, <strong>an</strong>alligator, a bird, <strong>an</strong>d a mammal, accomp<strong>an</strong>ied by the following note, “[These] homologousstructures ... provide evidence of a common <strong>an</strong>cestor whose bones may have resembled those ofthe <strong>an</strong>cient fish shown here.”The argument from homology or similarity is used in every facet of evolutionary doctrine.237
To show how the eye evolved, for example, various types of eyes are arr<strong>an</strong>ged in a way thatascends from the simple to the complex.Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of the horse. Various four-legged <strong>an</strong>imals arearr<strong>an</strong>ged in <strong>an</strong> ascending lineage, from small to large. They all look vaguely like horses <strong>an</strong>d havefour legs, don’t they?Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of the whale from a wolf-like creature throughsuccessful stages to the gi<strong>an</strong>t blue whale.Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of m<strong>an</strong> from apes. One of the most effectiveevolutionary icons was the Parade of M<strong>an</strong>, which depicts 15 figures evolving from apes tomodern hum<strong>an</strong>s. All of the creatures have two arms, <strong>an</strong>d two legs, <strong>an</strong>d two ears, <strong>an</strong>d one nose,<strong>an</strong>d they are walking upright (which is actually a deception), so they must be connected byevolution. This is the argument from homology.In reply we offer the following points:1. If you remove the evolutionary assumptions, this amounts to zero evidence.The statement in the Miller-Levine Biology textbook -- “Each of these limbs has adapted in waysthat enable org<strong>an</strong>isms to survive in different environments” -- is pure evolutionary assumption.Nothing is proven.It could as easily be true that similarity of structure is the product of common design as commondescent. When something works, why reinvent the wheel? This is why engineers use devices likegears, wheels, ball joints, solenoids, <strong>an</strong>d switches repeatedly in different kinds of machines. Dr.Terry Mortenson rightly observes:“Similarity of shape or design c<strong>an</strong> just as well, if not more so, point to a common designer, rather th<strong>an</strong> acommon <strong>an</strong>cestor. Roller skates, bikes, cars, trucks, busses <strong>an</strong>d trains all have wheels, but one is not the<strong>an</strong>cestor of the other. They are similar because intelligent hum<strong>an</strong> designers have all thought that wheels are agood way to move things on l<strong>an</strong>d. So too living creatures that share the same pl<strong>an</strong>et <strong>an</strong>d are interdependentlylinked in a complex ecosystem will have m<strong>an</strong>y similarities <strong>an</strong>d those which live in very similar environments onearth (e.g., in water or air or on l<strong>an</strong>d) will share even more similarities. Our infinitely wise Creator is smarterth<strong>an</strong> all the engineers put together. Good designs c<strong>an</strong> be, <strong>an</strong>d are, easily modified for differentapplications” (Mortenson, “National Geographic Is Wrong,” Answers in Genesis, Nov. 6, 2004).Commenting on the supposed evolution of the eye, William Dembski, Ph.D. mathematics,observes:“But hasn’t the biological community explained the evolution of such complicated structures as the mammali<strong>an</strong>eye? Actually it hasn’t. What the biological community has done is noted that there are m<strong>an</strong>y different eyesexhibiting varying degrees of complexity--everything from the full mammali<strong>an</strong> eye at the high end of thecomplexity scale to a mere light-sensitive spot at the low end. But slapping down eyes of varyingcomplexity on a chart <strong>an</strong>d then drawing arrows from less complex to more complex eyes to signifyevolutionary relationships does nothing to explain how increasingly complex eyes emerged. The gapsbetween these increasingly complex eyes become unbridgeable chasms once you begin to think like238
<strong>an</strong> engineer <strong>an</strong>d actually look at the astonishing <strong>an</strong>d irreducibly complex components. ... Darwini<strong>an</strong>stories ... are just-so stories--fictional tales that entertain <strong>an</strong>d lull the Darwini<strong>an</strong> <strong>faith</strong>ful into thinking they’veresolved the problem of biological complexity when in fact its solution continues to elude them” (The DesignRevolution, p. 217).Why would blind evolutionary processes produce similar structures? Stuart Burgess, <strong>an</strong> engineer,observes:“... a classification tree c<strong>an</strong> be produced for <strong>an</strong>y type of m<strong>an</strong>-made device, such as gears, bearings, doors<strong>an</strong>d windows. The reason why a classification tree c<strong>an</strong> be produced for different kinds of m<strong>an</strong>-madeproducts is that these products have intelligent designers who pl<strong>an</strong> similarity. ... The only way in whichsimilarity could be considered evidence for evolution is if the evolutionist could show that the similarity seenin nature is what would be expected from evolution rather th<strong>an</strong> design” (Hallmarks of Design, p. 120).2. The argument from homology is based on the unproven assumption that evolution has amech<strong>an</strong>ism that could create complex structures.To say that homology is evidence of evolution is to assume that evolution has a mech<strong>an</strong>ism thatc<strong>an</strong> account for the creation of complex structures <strong>an</strong>d org<strong>an</strong>s, but this has never been proven.The two classic mech<strong>an</strong>isms of Darwinism are natural selection <strong>an</strong>d genetic mutation. Butnatural selection has no creative power. Through environmental pressures, natural selectionmight be able to “select” a certain beak size on a finch, but it c<strong>an</strong>’t create a beak. A beak is acomplex structure that has every sign of being intelligently designed <strong>an</strong>d made. Genetic mutationalso has no creative power. As we have seen, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful <strong>an</strong>d do notadd the information to the genome that would be required to create complex new structures.Another mech<strong>an</strong>ism proposed by Darwinists is “geographic <strong>an</strong>d reproductive isolation.” Thissays that when a small group of creatures is isolated by geographic barriers, “evolution” willoccur more quickly because of the smaller gene pool. But this only deals with existing genes <strong>an</strong>doffers no possibility of being a mech<strong>an</strong>ism to add new genetic information <strong>an</strong>d create newstructures <strong>an</strong>d org<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d creatures.Since Darwinists won’t w<strong>an</strong>t to allow “a Divine Foot in the door,” they are back at square onewith no <strong>an</strong>swer to the million dollar question: What is the power that fashioned such <strong>an</strong> amazingworld of living things?3. The founders of the biological classification systems did not believe that homologypointed to evolution.Carl Linneaus, who formulated the system for classifying pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals that is still usedtoday, <strong>an</strong>d Georges Cuvier, one of the founders of comparative <strong>an</strong>atomy, were not evolutionists<strong>an</strong>d did not believe that the similarities between creatures was evidence that they evolved. StuartBurgess observes, “It is ironic that m<strong>an</strong>y modern scientists quote classification trees,comparative <strong>an</strong>atomy <strong>an</strong>d palaeontology as evidence for evolution, when the main foundingscientists of these subjects were actually strong supporters of biblical creation” (Hallmarks ofDesign, p. 129).239
4. The limbs <strong>an</strong>d creatures typically used as homologies by evolutionists are actually moredifferent th<strong>an</strong> similar.In reality, a frog’s leg, a bat’s wing, <strong>an</strong>d a horse’s leg are dramatically different from a hum<strong>an</strong>arm!And a m<strong>an</strong> is dramatically different from <strong>an</strong> ape!And a “simple eye” is dramatically different from a hum<strong>an</strong> eye.Evolutionists emphasize vague similarities while ignoring vast differences.5. At the genetic <strong>an</strong>d embryonic level the supposed homologous structures are not formedin the same way or with the same genes.The Prentice Hall Biology textbook (2002) says, “... the limbs ... derive from the same structuresin the embryo.”But this is not the case.British biologist Gavin de Beer said, “The fact is that correspondence between homologousstructures c<strong>an</strong>not be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells in the embryo, or of theparts of the egg out of which the structures are ultimately composed, or of developmentalmech<strong>an</strong>isms by which they are formed” (cited from Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 71).Consider the formation of hum<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d frog digits. In hum<strong>an</strong>s, cell death divides the ridge into fiveregions that then develop into digits (fingers <strong>an</strong>d toes). In frogs, the digits grow outward frombuds as cells divide (Jonath<strong>an</strong> Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, p. 110, citing L<strong>an</strong>gm<strong>an</strong>’s MedicalEmbryology edited by T.W. Sadler <strong>an</strong>d Australi<strong>an</strong> Frogs by M.J. Tyler).Thus, the fact that there are similarities of structures within the <strong>an</strong>imal kingdom is thereforeme<strong>an</strong>ingless at the genetic level.Homology offers zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON HOMOLOGY1. What is homology?2. What are three examples of how homology is used by evolutionists?3. How is the “Parade of M<strong>an</strong>” <strong>an</strong> example of homology?4. It could as easily be true that similar structures are the product of common _________ ascommon ___________.5. How much of the evolutionary argument from homology is based on assumption?240
6. What is the major assumption underlying this argument?7. What are the two classic mech<strong>an</strong>isms of Darwinism?8. Why is it impossible for natural selection to create complex structures?9. What is it impossible for genetic mutations to create complex structures?10. Who was the father of the biological classification system?11. How do hum<strong>an</strong> digits <strong>an</strong>d frog digits differ in their construction in the embryo?THE PEPPERED MOTHOne of the most oft-used icons for evolution is the peppered moth, Biston betularia.In the book New Guide to Science, Isaac Asimov devoted a small section to proving Darwini<strong>an</strong>evolution <strong>an</strong>d his sole evidence was the peppered moth. Stephen Jay Gould also used thepeppered moth as one of the supposed irrefutable evidences for evolution (Hen’s Teeth <strong>an</strong>dHorse’s Toes, p. 257).It has been touted as “evolution’s prize horse” <strong>an</strong>d described as “the slam dunk of naturalselection, the paradigmatic story that converts high school <strong>an</strong>d college students to Darwin, thethundering left hook to the jaw of creationism” (Judith Hooper, Of Moths <strong>an</strong>d Men, p. xvii).The following statement from Biology: The Dynamics of Life by Merrill Publishing is typical ofthe way that textbooks use the peppered moth as a major evidence of evolution:“The evolution of new species is seldom observed because the ch<strong>an</strong>ges usually require m<strong>an</strong>y generations.However, scientists have observed m<strong>an</strong>y examples of the natural selection of adaptations. One of the beststudiedexamples involves the peppered moth in Engl<strong>an</strong>d. During the 1800s, there were two kinds ofpeppered moths--a common light-colored variety <strong>an</strong>d a rarer dark-colored variety. These moths restedduring the day on light-colored tree trunks. In 1850, almost all the moths were light in color. Then, during arapid exp<strong>an</strong>sion of industry around that time, the air became full of smoke <strong>an</strong>d soot. This extreme pollutionof the air turned the trunks of trees black. By the end of the century, most of the peppered moth population inEngl<strong>an</strong>d was dark colored. The light-colored individuals had become rare. ... In 1950, scientists performed<strong>an</strong> experiment to determine if natural selection had caused the dark variety of months to become morenumerous. They observed light <strong>an</strong>d dark moths in both industrial <strong>an</strong>d rural areas. The experiment showedthat birds ate more dark moths in rural areas where the trees were light-colored <strong>an</strong>d more light moths inindustrial areas where the trees were dark-colored. Through natural selection, populations of pepperedmoths had become adapted to living in industrial areas. The experiment showed that org<strong>an</strong>isms whose colorprovides better camouflage are more likely to survive <strong>an</strong>d reproduce” (Biology: The Dynamics of Life, MerrillPublishing, 1991, p. 209).Thus, in a short time the population of peppered moths in that area ch<strong>an</strong>ged from predominatelylight gray to predominately dark colored. The “new” moth was even given a new name, Bistonbetularia carbonaria, a supposed new “subspecies.”The proposed expl<strong>an</strong>ation was that the industrial pollution had killed the light-colored lichen onthe trees where the moths rested, <strong>an</strong>d the light-colored moths could therefore be seen more easilyagainst the natural brown of the tree’s bark. Thus, the light-colored moths were eaten bypredators at a prodigious rate while the dark-colored ones survived <strong>an</strong>d increased.241
This “evidence” for evolution was devised by Bernard Kettlewell. His objective in quitting his15-year medical practice was to prove evolution by studying the peppered moth, <strong>an</strong>d he foundwhat he w<strong>an</strong>ted to see. In Scientific Americ<strong>an</strong> magazine, Kettlewell proclaimed that he haddiscovered “Darwin’s missing evidence.”Kettlewell published a photo that became a major icon of evolution <strong>an</strong>d influenced countlesspeople to believe that Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution is true. It is a photo of two peppered moths seeminglyresting on a tree trunk.For over a century, the peppered moth has been offered as proof of the Darwini<strong>an</strong> mech<strong>an</strong>ism of“survival of the fittest” or “natural selection,” but there are serious problems with thisevolutionary icon.1. The adaptation of a species to its environment <strong>an</strong>d the variety that c<strong>an</strong> be exhibitedwithin a species do not explain Darwini<strong>an</strong> evolution.Variety within a species is not evidence for tr<strong>an</strong>smutation from one kind of creature to <strong>an</strong>other!Natural selection might sometimes account for the distribution of different colors of moths <strong>an</strong>dfor different sizes of dogs <strong>an</strong>d different shapes of beaks on a finch, but it c<strong>an</strong>not account for lifecoming into existence or a wolf becoming a whale or a reptile becoming a bird. No matter what<strong>an</strong> evolutionist might say about light- <strong>an</strong>d dark-colored peppered moths, they are all still moths.In fact, they are still peppered moths. Not even a new color was produced, because the darkcoloredmoths already existed.Adaptability of species is not evidence for Darwini<strong>an</strong> “molecules to m<strong>an</strong>” evolution, but it doesfit perfectly into the biblical model of creation by <strong>an</strong> all-wise God who designed the creatures toadapt to ch<strong>an</strong>ging environments on a fallen earth.2. Studies have debunked the correlation between pollution <strong>an</strong>d tree lichens <strong>an</strong>d the ch<strong>an</strong>gein moth color.“Field studies have demonstrated that pollution <strong>an</strong>d tree lichens are not always correlated with a greaterproportion of darker moths. In one place, for example, the number of darker moths increased after pollutiondecreased. In <strong>an</strong>other area, the number of darker moths ‘beg<strong>an</strong> decreasing before lichens returned to thetrees’” (John Day, Darwin Day in America, p. 246).3. The evidence was doctored.The aforementioned photograph of moths resting on a tree trunk, which has influenced thethinking <strong>an</strong>d philosophy of countless people, was A FAKE. It turns out that peppered moths don’tnaturally rest on tree trunks. The moths were glued to the trunk!“After more th<strong>an</strong> fifty years it is now admitted that these moths do not rest on tree trunks ... The well-knownphotograph of the black <strong>an</strong>d white species together that appears in every high-school textbook was takenusing two moths glued to a tree trunk” (I<strong>an</strong> Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 168).242
Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells, Ph.D. in cell biology, gives further refutation to the peppered moth myth:“Since 1980, evidence has accumulated showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks.Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported <strong>an</strong> experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assessnormal resting places. Mikkola observed that ‘the normal resting place of the peppered moth is beneathsmall, more or less horizontal br<strong>an</strong>ches (but not on narrow twigs), probably high up in the c<strong>an</strong>opies.’ ... Intwenty-five years of field work, Cyril Clarke <strong>an</strong>d his colleagues found only one peppered mothnaturally perched on a tree trunk. ...“M<strong>an</strong>ually positioned moths have also been used to make television nature documentaries. University ofMassachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent told a Washington Times reporter in 1999 that he once gluedsome dead specimens on a tree trunk for a TV documentary about peppered moths (The WashingtonTimes, J<strong>an</strong>. 17, 1999). Staged photos may have been reasonable when biologists thought they weresimulating the normal resting-places of peppered moths. By the late 1980s, however, the practice shouldhave stopped. Yet according to Sargent, a lot of faked photographs have been made since then. ...“Open almost <strong>an</strong>y biology textbook dealing with evolution, <strong>an</strong>d you’ll find the peppered moth presented as aclassical demonstration of natural selection in action--complete with faked photos of moths on tree trunks.This is not science, but myth-making” (Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 149, 150, 155).In fact, the original researchers knew that peppered moths don’t naturally rest on tree trunks.Cyril Clarke, who was “a bosom friend” of Bernard Kettlewell, said: “In 25 years we have onlyfound two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps” (Judith Hooper, Of Moths<strong>an</strong>d Men, p. xviii).Some have tried to debunk Jonath<strong>an</strong> Well’s report on the peppered moth, but they have not beensuccessful. Take Kenneth Miller, for example.“Kenneth Miller was one of the most vocal defenders of the st<strong>an</strong>dard peppered moth story, which he hadincluded in his own textbooks. At a meeting of the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002, Milleraccused Wells of engaging in repeated misrepresentations <strong>an</strong>d even fraud. Wells’s critique of the pepperedmoth story was exhibit number one in Miller’s indictment: ‘In his book, Dr. Wells made the claim, quote“Peppered moths don’t rest on tree trunks.” But he didn’t present <strong>an</strong>y data. When you do look at the data,what you discover is that the major observations that have been made of peppered moths in the wild mostfrequently shows that they rest on tree trunks--<strong>an</strong>d therefore, that claim is incorrect.’ As for the photos ofpeppered moths resting on tree trunks that appear in biology textbooks like his own, Miller insisted that‘those “faked” photographs aren’t faked at all; they’re real moths, on real trees, in the real positions thatmoths have actually been found in the wild.’ ...“Readers of Wells’s book, however, might have concluded that it was Miller who was engaging inmisrepresentation. Contrary to Miller’s claim that Wells ‘didn’t present <strong>an</strong>y data’ in his book to back uphis arguments, Wells in fact provided a detailed examination of the scientific research showing thatpeppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. When Wells responded to Miller’s accusations witha careful rebuttal reciting the evidence for his view, Miller posted <strong>an</strong> essay on his website with the selfpityingtitle ‘Paying the Price.’ Although Miller had previously accused Wells of being a liar <strong>an</strong>d a fraud,he now portrayed himself as <strong>an</strong> aggrieved victim. ... According to Miller, Wells’s factual rebuttal to Miller’sprevious attack was <strong>an</strong> effort ‘to smear me.’ Miller also played the religion card, deriding Wells as ‘theReverend Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells’ <strong>an</strong>d supplying a link to a Unification Church website. For someone so loudlycomplaining about smears <strong>an</strong>d ‘personal attacks,’ it was a perform<strong>an</strong>ce of giddy chutzpah.“Despite Kenneth Miller’s vigorous public defense of the peppered moth story during the first half of2002, it was deleted from the next edition of one of his own biology textbooks. The ch<strong>an</strong>ge was just intime. Later that year a devastating book-length critique of the conventional peppered moth story waspublished by science journalist Judith Hooper. Hooper’s Of Moths <strong>an</strong>d Men suggested not only that thest<strong>an</strong>dard peppered moth account was unsupported by more recent research, but that the originalexperiments by Kettlewell were full of holes. Wells was fully vindicated, but no apologies wereforthcoming from his critics” (John Day, Darwin Day in America, pp. 247, 248).243
The peppered moth demonstrates that evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even ahypothesis. It is a mythical story.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PEPPERED MOTH AS AN ICONFOR EVOLUTION1. The peppered moth has not proved that one kind of creature c<strong>an</strong> turn into <strong>an</strong>other. Not even adifferent type of moth was observed. The peppered moth has remained a peppered moth. Thecase of the peppered moth actually proves the truth of the <strong>Bible</strong>, that God made creatures toreproduce within kind <strong>an</strong>d that one kind of creature does not ch<strong>an</strong>ge into <strong>an</strong>other kind.2. The major icon for the peppered moth “evolution” was a photo of moths resting on tree trunks,but this was a myth, as they don’t naturally rest on trunks but hide in the br<strong>an</strong>ches.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PEPPERED MOTH1. Who was the m<strong>an</strong> who first proposed the peppered moth as evidence for evolution?2. What aspect of evolution is the peppered moth supposed to prove?3. What is the first reason why we reject the peppered moth as evidence for evolution?4. How have subsequent studies shown that Kettlewell’s conclusions were inaccurate?5. How was the evidence faked?6. Where do peppered moths naturally rest?7. Who is the author of Icons of Evolution?8. Who tried unsuccessfully to debunk this author’s position on the peppered moth?DARWIN’S FINCHESAnother major evolutionary icon is Darwin’s finches.On the voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin found several varieties of finches on the GalapagosIsl<strong>an</strong>ds in the Pacific Oce<strong>an</strong> 600 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, South America, but theseactually played no part in the development of his doctrine. It was not until the 20th century thatthe finches became <strong>an</strong> icon of evolution. Percy Lowe first called them “Darwin’s finches” in1936 <strong>an</strong>d David Lack published a book by that title in 1947 after Juli<strong>an</strong> Huxley urged him to doso, believing that it would help prove Darwinism in the minds of the populace.We are reminded by this that Darwinists have always been searching for simple icons toconvince the public of the truth of their doctrine. These icons are effective because they aresimple <strong>an</strong>d highly visual (e.g., Haeckel’s embryos, the horse chart, the peppered month, theParade of M<strong>an</strong>, Lucy). It does not seem to matter that the icons do not provide scientific evidentfor “molecules to m<strong>an</strong>” evolution but rather are based on evolutionary assumptions.244
Since the 1940s, Darwin’s finches have become <strong>an</strong> iconic evidence for evolution. The followingfrom the Miller <strong>an</strong>d Levine Biology textbook by Pearson Education (2002) is typical:“The Gr<strong>an</strong>ts’ work demonstrates that finch beak size c<strong>an</strong> be ch<strong>an</strong>ged by natural selection. If we combine thisinformation with other evolutionary concepts you have learned in this chapter, we c<strong>an</strong> devise a hypotheticalscenario for the evolution of all Galapagos finches from a single group of founding birds. Speciation in theGalapagos finches occurred by founding of a new population, geographic isolation, ch<strong>an</strong>ges in the newpopulation’s gene pool, reproductive isolation, <strong>an</strong>d ecological competition” (Miller <strong>an</strong>d Levine, Biology, pp. 372,408).According to this icon, a slight variety in finch beaks proves that creatures “evolve” in responseto a ch<strong>an</strong>ge in their environment. For example, during drought, when only big tough seeds areavailable, those finches with slightly larger beaks survive better th<strong>an</strong> those with smaller beaks.Voilá, you supposedly have “descent with modification”!Evolutionists have made much of Darwin’s finches. Jonath<strong>an</strong> Weiner called the ch<strong>an</strong>ge in thefinch beak “the best <strong>an</strong>d most detailed demonstration to date of the power of Darwin’sprocess” (The Beak of the Finch, 1994).In reply to this evolutionary icon we offer the following points:1. The Galapagos finches are still finches.The minor ch<strong>an</strong>ge in the finches’ beaks is not evidence of the evolution of kinds but ofadaptation within kinds. There is no evidence here for “molecules to m<strong>an</strong>” evolution. Thoughevolutionists have been studying the Galapagos finches for nearly a century, there is no evidencethat they could ever ch<strong>an</strong>ge into <strong>an</strong>ything else. They haven’t even ch<strong>an</strong>ged into a different kindof bird.2. Evolutionists have so narrowed the term “species” that finches with very minutedifferences are labeled different species.It is import<strong>an</strong>t to underst<strong>an</strong>d that the modern term “species” is not the same as the biblical “kind”as used in Genesis 1, which is the Hebrew word baramin. Andrew Lamb of Creation Ministrieswrites: “The biblical kind often equates to the family level in the modern biological classificationscheme, <strong>an</strong>d sometimes to genus or order. Some excellent baraminology papers have appeared inrecent issues of Journal of Creation” (“Sheep <strong>an</strong>d Goats?” Creation Ministries International,2007).Evolutionists have played their “species” card to create the illusion that the Galapagos fincheshave undergone truly signific<strong>an</strong>t ch<strong>an</strong>ge. One variety of the Galapagos finch is called sc<strong>an</strong>dens,while <strong>an</strong>other is called fortis. But in 1983 it was found that a male sc<strong>an</strong>dens bred with a femalefortis <strong>an</strong>d produced four chicks, proving that they are the same biblical “kind” (Genesis 1:21). AsRichard Milton observes:245
“In almost all respects, the finches of the Galapagos are so similar that it is difficult to tell them apart. ... It isvery difficult for <strong>an</strong> objective observer to see how a group of finches who ‘find it hard to tell themselves apart,’<strong>an</strong>d who do in fact interbreed, c<strong>an</strong> legitimately be called different species. ... But it is from this kind of wordplaythat all their subsequent claims of speciation <strong>an</strong>d ‘evolution’ flow” (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pp. 150,151).3. The Galapagos finches actually provide evidence against evolution.First, they provide evidence for the <strong>Bible</strong>’s claim that God made creatures to reproduce aftertheir own kind. This is repeated 10 times in Genesis 1, <strong>an</strong>d this is what we see in fincheseverywhere. Further, the ability to adapt to the environment is what we would expect if creatureswere designed by <strong>an</strong> Almighty God who knows the future <strong>an</strong>d who knew that His creatureswould need to adapt to a ch<strong>an</strong>ging <strong>an</strong>d oftentimes harsh environment in a sin-cursed world.Darwin’s finches offer zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST DARWIN’S FINCHES AS AN ICON OFEVOLUTION1. The Galapagos finch provides zero scientific evidence that a finch could ch<strong>an</strong>ge into <strong>an</strong>y othertype of creature. It only demonstrates that creatures adapt in minor ways to the environment.2. The Galapagos finch actually proves the truth of the <strong>Bible</strong>, that God made creatures toreproduce within kind <strong>an</strong>d that one kind of creature does not ch<strong>an</strong>ge into <strong>an</strong>other kind.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON DARWIN’S FINCHES1. Who was the m<strong>an</strong> who first named the Galapagos finches “Darwin’s finches”?2. What is the first reason why we reject the Galapagos finches as evidence for evolution?3. The ch<strong>an</strong>ge in the finches’ beaks is not evidence of the ____________ of kinds but of the_____________ within kinds.4. What is the Hebrew word for “kind” in Genesis 1?5. The biblical kind often equates to the __________ level in the modern biological classificationscheme.6. What is the term that refers to the study of kinds?7. How have evolutionists played the species card?8. How do we know that the different “species” of Galapagos finches are the same biblical kind?9. What are two ways that the Galapagos finches provide evidence against evolution?THE FOUR-WINGED FRUIT FLYAnother major icon of evolution is the four-winged fruit fly. The amazing little fruit fly naturallyhas two wings, <strong>an</strong>d the addition of two more wings through genetic mutations would seem, atfirst gl<strong>an</strong>ce, to support the real possibility that creatures could evolve new org<strong>an</strong>s.246
Practically every biology textbook uses the fruit fly (Drosophila mel<strong>an</strong>ogaster) as evidence forevolution. The 2002 Miller-Levine textbook is <strong>an</strong> example:“At the beginning of the 1900s, the Americ<strong>an</strong> geneticist Thomas Hunt Morg<strong>an</strong> decided to look for a modelorg<strong>an</strong>ism to adv<strong>an</strong>ce the study of genetics. He w<strong>an</strong>ted <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>imal that was small, easy to keep in thelaboratory, <strong>an</strong>d able to produce large numbers of offspring in a short period of time. He decided to work on atiny insect that kept showing up, uninvited, in his laboratory. The insect was the common fruit fly, Drosophilamel<strong>an</strong>ogaster, shown in Figure 11-13. Morg<strong>an</strong> grew the flies in small milk bottles stoppered with cotton gauze.Morg<strong>an</strong> found that he could breed a new generation of flies every 14 days. A single pair of flies could produceas m<strong>an</strong>y as 100 offspring. Drosophila was <strong>an</strong> ideal org<strong>an</strong>ism for genetics because it could produce plenty ofoffspring, <strong>an</strong>d it did so quickly” (Miller <strong>an</strong>d Levine, Biology, Pearson Education, p. 274).All sorts of mut<strong>an</strong>t flies have been produced from this experimentation. The Merrill Biology: TheDynamics of Life textbook shows some of these on page 169. They include vestigial wings,curled wings, white-eyed, prune-eyed, brown-eyed, <strong>an</strong>d eyeless.One product of the experiments is a four-winged fruit fly. At first gl<strong>an</strong>ce, this would appear toprovide dramatic evidence that genetic mutations c<strong>an</strong> add information <strong>an</strong>d produce new org<strong>an</strong>s,but this is decidedly not the case.What is typically not told about the mut<strong>an</strong>t fruit fly experiments is the following:1. The four-winged fruit fly is a crippled monstrosity.The extra wings lack flight muscles, so that not only do they not help the creature fly better, theyhinder it in flying at all. In fact, the second set of wings are not actually wings. They are a grossdistortion of the insect’s two “halteres,” which are small appendages behind the wings thatenable it to bal<strong>an</strong>ce in flight. Thus, not only has the four-winged fruit fly lost the effective use ofthese highly complex org<strong>an</strong>s, it has developed two large, useless mut<strong>an</strong>t appendages.“As evidence for evolution, the four-winged fruit fly is no better th<strong>an</strong> a two-headed calf in a circussideshow” (Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 186, 187, 18).It has been recently discovered that the fruit fly’s halteres are amazingly complex org<strong>an</strong>s. Theyare “small vibrating org<strong>an</strong>s ... that act as gyroscopic sensors [which] serve as detectors of body<strong>an</strong>gular velocity that quickly trigger muscle action. ... The velocity is sensed by the halteres,processed by a neural controller, <strong>an</strong>d tr<strong>an</strong>smitted by the flight motor into specific wing motionsthat generate aerodynamic torque” (David Tyler, “Design Principles in the Flight Autostabilizerof Fruit Flies,” Uncommon Descent, March 23, 2010). Experiments have shown that the fruit flyc<strong>an</strong> recover its heading to within 2 degrees in less th<strong>an</strong> a tenth of a second, <strong>an</strong>d the halteres are<strong>an</strong> integral part of this amazing flight system which the most technologically adv<strong>an</strong>ced fighter jetc<strong>an</strong>not begin to emulate.2. The mut<strong>an</strong>t flies are constitutionally weaker th<strong>an</strong> the parent form <strong>an</strong>d would beeliminated in a free competition environment.247
The Darwini<strong>an</strong> law of “survival of the fittest” would not “select” the four-wing fruit fly. As wehave seen, the extra “wings” are not only useless; they are a positive hindr<strong>an</strong>ce. Further, the fourwingfly has difficulty mating, so that “unless the line is carefully maintained in a laboratory itquickly dies out” (Wells, p. 186).This is true for all of the mut<strong>an</strong>t varieties of fruit flies that have been produced in the laboratory."A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion th<strong>an</strong> that they [themutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker th<strong>an</strong> their parent form or species, <strong>an</strong>d in apopulation with free competition they are eliminated ... Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not asingle one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutations), <strong>an</strong>d therefore, they are able to appear onlyin the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory” (H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung,1954, p. 1186, cited from the Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, chapter 14).3. The fruit fly experiments are actually strong evidence against evolution <strong>an</strong>d for biblicalcreation.First, the extensive fruit fly experiments, which have been conducted for a century, have proventhat mutations do not produce useful new structures or new creatures.Beginning with the work of Thomas Hunt Morg<strong>an</strong> at Columbia University in 1906, millions offruit flies have been radiated, poisoned, <strong>an</strong>d subjected to extreme conditions of light <strong>an</strong>d dark,cold <strong>an</strong>d heat. There were 100 fruit fly genetics labs in the United States alone from the 1930s tothe 1960s, <strong>an</strong>d these tested hundreds of thous<strong>an</strong>ds of generations of mut<strong>an</strong>t genes (CreationSpelled Out, p. 14). Radiation has greatly multiplied the number of mutations that would occurnaturally.The fruit fly was chosen for these experiments because its grows from egg to adult in 10-12 days,lays up to 100 eggs a day, <strong>an</strong>d it is a relatively “simple” creature with only four chromosomesper cell (as if <strong>an</strong>y tiny creature that c<strong>an</strong> fly <strong>an</strong>d reproduce itself could reasonably be calledsimple).The century of fruit fly experiments represents millions of years of “evolutionary time.”The result has been a variety of mut<strong>an</strong>t fruit flies--with various colored eyes <strong>an</strong>d bodies, differentsizes of eyes, no eyes, short wings, large wings, no wings, extra wings, twisted wings, legsgrowing out of its head, etc.--but absolutely no evidence that the fruit fly could evolve throughmutations into some other type of insect or <strong>an</strong>imal--or even into a different type of fly.The fruit fly experiments scientifically falsify the neo-Darwinism claim that mutations are thedriving force of species-to-species evolution.“Germ<strong>an</strong> geneticists Christi<strong>an</strong>e Nusslein-Volhard <strong>an</strong>d Eric Wieschaus were using a technique called‘saturation muta-genesis’ to search for every possible mutation involved in fruit fly development. Theydiscovered dozens of mutations that affect development at various stages <strong>an</strong>d produce a variety of248
malformations. Their Hercule<strong>an</strong> efforts earned them a Nobel prize, but they did not turn up a singlemorphological mutation that would benefit a fly in the wild” (Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 190).Theodosius Dobzh<strong>an</strong>sky, who succeeded T.H. Morg<strong>an</strong> at Columbia University, made thefollowing telling admission,“Mut<strong>an</strong>ts which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, <strong>an</strong>d mut<strong>an</strong>ts that would make a major improvementof the normal org<strong>an</strong>ization in the normal environments are unknown” (Evolution, Genetics, <strong>an</strong>d M<strong>an</strong>, 1955, p.105).Second, the fruit fly experiments demonstrate that the kinds of creatures are stable <strong>an</strong>d that thereare strict limits to the amount of ch<strong>an</strong>ge they c<strong>an</strong> experience. These experiments support the<strong>Bible</strong>’s declaration that God formed every pl<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imal to reproduce “after its own kind.”“No matter what we do to the genes of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normalfruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly” (Jonath<strong>an</strong> Wells, “The Problem of Evidence,” Forbes, Feb. 5,2009).The fruit fly experiments are a powerful refutation of the doctrine of evolution <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> icon forcreation.SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE FOUR-WINGED FRUIT FLY AS ANICON FOR EVOLUTION1. The four-winged fruit fly is a crippled monstrosity that is no more <strong>an</strong> evidence for evolutionth<strong>an</strong> a two-headed calf.2. The fruit fly experiments are evidence that mutations are harmful <strong>an</strong>d that they never improvethe creature <strong>an</strong>d are not a path to evolution.3. The fruit fly experiments prove the truth of the <strong>Bible</strong> in that one kind of creature does notch<strong>an</strong>ge into <strong>an</strong>other kind. God has put genetic barriers in place that c<strong>an</strong>not be crossed, so thatthere are strict limits to the amount of ch<strong>an</strong>ge they c<strong>an</strong> experience.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON FRUIT FLY1. Who is the father of the fruit fly experimentation?2. When did these experiments begin?3. Researchers c<strong>an</strong> breed a new generation of fruit flies every ____ days.4. What are three types of mutations that have been produced through this experimentation?5. Why is the four-winged fruit fly not a good evidence for evolution?6. The two extra wings are a distortion of the fruit fly’s ____________.7. What is the function of the fruit fly’s haltere?8. Why would fruit fly mut<strong>an</strong>ts be eliminated in a free competition environment?9. Mut<strong>an</strong>t fruit flies are “always constitutionally ____________ th<strong>an</strong> their parent form.”249
10. What are two ways that the fruit fly experiments provide evidence against evolution <strong>an</strong>d forcreation?11. The century of fruit fly experiments represents ____________ of years of “evolutionarytime.”12. What are the only three possible outcomes of fruit fly experiments?LUCYOne of the most widely-used icons of evolution is Lucy, the name given to a fossilized ape of theaustralopithecine class that is supposed to be millions of years old <strong>an</strong>d is alleged to be a missinglink between apes <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>.The Lucy bones have been the subject of fierce debate, even among evolutionists.Lucy was a tiny creature st<strong>an</strong>ding about three <strong>an</strong>d a half feet high.The bones were found in 1974 in northern Ethiopia by Donald Joh<strong>an</strong>son <strong>an</strong>d his colleagues. “Hethereupon declared on the spot that he had discovered a three million year old hum<strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>cestor” (Du<strong>an</strong>e Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, p. 241).They named the fragmentary skeleton “Lucy” after playing the Beatles song “Lucy in the Skywith Diamonds” repeatedly at the camp party the night of the discovery. John Lennon’s 1971song “Imagine” would have been more suitable, as Joh<strong>an</strong>son <strong>an</strong>d crew were living out the vainDarwini<strong>an</strong> dream that there is no God, no heaven or hell, only blind evolution. In the chorus,Lennon s<strong>an</strong>g, “You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one/ And some day I hopeyou’ll join us/ And the world will be as one.” Evolutionary scientists are at the forefront ofpushing this dream of a world united in a damnable myth, <strong>an</strong>d it is a fulfillment of <strong>Bible</strong>prophecy (e.g., Psalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:2-4).After Joh<strong>an</strong>son <strong>an</strong>nounced to the world that he had discovered a new “missing link,” he wasshowered with international acclaim. “The National Geographic Society promised funds <strong>an</strong>dassigned a photographer to Joh<strong>an</strong>son’s expedition. Money came from several sources. Joh<strong>an</strong>son’sfuture was secure” (Gish, The Fossils Still Say No, p. 243).Donald Joh<strong>an</strong>son <strong>an</strong>d comp<strong>an</strong>y believed they had found the original stem that led fromAustralopithecus to m<strong>an</strong>. Thus, they gave the creature the name Australopithecus afarensis todistinguish it from other forms of Australopithecus. (There is no consensus on this, though, evenamong evolutionists.)Australopithecus has long been promoted as a link in the evolution of m<strong>an</strong>. The Early M<strong>an</strong>(Time-Life, 1965), which contained the famous “Parade of M<strong>an</strong>,” featured Australopithecusprominently as a “Pre-M<strong>an</strong>.” It was depicted as <strong>an</strong> upright, hairy semi-ape-faced creature with250
hum<strong>an</strong> arms, h<strong>an</strong>ds, legs, <strong>an</strong>d feet. The Last Hum<strong>an</strong> (Yale University, 2007) describes four typesof Australopithecus: <strong>an</strong>amensis, afarensis, garhi, <strong>an</strong>d afric<strong>an</strong>us.(In the book Seeing the Non-Existent we deal with all of the major evolutionary “ape men,”including Java M<strong>an</strong>, Piltdown M<strong>an</strong>, Peking M<strong>an</strong>, Nebraska M<strong>an</strong>, Australopithecus afric<strong>an</strong>us,Ramapithecus, Zinj<strong>an</strong>thropus, Ida, Ardi, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, <strong>an</strong>d Ne<strong>an</strong>derthal.)It is impossible scientifically to prove that Lucy was <strong>an</strong>y sort of “missing link.”As we have seen in the section on the fossil record, it is impossible to prove that one type ofextinct creature had <strong>an</strong>y sort of evolutionary connection with <strong>an</strong>other. How could one possiblyprove such a thing? Just because there were certain similarities of structure does not proveevolutionary descent. This c<strong>an</strong> only be presumed from a philosophical bias.The debate over Lucy’s gaitThough evolutionists admit that the creature had <strong>an</strong> ape’s head <strong>an</strong>d brain <strong>an</strong>d ape-like arms,h<strong>an</strong>ds, <strong>an</strong>d feet, <strong>an</strong>d no speech capacity, it is alleged by m<strong>an</strong>y that it walked uprightly, which was“the first step toward becoming hum<strong>an</strong>.” This is called “bipedalism.”There is wide disagreement on this point.Dr. Solly Zuckerm<strong>an</strong>, for m<strong>an</strong>y years the head of the Department of Anatomy of the Universityof Birmingham in Engl<strong>an</strong>d, said of the Australopithecus family that “THEY ARE JUSTAPES” (Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 164). Zuckerm<strong>an</strong> studied the fossils of thiscreature for 15 years in minute detail with a team of scientists. They compared every import<strong>an</strong>tdetail of Australopithecus fossils with the bones of hundreds of hum<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d apes. For example,they compared the pelvic bones of Australopithecus with those of more th<strong>an</strong> 70 hum<strong>an</strong>s, 94 greatapes, <strong>an</strong>d m<strong>an</strong>y others of monkeys <strong>an</strong>d baboons. That is <strong>an</strong> impressive piece of scientificresearch. Zuckerm<strong>an</strong> concluded that Australopithecus did not walk erect. He said:“For my own part, the <strong>an</strong>atomical basis for the claim that the australopithecines walked <strong>an</strong>d r<strong>an</strong> upright likem<strong>an</strong> is so much more flimsy th<strong>an</strong> the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some vari<strong>an</strong>tof what one sees in subhum<strong>an</strong> Primates, that it remains unacceptable” (Beyond the Ivory Tower, p. 93).Zuckerm<strong>an</strong>’s detailed scientific research into Australopithecus, the largest <strong>an</strong>d most seriousproject of its nature ever conducted, to my knowledge, was largely rejected bypaleo<strong>an</strong>thropologists. But this is because his conclusions did not fit their pet theories. Zuckerm<strong>an</strong>was basically excommunicated by the paleo<strong>an</strong>thropological community for his conclusions, butthis is not because his research <strong>an</strong>d conclusions were scientifically disproven; it was because heveered from the party line.Zuckerm<strong>an</strong>’s team was not working on the so-called Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) but onfossils of other types of Australopithecus, but others have reached the same conclusion for so-251
called Australopithecus afarensis. Further, not everyone believes the Lucy group or the so-calledafarensis even represents a different category of Australopithecus.In 1982, Bill Jungers at the Stony Brook <strong>Institute</strong> in New York “argued that Lucy’s legs weretoo short, in relation to her arms, for her species to have achieved a fully modernadaptation to bipedalism” (Lucy’s Child, p. 194).In 1983, R<strong>an</strong>dy Susm<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Jack Stern, also of Stony Brook, concluded that Lucy <strong>an</strong>d her kinspent most of their time climbing trees. They “detailed more th<strong>an</strong> two dozen separate <strong>an</strong>atomicaltraits suggesting that the species was a less efficient biped th<strong>an</strong> modern hum<strong>an</strong>s” (Lucy’s Child,p. 194). They described Lucy’s h<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d feet as being long <strong>an</strong>d curved, typical of a treedwellingape, even more highly curved th<strong>an</strong> a chimp<strong>an</strong>zee (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p.207).That year Susm<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Stern reported in the Americ<strong>an</strong> Journal of Physical Anthropology:“The fact that the <strong>an</strong>terior portion of the iliac blade faces laterally in hum<strong>an</strong>s but not in chimp<strong>an</strong>zees isobvious. The marked resembl<strong>an</strong>ce of AL 288-1 [Lucy] to the chimp<strong>an</strong>zee is equally obvious” (J. T. Stern <strong>an</strong>dR.L. Susm<strong>an</strong>, Americ<strong>an</strong> Journal of Physical Anthropology, 80:279, 1983).Russell Tuttle of the University of Chicago reached the same conclusion as Jungers, Susm<strong>an</strong>, <strong>an</strong>dStern. He pointed to the “curved fingers <strong>an</strong>d toes” as <strong>an</strong> “apelike adaptation for grasping treebr<strong>an</strong>ches.”In 1983, a conference was held at the <strong>Institute</strong> of Hum<strong>an</strong> Origins at Berkeley in California todiscuss the issue of Lucy’s bipedalism. Russell Tuttle argued that the Laetoli footprints could nothave been made by a Lucy-type creature because its long, curved toes <strong>an</strong>d other featureswould have left a different sort of print (Lucy’s Child, p. 196). R<strong>an</strong>dy Susm<strong>an</strong> emphasized thatthe creature’s “strong, curved, apelike finger bones,” <strong>an</strong>d its “long arms relative to its legs”speak of tree living. Jack Stern used features of the hip, knee, <strong>an</strong>kle, <strong>an</strong>d pelvis as evidence forhis view that the creature did not walk in a hum<strong>an</strong> fashion.In 1984, Charles Oxnard, professor of Anatomy <strong>an</strong>d Biological Sciences at the University ofSouthern California, concluded that australopithecine was definitely not a missing link. “... theaustralopithecines known over the last few decades from Olduvai <strong>an</strong>d Sterkfontein, Kromdrai,<strong>an</strong>d Makap<strong>an</strong>s-gat, are now IRREVOCABLY REMOVED FROM A PLACE IN THEEVOLUTION OF HUMAN BIPEDALISM, possibly from a place in a group of <strong>an</strong>y closer tohum<strong>an</strong>s th<strong>an</strong> the Afric<strong>an</strong> apes <strong>an</strong>d certainly from a place in the direct hum<strong>an</strong> lineage. All thisshould make us wonder about the unusual presentation of hum<strong>an</strong> evolution in introductorytextbooks, in encyclopedias <strong>an</strong>d in popular publications” (The Order of M<strong>an</strong>: ABiomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p. 332).It must be understood that Oxnard is not a creationist. He is <strong>an</strong> evolutionist, but he is beinghonest with the facts presented in the fossil record as he sees them.252
In 1987, Oxnard did <strong>an</strong> extensive computer <strong>an</strong>alysis of the existing bones of Australopithecus<strong>an</strong>d concluded that it walked like <strong>an</strong> ape, not a m<strong>an</strong>. He demonstrated that the creature’s big toestuck out as in chimp<strong>an</strong>zees.In 1993, Christine Tardieu, <strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>thropologist in Paris, reported that Lucy’s “locking mech<strong>an</strong>ismwas not developed.” Hum<strong>an</strong>s have a locking mech<strong>an</strong>ism in the knees that allow us to st<strong>an</strong>dupright comfortably for long periods of time. Lucy didn’t have that, so she certainly didn’t st<strong>an</strong>daround nonchal<strong>an</strong>tly like she is depicted in the museums.In 1994, Dr. Fred Spoor <strong>an</strong>d his colleagues at University College, London, using CT sc<strong>an</strong>s ofaustralopithecine inner ear c<strong>an</strong>als, demonstrated that they did not walk habitually upright(“New Evidence: Lucy Was a Knuckle-walker,” Creation Ministries International, May 5, 2000,citing F. Spoor, B. Wood <strong>an</strong>d F. Zonneveld, “Implications of early hominid morphology forevolution of hum<strong>an</strong> bipedal locomotion,” Nature 369(6482):645–648, 1994).In 1994, Jack T. Stern, Jr., told the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Americ<strong>an</strong> Association of PhysicalAnthropologists that he believes that A. afarensis “walked funny, not like hum<strong>an</strong>s” (Gish, p.257).In 2000, Science magazine reported that Lucy “has the morphology that was classic forknuckle walkers” (Erik Stokstad, “Hominid Ancestors May Have Knuckle Walked,” Science,March 24, 2000, Vol. 287, no. 5461, pp. 2131-2132). Stokstad says, “I walked over to thecabinet, pulled out Lucy, <strong>an</strong>d shazam! -- she had the morphology that was classic for knucklewalkers.”In 2009, after <strong>an</strong>thropologists gathered at the <strong>Institute</strong> of Hum<strong>an</strong> Origins in New York to discussLucy, a report in the New York Times made the following interesting conclusion:“The debate over whether the primate Lucy actually stood up on two feet three million years ago <strong>an</strong>d walked--thus becoming one of m<strong>an</strong>kind’s most import<strong>an</strong>t <strong>an</strong>cestors--has evolved into two interpretive viewpoints, threefamily trees, spats over four scientific techniques <strong>an</strong>d too m<strong>an</strong>y personality clashes to count. ... The long <strong>an</strong>dshort of it is, according to a particip<strong>an</strong>t, that bipedality lies in the eye of the beholder” (“Did Lucy ActuallySt<strong>an</strong>d on Her Own Two Feet?” (New York Times, Aug. 29, 2009).Thus, there is no consensus even among the evolutionists themselves that Lucy walked uprightly,<strong>an</strong>d there is strong evidence that she did not.The fact that textbooks <strong>an</strong>d museums typically portray Lucy as <strong>an</strong> unquestionable hum<strong>an</strong><strong>an</strong>cestor <strong>an</strong>d as <strong>an</strong> upright walker is evidence that their objective is to brainwash the public with<strong>an</strong> evolutionary myth rather th<strong>an</strong> provide real objective education.It is probable that “Lucy” <strong>an</strong>d her kin typically walked on all fours like <strong>an</strong> ape, while walkingupright for short dist<strong>an</strong>ces. One day in Kathm<strong>an</strong>du, Nepal, in 2008, I saw a rhesus macaque253
monkey walk about 100 feet on his back legs. He was just cruising along <strong>an</strong>d seemed verypleased with himself! A macaque monkey at the Israel Zoo walks upright much of the time. Apesc<strong>an</strong> walk upright, but they aren’t designed to do it comfortably <strong>an</strong>d naturally like a m<strong>an</strong> does;they are more comfortable climbing trees. The mountain gorilla from Zaire has <strong>an</strong> arm-legproportion closer to hum<strong>an</strong>s th<strong>an</strong> other apes <strong>an</strong>d “a young gorilla c<strong>an</strong> rear up <strong>an</strong>d walk in ahum<strong>an</strong> way, resting on the sole of its foot rather th<strong>an</strong> the side” (Michael Pitm<strong>an</strong>, Adam <strong>an</strong>dEvolution, p. 242).When it comes to Lucy’s h<strong>an</strong>ds, all authorities agree that they were ape-like, <strong>an</strong>d as for her feet,Dr. R<strong>an</strong>dall Susm<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Dr. Jack Stern of the State University of New York at Stony Brook,described them as “showing a retention of grasping tendencies with long <strong>an</strong>d curveddigits” (New York Times, Aug. 29, 2009).Why would Lucy “evolve” upright walking?Michael Pitm<strong>an</strong>, who taught biology at Cambridge University, makes the following import<strong>an</strong>tobservation:“But if a group of them decided to swing down from the trees <strong>an</strong>d become meat-eating Homo erectus on theplain, upright gait would be the last thing they would w<strong>an</strong>t. Their first efforts would give them <strong>an</strong> uncomfortableshort-stretch roll, <strong>an</strong>d a slow one at that. M<strong>an</strong> walks about as fast as a chicken; he runs upright at 12 m.p.h.while the patas monkey c<strong>an</strong> run two-<strong>an</strong>d-a-half times as fast. Indeed, the new m<strong>an</strong> would have been aboutthe slowest mammal on the sav<strong>an</strong>nah; rolling like a boat in high seas <strong>an</strong>d still wearing that tinychimpish head, he’d have had little ch<strong>an</strong>ce in the survival stakes” (Adam <strong>an</strong>d Evolution, p. 249).Lucy Art: Perpetrating a mythArtistic reconstructions typically depict Lucy with hum<strong>an</strong> h<strong>an</strong>ds, walking uprightly in a purelyhum<strong>an</strong> m<strong>an</strong>ner on hum<strong>an</strong> feet, <strong>an</strong>d typically with hum<strong>an</strong>-proportioned arms <strong>an</strong>d legs. This is truefor the models <strong>an</strong>d drawings that I have seen personally at the Museum of Natural History inNew York City, the Americ<strong>an</strong> Museum of Natural Sciences in Washington D.C., the BritishMuseum of Natural History, the Field Museum in Chicago, Yale University’s Peabody Museum,the Museum of M<strong>an</strong> in S<strong>an</strong> Diego, the St. Louis Zoo, <strong>an</strong>d the natural history museum atMichig<strong>an</strong> State University Ann Arbor.These reconstructions are not scientific; they are brainwashing tools.Dr. David Menton complained to the St. Louis Zoo about their Lucy exhibit, but his protestswere rebuffed. Menton, who has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University, said: “I think thezoo owes it to all the people who helped pay for that exhibit to give (Lucy) <strong>an</strong> honestpresentation.” But Bruce Carr, the zoo’s director of education, said they had no pl<strong>an</strong>s to ch<strong>an</strong>gethe exhibit. “What we look at is the overall exhibit <strong>an</strong>d the impression it creates. We think thatthe overall impression this exhibit creates is correct” (Creation Ex Nihilo, Volume 19 Number 1,Dec 1996 - Feb. 1997).254
In fact, the overall impression that this Lucy model creates is that Australopithecus was <strong>an</strong> apem<strong>an</strong>,a creature that had some ape-like features but walked erect like a m<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d had hum<strong>an</strong>h<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d feet. This is a false impression that is contradicted by the evidence, but it is exactly theimpression that they desire to give in these “reconstructions.”SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST LUCY AS AN ICON FOR EVOLUTION1. It is impossible to prove scientifically that one type of extinct creature had <strong>an</strong>y sort ofevolutionary connection with <strong>an</strong>other.2. The idea that Lucy walked upright is unproven scientifically <strong>an</strong>d there are m<strong>an</strong>y scientists whodisbelieve it.3. The reconstructions of Lucy in textbooks <strong>an</strong>d museums are not based on science but on myth.Forgetting for a moment the controversy surrounding Lucy’s gait, the fossil record proves thatLucy did not have hum<strong>an</strong> h<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d feet or hum<strong>an</strong>-proportioned arms <strong>an</strong>d legs.REVIEW QUESTIONS ON LUCY1. What is Lucy? What is her evolutionary family name?2. Where was the Lucy fossil discovered?3. How did Lucy get her name?4. The ability to walk uprightly is called what?5. What happened to Solly Zuckerm<strong>an</strong> after he went against the evolutionary party line?6. Susm<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Stern said that Lucy’s h<strong>an</strong>ds <strong>an</strong>d feet are _________ <strong>an</strong>d ___________.7. Russell Tuttle points to Lucy’s __________ fingers <strong>an</strong>d toes.8. Charles Oxnard said that the australopithecines are “irrevocably removed from a place in theevolution of hum<strong>an</strong> _________________.”9. Oxnard also said Australopithecus’ “big toe stuck out as in _________________.”10. Jack Stern says Lucy “walked ____________,” not like “_______________.”11. Erik Stokstad said Lucy had the morphology that was classic for ____________ walkers.12. What conclusion did a reporter reach at a gathering of <strong>an</strong>thropologists in 2009 that provesthat there is no consensus as to whether Lucy walked uprightly?13. What adv<strong>an</strong>tage would a clumsy “new walker” have over a monkey?14. What is mythical about the st<strong>an</strong>dard reconstructions of Lucy?THE LAETOLI FOOTPRINTSMost prominent natural history museums feature a model or photo of the Laetoli footprints thatpurport to prove that evolving apes walked upright “in a hum<strong>an</strong> m<strong>an</strong>ner” over a million yearsago.255
The footprints were discovered in 1978 by the team of the famous <strong>an</strong>thropologist Mary Leakey(wife of Louis) at a site called Laetoli in T<strong>an</strong>z<strong>an</strong>ia.Two sets of prints run parallel to each other for a length of about 80 feet. One set of prints ism<strong>an</strong>-sized while the other is smaller. They could have been made by a male <strong>an</strong>d a female or by<strong>an</strong> adult <strong>an</strong>d a child. There are also m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>imal prints preserved in the same strata.The footprints are used as <strong>an</strong> argument for depicting Australopithecus afarenses’s feet (Lucy) ashum<strong>an</strong>-like, in spite of the fact that no Australopithecus afarenses fossils were found in Laetoli<strong>an</strong>d in spite of the evidence that “Lucy” could not have made the prints. Typical of the claims isthat by Niles Eldredge <strong>an</strong>d I<strong>an</strong> Tattersall,“Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the bipedality of this early form is the set of footprints that have beenfound at Laetoli” (The Myths of Hum<strong>an</strong> Evolution, p. 7).A drawing at the Smithsoni<strong>an</strong> Museum of Natural History depicts hum<strong>an</strong> legs <strong>an</strong>d feet makingthe prints, <strong>an</strong>d the text claims that “Australopithecus afarensis” made them. The museumobviously w<strong>an</strong>ts its visitors to assume that Lucy had hum<strong>an</strong>-like legs <strong>an</strong>d feet.In reply we offer the following points:1. If you remove the evolutionary assumptions, there is no reason to think that thefootprints were made by <strong>an</strong>y creature other th<strong>an</strong> m<strong>an</strong>.Mary Leakey <strong>an</strong>d her team were amazed “at how very hum<strong>an</strong> they were” (Ancestral Passions, p.486). Tim White, who was involved in excavating the prints, acknowledged:“They are like modern hum<strong>an</strong> footprints. If one were left in the s<strong>an</strong>d of a California beach today, <strong>an</strong>d a fouryear-oldwere asked what it was, he would inst<strong>an</strong>tly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn’t be ableto tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. Thereis a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch <strong>an</strong>d a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straightin line. It doesn’t stick out to the side like <strong>an</strong> ape toe, or like the big toe in so m<strong>an</strong>y drawings you see ofAustralopithecines in books” (Joh<strong>an</strong>son <strong>an</strong>d Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Hum<strong>an</strong>kind, p. 250).White <strong>an</strong>d his colleagues believe that the “modern hum<strong>an</strong> footprints” prove that Lucy had feetlike hum<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d walked in a hum<strong>an</strong> fashion, but there is nothing to connect Lucy’s kind with theLaetoli prints other th<strong>an</strong> evolutionary assumption <strong>an</strong>d circular argumentation.Melvin Lubenow says:“Interpreting the Laetoli footprints is not a question of scholarship; it is a question of logic <strong>an</strong>d the basic rulesof evidence. We know what the hum<strong>an</strong> foot looks like. There is no evidence that <strong>an</strong>y other creature, past orpresent, had a foot exactly like the hum<strong>an</strong> foot. We also know what hum<strong>an</strong> footprints look like. But we willnever know for sure what australopithecine footprints look like, because there is no way of associating‘beyond reasonable doubt’ those extinct creatures with <strong>an</strong>y fossil we might discover” (Bones of Contention, p.331).256
2. The Lucy creature had ape-like feet <strong>an</strong>d could not have made hum<strong>an</strong>-looking footprints.Russell Tuttle has rightly argued that a creature such as Lucy, with long curved toes, could nothave left the prints <strong>an</strong>d concluded that “we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetolifootprints were made by Lucy’s kind” (“The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Fe