A&E - Notes from Edenville

Who crushed the bones
and whence?
Eden’s Mr. Mud
without good sense.
Why talk @ snakes
and hear evil?
Lord willing, I resist
yet surely Eve’ll.
When did the
first pair streak?
The Y6K bug
made all life bleak.
What high prize
was worth bad fruit?
godkin Edenites
He did uproot!

The Oprah Factor – a review of Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Moreland, Reynolds)

Three Views of Creation and Evolution by J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds et al (Zondervan, 1999) is a vast disappointment. The page numbers below refer to this book. The Genesis Debate, edited by Ron Youngblood, is a much better work along the same lines (Thomas Nelson, 1986). Beware of the word “integration” – this usually implies the view that “science” trumps scripture (p. 9). On the positive side, Moreland amazingly admits, “… I cannot shake the idea that the young earth people may be correct” (p. 85).

A term that is better than Young Earth Creationism (p. 41) is Orthodox Protestants who take Genesis as Historical Narrative (OPGHN, “opgane”). “Orthodox Protestants” was a term proposed by Harold Lindsell who wrote The Battle for the Bible. [1] If Genesis is historical narrative, then creation in six days and a Global Flood follow directly. The RATE team concluded that Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 is historical narrative based on a statistical analysis of preterite verbs. [2] Howard Van Till (theistic evolutionist) denies that Genesis is historical narrative (pp. 209, 210). The International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (p. 78) produced the “Chicago Statement.” Article 12 states, “… We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” R. C. Sproul’s commentary makes it plain that a local flood is consistent with this. [3] Ironically, Sproul is now an OPGHN.

Henry Morris is mentioned on just four pages (see index, p. 288). And Ken Ham is only named on one page (p. 43)! The introduction provides various ways to look at this topic (pp. 9-11), but overlooks the primary issue, “what does the Scripture say?” (Rom. 4:3). Moreland disagrees, “The debate about creation and evolution is not primarily one about how to interpret certain passages in Genesis…” (p. 89).

There is talk of dialog (p. 14) yet very little of that actually takes place. Ken Ham and Jason Lisle debated Walter Kaiser and Hugh Ross in 2006, but this type of interaction is rare. The terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” should be dropped (pp. 15, 135). Common ancestry, unlimited variation and like phrases, should replace the term “macroevolution.” So called “microevolution” should be described by variation, adaptation, natural selection and speciation. The distinction between origins science and operational science is overlooked (pp. 15, 182, 183).

Fixity of essential types of life is of key importance. If frogs only reproduce frogs and velociraptors only make velociraptors, then molecules to man evolution is impossible. Shockingly, “kinds” and “baramin” are not in the index! However, Phillip Johnson does discuss kinds in a footnote (p. 276). Reynolds and Paul Nelson rightly speak of the “… the natural limits of biological variation” (p. 45). Robert Newman claims that the phrase “after their kind” does not imply “… that one kind could never evolve into another” (p. 114). At least three kinds were created on Day Six of Creation Week and there is no hint that creeping things evolved into cattle which further evolved into beasts (Gen. 1:24). Though the RATE team first met in 1997, their project is not mentioned in this book. [4]

Old Earthers claim that there are “large gaps in the genealogical records” (p. 21, cf. p. 91), yet there are no gaps in the chronological record which indicates that the earth is about six thousand years old. At the end of Day Six of Creation Week the universe was declared “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Thus, the geological record, full of death and disease, must be Post-Creation Week. Many of the contributors to this volume ignore this fact.

J. P. Moreland and Reynolds claim that “… almost all responsible thinkers agree that certain chemical elements now decay at known rates” (p. 24). The RATE results show this to be false. [5] Francis Schaeffer held that the constancy of radiometric decay was questionable. [6] Edward Blyth, a creationist, published on natural selection decades before Darwin (p. 31). There is no mention of the “scriptural geologists” of the early 1800’s highlighted in Terry Mortenson’s book The Great Divide. The Creation Research Society in not “young earth” (p. 33), but rather it holds that the Flood was global in extent and effect.

Nelson and Reynolds (young earthers), give away the store: “Recent creationists should humbly agree that their view is , at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds” (p. 51). Their advice is “… to leave the issues of biblical chronology and history to a saner period” (p. 100). While emphasizing Intelligent Design, Nelson and Reynolds suggest that we, “Feel free to put off the question of the age of the earth and the Flood for now” (p. 75). They mention Russell Humphreys work on distant starlight (p. 52), but fail to refer to his book Starlight and Time (1994).

Walter Bradley’s (progressive creation) anti-Flood arguments have been refuted. He claims that thick deposits pose a problem for the Flood (p. 77). Consider Mt. St. Helens’ eruption of 1980 and its aftermath. There are 600 feet of layered deposits that formed in just a couple of years! [7] Furthermore, some deposits were formed before and after the Flood. Bradley is confused on the meaning of “nephesh” (air-breathing) death when he speaks of bacteria (p. 77). He claims that it is “problematic” that the Adam and Eve might have lived forever (p. 77). The first couple’s descendents may have populated the stars. Bradley denies the global distribution of humanity at the time of the Flood (p. 78). This is quite unreasonable given the long antediluvian life-spans. The Tower of Babel, with its concentration of population, was after the Flood, not prior.

Contributor John Jefferson Davis challenges the Global Flood by asking, “… did kangaroos and platypuses that live in Australia come to the Middle East to board Noah’s ark?” (p. 84). The continents may have been together before the Deluge. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) is one of the leading models of the Flood. The animals would have dispersed from Ararat and floated on debris to get to various islands. In the Ice Age the lower ocean would have revealed some land bridges as well. God’s rainbow promise shows that the Flood must have been worldwide – we have had many local floods since Noah’s death.

Vern Poythress (old earth) claims that, “The Bible simply does not say whether the Flood covered the entire globe” (p. 92). Poythress, who teaches at Westminster Seminary (PA), denies creation is six normal days (pp. 92, 93), yet the Westminster Shorter Catechism clearly teaches (Q9), “The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good” [emphasis added]. He is oblivious to the fact that in 1994 six creationist Ph.D.’s defended CPT at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh not far from where he teaches! (p. 94).

Here are some possibilities for defenders of OPGHN that Zondervan should have selected:

• John Morris, author of The Young Earth
  Russell Humphreys, author of Starlight and Time (1994)
  John Baumgardner, plate tectonics researcher, pub. in Nature
  Jonathan Sarfati, author of Refuting Compromise (contra Ross)
  Terry Mortenson, author of The Great Turning Point
  Andrew Snelling, author of Earth's Catastrophic Past
  

In general, the contributors seem to be generally uninformed in the field of creationism. Some helpful pro-creation websites include:
ICR
CRS
Creation Moments
AiG
CMI

What is missing from this book is the Oprah factor – brutal honesty and open confession. “I don’t want to be persecuted or lose my job, so I need to compromise on the clearly stated meaning of Genesis.” It’s hard to say but it is a first step. “Hello, my name is Richard, and I’m Against the Creationists of Tradition (ACT).” There now, doesn’t that feel better? Indeed, it is tough to fight the academic majority. Just say “NO” to the scientific elite and tell your Maker, “Lord I believe, please help my unbelief.” The Creation Research Society has a list of local creationist groups where you may find comfort and answers to your questions.

Notes:
1) The Bible in the Balance by Harold Lindsell, (Zondervan, 1979, Grand Rapids, MI), p. 321.
2) RATE = Radioisotopes and The Age of the Earth, Thousands … Not Billions ed. by Don DeYoung, (Master Books, 2005, Green Forest, AR), pp. 157-170.
3) Explaining Inerrancy by R. C. Sproul, (Ligonier Ministries, 1996, Orlando, FL), pp. 36, 38.4) “Fair and Balanced?” by Steven McConaughy,
4) DeYoung, p. 17.
5) DeYoung, especially chs. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
6) The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer by Francis Schaeffer, (Crossway Books, 1982, Wheaton, IL), p. 134.
7) Footprints in the Ash by John Morris and Steven Austin, (Master Books, 2003, Green Forest, AR), p. 52, 53.

To Dembski with Love

William Dembski, the well known ID advocate, has written a book promoting the view that the death, destruction and disease seen in the fossil record are the retroactive punishment of the Fall. The book is called The End of Christianity and Terry Mortenson (of Answers in Genesis) has provided an excellent response to Dembski’s thesis. Dembski accepts the standard geochronology where man appeared on the planet many millions of years after the lower animals. Such scripture twisting is not kosher.

The beginning of creation and the advent of man are not separated by millions or billions of years, “But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female’” (Mk. 10:6). God asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? … while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7). That is the angels were around when the earth was created, but why are the angels around anyway? “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:14). That is man and angels are contemporaries and not separated by millions of years. So man has been around since the creation of the earth (Day Six of Creation Week).

Satan was a murderer from the beginning (Jn. 8:44). Cain slew Abel and did not resist demonic influences (Ge. 4:6,7). Murder implies man was around – angels don’t die.

Scripture’s first verse tells us that the earth existed at the beginning and not billions of years after the alleged Big Bang. “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Ps. 102:25).

Prophets have existed since the world began: “As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began” (Lk. 1:70, KJV). Was not Adam speaking prophetically in Genesis 2:23 when he called Eve “bone of my bones.” Did not Adam make a prediction when he indicated that Eve would be the mother of all living (Ge. 3:20)? Enoch was definitely a prophet (Jude 14). So, human prophets and the beginning of the earth are not separated by billions of years, “… which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:21, KJV). Isaiah concurs:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in (Is. 40:21,22).

Consider the witness of general revelation: “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19,20). Bert Thompson rightly comments,

Who observed and perceived these things that were made from the beginning of the world? If no man was there for billions of years, because man “is a relatively new comer to the Earth,” who was observing - with rational, human intelligence - these phenomena? An amoeba? A dinosaur? Without question Paul is contending that man has existed since the creation of the world… [1]

“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (Jn. 3:12).

All quotes are from the NIV unless otherwise noted.

Note:
1) Creation Compromises by Bert Thompson, (Apologetics Press, 1995, Montgomery, AL), p. 180, emphasis in original.

- - - +++
Just say “YES” (Young Earth Science)!

QED

MOL = Math Out Loud

Darwin Worship

Some atheists treat Darwin as an infallible god. To adapt (evolve?) a phrase from Chris Mooney, “Today, some evolutionists regard Darwin as little short of deity.” [1] Was Darwin there at the beginning (cf. Job 38:4)? Did he witness the six days of Creation Week? Was Darwin a time traveler like Dr. Who (TARDIS). Time cannot go backwards. We have not yet invented a history viewer (similar to the film “Paycheck”).

Are you willing to bleed for the Evolution Creed? Evo Creed: “Evolution is a fact, but we don’t exactly know how it happened and the evidential links are still missing.” If Darwinists don’t worship Darwin, then who do they idolize? Mathematician David Berlinski (who appeared in the film Expelled, http://expelledthemovie.com/) provides the answer, “… evolutionary dogmatists [Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens] …have conjured up a kind of god. Unlike the God of old, who ruled over everything, this god rules over lapses in argument or evidence. … He may be called the god of the gaps [emphasis added].” [2]

Don’t bow down to the Darwin Idol. Consider again the words of Berlinski:

In talking of the mathematician’s skepticism, I mentioned Von Neumann [a Darwin skeptic and leader in the early development of computers] because his name was widely known. I might have mentioned Gian-Carlo Rota. He despised the enveloping air of worship associated with Darwin; he thought biology primitive and dishonest [emphasis added]. [3]

Here is an enlightening video on Darwin worship: http://www.youtube.com/CreationStation23

NOTES:
1) Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, (2005, Basic Books, New York), p. 35.
2) “The God of the Gaps” by David Berlinski, Commentary, Vol. 125, No. 4 (April 2008), p. 37.

3) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html

Bible Astronomy for Brainiacs

Jeremiah indicates that the cosmos is expanding: “He has stretched out the heavens” (Jer. 10:12). There are a number of verses that indicate that the universe is expanding. [1]

Psalm 89:37 speaks of the moon as “a faithful witness in heaven.” That is, the moon is a witness to the sun’s light. The moon reflects light; it is not a lightsource itself.

"Just as you can’t number the stars in the sky nor measure the sand on the seashore, neither will you be able to account for the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who serve me" (Jer. 33:22, Message). The total number of stars is about 10^22 to 10^24 stars. This fits in well with the number of sand grains on earth (cf. Ge 22:17). [2]

Job apparently refers to the rotation of the earth: "Hast thou commanded morning since thy days? Causest thou the dawn to know its place? To take hold on the skirts of the earth, and the wicked are shaken out of it. It turneth itself as clay of a seal and they station themselves as clothed" (Job 38:12-14, YLT).

Jude 13 speaks of planets as “wandering stars.”

Job 38:31 asks, “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?” thus indicating that the Pleiades are gravitationally bound which is scientifically accurate. The Pleiades are also mentioned in Job 9:9 and Amos 5:8.

Ezekiel 1:16 speaks of a “wheel inside a wheel.” This reminds us of a gyroscope which provides stability. So, it makes sense that the planets travel around the sun. If the Milky Way did not rotate, it would collapse due to gravitational attraction of the center.

Psalm 84:11 tells us that the Lord is a sun and shield. The sun gives light and heat and helps plants grow. It makes sense that the sun is the center of the solar system. James 1:17 is also consistent with a relatively fixed sun.

Aristarchus (c. 310-230 BC) proposed the heliocentric view and calculated that the moon was 1/3 the size of the earth (actual = ¼) and that the sun was seven times the size of the earth (actual = 109). Objects fall to the earth due to gravity. So, the sun must have more attractive power since it is bigger. The planets revolving around the sun is a very reasonable theory. [3]

Calvin and Luther both rejected heliocentrism. [4] However, Kepler, a firm Bible believer, accepted the Copernican theory. The middle graphic above by Lucas Cranach illustrates the geocentric model. It appeared in the “Luther Bible” of 1534.

Francis Schaeffer points out that the opposition to the Copernican theory was not based on scripture but on Aristotle’s views:

When the Roman Church attacked Copernicus and Galileo (1564-1642), it was not because their teaching actually contained anything contrary to the Bible. The church authorities thought it did, but that was because Aristotelian elements had become part of church orthodoxy, and Galileo’s notion clearly conflicted with them. In fact, Galileo defended the compatibility of Copernicus and the Bible, and this was one of the factors which brought about his trial. [5]

A good synopsis of the Galileo affair may be found in chapter ten of Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s so Great about Christianity?

Compare these amazing affirmations of the Bible’s accuracy with the following statements from the Qur’an:
“…when he reached the setting–place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring…” (sura 18:86, Pickthal).
“The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain” (sura 54:1).

Is there evidence within the solar system that supports Young Earth Science (YES)? YES, there is. Huge dust rings go around the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. According to Frank Low (Univ. of Arizona), “Particles this small can only survive in stable orbits for a few ten-thousands of year before they are pulled apart by the sun.” [6]

Consider the words of Nobel laureate in physics, Arthur Compton, who said,

For myself, faith begins with the realization that supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – and orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of themost majestic statement ever uttered – “In the beginning God.” [7]

You agree, don’t you, that God is in charge? He runs the universe—just look at the stars! (Job 22:12, Message)


Notes:
1) Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys, 1994, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, p. 66.
2) Astronomy and the Bible by Don DeYoung, 1989, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 120, 121.
3) Universe by Design by Danny Faulkner, 2004, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, p. 11.
4) “Some Misconceptions of the Impact of the ‘Enlightenment’ on the Doctrine of Scripture” by John Woodbridge in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon ed. by D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge, 1986, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 259, 260.
5) Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer by Francis Schaeffer, 1982, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, Vol. 5: p. 156.
6) quoted in It’s a Young World After All by Paul Ackerman, 1986, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 46.
7) DeYoung, pp. 114, 115.

Of Squids and CAT Planets

In an interview with Astrobiology Magazine, David Grinspoon of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado said this concerning catastrophism (CAT) on Venus:

If you use the word catastrophic it rubs some people the wrong way, but something dramatic happened on Venus which wiped out almost all signs of an older surface. The planet got re-paved, basically, 600 or 700 million years ago. … the planet seems to have been flooded with basaltic lavas in a geologically short period of time, simultaneously around the planet. … If Venus has episodic plate tectonics, where nothing happens for a while, the heat builds up in the interior. Eventually it can't stand it any more, and you have this rapid overturning. …what we're seeing on Venus is the evidence of the last of those great episodes of global resurfacing. …

Venus and Earth both show evidence of rapid geologic activity. Mars has also experienced geological catastrophes. Why not consider Global Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (GCPT) as an explanation the for the Flood of Noah’s day?

Writing in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Victor Baker with the Department of Hydrology and Water Resources at the University of Arizona, Tucson states:

In the 1920s, J Harlen Bretz demonstrated that the Channeled Scabland [of Washington state] formed by cataclysmic erosion and deposition from Pleistocene megaflooding derived from the margins of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, particularly glacial Lake Missoula in western Montana and northern Idaho. Studies of this region and the high-energy flood processes that generated it are stimulating discoveries of similar megaflood-related landscapes around the world and on Mars…

There is a resurgence of catastrophism in the geologic community. Should we not at least explore the option that most of the rock structures were produced by one great cataclysm? Venus, Mars and Earth are all CAT planets!

If the Flood really happened, then traditional geological dating must be in error. Squid ink has been found in a fossil dated at 150 million years in Brittain. Dr. Phil Wilby of the British Geological Survey said:

It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimension, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old.

The illustration above was drawn with the same ink. An independent study has confirmed that protein fragments, including collagen and hemoglobin, have been found in the T. rex made famous in 2007. Surely this protein is not 65 million years old! So dinos and squid show that the rock record is not old and this is consistent with the view that the Flood was the event the produced most of the fossils.

Some argue that since different creatures are found in distinct layers of the rocks, then this supports evolution. This conclusion is unwarranted. Consider the tiny shelled creatures called foraminifera (forams) that live on the ocean bottom (benthic) and also on the surface (pelagic). Evolutionists consider the surface forms to have evolved from the benthic types since the fossils are found in different strata. The discovery of a surface foram that is the same species as a benthic type calls this into question. Just because different forms of life are found in different sections of the geologic record this does not mean that they existed in periods separated by millions of years. This example with forams shows us that some organisms have a wide ecological range and that their fossil remains are consistent with the Global Flood. That is, Noah’s Flood deposited many ecological zones and not ancestor-descendent sequences as Darwin supposed.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name. (Jn. 20:30, 31)

A Response to Don’t Know Much About the Bible by Kenneth C. Davis (Part 2)

Don’t Know Much About the Bible by Kenneth C. Davis (part of the “Don’t Know Much” series) is a thoughtful work, but takes a negative attitude toward Scripture. One reviewer claims "Davis writes like Isaac Asimov." According to Davis, “The vivid biblical description of the cruel treatment of the Canaanites in Ai and other cities comes wrapped in the cloak of divine approval, pointing up one of the great ethical contradictions of the Bible. When a supposedly ‘evil’ people is eradicated at God’s direction, does that justify it” [1]? The Israelites did not initiate these conquests on their own accord. When they fought the Amalekites on their own they were defeated (Num. 14:39-45)! God sent the global Flood, Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and the New Testament predicts a future judgment where the heavens and the earth will be destroyed by fire (2 Peter 3:7,10). The Lord is a God of justice as well as love. The conquest of Canaan is a supreme example of God’s patience in judgment! The Canaanites were polytheistic, practiced child sacrifice, temple prostitution and divination. Yet God waited 400 years before the punishment came - thus fulfilling his promise to Abraham (Gen. 15:16).

Davis claims that the conquest of Canaan by the Jews was a long process of “settlement.” But what do the facts indicate? The Amarna tablets discovered in Egypt in 1887 include letters form Palestine and Syria. These writings complain about the attacking “Habiru” and mention that Gezer, Ashkelon, Lachish and other cities were conquered. This matches up with Joshua’s conquest of Canaan in 1400-1380 BC. Abdi-Hiba, governor of Jerusalem, wrote to Pharaoh Akhnaton (1387-1366 BC) with great urgency, “The Habiru plunder all lands of the king ... if the archers [from Egypt] are not here, then the lands of the king, my lord, are lost” [2]. This level of desperation makes no sense unless the conquest of Canaan lead by Joshua really happened.

Davis asks “Is mocking a bald man any reason to kill children” [3]? This is in reference to when Elisha called down a curse on a crowd of youths who called him “baldy” and were killed by bears (2 Kings 2:23,24). Disrespecting a prophet was a serious offense and was part of the reason why the Jews were exiled to Babylon (2 Chron. 36:16,20). Remember Samson? Lots of hair is symbolic of strength, so reference to baldness is almost like saying, “your God has no power.” If 42 youths were actually killed, how big was the original mob? Would this qualify as a riot? Was Elisha in danger of his life? The fact that it was a miracle proves that it was God’s decision not an angry whim of Elisha!

Regarding the discovery of the Book of the Law during Josiah’s reign, Davis maintains his tirade, “There is a discrepancy between the Kings account and a later account in Chronicles, which states that King Josiah began his reforms before the ‘Book of the Law’ was found. This is typical of the contradictions between the versions of the ’history’ of Israel and Judah presented in Kings and Chronicles...” [4]. Josiah was devoted to the Lord before the discovery of the Book of the Law (2 Kings 22:1,2). In the twelfth year of his reign he began to destroy Judah’s idols (2 Chr. 34:3). This work continued more vigorously after the discovery of the Book of the Law as Chronicles so states: “Josiah removed all the detestable idols from all the territory belonging to the Israelites...” (2 Chr. 34:33).

Davis critiques the promise of the virgin born Messiah in Isaiah 7:14, “Isaiah’s original words clearly refer to a ‘young women’ or ‘maiden’ and not a virgin” [5]. The first gospel in Genesis 3:15 states that the Messiah will be the “offspring of the woman,” uses “he” and says nothing of Adam and so intimating a virgin birth of a male child. In the unusual case where a woman gives birth without intercourse the child is always a girl. If Is. 7:14 is not a virgin birth, how could it be a “sign” (miracle)? Every singular use of “almah” (young woman in Is. 7:14) in the Old Testament refers to a virgin! In Gen. 24:43 “betulah” (virgin) and “almah” are both applied to Rebekah!

Davis next attack is on poor old Jonah, “the tale of Jonah is another familiar legend... Historical records from ancient Assyria contain no reference to the event described in Jonah” [6]. Jesus took Jonah literally, so should we (Matt. 12:40). Jonah 4:11 mentions a very specific historical fact: more than 120,000 people inhabited Nineveh. Do you find such details in legends? An inscription of King Ashur-nasir-pal II mentions a banquet at Nimrud, 20 miles from Nineveh, attended by 70,000 people [7]. During the reign of Adad-nirari III (811-783 BC) there was a movement toward monotheism; there were plagues in 759 and 756 BC also a solar eclipse in 763 BC [8]. Could these events have been providential preparations for Jonah? James Bartley in 1891 was swallowed by a sperm whale - his skin was bleached and looked like parchment and never turned back to its former color [9]. If someone like that showed up today we would probably call them an “alien!” The Assyrians had a god that was part man and part fish. Berosus, a Babylonian historian of the fourth century BC called the fish-god “Oannes.” This is exactly the same name for Jonah in the Septuagint and the New Testament (with “I” at the beginning) [10]!

Davis claims that the Song of Solomon is, “not overly concerned with marriage” and wonders how this book could “make it into the Bible in the first place” [11]? First of all, this love song involves one man and one woman which is the basis of marriage. God created sex for pleasure and procreation. Deut. 17:17 warns kings not to multiply wives. Solomon’s work gives no attention to his harem. In fact, Solomon’s polygamy turned his heart away toward other gods (1 Kings 11:1-4). Therefore, the Song of Solomon supports marriage in every way!

Davis doubts that Daniel wrote the prophecy by that name [12]. Jesus accepted that Daniel was the author (Mt. 24:15) - if Christ lied, he’s not God! Daniel himself claims to be the author in 7:1-2, 15, 28; 8:1,15,27; 9:2,21,22; 10:1,2; 12:5. The lack of Greek loan words indicates that Daniel was written before the time of Alexander the Great. Daniel usually places the verb later in the clause in contrast to what was practiced centuries later as in the Qumran manuscripts [13].

Davis places doubt on the traditional authorship of the Gospels [14]. The second century writer Papias (c. 130-140 AD) said, “Matthew compiled the Logia [oracles]...” [15]. Matthew was a tax collector and so was good with numbers. Isn’t it interesting the he gives Christ’s genealogy in three groups of 14 in the first chapter?

Regarding Mark, Papias wrote: “Mark having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ; not, however, in order” [16]. Mark mentions the healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law in the first chapter! Why this emphasis?! Luke waits till ch. 4 and Matthew ch. 8. Peter refers to “my son Mark” (1 Peter 5:13). The inner circle consisted of Peter, James and John - the most detailed account of the healing of Jairus’ daughter is in Mark and was attended by only the inner three (Mk 5:22, 23, 37-43). So, Peter is the most likely candidate for the ultimate source of Mark. The streaker in Mk. 14:51,52 is probably Mark and thus he may have been an eyewitness of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Luke was a doctor (Col. 4:14). Luke mentions technical medical terms in Acts 3:7,9,18; 12:23; 13:11; 28:8 etc. [17]. Only Luke mentions Malchus’ ear (Lk 22:51) and Christ sweating drops of blood (Lk 22:44). There are many “we” sections in Acts: 16:10-17, 27:1 - 28:16 etc. Silas and Timothy are mentioned so they could not be the author (Acts 15:22, 17:14). Titus was with Paul before the “we” sections began (Gal 2:3). Luke appears as a companion of Paul in the later epistles (Col 4:14, Philemon 24, 2 Tim 4:11). Luke was with Paul in Rome (cf. Acts 28:16, Col 4:10,14,18). Acts speaks of a former book - both addressed to Theophilus (Lk 1:3, Acts 1:1). Who else but a doctor would take the scientific analytical approach of a research historian (Lk 1:1-4)?

The fourth gospel was clearly written by the Apostle John. The upper room discourse in John chapters 13-17 was clearly written by one of the inner circle (Peter, James and John). John 12:16 states, “at first his disciples didn’t understand all this...” which indicates the narration of one of the inner circle. The core of the inner circle was Peter and John, who made preparations for the Last Supper (Lk 22:8). If Peter was the source of Mark, it makes perfect sense that John is indeed the author of the fourth evangelist. John 21:20, 24 eliminates Peter as the author. James was martyred in 44 A.D. (Acts 12:2). John is specifically named as the author of Revelation (Rev 1:1,4,9; 22:8). Note the reference to Jesus as “the Word” in John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1 and Rev. 19:13. The word “true” (alethinos) occurs eight times in John, four times in 1 John and ten times in Revelation! The word meaning “to overcome” (nikao) is found in John 16:33, seven times in 1 John and seventeen times in Revelation [18]. John’s mother was a witness to the crucifixion (Mt. 27:56). Note carefully, Christ spoke to Mary first - not his beloved disciple (Jn. 19:26, 27). If Jesus spoke to John first then his intended meaning would have been lost, since his own mother was present as well! According to Dorothy Sayers, “... St. John’s [gospel] is the only one that claims to be the direct report of an eyewitness. And to one accustomed to the imaginative handling of documents, the internal evidence bears out this claim” [19].

Davis makes the assertion that, “the authorship of the New Testament books remains clouded in mystery... as the first generation of ’apostles’ who were spreading the ’good news’ started to die off... it seemed like a good idea to set these words down” and claims that Paul’s letters were first collected around 90 A.D. [20]. On what basis can this be backed up? John Robinson, leader of the ’death of God’ movement, dates ALL of the New Testament between 40 and 70 A.D. William Albright, the famous archaeologist, dated the writing of the New Testament between 50 and 75 A.D. [21]. The last book written, Revelation, clearly describes the temple still standing in Jerusalem (Rev 11:1, 8). The scriptures of the new covenant community were written by eyewitnesses, not decades later (Heb 2:3, Lk 1:2, 1 Cor 15:6, Jn 21:24). Paul quotes Luke as scripture (1 Tim 5:18). 2 Peter 3:15, 16 refers to Paul’s letters as scripture! According to Eusebius, Peter and Paul were both martyred during the reign of Nero around 67/68 A.D. [22]. Jude cites 2 Peter: compare Jude 4-12 with 2 Peter 2:1,4,9,10,12,13,15 and 17. Now Jude 5-7 mentions several divine acts of judgment against the Canaanites, fallen angels and Sodom and Gomorrah. If this was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, this event would have fit perfectly in this context! So Peter was before Jude and Jude is prior to 70 A.D. John 5:2 states that there is a pool near the Sheep Gate which indicates that the author wrote before 70 A.D.

The general paradigm in redemptive history is that prophecy and inscripturation are contemporary phenomena (Jer 36:27,28). Paul himself wrote the closing of his letters (Gal 6:11, 1 Cor 16:21, Col 4:18, Philemon 19). “I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters... (2 Thes 3:17). Paul claimed that his writing had authority (2 Thes 2:15). Paul said, “... what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (1 Cor 14:37).

Carsten Peter Thiede has studied the Magdalen Papyrus (Greek 17 and p64) which contains 24 lines from Matthew 26:7-33. He concluded that the paper, ink, style of letters and line length demonstrate that the fragments were written around 60 A.D. [23]. Josephus tells us that James, the half-brother of Jesus, was stoned to death in 62 A.D. [24]. Thus, the book of James must have been written before 62 A.D.! Jose O’Callahan, a paleographer, announced in 1972 that he discovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark from Qumran [25]. Several fragments from Mark are dated around 50 A.D.! A fragment from Acts is dated c. 60 A.D. Fragments from Romans, 1 Timothy, 2 Peter and James are dated c. 70 A.D.!

Remember that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and he is our only source of true truth and salvation from sin, both now and forevermore!

NOTES:
1) Davis, Kenneth C., Don’t Know Much About the Bible, William Morrow
& Co., 1998, p.152.
2) McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Vol. 2), Here’s Life Publ., 1981, p. 336.
3) Davis, p. 199.
4) ibid. p.205.
5) ibid. p. 226.
6) ibid., p. 258.
7) “Digging up Nineveh” found here
8) “Jonah” by Al Maxey found here
9) “Swallowed by a Whale” found here
10) “Christian Evidences” found here
11) Davis, p. 303.
12) ibid. p. 314.
13) Archer, Gleason, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982, p. 283.
14) Davis, p. 332.
15) Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? (6th ed.), Inter-Varsity Press, 1981, p. 38.
16) ibid., p.35.
17) Dummelow, J. R. (ed.), A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Macmillan, 1908 (1955 reprint), p. 815.
18) Hailey, Homer, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary, Baker, 1979, pp. 24, 25.
19) Bruce, p. 49.
20) Davis, p.336.
21) Geisler, Norman & William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev.), Moody Press, 1986, p. 213.
22) Bruce, F. F., New Testament History, Doubleday-Galilee, 1980, p. 367.
23) Book Review of Eyewitness to Jesus by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew d’Ancona , rev. by Bob Passantino,found here
24) “History, Archaeology and Jesus” by Paul Maier found here
25) Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker
Books, 1999, p. 530.