As you know, I’ve been writing a series of entries addressing questions that people levy against Christianity. As of late, the queries in question have been more philosophical and theological in nature. I will, at some point in the future, address more scientific concerns. However, in the meantime, I will continue in the same vein.

The question for this particular entry involves the Apostle Paul. A friend of mine recently asked me if it was wise to trust (in) this ONE man. Paul, of course, is responsible for writing a large percentage of the books in the New Testament. As he is only one man, is it smart to put so much faith in “HIS” take on Christianity? Is it wise to believe that he was a true apostle – the way Jesus’ disciples were true apostles?

This is the question I will endeavour to answer in today’s entry. In response to these questions, I sent my friend two email messages. Below is the content I included in those messages. Without further adieu:

Hey you!

As per our discussion, I’m sending you some information on the books of the New Testament. The info is taken from the book The Da Vinci Deception by Erwin W. Lutzer.
 
“Obviously, a process of selection and verification was important to the early believers. And as long as the apostles were alive, everything could be checked out (Luke 1:2; Acts 1:21-22). For example, John could say, ‘The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard’ (1 John 1:2-3). Peter assured us that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration, and his description was based on firsthand evidence (2 Peter 1:16-18). Apostolic authority was a final court of appeal.
 
From earliest times the church had a functional canon; that is, some books were accepted as authoritative even when others were not yet written.
 
That some books were accepted as Scripture soon after they were written can be confirmed by the words of Peter. He possessed a collection of Paul’s letters and regarded them as Scripture. Listen to this amazing confirmation of Paul’s authority. Peter wrote: ‘Regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.’ (2 Peter 3:15-16, NASB).
 
Paul’s letters were almost immediately regarded as authoritative Scripture.
 
Other books enjoyed the same acceptance. Jude 1:17-18 quoted from Peter (2 Peter 3:3); in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul cited Luke’s Gospel as Scripture (Luke 10:7). Obviously, the believers of the early church recognized a growing body of literature as the inspired Word of God. By the end of the first century more than two thirds (2/3′s) of our present New Testament was deemed inspired. The remaining books were known and quoted as authoritative even though they had not yet achieved wide circulation.”
 
So there you go, my friend - I hope this information shows that Paul’s letters were supported by the apostles of Jesus and therefore makes his books more trustworthy in your mind.

Second email correspondence:

Hey there! As I said previously - I might send some additional information.
Well here you go. Just some other facts to think about.
 
1) Church tradition is unanimous in saying that the Gospel of Luke (which you seemed more inclined to trust than Paul’s letters when we spoke on Sunday) was written by Luke, a physician who sometimes travelled with Paul and also wrote the Book of Acts (note the “we” in Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1 – 28:16). In fact, The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are two parts of a single work written by Luke and addressed to Theophilus (compare Luke 1:1-4 with Acts 1:1-2). A comparison of Acts with Paul’s letters indicates that Luke the physician was the author of Acts and hence the third gospel as well (due to the connection between Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2). So, this point is made to show you that there is a link between Paul’s letters and the gospels.
 
2) You’ll also note that Luke uses 15 of 28 chapters in the Book of Acts to outline and describe Paul’s work. This shows that Paul’s work was on the same level as the apostles who travelled with Jesus including Peter, James and John.
 
3) In the Book of Acts (not in Paul’s own letters), we clearly see that God chose Paul as the apostle to conduct outreach to the Gentiles (see Acts 9). If Paul was/is indeed God’s chosen, who are we to question the validity of that choice?  
 
I hope this additional information is also helpful.
Let me know if you have any questions.

So, there you have it Pressers of the Word! I hope that the information contained in this entry will put questioning/doubting Christian minds at ease where Paul is concerned.

I think I can say unequivocally and without a doubt that Paul is one of the greatest apostles who ever lived and that he performed his duties with honour and distinction.

That’s all for today, Word Pressers. Until next time, take good care of yourselves and each other! God Bless and be on the lookout for my next entry!

Maximus

Without further adieu, let’s move onto the next question.

QUESTION: If there is a God, how comes there are thousands of different religions? Wouldn’t God want one? They fight against each other and kill each other.

The answer to this ties into what I’ve already said. There are thousands of different religions because God allows His creation the freedom to accept, or reject His plan of redemption and salvation. The truth is, there is only one path to salvation. That is Jesus Christ. Christianity is the “one” religion that you’re referring to. However, people reject it because of their sinful natures which refuse to accept there is only ONE path up the spiritual mountain. Most people rebel and want to believe there are MANY paths up said mountain. This is, quite simply, not true. They want to believe in their own concept of God. They don’t want to accept what Scripture tells them about God and how He operates.

Fighting against each other and the tendency toward violence again ties into our human natures and the propensity for evil that we all possess.
Anyone who properly understands Christianity realizes that Jesus never taught us to be violent. Anyone who kills in the name of Christianity is misinterpreting Jesus’ mandate and I could even question whether they’re Christian. Jesus never killed anyone in the name of Christianity and Christians aren’t supposed to either. In fact, the reverse is true. We’re called on to love our enemies. We’re expected to pray for them.

Additionally, in the mainstream media, you NEVER hear about Christians being tortured the world over for their belief in Jesus Christ (persecution of Christians is higher the world over than any other religion actually). Two organizations that really opened my mind to this reality are called Open Doors and Voice of the Martyrs. A good book I’ve read on this subject is Tortured for Christ by Richard Wurmbrand.

QUESTION: If it is not possible for us to be here without “divine intervention” then where did he come from?

Sorry, but this question is HILARIOUS to me. This comes from a lack of understanding about God. God ALWAYS existed. He is not finite like humans. There is never a time that God didn’t exist. He is eternal. This is what Scripture tells us. Other qualities of God include: Omnipotence (All Powerful), Omnipresence (Exists Everywhere), Omnisapience (All Loving), Omnitemporal (Exists in Every Time Period – Past, Present, Future), Omniscience (All Knowing). The problem with your thinking is that you assume time has always existed. The fact is, time is a construct of this universe and began when God created it. A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect like you’re describing.

And there you are, True Believers. Two more questions often levied against Christianity.
Do the answers satisfy you? If so, post a comment. If not, post a comment. But remember insults, condescension, patronizing and the like will be disregarded and such comments will be removed and not responded to.

Until next time, take care of yourselves and each other.
Maximus

I imagine some of you reading may not consider this a reasonable explanation for the question below. Yet, this is what true Christians believe. Feel free to comment should you feel inclined to do so. Again, remember that if you comment, insults, condescension, patronizing and the like will be disregarded and such comments will be removed and not responded to. Without further adieu, let’s move onto the next question.

QUESTION: There is a heaven? where is the proof? how do you know something exists that you have never seen or heard of from another persons experience? where is it? how big is it? nonsense.

ANSWER: First off, we know all about Heaven because Scripture tells us about it and describes it great detail. See: Revelation 21 and 22. It’s size, scope and all of that are described in those verses.
Second, lots of people who have had near death experiences have described Heaven and what it was like. I’m not saying that all of these descriptions are authentic and I know you probably think the person was hallucinating, or that it was all in their self conscious minds. However, the point I’m making is that others have described it based on their experience. The way I can measure the authenticity of their descriptions is to measure them against what Scripture tells us. If what they say contradicts Scripture, then I obviously won’t take their experience seriously.
Of course, like I mentioned previously this is a hard concept for you to wrap your mind around because you don’t think spiritually.
Since you’re asking questions, let me ask you one. You believe in things like Evolution and The Big Bang, yeah? If so, how can you believe in something you’ve never seen, or observed? Certainly, science tells you that the process of evolution has occurred over billions of years, but even those scientists haven’t observed this directly. Yet they believe it. Isn’t that also a “leap of faith” you’re taking?

RESPONSE: I have taken a quote from your answer and responded.
It is the following: “people who have had near death experiences have described Heaven and what it was like” – , people on drugs also describe similar things!

Another quote from your answer: “The way I can measure the authenticity of their descriptions is to measure them against what Scripture tells us.” – so the ones who read the bible, believe in it and then choose to describe what they want to believe in?

Another quote: “this is a hard concept for you to wrap your mind around because you don’t think spiritually.” – I think spiritually actually, just in very different ways from you. I believe in a lot more than you think…. I am in touch with my spiritual side just not in a religious way. Or a hippy way for that matter.

Your question: how can you believe in something you’ve never seen, or observed? I believe in a lot I have never seen or heard. But for me, I make sense out of it myself. And, for me, I cannot make sense of a man who was never born, has always been there, is divine etc etc…. who if we don’t believe in, we are doomed to hell. To me, it’s nonsense. To me it’s just as silly as Peter Pan or any other fairytales. I choose to believe in what makes sense to me.

MAXIMUS’ FINAL RESPONSE:
1) People on drugs also describe similar things! – again, see my answer above. As I stated, all such claims must be compared with what we’re told in Scripture. If an “experience” doesn’t fall in line with Scripture, then it is to be disregarded by true Christians. Scripture is the standard that Christians measure all spiritual claims against. Why Scripture is the standard is a whole other article and will not be discussed in depth here.

2) So the ones who read the bible, believe in it and then choose to describe what they want to believe in? – No, I never said that at all. Christians are expected to believe what the Bible tells them – not select what they want to believe in. Anyone who does this and forms his/her own ideology is a heretic and cannot call themselves a true Christian. He/she is free to do so, but can’t rightly call him/herself a Christian.

3) I think spiritually actually, just in very different ways from you. I believe in a lot more than you think…. I am in touch with my spiritual side just not in a religious way. Or a hippy way for that matter. ALSO: I believe in a lot I have never seen or heard. But for me, I make sense out of it myself. And, for me, I cannot make sense of a man who was never born, has always been there, is divine etc etc…. who if we don’t believe in, we are doomed to hell. To me, it’s nonsense. To me it’s just as silly as Peter Pan or any other fairytales. I choose to believe in what makes sense to me.

ANSWER: All of this is absolutely your perogative. God grants His creation free will. It’s your choice whether you choose to accept, or reject. The only thing I try to communicate to atheists and agnostics is that there are consequences for that decision. We accept this in the physical realm, but we often don’t want to accept it in the spiritual realm. If we place our hand on a stove top burner, it will burn. If we choose to reject our Creator, we will burn. Why we don’t want to accept this is because of our sinful human nature which dictates that WE are in control of our lives. You’re free to make that choice. But you should ask yourself, is this a WISE choice?

So there you have it, True Believers!
Until next time, take care of yourselves and each other!
Maximus!

This particular question is never easy to answer. Yet, that’s exactly what I’ll attempt to do.
I doubt I’ll receive any comments, or feedback but for those of you who happen to read this entry, feel free to leave your thoughts. Without further adieu, let’s get on with it, shall we?

QUESTION: If there is a God, how comes, when I believed when I was younger, my prayers were never answered?

This is a tough question. First off, there are a lot of questions I would ask you. What exactly did you believe? What type of things did you pray for? What exactly was the situation? There are a lot of things I would want to know before I answered this question. The more specific the information, the better an answer I could/can provide. You would have to fill me in on the details before I tackle this question.

I will say generally, however, that when people’s prayers are not answered, it’s either because God’s answer is “NO,” there is an obedience (or more specifically “disobedience”) issue, and/or God has another alternative. Often Christians, or “would-be” Christians pose fundamental questions that they either should not ask, or that are riddled with faulty presumptions and unbiblical concerns. From the beginning, this mentality distorts what Scripture is communicating. They have already determined the objectives/ambitions the Bible/God is supposed to help them achieve. It never occurs to them to measure their goals against what the Word of God says, or whether their thinking is even proper to begin with.

FRIEND’S RESPONSE: Well, I can predict your answer. I guess it will relate to the whole free will thing. Here are some things I prayed for in case you have a different response:
* My mother to stop drinking
* My father to stop physically abusing my mother
* For my grandfather to not be ill and not die at a young age
* For my uncle to not die in his fifties

MY SECOND RESPONSE: Hey, yeah – it does relate to free will. Your mother’s choice to drink. Your father’s choice to be abusive. These were choices that they made. God won’t violate their right to choose. And it happens to billions of people around the world.
I’m definitely sorry to hear about your uncle and grandfather. Death hurts. I know. I’ve lost people too.
But I will say that belief in the after life comforts us in this regard. When people die here, we realize that it’s all temporary. We will also see each other on the other side. That’s MORE important than our lives here. I don’t say that to be insensitive. But from a Christian standpoint, it’s very true.

The question is, where will we be when we see each other? Where are we destined to end up? Christianity says that our souls live forever. You either go to Heaven, or Hell. There’s no in-between! The question is, where will we end up? We all have a choice as to where that is. It’s up to us.

Because we live in a sinful, fallen world that is evil, we have to EXPECT adversity. We have to EXPECT suffering. We have to EXPECT death. But we know that this is all a stage rehearsal. The main event is around the corner. That’s what we need to be focusing our sights on. I say this as much to myself as I say to you. The truth is, I’m a filthy sinner. I think thoughts and sometimes do things that I’m VERY ashamed of. The bad part is, even with ALL that God has taught me, my emotions sometimes get the better of me. I’ve suffered in my life too. People have abused me. I’ve been neglected, insulted, disregarded. You name it. And sometimes, I get angry. I behave like one of God’s spoiled little brats.

God won’t stop people from hurting us. They’re free to choose. But He will give us the strength to endure and to overcome those people and situations. And He’ll help us grow and make us BETTER for the experience if we let Him. What I love about God is the mercy He shows me personally. He doesn’t give up on me. And He’s not giving up on you. That’s why He brought us into contact. He’s using me to try and reach you. And if after that you still choose not to believe, then you only have yourself to blame. God does love you. He knows all about the struggles you’ve gone through and endured. He wants to be there for you, but you have to let Him! You can’t exclude Him from your life and then get upset and say, “He’s never done anything for me!” That’s not how it works!

But if you’re willing to be led by Him … embrace Him … love Him, He’s willing to be there for you. To nurture you. To mold you. To use you for His glory. So that you can fulfill your ultimate destiny. Maximize your life spiritually (not from a worldly perspective – what the world values is the opposite of what God values). But again, the choice is up to you.

There you go, Pressers of the Word!
Another entry that hopefully addresses a typical question levied against Christianity to your satisfaction!

Until next time, don’t sell yourselves short!
If you’re out there, wondering if there’s hope – wondering if there’s an answer – know that Jesus is that answer. And He wants to be there for you.
If you accept Him. If you allow Him to be the Lord and Saviour of your life.

Until next time, Pressers – God Speed!
Maximus

1) God made heaven and earth. Then he made the firmament which he called Heaven. He made heaven twice?

No. He didn’t. We’re talking about different types of Heaven here. You know English! Words can and often do have more than one definition/meaning, yeah?
Scripture indicates that Heaven likely exists beyond the visible universe. In 2 Corinthians 12:2-3, the apostle Paul refers to the “Third Heaven” – paradise – far beyond the First Heaven (Earth’s atmosphere) and the Second Heaven (the realm of the stars in the sky – outer space). He also speaks of the Lord’s (Jesus) having “ascended higher than all the heavens” (Ephesians 4:10).
So, it’s clear that “Heaven” is divided into categories – the spiritual realm which (likely) exists beyond this physical universe and the earthly realm that is comprised of the sky clouds, stars, outer space, etc.
Hope this makes sense.

2) How did Noah know what animals were clean and unclean?

First, we have to establish that Noah didn’t necessarily have to know which animals were clean, or unclean. That’s because he didn’t go out trapping, or gathering the animals. They came to him. Though, it’s also very possible that God revealed to Noah which animals were clean, or unclean. Likewise, it’s also possible that this was general knowledge at the time. Remember, often the Bible gives us only enough information to gather the jist of the story. We’re not always given EVERY SINGLE DETAIL. Only the most important details.

Dr. Arthur J. Jones, a scientist at Bournville College in Birmingham, England, who has done years of research on the questions raised by the Genesis account of Noah’s ark, has carefully studied the original Hebrew terminology in his search for answers. Writing an article in the Ararat Report, the world’s only regularly published newsletter on Noah’s ark research activities, Dr. Jones says,

The Lord commanded Noah to “cause [the animals] to come into the Ark” [Genesis 6:19] and to “take to you [into the Ark - Genesis 7:1] all the behemah and birds [Genesis 7:2-3].” He was told that they would come to him for this purpose.

The Bible says in several other places that the animals came to Noah. There wasn’t any need to trap them. “Genesis 6:20 says ‘pairs of all shall come unto you.’ Genesis 7:9 says ‘two by two they came unto Noah.’ Genesis 7:15 says ‘they came unto Noah unto the ark two by two.’ Genesis 7:16 says ‘the coming ones came male and female of all flesh.’”

But why would the animals go to the ark on their own? It doesn’t seem to make sense; we do not see wild animals walking up to people in today’s world.
“Animals are directed by instinct to respond naturally to numerous stimuli, says Dr. Ken Cumming, Harvard-trained professor of biology at the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research. “Scientifically, we’ve learned that animal response to potential disaster seems linked to magnetic field fluctuations in the brain – and it’s also connected to how they respond to polarized light.

“You can actually see many animals react to imminent danger right before natural disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes and before magnetic disturbances such as thunderstorms. The earth-shattering tectonic events that released the waters from under the surface of the earth,” says Dr. Cumming, “would have affected the earth’s magnetic fields and could have produced the stimuli that warned the animals of pending danger. Their natural instinct to seek safety and shelter may well have been what drew them to the ark.”

Interestingly, even today predators and prey will run together or stay in close proximity for long periods without incident while fleeing forest fires and other natural disasters.

Also, we know from the fossil record that the climate of the pre-Flood earth was very different from that of the post-Flood earth – something we’ve already discussed. Tropical plants have been found frozen in Arctic regions and fossil evidence has shown that desert regions were once covered with lush vegetation. If the entire pre-Flood earth had a similar temperate climate, it’s possible that representative animals of all kinds on the earth at that time could have been found in the general area where Noah built the ark. They wouldn’t have had far to travel after they sensed the coming disaster.

Clean and Unclean

What do “clean” and “unclean” mean? Clean animals are generally described as non-flesh-eating, chewing a cud, and having a divided hoof. Many nonpredatory birds are considered clean, while camels (which chew the cud but do not have a divided hoof) and pigs (which have a divided hoof but do not chew the cud) are considered unclean. Thus, unclean animals are ones that do not have a divided hoof or chew the cud and eat flesh.

It is difficult to determine exactly which animals in the “clean” and “unclean” categories were on the ark, but after studying numerous other biblical references, Dr. Jones came up with the following list of “clean” animals: deer, giraffes, pronghorns, cattle, antelopes, sheep and goats, pigeons, dodos, sand grouse, megapodes, curassows, grouse, pheasants, guinea fowl, turkeys, sparrows, finches, ducks, geese and swans. The “unclean” animals would include predatory and scavenging land birds, most water birds, bats, small rodents, lizards and predatory mammals.

God’s first instruction to Noah was that he bring the animals into the ark in pairs. Later, Noah was told the number of pairs. There would be one pair – male and female – of the unclean animals, but seven pairs of the clean animals – male and female – or fourteen animals in each clean group. Bible students disagree on this point. Some contend there were only seven of each clean group, or three pairs plus one which Noah would sacrifice after the Flood.

Dr.Jones, however, argues the seven-pair theory:

Four times (Genesis 6:19-20; 7:2-3, 8-9, 15) the account emphasizes that all the animals were taken into the ark in pairs. The account also makes it clear that the purpose was propagation: “to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:3). The reasons for taking seven times more clean animals than unclean seems straightforward: first, clean animals were required for sacrifice; second, they would be required to provide clothing and food (Genesis 9:3) after the Flood (the environment being radically changed); third, as these were becoming vulnerable prey animals they required a head start for survival (Genesis 7:3).
(Reference: Dave Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier, In Search of Noah’s Ark [Los Angeles: Sun Classic Books, 1976], p. 130)

Hope this information answers your question.

3) We are all God’s children. He cares for us deeply. Then how is it that he gave special treatment to some people and not to others? Why did he visit Abraham in the form of a man?

My thinking on this is that because God is Omniscient and Omnitemporal, He already knows in advance who is going to accept His offer of salvation and who is not. He already knows who is going to follow and obey Him and who is not. It’s not that anyone is better than anyone else. It’s not that God is biased and partial toward some and not others. Everyone is given the same choice. Everyone has access to the same knowledge. But He knows who will respond to Him and who won’t. Those who reject God are then judged based on what they have heard and denied.
It’s an interesting relationship and theologians have dissected this idea for centuries. God chooses us. We also choose Him. It’s both. It’s because we chose Him that He chose us and vice versa. The two go hand-in-hand.
Yes, God cares deeply for all His creation. Yet, He is not responsible for the choices we make. WE are. When we are all judged one day for what we did and didn’t do, there won’t be anyone to blame, but ourselves. One way or the other.
In terms of the Israelites being “God’s chosen people,” I see no problem with this. Even human beings make choices based on preferences. It doesn’t mean we hate everything/body else. We simply prefer some things more than others. Based on personal taste, experience, knowledge, etc. Why can’t it be the same for God? In the Old Testament, God chose the Israelites as the group He was going to use to accomplish His Will.
Yet, through Jesus Christ, He also provided ALL people with the same opportunity for salvation. To me, this doesn’t show partiality. Am I making any sense here?

Whatever God does is fair. God can do no wrong, so if He loves one and hates another, it is fair. Second, God owes us nothing. He is not obligated to love anyone. He loves out of the freedom of His Will and Plan, not because of anything in us. He loves because of what is in Him. Third, all people are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). This means that because we are all fallen and because we are all sinners, the “fair” thing to do is to let us all go to Hell. Fairness deals with what is right. Since it is only God who is holy and pure and right, and not us, it is perfectly fair that all of us sinners be judged and condemned by God. But, God does not choose to do that. Instead, He sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we might be saved (John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24). So, yes it is fair that God loves one and hates another. It is not fair, however, that God would send His Son to die for us so that we might be saved. That wasn’t fair. That was sacrificial love. Yet He did it.

Interestingly (something to think about) – God is even good to those who reject Him. Think about it. There are millions of agnostics and atheists out there who have good health, a good job, a house, a car, food, wife and kids, education, etc. You name it. The Bible says that God causes the sun to rise and set on the just and the unjust. Of course, I ask the following question. What good would it do to live at best 100-120 years on earth (if we’re lucky – most likely between 70-100 years) in prosperity, rejecting God, but then lose our soul and spend ETERNITY WITHOUT END BURNING IN HELL? That’s the question non-believers need to ask themselves.

4) My biggest question is where is the logic with this: The Bible is the word of God therefore God exists.

There are several aspects of the Bible that point to it being the actual Word of God and proving His existence. The Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree. If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.

a) The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is an indicator. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel’s promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later. There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects. There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation. Only God would have this kind of insight into the future.

b) The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” See: http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

c) Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientists confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
and many others.

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man’s everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts. Only God could provide this kind of knowledge before the fact.

d) The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.
The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion. And certainly not possible by mere human thought, or reasoning.

Though because you’re operating from different presumptions than I am, you likely won’t see any of this as definitive proof of/for God. Still, it was worth noting these things. If not for any other reason than to provide you with a different perspective.

5) The Lord cursed the snake because it deceived the woman. You told me that God can’t just step in and change/fix things because we all have free will, etc. But He did change things then … He cursed the snake.

No, no, no. We’re mixing apples and oranges here. I said God doesn’t (because He chooses not to) violate our free will. We’re always free to choose. We always have a choice. This, however, doesn’t mean that God won’t/doesn’t:
a) punish us directly for the wrong choices (that) we make (i.e. like a parent disciplining his/her child)
b) indirectly allow us to experience the consequences of our erroneous choices/actions (though since he is ultimately in control of this anyway – it’s a minor point at best – direct vs. indirect as the end result is essentially the same – this is a point that theologians often hit back and forth)

There you have it, True Believers!
Another blog entry attempting to address the doubters and haters!
Until the next entry, please take care of yourselves out there and each other.
God Bless!

Maximus!

A long time ago I read a book called The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark by Charles E. Sellier & David W. Balsiger. It’s a great book and cleared up a lot of questions for me. This is one of them. In terms of the Earth’s atmosphere, there are a couple of points.

a) The earth’s axis was changed dramatically during the Flood. While researchers can’t say definitively what caused the earth’s axis to change, the data show conclusively that it was changed around the time of the Flood.
“The tilt of the earth’s axis today,” says Dr. Bill Overn, visiting professor of physics at Concordia College and an aerospace computer engineer, “is about 23 and 1/2 degrees. In the past, it was changed quite radically, and we know this from reliable ancient records as well as other data.” Dr. Overn asserts:

Using ancients records and artifacts along with other data, we can see there has been a change in the earth’s axis and we know that that change occurred during the Flood. Right after the Flood, the tilt of the earth’s axis was about 27 degrees and it has since changed to its present 23 and 1/2 degrees. It is normally accepted that the less the tilt of the earth, the less severe the winters are. Under the old, higher tilt caused somehow during the Flood, the earth would have experienced an ice age for 300 to 400 years, becoming less severe as the value or degree of the tilt decreased.

And if the earth’s axis tilted at the time of the Flood, bringing on the Ice Age and other events relating to our weather regime, is there any scientific evidence that might document the exact date of this shift? Scientists writing in the May 15, 1970, edition of Science magazine were able to determine that the axis shifted by studying data on the position of the sun and the solstices (positions of the sun creating the longest and shortest days of the year). The date they said this shift occurred – 2345 B.C. – is the same that, according to its astronomical analysis, the Chronology History Research Institute says Noah’s Flood started.

b) The fossil record and other evidences show that the earth and its atmosphere experienced a radical change during the Noachian Flood. The climate of the pre-Flood earth was moderate around the globe. Many scientists attribute this to a so-called “greenhouse effect” on ancient earth. This enormous global canopy of water existed as vapour, or in a frozen, crystallized form at the upper levels of our atmosphere. “The first chapter of Genesis describes a firmament or atmosphere above the earth,” says Dr. David Clark, a professor of New Testament Studies and chairman of the Division of Religion at Southern California College. “God created this to separate the waters above the firmament from the waters below the firmament. In describing the waters above the earth, the Bible suggests that in the time before the Flood, there was a water vapor, or canopy surrounding the earth. This rich, dense cloud cover protected the earth, moderated the climate and provided dew instead of rain prior to the Flood, as we see from Genesis 2:5-6.”

“The idea of a water vapor or canopy surrounding the earth sounds somewhat bizarre,” says Dr. Larry Vardiman, a professor of atmospheric science who has spent fifteen years researching the concept that a water-vapour canopy surrounded the earth in pre-Flood days. “But actually, canopies are quite common among the planets of our solar system. Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all have cloud canopies and thick gaseous envelopes surrounding them. Unlike the clouds and water-vapour canopy on earth, however, these clouds and gases are made up of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen, helium and ammonia.”

Dr. Vardiman further explains:

Under a water-vapour canopy, earth would have had a relatively warm, uniform temperature, high humidity, and increased atmospheric pressure. The climate may have been tropical from pole to pole and may have contributed to giantism in plants and animals and much longer life spans. The vapour canopy would have precipitated at most 40 feet of water directly. In addition, water released by volcanic eruptions during the flood would have kept heavy rain falling for forty days and nights becoming lighter as our present-day weather regime came into existence. Soon after the Flood, precipitation would have turned to snow on high mountains and in the polar regions causing the “ice age.”

According to Donald W. Patten, a Seattle, Washington, based geographer and planetary catastrophist, the earth’s pre-Flood atmosphere was comprised of approximately three to five times as much water vapour as is in today’s atmosphere. And, like today, this water vapour was concentrated in the lower troposphere. Dr. Patten, author of The Flood of Noah, has conducted extensive research on the evidence for a pre-Flood canopy. He also believes the sea-level surface temperature under this canopy was between 60 degrees and 70 degrees Fahrenheit and that the canopy was 3,000 to 5,000 feet thick and ranged between 5,000 and 10,000 feet above sea level. However, other scientists believe that the surface temperature of the earth under the canopy was closer to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. While the canopy theory is somewhat controversial and still being studied, a great deal of growing scientific evidence supports it.

Explains Dr. Carl Baugh, a Texas museum curator and paleoanthropology educator:

Also, from analyzing air bubbles trapped in fossilized tree resin, we have found that the pre-Flood atmosphere contained 30 percent oxygen as compared to our 21 percent oxygen today. With the ancient canopy over the earth creating approximately 27 pounds per square inch of atmospheric pressure and the air containing 30 percent oxygen as compared to our present 14.7 pounds per square inch of atmospheric pressure and 21 percent oxygen today, tests have determined that a man would have been able to run approximately 200 miles without getting winded.
We know that this canopy surrounding the entire earth performed several different functions. Water by its very nature filters out the ultraviolet rays that are harmful to man. In addition, the charged hydrogen in this water vapour or canopy of crystalline content would glow a magenta – that we would call pink. This perfect wavelength would have created a gentle pink glow in the sky.
Researchers have found that this is the exact wavelength that encourages the large growth and reproductive cells of plants. That means that this canopy would have increased the life span of man and longevity of all biota.

In the mid-1980′s, Dr. Kei Mori, professor of science and technology at Keio University in Tokyo, Japan, while testing light energy transmission systems for future consumer applications, unknowingly applied some pre-Flood atmospheric conditions to a tomato-plant test. To a cherry tomato plant he added increased atmospheric pressure around the stalk and filtered out the ultraviolet radiation. After two years, his cherry tomato plant had not only thrived, but was a tree – sixteen feet tall – and had produced 903 tomatoes. Eight years later his plant was thirty feet tall and had produced more than 8,000 tomatoes. His test was an excellent scientific verification that the pre-Flood context would produce very large sizes such as we find in the fossil record.

So there you have it!
My source’s explanation for the changes in our atmosphere that occurred post-Flood.

To me, these explanations are quite plausible and go a long way in connecting the dots between the ancient world that Noah was born into and the world we know today.

Take care until next time, True Believers.
Best!

Maximus

Hope everyone has been well. I’ve made a stronger effort this month to update my blog site. Last week, I posted a couple of new articles and I’m attempting to follow them up with even more. As the title suggests, it’s an Evolution based article. I thought it necessary to add further information to my original articles, which can be found at http://iamtymaximus.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/the-facts-that-evolutionists-dont-want-christians-to-know/ and http://iamtymaximus.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-facts-that-evolutionists-don%e2%80%99t-want-christians-to-know-part-2/ respectively. A lot of good information to be sure and I suggest reading them first as they provide great lead-in information to what is contained in this entry.

In any event, the information contained herein will address further questions that have surfaced from friends and colleagues since I wrote the original articles referenced above. Without further adieu, let’s proceed.

QUESTION: God made everything at once. At the time of Noah’s Ark, there were no such thing as poodles or russian blue cats etc etc. So how did they come about? Because, God created everything at one time.

Yes, God created everything at once. He created DISTINCT KINDS of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.
Natural selection/adaptation (READ: NOT macroevolution) is a logical process that can be observed (UNLIKE macroevolution). However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes – it DOES NOT produce new information. This is consistent with God creating DISTINCT KINDS.

One can observe great variation in a kind (as the question suggests) and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind. But no new information was produced – these varieties have resulted from the rearrangement and sorting out of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously didn’t exist. In some cases, deliberate/selective breeding has also contributed to these variations in kind.

Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for Evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but some of them believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.

THIS LEADS TO ANOTHER QUESTION: CAN MUTATIONS PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION?

Actually, it is now clear that the answer is “NO!” Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at John Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his recent book:

In this chapter, I’ll bring several examples of evolution, (i.e. instances alleged to be examples of evolution) particularly mutations, and show that the information is not increased … But in all reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. The NDT (neo-Darwinian theory) is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.

Evolutionary scientists have no way around the conclusions that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism to fuel the evolutionary process.

SOURCES:

1) L. Lester and R. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Dallas, Texas: Probe Books, 1989), pp. 175-6

2) L. Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc.), pp. 131-2

3) Ibid., p. 138

4) Ibid., p. 143

For more information, see the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gacX6MF_GxY&feature=related

QUESTION: I watched a series of videos on Youtube located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11knFKqW4s and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrphIwoJQ. In these videos, “Don Exodus” argues against Creation using a variety of arguments including Summation, Atavism, Mitochondrial DNA, ERV’s, Fusion, Embryology, etc. How do you respond to these arguments?

In this section, I will attempt to address these arguments in a clear and concise manner.

Transitional Lifeforms

First regarding transitional forms (that is – fossils proving that there were intermediary lifeforms between lower creatures and humans), I addressed this point extensively in my original articles referenced above. For further information, please refer to those articles. To summarize, I believe these “fossils” presented as evidence are fabricated and false. Please see my original articles for information to substantiate my claim. This includes the “neanderthal dna” arguments puts forward by Don Exodus.

Not By Chance?

Another issue I have with what he says is, “Natural Selection is not about chance.” HUH??!!!!!!!!?????????????!!!!!!!!!
How is it not? He used the term “guided selections.” What does that mean?? If there is no Intelligent Design involved, then by definition, this means things are occurring randomly. Yes, you can argue the laws of probability. Still, with nothing guiding them, it is still “chance” that one thing happens over another. I would need for someone to explain that to me further. If you then start spouting “karma,” “energy,” or something like that – then you are opening up the possibility of spiritual/supernatural/intelligent origins.

Summation

I also disagree with Don Exodus’ views on Summation. So what if all disciplines – biology, paleontology, embryology, genetics, anatomy, ecology, mutation, etc. – provide evidence to support Evolution. There is also evidence in these fields that can be used to prove the existence of God as well. You never hear about it in the media though because there is an agenda to get the public AWAY from God!! Much of what passes as “science” today is nothing more than pseudo science! Again, as I always say – it comes down to what you believe. There is “evidence” to support any idea you can think of. At the end of the day, you have to decide what you’re going to believe and what you’re going to disgard!!

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BIBLE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO ADAM IS OVERWHELMING! Nothing has been verified/scrutinized to the extent (that) the Bible has. The Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, The Tower of Babel, The Ark of the Covenant, The City of Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, grave sites for a host of biblical figures – they all prove the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document. For further evidence, see the following website: http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

Scientifically, I address mutation and genetics in my arguments above. Those arguments support a Creationist perspective rather than an Evolutionary one. Regarding embryology, biology, anatomy and ecology, I will address those further into this entry.

Endogenous retroviruses (ERV’s)/Fusion

“Don Exodus” also talks about the genetic similarity of humans and primates and even brings up the concept of Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). ERV’s are sequences in the genome thought to be derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. The commonality of these ERV’s is used by Evolutionists to argue for the common descent of all earthly organisms. To respond to this so-called finding, I will refer to a scientist named Edward Blythe (who is one of several that people suspect Darwin plagiarized Origin of Species from). Blyth touched on the subject of comparative anatomy of creatures with outwardly similar morphology (ex. Men and apes). He stated:

“I must venture, however, to differ from the majority of them [evolutionary minded naturalists] in opposing the prevalent notion, that the extreme modifications of diverse types blend and inosculate by direct affinity [common evolutionary descent]; contending however closely these may apparently resemble, the most similar modifications of diverse types are not, in a physiological sense, more nearly related to each other than are the more characteristic examples of the same.” (Blyth, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds)
He wrote in another section: ” . . . every species is essentially distinct and separate from every other species; otherwise it would not be a species but a variety. The most similar species, therefore, are only allied to each other in consequence of the resemblence of their general organization.” (Blyth, Seasonal and other Changes in Birds). Thus, men and apes simply resemble each other, that does not in itself prove any type of common descent. As far as certain DNA similarities, humans have more in common genetically with chickens than we do with rats, a mammal to whom we are supposedly more related to in evolutionary terms. (Humans are genetically more similar to chickens than rats; Wageningen International Studies Paper; Whisp’r Archive, Issue 31 – 26.10.2000 Page 05). Some marsupials are remarkably similar to certain Eutheriatic (non-pouched) mammals, in fact they resemble some Eutheriatic mammals more than other Eutheriatic mammals resemble each other, however their method of weaning their young clearly sets them apart as another order of living beings entirely.”

This same argument can be used to refute the ERV/Fusion claims. Any type of commonality between species can just as easily be explained by a common Creator than by common descent. Evolutions argue that this is a weak response. I believe Creationists can argue the same right back to them. Similarities do not conclusively indicate a common ancestor. This is simply Evolutionists attaching their own preconceived ideas and notions to the physical evidence in front of them.

Further, regarding Fusion: The biggest problem with Dr. Ken Miller’s story (Miller is a biology professor from Brown University – he is mentioned in Don Exodus’ video) is that it distracts the audience from the real issue. It is not the number of chromosomes that is really a significant difference between humans and apes, but the information contained on those chromosomes. According to the evolutionary scenario, our apelike ancestors underwent major anatomical restructuring to develop upright posture, speech ability, and an astounding increase in cognitive function all by random, chance processes. Such profound changes were never observed; they are inferred because Evolution has an atheistic basis and assumes there is no Creator.

Despite the superficial similarities between human and ape chromosomes, there are important differences on the molecular level. There are many protein coding genes in humans that are distinctly human and are not found in chimps. Perhaps more significantly are the differences in genes that don’t code for proteins. Genes have been described which code for microRNA (miRNA). The miRNA molecule is not translated, but acts directly to control gene expression. A single miRNA can regulate the expression of dozens or even hundreds of genes. A study of miRNAs expressed in the brain found 51 of 447 new miRNAs were distinctly human and 25 were only found in the chimp. The idea that so many genes were altered so that they are expressed in the proper concentration according to cell type and can effectively control the many different genes they regulate is not what we would expect of chance processes. It is more rational to believe that God created humans distinct from chimps, just as He tells us in the Bible. For further information on this, see the following website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/tale-of-two-chromosomes

Further, regarding ERV’s and creation, see the following links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good, as well as http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/exogenization-vs-endogenization

In the video, Don Exodus raises several points linking humans to animals and vice versa.
He list includes (but is not limited to) the following:

Do chickens have genes for making teeth? Atavism?
Do whales/snakes have genes for making legs? Atavism?
Have several marsupials (i.e. possoms, bandicoots, wombats, etc.) retained egg teeth? Atavism?
Why do humans have gill slits and genetics for tails?
Why do humans develop more than two nipples?

No, the human fetus never develops gills, tail or a yolk sac, as some have claimed. This supposed evidence of man’s evolution from animals has been resoundingly proven utterly false. This is yet another great evolutionary myth that refuses to die, despite total lack of evidence and its birth in deception. It was very important in the early promotion of Evolutionism.
Unfortunately, many people still believe this erroneous evolutionary theory that was once widely taught in schools and still shows up in museums and books.

In 1986, the Reader’s Digest Book of Facts published an erroneous “fact” that further spread a popular piece of evolutionary misinformation. They told readers that a human embryo re-traces the history of evolution: it develops slits in the neck like fish gills, it has a tail, and so on. This “fact” is so wrong that the idea was discredited and thrown out decades ago.
Earlier, this erroneous “fact” was spread widely by the once-popular child development author Dr. Spock:

“Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish…”[1]

Where did all this erroneous idea get its start? It began with evolutionist and German zoologist Ernst Haeckel in his 1876 book General Morphology of Organisms. With supreme audacity it was called the “Biogenetic Law.” It was a fraud from the beginning. Haeckel fraudulently presented altered, misleading and misinterpreted evidence. [2] Some of the key details of his embryo drawings were wrong – purposely altered to make a case for Evolution where none existed. Yet, how many people still know this? Of Haeckel, Richard Milton says, “No errant scientist has been more thoroughly disowned by his colleagues. …The biogenetic law is no longer taken seriously by embryologists.”[3]
Consider the picture above your first “baby picture.” You start off as a little round ball of unformed substance. Then gradually arms, legs, eyes, and all your other parts appear. At one month, you’re not quite as charming as you’re going to be, and here’s where the evolutionist says, “There’s no evidence of creation in the human embryo. Otherwise, why would a human being have a yolk sac like a chicken does and a tail like a lizard does? Why would a human being have gill slits like a fish does? An intelligent creator should have known that human beings don’t need those things.”

THE THEORY OF VESTIGIAL ORGANS—evolutionary leftovers
Well, there they are, “yolk sac, gill slits, and a tail.” Why are they there? What’s a creationist going to say? The evolutionist believes these structures are there only as useless leftovers or “vestiges,” of our evolutionary ancestry – remainders of the times when our ancestors were only fish and reptiles.
The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of “evolutionary medical malpractice.” Young children once had their healthy and helpful, disease-fighting tonsils removed because of the widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea actually slowed down scientific research for many years. If you believe something is a useless, nonfunctional leftover of Evolution, then you don’t bother to find out what it does.
Fortunately, other scientists didn’t take that view. Sure enough, studies have shown that essentially all 180 organs once listed as evolutionary vestiges have quite important functions in human beings.

Take the so-called “yolk sac,” for instance. In chickens, the yolk contains much of the food that the chick depends on for growth. But we, on the other hand, grow attached to our mothers, and they nourish us. Does that mean the fetus’s so-called “yolk sac” can be cut off from the human embryo because it isn’t needed? Not at all. The “yolk sac” is the source of the human embryo’s first blood cells, and death would result without it.
Now here’s an engineering problem for you. In the adult, you want to have the blood cells formed inside the bone marrow. That makes good sense, because the blood cells are very sensitive to radiation damage and bone would offer them some protection. But you need blood in order to form the bone marrow that later on is going to form blood. So, where do you get the blood first? Why not use a structure similar to the yolk sac in chickens? The DNA and protein for making it are “common stock” building materials. And, since it lies conveniently outside the embryo, it can easily be discarded after it has served its temporary-but vital-function.
Notice, this is exactly what we would expect as evidence of good creative design and engineering practice. Suppose you were in the bridge-building business, and you were interviewing a couple of engineers to determine whom you wanted to hire. One fellow says, “Each bridge I build will be entirely different from all others.” Proudly he tells you “Each bridge will be made using different materials and different processes so that no one will ever be able to see any similarity between the bridges I build.” How does that sound?
Now the next fellow comes in and says, “Well, out back is your yard and I saw a supply of I-beams and various sized heavy bolts and cables. We can use those to span either a river or the San Francisco Bay. I can adapt the same parts and processes to meet a wide variety of needs. You’ll be able to see a theme and a variation in my bridge building, and others can see the stamp of authorship in our work.” Which fellow would you hire?
As Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith pointed out, we normally recognize in human engineers the principles of creative economy and variations on a theme. That’s what we see in human embryonic development. The same kind of structure that can provide food and blood cells to a chicken embryo can be used to supply blood cells (all that’s needed) for a human embryo. Rather than reflecting time and chance, adapting similar structures to a variety of needs seems to reflect creation.

THE TRUTH ABOUT “GILL” SLITS
The same is true of the so-called “gill slits.” In the human embryo at one month, there are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin where the “throat pouches” grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. That’s when we find out for sure that these structures are not gill slits. If the opening were really part of a gill, if it really were a “throwback to the fish stage,” then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply don’t have the DNA instructions for forming gills.
Unfortunately, some babies are born with three eyes or one eye. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we evolved from something with one eye or three eyes. It’s simply a mistake in the normal program for human development, and it emphasizes how perfect our design features and operation must be for life to continue.
The throat (or pharyngeal) grooves and pouches, falsely called “gill slit,” are not mistakes in human development. They develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy – the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, the parathyroid, etc. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth.
Without a thymus, we would lose half our immune systems. Without the parathyroids, we would be unable to regulate calcium balance and could not even survive. Another pouch, thought to be vestigial by evolutionists until just recently, becomes a gland that assists in calcium balance. Far from being useless evolutionary vestiges, then, these so-called “gill slits” are quite essential for distinctively human development.
As with “yolk sacs,” “gill slit” formation represents an ingenious and adaptable solution to a difficult engineering problem. How can a small, round egg cell be turned into an animal or human being with a digestive tube and various organs inside a body cavity? The answer is to have the little ball (or flat sheet in some organisms) “swallow itself,” forming a tube which then “buds off” other tubes and pouches. The anterior pituitary, lungs, urinary bladder, and parts of the liver and pancreas develop in this way.
In fish, gills develop from such processes, and in human beings, the ear canals, parathyroid, and thymus glands develop. Following DNA instructions in their respective egg cells, fish and human beings each use a similar process to develop their distinctive features.

THE TRUTH ABOUT HUMAN “TAILS”
What about the “tail”? Some of you have heard that man has a “tail bone” (also called a coccyx), and that the only reason we have it is to remind us that our ancestors had tails. You can test this idea yourself, although I don’t recommend it. If you think the coccyx is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that-unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the coccyx is one of the most important bones in the whole body. It’s an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that.)
So again, far from being a useless evolutionary leftover, the coccyx is quite important in human development. True, the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but that’s because muscles and limbs don’t develop until stimulated by the spine (see above picture). As the legs develop, they surround and envelop the coccyx, and it winds up inside the body.
Once in a great while a child will be born with a “tail.” But, is it really a tail? No, it’s not even the coccyx. It doesn’t have any bones in it; it doesn’t have any nerve cord either. The nervous system starts stretched out open on the back. During development, it rises up in ridges and rolls shut. It starts to “zipper” shut in the middle first, then it zippers toward either end. Once in a while it doesn’t go far enough, and that produces a serious defect called spina bifida. Sometimes it rolls a little too far. Then the baby will be born – not with a tail, but with a fatty tumor. It’s just skin and a little fatty tissue, so the doctor can just cut it off. It’s not at all like the tail of a cat that has muscle, bones, and nerve, so cutting it off is not complicated. (So far as I know, no one claims that proves we evolved from an animal with a fatty tumor at the end of its spine.)
The details of human development are truly amazing. We really ought to stop, take a good look at each other, and congratulate each other that we turned out as well as we did!

RETRACING OUR “EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT?”

Evolutionists used to say that human embryonic development retraced states in our supposed evolutionary history. That idea, the now defunct “biogenetic law,” was summarized in the pithy phrase, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” (Want to sound educated? Just memorize that phrase!) The phrase means that the development of the embryo is supposed to retrace the evolution of its group. As leading anti-creationist Stephen Gould points out, “the theory of recapitulation… should be defunct today,” but Dr. Down named a syndrome “Mongoloid idiocy” because he thought it represented a “throwback” to the “Mongolian stage” in human evolution.[4] It was even once believed that the fertilized egg, for example, would represent our one-celled ancestors, sort of the “amoeba stage.”
Sure enough, we start as small, round structures looking somewhat like single cells. But notice how superficial that argument is. The evolutionists were just looking at the outside appearance of the egg cell. If we look just on the outside appearance, then maybe we’re related to a marble or a ball bearing – they’re small, round things! An evolutionist (or anyone else) would respond, of course, “That’s crazy. Those things are totally different on the inside from a human egg cell.”
But that’s exactly the point. If you take a look on the inside, the “dot” we each start form is totally different from the first cell of every other kind of life. A mouse, an elephant, and a human being are identical in size and shape at the moment of conception. Yet in terms of DNA and protein, right at conception each of these types of life is as totally different chemically as each will ever be structurally. Even by mistake, a human being can’t produce a yolk or gills or a tail, because we just don’t have, and never had, those DNA instructions.
The human egg cell, furthermore, is not just human, but also a special individual. Eye color, general body size, and perhaps even temperament are already present in DNA, ready to come to visible expression. Embryonic development is not even analogous to evolution, which is meant to indicate a progressive increase in potential. The right Greek word instead would be entelechy, which means an unfolding of potential present right from the beginning. That’s the kind of development that so clearly requires creative design.
In reviewing the decline and fall of orthodox Darwinism, John Davy points out that even evolutionists see the need for “theories of another kind” (emphasis his) to explain both the origin and development of distinctive “building plans” among organisms. “Instead of seeing animals as collections of devices for survival, we may have to look at them as more like works of art.”[5] Works of art – that’s the way creationists have viewed living beings all along!

The Abortion Connection

Amazingly, one can still occasionally find Haeckel’s theory of “embryonic recapitulation” being taught or implied in schools and universities. Some “pro-choice” advocates and abortion clinics have even used this evolutionary concept to make abortion more palatable: “We’re not cutting up a baby; it’s just a fish or a jellyfish. It’s not human; it’s just tissue.”
Once again, deceptive evolutionary claims result in tragic results. In reality, the wonderful process of embryonic development is another marvelous reflection of the Creator’s design.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
Adapted from “Evolution of Thought: Reader’s Digest ‘Facts’,” Creation: Ex Nihilo (Acacia Ridge, Queensland, Australia: June 1986) – used by permission. / Dr. Spock’s quotation from Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care, (Cardinal Giant Addition, 1957, p. 223), as quoted by Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law”, Science, Vol. 164 (May 9, 1969), pp. 684-685.
“Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany,’ Ernst Heinrick Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution. Born at Potsdam, Prussia (now Germany), on February 16, 1834, Haeckel studied medicine and science at Wurtzburg and the University of Berlin, and was professor of zoology at Jena from 1865 until his retirement in 1909. The turning point in his thinking was his reading of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, which had been translated into German in 1860. In a letter to his mistress, written when he was 64 and had acquired the nickname of ‘Der Ketzer von Jena’ (the gadfly of Jena), he explained how he began as a ‘Christian’ but after studying evolution became a free-thinker and pantheist. Darwin believed that Haeckel’s enthusiastic propagation of the doctrine of organic evolution was the chief factor in the success of the doctrine in Germany. …he used enormous backdrops showing embryos, skeletons, etc., which has led to his presentation being described as a sort of ‘Darwinian passion play!’ Haeckel’s enthusiasm for the theory of evolution led him to fraudulently manufacture ‘evidence’ to bolster his views. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind.” His frauds included descriptions and detailed pictures protoplasmic organisms called Monera that never existed, a non-existent “speechless apeman,” and illustrations and descriptions of a non-existent “fish stage” in human embryos. The human “fish stage” fraud was first uncovered by comparative embryologist Wilhelm His, Sr. Ernst Haeckel later partially confessed. [Russell Grigg, “Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36 - used by permission of Answers in Genesis.]
Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism(Rochester, Vermont: Park Street Press, 1997), p. 188.
Stephen Jay Gould, “Dr. Down’s Syndrome,” Natural History, Vol. 89 (April 1980), p. 144.
John Davy, “Once Upon A Time,” Observer-Review (London: August 16, 1981).
SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER READING

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c031.html

Fraud Rediscovered, Creation, Volume 20, No. 2 (March 1998), pp. 49-51 – for the shocking truth, with photographic documentation, about the lies made telling people that the human fetus recapitulates an animal ancestry; see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/developing-deception
Russell Grigg, “Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for Evolution and Apostle of Deceipt,” Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No. 2 (March-May 1996), pp. 33-36.
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, from science journalist Richard Milton; see: http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/bk-shattering.html as well as http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html
Well, there you go True Believers. Further information arguing for the absolute certainty of creation.
I will be returning with more articles on various subjects that are important to the Christian today.

In the interim, please feel free to comment and also be sure to take care of yourselves and each other.

Until next time!

Maximus!

In my conversations with those who doubt the Word of God, one of the objections they raise is regarding the world’s oldest religion. Secular scholars the world over seem to endorse Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion. As a result, some question the validity of the Scriptures based on this fact. If there are other religions that are older, then this supposedly undermines Christianity, as people were supposedly practicing other religious systems beforehand.

In this particular entry, I’m going to address the issue and hopefully will establish beyond the shadow of a doubt how ludicrous this assumption is.

Actually, I’ve been meaning to post an entry on this subject for quite some time. The following is my official answer.

As I said before, I realize that secular scholars acknowledge Hinduism as the world’s oldest religion. I will also state for the record that I don’t agree with them. I equate this with the Creation vs Evolution argument. Most scientists argue from a secular perspective and endorse Evolution. Yet, I don’t agree with that/them either. Some scientists provide a different perspective to the Evolution argument. Likewise, archaelogical evidence that supports the Bible also provides a different perspective to the Hinduism argument. The bottom line is that you can find information to support ANY philosophy. Any ideology. It’s all about what you choose to believe. I always challenge people to investigate for themselves. Investigate as much as you possibly can. Gather as much information as can be accessed, take all this evidence and weigh it. What differs from person to person is the perspective. Our presumptions. Some people have a biblical perspective, some secular.

That said, I’m not prepared to bet my eternal destiny on what secular scholars say. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion. Does that, in and of itself, make it true, or correct? Age is not a prerequisite of/to the truth, last time I checked. Regardless, I’m not prepared to crown Hinduism the winner just yet. I say this for several reasons:

1) SOME STATE THAT JUDAISM IS THE WORLD’S OLDEST RELIGION. And remember that Christians believe Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Adherents of Islam AND Christianity believe their faith is the complete and universal version of the pre-historic belief system that has been revealed on numerous occasions and at various places since the beginning of time, involving complete allegiance to Yahweh, aka Jehovah, aka Jah, aka Elohim, etc. Likewise, this faith based belief system has been demonstrated by such figures as Moses, Abraham and Jesus. The reason I believe Christianity wins the battle with Islam is because both Judaism and Christianity believe in the concept of a Messiah (unlike Islam). What separates them is the fact that Christians believe Jesus Christ to be that Messiah. The Jews are still waiting for theirs, having (erroneously) rejected Christ.

Even some Indians acknowledge that Judaism is at least as old as Hinduism. I found the following at a website called iloveindia.com:

“Judaism is another religion that is considered to be as old as Hinduism. Prior to Judaism, only pagan religions had existed. The religion is said to begin from the birth of Abraham around 1800 BCE, who is now considered to be the father of Judaism. It was during this time that Moses wrote the Torah. Believers regard the Torah to be the beginning point of the Judaism religion. It was Abraham who established Judaism as ‘the religion of the deed, not the religion of the creed.’ According to the Torah, the Jews have been deemed as the first people to understand various concepts, such as prayers, house of worship, charity, kindness to the stranger, hospitality to guests, women’s rights and several others.” (Emphasis mine)

Ironic that I found this at a website promoting a country that is predominantly Hindi (with a healthy dose of Islam and Muslims thrown in for good measure). At another website, I saw the following:

“If you want to date by the founder, then Judaism would be more correctly dated at around 1900 BCE, if you believe what Judaism claims about Abraham. Hinduism would be closer to 1800 BCE at the absolute latest, but if you believe what Hinduism claims about Krishna, it could be as far back as 3000 BCE. If you want to date them by the first religious writings, that puts Hinduism at about 1500 BCE with the Rig Veda and Judaism at around 1500 BCE with the book of Job. If you want to date by the foundation of the principles as we recognize them today, then Hinduism clocks in at around 1500 BCE – 1300 BCE, because little has fundamentally changed since then, and Judaism comes in at around 200 – 300 CE, with the writing of the Talmud formalizing and standardizing various oral traditions.”

My problems with the above quote include the fact that:

A) Allegiance to Yahweh as demonstrated by Abraham goes much further back than Abraham (as stated previously). For example, based on what you and I have already discussed, Noah also demonstrated this same allegiance to Yahweh and The Flood can be traced back to 2345 BCE. Further, Noah had already lived a LONG time before then, which would mean his birth was quite close to the birthdate attributed to Krishna. This doesn’t even include the lineage of Adam until the time of Noah which is in the THOUSANDS of years – most of which pre-dates Krishna.
B) I would disagree that the Talmud is the writing which formalized the oral traditions of the Israelites. That title belongs to the Torah (already mentioned as well) which was written much earlier.

Still, the principle of including these quotes was to demonstrate that even by nonreligious, secular standards, Judaism can compete with Hinduism as the world’s oldest religion. Now, let’s get to the harder evidence.

2) THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BIBLE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO ADAM (WHICH PRE-DATES HINDUISM BY FAR) IS OVERWHELMING! Nothing has been verified/scrutinized to the extent (that) the Bible has – including the Hindi Vedas. The Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, The Tower of Babel, The Ark of the Covenant, The City of Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, grave sites for a host of biblical figures – they all prove the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document.

A) Let’s start with the Garden of Eden (which obviously would pre-date Krishna) – According to Bishop Aaron Claxton, M.A., L.L.D., D.D., head pastor at New Creation Christian Church World Outreach Center:

“The whole area of Africa was called Eden, the place of delight or the place of pleasantness. God planted a garden eastward in Eden and scholars today have concluded that this would be some where around Tanzania, in East Africa. The most ancient fossils of mankind have been found in this area. This was reported in 1988 and through the early 90′s, in some of the major magazines in America and Europe. Time magazine, Newsweek, etc. began to report that archaeologists had found a fossil which could be called Mother Eve.” (SOURCE: Aaron Claxton, God’s Plan for the Sons of Ham – A Future and A Hope [End Time Ministries of Christ Int., Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1996], p. 28)

From the above quote, thankfully, some truth has found its way into the mainstream media. Miracles never cease!

In the Introduction to the Original African Heritage Study Bible, written by the General Editor, who is none other than the Reverend Cain Hope Felder, Ph.D., professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at Howard University, Washington, D.C., beginning on page 103, there are five maps showing the original land known as Africa. Africa was not the name of that original land. Africa in the Bible was known as the land of Ham. It included what is known as classical Africa, or ancient Africa. The scholars in this study Bible seek to pinpoint the actual location of the origin of modern humans; in other words, where the Garden of Eden was located. It was discovered in East Central Africa, near what we would now call Tanzania. Let us quote from page 107 of the Introduction to the Original Africa Heritage Study Bible. It says:

“The birth of the creation of the first human (homo-sapiens) took place in the heart of biblical Africa which was called at that time Eden. The three rivers spoken of in Genesis 2:10-14, verify human existence in this area.
To substantiate the biblical story of creation, archaeologists and scientists confirm that the oldest form of human life has been discovered around the Olduaivue Gorge in present day Tanzania. It was from this point that humankind found a way to other parts of the known world.
The first move was toward northeast Africa, the ‘Middle East,’ and from there into Asia and Europe. Therefore, during the Bible days when civilization was high in Kemet (Egypt), there was little known activity on the continent we know today as Europe. Civilization came late to the Caucasians of the north, and that which came was brought forth from Akebu-lan (Africa), ‘the Mother of all Lands.’”

Akebu-lan was evidently the ancient name of Africa that the people from that part of the world, the Afro-Edenic people, the Afro-Asiatic people called that land.

B) Noah’s Ark – there have been numerous sightings/expeditions/fossil discoveries which have either been ignored, or even deliberately covered up by the mainstream media. That said, I’ll provide information on the most intriguing sighting. It occurred during the late 1970′s and involved a U.S. president and a UPI White House photographer. Ronald Bennett, now living in LaJolla, California, is the UPI White House photographer who saw Noah’s ark while flying aboard Air Force One (AF One Plane 2700) with then-President Jimmy Carter.
The Bennett sighting took place on a flight that departed from Washington D.C., going to Warsaw, Poland on December 29, 1977, and then on to Tehran (or Teheran), Iran on December 31, for a New Year’s Eve party being hosted by the Shah of Iran at his winter palace. It was en route to Tehran that Bennett and other journalists aboard Air Force One saw Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat (in Turkey). Bennett says:

“During the terms of four U.S. presidents – from Nixon through Reagan – I was the UPI photojournalist covering the White House. I always flew aboard Air Force One, reporting the activities of the president. On this particular occasion, with then-President Jimmy Carter, we were en route from Poland to Teheran to attend a New Year’s Day celebration given by the shah.
During the flight, while we were flying over eastern Turkey, our attention was called to the window. It was a dramatic moment as Sovient Mig fighter jets were escorting us wing-on-wing. At the same time, someone also told us that if we looked down, we would see Noah’s Ark. We looked and there was a mountain with snow and glaciers on it.
There, maybe halfway up the mountain, clearly visible, was a large, dark boat. It was partially covered with snow, or ice. I’m convinced, based on what I saw there, that it was Noah’s Ark. It’s my opinion that the president probably had Air Force One routed over Mount Ararat and most likely saw the ark too.” (SOURCE: Charles E. Sellier & David W. Balsiger, The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark [Dell Publishing, NY, NY, 1995], p. 212-13)

Carter has not confirmed whether he also saw the ark. The ark of Noah has also been photographed by U.S. and foreign spy satellites (can provide more information if you like)

C) The Tower of Babel – According to William Curtis, a former college professor and now the director of the Institute for Scientific and Biblical Research:

“Whatever the tower’s purpose was, it is clear from both secular and biblical history that such a tower existed. Ancient historians Herodotus and Eusebius wrote that the remains of such a tower existed in Babylon in their day, and many archaeologists today confirm that the tower ruins they have found in Babylon are that of the time era circa 2200 B.C.” (SOURCE: William M. Curtis, Babel: The Origin of Diverse Languages and Races, Twin Cities Creation Conference, Northwestern College, Roseville, MN, 1992, p. 178)

Since linguistics is the study of languages and language origins, let’s consider the position taken by Dr. John Oller, professor of linguistics and educational foundations at the University of New Mexico and author of Language and Experience and nine other books in the field of linguistics. Dr. Oller says:

“Actually, as remarkable as it may seem, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel is completely consistent with all of the evidence. Anyone who denies this fact is simply engaging in fantasy or speculation. There are roughly 5,000 languages in the world today and 50 to 60 stocks. We can trace the best-known of those languages, the Indo-European system, back to about 3,000 B.C., roughly the time of Babel. There is simply no evidence that existing stock can be traced back further.” (SOURCE: The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark, p. 127)

Dr. Steven Collins, a researcher in Europe and the Near East and professor of biblical studies for Trinity Theological Seminary, offers further evidence for the credibility of the biblical story of Babel and the confusion of languages.

“It is common knowledge in anthropology that the growth of world populations began in the Near East, primarily between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. But it all started in the Middle East. The interesting thing about this is that we have a document in the Book of Genesis that describes this ancient process as having begun in and around the Tower of Babel. And, of course, this is exactly what modern anthropology knows by way of the evidence.” (SOURCE: Ibid, p. 127)

Dr. Jonathon Henry, professor of Mathematics and Science at Tennessee Temple University, explains:

“Genesis, chapter ten, lists seventy ethnic groups which dispersed from the Tower of Babel and from which the earth’s human population is descended. The fate of these groups is traceable from biblical statements and secular sources. These are said to be the progenitors of all the nations on earth after the Flood, and accordingly, Genesis, chapter ten, is often called the ‘Table of Nations.’
Noah had three sons – Shem, Ham and Japheth. The descendants of Japheth experienced remarkable prosperity and dispersion, and their names make it clear that they inhabited vast portions of the earth, migrating westward to the Aegean, northward into Europe, and eastward into the Asian subcontinent. Japheth’s descendants, then are the Indo-Europeans. They are identified as the Gentiles in Genesis 10:5 and about 65 percent of Japhethite lines retain their identity today.
The name of Japheth himself is found in ancient literature as Iapetos, the legendary father of the Greeks and Iyapeti, the reputed ancestor of the Aryans in India. In Australian aboriginal legend, he was Yaperi.” (SOURCE: Jonathon F. Henry, Fate of the Ethnic Groups in the Table of Nations, Twin Cities Creation Conference, Northwestern College, Roseville, MN, 1992, pp. 91,95)

Conclusions

So, there you have it. Just a small taste of evidence supporting the first 3 major stories of the Bible which either pre-date Hinduism, or occurred around the supposed time of Krishna. I haven’t even scratched the surface. The amount of evidence supporting the biblical account of history is absolutely overwhelming! This takes us back to the very beginning of time and so (despite what secular scholars claim), I am confident in my faith. It stands alone and easily withstands any supposed challenge from Hinduism, Krishna, or whatever.

For further evidence, see the following website: http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

And Pressers of the Word, that is all for now.
I hope that this entry has been both enjoyable and informative.
Until next time – take care of yourselves and each other!
Bye for now!

Maximus

I realize I’ve really been dropping the ball where this site is concerned. I haven’t been here in months and I apologize for that. However, I plan to remedy that over the next little while. I’ve got a series of articles that I intend to post that addresses difficult questions that skeptics levy against Christianity. It’s my hope that by providing the information publicly, Christians will feel confident in their faith and gain knowledge that will help them address the critics.

One particular question that has gained a lot of publicity and which has “fueled the fire” of the doubters is the question of where Cain’s wife came from. In this article, I will attempt to answer that question.

It is seemingly a minefield for the Christian to answer. At least at first glance. The agnostic Carl Sagan used this same question in his book Contact (which was on The New York Times best seller list) and the movie Contact, which was based on Sagan’s book, also used it.

There are 3 things to consider here.
A) Scripture does not record the name of all of Adam and Eve’s children.
B) There can be long periods of time that elapse between the children mentioned in Scripture.
C) Cain married his sister.

In Genesis 5:1-4, only Adam and Eve’s son Seth is mentioned. It states, ” … he had other sons and daughters.” This tells us that Adam had daughters (without mentioning their names). Seth was born when Adam was 130 years of age. The period from Cain’s birth to Abel’s death may have been 100 years or more. That is enough time for lots of other children and even grandchildren to have been born. This is stated as a closing note, not as a declaration that they were all born after Seth. Assuming the accuracy of the Genesis account, and considering the length of lives recorded at that time, a very sizable population could have developed very rapidly. As such, it would not have been impossible for Cain to select a wife among his father’s daughters. During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.” (Not sure how he arrives at this number, admittedly) (SOURCE: William Whiston, translator, The Complete Works of Josephus [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1981], p.27)

Also, the Bible doesn’t say Cain met his wife only AFTER going to the land of Nod, as it may have (likely) happened before that. As such, it was probably a sister, or niece. One would not expect for her to marry Cain AFTER he killed her brother, or relative and was now cursed by God to be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth (see Genesis 4:11-12). The Bible never tells us about Cain taking a wife in marriage (when or who), but it introduces the wife of Cain directly in marital relations already in Genesis 4:17. This is a fairly good indicator that Cain was already married when he killed his brother.

I can hear you now. “But that’s INCEST!” The bottom line is that in order to populate the Earth, brothers and sisters had to marry each other (see Acts 17:26). Once the population of the world reached into the thousands and millions, marriage within the immediate family was no longer necessary. Further, the genetic problems associated with marriage between close family members would take some time to develop. It was not until much later (Leviticus 18 – thousands of years later) that God prohibited this type of marriage (brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter, etc.) in Mosaic Law.

Before this, we see other examples. Even Abraham married his half-sister Sarah (see: Genesis 20:12). Until Mosaic law prohibited it, it was not a sin to marry a brother, sister, cousin, etc. (see Romans 5:12-14) However, it should also be noted that marrying your mother/father was always a sin. The Bible tells us that when two people have sexual relations, they become one flesh (Mark 10:8). Therefore, your mother is one flesh with your father and vice versa. So, it is a sin and a big one to think about anything that violates this truth. Even the children of Adam would sin a big sin if they even turned their eyes toward their mother, or father. We thank God that He didn’t allow this big sin to happen with Adam/Eve. Likewise, the law agrees with this (See: Leviticus 18:7).

Cain marrying his sister would also explain his fear of being killed by whoever found him. A stranger would not care about Cain’s past, but because everyone knew who he was and were also mourning the loss of Abel, Cain felt a very real sense of danger. He felt safe when the sin was a secret, but when God exposed it for all to see, Cain feared the vengeance of his family. Even in judgment, God showed mercy by protecting Cain from retaliation.

In the case of Cain’s wife, again there was no need to prohibit marrying siblings in the beginning based on physical/biological/genetic grounds.
As you know, genes are formed in pairs. At the moment of conception, we inherit one gene of each pair from each parent. In order to contract a genetic disease, both genes will be defective. After the Fall, the results of sin have increased. With mutation after mutation, we now have a genome that is full of mutations among which many are hidden and that will appear as soon as you marry anyone of your close relatives. Therefore, if two people come from the same parent, the likelihood that they both have the same defect is much greater. But if we marry outside of our family, the risk of genetic defects is greatly reduced. Man was not created with defective genes. Our defects are a result of the curse of sin. Cain was only one generation from the original creation and therefore, there was no need for the law against marrying close relatives. However, after thousands of years, the defects were very real and there was a need to protect the people from the harm they could not see. It directed and protected us from the dangers that sin produced in this fallen world.

Once it was no longer necessary to populate the Earth, God also forbade incest on MORAL gounds, and this is more crucial than the biological aspect (Leviticus 18; 20:11). Incest disrupts the family social and moral structure. The family (as we know it today) is the only God-ordained institution in the world other than the Church. In the initial formation of the family structure in Cain’s day, it is difficult to presume the in’s and out’s of intermarriage. However, after God’s official, ordained family structure stabilized, incest was sin. If God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, then it is a sin for us to do something which directly contravenes, or jeopardizes this mandate. With the genetic risks today, it would be wrong logically and morally for us to marry our close relatives.

Do God’s morals change?

Why did God declare intermarriage a sin in the law given through Moses and not consider it a sin the thousands of years prior? A foundational principle for biblical interpretation is that no truth from Scripture is for private interpretation but is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to reveal God’s overall purposes planned before time began (1 Peter 1:20; 2 Timothy 1). God is not making this up as He goes, but is fulfilling the overallplan He ordained before the foundation of the world. If all Scripture fits into the pre-ordained plan of God, then we must look at the full, total, complete plan to understand Scripture. We can’t know or comprehend the entirety of God’s plan, but He has revealed enough to us so that we can trust Him. We don’t zero in on one passage and build a doctrine around it. We take a bird’s-eye view, dive in for a closer look to examine a passage and then go back to the bird’s-eye view again. We must always ask ourselves – how does this fit into the whole picture? Thus, we can see here, that it was always God’s intention for incest to be a sin. Once He got the ball rolling,” as it were, He prohibited incestual relations in Mosaic law.

Final Notes and Conclusions

Technically, there is no way to marry anyone BUT a brother/daughter of Adam/Eve. Look around you! See all those people? They are ALL the children of Adam/Eve and your brothers and sisters. Since the Bible says that God made us all from one man (Adam – again, see Acts 17:26). So, when you marry someone, you’re surely marrying your brother/sister from Adam. What we need to understand is that God eventually forbade us from marrying any of our close relatives. God has no problem with you marrying a son/daughter of your FIRST parents. He has a problem with you marrying a brother/sister from YOUR direct father, or mother.

Finally, some critics jump on the fact that the Bible isn’t always written chronologically as an example of biblical error, but that’s a shallow and outrageous conclusion. It would only be an error if the writer INTENDED to record events sequentially and failed to do so. The lack of a linear order, however, is NOT an error if the authors weren’t attempting one. We must approach the Bible on IT’S terms and not ours. Additionally, to jump from the absence of an explanation FOR ONE EVENT to an automatic assumption that this represents a mistake is an unfair leap. Not only unfair, but frankly not even logical. And, it’s particularly outrageous to take the even greater leap of arguing that the entire Bible is therefore flawed, or beyond credibility.

Well, there you go, Word Pressers! My first post in a while, but hopefully worth the wait. It is my sincere hope that this information has provided the reader with a clear understanding of where Cain’s wife came from.

I’ll be posting more soon, so stay tuned!
Until next time, WordPressers!
Take care of yourselves and each other!

Maximus