Evidence of God from Dr. Judge the Leviathan



So, there’s this article floating around the internet that claims scientists have discovered the first evidence of God’s existence. (No need for you anymore, Romans 1…)

The article has been shared almost a quarter-million times on Facebook, where I first came across it. The title was intriguing, so I went ahead and clicked on it. But the more I read, the more things seemed fishy to me. By the time I finished I felt like I was as at a fisherman’s wharf.

Why? Because this article is obviously not real. It’s completely fake.

Let’s count the ways in which this article should raise some red flags:

  1. It’s from the Wyoming Institute of Technology… which doesn’t actually exist. Don’t believe me? Go to their website and try to apply or even get a campus tour. Good luck!
  2. It claims that a fictitious institute joined up with the Human Genome Project and Bob Jones University, but neither of these real institutions make the same claim.
  3. Its author is Dr. Richter DasMeerungeheuer, which means Judge the Leviathan in German – not a real name.
  4. It cites BJU professor Matthew Boulder as being part of the discovery who is about as real as Dr. Judge the Leviathan.

All this reminds us of one simple lesson – you can’t always trust everything you read on the internet, even if you want to.

It’s not bad apologetics, it’s fabricated apologetics.

Not only this, but it’s a false witness. Assuming the author of this article wants to promote faith in God through science, he or she is going about it in a very bad way. This article is worse than bad apologetics for the Christian faith.

Why? Because it’s not bad apologetics, it’s fabricated apologetics.

We are called to defend faith well and honestly. This article is a great example of what it means to bear false witness and misrepresent the very God that the author seems to be defending, which presupposes that God (not faith) needs defending in the first place.

I would say to chalk this article up to bad scholarship, but it doesn’t even deserve that.

It’s a complete lie.


What’s in a Day?



What’s in a day? That’s the big question when it comes to any interpretation of Genesis 1 that is not a literal, plain reading of the text.

Taken at plainest reading, there is little getting around the fact that the author of Genesis recounts the timeframe in which God created the entire universe. Turns out, that’s a week – six days, with a seventh day of rest.

Then, when we add up the genealogies (assuming they don’t skip generations at any point) we are given about 5,700 – 10,000 years of history from Adam to us. This six-day creation with a young earth are central to the idea of Young Earth Creationism (YEC).

Yet, there are many who argue that a plain reading of Genesis 1 actually does the text a disservice. They say that the earth is much older than 10,000 years because of scientific evidence. These folks typically subscribe to Old Earth Creationism (OEC), along with Intelligent Design (ID) and Theistic Evolution (TE).

So, how do these last three groups marry an old earth and universe with Genesis 1? Furthermore, how do YEC maintain their belief in a young earth despite scientific evidence?

Simply put, it all comes down to the meaning of day.


Both YEC and OEC agrees that when we read Genesis 1, we read a consistent pattern and rhythmic flow in the chronology of God’s creative work.

There was evening and morning, the first day, and it was good, and there was evening and morning, the second day, and it was good, and there was evening and morning… Well, you get the picture.

At the outset, it is important to remember that Hebrew uses the word day (יום) much in the same manner that English does. In English we have three specific ways we use the word day.

  1. To distinguish between daytime and nighttime
  2. To identify a 24-hour period of time
  3. To point back to an unspecific amount of time int he past

So, for example, we can see each of these three in everyday speech…

  1. “We should only travel by day since it will be dark at night.”
  2. “One day this week, we should get together.”
  3. “Back in my day, we didn’t have the internet.”

Hebrew does the same thing:

  1. “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” – Gn 1:5
  2. “In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out.” – Gn 8:14
  3. “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.” – Gn 6:4
Hebrew English Example
12-hour daytime  (Gn 1:5) יום (yowm) “We should travel by day”
24-hour day  (Gn 8:14) יום (yowm) “One day this week…”
Unspecific amount of time in past  (Gn 6:14) יום (yowm) “Back in my day…”

Even the story of creation in Genesis itself gives us a hint that a day may not mean a literal 24-hour period of time. Gn 2:4 poetically transitions the creation story by recollecting the “day that the Lord God made the earth and heavens.”

This is similar to our modern English usage of the word day when we say that something occurred “back in the day.” Of course, we do not mean back in the literal 24-hour period of time, on a Wednesday, but rather we are referring back to a period of time when something occurred.

So, the OEC argument goes, simply because Genesis says day does not necessarily lock us into a literal 24-hour period of time. Obviously, we need context to help us know what the author means by day. Does he mean daytime, a 24-hour day, or an unspecific amount of time in the past?

This is where the conflict between Young and Old Earth Creationists comes to a head. YEC adamantly contends that the plainest reading of Genesis should lead us to a literal, 24-hour period of time, whereas OEC disagrees by pointing out that the third type of day lines up better with the rest of the creation story as well as scientific evidence.

Let’s look at two strong arguments on both side of the aisle in relation to the meaning of a day in Genesis.


First, scientific evidence has demonstrated that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Way older. In fact, it’s so old that it’s kind of hard to even fathom. By modern estimates, the earth is roughly 4.45 billion years old. Scientists have concluded this based on research from radiometric age dating of the oldest rocks and minerals that we can find on the planet.

If the earth is 4.45 billion years old, then is stands to reason that it, along with all its inhabitants and ecosystems, could not have been created in 144 hours just 10,000 years ago. Typically, this conclusion leads OEC to interpret the traditional reading of days in Genesis 1 as epochs or stages of earth’s development over unknown periods of time rather than literal 24-hour periods.

From being created, to naming all animal life, to getting married, Adam had a long day!

As we saw last week, such a reading lines up well with what science tells us occurred. Both Genesis and science claim that the first creative act was light, followed by the formation of land and sea, followed by the development of an atmosphere, then plants, then animals, and finally humans. The question isn’t over the creative order, it’s over the creative time.

Second, we tend to think about the sixth day as the day when God created Adam, then called it quits to rest on the seventh day. However, a closer look at Gn 1:24 – 2:22 reveals that much more happened on the sixth day than we typically think about. In fact, it was quite a full day’s schedule as Dr. Travis Campbell points out.

On the sixth day, God…

  • Created a host of creatures to live and flourish on the land (Gn 1:24–25)
  • Created human beings (Gn 1:26–29) with the first man (Adam) out of the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7)
  • Planted the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:8)
  • Caused trees and plants to grow in the Garden of Eden (Gn 2:9; Gn 1:11–12, 2:5)
  • Placed Adam in the Garden to steward and keep it (Gn 2:15)
  • Made a covenant with Adam (Gn 2:16–17; Hs 6:7)
  • Recognized that Adam was alone (Gn 2:18)
  • Introduced Adam to the animals, instructed him to name them all (Gn 2:19–20)
  • Created Eve as Adam’s helper and wife (Gn 2:21–22)

From being created, to naming all animal life, to getting married, Adam had a long day! This is not to say that God couldn’t have done all these things in twenty-four hours, but it seems quite unlikely (especially if Adam needed to name all the animals and still receive Eve as his wife).

So, how does YEC contend that the plainest reading of Genesis should lead us to a literal, 24-hour period of time?


First, YEC argues that every time the word יום (yowm) is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning,” anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. This happens to be the case throughout Genesis 1.

Each of the creative acts that God performs is associated with a day that has an evening and a morning. This phrase, then, acts as a timestamp to draw our attention to the fact that the author did indeed mean to teach that God used all 24-hours per day.

Second, despite what OEC says about a reinterpretation of days in Genesis, many reputable Hebrew scholars point out that such a revision of the text is grammatically untenable with the original intent of the author.

He could have [created the universe] in six seconds. He is God, after all.

James Barr (Oxford University) summarized it like this – “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.”[1]

Therefore, not only is a literal 24-hour day the plainest reading of the text, it is the plainest reading for a reason – the author meant it to be. Any scientific evidence that contradicts YEC, then, must either be incorrect or misinterpreted. After all, God could have created the earth in six days to appear as if it were 4.45 billion years old. He could have done it in six seconds. (He is God, after all.)

However, as Exodus 20:11 indicates, God specifically chose to use a six-day creation with a seventh day of rest to set an important rhythm for his creation.


So, what should we believe about the days in Genesis? I think that’s a very important question to answer for yourself through your personal investigation and research.

The most important thing to walk away from Genesis 1–3, though, is not how long it took God to create the universe but why God created the universe.

He didn’t do so because he was lonely or bored. Remember, he has perfect, eternal community within himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Instead, he created us out of love. And when we rebelled against him, he displayed that love by promising to reconcile us back to him.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (Gn 3:15).”

Who is God talking about when he says he shall bruise your (the enemy’s) head?


Right there immediately after the why of creation is the how of redemption. This is the most important part of why Genesis 1–3 was written. Not primarily to give us scientific insight into creation (although it does), but to answer the question of how things should be, why they are not, and how God is going to rescue us.

So long as both YEC and OEC keeps focus on the redemption of Genesis 3:15, the days of Genesis 1 can be discussed and debated with brotherly love.


[1] Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated April 23, 1984. (http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html)


The Bible and Chinese Telephone


Too busy to read? Check out the podcast.

“We can’t trust the Bible because it was corrupted through years of translation.”

We’ve all heard this line before. Recently, I’ve heard it a lot. It’s an argument for why people should not or cannot trust the Bible.

The theory goes that through the ages people copied and recopied the Bible, each time changing it just a bit so as to reflect what they wanted it to say.

It’s a bit like a massive game of Chinese Telephone or Chinese Whispers for my British friends. (Either way, what’s with the name? Are the Chinese known for a consistent breakdown in long-distance communication or something? What’s the deal?)

Usually, people who question whether the Bible is reliable come from a wide array of backgrounds. Anyone from staunch atheists to devote Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have questioned why we should trust the modern Bible.

For atheists, it is a book of myths passed down from generation to generation, suffering severe alterations due to translator bias or Christian agendas. For Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is a damaged scripture missing theological points restored only by their scripture.

So, why the unlikely alliance of biblical distrust between believers and non-believers alike? Is the Bible reliable? Can we trust a book that was changed after years and years of translations?


First, it’s important to know at the outset that the Bible wasn’t translated through the ages – it was transcribed. When it comes to the unreliability of the Bible, the word translation gets tossed around a lot; however, alterations to the original text cannot be blamed on a bad translation.

When the Bible is translated, scholars render the Bible from its original languages into a foreign language. So, for example, when you pick up an English Bible you’re not actually reading the original language, you’re reading an English translation of the original Hebrew and Greek.

In the Chinese Telephone analogy, it’s as if someone told you a phrase in English and you told the next person in German. But that’s not how the game is played. From start to finish the message is in the same language.

Transcription, on the other hand, is when scholars copy the Bible without rendering it into a different language.

We must remember that back in the day there were not copy machines, no scanners, no Kinkos.

Professional scribes, usually monks, would spend hours on end painstakingly copying letter after letter in order to preserve the original message.

So, were there changes made during the transcription process? Yes, of course. It’s okay to admit this – the Bible you read is an English translation from copies of copies of ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts with errors.

The question becomes, Are these errors bad enough to render the Bible unreliable? Just how well did the monks play Chinese Telephone?


One New Testament scholar divides these transcription errors into four types: spelling differences and nonsense errors, minor changes, meaningful but not viable, and meaningful and viable.

1. Spelling Differences and Nonsense Errors

The largest type of errors are spelling differences and nonsense mistakes. Some of these are as small as copying an improper article, such as ‘apple’ instead of ‘an apple’. Others are simple spelling mistakes, like Iōannēs (Greek for John) without the second ‘n’ (Iōanes).[1]

Another type of error is even a bit humorous. In one late transcript, a scribe copied “we were horses among you” (Gk. hippoi) instead of “we were gentle among you” (Gk. ēpioi) in 1 Thessalonians 2:7.[2] Close, but no cigar…

This would be like copying the Preamble as, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Onion.” Obviously, there was a mistake – equally obvious is the correction.

So, just because one scribe misspelled John’s name and another thinks were all horses doesn’t mean Jesus never resurrected.

2. Minor Changes

The second-most common type of error is minor changes in the original language. If you’ve never studied the language, the first conclusion you draw about ancient Greek grammar is that it’s the Wild Wild West of languages. Sometimes, you can express the same thought up to sixteen different ways by messing with the word order in a sentence.

With that in mind, changes in the text can be something as trivial as the presence or absence of the article “the” before a noun.[3] Is the meaning of that sentence lost? No way, because Greek is awesome and you still have fifteen more variations to go before losing meaning.

Again, just because one manuscript might say that “disciples went to empty tomb” doesn’t mean that the tomb wasn’t empty. (But it does mean that text sounds a bit cavemanish.)

3. Meaningful, but Not Viable

The third type of errors are those that have meaning, but are not viable. This means that the change made has some type of relation to the original word, but isn’t necessarily the same thing. Thus, they are an unviable substitute.

One example is found in 1 Thessalonians 2:9 where almost all manuscripts render the phrase “gospel of God.” However, in one medieval manuscript we are given the phrase “gospel of Christ.”

Is Christ God? Yes, of course. So, the difference is meaningful. However, there is still an important difference between the words God and Christ. So, the difference is not viable.

Perhaps a well-meaning trinitarian monk didn’t see the difference. Nevertheless, he would have been wrong for transcribing it incorrectly, no matter the motivation.

4. Meaningful and Viable

Finally, the fourth type of errors are those that are both meaningful and viable. Unlike the types before, when the word is change it still makes sense. These are challenging errors to deal with.

However, these errors only represent 1% of all variations in the manuscripts.

This is incredible considering the fact that the New Testament alone is 2,000 years old. Not only that, but this 1% typically involves just a single word or sentence. For an ancient text, this is unparalleled.

So, what is an example of such a ‘meaningful and viable’ error? The ending of the Gospel of Mark is one of the most widely-known. Bible scholars can’t be sure if this actually belongs in Mark’s Gospel, but it’s not like they’re trying to hide this fact from the world.

Most Bibles tell you flat out in a footnote, “Hey, we’re not sure if this belongs here, so read at your own discretion!” (In my Bible, ESV Study Bible, there’s a huge break before the ending of Mark with a note in all CAPS about this very issue.)

Luckily, we have three other Gospels to help us make a decision on whether or not it belongs. But if you can’t trust the Bible based on a potential addition to Mark that is essentially repeated information from the other Gospels, then that’s on you.

At any rate, none of these types of errors alter any significant theological meaning at any point.


With these errors in mind, we must still ask ourselves whether or not the Bible is reliable. Can we really trust a book that has been transcribed over thousands of years even if the errors are minor and do not alter significant theological points?

Well, let me ask you this – Do you think Homer’s Iliad is reliable? You know, the story about the Trojan War and the mighty Greek warrior Achilles?

If you do, you’re betting on fairly good odds that what we have today is what Homer meant to say. Why? Because we have a little over 700 copies of the Iliad with a 95% accuracy rating. Pretty impressive, eh?[5,6]

Now, there is a catch with the Iliad. Unfortunately, we don’t have early copies of the work – copies that were made around the time that Homer wrote it. The Iliad is said to have been written around 900BCE, but the earliest copy we have is from 400BCE. That means, as far as we know, there is a 500–year gap between when Homer wrote the Iliad and when it was first copied.

Still, 700+ copies all saying pretty much the same thing is a lot. 500 years between the original and first copy is a lot as well, but not enough to keep the Iliad from being a popular epic and cool story line to a Brad Pitt movie. So, let’s give the Iliad the benefit of the doubt. Helen’s face started the Trojan War.

Now, what about the Bible? If the Iliad is reliable, does the Bible stack up? Actually… no.

The Bible blows the Iliad out of the water.

Instead of 700+ copies, the New Testament alone boasts  5,000+ with an astounding 99% accuracy rate between them.[7] Not only this, but the shortest gap between the originals and first copy is a mere 100 years, compared to the Iliad’s 500–year gap.[8]

Here’s a visual representation of the differences between the two.


“Alright,” you may say, “but that’s just for the Iliad. What about other ancient writings?” To date, the Iliad boasts the richest, most numerous amount of copies of any other ancient writing, with one exception – the Bible.

“Well,” you may further say, “the longer we march into the future, the further that gap is becoming. So, this evidence won’t be as convincing in the future.” True. However, much to the dismay of critics, even though we are getting farther from the original date, we are actually getting closer to the original text. This is because we are discovering more and more manuscripts that are closer to the original date.


All this to say, we can’t really argue about whether or not the Bible says what it originally said. The argument must shift to whether or not we accept what the Bible says.

Now that’s a completely different story. It also happens to be the very reason we see that unlikely alliance of believers and unbelievers. What do an atheist, a Mormon, and a Jehovah’s Witness all have in common? They all (typically) believe the Bible has been corrupted.

Additionally, each group, generally speaking, are not keen on what the biblical text has to say. Indeed, it’s a rough read if you allow it to honestly speak to our own fallen and messed-up state of being in relation to God (although without this bad news, the good news wouldn’t be so sweet).

So, there are two options – reject it outright or change what it has to say. In both cases, the easiest way to go about doing this is to claim that the text is corrupt and unreliable. This way atheists can discount it as fairytales and Jehovah’s Witnesses can tweak the text in their New World Translation.

Either way, as we’ve seen, it’s fairly dishonest to say the Bible is unreliable as an ancient text. If that’s the case – remember, the Bible is the best example of an ancient text – then much of what we understand of history needs to be scrutinized because we rely too heavily on other, less reliable ancient texts.

In other words, we can’t have our cake and eat it, too.


A special note to LDS and Jehovah’s Witness readers. Do you find your unlikely alliance with many bible critics and some atheists a bit odd? I would humbly ask that you honestly consider why your organizations have altered the New Testament text (Joseph Smith Translation, New World Translation) in order to conform to Mormon and Watchtower Society theology.

[1] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How the Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead the Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2006), 56.

[2] Wayne Grudem, C. John Collins, Thomas R. Schreiner, et. al., Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning (Wheaton, Illi.: Crossway, 2012), 115.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 116.

[5] Martin L. West, “The Textual Criticism and Editing of Homer,” Editing Texts, ed. Glenn W. Most (Gottingen: Aporemata, Kritische Studien zur Philologie-geschichte, 1998), 102. (Note: Many Christian authors like to throw around the number 643 for the number of extant Iliad manuscripts. This number most likely comes from Norman Geisler’s popular work From God to Us, which was published in 1974. However, more manuscripts have been discovered since the 70s bringing the total number to a little over 700.)

[6] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1974), 181.

[7] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986), 405.

[8] In his debate with New Testament scholar (and critic) Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace observed that the earliest copy of Mark that we have dates to the first-century.


Reddit Said What? Part I


One blogger’s attempt to flesh out the best of the worst r/atheism arguments against Christianity on Reddit.



Boom, you got us.

Here we have photographic evidence that Adam and Eve had belly buttons, which definitively proves they were born and not created. Oh wait, what’s that? This isn’t a photograph? It’s actually a Renaissance painting by an artist named Titian? …never mind.

Look, just because 16th century European artists painted belly buttons on Adam and Eve doesn’t mean A.) that they actually had them, B.) that the Bible claims they had them, or C.) that whether or not they had belly buttons even matters.

Also, why does Satan look like the baby from the E-Trade commercials?



First of all Picard, watch your language. That’s not very Captain-y of you…

Secondly, Jesus didn’t find guys names Peter, John, James, Matthew, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, and Simon in the Middle East. This meme ignorantly (and I mean ignorantly) assumes that English was a widely utilized language by first century Jews living in Palestine. (Think about that… Take as much time as you need.)

Instead, Yehosua (good catch there, meme creator) found guys named Simōn Petros (Peter), Iōannēs (John), Iakōbos (James), Maththaios (Matthew), Andreas (Andrew), Philippos (Philip), Thōmas (Thomas), and Simōn (Simon), in addition to four others – but the meme seems content without Bartholomew, Thaddeus, and Judas Iscariot.

So, why are they different? Because we translate names from one language to another. This is why your friend John isn’t called Iōannēs, or why your grandma Irene isn’t called ‘peace’. For a more in-depth look at this, check out Jesus vs. Yehosua.

Nice try, Picard. This is exactly why I like Kirk better.



Great question, I wish someone in the Bible asked a similar question. Oh, wait!

“Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’” – John 3:4

The answer? You’re missing the point…

We cannot enter the kingdom of God without being spiritually born again. Of course, this begs the question – why do we need to be spiritually born again?

We are all spiritually dead. This shouldn’t be surprising considering the world we live in. Lying, stealing, wars, deception, murder, betrayal – all these things stem from spiritual death. Even on a smaller scale of the self, we must admit that we know we’re not perfect.

The solution, then, is not to simply “grow up.” We’ve been trying that for ages, while self-improvement gurus and religious leaders feed off that useless idea. Can a dead person just grow up? No, of course not. Neither can a spiritually dead person just grow up. Instead, like Jesus says, we need to be spiritually born again.

If you have suggestions for ‘Reddit Said What?’, email dearephesusblog@gmail.com with your ideas.

apologetics, current

BREAKING: Camels Disprove God’s Existence; Bible Is False


Too busy to read? Check out the podcast.

If you’re like me, I’m sure you woke up this morning to a barrage of news articles claiming that the discovery of domesticated camel bones have definitively disproved the Bible.

Alarming? Yes. True? Mmmm not exactly.

Unfortunately, the article titles are a bit misleading because they draw conclusions that the researchers, Lidar Sapir-Hen and Erez Ben-Yosef, do not draw. It is a bit frightening to see how irresponsibly the various media outlets have spun Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef’s research. Here is just a gleaming of some popular outlets and their article titles.

“Major discrepancy in the Bible” Huffington Post

major discrepancy in the Bible would being finding Jesus’ remains, not a camel’s.

“‘Direct Proof’ Bible Was Written Centuries After Events Described” International Business Times

This one is especially alarming since it’s author, Zoe Mintz, puts ‘direct proof’ in quotations without actually quoting the words ‘direct proof’ anywhere in her article. This quote turns out to be from the American Friends of Tel Aviv University, a self-described “worldly and intellectually sophisticated group” dedicated to and associated with the university, but not directly a part of the research(ers) nor the university – a fact that even the Christian Post seems to have missed.

“Camel archaeology contradicts the Bible”The Times of Israel

The camel archeology contradicts the Bible? Really? The whole thing – contradicted. Maybe the Times of Israel should have gone with a little more realistic title, such as…

“Camel discovery may prove Biblical stories false” News 3 Las Vegas

Ah, a refreshingly honest title among all the sensation. At least this title contains the qualifier may. It may prove Bible stories false. However, the title still makes an extraordinary claim that Bible stories are false based on the research. Can we assume, at least from the claim of this title, that a ‘camel discovery’ proves Jesus never resurrected? If so, there’s a baby in some bathwater that needs to be thrown out.

“Camel Bones Challenge the Bible’s Timeline” Newser

This is the only title I’ve seen that is appropriate to the research. Indeed, domesticated camels not found until 900BCE does challenge the biblical timeline; however, it is not a “major discrepancy” that provides “direct proof”  that “Biblical stories [are] false.” These titles are sensational, which is exactly their authors were going for.

“Historical ERROR in Bible’s Old Testament, REVEALED”Fashion Times

I’ll let this one stand on its own, because of all the CAPS and the fact that the illustrious Fashion Times wrote it.

“Camels and foot-stamping denialists”Patheos

Not a news article, but interesting nonetheless. Here we have a writer complaining about “foot-stamping denialists” (of which I suppose I now am) coming out to say nuh-uh! to Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef’s findings. Others include Al Mohler and Ken Ham, who (as of yet) have not actually spoken on the matter as far as I am aware. Could the author of this article be a foot-stamping denialist denier?

“BREAKING: Camels Disprove God’s Existence; Bible Is False”Dear Ephesus

See? Even I can do it.


Enough with the sensational titles, what does the research actually say? Does this zooarchaeological find cast doubt on the timeline of the Bible?

First, if you actually read the report, the researchers do not make the claims that many of the media outlets are saying they have. In fact, they only mention the Old Testament once in the entire paper.

In their opening paragraph, Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef mention the “Patriarchal narrative” as having lead many researchers to speculate an earlier date for camel domestication. That’s it. The rest of the paper is simply their findings.

Basically, Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef have done what all archeologists do – present their findings and allow others to interpret for themselves what that data means. It is clear what many have said, but what is not so clear is why they would attribute a conclusion to these two researchers that they themselves never made.

Nonetheless, the findings do present a challenge to the biblical timeline. Let’s take a look at why.

The Bible starts mentioning camels beginning in Genesis 12. This means that starting from the Age of the Patriarchs (2000-1500 BCE) the Bible claims that camels were domesticated and in use by humans in and around Israel.

However, according to Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef’s research, camels were not domesticated in Israel until 900BCE. Herein lies the problem – the Bible claims that camels were domesticated hundreds of years before they actually were.

(Is your faith shaken yet? I’ve already denounced mine…)

So, what are we to make of this? Here are just some points to consider.


1.) Does this research definitively represent the total area of Israel, from its most sparsely to most highly populated areas? If not, then this research may simply suggest that domesticated camels were not in use at these sites until 900BCE.

To be fair, according to Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef’s paper, the study encompassed quite a bit of Israel. In fact, they were confident that it did represent a good portion of Israel’s history. However, perhaps later discoveries will show that camels were not in use in some areas while they were in others at various points in Israel’s history.

2.) The word for camel gamal (גָּמָל) may be a substitute for the oral tradition’s use of a load-bearing animal. Perhaps, according to oral tradition, the load bearing animal was a donkey or mule. When it came time to consolidate and ‘canonize’ the Torah, the scribes (being people of their time) assigned the word camel to the word load-bearing animal. (This is not unlike when we hear a story of a cowboy riding into town on an animal, we automatically assume the animal was a horse.)

Old Testament scholars have long suggested that the Torah was not finished in the form we have it today until well after the events they describe. Even if we accepted Moses as the author of the Torah, we must also remember that he was not present for a major portion of it (Genesis). Oral tradition must play some type of role in its formation, which is something Christians have believed for a long time.

3.) Could Abraham have acquired camels from Egypt and brought them to Israel without them becoming widely used until much later? Most of the articles claim that Abraham (among the other patriarchs) did not have camels in Israel until Egypt introduced them abruptly, perhaps due to trade. Archeological evidence suggests that Egypt did have domesticated camels

This assumes, then, that when Abraham went to Egypt, he did not acquire a single camel. On the contrary, is it possible that Abraham, during his visit to Egypt, acquired Egyptian domesticated camels? I think so, especially since Genesis 12:16 explicitly mentions Abraham’s camels while in Egypt.

Of course, this depends on whether or not Egypt had domesticated camels during the time Abraham was in Egypt. Since Egypt was the trade center of the world at that time, it is entirely possible to see how domesticated camels were present in the first millennium BCE Egypt.[1]


This is such a great example of how hungry some people are to decry the veracity of the Bible. After all, a good amount of news organizations have heralded this research as a fatal blow to scripture. (Remember, we’re talking about the domestication of camels in Israel. We’re not talking about a Jesus ossuary.)

It is interesting to see how many media outlets rushed to declare the Bible false, seemingly without considering that there might be a logical explanation. I’m not sure they would have done the same for other types of archeological finds.

For example, if an archeologist found a modern human skull in a layer with other fossils dating to the Mesozoic Era, would those same news organizations herald the discovery as a fatal blow to evolution? Probably not, because they would most likely assume there must be a logical reason. Unfortunately, they do not grant the Bible this same type of courtesy.

So, the next time you see a camel and it says “Hump Daaaaay!”, remember this – many people are always looking for excuses to push away from their loving creator, even if it’s sensationally based on scant evidence.


[1] Sheila Hamilton-Dyer, ‘Domestication of the Camel,’ The Oxford Companion to Archeology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), 215


Did Jesus Plagiarize the Golden Rule?


Everyone knows Jesus’  teaching, “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” This teaching is so famous that it has its own title – the Golden Rule.

While is is widely acknowledge that Jesus taught it, some believe that this is not unique to him. In fact, critics claim that Jesus actually plagiarized the Golden Rule from those who taught before him. They point out that other religious teachers and philosophers had been teaching the rule to their students long before Jesus ever delivered his famous Sermon on the Mount.

One such critic, the popular blogger Friendly Atheist, posted a cartoon poking fun at the fact that Jesus did not come up with the Golden Rule. Rather, it was around long before Jesus (although the cartoon mistakenly references the Hadiths, which came hundreds of years after Jesus.)

The conclusion? Jesus plagiarized from other religious teachers and did not do unto others has he would not have done unto himself.

But therein lies the key to whether or not Jesus actually plagiarized. Do not against do. Negative versus positive.


Look back again at the comic from The Friendly Atheist. Ironically, the poor attempt of a humorous jab at Christianity underlies the ignorance by which it depends for the joke to be true. None of the students properly recounted the Golden Rule since they all quoted it in the negative. (Remember, the Hadiths – or “Hadith” as it is rendered – comes hundreds of years after Jesus.)

Each example listed in the comic (prior to Jesus) is all in the negative: Hinduism, Babylonian Talmud, Confucius, Tibetan Dhammapada. Every single one is a “do not.” This is because before Jesus came on the scene, the Golden Rule was typically taught as a “do not” rather than a “do.” It was negative over positive.

Here is a list of more negative forms of the Golden Rule prior to Jesus.

  • Pitticus (640–568BC)
  • Zoraster (628–551BC)
  • Thales (624–546BC)
  • Isocratus (436–338BC)
  • Plato (428–348BC)
  • Epictetus (55–135BC)
  • Rabbi Hillel (32BC–7CE)

Up until Rabbi Hillel, the world only knew “do not do unto others.” But then something changes. Jesus comes on the scene and puts a new spin on an old saying, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” – Matthew 7:12 (NIV)

Here we have the Golden Rule in its truest and refined form. Do to others what you would want them to do to you. Positive over negative, active over inactive. The teaching is completely reversed.

As he usually does, Jesus takes the common way of understanding the world and flips it on its head.


So, what happened to the Golden Rule after Jesus? A funny thing, really. Religious teachers, poets, and philosophers began doing the very same thing Jesus’ modern critics accuse him of – plagiarism.

Almost every major version of the Golden Rule after Jesus is positive rather than negative. Here’s just a short list.

  • Muhammad (570–632CE)
  • Ibn Ali  (626–680CE)
  • Hadiths (~700CE)
  • Immanuel Kant (1724–1804)
  • Wiccan Rede (~1900)
  • Baha’i (~1850)
  • Scientology (1960)

See the pattern? Before Jesus, the Golden Rule was mainly negative. After Jesus, the Golden Rule is mainly positive.

Jesus didn’t plagiarize the Golden Rule, he revolutionized it.

Here’s a helpful chart to visualize Jesus’ influence on the Golden Rule. From left to right, the Golden Rule is given by: Hinduism, Thales, Zoroaster, Confucius, Plato, Buddhism, Rabbi Hillel, Jesus, Muhammad, Ibin Ali, Hadiths, Immanuel Kant, Wiccan Rede, Baha’i, and Scientology.


Jesus didn’t plagiarize the Golden Rule, he revolutionized it. In fact, Jesus was the one plagiarized as history shows.


What is interesting about the time in which Jesus revolutionized the Golden Rule is how his audience viewed it before he came. Rabbi Hillel, one of the most influential rabbis in Jewish history, lived just one generation before Jesus.

You have to imagine for a moment that you are a first century Jew. Hillel was a household name, someone very influential in society. Think along the lines of a religious Albert Einstein, Ernest Hemmingway, or (rightly so) Martin Luther King. Very influential thinkers in their day, very near to our own past. You did not disagree with Hillel unless you had a great reason to.

Hillel taught the classic, negative form of the Golden Rule with an interesting twist. “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah.” –Talmud Shabbat 31a

Note that Hillel said the negative form of the Golden Rule fulfills the Torah (or Law).

Then comes the revolutionary teacher Jesus who, when he delivers his interpretation of the Torah (or Law), includes the Golden Rule. “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” – Matthew 7:12 (NIV)

The Golden Rule is action over inaction, compassion over apathy.

Here Jesus directly contradicts Hillel’s statement. He basically says, “You’ve been told that the summary of the Law is to not do. That’s wrong. The summary of the Law is to do.”

First. Century. Jewish. Minds. Blown.

This was radical. And – when you think about it – it still is.

So why did Jesus change the Golden Rule from the negative to the positive? In the negative form, we could fulfill it by never doing anything. In the positive form, we must do in order to fulfill it. Jesus calls us to action over inaction, compassion over apathy.

Where the world says “don’t”, Jesus says “do!” Where the world says “stay,” Jesus says “go!” Where the world says “keep to yourself,” Jesus says “reach out to others!” Do to others.

When it comes to the Golden Rule, Jesus didn’t plagiarize, he revolutionized. He doesn’t call us to inaction, he calls us to action.


The 3 A’s of Apologetics


Apologetics is the art of defending the Christian faith from objection, criticism, and scrutiny. As followers of Christ, Peter gives us wonderful counsel on every believer’s participation in apologetics.

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” – 1Pe 3:15

For the concept of ‘giving an answer’ in this passage Peter chooses the word apologia. And it means just that – to give an answer or to make a defense. The defense we make is for Christianity’s place as the only salvation–providing faith, Jesus’ place as the only messiah and savior, and why there is only one God.

Have you ever been told by someone that Jesus is not the only means of salvation or that other ways besides Jesus exist to connect with God? What was your response? If you responded by defending Jesus’ rightful position as the one and only mediator between God and humanity, you made an apologetic argument. You made a defense.

So how do we use apologetics biblically? We simply need to remember three words – always, answer, anyone. In so many words, Peter summarizes the concept of apologia as ‘always answer anyone.’ These are the Three A’s of Apologetics; always being the time, answer being the method, and anyone being the target audience.


“Always be prepared…”

There is never a time when it is okay to be unprepared, unwilling, or disinclined to defend the person and work of Jesus. Defending the faith is for all seasons and times. This is why Peter says we should always be prepared. The liberation in this is that we do not have to attend Bible college, seminary, or read apologetics blogs to be ready to defend the faith. Although these things are good, they aren’t necessary.

Additionally, the idea that a person needs a seminary degree to engage in apologetics is another factor that tends to make Christians shy away. Peter tears down any wall built by the lie that Christians must be highly educated individuals to participate in apologetic evangelism. Always means just that – always.

Regardless of our life, education, intelligence, social standing, or maturity in Christ, we should always be ready to defend the gospel. Now, if we are called to always defend the gospel, how is it we are supposed to go about defending it?


…to give and answer…”

As Christians defending the faith we are called to always answer questions or objections about Jesus. It is important to realize that when Peter tells us we must answer for the hope that is in us, this implies that people will ask. As Christians, people will inevitably ask about what we believe and why we believe it, which is the hope that is in us. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

If our life is bearing spiritual fruit, people are going to ask who the gardener is. Followers of Jesus are like cities on hills in the night. People are going to ask what makes our life different from theirs. That’s the opportunity of evangelism we live for. When they ask, we need to be ready. And as Peter suggests, that seems to be always.


“…to everyone (anyone) who asks…”

The door of apologetics is open to anyone. The type of people we defend the Christian faith against do not necessarily need to be anarchist street punks with a copy of a New Atheist’s latest dribble about how they didn’t like church services as an 8–year–old kid and there were Crusades. They can be everyone and anyone.

Perhaps a Christian friend of yours needs encouragement by hearing a good, solid argument for the deity of Christ. But of course, on the opposite side of the table, apologetics might be used to provide information to unbelievers to further convict the conscience and guide the person to Jesus. It can truly be anyone.

It is good to remember as well that anyone can mean we will be sharing the gospel with people from all different cultures, backgrounds, and presuppositions. This is especially true with members of other religions. Therefore, it’s important to accommodate our conversations to their needs, not ours.

Listen to what they believe, ask them why they believe it, and then present them with the gospel based on their background. Never make assumptions about what they believe and why they believe it. Anyone is just about as wide as a demographic can get, so we must be careful not to lock ourselves into evangelizing based on our own stereotypes.

(Based on an excerpt from the book Robot Jesus And Three Other Jesuses You Never Knew)