Answers to 180 Humanist Accusations

Against The Bible

Volume II

Science, Prophecy and History

Steven Hudgik

Copyright © 2018, 2020 Steven Hudgik

all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author at the following address:

Move to Assurance

P.O. Box 277

Cannon Beach, OR 97110

www.MoveToAssurance.org

ISBN: 9798693782952

SOURCES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS

Unless otherwise noted, scripture is taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, copyright © 1960, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

KJV – King James Version, public domain

DEDICATION

This volume is dedicated to Kornell Nash (1954-2019), a good friend, dinosaur footprint expert, and Christian brother.  Kornell, owner of the Nash Dinosaur Track Quarry, dug up more fossil dinosaur tracks than anyone I know. Although living on opposite sides of the continent, we spent many hours together talking about the Bible, dinosaur tracks and geology, and history. Conversations often started right after lunch at the quarry and continued until 8 or 9 PM with grinders at the Pizza Palace.  Thank you Kornell for all you taught me about dinosaurs and fossils, and for the many enjoyable and thought provoking conversations.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.

– Romans 1:28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I – Errors, Contradictions and God’s Cruelty

Introduction                                        1

1 – Why do Humanists Reject the Bible?                    7

2 – Contradictions in the Order of Creation?                11

3 – What Does the Word Day Mean?                        15

4 – Sun, Moon & Stars Created When?                    19

5 – Did God Create Plants Twice?                        21

6 – How Were Birds Created?                            23

7 – 2 or 7 Pairs of Birds?                                27

8 – When did the Mountaintops Appear?                    31

9 – When was the Ground Dry?                            33

10 – David’s Census – God Contradicts Himself?            37

11 – Did God Command Animal Sacrifices?                41

12 – Are Jesus’ Genealogies Contradictory?                45

13 – Where did they go After Jesus’ Birth?                51

14 – What Happened to the Money Judas Was Paid?        55

15 – Who Carried Jesus’ Cross?                            59

16 – Did Just One or Both Criminals Taunt Jesus?            61

17 – What Were Jesus’ Last Words?                        65

18 – Who Got to the Tomb When?                        69

19 – What Really Happened that Sunday Morning?            73

20 – Did Paul Really Hear God Speak?                    77

21 – Does the Bible Approve of Cruelty?                    81

22 – Is Cursing the Entire Creation Evil?                    85

23 – Did the Flood Drown Innocent People?                91

24 – Did God Torment Egyptians (And Kill Babies)?        95

25 – Did God Command Extermination of Seven Nations?    101

26 – Why Did God Kill David’s Baby?                    105

27 – God Required His Son to be Tortured and Murdered    109

28 – Non-Christians are Tortured Forever                113

29 – God Commands Israel to Kill All Amalekites            117

30 – God Orders the Jews to be Killed                    121

31 -- God Makes Samaria Desolate                        125

32 – God Kills Israelites, Including Virgins                127

33 – God Commands Women Captured In Wat Be Killed    131

34 – Day of the Lord: Children Are Dashed to Pieces        133

35 – Multiple Examples of Biblical Sadism Refuted        137

36 – God’s Punishments are Grossly Disproportionate        149

37 – People are Punished for Mere Disbelief                163

38 – God Incites Human Violence                        169

PART I APPENDICES

A – Humanist View: Morality Comes From… People?        175

B – Morality Comers from God                            181

VOLUME II – Science, Prophecies & History

Introduction                                        197

39 – Biblical Teaching Violates the Laws of Nature            203

40 – The Bible Opposes Scientific Principles                211

41 – Humanist Hypocrisy                                217

42 – The Supernatural: Examples of the Impossible        225

43 – More Supernatural Examples of the Impossible        229

44 – The Supernatural: It’s Unbelievable!                    235

45 – Is Believing in the Supernatural Harmful?            241

46 – Does Believing in the Supernatural Spread Disease?    245

47 – Believing in the Supernatural Causes Plagues            253

48 – Supernatural? Science is Better                        257

49 – Does the Bible Hinder Science?                        263

50 – Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity?                    267

51 – Does the Bible Teach the Earth is Stationary?            271

52 – Does the Bible Teach the Earth is Flat?                277

53 – Humanists Don’t Give Up: More Flat Earth Claims    281

54 – Does the Bible Teach the Sky is Solid?                 289

55 – Does the Sky Have Windows?                        295

56 – Are there Signs in the Heavens?                        299

57 – Other Scientific Errors in the Bible                    305

58 – Does the Bible Say a Bat is a Bird?                    313

59 –Myth of the Historical Effect of the Bible on Science    317

60 – Humanist Accusation: Adam Didn’t Die                321

61 – What was Jacob’s Name?                            325

62 – How great was Solomon’s Wealth?                    329

63 – What Happened to Damascus?                        333

64 – How long was the 70 Year Babylonia Captivity?        335

65 – Did any of These Prophecies Fail?                    339

66 – New Testament Prophecies Not Fulfilled                345

67 – Jesus Made a Mistake about His Time in the Tomb?    349

68 – Wish Upon Jesus?                                    353

69 – Did Noah’s Flood Really Happen?                    357

70 – Did the Exodus Really Happen?                        361

71 – Is the Story of Esther Historical?                    365

72 – Was Belshazzar King?                                371

73 – Was there a Roman Census?                        375

74 – What is the Age of the Earth?                        379

75 – Why Didn’t Herod’s Killing Babies Make the News?    383

76 – Was there Darkness when Christ was Crucified?        387

77 – Was Jesus a Real Person?                            391

78 – Humanist’s Concluding Statement: Part 1                397

79 – Humanist’s Concluding Statement: Part 2                401

80 – Humanist’s Concluding Statement: Part 3                409

PART II APPENDIX

The Humanists’ False Apologist: Andrew D. White        415

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

– 1 Corinthians 2:12-13

INTRODUCTION

“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” – 2 Peter 5:8

This book is part two of a response to a web page on the American Humanist’s web site that claims to show the Bible is not true and reliable. I go through each humanist accusation, one-by-one, and show why none are valid. Not one accusation against scripture is left standing.

About this Book

My responses to the accusations on the humanist web page encompass two volumes.  Although I have tried to keep the responses as short as possible, providing just enough information to demonstrate the humanist’s accusations are false, their web page is so long (elephant flinging) that the answers required two volumes.

In the first volume, I address accusation about errors in the Bible, contradictions, and that God is cruel.

In this, the second volume, I answer accusations based on science, prophecy, and history. The page numbers in this volume pick up where the page numbers left off in the first volume.

The table of contents and the indexes in each volume cover both books.

The main tactic the humanist uses is called elephant flinging. Throw out so many accusations that people are overwhelmed and they do not bother investigating… and in any case, where there is smoke there must be fire… right? We begin thinking that there are so many accusations, some of them must be true.

Combine elephant flinging with a host of distortions, out-of-context quotes, and other propaganda techniques, and you get a huge list that repeatedly asks Satan’s favorite question… “Did God really say that?”

He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” – Genesis 3:1

By throwing out so a large number of accusations, most of which are easily refuted, the humanist makes it seem as though there is overwhelming evidence against the Bible. Moreover, if just one of these accusations is true, they have shown the Bible cannot be trusted. The Bible does not claim it is true in nearly all it says. The Bible is true in ALL that it asserts is true in the original autographs.

Another issue is that not every English translation is a good translation. That means there are books that call themselves a “bible,” that are not good because they do not accurately reflect what was originally written. Examples are “The Message” and the “New World Translations.” Both of these distort God’s word. Good translations include the King James Version (KJV), New King James (NKJV), Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV) and Christian Standard Version (CSV)[1].

Another issue is that even a good translation may be confusing because it uses archaic language. Or someone may distort scripture by incorrectly defining words or by taking what scripture says out of context. That means someone who is teaching or quoting from a good translation, may still use that translation to distort what scripture actually says. We see that in these accusations. The humanists are using the King James Version (KJV), but they frequently put an interpretation on scripture that violates the context. That is why I start most of our answers by reading scripture in its context. In many cases, that alone refutes the humanist’s accusations.

What is This Book?

This book answers every accusation against the Bible made in a rather long article (elephant flinging) on the American Humanist’s web site. I go through the accusations and answer them one-by-one. Their web page is located:

www.AmericanHumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-

humanists-reject-bible/

These two volumes are based on the humanist web page as it was in January 2018.

What is Humanism?

Here is the dictionary definition:

Humanism: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems – www.Merriam-Webster.com

There is a problem with this definition, the use of the word “rational.” Christianity is a highly rational belief system grounded in historical reality. However, humanism is not. You will see that as we go through their accusations. For example, their use of Andrew White[2] as their main reference shows a lack of concern for historical and scientific truth. You will see that although humanism claims to be rational, it actually rejects reality and logical thinking.

While the main purpose of this book is to refute Humanist attacks on the Bible, it is a valuable resource for Christians in other ways. Answering the accusations provides a framework for Christians to learn about scripture, and grow in their knowledge of God and His word. I hope the answers in this book help you learn and gain new insights into God’s word.

While many people will read this book from beginning to end, you may also use it as a reference and skip around. That is okay. Each chapter stands on its own.

Humanists, This Book is also for You!

Reading the humanist web page, I can tell the author is intelligent. A lot smarter than me. However, that does not mean what he says is right and that it correctly reflects reality. Smart people can be wrong. Sincere people can be wrong.

I challenge you... if you are a humanist... be honest and set aside your presuppositions. As you read this book, you will see that, when looked at objectively, many of the accusations are contrived and baseless. Is that a foundation for truth? No. That is not rational thinking.  That is the foundation of deception. So be honest with yourself, be honest in your evaluation, and seek truth... the whole truth, and you will be set free.

Study Tip:

Each chapter starts with a quote from the American Humanist web site. As you read them, notice the wording. Many of them use emotion-packed words intended to produce unsupported and unbiblical conclusions based on an emotional response. Do not fall for it. Remember what scripture says:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9.

The Humanists are trying to get you to respond emotionally. On the other hand, Christianity is a rational, knowledge-based, logical worldview. Christianity is not a blind faith; it is an informed faith based in reality. It is an informed faith, based in true history.

ENJOY! I pray that you are encouraged and grow closer to our Lord Jesus Christ as you read this book.

Thus says the Lord God,

“Take my instruction and not silver,

And knowledge rather than choicest gold.

For wisdom is better than jewels;

And all desirable things cannot compare with her.

I, wisdom, dwell with prudence,

And I find knowledge and discretion.

The fear of the LORD is to hate evil;

Pride and arrogance and the evil way

And the perverted mouth, I hate.

Counsel is mine and sound wisdom;

I am understanding, power is mine.

By me kings reign,

And rulers decree justice.

By me princes rule, and nobles,

All who judge rightly.

I love those who love me;

And those who diligently seek me will find me.

Riches and honor are with me,

Enduring wealth and righteousness.

My fruit is better than gold, even pure gold,

And my yield better than choicest silver.

I walk in the way of righteousness,

In the midst of the paths of justice,

To endow those who love me with wealth,

That I may fill their treasuries.

.

- Proverbs 8:10-21

CHAPTER 39

BIBLICAL TEACHING

VIOLATES THE LAWS OF NATURE

HUMANIST ACCUSATION: The Bible Has Teachings Inconsistent with the Laws of Nature: Many of the Bible’s claims are inconsistent with the laws of nature. Humanists believe that those claims are both wrong and harmful.”

First, who or what is the source of the laws of nature? Dr. Jason Lyle says it very plainly: “Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe” (www.tinyurl.com/yc4st6pv)

What we call "The Laws of Nature" are the power of God bringing order and holding all things together.

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. - Colossians 1:17

Thus says the Lord, "If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established... - Jeremiah 33:25

So to say that God's word, the Bible, is inconsistent with the laws of nature, is to say God is inconsistent with Himself. However, I don’t think that is what the humanists are asserting here. We will need more information to know exactly what they mean. Let's continue reading the humanist web page:

Science and the Laws of Nature

As a result of human observation and experience, a fundamental principle of science is that the laws of nature do not change, cannot be violated, and have acted uniformly over time. According to paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, this uniformity or constancy of natural laws is the “methodological assumption” making science practicable.

Indeed, without the assumption that the physical world operates according to unchanging natural laws, there would be no use studying the world, conducting experiments, or otherwise learning from experience.

In a world not operating under unvarying natural laws, those acts would be useless because knowledge of past events would not provide guidance about what will happen in similar situations in the future. There would always be the possibility of supernatural forces intervening to alter outcomes from what would otherwise be expected to occur based on past experience.

Overwhelming evidence shows that physical events occur according to immutable natural laws. And an increasing knowledge of those laws enhances humankind’s ability to predict future events and control human destiny.

We agree on something! God does uphold the universe so that it is consistent and unchanging. God's providential power, commonly referred to as "the laws of nature," are consistent and uniform, such that we know they are the same in the past, present, and future. And the humanists are right, we cannot do science unless this is true.

What Is the Issue?

It appears the problem is with supernatural miracles. The humanists are saying that if there is a God, and that God intervenes supernaturally in the world at various times, that means we never know whether we are looking at natural events or supernatural events. As a result, science is impossible. However, we live in an orderly and predictable universe where science is possible, so God must not exist.

There are so many problems with this one accusation that I could write another book just on this topic. Here are a few:

1. If everything came from the chaos of the big bang, as humanists believe, and it organized itself through random chance, the result would be a universe based on randomness, with no assurance that the same “laws of nature” apply at every location in the universe, or that they were the same in the past, or will be in the future. An explosion and random chance do not generate order. Humanists are being disingenuous.

2. It was the Christian worldview, with our understanding that God is knowable and maintains order, which allowed science to first blossom and then explode. Prior to the rise of Christianity in Europe, the “gods” were thought to be capricious, fickle, and unpredictable. There was no reason to learn about the world because the “gods” could arbitrarily upset things at any time. The rise of Christianity created a stable foundation of truth on which science could build.

3. The humanists are employing circular reasoning. Notice they attribute the knowledge that natural laws do not change to human observation and experience. That is a good observation. What about the supernatural? It has been observed, reported and recorded. However, those observations are excluded from the humanist’s definition of “human knowledge and experience.” According to humanists, that means the supernatural never happened. That is circular reasoning! The record of the supernatural is excluded from the observational evidence. Then conclude, since there is no observational evidence for the supernatural, it never happened. Therefore, since we know it never happened, supernatural events are excluded from our observational evidence. Around and around we go.

In responding to a letter published in the journal Nature, David Coppedge writes:[3]

If God did create life, all the efforts and funds to find a natural origin are doomed to failure. If evolution is false, then all the published papers about natural selection’s creating man from molecules are also false. By excluding intelligent causes, would Nicholas insist on a natural cause explanation for Stonehenge? – Creation Matters, July/August 2017, page 10

We look at Stonehenge, and although there is no evidence of a builder, we know it was built by humans. Why? Because it has specified order. We can see that it was designed. Is there any physical evidence revealing who built Stonehenge? No. So does that mean Stonehenge is the result of natural causes? Of course not. Why not? Because by looking at it we can see there was a builder.

It is the same when we look at the world around us. All life has specified order, revealing that there was an intelligent maker. The universe itself is so fine-tuned that it is obvious it had a designer… a designer who used supernatural means to bring it into existence.

In other words, when we ignore the supernatural (an intelligent cause) as a possibility, we have eliminated the object of our search. Instead, we should do real science and follow the evidence wherever it may lead. The observed evidence shows that, 100% of the time, when we see specified order, there is an intelligent cause. That is a “law” that cannot be ignored.

Correcting the “Laws” of Nature

IMPORTANT! Humanists, if you are going to make a statement that certain observations are a "law," then include all relevant observations. The laws of nature should be as they are now stated, but with the following added: "Except when God determines, in very limited circumstances, it is necessary for Him to do something different."

"Oh no!" the humanists lament, "Now it will be impossible to do science! The universe is no longer uniform and consistent!"

That is a very low view of God. It relegates God to the status of an imbecile, and that is no god at all. God wants the universe to be uniform and consistent so we can live in and understand the world. God maintains the uniformity and consistency of the universe. The fact is, God is the source of the laws of nature.

Our Supernatural God

Yes, God has intervened supernaturally in the past. However, those occasions have been rare. There have been just five major periods of time when God has supernaturally intervened in the world in ways that violate what is normal (violate the “laws of nature”). During those unique times His intervention was been necessary.

Two unique periods of supernatural intervention were during the creation week and during the time of Noah's flood. The other three were when God worked by performing miracles through people during the days of Moses and Joshua, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Christ and the apostles.

Why was it important for God to act through people supernaturally during the time of Jesus' ministry? Because He was demonstrating that, He (Jesus) is God. Jesus did things that only God can do. Through His supernatural miracles, Jesus demonstrated His deity and the truth of what He was saying–that to be saved you must believe in Him.

There are also two periods of supernatural intervention that are coming in the future: one during the seven-year tribulation and the return of Jesus; and the other at the end times when evil and the physical universe is destroyed and everything created new.

What about today? Could God act supernaturally today? Yes, He could, and does[4]. But not by giving people the ability to bring about supernatural miracles. In most cases miracles today are providential miracles in which God uses people and events to accomplish His purposes, without intervening supernaturally.

Atheists often tell me, "If God would only give me a sign... write 'Dear Fred, I Am God' in the sky. Then I'd believe." Do they realize what they are asking? They are asking God to demonstrate He is real by doing a supernatural miracle for every person on the planet. That certainly would disrupt the natural order and produce a world filled with confusion. God does not do that. He is not a God of confusion.

Instead, God has created the universe so that we can learn about Him through what He has created. That means He has created an orderly, consistent universe that we can study and understand.

Is There Proof the Supernatural is Real? – Yes!

“Most New Testament scholars now believe that Jesus did in fact perform healings and exorcisms. Even many liberal scholars would say that Jesus drew huge crowds of people primarily because of His ability to heal and exorcise demons” – Dr. Daniel Morris and Michael Greghorn, “What Do Modern Historians Think?”

www.tinyurl.com/ydhzhcj7

The strongest evidence that Jesus’ miracles are real are the Gospel accounts themselves. One of Jesus’ most incredible miracles was the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus had been dead and buried for four days. Buried long enough that his body had started to decay and stink. There was no question Lazarus was dead. Then Jesus raised him from the dead, and did so in front of a large crowd that had come to the gravesite to mourn.

He [Jesus] cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped with cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus had done. – John 11:43-46

The Gospel of John, with the above record of Lazarus’ resurrect, was circulated during the lifetimes of the people who were at this funeral. The Jewish leaders in particular wanted to destroy Christianity, and would have gladly accepted and publicized anything that showed Christianity to be fake or a lie. If the resurrection of Lazarus was a made-up story, that it was a lie would have quickly been publicized. However, it was true. Jesus’ miracles, including this one, were public, seen by thousands. The written reports (the four Gospels) were publicly circulated during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could have easily refuted what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reported… if what they wrote was not true. The miracles of Jesus are solidly grounded in historical fact.

READ MORE: https://creation.com/vital-mission-atheists

CONCLUSION: There is nothing in the Bible inconsistent with the laws of nature. God established the laws of nature, and He maintains them as unchanging. It is because of Christianity that Europeans realized the world is predictable and consistent, and it can be studied and understood. The result was the birth of modern science.

NEXT: Humanist claim the Bible opposes the scientific principle of natural laws operating uniformly and unvaryingly because it supports the belief that supernatural beings intervene in the world.

CHAPTER 40

THE BIBLE OPPOSES SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES

CLAIMED PROBLEM (quoting from the America Humanists’ web site:

The Bible and Supernatural Events:

By claiming that supernatural beings intervene in the world, the Bible opposes the scientific principle of natural laws operating uniformly and unvaryingly. As a result, the Bible discourages a scientific approach to problems.

Ahhh... so that is the problem. Humanists do not like the supernatural... because... well, it reveals there is a God. If God is real, they are accountable for their actions to that God... and that is not acceptable.

We talked about this in the previous chapter, but for those who just jumped into this chapter let us do a quick review: As in the past, we need to start by defining our terms. For example, what does the phrase "laws of nature" mean?

Designating something as a "law of nature" is a way of referring to the constants humans have observed in the universe. If we observe something that appears to be uniform and consistent throughout the universe, we assign the phrase "law of nature.”

HOWEVER... and I put that in all caps because it is a huge HOWEVER... humanists have flipped the definition of "laws of nature" on its head. Instead of the "laws of nature" being defined by what is observed, they say that what we observe must conform to and be defined by the "laws of nature" THEY have established. Instead of being the result of observation, these "laws" now define what humanists observe, and the supernatural is in the category of not allowed to be observed. That is NOT science.

How Are the Laws of Nature Formulated?

The answer is, by observation. Scientists observe the physical universe. They note those things that appear to be constant and define them as “laws of nature.”

It seems to me that, if the laws of nature result from our observations, then we should include all observational data. That makes sense, right? Of course, we should. Otherwise, the "law" does not include all relevant data and is thus not always valid.

What have humanists left out? They have excluded God from the observed data. Using this basis for formulating their "laws of nature”, they come up with "laws" that, by definition, exclude the observed supernatural. Then they say that supernatural actions are outside of the “laws of nature,” so that means the supernatural is not real and thus God is not real.

To support their conclusion, they must demonstrate that the Bible cannot be trusted. One way to do that is to say that, since it reports the supernatural as real events, and since by definition “laws of nature” exclude the supernatural, then the Bible opposes science. Huh? That is circular.

This type of thinking is neither rational nor logical. Science should be a quest for truth, no matter where the evidence leads. “Laws” need to be based on all the evidence, not just the part of the evidence that agrees with humanist desires.

Does The Bible Discourage Science?

The humanists are saying that the Bible is anti-science, and harmful to scientific learning. So let us look at that. Historically, what is the relationship between Christianity and science?

In May 2011 James Hannam, PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science, wrote about the relationship between science and Christianity in the Journal Nature’s blog[5]. He states:

"The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus."

That is an interesting statement, and something we should keep in mind as we continue to examine the humanist's accusations... especially the claims that Christianity has retarded scientific progress. Dr. Hannam backs up his statement with facts from history:

Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research... By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organization in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world.

[It wasn't until the 1830's that] the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away."

So not only has Christianity and the Bible not harmed science, it was because of Christianity that science made huge advances. Have you ever wondered why science blossomed in Europe, but not in the great civilizations of China, India or the Islamic Empire? It was because Christianity provided a worldview in which God upheld order in the universe. As the humanist correctly stated, understanding that reality is uniform and consistent is the foundation of science. Other civilizations did not have that understanding, and thus they did not have the needed foundation. Continuing with Dr. Hannam, he explains what happened to get us where we are today:

"It was only during the 'enlightenment' that the idea took root that Christianity had been a serious impediment to science. Voltaire and his fellow philosophers opposed the Catholic Church because of its close association with France’s absolute monarchy. Accusing clerics of holding back scientific development was a safe way to make a political point."

The belief that Christianity was holding back science got its start as a political tool. It had nothing at all to do with reality.

To summarize, here are a couple of quotes from Sarah Salviander, from her article titled: “There is no modern science without Christianity” (www.tinyurl.com/yawukmc9)

How often do you hear that Christianity is not compatible with science? The next time you hear that claim, refer the critic to this list of Christians in science and technology and ask how it’s possible that so many Christians were able to make significant contributions to science and tech in spite of that incompatibility: (What followed was a long list of 168 names. Use the above link to go to the web page to see the complete list.)

One of the greatest achievements of modern atheism has been to divorce Christians from their scientific legacy. Modern science is one of the crowning achievements of Western civilization, built upon the foundation of Christian faith, belief, and purpose. But how many Christians are aware of this? Instead of questioning the source, many Christians have willingly accepted the lie that Christianity and science are mutually incompatible. This is the classic mistake of accepting an adversary’s frame. Christians must reject it by educating themselves on the history of their faith and the great part it played in the development of modern science.

Let’s Compare: Christianity vs. Other Religions

What scientific progress was actually made during the Middle Ages? What types of things were invented and by who? Let us compare two areas of the world, Christian Europe (500-1500) and Islamic dominated countries during the same time.

The major inventions in the Middle Ages in the Islamic world included medical instruments, the hookah (water pipe), marching band, four types of pottery, the coffee house, using music to treat mental illness, and importing rocket technology from China. (www.tinyurl.com/yd5fsotl)

Major inventions in the Middles Ages in Europe under Christian rule included (but not limited to):

1. The heavy plough (revolutionized farming)

2. Horse shoes (horses now could pull loads on rocky roads)

3. The horse collar (making pulling heavy loads possible)

4. The hourglass

5. Blast furnaces

6. Eyeglasses

7. Mechanical clocks

8. Horizontal looms

9. The university

10. The printing press

11. Soap

12. Stern mounted rudder

13. The button (resulting in a revolution in clothing).

(www.tinyurl.com/yclcpdum)

Looking at these two lists there is no comparison. Christianity opened the doors to major advancements in science and technology.

There is one final and very important aspect of the advance of science during the Middle Ages and later. We give credit to Christianity for opening people’s minds and allowing scientific thinking to develop. However, what is more important is the fact that God was working through people, and in people’s lives, to bring about the changes (scientific advances) that advanced His kingdom.

CONCLUSION: Instead of discouraging science, history shows that it was because of Christianity that science bloomed in Europe. God is the creator of the laws of nature. God is the one who gives them their consistency. That knowledge is the foundation of science.

NEXT ACCUSATIONS: The humanists now list out several supernatural miracles, without explaining why these miracles are an issue… other than they are supernatural miracles.

What do you think? Are supernatural miracles a problem?  You will need to skip to chapter 42 for the answer. In the next chapter, we will take a break from answering humanist accusations, and reveal humanist hypocrisy.

CHAPTER 41

HUMANIST HYPOCRISY

I am going to take a break from looking at humanist accusations against the Bible to take a rational and logical look at the trustworthiness of what the humanists claim. Do they actually practice what they preach? The answer is no. Here are some quotes from their web site:

The AHA considers the integrity of scientific knowledge to be essential to a humanist society. For that reason, we insist that scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed and reproduced in accordance with the highest standards be the sole basis for public policy and education. Religious or sectarian doctrine is irrelevant and immaterial to discerning the best policy.

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/human-basis-laws-ethics/

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/

What I take this to mean is that, the teaching in schools and the “facts” on which we base how we live, should both be based on scientific truths.

To be certain we have it right, let us take a further look at what humanists say they believe. Let us start with what should be an easy one, murder. From what I can tell, they are against it. I was able to find four statements on their web site similar to the following:

The American Humanist Association expresses sorrow and outrage that the lives of those who would criticize extremist religion are still in danger.[6] – www.tinyurl.com/ydys27oc

I assume that, because they are outraged when a humanist faces threats of being murdered, they are against the premeditated taking of a human life. In addition, their accusations against God for supposedly taking the lives of babies’ leads me to assume they are against the premeditated murder of babies. Now let us read their official position on murdering babies.

We condemn all forms of gender-based violence, restrictions on women’s reproductive choices. https://americanhumanist.org/

key-issues/womens-rights/

The AHA supports every woman’s unequivocal moral and legal right to autonomy over her own body and reproductive choices. Women’s access to family planning, contraception, birth control, emergency contraception, and healthcare services and resources should be unrestricted by the government or religious preferences of private third parties. Local, state, or federal initiatives designed to undermine the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade violate the individual’s human right to pursue all reproductive options.

The AHA will continue to advocate for every woman’s full exercise of her right to decide if and when to safely become a mother. Broader access to sex education (not limited to abstinence-only programs), all safe forms of contraception, and full-service healthcare options are essential policies to realizing that right…. Scientific advances provide significant choices for reproductive health, including abortion, and religious pressure must never impede full access to those resources. - https://americanhumanist.org/key-issues/reproductive-freedom/

It is clear that humanists not only support abortion, they claim it is a woman’s right, and they credit scientific advances for the wide range of choices a woman has for getting an abortion. Based on these quotes, I assume this support for abortion is based a rational philosophy informed by science and motivated by compassion.

What does science say about a baby in the womb? The experts (embryologists) overwhelming say that a baby is a unique human being from the moment of conception. That is an established scientific fact. Let us go to the Princeton University web site and the “International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy” (February 1999, 19:3/4:22-36). This journal includes a paper, written by Dr. Dianne N. Irving, titled “When Do Human Beings Begin?” (www.tinyurl.com /pbwa2cd). It examines 14 myths about when a human being begins. The following quote covers just three of those:

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization, the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte, usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

Myth: 2 "The product of fertilization is simply a “blob,” a “bunch of cells”, a “piece of the mother’s tissues”.

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother’s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"[T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a “potential” or a “possible” human being, not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It’s an actual human being, with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being, and that that’s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

In a March 2010 article, Randy Alcorn reported on a U.S. Senate hearing:

Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception... The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” https://tinyurl.com/y9vywtuj

The scientific facts are that a baby is a unique person and is fully human from the moment of conception. This makes intentionally aborting a baby an act of murder. While the mother may have a right to do what she wants with her body (and that is debatable), she does not have the right to intentionally, and with premeditation, kill another human being.

In the humanist quote at the beginning of this chapter, notice that humanists claim to be motivated by compassion. I whole-heartedly agree we need to be compassionate. When a woman chooses to do certain things with her body, she must then deal appropriately and compassionately with the consequences. Those consequences may be minimal, or the consequences may be substantial and include a third party such the wife of the man involved in an adulterous relationship. However, if the consequences include a human baby (from the moment of conception), the compassionate thing to do is to properly care for the baby, seeking to do things that benefit the human she is now carrying. That is true compassion. That is what the Bible calls love.

Bottom line, humanism is not scientific nor compassionate. It is self-centered.

How Do Humanists Feel About Torture?

They are definitely against torture, as you have read in some of the other chapters. They firmly believe torture of another human being is evil. That is good.

Have you ever seen those machines used to grind up tree branches? They throw in one end of a branch, and the machine sucks it in and grinds it to little pieces. How would you feel if your feet were stuck into that machine and it sucked you in and tore you to a red pulp? That is what a suction abortion is like, and it is the type of abortion method used during the first eight weeks of a baby’s life.

Now imagine there is a very large, very sharp hook-shaped knife that a machine swings through the air. You are tied to a post and cannot get away. The machine comes closer, and closer, and starts slicing into you at random places… sometimes nicking you, sometimes carving out a big chunk.  That is called dilation and curettage, and it is similar to the way babies from eight to 12 weeks old are aborted.

The following is a description of an abortion by Abby Johnson, the former director of a Texas Planned Parenthood branch (www.tinyurl.com/ycu6bxk8)

“For whatever reason I was called in to help. My job was to hold the ultrasound probe on the abdomen,” she said. “When I looked at the screen, I saw a baby on the screen. She was about 13 weeks pregnant at the time. I saw a full side profile. I saw face to feet on the ultrasound.

“I saw the probe going into the woman’s uterus. At that moment I saw the baby moving, trying to get away from the probe,” she continued.

“I thought, ‘It’s fighting for its life.’ I thought, ‘It’s life. It’s alive.’

“I dropped the ultrasound probe. I scrambled and put [the probe] back in place. So many things were going through my mind. I was thinking about my daughter, who’s three,” she said.

“I was just thinking, ‘What am I doing here? What am I doing here? There was life in here and now there’s not.'”

Yes, babies in the womb are alive. They are people who feel pain and want to live.

Once again, use your imagination. You are in a medieval dungeon, tied to a rack. A man with a hood over his face ties one arm to a pulley mechanism, turns a large wheel, and tears your left arm off. He does the same for a leg. Then he gets your right hand, and then with a second try the rest of your right arm. Then part of our other leg. On and on it goes. You are still alive as you are pulled apart piece-by-piece. There is no question. This is a means of torture... I mean dilation and evacuation. It is used to abort babies up to 18 weeks old. Babies who are alive and can feel pain.

On the other hand, imagine you are restrained and lowered into a bath of poison. Your skin is slowly burned off by the chemical poison, which you are also forced to drink. This is a salt poisoning abortion.

This is not compassion. This is torture… and this is what humanists support. Humanists claim science and compassion out of one side of their mouths, and preach murder and torture out of the other side. That is evil.

CONCLUSION: Humanists claim to base their beliefs and actions on science and compassion. However, humanism ultimately leads to self-centeredness. They are hypocrites who reject science… and reject compassion when science and compassion interfere with their self-centered desires.

But there is no lack of scientific consensus on the issue of when life begins. You simply cannot find a credible embryology textbook that disputes the fact that life begins at conception. ...In the end, the pro-abortion choice advocate must decide whether he will choose science or remain committed to anti-science [humanistic] fundamentalism. - Mike Adams, www.tinyurl.com/yapefgcr

Christianity is different. The Bible teachers us to love God, love our neighbors, and even love our enemies. Biblical love means sacrificially helping others with their most pressing needs. So yes, having a baby may be inconvenient… it may mean making career and financial sacrifices… but that is love. Sacrificing (loving) another person (a baby in the womb) so that a new human being will have life.

NEXT: the humanists give us some examples of things in the Bible they feel are impossible. Of course, that is why they are called supernatural, they are not normal. They are all things the creator of the universe can easily do.

CHAPTER 42

THE SUPERNATURAL:

EXAMPLES OF THE “IMPOSSIBLE”

CLAIMED PROBLEM: The Bible has stories about a talking snake (Genesis 3:4-5); a tree bearing fruit which, when eaten, gives knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17; 3:5-7); another tree whose fruit bestows immortality (Genesis 3:22); a voice coming from a burning bush (Exodus 3:4); a talking donkey (Numbers 22:28); rods turning into serpents (Exodus 7:10-12); water changing into blood (Exodus 7:19-22); water coming from a rock (Numbers 20:11); a dead man reviving when his corpse touched the bones of a prophet (II Kings 13:21); and other people rising from the dead (e.g., I Kings 17:21-22; II Kings 4:32-35; Acts 9:37-40).

The topic is humanist claims the Bible is inconsistent with the laws of nature, and that it discourages a scientific approach to problems. These are interesting claims, since it was a Christian, Francis Bacon, who invented the modern scientific method. It is also interesting to note that once Bacon’s Christianity became common knowledge, humanists have been trying to credit the creation of the scientific method to anyone else, or simply to no one… it just happened.  Anything… as long as a Christian does not get credit.

Let us move on and continue to address the humanist’s accusations. What we have in this next one is the beginning of a list of supernatural events. Just look at the things on this list. They are all impossible. The only logical conclusion is that, since these supernatural events are… supernatural… they never happened.

Huh?

By definition, supernatural events are events that are not natural. They are things that only God can do. Of course, they are impossible, based on the normal way things happen. That is why they are supernatural!

Supernatural events are unique events that God, for specific reasons, causes to happen. Since God is the source of all “natural laws” and is the one who sustains the natural laws, He can also cause exceptions to those natural “laws.” If you have not read them, please read chapters 39 and 40 (volume one) to learn why that is not a problem.

Every Miracle Has a Purpose

I am not going to go through all of the miracles listed by the humanist. Instead of accomplishing the humanist objective of showing there is no such thing as the supernatural, this list demonstrates the supernatural is real, and God is powerful and in control. The issue is not whether super natural miracles happen, it is whether God exists. If you deny God, you must deny His supernatural actions. On the other hand, these well-attested supernatural miracles prove that God is real.[7]

I have stated that every miracle has a purpose, and I would like to demonstrate that is true. For example, why would God bring a dead man back to life when his body was thrown into Elisha’s grave?

II Kings 13:21

Elisha was one of the greatest prophets of all time. He had replaced the great prophet Elijah. However, when Elisha died there was no successor.

Verse 13:20 simply states, “So Elisha died, and they buried him.” God had made a number of promises to Jehoash through Elisha. Now Elisha was gone. People were wondering, with Elisha dead were those promises still valid? Verse 13:21states:

And as a man was being buried, behold a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.”

The notes in the John MacArthur ESV Study Bible explain why this happened:

This miracle was a sign that God’s power continued to work in relationship to Elisha even after his death. What God had promised to Johoash through Elisha when he was alive would surely come to pass after the prophet’s death.

CONCLUSION: A list of supernatural miracles, historically documented in the Bible, does not provide proof that the supernatural does not exist. It is simply a list of things God has done. Each miracle had a specific purpose, and each one demonstrates God’s power over the physical realm. God’s supernatural acts are real.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanist adds more examples of miracles, but now there is an explanation. The reasoning seems to be that supernatural miracles have never happened because, here is a list of supernatural events that are impossible (that are supernatural). Circular reasoning again … except not everything on this next list is a supernatural miracle.

CHAPTER 43

MORE SUPERNATURAL

EXAMPLES OF THE IMPOSSIBLE

CLAIMED PROBLEM: There are also accounts of the sun standing still (Joshua 10:13); the parting of a sea (Exodus 14:21-22); iron floating (II Kings 6:5-6); the sun’s shadow going back ten degrees (II Kings 20:9-11); a witch bringing the ghost of Samuel back from the dead (I Samuel 28:3-15); disembodied fingers writing on a wall (Daniel 5:5); a man living for three days and nights in the belly of a fish (Jonah 1:17); people walking on water (Matthew 14:26-29); a virgin impregnated by God (Matthew 1:20); a pool of water that can cure ailments of those who dip in it (John 5:2-4); and angels and demons influencing earthly affairs (e.g., Acts 5:19; Luke 11:24-26).

The humanists have given us more examples of things that are “impossible.” I kept these examples together so we can look at all of them at one time. The point of listing these seems to be given in the next paragraph the humanist writes:

These biblical myths support the belief, which has been held by primitive and illiterate people throughout history, that supernatural beings frequently and arbitrarily intervene in this world.

The humanist calls the miracles on the above list myths, without any evidence to support that assertion. He uses a propaganda technique called "stereotyping"—likening Christians to primitive and illiterate people—to make the belief in miracles seem repugnant. However, that is propaganda, not proof. All the humanist offers are assertions that none of these happened. Why? Because they violate "the laws of nature.” As shown in the previous chapters, since humanists limit the observable data to what they define as "natural," the definition of "the laws of nature" is circular and thus flawed and no proof at all.

Listing supernatural events does not prove they did not happen. It shows there are supernatural events described in the historical record of the Bible. Unlike humanists, the Bible includes everything that happened. Looking at ALL of the data is the only way to make a reasonable and rational evaluation of the claims of God and the Bible. It is real history, and God did act supernaturally. You can deny reality or deal with it.

So, what do we have here? Do any of the supernatural events on the humanist’s lists cause us problems in understanding the universe around us? No. Do any of these events cause problems with our scientific understanding of our world? No.

Most of these supernatural events happened during the five major historical periods when God was working supernaturally: creation (including Adam and Eve), Noah's flood, the time of Moses and Joshua, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the time of Christ and the apostles. God was working in special and unique ways during these specific times. We can take events happening during these five periods off the list. These represent unique times that will not be repeated. Yes, supernatural periods such as these will happen again, but only as we approach the end times. If you are around when that happens, you will know it is God who is acting. There will be no doubt about that.

What about Satan and Demons?

While Satan cannot do supernatural miracles, he can do things that appear miraculous. Several of the items on the humanist list are not from God, but are from Satan or demons (or angels). An example is the talking snake (Genesis 3:4-5). Satan either indwelled a snake and made it seem the snake was talking, or took on the form of a snake. Satan and demons can assume the forms of living things, most often humans. This is not a supernatural miracle from God. However, these types of demonic activities still happen today. As in Adam’s day, they are used to deceive and lead us away from Christ.  We need to recognize them and deal with them. (See the book: “Alien Intrusion” by Gary Bates.)

There is one event on the list is probably not a supernatural miracle; "a pool of water that can cure ailments of those who dip in it (John 5:2-4)." The part of scripture describing this pool (John 5:3b-4) is not included in the oldest manuscripts and appears to have been added later[8]. It is not certain whether it describes what people believed or that an angel actually stirred the water. In most translations, this addition is in brackets so we know it was not part of the original. Since it has no impact on doctrine or teaching, translators have left it in scripture.

What is left?

- The sun’s shadow going back ten degrees (2 Kings 20:9-11 – see footnote 5);

- A witch bringing the ghost of Samuel back from the dead (1 Samuel 28:3-15 see https://tinyurl.com/yxwpby3w);

- Disembodied fingers writing on a wall (Daniel 5:5 see www.gotquestions.org/Belshazzar.html);

- A man living for three days and nights in the belly of a fish (Jonah 1:17 – this foreshadows the three days Jesus will be in the tomb.)

Although these did not happen during one of the five major periods of God acting supernaturally, they did take place in rare, unique circumstances during a time before Scripture was complete. Each had a specific purpose. Now that Scripture is complete, there is no need for these types of miracles, and thus we do not expect to see them happening today. Do any of these events affect our understanding of the world or science? No.

Can We Expect Supernatural Intervention Today?

God is still working. However, there is no indications in scripture that God is regularly doing supernatural miracles of nature today. But then again, would you know one if you saw one? What if someone has cancer and God supernaturally gets rid of it before it is discovered? No one would know a supernatural miracle had occurred. 2 Kings 20 is an example of that.[9]

Today God most often works through providential miracles. These types of miracles involve God working through people and circumstances to bring about His will. An example of a providential miracle is a doctor performing a surgery with skill beyond what he normally has. Here is a link to the Grace to You web site and a sermon that gives more information about miracles (text and audio available): https://tinyurl.com/y3tscjshweb

As I have mentioned, Satan and demons can also intervene in the world supernaturally. However, they have no creative power, nor can they change the laws of nature. For example, demons are behind the occult and aliens (UFOs). Because they are spiritual (non-physical), they can do things that appear to violate the laws of nature.

As I mentioned, God causes supernatural events for a reason,[10] and since we have the completed Scriptures, the reasons for supernatural miracles no longer exist (until the end-times begin). We could look at each one of the “miracles” on the humanist’s list to determine God's reasons for doing them, but that is not the point the humanist’s are making. Their concern is that believing in supernatural miracles, whether real or imaginary, means we believe "supernatural beings frequently and arbitrarily intervene in this world." That statement is simply not true.

A few chapters back I quoted Dr. James Hannam discussing history, Christianity, and science. We saw that believing in God (and miracles) did not interfere with the work of Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, William Thomson Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, or others. They all believed in God and miracles, and they all made major contributions to scientific knowledge… because of their belief in God.

The Bible does not teach that God frequently intervenes in this world supernaturally. He has the ability to enter the world supernaturally any time He wishes, but God only does so in unique circumstances that no longer exist. Supernatural miracles were used on extremely rare occasions, and are not expected today. This humanist claim is false.

In addition, God is not a God of confusion. He is a God of order. His supernatural intervention only takes place in very special circumstances to address a specific situation. It is never arbitrary. This part of the humanist claim is also false.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. – 1 Corinthians 14:33

CONCLUSION: The humanist claims concerning the supernatural are false. God is not a God of confusion.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanists have more to say on this. They claim supernatural miracles are impossible because… the principles of regularity never are violated. In addition, the humanists claim it is likely the Biblical authors either erroneously reported miracles or lied about supernatural miracles.

So, were the Bible writers mistaken or liars? Let us move on to the next chapter and find out.

CHAPTER 44

SUPERNATURAL: IT’S UNBELIEVABLE!

CLAIMED PROBLEM: When examined in the light of experience and reason, the Bible’s claims about supernatural occurrences do not warrant belief. Our experience is that the natural world operates according to principles of regularity – which are never violated. We also know from experience that many people are often mistaken or dishonest. Thus, it’s far more likely the Bible writers either erred or lied than the laws of nature were violated.

Could it be that one of the reasons God has done supernatural miracles is so humanists will have no excuse? No one can say that God did not demonstrate He exists. God not only has shown them, His miracles did so in a way that provided rock solid evidence.

Let us look at the assertions in the above humanist statement one at a time: Once again, the humanist author is throwing out accusations without any supporting evidence.

When examined in the light of experience and reason, the Bible’s claims about supernatural occurrences do not warrant belief.

Why not? The humanist next tries to answer this question...

Our experience is that the natural world operates according to principles of regularity – which are never violated.

There are so many things wrong with this statement! For example, limiting their conclusions to "our experience" is not a valid limitation. Is their experience the only experience that counts? And whose experience are they talking about? The author’s personal experience? There are many things he probably has not directly experienced, but has asserted to be true.

Or maybe he is talking about the collective experience of present-day scientists. There is a problem with that. There are things that happened in the past that present scientists have not experienced. For example, scientists regularly rely on papers and books written by their predecessors.

So maybe by “our experience” the humanist means the total knowledge humanity has accumulated to date. By the way, the word “science” means “knowledge acquired by study.” We might say “our experience” means the accumulated science (knowledge) we have to date.

That accumulated knowledge includes knowledge of supernatural as described in the Bible. Humanists cannot pick and choose just those experiences that meet their self-centered criteria. If they are going to base their understanding of the world on experience, they must include supernatural events. If they leave them out, their understanding of the world will not be complete.

Principles of Regularity

The humanist’s statement that the "natural world operates according to principles of regularity" is an interesting statement. He is assuming you do not understand what this means, and as a result you will come to the wrong conclusion and be deceived.

The humanist is making a true statement. The natural world does operate according to the principles of regularity. He is implying that this excludes anything that does not regularly happen… such as supernatural events. I think we need to learn what the principle of regularity actually states.

Definition: The principles of regularity state that a moderately large number of items chosen at random form a large group are almost sure on the average to possess the characteristic of the large group. This principle states that when such a sample is selected at random, it is likely to possess almost the same characteristics and qualities to the universe.

So the principles of regularity have to do with sampling. For example, a political poll may involve asking 2000 people about their presidential preference. Based on the answers from those 2000 people, the principles of regularity say that the result can be extended to the entire population.

Notice that the principles of regularity do not include certainty. We see that in political polls. They can be wrong.

In addition, notice that the definition of the principles of regularity uses words such as “almost sure” and “on the average.” There will be exceptions, so they allow for historical events that are not consistent with the majority of events. This means that, based on the principles of regularity, supernatural events, being historically rare, are allowed.

The humanist states: “We also know from experience that many people are often mistaken or dishonest.”

That is a true statement. It also applies to every humanist, including the author of the article were examining... an article that includes proven false statements.

Thus, it’s far more likely the Bible writers either erred or lied than the laws of nature were violated.

Why is it "far more likely” the Bible’s authors erred or lied? How does the humanist arrive at that conclusion without any evidence? This propaganda technique is called assertion. You assert something is true without backing up that assertion with sound reasoning or evidence. Based on the above, it is equally true that it is likely the humanist who wrote their web page either erred or lied. However, unlike the humanist author we have provided solid evidence supporting this assertion in the chapters of this book.

More Information: https://www.gotquestions.org/why-should-I-believe-the-Bible.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/trust-the-Bible.html

What is the Evidence Miracles Are Real?

We cannot do a study of all of scripture, so I am going to limit our investigation to Jesus' miracles. Jesus probably did thousands of miracles, at times healing ALL who came to him. Thirty-seven of His miracles are recorded in the four gospels. The evidence they actually happened is overwhelming:

- Jesus' miracles were done in public. They were not done in secret or just for a select group of followers.

- Jesus' miracles were instantaneous and complete. No magical formulas were used, nor paraphernalia, nor special motions or incantations, nor prayer.

- Jesus’ healing miracles involved maladies that could not be faked. That’s why Jesus waited two days before coming to “heal” Lazarus (raise him from the dead). (John chapter 11.) The delay resulted in Lazarus’ body being in the grave for four days and physically starting to decay. There was no doubt he was dead. Then Jesus spoke and he was alive, and walking out of the grave, in front of a large group of witnesses.

- Jewish sources, such as Josephus and the Talmud (tHul2:22-23), the Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b, and the Babylonian Sanhedrin107b) attest to Jesus' miracles being real, attributing them to sorcery.

- The enemies of Jesus, including rabbis, scribes and Pharisees, claimed that Jesus was a sorcerer who led Israel astray. While His Jewish enemies tried to trick Him, trap Him, and discredit Him, they never claimed His miracles did not happen.

- Jesus’ miracles are recorded in the gospels, which were circulated publicly during the lifetimes of people who witnessed them. If they had not happened as described, witnesses would have come forward to discredit the gospels and all of Christianity. The Jewish leaders, in particular, would have been very pleased to have witnesses discredit Jesus. However, those Jewish leaders had also witnessed His miracles themselves and could not deny them[11].

Bible historian John P. Meier writes: "Viewed globally, the tradition of Jesus' miracles is more firmly supported by the criteria of historicity than are a number of other well-known and often readily accepted traditions about his life and ministry. … Put dramatically but with not too much exaggeration: if the miracle tradition from Jesus' public ministry were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other Gospel tradition about him." (From the book, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, volume 2, page 630)

CONCLUSION: The Bible writers were not dishonest, they neither lied nor erred. They accurately reported the miracles of Jesus, just as they happened.

NEXT ACCUSATION: Now the humanists turn in another direction to show there are no miracles. They call the next section the “Harms of the Supernatural Outlook” and attempt to show that belief in the supernatural restrained the use and advancement of science. Is this true, or is it a lie? Let us find out. Get ready for a booster shot of truth as we move into the next chapter.

CHAPTER 45

BELIEVING IN THE SUPERNATURAL IS HARMFUL

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: The Harms of the Supernatural Outlook

Because of believing that supernatural beings control the world, people have often misdirected their energies in attempting to solve problems. Instead of studying the world to discover scientific solutions to problems, they performed religious activities in an effort to obtain the assistance of benevolent supernatural beings or thwart the influence of malicious ones.

This misdirection of energies is seen, for instance, in the history of the attempts to prevent the outbreak and spread of diseases in Europe. The historian Andrew White[12] relates that, during many centuries in the Middle Ages, the filthiness of European cities repeatedly caused great plagues that sent multitudes to their graves.

Humanists must be desperate to try this argument. The premise is false, and even if it were true, it provides no proof nor evidence that supernatural miracles never happened. At best, a humanist might say, "I don't like that supernatural miracles happened, because I believe they harmed people." It is a belief they could hold, but it is not in accordance with historical reality.

Does the following humanist’s description sound anything like Biblical Christianity?

They performed religious activities in an effort to obtain the assistance of benevolent supernatural beings or thwart the influence of malicious ones.

This is not Christianity. Not at all. It is describing people who follow pagan gods, including Hindu gods and Buddhists trying to increase their karma. These types of beliefs are part of the reason why technological progress was limited prior to Christianity. People believed in capricious and arbitrary gods who needed to be bribed, cajoled, and tricked into helping humanity.

Dear humanist: please do not use examples from paganism to try to discredit the Bible.

An example of a “misdirection of energy” given by the humanist writer, are the filthy conditions in European cities during the Middle Ages. The lack of sanitation contributed to multiple outbreaks of disease resulting in death.

That there were unsanitary conditions is a true statement. The lie is that these conditions existed because people engaged in religious activities (taught in the Bible) instead of using science to discover scientific solutions. The facts are, the opposite is true. The poor sanitary conditions resulted from people applying the scientific knowledge of the day. If they had followed what the Bible teaches, the poor sanitary conditions would not have existed.

People (science) in the Middle Ages did not know that filth was bad... nor that filth was the source of disease. They did not know about microbes, germs, and viruses. It is also true that people at the time of Moses also did not know these things. Yet, the Mosaic Law includes provisions concerning cleanliness, sanitary practices, and appropriate treatments for people with infectious diseases that were practical and effective at stopping the spread of disease.

People did not know about germs, but God did. Through His law He told people how to protect themselves and others from disease and infections.

During the 14th century, the bubonic plague spread throughout Europe. Many Jews followed the sanitary laws of the Bible as a normal part of a Biblical lifestyle. The Jewish death rate from the plague was half, and in some places possibly as low as 5%[13] that of the Gentile (non-Jewish) population. The Gentiles ignored the Bible and… unfortunately, they died in much greater numbers. Arturo Castiglioni writing in "A History of Medicine" notes that:

“The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of a sanitary legislation." (1941, page 147)

People did not live in filth in the Middle Age because they believed in the supernatural. They lived in filth because they did not know what the Bible taught, and turned to other means to try to protect themselves from the plague. Yes, people employed superstitious practices such as flagellation, burning incense, and sitting between two fires. People also believed the plague was a punishment sent by God. However, because people believed in and practiced these things, does not make them true nor Biblical. If they had followed what the Bible taught, many fewer would have died.

CONCLUSION: The humanist assumptions that belief in the supernatural negatively affects human activity are not supported by historical reality.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanists are not ready to leave this topic. They will keep whipping a dead horse. They have still more to say on this topic, such as… Christian theologians thought God was using the plagues to punish people. Does God use disease as a punishment? Do demons cause disease? Get the Biblical answers in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 46

BELIEVING IN THE SUPERNATURAL

SPEADS DISEASE

The HUMANIST'S CLAIM IS: Based on biblical teachings, Christian theologians during those centuries thought the plagues were caused by the anger of God or the malevolence of Satan. The Bible gave them ample support for their belief. It contains numerous instances of God punishing people by means of pestilence (e.g., Exodus 32:35; Numbers 16:44-49; Jeremiah 21:6). And in describing Jesus’ healing miracles, the New Testament attributes the following afflictions to demons: blindness (Matthew 12:22); muteness (Matthew 9:32-33); lameness (Luke 13:11,16); epilepsy (Matthew 17:14-18); and insanity (Mark 5:1-13).

Those teachings led the early church leaders to promote the idea that demonic activity is the primary cause of disease. For example, St. Augustine, whose views strongly influenced Western thought for over a thousand years, said in the fourth century: “All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons…”

With the coming of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, there was little change in the Christian attitude toward the causes of disease. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, repeatedly attributed his own illnesses to “devils’ spells.” He also stated: “Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind, for he is the prince of death.

It is difficult to figure out what specific Biblical teaching the humanist author is talking about. Keep in mind; what people believe is not always in line with what scripture teaches. I am going to take a guess that the problem is with the bible teaching that demons are real. Well, it is true. Demons are real. Yes, demons are from the spiritual realm. Yes, demons are powerful. Yes, demons can do things that humans cannot do. However, possibly the humanists do not understand that demons do not have supernatural powers.

I will go through the accusations point by point, making this a somewhat long chapter. If you prefer not to read it all, here is a summary: we do not judge the Bible based on what fallible people teach (Christian theologians, Augustine, Martin Luther, etc.). Instead, we judge the quality of the theologian by how accurately they teach about scripture. If men get it wrong, that is not the fault of God nor scripture.

What Powers do Demons Have?

The spiritual realm is real. Demons are real. They are fallen angels, and angels are real, although they are not as pictured on TV or in the movies.

Demons serve Satan, the father of lies. You will find that much of what demons do involves lies and deception.

Angels can manifest themselves as people, or other types of living things. Since demons are fallen angels, they can do the same things angels can do. They can interact with the material world, although they are not part of the material world. For example, they can move through physically solid objects, such as walls.

Demons and Satan are eternal. They do not die. However, they are not omnipresent, omniscient, nor omnipotent. In other words, they can only be in one place at a time, they do not know everything, and they do not have the power to do supernatural miracles... but they are incredibly smart and powerful. In addition, keep in mind; they have over 6,000 years of experience with humankind.

Nonbelievers can be "possessed" by demons, meaning they are, to some degree, physically under the control of one or more demons. Believers cannot be possessed by demons. We have Christ living within us. Demons cannot live in the same place as Christ.  However, believers can be influenced by demons.

Can demons cause disease and afflictions? Yes. Are demons the cause of all sickness and afflictions? No.

How do demons cause disease? From descriptions in scripture, it appears demons can indwell non-believers, mess with their minds, possibly put thoughts in their heads, and it appears they can interact with the human nervous system to some extent. They can give people the symptoms of a disease. They can also lead people into situations that are likely to result in harm or sickness... and in that way cause someone to become sick.

However, the Bible in no way implies that all disease, sickness, and affliction comes from demons. While some people may assume demons are at the root of all these things, and it is true demons can cause the symptoms of some diseases, there is absolutely no evidence that all, or even a significant portion of disease and sickness results from demonic actions. That God prescribed sanitation and quarantine laws demonstrates that the cure for disease is a physical one. God and demons ARE NOT the direct cause of most diseases.

In addition, the number of demons is finite. They cannot be everywhere. So if they want you to be sick, it is much better for you to become sick through natural means than for a demon to give you the symptoms of the disease.

Does God Cause Disease or Sickness?

God can cause disease, sickness, and death. However, He is rarely the cause of disease or sickness. Sickness and afflictions are the result of the fall.

Yes, there are examples in the Bible of God directly causing disease or affliction, but they are rare. King Uzziah suddenly broke out with leprosy (2 Chronicles 26:19-20). The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar was "driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle" (he became insane) until God returned his sanity to him and he understood that “the Most High rules in the affairs of men.” (Daniel 4:28-37)

…Then there is Exodus 15:26

And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the Lord your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians;

God is saying two things here. One is that, if they follow all of His laws and statutes, and that includes the sanitary laws and food laws, they will be free from disease. Second, speaking of His laws in general, if they obey Him, He will bless them. One way He does that is by protecting them and keeping them healthy. This is a promise of protection, not God threatening to send disease.

Directly Addressing the Humanist Claims

Quoting the humanist’s accusations:

Based on biblical teachings, Christian theologians during those centuries thought the plagues were caused by the anger of God or the malevolence of Satan.

Humanists have their history wrong once again. To be accurate, their statement would be better worded:

Based on a misunderstanding of biblical teachings, some Christian theologians during those centuries thought the plagues were caused by the anger of God or the malevolence of Satan.

First, we also need to be careful in how we understand what some "Christian theologians" actually believed. God is in control of everything. That is a fact. That does not mean He causes disease. However, He does allow disease.

Second, what did the "theologians" referred to by the humanists think? We do not know. All we have are questions. Which theologians? What, specifically, did they say or write about this? The humanists do not tell us. Keep in mind, what people (theologians) believed the Bible taught, and what the Bible actually teaches can be quite different.

The humanist identifies his source for this information as Andrew D. White, writing in "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. II" published in 1910. This is an incredibly unreliable source. Here is what Jonathan Burke writes about this book:

John William Draper’s ‘History of the Conflict between Religion and Science’ (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s ‘History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom’ (1896), were pioneers of the conflict thesis in its academic form. Both works are still cited today by those who are unaware of their factual errors, and unaware that modern historians dismiss these works as of little or no historical value. - Jonathan Burke, Draper & White: Misleading Writers on Christianity & Science

(https://tinyurl.com/y9flzzx6).

Please take a few minutes to read the Appendix. It provides information about Andrew White. As we continue to work our way through the humanist’s accusations, White is the reference humanists most often use. He is the source for nearly half of their references. Trying to say it kindly… he is not an authoritative source. He tended to make up whatever “facts” he needed to support his claims. That someone would even use White as a source demonstrates they have no interest in truth.

Quoting the humanist’s again: The Bible gave them ample support for their belief. It contains numerous instances of God punishing people by means of pestilence (e.g., Exodus 32:35; Numbers 16:44-49; Jeremiah 21:6).

Context is important, but quoting the complete context, all Exodus chapters 31-33, would result in a very long chapter in this book. You will need to read these chapters in your Bible. I will provide a summary. The following is the first verse the humanist references:

Then the Lord smote the people, because of what they did with the calf which Aaron had made. - Exodus 32:35

Lead by Moses the Israelites had escaped slavery in Egypt. However, while Moses was talking with God on Mount Sini, they fashioned a golden calf (a major deity in Egypt) and began to worship it and give it credit for bringing them out of Egypt. God had just saved them, and they almost immediately turn away from God and worship using an image of an Egyptian god crafted to represent the true God. Not good. Not good at all.

Moses called the people to action, and the Levites killed those who persisted in idolatry. While scripture is not specific, it is thought that "the Lord smote" in the referenced verse refers to what the Levites did.

There is a lot more to the story, but the bottom line is, they had just come out of Egypt; they were spiritually naive and prone to follow false Gods; and the death penalty (the Levites killing those who persisted in idolatry) for the 3,000 worst offenders prevented a further spread of idolatry. It was just, and it was appropriate. It had nothing to do with disease and it protected the remaining 3 million people.

The humanist’s also reference Numbers chapter 16:44-49:

...and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Get away from among this congregation, that I may consume them instantly.” Then they fell on their faces. Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put in it fire from the altar, and lay incense on it; then bring it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has begun!” Then Aaron took it as Moses had spoken, and ran into the midst of the assembly, for behold, the plague had begun among the people. So he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. He took his stand between the dead and the living, so that the plague was checked. But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah. - Numbers 16:44-49

The context of this is that the people had rebelled against God and Moses. (Numbers 16:1-35). This first rebellion hadresulted in 250 people dying. As harsh as that penalty was, the wickedness continued and a second revolt against God and Moses arose (the verses the humanist referenced: Numbers 16:41). This time they unfairly attacked Moses blaming him for the death of "the Lord's people." This was more serious than the first revolt. The people had not learned. The prescribed penalty for revolt against God is death... and a deadly plague began spreading among the people. Moses and Aaron intercede on behalf of the people and the plague ends after killing 14,700 people… victims of their own folly.

The people knew that the penalty for rebelling against God was death. They had seen that happen just a short time previously. Yet they rebelled again, turning against both God and Moses. The just and appropriate penalty could not be avoided. God imposed that penalty Himself this time.

They had just come out of an Egyptian culture of idolatry. They had been warned. However, they ignored God and so God brought about what He promised would happen… justice.

The next verse the humanist reference is Jeremiah 21:6

I will also strike down the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast; they will die of a great pestilence. - Jeremiah 21:6

This is part of a prophecy describing what will happen when Babylon conquers Jerusalem. We previously looked at a similar prophecy in Ezekiel 9. In brief, Israel had turned away from God. This had been going on for a long time. God had warned Israel that punishment was coming. It would be a 70-year captivity under the Babylonians. God brings this about by withdrawing from Israel, meaning He withdrew His protection and His blessing. That was appropriate. Israel had withdrawn from God, so now God leaves them.

Without God's protection, the powerful Babylonians are able to lay siege to Jerusalem, causing hunger and disease to spread in the city. Eventually the city falls and the Babylonians take many Israelites into captivity. Over a period of 21 years, Babylon captures Jerusalem three times and eventually transports nearly all of its residents to Babylon. The punishment not only fits the "crime," but also is exactly what Israel asked for. Israel turned away from God, so God gave then what they wanted, He turned away from them.

[The] New Testament attributes the following afflictions to demons: blindness (Matthew 12:22); muteness (Matthew 9:32-33); lameness (Luke 13:11,16); epilepsy (Matthew 17:14-18); and insanity (Mark 5:1-13).

Yes, demons can do these things, or create symptoms that make it appear these "afflictions" exist in a person. However, the Bible in no way teaches that these "afflictions" are the normal cause of disease and afflictions. Jesus did cast out many demons. However, it was much more common for Jesus to heal people, with no need to get rid of demons, because demons were not the cause of the sickness or affliction.

However, that is not the point. The humanist claim that “Christian theologians during those centuries thought the plagues were caused by the anger of God or the malevolence of Satan.” is meaningless. What “Christian theologians” such as St. Augustine believed, or what Martin Luther believed, must always be compared with scripture. Even the greatest Biblical scholars are fallible. The Apostle Paul commended the Bereans for checking what he taught with scripture:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these [the Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. - Acts 17:10-11

Every “Christian theologian” is subject to error. No matter how great the man. If what they say or teach is not supported by scripture, they are wrong.

How about applying simple logic anyone can understand: If God or demons caused most plagues, diseases and afflictions, God would prescribe a spiritual solution. Instead, God commands the use of good sanitation and quarantine practices. Those would not be effective in stopping diseases, nor symptoms of diseases, caused by God or demons. There have been unique times and circumstances when God has acted directly, or demons were used by God to glorify His Son (by providing opportunities for Him to show His power over demons), but those were limited and not normal.

CONCLUSION: The Bible does not teach that sickness, disease, plagues, and afflictions come from God or demons. Only in very rare and unique circumstances, that are not repeated today, has God caused sickness or a plague. Demons can also cause afflictions and the symptoms of diseases, but that is also rare. Based on the Bible, the most common cause of disease and affliction is the fall and the resulting corruption of humanity and nature.

NEXT ACCUSATION: In the next chapter humanists claim that “theologians taught” that people needed to do certain religious works to get God to heal them. Can "religious acts" cure disease? What does the Bible say? Get the Biblical facts in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 47

BELIEVING IN THE SUPERNATURAL

CAUSES PLAGUES

HUMANIST'S CLAIM IS: As a result of believing in supernatural causes of disease, theologians taught that plagues could be averted or stopped by seeking supernatural assistance. And the way to obtain God’s help, they thought, was to perform religious acts. These included repenting from sin; providing gifts to churches, monasteries, and shrines; participating in religious processions; attending church services (which often only increased the spread of disease); and killing Jews and witches (since it was thought Satan used them as his agents in causing illness). Religious leaders largely ignored the possibility of physical causes and cures of diseases.

It seems that humanists believe that people who distort what the Bible teaches are the authorities on what the Bible teaches. Then the humanists use these distortions to mislead people. This does not sound right to me.

In the above quote, the source referenced is once again Andrew D. White, writing in "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. II." As noted in the previous chapter, and as shown in the appendix, White is a discredited, unreliable source. When someone references as their source a book that includes fictions and fabrications, their accusations have no validity.

To start, we need to be aware that the Bible teaches the opposite of what the humanists are saying. They are describing human nature not Biblical teaching. It is our nature to want to be in control. We want to control God, meaning we want a god who responds the way we want him to respond when we do things that make us feel good. The most common promise Satan uses to deceive us is, "You can be like God." (Genesis 3:5). Satan’s lie is the promise humanists believe about Christianity and have attributed to theologians and the Bible.

What Does the Bible teach?

Here is what the Bible actually teaches concerning the things the humanists have brought up in this accusation:

1. The way to have God's help (blessings) is to first love God, which means to obey God. In the Bible, "love" is an action, not a feeling. In the case of God, loving God means to obey God (John 14:21, 23 & 24; John 15:10)

We are also to love our neighbors (other people). The Ten Commandments describe what love looks like. Commandments 1-3 describe loving God. Commandments 5-10 describe loving your neighbor. Performing religious acts, participating in religious processions, killing Jews and "witches," and other "religious" acts, rituals, and ceremonies have no benefit, and some are in direct violations of Biblical commandments.

2. There are three sources of disease and afflictions:

2a. Essentially all disease and affliction is the result of the fall. The fall happened when Adam sinned by disobeying God–Genesis chapter three. Prior to the fall, in a world God had declared very good, there was no disease, afflictions, or death. Humanity’s disobedience is the sole cause of all death. Humanity’s disobedience also brought disease and afflictions into the world.

2b. God can use what is evil for good. At times God uses disease and afflictions to admonish, punish, discipline, teach, or to accomplish His sovereign purposes. The way He does this is to withdraw His protection, allowing disease and affliction to happen through "natural" causes.

2c. Satan and demons, in their efforts to deceive and lead people away from God, use disease,[14] and the symptoms of disease, to discourage, mislead, and deceive people. A perfect example of this is the humanist’s web page. It uses distorted history and a misleading approach, when discussing disease, to attempt to lead people away from the Bible and God.

3. The health laws in the Bible teach the principles people need to follow in order to minimize the spread and the effects of disease. They require cleanliness and hygiene, as well as the most effective tool against infectious disease... quarantine of the sick. During the black plague many Jews followed the Biblical health laws and their death rate was just half, and in some areas possibly as low as 5% of that of the general population. Because they were not getting sick, people assumed the Jews caused the plague. The result was the persecution and the massacre of Jews (see chapter 44).

During the black plague, non-Jews were doing what the humanists today say we should do, follow human wisdom and ignore the Bible... and they died.

4. We know that sickness and disease are not from God because the Bible prescribes prevention measures such as quarantine, sanitation, and hygiene. These measures are not effective against God or demon-caused disease. God would not prescribe these unless they were effective. On the other hand, without regard for what “theologians” teach, unlike pagan religions the Bible does not prescribe rituals, offerings, or ceremonies to either prevent or cure disease.

Historically, God “inflicting” disease on groups of people is incredibly rare. When God did, He made the reasons clear: He gave people advance warning and the opportunity to change. He makes it clear that their actions (resulting in His withdrawing His protection) were the cause of the disease or affliction.

The reason people get sick is the fall. Scripture gives us the principles to follow for good health: practice good hygiene and sanitation, quarantine the sick, and use the best available medical and health practices and technology. In addition, we should be in prayer. God expects us to take care of ourselves, so our prayer is in addition to our best efforts to prevent diseases and heal people. While a supernatural miracle is possible, except for unique times and circumstances, God works through providential miracles. Prayer can bring about those miracles.

CONCLUSION: There is no truth in what the humanists stated here. If we follow what the Bible teaches, we will have life.

NEXT ACCUSATION: Continuing to trust in the discredited author Andrew D. White, the humanists now switch to science. The title of their next section is: “Science Bests Supernaturalism.”

The humanists, referencing Andrew White, claim scientific hygiene, instituted in the latter half of the 19th century, was the first time we had an effective means of fighting disease.  Of course, they ignore the fact that God prescribed good hygiene thousands of years previously. You could just re-read this chapter to answer this “new” accusation. However, I will try to add new information as we examine these accusations in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 48

SUPERNATURALISM? SCIENCE IS BETTER

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: Science Bests Supernaturalism

White states that despite all the prayers, rituals, and other religious activities performed throughout the centuries, the frequency and severity of plagues did not diminish until scientific hygiene made its appearance. In regard to the hygienic improvements instituted during the second half of the nineteenth century, White explains: “The sanitary authorities have in half a century done far more to reduce the rate of disease and death than has been done in fifteen hundred years by all the fetiches which theological reasoning could devise or ecclesiastical power enforce.”

The superior results of using science instead of religion can be seen in many other fields. Humanists therefore accept the scientific view that this world operates under unvarying natural laws that cannot be suspended by religious rituals or other means.

The question is; does following science instead of religion give superior results? The answer is... it can, if the science does not violate Biblical teaching such as good sanitation, hygiene and quarantine practices.

Not all “religious” practices are Biblical. In many cases religious practices were created by people to satisfy human desires, in other words to make people feel good about themselves. What people do or practice, does not define what the Bible teaches. The humanists continually confuse religion and the Bible. Religion, created by people, does not define what the Bible teaches.

Does This Mean the Bible Opposes Science?

No, it does not. Science and the Bible are in perfect harmony. Humanists (mainly Draper and White in the 19th century) created the idea that science and the Bible are at war in an effort to discredit the Bible and promote atheism. As we look at the facts, we will see that atheism (humanism) has thoroughly discredited itself in its efforts to paint Christianity as the enemy of science.

History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

When someone quotes extensively from a book, I like to read that book. In this case, the book is “History of The Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom.” It is a difficult book to read because, while it claims to be scientific, it largely consists of fiction and false claims, to the extent that it is sickening at times. White’s basis for writing this book is a presupposition that science and religion are in conflict, and one (science) must and will triumph over the other (religion). By “religion” or “theology” he is referring to Christianity. No other religion is discussed in his book.

"More and more I saw that it was the conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought—the theological and the scientific." — Andrew D. White, ”History Of The Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom”, from the Introduction.[15]

The theory that science and Christianity are in conflict is false. People who deny the creator God of the Bible desire this conflict to exist, but it does not. The problem is that in order to deny God, the physical evidence, such as the supernatural, must be denied[16]. That leaves no other option other than distorting the truth about Christianity.

I would love to say that both science and Christianity have truth as an objective. However, that would be a false statement. If it were, science and Christianity would be in perfect harmony. However, if you turn away from God and the truth of scripture, you invariably must turn science away from seeking the truth.

What is Wrong with This Humanist Claim?

Based on what we have already discussed you should easily see what is wrong with this humanist accusation. What is it?

Throughout the centuries, other than the Jews, people did not follow the principles for sanitation, hygiene, and health laid out in the Mosaic Law in the Bible.

What did science "discover" that made a major improvement in fighting disease? Plague had been sweeping across Europe, peaking in the mid-14th century. What stopped the plague was the "discovery" of quarantine.

"The practice of quarantine, as we know it, began during the 14th century in an effort to protect coastal cities from plague epidemics. Ships arriving in Venice from infected ports were required to sit at anchor for 40 days before landing. This practice, called quarantine, was derived from the Italian words quaranta giorni which mean 40 days." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://tinyurl.com/ybecsjkv

Andrew White, as referenced by the humanist author, claims that the introduction of scientific hygiene ended the plagues. Let us get some facts on the history of hygiene from the Hygiene For Health web site: www.tinyurl.com/ybufhub5

"1800s: England’s population increased rapidly but its number of toilets did not. Most human waste made its way into cesspools, dungheaps, cellars or the street. Waste and garbage made its way into rivers, polluting the water and giving rise to foul odours. In 1842 public health reformer Sir Edwin Chadwick published his Sanitary Health Report. As a result the 1848 Public Health Act was instituted, followed by the 1866 Sanitary Act, making local authorities responsible for sanitary regulation including sewage disposal, water supply and housing density & occupancy, and introducing penalties for persons suffering from dangerous infectious diseases who endangered others in public places."

When were good hygiene practices first introduced and mandated by law? We’ll need to go back about 3,100 years before the 18th century. Back to the days of Moses, when God’s hygiene laws were first recorded.

“Long before the existence of medical science and the field of microbiology, there existed rules in the Old Testament for good community hygiene, and also a meticulous protocol that was mandated to prevent the spread of contagious diseases.” – Larry Ball, Quarantine Laws and the Bible. – www.tinyurl.com/y9ggpove

White specifically refers to improvements made by “sanitary authorities.” However, millennia before that, what did the Bible proscribe concerning the disposal of human waste?

Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself dig a hole and cover up your excrement. – Deuteronomy 23:12-13

What is the principle taught here? Keep human waste separate from humans. Dispose of it away from where you live, and in a way such as to prevent people from coming into contact with human waste. Those are foundational sanitation principles.

What about after someone becomes sick or has an infection? What should be done?

It is important to note that even when there was reasonable suspicion that a person had an infectious disease, there was a definite amount of days of quarantine required during the detection period (Lev. 13: 26, 33). If the infection was eventually identified as a communicable disease then his personal effects were to be destroyed with fire (Lev.13:55), and even his house was to be torn down and taken outside the camp (Lev. 14:45).  If the infection was not contagious, then there was a rather elaborate ritual in order to give thanks to God. .” – Larry Ball, Quarantine Laws and the Bible. – www.tinyurl.com/y9ggpove

For 3,100 years, the Bible required what science did not figure out until the 19th century. Regular hand washing, bathing, food safety, quarantine was all part of God’s instructions for healthy living in 1300 B.C. However, people ignored God’s instructions and followed human wisdom, the “science” of their day, and they got sick and died.

Yes, the institution of scientific hygiene was an incredible benefit to humankind. That we now have modern medicine and we understand how to prevent and cure many diseases is a true blessing and not to be belittled. However, do not belittle the Bible and Christianity either. God gave us the answers thousands of years ago… and people chose not to believe Him. Here is one final example from scripture, this time an example of quarantine:

But if the bright spot is white on the skin of his body, and it does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and the hair on it has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate him who has the infection for seven days. - Leviticus 13:4

CONCLUSION: The humanist claims concerning science being superior to the Bible are without merit. The claim that people died from the plague because they turned to religion (Christianity) is false. People died because they ignored what the Bible teaches.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanists continue with the accusation that Christians focus on influencing supernatural powers to the exclusion of science, and thus are hindering the progress of science. We have talked about this one previously. However, since they brought it up again, we will go over it again. Turn the page and read the next chapter as the adventure continues.

CHAPTER 49

THE BIBLE HINDERS SCIENCE

HUMANIST'S ACCUSATION: Humanists esteem highly those who study this world and provide a better understanding of it. Unlike the theologians who focus on influencing supposed supernatural powers, persons using a scientific outlook have enabled great progress to be made in reducing misery and increasing happiness.

This chapter begins the section on humanist accusations about the Bible hindering science. Is this true?" Did the Bible prevent the progress of science? That is a good question and in the next few chapters, we will be looking at humanist claims that the Bible teaches things that we now know are not scientifically true.

However, let us look at the other side of the coin. Is what humanist teach about Christianity true or false? The answer is: much of what they teach about Christianity is false. The above claim, quoted directly from the humanist web site, shows astounding ignorance about Christianity. Of course, we know that—as scripture teaches—humanists are unable to understand the Bible. They are blind guides leading the blind.

What is the problem with their statement? Saying that "theologians focus on influencing supposed supernatural powers." is simply not true. Christian theologians study God (through scripture) so as to know God better, and by better knowing Him we can do better at obeying God and growing to become more like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Is the humanist talking about prayer? Yes, we do pray... even theologians pray. However, the objective of prayer is not "influencing supernatural powers." That is a description of pagan Greeks and Romans attempting to bribe or trick their gods. Their "gods" were capricious, arbitrary, and uncaring when it came to humanity.

What Is the Purpose of Prayer?

Prayer has one purpose only... to glorify God. I will let John MacArthur explain as he talks about the Lord's Prayer in a November 1979 sermon:

Everything in this prayer, beloved, seeks to glorify God, seeks to lift up his name, seeks to exalt his holiness. And I would just tell you right now that’s the purpose of all prayer. If you think prayer is for you, you’ve missed the point.

His glory is the issue. So when you pray get it in mind you’re not informing God, he already knows everything. You’re not forcing God, you’re not badgering God, you’re not irritating him, you’re not conning him. What you’re doing is submitting to his sovereignty.

And that’s the affirmation of the disciples’ prayer. That’s the way we want to look at it. It begins with, “Our Father who art in heaven,” adoring God. It ends with, “For thine is the kingdom, the power, the glory forever,” adoring God again. In the middle, everything in it is about God. - Quoted from the sermon: The Purpose of Prayer by John MacArthur. https://tinyurl.com/yb9y3nm2

You see, in making the statement the humanist has made, he has demonstrated that he has no understanding of this aspect of Christianity nor of Biblical prayer. His accusation is false. He alleges pagan practices that do not exist in true Christianity.

However, what about the claim that "persons using a scientific outlook have enabled great progress?" In the context it is presented, I assume this is saying that persons with a Biblical outlook have hindered scientific progress.

I have written about this in previous chapters (see Chapters 40 and 41). However, let's take a look at it from another angle: the fact that the rise of science could not have happened without Christianity.

Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science

“This historiography of science has still to face up honestly to the problem of why three great ancient cultures (China, India, and Egypt) display, independently of one another, a similar pattern vis-a-vis science. The pattern is the stillbirth of science in each of them in spite of the availability of talents, social organization, and peace—the standard explanatory devices furnished by all-knowing sociologies of science on which that historiography relies ever more heavily.” - Stanley Jaki, The Savior of Science (1988), page 35

“The hard facts of history, as found in the writings of Duhem, Jaki, and Merton, destroy the common claim of evolutionists that Christianity and science are necessarily incompatible. Much like how German sociologist Max Weber attributed the rise of capitalism to Protestantism's values, Merton's thesis maintains that the values of English Puritanism promoted scientific work. More significantly, Duhem and Jaki's research insists that the philosophical beliefs of Christianity had to drive out the anti-scientific conceptions of paganism in order for science to be born. Far from man's mind, the beliefs of the Bible ultimately freed him from the pagan dogmas that prevented the expression of his reason through a self-sustaining science.” - Eric V. Snow, "Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science

Christianity freed people from pagan dogma and led to the rise of science and the scientific method in Europe. So, while the humanist is right, advances in science resulted in huge benefits for people, those advances were only possible because of the foundation provided by Christianity.[17]

From aeronautics to zoology, Christians have contributed to existing branches of learning and created entirely new disciplines in their search for knowledge. If that weren’t enough, we have an even bigger bombshell to drop: Christianity made science possible in the first place. That’s right. Were it not for the Christian belief in an intelligible order created by a supremely intelligent God who also created human reason, there would have been no faith in reason. And without faith in the power and reliability of reason, there can be no science. - Michael Foley, “5 Myths About Christianity,” www.tinyurl.com/ybrsbbye

CONCLUSION: Humanists are misrepresenting Christianity and not telling the complete story. They ignore the fact that it was Christianity that provided the foundation upon which modern science and the scientific method were built.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanists claim the Bible teaches a Stationary Earth as the Center of the Universe.  Huh? Does the Bible teach the earth is stationary and at the center of the universe? You know where you can get the truth. It is in scripture. We will look at that truth in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 50

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH GEOCENTRICITY?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: The Bible teaches a Stationary Earth as the Center of the Universe

An erroneous Bible teaching caused Christian theologians to oppose Galileo’s proof that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun. In the sixteenth century, Copernicus proposed this theory about the double motion of the earth. In the following century, Galileo’s telescope proved that Copernicus had been right.

To oppose the Copernican doctrine and show that the earth remains stationary while the sun moves around it, the Catholic Church pointed to the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua [according to Andrew White]. There we are told that Joshua, in order to have a longer period of daylight in which to carry out the Lord’s command to slaughter the Amorites, ordered the sun to stand still – not the earth.

Notice that once again the discredited Andrew White is the source. If you have not read the previous chapters, please read the appendix to learn about Andrew White.

We are starting to get into some important scientific questions. So how can a semi-retired, unpaid missionary on the north Oregon coast answer tough scientific questions? Fortunately, my background also includes an education and decades of study, as well as experience in engineering, ichnology, and science. And I love science... especially if the science questions are about the Bible.

What is the Origin of a Belief in a Geocentric Earth?

The answer, in one word, is… science… and that means Aristotle. The Christian church was not promoting a belief that the earth is at the center of the universe; geocentricity was the accepted scientific belief at that time. Why did some Catholic leaders believe in geocentricity? As often happens, some people in the church abandoned the teaching of scripture, and believed what science taught. What about Galileo? Galileo supported the fact that the earth goes around the sun. However, his opposition to the political intrigue of the Pope caused him more problems than his science.

Why Then Was Galileo Tried by the Inquisition?

You can get the complete answer to this question in a paper published in April of 2000. (www.tinyurl.com/ya4hphxu) The author, Thomas Schirrmacher, writes in the abstract for the paper:

“The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.” - Thomas Schirrmacher, “The Galileo Affair: History or Heroic Hagiography?” April 2000

Does the Bible Teach Geocentrism?

No, it does not. A good paper on this topic is Geocentrism and Creation, by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner (www.tinyurl.com/y8n7fbx7). The following quote from that paper points out that the Bible does not address this issue. Some Christians, based on misunderstanding science, try to put things into Scripture that are not there:

[The] Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory.”

Does Joshua 10:11-13 Support Geocentrism?

No, it does not. It has nothing to do with geocentrism. If you’d like to learn more about Joshua’s long day, and some possible scientific explanations, a good article was published in Creation Magazine: Joshua’s Long Day Did it Really Happen—and How? by Russell Grigg (www.tinyurl.com/y84nuqzq)

Why is Joshua 10:11-13 used to support geocentrism? Here are verses 12 and 13

12 Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

“O sun, stand still at Gibeon,

And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.”

13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,

Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.

Some have taken the phrase "the sun stood still" to mean that the sun stopped moving. The thought is that, the only way that could be true is if the sun goes around the earth, and the sun had stopped moving. Therefore, the Bible describes geocentricity... the sun going around the earth.

The problem with this is that it is absurd. If this way of thinking were true, then TV weather forecasters across the country would be declaring geocentricity every day when they give the times of the sunrise and sunset. Do you see it? Obviously, there cannot be a sunrise (or sunset) unless the sun is moving around the earth. In the evening, the sun goes below the horizon. Obviously, this is a statement claiming the sun is moving around the earth (I am stating sarcastically).

The Bible speaks in the same everyday manner that we speak. We describe things, such as the sun rising (morning arriving), from our point of view on the earth. That is why the SUN RISES in the morning. It is not that this is a scientific fact... it is just the way it visually appears. Being consistent, this is the way the Bible describes what happened during Joshua's long day. The sun appeared to stop moving in the sky. This says nothing about the sun physically going around the earth. All it says is that, to an observer on earth, the sun stopped in the sky.

How could the sun stop in the sky? I suggest reading the article I recommended above: Joshua’s Long Day Did it Really Happen—and How? by Russell Grigg

CONCLUSION: The Bible does not teach a stationary earth as the center of the universe. The historical facts are that science, based on Aristotle, wrongly taught geocentricity for nearly 2000 years, and secular science vigorously defended it in Galileo's day. It was science that was wrong, not the Bible.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanists continue with attempting to use geocentrism to bludgeon Christianity, totally ignoring the fact that at the time of Galileo geocentrism (Aristotle) was the accepted belief of science, and had been for nearly 2000 years. It is science that got it wrong, not the Bible. In the next chapter, we will look at the scripture humanists say supports the earth being stationary.

CHAPTER 51

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EARTH IS STATIONARY?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: Other passages demonstrating that the earth remains stationary include Psalm 93:1 (“The world is [e]stablished, that it cannot be moved.”); I Chronicles 16:30 (“[T]he world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”); and Psalm 104:5 (The Lord “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever.”).

Because of Galileo’s support for the Copernican doctrine, the Inquisition threatened him with torture, forced him to recant, and subjected him to imprisonment. Additionally, for nearly 200 years the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books condemned all writings that affirmed the double motion of the earth. [Again referencing the discredited Andrew White.]

Protestants weren’t much better. For generations the major branches of Protestantism – Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican – denounced the Copernican doctrine as contrary to scripture.

Let us look at each of the referenced verses starting with Psalm 93:1-2. Verse 2 is included to provide context:

Psalm 93:1-2

1 The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;

The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;

Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

2 Your throne is established from of old;

You are from everlasting.

The topic of these verses is not science. Psalm 93 celebrates God's sovereign kingship over the world— meaning those living on the earth (people), not the earth itself. The point of this verse (and Psalm) is that God is in control and His plan for humanity will be accomplished.

For example, in Psalm 9:8 the same Hebrew word translated as "world" is used:

And He will judge the world in righteousness;

He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity.

The above verse is about judgment. Does God judge the physical planet (the dirt, rocks, etc.), or does He judge people? In other words, does our planet disobey God and need to be judged, or is it people who disobey God? It is obvious; the word "world" refers to people. Psalm 93, referenced by the humanists, is not about the planet, it is about people, and God's sovereign rule over people.

1st  Chronicles 16:30

Next is 1st Chronicles 16:30. I’ll include some additional verses so we can see the context:

29 Ascribe to the Lord the glory due His name;

Bring an offering, and come before Him;

Worship the Lord in holy array.

30 Tremble before Him, all the earth;

Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;

And let them say among the nations, “The Lord reigns.”

I have only included a small part of the context, but even from that you can see this Psalm (a Psalm of thanksgiving included within 1st Chronicles) is about people thanking God and proclaiming God's glory. Why would there be a line about the earth being stationary at the center of the universe, totally out of context in the middle of a section of scripture about people, all the people in the world (all the earth) praising and glorifying God? That makes no sense at all.

Once again, in this verse, the Hebrew word translated as "world" is "tebel," the same word used in Psalm 93 and Psalm 9 to refer to all people.

Psalm 104:5

The last verse referenced in the humanist’s accusation is Psalm 104:5:

He established the earth upon its foundations,

So that it will not totter forever and ever.

This Psalm is referring to the book of Job, and specifically Job 38:4 (verses 3 & 5 are included for context):

3 “Now gird up your loins like a man,

And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?

Tell Me, if you have understanding,

5 Who set its measurements? Since you know.

Or who stretched the line on it?

The New International Commentary on the Old Testament provides some helpful information about these verses:

Job is being asked to make known his knowledge of the initial stages of the creation of the world as though he were the primordial man who had witnessed the laying of the earth's foundation[18].

God is talking about FULLY KNOWING the inner structure of the created order.[19]

What does "inner structure of the created order" mean? These are the underlying things that God created first, and on which the entire universe is based. They include God creating time and space. They also include what we refer to as the Laws of Nature, the Laws of Logic, and other foundational "laws." You might call these “laws” the principles God established for how His universe would run. They are the foundation on which the earth was established when it was created.

Psalm 104 says nothing about the earth not physically moving through space. It says nothing about the earth being at the center of the universe. To use any of these verses to support geocentricity is a misuse of scripture.

Galileo

The humanist now makes a claim that starts with, “Because of Galileo’s support for the Copernican doctrine...” (see the quote at the beginning of the chapter). I covered this in the previous chapter. This is a common myth that has no basis in reality. Let us go to a pro-evolution web site to see what they have to say about the Galileo controversy:

“No it wasn’t science versus religion... Galileo did not heroically lead a scientific consensus with powerful and unambiguous empirical evidence against ecclesiastical resistance. Church leaders did not “try to suppress them.”

“Nor did Galileo face any kind of unified opposition from the Roman Catholic Church. That is another myth. There were many in the church who had no problem with Galileo pursuing his ideas, and the Pope had been a benefactor of Galileo before…” – quoted from www.evolutionnews.org (www.tinyurl.com/yaamgh9j)

Yes, Galileo was brought before the inquisition in April of 1633 to face charges of heresy for the way he advocated in favor of Copernicus.  For example, he called some parts of the Bible “false if one goes by the literal meaning of the words.[20]” That is a serious problem. In the end he plead guilty in order to get a lighter sentence and was put under permanent house arrest by the Pope. However, overall this was not about science. The “Galileo affair” was the result of Galileo’s arrogance and pride, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII.

When it comes to geocentricity, a lot of false “history” has been written, even contaminating sources that are usually considered reliable. At times it can take some digging to get to the truth.

For example, Copernicus published his “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” in 1543. It is commonly reported that 57 years later, in the year 1600[21] Giordano Bruno was the first to be burned at the stake for supporting the Copernican theory. However, the actual issue was Bruno promoting a Neo-Platonist Hermeticism that had similarities to Gnosticism. He had major doctrinal problems, not scientific ones. In addition, his personality was not known for building good relationships.  He was known as a “mean cuss” who made enemies of whomever he met. He went through a seven-year trial and was burned at the stake for his doctrinal and theological errors, such as believing Christ was not God, not for his supposed support of Copernicus.

Galileo’s trial is also tangled in multiple webs of historical myth and misdirection, much of it promulgated in the 19th century in order to delegitimize Christianity.

Galileo’s trial is not an example of religion opposing science. According to Professor Santillana, “… a major part of the Church intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas.” Rather, it is a sorry tale of human pride and the protection of self-interest. As argued by Professor Thomas Schirrmacher, “Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII.” Indeed, the extent to which the affair was motivated by political rather than religious concerns is made clear by a statement by Grienberger, one of the leading church astronomers of the time. Had Galileo behaved reasonably, he said, “he would have stood in renown before the world, he would have been spared all his misfortunes and he could have written what he pleased about everything, even about the motion of the earth.”

The above is quoted from - Dominic Statham, “The Truth About the Galileo Affair.” https://creation.com/galileo-church

The Humanists Claim: Protestants were not Much Better...

This certainly was true. Possibly, even more so than Catholics, major Protestant leaders resisted a heliocentric solar system. However, that does not change what the Bible teaches. They were wrong, and their belief in a geocentric universe was wrong. Anyone can be wrong, no matter how famous they are, or how accurate and correct they are in other areas.

This is also true in science. Scientists believed the geocentric model of the universe proposed by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and refined by Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 90–168) up until the time of Copernicus in the 16th century... and even for centuries after that. Scientists fiercely fought against the Copernican heliocentric model until overwhelmed with evidence.

CONCLUSION: The Bible verses the humanists reference are not about geocentricity. There is nothing in the Bible that supports geocentrisim. This is a strawman argument.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The Bible teaches the earth is flat and resting on pillars. This is another strawman from the humanists, who are continuing to misrepresent what the Bible teaches.

CHAPTER 52

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE EARTH IS FLAT?

THE HUMANISTS CLAIM that the Bible teaches:

A Flat Earth Resting on Pillars

The Bible supports the primitive[22] notion of a flat earth. In the sixth century, a Christian monk named Cosmas wrote a book, titled Topographia Christiana, describing the structure of the physical world. Basing his views on the Bible, Cosmas said the earth is flat and surrounded by four seas.

The prophecy at Revelation 1:7 was a basis for his conclusion. It states that when Christ returns, “every eye shall see him.” Cosmas reasoned that if the earth were round, people on the other side would not see Christ’s second coming.

I hope you are not going to fall for this false claim. This type of accusation has been answered a number of times already. You know the answer…

What an individual believes scripture teaches, does not mean the Bible actually supports that teaching. In this case the assertion that, based on Revelation 1:7 the Bible teaches the earth is flat, is so farfetched and outside the context of that verse, as to be absurd. First, however, I have to ask... who was the authority the humanists are referencing? Who was Cosmas the monk?

Cosmas the Monk

His name was Cosmas Indicopleustes, and he did advocate for a flat earth. What the humanists leave out is that his work was rejected by the church fathers during his own lifetime. The humanist’s authority is an obscure monk whose ideas were rejected. That is evidence of desperation, not sound science.

Just so we have it, here is Revelation 1:7

Look, He is coming with the clouds,

and every eye will see Him,

even those who pierced Him;

and all the peoples of the earth

will mourn because of Him.

So shall it be! Amen

The thought is that “every eye will see Him,” means the earth must be flat. Otherwise, the people on the other side of the earth would not be able to see Him. Of course, this does not take into account that the Lord could circle the earth as He comes. On the other hand, this prophecy may recognize that news services will notice something unusual happening and broadcast it onto TV screens (and smart phones) around the world. A 2000-year-old prophecy predicts world-wide television! Incredible!

CONCLUSION: There is hardly anything worth commenting on here. The Bible in no way supports a flat earth.

Many of the humanist’s claims about the Bible are so absurd and easy to refute that I am starting to think the purpose of the humanist web page is not to change minds, but to give comfort to unthinking minds... to give comfort to atheists who need a reason to reject the truth of the Bible. They can read this humanist page; assume it is all true; feel good about themselves and their sin.

NEXT ACCUSATION: They have made the claim that the Bible supports belief in a flat earth. I have refuted that, and discredited their witness Cosmas the Monk. If this were a live debate, how do you think they would respond? This “debate” is getting interesting...

CHAPTER 53

HUMANISTS DON’T GIVE UP:

MORE FLAT EARTH CLAIMS

HUMANIST'S CLAIM that: Further support for the idea of a flat earth is contained in the verses mentioning the “four corners of the earth” (e.g., Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1) and the “ends of the earth” (e.g., Jeremiah 16:19; Acts 13:47).

Because of such Bible teachings, most of the early church fathers thought the earth is flat.[33] In fact, the view of the world contained in Cosmas’ book was accepted for several centuries as orthodox Christian doctrine.[34] Even in the fifteenth century, when Christopher Columbus proposed to sail west from Spain to reach the East Indies, the biblical notion of a flat earth was a major source of opposition to him.[35]

As for the question of what holds the flat earth in place, the Bible indicates the answer is “pillars.” The pillars of the earth are mentioned in several verses in the Old Testament (I Samuel 2:8; Psalm 75:3; Job 9:6). These verses reflect the belief of the ancient Hebrews that the earth rests upon pillars.[36]

[33] White, Vol. I, p. 91. See also Draper, John W., History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (New York and London: D. Appleton and Company, 1919), pp. 62, 63, 161.

[34] White Vol. I, pp. 325, 326. See also Draper, pp. 163, 294.

[35] Draper, pp. 163, 164.

[36] The New English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford Study Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 1002.

A typical reaction to these claims is, “On no, I’m being accused of believing in a flat earth. That’s so stupid. I don’t want to be associated with people who believe that! That is exactly the reaction humanists hope to get. This is a propaganda ploy, attempting to associate the Bible with a ridiculous, obviously false belief.

BUT… let’s answer this accusation anyway: does the Bible teach the earth is flat? We will look at this in three parts: the referenced verses, the church fathers, and the earth being supported on pillars.

The Referenced Verses

And He will lift up a standard for the nations

And assemble the banished ones of Israel,

And will gather the dispersed of Judah

From the four corners of the earth. - Isaiah 11:12

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree. - Revelation 7:1

This next quote is from a secular book. Compare how the Bible talks about the world, with the language used in a secular book:

They came from the four corners of the earth, driven by hunger, plague, tumors, and the cold, and stopped here. They couldn’t go any further because of the ocean. That’s France, that’s the French people. - from Journey to the End of the Night by Louis-Ferdinand Céline (published in 2006)

I am surprised humanists still bring up this one. The dictionary definition of "four corners of the earth" is "The far ends of the world; all parts of the world." (www.dictionary.com). It is obvious from the above quotes; this phrase is used in exactly the same way in the Bible as it is in English literature. It is talking about people coming from everywhere in the world. It has nothing to do with the earth, nor is it describing the earth as flat. Humanists, you are embarrassing yourselves with these types of claims.

O Lord, my strength and my stronghold,

And my refuge in the day of distress,

To You the nations will come

From the ends of the earth and say,

“Our fathers have inherited nothing but falsehood,

Futility and things of no profit.” - Jeremiah 16:19

For so the Lord has commanded us,

"I have placed You as a light for the Gentiles,

That You may bring salvation to the end of the earth.” - Acts 13:47

Compare how the Bible uses the words “ends of the earth” with the secular world. Here is a quote from a secular book. Is there any difference?

The opening was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed somber under an overcast sky. - Joseph Conrad, “Heart of Darkness” (published 1902)

Once again the answer is obvious... the phrase "the ends of the earth" has nothing to do with describing the earth as flat. As with the first example, we see that the Bible and English language literature use this phrase in exactly the same way. The www.dictionary.com definition is "The utmost limit, as in She would go to the ends of the earth for him. This usage was once literal (referring to the farthest reaches of the planet) but now is used only figuratively."

Origin of the Idea of a Flat Earth

If you would like to read a brief history describing where the idea of a flat earth came from, the article "Who Invented the Flat Earth?" is available here: www.tinyurl.com/ybklba2s

Spoiler alert... The idea of a flat earth, and that Christians were ignoramuses who believed in a flat earth, was popularized in a fiction book by Washington Irving published in 1828. And BTW, Andrew White references this fiction book—“The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus” —as a source proving Christians believed the earth was flat. That is absurd!

For more information watch my 15 minute video on the origin of a flat earth: https://tinyurl.com/yy8ddl2e

The Church Fathers

We have a direct contradiction here. The humanists claim the church fathers thought the earth was flat, referencing Andrew White and John Draper. In the previous chapter I stated that the church fathers rejected a flat earth. Which one of us is right?

I have shown that Andrew White is not a source who can be trusted to stick to the truth. John W. Draper's "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science" is also referenced. In his preface he reveals his presuppositions… there is a war between science and Christianity:

"The history of science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditional faith and human interests on the other." – William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, introduction

If you have read the appendix you know that Draper’s book is just as much a fraud as White’s. Neither one of these humanist favorites is a source that can be trusted.

Is Comas a Church Father?

Cosmas the monk also makes another appearance. This time White claims Cosmas is a church father who believed in a flat earth. (See the second paragraph of the humanist accusation.). Not only is Cosmas not a church father, his teaching was soundly rejected until Draper and White needed someone to support their false accusations against Christianity.

There’s little evidence that anybody before the late 17th or early 18th century cared about Cosmas’s ideas. This didn’t stop people like Andrew White from making up stories about Cosmas having influenced medieval ideas about the construction of the earth. - Darin Hayton, A Tabernacle-Shaped Earth (https://tinyurl.com/ y8cq35wy)

Cosmas’ work was rejected, even during his own lifetime, by the church fathers.” White, and the humanists, are using an obscure monk, whose teachings were rejected by the church, to represent the church. That seems somewhat dishonest to me.

What about those who were considered to be church fathers? What did they teach? They accepted the science of their day, and were busy with more important matters.

The rather mundane fact is that most educated Christian writers accepted Greco-Roman teachings about the earth and cosmos and quickly moved on to more urgent matters of sin and salvation. No Christian authority of any consequence ever taught that the earth was flat. - Huffington Post, May 25, 2011

It looks like the humanists, and their sources White and Draper, are wrong once again. Since these two men are frequently called on by humanists as “authoritative” sources, maybe we should take quick look at what they wrote about belief in a flat earth. In the mid-19th century, in an effort to discredit the Bible and Christianity, both White and Draper were the major promoters of the myth that the church fathers believed the earth was flat.

In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.

Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.) - from:”Who Invented the Flat Earth?” March 1, 1994 (www.tinyurl.com/ybklba2s)

It seems both White and Draper were more interested in attacking the Bible than they were in reporting the truth. We will see that is true as the humanists continue to use them as their #1 source, and they are continually proven wrong.

Does the Bible Claim the Earth is Supported on Pillars?

No, the Bible does not say the earth is supported on pillars. The following are the verses (with additional verses for context) the humanist references:

[This is part of Hannah’s Song of Thanksgiving]

“He raises the poor from the dust,

He lifts the needy from the ash heap

To make them sit with nobles [princes],

And inherit a seat of honor;

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s,

And He set the world on them. - I Samuel 2:8

1We give thanks to You, O God, we give thanks,

For Your name is near;

Men declare Your wondrous works.

2“When I select an appointed time,

It is I who judge with equity.

3“The earth and all who dwell in it melt;

It is I who have firmly set its pillars.

4“I said to the boastful, ‘Do not boast,’

And to the wicked, ‘Do not lift up the horn;

5Do not lift up your horn on high,

Do not speak with insolent pride.’”. - Psalm 75:1-5

[Job speaking]

5“It is God who removes the mountains, they know not how,

When He overturns them in His anger;

6Who shakes the earth out of its place,

And its pillars tremble;

7Who commands the sun not to shine,

And sets a seal upon the stars; - Job 9:6

In the previous chapter, we saw that the humanist author claims scripture supports the idea that the earth physically has an unmovable foundation. They claim the above verses are saying the same thing, based on the earth being supported by pillars. So what is going on? The word "pillars" is a metaphor in the first two referenced verses. Here are explanations for each verse.

1st Samuel 2:8 - The context is that of God talking about people. Scripture is saying that God stabilizes societies (not the physical planet earth) through the "pillars" of His common grace and His laws.

Psalm 75:3 - Notice that the context is that of judging "the earth and all who dwell on it." This Psalm is talking about people, not the physical earth. Once again "pillars" is a metaphor, in this case for God's common grace.

Job 9:6 – In this instance “pillars” is figurative language. The context is that of God being so powerful that He can do the impossible, such as make immoveable things move. Here "pillars" refers to the secure and stable position of the earth in the universe. However, in spite of that stability, God is powerful enough to shake the earth out of its place.

A similar figure of speech used today is, "it's as solid as a rock." For example, an old song proclaims, "your love is as solid as a rock." Another example is the phrase, "We can't break down this door. It is as solid as a rock." Neither of these is talking about a physical rock. “Rock” is a metaphor describing something that is solid, immovable, or unchanging. That is how the ancients used the word “pillars.”

Before I finish this chapter I’d like to take a look at a “contradiction” the humanists missed.  We need to look at Job 26:7:

He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. - Job 26:7

This verse reveals a Bible contradiction the humanists missed. They claim 1st Samuel 2:8 says the earth is set on pillars, yet Job 26:7 says that it hangs on nothing. If their claims are true, this looks like a major Bible contradiction to me. Except, it is not. Job, probably the oldest book in the Bible, describes the physical reality of how the earth is supported. It hangs on… nothing.

CONCLUSION: There is nothing here, except once again, misinformation from White and Draper. Neither the Bible nor the church fathers support the idea that the earth is flat. This was a myth created specifically to attack the Bible.

Oh... and Job 26:7 got it right. The earth does hang on "nothing."

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanists claim the Bible teaches that the sky is a solid dome containing windows. It is time to learn the truth. What does the Bible really say?

CHAPTER 54

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THE SKY IS SOLID?

THE HUMANISTS CLAIM the Bible teaches the Sky is a Solid Dome Containing Windows.

The Bible promotes the idea that the sky is a solid dome covering the earth. In the creation account given in the first chapter of Genesis, verse 17 says the Lord set the sun and moon “in the firmament” to provide light for the earth. The Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqia, which means “hammered metal.”[37]

More support for the notion of a domed earth is found at Job 37:18 (where the sky is described as like a “molten looking glass”); Isaiah 40:22 (God “stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in”); and Revelation 6:14 (“And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together.”).

[37] Ecker, Ronald L., Dictionary of Science and Creationism (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1990), p. 56.

This is an interesting one. At one time, some Bible scholars thought there was a clear ice canopy around the earth prior to Noah's flood. Others disagreed. As this hypothesis was studied, no support was found in scripture, nor in science, for an ice canopy. As is true throughout all science, hypotheses are proposed; they are studied; and either accepted or rejected[23]. The ice canopy hypothesis has been rejected. However, I do not think the humanists are talking about a pre-Noahic ice canopy.

The humanist's assertion that the Bible teaches the sky is presently a solid dome is false. Notice in their assertion they use the word "is," asserting that the Bible teaches there IS now a solid dome around the earth. That is a false assertion even for those who once believed there was an ice canopy over the earth prior to Noah's flood.

This really has me wondering about humanists. They, or at least the humanist who wrote this article, seems to have no interest in truth. As long as he can assert something that apparently attacks the Bible, that's good enough. Truth or fiction, it makes no difference, as long as it attacks the Bible. There is no interest in understanding the context, nor what the Bible actually says, nor in investigating and learning the facts. Maybe that is because they have no real facts nor logical, rational thinking supporting their position. All they have is the human self-centered desire to have our own way. We humans want to be in charge. We want to make the rules and not be accountable to anyone... especially an all-knowing God. Unfortunately for humanists (and atheists and agnostics), human desires do not change reality. God is real. They, and everyone else, needs to deal with the reality of a perfect God, and what will happen when they stand before God to be judged.

Genesis 1:17 - Getting Hebrew Words Right

I am learning not to trust anything the humanists say. That means we need to start by being sure the key word in their assertion about Genesis 1:17 is correctly defined, the Hebrew word translated as "firmament" in the King James. A good way to do this is by checking recent translations. For example, in the NASB we see the word "expanse" used instead of "firmament." Why is that?

A concordance[24] is used to identify the words of the original language. The original Hebrew word used here is "raqiya," which is Strong's 7549. It appears nine times in Genesis 1:1-20. The Strong's Concordance definition is "that which is fixed and steadfast, rather than that which is solid." (Strong's KJV, 2001) Strong's further refines the definition: "The firmament is that which is spread out or stretched out, an expanse. Thus it is extended and fixed, or a fixed space."

Did you notice a problem? The Hebrew word identified by Strong’s (raqiya) is different from the one referenced by the humanist (raqia). The spelling is close, but they are different words. If you are not familiar with Strong’s, it is the standard reference to the words used in the Bible. There are more detailed dictionaries, but Strong’s is scholastically sound, and easy for layman to use.

The humanists use Ronald Ecker, an anti-Christian author, who is referenced as identifying the Hebrew word used here as "raqia." That word is Strong's 7554. It means "spread out." While it is the root of the Hebrew word of "raqiya," it is not the word used in Genesis.

Defining Raqiya

There is a reliable source for a definition of "raqiya." The Bible itself. God defines “raqiva” in Genesis 1:8. Quoting from a Talk Genesis article:

“And God called the firmament [raqiya] Heaven [shamayim]. So the definition is heaven, the Hebrew word "shamayim." Keep in mind that the Bible refers to three heavens. The atmosphere of the earth, where birds fly and clouds float (the sky). Outer space where the sun, moon and stars are located. And the abode of God. The context tells us which "heaven" scripture is talking about in any specific verse. For our discussion, it is obvious from God's definition that "firmament" cannot refer to a canopy over the earth... metal, ice, or any other material.

“When the Bible is read in a straightforward logical way, a very clear understanding of the firmament emerges. From the biblical writers’ perspective, it was not a barrier between heaven and earth. It was rather, heaven itself. “God called the firmament, heaven.” (Gen. 1:8) When we allow the Bible to define its own terms, the mystery of the firmament disappears. No need for sophisticated arguments from etymology or ancient cosmologies. The firmament is the heavens, and the heavens are a vast open expanse that contained the clouds and luminaries.” – From: “Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology?” Talk Genesis, May 26, 2016. www.tinyurl.com/y8psss7b

Another good article is The Collapse of the Canopy Model, by Bodie Hodge (September 25, 2009), www.tinyurl.com/y97s4ew9

Understanding Job 37:18

The next verse the humanist references is Job 37:18. The Talk Genesis page quoted above also has good information on this verse. First, however, a basic principle of Bible interpretation: scripture accurately reports what people said. However, that does not mean that what they said is true. In this case, the referenced verse is part of a statement by Job’s friend Elihu. While the Bible is infallible in recording what Elihu said, what Elihu said is not necessarily correct. In addition, the purpose of Elihu's speech is to declare God’s justice, exalt God, and condemn Job’s attitude toward God. He is not making a scientific statement. We need to be careful about how we understand statements such as this.  Here is what Job 37:18 says:

Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a cast metal mirror?

Keeping in mind that this is Elihu speaking, and he is attempting to describe God’s power. Verses 5 through 13 set the context as God’s power expressed in the harshness of cold winter storms. He is telling Job that hash things occur for good purposes. Here is what the Talk Genesis article says:

Looking specifically at what Elihu is saying, from the context is appears he is talking about the clouds. The book of Job was written soon after the flood, perhaps during the ice age. Elihu describes the cloudy skies as a ‘cast mirror’ likely as a metaphor. Mirrors, at that time, were probably a bit cloudy and the logical connection is not hard to see.—Paraphrase from: “Does Genesis Teach Solid-Dome Cosmology?” Talk Genesis, May 26, 2016

Isaiah 40 - The Circle of the Earth

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.- Isaiah 40:22 -

I cannot make the connection to a domed earth from this. It is describing exactly what we see. The earth appears like a circle, just as this verse says. When you look at a ball from a distance, it looks like a circle. For example, when looking at the earth from the vantage point of the moon, the earth looks like a circle.

And the universe is expanding... spreading out... just like this verse says. Therefore, the second part of the verse, written 600 years before Christ, accurately describes something no one at that time could have known through human knowledge.

Is it the analogy to a tent that leads humanists to think this verse is talking about a canopy? That makes no sense. The analogy is to stretching out a tent, which at that time was done in preparation to setting it up. We are talking about a large tent made from animal skins, not the small, lightweight, nylon tents we have today. These tents had to first be stretched out, before they could be set up. And that is what God is doing with the universe, stretching it out.

Finally, Revelation 6:14

12 I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood;

13and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind.

14The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

The context of Revelation 6:14 is that of a prophecy about the destruction coming on the earth. The events in Revelation 6 take place during the Seven Year Tribulation that happens just before Christ returns. Everything, the entire universe, is literally falling apart... including the sky. This verse does not imply the "sky" is a canopy and that canopy is coming apart. The prophecy is that the physical disaster that happens will be so great, that it will appear that even the sky is splitting. The universal destruction will be so great and so terrifying, and so obviously coming from God, that...

The kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” – Revelation 6:15-17

CONCLUSION: The Bible does not describe a canopy over the earth, and certainly not a metal canopy. There was a hypothesis that there was once an ice canopy prior to Noah's flood, but that is not supported by either the Bible or science.

NEXT: The humanists have more to say about the sky, and their main sources will continue to be the discredited Draper and White. What does that tell you? Let’s go to the next chapter.

CHAPTER 55

DOES THE SKY HAVE WINDOWS?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: This concept of the sky was common in the ancient Near East and taken for granted by the Bible writers.[38] Based on the Bible, most of the early church fathers accepted the notion of the firmament.[39] The same position was supported by Cosmas, and thus was part of orthodox Christian doctrine for several centuries.[40]

Orthodox doctrine also contained the related idea that the firmament has windows – which are opened by angels when God wants to send rain upon the earth. Cosmas believed that when the windows are opened, some of the waters contained above the firmament (which are mentioned at Genesis 1:17) fall to the earth. Cosmas’ basis for this belief was the statement, at Genesis 7:11-12, that at the time of the Noachian flood the “windows of heaven were opened” and the rain fell.[41]

[38] Ecker, pp. 69, 70.

[39] White, Vol. I, pp. 114-115. See also Draper, pp. 62, 63.

[40] White, Vol. I, pp. 325, 326. See also Draper, p. 294.

[41] White, Vol. I, p. 325.

If you have read some of the previous chapters you know that “White,” cited three times here, has been discredited as a reliable source. Please read the appendix. The following quote provides a good summary:

This highly biased, untrained author [White] is one of the commonly used sources of the secularist argument that theists are violent opposers of discovery and new learning. Unfortunately the best that can be said about White's data was that it was wholly based on presupposition and designed to prove entrenched ideas. Though this is bad, it is even worse that these same falsehoods and erroneous conclusions are still taught as facts in classrooms today. - Michael J. Findley & Mary C. Findley, “What Is Science, Part 3,” Chapter 13, Copyright 2000

I have talked about Cosmas before. He was a monk whose full name was Cosmas Indicopleustes, Although Andrew White references Cosmas as being accepted by the church fathers, that is not what history records. His work was rejected by the church during his own lifetime. So once again, the humanists are using an unreliable source who fabricates his "evidence" (Andrew White), and who references an obscure monk whose teachings were rejected by the church.

I once read a comment by a biologist who, when confronted about including Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings in a textbook he authored, said something like: "I know Haeckel's drawings are wrong, but they are the best evidence we have that supports evolution." In other words, it is okay to lie, if it supports evolution. That seems to be the humanist attitude here. It is okay to lie as long as it supports the fallacy that there are errors in the Bible. The humanist writer references Andrew White for nearly half of the “facts” he presents on their web page attacking the Bible. That is ridiculous!

The fact that unreliable sources are used is sufficient to reject these claims. In addition, I have discussed the use of the word "firmament" in the previous chapter, showing that it has nothing to do with claiming the sky is solid. A good, in-depth article on this topic is available from Apologetics Press: tinyurl.com/yy46bx3f

The Windows of Heaven

The only new accusation here concerns the "windows of heaven" mentioned in the King James Version of Genesis 7:11-12. One of the problems of the KJV, as much as many people love it, is that it uses archaic English words and phrases. As a result, unless you are familiar with old English words that are not used today, in some cases the KJV may not communicate clearly.

Here is how the NASB translates Genesis 7:11-12

11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

12The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

The phrase "windows of the sky" is replaced with a term we more often use today, "floodgates." While “windows of the sky” made sense a couple of hundred years ago, today we have a different way of saying the same thing. No one ever thought there are windows nor huge metal and concrete "floodgates" in the sky that open when there is a heavy rain. These are figures of speech used to say that, it was not just raining, it was pouring down. "Floodgates" describes an extremely heavy rainfall... and that is an accurate description of the beginning of Noah's flood.

By the way, the Bible accurately describes the hydrologic cycle (Job chapters 26, 28, 36 and 38) well before science figured out how it works.[25]

CONCLUSION: Once again there is nothing to Andrew White's myths and the humanist's accusations.

NEXT ACCUSATION: Christians thought that God gave supernatural signs in the sky, such as comets. These warned of divine anger and imminent punishment. The source for this claim is Andrew White. I guess that once you find a reference who supports what you want to be true, even if he just makes stuff up, you stick with that source. I hope that, by now, you know that if you see "White" as the reference, you can just move on.

This new topic deals with signs in the heavens. God has placed the stars in the sky in a way that speaks to us, but not in the way described above. Dive into the next chapter to learn the truth.

CHAPTER 56

ARE THERE SIGNS IN THE HEAVENS

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: Supernatural Signs in the Heavens

Bible stories led the Christian world to believe – for centuries – that God sends humankind signs in the heavens.

Christians thought comets warn of divine anger and imminent punishment;[42] stars and meteors portend beneficial events such as the birth of heroes and great men;[43] eclipses signify divine distress in response to events on earth;[44] and storms and other destructive weather result from the anger of God or the malice of Satan.[45]

[42] White, Vol. I, p. 174, 175.

[43] White, Vol. I, pp. 171-173, 176.

[44] White, Vol. I, pp. 172, 173.

[45] White, Vol. I, pp. 331, 337.

If you have been reading these chapters in sequence, you know that pretty much any claim that references Andrew White is false. He may have written some things that are factual, but they are not showing up on the humanist's web page attacking the Bible.

Let's do some digging and look at specific examples from White's book. My copy is a Kindle version, so I am not able to see page numbers and look up the specific pages listed above. However, let’s see what we can find.

Theological Theory of Comets

We are looking at Andrew White's book "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. II,” We are in chapter IV, titled: "From 'Signs and Wonders' To Law In The Heavens."

What initially strikes me upon reading this chapter is that it is packed with generic statements about Christians believing things such as comets being prophetic signs from God. Here is an example:

"Myriads of good men in the Christian Church down to a recent period saw in the appearance of comets not merely an exhibition of 'signs in the heavens' foretold in Scripture, but also Divine warnings of vast value to humanity as incentives to repentance and improvement of life-warnings, indeed, so precious that they could not be spared without danger to the mortal government of the world." (Kindle location 3564)

Over and over White infers that beliefs in signs were supported by scripture, but he never references scripture. It makes no difference if the whole world believes something is Biblical. If it is not in accordance with what scripture actually says, it is not Biblical. What people believe does not define scripture. What scripture actually says is what defines scripture. Although some Christians have believed comets were prophetic signs from God, scripture does not teach that.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO CLAIM THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT COMETS ARE PROPHETIC SIGNS, THEN IDENTIFY THE SCRIPTURE THAT SUPPOSEDLY SAYS THAT!

However, White ignores scripture. Instead, he gives the names of some people who supposedly believed this. So let's look at an example. I picked John Knox (1513-1572) because he is well known and respected. He was a leader of Scottish Reformation and founder of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Andrew White writes:

"John Knox saw in comets tokens of the wrath of Heaven... " (Kindle location 3640)

White references Knox's "Histoire of the Reformation of Religion Within the Realm of Scotland" as his source, but gives no page number, nor even a chapter. I am looking at a copy of this book right now. It is 677 pages. Who knows where the comment about comets might be buried, if it is there at all. Calvin College has a searchable copy online. However, searches for the words "comet" and "comets" turn up nothing.

What Scripture Says Is Important, Not People's Opinions

I read White’s entire chapter, and there was not one scripture reference. Even if Knox believed comets were tokens of the wrath of heaven, if this belief is not supported by scripture (and it is not), then it is not Biblical.

Yes, it is true that professing Christians believed that comets were signs of a coming disaster. Pope Calixtus III (1455-1458) excommunicated Halley's Comet, considering it to be from Satan. However, that says nothing about what scripture actually teaches. White provides no evidence at all that scripture supports any of the above claims of the humanists. White just asserts they are true and gives examples of people who supposedly believed these superstitions.

Let’s look at another one. White references many names I do not know. However, there are also some major figures in Christian history listed. Let’s look at another one of those:

Ulrich Zwingli, a Giant of the Reformation

White writes: "Zwingli, boldest of the greater Reformers in shaking off traditional beliefs, could not shake off this, and insisted that the comet of 1531 betokened calamity." (Kindle location 3674). Once again White gives no supporting reference for what he states.

I selected Zwingli because I have a book that mentions a conversation Zwingli had about Halley's Comet. The following is from "Ulrich Zwingli, the Patriotic Reformer: A History" by William Maxwell Blackburn (1868) page 286.

It was the famous comet of 1456 and 1531. It created a terror through all the land. The learned men of that day were not free from superstitious notions in regard to such appearances. "What may that star signify?" inquired the abbot (George Miller inquiring of Zwingli). "It will light me," replied Zwingli, "and many an honest man in this confederacy, to our graves."

Yes, Zwingli was superstitious about comets. He apparently believed Halley's Comet was a sign that he, and other reformers, would die. Does that mean the Bible teaches that comets are a sign of God's anger and coming punishment? No. What it means is that Zwingli embraced the superstitious beliefs of his time. Here is what scripture says about the purposes of the heavenly lights:

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; - Genesis 1:14

What are these "signs?" They are signs “for seasons and for days and years.” When God created the lights in the expanse of the heavens, He did not say their purpose was to provide prophetic signs.

Let’s go a little deeper and get a fuller understanding of what scripture means by “signs.” The Hebrew word translated as signs is Strong's 226, which means a beacon, monument, or a reminder of one's duty. For example, the rainbow is a sign. It is a reminder of the Noahic Covenant in which God promises never to flood the entire world again. What about the sun, moon and stars?

1. Look up at the sky on a clear night. What majesty. What breath-taking beauty. What incredible vastness. They are a testimony to God’s greatness and power. (Psalm 8 and Psalm 19, and Romans 1:14-20)

2. They are a reminder of God’s future divine judgment during the seven-year Tribulation. (The end times judgments in Joel 2:30-31, and Matthew 24:29).

3. They are signs guiding navigation (Matthew 2:1-2)

Scripture does not claim, anywhere, that the sun, moon and stars are signs of divine anger and imminent punishment, or of the birth or death of prominent people, or of divine anger as the result of an event or action on earth. No matter how many famous Christians believed that comets foretold the future in some way, scripture does not support that belief.

Does God Cause Natural Disasters?

Yes, He can… in very rare and unique cases. We see this in Deuteronomy 11:17 and James 5:17. However, they are not the result of malice or anger, but as judgment against sin. This most frequently is the result of God withdrawing His restraint of the effects of sin. The greatest example was the Noahic global flood. In addition, there is a time coming, called the Tribulation, during which there will be huge "natural" disasters.

However, there is no indication that God routinely causes natural disasters because He gets angry. Except for a few very rare cases, all natural disasters are... natural. They result from the fall and the broken nature of all of creation. God allows the consequences of our sin, some of which are natural disasters, to run their course.

CONCLUSION: There is nothing in the Bible supporting the notion that signs in heaven foretell the future (disasters, births, deaths, etc.) nor that they are signs of God's anger. Believing in signs in the stars is a superstition that began early in fallen man's history, and continues today.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The humanists return to where they started, claims of errors in the Bible. For example, the Bible mentions “mythical” creatures such as dragons and unicorns. This is an interesting one. I love studying and learning about "dragons." Were they real? Did people and dragons live together? Get the fascinating answer in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 57

OTHER SCIENTIFIC ERRORS IN THE BIBLE

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: Additional Errors About the Physical World

The Bible has verses mentioning dragons (Jeremiah 51:34), unicorns (Isaiah 34:7), and cockatrices (Isaiah 11:8). These passages led many naturalists in the Middle Ages to think such mythical creatures actually exist.[White, Vol. I, pp. 33-35]

As best I can find, the humanist seems to be referring to the following claim by Andrew White:

Thus was developed a sacred science of creation... Like all else in the Middle Ages, this sacred science was developed purely by theological methods. Neglecting the wonders which the dissection of the commonest animals would have afforded them, these naturalists attempted to throw light into Nature by ingenious use of scriptural texts, by research among the lives of the saints, and by the plentiful application of metaphysics. Hence even such strong men as St. Isidore of Seville treasured up accounts of the unicorn and dragons mentioned in the Scriptures. - Andrew White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom Volume 1 (page 33)

Then on pages 34 & 35, attempting to discredit Christian sources, White quotes a 13th century English friar, Bartholomew Anglicus. He is famous for creating the first encyclopedia. It was translated into numerous languages and was used as an authoritative reference for several hundred years. Here is what Whites says:

“Naturally this good Franciscan naturalist devotes much thought to ‘dragons’ mentioned in scripture. He says, ‘The dragon is the greatest of all serpents, and oft he is drawn out of his den and riseth up into the air, and the air is moved by him, and also the sea swelleth against his venom, and he hath a crest and reareth his tongue, and hath teeth like a saw, and hath strength and not only in teeth but in tail, and grieveth with biting and with stinging. Whom he findeth he slayeth. Oft four or five of them fasten their tails together and rear up their heads and sail over the sea to get good meat. Between elephants and dragon is everlasting fighting, for the dragon with his tail spanneth the elephant, and the elephant with his nose throweth down the dragon… The cause why the dragon desireth his blood is the coldness thereof, by which the dragon desireth to cool himself.  Jerome saith that the dragon is full thirsty beast, insomuch that he openeth his mouth against the wind to quench the burning of his thirst in that wise. Therefore, when he seeth ships in the great wind he flieth against the said to take the cold wind, and overthroweth the ship.”

In this case White does identify his source, however, what is White claiming? That Bartholomew, in documenting the knowledge of his day (the year 1230), described a living creature he called a dragon? Is that a problem?

White, writing 650 years after Bartholomew, assumes this description of a dragon is based on theology, not observation. Giving no evidence, he claims that naturalists of the 13th century used non-observational methods and twisted reality to conform it to scripture. What is the basis of this conclusion? White offers no explanation.

The fact is those involved in science in the 13th century, such as Bartholomew, were most often monks. The secular world had abandoned science and the search for knowledge. It was Christianity that both preserved scientific knowledge, and continued to advance science throughout the Middle Ages. That means, of course, the scientific writings we have from that time are by Christians… and that is not the story White wants known.

My conclusion is that White assumes dragons are mythological creatures, and because Bartholomew describes them as real, living animals, then Bartholomew must have abandoned observational science in favor of Christian mythology. However, what if dragons are real? What if we no longer call them dragons? It does not make sense for Batholomew to put a mythical animal in a factual encyclopedia. He was describing a real animal.

The KJV Bible talks about dragons, unicorns, and cockatrices. I particularly like dragons, and I even own some real fossil "dragon" footprints. The word "dragon" (or the plural: dragons) is used 35 times in the KJV Bible. Do you know what scripture is talking about when it uses the word "dragon?"

Dragons Were Real, Living Animals

By making the statement quoted at the beginning of this chapter the humanists must now feel they have won their argument. The Bible is filled with error (dragons), and those who defend it (such as myself) believe in myths and fairy tales. Only crazy Christians, who deny the reality of science, believe such nonsense as dragons. So… why am I saying dragons are real?

In some cases, such as in Revelation, the word “dragon:” is metaphorically referring to Satan. In that instance, it is figurative language describing the power and destructive nature of Satan. When used this way the Greek word translated as "dragon" is Strong's 1404, “drakon.” It means a large serpent with a keen sense of sight.

Outside of Revelation, the word "dragon" is only found in the Old Testament and it translates the Hebrew word "tannin," Strong's 8577. The Bible describes dragons as real, living creatures more realistically than Bartholomew. For example:

And the wild asses did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass. - Jeremiah 14:6 (KJV translation in brackets.)

Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet. - Psalm 91:13

Current English translations, influenced by evolution, use the words “jackal and “serpent” instead of dragon.  However, those words are not accurate. The literal definition of "tannin" is "a land or sea monster. This is not a King Kong or Godzilla type of monster. The meaning is that of a "monster" in the sense of being strong and vicious. A jackal somewhat fits within the Hebrew definition of "monster." However, scripture is not talking about jackals.

The KJV use of the word “dragon” is more accurate than jackal or serpent used in other translations. What type of animal is a "dragon?" There is a certain animal, created by God on day six of creation that was not given its current name until 1841. The KJV was originally translated in 1611, with the last update in 1769, well before the current name for this animal came into use.

What animal is that? Dinosaurs. The animal called a dragon in 1611 is a dinosaur. Yes, dragons are real... although they are most likely now extinct.

I assume some of you are thinking, “The last of the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago. It's impossible, people and dinosaurs didn't live together." Well... the basis of that "fact" is propaganda and indoctrination[26]. If you look at the actual scientific evidence, it strongly shows that dinosaurs lived with people until recently... very recently.

I made a video on this topic: Men and Dinosaurs. It's available on YouTube (www.tinyurl.com/y8o9m3e7). I made this video in 2010. Since then A LOT of new evidence has become available, such as red blood cells and soft tissue found in numerous dinosaur bones. Neither of these could survive for millions of years. Even based just on secular science, the evidence is overwhelming that dinosaurs and people lived together recently. See our web sites:

www.DinosaursForJesus.com and www.DinosaurTracker.com

For in-depth Biblical and scientific evidence demonstrating that people and dinosaurs lived together, I recommend the following two web sites. There are many other good web sites, but both of these are comprehensive and both provide A LOT of good information:

www.Creation.com (see the multimedia section for online videos)

www.AnswersInGenesis.com

What about Unicorns?

His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns [wild ox]: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: - Deuteronomy 33:17 (KJV)

But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn [wild ox]: I shall be anointed with fresh oil. - Psalm 92:10 (KJV)

If we look at other translations, the NASB and ESV replace the word "unicorn" with "wild ox." The Hebrew word used here is "rame," Strong's 7214. Strong's gives the definition as “wild bull, from conspicuousness.” Rame is referring to a bull-like animal that is strong. That certainly does not sound like how we picture a “unicorn” today.

Is a unicorn a real animal? Yes. In Job 39 the Bible lists the unicorn along with other real animals Job would be familiar with. It does not make sense to include an imaginary animal in a list of real animals.

We picture a unicorn as being a horse with a single horn. However, there is no evidence indicating that a unicorn was “horse-like,” and the only indication of its physical shape in scripture is the Hebrew word “rame,” meaning bull-like. Some say that the elasmotherium (pictured on the next page) is the animal referred to by the word “unicorn.” This is an extinct giant rhinoceros whose fossils show that it had a single, very large horn. Scripture indicates unicorns were strong, solid animals, and this certainly was a strong animal.

This paleolithic cave art (Rouffignac Cave, France) is thought to depict an elasmotherium. PD Image from Wikicommons.

.

When it comes to unicorns, we could eliminate some confusion by using the Hebrew word "rames." Remember, "unicorn" is the English word translators chose to use. Its use does not mean the Bible is talking about a My Little Pony type of unicorn

Artist rendition of what an elasmotherium might have looked like. Art by DiBgd, from Wikicommons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elasm062.jpg

What Is a Cockatrice?

In the following White is quoting from Bartholomew’s encyclo-pedia again. This is what White writes on page 34:

Discussing the "cockatrice" of Scripture, he tells us: "He drieth and burneth leaves with his touch, and he is of so great venom and perilous that he slayeth and wasteth him that nigheth him without tarrying; and yet the weasel overcometh him, for the biting of the weasel is death to the cockatrice. Nevertheless the biting of the cockatrice is death to the weasel if the weasel eat not rue before. And though the cockatrice be venomous without remedy while he is alive, yet he looseth all the malice when he is burnt to ashes.

My guess is that White assumes this creature never existed. Is that a logical assumption? What is the evidence it never existed?  That we do not have any “cockatrice fossils? That does not make sense.

The general rule of thumb is that, historically, 99.5% of all species have gone extinct. Since there are about 8.7 million species now living, that means that over 1.7 billion species have lived on Earth and are now extinct, most leaving no fossil evidence, meaning we know nothing about them. When, based on evolutionary thinking, we know nothing about most organisms that lived in the past, to assume creatures described in the premier factual encyclopedia of knowledge for the 13th through the 17th centuries (Bartholomew’s Encyclopedia) are mythological, is absurd. In addition, we may know what kind of animal a cockatrice, the Hebrew word “tsepha” actually is. We have Bartholomew’s description. The Bible also gives us some information. For example, they lived in dens, and were probably very dangerous.

And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. - Isaiah 11:8

Isaiah is describing dangerous situations that will no longer be dangerous when the Messiah rules.

For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord. - Jeremiah 8:17

What we see in scripture is that they are a type of snake. Scripture also tells us they laid eggs, like a snake does.

They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. - Isaiah 59:5

Both the NASB and ESV identify a cockatrice as a type of snake called an adder. Bartholomew describes the cockatrice as being highly venomous, but it can be killed by a weasel. That is 100% true of an adder. So “adder” appears to be an accurate translation.

Why did the translators of the King James give it the name “cockatrice?” At the time the KJV was translated a cockatrice was a mythical beast with the ability to kill people by looking at them, touching them, or breathing on them. It looked like a small, winged mythological dragon. Does that mean the Bible is talking about a mythological creature? No, of course not. It only means that, this is the English term the KJV translators chose to translate the Hebrew word "tsepha." This word is Strong's 6848, which means "thrusting out tongue—hissing." And yes, adders are known for hissing.

It sounds to me like the NASB and ESV got it right. If this is not an adder, it is some other type of very poisonous snake. Why the 1611 KJV translators used "cockatrice" is something we will never know, but their human translation does not mean the Bible is talking about a mythological creature.[27]

CONCLUSION: The Bible does not identify mythological creatures as being real. The dragon (dinosaur), unicorn (maybe an elasmotherium), and the cockatrice (adder) were all real animals, and the KJV translators had their unknown reasons for selecting these English language names for these real animals.

NEXT ACCUSATION: It looks like we will be talking about bats and birds next... and what does a rabbit chew? I thought they ate carrots and liked to ask, “What’s up doc?” Let’s learn the truth in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 58

DOES THE BIBLE SAY A BAT IS A BIRD?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: The Bible is also incorrect in saying the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13,19), the hare and rock badger chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), and the mustard seed “is the smallest of all seeds” (Matthew 13:32).

Finally, it’s inconsistent with science – and ludicrous – to believe that God confounded the language of humans because he was afraid they would build a tower high enough to reach heaven (Genesis 11:1-9)

These common "objections" have been answered many times. As we always do we will start with scripture.

Bats & Birds

These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat. - Leviticus 11:13-19

The answer is in the definition of the Hebrew word translated as "bird." The Hebrew word used here is "oph," Strong's 5775. The literal translation is "flying creatures." Is a bat a flying creature? Yes. Does a bat then belong on this list? Yes. Case closed.

Why does the translator use the word “bird” instead of “flying creature?” Because the context in Leviticus is that of birds. Scripture is giving a list of flying creatures that were mostly birds, so the translator chose the simplest translation to English, and used the word “birds.”

BTW, if you have not heard of it before, "Strong's” is an exhaustive concordance of the Bible... meaning it lists every word in the Bible and shows every verse where that word is used. It also includes both a Hebrew and Greek dictionary allowing you to look up the meaning of words. It is a very handy Bible reference and not very expensive.

Hares and Rock Bagers Chew Cud

Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. - Leviticus 11:5-6

We do not need to look at the original language for this one. The Hebrew means "‘raising up what has been swallowed". That is what the English language phrase “chew the cud” means... most of the time.

Animals that chew their cud, such as cows, sheep and goats, partially chew their food, swallow it into one stomach, then later regurgitate it and chew it again. They are called "ruminants" and have multiple stomachs to regurgitate and reprocess their food.

It turns out that hares and rock badgers do the same thing, but do it using one stomach and a different process. However, what they do is so similar to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of the modern classification system, initially classified them as ruminants. (See: www.tinyurl.com/y9xtr6am).

Hares and rock badgers chew their food, swallow it, and it goes through the animal and is passed out. These "pellets" are different from their regular "poop." They re-eat the pellets, chew their food again, and on the second time through their stomach it is fully digested. So hares and rock badgers do chew cud. They just do it with a single stomach and by eating their poop.

The Mustard Seed: The Smallest of All Seeds?

He presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches. - Matthew 13:31-32

By referring only to verse 32, the humanist left out the context given in verse 31, which is important for answering this accusation.

What type of seed is this? A seed, which is "sowed in a field." That means local farmers are familiar with this seed.  Jesus is not talking about all seeds, but the smallest seed the local farmers would plant. For people in Judah at the time of Jesus, the mustard seed would be the one that meets these requirements.

God Confounded the Language of Humans

Why? The humanist says it was because God was afraid they would build a tower high enough to reach heaven. Here is the scripture. Did the humanists get the reason right?

Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words. It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly.” And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar. They said, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. The Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. - Genesis 11:1-9

The people of the earth wanted to build a tower into heaven. However, that is not the reason God gives for stopping them. We need more information.

In Genesis 9 God told the people to "increase in number and fill the earth." What did the people do? They decided to stay in one place, and build a gigantic tower as a symbol of their power—"let us make a name for ourselves." Why do they want to do that? "Otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth."

The people were directly opposing God's command to fill the earth, and the tower was a symbol of how they could work together and how powerful they were... even powerful enough to oppose the will of God.

How does God define the problem? "they are one people, and they all have the same language... nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them."

How does God solve the problem? He addresses it directly. He confuses their languages so they cannot understand one another and work together. Then He scatters them over the face of the whole earth. The solution perfectly fits the problem, and it is not about what the humanist claimed.

CONCLUSION: The humanist accusations are without merit, once you know the rest of the story.

NEXT ACCUSATION: Next, the humanist summarizes his scientific case against the Bible, with the conclusion that the overall effect of the Bible on science was to “force mankind” away from the truths science could have revealed.  It is another fabrication from Andrew White. I will show you why in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 59

THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL EFFECT OF THE BIBLE ON SCIENCE

THE HUMANISTS SUMMARIZE their thoughts on the Overall Effect of Bible on Science

White summarizes the historical results of relying on the Bible for answers about the physical world. It’s not a pretty sight: “[T]here were developed, in every field, theological views of science which have never led to a single truth – which, without exception, have forced mankind away from the truth, and have caused Christendom to stumble for centuries into abysses of error and sorrow.”[White, Vol. I, p. 325.]

In view of the Bible’s numerous mistaken beliefs about the physical world, there’s no reason to think its writers were any more correct about unseen and abstract matters. Being so greatly in error regarding the tangible and observable universe, the Bible cannot be considered a reliable guide for spiritual and ethical issues

Once again, Andrew White is the source, this time for an outrageous claim that theological views of science “have never led to a single truth – which, without exception, have forced mankind away from the truth.” Is what White says here true? No. Of course not. Just knowing it is Andrew White making this claim tells us it is false. Let’s look at the facts.

Does the Bible include numerous mistaken beliefs about the physical world? No. Every attempt to discredit the scientific reliability of the Bible has been addressed in the previous pages.

Is the Bible in error regarding the tangible and observable universe? No. Every claim the humanists have made has been refuted.

Is the Bible a reliable guide to the physical universe? Yes, it is. The Bible is not intended to be a science book, but anytime the Bible touches on something about the physical universe and how it works, it is accurate.

Is the Bible a reliable guide for spiritual and ethical issues? Yes. There is none better. God made you in His image. He knows your every thought and desire. No one knows you better than God does. No one, not even you, knows you as well as God knows you.

Is humanism a reliable guide to the physical universe? No. Humanism is based on human wisdom and desires. The word “science” originates in French, and it means knowledge. Science has given us a lot of excellent and accurate knowledge. There is nothing evil or bad about science. The problem is with humanism. Humanism restricts science to knowledge humanism defines as true. This removes science as a tool for gaining knowledge, and makes science a tool for validating and promoting humanism, without regard to reality or truth. That is not good.

Is humanism a reliable guide for spiritual and ethical issues? No. To start, humanists do not believe in our spiritual side, so they are clueless on spiritual issues. However, we all know, including humanists, that there is a spiritual aspect to us. God has placed that knowledge in us. Even humanists know there is a God, although they suppress the knowledge of God and deny Him.

In addition, humanism provides no guidance for morality and ethics. It has no foundation on which to base morality. We are just random chemicals, and the best random chemicals can do is accept whatever the powerful say is moral and ethical. Might (guns) makes right... and history proves that you... the individual... will be deceived, suppressed, used, controlled, plundered, enslaved, tortured and imprisoned if you resist.

A video I made that shows how humanist belief in evolution impacts all of our thinking, not just science, is available on YouTube: www.tinyurl.com/ouuv4ym

CONCLUSION: The humanist has nothing except the fiction of Andrew White. That they would even try to foist this fiction off on you as truth says that they really do not care about you or truth. Whatever lie it takes to get you to reject God is acceptable. (Keep in mind who the father of all lies is.)

[Jesus speaking] "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” - John 8:43-47

NEXT ACCUSATION: What is next? The humanists now will claim there are false prophecies in the Bible. This type of attack is to be expected. They have to delegitimize the prophecies in the Bible. The prophecies in the Bible are so powerful and accurate that, to claim the Bible is not true, you must show these prophesies are false. If you cannot do that, the existence of God is proven. How well do the humanists do denying Bible prophecy? No so good, as we will see in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 60

HUMANIST ACCUSATION: ADAM DIDN’T DIE

HUMANISTS CLAIM there are False Old Testament Prophecies

Genesis 2:17 says the Lord warned Adam and Eve about the fruit contained on the tree of knowledge. He stated: “[I]n the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” According to Genesis chapter 3, however, Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and didn’t die on that day.

What is death? If we do not understand death, we cannot understand what happened when Adam sinned.

Everyone knows about physical death. We all die physically. HOWEVER, Adam was different. Adam was created perfect and he would have lived physically forever. Before Adam disobeyed God by eating the fruit, there was no death. Anywhere. Absolutely no death. Adam's cells never died. So not only would he not die, he would not have aged. However, as soon as he disobeyed God, death entered his body. His cells began dying and he began aging. So yes, Adam ate the fruit, and that day he started to die. Eventually he physically died as his cells wore out[28]. However, God was talking about more than physical death.

Sin Brings Death

You were dead in your trespasses and sins. - Ephesians 2:1

What Paul is saying in this verse is that unregenerate sinners, because of their sinful nature, exist in the realm of the dead. Although still alive physically, they are already in the land of the dead. As soon as Adam disobeyed God, he died. He was no longer among the living... he was dead in his sin.

What is spiritual death, also known as the second death[29]? It is separation from God. In Genesis 2:17 God was talking about separation from Himself, what is sometimes called spiritual death. Paul describes it in Ephesians 4:18

Being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them.

Adam did immediately die. When he disobeyed God, he immediately was excluded from the life of God... separated from God. If you are a humanist reading this, consider what you are reading. What happened to Adam has already happened to you. You are dead and your only hope of life is Jesus Christ.

The first thing that happened after Adam ate the fruit was:

They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” - Genesis 3:8-9

Did God know where they were? Of course He did. However, He is showing them (and us) that they were now separated from God... excluded from the life of God... they are spiritually dead.

The Second Death

Adam was dead, but be could be saved from death. Just as He does for us, Jesus Christ could make Adam alive again. If we trust in Jesus as having paid the death penalty for sin on our behalf... He does it. He died in our place, giving us eternal life. However, if you do not trust Jesus Christ, you will experience both physical death and the second death. A death that is permanent.

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. - Revelation 21:8

CONCLUSION: This prophecy was fulfilled. The moment Adam ate of the fruit, disobeying God, he died. He was separated from God. That is the most important definition of death. Physical death is temporary. Spiritual death, separation from God, is permanent.

NEXT ACCUSATION: The next “prophecy” the humanist goes after is about Jacob… or is it even a prophecy?

CHAPTER 61

WHAT WAS JACOB’S NAME?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: Genesis 35:10 claims that God told Jacob: “[T]hy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name. . . .” But 11 chapters later, the Lord’s own act proved his prediction to be wrong. Genesis 46:2 relates: “God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am I.”

First, this is not a prophecy. It is a declaration (see Genesis 35:10 on the next page). God is not prophesying that Jacob's name will be changed in the future; He is declaring that Jacob has another name. Since, it is not a prophecy; it cannot be a false prophecy. However, it is still useful to understand what is going on.

What was a Name?

In Old Testament times, a name was a description of who a person was. Unlike today when we are given a permanent name at birth, and it takes some legal work to change that name. In Jacob's day, and in many non-western cultures today, your name could change as you grew older and your character changed.

In the New Testament, for example, go to John 1:42. Simon becomes one of Jesus' disciples and Jesus gives him a new name, Peter. The name Simon means, "listen" and Peter means "rock." Peter would eventually become a rock for Jesus. However, it is interesting that towards the end of the gospel of John, in chapter 21 Jesus goes back to calling him "Simon" (listen) instead of Peter.

Why?

Because Simon had denied him three times. He was not a rock. He had denied Jesus three times in fear, even denying Jesus to a lowly servant girl. Jesus used his old name because that is who he was... he was no longer the rock, but someone who needed to listen. Your name described who you were.

However, was this what was going on with the names Jacob and Israel? Why did God give Jacob another name?

Jacob Gets a New Name

God said to him, "Your name is Jacob;

You shall no longer be called Jacob,

But Israel shall be your name.” - Genesis 35:10

What does "Jacob" mean? One definition is "he deceives." It also means the "supplanter" or “heel-catcher.” Jacob was a twin who was born second. However, he twice deceived (supplanted through deception) his older brother out of his inheritance.

In Genesis 35:10 God changes his name to Israel. What does “Israel” mean? There are a number of ways to translate it to English:

- Having power with God

- Strives with God

- God’s Fighter

This is a name that indicates a man who obeys and trusts God, and as a result has strength and power from God.

So, what about Genesis 46:2, where God calls him Jacob? However, let's not leave it with just that one instance. In Genesis, after God gives him the name Israel, he is still referred to as Jacob more than 30 times, sometimes being called Jacob and Israel in the same sentence (Psalm 53:6 and Psalm 78:5).

Why Two Names?

Genesis 32:28 God gives the reason Jacob’s name was changed:

“Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have contended with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

Scripture does not say why both names continued to be used. It could be that Jacob’s character never fully became the character described by the name Israel. So scripture continues to use both names, reflecting his mixed character.

Another possibility is that God gave him the name Israel to reflect who he was supposed to be, and who he was most of the time. However, he was not perfect. When he was striving with God, and having power with God, that is the name God used. However, at times he was also a backslider called Jacob.

But, this does not explain why he would be called both Jacob and Israel in one sentence.

Some say that it was important that the nation that came from him would be called “Israel.” At that time nations took on the name of their founding leader. God’s purpose was to give him, and eventually the nation of Israel, a name that would be suitable for a national people who were God’s chosen people. Instead of being associated with deceit and the theft of his brother's blessings, he would be known as “God’s fighter,” or the one who “has power with God.” So even when his birth name was still used, he was also "Israel,” the father of the nation who had power with God.

If his name had not been changed, the Jewish nation would be called Jacobites — the nation of deceivers. That would not do for God’s chosen nation. It would not accurately reflect who they were. With the name change they are known as Israel — God's fighter, the nation that has power with God. Which do you think better reflects the character of the nation of Israel? The name Israel!

Why did God continue to use both names? We do not know. God does not tell us. Is there a problem with using two names? No. Even today, in a time and culture in which names are permanently attached to a person, some people have two names. In Jacob’s day and culture names were more fluid, so there is no reason to see a problem with Jacob/Israel having two names.

CONCLUSION: This was not a prophecy, so there can be no false prophecy. Names in Jacob’s day, and still today in some parts of the world, were not used the way they are in our Western culture. Your name could change as your character changed. Your name could change when your situation changed or you moved to a new location. In this case God does not explain why He uses both names, sometimes in the same sentence. However, there is no problem with using both names.

NEXT PROPHECY: The humanists will now look at 2nd Chronicles 1:12.  The prophecy says Solomon will be the wealthiest king that ever lived.  Is this true? Or have there been kings wealthier than Solomon?  Is this going to be the prophecy the Bible fails on? Let's find out in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 62

HOW GREAT WAS SOLOMON’S WEALTH?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: At II Chronicles 1:12, God promised Solomon: “Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.”

As Robert Ingersoll pointed out in the nineteenth century, there were several kings in Solomon’s day who could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount [48]. And the wealth of Solomon has been exceeded by many later kings and is small by today’s standards.[49]

[48] ‘Interviews,” Ingersoll, Vol V, p. 261

To begin with this is not a prophecy, it is a promise. However, that makes little difference. If God does not keep His promises, He is no God at all. There is no way we could trust Him or know that His promise of eternal life is true. This humanist claim is one we need to take seriously and spend some time examining.

Notice that the promise is only in relationship to other kings. The promise is not that Solomon will be the richest man in all of history. The promise is that he will be the richest king.

Solomon was one of the richest men in history, and his legendary wisdom encompassed money management. To this day, some of the best financial advice ever written is contained in the book of Proverbs. And... in Ecclesiastes, we see the invention and advancement of the widely lauded strategy of financial diversification. - Jim Whiddon, Cross Examined, April 6, 2014

Now the weight of gold which came in to Solomon in one year was 666 talents of gold, besides that from the traders and the wares of the merchants and all the kings of the Arabs and the governors of the country. - 1 Kings 10:14-15 (This is over 1 billion dollars in gold per year, and that was only a small part of his income.)

Keep in mind Solomon started by inheriting David's wealth, which was significant. Then year after year, his wealth increased.

Here is an interesting question: Do you know of any city where silver and gold is considered as common as stones? This is not just talking about the silver and gold in the king’s palace. During Solomon’s reign silver and gold become so common in Jerusalem that it was said it was as common as ordinary stones!

The king made silver and gold as plentiful in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as plentiful as sycamores in the lowland. - 2 Chronicles 1:15

Solomon's wealth was not just measured in gold and silver. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. That is, by far, more than any other man in history. The man in second place was Fat'h Ali Shah Qajar the second Qajar of Persia. He had about 158 wives, about one-quarter the number Solomon had. Each of Solomon's wives represented an alliance with another king, and each alliance brought him significant income. Solomon was not into militarily capturing territory, but the number of wives he had indicates that his "rule" extended over a vast area. With his wisdom, his "empire management" was probably more efficient and profitable than any empire before or after his.

How is Wealth Defined?

Solomon was the wisest man in all of the world. Other kings, and prominent people came bringing huge volumes of fabulous gifts and to seek his wisdom. Financially his wisdom brought him great wealth, on top of his other sources of income. This was a huge income stream no other monarch has ever had. However, the wisdom of Solomon was also a great gift in itself, vastly enriching his life.

However, we do not really know how physically rich Solomon was. There are no records giving an accounting of his income, nor all that he owned. We simply do not know.

Making an estimate of his financial wealth, the Wealth Result ranked Solomon as the richest man of all time. In addition, Practical Business Ideas ranks him in the top ten wealthiest men, and the wealthiest king of all time. Others rank Solomon lower, but always in the top ten richest men and always as the wealthiest king.

Robert Ingersoll

The Humanists call on Robert Ingersoll to support their claim. Who was Robert Ingersoll?

He was a 19th century attorney and politician noted for his defense of agnosticism. I have the “Interviews” book the humanist references. Here is the referenced Ingersoll quote:

Is it scientific to say that Solomon made gold and silver at Jerusalem as plentiful as stones, when we know that there were kings in his day who could have thrown away the value of the whole of Palestine without missing the amount?

This quote is part of a 50 plus page response to a question presented to Ingersoll:

“Mr. Talmage insists that the Bible is scientific and that the real scientific man sees no contradiction between revelation and science, that on the contrary, they are in harmony. What is your understanding of the matter?” – Interviews, page 209

To refute this claim that the Bible is scientifically sound, in his letter Ingersoll rattles off accusation after accusation, writing, “Is it scientific to say…” over and over again, with no details, and no sources or references to support his claims. Ingersoll is just throwing out words. The claim the humanists make here is composed of words pulled out of thin air. I suppose they assumed no one would look it up.

CONCLUSION: No one truly knows how wealthy Solomon was. I cannot prove that Solomon had more riches, wealth and honor than any other king. Nor can the humanists prove there were other kings who had more wealth. History simply does not provide this information. It is a clever trick to propose an unanswerable question. Although this is an interesting question, it is of no value.

NEXT PROPHECY: Isaiah 17:1-2 prophesies that Damascus would cease to be a city, become a heap of ruins, and remain forever desolate. I have heard of Damascus. It is in Syria and it still exists. It looks like the humanists are right. This is a false prophecy. Is the Bible wrong on this one? You will have to read the next chapter to get the answer.

CHAPTER 63

WHAT HAPPENED TO DAMASCUS?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: Isaiah 17:1-2 prophesies that Damascus would cease to be a city, become a heap of ruins, and remain forever desolate. Yet some 27 centuries after the prediction was made, Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world and is still going strong.

Damascus still stands. Does that mean Isaiah 17 is a false prophecy? Here is what Isaiah wrote:

1The oracle concerning Damascus.

“Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city

And will become a fallen ruin.

2“The cities of Aroer are forsaken;

They will be for flocks to lie down in,

And there will be no one to frighten them.

But wait, does this prophecy say that Damascus will remain a ruin forever? No, it does not. It just says it will be completely destroyed.

Damascus was destroyed by the Assyrians in 732 B.C. It was made into a heap of ruins. It ceased to be a city... for a while. That is what the prophecy said would happen. This prophecy does not say Damascus will be a ruin forever.

CONCLUSION: We need to be careful not to read more into scripture than what is there. This prophecy was perfectly and completely fulfilled. Then Damascus was rebuilt and continues to exist today.

NEXT PROPHECY: This one comes from Jeremiah 25:11. It prophecies that the Jews would be captives in Babylon for 70 years. However, the humanists claim that the captivity only last 48 years.  Who is right? How long was the Babylonia captivity?  Was it 70 years as the Bible says? Keep reading, the answer is in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 64

HOW LONG WAS THE 70 YEAR

BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: Jeremiah 25:11 predicts the Jews would be captives in Babylon for 70 years, and II Chronicles 36:20-21 views the prophecy as fulfilled. But the Jews were taken into captivity by the Chaldeans when Jerusalem fell in 586 B.C.E. And Cyrus of Persia issued an order in 538 B.C.E. allowing them to return from Babylon to Judah. Thus, the Babylonian captivity lasted about 48 years.

Let’s start with scripture. What does the prophecy specifically say?

This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then it will be when seventy years are completed I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation," declares the Lord, "for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans; and I will make it an everlasting desolation. - Jeremiah 25:11-12

The prophecy is that the Jews (and the nations around them) will SERVE the king of Babylon seventy years. In other words, they will be under the rule of Babylon. For most of that time many Jews will be in captivity in Babylon. However, for part of the time a large number of Jews will remain in Jerusalem and Palestine under the rule of Babylon... serving the king of Babylon while still living in their homes.

So when did the land of Judah begin to serve the king of Babylon? It turns out the Jews are rather stubborn people and they did not like being ruled by Babylon, so the Babylonian armies had to return three times. Here is a brief time line:

- 607 BC[30] - King Jehoiakim becomes a servant of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon

- 604 BC - The Jews rebel. Nebuchadnezzar sends armies to defeat Jerusalem and takes captives back to Babylon. This is when Daniel is taken captive.

- 597 BC - Jerusalem rebels again, Nebuchadnezzar sends another army, captures Jerusalem and deports many more Jews to Babylon

- 588-586 BC - Jerusalem rebels again, Nebuchadnezzar sends another army, lays siege to Jerusalem, totally destroys Jerusalem and deports just about everyone to Babylon, leaving behind only a few of the very poorest Jews.

The humanists are saying the Jews became captives of Babylon when Jerusalem fell for the third time in about 586 BC. However, that is not when they began to serve the king of Babylon. That happened in 607 BC and is described in 2 Kings 24:

In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; - 2 Kings 24:1

Jehoiakim began serving the king of Babylon in 607 BC. The time of servitude was 607 to 537 BC... a total of 70 years. This time period has come to be called the "Babylonian Captivity," implying all 70 years were spent as captives in Babylon. However, that is not what scripture says. During part of the time of "captivity” many Jews were still in Jerusalem. If they had not rebelled against God and the Babylonians, they might have spent all of the "Babylonia captivity" in Jerusalem serving the king of Babylon there.

CONCLUSION: When we read what was actually written, that the Jews were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, the prophecy was perfectly and exactly fulfilled.

NEXT PROPHECY: The humanists list five more prophecies they claim were never fulfilled. They appear to be throwing prophecies against the wall and hoping something will stick. We will look at each one of these in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 65

DID ANY OF THESE PROPHECIES FAIL?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: Examples of other unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies include the following: the Jews will occupy the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18); they shall never lose their land and shall be disturbed no more (II Samuel 7:10); King David’s throne and kingdom shall be established forever (II Samuel 7:16); no uncircumcised person will ever enter Jerusalem (Isaiah 52:1); and the waters of Egypt will dry up (Isaiah 19:5-7).

The humanist claim that some of the Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled... and they are right. After all, the end has not yet come. About one-third of the prophecies in the Bible are about our future. The book of Revelation, for example, is filled with prophecies that reveal what is still yet to come for us.

Let's look at each of these new examples the humanists have listed and find out what each of them is about:

Genesis 15:18

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates."

Most Bible scholars say this prophecy is about our future. It will be fulfilled when Jesus returns at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom. It could be that we are seeing it being fulfilled now. Some of the land already belongs to the descendants of Abraham, but they have not yet taken possession of all the land.

If you own a rental property, you may have had some experience with this situation. Once someone is living in your property (in some cases even if they are not paying rent), it can be very difficult to get them out. Laws vary by state, but in some locations, it can take years. They may be trashing your property, and still you cannot get them out. That describes Israel’s situation. They own the property, but they cannot yet take possession of the property. However, the time is coming when this prophecy will be 100% fulfilled.

2 Samuel 7:8-10

“Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. (verses 8 & 9)

I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly," (verse 10)

even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. The Lord also declares to you that the Lord will make a house for you. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, (verse 11)

I have included verse 11 (and 12-16 below) so you can see the context. In these verses, God is speaking to David through Nathan the prophet. This section of scripture is often called "God's Covenant with David" or the "Davidic Covenant." This covenant is also summarized in 1 Chronicles 17:11–14 and 2 Chronicles 6:16.

As with our look at 2 Chronicles 1:12, this is not a prophecy, but a promise. God, through the prophet Nathan, is telling David what He will do. However, we need to look at the humanists' accusation concerning this section of scripture. If God does not keep His promises to David, then we cannot trust anything God says.

God starts with some background. Verses 8 & 9 describe some of the things God has done in the past. The verse we are looking at, verse 10, is a reaffirmation of God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18. That means the answer is the same as for Genesis 15:18 above, this prophecy will be fulfilled in the future.

2 Samuel 7:12-16

I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.”

Verses 12 through 16 are a promise of a Messiah... a descendant of David who will establish His kingdom and rule forever. That is what Jesus Christ will do when He returns at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom. The fulfillment of this promise is still in the future, but it is coming.

Isaiah 52:1

Awake, awake,

Clothe yourself in your strength, O Zion;

Clothe yourself in your beautiful garments,

O Jerusalem, the holy city;

For the uncircumcised and the unclean

Will no longer come into you.

This is part of a speech (prophecy) God gives to Israel that starts in verse 40. Throughout chapter 52 there are many imperatives, rhetorical questions, and allusions to what God said previously, going all of the way back to chapter 40. The imperatives include calls to listen, to awake, to look, and to depart.

In verse 52:1 God is calling for the people pay attention... AWAKE!

Go back a little further, beginning in chapter 51 God is talking about Israel's transformation from desolation into a paradise. In 51:6 God talks about the heavens vanishing... and the earth growing old. This takes place during the seven-year Tribulation, setting the stage for a renewed earth during the Millennial Kingdom. God's point is that the people of Israel have no need to despair.

Then, the last part of chapter 51 reflects on the unfaithfulness of Israel in the past; how they have experienced the Lord's anger; and that the city of Jerusalem has suffered. Nevertheless, be encouraged Israel, all of that will change.

Now the good news starting in the chapter we are looking at: awake Israel! Put on your fine clothes of honor provided by the Lord... you will be safe and secure from invaders (the uncircumcised and unclean will no longer come into you).

As with the previous prophecy we looked at, this is a prophecy about the coming Millennial Kingdom. A prophecy that will be fulfilled when Jesus Christ returns.

Isaiah 19:5-7

The waters from the sea will dry up,

And the river will be parched and dry.

The canals will emit a stench,

The streams of Egypt will thin out and dry up;

The reeds and rushes will rot away.

The bulrushes by the Nile, by the edge of the Nile

And all the sown fields by the Nile

Will become dry, be driven away, and be no more.

This is part of a larger section of scripture in which God is describing what will happen to various nations. Isaiah 19:1 through 20:6 talks about Egypt. This is an amazing prophecy. It describes what God will do, including inciting the Egyptians to fight against Egyptians. However, in the end Egypt will repent and convert, and through God's grace become a part of Israel. That is amazing!

This entire section of prophecy is still future. The humanists are right, it has not been fulfilled, but it will be as the return of Jesus Christ draws near.

CONCLUSION: The humanists are right. There are some prophecies in the Bible that have not been fulfilled... because they describe a time that is still in our future… the time when Jesus Christ will return and establish His kingdom forever.

NEXT PROPHECY: The next prophecies the humanists attack are from the New Testament. They begin with Matthew 16:28 where Jesus tells his disciples: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” This is one many Christian question.

CHAPTER 66

NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECIES NOT FULFILLED

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: New Testament Prophecies Are Unfulfilled

In applying the Bible’s test for identifying false prophets, the conclusion is inescapable that Jesus was one of them. For example, he was wrong in predicting the world would end within the lifetime of his followers.

At Matthew 16:28, Jesus tells his disciples: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” The people who were standing there all died eventually, and they never saw Jesus return to establish a kingdom.

Similarly, Jesus is depicted at Mark 13:24-30 as listing signs that shall accompany the end of the world. These include the sun becoming darkened, the moon not giving any light, the stars of heaven falling, the son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory, and angels gathering the elect. Then Jesus announces: “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” His generation passed away long ago without the predicted events occurring.

The humanists seem to be relating the verses in Matthew and Mark to end times prophecies. Are these prophecies about the end times? Are Matthew 16:28 and Mark 13:24-30 even talking about the same thing?

Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. - Matthew 16:28

This is the last verse of chapter 16 in Matthew. What comes next? The transfiguration. This is a statement Jesus makes right before His transfiguration on the Mount of Olives. Jesus makes this same statement in Mark 9:1, right before Mark's description of the transfiguration.

And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power. - Mark 9:1

We see that Matthew 16:28 is not related to Mark 13:24-30, but to Mark 9:1. The two verses the humanist references were spoken at two different times, in two different circumstances. If we are going to understand them correctly, we need to look at each of them in their context.

Matthew 16:28

The humanists have correctly quoted this verse as a part of their accusation. You can read it on the previous page. To start, we should note that the Greek word (Strong's 932) translated as "kingdom" also has the meaning of "sovereignty," "royal splendor" or "royal power."

In both Matthew and Mark these words of Jesus are not said in an end-times context, but in the context of teaching his disciples and us, about the cost of following Him. You could say that it was somewhat of a depressing lesson. "Deny yourself, and take up your cross." Jesus is talking about very serious pain. Then Jesus goes on to say they will die, "whoever wishes to save his life will lose it." This is tough news for His followers. Then He offers encouragement, some of them will see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (His royal splendor). In less than a week the prophecy is fulfilled. Some—Peter, James and John—witness the glory of His kingdom and His royal splendor at His transfiguration at the transfiguration.

Now let’s look at Mark 13, which is talking about something entirely different.

Mark 13:24-30

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. (verses 24-27)

Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (verses 28-30)

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come. (verses 31-33)

The key question here is to whom does "this generation" that will not pass away refer to?

We can get that answer by starting with another question. Why is Jesus telling His disciples these things? That will give us the context. The answer is, because they asked this question:

Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled? - Mark 13:4

Jesus answers as though He was talking to the people who will be alive during the future times He is describing. No one knows when that time will come. As far as the disciples were concerned, it might be within the next couple of years. As far as we are concerned, it could be within the next couple of years or even months. No one knows. Later in Mark 13 Jesus says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

However, as the time for His return approaches there will be definite signs. The people living at that time will see those signs. The disciples asked, “What will be the signs…” so Jesus is describing the signs from the perspective of the people who will actually see them. Therefore, if we see these signs, we will know His return is near... and it is THAT generation who will not pass away until those things come to pass. In other words, Jesus is saying, "Once people begin to see these signs, My return is very close."

So "this generation" does not refer to the disciples Jesus is teaching at that moment. They will not see these signs. Jesus is referring to the people who will see the signs. Once the signs He is describing begin, the people of that generation will see His return. That means this is a prophecy about the future we have not yet seen.

CONCLUSION: The verses the humanist’s reference are talking about two different things. Once you know that, and what the topics are, they make sense. The prophecy in Mathew 16 has already been fulfilled and the one in Mark 13 will be fulfilled as the return of Jesus draws near.

NEXT PROPHECY: The humanist claims Jesus erred in predicting the number of nights would be in the tomb. However, we cannot apply today’s Western concepts of time to people in an Eastern culture 2000 years ago. How days and nights were counted was different in Jesus' day.

CHAPTER 67

DID JESUS MAKE A MISTAKE

ABOUT HIS TIME IN THE TOMB?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: Jesus also erred in predicting the amount of time he would be in the tomb. At Matthew 12:40 he teaches: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Mark 15:42-45 shows that Jesus died on a Friday afternoon. But Mark 16:9 and Matthew 28:1 tell us he left the tomb sometime on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Either way, the amount of time was less than three nights.

This may be one of the most difficult of the supposed failed prophecies in the Bible. Not because it is actually a contradiction, but because of cultural differences affecting how we think about time. Our Euro-American culture is linear and precise when it comes to time. However, if you have traveled in Africa, South America, Asia or the Middle East you cannot help but notice that, even today, time has different levels of importance depending on where you are. Not everybody thinks about time the same way.

What Was a Day?

For Jews in Jerusalem, a day began at sunset. Each day was 24 hours, beginning at sunset. For Jews in Galilee a day began at sunrise, and each 24-hour day began at sunrise. In most cases in the Bible the Jerusalem method was used to count days.

How Were Days Counted?

Days were counted as 1, 2, 3... etc. HOWEVER, as we do today, they used idioms when talking about time, and they were more flexible in accounting for time than we are today.  However, even today we are not precise in how we count days:

For example, if you drive to a National Park and start a hike on Friday afternoon, then hiked all day Saturday, and finished your hike and returned to your car early Sunday afternoon, what is that called? A three-day hike. You do not need to hike for all 24 hours of all three days for it to be called a three-day hike.

Motels charge by the night. If you arrive at your motel at 5:30 PM, and check out at 3:15 PM the next day, how many nights do you pay for? You stayed less than 24 hours, but you left after the 11:00 AM checkout time. So you will be charged for two nights.

Are these contradictions? No. It is just that our normal language can be somewhat "loose" when talking about time. That is not a problem; we understand what is said based on the context. It was the same in Jesus' day... except that time was even less important than it is in our American culture today, so they were even more flexible in their language of time.

For example, saying "three days and three nights" was a common idiom similar to the present-day example of a three-day hike. It generally meant part of a day, a full 24-hour day, and part of another day.

Here are some examples from scripture provided by Apologetics Press: (www.tinyurl.com/ybsyhohl)

When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before the king uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16). The text goes on to tell us that Esther went in unto the king “on the third day”

When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, “Come back to me the third day”). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”

CONCLUSION: The Bible was written using the ordinary way people spoke at the time. There is no error here.

NEXT PROPHECY: in John 14:13-14 Jesus promises, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” However, people ask for things and Jesus does not deliver. What did Jesus actually mean when He said this? What does it mean to ask in the name of Jesus? We should answer this question before accusing the Bible of being in error. The answer is in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 68

WISH UPON JESUS?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: Another significant false prophecy is at John 14:13-14. Jesus promises: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” Everyone knows there have been millions of instances where Jesus failed to respond to Christians who asked for things in his name. And the graveyards are full of people who prayed to him for health.

As is the case with other incorrect statements in the Bible, false prophecies cast doubt on all biblical claims. If one verse in the Bible is wrong, it’s possible for many verses to be wrong.

The humanist is correct. If there is even one plainly false prophecy, or a promise that God "forgets" to fulfill, then we cannot trust the Bible at all. We would have no way to know what is true or false. So, the humanists came up with a huge list, hoping some people would believe that at least one Bible prophecy was in error.

BUT, what if every prophecy they bring up turns out to be true? They take their best shot and the Bible still stands. That is a powerful proof the Bible is true, and Jesus really is God and our Savior. If that is the case, will you believe? You have a terrible problem. Sin. You have disobeyed God and there are eternal consequences. Only Jesus can save you. Read the Gospel of John and trust Jesus today. Please do not wait.

John 14:13-14 - Wish Upon a Jesus

Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

It should be immediately apparent that what the humanists say is not true. Jesus is not a magic genie who grants your every wish. Just imagine, if everyone could wish for whatever they wanted, and Jesus granted every one of them. What a chaotic world we would have. It would be a mess! So what did Jesus actually mean?

To do something in the name of someone means to do what they would have done. For example, if a messenger proclaims, "In the name of the king, everyone is to have a day off." What does that mean? That the king wants everyone to have a day off, and he is giving them the day off. The messenger is speaking as a representative of the king. His words are the king's words and are to be obeyed just as if the messenger was the king.

To ask in the name of Jesus, is to speak as a representative of Jesus, asking for what He would want. That is actually a good thing, because what He wants is what is good and perfect.

What Does Jesus Want?

The Lord's Prayer gives us an example of what we should want and how we should pray. (Matthew 6:9-13).

Pray, then, in this way:

"Our Father who is in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

[For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]

What does Jesus want? What should we want? For what should we be praying? The answer to all three is the same. First, our prayers should focus on God and glorifying God. Pray that God will be honored and His kingdom will come. Then pray that what God wants will be done, everywhere and all the time.

Secondly, we can address our needs. Praying for our daily bread means to pray for, and trust God to provide for all our needs. Notice this is not wants... it is our needs. Then pray that God helps us to forgive those who sin against us, and that He helps us to avoid sin.

So what does it mean to pray and ask in His name? John MacArthur provides a good summary in the MacArthur Bible Commentary for John 14:13-14:

1) The believer's prayer should be for God's purposes and the kingdom, not selfish reasons

2) The believer's prayer should be on the basis of God's merits and not any personal merit or worthiness.

3) The believer's prayer should be in pursuit of God's glory alone.

CONCLUSION: Once we understand what "in His name” means, this promise becomes clear. It has nothing to do with what the humanists say (having our wishes granted), and everything to do with honoring and glorifying God.

NEXT: the humanist now claim the Bible makes inaccurate statements about history, and that historians and scholars have proved this. We are into a new category. Let's find out how well they do with that, starting in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 69

DID NOAH’S FLOOD REALLY HAPPEN?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: Inaccurate Statements about History

The Bible’s false statements about history also bolster the Humanist position. Historians and other scholars have exposed many of the Bible’s claims as historically inaccurate.

History and the Old Testament

Historians have long known that the biblical story of a worldwide flood is a myth. For instance, Andrew White says nineteenth-century Egyptologists found that Egypt had a flourishing civilization long before Noah, and no flood had ever interrupted it. [White, Vol. I, p. 257.]

Before we get started, notice the source of this accusation. If you have been reading these chapters in sequence, you will recognize our old "friend" Andrew White. He is a source who has proven to be unreliable and inaccurate. (If you have not done so yet, please read the appendix.)

The Global Flood (Noah's Flood)

The humanists claim historians know Noah's Flood is a myth. However, that is not true. Many historians, as well as geologists, recognize there was a flood and that it is an important part of our history. Who is right? This is a major topic that would take another book to examine all the evidence and answer all the questions[31].

Was there a global flood? Yes. If you take the time to look at the evidence... ALL of the evidence... without predetermining the answer you want. You will find the evidence supporting a global flood is overwhelming. Here are a couple of online resources:

- A brief article listing a few of the evidences for a global flood --     (www.tinyurl.com/nnqcwty)

- A longer article with more evidence for a global flood (www.tinyurl.com/y7u2gtkf)

Videos:

- Index to my 30 second videos showing evidence there was a global  flood: https://tinyurl.com/y6jlf9ao

- Evidence for Noah's Flood (www.tinyurl.com/yd7fd75r)

- Can Certain Geological Features be Explained by a Flood?

(www.tinyurl.com/ycua9mpb)

Here are a few examples of what you’ll see in the above resources. They include evidences such as:

- We see the same sediment layers extending across continents. Although a sediment layer may be given different names in various locations, geologically it is one layer, in some cases thousands of feet thick. Not just one, but multiple layers of sediment are transcontinental. The only type of event that could o this is a global flood.

- We see that sediments are layered in a pancaked fashion, one on top of the other, with flat lines separating the layers. If these were laid down over millions of years, the boundaries between layers would show evidence of erosion. A surface cannot remain exposed for millions of years and not be eroded and filled with vegetation. However, pancaked layers, with no evidence of vegetation, are exactly what we would expect to see as the result of a global flood.

- We see folded, curved, and bent sediment layers. Rock does not smoothly bend. It breaks. These folds had to have been made when the sediment was soft. Exactly what we would expect to see if there was a Biblical global flood.

Was There an Egyptian Civilization Before Noah?

No. This is a common myth based on a list from about 280 BC. It is a list of pharaohs and giving the number of years they reigned as recorded by the historian Manetho. Modern historians assumed each pharaoh ruled one after another. This resulted in a very long history for ancient Egypt. However, there are some major problems with this list:

1) We now know there were geographically different Egyptian kingdoms at various times— they are known as the Upper Kingdom, and the Middle Kingdom (Golden Age) or Lower Kingdom. At times there were multiple Pharaohs ruling in separate kingdoms at the same time. So not all names on the list were consecutive.

2) At times fathers and sons reigned together for a long time. We see this common practice in other ancient civilizations. So some of the names and durations are simultaneous, not consecutive.

3) Egyptian dating is thought to be based on dynasties, but there are overlapping dynasties.

4) The purpose of the list created by Manethos was not to provide an accurate record. Its purpose was to glorify Egypt.

Called Aigyptiaka” (‘On things Egyptian’) it was written for the new Ptolemaic ruling dynasty, just as a near contemporary Babylonian, Berossos, wrote a history of Babylon for the new Seleukid dynasty. Each historian was setting out to prove that his country was the oldest, a matter of prestige to the new Macedonian rulers. - Quote from the World History web site. (www.tinyurl.com/ybawnxdu)

5) The list created by Manethos is inconsistent, repeats pharaohs, omits some rulers, and different copies of the Manethos list conflict with each other.

As his work survives, it is hopelessly garbled in places. But, despite all the problems associated with dynastic divisions, Manetho’s work is so ingrained in Egyptology that it is now impossible to get rid of it. - Quote from the World History web site, www.tinyurl.com/ ybawnxdu

6) Egyptian chronology has been found to be inconsistent with ancient Assyrian and Hittite records, another indication it is not accurate.

Here is a link to an article that discusses some of the other problems and issues with dating Ancient Egypt. Yes, there are many more: www.tinyurl.com/ydzcyegd

Although the commonly held belief among non-historians is that Egyptian civilization goes back to 5,000 BC, that belief is based on myth unsupported by the historical evidence.

CONCLUSION: Thinking that Noah's flood did not happen is just wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists and humanists. Billions of years, without a global flood, is required for evolution to be true. However, both the Bible and the physical evidence support the fact that Noah's global flood was real.

NEXT: the next historical attack on the Bible is a claim that the exodus from Egypt never happened. Does a lack of ancient records prove that something did not happen? Let's find out in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 70

DID THE EXODUS REALLY HAPPEN?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: The book of Exodus claims to contain a historical record of the escape of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. But historians and archaeologists have been unable to verify any of the events described in the book. No known Egyptian records refer to the biblical Moses, the devastating plagues God supposedly inflicted on the country, the escape of the Hebrew slaves, or the drowning of the Egyptian army. Further, White tells us[53] the records contained on Egyptian monuments show that the pharaoh ruling at the time of the alleged escape of the Jews was certainly not overwhelmed in the Red Sea.

[53] White, Volume II, page 375

Principles of Human Behavior

When you have an absolute monarch who desires to be known as an infallible god... and he is the one commissioning the writing of the historical records of his reign (he rewards or beheads the historians, based on what they write), what do you get? A very favorable historical record.

So, if you lose a battle, no record is made of that battle, unless, of course, the winning side makes a record (Israel did make a record of the Exodus).

If you make a bad decision... no record is made of that decision... unless, of course, someone else makes a record (Israel did make a record of the plagues that came on Egypt).

If a certain group of people causes a lot of embarrassing incidents... you wipe them out of your records and all past records, and no one knows they ever existed... unless, of course, those people make a record of their own (Israel did make a record of their time in Egypt).

What we have is an Egyptian absolute ruler with every incentive to eliminate all evidence that Israel ever was in Egypt. AND eliminate all Egyptian records of the exodus. Of course, he is likely to miss some records (and he did), such as records of slave sales that include a lot of Hebrew names. However, the pharaoh had the ability to wipe the Hebrews out of Egypt's history.

The purpose of ancient records was not to record history. Their purpose was to glorify the current ruler, and intimidate potential enemies. Accuracy and completeness were not part of the plan.

Principles of Archeology

When the Hebrews came into the land of Egypt they were given land in Goshen. What is Goshen like?

Dry places are best for preserving artifacts, especially written records. Goshen is located on the eastern side of the Nile delta. It is wet, so archeological objects, in particular papyrus, deteriorate relatively quickly, The Hebrews made their buildings from mud bricks, which do not survive (without regular maintenance) in wet environments. However, some Hebrew style buildings (four rooms with a courtyard) have been discovered in Goshen.

It makes sense that there is not much physical evidence. However, even a total lack of evidence in our present time would not prove the Hebrews were not in Egypt as described in the Bible. A lack of available evidence may be because the evidence did not survive the millennia. However, that is not the case. There is sufficient evidence the Hebrews were present in Goshen around the time of the Exodus. For more information go to the All About Archeology web site (www.tinyurl.com/y8t7adz2).

In addition, the Hebrews were not known as Israel nor even as "Hebrews" at that time. When they entered Egypt they were a family of 70 people from Canaan. They were not a nation and just barely a tribe. It appears the Egyptians just lumped them together with Canaanites and Asiatics, with little to distinguish Israel's family from other Canaanites.

Egyptians Were Not Originally Called Egyptians

People living in what we now call Egypt were not originally referred to as Egyptians. They were Mizraim.

Mizraim was a person, and the progenitor of the Egyptians. Thus, it is not surprising that the present local name for Egypt is “Misr” which is derived from Mizraim. So today in Egypt we have the Misr Bank, the Misr Insurance Company, and the Misr Travel Agency. - Quote From Answers in Genesis (www.tinyurl.com/y7f9z6ck).

Who was Mizraim? He was the son of Ham and grandson of Noah. The grandson of Noah founded Egypt, and that means all of its history completely takes place after the global flood.

Was Pharaoh Killed

Since Andrew White is the source of the claim that the Pharaoh at the time of the exodus was not killed in the Red Sea, I was just going to ignore this claim. However, let’s look at what White wrote:

These modern researche[r]s have also shown that some of the most important features in the legends can not possibly be reconciled with the records of the monuments; for example, that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was certainly not overwhelmed in the Red Sea. As to the supernatural features of the Hebrew relations with Egypt, even the most devoted apologists have become discreetly silent. (page 375)

He does not name the “modern researchers” to whom he is referring. There are no references. Nothing to show his sources for this information. It is all pulled out of thin air.

However, here’s an important question we should ask: After reading this far, you should have thought of this. What does scripture actually say? Does the Bible say Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea? Here is what Exodus 15:19 says:

When Pharaoh’s horses, chariots and horsemen went into the sea, the Lord brought the waters of the sea back over them…

The Bible does not say Pharaoh was killed, nor does it say anyone else (for example, foot soldiers) was killed. Just those leading the charge, the horses and horsemen. The humanist’s claim, based on Andrew White, is a false statement. It is a strawman attack against something the Bible never said. Remember if it comes from Andrew White, do not trust it. And never neglect to start by checking what scripture actually says.

CONCLUSION: A claim that Noah's flood did not happen is wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists and humanists. Deep time without a global flood are required for evolution to be true. However, both the Bible and the physical evidence support the fact that Noah's global flood was real.

NEXT CLAIM: now we get to one of my favorite books in the Bible, Esther. The claim is that there are no historical records, outside of the Bible, that record Xerxes having a Jewish queen. Esther and Daniel are the two books most commonly attacked by humanists. Why? Because they provide powerful evidence God is real. In the next chapter we'll take a look at this wonderful little book.

CHAPTER 71

IS THE STORY OF ESTHER HISTORICAL?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS: The book of Esther purports to describe how a young Jewish girl named Esther was chosen by the Persian king Xerxes I to be queen after he had divorced Vashti. Although historians know a great deal about Xerxes I, there is no record that he had a Jewish queen named Esther or was married to Vashti.

Additionally, the book of Esther describes the Persian Empire as having 127 provinces, but historians maintain there was no such division of the empire. Also contrary to the book of Esther, historians assure us Xerxes did not order Jews in his territories to attack his Persian subjects.

I love the book of Esther. I like it so much that I wrote a commentary about Esther called "The Presence of God." I encourage you to read it. Its available on Amazon.

The humanists include three references to Stephen L. Harris’, Understanding the Bible as the source of their information about Esther. He is similar to Andrew White. He is opposed to Christianity, anti-Bible, and is not afraid to make up things to support his accusations. His book is not about understanding the Bible. It is about tearing down the Bible and replacing it with humanism. It is not a reliable reference, but we will go with what the humanists have written and answer their accusations anyway.

Historical Silence Does Not Mean They Did Not Exist

If a place or person does not show up in secular historical records, does that mean they did not exist? This is an argument from silence, and it is not valid.

Arguments from silence have not fared well when used against the Bible. Historians said the Bible was wrong because there was no historical evidence, outside of the Bible, that Hittites ever existed... then the evidence turned up. They were wrong. There was no evidence that Sodom existed. Then in 2015 archeologists announced that Sodom had been found. Historians said that there was no evidence the city of Jericho existed at the time Joshua entered the Promised Land. Then in the late 1980's archeologists discovered they had been looking for the wrong kind of pottery, and looking in the wrong places... Jericho had been found!

Saying there are no historical records (except for the Bible) does not mean the person or place does not exist. All it just means is that we have not found a secular historical record concerning that person or place, and they are not willing to trust the Bible as being historically accurate.

That is an interesting statement... not willing to trust the Bible. If they find just one broken clay tile with an inscription giving a person's name, “Eureka!” They cry. “We know for sure that person existed." If a fragment of a copy of one ancient document is found with a person's name on it, "Eureka!” They shout. “We have proof that person existed." However, the document that has more ancient copies available than any other... by far... and that has proven to be reliable over and over... the Bible, is not considered to be reliable or sufficient on its own. An argument from silence is considered stronger evidence against the testimony of the most reliable ancient document we have... the Bible. That is desperation. Desperation driven by a desire to not be accountable to the God who created them.

Let's Look at Esther and Vashti

They are correct, there is no evidence outside of the Bible, documenting that a woman named "Esther" was a queen of Persia. However, this type of argument from silence does not provide any proof that there was no Queen Esther, nor does it take into consideration that she may have had a different Persian name.

There is some evidence concerning Vashti. For example, the Greek historian Herodotus associates the name Amesrtis with Vashti. He recorded that Amesrtis was the wife of Ahasuerus, also known as Xerxes.

On the other hand, there are very good reasons why, 2500 years later, history may seem to be silent concerning the people described in the book of Esther. How important was Queen Esther to the royalty of Persia? Political circumstances resulted in their selecting a queen from outside the royal family. Doing that was unheard of, but they had no choice. The Bible account records that, after becoming queen Esther did not spend much time with Xerxes. She was an outsider, and probably kept as an outsider. Since the royal families controlled what was recorded for history, it is likely that she would just be left out... sort of a black sheep that nobody talked about.

What about Vashti? Although she was a very capable and skilled queen, Vashti embarrassed the king, and caused a major problem for the extended royal family. It is very likely that the royal family was not interested in including her in the royal records either. Esther and Vashti? That was a troubled time that was embarrassing for us royals. We just need to forget about them.

127 Persian Provinces

The humanists claim “there was no such division.”  It is difficult to know what they are claiming. Is it that the Persian Empire was not divided into provinces? Is it that the number 127 is not correct? There is no way to know what the humanists are claiming, making this an invalid claim.

A likely possibility is that they are referring to the Greek historian Herodotus recording that there were 20 satrapies. Some claim that this contradicts the 127 provinces in Esther. However, there are many problems with that claim. For example, the accuracy of the Heroditus list is in doubt:

“This list [Herodotus] continues to be claimed as the basic source for the reconstruction of satrapal administration. But the chaotic arrangement of the nomoi list, which conflicts with geographic reality, its over-emphasis on the western regions, which shows that Herodotus had no authentic source at his disposal, and the fact that the data in the paragraphs in question are in conflict with all other sources, Greek and Latin texts included, force us to take a different methodological approach.” - The Encyclopedia Iranica (www.tinyurl.com/ycmmzpxk)

On the other hand, based on the language and the great amount of detail provided in Esther, it appears only someone highly placed within the Persian government at the time could only have written the book of Esther. That person would not have made an error in the number of provinces.

However, what if the Esther story was a fabrication? Only a fool would give a specific number they did not know for sure. The number of provinces is completely incidental to the story and of no consequence. If Esther were a fabrication, the writer would have been a fool to include this detail.

In addition, since Esther is the foundation of a major festival, and it was publicly circulated shortly after the events it reports happened, an error such as this would have destroyed the validity of the festival. Keep in mind, there were eyewitnesses who would have quickly pointed out this error and ended the fiction.

If we take a realistic look at this, there is a logical reason for this type of difference in the number of provinces. The Encyclopedia Iranica (www.tinyurl.com/ycmmzpxk) points out that there is confusion about the number of satrapies, and there was most likely a hierarchical governmental structure that subdivided the satrapies into provinces.

These structures in turn determined the hierarchical construction of the satrapal system which, remaining essentially unchanged, proved a successful instrument of administration throughout the entire Achaemenid period. – Encylopedia Iranica

With satrapies being the size of countries, it makes sense that they were sub-divided into what scripture refers to as provinces. The historical record indicates there were even smaller divisions. As far as the number, the Encyclopeia Iranica states:

To document the extent of the empire completely, it would be quite sufficient to enumerate all provinces of one specific level of the administrative hierarchy.

A reasonable assumption is that the author of Esther chose to document the extent of the empire at a level of government different from that used by Herodotus.

Xerxes Ordered the Jews to Attack His Persian Subjects

We have another misrepresentation of scripture. The Bible does not say Xerxes ordered the Jews to attack his Persian subjects. In fact, many of the Persians, including all of the Persian government officials[32], joined with the Jews to defend them against their enemies. These are the facts.

#1 - The Jews had permission to use weapons to defend themselves, and destroy and kill anyone who might attack them. The Jews were not ordered to attack all Persians. They were given the right to defend themselves.

#2 – The Bible does not say the Persians wanted to destroy the Jews. Haman, who was an Agagite, was the source of the plan to destroy all Jews. The Agagites were a group of people who had been Israel's mortal enemies for over 500 years.

#3 - The Jews were so inconsequential to the Empire that Xerxes signed a decree that they all be killed with very little thought... a decree presented to him along with the offer of a huge bribe. For this to become public knowledge, especially the part about the bribe, would be disastrous. So it is highly likely that minimal records were made and those (if there were any records at all) may not have survived the passing of millennia. An argument from silence, such as the humanists make here, is not valid.

How Do We Know Esther Is True History?

There is powerful evidence that the story in Esther is true.

The events described in Esther resulted in the Jewish Festival of Purim. That festival began within 15 to 20 years after the events in Esther took place (www.GotQuestions.org). People who had lived through the events described in Esther were still alive. That means we have a major festival, based on the account in the book of Esther, celebrating the salvation of the Jews from total annihilation, that began within the lifetimes of the people who experienced the events described in the book. Many of the events described in Esther took place publically, such as the hanging of Haman. They were not something that happened within the private confines of the palace, for example, with few witnesses. If the story of Esther were not true, it would have been immediately obvious. There were too many eyewitness.

The timeline in which all this happened, and was documented, testifies that the main part of the story of Esther must be true.

CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that any of the claims against the book of Esther are valid. On the other hand, there is strong circumstantial evidence that supports Esther as being a true and accurate history.

NEXT CLAIM: Historians supposedly tell us Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar and was never king

CHAPTER 72

WAS BELSHAZZAR KING?

HUMANIST'S ACCUSATIONS: The book of Daniel describes events that supposedly happened during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. The fifth chapter states that Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, was succeeded on the throne by his son Belshazzar. But historians tell us Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar and was never king.

The book of Daniel also says one “Darius the Mede” captured Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. In contrast, historians know that Cyrus of Persia took Babylon.

Once again the humanist is making statements that are not true. Daniel chapter five is the story of Belshazzar's feast and the night Babylon fell to Medo-Persia. Here is the scripture the humanists reference:

When Belshazzar tasted the wine, he gave orders to bring the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. - Daniel 5:2

Scripture refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar. Nebuchadnezzar was the most famous king of Babylon, and it is normal to refer to him as the “father” of his grandchildren. We see this practice throughout the history of the Middle East.

Here is a list of Babylonian kings who ruled during Daniel's lifetime:

Nebuchadnezzar II (605 – 562 BC)

Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) (562 – 560 BC)

Neriglissar (560 – 556 BC - Son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar II

Labashi-Marduk 556 BC Son of Neriglissar

Nabonidus & his son Belshazzar (556-539 BC)

Nabonidus co-ruled with his son Belshazzar. We learn about Nabonidus and Belshazzar from the Nabonidus Chronicle, an ancient secular historical record. It describes Belshazzar as a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, most likely through his mother's side of the family.

Why His Mother’s Side?

During the feast described in Daniel chapter five the disembodied fingers of a hand wrote on the wall. However, no one could read the writing. The king was terrified and none of his advisors knew what to do. At that moment "the queen," most likely the queen mother, walks in. This must be Belshazzar's mother--no one else could walk in on the king like that. Not even his wife. Here is the rest of the story as told in Daniel 5:10-11

The queen entered the banquet hall because of the words of the king and his nobles; the queen spoke and said, “O king, live forever! Do not let your thoughts alarm you or your face be pale. There is a man in your kingdom in whom is a spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father, illumination, insight and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him. And King Nebuchadnezzar, your father, your father the king, appointed him chief of the magicians, conjurers, Chaldeans and diviners.

Daniel was very close to king Nebuchadnezzar. However, when Nebuchadnezzar died Daniel went into obscurity. He was forgotten. Now, 36 years later, Daniel is very old and someone remembers him... someone who knew Daniel personally. That would have to be someone in the royal family, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and the mother of Belshazzar.

The Encyclopedia Britannica writes:

Though he is referred to in the Book of Daniel as the son of Nebuchadrezzar, the Babylonian inscriptions indicate that he was in fact the eldest son of Nabonidus, who was king of Babylon from 555 to 539, and of Nitocris, who was perhaps a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. When Nabonidus went into exile (550), he entrusted Belshazzar with the throne and the major part of his army.

(www.tinyurl.com/yadeucque)

In ancient cultures, as well as some cultures today, the term "son of" may be applied to any male descendent, both direct sons and grandsons. That is what is done here.

Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian

The city of Babylon, and thus the Babylonian empire was defeated on the night of Belshazzar feast. The Medo-Persians were at the gates of Babylon, but the king felt secure. The city walls were high and so thick that no one could breach those walls. There was no way in. Belshazzar was right, it was impossible to get through or over the walls, but the Medo-Persians went under them.

The city's water supply was a river. The huge walls spanned the river, closing off that way into the city. However, the Medo-Persians went upstream and damned the river, drying it up. This allowed their army to walk into the city on the dry riverbed, and conquer it without a battle.

At the time of Babylon's fall, the Persians, under Cyrus, had come to dominate the Medo-Persian Empire. Soon it would be simply the Persian Empire, with the Medes serving the Persians. The leader of the Medes, Darius, was the leader who captured Babylon. However, as is still true today, the credit went to the top man, Cyrus... even though he was not present when Babylon fell. Daniel was there and saw Darius conquer the city. That is why he writes that Darius the Mede conquered Babylon. However, history, as it always does, gives credit to the top leader of the empire, Cyrus.

CONCLUSION: Once you know the rest of the story, you can see there is no error in the way the Bible records history in the book of Daniel.

Next, the humanists take us to the New Testament:

NEXT CLAIM: Another common claim about a historical error in the Bible has to do with the census mentioned in the second chapter of Luke. What is interesting is that the humanist’s argument against there being a Roman census is simply stating, they certainly would not do something like that. Huh? That is not rational nor logical. It is just pulling a statement out of thin air. Oh well, we will look at it in more detail in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 73

WAS THERE A ROMAN CENSUS?

HUMANIST'S CLAIMS ABOUT: History and the New Testament

In the New Testament, the second chapter of Luke asserts that shortly before the birth of Jesus, the emperor Augustus ordered a census throughout the Roman world. Luke claims that every person had to travel to the town of his ancestors for the census to be taken. He identifies the census as the reason for Joseph and Mary traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is said to have been born.

In his book Gospel Fictions, Randall Helms says this type of census was never taken in the history of the Roman Empire. He points out it’s ridiculous to think the practical Romans would require millions of people to travel enormous distances – to towns of long-deceased ancestors – merely to sign a tax form. Likewise, in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, Isaac Asimov affirms that the Romans would certainly arrange no such census.

Let's start with a little background on the referenced Randall Helms book: In chapter three, called “Nativity Legends," Helms writes:

We must remember that for the Christian generation that produced our Gospels, the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament, and a particular version thereof, the Greek Septuagint. But, before they wrote the New Testament, Christians created another entirely new book, the Old Testament, turning the Septuagint into a book about Jesus by remarkably audacious and creative interpretation. (page 53).

Here we go again. Another fiction writer who makes up things to support his accusations against the Bible. For example, open your Bible. In the front will be a section describing the sources used for translation. In most cases the Old Testament is translated from one of the BIBLICA HEBRAICA texts, with some use of other sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are ancient Jewish copies of the Old Testament, with the Dead Sea scrolls pre-dating New Testament times.

Yes, about 2/3 of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament come from the Septuagint. Why? Because the language of their readers was Greek. It is the same reason I quote from an English language translation of the Bible. You read English. Helms statement above is pure fiction.

What is the main accusation? "It's ridiculous to think the Romans would require millions of people to travel enormous distances." This accusation is just an assertion saying that some atheists think it is ridiculous. It is not based on historical facts. We can stop here. There is nothing here. Just opinion. However, let's take a few moments and look at some facts. I love facts:

First, a little history about Rome. The Roman Republic (508 BC to 27 BC) became the Roman Empire in the year 27 BC. According to the Roman Empire web site, the census in the Roman Republic was very important:

Every five years, each male Roman citizen had to register in Rome for the census. In this he had to declare his family, wife, children, slaves and riches. Should he fail to do this, his possessions would be confiscated and he would be sold into slavery. Throughout the entire republican era, registration in the census was the only way that a Roman could ensure that his identity and status as a citizen were recognized. (www.tinyurl.com/y98eqtg)

This type of census was historically common in Rome. Biblical scholar Harold Hoehner writes:

“…a papyrus dated to A.D. 104, records an Egyptian prefect who ordered Egyptians to return to their ancestral homes so that a census could be taken. In first century Rome, since the Jews’ property was linked to their fathers (i.e. patriarchal), the Romans would certainly have allowed them the custom of laying claim to their family estate for taxation.” - Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ 1977, page 15.

Let's open the book the humanist’s expert, Randall Helms, wrote and see what he said about this:

In his anxiety to relate the Galilean upbringing with the supposed Bethlehem birth, Luke confused his facts. Indeed Luke's anxiety has involved him in some real absurdities, like the needless ninety-mile journey of a woman in her last days of pregnancy—for it was the Davidic Joseph who supposedly had to be registered in the ancestral village, not the Levitical Mary. - Randall Helms, Gospel Fictions, 1989, page 59.

Stop here. Mary was not a Levite, she was of the Davidic line through Nathan. So we have another fiction. Also, Mary was not necessarily in her last days of pregnancy. That is a common myth even some Christians believe. What does scripture say? Joseph and Mary get to Bethlehem, and... “While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.” (Luke 2:6) Scripture does not say how long it was after they arrived until she gave birth. (Go to www.tinyurl.com/y88n5ul8 for details about what happened in Bethlehem. Be sure to watch the video.) Let's continue with what Helms' writes:

Worse yet, Luke has been forced to contrive a universal dislocation for a simple tax registration: who could imagine the efficient Romans requiring millions in the empire to journey scores or hundreds of miles to the villages of millennium-old ancestors merely to sign a tax form! Needless to say, no such event happened in the history of the Roman Empire." - Randall Helms, Gospel Fictions, 1989, pages 59 & 60.

What do we have? Fiction and opinion. The picture of "millions" being dislocated is pure fiction. People in those days did not travel much, nor move from their ancestral homes. They typically stayed together in family groups. The vast majority of people were already where they needed to be for the census. Another important fact is that the census was a tax census, it involved more than signing your name on a tax form. That is yet another humanist fiction.

Consider this, what is described in Luke seems to be the height of efficiency. A major problem with taking a census are the people who do move around. In those days, taking a census could take many months at best... and more likely a year or two. How can you ensure everyone is counted, and only counted once? You specify the place where they will be counted. Their ancestral home is the only place that makes sense.

Only the men had to register. So why did Mary go? Where are they going? To the family home of both Joseph and Mary. Of course she wanted to go home. Of course she wanted to have the baby with her family there. Where did they go after the baby was born? They did not go anywhere. They stayed in Bethlehem. Their family was there and that was where they wanted to be. Of course Mary went to Bethlehem with Joseph. This was not just a trip for the census, they moved there[33].

CONCLUSION: The humanist’s base their version of history on fiction created to provide a way to attack the Bible. It has no historical support. Nor does it reflect human nature (the desire to be with family, for example).

NEXT CLAIM: The next claim against the Bible gets into a big topic, the age of the earth. Is it about 6,000 years or billions of years?

CHAPTER 74

WHAT IS THE AGE OF THE EARTH?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: The third chapter of Luke contains a genealogy tracing Christ’s ancestry back only 76 generations to Adam. According to Genesis chapter 1, Adam was created along with the rest of the universe during the course of one week.

The Bible thus views the human race and the universe as having existed for a relatively short period, probably no more than several thousand years. In fact, for many centuries the orthodox Christian position – to doubt which was to risk damnation – was that the creation took place sometime between four and six thousand years before Christ’s birth.

Historians and scientists give a much longer historical record. They say the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old, the earth’s age is approximately 4.6 billion years, and humans evolved from ape-like ancestors during the last few million years

The Humanist Got One Thing Right!

It is good the humanists can see that the Bible plainly teaches the earth is about 6,000 years old. Many Christians do not see that, and try to twist scripture to fit millions of years into Genesis In addition, even the plain scientific facts point to the earth being no more than about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, with the evidence supporting a young earth growing almost weekly.

Although they should be using the genealogies in Genesis chapters 1-11 instead of Jesus' genealogy, they come to the right conclusion about what the Bible implies... that the earth is thousands not millions of years old. They did get something wrong, however. Christians do not risk damnation for believing in deep time, and never have. It is not a salvation issue.

This is a major topic with a huge amount of evidence supporting a young earth. Much more than I can discuss here[34]. Notice that the humanists provide no proof of their claim. I could just reply by saying, “Humanists, you are wrong. The earth is about 6 thousand years old, and God created every kind of life during the first six days.” With that statement I have done as much as they have in their accusation, and have completely countered it. A general rule of thumb is that if you make an assertion, you need to support that assertion. The humanists rarely do that.

Why do humanists believe the earth is billions of years old? Because, billions of years are required for the magic of evolution to work. HOWEVER, based on science and mathematics, even billions of years is not enough time for the “forces” of random chance and natural selection to create life from non-life. Unfortunately for humanists, it’s impossible to stretch the age of the earth any further, so 4-1/2 billion years is the best they can do.

What is the primary “scientific” evidence used to come up with this age? Radiometric dating. This involves using the known decay rates of long-lived radioactive materials. The problem with this is that, although we are very good at measuring radioactive decay products, many assumptions need to be made in order to arrive at a date. However, we do not need to get into the geology and physics of radiometric dating, there is an easier way to show radiometric dating is not accurate.

As an engineer, I learned that my instruments must be calibrated against a known standard. Yes, we can measure radioactive decay rates and daughter isotopes very accurately using calibrated instruments. However, that does not calibrate the system used to measure the age of rocks. The entire system used to date rocks must be calibrated using rocks of known ages. For example, date the rocks that came from Mt. St. Helens in 1980. We know when those rocks formed, and so the dating should give us a very young age.

Have Mt. St. Helens rocks been dated? Yes. And radiometric dating failed this calibration test. Here are the results of dating a variety of rocks of known ages:

- Mt. St. Helens rocks are dated as much as 2.8 million years old.[35]

- Mt. Etna rocks are dated as 25 million years old (erupted 2,100 years ago)

- Haulalai Basalt (Hawaii), erupted 200 years ago, and is dated to be 1.4 to 22 million years old.

- A lava flow the goes over the lip of the Grand Canyon, and was observed by Native Americans when it erupted, using radioactive dating methods it is dated to be 1.3 billion years old, much older than lava flows it covers.

There are many other evidences that the earth is thousands, not billions of years old. I suggest the following web articles:

- The End of Long Age Radiometric Dating:

www.tinyurl.com/y9oh4tkg

- The Age of the Earth by Don Batten:

www.tinyurl.com/yd6ppth4

- Age of the Earth:  www.tinyurl.com/ybop9umu

- Ten Best Evidences for a Young Earth:

www.tinyurl.com/m94deeu

- Evidence for a Young World: www.tinyurl.com/kpngfj9

Videos

Watch my video on YouTube: www.tinyurl.com/yap58pfv and this video by Creation ministries International: “How old is the Earth?” www.tinyurl.com/ycf43mfg

CONCLUSION: The humanists have presented nothing to support their claim, so there is nothing to refute. In addition, I have shown that the primary method for measuring the age of the earth, radioactive dating, is unreliable.

NEXT CLAIM: We go back to a historical accusation, this time about Herod attempting to kill the Messiah. It is another empty humanist argument from silence. The next chapter explains why.

CHAPTER 75

WHY DIDN’T HEROD’S KILLING BABIES

MAKE THE NEWS?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: Matthew chapter 2 avers that shortly after the birth of Jesus, King Herod ordered the massacre of all male children two years of age or under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. In the book of Luke, which contains the only other New Testament story of Jesus’ birth, there is no mention of this horribly cruel order. It’s also not recorded in any secular histories from the time – not even by writers who carefully described many far less wicked deeds of Herod. The lack of corroboration means Matthew’s account was fabricated.

The humanist accusation is that this "slaughter of the innocents" is not recorded in secular history, so it must not have happened. However, this is an argument from secular silence, and as such is not necessarily a valid argument. The fact is, history is not silent on this. It was recorded in a reliable historical document, the Bible.

Babies in Bethlehem Slaughtered!

Herod Orders All Babies Under Two Years Old Killed!

That might be the headline in the Jerusalem Post today, if King Herod's slaughter of the babies in Bethlehem had happened today. However, Jerusalem 2,000 years ago was a different place... a much different place.

This was such an atrocious event (to us), why is there no record of this slaughter? Because, at the time, it was not significant. Here is why:

How Many Babies Were Killed?

Bethlehem was a small village of, at most, 300 people. That means there were, at most, six or seven babies two years old and under. King Herod ordering seven babies killed was no big deal. It was tragic for those families. However, for Herod it was just part of another normal day.

What Type of Person Was Herod?

I will quote from the Associates for Biblical Research web site (www.tinyurl.com/ny9zgtk).

Unfortunately archaeologists have yet to excavate the archives of the Jerusalem Post from the year 4 BC! Nor does the first century AD Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus record this event in any of his writings. Even though secular history is silent on this event it does not mean it did not occur. When the life of Herod the Great is examined, this event is very consistent with his character and actions.

Historians explained a recurring pattern in the life of Herod. He would hear a rumor that somebody was going to bump him off and take over his throne, but Herod would kill that person first. He would then go into depression. After awhile he would come out of his depression and would build, build, build. He would hear another rumor and would kill that person, then go into another depression. After awhile he would come out of this depression and would build, build, build. This cycle repeated itself a number of times in which numerous people were killed, including one of his ten wives as well as three of his sons!

Five days before he died, Herod executed his oldest son Antipater (Antiquities 17:187; LCL 8:457-459). During that time period he also executed, by burning alive, two leading rabbis and then executed their students for participating in the “eagle affair” in the Temple (Antiquities 17:149-167; LCL 8:439-449; Wars 1:655; LCL 2:311).

In other words, Herod had no problem with casually killing anyone who might threaten his throne. He had people killed, even his own family members, without a second thought.

Paul L. Maier has pointed out, “Josephus wrote for a Greco-Roman audience, which would have little concern for infant deaths. Greeks regularly practiced infanticide as a kind of birth control, particularly in Sparta, while the Roman father had the right not to lift his baby off the floor after birth, letting it die” (1998:179).

(www.tinyurl.com/ny9zgtk).

These are just a few quotes from an excellent article that thoroughly examines this issue. Use the above link to read the entire article.

By the way, I was wondering if you heard the news about the slaughter of women and babies that took place recently. Over 160 people were massacred as they ran from their homes in West Mosal this past June (2017). The news just came out today, December 23, 2017. You would think that such a slaughter of innocent people would have made headlines around the world. You would think that such an atrocity would result in a worldwide outcry for justice! However, my guess is that you have not heard about it. Why? Because it was just another day of slaughtering innocent people for ISIS. This news about 160 women and babies being slaughtered is not significant. Even today, it barely made the news six months after it happened. So why are you surprised that Herod killing six or seven babies, in a small no-where village, wasn’t recorded?

Let's not forget about abortion. Babies are being killed by the thousands every day. Human babies slaughtered by the thousands EVERY DAY. Does it make the news? No. It is normal that babies are killed by the thousands every day, and the normal does not make the news... no matter how sad, tragic and horrifying abortion is.

There is no reason that Herod’s killing a few babies in Bethlehem should be recorded in history. It simply was not significant.

CONCLUSION: The report in Matthew concerning Herod having the babies in Bethlehem killed is true and accurate.

NEXT CLAIM: This one is about Matthew 27:45 and is yet another argument from silence. Just because we have not found a non-Biblical record of something that happened 2000 years ago, does not mean it did not happen.

I am continually stunned by the bias shown by the humanists. If a secular historian such as Josephus wrote about it, then it happened, even if it is not recorded anywhere else. Keep in mind, as was common in his day, Josephus was a very biased recorder of history. He had to keep his Roman patrons happy.

However, if the Bible records an event as happening, it did not happen unless that event was also recorded in a secular source. It does not make sense.  Especially since the Bible has proven to be the most accurate ancient historical record we have.

Okay, let's deal with this unwarranted bias against the Bible. Go to the next chapter to read the truth.

CHAPTER 76

WAS THERE DARKNESS

WHEN CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED?

HUMANIST'S CLAIM: Matthew 27:45 alleges that while Jesus was on the cross, there fell over the whole land a darkness lasting from midday until three in the afternoon. Andrew White explains that although Romans such as Seneca and Pliny carefully described much less striking occurrences of the same sort in more remote regions, they failed to note any such darkness occurring even in Judea.

Notice that the reference is to Andrew White. If you have been reading previous chapters, you know what that means. Whatever he says you can just throw out, he likes to make up his "facts." See the Appendix for more on Andrew White.

Even though Andrew White is referenced in this case, this is a valid question that others have asked, so let's find out what really happened.

Matthew 27:45-46

Now from the sixth hour [noon] darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour [3 PM]. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

The three-hour darkness is also recorded in Mark 15:33 and Luke 23:44–45.

Are The Gospel Accounts Reliable?

J.A.T. Robinson, a liberal New Testament scholar, conducted an in-depth study in which he discovered strong historical, textual, and logical evidence for dating all of the gospels between AD 40–65. And Robinson was no friend of conservative biblical Christianity. Based on these dates, Matthew, Mark, and Luke would have written about the darkness a mere 7 to 32 years after the actual event. Compared to other ancient historical accounts, this is like a news flash. Suetonius, a Roman historian, wrote his account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon at least 110 years after the event, and it is considered to be generally reliable. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, by Arrian and Plutarch, were written over 400 years after his death, and they are considered trustworthy accounts. - Daniel Anderson, Darkness at the Crucifixion: Metaphor or Real History? (www.tinyurl.com/yb36xe49)

Yes, the gospel accounts are reliable. Another important point is that they circulated within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses to the events they record. Christians had many enemies, in particular the Jewish leadership. If the enemies of Christ could have found an eyewitness, who would dispute what was recorded in the gospels, that would have ended Christianity. All that was needed would be just one proven lie, and Christianity was dead. However, no such witnesses could be found. The gospels are true and accurate.

Was The Darkness An Eclipse?

I live on in Oregon and was on the edge of the path of a total solar eclipse that passed through Oregon. My wife kept telling me, the eclipse is starting! I would look outside and it did not look any darker. If my wife had not kept after me to comer outside, I might never have noticed there was an eclipse. You need to be directly in the path of totality for it to get dark.

How long does an eclipse last? Not very long. In the area of totality, it is dark for about ten minutes.

In addition, eclipses are predictable. We know when and where every total eclipse of the sun happens. There was no eclipse when Jesus was crucified. An eclipse did not cause the three hours of darkness. (www.tinyurl.com/y9qzkame)

Was the Darkness Recorded As Occurring in Other

Locations?

No. The darkness appears to have been localized to just Palestine.

Did others in Palestine notice the darkness? Yes. For example Thallus, a Samaritan historian who wrote around 52 AD, and Phlegon, a Greek historian, both recorded the darkness. Thallus tried to explain away the darkness as an eclipse. Julius Africanus (AD 160-240) researched the topic of the darkness and wrote the following:

Upon the whole world there came a most fearful darkness. Many rocks were split in two by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. It seems very unreasonable to me that Thallus, in the third book of his histories, would try to explain away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun. (www.tinyurl.com/yax7pmnw)

Phlegon wrote the following in about AD 137:

In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [AD 33] there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that it became night in the sixth hour of the day [noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea. (www.tinyurl.com/yb36xe49)

The darkness was noticed, and some of those who wrote about it, attributed it to an eclipse. However, why didn't others, such as Josephus, write about the darkness? We do not know. However, we do know that not every writer makes note of everything. Daniel Anderson notes:

Many skeptics also ask why other early historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger fail to mention the darkness. But the skeptics are committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. It is unreasonable to expect every contemporary writer to include every event that happened—and there are good reasons not to expect these specific authors to mention the darkness. What we do have is a plethora of extremely early, historically reliable, and highly respected sources for the darkness during the crucifixion. The list of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thallus, Phlegon, Africanus, and Tertullian is impressive indeed! (www.tinyurl.com/yb36xe49)

CONCLUSION: There was a three-hour darkness during the crucifixion of Jesus, just as the gospel accounts record.

NEXT CLAIM: The humanists now turn to another lawyer who presents an argument from silence, Robert Ingersoll. Who was Robert Ingersoll? He was a well-known orator in the 19th century, but he is largely forgotten now. Nicknamed "The Great Agnostic," he was a lawyer who dedicated his life to the defense of agnosticism. We will take a look at what he says in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 77

WAS JESUS A REAL PERSON

THE HUMANIST CLAIM: Robert Ingersoll wondered why the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, “the best historian the Hebrews produced, said nothing about the life or death of Christ; nothing about the massacre of the infants by Herod; not one word about the wonderful star that visited the sky at the birth of Christ; nothing about the darkness that fell upon the world for several hours in the midst of day; and failed entirely to mention that hundreds of graves were opened, and that multitudes of Jews rose from the dead, and visited the Holy City?” Ingersoll also asked, “Is it not wonderful that no historian ever mentioned any of these prodigies?”

Ingersoll’s questions are even more forceful when one considers that there still exist at least some of the works of more than 60 historians or chroniclers who lived in the period from 10 C.E. to 100 CE Those writers were contemporaries of Jesus, if in fact he ever lived.

Fallacy of Arguing from Silence

What we have is still another person committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. Just because no one—except the Biblical writers—wrote about a historical event, does not mean it did not happen.

Humanists are intelligent people. They know that most arguments from silence are no argument at all. Historical silence may be interesting to note, but it typically does not provide anything of consequence.

ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE

There are two types of arguments from silence. The first, and most common, is when the “missing information” is of no consequence to those who recorded history at the time. Herod’s killing of the babies discussed in chapter 75 is an example. It simply was not noteworthy at the time. It is also common for there to be compelling reasons to not record certain “facts” or events. Chapter 71 provides an example, the Persian royal family had a strong motivation to not include Esther in their records.

In addition, what is recorded in “history” not always reflects reality. Winston Churchill is said to have remarked, “History is written by the victors.” And that is true. The victors will write history in a way such that they are glorified. The losers may also record their own version of history, or… on the other hand… they frequently simply obliterate their embarrassing loss from their histories.

There are two important factors to keep in mind. Those who write history must be in a position to write their historical account. That typically means they are the ones in power. And they must have a reason to record what they record. Historically that reason most often was to make the current ruler look good.

The second type of argument from silence is when those in charge of recording history had a compelling reason to record a certain “fact” and did not record it. This provides circumstantial evidence that the silence indicates there was no evidence supporting the desired “fact.”  Of course, the historical records or artifacts may not have been preserved, so this does not provide hard evidence.

I have asked this question before, but in light of the humanists continuing to argue from silence, it needs to be asked again: Why is it that if just a single ancient historian, such as Julius Caesar in his Gallic Wars, for example, mentions an event, that event is assumed to have happened? However, if the Bible records an event, and even if several writers of the Bible record the event, there must also be an additional, outside record of that event? Otherwise, agnostics such as Robert Ingersoll conclude it did not happen. Why is that?

Because the Bible writers were biased? So is Julius Caesar in recording his victories in his Gallic Wars. He wants to make himself appear as perfect and great as possible. So is Josephus. He had to keep his Roman patrons happy. In addition, it is VERY obvious that the humanist who wrote the web page I have been debunking is VERY biased. Based on humanist standards, why should you believe anything the humanist says?

Robert Ingersoll - Questions Answered

The previous chapter answered most of the questions raised by Robert Ingersoll. I note that his arguments from silence are not valid, not even as an indication his assertions might be true. In addition, silence means there is nothing to refute. However, as we usually do, let’s look at a couple of the claims not covered in the previous chapter and find out if there is a reasonable explanation.

BTW, who was Robert Ingersoll? He was a well-known orator in the 19th century, nicknamed "The Great Agnostic," he was a lawyer who dedicated his life to the defense of agnosticism.

The Bethlehem Star:

Why Were the "Wise Men" the Only Ones Who Noticed?

We do not know that they were the only ones who noticed the star. However, they were the only ones who noticed the star, had an idea of what it represented, and took action in a noteworthy way.

Who were the Magi (wise men)? They were most likely Chaldeans, descendants of the Babylonian Magi in Daniel's day. Daniel was chief over the Magi and it he probably taught them about the prophecies in scripture—it would have been something they would be very interested in learning. The prophecies Daniel passed on to them remained a part of their "database" so that when their decedents noticed the star, they made the connection with the prophecies and wanted to investigate... and so they went to Jerusalem, the center of Daniel's religion. The place that would most likely have information about the prophecies and the prophesied king.

Many other people probably noticed the star... "Wow! Cool. Look at that bright star!" Then they went back to their normal lives.

What about the Graves Opening and People Coming Out?

The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. - Matthew 27:52-53

The humanists claim that "hundreds" came out of the grave. However, that is not what scripture says. Scripture refers to "many." What number is that? We do not know what specific number Matthew would consider as many. It could be five, ten or fifteen.

Matthew is the only place in the Bible the graves opening is recorded. Why is that? It fits with the over strategy Matthew was using in his gospel. He was writing to Jews and showing them the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy[36]. A good resource on this subject is an article and video on the CreationToday web site. (www.tinyurl.com/y756m7sc) Here is what they say:

Now why is Matthew the only one to talk about this event? Matthew clearly wrote his Gospel to Jewish readers. He repeatedly emphasized the fulfillment of Old Testament passages. In just the first two chapters of his book, he explains four events occurred “to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet(s)” (Matthew 1:22–23; 2:15, 17, 23). He knew his readers were very familiar with the Old Testament.

Matthew mentions it is that the Jews, with the exception of the Sadducees, believed that people would physically rise from the dead. They looked forward to a future resurrection, based on passages like Daniel 12:2

Clearly, first century Jews believed in bodily resurrection—they just thought it would happen at the end of time. For Matthew to describe an event where multiple people were raised in conjunction with Christ’s death, burial, and Resurrection would not be a distraction to his readers. They might be surprised by the timing of such an event, but they would not be appalled by the idea of people rising from the dead. They might view the event as a foretaste of what is to come and confirmation that Jesus was indeed who He claimed to be. Perhaps this is why so many priests eventually came to believe in Him (Acts 6:7).

If this is accurate, then why did the other Gospel writers fail to mention the event? I think the reason is that they were writing to audiences consisting largely of Gentiles in a Hellenized world. For the most part, the Greeks abhorred the idea of a bodily resurrection. So while these writers needed to stress Christ’s Resurrection, bringing up this event would be an unnecessary distraction for their readers.

Summary: We see that the number of people who came out of the grave probably was not a number noticeable among the general population of Jerusalem, but would be noticeable among family and friends, as well as possibly some of the Jewish leaders. We also see that these events were things that would only be of interest to the Jews.

CONCLUSION: This is another invalid argument from secular silence. That secular sources are silent proves nothing. We can speculate as to why these events are not recorded in secular sources, or it could be that those secular sources were lost over the past 2,000 years. That is just speculation. The only thing we know is that we do not know why secular sources are silent. What we do have is scripture... a proven accurate source of historical information.

NEXT: The humanist now begins his concluding summary statements.

CHAPTER 78

HUMANIST’S CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

PART 1

HUMANIST'S SUMMARY: Finally, the previously discussed contradictions can be cited as examples of historical inaccuracies. In each instance where the Bible contains a contradiction about an alleged historical event, at least one of the accounts is wrong.

The Bible writers were poor historians, let alone conveyers of messages from an infallible God.

We are getting close to the end of the humanist's web page that attempts to show the Bible cannot be trusted... and fails. With the above summary they are beginning their closing arguments.

Is the Above Statement True?

Have the humanists demonstrated there are contradictions or errors in the Bible? No. They have not provided any proof. Not one of their accusations has been proven true. Nothing.

Are the Bible writers poor historians? No. They are 100% reliable and accurate. The humanists have failed to prove there are any errors or contradictions in the Bible.

The Bible must meet a standard no other historical work is required to meet. Since it claims to be the word of God, it must be 100% error free. The original autographs were inspired by God and are without error in all they affirm. We are reading English translations that are not inspired. However, if we stick with recognized quality translations (such as the NASB, LSB, NKJV, KJV, ESV and CSB), we are reading a translation that is accurate.

In 1978 the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was drafted and signed by over 300 Christian leaders. It summarizes why we can trust scripture as being inerrant.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy - Short Statement

The following Statement affirms the inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

CONCLUSION: The Bible is true, accurate, and without error.

NEXT: part two of the humanist’s concluding statement. There are some serious accusations in this section. We will look at each of these, plus their additional concluding remarks in the next chapter.

CHAPTER 79

HUMANIST’S CONCLUDING STATEMENT

PART 2

HUMANIST'S SUMMARY PART 2: Other Problems with the Bible

There are other reasons why the Bible should not be considered the word of God. They include, but are not limited to: the fact that we don’t know who wrote most of it; the fact that much of it was written many years – and in some cases many centuries – after the events it purports to describe; its obscene passages; and its promises of eternal rewards for the ignorant and credulous and everlasting punishment for skeptics and investigators.

Finally, the harm that the Bible causes in people’s personal lives should be mentioned as a reason for rejecting the book. It’s not uncommon to see media reports about Bible believers committing bizarre, injurious, and sometimes deadly acts.

Some people use Bible verses to justify beating children, withholding medical treatment, handling snakes, drinking poison, chopping off body parts, plucking out eyes, driving out demons, withdrawing from the affairs of this world, renouncing the pleasures of life, and expecting the world to end.

If the Bible were not viewed as God’s word, these acts would occur much less often.

It is interesting to note that, where Christianity has flourished, science has flourished. Where Christianity has flourished, women and children were elevated and protected. Without Christianity women and children are objectified, used, and enslaved. Where Christianity flourished, our God-given human rights are elevated (see the Declaration of Independence, for example). Where Christianity flourishes, so does business and free enterprise. Where Christianity flourishes, other religions, including humanism, are free to practice their beliefs.

Take just this last point. There is no other religion that tolerates "competing" religions, except Christianity. Even humanism is intolerant. Yes, Christianity, as well as all religions including humanism, have exclusive claims. However, only Christianity is tolerant of others.

You can see the humanist’s intolerance in the web page we have been looking at. The web site clearly demonstrates an intolerance of Christianity. An intolerance that has a much greater intensity than is directed at any other religion. For example, you do not find a comparable page on their web site attacking the Qur'ran nor the Hindu Vedas and Upanishads. You do not see them attacking the Book of Mormon and other Mormon "scripture." You do not even see them attacking the Catholic apocrypha or traditions (which have the same authority for Catholics as scripture).

Their focus is Biblical Christianity. Why? All false religions, including atheism and humanism, have a demon at their heart. What do demons hate the most? God (Jesus) and the Bible.

Answering the Humanist’s Summary

Let’s take a look at some of the accusations in this summary statement.

We Do Not Know Who Wrote Most of the Bible

Not true. We know all of the authors of the New Testament, except for the book of Hebrews. Looking at the Old Testament Moses wrote the Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible). The writers of many of the historical books, and all of the prophetic books are identified in the name of the book. David wrote most of the Psalms. Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes and most of the proverbs. The only books for which the author is not specifically identified are a few of the Old Testament historical books. We know who the human authors were for most of the Bible.

However, what is more important is that we know the ultimate author is God. The entire Bible is inspired by God, and it was the Holy Spirit who superintended the writers so that everything they wrote is accurate and true.

The Bible Was Written Years after the Events It Reports

Not true. All of the New Testament was written within 65 years of the events it records. Historically that is an incredibly short period of time.

In the Old Testament, all of the prophetic books were written by the prophets themselves. The Old Testament historic books are very interesting. They, at times, give references to their source material. This referenced material was available for the original readers to check. Here is a partial list:

- The Book of Wars: Numbers 21:14

- The Book of Jasher: Joshua 10:13

- The Chronicles of David: 1 Chronicles 27:24

- The Book of the Kings of Israel: 1 Chronicles 9:1.

- The Chronicles of Nathan the Prophet: 1 Chronicles 29:29

- The Decree of David the King of Israel: 2 Chronicles 35:4.

Yes, some parts of the Bible were written long after the events they describe. Moses wrote about creation at least 2000 years after it happened. How did he get it right? Through the superintending guidance of the Holy Spirit. There was an eyewitness involved in the writing of EVERY word in the Bible. The Holy Spirit.

Obscene Passages

It would have been helpful if the humanists had provided some examples. I have no idea which passages they consider obscene. In addition, what standard do they use to determine whether something is obscene or not? Who establishes that standard? Does the standard ever change?

It’s Promises of Eternal Rewards for the Ignorant and Credulous and Everlasting Punishment for Skeptics and Investigators.

Here we have a major misrepresentation of what scripture says about eternity. First, notice the language they use. Those who believe scripture are ignorant and credulous (definition: showing too great a readiness to believe things). That is negative, inappropriate, and a false description of a believer. Humanists are described as simply skeptics and investigators… a rather positive description. However, that is not what scripture says. They are blind enemies of God; whose desire is to be separated from God. They desire the darkness and love their sin. Therefore, God gives them what they desire. There is nothing wrong with that. If you deny God, essentially saying you want nothing to do with God, then God gives you exactly what you want—total separation from God forever—perfect justice.

I have talked with many humanists. I am sure there are some out there, but I have yet to meet one who is truly a skeptic or investigator. An investigator is someone who is searching for truth and examining all sides of an issue. That does not describe a humanist. I have an offer I have made to many of the humanists I have met. For every book you will read (and discuss with me) that I recommend, I will read (and discuss with you) a book you recommend. Nearly all rejected the offer. Of the few who have accepted, none read the book I recommended… although I have purchased and read the books they have recommended. As scripture says, they are suppressing their knowledge of God. God tells us this in Romans 1:18-31:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

They are not skeptics and investigators. They know God and they willingly reject Him, closing their minds to God’s truth. Does that mean we do not share the gospel with humanists? Of course not. The Holy Spirit can open minds and bring the light of truth to a closed mind.

The humanists mentioned promises. There are some key promises God has made that humanists should carefully consider.

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28

Promises for Unbelievers

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. - Revelation 21:8

Those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.- 2 Thessalonians 1:8b-9

For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. - Matthew 7:13

Promises for Believers and Unbelievers

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these [the Gospel of John] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.- John 20:30-31

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. - John 14:6

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16 (see verse 18 below)

More Promises for Believers and Unbelievers

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

The Lord keeps all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy. - Psalm 145:20

The Humanist said: Some people use Bible verses to justify:

- Beating children: in violation of what the Bible teaches

- Withholding medical treatment: in violation of what the Bible teaches

- Handling snakes: in violation of what the Bible teaches

- Drinking poison: in violation of what the Bible teaches

- Chopping off body parts: in violation of what the Bible teaches

- Plucking out eyes: in violation of what the Bible teaches

- Driving out demons: demon possession is real, but we do not have the power to drive out demons on our own. It is the gospel that saves people from demons.

- Withdrawing from the affairs of this world: in violation of what the Bible teaches

- Renouncing the pleasures of life: This one depends on what they define as "the pleasures of this life." Drinking is a good example. The Bible does not forbid drinking. Enjoying a glass of wine (or beer) is fine. Getting drunk is not. Other examples that are often mentioned include: playing cards, dancing, and eating shellfish. However, none of these are forbidden by the Bible. (BTW I love clams and shrimp!)

- Expecting the world will end: Yes, the world will end, but that day is at least 1007 years in the future. What I find interesting is that humanists accuse God of being unable or unwilling to end evil. However, the day is coming when God will end evil, and that means this world will come to an end.  All "second" chances to repent and trust in Him as your Savior will also end.

Yes, there are people who use the Bible to justify behaviors that result from human desires. However, as you see from the above list, those behaviors violate what the Bible teaches. Just because someone claims to be a Christian and then engages in certain behaviors, that does not mean those practices are Biblical. Neither the behavior of true Christians, nor that of false Christians, defines what the Bible teaches.

If the Bible Were Not Viewed as God’s Word,

These Acts Would Occur Much Less Often.

Not true. If the Bible were more often viewed as God's word, and obeyed as written, these acts would not occur. Nearly everything on the humanist's list is a violation of Biblical teaching. In addition, if the Bible were more often viewed as God’s word and obeyed, we'd see fewer single mothers (and the resulting poverty); fewer suicides; less crime; few gender identity problems; fewer riots, looting and disorder; and the list goes on.

CONCLUSION: The Bible is true, accurate, without error, and a major benefit to humanity.

NEXT: is part three of the concluding statement. Are the conclusions of the humanists correct? Has writing this book essentially been a waste of time? Look to your right and begin reading the next chapter and find out.

CHAPTER 80

HUMANIST’S CONCLUDING STATEMENT

PART 3

HUMANIST'S SUMMARY PART 3: Conclusion

Many compelling and morally sound reasons support the Humanist position that the Bible is not divinely inspired. Instead of being inerrant, the Bible has far more errors and immoral teachings than most other books.

By treating this mistake-ridden book as the word of God, humanity has been led down many paths of error and misery throughout history. In too many ways, the Bible continues to produce such results.

But in some cases, the errors caused by the Bible have been corrected and the harms have been stopped. This happened when a scientific approach was applied to problems. Science involves relying on reason, observation, experience, and compassion – rather than blindly accepting religious or secular dogma.

We should reject the views of those who say the Bible has infallible answers to today’s problems. As Humanists know, science has proved to be a much better source for answers.

The humanists conclude by drawing conclusions based on the “evidence” they have presented. The problem is… all of their evidence has been proven false. What does that mean? Simply that, based on the evidence presented, their conclusions are false. Let's look at each of these final statements:

Many compelling and morally sound reasons support the humanist position that the Bible is not divinely inspired.

I do not see how they can be compelling reasons, if they have been shown to be false. HOWEVER, let’s go ahead and look at this statement.

Before we can declare something morally sound or unsound, we need to know how morality is defined. (See Appendix B in volume 1). Their web site declares that morality will naturally arise from human societies. What does that say about the source of morality? Nothing. What are the mechanisms though which morality arises from human societies? Their answer appears to be, whatever works is what is moral. That is no answer. It just takes us around in a circle.

The “conclusion” that morals arise from human society has no basis in reality. That would mean whatever we decide we want to do, is moral and right to do. Hmmm. That does not sound good. However, let’s continue.

If morality arises from human society, that means various societies, or even segments of societies, can have various and conflicting morality. How does that work? If my neighbor is part of a group that believes holding 11-year-old girls in sexual slavery is acceptable, who am I to tell them they are wrong? I cannot. If I am a humanist, I have no basis for telling another group of people that child sexual slavery is wrong. Moral right and wrong becomes defined as the preferences (opinions) of people living at a particular time.

Since humanists have no rational basis for morality, a statement claiming they have morally sound reasons demonstrating the Bible is not divinely inspired is not a valid statement. It is nothing more than a human opinion. The humanist position, that the Bible is not divinely inspired, is not based on compelling reasons, nor sound moral reasons. It is just wishful thinking, based on a desire to not be accountable to their creator God.

Instead of being inerrant, the bible has far more errors and immoral teachings than most other books.

The humanists were unable to demonstrate even one error or immoral teaching in the Bible. Therefore, this is a false statement. Not only that, in order to make this claim they rely on deceptive “authorities” (mainly Andrew White) who openly lie, take scripture out of context, and force meaning onto scripture that does not exist. They are the ones in error, not scripture.

By treating this mistake-ridden book as the word of God, humanity has been led down many paths of error and misery throughout history. In too many ways, the Bible continues to produce such results.

The conclusion in this statement is based on the assertion that the Bible is filled with mistakes, which has been proven false. Therefore, the assertion that the Bible has lead people into error is false.

In addition, the humanists have not shown that following the teachings of the Bible lead to misery. The examples they brought up included:

A) Unsanitary conditions and disease, which was shown to be a false assertion.

B) Hindering the advancement of science, which also was shown to be false.

Following the teaching of the Bible, as the Jews did during the black plague, resulted in sanitary conditions and greater freedom from disease. In addition, it was because of Christianity that science exploded and made huge advances in Europe.

But in some cases, the errors caused by the Bible have been corrected and the harms have been stopped. This happened when a scientific approach was applied to problems.

The evidence does not support this statement. The facts are that it is more descriptive of science than Christianity.  The Bible described the best methods for preventing the spread of disease and sickness thousands of years before science “discovered” them. In addition, even today in the era of COVID and in the name of “science”, we continue to ignore the practices the Bible prescribes[37], and people are dying.

I will repeat the facts again... the claim that there are errors in the Bible has been 100% refuted.

Secondly, science has never corrected any teaching of the Bible. The Bible stands unique in this respect. It has never needed correction. Science, on the other hand, constantly needs correction and updating. For example, it was a secular "scientific" belief in bleeding people that led to the death of George Washington, as well as many others. Some of the scientific facts of the past include:

Rain Follows the Plow - a climatology theory that said human settlement caused a permanent increase in rainfall. This encouraged people to move to arid areas, prompting the settlement of the American Great Plains. That resulted in tremendously misery and hunger when farms failed.

Eugenics - simply put, eugenics is a direct result of the rise of the theory of evolution. This scientific principle involves killing people to improve the human race. Here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica states as its definition of eugenics:

The selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.

In America eugenics continues today, primarily targeting the black population through its most successful practitioner, Planned Parenthood. Thank evolutionary science!

Infanticide did not go out of fashion with the advance from savagery to barbarism and civilization. Rather, it became, as in Greece and Rome, a recognized custom with advocates among leaders of thought and action. — Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), Woman and the New Race

Learn more. Read a 2017 National Review article about Planned Parenthood titled: "Planned Parenthood’s Century of Brutality.” www.tinyurl.com/y7vp2b83

The Four Humors - this is the belief that the body contained four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. These had to be in the right balance for a person to be healthy. This belief led to practices such as bloodletting, emetics, and purges.

Thank you "science" for these, and many other wonderful “advances” that brought “health and happiness” to the human race (said with sarcasm). These are just the tip of the iceberg. Read more on ListVerse. (www.tinyurl.com/ykobzat) For thousands of years before they were discovered, and during the times these practices were (and still are) used, the Bible never changed. It continued to state that sanitation, hygiene, and quarantine were the appropriate measures to use. It described the hydrologic cycle, which explains rainfall, in Job in a way that is accurate and unchanged today

It is “science,” not the Bible that has caused misery and that continually needs correcting.

BTW, science is not evil nor immoral. It is just a method for investigating the world around us. When used properly, and in accordance with Biblical teaching, science brings major benefits to mankind. My background is in science and engineering. I love science! However, used in opposition to Biblical teaching, “science” typically brings misery, pain, and death.

Just One More...

We should reject the views of those who say the Bible has infallible answers to today’s problems. As Humanists know, science has proved to be a much better source for answers.

Another false statement. See the above. .

CONCLUSION: All of the humanist's conclusions are unsupported and false. You can trust the Bible as the perfect guide to your life, loving God, and loving others.

APPENDIX

“THE HUMANIST’S FALSE APOLOGIST

ANDREW D. WHITE

Of the 70 references provided on the humanist's web page, 31 are for Andrew D. White's book "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom." With nearly half of the humanist's referenced assertions supported by references to Andrew White, I thought it worthwhile to examine his book.

Andrew Dickson White,... along with his contemporary John William Draper, did much to set the modern tone of the historical conflict between religion and science. – Dr. Jole Shackelford, "Myth 7: That Giordano Bruno Was The First Martyr of Modern Science." - from the book Galileo Goes To Jail, page 60

For a book to be referenced so much, it must truly be an astounding work. I had to read this book. I was able to immediately get a Kindle copy and started reading. It is an astounding book... astounding that a book so filled with fiction could be considered such a reliable source that 31 out of 70 humanist references are to this book! Truly astounding! Incredibly sad.

Filled with more fiction than fact, the premise of the book is that religion, and Christianity in Europe in particular, held back the advance of science. Supposedly it was only when Christianity was pushed aside, that science was able to make significant progress.

Could this book really be as bad as it appeared to be? Maybe I was wrong in my evaluation. I should investigate further to learn what others thought about Andrew White. I generally do not go to Wikkipedia as a source. They tend to be very pro-humanism and anti-Bible. However, it came up at the top of the Google search results, so I went there. This is what Wikkipedia said: (www.tinyurl.com/ ydxj7d7c – December 2017)

[There is] mounting evidence that White read the past through battle-scarred glasses, and that he and his imitators have distorted history to serve ideological ends of their own. Although it is not difficult to find instances of conflict and controversy in the annals of Christianity and science, recent scholarship has shown that the warfare metaphor to be neither useful or tenable in describing the relationship between science and religion.

Historian of science Ronald Numbers is the editor of the book Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. In his introduction he writes:

Historians of science have known for years that White's and Draper's accounts are more propaganda than history." - Ronald Numbers, ed. Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion. Published by Harvard University Press, 2009, p. 6

Writing in the early 20th century, Dr. James Joseph Walsh noted that both White, and an earlier similar book by John Draper ignored real history:

Professor White's book, "The Warfare of Science with Theology," like Professor Draper's "History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science," are now seen to represent simply an interesting evidence of the lack of real knowledge of the history of science and, above all, complete ignorance of details as to the genuine accomplishment of the olden time on the part of the generation by which they were taken seriously. …these writers gathered every possible reference, found anywhere in secondary authorities, for they almost never went to the original documents, as evidence for their preconceived conviction that the Church must have suppressed science whenever that was possible. The real history of science was ignored. Dr. James J. Walsh. The Popes and Science, The History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down To Our Time, page vi

Warfare between Science and Christianity?

The major premise of White's book is that there is war going on between science and Christianity. As I researched this further, I found this to be a false premise that had its origins in the 19th century in a book by John William Draper titled "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science." This hypothesis became known as the Draper-White Conflict Thesis... and it was mostly based on fiction.

In the late Victorian period it was common to write about "the warfare between science and religion" and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science. - Steven Shapinm Franklin L. Ford Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University

Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour. -  Gary Ferngren, professor of history Oregon State University

No one now doubts that Draper was engaged in anything other than polemic. Neither of them [White or Draper] were professional historians and both seem to have sincerely believed in the warfare theory they were expounding. Unfortunately, this meant that they set out to prove what they already believed rather than take their conclusions from the facts.- James Hannam, PhD in History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, "The Mythical conflict between science and Religion,"

http://www. jameshannam.com/ conflict.htm

The diagram on the next page is one that keeps popping up in my research. It shows a gradual increase in scientific knowledge, and then a "black hole" during the Middle Ages that was supposedly caused by Christianity. The idea is that, anti-science/anti-reality Christian beliefs were forced on Europe by the church, resulting in suppression of science and truth.

The advancement of science supposedly stopped by Christianity in

the Middle Ages. Image Source: unknown

However, that is not what actually happened and this diagram is a fictional fabrication.

Did Christianity Suppress Science?

No. That is a myth that was created in an effort to suppress Christianity and discredit the Bible. Let's go to a secular history web site called the "Odd Historian." They have an interesting article about seven myths commonly believed about the Middle Ages. (www.tinyurl.com/y8yhwm25) Here are a few quotes from that article:

Myth #1 - Among circulated myths, one highly accepted is that of Church suppressing rational analysis and progress of science is a medieval fallacy. As per historical records, no scientist/scholar was incarcerated, burned and tortured by Church for furthering scientifically justified claims.

Myth #2 - Lack of Scientific Advancement: Contrary to myths, medieval Europe was an incubator for modern scientific and philosophical research. Roger Bacon was the first individual to propose cyclic experimentation, comprising of observation, hypothesis and experimentation. He applied this method to research [the] nature of light and optics, the functionality of eye and nature of lenses. It eventually led to the creation of eyewear. He proposed a design for the telescope (never built one). Inspired by an Arabic scholar Al-Battani, Robert Grosseteste posited that experimentation should verify particulars.

Myth #6 - As the predominant rhetoric goes, [the] Dark Ages inhibited scientific progress, scientists were termed as heretics, deeming them immoral and naysayers against the Bible. The mass majority even perceived the earth to be flat.

[That’s the myth, here’s truth:] The church was largely responsible for rescuing science as opposed to inhibiting it.

These are just three of the seven myths about Christianity suppressing science and knowledge during the Middle Ages. I recommend reading the full article. It is not that long and it will give you an overview of the seven myths commonly believed about the Middle Ages.

Another good article about the myth of war between science and Christianity is titled, “The Myth That the Church Hindered the Development of Science” (www.tinyurl.com/ya3odjf3).

In addition to this appendix, I have included a few other quotes about the unreliability of Andrew White in the chapters that reference him. For example, in chapter 53, a chapter about White’s claim that a “church father” named Cosmas, taught that the earth is flat:

Moreover, there’s little evidence that anybody before the late 17th or early 18th century cared about Cosmas’s ideas. This didn’t stop people like Andrew White from making up stories about Cosmas having influenced medieval ideas about the construction of the earth. - Darin Hayton, A Tabernacle-Shaped Earth (https://tinyurl.com/ y8cq35wy)

Andrew White, along with his predecessor John Draper, had no qualms about fabricating evidence or using dubious sources, if it furthered their cause of showing that Christianity suppressed science during the Middle Ages.

Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship. - Colin Russell, “The Conflict of Science and Religion' from the Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion,” page 15, Copyright 2000)

CONCLUSION: Andrew D. White and John William Draper both wrote books containing myths and fictions they created in order to suppress the Bible and Christianity. Neither author is a trusted authority, and anyone referencing them or using them as source material should be immediately suspect. If these authors are referenced, you are probably being misled and deceived... so be wary... be smart... don't accept the lie that Christianity suppressed science.

One would like to take the charitable view that White really believed his theory and was not making up evidence to support a position he knew to be false. Instead, he skews the evidence by accepting what agrees with his hypothesis while being skeptical of what does not. This means that he has included falsehoods that he would have noticed if he had taken a properly objective attitude towards all his evidence. The points given above together with Numbers' and Lindberg's criticisms noted in their article are sufficient, however, to prove White's work as utterly worthless as history. Draper, with no footnotes or references cannot even claim to give an illusion of scholarship.- James Hannam, PhD in History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, "The Mythical conflict between science and Religion,"

http://www. jameshannam.com/ conflict.htm

Scripture Index

Genesis 1:1        11

Genesis 1:2-3        19

Genesis 1:8        291

Genesis 1:11-13        21

Genesis 1:14        19, 302

Genesis 1:17        290, 295

Genesis 1:20        23

Genesis 1:28        393

Genesis 2:15        393

Genesis 2:16-17        88

Genesis 2:17        225,321, 322

Genesis 2:18-19        14

Genesis 2:19        23, 25

Genesis 2:4        15

Genesis 2:4-2:7        12

Genesis 2:7-9        22

Genesis 3:1        1,198

Genesis 3:4-5        225, 230

Genesis 3:5        254

Genesis 3:8-9        322

Genesis 3:14-23        85

Genesis 3:17        88

Genesis 3:22        225

Genesis 3:4-5        225

Genesis 3:5        254

Genesis 3:5-7        191

Genesis 3:8-9        322

Genesis 6:5        92

Genesis 6:11-12        92

Genesis 6:13        93

Genesis 6:19-22        27

Genesis 6:5        92

Genesis 7:11-12        259, 261

Genesis 7:2-3        27

Genesis 7:20-23        92

Genesis 8:13-14        33

Genesis 8:4        31

Genesis 11:1-9        313,316

Genesis 15:18        339

Genesis 35:10        325,326

Genesis 46:2        325,326

Exodus 1:11-14        96

Exodus 3:4        225

Exodus 7:10-12        225

Exodus 7:17        97

Exodus 7:19-22        225

Exodus 9:18-21        98

Exodus 9:8-11,25    95

Exodus 12:29-30    95

Exodus 14:21-22    229

Exodus 15:19        363

Exodus 15:26        247

Exodus 17:8-9a        119

Exodus 21:16        145

Exodus 22:18        151,157

Exodus 29:38-42    41

Exodus 31:15        151

Exodus 32:35        245,249

Leviticus 10:1-2        139,140

Leviticus 11:5-6        313,314

Leviticus 11:13-19        313

Leviticus 13:4            261

Leviticus 20:9            151,153

Leviticus 20:13            151,158

Leviticus 20:27            151

Leviticus 25:44-46        137,143

Numbers 11:1-2            137,138

Numbers 14:4            119

Numbers 16:28-30        139

Numbers 16:31-35        137,138

Numbers 16:44-49        249,250

Numbers 20:11            225

Numbers 21:6            137,143

Numbers 21:7            143

Numbers 22:28            225

Numbers 31:17-18        131

Deuteronomy 7:1-2        103

Deuteronomy 9:4-6        102

Deuteronomy 13:12-16    137,145

Deuteronomy 13:6-10        151,156

Deuteronomy 17:2-5        151,155

Deuteronomy 18:9-13        158

Deuteronomy 21:18-21    153

Deuteronomy 22:13-14    160

Deuteronomy 22:20-21    151,160

Deuteronomy 23:12-13    260

Deuteronomy 23:15        145

Deuteronomy 32:23-25    127

Deuteronomy 33:17        308

Joshua 10:11-13            233,269

Joshua 10:13            229

1 Samuel 2:8            286

1 Samuel 15:3            117

2 Samuel 7:8-10            304

2 Samuel 7:10            303

2 Samuel 7:12-16        305

2 Samuel 7:16            303

1 Kings 10:14-15        294

2 Samuel 12:13-18        105

2 Samuel 24:1            37

2 Samuel 24:11            38

2 Samuel 24:15            38

2 Kings 24:1            336

1 Chronicles 16:30        272

1 Chronicles 17:11-14        340

1 Chronicles 21:1        37

2 Chronicles 1:12        341

2 Chronicles 1:15        330

2 Chronicles 6:16        340

2 Chronicles 26:19-20        247

Job 9:6              281,286,287

Job 26:7                286,287

Job 37:18                289,291

Psalm 9:8                272

Psalm 75:1-5            249

Psalm 75:3                245

Psalm 104:5            235

Psalm 91:13            307

Psalm 92:10            308

Psalm 93:1-2            271

Psalm 104:5            273

Psalms 145:20            406

Isaiah 11:8                305,311

Isaiah 11:12            281,282

Isaiah 13:9, 15-18        135

Isaiah 17:1-2            333

Isaiah 19:5-7            339,342

Isaiah 34:7                305

Isaiah 40;22          285,289,292

Isaiah 52:1                339,341

Isaiah 57:1-2            109

Isaiah 59:5                311

Jeremiah 7:21-26        42

Jeremiah 7:22            41

Jeremiah 8:17            311

Jeremiah 14:6            307

Jeremiah 16:19            281,283

Jeremiah 17:9            5, 200

Jeremiah 19:9            139,146

Jeremiah 21:6            250

Jeremiah 25:11-12        335

Jeremiah 33:25            203

Jeremiah 51:34            305

Ezekiel 5:11-17            137,140

Ezekiel 9:4-7            123

Ezekiel 9:9-10            125

Ezekiel 23:2b-10            6

Daniel 4:28-37            211

Daniel 5:2                371

Daniel 5:5                229,231

Daniel 5:10-11            372

Daniel 12:2            394

Hosea 13:2            125

Hosea 13:16            125

Jonah 1:17                229,231

Malachi 3:6            181

Matthew 1:1-17            46

Matthew 1:20            229

Matthew 2:13-15        51

Matthew 6:9-13            354

Matthew 7:13            406

Matthew 9:32-33        245,251

Matthew 10:22            166

Matthew 10:28            405

Matthew 12:22            245,251

Matthew 12:40            349

Matthew 14:26-29        229

Matthew 16:28            345,346

Matthew 17:14-18        245,251

Matthew 27:3-7            55

Matthew 27:44            61

Matthew 27:45-46        387

Matthew 27:46            65

Matthew 27:46-50        65

Matthew 27:52-53        394

Matthew 28:1            70,349

Matthew 28:1-4            70

Matthew 28:2            71

Mark 5:1-13            245,251

Mark 9:1                346

Mark 10:18            115

Mark 13:24-30            345

Mark 13:4                347

Mark 13:24-30            347

Mark 15:21-23            59

Mark 15:34            65

Mark 15:42-45            349

Mark 16:2                69

Mark 16:5                71

Mark 16:9                349

Luke 2:22-40            51

Luke 3:23-38            47

Luke 11:24-26            229

Luke 13:11, 16            245,251

Luke 23:39-43            61, 62

Luke 23:46                65, 67

Luke 24:1-2            70

Luke 24:4                71

John 3:16                406

John 3:18                406

John 3:19                8

John 5:2-4                229,231

John 8:34                157

John 8:43-47            319

John 10:17-18            66, 109

John 11:43-46            178

John 14:6                370

John 14:13-14            353,354

John 19:17-18            59

John 19:29b-30            66

John 19:30                65

John 20:1                70

John 20:11-12            71

John 20:30-31            406

Acts 1:15-19            55

Acts 9:7                77

Acts 9:37-40            225

Acts 13:47                281,283

Acts 17:10-11            252

Acts 22:9                77

Romans 1:18-31            404

Romans 1:18-32            148

Romans 1:19            7

Romans 1:22            8

Romans 11:36            183

Romans 3:10            165

Romans 3:23            115

Romans 3:23            167

Romans 3:24-25            109

Romans 5:18            85

Romans 6:23            406

Romans 8:20-22            87

Romans 9:20-23            185

1 Corinthians 5:20        184

1 Corinthians 10:31        184

1 Corinthians 11:1        184

Ephesians 2:1            322

Ephesians 2:8-9            173

Ephesians 4:18            322

Philippians 1:21-23        107

Colossians 1:16            12

Colossians 1:17            175

2 Thessalonians 1:8b-9    406

1 Timothy 4:1            158

2 Timothy 3:12            166

2 Timothy 3:16            43

Hebrews 9:27            9, 157

2 Peter 2:4-5 & 9-10        92

2 Peter 3:7                90

1 John 2:6                184

Revelation 1:7            277,278

Revelation 6:14            289,292

Revelation 6:15-17        293

Revelation 7:1            281,282

Revelation 21:5            113

Revelation 21:8            113,323,405

Revelation 21:23-24        20

Subject Index

Abortion                91,105

Abortion – Baby is Human    184

Adam & Eve            11

Adam Didn't Die        285

Age of the Earth        343

Amalekites                117

Animal Sacrifices        41

Babel, Tower of            279

Babies Killed by Herod    347

Babylonian Captivity        299

Bats                    277

Bears                    140

Belshazzar                335

Benefactors of Humanity    167

Bethlehem                347

Bethlehem Star            357

Bible – Bats & Birds        277

Bible – Causes Harm        365

Bible – Cockatrice        274

Bible – Dragons            271

Bible – Earth on Pillars    241

Bible – Flat Earth     241, 245

Bible – Geocentricity        231

Bible – Hinders Science    227

Bible – Morality          391-395

Bible – No Errors        375

Bible – Opposes Science    179

Bible – Sadism            137

Bible – Scientific Errors    269

Bible – Sky Has Windows    259

Bible – Solid Sky        253

Bible – Stationary Earth    235

Bible – Unicorns        272

Bible – Violates Nature    175

Bible – Who Wrote It        366

Bible Approves Cruelty    81

Birds Created            23

Chicago Statement on Biblical

Inerrancy            362

Children – Dashed/Pieces    133

Cockatrice                274

Comets                264

Cosmas the Monk     242, 248

Creation Order            11

Criminals – Taunting Jesus    61

Cross – Who Carried        59

Crucifixion – Darkness    351

Crucifixion – Graves Opening                        358

Cursing Parents            153

Cyrus the Persian        337

Damascus                297

Darius the Mede            337

David's Census            37

Day (meaning)            15

Days – Counting        314

Days – Jonah            315

Death – Is Death Evil?    107

Death – Sin            285

Death, Second            286

Demons – Disease        209

Dinosaurs                271

Dragons                271

Draper, John            247

Earth – Age of            343

Earth – Circle            256

Earth – Four Corners        246

Earth – Rests on Pillars    241,249

Earth, Flat    241,             245

Earth, Stationary        235

Elisha's Bones            192

Esther                329

Esther – 127 Provinces    331

Esther – True?            333

Esther – Jews Attack         333

Esther – Vashti            330

Exodus, Parting Red Sea    327

Exodus, the            325

Fall – Creation Cursed    85

Fall – Human Race Cursed    85

Flat Earth                241,245

Flood – Innocent Animals Died    91

Flood – Innocent People Died    89

Four Corners of the Earth    246

Galileo                232

Geocentricity            231

Geocentricity – Joshua    233

Global Flood            321

God – Amalekites Killed    117

God – Approves Slavery    143

God – Caused Cannibalism    146

God – Causes Disease    209

God – Causes Plagues        217

God – Commands Women to be

Killed                131

God – Consuming People with

Fire                139

God – Destroys Samaria    125

God – Exterminate Seven

Nations            101

God – Punishments         149

God – Incites Human

Violence            169

God – Is Sadistic        150

God – Kills Babies        95

God – Kills David's Baby    105

God – Kills Jews        121

God – Kills Virgins        127

God – Natural Disasters    267

God – Persecution        145

God – Promises         369

God – Punishes Disbelief    163

God – Required Jesus Tortured                        109

God – Sends Bears        140

God – Sends Lions        142

God – Tormented Egyptians 95

God – Tortures

Non-Christians        113

God – War, Famine and

Pestilence            140

Graves Opening            358

Herod                347,348

Homosexuality            158

Human Violence        169

Humanist – Hypocrisy    183

Humanist – Morality        385-390

Humanists – Approve Killing

Babies            99, 183

Humanists – Approve Torture

189

Humanists – Paganism    206

Ingersoll, Robert        295,355

Irving, Washington        247

Jacob's Name            289

Jesus – Crucifixion Darkness

351

Jesus – Flee to Egypt        51

Jesus – Genealogy        45

Jesus – Genealogy (Father)    45

Jesus – Genealogy (Luke)    47, 49

Jesus – Genealogy (Mat.)    46, 48

Jesus – Last Words        65

Jesus – On Cross        61

Jesus – Saved the Thief    61

Jesus – Time in Tomb        313

Jesus – Tomb – Women    73

Jesus – Tomb – Women Arrive    69

Jesus – Was He Real?        355

Jesus – Who Carried Cross    59

Jonah                315

Judas – His Pay            55

Laws of Nature            175,180

Lions Kill People        142

Miracles Are Real        201

Morality, Bible            391-395

Morality, Humanist        385-390

Mustard Seed            279

Natural Disasters        267

Noah's Flood              321

Noah's Flood – Egyptian

Civilizations            322

Noah's Flood –

Ground Dry        33

Noah's Flood –

Mountains Appear    31

Occult                157

Paul – God Speaks to Him?     77

Plants Created            21

Prayer                228

Prayer –

Ask In Jesus' Name    317

Prophecy –

This Generation        310

Prophesy                303

Prophesy – Failed        303

Punishment, Severity        154

Quarantine            223

Rabbits, Chew Cud        278

Religious Persecution        145

Roman Census            339

Sabbath, Working On        151

Samaria                125

Sanitation                223

Science                  281

Science – Errors In          375-376

Science – Powered

by Christianity        229

Science and Islam        182

Second Death            286

Serpents                142

Seven of Some Kind        27

Signs in Heavens        263

Silence, Argument From    329

Sin                    285

Sky, Has Windows        259

Sky, Solid                253

Slavery                141

Solomon's Wealth        293

Stationary Earth            235

Sun, Moon & Stars Created    19

Supernatural            177

Supernatural –

Causes Plagues        217

Supernatural – Evidence    201

Supernatural – Examples    191,195

Supernatural –

Happening Today?    197

Supernatural –

Satan & Demons    196

Supernatural –

Science is Better        221

Supernatural –

Spreads Disease        209

Supernatural is Harmful    205

Supernatural is

Unbelievable        199

Two of Every Kind        27

Unicorns                272

White, Andrew        222, 259, 269,

281, 379-384

Windows of Heaven        260

Witches                155

Women – Virgins        158

Worshiping Other Gods    153,154

Zwingli, Ulrich            265

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Steve has been the executive director of the Move to Assurance (MTA) ministry since 2000. MTA produces apologetic videos and books, and is involved in street evangelism, outreach, and apologetics ministries.  Some of the MTA web sites include:

www.911Christ.com

www.DinosaurTracker.com

www.MTAbible.com

www.MoveToAssurance.org

www.DinosaursForJesus.com

www.SciencePastor.com

www.HaystackRock.org

MTA’s YouTube Channel: www.tinyurl.com/yc83ddgm

Steve also served as the pastor of the Cannon Beach Bible Church, in Cannon Beach, Oregon from 2013 through August 2018 and as an associate pastor through September 2019.

Other books by Steve Hudgik

available on Amazon.com

Mrs. Bartlett and Her Class

At the Metropolitan Tabernacle

The biography of an amazing and inspirational women

who taught at Spurgeon’s church. She was a

prayer warrior and evangelist.

(By her son Edward Bartlett. Notes by Steve Hudgik)

RUN! It’s Jesus Calling

Why you should throw away

your Copy of Jesus Calling

The Presence of God

A commentary on the Book of Esther, the

only book in the Bible that does not mention God.

Happy Are The…

Discovering the blessings of God and the

Road to salvation in the Beatitudes

Sarah Young’s Jesus Always Exposed

Shinning the light of scripture

on the Jesus Always Devotional

A Beginner’s Guide to Tracking Dinosaurs

See how the evidence of dinosaur tracks and eggs strongly points to the reality of a global flood, exactly as described in scripture.

Notes

[←1]

In addition, there are two good paraphrase translations, the New International Version (NIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT)

[←2]

See the appendix at the end of this book.

[←3]

https://crev.info/2017/07/myth-objective-science-busted/

[←4]

God is saving people daily. Salvation is a creative supernatural miracle that creates a new person. 2 Corinthians 5:17

[←5]

Nature is the premier British science journal, and it is generally not friendly to Christianity and creation. (www.tinyurl.com/kdjqlhz)

[←6]

We will take this at face value. However, how frequently have you heard about humanists being persecuted? It is rare. I can’t say I know of a single instance in which a humanist was persecuted for being a humanist. The most highly persecuted people in the word are Christians.

[←7]

See Supernatural or Science: How Do We Explain Miracles? (https://tinyurl.com/y4vyzf8b) and Did Miracles Really Happen (https://tinyurl.com/nalgrd8)

[←8]

Whenever you get a new Bible it is a good practice to read the notes and introduction at the beginning of the Bible. They describe the translation methods and sources, as well as cues, such a brackets, capitalization, and italics used to clarify scripture.

[←9]

In 2 Kings 20 king Hezekiah, who is dying, is told by Isaiah the prophet that God will heal him in three days. To demonstrate the healing was truly a supernatural miracle from God, God makes the shadow on the stairway go backwards ten steps. God could have healed Hezekiah without Isaiah saying anything, and everyone would have assumed Hezekiah just got better. However, God wanted Hezekiah, and us, to know this was a supernatural miracle from God.

[←10]

A frequent reason for supernatural miracles was to validate a messenger (a prophet) or message as being from God, by doing something only God could do. Now that scripture is complete, this type of validation is no longer needed.

[←11]

This is an argument from silence, and most arguments from silence are not valid. The only ones that have some validity are those in which the people who are silent had both a very strong motive to speak and the means to speak (or publish). For example, humanists argue that there is no secular documentation for Jesus’ resurrection (there is). This is not a valid argument from silence. Those in power, and thus had the means to speak, either had no interest (to the Romans Jesus was just another Jewish messiah), or it was in their interest to not speak (the Jewish leaders). In the case of Jesus’ miracles, it was in the interest of the Jewish leaders to publicize any reports that Jesus falsified His miracles. However, there were too many witnesses, and even their own eyes told them His miracles were real. They could not deny His miracles, so they were silent.

[←12]

Please read appendix A. White is neither a historian nor is he reliable.

[←13]

Because they did not get sick as often as Gentiles, the Jews faced persecution and many were killed. The Jewish History web site reports that: “It is hard to tell whether proportionally more Jews died from the plague or the persecutions. The Christians claimed that the Jews died [from the plague] at only half the rate of Christians… It can be attributed to the sanitary practices [of] Jewish law. Jewish law compels one to wash his or her hands many times throughout the day… At least once a week a Jew bathed for the Sabbath… The sanitary conditions in the Jewish neighborhood, primitive as it may be by today’s standards, was always far superior to the general sanitary conditions.” – www.jewishhistory.org/the-black-death

[←14]

Demons cannot supernaturally cause disease. However, they can manipulate, influence and tempt people, including Christians, to create conditions that result in disease.

[←15]

Andrew White has been discredited as a reliable source. If you have not already, please read the Appendix.

[←16]

The Apostle John, wrote his gospel to prove Jesus is God, our Savior, so that we would believe (John 20:30-31). As evidence, he uses Jesus’ miracles. They prove Jesus is God, and were particularly powerful for the first people to read John’s gospel because they were, or had first-hand witnesses to some of those miracles.

[←17]

A question we need to ask is: Has humanism hindered science? I think the answer is yes. Just on the surface it is apparent that the belief in evolution has resulted in the waste of trillions of dollars and untold hours of scientific effort that could have been spent more productively. The result is that science has been forced away from truths that could have been discovered.

[←18]

New International Commentary on the Old Testament, The Book of Job, John E. Hartley, Eerdman's, 1988, pages 494 & 495

[←19]

Hartley, page 494

[←20]

Written in Galileo’s 1613 letter to his friend Benedetto Castelli. This letter was forwarded to the inquisition in 1615.

[←21]

By 1600 the heliocentric model had already become popular among Jesuit astronomers, without the church taking action against them. At that time there was no official church position on the 57-year-old Copernican theory. It was not considered a heresy.

[←22]

Using terms such as "primitive" is a propaganda technique called "demonizing the enemy." It involves associating your opposition with a people group (primitive in this case) that brings up negative images. Do not fall for it. It is an attempt to get you to change your mind, without any valid reasons for changing your mind.

[←23]

A good article is The Collapse of the Canopy Model: www.tinyurl.com/y97s4ew9

[←24]

The most popular concordance is Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.  It is accurate and complete

[←25]

https://creation.com/the-bible-and-the-hydrologic-cycle

[←26]

These are some of the favorite tools of that liar Satan.

[←27]

The use of the word “cockatrice” does not change the meaning of what scripture is saying. It may have been that, at that time, people in England were not familiar with an adder and the 1611 KJV translators felt “cockatrice” was the best word that communicated the nature of a "tsepha." We do not know the minds of the 1611 KJV translators concerning this word. In any case, translations are not inspired, and there are many bad English translations of the Bible. That is why we identify those English translations that are accurate in communicating the meaning of the original text: the KJV, NKJV, LSB, NASB, ESV, and CSV.

[←28]

Did Adam understand death? See my video: www.AJ83.com/genesis217

[←29]

See Revelation 21:8, which describes the cause of permanent spiritual death.

[←30]

Note: dates are +/- one year due to differences in calendars, and because specific months are not identified. When we convert dates to our current method of dating, we cannot be 100% sure which year in our current dating system is the exact correct year.

[←31]

My book “A Beginner’s Guide to Tracking Dinosaurs” covers this and will is available on Amazon.

[←32]

Steven Hudgik, “The Presence of God, A Commentary on the Book of Esther,” 2017, page 150

[←33]

Why did they look for an inn instead of staying with relatives? We have no idea of what the living conditions were like for their relatives. However, they certainly were not like the homes we have today. When it was her time, Mary and Joseph may have been “camping” outside. A night at an inn would have provided a good place to deliver a baby. (Keep in mind there are no hospitals.)  However, that was not possible. So she delivered the baby Jesus in a place that had a manger. Luke does not say it was a stable. The location of the manger is not given. However, we do know it was located in a place shepherds could access. (Shepherds would not be allowed to go into an inn.) In addition, it demonstrated Jesus’ humble beginnings. This may be why God caused the inn to be full. Of course, this is all speculation, scripture does not record why they wanted to stay in an inn.

[←34]

Visit the Science Pastor web site for my 30 SECOND videos on a young earth: https://tinyurl.com/y3np3m2q

[←35]

The following is a quote from “Contested Bones” by Christopher Rupe and Dr. John Sanford, FMS Publications (2019) page 274. “The second example is the lava dome that formed in the crater of Mount St. Helens in Washington state. The dome formed in 1984, and crystallized by 1986 (the actual age of the rock), providing geologists with an opportunity to test the reliability of the potassium-argon method. …The results of the potassium-argon analysis indicated the solidified lava dome was anywhere between 340,000 and 2.8 million years old. Furthermore, different crystals within the same rock sample yielded different ages, all of which were dramatically older than the true age of the recently formed lava dome.”

[←36]

https://www.gotquestions.org/resurrected-with-Jesus.html

[←37]

Quarantine the sick and those who are at risk, not the healthy.

Table of Contents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

←1

←2

←3

←4

←5

←6

←7

←8

←9

←10

←11

←12

←13