Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 409

An Unshakeable Faith

A Christian Apologetics Course

David Cloud

A Christian Apologetics Course
Copyright 2011
David Cloud
First Edition September 2011
This edition February 19, 2014
ISBN 978-1-58318-119-5

Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061

866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
Canada: Bethel Baptist Church, 4212 Campbell St. N., London, Ont. N6P 1A6
Printed in Canada by
Bethel Baptist Print Ministry

Copyright and Distribution Policy ...................................................................iv
Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study .....................................................1
The Bible Critics Were Wrong ..........................................................................3
Introduction to the Course ................................................................................5
The Bible.........................................................................................................17
The Bibles Nature ...................................................................................18
The Bibles Proof .....................................................................................30
The Dead Sea Scrolls ...............................................................................40
The Bibles Difficulties ............................................................................43
Jesus Christ .....................................................................................................55
Historical Evidence for Jesus ...................................................................56
Evidence for Jesus Resurrection .............................................................61
Israel in Prophecy ...........................................................................................72
Archaeology ....................................................................................................80
Introduction to Archaeology ....................................................................81
Important Old Testament Dates .............................................................107
Archaeological Treasures Confirming the Bible....................................108
Evolution Introduction ...........................................................................183
A History of Evolution ...........................................................................209
Icons of Evolution ..................................................................................223
Icons of Creation ....................................................................................318
Predictions .............................................................................................332
Summary of Evidence against Evolution ...............................................346
Suggested Material on Creation Science and Evolution ........................348
Noahs Ark and the Worldwide Flood ..........................................................349
Soul Winning and Apologetics .....................................................................360
Miscellaneous Questions Answered .............................................................381
Summary of An Unshakeable Faith ..........................................................402
Copyright and Distribution Notice................................................................405

Copyright and Distribution Policy

This apologetics course is distributed in both print and eBook editions and is part of a package
that includes several PowerPoint/Keynote presentations.
Please understand that the eBook and PowerPoints are not for free distribution to ones friends or
for posting to the Internet, etc.
Way of Lifes content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable.
Our sharable policy is very generous. Things that we encourage our readers to share include our
audio sermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, the free eBooks, and the hundreds of
reports that we post at the web site. You are welcome to make copies of these at your own
expense and share them with friends and family. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the
articles. All we ask is that you give proper credit.
Under the non-sharable category are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, the print
editions of our books, PDFs of the books (other than the free ones), etc. These items have taken
years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we use the income from the sale
of these to help fund the ministry.
The Bible says, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is
worthy of his reward (1 Timothy 5:18).
We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy.

Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study

This apologetics course is sold as a package consisting of the course itself (in both print and
eBook editions) and a series of PowerPoint/Keynote presentations. (Keynote is the Apple version
of PowerPoint. The presentations were created in Keynote and some quality was lost in the
conversion to PowerPoint. If possible we advise using the Keynote editions on a Mac.)
The 20 professional PowerPoint presentations include 2,219 slides dealing with archaeology,
evolution/creation science, and prophecies pertaining to Israels history.
Archaeology 1 Introduction and Writing (95 slides)
Archaeology 2 Ur of the Chaldees (152 slides)
Archaeology 3 Egypt (72 slides)
Archaeology 4 Babylon (218 slides)
Archaeology 5 Assyria (169 slides)
Archaeology 6 Hezekiah and His Times (96 slides)
Archaeology 7 Medo-Persia (70 slides)
Archaeology 8 Israel (105 slides)
Archaeology 9 Lukes Writings (Luke and Acts) (37 slides)
Archaeology 10 The Roman Empire (114 slides)
Israel in Prophecy (100 slides)
Icons of Evolution 1 - Intro Natural Selection Mutations (139 slides)
Icons of Evolution 2 - Fossil Record (118 slides)
Icons of Evolution 3 - Homology Peppered Moth Finch Fruit Fly (106 slides)
Icons of Evolution 4 - Lucy Laetoli (73 slides)
Icons of Evolution 5 - Vestigial Embryo (70 slides)
Icons of Evolution 6 - Miller Experiment (75 slides)
Icons of Evolution 7 - Horse Whale Bird (187 slides)
Icons of Evolution 8 - Billions of Years (76 slides)
Icons of Creation (147 slides)
We suggest that when teaching these sections of the course, the teacher first go through the
printed material and then use the PowerPoint or Keynote slides for the actual presentation to the
students, since the graphics are a great aid in grasping this particular type of material. After
showing the PowerPoints, the teacher can use the Sectional Summaries and Review Questions to
make sure that the students took proper notes and got a handle on the material. Since there is
more information in the printed material, the teacher will be better prepared to describe the slides
and answer questions if he goes through the books outlines before showing the PowerPoints.
The majority of the photos in the PowerPoint slides were taken by the author during visits to
major museums and on research trips to locations in America, England, Europe, Australia, Asia,
and the Middle East.

The material in the course is extensive, and the teacher can decide whether to use all of it or to
select only some portion of it for his particular class and situation.
The section Tips for Using Apologetics in Evangelism is a brief course on soul winning.
After most sections there are summaries and review questions as teachers aids and to help the
students focus on the most important points. The teacher can go through these with the class or
he can assign the students to go through them on their own. Selections can be made from the
review questions for sectional and final tests.
There is also a summary of the entire course at the end of the book. This section emphasizes the
major points that the students should master so well that they can use them effectively in
apologetic and evangelistic situations.
There is an introduction to the course itself, and there are introductions to the sections of the
course on archaeology and evolution. These introductions are as important as the material itself
and we strongly suggest that they not be skipped over.
The course can be used for private study as well as in a classroom setting. In the case of private
study, the student can go through the printed and PowerPoint material and then use the
summaries and review questions to test himself/herself.

The Bible Critics Were Wrong

It is the early 20th century, and the Bible is under attack as never before.
It is under attack by theological modernists with impressive credentials. They say that the Bible
is filled with myths. They claim that Ur of the Chaldees, the Hittites, Nebuchadnezzar and his
Babylon, Belshazzar, Sargon, King David, and Solomon were mythical. They say that Moses
couldnt have written the first five books of the Bible since writing was unknown in his day.
They say there were no ancient complex law codes and no Babylonian captivity. They say that
parts of the New Testament were not written until at least 100 years after the events and were
based on mythical stories passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. They
say that the book of Acts is filled with historical inaccuracies. A chorus of voices have joined that
of the infidel Thomas Paine who wrote in his popular book The Age of Reason that Genesis is
an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright
The Bible is also under attack by Darwinists. Charles Darwin claims that his doctrine of natural
selection explains the origin of species. Thomas Huxley claims that Archaeopteryx is evidence
that birds evolved from small dinosaurs. Ernst Haeckel, one of the worlds most influential
scientists, claims that the doctrine of recapitulation proves that evolution is true and he has
impressive embryo charts to demonstrate it. He says that life is continually formed at the bottom
of the sea through simple lifeforms called monera and that these primitive lifeforms are the
foundation of the tree of life. He has even given monera a scientific name and has drawings of
them in his books. Othniel Marsh at Yales Peabody Museum claims that his horse chart proves
evolution. Evidence is growing for the doctrine that man ascended from apes. There is
Neanderthal Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, and Nebraska Man. Why, we even
have drawings and models of them and their families and entire books describing their culture
and habits! Percival Lowell is publishing books describing the canals he has observed on Mars
through his 24-inch telescope near the Grand Canyon. He is even deducing many fascinating
details about the lives of the Martians who built these canals.
What would you do in such a time as this, confronted with such an onslaught of apparent
evidence against the Bibles authenticity?
Those who held fast to their faith in God and in the Bible as Gods Word were vindicated, while
the skeptics and the Darwinists were proven wrong.
Archaeologists have unearthed evidence for Ur, the Hittites, Nebuchadnezzar and his glorious
Babylon, Belshazzar, Sargon, King David, Solomon, and so much more. They have proven that
writing was prevalent at least 1,500 years before Moses and that complex law codes were well
known in ancient times. They have unearthed evidence for the Babylonian captivity and have

demonstrated that the book of Acts is historically accurate. They have proven that there are no
canals on Mars and no alien civilization.
As for the Darwinist claims, it is obvious that natural selection has no creative power and thus
could not possibly account for the origin of species, that Archaeopteryx was just a bird and not
any type of missing link, that Haeckels doctrine of recapitulation was as bogus as his embryo
chart and his monera. It has been demonstrated that Marshs horse evolution was based on
assumption rather than scientific evidence, and all kinds of horses have been found in the same
time and place in the fossil record. It has been learned that Neanderthal was just a man. Piltdown
turned out to be a hoax. Java Man was a myth based on a fossil of an ape intermingled with that
of a man. Nebraska Man was a myth based on a pigs tooth. Peking Man was an ape that was the
unfortunate meal of an enclave of human limestone workers.
New skeptical challenges and Darwinian myths have been proposed to replace those that have
been disproven, but how many times do skeptics and Darwinists have to be refuted before people
realize that they are the emperor without clothes? It is high time that Gods people give the
critics the respect they deserve, which is no respect at all!
This course contains powerful evidence against skepticism and Darwinism and for the Bible and
Jesus Christ, and for that reason it is entitled An Unshakeable Faith.

Introduction to the Course

1. What research went into the creation of this course?
The author doesnt include this information in order to boast but simply to explain the type of
research that has gone into the creation of the course so that the teacher and student can have
some level of confidence in the material.
First, the course is built upon nearly 40 years of serious Bible study. The author has produced
Bible study materials such as the Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity, Things
Hard to Be Understood, and the 20-volume Advanced Bible Studies Series.
Second the course is built on 30 years of apologetics research and writing. This has been a major
thrust of the authors ministry since he began publication of the monthly O Timothy magazine in
1984. Many of his books also reflect this emphasis. The authors personal library of 6,000
volumes includes hundreds of titles on evolution and archaeology and general apologetics.
Third, the course is built on visits to many major museums, including the Museum of Man in San
Diego, the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, the American Natural History Museum, the
Yale Peabody Museum, the Chicago Field Museum, the Burke Museum of Natural History in
Seattle, the Pennsylvania University Museum, the Michigan State University Museum, the
Oriental Institute in Chicago, the Australia Museum, the National Archaeological Museum of
Athens, the Louvre in Paris, the British Museum, the British Museum of Natural History, the
Istanbul Archaeology Museum, and the homes of Charles and Erasmus Darwin.
Fourth, the course is built on archaeological and historical research trips to England, Europe,
Turkey, Greece, and Israel.
Fifth, the course is built on experiences prior to conversion when the author pursued the New
Age and Hinduism, plus 20 years of experience as a missionary in the Hindu/Buddhist culture of
South Asia and many years of experience in preaching to prisoners and university students.
Most of the photos and video clips used in the course were taken in the context of this research.
2. What are the objectives of this course?
To protect you
Our first objective in this apologetics course is to familiarize the student with commonly-held
arguments against the Bible and to prepare him to answer those arguments. The first use of
apologetics is not to convince the unbeliever but to protect the believer, his family, and fellow
believers. Because we are grounded in apologetics, we are not confused when we hear arguments

by evolutionists, atheists, new agers, and cultists, either in person, in print, on the radio or
television, or on the Internet. When we visit natural history museums we can see through the
error of the displays. Our objective is to provide the student of this course enough knowledge to
protect him.
Churches must prepare the people to face the onslaught of end-time skepticism and apostasy.
Many have become confused and have even lost their faith in Gods Word after being confronted
with theological modernism, atheism, and evolution.
The average Baptist church, whether Southern or Independent, is simply not preparing young
people to face the skepticism of the hour.
The experience of Edward O. Wilson is all too typical. He is a prominent evolutionist, a
professor in Entomology at Harvard University, a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,
and a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism. He grew up in Alabama
and joined a Southern Baptist congregation at age 15 with great fervor and interest in the
fundamentalist religion. He lost his faith at age 17 when he got to the University of Alabama
and heard about evolutionary theory (Wilson, The Humanist, September/October 1982, p. 40).
An ABC World News report in November 2010 focused on two Southern Baptist ministers who
are agnostics. They lost their faith when confronted by the writings of the new atheists such
as Richard Dawkins. The minister identified as Adam said, I realized that everything Id been
taught to believe was sort of sheltered, and never really looked at secular teaching or other
philosophies ... I thought, Oh my... Am I believing the wrong things? Have I spent my entire life
and my career promoting something that is not true? (Atheist Ministers Struggle with Leading
the Faithful, ABC World News, Nov. 9, 2010).
The reason for this type of thing is that, first, churches are often careless about trying to make
sure that young people are genuinely converted to Christ as opposed to just going through the
motions of believing and praying a prayer. Then, too, young people are being coddled and
entertained, but they are not being seriously discipled. As a result, children growing up in Baptist
churches are being devoured either by the world or the contemporary church philosophy. Biblical
faith is not a blind leap in the dark. It is established upon solid historical evidence which Luke
described as infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). It is not difficult to defend the Bible and the gospel
against the railings of the new atheists, but most churches arent even trying.
To prepare you to help other believers
God wants every believer to be a teacher (Heb. 5:12-14). We are to exhort one another (Heb.
10:25). Every child of God should have the objective of growing in Christ and learning His Word
so that he can help disciple others.

To prepare you to challenge unbelievers

We are instructed to be ready to give an answer to the unbeliever (1 Peter 3:15). Paul believed in
giving a defense of his faith in Christ (Philippians 1:7, 17). His practice was to dispute with both
Jews and Gentile (Acts 17:17). He reasoned and persuaded (Acts 18:4). His message on Mars
Hill in Athens was a masterly example of the use of biblical apologetics in evangelism (Acts
We live in a needy world. And apologetics can prepare the soil of the unbelievers heart so that
he or she will listen to Gods Word. That is what happened to the first friend God gave me after I
was saved. Richard Tedder had grown up in a skeptical environment and was educated at a
secular university. He assumed evolution is true. It was after he read a booklet exposing some of
the scientific errors of evolution that he began to rethink his philosophy of life. He decided to
read the Bible, and there he found truth and salvation. The exposure of evolution was a step in
his conversion. Dr. Carl Werner was an evolutionist when he was in medical school, and through
the challenge of a fellow student he decided to investigate evolution to see if it is true. Through
that process he became a creationist. Dr. Jobe Martin, who was once an evolutionist, became a
creationist after some of his students challenged him to study the design of nature. Arguments
against evolution are effective for those willing to listen. The book Icons of Evolution by
Jonathan Wells (who has a Ph.D. in religion and a Ph.D. in cell biology) which was published in
2000, has changed the thinking of many highly educated people, including those who have gone
on to become Christians as well as those who have adopted some type of Intelligent Design or
theistic evolution position.
We deal with this in the chapter Tips for Using Apologetics in Evangelism.
3. The Bible warns of an explosion of unbelief and skepticism at the end of the age and we
must be prepared to face it.
See Psalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13; 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:3-7; Jude 3-4.
2 Timothy 3:13 says apostasy and error will grow throughout the age, and we can see this in
church history, but the Bible also indicates that there will be an explosion of apostasy at the end
of the age. The 19th century witnessed this explosion, and this is made plain in 2 Peter 3:3-7.
Here Peter identifies the last days with a widespread rejection of the Bibles teaching about
creation and the global Flood.
This occurred in the late 19th century.
Skepticism was in the air. The 19th century witnessed the birth of theological modernism,
humanistic philosophy, Unitarianism, Marxism, Darwinism, Mormonism, Psychology, and New

Consider some descriptions of the skeptical atmosphere of that time:

Every thinking man I have met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious faith.
And the unthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief (Thomas Huxley, cited from
Adrian Desmond, Huxley, p. 160).
[It was a time] when speculations about the origin of species were most rife, when even the orthodox
doctrines were being modified and complicated until it was hardly possible to know where orthodoxy ended
and heresy started (Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p. 234).
The unspiritual condition of the churches and the alarmingly prevalent skepticism, infidelity, and atheism
among the masses of the people in Germany, Switzerland, and Holland is, without doubt, almost wholly
attributable to the advocacy of these criticisms by a large majority of the prominent pastors and theological
professors in those lands. The same condition of affairs is measurably true in England, Scotland, New
England, and in every community where this criticism is believed by any very considerable number of people
and openly advocated (L.W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, 1896).
The flood-gates of infidelity are open, and Atheism overwhelming is upon us (George Romanes, 1878,
cited from Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 371).
Attendance at places of worship is declining and reverence for holy things is vanishing. We solemnly
believe this to be largely attributable to THE SCEPTICISM WHICH HAS FLASHED FROM THE PULPIT
AND SPREAD AMONG THE PEOPLE (C.H. Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel, November 1887).

Since the late 19th century, apostasy and skepticism has spread like wildfire, both in secular and
Christian circles.
(We document this in the book The Modern Version Hall of Shame, which is available from Way
of Life Literature in print and eBook formats.)
The bottom line is that we live in an age of terrible apostasy, and we must not hide our heads in
the sand. Individual believers must wake up and be informed and alert. Christian mothers and
fathers must protect their families. Pastors and teachers must protect the flock.
It is for this purpose that we are publishing this apologetics course. It is not just for young
people. It is for every age group from youth to senior citizens.
4. The evidence for Gods existence is irrefutable and only willful blindness accounts for its
The Bible does not argue for Gods existence, and I believe that we should follow this example.
The Bible simply begins with a statement of Gods existence as the Almighty Creator (Genesis
The Bible twice says the atheist is a fool (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). This is because the evidence for
God is written in nature and in mans own heart. See Romans 1:19-20; 2:14-16.

The only thing that we should do with the atheist is point him to creation. If he doesnt believe
the evidence that God has put before his very eyes, nothing but prayer will help him. He cannot
be reasoned into belief in God through human philosophy. It wont work and it is a waste of
5. Some things that are necessary for effective apologetics.
Salvation is the helmet that protects the believers mind and heart as he stands against the devil.
And take the helmet of salvation... (Eph. 6:17).
Knowledge alone wont protect the individual from Satanic lies. Knowledge is important, but
many knowledgeable people have fallen. Judas knew everything the other disciples knew, but he
fell away. Many professing believers have set out to defend the Bible only to fall to Satans lies,
because they were not grounded in a saving relationship with Christ. When the crowds turned
away from Christ and believed the lies of their religious leaders, Peter and the apostles remained
because they knew Him personally and were sure that He was the only Lord and Saviour (John
Many today have prayed a sinners prayer without repentance and without casting themselves
upon Christ from the heart. They have joined the church, but they dont have a real personal
relationship with Christ.
It is the love for unrighteousness that blinds mens minds to the truth (John 3:19; 2 Thess. 2:12).
Apostates who turn their ears away from the truth do so because they walk after their own lusts
(2 Timothy 4:3-4). End-time scoffers are scoffers because they walk after their own lusts (2 Peter
3:3). The individual who stands in the way of sinners will eventually sit in the seat of the
scornful (Psalm 1:1).
This is what happened to me as a young person growing up in a Baptist church. I heard the truth
and knew the truth from my earliest memories and I had no intention or desire to disown Christ
and the Bible, but I did not receive the truth into my heart and I did not embrace the truth in
repentance and faith and I did not have a personal walk with Christ. Instead I loved the world
and the evil things of the world and that idolatrous love of sin blinded my mind to the truth. I
became so blind that I rejected the Bible as Gods Word, believed in reincarnation rather than
resurrection, accepted universalism rather than salvation, and ultimately joined a Hindu society.
Taking an apologetics course like this will not protect you if you do not separate from evil and
guard your heart from meditating upon those things that displease the Lord. See Proverbs
4:13-14, 20-27.

Knowledge of Gods Word

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of
the wicked. And take ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph. 6:16-17).
The Word of God is both the shield of faith (see Romans 10:17) and the sword of the Spirit; it is
both defensive and offensive, and it is the chief weapon in the believers arsenal against Satan.
Each believer should become a teacher by being skilled in the Word of God (Hebrews 5:12-14).
The pursuit of Bible knowledge should be a major objective of every believers life. Without this,
he cannot know Gods will or defend himself properly against the wiles of the Devil. It is not
necessary to go off to a Bible College. What one needs is a good church, a habit of daily Bible
study, and the judicious use of study tools. Some churches offer Bible classes in the evenings,
and there are many courses that can be used for private study, such as Way of Lifes Advanced
Bible Studies Series (ABSS). The ABSS titles How to Study the Bible and Give Attendance to
Doctrine are good starting places in this pursuit.
I recall with great fondness the man who led me to Jesus Christ in the summer of 1973. His name
was Ron Walker, and he knew his Bible. That was the thing that first impressed me about him
and that is the reason I was willing to travel with him and hear more.
I told him my religious and philosophical views, and he replied with Scripture.
I said, I believe in reincarnation.
He replied, In Hebrews 9:27 the Bible says, And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the judgment. Since the Bible says we die one time and then the judgment, I dont
believe in reincarnation.
I said, I believe a man should follow his heart.
He replied, The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked: who can know it? We cannot trust in our own hearts.
I said, I believe that as long as a man is sincere in his beliefs God will accept him.
He replied, Proverbs 14:12 says, There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end
thereof are the ways of death. According to the Bible, a man can be sincerely wrong and be
judged by God.


I said, If a man cant trust his own heart and sincerity, how is it possible, then, to know the
He replied, Jesus Christ said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
Father, but by me. Also God has given us His revelation in the Bible. It is the divinely inspired
Word of God.
I got so interested in the conversation and so impressed with his knowledge of Scripture that I
traveled with him for about four days and on our last night together I repented and cast myself
upon Christ and His Word.
Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. We must practice evangelism
and apologetics from a position of convinced faith and not be moved by the doubt of those to
whom we minister. We must have the testimony of Peter in John 6:69: And we believe and are
SURE that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
When we show an unbeliever the argument of design from nature, how that the incredible
complexity of the 11 major systems of the human body, for example, point to an Almighty God,
we must not be moved by a skeptical response. Richard Dawkins can mock the design theory
and claim that life could come about by chance, but I know in my heart of hearts that this is
nonsense. My heart resonates with the truth of Romans 1:20 -- For the invisible things of him
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. And all of the mocking
and scoffing in the world will not discourage me from my faith in God and His Word. Without
this unshakeable faith in Gods Word, the apologist is in danger of being shaken like a leaf in the
wind by the Devils attacks.
Further, faith in God keeps us from being dragged down to the skeptics level on various issues
such as questions pertaining the six-day creation and Noahs Ark. Though we can answer many
questions, we cannot answer all and we dont have to. The answer to many questions is
Almighty God! This is the answer to questions about how light could travel so far so quickly at
the beginning of the creation week and how all of the animals could be brought into the Ark and
maintained. We can show that the ark was large enough to hold all of the kinds of land
creatures but there is no reason to assume that God didnt do miracles in relation to Noahs Ark.
The global Flood used natural processes but it was far from a natural event. The same is true
for the maintenance of creation. Though the Bible says God ceased creating at the end of the
creation week, He did not cease to be involved with creation at every level. We are told that
Christ upholds all things by the power of His Word (Heb. 1:3) and by him all things
consist (Col. 1:17). To me, this is the answer to such puzzles as how the monarch butterfly can
know how to fly 2,500 miles from Canada to a place in the Mexican mountains without a guide
and how its offspring know how to fly back to Canada even though they are born at some point

along the migration route and their parents are dead. All of that might be built into its genetic
code, but then again the omnipresent Christ might just guide the butterflies as part of His
upholding and consisting work.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall (Proverbs 16:18).
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12).
Humility is another necessity in the defense of the faith. Consider the case of Peter. He boasted
to Christ, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended (Mat.
26:33). He was doubtless sincere in his profession, but he was trusting in the arm of flesh rather
than in the Spirit of God, and his fall was great. If an apologist is trusting in his intellect and his
knowledge or his debating skills, he is in danger of falling.
Conviction and Courage
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would
love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world
hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have
persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also (John
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of
him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels (Mark 8:38).
... if we deny him, he also will deny us (2 Timothy 2:12).

To stand in defense of Gods truth in this wicked world we have to be ready to withstand fierce
resistance and persecution. We must not be ashamed of Christ and His Words. We must endure
personal attacks, lies, unjustified discrediting of evidence, irrational statements.
I recall how embarrassing it was for me in public school at the very thought that someone might
think I was a Christian. I would not have dreamed of carrying a Bible. There were a few godly
believers who really stood out and let their light shine, but I had nothing to do with them in order
to be accepted by the crowd.
Walt Brown, who has a Ph.D. from MIT, came to a creationist position in his 30s. In looking
back on his youth he says one of the reasons he didnt look into the issue earlier was the
Those who accepted the biblical version of creation and a global flood were a little embarrassing to be
around. I became a Christian in high school, but held the above attitudes until my early 30s (In the Beginning,
p. 316).


I think that the desire to be one of the crowd, to be in the majority, is one of the greatest reasons
why people dont submit to the truth. In fact, they dont even want to examine it. This is not a
small thing. Fear of man probably sends more people to hell than any other one thing.
But THE FEARFUL, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death (Revelation 21:8).

Those who have the aforementioned things--salvation, knowledge of Gods Word, faith, humility,
conviction and courage--need not be intimidated by any scientist. Most believers dont have a
Ph.D. in the hard sciences but we have something that is much more important for the pursuit of
the truth, and that is spiritual enlightenment and faith in Gods Word. You can have a dozen
Ph.D.s from the most worlds prestigious universities, but if you arent saved and dont believe
Gods Word, you will never know the truth. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:
and the knowledge of the holy is understanding (Proverbs 9:10).
Wisdom in dealing with the devil
I want to mention another thing that is necessary for effective apologetics, and that is wisdom in
dealing with the devil. When it comes to defending the Biblical faith, we are entering into
spiritual warfare. The devil is real and he is a clever deceiver. He was perhaps the highest, most
exalted angel that God created. He has blinded the whole world of unbelievers. He is not
someone to treat lightly. We must not think that we are capable in ourselves of defeating him and
of gaining the release of his captives. Those who trust in themselves are heading for a fall, like
Peter who boasted, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be
offended (Mat. 26:33). The reason that I have never fallen even though I have done extensive
research into heresy and unbelief and have had four decades of experience in apologetics and
evangelism is that I know that I can fall, so I do my work in fear and trembling and in complete
dependance on the Lord for protection.
The arm of our strength is the Lord Himself and His Word. Even Jesus defeated the devil by the
Word of God and not by human argumentation and striving (Luke 4:1-12). We must approach
apologetics in fear and trembling lest we be devoured ourselves, as has happened to many. The
Internet is filled with testimonies of former Christians. We must put on the whole armor of
God (Ephesians 6:10-18). We must heed Gods warnings about the danger of evil associations
(Rom. 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Cor. 6:14-17). It is dangerous to delve deeply into the waters of
skepticism and infidelity. We must refuse to walk in the counsel of the ungodly or sit in the seat
of the scornful but rather meditate in Gods Word day and night (Psa. 1:1-3). We must walk in
close fellowship with Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
6. We must understand the limit to apologetics.
God gives enough proof to satisfy any reasonable person who is willing to submit to the truth,
but not enough to convince the proud skeptic who is bent on unbelief.

People are not the same when it comes to the reception of the truth (Acts 13:7-8; 17:11).
Renowned Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf observed:
Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and head-strong, to bring irresistible evidence to the
daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and
perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy mans responsibility. All that Christianity professes,
is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer (The
Testimony of the Evangelists).

The believer must not be discouraged by the willful skeptic and must not waste a lot of time with
him. Jesus instructed us not to cast pearls before swine (Mat. 7:6).
7. We dont have to answer every question.
It is not necessary to answer every question and every challenge to the faith. All we have to do is
stand on Gods truth and on solid evidence. The fact that I cant answer every question about the
Bible or God or evolution doesnt discourage me. I can answer the major ones, and that is all that
is necessary.
8. We must not lose sight of the reality of spiritual blindness.
When dealing with unsaved people, we must not forget that these are spiritual issues and they
cannot be understood without spiritual eyes. We must try to reach beyond the intellect to the
heart and soul. We must aim for spiritual conversion.
... and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand (Daniel 12:10).
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither
can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old
testament; which vail is done away in Christ. ... Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be
taken away (2 Corinthians 3:14, 16).
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious
gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them (2 Corinthians 4:4).

9. Mans will is the real battleground.

The Bible says that man guides his own heart and mind (Prov. 23:19). Man chooses what he will
believe, regardless of the evidence. 2 Peter 3:5 speaks of willful ignorance. Peter says that men
scoff because they want to walk after their lusts (2 Pet. 3:3). Their motive for rejecting the holy
God is their desire to disobey His laws.


Aldous Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwins bulldog, wrote, For myself,
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and
political (Ends and Means, p. 270). Huxley loved atheism because it allowed him to live as he
It is not enough to convince an individual that the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ is Lord and
Saviour; we must strive to reach the will and we must trust God to do the miraculous work of
spiritual conviction and conversion.
Josh McDowell testifies how that even after he became convinced that the Bible is true, he did
not want to believe in Christ because he did not want to give up his partying lifestyle.
I began to realize that I was being intellectually dishonest. My mind told me that the claims of Christ were
indeed true, but my will was being pulled another direction. I had placed so much emphasis on finding the
truth, but I wasnt willing to follow it once I saw it. I began to sense Christs personal challenge to me in
Revelation 3:20: Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will
come in and eat with him, and he with me. But becoming a Christian seemed so ego-shattering to me. I
couldnt think of a faster way to ruin all my good times (McDowell, He Changed My Life, The New Evidence
That Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson, 1999, pp. xxv).

Lee Strobel tells of a man who listened to the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. At the end
of the presentation, the man told Strobel that he was convinced that the resurrection is a
historical event but refused to do anything about it because, I dont want a new master.
(We would warn that Strobel and McDowell are New Evangelical in philosophy and practice.)
The Bible says that to be saved a man must believe with his heart (Rom. 10:10). Philip told the
Ethiopian eunuch that he must believe with all his heart (Acts 8:37). This refers to more than a
mere mental ascent to the truth of the gospel; it refers to a heart-felt certainty and surrender.
10. We must focus on God and Christ (Genesis 1:1; Acts 1:8).
The foundational issue in apologetics is to introduce men and women to God through Christ, and
we must never lose sight of this objective.
If you believe in the Almighty God of Scripture, it is a simple matter to accept what the Bible
says, whether it is a six-day creation, Christs virgin birth, bodily resurrection, Second Coming,
or anything else. The fact is that these are all things that pertain to the supernatural and they
cannot be tested by natural science.
D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry and D.Sc. from the University of London, writes:
It was about this time, in the mid-1960s, that my ideas of the greatness of God were transformed. No longer
was He a pocket God who did things as I could imagine from my human viewpoint, but He had staggeringly
great power, far beyond anything I could possibly comprehend. If God is so great, then there is nothing He
could not do (In Six Days, p. 266).


Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the 20th century, divided men
into two categories: big-godders and little-godders, and that pretty much sums it up.
One of the students of Princeton Theological Seminary professor Robert Dick Wilson had been invited to
preach in Miller Chapel 12 years after his graduation. Dr. Wilson came and sat near the front. When chapel
ended, the old professor came up to his former student, cocked his head to one side in his characteristic way,
extended his hand, and said, I'm glad that you're a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see if
they're big-godders or little-godders. Then I know what their ministry will be.
His former student asked him to explain. Wilson replied, Well, some men have a little God, and they're
always in trouble with Him. He can't do any miracles. He can't take care of the inspiration and transmission of
the Scripture to us. He doesn't intervene on behalf of His people. Then, there are those who have a great
God. He speaks and it is done. He commands and it stands fast. He knows how to show Himself strong on
behalf of them that fear Him. You have a great God; and He'll bless your ministry. He paused a moment,
smiled, said, God bless you, and turned and walked out (John Huffman, Whos in Charge Here?).

The Christian apologists objective is to make big-godders of people.

This comes through knowing God personally by faith in Jesus Christ. We are separated from God
by our sin, both inherited and personal, and Christ died to pay the price Gods Law demands so
that we can be reconciled to Him. When a sinner repents of his sin and puts his faith in Jesus
Christ as only Lord and Saviour, a dramatic change occurs. He is born again and receives the
indwelling Holy Spirit as his Teacher. His thinking is changed. This happened to me in 1973
when I was 23 years old. Before that I was antagonistic toward the Bible. I doubted the Bibles
teaching on things such as creation, judgment, salvation, and the future, but those doubts were
resolved by my new relationship with God in Christ.
Christ instructed us to be witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8). We must inform people of who He is and
why He came to earth. Apologetics can remove barriers that have keep people from considering
Christ, but our goal is not to win arguments about evidences; our goal is to introduce people to


The Bible


The Bibles Nature

MEMORY VERSES: Deuteronomy 29:29; Psalm 119:89; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy
3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21
A Christian apologetics course needs to begin with the Bible, because without a proper
understanding of the Bible as the infallible Word of God, we dont have an absolute spiritual
authority. Without an infallibly-inspired Revelation from God, we are adrift on the seas of life
without a sure anchor, a perfect chart, a divine compass. We are left with a human opinion rather
than a Thus saith the Lord. We will not be able to refute philosophy and science falsely socalled in an effectual manner. Without faith in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, we are
susceptible to the wiles of the devil and the hurricane force winds of false doctrine that are
blowing in these last times.
The foundational doctrine that we need to deal with is that pertaining to the Bible itself. If it is
only another religious book, then the New Ager and others have every right to pick and choose,
but if the Bible is Gods revelation to mankind then it must be accepted as the sole authority for
faith and practice. Believing that the Bible is the sole divine revelation changed my life in 1973
and put me on the path of truth and life. It is the Bible that teaches me about Christ and salvation
and enables me to discern truth from error.
The following is what the Bible says about itself, what it claims to be:
The Bible was predetermined in heaven (Psalm 119:89).
The Scripture is not a man-made collection of religious writings. It is an eternal, supernatural
book from beginning to end. God chose the words in heaven before they were given to holy men
on earth. John Wycliffe, who translated the first English Bible in the fourteenth century, believed
that the Scripture is a divine exemplar conceived in the mind of God before creation, and before
the material Scriptures were written down (quoted from Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy:
Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 1998, p. 230).
The Bible was written by divine inspiration through men chosen by God.
This was the teaching of Christ and His apostles. Consider four key passages:
2 TIMOTHY 3:13-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This is the foundational passage on the inspiration of the Scriptures, and it teaches many
important truths. Note that the apostle Paul wrote these verses. Paul was utterly dedicated to the
Lord Jesus Christ and suffered great persecution and hardship because of his faith. He was
personally called by Christ to be an apostle and he had the signs of an apostle as evidence (2
Corinthians 12:12). Let us see what the apostle Paul taught concerning the nature of the Bible.
a. The Bible is holy (2 Timothy 3:15). The term holy Bible means it is set apart by God,
different in character from other writings. According to Pauls teaching, the Bible cannot be
compared with other books because it is the divinely inspired Word of God. Other books might
contain the truth, but the Bible is the truth.
b. The Bible was given by divine inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16). This verse literally says the
Scriptures are God-breathed. Though written by men, the Bible is a product of God. This is the
biblical doctrine of divine inspiration. When discussing its own inspiration the Scripture does not
focus on the mechanics of inspiration but on the product. God spoke in many diverse ways
(dreams, visions, angels, directly as on Mount Sinai and on the Mount of Transfiguration, etc.)
but the result in all cases was that the writings were God breathed. L. Gaussen rightly said of 2
Timothy 3:16: This statement admits of no exception and of no restriction ... All Scripture is in
such wise a work of God, that it is represented to us as uttered by the divine breathing, just as
human speech is uttered by the breathing of a mans mouth. The prophet is the mouth of the
Lord (Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1850).
c. The Bible is from God in its entirety (2 Timothy 3:16). All Scripture is said to have come from
God. The word for Scripture here, graphe, means writing or book. This is referred to as
plenary inspiration. Plenary means full, complete, entire.
d. The Bible is from God in its smallest detail (2 Timothy 3:15). The word for Scripture here is
gramma, referring to a letter. This teaches us that even the smallest details of the Bible are from
God. This is called verbal inspiration. Jesus taught that even the jots and tittles of the Old
Testament Hebrew words are authoritative and preserved by God (Mat. 5:18).
e. The Bible is one book with an all-encompassing theme: Salvation in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy
3:15). The Bible is not just a group of disconnected religious writings. It is a unified Book that
was planned and delivered by God to teach Gods plan of the ages and to show man the way of
salvation through Jesus Christ. (Compare Luke 24:44-45; John 1:45; 5:39; Ephesians 3:11.)
f. The Bible can protect the believer from error (2 Timothy 3:13-15). If the Bible contains myths,
mistakes, and untrue claims concerning authorship, miracles, and prophecies, it certainly is not a
book that can give sure protection from false teachings!
g. The Bible is sufficient to make the believer perfect (2 Timothy 3:17). An imperfect book could
not produce perfection, and since the Bible is able to make the man of God perfect it is obvious

that nothing else is needed. The Scripture is thus the sole authority for faith and practice. It
contains everything we need to equip us for Gods service.
2 PETER 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise
in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
This is another key passage that describes the divine inspiration of the Bible.
a. Scripture is a light shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19). The dark place is the world. Though
containing some truth mixed with the error, the world is described as dark because man is not
able to know spiritual truth in any absolute sense without a sure revelation from God. The Bible
is that infallible revelation which is shining in the midst of the darkness.
b. God selected certain men as prophets and He gave them His words. The expression holy
men refers to men who are chosen and set apart for God and His business.
c. The Bible is not a product of mans will (2 Peter 1:21). Other books are products of the will of
the human author, but not the Bible. God chose certain men and moved in them to deliver His
message. As the Holy Spirit moved them, the things they wrote were the words of God.
This passage explains the method by which the Bible was given. God used men, but He used
them in such a way that what they wrote was Gods Word. When the Bible touches on inspiration
and revelation, it says very little about the actual mechanism of how God accomplished this
miracle. It was accomplished mysteriously by the Holy Spirit.
The phrase private interpretation refers to the writers of the Bible. In the context this is
referring to the giving of revelation, rather than to the understanding of it. The Bible writers did
not personally interpret Gods revelation to mankind; they were given Gods revelation by the
Holy Spirit. They did not always even understand what they were writing (1 Peter 1:10-12).
1 CORINTHIANS 2:9-13 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But
God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in
him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received,
not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are
freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which mans wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
In this passage we see what Scripture is according to apostolic doctrine:

It is Gods revelation (v. 10). Revelation concerns those things which man cannot know by his
own investigation and intellect (v. 9). God, by His Spirit, has chosen to reveal things about
Himself, salvation, and His plans (vv. 10-12).
It is the deep things of God (v. 10). Theological modernists claim that the Bible is merely mans
attempt to write his thoughts and impressions about God, but Paul says the Bible contains the
deep things of God that were revealed supernaturally to men and is not bound by mans natural
It is the very words of God (v. 13). In verse 13 we are told that this revelation extends to the very
choice of the words used to relate it. God did not merely give the Bible writers the general
thoughts they were to write; He gave them the very words. Paul claimed this verbal inspiration
for his own writings.
It is the mind of Christ (v. 16). We cannot know Christ or His will apart from the Scriptures.
1 THESSALONIANS 2:13 -- For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because,
when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men,
but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
The first churches knew that the apostolic teaching was the Word of God and not just the word of
men. A plainer testimony of the divine inspiration of the apostolic epistles could not be made.
The Word of God is effectual. It has the power to sanctify the believer and to fully equip him for
Gods service.
The canon of the Bible refers to the authoritative list of the 66 books that comprise the Old and
New Testaments. The word canon means a reed, referring to a measuring stick, and describes
the process of testing something by a set rule or standard.
The Canonization of the Old Testament
It was to the Jews that God assigned the task of collecting and preserving the Hebrew Old
Testament (Romans 3:1-2). In Romans 3 Paul describes the Old Testament as the very oracles of
God, and these oracles were committed to the Jews. Even though they did not always obey the
Scriptures, the Jews held them in reverence and believed that each jot and tittle was the inspired
Word of God.
In particular, it was the Jewish priests who were responsible to care for the Scriptures
(Deuteronomy 31:24-26; 17:18).

Though there were periods of spiritual backsliding in which the Scripture was almost unknown
among the Jews (2 Chronicles 15:3), God preserved His Word in spite of mans failure (2 Kings
After the Babylonian captivity there was a revival within the Jewish priesthood (Ezra 7:10) and
the Old Testament Scriptures continued to be preserved. By Ezra and his successors, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, all the Old Testament books were gathered together into one Old
Testament canon, and their texts were purged of errors and preserved until the days of our Lords
earthly ministry. By that time the Old Testament text was so firmly established that even the
Jews rejection of Christ could not disturb it (Edward Hills, The King James Bible Defended,
4th edition, p. 93).
The Canonization of the New Testament
The canonization of the New Testament is part of the process of preservation that is the
responsibility of the churches. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
The Scriptures were canonized and preserved through the church age by congregations that have
fulfilled the Lords Great Commission to teach all things by His power and abiding presence
(Matthew 28:18-20). This process has been led by the Spirit of God (John 16:13; 1 John 2:20).
The New Testament believers knew they were receiving Gods Words from the Lord and His
apostles and prophets (John 17:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).
Canonization was not the haphazard process that is described in most books on the history of the
Bible. Though the details of this history are largely hidden behind the mists of time, we know by
faith that the Spirit of God guided the believers unfailingly in this matter because this is what the
Lord Jesus promised.
Theological modernists beginning in the 19th century claimed that the New Testament writings
were not penned until long after the time of Christ, but this has been debunked.
In his book Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson concluded that the whole of the
New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
We also have the testimony of two of the foremost archaeologists:
We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New
Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more
radical New Testament critics of today (William Ramsay, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 1955, p. 136).
In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the
eighties of the first century A.D. (Ramsay, Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963).
Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to
be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D. (William Albright, From
Stone Age to Christianity, p. 23).


Beginning with the first century itself we have solid historical evidence that the New Testament
was commonly recognized as Scripture by the believers. We have the extant writings of men who
knew the apostles personally. These include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Thus
there is absolutely no gap between the writing of the New Testament and the historical record
that exists of it.
Dr. Don Bierle observes:
[The Gospels] did not go through a long period of oral transmission during which they took on legendary
traditions. No other ancient writing can trace its manuscript copies all the way back to the generation of the
eyewitnesses and its original authors (Surprised by Faith, p. 33).

Consider some of the early historical evidences witnessing to the authenticity of the New
Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome, whose first letter to the Corinthians is usually dated about
A.D. 96, made liberal use of Scripture, appealing to its authority, and used New Testament
material right alongside Old Testament material. He clearly quotes from Hebrews, 1 Corinthians
and Romans and possibly from Matthew, Acts, Titus, James and 1 Peter. Here is the bishop
[pastor] of Rome, before the close of the first century, writing an official letter to the church at
Corinth wherein a selection of New Testament books are recognized and declared by episcopal
authority to be Scripture, including Hebrews (Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New
Testament Text). Clement was writing only a few years after the New Testament gospels and
epistles were written.
Ignatius (c. A.D. 110) referred to all the epistles of Paul.
Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippian church in about 115 A.D., weaves an almost continuous
string of clear quotations and allusions to New Testament writings. ... There are perhaps fifty
clear quotations taken from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1
John, and many allusions including to Mark, Hebrews, James, and 2 and 3 John. (The only NT
writer not included is Jude!) (Pickering).
Justin Martyr (died 165 A.D.) testified that the churches of his day met on Sundays and read the
memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets (Apology, I, 67).
Irenaeus (died in 202 A.D.) left many works which are still extant. Their translation into English
covers between 600-700 pages in the Ante-Nicene Library. Irenaeus stated that the apostles
taught that God is the Author of both Testaments (Against Heretics IV, 32.2) and evidently
considered the New Testament writings to form a second Canon. He quoted from every chapter
of Matthew, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians, from all but one or
two chapters of Luke, John, Romans, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, from most

chapters of Mark (including the last twelve verses), Acts, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation, and
from every other book except Philemon and 3 John. These two books are so short that Irenaeus
may not have had occasion to refer to them in his extant works--it does not necessarily follow
that he was ignorant of them or rejected them. Evidently the dimensions of the New Testament
Canon recognized by Irenaeus are very close to what we hold today (Pickering).
Even some naturalistic textual critics have concluded that the New Testament in its current 27book canon existed in Greek no later than the middle of the 2nd century. See David Trobisch,
The First Edition of the New Testament, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
From the second century we have evidence that it was customary for each church to have its own
copy of the writings of the apostles that they might read and preach from them. And on the day
called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the
memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When
the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these
noble things (Justin Martyr, Apology).
Wilbur Pickering observes: Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus claimed that the Church was spread
throughout the whole earth, in their day ... IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE MUST HAVE
A.D. (The Identity of the New Testament Text).
In about the year 208, Tertullian mentioned churches founded by the apostles and indicated that
the authentic writings were still extant and were the absolute standard by which the truth was
measured in the believing churches. He urged heretics to run to the apostolic churches, in which
the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, IN WHICH THEIR OWN
THE FACE OF EACH OF THEM SEVERALLY. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find
CORINTH. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have PHILIPPI; (and there too) you have
the THESSALONIANS. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get EPHESUS. Since,
moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have ROME, from which there comes even into our own
hands the very authority (of the apostles themselves) (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics,
36, cited from Pickering).
Pickering observes: Some have thought that Tertullian was claiming that Pauls Autographs
were still being read in his day (208), but at the very least he must mean they were using faithful
copies. Was anything else to be expected? for example, when the Ephesian Christians saw the
Autograph of Pauls letter to them getting tattered, would they not carefully execute an identical
copy for their continued use? Would they let the Autograph perish without making such a copy?
(There must have been a constant stream of people coming either to make copies of their letter or
to verify the correct reading.) I believe we are obliged to conclude that in the year 200 the
Ephesian Church was still in a position to attest the original wording of her letter (and so for the

The Bible was multiplied and went into all the world.
See Acts 1:8; 12:24; 19:20; Romans 10:18; 16:25-26; Colossians 1:5-6.
This great multiplication worked to safeguard the text of Scripture from the efforts of heretics to
corrupt it. The fact that the Gospel was preached to all nations and tongues reminds us that the
New Testament was translated into other languages at a very early period (e.g., Syriac and old
Latin date to the 2nd century).
The popular modern idea that things were taken out of the Bible after it was completed is
ridiculous. Even by the second century the Bible had been multiplied by the thousands of copies
and distributed throughout the world. It had gone throughout the Middle East, as well as to Asia,
Africa, Asia Minor, and to Europe, as far as England. No council could have effectively
removed anything from the Bible.
F.E. Peters states that on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that made up the Christians New
Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity (The Harvest of
Hellenism, 1971, p. 50). As a result, the fidelity of the New Testament text rests on a multitude of manuscript
evidence (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 34).

There are more than 5,600 Greek manuscripts of the Bible and portions thereof that date from the
second to the 15th centuries. There are another 10,000 copies in Latin and more than 9,000 in
other languages.
We have portions of the New Testament written on papyri that date to the early second century.
This is only about 50 years after the New Testament was written, and there are many other
portions in existence that date to the third century. There is a nearly complete New Testament
that dates to about 250 A.D.
The New Testament is also preserved in the writings of early church leaders. There are tens of
thousands of quotations of the New Testament in the writings of church leaders that date to the
early centuries after Christ. J. Harold Greenlee observes, These quotations are so extensive that
the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament
manuscripts (Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 54).
John William Burgon, one of the greatest scholars of the 19th century, indexed 86,000 quotations
from ancient church writings, 4,383 of which date to before 400 A.D. The index resides in the
British Library. Burgon and his co-worker Edward Miller demonstrated that the text quoted most
frequently is the Greek Received Text which was published in the 16th century and formed the
basis of all of the old Protestant versions such as the English King James and the German Luther.
(See our book Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions for documentation of this.)


Compare this wealth of ancient manuscript evidence for the Bible with that of other famous
books of antiquity.

Homer (Iliad)

date written

earliest copy time span

350 B.C.
450 B.C.
450 B.C.
50 B.C.
100 A.D.
350 B.C.
450 B.C.
900 B.C.
50-90 A.D.

900 A.D.
900 A.D.
1100 A.D.
900 A.D.
1100 A.D.
1100 A.D.
1000 A.D.
400 B.C.
110-125 A.D.

1250 years
1350 years
1500 years
950 years
1000 years
1450 years
1550 years
500 years
20-30 years

# copies

The same is true for the Hindu scriptures. The Vedic texts, such as the Upanishads, were
transmitted orally for hundreds of years before being committed to writing, and there is
absolutely no way to know if the extant texts are accurate representations of the original
statements. It isnt even known for sure who created them.
J. Harold Greenlee observes:
Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest
MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so
small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the N.T. is likewise assured (Introduction to New Testament
Textual Criticism, p. 16).

(For more on canonization and preservation see Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions, which is
available from Way of Life Literature.)
The reason that the aforementioned evidence is not more widely appreciated is the spiritual
blindness that has come upon the human race.
Paul refers to three types of men in 1 Corinthians 2:14 - 3:2.
There is the natural man, the spiritual man, and the carnal man.
The natural man is the unsaved person. He is spiritually dead and blind because of sin (Ephesians
2:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:4). He cannot understand the things of God. When the heart turns to the
Lord, though, in repentance and faith and receives Jesus Christ, the blindness is lifted (2
Corinthians 3:14-17).


The reason that unbelievers cannot understand the Bible properly is that they are not born again
and do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit as their teacher. They try to understand it by their
own natural thinking, and that is impossible.
That was my condition before my conversion the summer of 1973. I didnt understand most of
the Bible, and the parts I did understand I didnt agree with! As Mark Twain said, Its not the
things in the Bible that I dont understand that bother me, its the things I do understand.
The spiritual man (1 Cor. 2:15-16) refers to the born again believer who is walking with the Lord
in obedience to His Word and depending upon the Spirit rather than the flesh (Gal. 5:16-25).
The carnal man is the worldly believer who is walking in the flesh rather than the Spirit. He
cannot understand the more difficult teaching of Scripture. He can take milk but not meat. This is
what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:2, and it is confirmed in Hebrews 5:12-14.
If we want to study the Bible fruitfully, we must make certain that we are born again through
repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and we must walk in close fellowship with the Author of the
Book. This is the first and foremost requirement.
Studying the Bible is something like tuning to a radio channel. Heaven is far away, but God
broadcasts His glorious message to earth on a clear and powerful station with the call letters
BIBLE. If the believer is in fellowship with Christ, he has an open channel to Heaven through
the Scriptures. The closer ones fellowship with Christ, the sharper the reception and the more
plainly the Bible speaks. If, on the other hand, a believer walks in carnality and in fellowship
with the world and in spiritual and moral compromise, the reception becomes poor, because the
Holy Spirit is grieved (Ephesians 4:30). Fleshly lusts war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11). The
static of the flesh and the things of this world hinder the reception of the spiritual broadcast.
1. The Bible claims to be the divinely-inspired Word of God. Four key passages are 2 Timothy
3:13-17, which says all Scripture was given by inspiration of God; 2 Peter 1:19-21, which says
the Word of God was given to holy prophets chosen by God; 1 Corinthians 2:9-13, which says
that God chose the words that the prophets wrote; and 1 Thessalonians 2:13, which says that the
early churches recognized the apostolic writings as the Word of God.
2. Though we dont know all of the details of how Gods people selected the books that make up
the canon of the Bible, we know that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. The Jewish priests
were responsible to organize and keep the Old Testament, while the apostles and early churches
were responsible for organizing and keeping the New Testament. Jesus promised that the Holy
Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).


3. The New Testament was written during the lifetime of those who witnessed the events and the
books of the New Testament were quoted as Scripture by preachers in the late first and early
second century. In A.D. 96 Clement of Rome quotes many books. In A.D. 110, Ignatius quotes
all of Pauls epistles. In A.D. 115, Polycarp, who was a personal disciple of the apostle John,
quoted from and alluded to most of the books of the New Testament. In A.D. 208 Tertullian said
that the churches founded by the apostles were still in possession of the original writings of the
New Testament.
4. The books of the New Testament were the most widely circulated books of antiquity; they
were copied and translated more than any other writings by far. This multiplication served to
protect the text of the Bible from corruption.
5. The New Testament is preserved in more than 5,600 Greek manuscripts that date from the
second to the 15th centuries, as well as in 10,000 copies in Latin and more than 9,000 in other
6. The New Testament is also preserved in the writings of early churches leaders. From the tens
of thousands of quotations that have survived, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed.
7. Other ancient writings dont have the powerful textual evidence that the Bible has. Between
the original writing of works such as Homers Iliad and Platos philosophy and the earliest
copies that exist there is a gap of hundreds of years. The number of surviving copies of these is
also very small compared to those of the New Testament.
8. The reason that the aforementioned evidence is not more widely appreciated is the spiritual
blindness that has come upon the human race. Paul says the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God because he doesnt have spiritual discernment (1 Cor. 2:14).
1. What does Psalm 119:89 mean when it says that Gods Word was settled in heaven?
2. What passage says all Scripture is given by inspiration from God?
3. What does holy Bible mean?
4. What does Paul mean when he says the Scripture is given by inspiration?
5. What is the meaning of plenary inspiration?
6. What is the meaning of verbal inspiration?
7. How do we know that the Bible is not merely a collection of disconnected religious writings?
8. What is the theme of the Bible?
9. How can the Bible make the child of God perfect?
10. In what passage did Peter say that the Bible is a light shining in a dark world?
11. According to Peter, how did God give His revelation to mankind?
12. What did Peter mean when he said that the prophecy came not in old time by the will of

13. What did Peter mean when he said that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
14. In what passage did Paul say that God has given His revelation in words?
15. How do we know that the Bible contains the deep things of God?
16. Where can we find the mind of Christ?
17. What Bible passage says the early churches considered the writings of Paul as the word of
18. What did Paul mean when he said that the word of God effectually worketh in you?
19. What does canon mean?
20. What passage says that God committed the Scriptures to the Jews for safekeeping?
21. When was the Old Testament collected together in its final canon?
22. What verse says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth?
23. What does Matthew 28:18-20 have to do with the preservation of Scripture?
24. In what verse did Jesus promise that the Spirit of God would guide the apostles into all truth?
25. In what verse did Jesus say that He had given his words to the apostles?
26. In what verse did John say that the early churches had the unction of the Holy Spirit to teach
27. William Albright said the New Testament was written between when and when?
28. What is the significance of the writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp in regard to the
canon of the New Testament?
29. What man said in A.D. 208 that the writings of the apostles still existed in Philippi,
Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome?
30. Why is it impossible that things were removed from the Bible after it was completed?
31. In what verse did Paul say that the words of the gospel went unto the ends of the earth?
32. In what verse did Paul say that the Scripture had gone to all nations?
33. What were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity?
34. How many ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek still exist? How many in
35. How old is the oldest portion of the New Testament?
36. How old is the oldest complete New Testament?
37. If all of the ancient New Testament manuscripts did not exist, the New Testament could be
reconstructed through what means?
38. What scholar indexed 86,000 quotations from ancient church writings?
39. What did his research prove about the Greek Received Text?
40. A gap of how many centuries exists between the writing of Homers Iliad and the earliest
existing copies?
41. A gap of how many centuries exists between Platos writings and the earliest existing copies?
42. How long were the Hindu scriptures transmitted orally before being committed to writing?
43. What New Testament passage divides men into three categories?
44. What are these categories?
45. What is the natural man?
46. Why can the natural man not understand the things of God?
47. Why does the carnal man only understand simple Bible teaching?

The Bibles Proof

MEMORY VERSES: Acts 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:6; Hebrews 11:1, 6; 2 Peter 1:16
The individual must accept that the Bible is the Word of God by faith, for without faith it is
impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6).
At the same time, Bible faith is not a blind leap into the dark. It is confidence in the Record that
God has given, for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17).
The writers of the Bible explain to us that they were not delivering cunningly devised fables but
a divinely-inspired record based on many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3; 2 Peter 1:16).
Following are some of the objective, time-proven reasons why we can have complete confidence
in the Bible:
1. The testimony of Jesus Christ proves that the Bible is the Word of God.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and His resurrection alone gives infallible witness to this
claim. The evidence for Christs resurrection is irrefutable, as we have shown in this book.
Consider just four of these evidences: First, there is the amazing candor of the Gospel
accounts. When someone invents a religion, he glorifies its leaders, but the four Gospels paint
the founders of Christianity as very weak (e.g., Peter denying Christ thrice; the disciples fleeing
and hiding; Thomas and others doubting Christ even after He appears to them). Further, if men
had made up the accounts of Christs resurrection in the Gospels, they would not have said that
the women were the first to believe. In that day women had no authority in the eyes of society.
The account of the women believing first is not something that would have been written unless it
actually happened and unless the writers were committed wholeheartedly to recording the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This striking candor is powerful evidence that the
Gospels are true, unvarnished accounts. Second, the resurrected Christ was seen by hundreds
of eye witnesses, most of whom were still alive with Paul interviewed them a couple of decades
later and wrote about it in the first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1-8). Third, the
resurrection dramatically changed His disciples. Before Christs resurrection they were fearful
and in hiding, whereas after they saw and touched Him they became bold and were willing to
suffer and die for their faith. Fourth, the enemies of Christ have never produced His body;
the tomb remains empty to this day. As George Hanson rightly says, The simple faith of the
Christian who believes in the resurrection is nothing compared to the credulity of the skeptic
who will accept the wildest and most improbable romances rather than admit the plain witness of
historical certainties. The difficulties of belief may be great; the absurdities of unbelief are
greater (The Resurrection and the Life).


Christ taught that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. He quoted from every part of the Old
Testament as the Word of God. Some of the Old Testament people and events that Christ referred
to are the creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam and Eve (Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain and Abel (Mt.
23:35; Lk. 11:50-51), Noah and the flood (Mt. 24:37-39), Abraham (Jn. 8:39-40), the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah (Lk. 17:28-29), Lots wife turning to salt (Lk. 17:32), Moses and the
burning bush (Mk. 12:26), manna from Heaven (Jn. 6:31-32), the brazen serpent in the
wilderness (Jn. 3:14-15), Jonah and the whale (Mt. 12:39-41; Lk. 11:29-32), Nineveh repenting
at Jonahs preaching (Lk. 11:32), Solomon and the queen of Sheba (Lk. 11:31). Christ often
quoted from the book Isaiah and said the historical prophet Isaiah wrote it, not an unknown
group of men as the critics claim. In John 12:38-41, Jesus quoted from both major sections of
Isaiah and said both were written by the same prophet named Isaiah.
Of the authority of the Old Testament, Jesus said,
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled (Mat. 5:17-18).

In this passage Jesus taught that the Old Testament is perfect even to the very letters.
He further said that the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). He was saying that nothing
written in the Scripture can be set aside or ignored. It is authoritative to every detail; it is a chain with no
weak links.

On Christs authority alone we would trust the Bible and reject the skeptics.
2. The Bibles unique construction proves that it is the Word of God.
The Bible was written by at least 40 different authors representing some 19 different occupations
(shepherd, soldier, farmer, fisherman, tax collector, medical doctor, king, etc.) who lived during a
period covering some 1,600 years. That is approximately 50 generations. The first 39 books of
the Bible were written in the Hebrew language over a period of about 1,000 years. There was
then a 400-year gap when no Scriptures were written. After that, the last 27 books of the Bible
were written in the Greek language during a period covering roughly 50 years. The writers of the
Old Testament could not have collaborated with one another and the writers of the New
Testament could not have collaborated with those of the Old Testament.
Yet the product is one book that fits together perfectly, has one all-encompassing message, and
contains no contradictions or errors. There is nothing else remotely like this in all of mans
history. The one message of the Bible from beginning to end is the eternal plan of God in Jesus
Christ. The earliest books of the Bible teach the same doctrine about God, creation, man, sin,
life, death, salvation, and judgment as the last books of the Bible. The genealogy of Jesus Christ
appears in the first book and can be traced throughout the rest of the Bible.


Some have claimed to have found mistakes in the Bible, but I have studied it for 38 years and
each time I have examined a supposed error or contradiction, I have found that the Bible is true
and the critic is wrong. (See our book Things Hard to Be Understood: A Handbook of Biblical
3. The confidence and sincerity of the Bibles authors prove that it is the Word of God.
The Bible testifies that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter
1:21), and an examination of the lives of the Bibles writers proves this testimony. These were
holy, serious men. They came from all walks of life. They were men of good reputation and
sound mind. They were not enriched by the prophecies they gave. Far from it; some were
impoverished and many were viciously persecuted and killed for the testimony they held. Moses,
the author of the first five books of the Bible, chose to live a life of terrific hardship in the
service of God as opposed to the millionaires life he could have lived as the adopted son of
Pharaoh. Many Bible writers made similar choices. Their motivation certainly was not
covetousness and worldly advantage. These were not perfect men, but they were holy men. They
all claimed that God had put His hand upon them to speak His Word. The lives they lived, and
the testimonies they held, and the deaths they died gave evidence that they were telling the truth.
4. Fulfilled prophecy proves the Bible is the Word of God.
The Bible contains a vast amount of prophecy, much of which has been fulfilled. The
Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecies by J. Barton Payne lists 1817 specific prophecies, 1239 in
the Old Testament and 578 in the New. The predictions are precise and detailed, and the
fulfillment is exact.
Isaiah says that fulfilled prophecy is evidence of divine inspiration, and this should be obvious
since only God knows the future (Isaiah 41:21-23).
The God of Israel challenges the idols to prove their divinity by foretelling the future. No pagan
religious book has ever done this. The so-called prophecies of Nostradamus, for example, are so
vague that they could mean almost anything. The same is typically true for astrological forecasts.
Bible prophecy, on the other hand, is clear and precise, and its prophecies have never failed.
Prophecies Pertaining to Jesus Christ
Jesus entire life was written down in the Old Testament before He was born. There are 191
Messianic prophecies. The following examples are from three great prophecies: Psalm 22; Micah
5:2; and Isaiah 53:
born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 - Luke 2:4-7)
rejected by his own people (Isa. 53:3 - Mark 15:12-14)
not resisting arrest and death (Isa. 53:7 - Mat. 26:51-54)

justice perverted (Isa. 53:8 - Mat. 26:59)

numbered with transgressors (Isa. 53:12 - Mat. 26:57-60; 27:11-14)
death by crucifixion (Psa. 22:14-16 - Jn. 19:16-18)
soldiers gambling for His robe (Psa. 22:18 - Mat. 27:35)
words he would speak from the cross (Psa. 22:1 - Mat. 27:46)
mocked by the people (Psa. 22:6-8 - Mat. 27:39, 41-43)
people sitting and staring at Him (Psa. 22:17 - Mat. 27:36)
no bones broken (Psa. 34:20 - John 19:32-33)
burial in a rich mans tomb (Isa. 53:9 - Mat. 27:57-60)
We know that these prophecies were written before Christ was born, because copies of the Old
Testament books were found in the Dead Sea caves dating to at least 100 and more years B.C.
Prophecies about Israel
The continued existence of Israel is one of historys most amazing stories, and the last 2,000
years of her history was described in ancient Scripture in great detail. The fulfillment of these
prophecies is irrefutable evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible. We deal with this in a
separate chapter.
5. The Bibles factualness and scientific accuracy prove that it is the Word of God.
Everything the Bible says is true and factual.
For example, the Bible says man is a sinner, and that is not difficult to confirm. Just look at the
world! When asked for his opinion on original sin, Samuel Johnson, the famous British
lexicographer, replied, With respect to original sin, the inquiry is not necessary, for whatever is
the cause of human corruption, men are evidently and confessedly so corrupt, that all the laws of
heaven and earth are insufficient to restrain them from crimes. David Berlinski, a Princetoneducated secular Jew, says, One need hardly be a Christian to appreciate the wisdom in these
remarks (The Devils Delusion, p. 33).
The Bible is true not only in its statements about man, but also in its statements about everything.
Though the Bible is not a scientific manual, it is scientifically accurate, even from its earliest
pages, which were written nearly 4,000 years ago. Though the Bible contradicts evolutionary
theories, it does not contradict any established scientific fact.
Following are some examples of the Bibles scientific accuracy, beginning with statements from
the pages of Job, probably the oldest book in the Bible. The late Henry Morris, who had a Ph.D.
in geology, said:
These references are modern in perspective, with never a hint of the mythical exaggerations and errors
characteristic of other ancient writings ... perhaps of even greater significance is the fact that in a 4000-year-


old book filled with numerous references to natural phenomena, there are no scientific mistakes or
fallacies (The Remarkable Record of Job).

Job said the earth is hung upon nothing (Job 26:7). This is obvious to our modern generation, as
we have seen the actual pictures of the earth hanging in space, but to previous generations it was
not obvious and there were many commonly-held myths about the earth sitting on the back of
Atlas or a turtle or an elephant, etc.
Job said the air has weight (the weight for the winds, Job 28:25). It was not until the 17th
century that Galileo discovered that atmosphere has weight, and the modern science of
aerodynamics is based on this scientific fact. Further, the weight of air is important in the
function of the earths weather. The weight of the winds controls the worldwide air mass
movements that transport the waters evaporated from the oceans inland over the
continents (Morris, The Remarkable Record of Job).
Job described the springs of the sea (Job 38:16). Man had no way to know about the fresh-water
springs on the ocean floor by firsthand observation until recent times. Modern science has
discovered that there are thousands of underwater springs that add millions of metric tons of
water to the oceans each year.
Job understood that light has a way and that darkness has a place (Job 38:19). That is, light is
not to be located in a certain place or situation. Neither does it simply appear, or disappear,
instantaneously. Light is traveling! It dwells in a way, always on the way to someplace else.
Though usually traveling in waves, sometimes it seems to move as a stream of particles, but it is
always moving. When light stops, there is darkness. Thus, darkness is static, staying in place; but
light is dynamic, dwelling in a way (Morris).
The Bible says that the light creates wind (Job 38:24), but it is only in recent times that modern
weather science has discovered that wind is created as the sun heats up the surface of the earth,
causing the hot air to rise and cooler air to fall, creating weather systems.
Job describes the amazing hydrological cycle (evaporation, atmospheric circulation,
condensation, precipitation, run-off) (Job 36:27-28; Ecc. 1:7; Jer. 51:16). The process of
evaporation and condensation was not discovered until the 17th century and not well understood
until the 20th.
The Bible says plants and animals reproduce after their kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This
is in perfect harmony with everything that can be observed and tested by modern science. There
is great variety within kinds, different types of roses and dogs, but there is no reproduction
between kinds, between roses and dandelions or dogs and penguins. Breeding experiments have
demonstrated that there are genetic barriers that restrict change. The fruit fly has been used in
genetic experiments since the early 1900s. Tens of millions of fruit flies have been bombarded
with x-rays, doctored, and poisoned. The result has been a variety of mutant fruit flies but no


evidence that the fruit fly could evolve into some other type of insect or animal. This is proof of
the Bibles 3500-year-old statement that all creatures reproduce according to kind.
The Bible says the heavens cannot be measured and the stars are without number (Genesis
22:17; Jeremiah 31:37). Before the invention of the telescope, man could see only a few hundred
stars with the naked eye, but the very first book of the Bible says they are without number. This
has been confirmed by modern science. There are 300 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy
alone. In 1999, observations by NASA astronomers, using the Hubble Space Telescope,
suggested that there are 125 billion galaxies in the universe. The most up-to-date star count was
announced in July 2003 as 70 sextillion observable stars (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). This
was the conclusion of the worlds largest galaxy study, the Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift
Survey, which is considered 10 times more accurate than previous ones. The team of scientists
did not physically count the stars. Instead they used some of the worlds most powerful
telescopes to count all of the galaxies in one region of the universe and to estimate how many
stars each galaxy contained by measuring its brightness. They then extrapolated these figures out
to the whole universe visible through telescopes. This massive figure, of course, probably
accounts for only a tiny percentage of the actual stars.
The Bible says there are paths in the sea (Isaiah 43:16; Psalm 8:8). Since the 19th century the
ocean currents or paths have been charted and ships travel these paths just as trucks travel on
roads. Writing in the mid-1800s, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Superintendent of the U.S. Navys
Depot of Charts and Instruments in Washington, D.C., observed, There is a river in the ocean: in
the severest droughts it never fails, and in the mightiest floods it never overflows; its banks and
its bottom are of cold water, while its current is of warm; the Gulf of Mexico is its fountain, and
its mouth is in the Arctic Seas. It is the Gulf Stream (Maury, The Physical Geography of the
Sea, 6th ed., 1856, p. 25). Since then, other sea paths have been discovered.
The Bible says the life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). This was written about 3,500 years ago,
but it was not understood scientifically until recent times. For centuries doctors used
bloodletting as a healing method. George Washington, Americas first president, probably died
prematurely because of this bogus practice. Modern medicine has learned what the Bible has
taught all along, that the life of the flesh is in the blood. The amazing system of vessels and
capillaries transports the marvelous blood cells with their life-giving oxygen and other necessary
elements to every part of the body. The blood also forms a major part of the infection fighting
and clotting systems, which are necessary for the life of the flesh.
The Bible is not a book of science, but wherever the Bible touches on science it is accurate. This
proves its divine origin, because all other ancient books are filled with gross scientific blunders.
Even science books written a mere 100 years ago are filled with errors.


6. The Bibles candor proves that it is the Word of God.

When men write biographies of their heroes, they commonly omit or whitewash their faults; but
the Bible exhibits its divine quality by showing man as he is. Even the best of men in the Bible
are described with all their faults. We read of Adams rebellion, Noahs drunkenness, Davids
adultery, Solomons apostasy, Jonahs pity party, Peters disavowal of his Master, Paul and
Barnabas petty strife, and the disciples unbelief in the face of Christs resurrection. The Bible
was written by Jews, yet it candidly describes the faults of the Jewish people: their stubbornness
and unbelief that caused them to have to wander in the wilderness for 40 years; their idolatry
during the period of the judges; their rebellion that caused them to be rejected from the land and
scattered throughout the earth for two millennia; their rejection of the Messiah.
7. The Bibles indestructibility proves that it is the Word of God.
Above all other books combined, the Bible has been hated, vilified, ridiculed, criticized,
restricted, banned, and destroyed, but it has been to no avail. As one rightly said, We might as
well put our shoulder to the burning wheel of the sun, and try to stop it on its flaming course, as
attempt to stop the circulation of the Bible (Sidney Collett, All about the Bible, p. 63).
In A.D. 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued an edict to stop Christians from worshipping
Jesus Christ and to destroy their Scriptures. Every official in the empire was ordered to raze
churches to the ground and burn every Bible found in their districts (Stanley Greenslade,
Cambridge History of the Bible). Twenty-five years later his successor, Constantine, issued
another edict ordering fifty Bibles to be published at government expense (Eusebius).
In 1778, the French infidel Voltaire boasted that in 100 years Christianity would cease to exist,
but within 50 years the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press and house to publish Bibles
(Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1986, pp. 123, 124).
Robert Ingersoll once boasted, Within 15 years Ill have the Bible lodged in a morgue. But
Ingersoll is long dead, and the Bible is alive and well.
The communist regimes in Russia and China tried to destroy the Bible and its influence, but they
have been completely unsuccessful. There are more churches in Russia today than ever before in
its history, and the presses cannot print enough Bibles to satisfy the insatiable demand in
communist China.
The liberal skeptics in the 19th century tried to destroy the authority of the Bible by claiming that
it is full of myths and that it is historically inaccurate. They claimed that writing didnt exist in
Moses day. They doubted the existence of Ur of the Chaldees, of the advanced ancient citystates and religious towers mentioned in Genesis 10-11, of complex legal codes in that era, of
camels in Palestine in the days of Abraham, of King David and King Solomon, of the Hittites


and the Philistines, of Sargon and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, to name a few. They said that
the book of Acts was filled with historical inaccuracies.
In all of these cases and hundreds more, the skeptics were proven wrong and the Bible was
proven right, as we have documented in this course in the section on archaeology.
In fact, many who have set out to disprove the Bible have been converted, instead. The following
are a few examples:
Gilbert West, an English poet who was included in Samuel Johnsons Lives of the Most Eminent
English Poets, while a student at Oxford set out to debunk the Bibles account of Christs
resurrection. Instead he proved to his own satisfaction that Christ did rise from the dead and
published Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
George Lyttelton, an English Statesman, author, and poet who was educated at Oxford,
determined to prove that Paul was not converted as the Bible states. Instead, Lyttelton wrote a
book providing evidence that Pauls conversion was real and that it is evidence that Jesus
actually rose from the dead. The book was titled Observations on the Conversion and
Apostleship of St. Paul.
Frank Morison, a lawyer, journalist, and novelist, set out to write a book to disprove the
resurrection of Christ. Instead he was converted and wrote a book in defense of the resurrection
entitled Who Moved the Stone?
Simon Greenleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and one of the most celebrated
legal minds of America, determined to expose the myth of the resurrection of Christ once and
for all, but his thorough examination forced him to conclude that Jesus did rise from the dead. In
1846 he published An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of
Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.
William Ramsay, a renowned archaeologist and New Testament scholar, began his historical
research in Asia Minor with the assumption that he would find evidence to disprove the Bibles
historicity. He concluded, though, that the book of Acts was written during the lifetime of the
apostles and that it is historically accurate. His discoveries led to his conversion to Christianity.
Josh McDowell was a skeptic when he entered university to pursue a law degree, but he accepted
a challenge by some Christians to examine the claim that Jesus Christ is Gods Son. He says, I
decided to write a book that would make an intellectual joke of Christianity. He traveled
throughout the U.S. and Europe to gather evidence to prove his case, but instead he was
converted to Christ and wrote a book defending the Bible entitled Evidence That Demands a
Verdict. McDowell concluded: After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the
Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as
being unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of antiquity. ... I believe we can hold

the Scriptures in our hands and say, The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable (The New
Evidence, p. 68).
Dr. Richard Lumsden, professor of parisitology and cell biology, was dean of the graduate school
at Tulane University and trained 30 Ph.D.s. When he was challenged by a student about the
evidence for evolution, he sought to refute the student by demonstrating evolutions scientific
evidence. Instead, he became convinced that the evidence is lacking. This led to an examination
of the Bible, which led to his conversion to Jesus Christ.
Down through the years, the Bible has been a mighty anvil that has worn out the puny hammers
of the scoffers.
8. The Bibles universal appeal proves that it is the Word of God.
In spite of the aforementioned attacks, the Bible is the most popular book in the world, by far.
Some books have been translated into a few dozen languages, but the Bible in whole or in part
has been translated into every major language of the world, plus most minor ones--more than
2,450 so far. Translation work is progressing in another 2,000 languages. Compare this with
other religious books. The Hindu scriptures have been translated into 46 languages, and the
Muslim Quran into about 40.
9. The Bibles doctrine of salvation proves it is the Word of God.
The Bible is the only religious Scripture that teaches the doctrine of salvation by grace. Every
other one teaches salvation by works. Hinduism says salvation is attained by practicing dharma
and working out ones karma. Islam says salvation is by surrender to Allah and obedience to his
commands. Buddhism says salvation is by reaching nirvana through life works and meditation
and asceticism. If you visit the Buddhist monastery at Boudha in Kathmandu any time of the day
you will find Buddhists walking clockwise, fingering their prayer beads and twirling their prayer
wheels. They do this because they are trying to work out their salvation.
The Bible, on the other hand, says that salvation is Gods free gift to sinners. This gift was very
costly for the Giver. It was purchased with a great price, which was the atoning sacrifice of
Gods Son on the cross. But for the sinner it is free.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any
man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The Bible says there is nothing that the sinner can offer God in order to atone for his sins. What
could we offer? Righteous works? The Bible says our righteousness is as filthy rags before Gods
great holiness (Isaiah 64:6). Money? What would the God of creation do with our pathetic
currency? A pure heart? The Bible says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately
wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). How, then, could we purchase our own salvation?


But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf;
and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6).

No, salvation is the free unmerited gift of a loving and deeply compassionate God. As the
Christian hymn says, We owed a debt we could not pay; He paid a debt He did not owe.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

The Bible! What a Book!

1. What verse says that without faith it is impossible to please God?
2. What verse says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God?
3. What verse says that the Bible is based on many infallible proofs?
4. In what verse did Peter say that the Bible does not contain cunningly devised fables?
5. What are four evidences that Jesus rose from the dead?
6. What did Jesus teach about the Old Testament?
7. In what passage did He say that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law until all be
8. In what verse did Jesus say that the Scripture cannot be broken?
9. How does the Bible's unique construction prove that it is the Word of God?
10. What is one of the books and chapters in the Old Testament that says predictive prophecy
proves that the prophets were of God?
11. What are three great Messianic prophetic passages?
12. What are five specific things about Jesus first coming that were prophesied?
13. What are five details of Jesus death that were foretold by the prophets?
14. What are some of the scientifically-accurate statements in the Bible?
15. What does the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" mean?
16. In what way does the Bible's candor prove that it is the Word of God?
17. In what way does the Bible's doctrine of salvation prove that it is the Word of God?


The Dead Sea Scrolls

The facts about the Dead Sea Scrolls
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered between 1947 and 1956 in 11 caves near the northwest
shore of the Dead Sea, 13 miles southeast of Jerusalem. They were preserved by the dry climate
of the caves, which are 1,300 feet below sea level.
Four-fifths of the scrolls are written in Hebrew, and 25% of them are books of the Bible. There
are 15 copies of Genesis, 17 of Exodus, 13 of Leviticus, 8 of Numbers, 29 of Deuteronomy, 2 of
Joshua, 3 of Judges, 21 of Isaiah, 6 of Jeremiah, 6 of Ezekiel, 36 of Psalms, 2 of Proverbs, and 4
of Ruth.
Advanced dating tests in the early 1990s found that the biblical scrolls date to the two centuries
before Christ (George Bonani, Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates, Biblical
Archaeology Review, November/December 1991, p. 72).
The most important and complete O.T. book among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Great Isaiah
Scroll, which contains all 66 books of Isaiah. It was found in the first cave and was written on 17
pieces of sheepskin sewn together to form a scroll measuring about 24 feet in length. It has been
dated at least four times by the carbon-14 method and the results have ranged from 335 to 107
B.C. Other techniques (e.g., writing material and style, associated coins and other artifacts) have
dated it to 150-100 B.C. Thus it was written at least a century before Christ.
The significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Christian apologetics
1. The scrolls confirm the traditional canon of the 39 books of the Old Testament.
There are portions of every Old Testament book except Esther, thus confirming the traditional
canon of Scripture. (It was previously thought that Nehemiah was not among the books, but a
portion of Nehemiah was discovered among the fragments in 2012 (Book of Nehemiah Found
among the Scrolls, Biblical Archaeology, May 15, 2012).
2. The scrolls provide evidence that Bible prophecy was pre-written.
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament were written
before the birth of Jesus and thus authenticate their divine origin!
3. The scrolls authenticate the Masoretic Hebrew Bible.


The Dead Sea Scrolls provide powerful evidence for the authenticity of the Masoretic Hebrew
text that was the basis for the great Reformation Bibles such as the Luther in German, the King
James in English, and the Reina Valera in Spanish.
The Masoretic Hebrew text was preserved by the meticulous labor of Hebrew scribes prior to the
invention of printing by moveable type in the 15th century. (The first printed Hebrew Bible
appeared in 1488.)
The word masoret refers to the faithful transmission of the Bible. The Masoretic scribes
actually counted each word of the manuscripts, and if a mistake was made that section had to be
destroyed. Sixty to sixty-five percent of the Bible scrolls found at the Dead Sea represent the
same text reproduced by the Masoretic scribes. This is amazing since more than 1,000 years
separate the earliest Hebrew codexes of the Masoretic text (such as the Aleppo) and the Dead Sea
Scrolls. For example, the Great Isaiah Scroll dates to 100-150 B.C., whereas the Aleppo Codex
dates to about A.D. 920.
The differences between the Dead Sea scrolls and the Masoretic text are extremely minor, largely
pertaining to spelling or grammar, the omission or addition of a word, or the mixing of Hebrew
letters. For example, one of the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 leaves out one holy from
Isaiah 6:3, obviously a scribal oversight.
Comparing Isaiah 53 in the Great Isaiah Scroll to the Aleppo Codex, there are only three letters
that differ significantly. Dr. Ernst Wurthwein calls the agreement of the Great Isaiah Scroll and
the Masoretic text striking and Adolfo Roitman calls it extraordinarily close (Wurthwein,
The Text of the Old Testament, 1979, p. 144; Roitman, The Bible in the Shrine of the Book, 2006,
p. 43).
The Shrine of the Book
In light of Pauls statement in Romans 3:1-2 that God committed the keeping of the Scripture to
the Jews, it is fascinating that the two greatest historical witnesses to the authority of the
Masoretic Hebrew Bible are located in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem, an arm of the Israel
Museum. They are the keepers of both the Great Isaiah Scroll, found in the Dead Sea caves, and
the Aleppo Codex, which is the most important ancient complete Masoretic Old Testament.
The Aleppo Codex (known in Hebrew as Ha-Keter, meaning the Crown) was made in the 10th
century A.D. in Tiberias, which was a center of Jewish scholarship after the razing of Jerusalem.
This was also a center for the creation of the Talmud, which is a collection of Jewish tradition
that was raised (in practice) to an authority equal to that of the Scripture, something that Jesus
condemned in Matthew 15 and 23. The Aleppo manuscript is the Masoretic Text. It was copied
by Shlomo Ben Boyaa, and the vowel markings were added by renowned master scribe Aaron
ben Asher. (The Masoretic Text is also called the Ben Asher Text.) For nearly 1,000 years it was
used as the standard text in the correction of books while generations of scribes made

pilgrimages to consult it (Roitman, p. 62). It resided at the synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, from
about A.D. 1099 to 1375, when it was moved to the synagogue in Aleppo, Syria, where it resided
in a double-locked metal box in the Cave of Elijah. (According to their tradition, Elijah the
prophet was exiled there.) The keys were held by two prominent men and the box could only be
opened in the presence of both men on the authority of the synagogues leaders. On December 2,
1947, after the adoption of the UN resolution to establish a Jewish state, the Aleppo synagogue
was destroyed by rampaging Muslims during the riots that broke out all over the Arab world. The
rioters broke into the iron box and ripped pages from the Codex and threw it on the floor. Most
of the Pentateuch was lost, as well as some other portions. Someone recovered the damaged
Codex and it was hidden for the next several years. In 1958 the Aleppo Codex was smuggled to
Turkey hidden in a washing machine, and from there brought to Jerusalem (Roitman, p. 65). It
was laboriously restored over a six-year period by the Israel Museum and today is on display in
the Shrine of the Book.
1. When were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered?
2. Where were the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered?
3. In what language were most of the scrolls written?
4. What percentage of the scrolls are books of the Bible?
5. The biblical Dead Sea Scrolls date to when?
6. What is the most important book among the Dead Sea Scrolls?
7. How long is this scroll?
8. What are the three ways that the Dead Sea Scrolls are significant for Christian apologetics?
9. There are portions of how many of the Old Testament books?
10. How many years separate the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Masoretic Hebrew text?
11. How many letters differ between Isaiah 53 in the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Aleppo Codex?
12. What did Paul say about the advantage of the Jews in Romans 3:1-2?
13. In what century was the Aleppo Codex made?
14. In what city was the Aleppo Codex made?
15. Why was the Codex named Aleppo?
16. Who was Aaron ben Asher?
17. What is the Hebrew name for the Aleppo Codex and what does this mean?
18. Where does the Aleppo Codex reside today?


The Bibles Difficulties

Introductory Points
1. Peter stated that the Bible contains some things hard to be understood (2 Peter 3:15-16). He
was specifically referring to Pauls epistles, but the same is true for the whole Bible. These are
the types of difficulties that skeptics use in their attempt to discredit the Bible.
2. We should not be surprised at the great assault upon Scripture today.
When the devil tempted Eve, he questioned the authority of Gods Word, and this has been one
of his major tactics ever since.
In fact, the broad assault on the Bible today is a fulfillment of prophecy and is therefore an
evidence that the Bible is true. The Lord and His apostles warned of the coming of many false
teachers and of a great apostasy or falling away from the New Testament faith. See Matthew
7:15; 2 Corinthians 11:1-4, 13-15; Ephesians 4:14; Philippians 3:17-19; Colossians 2:8; 1
Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-13; 4:4-5; 2 Peter 2:1-2; Jude 3-4.
2 Timothy 3:7-8 warns that apostates will be ever learning and never able to come to the
knowledge of the truth, and in fact, they will resist the truth. This is a perfect description of
Christian higher education today, even among evangelicals (as we have documented in the
book New Evangelicalism). The typical seminary takes a syncretistic approach, entertaining an
endless stream of ancient and end-times heresies, while despising a dogmatic approach to
doctrine and attacking those who hold the Bible as the infallibly inspired Word of God.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 says end-time Christians will trade sound doctrine for fables and will be led in
this diabolical business by heaps of teachers who are willing to scratch peoples ears with new
In 2 Peter 2:1-2, Peter warned that many will teach damnable heresies, even attacking the person
and character of Christ; and by their false teaching and sensual lifestyle they will bring great
reproach upon Christianity. A damnable heresy is a heresy that a true believer cannot hold. It is a
heresy that damns the soul to eternal judgment. Examples are works gospels and false christs.
In 2 Peter 3:3-6, Peter further warned that at the end of the age there will be widespread unbelief
toward the global flood and the second coming of Christ; there will be scoffing and flagrant
rejection of Gods moral laws.
2 Timothy 3:13 teaches that this apostasy, which began in the days of the apostles, will grow in
intensity as the church age progresses.


3. The scoffing unbeliever is unreasonable in treating the Bible differently than other books.
While he gives other books the benefit of the doubt and tries to find a solution to apparent
problems, he treats the Bible with disdain and suspicion and often refuses to accept the most
reasonable solution to a difficulty. George DeHoff rightly observes, Even when there are several
explanations for an alleged discrepancy (any one of which could be the truth) skeptics claim to
be unable to find any of them.
When we meet with seeming discrepancies in other writers, we try to find some way of explaining them
without charging the author with inaccuracy, especially if he has shown himself generally trustworthy. With
regard to many matters in ancient history which cannot be satisfactorily explained, we suppose that if other
facts were known to us, the difficulties would be cleared away. But, unfortunately, it is the habit of many to
treat the Scriptures in exactly the reverse way. They magnify the difficulties; they ignore or reject all attempts
at explanation; they jump at once to the conclusion that the writers are mistaken. Now, surely this is most
unscientific. If it is possible to find a way of explaining the difficulty, we are bound to do so; and if, after all, we
are not sure that the difficulty is removed, we surely ought, in view of the general trustworthiness of the Bible
historians, to believe that if we knew other facts, which are now hidden from us, all would be clear (A.
McCaig, The Grand Old Book, 1923).

4. Typically, the scoffing unbeliever has not made the necessary effort to understand the Bible
We dont expect to be able to pick up a training manual for an F-16 fighter jet and understand it
without the proper education, but scoffing unbelievers pretend that without any serious training
and without proper experience in handling the Bible, they are capable not only of understanding
it but also of infallibly finding its imperfections.
Requirements for understanding the Bible
To understand a book of mathematics requires the development of a mathematical mindset, and
to understand the Bible requires the development of a spiritual mindset. The Bible tells us
exactly how this is done.
First, the new birth is required (1 Cor. 2:12-16; 1 John 2:27). Those who are unregenerate cannot
interpret the Bible correctly; they will find conflicts and problems because they do not have the
indwelling Holy Spirit and therefore do not have a spiritual mind. Before I can understand the
Bible properly, I must humble myself before God as a needy sinner and receive Jesus Christ as
my only Saviour and Lord. This is how one is born again, and at that time spiritual life is
imparted; the darkened mind is enlightened; and the individual is sealed with the Holy Spirit who
becomes his spiritual Teacher (Ephesians 1:13; 2:2). The deepest biblical scholar, if he fails to
find Christ, knows less of the real meaning of the Gospel than the humblest Christian who is
living in the faith of the Son of God (Pulpit Commentary).
Second, faith is required (Heb. 11:6). Many of the emerging church teachers glorify unbelief, but
God rewards faith.


Third, obedience is required (John 7:17). The Bible is not merely a book to study as an
intellectual exercise; it is first and foremost the Word of God to obey. Unless I am saved and
walking in obedience to the will of God, I will not grow in knowledge and truth. The Christians
at Corinth did not grow properly in understanding because of their carnality and worldliness (1
Cor. 3:1-2). The same was true for the Christians addressed in the book of Hebrews (Heb.
5:11-14). But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even THOSE WHO BY
REASON OF USE HAVE THEIR SENSES EXERCISED to discern both good and evil (Heb.
5:14). The Lord Jesus Christ taught that the one whose heart is set to obey God is the one who
will know true doctrine (John 7:17). A Christian who is worldly and spiritually careless, who is
unfaithful to the house of God, who is not busy in the service of the Lord, will not have a strong
understanding of biblical truth. Such a one is also vulnerable to the wiles of false teachers, who
by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple (Romans 16:18).
Fourth, diligence is required (2 Tim. 2:15; Prov. 2:1-5). If you desire to understand the Bible
properly, you must set out to obtain a thorough knowledge of it from beginning to end. You must
learn to rightly divide it. You must learn to exercise spiritual discernment. You must obtain the
necessary tools and use them diligently. It is one thing to own concordances and dictionaries and
commentaries; it is quite another thing to use them! You must apply great diligence in this
endeavor. You must be willing to read and study a passage repeatedly. The practice of reading the
Bible through at least once per year is important because it keeps the Scriptures fresh in ones
Fifth, patience and persistence is required (Proverbs 25:2; John 8:31-32). The Bible is the Word
of the eternal God, and it is not possible that we will understand all of it in a short time. It is
designed to be the Book of a mans entire life, and no man will ever exhaust its treasures.
Sixth, humility is required (Luke 10:21). What will a pious, obedient, loving child do when he
hears the father make a remark which on the surface appears objectionable? Instead of criticizing
him and condemning his utterance as wrong, the child will ask him for an explanation. If we find
stumbling blocks in the Holy Scriptures, let us take the attitude of such a loving child (William
Seventh, spiritual passion is required (Prov. 2:3-6). To understand the Bible properly, one must
seek God and His truth passionately, crying out for understanding.
The reason for Bible difficulties
1. The Bible is Gods Word. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9). It is not surprising that the
Bible contains things hard to be understood, because it is the revelation of the omniscient,
omnipotent, eternal God. A revelation coming down from an infinite Mind to finite minds must
necessarily involve difficulties. This is true of all Christian doctrine. Take for instance the

doctrine of God, or immortality, or the incarnation. There is no Christian doctrine altogether free
from intellectual difficulties. ... Once we begin to reject the doctrines of Christianity because
they involve some intellectual difficulty, then we shall finally reject them all. But when we have
done this, when we have sought refuge in atheism, we shall find ourselves no better off than
before. For the intellectual difficulties of unbelief are immensely greater than those of Christian
faith. Let us settle one thing right herewe live in a universe of thought, and there is no place in
this universe of thought where we can escape from all intellectual difficulties (Alva J. McClain,
The Problems of Verbal Inspiration).
2. We are separated from Bible events by thousands of years and by vast cultural and linguistic
differences. God gave the Scriptures for all people of all centuries and He was in control of the
time and context of its giving, but it is not reasonable to expect there will be no problems in
understanding the Scriptures.
3. Some things are purposely hidden from the scoffer. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not
speak in parables to make the truth clear to simple people; He spoke in parables to hide the truth
from willful unbelievers (Mat. 13:13-17). God is not mocked; He has ordained that men reap
what they sow (Gal. 6:7). He has designed His Word in such a way that those who willfully
reject Him are unable to discern the truth properly.
4. Proper Bible understanding requires spiritual perception (1 Cor. 2:12-15; Heb. 5:11-14). It is
the unsaved, the spiritually immature, and the carnal who find inconsistencies in the Bible. God
has ordained that it be so.
5. God requires man to study (2 Timothy 2:15; Prov. 2:1-6; 25:2). The Bible does not read like a
morning newspaper because it is not a morning newspaper! It is the eternal Word of God, and
God has ordained that a man must dig into it diligently or he will not understand it properly. The
chief solution to Bible difficulties is diligent, believing STUDY of the Holy Scriptures!
6. The Bible is for all men and all times. It is possible that some things are difficult for me to
understand because they are intended to be better understood by someone else in another
situation. Some of the prophetic discourses fall into this category (Dan. 12:4; 1 Pet. 1:10-12).
Sound Principles of Bible Interpretation
To deal with difficulties in the Bible requires at least a basic knowledge of the principles of Bible
interpretation. We will look at four of these.
1. Context is essential in defining words and interpreting passages.
The first and foremost rule of Bible interpretation is to define its meaning according to context.
Absolutely nothing is more important than this. It is therefore necessary to know the theme and
message of the immediate passage, chapter, and book. The Bible is a self-interpreting Book if we

allow the context to rule. False teachers, on the other hand, twist verses out of their contexts and
force pre-determined meanings upon them. For example, there are Korean false teachers in
Nepal who are aggressive in having home Bible studies with people, but they dont let the people
write down the verses they use and they dont let them look at the verses before and after the
ones they are discussing. That is a recipe for spiritual disaster!
Following are some examples of how to interpret the Bible according to context:
a. Consider the phrase judge not that ye be not judged in Matthew 7:1. This is frequently
taken out of context today to support the doctrine that it is wrong to judge sin and doctrine,
but if we honor the context we see that Jesus was warning against only one type of
judgment--hypocritical judgment (see Matthew 7:1-5). That He was not warning against
every type of judgment is evident by the fact that in the same passage He commanded His
listeners to beware of false prophets (Mat. 7:15). The way to beware of false prophets is
to carefully judge or examine a mans life and teaching by comparing it to Scripture.
b. Consider the phrase foolish questions in Titus 3:9. What is this? The context provides the
definition. Foolish questions are questions (1) that produce only strife and do not edify (v.
9), (2) that are unprofitable (v. 9), and (3) that are used by false teachers (v. 10). Foolish
questions are used insincerely by false teachers to bring doubt to peoples minds about
sound doctrine so they can lead them away from the truth.
c. Consider the phrase that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation in 2
Peter 1:20. This has been interpreted in several ways, but the meaning is clearly given in
the context. See the next verse. It means that the words written by the human authors of the
Bible were given by the Holy Spirit.
d. Consider the phrase all things are lawful unto me in 1 Corinthians 6:12. If we ignore the
context, we might be led to think that the believer is free from all laws and is therefore at
liberty to live as he pleases. This statement is so used by the Christian rock crowd. But
the context corrects this interpretation. In the next verse, we see that Paul is talking about
things such as dietary matters. He is saying that all things are lawful that are not forbidden
in Scripture.
2. Scripture must be compared with Scripture.
Another important rule of Bible interpretation is to compare Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor.
2:13). That is why it is good to have a Bible with cross-references. Even more important is the
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, which has hundreds of thousands of cross-references. Good
computer Bible software packages such as Swordsearcher have the Treasury of Scripture
Knowledge built into the search system so it is very easy to run down cross references.


Comparing Scripture with Scripture is essential for developing sound doctrine. If Scripture is
interpreted in an isolated fashion, the result will often be a wrong interpretation. False teachers
love to isolate verses. Arthur T. Pierson wisely warns: No investigation of Scripture, in its
various parts and separate texts, however important, must impair the sense of the supreme value
of its united witness. There is not a form of evil doctrine or practice that may not claim apparent
sanction and support from isolated passages; but nothing erroneous or vicious can ever find
countenance from the Word of God when the whole united testimony of Scripture is weighed
against it. Partial examination will result in partial views of truth which are necessarily
imperfect; only careful comparison will show the complete mind of God.
Not only does the proper meaning of a verse or passage become clear by comparing it with other
Scriptures, but Bible difficulties often melt away by this means.
Consider Luke 14:26, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. What
does it mean to hate ones own loved ones? This is explained in a companion passage in
Matthew 10:37, He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that
loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. It means we must love Christ far
more than anyone else and we must obey Him in all things.
3. Clear passages must interpret the obscure.
A third important principle of Bible interpretation is that clear passages must interpret the less
clear. False teachers disregard this principle by building their peculiar doctrines from difficult
and obscure passages and using such verses to overthrow the teaching of many clear ones.
For example, Seventh-day Adventists build their doctrine of soul sleep on a few verses in the
Old Testament. They point to Job 27:3, for example, which says that the breath is the spirit. They
then say that since the breath is the spirit, man does not have a spirit that can live after he dies.
Thus, when man dies, he is simply dead and non-existent until the resurrection. But when we
look at the clear teaching of other verses, we see that man is a three-part being (body, soul, and
spirit) and the spirit of man lives after he is dead. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and James 2:26.
The Seventh-day Adventists also use Ecclesiastes 9:5, which says the dead know not any thing.
They claim that this supports their doctrine that the dead merely sleep in the grave until the
resurrection, but they ignore the rest of the Bible which teaches that the dead are conscious. For
example, compare Luke 9:28-33; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; and Revelation 6:9-11.
4. The literal sense of Scripture must rule.
Dr. David Cooper said, When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other
sense, but take every word at its primary literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate
context clearly indicate otherwise.


Following are three reasons why we must use the literal method of interpretation:
a. God gave the Scripture to reveal truth to man, not to hide it or confuse it (Deut. 29:29). He
therefore used the normal rules of human language.
b. If the literal sense is not followed, no one can be certain of the meaning. By the allegorical
method the mind of the interpreter becomes the authority. Consider Revelation 20:1-3. If
this passage does not mean that a literal angel binds a literal devil in a literal bottomless pit
for a literal thousand years, we have no way of knowing what it does mean. If it does not
mean what it says, it could mean anything that any interpreter says it means. Thus, the
teaching of the Bible is thrown into complete and permanent confusion by the allegorical
c. The Bibles prophecies have been fulfilled literally. Consider the prophecy of Christs first
coming in Psalm 22.
Psa. 22:1 Jesus words on the cross (Mat. 27:46)
Psa. 22:6-8, 12-13 The people reviled Jesus (Mat. 27:39-44)
Psa. 22:11 There were none to help Him (Mk. 14:50; Heb. 1:3)
Psa. 22:14-16 They crucified Him (Mat. 27:35)
Psa. 22:17a They did not break his bones (Jn. 19:33)
Psa. 22:17b They stared at Him (Mat. 27:36)
Psa. 22:18 They gambled for his garments (Mat. 27:35; Jn. 19:24)
In contrast to the literal approach to Bible interpretation is the ALLEGORICAL METHOD,
which finds a deeper meaning. The allegorical method of interpretation is particularly applied
to the prophetic portions of Scripture.
a. For example, the Geneva Bible note at Revelation 9:11 identifies the angel of the
bottomless pit as Antichrist the Pope, king of hypocrites and Satans ambassador. There
is no reason, though, to see the angel of the bottomless pit as anything other than a literal
fallen angel in a literal bottomless pit.
b. Harold Camping, founder of Family Christian Radio, came up with the following
allegorical interpretation of Revelation 11:7. He says the two witnesses represent the
church. The church has been in the great tribulation but has now been killed. Therefore, the
church is dead; God is through with churches and pastors and they have no more Scriptural
Of course, the Bible contains types and figures of speech, but even these must be interpreted by
the normal rules of language.


We explain how to do this and many other such things in the Advanced Bible Studies Series
course How to Study the Bible, which is available from Way of Life Literature.
Examples of how scoffers misuse the Bible to create problems and errors
Following are a few examples of how scoffers misuse the Bible. We have dealt with hundreds of
these in the book Things Hard to Be Understood: A Handbook of Biblical Difficulties, which we
would recommend to each student as an apologetics resource.
1. The alleged two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2
Many scoffers claim that there is a contradiction between the accounts of creation in Genesis one
and Genesis two. They point out, for example, that Genesis 1 says the animals were created on
the sixth day before the man was made (Gen. 1:24-31), whereas Genesis two seems to say that
God made the man and then made the animals and brought them to him to be named (Gen.
The apparent contradiction disappears when one understands that the two accounts are meant to
be complementary. They give two different perspectives of the account of creation. Genesis 1 is
the floodlight, whereas Genesis 2 is the spotlight. Genesis 1 gives the big picture and describes
the general events that occurred in the six days of creation. Genesis 2 focuses on mans creation.
Genesis 1 tells us when the animals were made, whereas Genesis 2 shows the association
between the animals and man and tells us what happened after the animals and man were made.
Genesis 1 tells us that God made man male and female, and Genesis 2 tells us how this was
2. The alleged mistake in the statement that Adam would die the day he ate of the tree (Gen.
Since Adam did not die physically that day, it has been alleged that this is a mistake in the Bible.
In fact, though, Adam did die that day. Death means separation, and there are three deaths spoken
of in Scripture. There is spiritual death, which is separation from God. There is physical death,
which is separation of the spirit from the body. And there is eternal death, which is eternal
separation from God and punishment in the lake of fire. Adam died spiritually the very day that
he disobeyed God. His spirit died and he became separated from God (dead in trespasses and
sins, Ephesians 2:1), and every individual who is born into the world is born in this frightful
condition. This is why Jesus said that we must be born again in order to be saved (John 3:3). We
must be born spiritually and receive spiritual life from God.
3. The alleged injustice and cruelty of God in the Old Testament
Unbelievers have long used Israels destruction of pagan nations in Canaan as evidence that the
God of the Old Testament is unjust and cruel (Deut. 7:2). What they refuse to take into

consideration are the following facts: First, God waited 400 years before judging these wicked
nations, which reminds us that He is longsuffering with man (Genesis 15:13-16). These nations
had the light of creation and conscience and had prophetic light as well (e.g., Noahs sons,
Melchisidek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and could have repented as Nineveh did. Second, the
nations in question were devoted to every sort of vile moral perversion, including incest,
homosexuality, bestiality, and the burning of their children. It is not morally wrong for a holy,
lawgiving God to punish those who willfully, flagrantly, and unrepentantly break His laws.
Those who charge God with injustice and cruelty for punishing wicked nations are hypocritical,
because they themselves believe in law and order and support the punishment of those who
commit crimes such as rape and child molestation and murder. Third, God was merciful to those
like Rahab who believed (Joshua 2). The whole tenor of Scripture teaches that God delights in
mercy more than in punishment. He is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). He wants all men to be saved (1
Timothy 2:4). Fourth, it was necessary for those wicked pagan nations to be overthrown so that
Israel could be established in that land as a light to the world. Had they been left alone, Israel
would have been corrupted morally and religiously within a very short time (Deut. 7:2-6).
Through Israel God gave the world His divine revelation in the Bible, and through Israel He
brought the Saviour into the world to provide salvation (John 3:16). Those who charge God with
injustice and cruelty ignore the fact that God Himself paid the price demanded of His own holy
law so that men can be saved. The heart of God was revealed in the amazing words that Jesus
spoke from the cross in regard to the people who had so terribly, unjustly abused him: Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do. The God revealed in the Bible is the most
compassionate Person in the universe. In fact, He is the source of all true love and compassion,
but He is also a thrice holy, lawgiving God, and He cannot be judged by mans puny, inconsistent
4. The alleged contradictions in the Bible
Following are a few examples of these:
The alleged contradiction about Gods anger (Jeremiah 3:12 vs. Jeremiah 17:4)
Jeremiah 3:12 says God will not keep His anger forever, whereas Jeremiah 17:4 says Gods
anger will burn forever. By examining the contexts we see that there is no contradiction.
Jeremiah 3:12 refers to Gods anger being appeased by repentance; whereas Jeremiah 17:4 refers
to Gods anger unappeased burning forever in punishment. The satisfaction of mans sin debt
was paid by Jesus Christ on the cross, but salvation is obtained through repentance and faith and
those who neglect Gods salvation will suffer Gods wrath forever. Gods wrath does burn
forever, but in the case of the believer it fell on Christ and thus was quenched.


The alleged contradiction about the earths future (Psalm 78:69 vs. Psalm 102:25-26)
Psalm 78:69 says the earth is established forever, whereas Psalm 102:25-26 says the earth will be
burned up. As any Bible believer knows, there is no contradiction here, because Psalm 78:69
refers to the earth in general, whereas Psalm 102:25-26 refers to the burning up of this present
earth, which will be replaced by a new earth (2 Peter 3:12-13).
The alleged contradiction about rejoicing when ones enemy falls (Proverbs 24:17 vs. Psalm
Proverbs 24:17 refers to rejoicing at a fellow mans misfortune, whereas Psalm 58:10 refers to
rejoicing at Gods righteous judgment upon sinners in the day of wrath. Psalm 58:10 makes this
plain. We have to interpret the Scripture dispensationally (according to the prophetic time
element). Another example of this is seen in comparing Luke 9:54-56 and Revelation 11:4-6.
Jesus did not allow James and John to call down fire on Christ rejectors, because in this present
dispensation He is offering salvation to sinners. But the Two Witnesses who will preach in
Jerusalem during the Great Tribulation will burn their enemies up with fire, because that is the
Day of the Lord, the Day of Gods vengeance.
The alleged contradiction about the efficacy of sacrifices (Numbers 15:25 vs. Hebrews 10:11)
Numbers 15 says that Israel was forgiven through the offering of sacrifices, whereas Hebrews
10:11 says those sacrifices can never take away sins. The seeming contradiction is solved by
understanding the purpose of the Old Testament sacrifices and their relationship to Christs
sacrifice. The sacrifices under the Law of Moses were types and pictures which pointed to the
ultimate fulfillment in Christ. This is clearly explained in the book of Hebrews 9-10. See 10:1-3.
God forgave those who offered the sacrifices in faith, but He forgave them on the basis of
Christs sacrifice and not on the basis of the animal sacrifices themselves.
The alleged contradiction between Christs genealogy in Matthew and Luke
Richard Dawkins says, Shouldnt a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces Josephs
descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate generations, while Luke has forty-one
generations? Worse, there is almost no overlap in the names on the two lists! (The God
Delusion). The following are the facts which the skeptic overlooks. First, the genealogies have
two different purposes. Matthew traces Christs ROYAL GENEALOGY to Abraham (Mat. 1:1),
whereas Luke traces Christs NATURAL GENEALOGY to Adam (Lk. 3:28). Second, the
genealogies are traced through different men. Matthew traces Christs genealogy through
Josephs father Jacob (Mat. 1:15-16), whereas Luke traces it through Marys father Heli (Lk.
3:23). While Jacob was Josephs natural father, Heli was his adopted father. Mary was the only
child and heir of Heli (see the Talmus) hence when Joseph married her he became the only son
and heir of Heli (George DeHoff, Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained). Third, it is by
means of Marys genealogy that Christs lineage bypassed Jechonias, because he was cursed so

that his seed could not inherit the throne (Jer. 22:30; Mat. 1:12). This problem was solved by
tracing Christs genealogy through another of Davids sons, Nathan, to Marys father Heli (Lk.
3:31). Therefore, instead of being evidence against the Bibles divine inspiration, the two
genealogies provide wonderful evidence FOR it!
The alleged contradiction about the sign on Jesus cross
Some claim that the Gospel writers give contradictory accounts as to what was written on the
sign that Pilate hung on Jesus cross:
Matthew 27:37 - This is Jesus the king of the Jews
Mark 15:26 - The king of the Jews
Luke 23:38 - This is the king of the Jews
John 19:19 - Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews
Actually, the accounts are complementary rather than contradictory. The full title was This is
Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews, and the individual Gospel writers focus on various parts
of the sign according to their individual purposes and objectives.
This is like four witnesses to a hit and run traffic accident which involved a blue Ford Mustang
with wire rim wheels, a white racing stripe down the center, an air foil in the rear, and fog lights
on the front. One witness says he saw a Ford Mustang. Another says he saw a blue car. Another
says he saw a blue car with fog lights on the front and a white racing stripe. Another said he saw
a blue Ford Mustang with wire rim wheels. There is no contradiction between these testimonies.
Each of the Gospels was written to show a specific aspect of Christs life and character and
ministry, so the Gospel writers were led by the Holy Spirit to emphasize various aspects of the
same accounts. Matthew emphasizes Christ as King; Mark, Christ as Servant; Luke, Christ as
Man; John, Christ as God. Most of the seeming contradictions can be solved with this
understanding, as we have demonstrated in the book Things Hard to Be Understood.
1. The attack upon the Bible was prophesied by the apostles and prophets in passages such as 2
Timothy 3-4 and 2 Peter 2-3.
2. The Bible cannot be understood properly apart from salvation, sanctified Christian living, and
diligent study.
3. Four great principles of Bible interpretation are honoring the context, comparing Scripture
with Scripture, interpreting obscure passages with clear, and using a literal rather than an
allegorical approach.



1. In which book and chapter in Pauls epistles does one of the Bible writers say that there are
things hard to be understood?
2. When did the attack upon Gods Word begin?
3. What does apostasy mean?
4. What passage says that apostates will be ever learning, and never able to come to the
knowledge of the truth?
5. What passage says end-times Christians will reject sound doctrine and be turned unto fables?
6. What passage describes preachers who will scratch the tickling ears of apostates?
7. In what book and chapter did one of the New Testament writers warn of false teachers who
will teach damnable heresies?
8. What is a damnable heresy?
9. In what chapter and book does the New Testament warn about mockers who will deny the
global flood and the second coming of Christ?
10. In what way does the scoffer treat the Bible differently than other books?
11. What seven things are required to develop a spiritual mindset so that we can understand the
Bible properly?
12. Why is it necessary to be born again in order to understand the Bible?
13. What are six reasons why there are difficulties in the Bible?
14. What are four great principles of Bible interpretation?
15. How do the Seventh-day Adventists build their doctrine of soul sleep?
16. What are three reasons why the Bible must be interpreted by the literal method?
17. What is the allegorical method of Bible interpretation?
18. Why are there two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2?
19. In what way did Adam die the day he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
20. How was God justified in having the Israelites destroy the pagan nations in Canaan?


Jesus Christ


Historical Evidence for Jesus

Some of the more radical skeptics deny that Jesus was an historical person. In 2012, for example,
Timothy Freke published The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?
This is an ignorant position for the following reasons:
1. The historicity of Jesus was not disputed until recent times.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says:
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted
the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at
the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries (Jesus Christ, Encyclopedia
Britannica, 1974).

Jaroslav Pelikan observes:

Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the
dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries (Jesus Through the Centuries, p.

D. James Kennedy adds:

All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings
that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that one solitary
life (What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? p. 8).

2. The New Testament, which is the major witness of Jesus, is an historical record of the
highest authority, even from a secular standpoint.
The evidence that the New Testament was written soon after Christs death is irrefutable. We
have already examined this evidence in the section on the Bibles Nature.
In his book Redating the New Testament, John A.T. Robinson concluded that the whole of the
New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
William Ramsay, one of the most renowned archaeologists, wrote:
We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New
Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more
radical New Testament critics of today (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 1955, p. 136).
In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the
eighties of the first century A.D. (Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963).


William Albright, another influential archaeologist, stated:

Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to
be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 25 and cir. 80 A.D. (From Stone Age to
Christianity, p. 23).

The New Testament is the most copied and quoted document in the history of man.
As we have seen, portions exist that date to the late first and early second century, only a few
decades after the books were written. And the great multiplicity of copies that exist are unique in
history. No other ancient book even comes close to having such extensive manuscript authority.
3. Even the most liberal of theologians acknowledge Jesus existence.
Two of the men who have written refutations of Timothy Frekes book The Jesus Mysteries are
Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan, who are among the most liberal of theologians.
The debate over Jesus existence has led to a curious role reversal. Two of the New Testament scholars who
are leading the way arguing for Jesus existence have a reputation for attacking, not defending, traditional
Christianity. Ehrman, for example, is an agnostic who has written books that argue that virtually half of the
New Testament is forged. Another defender of Jesus existence is John Dominic Crossan, a New Testament
scholar who has been called a heretic because his books challenge some traditional Christian teachings. But
as to the existence of Jesus, Crossan says, hes certain (The Jesus Debate: Man vs. Myth, CNN Belief
Blog, April 7, 2012).

Ehrman says most Jesus deniers are Internet kooks, comparing them to deny the Holocaust.
4. There is early evidence for the existence of Jesus from extra-biblical, secular sources.
The following examples are from Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict:
Cornelius Tacitus, a first century Roman historian
Christus, from whom the name [Christianity] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of
Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus... (Annals XV, c. 115 A.D.).

Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian (who reigned from A.D. 117-138)
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from
Rome (Life of Claudius, 25:4).

Werner Keller observes:

The writer Orosius mentions that this expulsion took place in the ninth year of Claudius reign, i.e., A.D. 49.
That means that a Christian community is attested in Rome not more than fifteen to twenty years after the
Crucifixion. There is, in the Acts of the Apostles, an amazing corroboration of this Roman evidence. When
Paul came from Athens to Corinth he found there a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come
from Italy, with his wife Priscilla: because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome (Acts
18:2) (The Bible as History, pp. 390, 391).


Josephus (A.D. 37-100)

He was a Jewish leader who served under Roman emperors and wrote two histories about the
Jews: Jewish Wars and Antiquities of the Jews. In the following passages he acknowledges the
existence of Jesus, of John the Baptist and his baptism, and of Jesus brother James and his
... he [Ananias the high priest] assembled the Sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother
of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an
accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Antiquities, 20.9.1).
Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herods army came from God, and very justly, as a
punishment of what he did against John, who was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good
man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety
towards God, and so to come to baptism (Antiquities, 28.5.2).

Thallus wrote a history in about A.D. 52 in which he described the darkness and earthquake that
followed Christs crucifixion..
Mara Bar-Serapion
He was a Syrian philosopher who wrote about A.D. 70. In a letter to his son he said:
What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom
was abolished (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, p. 114).

Pliny the Younger

He was a Roman author and administrator. In a letter to the Emperor Trajan in about A.D. 112 he
mentions Christ and the worship practices of early Christians.
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate
verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds,
but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should
be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of
food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

The Jewish Talmudic writings dating from A.D. 70 to 200 mention Jesus. If there were any doubt
about Jesus existence, we can be sure that the Jewish rabbinical writers would have said so!
It has been taught: On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. ... not having found anything in his favor, they
hanged him on the eve of Passover (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a).


Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a second-century Greek writer who ridiculed Christians.
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel
rites, and was crucified on that account ... [they] worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Norman Geisler summarizes the evidence as follows:

The primary sources for the life of Christ are the four Gospels. However there are considerable reports from
non-Christian sources that supplement and conform to the Gospel accounts. These come largely from Greek,
Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources of the first century. In brief they inform us that:
* Jesus was an historical man from Nazareth.
* He lived a wise and virtuous life.
* He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time,
being considered the Jewish King.
* He was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later.
* His enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called sorcery.
* His small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome.
* His disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as Divine.
This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels (Geisler, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics).

Edwin Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University, says that we have more and better
historical documentation for Jesus than for any other religious founder (e.g., Zoroaster, Buddha,
or Mohammed) (Jesus Outside the New Testament: What Is the Evidence? Jesus Under Fire,
edited by Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, 1995).
There are scoffers who reject all of this evidence, but this is the result of self-willed blindness.
The human heart is so corrupt and deceitful that it is possible to persist in unbelief in the face of
a mountain of evidence (Jeremiah 17:9). On the other hand, many men and women who set out
to discredit the Bible and to disprove that Christ is God have accepted the evidence as irrefutable
and have bowed before Christ as Lord and Saviour. We have given some examples of this in the
report Men Who Were Converted Trying to Disprove the Bible, available at the Way of Life
web site -- www.wayoflife.org.
For more on this subject see the following:
Norman Geisler -- Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, When Critics Ask, When
Skeptics Ask
Gary Habermas -- The Historical Jesus
Josh McDowell - The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict



1. What are three reasons why we do not doubt the existence of Jesus?
2. When did scoffers first begin to express doubt about the historical existence of Jesus?
3. Name four secular writers who mentioned Jesus before the end of the first century.


Evidence for Jesus Resurrection

The tomb was empty; and the foes of Christ were unable to deny it (Ernest Kevan, The Resurrection of
Christ, 1961, p. 14).
I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never been
broken down yet (Lord Lyndhurst or John Singleton Copley, Attorney General of Great Britain, Lord
Chancellor of England, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, original source probably from Theodore
Martin, A Life of Lord Lyndhurst).
Let it simply be said that we know more about the details of the hours immediately before and the actual
death of Jesus, in and near Jerusalem, than we know about the death of any other one man in all the ancient
world (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, p. 360).
Non-miraculous explanations of what happened at the empty tomb have to face a cruel choice: either they
have to rewrite the evidence in order to suit themselves or they have to accept the fact that they are not
consistent with the present evidence. The only hypothesis that fits the evidence is that Jesus was really
resurrected. Could the Man who predicted His death and resurrection, only to have it come to pass exactly as
He had said, be anything but God? (Winfred Corduan, No Doubt about It: The Case for Christianity, p. 227).

1. The Bible says there are many infallible proofs of Christs resurrection (Acts 1:3). In fact, it
is one of the best documented events of ancient history. Bible-believing Christianity is not
2. Jesus and the Bible and Christianity rise or fall on Christs resurrection!
The Bibles accounts of Jesus claim to be historical, eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter
1:15-16; 1 John 1:3). If the accounts are not historically accurate, then they can rightly be
Christ staked His authority on the resurrection (at least seven times He said He would die and
rise from the dead -- Matthew 16:11; 17:9, 22-23; 20:18-19; 26:32; Luke 9:22-27; John 2:18-22).
Paul said that the Christian faith depends on Christs resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14-17).
Three great evidences for the resurrection of Christ:
1. The character of the Gospel accounts
The Gospel accounts themselves give every evidence that they were written by eyewitnesses
who believed what they wrote and who were speaking the truth without embellishment and
Consider the details of the accounts.


Johns Gospel is characterized throughout by the personal touch; it has all the marks of the evidence not only
of an eyewitness, but of a careful observer ... The running of the disciples, the order of their arrival at the
sepulchre and their entry, the fact that John first stopped down and looking through the low doorway saw the
linen clothes lying, while Peter, more bold, was the first to enter ... the description of the position of the linen
clothes and the napkin ... this can surely be nothing else than the description of one who actually saw, upon
whose memory the scene is still impressed, to whom the sight of the empty grave and the relinquished graveclothes was a critical point in faith and life (E. Day, On the Evidence of the Resurrection, pp. 16-17).

Consider the candor of the accounts. When someone invents a religion, he glorifies its leaders,
but the Gospels paint the founders of Christianity as very weak (e.g., Peter having to be rebuked
by Christ as Satan--Mat. 16:23; Peter denying Christ thrice; the disciples fleeing and hiding;
Thomas and others doubting Christ even after He appears to them).
Further, if men had made up the accounts of Christs resurrection, they would not have said that
the women were the first to believe. In that day women had no authority in the eyes of society.
They could not even testify in a court of law in those days, except in rare occasions (J.P.
Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 168). The account of the women believing first is not
something that would have been written unless it actually happened and the writers were
committed wholeheartedly to recording the truth and nothing but the truth. This striking candor
is powerful evidence that the Gospels are true, unvarnished accounts.
2. The empty tomb
That the tomb of Jesus was empty is proven by two facts:
First, the Jewish leaders had to invent the lie that the disciples had stolen His body (Mat.
28:11-15). If Jesus body was located anywhere, they would have searched it out and produced it.
Second, just weeks after the crucifixion, only a stones throw from the empty tomb itself, Peter
publicly proclaimed the resurrection and 3,000 believed, followed a little later by a great
company of priests and a great number more (Acts 2:37-42; 6:7; 1:21). If anyone could have
produced the body or come up with a reasonable account for it being missing, they would have!
The following are theories that have been proposed to account for the empty tomb:
The field of biblical criticism resembles a vast graveyard filled with the skeletons of discarded theories
devised by highly imaginative skeptics. ... One might think that so many repeated failures ... would lead the
opposition to abandon their efforts, but not so. They continue unabated, and men are still wracking their
brains, working their imaginations overtime, and parading a vast amount of erudition and ingenuity in their, to
us, futile attempts to destroy the impregnable rock of historical evidence on which the Christian faith in the
resurrection stands proud and unshaken (John Lilly).

Some say Jesus just swooned and recovered in the cool of the tomb
This is refuted by the fact that the professional soldiers had ascertained that he was dead (John


Further, how could a near-dead man remove the heavy stone and convince his followers that he
had risen from the dead? Consider what Christ endured: severe beating; nails piercing His hands
and feet; spear piercing His side (John 19:34); great loss of blood and bodily fluids.
Some say that the women went to the wrong tomb
In The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Kirsopp Lake claimed that the
women were confused in the dark and went to the wrong tomb. Not only is this contrary to what
the Gospel accounts say, it makes no sense whatsoever. If the women had gone to the wrong
tomb and reported that Christ had risen based on that mistake, the matter would soon have been
cleared up. First, the disciples were not stupid. They would not have given their lives for the
testimony of a few geographically-challenged women. They would have checked out the story
thoroughly and would have come to the truth of the matter. Further, the Jewish leaders would
have made certain that the matter was cleared up by producing the right tomb, and the body!
Some say the disciples were hallucinating
If they were hallucinating, it was a mass hallucination, because Paul said that the resurrected
Christ was seen by above 500 people at once (1 Cor. 15:5-8)!
When Paul wrote the epistle of 1 Corinthians, most of these eyewitnesses were still alive. Paul
was not writing about things that had happened long ago.
Josh McDowell observes: Lets take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His
death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people
were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50
hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you
would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history (Evidence for the Resurrection).
It has been rightly said that this theory makes Christ a fraud and his disciples near idiots.
Somehow the rugged fisherman Peter and his brother Andrew, the characteristically doubting Thomas, the
seasoned and not too sensitive tax gatherer, Matthew, the rather dull Philip, intensely loyal but a little slow of
apprehension, do not fit easily into the conditions required for an absolutely unshakable collective
hallucination. And if it is not both collective and unshakable it is of no use to us. The terrors and the
persecutions these men ultimately had to face and did face unflinchingly, do not admit of a halfhearted
adhesion secretly honeycombed with doubt (Morison).

Some say they saw someone disguised as Jesus (Hugh Schonfield, The Passover Plot)
This is too ridiculous to waste time refuting. Having spent three years with Jesus, wouldnt the
disciples know Him? They might be confused for a moment or even a short while, but eventually
they would recognize that the individual was an impostor.
Some say the body was stolen

This was the story invented by the Jewish leaders. They paid the guards to lie and to say that the
disciples stole Jesus body (Mat. 28:11-15). This is an impossible story.
First, if they were asleep how could they know what happened to the body, or if stolen, who stole
Second, sleeping on guard duty brought the death penalty in that day. That one of the guards
might fall asleep is perhaps conceivable, but that all of them would fall asleep is not. As Richard
Dickinson observes: That without an exception all should have fallen asleep when they were
stationed there for so extraordinary a purpose, to see that that body was not stolen, lest it should
be said that the crucified Jesus had risen from the dead, may be possible; but it is not credible:
especially when it is considered that these guards were subjected to the severest discipline in the
world. It was death for a Roman sentinel to sleep on his post. Yet these guards were not
executed; nor were they deemed culpable even by the rulers, woefully chagrined and exasperated
as they must have been by the failure of their plan for securing the body (The Resurrection of
Jesus Christ Historically and Logically Viewed, 1865).
(That the guard was a Roman guard is clear from the passage. The Greek word for watch in
Matthew 27:65, koustodia, is the word for a Roman sentry. A.T. Robertson says that ye have a
watch is present imperative and refers to a guard of Roman soldiers, not mere temple police.
In Matthew 28:12 they are called soldiers, which would not be the case if they were temple
police. Further, Matthew 28:14 indicates that they were Roman guards, because they were afraid
of what Pilate would do if he heard of the matter.)
Third, by their actions it is evident that the Jewish leaders didnt believe their own story. They
didnt call the disciples to examine them when they found out the body was missing, and they
made no effort to find the body. John Chrysostom, in the fourth century, observed that the story
of the stealing of the body actually establishes the resurrection. For this is the language of men
confessing, that the body was not there. When therefore they confess the body was not there, but
the stealing is shown to be false and incredible--by their watching by it, and by the seals, and by
the timidity of the disciples--the proof of the resurrection even hence appears
incontrovertible (The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 264).
Further, who could have stolen Christs body?
The Jews certainly didnt steal it, because they wanted to prove that He did not rise.
The Roman government certainly didnt steal it, because the government sealed the tomb and had
no reason to steal it and thus allow the Christians to say He had risen.
Joseph of Arimathea certainly didnt steal it. He was Jesus disciple and had no motive to steal
His body. Further, he couldnt have stolen it alone, because he couldnt have removed the great

stone, so he would have needed help, and doubtless someone would have reported the deed
sooner or later.
The disciples certainly didnt steal it. First, they were hiding in fear for their lives. Second, they
had no opportunity, because the tomb was sealed and guarded. Third, they had no leader who
could have envisioned and accomplished such a thing. Their leader, Peter, was a broken man at
that point and had given up his discipleship to Jesus to go back to fishing (John 21:3). Fourth,
they would have been fools to have suffered and died for a lie! The disciples didnt suffer for
what others had seen, such as Muslims who die for the Koran, but they died for what they had
professedly seen themselves (Acts 4:18-20). Fifth, it would have been impossible for such a large
number of people to have kept the secret hidden. Even if it had been possible, and the disciples
the men to do it, the subsequent history of Christianity would have been different. Sooner or
later, someone who knew the facts would have been unable to keep them hidden (Frank
Morison, Who Moved the Stone?). Sixth, a great moral religion like we find in the New
Testament, which exalts truth and honesty, could not have been founded upon a despicable
It is the complete failure of anyone to produce the remains, or to point to any tomb, official or otherwise, in
which they were said to lie, and this ultimately destroys every theory based on the human removal of the
body (Morison).

We must not forget exactly what the early Christians suffered for their testimony that Christ had
risen from the dead.
They were denounced by family and friends, hated by and considered the enemies of society,
tortured, kept imprisoned for years in dark, rat-infested cells. Their property confiscated; they
were crucified, burned alive, torn apart by wild beasts, chopped into pieces, roasted on racks;
their tongues were torn out and their eyes put out. The also had to endure the torture and death of
beloved family members.
Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to
overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His
disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The
fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful
manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes,
imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries
they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors
only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely
an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive
to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they
asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific
frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have
narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly a they
knew any other fact. ... If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its
fabrication (Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of
Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, 1846).


Some say the disciples made up the accounts

This would mean that they all suffered and died on the basis of a lie, which makes no sense. It is
one thing to found a religion or cult when you will benefit from it materially, but it is quite
another thing to invent one if you will only suffer for it.
Further, as we have already noted, it is obvious from their very nature that the Gospel accounts
were not made up. They are filled with lifelike detail and they are too candid to be mythical.
Some say Jesus rose spiritually but not bodily
Jesus specifically refuted this by eating and letting the disciples touch Him (Luke 24:37-43).
Frank Morison set out to discredit the Gospel accounts of Christs resurrection, and instead he
concluded that the only thing that can satisfy the historical facts is that Jesus actually did rise
from the dead.
We agree and we find it much easier to believe in Christs resurrection, than to believe in the
attempts to discredit it.
The simple faith of the Christian who believes in the resurrection is nothing compared to the credulity of the
skeptic who will accept the wildest and most improbable romances rather than admit the plain witness of
historical certainties. The difficulties of belief may be great; the absurdities of unbelief are greater (George
Hanson, The Resurrection and the Life).

The reason why there are so many theories that attempt to discredit the Gospel accounts is that
men are willfully blind sinners who do not want to submit to God (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Further, the unbelief of Christian preachers such as Kirsopp Lake was prophesied in Scripture
(2 Peter 2:1-2).
3. The changed lives
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where
the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you (John 20:19).
Something dramatic happened to turn the disciples from fear to courage.
Consider the testimony of Peter
After denying Christ the night of His arrest, Peter was a defeated man. He determined to go back
to fishing (John 21:3). A few weeks later, the man who had denounced Christ before a handful of
Jews on the eve of Christs crucifixion, preached boldly to a multitude of them on the day of


Pentecost and 3,000 were converted. What could have wrought such a mighty change other than
that he had become convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead?
Consider the testimony of James, Jesus half brother
Jesus brothers were opposed to Him during His lifetime (John 7:7), but after Jesus rose from the
dead, James believed and became a leader in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18;
Gal. 1:19). James conversion was prompted by Christs resurrection appearance to him (1 Cor.
Consider the testimony of Paul
What converted Paul from being a bitter enemy of Christ to being one of His most zealous
followers? From an earthly perspective, Paul had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to
lose by following Christ. He admitted that he had profited in the Jews religion above
many (Gal. 1:14). Paul testified that it was the resurrected Christ who convinced him (Acts
As a zealous Pharisee and leader of Christs enemies among the Jews, Paul was in a position to
know all about the story about the disciples stealing the body. Had he thought that Jesus dead
body actually lay hidden somewhere, he would never have believed in the resurrection. It is
obvious that even he did not give any credence to this story.
Consider the testimony of lawyers and judges
Thomas Sherlock wasnt a lawyer but he was trained in law. He was a Cambridge-educated
theologian in the Church of England, and he wrote a classic book that examines the evidence for
the resurrection of Christ from a courtroom perspective. It is titled The Trial of the Witnesses of
the Resurrection of Jesus (1729). Sherlock wrote the book to rebut Deist Thomas Woolstons
skeptical book Discourses of the Miracles of Jesus Christ.
Within the framework of a courtroom proceeding in which the Apostles are on trial for faking the Resurrection,
Sherlock pits Woolstons own arguments against his own powerful defense of the accused. Applying the logic
and reason of the law to the Bible, this is a provocative and original interpretation of the story of Jesus' life and
death (Bookkilden.no).

Simon Greenleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the most celebrated
legal minds of America. He is the author of the three-volume A Treatise on the Law of Evidence,
which is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal
procedure (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand, 1972, p. 463). After a thorough examination,
Greenleaf concluded that Jesus did rise from the dead. In 1846 he published An Examination of
the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of


All that Christianity asks of men is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its
evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and
witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals.
Let the witnesses [to the Resurrection] be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding
facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of
the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently
believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth (An Examination of the Testimony
of the Four Evangelists).

Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England, said:

The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely
depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have
faith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and
circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is
truth (cited from Michael Green, Man Alive, 1969, p. 54).

Lord Caldecote, Lord Chief Justice of England, testified that,

an overwhelming case for the Resurrection could be made merely as a matter of strict evidence. ... [Christs]
Resurrection has led me as often as I have tried to examine the evidence to believe it as a fact beyond
dispute (cited by Irwin Linton, A Lawyer Examines the Bible, p. xxiv, xxv).

Edmund Hatch Bennett was dean of the Boston University School of Law for more than 20
years, as well as a judge in the Massachusetts Probate Court. In 1899 he wrote The Four Gospels
from a Lawyers Standpoint. He begins by saying:
... this paper is the result of an effort, on my own part, to ascertain whether or not, independently of the
exercise of a devout Christian faith, independently of any appeal to our religious sentiments, the truth of the
story told in the four Gospels could be satisfactorily established by a mere reasoning process, and by applying
the same principles and the same tests to the Gospel narratives that we observe in determining the truth or
falsity of any other documents, or any other historical accounts.

Bennett makes the following argument:

These stories began to be published not long after the alleged crucifixion. Many persons were then living who
could have easily refuted the statements of the evangelists had they been untrue. The enemies of Jesus were
still alive and active. The Scribe and the Pharisee, the Priest and the Levite, still smarted under his repeated
denunciations. They had the disposition, the opportunity, and the incentive to deny the story of the miraculous
birth, the spotless life, the marvelous works, the sublime death, the astounding resurrection, and the glorious
ascension of our Lord, had the then published description of these events been totally fabulous. But so far as
we know, no person then living ever uttered a protest against these accounts, and for two thousand years they
have been received and treated as veritable history.

Irwin Linton, a Washington D.C. lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, published
A Lawyer Examines the Bible: An introduction to Christian Evidences in 1929.
Lawyers regularly sift through testimonies in order to separate falsehood from truth. A unique feature of this
book is its weighing of testimonies in support of the Bible. Linton points out that lawyers ask witnesses
seemingly trivial details because, while the main outlines of false testimony can be agreed upon in advance,
the innumerable trifling details cannot. Apparent contradictions between the Resurrection accounts prove the
absence of collusion, and the fact that they can be resolved adds credibility to the testimonies. So, far from
being fatal, the apparent contradictions between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection turn out to be
support for the authenticity of the event. On this, Linton cites Paley: The existence of the difficulty proves the
want or absence of that caution which usually accomplishes the consciousness of fraud; and the solution


proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of
truth winds through the whole, which preserved every circumstance in its place (A Lawyer Examines the
Bible, 1949 edition, p. 75).

J.N.D. Anderson (Sir Norman Anderson) is dean of the faculty of law in the University of
London and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He wrote Christianity the
Witness of History: A Lawyers Approach (1969).
The most radical theory of all is to dismiss the whole story as deliberate invention. But there is scarcely a
single intelligent critic who would go so far. The adverse evidence is overwhelming. Think, first, of the number
of witnesses. Paul tells us that in 56 A.D. the majority of some 500 original witnesses were still alive; and we
must remember that most of the early records went out, as it were, with the collective authority of the primitive
Church. Think, too, of the character of the witnesses. Not only did they give the world the highest moral and
ethical teaching it has ever known, but they lived it out, as even their opponents were forced to admit. Again,
think of the phenomenal change which these men underwent because of this alleged invention. Is it
conceivable that a deliberate lie would change a company of cowards into heroes, and inspire them to a life of
sacrifice, often ending only in martyrdom? Surely psychology teaches that nothing makes a man more prone
to cowardice than a lie which preys on his conscience? Is it likely, moreover, that even in disillusionment or
agony not a single one of these conspirators would ever have divulged the secret? (Anderson, The Evidence
for the Resurrection, London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1950).

Albert Roper was a prominent Virginia attorney, a graduate of the University of Virginia law
school, and one-time mayor of Norfolk. He made a thorough investigation into the evidence for
the resurrection of Christ, asking the question, Can any intelligent person accept the
resurrection story? At the end of his research he concluded, Can any intelligent person deny
the weight of this evidence? He wrote the book Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
In this age of science, how is it possible to believe in a bodily resurrection from the dead;
isnt this biologically impossible?
Without doubt the resurrection from the dead is biologically impossible from the standpoint of
what is natural and observable, but Christs resurrection wasnt natural; it was a divine miracle.
The Creator is not limited by or subject to natural things that He Himself created.
If the evidence is so strong, why doesnt everyone believe?
1. Many have never heard the evidence. I have had the privilege of preaching on the resurrection
of Christ to hundreds of university students in Nepal who had never before heard anything about
2. Many are willfully blind; they refuse to believe in miracles (willfully ignorant, 2 Pet. 3:5).
3. Many do not want to submit to God. Lee Strobel tells of an acquaintance who agreed that the
evidence for Christs resurrection is overwhelming but he refused to believe, saying, I dont
want a new master.


4. Many have believed. The Bible is the most popular book in world. It is expected that by 2020
at least a portion of it will be available in every language, which testifies mightily to its
popularity and to the fact that multitudes do believe that Christ rose from the dead.
1. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is at the heart of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-8), and this is
the gospel we are to preach to every person (Mark 16:15).
2. All men will be resurrected, either to eternal life or eternal punishment (John 5:28-29; Acts
24:15). An individuals destiny depends on his relationship with Jesus Christ. Mans existence is
eternal, and he cannot escape the reality of this fact by not believing.
1. Christ staked his claim as the Son of God on the resurrection, repeatedly stating that He would
die and rise from the dead.
2. Three proofs of the resurrection are the following: First, the character of the Gospel accounts
as to their lifelike detail and candor. Second, the empty tomb which can only be explained by the
resurrection. Third, the changed lives, such as that of Paul who had nothing to gain and
everything to lose, humanly speaking, by claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead.
1. What verse says there are many infallible proofs of Christs resurrection?
2. Why do Jesus and the Bible and Christianity rise or fall on Christs resurrection?
3. In what book and chapter did Paul say that the Christian faith depends on the reality of
Christs resurrection?
4. What are three great evidences for the resurrection of Christ?
5. What are two facts that prove that Jesus tomb was empty?
6. What are seven theories that have been proposed to account for the empty tomb?
7. What are two reasons why we believe that the tomb guard was composed of Roman soldiers as
opposed to temple police?
8. Why is it impossible for Jesus to have merely swooned on the cross and to have recovered in
the tomb?
9. In what passage did Paul say that the resurrected Christ was seen by more than 500 people at
one time?
10. Why is it unreasonable to think that the guards fell asleep while guarding Jesus tomb?
11. What tells us that the Jewish leaders didnt believe their own story about Jesus body being
12. What type of things did the early disciples suffer for their testimony that Jesus rose from the

13. How did Jesus prove that He had risen bodily and not merely as a spirit?
14. How do Peters actions before and after the resurrection prove that Christ rose from the dead?
15. Humanly speaking, what did Paul have to gain by testifying that he had seen the resurrected
16. Name three lawyers and judges who examined the evidence for Christs resurrection and
declared it to be a fact of history.
17. Name three men who were converted trying to refute the Bible.
18. What are four reasons why men do not believe in Christs resurrection?


Israel in Prophecy
A PowerPoint presentation of this material on Israel in Prophecy is included in the
Unshakeable Faith apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private
Study at the beginning of the course for tips on using this material.
The Bibles amazing prophecies are evidence of its divine inspiration. They are clear and detailed
and unfailing.
This is in contrast to extra-biblical prophecies, which are typically vague and inaccurate.
Consider the Sibyl prophetesses in the fourth century. When Maxentius consulted these before
meeting Constantine in the battle on the banks of the Tiber, he was told, On that day the enemy
of Rome will perish. This prophecy is so vague that it would apply to whoever won!
The prophecies of Nostradamus were cryptic and obscure. Consider the following prophecy
that is alleged to describe Hitler: Beasts ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers: The
greater part of the region will be against the Hister. The great one will cause it to be dragged in
an iron cage, when the German child will observe nothing (centuries #2, quatrain #24). This is
so vague that it is meaningless.
Consider astrology. The forecasts are usually very vague, such as, Some friends may have the
feeling that youve been ignoring them. And when the astrological forecasts are more precise,
they are usually wrong. Two famous astrologers in Britain predicted that Hitler would not start
World War II. Edward Lyndoe said, The Nazis attacking Britain? Dont make me laugh! Not a
sign in my charts (June 25, 1939).
Consider Jean Dixon. She prophesied that the Soviets would beat the U.S. to the moon, that
World War III would begin in 1958, and that a cure would be found for cancer in 1967.
Consider Edgar Cayce. He prophesied that China would be converted to Christianity in 1968 and
that Armageddon would occur in 1999.
Consider Islamic prophecy. The following refers to the Dajjal or the Islamic messiah. The
Dajjal will come forth having with him water and fire, and what mankind see as water will be
fire which burns and what they see as fire will be cold, sweet water (Hadiths of Bukhari).
Consider Hindu prophecy. The following describes the Age of Kali: When deceit, falsehood,
lethargy, sleepiness, violence, despondency, grief, delusion, fear, and poverty prevail, that is the
Kali Yuga. This is so vague that it could describe any time since the fall of man.
In contrast, Bible prophecy is clear and detailed and detailed, and it has never failed. For
example, the prophecies about Christs first coming described the exact time of His coming, the

exact place of His birth, the piercing of His hands and feet on the cross, the words that He spoke
from the cross, the soldiers gambling for His garments, and His burial in a rich mans tomb,
among many other details.
The prophecies about Israel are equally precise.
It is said that Frederick the Great once demanded proof in one word that the Bible is divinely
inspired. The answer provided by his chaplain was the JEW, your majesty (Robert Newman,
Israels History Written in Advance, Evidence for Faith, edited by John Montgomery, pp.
At the dawn of Israels experience as a nation, before she entered the Promised Land, Moses
prophesied her complete history. God warned that if Israel turned from His Law, He would judge
See Deuteronomy 28:25-32, 36-37, 63-67; 30:1-6.
This prophecy was written in about 1450 B.C., or nearly 3,500 years ago.
The prophecy describes Israels defeat at the hands of foreign powers, her eviction from the land
and dispersion to the ends of the earth, and her return.
1. Desertification of the Land
Moses said Israel would become a desert. The rain would be powder and dust (Deut. 28:23-24),
and the land would become brimstone, salt, and burning (Deut. 29:23).
When Israel entered the land in the 15th century B.C. it was fruitful like a garden, and God gave
the land the early and latter rains. In Abrahams day, 400 years earlier, the plain of Jordan in
southern Israel was well watered every where ... even as the garden of the LORD (Gen. 13:10).
God described it as a land flowing with milk and honey, which speaks of a well-watered land
full of cattle and flowering plants (Deut. 31:20). The tribes of Reuben and Gad stayed on the
eastern side of the Jordan because they had a very great multitude of cattle and they saw that
the place was a place for cattle (Num. 32:1).
They were describing a place in the southern part of the modern nation of Jordan that is harsh
desert today. Obviously it was not a desert then, but because of Israels sin and idolatry, God
stopped the rains and the land became a barren desert, and most of it remains that today. Crops
can be grown in most parts of Israel only through irrigation. You can eke out a living with a few
sheep today (apart from irrigated ranches), but not with multitudes of them.
Israels very land is a powerful witness to the accuracy of ancient Bible prophecy. Modern Israel
has performed an agricultural wonder through technology, but she has not been able to change

the fact that 80% of the land remains arid or semi-arid. And this was Gods judgment in
fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
2. Dispersion and Persecution
Moses prophesied that Israel would be plucked from off the land and scattered among all
people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other, and there she would find no ease,
neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart,
and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind; and thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou
shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life (Deut. 28:63-67).
The prophecy began to be fulfilled with the destruction of Israels First Temple and her 70-year
captivity to Babylon in 586 B.C., but that was only the beginning. Moses said that the
Deuteronomy prophecy would be fulfilled in the latter days (Deut. 31:29), which did not begin
until the first coming of Christ.
In 70 A.D. Israels Second Temple was destroyed by Roman armies and 65 years later Jerusalem
was razed after Rome put down the Bar Kokhba revolt. A pagan city was built on the site,
dedicated to Jupiter. The Emperor Hadrian changed Judeas name to Syria Palestina. Multitudes
of Jews were slaughtered and most of the rest were carried away captive or fled to other parts of
the world.
For 1,900 years Israel has been dispersed, and she has been persecuted and tormented wherever
she has wandered.
She has been hated by the Romans, the Greeks, the Muslims, the Roman Catholic Church, the
Byzantines and the Orthodox Church, the Spanish (the Jews were evicted from Spain in 1492),
the Venetians (Jews were forced to live in the ghetto), the English (Jews were expelled from
England in 1290), the Russians (Jews were driven out of Russia in the 1880s), the Germans, the
early Lutherans, and many others. And anti-semitism is on the rise again today.
The Holocaust of World War II was another fulfillment of the ancient prophecy in Deuteronomy
28. The Holocaust museum in Jerusalem witnesses to the bitter sorrow that Israel experienced at
the hands of the Germans. The nine galleries in the main museum are devoted to different
chapters of the Holocaust, from the rise of Hitler to his death. There are hundreds of disturbing
photos and artifacts. Arrests in the middle of the night. Destroyed synagogues. Jews marked with
armbands and the star of David. Jews mocked, beaten, spit on, burned, shot, poisoned. Heaps of
corpses. Frightened children. Pathetic faces peering out of cattle cars. Starved men.
Yet Israel remained a distinct people through the long centuries of her dispersion. In 1754 Bishop
Thomas Newton wrote of the Jews:


Their preservation is really one of the most illustrious acts of Divine Providence. They are dispersed among
all nations, yet not confounded with any. ... They can produce their pedigree from the beginning of the
world. ... After wars, massacres and persecutions they still subsist; they are still quite numerous. What but a
supernatural power could have preserved them in such a manner as no other nation on earth has been
preserved? (Dissertation on the Prophecies, VIII, section 2).

Walter Scott wrote:

The once mighty monarchies of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome have risen, flourished,
and fallen, leaving no permanent results behind. But the Jews, whose reliable history goes further back than
any of those ancient kingdoms, are with us today. In physiognomy and national characteristics the Jew is
unchanged in a history of nigh four thousand years. ... The Jews as a people cannot be destroyed. God is
their keeper and preserver, even while under His governmental judgment as they are today. The Jews, without
a home, without a country, without a government, without a head, are yet a people as distinct from the
Gentiles in national faith, feeling, and hope, as in the days of David and Solomon (Walter Scott, At Hand, Or,
Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, 1910)

3. The Return to the Land

Bible prophecy not only described Israels dispersion and trouble, it foretold that Israel would be
brought back into her land (Deuteronomy 30:1-5).
Many other prophecies describe Israels return.
Bible believers knew that Israel was going to be restored because the prophecies required it. In
1910, for example, when the Ottoman Empire still ruled the land of Israel and only a few Jews
lived there, Walter Scott wrote:
The Restoration of the Hebrew Commonwealth is the first and indispensable necessity for the arrangement of
the situation to suit the requirements of the prophetic orderly system mapped out in the Word. The whole
prophetic future depends on that primary fact. The Jew, and not the Gentile, is the centre of Gods government
of the earth; hence all take shape and colour from the settlement of Judah in her land. This will be the great
political event of the centuries, and one which will attract universal attention. ... whenever, and by
whomsoever, the return of Judah is effected, the result will be to change the whole political government of the
world. ... The Restoration of Israel to Palestine is the first and fundamental necessity demanded by
prophecy (Walter Scott, At Hand, Or, Things Which Must Shortly Come to Pass, 1910).

What Walter Scott and other Bible believers long envisioned because of their faith in Bible
prophecy, happened in 1948. Israel was not only restored to the Holy Land, but she announced
the establishment of a modern state.
Restoration in two stages
Israels return is described in the amazing prophecy of Ezekiel 37:1-14.
Here Israel is described as a valley of dry bones. Verse 11 gives the interpretation: these bones
are the whole house of Israel. Dry bones was her condition for the past 2,000 years. She was
scattered to the ends of the earth, and it appeared that she was dead and finished.


Ezekiel is told that Israel will be brought to life and restored in two stages. First, she will be
brought back to the land but in a spiritually dead condition. Verse 8 says the dead bones were
raised but there was no breath in them. Then, she would experience spiritual revival. This will
happen during the Great Tribulation just prior to Christs return.
This is where Israel stands today. At midnight on May 14, 1948, the new state of Israel was
announced. The official declaration said:
We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Medinath Yisrael (The
State of Israel). ... The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of their
dispersion ... Our call goes out to the Jewish people all over the world to rally to our side in the task of
immigration and development and to stand by us in the great struggle for the fulfillment of the dream of
generations for the redemption of Israel. With trust in Almighty God, we set our hand to this Declaration, at this
Session of the Provisional State Council, on the soil of the Homeland, in the city of Tel Aviv, on this Sabbath
eve, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth of May, 1948.

Eleven minutes later U.S. President Harry Truman, a Baptist, announced his recognition of
The Jews celebrated throughout the world. Thanksgiving services were held in synagogues
everywhere. In Rome the Jews paraded under the Arch of Titus, which memorializes the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. They were saying, Were back from the dead! It was a most
dramatic fulfillment of Ezekiel 37. The ancient Roman Empire with all of its glory is gone, but
Israel remains.
Immediately the new Jewish state was plunged into the War of Independence as the Jews were
forced to defend itself against large, well-supplied Arab armies. The Arab League was composed
of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Britain had done everything it could to arm the Arabs
and to disarm the Jews. Israels enemies not only attacked from outside the country; they were
already entrenched within the country when the fighting started.
Israel won the War of Independence against all odds, but that was only the beginning of her
struggle. In 1956 the Suez War was fought to force Egypt to allow access for Israels ships
through the Suez Canal. Then there was the Six-Day War in 1967 against the coalition of Egypt,
Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, with Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria contributing
troops and arms. The Six-Day War was followed by Egypts War of Attrition against Israel from
1968-70. Then there was the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Israel was attacked on Yom
Kippur, or the Day of Atonement, by Egypt in the south and Syria in the north. These two
Muslim nations were joined in a support role by Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Uganda, Cuba, Morocco, and Pakistan. The Soviet Union
provided planes, tanks, and armaments of all sorts, including thousands of missiles targeting
Israels air force. Israel was massively outgunned.


These major wars against Israel are only the tip of the iceberg. There has been continual military
conflict with Muslim groups such as the Palestine Authority, the Palestine Liberation
Organization, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Jihad.
Thus, it is in the face of great opposition that Israel is back in the land, and her continued
presence there has been a constant miracle.
But Israel is spiritually blind and dead, just as Ezekiel prophesied.
The signs are all too evident.
Israels spiritual blindness is evident in her stubborn rejection of the Messiah. We were told by
our Jewish guide that it is against the law in Israel to preach Christ publicly or to distribute
Gospel tracts. When we tried to talk to him about Jesus the Messiah, he refused to listen, curtly
ending the conversation with the statement, That is your opinion. This exemplifies the frightful
condition of the vast majority of Jews today.
Israels spiritual blindness is evident in Israels overweening pride. For the most part, Israel is
puffed up and does not glorify God even for the miracle of her restoration and the winning of her
modern wars. While throwing a few crumbs of thanksgiving and acknowledgment to God for
these great miracles, Israels leaders and military heroes and technology typically get the bulk of
the credit. Nothing has changed since Gideons day, when God had to take away the vast
majority of Israels army and leave only 300 fighting men so that she would not glorify herself
for the victory.
Israels spiritual death and blindness is evident in that a large percentage of Jews today are
secular, meaning they care little or nothing about the Old Testament Scripture. They follow a
few religious traditions and rituals, but their hearts are far from God. They talk about God, but
they dont obey Him. Many of Israels most revered modern war heroes were adulterers and
sabbath breakers.
Israels spiritual death is evident in that she has exalted rabbinic tradition to an authority above
Gods Word. Even the ultra-orthodox are no better than the Pharisees of old. They pray, but their
prayers are vain showy rituals. They visit the Wailing Wall to be near the old Holy of Holies and
make a great show of putting on their phylacteries in just the right manner and praying in a
certain posture and with certain movements. They keep dietary laws (kosher), but they go far
beyond what the Bible commands. For example, the Bible says you must not seethe a kid in his
mothers milk (Deut. 14:21). Jewish tradition adds to this by concluding that it is wrong to mix
meat with any dairy product such as cheese. (No cheeseburgers!) Gods Law does not require
this. It is vain human tradition that has been added to Gods holy Law. As in Jesus day, the Jews
still strain at gnats and swallow camels (Mat. 23:24).


Israels spiritual blindness is evident in the field of archaeology. Jewish archaeologists, who
should be at the forefront of finding evidence for the truth of the Bible, are among its fiercest
enemies. We are told that the archaeologists in Tel Aviv are at the forefront of biblical
skepticism. Adam Zertal, who has excavated Joshuas Altar at Mt. Ebal, told Steve Rudd that
the most anti-Biblical forces in archeology are the professors in the various universities in
Israel (Joshuas Altar, http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-of-joshua.htm).
In spite of her blindness, Israel is fulfilling Bible prophecy. She is back in the land and she is
preparing for the building of the Third Temple, which is prophesied in Scripture. A $2 million
golden candlestick sits just across from the Temple Mount, waiting for the Third Temple, as mute
witness to the divine inspiration of the Bible. The Bible says this temple will be occupied by the
Antichrist (Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).
The revival of Israel will occur during the Great Tribulation after the Rapture of church-age
1. In contrast to pagan prophecies, Bible prophecies are clear and detailed and unfailing.
2. The great prophecy in Deuteronomy 28 described Israels entire 3,500 year history before she
even entered the land of Canaan. It says that she would disobey Gods Word and be evicted from
the land and be dispersed among the nations where she would have continual trouble. It says her
fertile land would become a desert. It says she would eventually return to the land and be
restored to the place of Gods blessing, but her return would occur in two stages: first in unbelief,
then in spiritual revival. Every part of this ancient prophecy has been fulfilled except for the final
1. What is the difference between Bible prophecy and pagan prophecy?
2. In what book of the Bible was Israels entire history pre-written before she entered the
Promised Land?
3. When was this prophecy written?
4. What three major events did this prophecy foretell?
5. How is Israels land different today than it was when she entered it under Joshuas leadership?
6. God said that if Israel sinned against Him her rain would become what?
7. Moses prophesied that after Israel was plucked from the land, what would happen to her?
8. When and with what event did the dispersion of Israel from the land begin?
9. When was the Second Temple destroyed and by whose armies?
10. Why is it miraculous that the Jews have survived as a people through 2,000 years of
dispersion and persecution?
11. Why did Bible believers in the 19th century know that Israel would return to her land?

12. What chapter in Deuteronomy prophesies the return of Israel?

13. What prophet described the return of Israel in two stages?
14. What is the name of this prophecy?
15. In what chapter of his book does he describe this?
16. What are those two stages?
17. In what year did Israel announce her new statehood?
18. What U.S. president recognized Israels new state?
19. Name three major wars that Israel has fought with her Muslim neighbors.
20. What is Yom Kipper?
21. What is the first reason that we know that Israel is spiritually dead today?
22. Who are the most anti-Biblical forces in archaeology today?


We recommend that you first go through the introduction to archaeology with the class and then
use the PowerPoint/Keynote presentations for the section on Archaeological Treasures
Confirming the Bible. After each PowerPoint presentation use the summary and review questions
from the book.


Introduction to Archaeology
(The teacher is encouraged to review the general introduction to this apologetics course, An
Unshakeable Faith, for possible review of other important points relevant to the use of
archaeology as an apologetics and evangelism tool.)
1. The explosion of archaeological research in the last 150 years
In 1784, German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder wrote:
In the Near East and neighboring Egypt everything from the ancient times appears to us as ruins or as a
dream which has disappeared ... The archives of Babylon, Phoenicia and Carthage are no more; Egypt had
withered practically before the Greeks saw its interior; thus, everything shrinks to a few faded leaves which
contain stories about stories, fragments of history, a dream of the world before us (Johann Gottfried
von Herder, Ideas for the Philosophy of History of Humanity, 1784-91, cited from M. Larsen, Orientalism and
the Ancient Near East, Culture and History 2, 1987, p. 96).

As we will see, this is no longer the case. Today we know a great deal about ancient nations and
kingdoms described in the Bibles earliest pages. We dont have just a few faded leaves or
mere stories about stories; we have museums and libraries full of historical information. We have
entire ancient cities that have been earthed.
2. The major benefits of archaeology for the Christian
First, archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible and thus encourages faith in
everything the Bible states.
Beware of archaeologists who want to separate historical from theological evidence. For
example, consider the following statement by Alfred Hoerth, retired director of archaeology at
Wheaton College, where he taught for almost 30 years:
Some people mistakenly use archaeology to confirm, authenticate, or prove the Bible. ... Even if every
historical statement in the Bible could be proven true--confirmed--this would still not prove the theological
message of the Bible. There is a tendency by some Christians to assume too much from archaeology.
Sometimes the words confirm, prove, authenticate, and substantiate can be employed. ... It must be
recognized that there is a clear separation between historical and theological proof (Hoerth,
Archaeology and the Old Testament, pp. 18, 20).

This is actually a sap toward liberalism. It is a half-truth that tends to be a smokescreen for the
fact that the author does not believe in the infallible inspiration of Scripture and holds to theistic
While it is true that historical evidence does not absolutely prove the theological message of the
Bible, the Bible itself leads us to expect historical evidence. The Bible claims to be an historical
record. It claims to be founded upon infallible historical proofs (Acts 1:3). Thus, history and
theology are friends. Every historical evidence for the Bible confirms its theology.

It is true that archaeology cannot prove that Christ was born of a virgin or that He walked on the
water, but it can demonstrate that the Bibles history is accurate and can thus give us confidence
that whatever the Bible says is true.
The Bible is like a very old friend with vast knowledge and experience. Since he has proven to
be honest and faithful in all of his dealings with us and accurate in all of the statements that he
has made, we have no reason to suspect him of fabricating things or creating myths. To the
contrary, we have every reason to believe whatever he tells us.
Second, archaeology provides background information to better understand the Bible.
For example, archaeology has thrown great light on the ancient civilizations such as Egypt,
Babylon, and Assyria. Knowledge of these discoveries is a great aid to understanding the
background of Old Testament times and events.
Consider the excavations of Ur. Today we know a lot about the city that Abraham grew up in, the
education he received, perhaps even the type of house that he lived in. In fact, at the
archaeological site of Ur in Iraq, we can see the very streets on which he might have strolled and
doorways through which he walked and the temples upon which he gazed.
Consider the excavations of Shushan (Susa). At the Louvre in Paris we can see actual artifacts
from the throne room of the Palace of Shushan, articles that would have been seen by Esther and
Daniel and Nehemiah. We can much better understand the environment in which the events of
the biblical book of Esther transpired.
3. The sufficiency of evidence
God gives enough evidence to prove that the Bible is true for the unbiased, but enough is left
unproven and enough questions are left unanswered to give the willful unbeliever rope to hang
himself. As the renowned Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf stated:
Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and head-strong, to bring irresistible evidence to the
daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and
perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy mans responsibility. All that Christianity professes,
is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer (The
Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence).

In His story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, Jesus warned that no amount of evidence
will convince a committed skeptic. The Word of God itself is the ultimate evidence, and men are
required to believe it (Luke 16:27-31).
A committed skeptic would not be convinced if he saw Noahs ark with his own eyes and if Noah
himself rose from the dead to tell the story.


4. The limitations of archaeology

Archaeology is a friend to the Bible as long as its evidence is not misinterpreted through
evolutionary bias and as long as its limitations are clearly understood.
Kaveh Farrokh, a historian of ancient Persia, has likened archaeological findings to shadows in
the desert. This is an apt description. We can learn something from a shadow, but we cannot
learn everything. The archaeological shadow of ancient times should never be used to overthrow
the sharp details of reality found in Scripture!
In discussing the evidence for Herods Tomb, Dudi Mevorah, co-curator of the Israel Museum,
said, Archaeology is never about 100 percent. The circumstantial evidence points to one
man (Israel Museum to Exhibit Reconstructed Tomb, FoxNews, Jan. 16, 2013). But the Bible
is definitely about 100%!!!!
Alexander the Great built one of the greatest ancient empires and left his name everywhere, but
only a few archaeological documents have survived that actually contain his name. If this is so
for someone like Alexander, how much more is it true for someone like Abraham, Moses, or
It is ridiculous to allow such an inexact science to correct the Bible!
Consider some of the specific limitations of archaeology:
a. Only the minutest fraction of what has been made or written has survived.
... the deposition of silt from the rivers, which has been going on for thousands of years, has wiped some
sites, particularly the smaller ones, completely off the map, and covered them with a heavy overburden of
redeposited material. Sites like this are only discovered by accident, usually in the course of construction or
drainage works. ...
... survey work suffers not only from silt deposition but from the opposite problem as well. Once the soil dries,
it becomes extremely friable and wind erosion poses more problems. Whole sites seem to have been blown
away in some places and the areas of others drastically altered.
Redeposition in secondary contexts can further confuse the record, whether the agents are wind and water,
or people.
Further destruction has certainly been caused by people as many ancient sites have been used as sources of
fertiliser for fields, or of ballast for construction work. More recently, illicit excavations have also been a
problem. ...
A further important destructive force is the salt which permeates the soil over most of the plain and which is
capable of destr0ying all but the toughest materials. At Abu Salabikh, for instance, almost the only evidence
for post-Early Dynastic settlement is found in the sherds packed round drains which were sunk from higher
levels, now totally destroyed by erosion and the action of salts (Harriet Crawford, Sumer and the Sumerians,
pp. 38, 39).


The marvel was that any ancient Egyptian monuments were left at all, for such destruction and dispersion
had been practiced both by the ancient Egyptians themselves and for several thousand years thereafter by
the Greeks, Romans, Copts, Turks and Arabs, not to mention frequent European vandals (Charles Breasted,
Pioneer to the East, p. 191).
The ancient written documents we read today survive by accident. Often they are not ones which modern
scholars would have chosen if they had had any say. ... Even when a wide variety of documents is available,
as in Egypt or Babylonia, they are still a selection, and they give incomplete and unbalanced pictures (Alan
Millard, Treasures from Bible Times, p. 25).

Consider that the of the millions of documents written on parchment, papyrus, and wax boards in
ancient times, only a few fragments have survived. Even those that survived in the dry caves of
the Dead Sea were mostly a jumble of scraps by the time they were discovered in the 1940s.
We see a glimpse of what was lost in Ezra 6.
Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in THE HOUSE OF THE ROLLS, where the
treasures were laid up in Babylon. And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of
the Medes, A ROLL, and therein was a record thus written: In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus
the king made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let the house be builded, the place where
they offered sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits,
and the breadth thereof threescore cubits; With three rows of great stones, and a row of new timber: and let
the expences be given out of the king's house: And also let the golden and silver vessels of the house of God,
which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be
restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to his place, and place them in
the house of God (Ezra 6:1-5).

Cyrus decree was written on a parchment or papyrus roll and stored in the palace library in
Achmetha, and it was recovered by Darius about 30 years later. The vast majority of the
countless thousands of such scrolls have perished from the earth. The only thing that has
survived from these ancient royal libraries are some of the documents written on clay tablets, and
the vast majority of those have also perished.
Normally the clay writing tablets were not baked or fired (Joan and David Oates, Nimrud, p.
195), though there were exceptions, such as those at the palace in Ebla. They were brittle and
easily crushed and when they were covered with earth and compacted into the ground over
hundreds and thousands of years, with moisture permeating down through the soil from annual
rains, they could not be recovered from the surrounding earth by archaeologists. For the most
part the tablets that have survived are those that were hardened when a building was burned. This
is what happened at the Persian palace at Persepolis when Alexander the Great burned it. The fire
destroyed all perishable materials, such as papyrus and parchment rolls and writing boards, but it
hardened the clay tablets and thus preserved them. The same thing happened at Nineveh and
Calah (Nimrud).
Consider that though Hammurabi is one of the best known rulers of the ancient Mesopotamian
world, actually little is known about him. Van De Mieroop says, the material on Hammurabi is
so fragmentary that it leaves much of his life in the dark (King Hammurabi of Babylon).


Consider the Stele of Ur-Nammu. Dating to about 2100 B.C. it is the oldest known tablet
containing a law code. Originally 10 feet high, only fragments remain. Yet countless reports and
some entire books have been written about this fragmented item, and the reason is that as
pathetic as it is as a solid historical document, it is one of the best witnesses we have of that era.
Consider that hundreds of years of ancient Egyptian records are missing entirely.
Consider that though Phoenician (Punic) was used for 1,000 years, only a few scraps of the
language have survived through inscriptions on monuments. For all its thousand years of
recorded history, there is no surviving artistic literature in Phoenician (Nicholas Ostler, Empires
of the Word). This is in spite of the fact that there is evidence that there existed a vast amount of
literature in Punic.
Consider that for the reign of the Persian king Cyrus the Great, his rise to power, and the fall of
Babylon, a MAIN SOURCE of information is the Nabonidus Chronicle at the British Museum,
which is a mere fragment of a tablet. Amelie Kuhrt describes it as the most reliable and sober
account of the fall of Babylon (Nabonidus Chronicle, Wikipedia). How pathetic that a mere
fragment of a tablet would be called the main source of information for that period, but this is
the reality of archaeology.
What we have from ancient times are a few scraps. The British Museum, the Louvre, and other
prominent museums display the most important documents from ancient times, and though they
are great treasures, they are also pathetic, usually broken, fragments of things.
b. Ancient pagan empires did not record their defeats.
The peoples of the ancient Near East kept historical records to impress their gods and also potential
enemies, and therefore rarely, if ever, mentioned defeats or catastrophes (Charles Aling, Egypt and Bible
History from Earliest Times, p. 103).

Thus, we would not expect to find extra-biblical evidence of such things as Israels exodus from
Egypt or the destruction of Sennacheribs army outside of Jerusalem.
c. Pagan records are not dependable.
Ancient numbers are notoriously untrustworthy, due to the tendency of royal scribes and chroniclers to inflate,
sometimes extravagantly, the actual figures involved (Clyde Fant and Mitchell Redding, Lost Treasures of the
Bible, p. 163).

d. Only a fraction of archaeological sites have been surveyed or excavated, and only a fraction
of an excavation site is actually examined.
The Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin once estimated that at the rate he was excavating the 200-acre biblical
site of Hazor it would take eight thousand years to finish. How long would it take to completely excavate the
eight thousand acres of Caesarea Maritima! (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology,


e. Only a fraction of what excavators find actually survives.

Many of the materials unearthed by Botta and Layard, the first excavators of Assyria, perished
when exposed to the air.
M. Botta was not long in perceiving that the building which had been thus partly excavated, unfortunately
owed its destruction to fire; and that the gypsum slabs, reduced to lime, were rapidly falling to pieces on
exposure to the air. No precaution could arrest this rapid decay; and it was to be feared that this wonderful
monument had only been uncovered to complete its ruin. The records of victories and triumphs, which had
long attested the power and swelled the pride of the Assyrian kings, and had resisted the ravages of ages,
were now passing away for ever. They could scarcely be held together until an inexperienced pencil could
copy them, and thus secure evidence of their existence. Almost all that was first discovered thus speedily
disappeared; and the same fate has befallen nearly everything subsequently found at Khorsabad (Nineveh
and Its Remains, p. 9).
The colours, particularly the blues and reds, were still fresh and vivid when first discovered; but on exposure
to the air they faded rapidly (p. 95).
Several helmets of other shapes, some with arched crests, were also dug out; but they fell to pieces almost
as soon as exposed to the air; and I was only able to collect a few of the fragments (p. 241).

f. Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported and published.

This increasing fractional improbability creates odds that are extremely heavy against tradition interlocking
with inscriptions or materials (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament).

Reading ancient languages such as Egyptian and Babylonian is a speciality field in the extreme
and only a tiny number of men and women can actually translate the material that is recovered
by archaeologists.
Some of the ancient languages have never been deciphered at all and others are only imperfectly
understood. For example, Elamite, which was a major language of Old Testament times and was
one of the official languages of the Persian Empire, is still so imperfectly understood that
arguments are endemic among its experts (Josef Wiesehofer, Ancient Persia, p. 67).
5. The skepticism that permeates the field of archaeology
The skepticism that is rampant in the field of archaeology deeply colors its interpretation of the
evidence, but this should not be a surprise as the Bible warns that skepticism will be rampant
before the return of Christ.
Psalm 2 describes the entire world in open rebellion to God and Christ and to Gods Word. The
worlds leaders will take counsel against the Lord to cast away His cords, referring to His holy
In his second epistle, Peter described scoffers in the last days who will deny the worldwide Flood
and hold to the evolutionary doctrine of uniformitarianism (2 Peter 3:3-6). Verse three indicates
that the scoffers are motivated by their desire to live according to their own lusts instead of in


submission to Gods Word. They are willfully ignorant, meaning that they refuse to believe
even when confronted with the truth.
It is not surprising, then, that the field of archaeology has been rife with unbelief since its
inception and this skepticism has increased steadily.
Archaeology grew up in an atmosphere of theological and spiritual skepticism. In the 19th
century, theological modernism, unitarianism, evolution, and humanistic philosophy were
making great strides both in church and society. From its inception, archaeology was influenced
by this skepticism.
Consider the following statement by Brian Fagan in his history of archaeological research. He
calls belief in the Bible shackles and glories in the fact that these shackles have been cast off
by modern archaeologists.
The tight shackles of Christian doctrine taught that the biblical account of the Creation in Genesis, chapter 1,
in which God created the world in six days, was the literal truth. Humankind was created in the Garden of
Eden, then cast out because of sin. To question Divine Will was heresy (Fagan, Archaeologists: Explorers of
the Human Past, Oxford University Press, 2003).

Dr. Bryant Wood observes:

Secular scholars are generally of the opinion that any aspect of the early history of Israel prior to the kingdom
period cannot be taken at face value unless the veracity of the events described can be validated by means of
independent witnesses. This approach is strongly biased and nonscientific. Other ancient documents
are assumed to be accurate unless there is credible evidence to suggest otherwise. These documents
are just as religious as the Bible, as the writers of ancient texts regularly mention their pagan gods and
what the gods did on their behalf (Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Conquest, Bible and Spade, Fall 2005).

Garry Brantley adds:

We must be aware [of archaeologys] limitations, and deficiencies. The dating methods employed (e.g.,
radiocarbon, dendrochronology, pottery, and others) are imperfect, and are always based upon certain
assumptions. Further, we should be aware of the current anti-biblical trend among many archaeologists.
As with any scientific discipline, we need not sift Gods Word through the sieve of archaeological inquiry.
Archaeological interpretations are in a constant state of flux and often wither as grass, but Gods Word abides
forever (Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Christianity, ApologeticsPress.org).

Consider Randall Prices account of his first day at Hebrew University in Jerusalem:
On my first day in a course on the history of early Israel, the teacher, who was one of Israels foremost
historical archaeologists, stated with complete conviction: Abraham never existed, but his cousins did! The
professor went on to explain that the biblical stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were simply campfire
accounts that had been passed down through the centuries and had grown into legends (he used the word
saga). He said the Patriarchs were only a backward projection created by nationalist Jews during the mid-first
millennium (600-400 B.C.). These nationalists were seeking to create a glorified though nonhistorical
past (The Stones Cry Out, p. 90).


The Bible Believer Must Tread Carefully

Because of the skepticism that permeates the field of archaeology, the Bible believer must tread
very carefully and test everything by the light of Gods Word.
Jack Moorman, who has done a lot of research into the history of the Bible text, likens this to the
statement in Samsons parable in Judges which says out of the eater came forth meat (Judges
14:14). Samson was referring to the gathering of honey from a lion. Moorman uses this to
describe gathering truth from skeptics. He is referring in particular to the fact that textual critics
tend to be Bible skeptics and they have capitulated unreservedly to the bogus theories of textual
criticism, and while we can benefit from their textual research into the manuscript evidence, we
cannot trust them and must be careful not to be led astray by them.
Prominent Examples of Skepticism
Consider some specific prominent examples of the skepticism that permeates the field of
August Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers
August Pitt-Rivers (1827-1900) has been called the founder of modern archaeological
excavation (Brian Fagan, Archaeologists: Explores of the Human Past). He excavated sites in
Ireland and southern England and revolutionized archaeological methods.
He applied an evolutionary scheme to archaeology after his capitulation to Darwinian
The publication of Charles Darwins Origin of Species in 1859 was a turning point in Foxs intellectual life. ...
He was soon arguing that the same rules of evolution and natural selection applied to human-made
artifacts... (Fagan, Archaeologists: Explores of the Human Past).

This reminds us that the dating system used by the vast majority of archaeologists is one based
upon a preconceived view. Being convinced of the evolution of man, they foist this view upon
the archaeological record, just as natural history scientists do with the earth record. They refuse
even to consider the possibility that the earth and man have not evolved and that the Bible is
literally true.
When they find stone tools, for example, they see a stone age civilization which predated the
bronze age and the iron age. But stone age men have lived in the same world as
technologically-advanced men all along since the Flood. Some built the impressive thirdmillennium civilizations that have been unearthed in Mesopotamia, such as ancient Ur of the
Chaldees, whereas some groups of men wandered away and were content to live a basic stone
age existence and forgot how to work with metal. The Native American Indians of the early


19th century were stone age people. In fact, there are stone age people still living in Nepal
and other parts of the world.
James Breasted
He was founder of the Oriental Institute in Chicago where many artifacts from ancient Assyria,
Babylon, and Egypt are housed, and he occupied the first chair of Egyptology in America. His
expeditions to Egypt were funded by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
The following information is from Pioneer to the Past: The Story of James Henry Breasted by
Charles Breasted, 2009:
James Breasteds mother believed in the infallible inspiration of Scripture. Like all her family,
she had been brought up to respect the Scriptures as infallible, the one perfect thing in a sinful
world (p. 22).
In his youth, James felt called to preach ... it suddenly flashed into my mind as if conveyed by
an electric spark, that I ought to preach the gospel. From that time to this, this consciousness has
never left me. ... I could hardly think of a verse of scripture but it was fraught with some occult
[hidden] message to me, and one followed me continually, The Lord hath need of me (p. 16).
His sense of divine calling and his faith in Gods Word was ruined by the skeptical environment
into which he was immersed at Chicago Theological Seminary, Yale University, and the
University of Berlin. He came to believe that man himself had created the concepts he attributed
to divinity... (p. 29)
Eventually he subscribed almost militantly to a new humanism (p. 85). He believed that man
has entered a new age. His communion with devils led to a belief in pantheism. He believed that
death is the end of the soul, saying to his son that he was content to go out like a spark forever.
Breasted accepted Darwinian evolution and promoted an evolutionary theory of human history
in his influential textbook Ancient Times. It became a classic in its field and was translated in
China, Japan, Malay, Palestine, Syria, and Iraq (p. 231). Of his own evolutionary history, H.G.
Wells said he had stolen a lot from Breasted (p. 245). Breasteds book was even cited by
Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Trial. Darrows opponent, William Jennings Bryan, rightly
pilloried the book as a consummate example of the kind of iniquitous falsity which he insisted
was destroying American religious faith (p. 230).
Breasted said of himself, I am a proud fellow, proud as Lucifer, and my pride and my will, will
carry me through almost anything (p. 241).


Frederic Kenyon
Kenyon treated the Bible in a very naturalistic fashion, denying its divine inspiration and
preservation. He claimed that the Pentateuch was written by unknown authors and was not put
together in its present form until the time of Ezra or even later (Our Bible and the Ancient
Manuscripts, p. 32). He theorized that the author of the book of Acts was some unknown
companion of Paul who edited Lukes history by his own authority.
Edward Robinson
The son of a clergyman, Robinson came under the influence of Moses Stuart at Andover
Seminary. Stuart is called the father of modern biblical study in America, referring to the fact
that he introduced German critical scholarship to the U.S. Stuart had serious reservations
regarding the accepted doctrine of verbal inspiration (Shifting Sands).
William Albright
The The Albright School of archaeology is named after William Foxbright Albright.Though
reputed to have been very conservative, it was quite liberal when viewed from a Bible-believing
Albright was trained at Johns Hopkins University under Paul Haupt, who held the evolutionary
doctrine of the formation of the Old Testament. His view, known as pan-Babylonianism, held
that the authors of the Bible were influenced by paganism. Haupt was a follower of Julius
Wellhausen and held the documentary doctrine of the Pentateuch. He was a contributor to the
Polychrome Bible, which was color-coded to identify the alleged source documents that were
pieced together to form the first six books of the Bible.
Albright eventually rejected Wellhausens position on the almost complete non-historicity of the
Old Testament, but Albright also denied the divine inspiration of Scripture. His opposition to
Wellhausens work was not with the purpose of supporting the Bible as the Word of
God (Shifting Sands).
Albright claimed that the theory of verbal inspiration--sometimes miscalled a doctrine--has
been proved erroneous (The Archaeology of Palestine, 1954 edition, p. 128).
As soon as one gives up the infallible inspiration of Scripture, the battle has been lost. The
Scripture can be defended successfully only on the basis of what it claims to be and what Jesus
Christ and the apostles said it was: the infallible Word of God. Any other position is unbelief, and
without faith it is impossible to please God or to defeat the devil (Hebrews 11:6; Ephesians
6:16). Christ said the Word of God cannot be broken (John 10:35) and He defeated the devil by
the absolute authority of Scripture (Luke 4:4, 8, 12).


We must understand that those who defend a partially-inspired Bible are not the friends of truth.
Their writings should be used only with great caution.
Albright helped Bible believers in many ways through his research, but he also hurt them greatly
when he led the charge to re-date the conquest of Palestine by Israel.
Initially, both Garstang and Albright held to the early date of the conquest (1400 B.C.). However, during
excavations at Beitin, which he assumed was Bethel, Albright faltered and finally moved to a later date for the
conquest (c. 1250 B.C.; Albright, 1957, p. 13). ... Due to this evidence, and similar finds at other sites, coupled
with Albrights pervasive influence, the date of 1220-1230 B.C. for the conquest has prevailed since the
1950s (Garry Brantley, Digging for Answers, p. 52).

Eventually, Albright was influenced by neo-orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth, and his
wife converted to Roman Catholicism.
Archibald Sayce
Sayce, president of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, was considered to be conservative, but
he accepted the liberal documentary doctrine of the Pentateuch. He viewed archaeology, rather
than the Bible, as the final arbiter of truth. Thus, he rejected the use of Philistine in the book of
Genesis because archaeology did not support the presence of the Philistines at that time (Shifting
George Ernest Wright
Wright felt a call to the Presbyterian ministry and trained at McCormick Theological Seminary in
Chicago. He was subsequently ordained in the liberal United Presbyterian Church. After working
under William Albrights tutelage at the Bethel excavations in Israel, Wright studied archaeology
at Johns Hopkins. He completed his Ph.D. in 1937 and began teaching Old Testament at
McCormick in 1939.
Wright tried to form a synthesis between evangelicalism and modernism. He accepted the critical
documentary approach to the Old Testament, believing that Joshua was the work of a
Deuteronomic editor who used several preexisting sources (Shifting Sands). He did not believe
in the historicity of the man Joshua. He rejected the evolutionary approach to the development of
Israels religion, but he was willing to allow archaeology to overthrow the Bible. He said, We
must study the history of the Chosen people in exactly the same way as we do any other people,
running the risk of destroying the uniqueness of that history (Shifting Sands).
By the end of his life, Wright concluded that the problem of the Scriptures truth and validity
cannot be solved (Shifting Sands).
This is a brash and sad denial of the necessity of faith (Hebrews 11:6).


The students of Albright-Wright

Albright and Wrights influence on their own students was very negative.
They were nearly all ordained ministers, but they left the pulpit to focus on archaeology. They
also rejected faith in an infallible Bible for the shifting sand of theological liberalism. These
students felt the need to distance themselves from their mentors. The result was cataclysmic for
biblical archaeology (Shifting Sands).
William Dever was a prominent example of this new approach. He totally rejected the validity
of biblical archaeology, saying, ... we ought to stop talking about Biblical archaeology.
Paul Lapp was another one of Wrights students who rejected his teachers position. He stated
that history is ultimately a personal construction (Shifting Sands). This is a relativistic
approach to history that does not allow for an infallible divine revelation. Lapp drowned at age
Nelson Glueck
Glueck has been widely quoted as stating, It may be categorically stated that no archaeological
discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference, but he was not a Bible believer in the true
sense of the word. An ordained Jewish rabbi, Glueck accepted the existence of legend and
folklore in the Bible (Shifting Sands). He believed that the Bible contains saga, legend and
myth, fact and folklore (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31).
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman
Throughout the 20th century, skepticism increased dramatically within the field of archaeology.
Today the dominating minimalist movement is more liberal than ever in its approach to
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman represent the apex of Jewish archaeology today.
Finkelstein is the director of Tel Aviv Universitys excavations at Megiddo. Their book The Bible
Unearthed: Archaeologys New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts is a
vicious attack on the Bibles divine inspiration and historicity. The conclusion of this book is
that there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses
and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of
David and Solomon. In fact, the authors argue that it is impossible to say much of anything about
ancient Israel until the seventh century B.C., around the time of the reign of King
(Joshuas Altar, http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-ofjoshua.htm).


The Evangelicals
Most evangelical archaeologists cannot be trusted, either. Afflicted with the pride of
scholarship and not wanting to be thought of as Bible hicks in the eyes of the big names in the
field, who happen to be skeptics, even professing evangelicals have shied away from boldly
standing for the Bibles absolute incorruptible infallibility. The Bible warns that evil
communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33), and many evangelicals have been
negatively influenced through their training at the feet of modernists.
The evangelicals who have tried to hold on to a belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, have
often compromised with modernism by rejecting a six-day creation, holding to at least partly
naturalistic explanations for such things as the judgments on Egypt, the journey through the Red
Sea (capitulating to the Reed Lake theory), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (the
earthquake theory), and the universal Flood.
For example, Alfred Hoerth, who taught archaeology at Wheaton College for almost 30 years,
believes in the mythical evolutionary ages of development, such as the neolithic period, claiming
that man gradually developed the use of metal working (Archaeology and the Old Testament, pp.
36, 82), whereas the Bible plainly states that this was known by Adams immediate sons
(Genesis 4). Hoerth says that fossils and mastodons date to prehistoric times (p. 15). He allows
for a naturalistic explanation of the destruction of Sodom (p. 98), says the crossing of the Red
Sea was actually the crossing of the Reed Sea (p. 167), questions the number of Israelites in the
wilderness (p. 178), is neutral about the extent of the Flood (p. 189), and allows for billions of
geological years, considering it a non-issue (p. 199).
6. The importance of checking the skeptics
In light of the previous point, it is necessary to double check any claim that the Bible has been
debunked. The Bible believer must be very skeptical of the skeptics!
For example, Wikipedias article on Bryant Wood says, He is known for his 1990 proposed
redating of the destruction of Jericho to accord with the biblical chronology of c. 1400 B.C. The
proposal was later (1995) contradicted by new radiocarbon evidence, and Kathleen Kenyon's
dating of c. 1550 B.C. remains the date accepted in scholarly publications.
(In my experience, Wikipedia should never be trusted when it deals with people and topics
touching on the defense of the Bible.)
Actually, the radiocarbon evidence is inconclusive (which is typical) but it actually falls against
Kenyons dating and gives support for Woods position! See http://creationwiki.org/
Further, Wood gives several important reasons why Kenyons analysis should be rejected, none
of which are mentioned in the Wikipedia hit piece. Consider the following:

First, she only excavated one-third of the territory that her predecessor John Garstang had
excavated in the 1930s.
Second, she claimed that Cypriot bichrome pottery was absent from the site and that this was
evidence that Jericho had ceased to exist by 1400 B.C., but Garstang had published descriptions
of a considerable quantity of pottery decorated with red and black paint which appears to be
imported Cypriot bichrome ware, the type of pottery Kenyon was looking for and did not
find (Wood, 1990, 16[2]:52).
Third, she ignored evidence that she herself had unearthed that points to a 1400 B.C. destruction
of the city. This consisted of bowls, cooking pots, and small dipper juglets all of which were
characteristic of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1400 B.C.) (Garry Brantley, Digging for
Answers, p. 61).
Fourth, she ignored the amazing archaeological facts that confirm the Bibles account of the fall
of Jericho. The wall was fallen down in the manner described in the Bible. What she did find
was a large deposit of red bricks outside the revetment wall, which formed a sloping incline from
the top of this retaining structure to ground level. Both Kenyon and other archaeologists believe
these bricks were the remains of the walls surrounding the city (Brantley, p. 62). The walls fell
before the city was set afire. Large amounts of grain were still in the storage bins in the houses,
which confirms the Bibles account which says it was harvest time (Joshua 2:6) and is consistent
with Joshuas command not to take anything from the city (Joshua 6:17-18).
7. Archaeologys evolutionary myths
Archaeology is typically built upon the evolutionary assumption that man evolved from a stone
age to a bronze age to an iron age, each evolutionary ascent being accompanied by changes in
culture and religion. Typically the iron age is said to have begun in about 1200 B.C.
For example, Frederic Kenyon attributed the features of the Jordan Valley to vast terrestrial
movements two million years ago, and William Albright claimed that Homo sapiens evolved
artistic abilities sometime around 30,000 to 20,000 B.C.
As we have seen, even evangelicals commit this heresy. Consider the following statements by
Alfred Hoerth, former director of archaeology at Wheaton College, in a book published by the
evangelical Baker Books:
Fossils and mastodons date to prehistoric times. ... The term neolithic is used to designate a period beginning
with the domestication of plants and animals and ending with the introduction of metals ... The Neolithic
period was a time of profound change in human society as the focus changed from hunting and gathering to
domestication and farming. ... there were no metal tools in Neolithic times (Archaeology and the Old
Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998, pp. 15, 36, 38, 82).


Actually, there were no prehistoric times and no times when man did not use metal, including
complex alloy metals. This is a mythical concept. The Bible plainly states that Adams
immediate children knew how to domesticate plants and animals and work with brass and iron
(Gen. 4:20-22), and there is no solid evidence that disproves this.
In fact, there is archaeological evidence of iron instruments dating to more than 1,500 years
before the supposed iron and bronze age, but this evidence is typically ignored or downplayed in
favor of the evolutionary scheme.
At a site in Mesopotamia about fifty miles northeast of Baghdad, called Tell Asmar today, but known in ancient
times as Eshnuna, Henri Frankfort of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago found evidence of an
iron blade from the level of 2700 B.C. A small steel ax from Ur and other very early objects of iron have also
been found. The fact that a greater abundance of iron has not been found seems to indicate that it was not
widely used in early times, but another contributing factor may be that iron oxidizes more quickly and
completely than copper and, having disintegrated, would not be as readily detected in excavating. Numerous
archaeological discoveries give evidence of the use of copper during the period 4300-3000 (Joseph Free,
Archaeology and Bible History, p. 37).

8. Archaeological dating methods

The major supposed evidence that archaeologists use to discredit the Bible (other than the
argument from silence) is their dating system, which often is contrary to the biblical dates.
For the following important reasons we refuse to accept archaeological dates that contradict the
First, the Bible has demonstrated its accuracy in the face of the most vicious assaults, whereas
the skeptics have been proven wrong consistently.
Consider that in the 19th century, skeptics claimed that writing didnt exist in Moses day. They
doubted the existence of Ur of the Chaldees, of the advanced ancient city-states and religious
towers mentioned in Genesis 10-11, of complex legal codes in that era, of camels in Palestine in
the days of Abraham, of King David and King Solomon, of the Hittites and the Philistines, of
Sargon and Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, to name a few. They said that the book of Acts was
filled with historical inaccuracies.
In all of these cases and hundreds more, the skeptics were wrong and the Bible was right.
Second, the authority of the Bible is settled upon the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and His resurrection alone gives infallible witness to this
claim. The evidence for Christs resurrection is irrefutable, as we have shown in this book.
Consider just four of these evidences: First, there is the amazing candor of the Gospel
accounts. When someone invents a religion, he glorifies its leaders, but the four Gospels paint
the founders of Christianity as very weak (e.g., Peter denying Christ thrice; the disciples fleeing
and hiding; Thomas and others doubting Christ even after He appeared to them). Further, if men

had made up the accounts of Christs resurrection in the Gospels, they would not have said that
the women were the first to believe. In that day women had no authority in the eyes of society.
The account of the women believing first is not something that would have been written unless it
actually happened and unless the writers were committed to recording the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. This striking candor is powerful evidence that the Gospels are true,
unvarnished accounts. Second, the resurrected Christ was seen by hundreds of eye witnesses,
most of whom were still alive with Paul interviewed them a couple of decades later and wrote
about it in the first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:1-8). Third, the resurrection
dramatically changed Christs disciples. Before the resurrection they were fearful and in
hiding, whereas after they saw and touched Him they became bold and were willing to suffer and
die for their faith. Fourth, the enemies of Christ have never produced His body; the tomb
remains empty to this day. As George Hanson rightly says, The simple faith of the Christian
who believes in the resurrection is nothing compared to the credulity of the skeptic who will
accept the wildest and most improbable romances rather than admit the plain witness of
historical certainties. The difficulties of belief may be great; the absurdities of unbelief are
greater (The Resurrection and the Life).
Christ taught that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. He quoted from every part of the Old
Testament as the Word of God. Some of the Old Testament people and events that Christ referred
to are the creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam and Eve (Mat. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain and Abel (Mat.
23:35; Lk. 11:50-51), Noah and the flood (Mat. 24:37-39), Abraham (Jn. 8:39-40), the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Lk. 17:28-29), Lots wife turning to salt (Lk. 17:32),
Moses and the burning bush (Mk. 12:26), manna from Heaven (Jn. 6:31-32), the brazen serpent
in the wilderness (Jn. 3:14-15), Jonah and the whale (Mat. 12:39-41; Lk. 11:29-32), Nineveh
repenting at Jonahs preaching (Lk. 11:32), Solomon and the queen of Sheba (Lk. 11:31). Christ
often quoted from the book Isaiah and said the historical prophet Isaiah wrote it, not an unknown
group of men as the critics claim. In John 12:38-41, Jesus quoted from both major sections of
Isaiah and said both were written by the same prophet named Isaiah.
Of the authority of the Old Testament, Jesus said,
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled (Mat. 5:17-18).

In this passage Jesus taught that the Old Testament is perfect even to the very letters.
He further said that the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). He was saying that nothing
written in the Scripture can be set aside or ignored. It is authoritative to every detail; it is a chain
with no weak links.
On Christs authority alone we would trust the Bible and reject the skeptics.


Third, archaeological dates are uncertain by the admission of archaeologists themselves.

The renowned archaeologist Leonard Woolley, excavator of the ancient city of Ur, said:
Archaeological excavation provides us with a relative sequence ... but it does not of itself offer an absolute
chronology in years ... Even when written records provide information upon which such an absolute
SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C. (Ur of the Chaldees, revised by P.R.S. Moorey, p. 16).

In his biography of King Hammurabi of Babylon, Marc Van De Mieroop admits that the dates he
gives for Hammurabis reign (1792-1750 B.C.) are not certain and adds, The chronology of
early Mesopotamian history and how it relates to the Common Era is not fully clear...
Referring to the Hittite kingdom, we are told that the resources for determining dates are
inaccurate and unreliable and the reconstruction of the sequence of Hittite kings is still mostly
educated guesswork (Billie Jean Collins, The Hittites and Their World, p. 19). .
The Tartaria Tablet, which was discovered in Bulgaria in 1961, has been dated to 2,500 BC by
conventional methods such as pottery and to as old as 5,500 BC by radiocarbon methods. This is
a variance of 3,000 years!
We are told that modern scholars have competing theories as to the date of Abraham, ranging
from 2,200 to 1,000 BC (Fant and Reddish, Lost Treasures of the Bible, p. 33). That is a variation
of more than 1,000 years!
To accept such a fallible system as an authority equal to that of the Bible and to allow it to
overthrow the Bible would be the height of foolishness, in our estimation.
Fourth, archaeological dating methods are based on evolutionary assumptions.
When archaeologists investigate the site of an ancient town or city, they dig a trench and often
find layers of civilization built one on top of the other. They apply their evolutionary
assumptions to this and are convinced that they are looking at the advance of civilization from a
stone age.
Actually, while there are stone age people, there is no stone age. Men have lived in a wide
variety of manners since the days of Adam. Most of the North American Indians in the early 19th
century were stone age people who did not work with metal, but they lived alongside the
technologically advanced Americans.
Societies have lost and gained knowledge of technology throughout history. After the Flood,
Noahs sons moved in many directions and occupied various parts of the world, and while some
of them were highly advanced, such as those in Ur which we describe in these studies (e.g.,

highly literate, advanced metal working and agricultural techniques, far-flung shipping
enterprises, complex musical instruments, dazzling jewelry), others were content to live simple
pastoral or hunting lifestyles and some of these eventually lost the knowledge of such things as
metal working and writing.
Consider the fact that the royalty and wealthy among the Minoans on the island of Crete
(1700-1400 BC) had flushing toilets with wooden seats and an overhead reservoir, but this
technology was seemingly lost for a thousand years until re-developed in the 3rd century AD in
Archaeologists typically ignore evidence that doesnt fit their preconceived evolutionary
theories. Consider the history of writing. The evolutionary model has writing evolving from
crude pictures to complex alphabetic symbols, but consider the following facts from archaeology
itself. First, the writing that is considered the oldest in existence does not feature pictures but
rather a script. This is the Tartaria Tablet. Second, one of the oldest known writing systems,
Egyptian, used a pictograph script and a non-pictograph script at the same time from the very
beginning. Egyptian hieroglyphic (a pictograph script) and hieratic (an alphabetic script) can be
traced to the same general time in the third millennium BC. The hieratic did not arise from the
hieroglyphic; rather, they had two different purposes. The hieroglyphic was used, for the most
part, for permanent inscriptions on stone and rock, while the hieratic was written by pen and ink
on paper for everyday use.
Fifth, archaeological dating methods are based on inexact methodology.
Consider CERAMIC TYPOLOGY. Since the late 1800s, pottery has been viewed as one of
the most trusted means of dating ancient sites. This is called ceramic typology. In 1890,
Flinders Petrie observed that each layer at Tel Hesi contained its own unique type of pottery. The
method is based on the hypothesis that types of pottery changed with time and that the
prevalence of a certain type of pottery in a certain archaeological strata indicate a unique time
period. The method was further developed by William Albright in the 1920s and 1930s at Tel
Beit Mirsim in southern Palestine. His work remains the basis of all modern ceramic typology,
which is constantly being refined by continuing excavation (Hoerth and McRay, Bible
Archaeology, p. 15).
Ceramic typology presupposes that an archaeological investigator can distinguish between types
of ancient pottery so infallibly that he can tell when it was made and by whom, though living
thousands of years after the fact. I consider this to be nearly preposterous.
I understand that the pottery dating method has some benefit, but it must be recognized that it is
very inexact and leaves wide room for subjective interpretation.
Archaeologist John Laughlin lists two serious problems:


First, a standard pottery type might have had many variants.

Second, similar ceramic types might not date to the same era; some types may have survived
longer than others, and different manufacturing techniques and styles might have been
introduced at different times in different locales.
Alan Millard warns: [Pottery] cannot be very precise, for a fashion may last longer in one place
than in another, and some evidence may be missed (Treasures from Bible Times, p. 92).
The reason pottery is used so extensively as a dating method by archaeologists is not that it is
precise, but because it is the best method that they have that can be applied to most
archaeological sites.
Then there is the CARBON-14 dating method.
This is explained as follows:
There are two basic forms of carbon: one that occurs naturally, called carbon-12 (12C), and one
that forms from processes acting on nitrogen in the atmosphere, called carbon-14 (14C). Both of
these combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2), which we breathe out and plants take
in. When a cow eats grass, its body absorbs the carbon (both 12C and 14C) in the plant. When the
cow dies, it stops taking in carbon (for obvious reasons). The amount of 12C in the cows body
stays the same after death, but the amount of 14C changes because it returns to nitrogen. As time
goes on, the amount of 14C continues to decrease until nothing is left, which is supposedly about
50,000 years later. When a paleontologist finds a bone (or a piece of wood), she can measure the
amount of 14C and 12C it contains. Based on how much 14C is left, she can supposedly calculate
when the animal (or plant) died (Dating Methods, June 1, 2002, AnswersinGenesis.org).
Evolutionists call carbon-14 dating absolute and high precision. We are told that radiocarbon
dating is now established to a wonderful degree of accuracy of plus or minus 163 years out to
26,000 years:
The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the
calibration curve do not contribute more than 16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late
prehistoric periods (06,000 yrs BP) and no more than 163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve,
although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above (Radiocarbon Dating, Wikipedia, citing
INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, Radiocarbon 46 (3): 10291058).

For the following reasons we know that this statement is bogus; C-14 dating is not absolute.
First, radiometric dating is based on unproven evolutionary assumptions.
Chiefly, it assumes that the earth is millions of years old and that the rate of radiocarbon decay
has remained relatively steady. Further, it is based on the assumption that there was not a global


flood that could have dramatically changed the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the
rate of decay.
Remove the evolutionary assumptions, and the high precision vanishes. Consider the example
of a burning candle in an abandoned house.
Many scientists claim to have nearly infallible methods for determining the age of the earth and its various
formations. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption
of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point
to the present. Consider a burning candle in an abandoned house. It is now burning at the rate of one inch an
hour. Question: How long has it been burning and, thus, how long ago was the house abandoned? Answer:
No one can know until it can be shown how high the candle was when it was last lit and how fast it was
burning originally! Question: How old is the earth? Answer: No one can know unless it can be shown what it
was like when it began and how rapidly it has changed since then! (John Whitcomb, The World That

In fact, scientists now know that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has not been constant
even in modern times.
The level is affected by variations in the cosmic ray intensity, which is, in turn, affected by variations in the
Earth's magnetosphere. In addition, there are substantial reservoirs of carbon in organic matter, the ocean,
ocean sediments, and sedimentary rocks. Changes in the Earth's climate can affect the carbon flows between
these reservoirs and the atmosphere, leading to changes in the atmosphere's C-14 fraction (Radiocarbon
Dating, Wikipedia).

Since this is known to be true, it is obvious that something as catastrophic as a global flood as
described in Scripture--with the release of massive amounts of water from the heavens and from
underground fountains on a global scale, the spewing of countless volcanoes, and the covering of
the entire earth with water--would doubtless have affected the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere
in a very dramatic way and could also have affected the rate of radiometric decay. Further, the
conditions that existed prior to the flood would be dramatically different than those that have
existed since then.
But the possibility of a global flood with its implications is totally ignored by radioisotope dating
scientists in spite of the evidence that exists throughout the earth.
C-14 scientists learned early on that their dates were not trustworthy unless they were
calibrated against known historical conditions. Typically, radiocarbon tests are calibrated
against tree-ring samples.
Radiocarbon years differ from calendar years because the former are dependent on the varying content of
carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Therefore a complex procedure known as calibration has been developed,
which converts radiocarbon test results to calendar years by relating these results to dendrochronologically
dated tree-ring samples. The calibration curve is revised periodically as more data are continuously
accumulated. But the absolute date after calibration depends on which calibration formula is used. The results,
depending on the calibration, can be quite different (Radiocarbon Dating, Wikipedia).

They count the rings of an ancient tree and then test the amount of carbon in the tree with
carbon-14 dating equipment. If the rings say that the tree was 2,000 years old, the carbon-14 test
is calibrated to return that age, because the rings are the more exact method of measuring years.

But it is known that tree rings themselves are not a foolproof way to measure time, since tree
rings are not necessarily formed every year and more than one ring can be formed in a year.
Trees would appear too old if they grew more than one ring per year. Most dendrochronologists, drawing on
an influential study by LaMarche and Harlan (1973), believe that bristlecone pines do indeed add only one ring
per year. Yet not all scientists accept this study. According to Harold Gladwin (1978), the growth patterns of the
bristlecone trees are too erratic for dating. Lammerts (1983) found extra rings after studying the development
of bristlecone saplings. He suggested that the existing chronology should be compressed from 7,100 to 5,600
years (Trevor Major, Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating, ApologeticsPress.org).

Further, such calibration can only be done based on known historic conditions which go back
only a few thousand years.
Since it has been proven that C-14 testing is inaccurate unless it is calibrated, it is obvious that
we enter fairly land when the tests are used to date objects beyond verifiable environmental
Second, carbon-14 dating of objects is imprecise, often grossly so.
For example, a bundle of hair extensions and a linen wrapper, found in an Egyptian tomb and on
display at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, was dated by the carbon-14 method to circa 2114-1502
B.C.E., according to the museums own information plaque. That is a variance of more than half
a millennium!
Third, it is a well-known fact that scientists routinely disregard OUTLIERS.
These are dates that are returned from radiocarbon tests but that lie outside the boundary of those
that the scientists consider valid because they do not match the majority of dated samples from
the site in question (Lily Singer-Avitz, Archaeological Views: Carbon 14, Biblical
Archaeological Review, May/Jun 2009). In other words, scientists routinely disregard (and fail to
report) dates that they determine to be inaccurate, even though the radioisotope tests provide
those very dates. In fact, half of the dates are rejected (R.E. Lee, Radiocarbon, Ages in Error,
Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9).
Fourth, radioisotope dating is often dramatically wrong when it can be tested.
For example, rock paintings in the South African bush in 1991 were dated by Oxford
Universitys radiocarbon accelerator as being 1,200 years old, which was significant because it
would have been the oldest bushman paintings found in the open country. But it turned out that
they were painted by Joan Ahrens art class in Capetown a few years earlier and deposited in the
bush by thieves. After describing this humorous episode, Richard Milton comments, The
significance of incidents such as this is that mistakes can only be discovered in those rare cases
where chance grants us some external method of checking the dating technique. Where no such


external verification exists, we have simply to accept the verdict of carbon dating (Shattering
the Myths of Darwinism, p. 34).
Other radioisotope dating methods are equally flawed, with numerous examples of gross
contradictions between the dates obtained by these methods and the externally verified dates.
The following is an example of erroneous dates obtained by the Potassium-Argon Radiometric
dating method.
Rocks formed between 1949 and 1975 by the Mount Ngauruhoe volcano in New Zealand, which
are therefore no more than 60 years old, were radiometric dated at between 270,000 and 3.5
million years old (A. A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon Ages for Recent
Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Creationism, edited by E. Walsh, 1998, pp. 503-525).
It is obvious that we are not talking about solid science here, such as the measure of the
temperature of the air or the volume of a container or the speed of an automobile in a mile.
Compared to these scientific absolutes, that have been repeatedly tested and confirmed,
radioisotope dating is evolutionary mumbo jumbo!
Fifth, C-14 dating has actually disproven evolutionary dates.
Since C-14 has a half-life of approximately 5,700 years, at about 50,000 years there should be
basically no C-14 left in a sample. The progression goes like this:
At 5,700 years, half of the C-14 is gone.
At 11,400 years, half of the remaining half is gone, leaving 1/4.
At 17,100 years, half of the remaining 1/4 is gone, leaving 1/8.
At 22,800 years, half of the remaining 1/8 is gone, leaving 1/16.
At 28,500 years, half of the remaining 1/16 is gone, leaving 1/32.
At 34,200 years, half of the remaining 1/32 is gone, leaving 1/64.
At 39,900 years, half of the remaining 1/64 is gone, leaving 1/128.
At 45,600 years, half of the 1/128 is gone, leaving 1/256.
At 51,300, half of the 1/256 is gone, leaving 1/512, which is essentially nothing.
The amount of C-14 remaining at roughly 50,000 years, 1/512, is almost nothing since the
amount of C-14 in a living plant or animal is incredibly minute to start with. At best, only one
trillionth of .04% of the gas molecules in the atmosphere contain carbon 14! This is because
carbon, mainly in the form of carbon dioxide, makes up 0.039 % of all the gas molecules in the
atmosphere (this figure fluctuates), and only one trillionth of that carbon is in the form of C-14.
Therefore, there should be no detectable C-14 remaining in a plant or animal after 50,000 years,
but coal deposits have been tested to that age and younger. The coal deposits are composed of


dead vegetative matter and are dated to millions of years old by evolutionists, but when tested by
radiometric methods they are found to contain detectable levels of C-14, proving that they are
less than 50,000 years old rather than millions!
This was demonstrated by the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth), which
was conducted by a team of eight Ph.D. scientists between 1997 and 2005.
The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The
scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The
results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. Samples were taken
from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic
column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). ... The coal samples, which dated millions to //hundreds of
millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C
[carbon-14]. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from
other sources. Samples in all three time periods displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant
discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after
about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was
approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio reduces that age to about
5,000 years (Ken Ham, The New Answers Book 1, pp. 85, 86).

The details of the RATE research was published in two books: Radioisotopes and the Age of the
Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (2000) and Results of a Young-Earth
Creationist Research Initiative (2005).
Sixth, the science of radiometric dating has been in a flux since its invention in 1949. Even the
original half-life of carbon-14 was proven wrong by nearly 200 years. Willard F. Libby, who
received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960, said the half life was 5,568 years, but that is now
believed to be 5,730 years. New facts have been discovered about carbon-14 itself, about how
much C-14 is in the atmosphere today and in the past, how much C-14 is contained in vegetative
matter, etc. For this reason, radiometric calibration methods have been in a constant flux for six
This reminds us of a university student who was running across campus one day with a textbook
under his arm. Stopped by a friend who asked, Why are you in such a hurry? the student
replied, I just bought the newest physics book, and I am rushing to class before it is outdated.
To allow a science this grossly inexact and uncertain to overthrow the Bible is the height of
folly in light of the sobering eternal consequences of the matter and in light of the powerful
evidences for the divine inspiration of Scripture.
In conclusion to the issue of C-14 dating, the individual does not need to be a physicist to
understand the essential failing of this method. He or she needs to know only the following facts
which no scientist can refute:
Fact # 1 - Scientists early on discovered that C-14 testing had to be calibrated by known
historical realities (such as tree rings). They also discovered that conditions affecting the amount


of C-14 in the atmosphere have been changing even in modern times, so the original assumption
that the amount of C-14 has been constant was wrong.
Fact # 2 - C-14 testing that returns dates older than known historical realities and known
atmospheric conditions cannot be objective because it is based on untestable presuppositions.
Unless one knows the exact atmospheric conditions at the time of the death of the plant or animal
and unless one knows the exact rate of radiometric decay since then, the test is nothing more than
a guess. This is particularly true since C-14 testing assumes there was no global flood as
described in Genesis which could have produced dramatically different conditions than those
which can be examined from the past few thousand years.
This can be illustrated by the aforementioned burning candle. If you find a burning candle in a
room, how would you figure out when it was lit? You could measure the current rate at which the
candle is burning down, but unless you know exactly how long the candle was when lighted and
whether or not it has been burning at a steady rate, it is impossible to know for sure when it was
Without these essential pieces of information, you can only guess, and guesses are not scientific
9. Skeptical misinterpretation of the Bible
Though liberals and skeptics refer to the Bible and pretend to disprove it, it is typical for them to
grossly misinterpret it. Being predisposed to skepticism, they see errors where none exist. Garry
Brantley gives two examples of this:
The meager appreciation for the historical thrust of these books has led to an imprecise reading of their
information. The prevailing perception among critical scholars, for example, is that Joshua and Judges present
conflicting pictures of the conquest, which further heightens skepticism regarding their historical credibility.
Allegedly, Joshua presents a largely successful military penetration into Canaan, whereas Judges indicates
that it was a much more protracted and complex affair. Critical scholars argue that, due to these apparent
conflicts between the accounts, Joshua and Judges mutually undermine each others historical credibility. ...
However, once the purposes of both Joshua and Judges are understood, and when the totality of biblical
information regarding the conquest is considered, these objections to the historicity of the conquest as
presented in the Bible largely are answered (Brantley, Digging for Answers, pp. 56, 57).
Scholars generally assume that the Bible presents a violent, military conquest of Canaan involving
widespread destruction. Yet the archaeological evidence does not paint such a picture. ... Yes, the Bible
indicates that, in certain instances, there was total destruction of a city, including all its inhabitants. But it also
records that, in general, the total destruction of property was relatively limited. ... Joshua explicitly mentions
property destruction in only three cases: Jericho (Joshua 6:34); Ai (Joshua 8:28; 10:1); and Hazor (Joshua
11:12-14). ... Immediately following this report, however, an important qualification is added: But as for the
cities that stood on the mounds, Israel burned none of them, except Hazor only, which Joshua
burned (Joshua 11:13) (Brantley, pp. 58, 59).

10. The non-evidence of silence

As we will see in these studies, archaeologists have often tried to discredit the Bible on the basis
of silence from extra-biblical sources. This was a prominent method used by liberals in the 19th

century. Since, for example, they had no extra-biblical evidence of writing dating to earlier than
about 1000 B.C., they claimed that the biblical account of writing in ancient times was wrong,
and since there was no extra-biblical evidence for camels in Palestine in Abrahams day, the
Bible must be wrong, and since there was no extra-biblical evidence for the Hittites or Ur or the
Philistines or King David, etc., they must not have existed.
It should be obvious by now that silence from extra-biblical sources is not evidence against the
Bible. In all of these cases, archaeology has subsequently provided extra-biblical evidence and
the argument from silence was proven to be bogus.
The problem is that silence is still used to discredit the Bible. One must give liberals credit for
persistency! Like one positive-minded woman once said when challenged as to what good thing
could be said for the devil, Hes always on the job.
11. Supportive background evidence
Even when there is no direct archaeological evidence for biblical events, there is supportive
background evidence.
Though there is no direct archaeological record of such things as Joseph in Egypt or Abraham in
Canaan, the biblical account fits everything archaeologists have learned about those eras.
The following statement about the times of Joseph could be said about every other era described
in Scripture:
The chapters relating to the life of Joseph in Egypt, from his servitude in Potiphars house, through his rise as
a non-Egyptian to high office, to the embalming and mourning for Jacob and then for Joseph himself, faithfully
mirror what is known of the culture of that country (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 79).

This is powerful evidence for the authority of the Bible, because it proves that the writers knew
exactly what they were talking about and that they lived in direct connection with the events
about which they were writing. If they were inventing things or writing long after the events, this
would be evident by the lack of accuracy in the details.
1. Before the explosion of modern archaeology Johann Gottfried von Herder described the
evidence for ancient civilizations as a few _________ leaves which contain stories about
stories, ____________ of history...
2. What are two benefits of archaeology for the Christian?
3. Why is the Bibles theological message authenticated when its history is authenticated?
4. Simon Greenleaf said, Christianity does not profess to convince the _________ and


5. In what book and chapter of the Bible does Jesus say that if men will not believe the Scripture
they will not believe even if someone rose from the dead?
6. What are three limitations of archaeology?
7. Most ancient documents perished because they were written on material such as ___________
and ________________.
8. Why did the Dead Sea Scrolls survive?
9. Why is it unreasonable for archaeologists to refuse to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt?
10. What Psalm describes the world in open rebellion against God and Christ?
11. James Breasted subscribed to a _____ ______________.
12. Where did Jesus say the Word of God cannot be broken?
13. How did Christ defeat the devil?
14. How did William Albright hurt the cause of Bible believers?
15. Was Nelson Glueck a Bible-believing Christian?
16. What verse warns that evil communications corrupts good manners?
17. Where does the Bible say that Adams first children knew how to work with metal?
18. The Bible believer must be very _______________ of the skeptic.
19. Where does the Bible teach that man advanced gradually from the stone age?
20. Where does the Bible describe prehistoric times?
21. What supportive background evidence has archaeology found for the times of Joseph?


Important Old Testament Dates

The following dates are mostly based on the work of the brilliant biblical scholar James Ussher
(1581-1656), author of The Annals of the World. He used the genealogies in the Hebrew Bible
instead of the corrupt Greek Septuagint, as well as the best extra-biblical sources available. His
dating system has appeared in annotated editions of the King James Bible since about 1700 and
was widely accepted until theistic evolutionists and other long-age theorists compromised Bible
history in a vain attempt to reconcile it with evolutionary science.
These dates may not be exact in every case, but they are doubtless very nearly correct, because
the Bible provides explicit chronological information.
There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providing
information on the age of the Earth and humanity. But the numerous chronological tables permeating the Bible
prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about giving man exact
chronological data and, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledge of the period back to
Abraham, plus two tableswith agesfrom Abraham to Adam. The ancient Jewish historians (1 Chronicles
1:1-27) and the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understood the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 as literal
and consecutive. The Bible explains quite explicitly that God created the Sun and Moon to be timekeepers
(Genesis 1:16) for Adam and his descendants (notice how Noah logged the beginning and the ending of the
Flood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11; 9:14) (Bert Thompson, The Bible and the Age of the Earth,
August 1999, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/85).


Adams death
The Flood
Nimrods birth
The Tower of Babel
Abrahams birth
Noahs death
Abraham departs Ur
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
The Exodus
Israel enters Canaan
Saul anointed king
David takes throne
Kingdom divided
Solomons Temple built
Northern kingdom destroyed by Assyria
Lachish destroyed by Assyria
Ninevehs destruction by Babylon
First Temple destroyed by Babylon
Second Temple built


Archaeological Treasures Confirming the

This report is a survey of important artifacts confirming the Bible that are found in prominent
museums and archaeological sites. In the context of this research we have visited the British
Museum, the Louvre in Paris, the Oriental Institute in Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania
Museum, the Bible Museum in Brussels, the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, and many
museums and sites in Rome, Israel, Turkey, and Greece.
Archaeology has confirmed the Bibles historical accuracy to an amazing degree, in spite of the
fact that most archaeologists have been infected with end-times skepticism to various degrees.
Joseph Free testifies,
I do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong (Archaeology and Bible History, p. 114).

Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck agreed, even though he was not a Christian,
... it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.
Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical
statements in the Bible (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31).

While it is true that historical evidence does not absolutely prove the theological message of
Scripture, the Bible itself leads us to expect historical evidence. The Bible claims to be founded
upon infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). Therefore, history and theology are friends. Every historical
evidence for the Bible should strengthen our faith in its teaching.
It is true that archaeology cannot prove that Jesus was born of a virgin or that He rose bodily
from the dead, but it can demonstrate that the Bibles history is accurate and can thus give us
confidence that everything else the Bible says is true.
The Bible is like a very old friend with vast knowledge and experience whose statements have
stood the test of repeated and strenuous attempts at discreditation. We thus have every reason to
believe whatever he tells us.

A PowerPoint presentation of this material on Ancient Writing is included in the Unshakeable
Faith apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the
beginning of the course for tips on using this material.


In the 19th century it was believed by theological modernists that writing was not sufficiently
developed by Moses day for him to have written the early books of the Bible. Writing for
literary purposes supposedly was not invented until the classical period of Greek history in about
1000 B.C. This view originated with Andrew Wolf and first appeared in 1795 in his Prolegomena
to Homer. H. Schultz is an example of the 19th-century skeptics who were promoting Wolfs
doctrine. In Old Testament Theology (Vol. 1, p. 25) Schultz wrote: The time, of which the preMosaic narrations treat, is a sufficient proof of their legendary character. It was a time prior to all
knowledge of writing. Infidels such as Robert Ingersolls used this argument against the Bible.
Archaeologists now know that writing was developed around 3150 B.C., at the latest. In Origins
of the Alphabets, Joseph Naveh says, Inscribed artifacts from archaeological excavations show
that man had a knowledge of writing as early as the late 4th millennium B.C. (p. 6).
There is vast evidence for this at the British Museum, the Gutenberg Museum in Germany, the
Louvre in Paris, and the Oriental Institute in Chicago, among other places.
3150 B.C. was more than 1,500 years before Moses and in fact carries us back to the lifetime of
Adam by biblical chronology. Adam died in about 3075 B.C., and Noahs Flood was about 2500
Since the late 19th century, archaeology has discovered that the ancient kingdoms in the lands of
the Bible--Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia--were literate societies full of schools and libraries
and international correspondence. Writing in 1904, A.H. Sayce could say:
The Babylonia of the age of Abraham was a more highly educated country than the England of George III. ...
The Mosaic age, instead of being an illiterate one, was an age of high literary activity and education
throughout the civilized East. ... From one end of the civilized ancient world to the other men and women were
reading and writing and corresponding with one another; schools abounded and great libraries were formed,
in an age which the critic only a few years ago dogmatically declared was almost wholly illiterate. ... The
civilized world was a world of books, and a knowledge of writing extended even to the classes of the
population who were engaged in manual labour (Monument Facts and Higher Critical Fancies, 1904, pp. 35,
40, 42, 43).

Ancient libraries have been unearthed at Ugarit, Mari, Ur, Ebla, Nippur, Nineveh, and elsewhere.
Tens of thousands of ancient documents dating to Abrahams age and earlier prove the existence
of a highly literate civilization. Extensive government and business records were kept and
international correspondence was conducted in multiple languages.
The ancient books include royal inscriptions, historical chronicles, mythological and religious
texts, legal contracts, royal grants, letters, and decrees, administrative documents, textbooks,
mathematical tables, farmers almanacs, architectural drawings, and construction methods.
Sumerian dates to the 4th millennium B.C., which takes us back to the earliest days of man by
the Bibles reckoning.


Egyptian in hieroglyphic and hieratic dates to about 3200 B.C.

Akkadian dates to about 2500 B.C. and was a Semitic language akin to Hebrew. It was used in
the Babylonian and Assyrian empires. More than 40,000 tablet fragments in Akkadian were
recovered from the ancient city of Nippur alone.
Hurrian dates to about 2300 B.C. and was spoken in northern Mesopotamia in the Mitanni and
Hittite empires.
Eblaite, another Semitic language, dates to the third millennium B.C. It was the chief language of
the city state of Ebla. 17,000 tablets were excavated from there in the 1970s.
Hittite dates to about 2000 B.C. and was the chief language of the Hittite kingdom.
Ugaritic dates to about 1400 B.C. A library was unearthed at the ancient city of Ugarit in the
The keys to unlocking the ancient languages
Prior to the 19th century archaeologists and historians could not read the most ancient languages.
The Egyptian language was written in hieroglyphic, which used word pictures and symbols, and
in hieratic which was sort of a cursive form of hieroglyphic.
The Mesopotamian languages were written in cuneiform, which was a wedge-shaped script.
Hieroglyphic and cuneiform were not languages; they were types of script in which ancient
languages were written.
The Rosetta Stone: Unlocking Egyptian
The discovery of the Rosetta Stone in the late 18th century and its translation in the early 19th
was the key to unlocking Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. The stone was inscribed in the second
century B.C. with a decree by King Ptolemy V of Egypt. Since it was written in three languages
--hieroglyphic, demotic (a cursive form of hieroglyphic), and Greek -- it allowed linguists to
decipher the unknown hieroglyphic by means of the known Greek.
The 4x2-foot stone, weighing 1,600 pounds, was found in the Nile Delta by French army officer
P.F. Bouchard in 1799 while Napoleon Bonaparte was in control of Egypt. It got its name from
the town in which it was found. Napoleons expeditionary force numbering 40,000 included
many of Frances best scientists.
In 1801 the British routed the French, confiscated the Rosetta Stone, and shipped it to the British
Museum, where it has been on display ever since.

The hieroglyphic language was deciphered by Jean-Francois Champollion in 1822. He

discovered that the hieroglyphic signs were not merely individual symbols, but had phonetic
value forming a readable language (Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 56).
The Rock of Behistun: Unlocking Babylonian
The key to unlocking ancient the cuneiform script in which ancient Babylonian (Akkadian) and
Hittite and other Mesopotamian languages were written was Behistun Relief.
The relief was carved on a 400-foot-high rock face by the Medo-Persian king Darius, and the
same statement was written in three languages. It was visible from Ecbatana, Dariuss
headquarters, and is located about 200 miles northeast of Babylon. It was on one of Persians
famous international highways.
It has been called the Rosetta Stone of the East. (It is located in modern-day Iraq.)
The Relief features a life-sized image of Darius with upraised hand. The Persian king is standing
with one foot on an enemy. Ten captives face him while two men stand behind him, one of these
probably being Darius son Xerxes who married Esther.
The writing is chiseled into polished stone above and below the figures. It contains an account of
Darius rise to power.
The inscription is written in Old Persian, Elamite (or Susian, named after Susa, the capital of
ancient Elam), and Babylonian (Akkadian).
Some men had suspicioned that the Relief was written by Darius. In fact, George Frederick
Grotesfend managed to pick out Darius, powerful king, son of Hystaspes, and Xerxes,
powerful king, king of kings, son of Darius from one line of text.
But it was left for Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (1810-95) , a calvary officer in the British army,
to do the hard physical labor that led to the unlocking of the ancient cuneiform languages.
Rawlinson was a highly skilled horseman. While posted in India, he role 750 miles in 150 hours
to warn the officer in charge of an isolated outpost of the presence of a Russian agent.
Rawlinsons ride was the stuff of legend. For years, British sporting magazines called his epic
gallop the ride of the century (Brian Fagan, Archaeologists: Explorers of the Human Past).
In 1835 Rawlinson was posted to Persia and explored ancient sites. After visiting Behistun he
determined to decipher the cuneiform script.


Working at great physical risk, Rawlinson spent 12 years copying the inscription between
1835-47. The inscription was carved on a cliff face. There was only a narrow ledge below the
inscription upon which Rawlinson could stand and place his ladder. Below that was 400 feet of
jagged rocks.
The task of copying would have daunted even an expert mountaineer. Rawlinson scrambled all over the rock
face during the next 12 years. Once he almost plunged to his death when the ladder he was using to span a
chasm collapsed. When only the most inaccessible lines of the inscription remained, he employed Kurdish
climbers, among them a nimble boy with nerves of steel who copies the last few words by hanging on with his
toes and fingers (Fagan, Archaeologists: Explorers of the Human Past).
Rawlinson repeatedly scaled the sheer cliff of Behistun to copy the inscriptions. His normal precarious
posture while copying the cuneiform text was to poise himself on the top rung of a ladder with no support other
than one arm on the rock face! On one occasion the rope ladder he was using broke and left him hanging
from a narrow ledge until he was rescued (Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 59).

Elamite, the second line of text, was worked out between 1838-51 by Edmund Norris.
Thanks to the proper names, he managed to read the text of the second column of the Behistun inscription,
which was in a completely unknown language. It is now called Elamite... (Dominique Charpin, Reading and
Writing in Babylon, p. 5).

The third line, the Akkadian, was the most difficult, being composed of several hundred signs. It
was finally worked out by Rawlinson, Edward Hincks, William Henry Fox Talbot, Jules Oppert,
and others.
Ultimately, they came to understand that it combined phonetic signs notating syllables with others that
notated words (called logograms). The language so written was called Assyrian, since it belonged to the
emperors whose capitals in the northern part of present-day Iraq, in Nineveh, Nimrud (the ancient Kalhu), and
Khorsabad (Dur Sharrukin) had just been discovered. It constitutes the eartern branch of the Semitic
languages, and that affiliation allowed for very rapid progress in deciphering Assyrian, thanks to its kinship to
Hebrew and Arabic (Dominique Charpin, Reading and Writing in Babylon, p. 5)

When the ancient Babylonian language was deciphered, it opened up the records of the entire
ancient Mesopotamian world (biblical Shinar) to historians. Rawlinson worked with Henry
Layard to read ancient Assyrian records in Nineveh and Nimrud (Calah). When Layard
discovered the library of Assurbanipal in 1850, Rawlinson was the first person who could read
the tablets in more than 2,500 years.
Following his retirement, Rawlinson spent much time in the Department of Oriental Antiquities
at the British Museum and published The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, a compendium
of copies of cuneiform tablets.
The unlocking occurred just as an explosion of archaeological discoveries across that region
provided a wealth of ancient documents for scholars to read.


In the 19th century, theological liberals claimed that Moses could not have written the elaborate
legal code that bears his name because such laws were unknown in the ancient world until the
time of the Israelite kings.
Of course, we know that Moses did not create the law found in the Bible, because it was given to
him by divine revelation, but even from a naturalistic standpoint the liberals were proven wrong
when the Code of Hammurabi (also spelled Khammu-rabi or Amraphel) was discovered in the
Persian palace at Susa during excavations in 1901-1902.
M. de Morgan excavated the block of polished black marble covered with cuneiform writing.
The Code of Hammurabi stands about 7 feet 5 inches high. The original monument resides in the
Louvre in Paris, but there are excellent copies in the Oriental Institute in Chicago and elsewhere.
At the top of the block is a depiction of King Hammurabi of Babylon receiving the laws from the
sun god Shamash, who is seated on a throne. Hammurabi raises his right arm in a posture of
worship, while Shamash holds a ruler and a rope symbolizing equity and justice.
The introduction to the code describes how that Hammurabi promoted and supported the gods of
the various cities under his rule, such as Marduk in Babylon.
It is a lengthy code of law dating to about 300 years before Moses. It is now known that these
laws were disseminated throughout Western Asia wherever Babylon held power.
For the Bible believer, the existence of a legal code before Moses is interesting but largely
irrelevant, because we know that his law was not based on any human code. It was divinely
revealed by God on Mt. Sinai.
There are many significant differences between Hammurabis law and Gods. For one,
Hammurabis laws are not perfectly just and equal. For example, penalties differ according to the
social standing of the victim and the perpetrator. In contrast, Gods law says:
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the
person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour (Leviticus 19:15).
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be
afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's (Deuteronomy 1:17).

The Code of Hammurabi is evidence that God put His moral law into mans heart and
conscience, and that it has become corrupted with mans fall.



1. According to skeptics in the 19th century, writing was not invented until about 1000 B.C., but
this has been entirely debunked by archaeology.
2. Archaeologists now know that writing was developed around 3150 B.C., at the latest. This is
more than 1,500 years before Moses. Archaeology has proven that the ancient kingdoms in Bible
lands were highly literate.
3. Ancient languages include Sumarian, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Hittite.
4. The key to unlocking Egyptian hieroglyphic was the Rosetta Stone, which was discovered in
1799 by a French army officer. It was inscribed in three languages--hieroglyphic, demotic, and
Greek--and the Greek was used to decipher the unknown hieroglyphic.
5. The key to unlocking Babylonian cuneiform was the Rock of Behistun, which was transcribed
by Henry Rawlinson in the 19th century. It was inscribed in Old Persian, Babylonian, and
Elamite, and the Old Persian was used to decipher Babylonian.
6. The discovery of Hammurabis Law debunked the skeptics who claimed that complex laws
were not known in the days of Moses. Hammurabi was the king of Babylon, and his law dates to
about 300 years before Moses.
1. What is the date of the Flood?
2. What is the date when Abraham departed Ur?
3. What is the date of the Exodus?
4. What is the date when Israels kingdom was divided?
5. What is the date when the First Temple was destroyed?
6. Why did modernists in the 19th century say that Moses could not have written the early books
of the Bible in about 1500 B.C.?
7. Archaeologists today believe that writing was developed in about when?
8. Since the late 19th century, archaeology has discovered that the ancient kingdoms in the lands
of the Bible were ____________ societies full of __________ and ____________ and
international _____________________.
9. Egyptian dates to about when?
10. What were two great keys that led to the unlocking of ancient languages?
11. What was cuneiform?
12. What was hieroglyphic?
13. Where was the Rosetta Stone found?
14. What three languages does it contain?

15. What was its significance?

16. Where does the Rosetta Stone reside today?
17. Where was the Behistun Relief found?
18. The Behistun Relief contains an account of what king?
19. Who transcribed the Behistun Relief?
20. What is the significance of the Code of Hammurabi?
21. Where was the Code of Hammurabi first found?
22. Who was Hammurabi?
23. When was the Code of Hammurabi written in connection with Moses?
24. Why is the Code of Hammurabi irrelevant for the Bible believer?

A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Ur is included in the Unshakeable Faith
apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the beginning
of the course for tips on using this material.
Skeptics claimed that Ur, the birthplace of Abraham, was a Bible myth, but the ancient city was
unearthed in the 1920s and 1930s under the direction of Charles Leonard Woolley. The amazing
artifacts that have been recovered are housed in the British Museum and the University of
Pennsylvania archaeology museum and elsewhere.
The excavations at Ur provide a wonderful glimpse into the civilization that spread across that
part of the world after the Flood and reveal the glories of the kingdoms established by Nimrod
and his fellow kings and successors (Genesis 10:1-12; 11:1-4).
We can better understand the world in which Abraham grew up and from which God called him
in about 1920 B.C.
We also see the type of pagan gods that Abrahams father Terah worshiped (Joshua 24:2).
Urs Technologically Advanced and Wealthy Civilization
Ur was a great city of perhaps a quarter of a million people, perhaps twice that.
The following is a description of the city from about 2500 B.C. to the time of Abraham:
It was an urban civilization of a highly evolved type; its artists, capable at times of a very vivid realism ...
followed for the most part standards and conventions whose excellence had been approved by many
generations working before them; its craftsmen in metal possessed a knowledge of metallurgy and a technical
skill which few ancient peoples have ever rivaled and which it must have taken long years to perfect; its
merchants carried a far-flung trade, its agriculture prospered, its armed forces were well organized, and men
practised freely the art of writing. ...


Ur was a trading and manufacturing centre and its business extended far afield ... Raw materials were
imported, sometimes from overseas, to be worked up in the Ur factories; the bill of lading of a merchant ship
which came up the canal from the Gulf to discharge its cargo on the wharves of Ur details gold, copper ore,
hard woods, ivory, pearls, and precious stones (Ur of the Chaldees, pp. 103, 213).
Broad fields of corn and barley swayed here. Market gardens, groves of date-palms and fig tees stretched as
far as the eye could see. These specious estates could cheerfully bear comparison with Canadian wheat
farms or the market gardens and fruit farms of California. The lush green fields and beds were interlaced by a
system of dead straight canals and ditches, a masterpiece of irrigation. ...
Many goods were manufactured in factories owned by the temple, for example in the spinning-mills which the
priests managed. One workshop produced twelve different kinds of fashionable clothing. Tablets found in this
place gave the names of the mill-girls and their quota of rations. Even the weight of the wool given to each
worker and the number of garments made from it were meticulously recorded.
In one of the legal buildings they found copies of the sentences carefully stacked exactly as they are in the
administrative offices of modern law courts. ...
Ur of the Chaldees was a powerful, prosperous colourful and busy capital city in the beginning of the second
millennium B.C. (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 8, 16-19).

The homes in Ur were impressive. The following is likely the type of house in which Abraham
grew up:
An average dwelling measured forty by fifty-two feet. The lower walls were built of burned brick, the upper of
mud brick, and the whole wall was usually plastered and whitewashed. An entrance lobby led into the central
court, onto which all the rooms opened. On the lower floor were located the servants room, the kitchen, the
lavatory, the guest chamber, and also a lavatory and wash place reserved for visitors. Thus all of the first floor
was utilized for the servants and guests; the second floor housed the family. The entire house of the average
middle-class person had from ten to twenty rooms (Free and Vos, Archaeology and Bible History, p. 46).

The rooms of the houses were filled with such things as tables, chairs (even of the folding
variety), beds with wooden bedsteads, chests, ornate pottery, wickerwork, and rugs. The houses
had private wells, and some had a plumbing system to provide running water to kitchens and
toilets. Water and waste were carried away by a city drainage system.
(The next few paragraphs are adapted from The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and
Character by Samuel Kramer.)
Urs skilled carpenters used hammers, saws, chisels, and drill bits. Metalworkers fashioned gold,
silver, tin, lead, iron, copper, bronze, and antimony. They used techniques such as casting,
hammering, annealing, filigree, and granulation.
Leatherworkers tanned and fashioned the skins of bulls, calves, pigs, and sheep, making water
bags, harnesses, saddles, tires for chariot wheels, slings, shoes and sandals, and other types of
clothing. They used alkalies, sumac, and other ingredients for tanning and fat to make the skins
supple and impermeable.
The huge textile industry at Ur consumed the wool of huge flocks of goats, sheep, and lambs, as
well as massive quantities of flax for linen. Using spindles and looms, a team of three women
could produce a piece of cloth 9x12 feet in eight days.

Goods were transported by sledges, wagons (both two- and four-wheeled), chariots, and boats.
On the rivers and canals boats were propelled by oars and sails, and some were pulled by men or
oxen teams walking along the banks.
An intricate system of canals, reservoirs, dikes, and ditches provided irrigation for the crops.
The Ur civilization was skilled in the use of leveling instruments and measuring rods, in drawing
and map making.
Farming techniques were methodical and complex. There was a farmers almanac that provided
information on weather and annual flooding and guidelines for planting and harvesting. Planting
began with a double plowing up of the field, followed by a harrowing, raking, and pulverizing
process. They used plows with seeder attachments, so that they could plow and sow
simultaneously, the depth of seeding being precisely measured. They understood how to grow
belts of trees for wind breaks. The farmers grew barley, wheat, millet, lentils, chick-peas, garlic,
onions, lettuce, turnips, cress, leeks, mustard, and cucumbers, among other things.
They raised sheep, goats, pigs, cows, and oxen, and consumed over 50 different types of fish that
were caught with nets.
(To here adapted from The Sumerians: Their History, Culture and Character by Samuel
The graves of the kings of Ur contained golden drinking cups, dishes, and goblets, wonderfully
shaped jugs and vases, bronze tableware, mother of pearl mosaics, ornaments made of gold,
silver, and lapis lazuli (a semi-precious stone of an intense blue color). Even the famous tombs
of Nofretete and Tutankhamun [the Egyptian King Tut] contained no more beautiful objects. The
graves of the kings of Ur are moreover 1,000 years older at least (Keller, pp. 23, 24).
There were harps and lyres and musical pipes. There were spears and helmets, daggers with gold
blades and hilts of blue lapis lazuli decorated with gold studs with accompanying gold sheaths of
intricate design. There were game boards (British Library, Room 56, Case 16). There were model
boats and chariots.
There was an amazing bright headdress of flowers and leaves fashioned from gold and silver
sheets and lapis lazuli (British Museum, Room 56, Case 12).
One lyre was decorated with the head of a bull fashioned of gold with eyes, beard, and horn tips
of deep blue lapis lazuli (British Museum, Room 56, Case 9).
An Ur king was buried with an amazing gold helmet, which is in Room 56 of the British
Museum (Case 17, WA 119296).

It was a helmet of beaten gold made to fit low over the head with cheek-pieces to protect the face, and it was
in the form of a wig, the locks of hair hammered up in relief, the individual hairs shown by delicate engraved
lines. Parted down the middle, the hair covers the head in flat wavy tresses and is bound round with a twisted
fillet; behind it is tied into a little chignon, and below the fillet hangs in rows of formal curls about the ears (Ur
of the Chaldees, p. 58).

Woolley observed that on the basis of these items we should accord the people of Ur high rank
in the role of civilized races.
A mosaic from one of the tombs (called the Royal Standard of Ur) was made of shell, red
limestone and lapis lazuli. One side depicts scenes of war and the other, a victory feast. It is
located in Room 56 of the British Museum.
The war scenes three rows are described as follows by the objects discoverer, Woolley:
In the top row the king stands in the center, distinguished by his greater height, with behind him three
attendants or members of his house, and a dwarf-like groom who holds the heads of the two asses which
draw the monarchs empty chariot while the driver of it walks behind holding the reins; in front of the king
soldiers are bringing up prisoners, naked and with their arms bound behind their backs, to him to decide their
fate. In the second row, come the phalanx of the royal army, heavily-armed infantry in close order with copper
helmets exactly like those found by us in the kings grave, and long cloaks of some stiff material which I take
to be felt, just such cloaks as are worn by the shepherds of Turkey today, holding axes in their hands; in front
of them are the light-armed infantry without cloaks, wielding axes or short spears, already engaged with an
enemy whose naked warriors are either fleeing or being struck down. In the lowest row we have the chariotry
of Sumer, each car drawn by two asses and carrying two men, of whom one is the driver and the other a
warrior who flings light javelins, of which four are kept in a quiver tied in the front of the car (Ur of the
Chaldees, pp. 101, 102).

The feast scene on the other side depicts the king and his courtiers banqueting in the top row. The
banqueters are seated on chairs while servants attend them and a male harpist and female singer
provide musical entertainment. In the two lower rows attendants are shown bringing in spoils
captured from the enemy and food supplies for the banquet--one is driving a goat, another carries
two fish, another is bent under the weight of a corded bale, and so on, several of the figures being
repeated (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 101).
A statuette recovered from a soldiers grave depicts a woman, thought to be his wife, wearing a
robe composed of four flounces of decorative material. In real life each flounce would have been
about a foot tall.
The Ur women loved ornaments, such as bronze and iron bangles and armlets, and bracelets of
rings or beads, ear-rings, and rings for the toes. Rawlinson observes that in the tombs, few
female skeletons are without them. The wealthy had jewelry made of gold and silver and gems
(British Library, Room 56, Case 12).
Ur was involved in far-reaching shipping enterprise. Early inscriptions make frequent mention of
the ships of Ur (George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies, Vol. 1). They were able to
navigate to considerable distances, and Rawlinson says that it may have been the astronomical


knowledge of the Chaldaeans that gave them the confidence to venture on long voyages. One bill
of lading from about 2040 BC was from a ship that had come up the Persian Gulf to southern
Mesopotamia after a two-year cruise to distant lands. The cargo included copper ore, gold, ivory,
hardwoods for the cabinet maker, and diorite and alabaster for making statuary (Free and Vos,
pp. 46, 47).
Urs Literacy
Thousands of cuneiform tablets and fragments were found at Ur.
Among these were student exercise books for learning how to read and write. There are tables of
verbs and tables of square and cube roots. The students at Ur had a correct understanding of
Pythagoras Theorem--1,200 years before Pythagoras formulated it! (Alan Millard, Treasures
from Bible Times, p. 53).
The tablets at Ur also include religious myths, proverbs, riddles, essays, moral precepts,
historical writings, medical, agricultural, legal, and business documents.
Urs Idolatry
Ur was steeped in idolatry. The people worshiped many gods and goddesses, the chief of which
were the moon god Sin (also called Nanna) and his wife, Ningal. Sin was also the chief god in
Haran where Abrahams father Terah died (Gen. 11:31-32).
The symbol of the moon god was the crescent (Woolley, p. 175), which became the symbol of
Islam after Mohammed exalted the moon-god as Allah. E.M. Wherry, who translated a standard
edition of the Quran, said that in pre-Islamic times Allah-worship, as well as the worship of Baal,
were both involved in the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars (A Comprehensive
Commentary on the Quran, 1973, p. 36).
There was also Shamash, the sun god.
Ningal was only one of many goddesses worshiped in Ur and its neighboring cities. There was
Ishtar, Lama, Gula, Bau, among others. As we will see in the study on Babylon, goddess worship
began in Babel and spread throughout the earth. It still plays a large role in Hinduism, Buddhism,
and New Age. In the first millennium A.D. it was Christianized by Roman Catholicism as
There were idolatrous shrines scattered throughout Ur and in the individual homes.
We may safely imagine that throughout the whole of the sprawling town there were scattered temples
dedicated to one or another of the innumerable gods. ... Such shrines appear to have been a particular resort
of women (Woolley, pp. 183, 212).


Urs Tower
The central structure of ancient Ur was a gigantic staged tower or ziggurat devoted to Sin and
Ningal and the worship of the heavens (astrology).
Originally it was 200 by 150 feet at the base and stood at least 75 feet high. It has been partially
reconstructed and today it stands half that tall. The inner core was made of mud brick which was
protected by a thick outer layer of baked bricks set in bitumen or asphalt (Hoerth and McRay,
Bible Archaeology, p. 38). The use of bitumen fits the description of the building of the first
tower at Babel. There, too, they used burnt brick and slime or bitumen (Gen. 11:3). The word
slime is translated asphaltos in the Septuagint.
The Ur tower had four stages, built one upon another in diminishing size, and on the top was a
shrine room for the moon god.
The tower was called the mountain of God and the stages depicted as it were, a ladder to and
from heaven (Woolley, pp. 138, 139, 236), which reminds us of the Bibles account of Urs
neighbor Babel which says the people wanted to build a tower to reach to heaven (Gen. 11:4).
This does not mean that they intended to build an actual structure to reach heaven, but that they
intended to bridge heaven and earth, God and man, through mystical religion.
The tower was very beautiful. None of the reconstructions I have seen do justice to this. Each
stage was a different color, the foundation was black and the upper stages, red and blue. Each
stage probably answered to the astrological colors associated with the planets (Woolley, p. 235).
The shrine at the apex was built of bright blue-glazed bricks topped with a golden dome.
Some of the doors of the temple were overlaid with gold (p. 164) and some of the walls and
ceilings were covered with sheets of gold cut into openwork patterns with shield-shaped holes
into which were set inlays of agate or lapis lazuli (p. 165).
Parts of the temple buildings were decorated with beautiful designs fashioned from colored
cones pressed into thick plaster (Woolley, p. 37).
The terraces of each stage of the tower were covered with soil and planted with trees. The tower
had an ingenious and complex irrigation and drainage system (Woolley, p. 145). Thus we have
to imagine trees clothing every terrace with greenery, hanging gardens which brought more
vividly to mind the original conception of the Ziggurat as the Mountain of God.
From that time forward, idolatry was associated with high places and groves and astral
worship (Exodus 34:16; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; 2 Chron. 33:3).


As the confounded Babel workers spread out and associated together by language, they carried
their idolatry and love for mystical religious towers with them, constructing them wherever they
settled. Woolley said the great staged towers characterized the cities of Sumer and were a
peculiar feature of Mesopotamian architecture (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 118).
Mass Suicide and Human sacrifice
Buried with the kings of Ur were entire retinues consisting of teams of oxen harnessed to great
wagons laden with household furniture and accompanied by attendants. These apparently took
some type of drug and died with their master.
All the bodies were so neatly placed, Woolley concluded the people had walked down the ramp to their
positions, lain down, and drunk poison from a small cup. (Some of the cups were beside the bodies.)
Undertakers then tidied the scene, killing the oxen, some of which lay on top of their human attendants, and
left. With great ceremonies and offerings, the shaft was refilled with earth (Millard, Treasures from Bible
Times, p.p. 44, 45).

Accompanying the dead kings in these amazing mass human sacrifices or suicides were grooms,
soldiers, musicians, court attendants, and female servants. Hundreds of people were buried with
the Ur kings in this manner.
Woolley, who headed up the excavation of the tombs, describes the scene of one of these burials
as follows:
The royal body was carried down the sloping passage and laid in the chamber, sometimes, perhaps
generally, inside a wooden coffin, though Queen Puabi lay upon an open wooden bier and another queen in
the only other undisturbed burial was apparently stretched upon the floor of the tomb. Three or four of the
personal attendants of the dead had their place with him or her in the tomb-chamber; thus, two were crouched
by Puabis bier and one lay a little apart and four shared the tomb of the other (nameless) queen; in the
plundered tombs scattered bones betrayed the presence of more than one body. These attendants must have
been killed, or drugged into insensibility, before the door of the tomb-chamber was walled up. The owner of
the tomb was decked with all the finery befitting his station and with him in the chamber were set all such
objects as we find in the graves of commoners, the only difference being that they are more numerous and of
more precious material--the vessels for food and drink may be of gold and silver instead of clay--the
attendants, on the other hand, while they wear what we may call their court dresses, are not laid out properly
as for burial but are in the attitudes of those who serve, and they are unprovided with any grave equipment of
their own; they are part of the tomb furniture.
When the door had been blocked with stone and brick and smoothly plastered over, the first phase of the
burial ceremony was complete. The second phase, as best illustrated by the tomb of Puabi and by RT789,
was more dramatic.
Down into the open pit, with its mat-covered floor and mat-lined walls, empty and unfurnished, there comes a
procession of people, the members of the dead rulers court, soldiers, men-servants, and women, the latter in
all their finery of brightly coloured garments and head-dresses of carnelian and lapis lazuli, silver and gold,
officers with the insignia of their rank, musicians bearing harps or lyres, and then, driven or backed down the
slope, the chariots drawn by oxen, the drivers in the cars, the grooms holding the heads of the draught
animals, and all take up their allotted places at the bottom of the shaft and finally a guard of soldiers forms up
at the entrance. Each man and woman brought a little cup of clay or stone or metal, the only equipment
needed for the rite that was to follow. There would seem to have been some kind of service down there, at
least it is certain that the musicians played up to the last, then each of them drank from their cups a potion
which they had brought with them or found prepared for them on the spot--in one case we found in the middle
of the pit a great copper pot into which they could have dipped--and they lay down and composed themselves
for death. Somebody came down and killed the animals (we found their bones on the top of those of the
grooms, so they must have died later) and perhaps saw to it that all was decently in order--thus, in the kings


grave the lyres had been placed on the top of the bodies of the women players, leant against the tomb wall-and when that was done, earth was flung in from above, over the unconscious victims, and the filling-in of the
grave-shaft was begun. ...
The best example of the death-pit was that of our royal grave RT1237 ... The pit measured, at the bottom, 27
feet by 24, and had the usual sloped approach and its sides had been mud-plastered and hung with matting.
Six men-servants carrying knives or axes lay near the entrance, lined up against the wall; in front of them
stood a great copper basin, and by it were the bodies of four women harpists, one with her hands still on the
strings of her instrument. Over the rest of the pits area there lay in ordered rows the bodies of sixty-four ladies
of the court. All of them wore some sort of ceremonial dress; a few threads and patches preserved by being in
contact with stone or metal showed that this had included a short-sleeved coat of scarlet, the cuffs enriched in
beadwork in lapis lazuli, carnelian, and gold, with sometimes a belt of white shell rings; it may have been
fastened in front with a long pin of silver or copper; round the neck was worn a dog-collar of lapis lazuli and
gold together with other looser necklaces of gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and carnelian beads; in the ears were
very large crescent-shaped ear-rings of gold or silver and twisted spirals of gold or silver wire kept in order the
curls above the ears. The head-dress was much like that of Queen Puabi; a long ribbon of gold or silver was
looped several times round the hair and, at any rate with those of higher rank, a triple band of gold, lapis
lazuli, and carnelian beads was fastened below the ribbon with gold beech-leaf pendants hanging across the
forehead. Twenty-eight of these court ladies wore golden hair-ribbons, the rest silver. ...
It must have been a very gaily dressed crowd that assembled in the open mat-lined pit for the royal
obsequies, a blaze of colour with the crimson coats, the silver, and the gold; clearly these people were not
wretched slaves killed as oxen might be killed, but persons held in honour, wearing their robes of office, and
coming, one hopes, voluntarily to a rite which would in their belief be but a passing from one world to another,
from the service of a god on earth to that of the same god in another sphere (Ur of the Chaldees, pp. 72-78,

Though it is possible that the higher-ranking attendants in the main chamber went willingly to
their deaths, it is apparent that at least some people were killed as human sacrifices in the
conclusion to the gruesome pagan ritual.
The royal body with its attendants, many or few, was laid in the tomb, and the door was sealed and sacrifice
was made in the little court before the entrance, and then this was filled in until only the crown of the dome
was left above ground. Round it fires were lit and a funeral feast was held, and libations to the dead were
poured into the clay drain which ran down into the soil beside the tomb, and then more earth was thrown into
the shaft. Next an offering to the underworld gods was set out and covered with a clay bowl to shield it from
the fresh earth which buried it; and then, in the half-filled pit, there was constructed in mud-brick what was to
be a subterranean building.
The filling-up of this building was done by degrees; clay was brought and trampled hard to make a floor over
which offerings were spread and on which was laid the body of a human victim sacrificed in these later rites;
earth buried these, and another floor was made and more offerings placed in order and another victim did
honour to the dead below, and this went on till the top of the walls was nearly reached... (Ur of the Chaldees,
pp. 85, 86).

Confirmation of the Bible

Everything that has been discovered about Ur fits the ancient Mesopotamian world as described
in the Bible.
An advanced literate civilization is exactly what we would expect in light of the Genesis record,
which says that Adams first children built cities and practiced such things as agriculture, animal
husbandry, music, and metal working (Genesis 4:16-22).
The pagan idolatry, astral worship, and the religious towers are described in Genesis 10-11 and
Romans 1:21-23.

The spread of city-states across Shinar or Mesopotamia is described in Genesis 10:8-12.

The timetable also fits the biblical scenario. When the Babylonian ruler Nabonidus restored the
Ur tower in his day (556-539 B.C.) he stated that it was originally built some 1,500 years earlier,
which would have been about 2050 B.C. (Woolley found Nabonidus accounts of this on tables
in Babylon, The Bible in the British Museum, p. 89). By the biblical timeline, this takes us back
to about two centuries after God confounded Nimrods Babel project. By then, the shock of the
division of tongues had worn off, men were gathered together according to language and were
also learning to communicate cross-lingually, astral idolatry was spreading and religious towers
were being built in various places.
Undying Unbelief
Though it is now obvious that Ur existed as a great city in Abrahams day, unbelieving
archaeologists have found another way to discredit the Bible. They claim that Ur was not
associated with the Chaldees until centuries later; therefore, the Bible is wrong to use that term in
reference to Abrahams day. Archaeologists cannot prove that the Bible is wrong here, but since
they have not found corroborating evidence they are quick to charge the Bible with error.
This reminds us that there is never enough evidence for those who are willfully blind. Jesus said
that if men do not believe the Scripture, they will not believe even if someone rose from the dead
and appeared to them (Luke 16:27-31).
1. Skeptics were debunked when Ur was unearthed by archaeologists in the 1920s and 1930s.
2. Ur was a city state ruled by a king and was technologically advanced and wealthy. It was a
manufacturing center and had far-reaching trading enterprises. It was an agricultural powerhouse
with an intricate irrigation system and a farmers almanac. The typical homes were two story and
some had plumbing. There was a city drainage system. There were metal works, carpentry,
leather works, jewelry making, spinning mills, and pottery. There was music and a variety of
musical instruments.
3. Ur was a highly literate society.
4. Ur was steeped in idolatry, with the chief gods being the moon god Sin and his wife, the
goddess Ningal. Another chief god was Shamash, the sun god. Following the example of
Babylon, Ur had a gigantic tower devoted to Sin and Ningal and the worship of the heavens.
Originally it was 200 by 150 feet at the base and stood at least 75 feet high and had four stages.
5. At death, the kings of Ur were accompanied by a large retinue of attendants.

6. The archaeology pertaining to Ur has confirmed the Genesis account. It was a city state after
the fashion of what we read in Genesis 9-10. It was an advanced literate civilization, and it was
devoted to idolatry.
1. Ur was the birthplace of what famous Bible figure?
2. When was Ur unearthed by archaeologists?
3. The excavations at Ur provide a glimpse into what?
4. How large was ancient Ur?
5. Ur was a _______________ and _______________ center.
6. Urs great agricultural fields have been compared to ____________ wheat farms or the market
gardens and fruit farms of __________________.
7. The typical home in ancient Ur was how many stories and had how many rooms?
8. Water and waste were carried away by a city _______________ ____________.
9. What are three types of industry that thrived in ancient Ur?
10. How were the crops irrigated?
11. How did the Ur farmers get information on weather and guidelines for planting?
12. What types of musical instruments were used in Ur?
13. What is the Royal Standard of Ur and what does it depict?
14. What type of animals pulled the Ur war chariots?
15. The chariots carried how many warriors?
16. What type of weapons were used by the Ur soldiers?
17. How do we know that music was used in the Ur banquets?
18. Ur was involved in far-reaching ________________ enterprise.
19. How do we know that ancient Ur was a literate society?
20. What was Urs chief god?
21. This god was also the chief god of __________ where Abrahams father died.
22. What was the symbol of Urs chief god?
23. What was the name of the chief goddess worshiped at Ur?
24. What was another chief god of Ur?
25. What was the central building at Ur?
26. How many stages did it have?
27. How were the kings of Ur buried?
28. In what four ways does the archaeological excavation of Ur confirm the Bible?

A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Egypt is included in the Unshakeable Faith
apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the beginning
of the course for tips on using this material.


The following overview of Egypts ancient history under the pharaohs is adapted from Allan
It is usual to think of ancient Egyptian history as divided into 30 dynasties. This idea is taken from a book on
Egyptian history by Manetho, an Egyptian priest, who wrote about 250 B.C. Selections from Manethos book
have been preserved in extensive quotations by later writers.
The Old Kingdom is the title given to the first time of great royal power (about 2700 to 2200 B.C.), running
from dynasties three to six. At this period the pharaohs were very dictatorial. They were able to gather
hundreds of thousands of people each year during the season when the Nile overflowed its banks and made
agricultural work impossible and compel them to work energetically for long periods in order to build those
tremendous burial monuments called the pyramids. During this time the religion glorified the sun god, but
there were many subordinate deities.
The Middle Kingdom (about 1991 to 1786 B.C.) was a new time of great power beginning when the kings of a
region in the S, centering around the town later known as Thebes, became supreme over all Egypt and
established their power in the delta. They worshiped a local god called Amun (formerly written Amen or Amon).
This was the period of the Twelfth Dynasty. These kings put foreign lands under tribute and directed a high
type of civilization. It ends with the coming from Asia of a foreign group that possessed a new weapon, that of
horse-drawn chariots which enabled them to make a lightning attack and to conquer a large section of Egypt.
These Hyksos (sometimes called Shepherd-kings), held much of the land in subjection for over a century.
Eventually they were driven out.
The New Kingdom, also called the Empire, followed the expulsion of the Hyksos. It lasts from about 1570 to
1078 B.C. These kings worshiped the god Amun, whom they considered to be identical with the earlier sungod, Re, and therefore often referred to as Amun-Re. A multitude of other gods were also worshiped in Egypt,
but the priests of Amun-Re became so important that eventually a very large proportion of the land of Egypt
came to be the property of the temples of the god Amun. The 18th dynasty includes a series of great rulers, a
number of whom went by one of two names: Thutmose or Amenhotep. This was a time of Egyptian military
prowess, and the erection of great monuments and temples. The 19th dynasty (about 1303 to 1197), even
more than the 18th, was a period of great building. Largely as a result of the activities of the kings of these two
dynasties, tremendous ruins stand at Thebes today, making it the great outdoor museum of the world. There
were a series of kings named Ramses (or Ramesses). Ramses II, also known as Ramses the Great, built
more temples and erected more statues and obelisks than any other pharaoh in history.
Between the 7th and 4th centuries B.C. Egypt was harassed and sometimes partly conquered by the
Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians. In 332 Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, and after his
death a year later, one of his generals, named Ptolemy, seized Egypt and established a dynasty that
continued for three centuries (adapted from MacRae, Biblical Archaeology, 2005, pp. 9, 10).

The first mention of Egypt in the Bible is in Genesis 12 when Abraham went there to escape the
famine in Canaan. That was about 1900 B.C.
It was to Egypt that Jacob and his sons moved to escape the great famine after Joseph became
vice-ruler. Israel dwelt in Egypt for 400 years before departing under the leadership of Moses in
about 1490 B.C.
Egypt was often used by God to judge Israel during the time of the Judges and the Kingdom.
Joseph in Egypt
No direct evidence of Josephs rule in Egypt or of Israels sojourn there have been uncovered
through archaeology, but this is not surprising for three reasons:


First, the archaeological record from that time period is scant and the ancient documents written
on papyri have perished.
Second, the Egyptians did not leave historical narrative writings similar to the book of Genesis or
the books of Samuel and the Kings.
No attempt is made to give a full picture of a historical situation or development. A continuous account of the
reign of successive kings has nowhere been found. ... A great handicap in the study of Egyptian literature, as
far as its use for history is concerned, is the fact that most of it was written for an immediate purpose, often
merely to glorify the person involved, and never simply to preserve historical records (Allan MacRae, Biblical

Third, most of the ancient Egyptian records are from the accounts of military victories, and no
pharaoh would have recorded a great defeat such as they were dealt by the God of Israel.
Though there is no direct confirmation of Joseph from archaeology, there is a great deal of
indirect evidence authenticating the biblical record.
The background of the story of Joseph contains many passages that can be vividly illustrated by Egyptian
circumstance at this general period. Thus we find in Egyptian records that the position that Potiphar gave
Joseph when he put him over his household was one that existed in the houses of great Egyptian nobles of
the time; that the king of Egypt was called pharaoh, the term used in the Bible; that chief of the butlers and
chief of the bakers were titles given to important officers in pharaohs court; that the signet ring, the vestures
of fine linen, and the gold chain about his neck were just what an Egyptian king would be apt to give to one
whom he was placing in authority over the whole country; and that the mummification of Jacob and of Joseph
was in accordance with Egyptian custom. These and other elements of the general background can be
abundantly verified from ancient Egyptian records. All this is general corroboration (MacRae, Biblical
Archaeology, p. 11).

Moses Pharaoh
There were probably at least two pharaohs associated with Moses life, one who ruled when he
was born and another who ruled during the Exodus.
Israel was in Egypt from about 1876-1446 B.C. and at the end of this period God raised up
Moses to lead them to the Promised Land.
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph (Exodus 1:8).
And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every
daughter ye shall save alive (Exodus 1:22).
And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived,
and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she
could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and
put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink. And his sister stood afar off, to wit what
would be done to him. And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her maidens
walked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. And
when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and
said, This is one of the Hebrews' children. Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to
thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee? And Pharaoh's daughter said to
her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this


child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed
it (Exodus 2:1-9).
By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter (Hebrews

The daughter of Pharaoh who rescued Moses from the river is thought to have been Hatshepsut.
Hatshepsut (around the 1550s to 1483 B.C.) was the daughter of Pharaoh Tuthmosis I, who probably issued
the two decrees that all Israelite baby boys be killed. If so, it was Hatshepsut who rescued Moses. A noted
historian wrote: only she of all known women of the period possessed the presumption and independence to
violate an ordinance of the king, and under his very nose at that. She married her younger half-brother who
became Tuthmosis II. Moses, by this construction, was her foster-son (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidence
in the British Museum, p. 99).

There is a red granite obelisk inscribed with the name of Queen Hatshepsut in the British
Museum (Room 65).
There is a statue of Tuthmosis I in the British Museum, Room 4.
When Moses was 40 years old he killed an Egyptian for abusing a Jewish slave and had to flee to
the desert, where he lived for 40 years (Exodus 2:11-22; Acts 7:23-30). At this time God
appeared to him in the burning bush and called him to lead Israel out of Egypt. Thus, the Exodus
occurred 80 years after Moses was rescued from the river as an infant.
It is not a simple matter to identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Liberal archaeologists have
named Ramesses II (also written Ramses), but he lived after Moses according to the biblical
timeline. The reason they make this claim is that they have rejected the Bibles dating. They
believe that Israel entered the land of Canaan in about 1250 B.C., whereas it was actually around
1450 B.C. According to biblical dating, Moses appeared before pharaoh in about 1490 B.C.
Some say the pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenophis II.
The bottom line is that while it is interesting to speculate about which Pharaoh Moses
confronted, since the Bible does not give his name, it is not therefore important for us know it.
See Deuteronomy 29:29.
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to
our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

The very fact that the Bible does not name the pharaohs until Shishak in the 10th century B.C. (1
Kings 11:40) demonstrates its infallible accuracy.
Some scholars have faulted the Bible for not naming the pharaohs involved with Abraham, Joseph, and
Moses, and have used this silence as evidence that the Bibles early history is suspect. Egyptologists have,
however, established that until the tenth century B.C. the title pharaoh stood alone in Egyptian texts. It was
only then that the title began to be followed by the name of the specific king. The biblical writers were simply
following Egyptian precedent. Shishak is the first Egyptian pharaoh to be named in the Bible (1 Kings 11:40).
In 925 B.C. his army marched into Palestine (1 Kings 14:25) (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 19).


Egypts Gods
Idolatry spread from Babylon throughout the world, and Egypt was an early stronghold of this
The Pharaohs were worshiped as gods and every aspect of the pyramids had idolatrous
Among the most famous of Egypts gods was the bull or calf which Israel worshiped in the
wilderness. The archaeological museum at the University of Pennsylvania has a large collection
of ancient Egyptian bull gods.
Baal was also worshiped as a bull. Some of these type of Baal images have been found in Israel.
The Egyptians also worshiped the sun god Ra. He was depicted as a falcon-headed man with a
disc above his head.
The eyes of the god Horus were also supposed to represent the sun and the moon.
The sun god was also symbolized by a falcon with a disc over its head and was worshiped as
Aten, symbolized as a disc sending out rays.
The pyramids were associated with the worship of the sun. They were built in alignment with the
rising and setting of the sun.
The serpent was worshiped as the goddess Wadjet, the protectress of Egypt. Double golden
images of Wadjet were found in the tomb of King Tut.
The serpent goddess was also depicted with a female head and wings.
The serpent goddess was worn on the pharaohs headdress.
Egyptian goddess worship centered around Isis and her son Horus, which was only one of many
mother goddesses that were worshiped throughout the ancient world. In the early centuries of the
church age, the pagan goddess and child was Christianized as Romes Madonna.
King Tut and Egypts Glory
The Bible says that Moses gave up his life as an adopted son of Pharaoh and chose to suffer
affliction with Gods people. He took this step by faith.


By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing
rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the
reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is
invisible (Hebrews 11:24-27).

This momentous decision can better be understood in light of the discovery of the intact burial
chambers of King Tutankhamun. Here we have a glimpse into the wealth and culture of Egyptian
royalty during the time of Israels captivity. Tut died in about 1350 B.C., which is some 150
years after Moses led Israel out of the land in 1491 B.C.
Tuts burial chambers also gives us a better understanding of the challenge that Moses faced
when he obeyed God and opposed Pharaoh.
Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children
of Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 3:10).
And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my
people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I
should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go (Exodus 5:1-2).

Moses was standing before one of the mightiest kings of ancient history, a man who held life and
death power over all his subjects, with vast riches and a superpower military machine at his
In 1922 Howard Carter located four underground burial chambers containing the kings remains.
Three of the chambers were fitted with equipment for the kings journey into death, while the
fourth housed the mummy.
The wealth represented in this one grave is staggering. There is a solid gold coffin weighing
about 243 pounds, a golden death mask, golden daggers, gold-plated bows, exquisite gold and
gem-encrusted jewelry. There is a carved wooden throne encased in gold with details inlaced in
silver and glass, and colored blue, green, and reddish-brown. It is estimated that the tombs gold
plate alone weighs 400 pounds.
For the kings pleasure and protection in the next life, the tomb held four dismantled chariots,
one of which was encased in gold, plus 29 bows. Magic texts from the Egyptian Book of the
Dead were engraved in the tomb and carved on idols.
The gold-encased mummy was housed in three coffins. The outer coffin was yellow stone. Inside
this was a mummy-shaped coffin of wood covered with gold, and inside this a gold-plated
wooden coffin.
The glory represented by Tut gives the background for the choice that Moses made as a young
man, when he rejected life as an adopted son of pharaoh, with its pagan wealth, and pleasure,


choosing rather to serve the true and living God and to cast his lot with Gods despised people
(Hebrews 11:24-26).
The Egyptian Doctrine of Salvation
The Egyptian doctrine of salvation dates back to Cain and his offering of good works to God in
the place of the prescribed sacrificial lamb.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead says the deceased is led into a hall of judgment by Anubis. There
his heart is weighed against the feather of Maat, which represents the goddess of truth, signifying
the weighing of ones good works and the testing of ones heart. If the individual passes the
judgment he is received into the presence of the gods. If not not, he is punished.
The vast majority of people everywhere believe the fundamentals of this ancient Egyptian lie,
thinking that salvation is by good deeds, sincerity, religion, etc. They believe that man is
basically good and that he can earn favor in the eyes of God by doing good.
The truth is that man is totally condemned by Gods righteous standards and only through the
substitutionary sacrifice of Christ can any sinner be accepted before Almighty God (Romans
This gospel was not hidden in the days of Egypts might. It has been proclaimed through the
prophets since the days of Abel and was typified by Israels sacrificial system.
The Merneptah Stele
The most ancient extra-biblical reference to Israel is the Merneptah Stele, which dates to 1229
B.C. It was erected by the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah to celebrate a military campaign in
The 7 1/2 foot tall monument, which was discovered in 1896 at Thebes, is in the Cairo Museum.
It reads:
Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Israel is
wasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued. By the King of
Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun, Son of Re, Merneptah, content with Maat, given life like Re every

This event occurred during the period of the Judges. The reference to Israel having no seed is a
reference to the destruction of the nations food supply.
Though brief, the inscription is highly significant. It was written during the time of the Judges
and proves that even then Israel was a nation of some importance. Otherwise, the proud king of


Egypt would not have mentioned her. It also confirms the description given in the Bible of how
that Israel was often harassed by neighboring nations because of her sin.
This refutes the commonly held liberal view that Israel did not enter the land of Canaan until
about 1230 B.C., which is two centuries later than the Bibles timeline of about 1450 B.C.
This also refutes the modernistic 12th century emergence theory which says Israel emerged
from the Canaanite people in about 1150 B.C. (instead of coming into the land from Egypt in the
15th century).
1. That there is no direct evidence of Josephs rule in Egypt is not surprising for three reasons:
First, the archaeological record from that time is extremely scant and the ancient papyri
documents have perished. Second, the Egyptians did not leave historical narrative writings.
Third, no pharaoh would have recorded his defeats.
2. The indirect evidence authenticating the Bibles record of Joseph is extensive. These include
evidence that the position Joseph held in Potiphars household was common in that day, that the
term pharaoh is accurate, and that the mummification of Joseph was in accordance with
Egyptian custom.
3. It is not possible to identify with certainty the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
4. King Tut illustrates the great wealth and power of the Egyptian pharaohs of Moses day and
gives the background of the choice that Moses made as a young man when he rejected life as an
adopted son of pharaoh and chose rather to serve the true and living God.
5. The Merneptah Stele, which was erected in 1229 B.C., is evidence that Israel was in the land
of Canaan then and was already a nation of note, which refutes the critics who say that Israel did
not enter the land until 1230 B.C. It was erected by Pharaoh Merneptah to celebrate his military
campaign in Canaan.
1. What is the first mention of Egypt in the Bible?
2. For what four reasons is it not surprising that no direct archaeology evidence of Josephs rule
in Egypt have been found?
3. Why does it not matter that we cant be certain of the identity of the pharaohs of the book of
4. What verse says we must be content with the things God has revealed in Scripture?
5. Why is it significant that the Bible does not name the pharaohs until Shishak in the 10th
century B.C.?

6. When did King Tut die? How long was that after Moses left Egypt?
7. Why are the artifacts from Tuts tomb significant for Bible believers?
8. What is the most ancient extra-biblical reference to Israel?
9. How old is the stele containing this reference?
10. What does this stele say about Israel?
11. How does this fit the description of Israel in the Bible?
12. How does this stele refute the liberal view that Israel did not enter the land of Canaan until
about 1230 B.C.?
13. What is the 12th century emergence theory?

A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Babylon is included in the Unshakeable Faith
apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the beginning
of the course for tips on using this material.
Babylon is a major theme of Scripture. It appears in the early chapters of Genesis and does not
disappear until the last the chapters of Revelation.
Babylons Beginning
The beginning of Babylons history is recorded in Genesis 10-11 with the founding of Nimrods
kingdom and the building of the Tower of Babel.
God commanded Noah and his sons to spread abroad and replenish the earth, but the majority of
them congregated in a place called Shinar, which is a huge fertile valley watered by the Tigris
and Euphrates rivers. (It was still called Shinar in Daniels day 1,600 years later, Dan. 1:2). This
was the beginning of the kingdom of Babylon, which became a powerful empire centuries later
and which in mystery form continues to exist in the world today.
Instead of fearing the true and living God and acknowledging that He was righteous and just in
destroying the world with a flood because of mans wickedness and instead of praising Gods
grace in saving a remnant through Noah, the majority of mankind rebelled even more than their
forefathers and tried to put the holy Creator God completely out of mind. In the description of
the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-4, Jehovah Gods name is nowhere mentioned. Babel was
(and is) all about man, and any god involved in the enterprise is one of mans device, one made
in mans image, and one that man can control. Ever since the Garden of Eden, men have been
saying to God, Depart from us (Job 21:17).
Babylons First Leader
The first leader in Babylonian wickedness was NIMROD (Gen. 10:8-12).


Liberals and unbelievers consider Nimrod a mythical figure, but this is willful skepticism. The
Bible is a far more dependable historical record than anything that has been dug from the sands
of Egypt or the tells of Mesopotamia. In fact, the extra-biblical record of that time is a jumbled,
contradictory mess and any real history is hidden deep beneath a thick slathering of pagan
The Bible says that Nimrod was a mighty one in the earth, describing his prominence. He was
the first leader of an anti-God confederacy, the first ruler of a humanistic empire, the forerunner
of the end-times antichrist. Nimrod probably demanded worship as god. This trait was imitated
by his successors down to the Caesars in Rome.
The description of Nimrod as a mighty hunter refers to his prowess as a hunter of animals as
well as a hunter of men. He was a lion killer and a man killer. He was a conqueror, an emperor,
an empire builder.
The Bibles description of Nimrod fits several men in ancient secular records.
Consider NARAM-SIN. A stele in the Louvre in Paris depicts the Mesopotamian king NaramSin. His reign is dated by archaeologists to about 2250 B.C., which is the time that the Tower of
Babel was built. Naram-Sin is the first god-king known to secular history. Enrico Ascalone says,
This is the first image of a king who manifested his own successful self-divinization, which is
also widely documented in the kings own celebratory inscriptions (Mesopotamia, University of
California Press, 2005, p. 30).
The rulers name probably refers to Sin the moon god. Carrying a bow and spear, the king is
depicted as destroying a group of people called the Lullubi.
He wears a horned helmet signifying deity and he carries a bow and a spear.
Thus Naram-Sin has the characteristics of the biblical Nimrod: bold leadership, pride, aspiring to
divinity, hunting/military prowess.
Consider ASSHUR. The Assyrian empire was named after Asshur, the original builder of
Nineveh and an associate of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10-11). Asshur became a mythological god, but
there is no reason to think that he was not also the real man mentioned in the Bible. Asshur had
the characteristics of Nimrod. A mighty leader and hunter/warrior, his symbol was a bow. He was
also associated with astrology, being worshipeded as the sun god, which was symbolized by a
winged disc or wheel encompassing the rays of the sun.
Consider GILGAMESH. Sumarian records claim that Gilgamesh was the king of Erech (Uruk
in Akkadian) in about 2,500 B.C. This carries us back to the time near the Flood, and it is
probable that the Gilgamesh mythology has an historical basis in Nimrod, as the Bible says

(Genesis 10:10) that Erech was as the beginning of Nimrods kingdom. The Gilgamesh Epic
describes the Flood from a pagan perspective. Gilgamesh is described as part-man, part-god,
proud, and a cruel conqueror, the very characteristics modeled by Nimrod.
Nimrods traits were reproduced in the Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, and Greek kings that rose
in succession across the pages of history in that part of the world. Henry Layard, who unearthed
many ancient bas-reliefs depicting the Assyrian kings as hunters and warriors, made the
following observation linking them to Nimrod:
A conqueror and the founder of an empire was, at the same time, a great hunter. His courage, wisdom, and
dexterity were as much shown in encounters with wild animals as in martial exploits; he rendered equal
services to his subjects, whether he cleared the country of beasts of prey, or repulsed an enemy. The
scriptural Nimrod, who laid the foundation of the Assyrian monarchy, was a mighty hunter before the Lord;
and the Ninus of history and tradition, the builder of Nineveh, and the greatest of the Assyrian kings, was as
renowned for his encounters with the lion and the leopard, as for his triumphs over warlike nations (Nineveh
and Its Remains, p. 94).

Babylons Religion
The Tower of Babel was preeminently an act of idolatry. It was the beginning of the mystery
religions that eventually permeated the world. Revelation 17:5 says Babylon is the mother of
harlots and abominations of the earth, which means the worlds dark religions had their evil
beginning with her.
The development of idolatry is described in Romans 1:21-23. The people rejected the Creator
God and worshiped and served the creation.
Some of the major characteristics of Babylonian religion are as follows:
1. Babylonian religion is self-worship.
The people said, let us make us a name (Gen. 11:4). They were not glorifying God; they were
glorifying themselves. Pride and self-will is at the heart of idolatry. It is not about man
worshipping God; it is about man worshipping himself. The gods are not in authority over man
in the sense of a Creator-creature relationship, and man is not subject to them in that sense. He
fears what the gods can do to him, but he is not directly accountable to them. Babylonian religion
promises that man will be his own god, thus freeing him from accountability to the Almighty
God. This is the devils age-old lie. He said to Eve, ye shall be as gods (Gen. 3:5). Babylonian
idolatry is about the pursuit of self-will, self-fulfillment, self-empowerment, self-esteem. Idolatry
is not about God; it is about me.
This is a chief characteristic of end-times apostasy: in the last days ... men shall be lovers of
their own selves (2 Timothy 3:1-2). Self-expression, self-fulfillment, self-satisfaction are at the
heart of the modern pop culture. It is narcissistic to the core. As the Rolling Stones sang, Im
free to do what I want any old time...


2. Babylonian religion is luck worship.

Babylonian religion is the pursuit of luck, good fortune, success. Tyche was the goddess of luck.
The Hindu goddess Lukshmi is the goddess of fortune. This was one of the major attractions of
Baal worship. Sacrifices were offered to Baal in hope that he would provide the worshipers with
good weather, good crops, good jobs, happiness, success. The pursuit of good luck appeals
deeply to fallen man who is covetous and lives only for this present world. This is a major part of
the modern New Age Babylonian rock & roll culture. The modern gods of luck are such things as
higher education, the stock market, and casinos.
3. Babylonian religion is good works worship.
This appeals to fallen mans pride and natural sense of religion and his innate sense of morality.
Cain, the inventor of the first false religion, tried to offer the fruit of his own works to God,
falsely thinking that God would be satisfied (Gen. 4:3-5). Natural man does not want to
acknowledge that he is a fallen creature and that even his very righteousness is as filthy rags
before God (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:10-18, 23).
The works aspect of Babylonian idolatry is illustrated by Egypts god Anubis. It was thought that
after death the soul was brought before Anubis and its good deeds were weighed against the bad.
A demonic creature named Ammit (composed of a crocodile, lion, and hippopotamus) waited
below the scales to devour the individuals heart if wickedness prevailed. If the individual passed
the judgment, he was ushered into the presence of the gods.
The Hindu-Buddhist belief in dharma and karma descended from Babylonianism.
The New Age is also a works religion, the most acceptable works being things such as saving the
environment, ending poverty, striving for gender equality, promoting gay rights, and solving the
AIDS crisis.
4. Babylonian religion is star worship.
The desire to build a tower to heaven had a religious implication associated with astrology, the
worship of the sun and moon and stars. That the top was to reach unto heaven (Gen. 11:4),
does not mean that the ancient Babylonians believed they could actually build a tower to heaven;
it means that they were using the tower as a religious path to God.
Astrology--which permeates Hinduism, Buddhism, and the New Age--finds its roots here. It is
the pseudo-science of studying the stars in an attempt to determine their alleged influence upon
man and to delve into the future. It is a form of occultism and should not be confused with
astronomy, which (modern evolutionary theories aside) is the legitimate science of the study of
the stars.

The sun god was called Shamash, Marduk, Asshur, and other names. One of his symbols was a
disc or a wheel encircling a star and/or rays.
The moon was worshiped as Sin and other names. His symbol was the crescent. There was also a
goddess aspect of sun and moon worship.
The moon and sun were worshiped in Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. In Rome, the moon
goddess was Luna, and in Greece, Selene.
In Hinduism the sun god is Surya and the moon god is Chandra. Their symbols are still the wheel
of rays and the crescent.
The moon goddess is worshiped in Buddhism as Tara.
Moon worship is also a part of the New Age.
5. Babylonian religion is goddess worship.
Goddess worship originated in ancient Babylon and spread throughout the earth. The goddess
was known by many names such as Rhea, Innana, Beltis, Isis, Ishtar, Nina, Ningal, Anat, Hera,
Ashtoreth, Juno, Diana, Aphrodite, Minerva, Fortuna, Ceres, Hygiela, Athena, Artemis, and
One of the greatest of the Babylonian-Assyrian goddesses was Ishtar. Her symbols were the lion
and the star. The lions decorating the gates of ancient Babylon and guarding the thrones of the
Assyrian kings were associated with her.
Goddess worship is still prominent in Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as in the New Age. A
search at Amazon books brings up more than 10,000 titles. Sue Monk Kidd, a popular writer who
used to be a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher, journeyed from Catholic contemplative
mysticism to New Age and now worships goddesses. She built an altar in her study and
populated it with statues of goddesses, plus a mirror to reflect her own image.
Goddess worship was typically steeped in immorality. The goddess was the deification of the
sex passion; her worship required licentiousness; sacred prostitution in connection with her
sanctuaries was a universal custom among the women of Babylonia (Halleys Bible Handbook).
The term Babylon as a byword for immorality is rooted in the vocabulary of every modern
language (Werner Keller, The Bible as History).
Wherever Babylonian idolatry is practiced, society is morally debased.


Goddess worship appeals to the lusts of the flesh and in the description of these lusts in Galatians
5, sexual sins are mentioned first. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness (Galatians 5:19). This list refers to every type
of sexually titillating thought and act apart from the lawful bonds of holy matrimony.
Idolatrys filthy sensuality was the enticement that caused Israel to sin repeatedly (Numbers
25:1-3; 31:15-16).
The Babylonian world system is very much in place in modern society, and its sensuality remains
a major temptation to Gods people today as it was in the early churches (Revelation 2:14).
Hinduism, which is practiced by hundreds of millions of people, is a direct descendant of the
Babylonian mystery religion, and many Hindu temples are adorned with pornographic images of
the gods and goddesses. Shiva worship, Krishna worship, and Tantric yoga are deeply immoral.
Immorality is also an integral part of the New Age. It is accompanied by the New Ethics that
encourages man to live and let live and promotes a judge-not attitude toward moral perversion.
According to the standard of the New Ethics, the only real sin is intolerance and moral
absolutism. The New Age is filthy. Its channelers talk of sexual exploits in past lives; its healing
touch often turns sensual; its occultic secrets are often of a sexual nature; its Freudian and
Jungian psychology is riddled with sexual elements.
Free love is also an integral part of the end-times rock & roll/Hollywood pop culture. As with
ancient Babylonian Baal worship, the pop cultures love can be defined better as lust. It is
selfish and self-willed rather than self-denying and self-giving. It tends to destroy marriages
rather than build them. The pop culture is Babylonian idolatry and it is no surprise that it has
filled society with adultery, fornication, divorce, pornography, child abuse, homosexuality, baby
murder, and demonic violence.
6. Babylonian religion is mother-goddess worship.
The mother-goddess and child were known by names such as Astarte and Tammuz, Isis and
Horus, Venus and Adonis, Fortuna and Jupiter, Irene and Plutus.
The mother-child were a part of the ancient Babylonian-Egyptian zodiac.
In China, the mother goddess was Shing moo, who was depicted holding a child.
A favorite title of the mother-goddess was the Mother of the Gods and the Queen of heaven,
both of which were incorporated into Romes Madonna worship. The images of Isis and the baby
Horus were the models for the Madonna and child.


Mother-goddess worship is found today in Hinduism. An example is Saptamatrika and child. She
even wears a halo just as in Catholic art. Other mother-goddesses in Hinduism are Parvati and
Iswara and Indrani and Murugan.
Mother-goddess worship also exists in Buddhism. Guanyin is depicted holding a baby.
Mother-goddess worship was associated with death and resurrection. The son (and husband) of
Isis (or Ishtar), who is known as Horus or Tammuz, died and rose again. This is a usurpation of
Christs death and resurrection and points to the coming antichrist who will be wounded unto
death and be resurrected (Rev. 13:3, 12).
7. Babylonian religion is serpent worship.
Idolatry is the worship of Satan under a thin veil (Deut. 32:17; 1 Cor. 10:20-21).
The fact that the snake has been a prominent feature of idolatry from the time of Babel until
today is evidence of this. The snake was the creature chosen by Satan in his attack upon Eve
(Gen. 3:1). The devil is called the old serpent ... which deceiveth the whole world (Revelation
Bel (Marduk or Merodach), one of Babylons chief gods, was worshiped as a dragon. In pagan
hymns he was addressed as the great serpent dragon (Stephen Herbert Langdon. The
Mythology of All Races: Semitic, Volume 5, 1931). He was depicted as a dragon on the Istar
Gates in Babylon. In an ancient Babylonian pottery at the Louvre in Paris Marduk is depicted as
a snake.
The cobra was worshiped by the Egyptians.
In Greek mythology Asclepius was associated with the serpent, which was worshiped as a healer.
The serpents in Asclepius temples were thought to bring healing to the devotees. The serpent
coiled around Asclepius staff became a symbol for the modern medical profession.
The serpent was worshiped by the Romans. A bearded snake from the first century AD is in on
display in the British Museum.
The serpent or dragon is part of the Chinese zodiac.
The Mayans worshiped Quetzalcoatle as the plumed serpent.
The serpent is prominent in voodoo worship in Africa, Haiti, and elsewhere.
The serpent is prominent in Hinduism. An ancient golden throne of a Hindu king in Kathmandu
at the Patan Museum features nine coiled serpents. Serpents are intertwined around the temples

in Pashupati, Nepals holiest Hindu shrine. Shiva worship is closely associated with serpent
worship. Nag Panchami is a yearly festival during which the serpent is worshiped.
The serpent is also prominent in Buddhism. Buddha is sometimes depicted sitting on a coiled
naga or serpent and shielded by its hood.
8. Babylonian religion is mystical worship.
Mysticism is the attempt to penetrate the unseen spiritual world and to experience direct
communion with the divine. Every aspect of ancient idolatry was mystical. It involved all sorts
of rituals and practices, such as prayer wheels, prayer beads, water rituals, lighting candles,
ringing bells, ascending temple steps, and meditation.
Hinduism is steeped in mystical practices, including chanting, candles, bells, prayer beads, and
particularly yoga.
Buddhism is also steeped in mysticism, including chanting, prayer wheels, circumnavigating
stupas, and meditation.
Babylonian mysticism was christianized by the Roman Catholic Church to form a major part of
its monastic spirituality. It was practiced by Catholic mystics such as Teresa of Avila and Ignatius
Loyola. Today Roman Catholic Babylonian mysticism is spreading throughout Christianity and
is at the heart of the end-times Harlot Church. It is promoted by Richard Foster, Dallas Willard,
Tony Campolo, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Beth Moore, Max Lucado, Phillip Yancy, Lee Strobel,
David Jeremiah, Chuck Swindoll, and many other evangelical leaders.
It is communion with devils masquerading as God, and it leads to spiritual shipwreck.
Oftentimes it results in a belief in pantheism (God is everything) or panentheism (God is in
everything). (For more on this see the book Contemplative Mysticism, which is available in print
and eBook formats from Way of Life Literature.)
Babylons Tower
Under Nimrods leadership the confederacy determined to build a great Tower to reach unto
This does not mean they intended to build a structure that would actually reach heaven. They
were building a structure to bridge heaven and earth, God and man, through mystery religions.
This is clear from ancient inscriptions that have been unearthed through archaeology.
The temple linking heaven and earth (Larsa)
The temple of the stairway to pure heaven (Sippar)


A ladder to and from heaven (Ur)

The towers that spread across Mesopotamia from Babel were ziggurats or stepped pyramids. At
least 34 have been unearthed at Babylon, Nineveh, Erech, Calah, Asshur, Ur, and other places.
After a visit to Babylon in 460 B.C., the Greek historian Herodotus described the Tower of Babel
as follows:
It has a solid central tower, one furlong square [one-eighth of a mile], with a second erected on top of it and
then a third, and so on up to eight. All eight towers can be climbed by a spiral way running around the outside,
and about halfway up there are seats for those who make the journey to rest on.

In Nebuchadnezzars day the tower was named for the god Marduk or Merodach, who is
mentioned in the Bible (Jeremiah 50:2). The shrine at the top had a 40-foot-high gold image of
According to an architectural tablet found at Babylon, the ziggurat in Nebuchadnezzars day was
295 feet square at the base and about 300 feet high.
An amazing monument was discovered in Babylon in 1917 depicting Nebuchadnezzar looking
on to the tower. The kings image is still clear but that of the tower is heavily worn, though its
general shape as a stepped pyramid is visible.
The ancient religious towers were not bland structures; they were colorful and pleasing to the
senses. Each stage was a different color, answering to the colors associated with the planets. The
shrines at the apex were typically built of bright blue-glazed bricks topped with a golden dome.
The Elamite tower at Choghazanbil near Susa was made of glazed brick and enameled tiles in
silver, gold, black, green, blue and azure colors, further decorated with white obsidian stones and
The terraces of each stage were sometimes covered with soil and planted with trees, so that the
structure had the appearance of a forested mountain.
The construction of the tower in Genesis 11 fits the description from archaeology of the ancient
ziggurats. It was made with burnt brick and slime, which refers to kiln-fired bricks and bitumen
or tar as opposed to sun-dried mud bricks and mud mortar. Kiln-fired bricks have been dated
archaeologically to the third millennium B.C., which is the time period of Genesis 11.
This very precisely reflects Sumerian building practices in the Tigris-Euphrates river valley where the first
civilizations were, where there is virtually no stone, but clay was some forty feet thick. ... Bitumen is the usual
mortar used with kiln-fired bricks. By contrast, the later building technology of Israel/Palestine used a mud
mortar. Bitumen of any kind was very expensive in Israel though it was standard in the earlier Mesopotamian
period (The Tower of Babel and Ancient Near Eastern Ziggurats, Dec. 22, 2007).


The bitumen was also used to waterproof the base of the tower.
The bricklaying technique described in the Bible at the building of the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:3-4]
corresponds with the findings of the archaeologists. As the investigations confirmed, actually only asphalted
bricks were used in the construction, especially in the foundations. That was clearly necessary for the security
of the structure in accordance with building regulations. In the neighbourhood of the river the regular rise in
the level of the water and the constant dampness of the ground had to be borne in mind. Foundations and
stonework were therefore made waterproof and damp-proof with slime, i.e., asphalt (Werner Keller, The
Bible as History).

The Babylonian bitumen was described by Bishop Prideaux as a glutinous slime arising out of
the earth in that country, which binds in building much stronger and firmer than lime, and soon
grows much harder than the bricks or stones themselves, which they cement together.
Nebuchadnezzar and the New Babylon
Throughout much of the 19th century, skeptics doubted the very existence of Nebuchadnezzar,
but bricks were discovered in 1880 at Babylon that bear his name. Since then hundreds of
thousands of such bricks have been unearthed, and archaeologists have even discovered
architectural plans for his buildings. Some are inscribed with the words, Nebuchadnezzar, king
of Babylon, who cares for Esagila and Ezida [Babylonian temples], eldest son of Nabopolassar,
king of Babylon.
An 18-year excavation in the early 20th century by the German Oriental Society confirmed that
Nebuchadnezzar created the new Babylon of his day, just as the Bible says in Daniel 4:30 (R.
Koldeway, Excavations at Babylon 1915).
Babylon surpassed all of the cities of the ancient orient: it was greater than Thebes, Memphis and Ur, greater
even than Nineveh. The centre of the city, which is full of three and four-storied buildings, is traversed by dead
straight streets not only those that run parallel to the river but also the cross streets which lead down to the
water side. So Herodotus described what he himself had seen. The town plan of Babylon is reminiscent of the
blueprints for large American cities.
In Babylon they made the acquaintance of streets as broad as avenues and as straight as if they had been
drawn with a ruler. Every one of them bore the name of one of the gods in the Babylonian pantheon. There
was a Marduk street and a Zababa street on the left bank of the river. In the right-hand corner of the city they
crossed the streets of the moon god Sin and of Enlil, the Lord of the World. On the right bank Adad street ran
from east to west, and intersected the street of the sun-god Shamash.
Babylon was not only a commercial but a religious metropolis as can be seen from an inscription: Altogether
there are in Babylon 53 temples of the chief gods, 55 chapels of Marduk, 300 chapels for the earthly deities,
600 for the heavenly deities, 180 altars for the goddess Ishtar, 180 for the gods Nergal and Adad and 12 other
altars for different gods.
Polytheisms of this kind with worship and ritual which extended to public prostitution must have given the city,
in terms of the present day, the appearance of an annual fair. The idea of Babylon as a cesspool of vice is
rooted in the vocabulary of every modern language.
On the street and squares between the temples, the chapels and the altars, trade and commerce flourished.
Solemn processions, heavily laden caravans, traders barrows, priests, pilgrims, merchants surged to and fro,
colourful and noisy. Religious life and business life were so closely associated in Babylons everyday affairs
that they often dovetailed into each other, as they did in the temples. ... Just as in Ur, the temple authorities in
Babylon ran their own department stores and warehouses. They also ran their own banks to invest their
revenues to the best advantage.


Outside the double walls of the city ... lay the Chambers of Commerce. It was on the river-bank that prices
were fixed and exchange rates established for the commodities that arrived by boat. Karum, quay, was the
name the Babylonians gave to what we now call the Exchange. As well as taking over the Quay, or Exchange,
from the Babylonians the old world has also taken over its system of weights and measurements
Observing the sky in the interest of astrology led to undreamt of advances. They were able to predict eclipses
of the sun and moon. In the Babylonian School of Astronomy about 750 B.C. observations of heavenly bodies
were recorded and continued without interruption for over 350 years, the longest series of astronomical
observations ever made. The accuracy of their reckoning exceeded that of European astronomers until well
into the 18th century (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 316-319, 322).

Many Jews, including Ezekiel and Daniel and his friends, lived in Babylon during
Nebuchadnezzars day and would have been witness to the things we describe here.
Babylons walls were an amazing architectural feat. According to the Greek historian Herodotus
(writing in about 450 B.C. which was some 65 years after the building of the Second Temple at
Jerusalem), Babylons double walls were 56 miles long and 320 feet high. Modern archaeologists
typically doubt that they were that high, but Herodotus was writing a firsthand account, plus we
have Nebuchadnezzars own record of the wall, in which he described it as mountain
high (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament). There were actually three walls, the
outer being about 80 feet wide so that a chariot drawn by four horses could easily turn around on
the road that ran along the top. Beyond the walls was a deep, brick-lined moat filled with water.
Two hundred and fifty defensive towers were constructed along the outer wall and extended 10
feet above it.
There were many gates into the city with doors made of brass and iron (Isaiah 45:2). The most
important was the beautiful blue and white monumental Ishtar Gate, which has been
reconstructed at the site of ancient Babylon an hour south of Baghdad and also at the Berlin
Museum using excavated bricks. Named for the goddess Ishtar, her symbol (the lion) was
featured prominently. The gate also flaunted the symbols for the gods Adad (a bull) and Marduk
(a dragon).
On the city side of the gate was a courtyard about 200 by 180 feet. One wall was covered with
blue glaze with designs of trees and flowers in yellow, white, red, and blue. A central doorway
led into the kings throne-room, which was 170 by 56 feet.
Beyond the courtyard was the Procession Way which was a causeway built higher than the
houses. Pompously called Aibur-Shab, or the enemy shall never pass, it was at least 50 feet
wide and hundreds of yards long, running from the Ishtar Gate to the Babel Tower. It was lined
on both sides with walls covered with blue, yellow, white, and black tiles forming bold designs
and representations of life-size lions. The street was paved with huge imported stones, limestone
blocks ran down the center with slabs of red breccia veined with white on either side. The
Istanbul Museum of Archaeology displays samples of the tiles that lined the causeway.
It was used for the procession of the gods on New Years Day and for military processions.
Captive Jews and artifacts from Solomons Temple were probably carried in procession under the


Ishtar Gate and down this causeway after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzars
A branch of the Euphrates ran through the city, dividing the old city from Nebuchadnezzars new
Babylon, and a beautiful bridge 30 feet wide and more than 200 yards long connected the two
parts of the city. The old Babylonian palace was on the east side of the bridge and the new palace
on the west.
At least three canals ran through the city.
Nebuchadnezzar built a grand palace made of marble, rare wood, and bronze, and decorated
with gold and silver, precious stones, and colorful tiles. The roof of the palace was made of cedar
and the doors were of cedar covered with bronze. He called it the shining residence, the
dwelling majesty and referred to it as mountainlike.
Nebuchadnezzar built the renowned Hanging Gardens as a gift to one of his wives, the daughter
of the king of the Medes. It is said that she was from the mountains and was depressed by living
on the flat, dry Babylonian plains, so the king built her an artificial mountain complete with a
forest and glorious gardens which hung over the heads of the Babylonian citizens. Greek
historian Diodorus Siculus said the gardens were 400 feet square and more than 80 feet high.
Strabo said the structure was made with baked brick and bitumen and consisted of a series of
vaulted terraces resting on cube-shaped pillars that were hollow and filled with earth to allow for
the growth of the largest trees. The top of the gardens was roofed and ascent was made by stairs.
Plants and trees were imported from foreign lands, and there would have been a glorious variety
of habits and color, with vegetation hanging over the terraces and vaults. The water, which
flowed throughout the structure in streams and fountains, was raised from the Euphrates to a pool
at the top of the structure by slave-powered machines. From there it was released to channels that
transported the water to every part of the gardens by gravity.
Greek historians Strabo and Philo described the gardens like this:
The Hanging Garden has plants cultivated above ground level, and the roots of the trees are embedded in an
upper terrace rather than in the earth. The whole mass is supported on stone columns. ... Streams of water
emerging from elevated sources flow down sloping channels... These waters irrigate the whole garden
saturating the roots of plants and keeping the whole area moist. Hence the grass is permanently green and
the leaves of trees grow firmly attached to supple branches. ... This is a work of art of royal luxury and its most
striking feature is that the labor of cultivation is suspended above the heads of the spectators.

Some archaeologists have doubted the existence of the Hanging Gardens in Babylon, but there is
not only the aforementioned historical evidence, there is also archaeological evidence. The
German archaeologist Robert Koldewey, working in the early 20th century, was convinced that
he had found part of the foundation of the gardens and evidence of the water pumps.
Archaeologists found a record of Nebuchadnezzars proud description of Babylon, which reflects
the Bibles record in Daniel 4:29-30.

At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. The king spake, and said, Is
not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the
honour of my majesty?

Following is from the Babylonian account:

A great wall which like a mountain cannot be moved I made of mortar and brick ... Its foundation upon the
bosom of the abyss ... its top I raised mountain high. I triplicated the city wall in order to strengthen it. I caused
a great protecting wall to run at the foot of the wall of burnt brick. ... A third great moat wall ... I built with mortar
and brick. ... The produce of the lands, the products of the mountains, the bountiful wealth of the sea, within
Babylon I gathered. ... The palace ... I rebuilt in Babylon with great cedars I brought from Lebanon, the
beautiful forest, to roof it. ... Huge cedars from Lebanon, their forest with my clean hands I cut down. With
radiant gold I overlaid them, with jewels I adorned them (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament).

Nebuchadnezzars Capture of Jerusalem

In 1955 a clay tablet from the Babylonian Chronicle was translated by D.J. Wiseman at the
British Museum and found to contain a record of Nebuchadnezzars second capture of Jerusalem.
In his first raid on the Jewish capitol, Nebuchadnezzar (who was crown prince at the time) made
King Jehoiakim his slave, robbed the temple of some of its treasures, and took captive many of
Israels elite (2 Chron. 36:5-7; 2 Kings 24:1). It was at this time that Daniel and his friends were
taken to Babylon (Dan. 1:1-3).
In his second military action against the city, Nebuchadnezzar took King Jehoiachin captive to
Babylon and appointed Zedekiah in his place. On this occasion Nebuchadnezzar looted the
temple of all its treasures and carried away captive all of the men of might and craftsmen. It
was probably at this time that the prophet Ezekiel was taken captive (Ezek. 1:1-2).
Following is the Babylonian record of this event, which refers to kings Jehoiachin and Zedekiah,
though not by name:
In the seventh year, in the month Chislev, the king assembled his army and advanced on Hatti-land [Syria].
He encamped over against the city of the Judeans and conquered it on the second day of Adar [March 16,
597 B.C.]. He took the king [Jehoiachin] prisoner, and appointed in his stead a king after his own heart
[Zedekiah]. He exacted heavy tribute and had it brought to Babylon (Babylonian Chronicle for 605-594 B.C.,
British Museum, Room 55, Case 15, WA 21946).

This is powerful extra-biblical confirmation of 2 Kings 24:10-17.

There is also an amazing account in the Babylonian archives that describes Jehoiachins captivity
in Babylon. It mentions him and his five sons as captives who received special rations. This
record was translated by E. F. Weidner in the 1930s. The tablets were brought to Berlin during
the German Oriental Societys excavations of Babylon, the same excavations that discovered
Babylons famous Ishtar Gate. The receipts pertaining to the rations given to Jehoiachin date to
the 13th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which was 592 B.C., five years after the fall of


Jerusalem. The Ration Dockets are in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. Following are some of
the statements from the documents:
10 [sila of oil] to the king of Judah, Yaukin
2 1/2 sila to the offspring of Judahs king
10 sila to Iakuukinu, the king of Judahs son
2 1/2 sila for the five sons of the Judean king

The Babylonian archives state that Jehoiachin received 20 times more food rations than others
that were listed, which corresponds to 2 Kings 25:27-30.
Skeptics such as Ferdinand Hitzig doubted the existence of Belshazzar, mentioned in Daniel 5,
because his name had not been confirmed through extra-biblical evidence and ancient secular
historians had named Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. Hitzig claimed that Belshazzar was
a biblical myth.
This supported the liberal doctrine that Daniel was not written until after the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes in 164 B.C., a view invented by skeptics who rejected the Bibles supernatural
inspiration. They didnt believe that a Jewish prophet writing in the sixth century B.C. could
describe events of the second century B.C., 400 years in the future.
But in 1854 J.G. Taylor found the NABONIDUS CYLINDER at the ancient site of Ur bearing
the name Belshazzar. It was commissioned by Nabonidus as a dedication of the Ur ziggurat
which he rebuilt for his moon god, and it plainly states that Belshazzar was his son.
As for Belshazzar my firstborn son, my own child, let the fear of your great divinity be in his heart, and may he
commit no sin; may he enjoy happiness in life (The Nabonidus Cylinder, British Museum, Room 55, Case 14,
WA 91128).

Further, the NABONIDUS CHRONICLE 556-539 B.C., which was translated in 1924, states
that Nabonidus and Belshazzar shared co-regency. It says that Nabonidus was in the city of Tema
in the Arabian desert for 10 years, while Belshazzar was with the army in Babylon.
He [Nabonidus] entrusted the army [in Babylon] to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he
ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out
for a long journey [to Tema] (Nabonidus Chronicle, British Museum, Room 55, Case 15, WA 35382).

The Nabonidus Chronicle is powerful confirmation of the historical accuracy of Daniel chapter
5. It confirms the Bibles accuracy in calling Belshazzar king, its accuracy in not mentioning
Nabonidus in reference to the fall of Babylon, and its accuracy in saying that Belshazzar offered
Daniel the position as third ruler in the kingdom (Nabonidus being first and Belshazzar the
Why, then, does the Bible call Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:2, 11)?

It is worth mentioning that the description of Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar in the Old
Testament (Dan. 5:2, 11) is probably simply an example of the use of father to mean forebear (T.C. Mitchell,
The Bible in the British Museum, p. 89).

1. There is evidence for the biblical Nimrod in the personages that archaeology has discovered in
that exact place and time. Men such as Naram-Sin and Gilgamesh had the same character as
2. The idolatrous religion founded in Babylon has spread throughout the earth and is on the rise
in these last days in the form of Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, and Contemplative Mysticism.
3. The religious tower described in Genesis 11 was duplicated throughout that part of the world
and remnants of many of these have been found by archaeologists.
4. The existence of Nebuchadnezzar and his glorious Babylon has been confirmed through
archaeology, refuting the 19th-century skeptics who claimed this was a myth.
5. Nebuchadnezzars capture of Jerusalem and Israels Babylonian captivity have been confirmed
in ancient Babylonian documents.
6. The existence of Belshazzar and his position as king of Babylon at its downfall have been
confirmed by archaeology through the chronicles of his father Nabonidus.
1. In what two chapters of the Bible do we find the record of the beginning of Babylons history?
2. Where was Shinar?
3. The Tower of Babel was about what kind of god?
4. When was the Tower of Babel constructed in relation to the Flood?
5. Who was the first leader of the Babel kingdom?
6. What does the Bible mean when it says that this man was a mighty one in the earth?
7. What does the Bible mean when it says that this man was a mighty hunter?
8. Who are three historical figures from secular history that might have been Nimrod or one of
his associates?
9. What were the characteristics of Naram-Sin that remind us of Nimrod?
10. The Tower of Babel was preeminently an act of what?
11. The book of Revelation says that Babylon was the mother of ___________ and
12. The development of idolatry is described in what New Testament passage?
13. What are eight characteristics of Babylonian religion?
14. Who was Shamash and what was his symbol?

15. Who was Sin and what was his symbol?

16. What were two major symbols of Ishtar?
17. What is the major attraction of goddess worship?
18. Where did the Roman Catholic Church get its doctrine of the Madonna?
19. What verse says idolators worship the devil?
20. What verse speaks of the old serpent ... which deceiveth the whole world?
21. What was the symbol of Merodach?
22. Where did the modern medical profession get the symbol of a serpent coiled around a staff?
23. What is a ziggurat?
24. How many stages did the Tower of Babylon have in 460 B.C.?
25. What did the different colors of the tower stages signify?
26. What is burnt brick?
27. What was the slime that was used to construct the Tower of Babel?
28. Where do the modern system of weights and measures come from?
29. How wide was Babylons outer wall in the days of Nebuchadnezzar?
30. What goddess was Babylons major gate named after?
31. What evidence is there for the Hanging Gardens?
32. What record is contained in Nebuchadnezzars Babylonian Chronicle?
33. What is Jerusalem called in this account?
34. The Ration Dockets describe the captivity of what Hebrew king?
35. What is the significance of the Nabonidus Cylinder and the Nabonidus Chronicle?
36. Why does the Bible call Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar when he was actually the son
of Nabonidus?

A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Assyria is included in the Unshakeable Faith
apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the beginning
of the course for tips on using this material.
The name Assyria is from Asshur (also spelled Assur), who founded Nineveh and who became a
god in Assyrian mythology. This is in accordance with the Bibles statement that Asshur founded
Nineveh (Gen. 10:11). Asshur was associated with Nimrod, and the Assyrian symbol for Asshur-a warrior with a bow in his hand--reminds us of the Bibles description of Nimrod as a mighty
hunter (Gen. 10:9). Asshur was worshiped as the sun god and his symbol was a winged disk.
Assyrias Palaces
Between 1845-51 Austen Henry Layard uncovered the ruins of eight palaces of five Assyrian
kings: Ashurnasirpal, Shalmaneser III, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal (Asnappar).
Four of these are mentioned in the Bible (all except Ashurnasirpal).


In his book Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (1853), Layard listed 55 rulers,
cities, and countries that appear both in the Old Testament and in the ancient Assyrian records
unearthed through archaeology.
Assyrian annals give extra-biblical witness to nine Hebrew kings: Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Menahem,
Pekah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh.
The Assyrian Empire was prosperous, technologically advanced, literate, and very wicked.
The Bible describes its chief moral characteristics as pride (Isa. 10:12), violence, deception, and
covetousness (Nah. 3:1) and idolatrous witchcraft (Nah. 3:4), and this description is confirmed
perfectly by archaeology.
Sennacheribs palace in Nineveh was 1680 feet long by 810 feet wide. He named it Palace
without a Rival. Its 71 rooms were lined with stone slabs eight feet high by four to six feet wide
covered with bas-reliefs depicting the hunting and military exploits of the ancient kings.
In Sennacharibs day Nineveh was larger than Babylon, with 100,000 to 150,000 inhabitants. Its
walls were 30 feet high and 45 feet thick and had 15 great gates. The inner city wall ran seven
miles in circuit and was fronted by a deep moat. He called this the wall that terrifies the enemy.
Water was brought into the city by canals and aqueducts from as far as 25 miles away.
The bas-reliefs contain detailed depictions of social life and military scenes, including personal
armaments, battle chariots, and war engines. There is even a depiction of how the Assyrians
transported massive stone statues.
Assyrias Grand Library
Archaeologists unearthed a 30,000-volume library belonging to Ashurbanipal.
The surviving books are written on clay tablets, which were partially baked when the library was
burned by the Babylonians in the 7th century B.C., thus helping to preserve them. The original
library would have been vastly larger, as it would have contained books written on leather
scrolls, wax boards, and papyri, all of which have perished. The surviving collection is housed in
the British Museum.
The books include such things as royal letters and decrees; mythological and religious texts;
business contracts; administrative documents; and material relating to medicine, history,
astronomy, and literature. There were creation and flood myths.
The following is from Welcome to the Library of King Ashurbanipal

Like a modern library this collection was spread out into many rooms according to subject matter. Some
rooms were devoted to history and government, others to religion and magic and still others to geography,
science, poetry, etc. Ashurbanipal's collection even held what could be called classified government materials.
The findings of spies and secret affairs of state were held secure from access in deep recesses of the palace
much like a modern government archive. Each group of tablets contained a brief citation to identify the
contents and each room contained a tablet near the door to classify the general contents of each room in
Ashurbanipal's library. The actual cataloging activities under Ashurbanipal's direction would not be seen in
Europe for centuries.

Assyrias Cruelty
The Assyrians were exceedingly cruel. It is no wonder that Gods Word called Nineveh the
bloody city (Nahum 3:1).
Consider the following description of Assurnasirpals military venture into Syria. This Assyrian
king filled his palace at Calah with depictions of these terrible scenes.
I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men ... and I covered the pillar with their
skins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound to
stakes round about the pillar ... and I cut off the limbs of the officers. ... Many captives from among them I
burned with fire, and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their hands and from others I cut off
their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living, and another
of heads, and I bound their heads to posts round about the city (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p.

This wicked Assyrian king particularly delighted in flaying people alive and burning children in
No wonder Jonah didnt want to go to Nineveh and preach!
Assyrias Military
Through archaeology we know a great deal about Assyrias military, including its equipment and
tactics. This provides a fascinating background to the military accounts in the Old Testament.
The following is excerpted from Henry Layards Nineveh and Its Remains:
Judging from the sculptures, cavalry must have formed a large and important portion of the Assyrian armies.
The Assyrian horsemen are frequently mentioned in the Bible. Ezekiel 23:6 describes the Assyrians clothed in
blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses; and Holofernes is
declared to have had no less than 12,000 archers on horseback. The rider is represented as seated on the
naked back of the horse, which is only adorned with a cloth when led behind the chariot of the king (p. 234).
The horses represented in the sculptures appear to be of noble breed. Assyria, and particularly that part of
the empire which was watered by the Tigris and Euphrates, was celebrated at a very early period for its
horses, as the same plains are to this day for the noblest breeds of Arabia. ... The horses of the Assyrian basreliefs were evidently drawn from the finest models, and the Assyrian sculptor has not been altogether
unsuccessful in their delineation. The head is small and well-shaped, the nostrils large and high, the neck
arches, the body long, and the legs slender and sinewy. The prophet exclaims of the horses of the
Chaldaeans, They are swifter than the leopards, and more fierce than the evening wolves; [Habakkuk 1:8]
and the magnificent description of the war-horse in the book of Job is familiar to every reader [Job 39:19] (p.


In these bas-reliefs the harness and trappings of the horses and chariots are remarkable for their richness
and even elegance. The heads of the horses are adorned with plumes and fanciful crests, and with long
ribands or streamers, which were probably of many colours. Like the Arabs and Persians of the present day,
the Assyrians appear to have been lavish of tassels of silk and wool, which were attached to all parts of the
harness, as were also small bells and ornaments in ivory, many of which were afterwards found in the ruins.
The bridle consisted of a headstall, a strap divided into three parts joining the bit, and straps over the
forehead, under the cheeks, and behind the ears. We find sacred emblems used as ornaments in the
trappings of horses, as on the robes of figures; the winged bull, the sun, moon, stars, and horned cap being
frequently introduced. They were probably of ivory, gold, and copper, or sometimes worked on cloth or silk.
Three richly embroidered straps, passing round the body of the horse, kept the harness and chariot-pole in
their places, and were attached to a highly decorated breast-band. To the yoke was suspended an elegant
ornament, in the form of the head of an animal, and a ring which generally enclosed a winged bull, a star, or
some other sacred device.
Embroidered trappings, such as are described by Ezekiel [27:20] as the precious clothes for chariots, coming
from Dedan, covered the backs of the horses. Their bits, as well as the metal used in the harness, may
frequently have been of gold and other precious materials, like those of the ancient Persians. Their manes
were either allowed to fall loosely on the neck or were plaited, and their tails were tied in the middle with
ribands adorned with tassels (pp. 237, 238).
In the Bible frequent mention is made of the use of chariots and horsemen both in sieges and battles, as
represented in the Assyrian sculptures. The choicest valleys shall be full of chariots, and the horsemen shall
set themselves in array against the gate. [Isaiah 22:7] Amongst the tributaries of the Assyrians, the Elamites
were celebrated for their chariots carrying archers ( p. 238).
Siege Instruments
The lower series of bas-reliefs contained three subjects--the siege of a castle, the king receiving prisoners,
and the king, with his army, crossing a river. ... The castle had equidistant towers, and apparently several
walls, one behind the other, all surmounted by triangular pointed battlements. The besiegers having brought a
battering-ram to the outer wall, one of the besieged was endevouring to catch the ram, and to break the
blows, by a chain lowered from the walls; whilst two warriors of the assailing party were seeking to hold the
ram in its place by hooks. This part of the bas-relief illustrates the account in the book of Chronicles and in
Josephus, of the machines for battering walls, instruments to cast stones, and grappling irons made by Uzziah
[2 Chron. 26:15, and Josephus, lib. ix, c. 10]. A warrior on the castle walls was throwing fire (traces of the red
paint with which the flame was coloured, being still visible in the sculpture) from above upon the battering-ram;
whilst the besiegers endeavoured to quench the flames, by pouring water upon them from the moveable
tower. Two soldiers, in full armour, were undermining the walls with instruments like blunt spears; whilst two
others appear to have found a secret passage into the castle. Wounded men were falling from the
battlements; and upon one of the towers were women, tearing their hair and extending their hands to ask for
quarter. The enemy were mounting to the assault, by scaling ladders placed against the walls. The king,
discharging an arrow, and protected by a shield held by a warrior in complete armour, stood on one side of the
castle. He was attended by two eunuchs, one holding an open umbrella over his head, the other his quiver
and mace. Behind them was an Assyrian warrior driving away three women, a child, and three bullocks,
forming part of the spoil. It was thus that the Assyrians carried away captive the people of Samaria, replacing
the population of the conquered country by colonies of their own. The women were represented as tearing
their hair and throwing dust upon their heads, the usual signs of grief in the East.
On the other side of the castle were two kneeling soldiers, one using his bow, the other holding a shield for
his companions defence. Behind them was the vizir, also discharging an arrow, and protected by the shield of
a second warrior, an archer kneeling, and an archer and his shield-bearer in complete armour, standing. They
were followed by a chariot, in which a charioteer was standing, whilst the horses were held by a groom.
Behind the chariot were two warriors, each carrying a bow and a mace.
The shields represented in this bas-relief were probably made of wicker-work, and were chiefly used during a
siege. They were large enough to cover the whole person of the archer, who was thus able to discharge his
arrows in comparative security. Such may have been the bucklers which Herodotus describes as forming a
complete fence before the Persian archers at the battle of Platea (pp. 235, 236, 237).


Personal Armor
The Arabs employed in removing the rubbish from the chamber with the kneeling winged figures, discovered
a quantity of objects in iron, in which I soon recognised the scales were from two to three inches in length,
rounded at one end, and square at the other, with a raised or embossed line in the centre, and had probably
been fastened to a shirt of linen or felt (Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, p. 241).

Hand-to-hand combat with clubs and spears and swords was common in that era, but as we have
seen, there was also plenty of death served up from long distances by arrows and machines that
threw huge stones. There were also the skilled slingers, which are also mentioned in the Bible (2
Kings 3:25). The Israeli slingers were accurate to the breadth of a hair (Judges 20:16).
In Old Testament times, slingers were regular components of an army and were often used together with
archers; during siege warfare their role was to pick off the enemy from the besieged citys ramparts. Such
slingers were capable of hurling a projectile at over one hundred miles an hour and their effective range was
well in excess of one hundred yards (Alfred Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament).

The Gilgamesh Flood Epic

One of the 19th-century discoveries in the ancient Assyrian library at Nineveh was the
Gilgamesh flood account. Henry Layard found the tablets and sent them to the British Museum,
where the text was translated in 1872 by George Smith.
It is believed that the account originated in about 1800 B.C. in Babylon, which is near the time of
Abraham and about 500 years after the Flood.
A portion of the Gilgamesh Epic is on display at the British Museum (Room 55, Case 10, WA K
It purports to be the account that Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh of how he survived the flood and
gained immortality.
Sumarian records claim that Gilgamesh was the king of Erech (Uruk in Akkadian) in about 2,500
B.C. This carries us back to the time near the Flood, and it is probable that the Gilgamesh
mythology has an historical basis in Nimrod, as Erech is mentioned in Genesis 10:10 as the
beginning of Nimrods kingdom.
Gilgamesh is described as part-man, part-god and is so proud and cruel and morally depraved
that the citizens of the land plead to the god Anu for protection. The Bible indicates that Nimrod
modeled these very characteristics. Nimrod and Gilgamesh portray the moral character that was
exhibited in later Babylonian and Assyrian kings such as Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib.
Skeptics immediately used the Gilgamesh Epic as evidence that the Bibles flood account is just
one among many ancient legends. In fact, most works on archaeology give only three
possibilities: First, the Bibles account was borrowed from the Babylonian. Second, both


accounts used a common source. Third the Babylonian account was borrowed from the Bibles.
This possibility has been almost universally rejected by the skeptics.
For very powerful reasons, the Bible believer is convinced that the biblical account is what it
claims to be: divine revelation. Only willful prejudice would fail even to consider this option,
and it is exactly such willful unbelief that is described in the amazing prophecy in 2 Peter 3:3-6.
How did Peter, writing 2,000 years ago, know about the unbelief that would characterize modern
science? It was not until the 19th century that this willful ignorance came to the fore. Fulfilled
prophecy is indisputable evidence of the divine inspiration of Scripture, and the very unbelief of
modern archaeology witnesses to the Bibles divine inspiration!
The fact is that the Bibles flood account is of an entirely different character than the Gilgamesh
epic. The Bibles account is not a wild-eyed fable, whereas that is exactly what we find in
First, consider the gods of the Gilgamesh Epic. It is an account of pagan gods who are weak and
man-like and competitive. They are also dishonest and deceptive. After the chief god Ea takes an
oath from the other gods not to tell mankind about the decision to send the flood, he decides to
tell one man named Utnapishtim. Ea instructs him to keep the flood a secret from all other men.
In fact, he is instructed to deceive others by giving them the impression that the gods are going to
bless them instead of destroy them. When the storm comes, the gods are so frightened that they
flee to heaven and cower like dogs, crouching outside the door of the god Anu.
Second, consider the ark of the Gilgamesh Epic. It is a CUBE 200 feet square and six stories tall,
which would have been incredibly unstable and probably could not have survived the powerful
flood conditions. This is in contrast to the ark described in Genesis, which was 450 feet long by
75 feet wide by 30 feet high, similar to the proportion of large modern sea-going vessels such as
oil tankers and cargo containers.
As an adopted son of Pharaoh, Moses was educated in all of the learning of the Egyptians (Acts
7:22), who in turn were familiar with the learning of the ancient Babylonians. Yet not a hint of
the ridiculous fables of these pagan people appear anywhere in Moses writings.
This is because Moses wrote by divine inspiration and not by his own wisdom and training.
Shalmanesers Black Obelisk
The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria (859-824 B.C.), was found in the ruins of
an Assyrian palace by Austen Layard in 1846.


Of polished basalt six feet high, two feet wide, and sculpted on all four sides, the stele depicts
five foreign kings bringing tribute to the Assyrian monarch. There are five series of bas-reliefs
(20 panels in all), each depicting a foreign king bringing tribute.
The second series of panels from the top depicts King Jehu of northern Israel bowing before
The king of Assyria is standing before the humbled Jewish king and an attendant is holding an
umbrella to shade him. Two other attendants are armed with swords. One of these is beckoning
for Jehus 13 servants to bring the tributes forward. Jehu and his servants have beards and are
wearing long robes with decorated hems, peaked caps, and pointed shoes.
The writing says, The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a golden
bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king
[and] spears (the British Museums web site).
The Bible does not describe Jehus tribute to the king of Assyria, but it does say that Jehu did not
obey God and that he was given over to his enemies (2 Kings 10:31-33).
Shalmanesers Stela
The Stela of Shalmaneser III, which describes the first six military campaigns of the Assyrian
king, mentions Ahab (king of Israel) and Benhadad (king of Syria).
I approached Karkara. I destroyed, tore down, and bound Karkara, his royal residence. He brought along to
help him 1,200 chariot, 1,200 cavalrymen, 20,000 foot soldiers belonging to Hadadezer [BENHADAD] of
Damascus ... 2000 chariots, 10,000 foot soldiers belonging to AHAB the Israelite.

Tiglath-pileser and Israels Kings

Tiglath-pileser (also known as Pul, which was his Babylonian name), was king of Assyria from
744-727 B.C. His portrait is in Room 8 of the British Museum.
Four of Israels kings are mentioned in his records.
He describes the tribute demanded from King Menahem:
As for MENAHEM, I overwhelmed him like a snowstorm and he fled like a bird alone, and bowed to my feet. I
returned him to his place and imposed tribute upon him.

This is mentioned in 2 Kings 15:19-20. Menahem raised the tribute money by imposing a tax of
50 shekels on each wealthy man in his kingdom.
Tiglath-pilesers annals also confirm the events of 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 16:7-9.


The Assyrian records describe the captivity of the Galilee region in northern Israel; the
assassination of Pekah; the enthronement of Hoshea; Ahazs tribute; Rezin of Syrias slaying.
Tiglath-pilesers annals confirm all this, referring to the following people and events. In an inscription he tells
how Ahaz (of Judah) paid him an enormous tax of royal treasure, gold, silver, lead, tin, iron, woollen goods,
linen, purple, trained horses and mules. Tiglath also gives details of how he took Syria, conquering all the way
to Damascus. He tells of how King Rezin fled into the city, and how, amidst scenes of devastation and
destruction, Rezins advisers were impaled. Tiglath-pilesers annals also refer to the assassination of Pekah,
claiming a part in the conspiracy. The historical nature of the biblical narrative could not be more
comprehensively confirmed (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidence, pp. 24, 25).

Following is part of the Assyrian record:

BET-OMRI [the house of Omri] all of whose cities I had added to my territories on my former campaigns, and
had left out only the city of Samaria. ... The whole of Naphtali I took for Assyria. I put my officials over them as
governors. The land of Bet-Omri, all its people and their possessions I took away to Assyria. They overthrew
PEKAH their king and I made HOSHEA to be king over them (Werner Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 260,

The Annals of Tiglath-pileser III are in Room 89 of the British Museum (WA K 3751).
Northern Israel is called the house of Omri after the name of the king (Jehus father) who built
the city of Samaria (1 Kings 16:23-24).
The capture of Astartu, a city in Gilead, is depicted on the Astartu Relief in the British Museum.
The bottom of the relief shows the king being driven in his chariot which is led by honor guards.
An attendant holds an umbrella over his head. At the top of the relief, Jews, goods and livestock
are being taken captive. The bearded Jews, wearing fringed robes and skull caps and pointed
shoes, with bags slung over their shoulders, are driven by an armed Assyrian soldier.
Sargon II and the Fall of Samaria
Sargons existence was doubted by Bible skeptics, but the palace of Sargon II (722-705 B.C.) in
Khorsabad was discovered by Paul Emile Botta in 1840.
See the section on Hezekiah and His Times for more about Sargon.
There is extensive archaeological witness to the Assyrian king Sennacherib who is mentioned in
the Bible in reference to the destruction of Lachish and the siege of Jerusalem and in reference to
his death at the hands of his sons.
See the section on Hezekiah and His Times for the details about Sennacherib and the
aforementioned biblical events.


The Destruction of the Assyrian Kingdom and Bible prophecy

God used Assyria as an instrument to punish Israel, but her day of judgment came and it was
terrible to behold. Israel still lives, but Assyria is only a vague memory.
The destruction of Assyria was prophesied in Isaiah 10:5-19 and Ezekiel 31:3-13, and the
destruction of Nineveh in particular was prophesied in Nahum 2-3 and Zephaniah 2:13-15.
Nahum prophesied about 713 B.C., which was more than a century before Nineveh fell in 612
B.C., and her fall occurred precisely according to the Bible prophecy.
Consider the following dramatic examples:
1. The city endured a long siege. Draw thee waters for the siege, fortify thy strong holds: go into
clay, and tread the mortar, make strong the brickkiln (Nah. 3:14). Indeed, the city was besieged
for over two years.
2. Ninevehs palace was breached by a flood. The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the
palace shall be dissolved (Nah. 2:6). There was a floodgate at the N.W. angle of the city, which
was swept away; and the water pouring into the city dissolved the palace foundation platform,
of sundried bricks (Faussets Bible Dictionary).
3. Ninevehs defenders were drunk. For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they
are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry (Nah. 1:10). The
historian [Diodorus Siculus] relates that the king of Assyria, elated with his former victories, and
ignorant of the revolt of the Bactrians, had abandoned himself to scandalous inaction; had
appointed a time of festivity, and supplied his soldiers with abundance of wine; and that the
general of the enemy, appraised, by deserters, of their negligence and drunkenness, attacked the
Assyrian army while the whole of them were giving way to indulgence, destroyed a great part of
them, and drove the rest into the city (Alexander Keith, Christian Evidences: Fulfilled Bible
Prophecy, 1831). This also reminds us of the fall of Babylon when the king and his princes were
engaged in a drunken party as described in Daniel 5.
4. Ninevehs fortifications were destroyed by fire. the fire shall devour thy bars (Nah. 3:13,
15). Saracus the last king, Esarhaddons grandson, set fire to the palace and perished in the
flames, as Ctesias states, and as the marks of fire on the walls still confirm. Charred wood,
calcined alabaster, and heat splintered figures abound (Fausset). Burnt bas-reliefs from
Ninevehs palace are on display in Room 9 at the British Museum (WA 124785).
5. The enemy ran over the city unopposed and chariots ran abreast in the citys wide streets. The
chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they
shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings (Nah. 2:4). The picture of the scenes
in her streets--the noise of the whip, the rattling wheels, the prancing horses, the bounding

chariots, followed by a vivid description of the carnage of the battlefield--is exceedingly striking,
and true to their records and their sculptures (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). Even
the road on top of Ninevehs walls was wide enough for three chariots abreast (Fausset).
6. Nineveh would be left utterly waste.
I will make thy grave (Nah. 1:14)
She is empty, and void, and waste (Nah. 2:10)
Nineveh is laid waste (Nah. 3:7)
And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation,
and dry like a wilderness (Zeph. 2:13)
how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in (Zeph. 2:15)

The Babylonian Chronicle described Ninevehs destruction as follows:

... the city was reduced to a mount of ruin and heaps of debris (Babylonian Chronicle for 615-609 B.C.,
British Museum, Room 55, Case 11, WA 21901).

Many ancient cities that were overrun by foreign armies, sometimes repeatedly, have survived,
but Nineveh disappeared just as Scripture predicted. By 400 B.C. the city had become a thing of
the past and was gradually buried out of sight under the desert sands.
Its exact location was forgotten until Austen Henry Layards excavations in the mid-19th century.
His description of the desolation of Nimrod (Calah) in those days could also have been written of
nearby Nineveh, and it is a powerful confirmation of Bible prophecy.
The lofty cone and broad mound of Nimroud rose like a distant mountain in the morning sky. ... [there were]
no signs of human habitation, not even the black tent of the Arab, were seen upon the plain. The eye
wandered over a parched and barren waste, across which occasionally swept the whirlwind, dragging with it a
cloud of sand. About a mile from us was the small village of Nimroud, like Naifa, a heap of ruins. ... The luxury
and civilisation of a mighty nation had given place to the wretchedness and ignorance of a few half-barbarous
tribes. The wealth of temples, and the riches of great cities, had been succeeded by ruins and shapeless
heaps of earth (Nineveh and Its Remains, pp. 15, 16, 55).

1. According to archaeology, Assyria was founded by Asshur, which is in accordance with the
Bibles statement that Asshur founded Nineveh (Gen. 10:11). The Assyrian symbol for Asshur--a
warrior with a bow in his hand--reminds us of the Bibles description of Nimrod as a mighty
hunter (Gen. 10:9).
2. Archaeology has found evidence of many of the Assyrian kings mentioned in the Bible:
Shalmaneser II, Tiglath-pileser III, Shalmaneser V, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and
Ashurbanipal (Asnappar).


3. In his book Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (1853), Layard listed 55 rulers,
cities, and countries that appear both in the Old Testament and in the ancient Assyrian records
unearthed through archaeology.
4. Assyrian annals give extra-biblical witness to nine Hebrew kings: Omri, Ahab, Jehu,
Menahem, Pekah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh.
5. Archaeology has confirmed the Bibles description of Assyrias chief moral characteristics as
pride (Isa. 10:12), violence, deception, and covetousness (Nah. 3:1) and idolatrous witchcraft
(Nah. 3:4).
6. Archaeology has confirmed Assyrias cruel military might as described in the Bible.
7. The Gilgamesh flood epic is a fable. It depicts a plurality of weak, deceptive gods. The ark is a
cube 200 feet square and six stories tall.
8. Shalmanesers Black Obelisk portrays Israels King Jehu offering tribute to the Assyrian king.
9. Assyrian records confirm Sargons destruction of Samaria, the carrying away of the Israelites,
and the repopulating of the land with pagan people.
10. Assyrian records confirm the siege and destruction of Lachish. Bas-reliefs depicting this
event were found at Nineveh and are in the British Museums Lachism Room.
11. Assyrian records (the Taylor Prism) confirm Sennacheribs siege of Jerusalem.
12. Archaeology confirms the description of the destruction of Nineveh written in Bible
1. Who was the founder of Nineveh according to the Bible?
2. What ancient kingdom got its name from this man?
3. He was worshiped as the ______ god and his symbol was a ______________________.
4. He was depicted as a warrior with a _________ in hand.
5. How does this depiction fit the Bibles description of Nimrod?
6. What book and chapter of the Bible describes Nimrods kingdom?
7. What archaeologist discovered the ruins of eight Assyrian palaces?
8. When was this?
9. What were four moral characteristics of Assyria as found in the Bible?
10. The Assyrian kings palaces were lined with stone slabs that depicted what?
11. What Assyrian king built a grand library?
12. Why have most of the books in the library perished?

13. The prophet Nahum called Nineveh the ____________ city.

14. How did the Assyrians treat the people they defeated?
15. What type of siege engine did the Assyrians use to break down walls?
16. Traces of red paint have been found on the depictions of a castle siege. What did the red
17. When and where did the Gilgamesh Epic originate?
18. Gilgamesh was the king of what city?
19. According to the Bible, this city was the beginning of the kingdom of what man?
20. What Bible prophecy specifically describes the skepticism of the end times?
21. What are two major ways that the Gilgamesh Epic shows itself to be a pagan fable as
contrasted with the Bibles account of the Flood.
22. When was the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser found?
23. What does it depict?
24. What Hebrew king is depicted?
25. How are this king and his servants dressed?
26. Does the Bible describe Jehus tribute to the king of Assyria?
27. The Stela of Shalmaneser mentions what Hebrew king?
28. What four Hebrew kings are mentioned in the records of Tiglath-pileser?
29. What was the Babylonian name for Tiglath-pileser?
30. What does Bet-Omri mean?
31. Why is the northern kingdom of Israel called Bet-Omri?
32. How are the Jews dressed in the Astartu Relief?
33. What are three facts about the destruction of Nineveh that were written beforehand in Bible


A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Hezekiah and His Times is included in the
Unshakeable Faith apologetics course package, second edition 2013. See Suggestions for
Teachers and Private Study at the beginning of the course for tips on using this material.
King Hezekiahs reign is a showcase for the historical evidence that underlies the biblical record.
In Hezekiahs day the Assyrian Empire had gained great strength and was conquering nations
across the Middle East.
About 80 years earlier, Jonah had preached in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh and the people had
repented before God and avoided the judgment that had been pronounced upon them, but by
Hezekiahs day that was long forgotten and the Assyrians were on a murderous rampage.
It was a harsh kingdom that subdued through brute military force and terrorism. The following
example is from King Assurnasirpals own description of his military venture into Syria:


I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men ... and I covered the pillar with their
skins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound to
stakes round about the pillar ... and I cut off the limbs of the officers. ... Many captives from among them I
burned with fire, and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their hands and from others I cut off
their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living, and another
of heads, and I bound their heads to posts round about the city (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p.

This wicked Assyrian king particularly delighted in flaying people alive and burning children in
fires, and his successors followed in his terrible train.
The Fall of Samaria
The northern kingdom and its capital, Samaria, fell in the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign. This is
described in great detail in the Bible as well as in the Assyrian records.
The fall of Samaria, the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel, the captivity of the Jews,
and the re-population of the land with pagans are attested by Assyrian accounts.
The Bible describes this major historic event in 2 Kings 17:4-6, 24, as well as in Hosea 13:16;
Amos 3:9-11; and Micah 1:6-8.
In the sixth year of Hezekiahs reign, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria and
took the northern kingdom of Israel captive because of her sin against God (2 Ki. 17:1-23;
18:9-12). The siege of the heavily fortified city lasted three years, during which Shalmaneser
died and Sargon II took the throne and oversaw the destruction of the city.
The fortifications of the city had been strengthened a half century earlier by Israels King
Jeroboam, who built a double wall with an overall thickness of 32 feet, but their trust in this
mighty defense proved to be in vain because they had offended Almighty God and He had
become their enemy.
Multitudes of Jews were carried away captive and the land was repopulated by pagan people
from other places. This was the origin of the Samaritans who are mentioned in the New
Testament, who are a mixed race and a mixed religion, part Jewish and part pagan (2 Ki.
Bible skeptics doubted the existence of Sargon II, but his palace in Khorsabad was discovered by
Paul Emile Botta in 1840.
An actual depiction of Sargon (722-705 BC) recovered from his palace is in Room 23 of the
British Museum. Sargon is on the left, and a nobleman, probably crown prince Sennacherib, is
on the right.


The records of Sargon, which are in the British Museum and the Louvre in Paris, describe the
destruction of Samaria and confirm the biblical account.
Sargons account of his expedition into Israel reads in part as follows:
In the first year of my reign I besieged and conquered Samaria. ... I surrounded and deported as prisoners
27,290 of its inhabitants ... From them I equipped 200 chariots for my own army units. ... I restored the city of
Samaria. ... I made the remaining inhabitants assume their social positions. I installed over them an officer of
mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king ... I brought into it people from the countries
conquered by my own hands (Sargon Inscription from Khorsabad, Louvre, Paris).

Thus the Assyrian records confirm (1) that Samaria was conquered, (2) that the Jews were taken
away captive (2 Kings 17:5-6), and (3) that people were brought in from other countries to
repopulate the land (2 Kings 17:24).
The Fall of Lachish
In the 14th year of Hezekiah the Assyrian king Sennacherib attacked the cities of Judah (2 Ch.
One of the fortified cities that Sennacherib conquered was Lachish, which was southwest of
Jerusalem near Gaza.
The siege of the city of Lachish is mentioned in 2 Kings 18:14, 17; 19:8; 2 Chronicles 32:9 and
in Isaiah 36:3, 8.
Lachish was located southwest of Jerusalem over toward the coast of the Mediterranean. It was a
heavily fortified city strategically located on the road from Nineveh to Egypt, and Sennacherib
needed to destroy it not only to weaken Judah but also to facilitate his war against Pharaoh.
The siege and destruction of Lachish is described from the Assyrian perspective in an amazing
series of bas-reliefs found at Nineveh in the mid-1800s. The 90-foot-long pictorial reliefs from
the ancient palace of Sennacherib were discovered by Henry Layard and sent to the British
Museum. They lined the walls of the anteroom to the haughty kings throne room to impress
waiting visitors of his military prowess.
Today they line the walls of The Lachish Room or Room 10 in the British Museum, standing as
mute witness before the whole world of the historical accuracy of the Bible for those who have
eyes to see. The conquest of the Jewish city is recorded from left to right around the room.
The reliefs show the Assyrians attacking the city, building a siege ramp, using battering rams to
destroy the walls, and brutally mistreating the Jewish prisoners.
On the turrets and breastwork of the stronghold of Lachish with its stout high walls the Judahite defenders
fought with clenched teeth. They showered a hail of arrows on the attackers, hurled stones down upon them,


threw burning torches--the fire-bombs of the ancient world--among the enemy. The faces, curly hair, and short
beards are easily recognisable. Only a few wear any protection for head or body.
At the foot of the wall the Assyrians are attacking with the utmost violence and with every type of weapon.
Sennacherib had deployed the whole range of approved assault-tactics. Every Assyrian is armed to the teeth:
each one wears shield and helmet. Their engineers have built sloping ramps of earth, stones and felled trees.
Siege-engines, the first tanks in history, push forward up the ramps against the walls. They are equipped in
front with a battering ram which sticks out like the barrel of a cannon. The crew consists of three men. The
archer shoots his arrows from behind a sheltering canopy. A warrior guides the ram, and under its violent
blows stones and bricks crash down from the walls. The third man douses the tanks with ladlefuls of water,
extinguishing the smouldering fire-bombs. Several tanks are attacking at the same time. Tunnels are being
driven into the rock beneath the foundations of the walls. Behind the tanks come the infantry, bowmen, some
of them kneeling, some stooping, protected by a shield-bearer. The first captives, men and women, are being
led off. Lifeless bodies are hanging on pointed stakes--impaled (Keller, The Bible as History, pp. 278, 279).
A chariot and other items are shown being carried out of the city along with numerous prisoners, including
carts with families and small children. Dead defenders are shown spiked on poles and paraded about to
demoralise others. Some prisoners are being tortured, flayed until the muscles are visible. On the end wall of
the gallery Sennacherib is seen on a portable throne receiving the surrender of the city. An inscription reads,
Sennacherib, supreme king, king of Assyria, sits upon a throne while the booty of Lachish passes before
him (Peter Masters, Heritage of Evidence, p. 36).

Extensive excavations at Lachish (Tel ed-Duweir) in the 1930s and the 1970s and 80s have
confirmed the Assyrian accounts. William Dever notes:
"The evidence of it is all there: the enormous sloping siege ramp thrown up against the city walls south of the
gate; the double line of defense walls, upslope and downslope; the iron-shod Assyrian battering rams that
breached the city wall at its highest point; the massive destruction within the fallen city.... Virtually all the
details of the Assyrian reliefs have been confirmed by archaeology.... Also brought to light by the excavators
were the double city walls; the complex siege ramp, embedded with hundreds of iron arrowheads and stone
ballistae; the counter-ramp inside the city; the destroyed gate, covered by up to 6 ft. of destruction debris;
huge boulders from the city wall, burned almost to lime and fallen far down the slope (What Did the Biblical
Writers Know, 2001, pp. 168-169).

It has been estimated that the siege ramp was composed of some 15,000 tons of earth and stone.
It was plastered to facilitate the movement of the siege engines. In response, the Jewish
defenders built a counter ramp inside the city, raising the city wall, thus forcing the Assyrians to
raise the height of their ramp.
Some of the arrowheads, lance heads, and sling stones from the fierce Lachish battle are on
display in the British Museum.
The capture of Lachish and other Judean cities is also recorded in a eight-sided prism called the
Taylor Prism after the name of the military officer who found it in Nineveh. Today it is housed in
the British Museum (Room 55, case 11). It records five of Sennacheribs campaigns, including
that of Lachish. A translation is as follows:
As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and
to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered (them) by means of well-stamped (earth) ramps,
and battering-rams brought (thus) near (to the walls) (combined with) the attack by foot soldiers, (using)
mines, breeches as well as sapper work. I drove out (of them) 200,150 people, young and old, male and
female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered (them) booty.


Hezekiahs Tunnel
When the Assyrian army under Sennacherib attacked Judah, King Hezekiah began emergency
work on a tunnel to bring water from the Gihon spring, which is on the west side of the Kidron
Valley below and to the south of the Temple Mount, to the Pool of Siloam at the head of the
valley of Hinnom on the west side of the old city of David. Gihon was where Solomon was
crowned king (1 Ki. 1:38-39).
The building of the water tunnel and the preparation for the Assyrian siege are described in 2
Chronicles 32:2-5, 30 and 2 Kings 20:20
The 1750 foot water tunnel (one-third of a mile) is from 2 to 3 feet wide and from 5 to 15 feet
The building of the tunnel was an amazing engineering feat. Teams of men tunneled from both
directions through solid rock, and a near constant gradient of .6% was maintained.
The tunnel was discovered in 1867 by Charles Warren, a British explorer, when the land of Israel
was under control of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1880 an inscription was discovered that had been chiseled in the tunnel to commemorate its
completion. It was removed and taken to Istanbul, where it resides in the archaeological museum
today. The Hebrew writing is in the early angular script that was used before the Babylonian
exile. This proves that the tunnel was built during the era of Israels kings.
The inscription reads:
[The day of] the breach. This is the record of how the tunnel was breached. While [the excavators were
wielding] their pickaxes, each man toward his co-worker, and while there were yet three cubits for the
brea[ch,] a voice [was hea]rd each man calling to his co-worker; because there was a cavity in the rock
(extending) from the south to [the north]. So on the day of the breach, the excavators struck, each man to
meet his co-worker, pick-axe against pick-[a]xe. Then the water flowed from the spring to the pool, a distance
of one thousand and two hundred cubits. One hundred cubits was the height of the rock above the heads of
the excavat[ors].

The date of the building of the tunnel has been questioned by some liberal scholars, but it is
confirmed by the Hebrew inscription as well as by other methods.
The dating of the tunnel has been disputed, particularly by anti-Zionists, who insisted that the tunnel was built
at a much later date, and that the Jewish people did not have a sovereign kingdom in Jerusalem. However,
radiometric measurements by Amos Frumkin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and his colleagues,
reported in Nature, vol. 425, p. 169, 2003, and summarized in New Scientist [Andy Coghlan, Radio-dating
Authenticates Biblical Tunnel, Sept 10, 2003], proved rather conclusively that plant life disrupted by the tunnel
(by C-14 dating) and stalactites and stalagmites that grew after completion of the tunnel (by uranium-thorium
dating) originated about 700 BC (Encyclopedic Dictionary, Zionism and Israel).

Jerusalem Unharmed


When Sennacherib attacked Judea, Hezekiah unsuccessfully tried to pay him off with the silver
and gold from the palace and the Temple, but instead of turning back, Sennacherib besieged
Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:13-17).
Sennacherib and his general Rabshakeh not only mocked Hezekiah, they mocked Jehovah God
and boasted that He could not withstand them any more than could the gods of the other nations
(2 Kings 18:32-35).
When Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah prayed, Gods angel destroyed the pagan army in one
night (2 Kings 19:35).
The Sennacherib Prism (also called the Taylor Prism) records this event from the Assyrian
But as for Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not bow in submission to my yoke, forty-six of his strong walled towns
and innumerable smaller villages in their neighbourhood I besieged and conquered by stamping down earthramps and then by bringing up battering rams, by the assault of foot-soldiers, by breaches, tunnelling and
sapper operations. I made to come out from them 200,150 people, young and old, male and female,
innumerable horses, mules, donkeys, camels, large and small cattle, and counted them as the spoils of war.
He himself I shut up like a caged bird within Jerusalem, his royal city. I put watch-posts strictly around it and
turned back to his disaster any who went out of its city gate. His towns which I had despoiled I cut off from his
land, giving them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Sillibel, king of Gaza, and so reduced his
land. Moreover, I fixed upon him an increase in the amount to be given as katre--presents for my lordship, in
addition to the former tribute, to be given annually. As for Hezekiah, the awful splendour of my lordship
overwhelmed him, and the irregular and regular troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his
royal city, and had obtained for his protection, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious
stones, antimony, large blocks of red stone, ivory couches, ivory arm-chairs, elephant hide, elephant tusks,
ebony-wood, box-wood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, concubines, male and
female musicians he sent me later to Nineveh, my lordly city. He went a personal messenger to deliver the
tribute and make a slavish obeisance (Sennacherib Prism, The Lion Handbook to the Bible, p. 280).

The Assyrian record agrees with the Bible in many major points.
1. It confirms that Israel was a powerful nation in the time of Sennacherib. This refutes the
theory of liberal theologians and archaeologists who have claimed that Israel was a minor
agricultural country during the time of the kings. The powerful king of Assyria would not brag
about conquering a fourth-rate country.
2. It confirms the Bibles account that Sennacherib was a proud boaster.
3. It confirms the Bibles account that Sennacherib shut up Jerusalem like a caged bird.
4. It confirms the Bibles account that Hezekiah gave tribute to the Assyrian king (2 Kings
5. It confirms the Bibles account that the tribute in gold was 30 talents (2,250 pounds). (The
tribute of silver is said to be 800 talents, whereas the Bible says 300 talents. We do not know the


cause of this seeming discrepancy. The talent might have been different, or there might be an
error in the Sennacherib Prism or there might be some other explanation.)
6. It confirms the Bibles account that Sennacherib did not conquer Jerusalem. The Assyrian
account merely says that he besieged Jerusalem, which is exactly what the Bible says. It is not
surprising that the Assyrian account leaves out the destruction of the Assyrian army, because
ancient pagan kings did not record their defeats.
Sennarcherab Killed by His Own Sons
The Bible says Sennacherib was killed by his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer (2 Kings
This is confirmed by the Babylonian Chronicles as well as the record of Senncheribs son
Esarhaddon, who succeeded his father to the throne.
Disloyal thoughts inspired my brothers. ... They rebelled. In order to exercise royal authority they killed
Sennacherib. I became a raging lion, my mind was in a fury... These usurpers ... fled to an unknown
land (Keller, The Bible as History, p. 283).

Hezekiah Visited by Merodach-Baladans Representatives

After Hezekiah was healed from his sickness, he was visited by the representatives of MerodachBaladan in Babylon (Isa. 39:1-2).
Merodach was another name for Marduk, Babylons chief god that was worshiped as a serpentdragon.
Theological modernists in the 19th century doubted the existence of Merodach-Baladan, since
there was no extra-biblical record of him and since they were predisposed to attack the Bible.
But archaeology has confirmed his existence.
In Merodach-Baladans day, the Assyrian Empire encompassed Babylon, and he sought liberty
from their control. He reigned in Babylon from 721-710 BC, when he was defeated by Sargon II
and forced to flee. He returned in 703 BC, but was defeated later that year by Sennacherib and
again forced to flee to Elam, where he died a few years later in about 694 BC (MerodachBaladan II, Encyclopedia Britannica).
There is a black marble boundary stone containing an image of Merodach-Baladan conferring a
land grant to an official.


Merodach-Baladan is mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicles which are located in the British
Museum, as well as in the Chronicle of the Market Place, an ancient text in the British Museum
that deals with the price of commodities in Babylon.
He is also mentioned in the Sennacherib Prism (also known as the Taylor Prism) in the British
Museum. Here Sennacherib describes his defeat of Merodach.
In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylonia, together with the
army of Elam, his ally, in the plain of Kish. Into his palace, which is in Babylon, joyfully I entered. I opened his
treasure house--gold and silver, precious stones of every kind, goods and property without limit.

In this context we can better understand Merodach-Baladans overture to Hezekiah. He was

seeking an alliance against Assyria, and Hezekiah welcomed the overture because of his own
fear of Assyria and his failure to completely trust in Gods promises through Isaiah. By showing
Merodach-Baladans representatives his wealth and military might, Hezekiah was demonstrating
his ability to hold up his part in a military alliance.
About 70 years after Merodach-Baladans death, Babylon gained its independence from Assyria
under the reign of Nabopolassar. In 612 BC Nineveh fell to the united armies of the Babylonians
and the Medes.
In 597 BC Jerusalem was spoiled by Nabopolassars eldest son Nebuchadnezzar, who carried
away many captives, including Daniel and his friends, thus fulfilling Isaiahs prophecy to
Hezekiah that his children would become eunuchs in Babylon (2 Kings 20:16-18). The prophecy
was further fulfilled 11 years later, in 586 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and
burned Solomons Temple, put out the eyes of King Zedekiah, killed his sons, and carried away
multitudes of Jews captive.
1. Hezekiah come to power how many years after Nineveh repented at Jonahs preaching?
2. What are three types of cruelty that the Assyrians practiced against their enemies?
3. Samaria was the capitol of what kingdom?
4. What Assyrian king started the siege against Samaria?
5. In what year of Hezekiahs reign did this siege begin?
6. Where is this siege described in the historical books of the Old Testament?
7. What Assyrian king concluded the siege with the destruction of Samaria?
8. How did the Samaritans originate?
9. When was Sargons palace discovered by archaeologists thus disproving the Bible critics who
doubted his existence?
10. What three things do Sargons own records confirm about the Bibles account of the
destruction of Samaria and ensuing events?
11. What Assyrian king attacked the cities of Judah in the 14th year of Hezekiah and laid siege to

12. Where was Lachish located and how was its position strategically important?
13. How did the Assyrians breach the city gates?
14. How did Sennacherib commemorate the destruction of Lachish in pictorial format?
15. When was Lachish first excavated by archaeologists?
16. What things did they find to confirm the account of Sennacheribs bas-reliefs?
17. What accounts are written on the Taylor Prism?
18. Why did Hezekiah build his water tunnel?
19. It runs from where to where?
20. What was discovered in 1880 to help date the building of the tunnel?
21. What other dating method has shown that the tunnel was built in Hezekiahs day?
22. What ancient Assyrian record describes the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib?
23. What are three of the ways that the Assyrian record of the siege agrees with the Bible?
24. What event at the very end of Sennacheribs life is described both in the Bible and in ancient
Assyrian records?
25. The representatives of what king visited Hezekiah after he was healed of his sickness?
26. Why did this king send representatives to Hezekiah and why did Hezekiah respond so

A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Medo-Persia is included in the Unshakeable
Faith apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the
beginning of the course for tips on using this material.
The Babylonian Empire was conquered in 539 B.C. by the Medo-Persians. This is described in
Daniel 5:30-31.
The Medo-Persian Empire was truly great. It encompassed 127 provinces and spread from India
to Ethiopia (Esther 1:1).
The Persians maintained a major road system with rest stations, inns, and guarded garrisons that
kept the highways free from bandits.
The Royal Road stretched 1,600 miles from Susa to Sardis and post stations with fresh horses
were placed about every 15 miles along its length. A caravan could travel the length of the road
in 90 days, but a courier could make the same trip in a week.
The Persians invented horseshoes to facilitate mail moving over the Royal Road.
In the 5th century B.C., Greek historian Herodotus coined the famous saying that has often been
wrongly attributed to the U.S. postal system. Referring to the Persians he said, Neither snow nor


rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed
The Medo-Persian king Cyrus the Great (also known as the king of Babylon) (576-530 B.C.) is
mentioned 23 times in Scripture. The prophet Daniel was still living at the beginning of his reign
(Dan. 6:28; 10:1).
Cyrus was called by name in prophecy before he was born. Isaiah prophesied in about 574 B.C.
that he would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1).
Jeremiah also prophesied of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, though he didnt name Cyrus. Jeremiah
said that the Babylonian captivity would last 70 years after which Israel would be restored
(Jeremiah 29:10).
Seventy years after the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, Cyrus issued a proclamation ordering
the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (Ezra 1:1-4). Cyrus provided cedar trees and other materials
for the temples construction (Ezra 3:7) and even restored the articles that had been taken from
the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezra 1:7-11).
It was once thought by skeptics that the Bibles record of Cyrus release of the Jews and his
granting of religious liberty was mythical, but archaeology has confirmed that this was in
accordance with his standing practice. The Cyrus Cylinder, while not specifically mentioning
Israel, states that this king had the policy of restoring captives to their lands and assisting them in
rebuilding their temples. The cylinder, which is inscribed in the Akkadian language, was found in
the temple of Marduk in Babylon in 1879. It reads:
I returned to [these] sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris the sanctuaries of which have been in ruins
for a long time, the images which [used] to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I
[also] gathered all their [former] inhabitants and returned their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the
command of Marduk the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabonidus has brought into
Babylon to the anger of the lord of the gods, unharmed, in their [former] chapels, the places which made them
happy. May all the gods whom I have resettled in their sacred cities ask daily Bel and Nebo for long life for me
and may they recommend me ... to Marduk, my lord, may they say thus: Cyrus, the king who worships you,
and Cambyses, his son ... all of them I settled in a peaceful place (Cyrus Cylinder, British Museum, Room 52,
Case 6, WA 1880-6-17).

Xerxes (Ahasuerus), Esther and the Shushan Palace

The Persian king during the time of Esther was Darius son Xerxes (485-465 B.C.). This was the
Greek form of his name; it is Ahasuerus in Hebrew.
Xerxes image appears on the Behistun Relief, standing behind Darius. He also appears standing
behind Darius in a relief from Persepolis which is at the Oriental Institute.


Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the book of Esther and identified
It is generally accepted that Mordecai can be identified with Marduka, a high official working in Susa. Some
would identify Esther with Queen Amestris. ... The book of Esther fits nicely within what is known from Persian
and Greek history, and numerous scholars have remarked on the books great familiarity with both general
and specific features of Persian life. The book is sprinkled with loan words and personal names of Persian
origin (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, p. 145).

The Medo-Persian palace at Susa (Shushan) is mentioned in three books of the Bible. Daniel,
Nehemiah, and Esther lived in this palace.
The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year,
as I was in Shushan the palace (Nehemiah 1:1).
That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the
palace (Esther 1:2).
And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the
province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai (Daniel 8:2).

The palace began to be built by Darius and was completed by Xerxes. A Darius tablet at the
Louvre says, This palace which I built at Susa...
The Bible describes the palace as a glorious place with pillars of marble, beds of gold and silver,
and pavements of red, blue, white, and black marble (Esther 1:6).
Archaeology has confirmed this. The palace measured 820 x 490 feet and its throne room had 72
majestic columns and was surrounded on three sides by porticoes with columns topped with huge
double-bull capitals on which the cedar beams of the roof rested. These columns sat on bellshaped bases. The palace was decorated with panels of beautiful glazed brick featuring reliefs of
soldiers and animals. Some of these are in the British Museum (Room 52). Others are in the Susa
Room at the Louvre in Paris.
Many beautiful objects have been recovered from the ancient palace that give us a glimpse into
life in that day. Some of these would have been seen by Daniel, Nehemiah, and Esther. They
include beautiful rhytons which were used to pour wine and which Nehemiah might have used as
the kings cupbearer (Neh. 2:1).
1. Archaeology has confirmed that it was Cyrus practice to grant religious liberty and return
religious objects to the conquered people.
2. The glory of the Shushan Palace, which is mentioned in three books of the Bible, has been
confirmed by archaeology.



1. Who conquered the Babylonian Empire?
2. King Cyrus was named before his birth by what Hebrew prophet?
3. What is the significance of the Cyrus Cylinder?
4. What is the biblical name for the Palace at Susa?
5. What three Biblical figures lived in this palace?
6. Who built the palace?
7. What was the Persian name of King Ahasuerus?

A PowerPoint presentation of the following material on Israel is included in the Unshakeable
Faith apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the
beginning of the course for tips on using this material.
Evidence of Israels history as recorded in the Bible is found throughout the land today.
Following are a few examples:
---- enlarge this section
There are items in ivory excavated from Ahabs palace in Samaria. The Bible mentions Ahabs
ivory palace (1 Kings 22:39), and many fragments of carved ivory items have been found.
Also found in the palace area was an opal signet ring (an official seal) containing the name
Jezebel. Research in 2007 by Dutch Ugaritologist Marjo Korpel confirmed that the seal belonged
to the wicked queen. The seal has idolatrous symbols, including a double cobra, symbolic of
Satan, and the Egyptian ankh, which is a sign of sun worship and is associated with the goddess
There is a piece of basalt (volcanic) rock inscribed with the words Beit David, meaning
House of David. It was part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria to celebrate the
defeat of his enemies, and it dates to about the 9th century B.C. which is less than 100 years after
David lived.
There are coins from the Bar Kokhba revolt to liberate Jerusalem from the Roman armies from
132-135 A.D., only a few decades after the destruction of the Temple. These depict the faade of
the Second Temple with the Ark of the Covenant between the pillars. Others depict the silver
trumpets and a temple harp.



The Shrine of the Book, in Jerusalem, operated by the Israel Museum, features two of the
greatest historical witnesses to the authority of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible, which is the basis
for the great Protestant Bibles such as the Luther German, the Reina Valera Spanish, and the
King James English. These are both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Aleppo Codex.
The roof of the museum is in the shape of the lid of the clay jars that protected the Dead Sea
Scrolls, and the corridor leading into the museum resembles a cave.
It is most amazing and wonderful that the two greatest witnesses to the authenticity of the
Masoretic Bible are located in the Jewish Shrine of the Book in the modern state of Israel,
because it was to the Jews that God assigned the task of preserving the Hebrew Bible. In Romans
3:1-2 Paul calls the Hebrew Old Testament the oracles of God (oracles means utterance), and
tells us that these oracles were committed to the Jews. Though the Jews did not obey the
Scripture, they revered it. Josephus and Philo assure us that they would have undergone all sorts
of torments rather than have taken a letter from the Scripture, or altered a word of it (John Kitto,
Illustrated History of the Bible, edited by Alvan Bond, 1908, p. 39). Countless Jews have died in
their zeal to protect and preserve the Old Testament Bible.This reverence was placed in their
hearts by the God of the Bible for the purpose of its preservation.
In particular, it was the Jewish priests who were assigned as the keepers of the Scriptures (Deut.
31:24-26; 17:18).
After the destruction of the Jewish Temple, Hebrew scholars called THE MASORETES
(Traditionalists) jealously guarded the Hebrew text and passed it down from generation to
It is the Masoretic Hebrew Bible that was adopted by Christians and used in the first printed
One of the most famous Masorete scholars was Aaron Ben Asher at Tiberias. From the 12th
century forward the Ben Asher Hebrew text was the received Hebrew Bible.
The ALEPPO CODEX*, at the Shrine of the Book, is the most revered copy of the Ben Asher
Bible. It was produced in about A.D. 920 in Tiberias, and the vowel markings were added by ben
Asher. (* The term codex refers to a bound book as contrasted with a rolled scroll.)
In about 1375 it was moved to the synagogue in Aleppo, Syria, where it got its name. There it
was kept in a double-locked metal box in a room called the Cave of Elijah. In 1947, the
synagogue was destroyed by rampaging Muslims who were angry at the U.N. resolution to
establish a Jewish state. The Aleppo Codex was ripped apart and desecrated. The surviving


portions were hidden away and smuggled into Turkey in a washing machine in 1958. From there
it was brought to Jerusalem and restored by the Shrine of the Book.
Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, this was the oldest surviving copy of
the Hebrew Bible and the one considered the most authoritative. Thus, until the discovery of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest copy of the Hebrew Bible was only 1000 years old.
Then in the 1940s, the GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL was found in the first Dead Sea cave. Today
it resides in the Shrine of the Book. It contains the entire book of Isaiah written on 17 pieces of
sheepskin forming a scroll measuring 24.5 feet long. Though 1,000 years older, it is almost
exactly the same as the Aleppo Codex and the Masoretic Hebrew text of the old Protestant
Bibles. The differences are extremely minor. There are only three letters that differ between the
Great Isaiah Scroll of 100 B.C. and the Aleppo Codex of 900 A.D. Adolfo Roitman calls it
extraordinarily close (The Bible in the Shrine of the Book, p. 43).
Here we see a wonderful confirmation of Gods promise to preserve His Word. There is
absolutely nothing like this level of preservation in any other ancient book.
For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all
generations (Psalms 100:5).
Several people mentioned in the book of Jeremiah have been authenticated by amazing extrascriptural artifacts.
There is a clay bulla (used to seal scrolls) brought to light in 1975 contains the name of
Jeremiahs scribe Baruch. It says, Belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah. See Jeremiah 36 and
There is a clay seal belonging to Gemariah son of Shaphan. It was in Gemariahs chamber in
the temple where Baruch first read Jeremiahs prophecy (Jer. 36:5-10). Gemariah was one of
three men who tried to dissuade the king from burning the scroll, but he would not hear
them (Jer. 36:25).
There is a eal with name of Jehucal ben Shelemiah, who is mentioned in Jeremiah 37:3 and 38:1.
Jehucal was one of the emissaries sent by King Zedekiah to ask Jeremiah to pray for Gods help.
Later Jehucal joined with those who urged the king to kill Jeremiah, claiming that he was
discouraging the people (Jer. 38:1-4).
There is a seal with the name of Elishama servant of the king, mentioned in Jeremiah 36:12.


There are the LACHISH LETTERS. In the 1930s an archaeological team discovered 21 letters
written on pottery in Lachish. The letters confirm the statement in Jeremiah 34:7 that Lachish
and Azekah were the last cities to fall. The letters mention Gemariah (Jer. 36:10), Jaazaniah (Jer.
35:3), Baruch (Jer. 36:4), and Mattaniah (King Zedekiah, 2 Kings 24:17).
It was Jeremiahs prophecies that King Jehoiakim cut up and burned in the fire as he warned
himself in the palace. God instructed Jeremiah to write the prophecies again, and they have been
meticulously preserved, whereas Jehoiakim is long gone and forgotten.
The hill of Megiddo played an important role in Israels history. It is located on the main route
through the Holy Land overlooking the valley of Jezreel, and any army traveling north to south
would travel through this area because of the mountainous terrain on both sides. It is believed
that more battles have been fought here than anywhere else on earth.
Deborah and Barak defeated the Canaanites here in about 1300 B.C. (Judges 4-5). King Solomon
conquered Megiddo and built a fortress city here in 1000 B.C. (1 Kings 4:12; 9:15). Megiddo
was lost to foreign powers and retaken numerous times during the divided kingdom. Three of
Israels kings died here: Saul at the hands of the Philistines in the 10th century B.C. (1 Samuel
31), Ahaziah at the hands of Jehu in the 9th century B.C. (2 Kings 9:27), and Josiah at the hands
of the king of Egypt in the 7th century B.C. (2 Kings 23:29).
The location of Megiddo was lost for centuries. When Edwin Robinson visited the area in 1838
he wrote in his diary, I wonder where Megiddo could have been. Actually it was right under
his feet. Since 1903 extensive archaeological excavations have found evidence of 20 or more
ancient cities at Megiddo, one built upon another, going back to thousands of years B.C.
Though disputed by those who are predisposed to doubt anything the Bible says, there is
extensive evidence for the handiwork of King Solomon (1 Kings 9:15) and the kings of northern
Israel. The gate to Solomons city has been uncovered, as well as Solomons stables and his
Many biblical events occurred at Caesarea Maritima. It is mentioned 15 times in the book of
Acts. (It should not be confused with Caesarea Philippi located at the foot of Mt. Hermon and
built by Herod the Greats son Philip.)
It was here that the Roman Tenth Legion was stationed, and there is archaeological evidence for
this. Cornelius the centurion, who commanded 100 soldiers in the legion, was saved and baptized
here by Peter (Acts 10).


After Paul was arrested in Jerusalem he was sent to Caesarea and spent two years imprisoned
there until he was sent to Rome. It was here that he appeared before Felix, Festus, and King
Agrippa (Acts 23:23 - 26:32).
This city was enlarged and glorified by Herod the Great, who was king of Judea at Jesus birth
(Mat. 2:1; Lk. 1:5). (This is the Herod who ordered the murder of male Jewish children under
two years old in his demonic attempt to destroy Jesus.) A gift to Herod from Caesar Augustus
(for whom the city was named), Caesarea became the capital of the Roman province of Judea. It
was one of the crown jewels of the Roman Empire and its 40-acre man-made harbor was the
greatest engineering wonder of its time. There was a 4,000-seat theater, a 5,000-seat chariot
racetrack, mosaic walkways, colonnaded streets, and all sorts of magnificent buildings, including
Herods palace and temples dedicated to Caesar worship. Other than the harbor at Alexandria,
Egypt, Caesareas was the finest on the eastern Mediterranean and ships could make the trip from
Rome in 10 days.
Water was brought to Caesarea from miles away by a double aqueduct, an impressive
engineering feat in its own right. This provided plenty of water for the citys pools, fountains,
baths, and sewer system. The name of the Tenth Legion is inscribed on the aqueduct.
The Pilate Stone (shown right) found at Caesarea in 1961 during reconstruction of the theater
proves that Pilate was the governor of Judea as the Bible says. Written in Latin, the inscription
on the limestone block reads Pontius Pilatus prefect of Judea, erected the Tiberium [temple in
honor of Tiberius Caesar] to the August Gods. This agrees with Lukes statement that Pilate
ruled during the lifetime of Tiberius (Luke 3:1). The stone is housed in the Israel Museum, while
a copy is on display at Caesarea.
Masada is a rocky mountain in the Judean desert overlooking the Dead Sea. Herod the Great
built a fortified palace at Masada three decades before the birth of Christ. During the Jewish
revolt against Rome 100 years later the Jews captured the fortress. They believed that the
Messiah was going to deliver them and establish the Davidic kingdom, but in fact they had
rejected the Messiah decades earlier. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
in 70 A.D., Masada was the only site that remained under Jewish control. The rebels used it as a
base of operation for raiding parties. In 74 A.D. Flavius Silva, at the head of 10,000 soldiers of
the Roman Tenth Legion, conquered Masada, after a siege of several months. The Roman armies
built eight camps around the citadel and with Jewish slave labor constructed an assault ramp to
the top. According to the historian Josephus, the remaining 1,000 Jews decided to commit
suicide rather than fall into the hands of the Romans. They had determined that God had
abandoned them, whereas in reality they had abandoned God. Ten men were chosen by lot to kill
the others. Then the insurrection leader, Eleazar ben Yair, and the remaining ten men drew lots
again and one was chosen to kill the others and end his own life. Two women and five children
who survived by hiding in a cave told the story of the last hours of the defenders as recounted by

Josephus. This account has been disputed by some modern historians (someone is always trying
to make a name for himself by disputing well-established facts of history), but there is no good
reason to doubt it other than perhaps to question the number of Jews that were involved in the
final suicide pact.
The identity of Masada was lost for centuries until the site was discovered by two Americans in
Since the early 1960s extensive archaeological excavations have been carried out at Masada by
the Israel Department of Antiquities. The evidence for Herods first century B.C. palaces and the
first century A.D. battle is irrefutable. There is the inscription To Herod King of the Jews on a
piece of pottery that was used to import wine. These wine containers also feature the name C.
Sentius Saturninus, who was the Roman consul in 19 B.C. Of the palaces, portions of some of
the rooms remain, including Herods throne room and the bath house with its furnace room.
There are remnants of marble columns, beautiful mosaic pavements, tiles, bathing pools, and
many other things. The place was very elaborate. The walls were covered with frescoes that
looked like marble. The ruins also contain the remains of a Jewish synagogue that Herod built,
one of the oldest known synagogues in Israel and the only one dating to the time of the Second
Temple. It is also the best preserved.
Portions of Bible scrolls were found at Masada, including Joshua, fragments of Deuteronomy,
and Ezekiels vision of the dry bones. The Joshua scroll was originally dated to 30 A.D., but
carbon-14 dating has attributed it to 150-75 B.C., which means it is as old as the Bible scrolls
found in the Dead Sea caves (The Dead Sea Scrolls Support the Masoretic Text, Jan. 15, 2009,
Soulcast.com, viewed April 28, 2010). And like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masada scrolls largely
agree with the Masoretic Text.
There is a piece of pottery with the words tithe for the priest.
Many coins found at Masada attest to the ancient history of the place. There are coins from each
year of the Revolt, including 70 A.D. when the temple was destroyed. They are inscribed with
Jerusalem the holy.
As for the battle, the Roman encampments are still evident, as is the attack ramp. There is even a
piece of pottery with the name Ben Yair, the leader of the rebels. This was discovered together
with ten other pieces of pottery, each bearing a name, which is striking confirmation of
Josephus account of the lots.
An inscription found in THE SILOAM TUNNEL celebrated the completion of the construction
of a water tunnel in the time of King Hezekiah described in 2 Kings 20:20. The Hebrew writing
is in the early angular script used before the Babylonian exile. The tunnel was discovered in the


19th century by two Arab boys who were swimming in the Siloam pool. It is about two feet wide
and five feet high and ends at the Fountain of Gihon (today called the Virgins Fountain), which
was Jerusalems water supply since ancient times.
Part of NEHEMIAHS WALL has been unearthed. It matches the description in Nehemiah that
the poor Jews who had returned from Babylon used whatever was at hand to rebuild the walls
rather than rebuild it with quarried stones.
THE PAVEMENT IN PILATES COURT mentioned in John 19:13 was found by
archaeologist L. H. Vincent in the 1920s. The pavement was located in the court of the Tower of
Atonia, which was buried when the city was rebuilt in the time of the Roman Emperor Hadrian.
The TEMPLE MOUNT itself and the Western Wall attests to the Second Temple, built in the
6th century B.C. and expanded under Herod the Great in the 1st century B.C. The Western Wall
contains original stones from the foundation of the Temple Mount in the days when the New
Testament was written.
The SOUTHERN STEPS which can be seen today near the Western Wall are the steps that
existed in Jesus day leading to the main gates to the Temple from the old city. Renowned
archaeologist Benjamin Mazar, president of the Hebrew University, excavated the southern steps
between 1968-78. Because of his labor, visitors today can see the actual steps upon which Jesus
walked and where He preached at the main entrance to the temple area and where the Psalms of
Degrees were probably sung.
There are also THE TEMPLE STONES. The Lord Jesus prophesied that the beautiful temple
and the surrounding buildings would be destroyed and there shall not be left one stone upon
another, that shall not be thrown down (Mark 13:2). This was fulfilled 40 years later when the
Roman army under Titus conquered the city and destroyed the temple. Some of the stones that
tumbled off the mount during this epoch event have been unearthed along the Western Wall.
Most of the stones weigh two to four tons, with some weighing as much as 15 tons.
One of these stones with the inscription TO THE PLACE OF TRUMPETING was
discovered by Benjamin Mazar. This corresponds with Josephus description in his Jewish Wars
of a corner of the Temple Mount where the trumpet was blown to mark the beginning and ending
of the Sabbath. And the last [tower] was erected above the roof of the Priests Chambers, where
it was the custom for one of the priests to stand and to give notice, by the sound of a trumpet, in
the afternoon of the approach, and on the following evening of the close, of every seventh day,
announcing to the people the respective hours for ceasing work and for resuming their labors.
The original is in the Israel Museum, but a copy is on display near the temple stones along the
Western Wall.
Stone plaques with Greek inscriptions from the time of King Herod WARNING NON-JEWS
NOT TO ENTER CERTAIN AREAS OF THE TEMPLE have also been uncovered. The

plaque reads: No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and embankment around the
sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows. A
complete plaque is housed in the archaeological museum in Istanbul and a partial one is housed
in the Israel Museum.
In 2009 Dr. Eilat Mazar, world authority on Jerusalems ancient archaeology, discovered the
ruins of DAVIDS PALACE. Though skeptics have predictably tried to discredit the find, Mazar
found evidence that this was Davids palace and that it was occupied up until the destruction of
Solomons Temple (The World of Archeology Is Rocked, aish.com, July 6, 2009). Eilat is the
granddaughter of Benjamin Mazar, and in their last conversation before his death in 1995, they
discussed the recovery of Davids palace.
In the 1990s two small SILVER SCROLLS were found in an ancient tomb on Ketef Hinnom
(the shoulder of Hinnom), on the side of the Valley of Hinnom. After being unrolled at the Israel
Museum, the scrolls were found to contain the priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-26. Dating
to the 7th century B.C., these are the oldest portions of Scripture in existence, predating the O.T.
scrolls from the Dead Sea caves by four or five hundred years.
Leaving the land of Israel itself for a moment, there is powerful evidence in Rome for the Second
Temple and its destruction according to Jesus prophecy. It was a Roman army that destroyed the
Temple under the leadership of Titus, and the artifacts were transported to Rome. Titus became
emperor, and in 85 A.D. a monumental arch was dedicated in commemoration of his victory over
the Jews. A bas-relief inside the arch depicts the spoils from the Jerusalem Temple carried in a
victory procession after Jerusalems fall. Clearly seen are the candlestick and the silver trumpets.
This 1900-year-old monument thus stands as a silent witness to the accuracy of Bible prophecy,
as the destruction depicted on it was prophesied nearly a half century earlier by the Lord Jesus
Christ in Luke 19:41-44:
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at
least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the
days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and
keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they
shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

1. Archaeological evidence of Israels ancient history found in Israel itself include artifacts from
Ahabs palace, the inscription of House of David on a Syrian victory pillar, the Lachish
Letters, and evidence of Solomons fortress at Megiddo.
2. At Caesarea Maritima, there is evidence of the Roman Tenth Legion and of Pilate.


3. At Masada, archaeologists have found evidence of Herods fortified palace, portions of Bible
scrolls, and coins dating to the destruction of the Temple.
4. In Jerusalem, archaeology has discovered Nehemiahs Wall, the pavement in Pilates court, the
Siloam tunnel, the Temple Mount, Temple stones, the Southern Steps, and the inscription to the
place of trumpeting.
5. The Arch of Titus in Rome depicts the artifacts removed from the Temple before it was
destroyed in 70 A.D.
1. What evidence of Jezebel exists from Ahabs ivory palace?
2. What type of symbols are engraved on this object?
3. What evidence of King David was found on a Syrian victory pillar?
4. What does the word beit mean?
5. What was the Bar Kokhba revolt?
6. What images from the Jewish Temple were engraved on the Bar Kokhba coins?
7. What two great historical witnesses to the authority of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible are in the
Shrine of the Book museum?
8. What passage says that God assigned the Jews the task of keeping the Scripture?
9. Though the Jews did not _________ the Scripture, they __________ it.
10. Who were the Masoretes?
11. Who was Aaron Ben Asher?
12. When was the Aleppo Codex written?
13. What does the word codex mean?
14. What is Aleppo?
15. When was the Great Isaiah Scroll found and where?
16. How old is the Great Isaiah Scroll?
17. How does the Great Isaiah Scroll confirm Gods promise to preserve His Word?
18. Who was Baruch and what archaeological evidence was found for his existence?
19. What are the Lachish Letters?
20. What are three important events in Jewish history that occurred at Megiddo?
21. What archaeologist rediscovered the site of ancient Megiddo and when was this?
22. Where was Caesarea Maritima located?
23. What are two biblical events that occurred here?
24. What evidence for Pilate was found here?
25. What event described by Josephus occurred at Masada?
26. What evidence for the Jewish temple was found at Masada?
27. Where in Israel was Caesarea Maritima located?
28. What are three Bible events that took place there?
29. What is the significance of the Pilate Stone?
30. The Siloam tunnel was built for what purpose?

31. What type of material went into the construction of Nehemiahs Wall?
32. When was the pavement in Pilates Court located by archaeologists?
33. What part of the Temple Mount contains original stones from the days when the New
Testament was written?
34. The Southern Steps were excavated when?
35. The Southern Steps led to what?
36. What are the Temple Stones that were unearthed along the Western Wall?
37. What is the significance of the stone with the inscription to the place of trumpeting?
38. What warning did the Jews give to non-Jews in the Temple area?
39. Davids Palace was excavated by what Hebrew archaeologist?
40. What is the significance of the two silver scrolls that were discovered in Jerusalem in the
41. In what valley were the scrolls discovered?
42. What Scripture portion do they contain?

A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Lukes Writings is included in the Unshakeable
Faith apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private Study at the
beginning of the course for tips on using this material.
Critics in the 19th century attacked Lukes Gospel and the book of Acts as historically unreliable
documents that werent written until many generations after Christ. German critic F. C. Baur
(1792-1860), for example, claimed that the book of Acts was not written until the second half of
the 2nd century. The critics claimed that most of the New Testament is based on myths that were
passed along by word of mouth for generations before being committed to writing.
But the book of Acts is clearly written as a historical document. Luke mentions 32 countries, 54
cities, nine islands, and 95 different people, including many civil and military officials. Likewise,
Lukes Gospel is filled with references to places and historical personages, such as the Herods,
Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Philip tetrarch of Ituraea, and Cyrenius,
governor of Syria.
Luke claims to base his writings on the accounts of eyewitnesses who were still alive (Luke
If the Bible is historically inaccurate, it is obviously not the divinely-inspired Word of God.
The liberal view was debunked by renowned archaeologist William Ramsay (1851-1939), among
others. Ramsay was taught liberal theories at the University of Aberdeen and Oxford University
and assumed that liberals such as Baur were correct. When he went to Asia Minor and Palestine


on his first archaeological expedition he fully intended to prove that the Bible is not the book
from heaven it claimed to be.
"He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul's travels. These had never
been thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of
the Bible. Here he spent fifteen years digging. Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul, the
Traveler and the Roman Citizen. ... The book caused a furor of dismay among the skeptics of the world. Its
attitude was utterly unexpected because it was contrary to the announced intention of the author years before.
For twenty years more, book after book from the same author came from the press, each filled with additional
evidence of the exact, minute truthfulness of the whole New Testament as tested by the spade on the spot.
And these books have stood the test of time, not one having been refuted, nor have I found even any attempt
to refute them (Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 62).

In 1915 Ramsay testified:

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the
true historic sense In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians (The
Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915).
The present writer takes the view that Lukes history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. At this
point we are describing what reasons and arguments changed the mind of one who began under the
impression that the history was written long after the events and that it was untrustworthy as a whole (Ibid.).

Ramsay debunked the idea that the New Testament was written long after the events.
We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New
Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more
radical New Testament critics of today (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 1955, p. 136).
In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the
eighties of the first century A.D. (Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963).

Following are other examples of how the New Testament has been authenticated over the
The critics said Luke was wrong in Acts 14:6 when he wrote that Lystra and Derbe were located
in Lycaonia and that Iconium was not in Lycaonia. Paul and Barnabas were in Iconium when
they fled to Lystra and Derbe, which was said to be in Lycaonia, thus implying that Iconium was
not in Lycaonia. In 1910, Ramsay unearthed a monument proving that Iconium was a Phrygian
city rather than a Lycaonian city (The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 64).
The critics said that Luke was wrong about the census described Luke 2:1-3. They claimed that
Quirinius (Cyrenius) was not governor of Syria at that time, because Josephus placed him as
governor in 6 A.D., which was several years later. Archaeology disproved these charges. Ramsay
unearthed an inscription in Antioch that stated that Quirinius was the governor of Syria in about
7 B.C. (The New Evidence, p. 63). Thus, Quirinius was governor of Syria for two terms, in 7
B.C. when Christ was born, and again in 6 A.D.


The critics further claimed that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home for the
census, contrary to what the Bible says. But a papyrus document found in Egypt says that all
residents were required to travel to their ancestral homes (The New Evidence, p. 63).
Critics said that Luke was wrong when he said in Luke 3:1 that Lysanias was the tetrarch of
Abilene in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which was A.D. 27. Ancient historians
had stated that Lysanias was killed in 36 B.C. But an inscription found at Abila near Damascus
dating to between A.D. 14 and 29 says that Lysanias was the tetrarch (The New Evidence, p.
64). Thus, Luke was right.
Critics said that Luke was wrong in using the Greek term politarchs (translated rulers of the
city in Acts 17:6) to denote the civil authorities of Thessalonica because the term is not found in
classical literature. Archaeology has since uncovered 19 inscriptions that use the title after the
same fashion as Luke (The New Evidence, p. 65). The British Museum displays one of these
inscriptions from an arch in Thessalonica (Room 78, GR 1877.5-11.1).
In these and other cases the critics were wrong, and Luke was right. Skeptics have repeatedly and
ridiculously acted as if they have an omniscient knowledge of ancient history and thus are in a
position to criticize the Bible, but they have been proven wrong countless times. The fact that
this has not humbled most of them is further evidence of the Bibles divine inspiration, because it
prophesied their willful ignorance (2 Peter 3:3-5).
In 1963, classical historian A.N. Sherwin-White confirmed Ramsays view of Acts:
Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians
have long taken it for granted (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 189).


1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of Lukes Gospel and the book of Acts.
William Ramsay set out to disprove the Bible but authenticated it, instead. He said, Luke is a
historian of the first rank and Lukes history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.
2. Ramsay debunked the liberal idea that the New Testament was written long after the events.
1. What German critic said that Acts is not a reliable historical document?
2. According to the critics, when was most of the New Testament written?
3. What archaeologist debunked this idea?
4. Did this archaeologist start out his career as a Bible believer?
5. What convinced him that the book of Acts is accurate?
6. How did this archaeologist debunk the idea that Acts 14:6 was wrong in saying that Iconium
was not in Lycaonia.

7. How did he debunk the idea that Quirinius was not governor of Syria during the census
described in Luke 2?
8. How did he confirm Lukes use of the Greek term politarchs in Acts 17:6?


We recommend that you first go through the introduction to evolution with the class and then
use the PowerPoint/Keynote presentations for the sections on Icons of Evolution and Icons of
Creation. After each PowerPoint presentation use the summary from the book for review. Each
Icon has a summary and review questions.
The section on history of evolution can be taught in class or can be used as a reading assignment.


Evolution Introduction
1. One doesnt have to be a scientist to refute Darwinism.
The believer should not be intimidated by scientists.
Dr. Lowell Ponte, former science and technology editor for Readers Digest, reminds us that
scientists are not gods, though they sometimes pretend to be:
Outside their narrow field of expertise, scientists are often no wiser than the drunk at the end of the bar in
your local saloon. In fact they are often more foolish than this drunk, because with the power of science,
commissars often become intoxicated with the notion that knowledge and intellect in one field empowers them
to speak with the authority of gods in all fields (Science Wars, FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 27, 2004).

Phillip Johnson, a law professor who has critiqued Darwinism, rightly says:
Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which
cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of
necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman (Darwin on
Trial, p. 13).

In fact, you can be your own scientist. You have the God-given ability to make observations and
to make decisions based on those observations. Richard Tedder is an example of those who came
to Christ when he stopped depending on his university professors and started analyzing the
evidence for evolution and studying the Bible for himself. He told me that when he started
reading the Bible he was amazed that everything it said rang true because he could see it
reflected in life.
We must remember that divine truth has been revealed to the weak rather than to the mighty
(Mat. 11:25; 1 Cor. 1:26-28). Further, the poor man who has understanding can examine the
rich man who is wise in his conceit (Prov. 28:11).
The believer has everything he needs to test the doctrine of evolution: We have Gods Word (2
Tim. 3:16-17) and we have Gods Spirit (1 John 2:27).
Every philosophy must be brought to this Touchstone (2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20-21).
Common sense refutes evolution at every turn. Consider, for example, the concept of evolution
through random genetic mutations. Nothing in life works like this. Take a piece of writing, such
as Genesis chapter one. It could never be created through random typing, and if accidental
changes were introduced to the existing text, the result would invariably be degradation and not
improvement. Take a machine such as the Space Shuttle. It has two million parts (and is far less
complex than a bacterial cell). Random blind changes would never create such a machine nor
improve an existing one. Complicated things are not built by random, accidental events. At the
fundamental level, the evolution issue is not rocket science!

2. Benefits of creation science material

Creation science materials are tremendously helpful in fortifying Gods people, particularly
young people, against the devils lies. Titus 1:9-11 says that preachers and teachers are necessary
to stop the mouths of false teachers. This is the first purpose of creation science materials. Young
people need to see that Darwinism can be rejected because there are no proven scientific facts
supporting it.
Creation science materials teach analytical thinking and sound argumentation. The writer of
Hebrews says that the spiritual and moral senses must be trained through use.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses
exercised to discern both good and evil (Hebrews 5:14).

We do not naturally know how to refute error. Like most other things in life, this must be learned
and we must grow in it. By learning Gods Word and weighing everything in life by Gods holy
Standard, proving what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, we strengthen
our spiritual and moral senses so that we can know Gods will and be approved by Him. Well
prepared creation science material is a tremendous help in this education so that we can learn
how to handle the wiles of the devil.
Creation science materials lift the believers heart to God, the Almighty Creator, and teach
lessons about His character and power. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead (Romans 1:20). Everything God has created teaches us lessons about the Creator
Himself, and the creation-science issue covers every aspect of Gods creation, from biology to
astrology. It is thrilling research.
Creation science materials are useful in evangelism. Creation science has been called preevangelism, and many people have been saved after first being confronted with creation science
arguments against evolution. This caused them to doubt what they had been taught from the
secular sphere and to become receptive to examining the claims of the Bible and the Person of
Jesus Christ. Consider the following example:
I was raised in a Christian home, believing in God and His creation. However, I was taught evolution while
attending high school, and began to doubt the authority of the Bible. If evolution is true, I reasoned, the Bible
cannot also be true. I eventually rejected the entire Bible and believed that we descended from lower
creatures; there was no afterlife and no purpose in life but to enjoy the short time we have on this earth. My
college years at Penn State were spent as an atheist, or at best as an agnostic. Fortunately, and by the grace
of God, I began to read articles and listen to tapes about scientific evidence for creation. Over a period of a
couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence, and
that scientific data from the fossil record, geology, etc. could be better explained by a recent creation, followed
by a global flood. Suddenly I realized that the Bible might actually be true! It wasnt until I could believe the
first page of the Bible that I could believe the rest of it. Once I accepted the fact that there is a creator God, it
was an easy step for me to accept His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ as well (John Cimbala, Ph.D. in
aeronautics from California Institute of Technology, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in
Creation, edited by John Ashton, pp. 200, 201).


3. Beware of the myth that the Bible has been discredited.

The outcome of a murder trial in a U.S. courtroom requires evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt, because so much is at stake, and we should require no less on the issue of creation vs.
evolution, which has grave consequences that are not only earthly but also eternal.
The Bible claims to be the revelation of God to man, and if the Bible is true, there is an Almighty
Creator God and a heaven and a hell; man will live forever in one place or another; and salvation
is only through personal faith in Jesus Christ.
This issue is too serious to be decided on the basis of anything other than solid proof that the
Bible is not trustworthy, yet no such proof exists. In fact, the critics have been proven wrong
time and time and time again.
Charles Darwin said, The clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in
the miracles by which Christianity is supported (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited
by Nora Barlow).
Like many others since then, Darwin FALSELY ASSUMED that the clearest evidence is
lacking. They have falsely assumed that the Bible has been discredited by modern science and by
the higher criticism of theological liberalism, but the fact is that the modernistic theories have
been repeatedly disproven whereas the Bible has been repeatedly authenticated.
Those who have maintained faith in the Bible have never been disappointed.
Consider the situation that existed in 1859 when Darwin published On the Origin of Species.
Theological skeptics such as F.C. Baur claimed that the New Testament was not written until a
century and more after the events and that it was based on myths that had taken shape as they
were handed down by word of mouth for generations. Skeptics claimed that the book of Acts was
filled with historical errors. They claimed that writing was not sufficiently developed by Moses
time for him to have written the early books of the Bible.
But it was the critical views that turned out to be mythical, whereas the Bible was authenticated.
Those who maintained their trust in the Bible were vindicated.
The critical views about the date when the New Testament was written and about the historical
inaccuracies of the book of Acts were decidedly refuted by the renowned archaeologist William
Ramsay, among others. As for writing, archaeologists now know that it was developed around
3150 B.C., at the latest, and we have personally seen the evidence for this at many famous
libraries and museums. This was was more than 1,500 years before Moses and in fact carries us
back to the lifetime of Adam by biblical chronology. Since the late 19th century, archaeologists
have discovered that the ancient kingdoms in Egypt and Mesopotamia were literate societies full

of schools and libraries. Ancient libraries have been unearthed at Ugarit, Mari, Ur, Ebla, Nippur,
Nineveh, and elsewhere. (For documentation of these things see the section on Archaeological
The skeptics were not only wrong about these things; they were terribly wrong.
In spite of this, multitudes have gone out into eternity believing that the Bible is untrustworthy
and that evolution is true.
Consider the sad case of Arthur Keith. He was one of the greatest anatomists of the 20th century,
but he was duped by the Piltdown hoax. His book The Antiquity of Man treated Piltdown as the
preeminent missing link. In his autobiography Keith described attending evangelistic meetings
and being on the verge of converting to Christ, but he rejected the gospel because he felt that the
Genesis account of creation had been proven to be a myth (Melvin Lubenow, Bones of
Contention, p. 59). In reality, the myths were on the side of evolution, and Keith gambled his
eternal soul on them. In 1953, he was informed that the Piltdown fossils were a hoax, but by then
he was an old man steeped in humanistic rationalism and a pronounced opponent of the
Christian faith. As far as we know, he went to his grave in that condition. He should have
looked at the evidence for the Bible much more carefully and prayerfully. He should not have
been so ready to believe what Bible critics and evolutionists taught. The stake is far too high.
I, for one, refuse to stake my eternal destiny on unproven theories that are constantly changing.
I dont care if the entire scientific world believes that evolution is true (which is most definitely
not the case); they must provide real evidence to support their doctrine, and they have never done
4. Evolution is not a theory.
We have tried to avoid describing evolution as a theory. While many of the men we quote use
that term to describe evolution, we do not use it ourselves, and if we do use it we put it within
quotation marks. This is because evolution does not rate as a scientific theory or even as a
hypothesis. As David Stone, Ph.D. physics, says:
Scientific theories involve quantitative modeling, experimental data, and repeated validation by prediction and
observation. In any aspect of the philosophy / fantasy of evolution, there is no theory. There is no theory for
formation of the first protein, first DNA, first cellular sub-structures, first cell, multi-celled creatures, transitions
between kinds, etc. Just stories. There are no genetic data, not a single observed case of mutations and
natural selection producing new, complex tissues, organs, or creatures. Evolution is also not a hypothesis,
which is a reasonable explanation of observed facts, consistent with known physical laws, employing
experimental data and analysis. It has been tested at least to some degree to see whether it holds up under
certain conditions. A theory arises when a hypothesis has stood up to repeated tests under a wide variety of
conditions and cannot be broken. Evolution warrants neither term. Evolution qualifies merely as a
philosophical, even a religious idea, void of scientific support, and intended to replace biblical truth with
stories (e-mail to author, August 21, 2011).


5. The evidence for evolution is so flimsy that even many secular scientists disbelieve it.
In 1922, William Jennings Bryan warned,
It is no light matter to impeach the veracity of the Scriptures in order to accept, not a truth--not even a
theory--but a mere hypothesis (In His Image, 1922, p. 94).

Bryan was right, and nearly a century later, evolution remains a mere hypothesis. This is plain
from the fact that evolutions major evidences are disputed even by scientists who arent
I have many books in my library by evolutionists questioning the major principles of evolution.
Consider a few examples:
I.L. Cohen, a mathematician and researcher, a member of the New York Academy of
Sciences. every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter)
is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology,
fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ... The theory of evolution
may be the worst mistake made in science (Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in
Probabilities, 1984, pp. 209, 210).
David Berlinski, Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton and post doctoral work in
mathematics and biology from Columbia University. The structures of life are complex, and
complex structures get made in this, the purely human world, only by a process of deliberate
design. An act of intelligence is required to bring even a thimble into being; why should the
artifacts of life be different? ... For many years, biologists have succeeded in keeping skepticism
on the circumference of evolutionary thought, where paleontologists, taxonomists, and
philosophers linger. But the burning fringe of criticism is now contracting, coming ever closer to
the heart of Darwins doctrine (The Deniable Darwin, June 1, 1996).
Michael Denton, Ph.D. in biochemistry from Kings College London, Senior Research
Fellow in molecular biology at the University of Otago, New Zealand. My fundamental
problem with the theory is that there are so many highly complicated organs, systems and
structures, from the nature of the lung of a bird, to the eye of the rock lobster, for which I cannot
conceive of how these things have come about in terms of a gradual accumulation of random
changes. It strikes me as being a flagrant denial of common sense to swallow that all these things
were built up by accumulative small random changes. This is simply a nonsensical claim,
especially for the great majority of cases, where nobody can think of any credible explanation of
how it came about. And this is a very profound question which everybody skirts, everybody
brushes over, everybody tries to sweep under the carpet (An interview with Michael Denton,
Access Research Network, Vol. 15. No. 2, 1995; the interview was produced in conjunction with
the University of California and was the first in a series of interviews with noted scientists and
educators entitled Focus on Darwinism).


Soren Lovtrup, Swedish biologist and the author of Epigenetics: A Treatise on Theoretical
Biology and The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be
ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth,
Richard Milton, science journalist and design engineer and a member of Mensa, has been a
member of the Geologists Association for over 30 years. I am seriously concerned, on purely
rational grounds, that generations of school and university teachers have been led to accept
speculation as scientific theory and faulty data as scientific fact; that this process has
accumulated a mountainous catalog of mingled fact and fiction that can no longer be contained
by the sparsely elegant theory; and that it is high time that the theory was taken out of its ornate
Victorian glass cabinet and examined with a fresh and skeptical eye (Shattering the Myths of
Darwinism, 1992, p. 4).
Michael Pitman, a chemistry professor at Cambridge. Neither observation nor controlled
experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene,
hormone, enzyme system or organ (Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 67, 68).
Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, mathematics professor
at MIT, UCLA, and Oregon State University: The point, however, is that the doctrine of
evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its
capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is,
in essence, a metaphysical claim. ... Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a
metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb (Teilhardism and the New Religion, p. 24).
Lee Spetner, Ph.D. in physics from MIT, worked with the Applied Physics Laboratory of
the Johns Hopkins University from 1951-70. Despite the insistence of evolutionists that
evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that
macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence
of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so (Lee Spetner/Edward Max
Dialogue, 2001, The True Origin Archive).
David Stove, Australian philosopher, educator, and author who taught philosophy at the
University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney. Huxley should not have
needed Darwinism to tell him--since any intelligent child of about eight could have told him-that in a continual free fight of each other against all there would soon be no children, no
women, and hence, no men. In other words, that the human race could not possibly exist now,
unless cooperation had always been stronger than competition, both between women and their
children, and between men and the children and women whom they protect and provide for. ...
Such cases, I need hardly say, never bother armor-plated neo-Darwinians. But then no cases,
possible or even actual, ever do bother them. ... In neo-Darwinisms house there are many
mansions: so many, indeed, that if a certain awkward fact will not fit into one mansion, there is


sure to be another one into which it will fit to admiration (Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes,
Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution, pp. 9, 39).
William Thompson, Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of
Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada. As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion
among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This
divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain
conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the
disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think
this unreasonable. This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are
unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to
maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of
difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science (Introduction to The Origin of Species, 6th
edition, 1956, p. xxii).
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History, London. The
explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only
conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten
years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten
years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of
knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high
school, and thats all we know about it (Patterson, in an address given at the American Museum
of Natural History, Nov. 5, 1981; cited from White and Comninellis, Darwins Demise, p. 47).
The report Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible (available at the Way of Life
web site) features more than 50 Ph.D.s who state that evolution is not scientifically proven.
Consider a few examples. Most of these once believed in evolution:
Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications--from journal articles to textbooks to popular
magazine stories--which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish
macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief (John Baumgardner, Ph.D. in
geophysics and space physics from UCLA, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,
edited by John Ashton, p. 230).
I reviewed many books on Darwinism and from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which included
vestigial organs, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design,
the fossil record, atavisms, nascent organs, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolution
versus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, and other topics. ... Slowly, but
BY RESEARCHING SECULAR LITERATURE ONLY. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the case
against evolutionism was overwhelming and conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative,
creationism (Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in
measurement and evolution from Wayne State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, chapter 4).
There is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientific
validity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions, and
inferences, all of which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-serving collaborations of
the evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution. It was in the
1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, and disgust, I became enlightened to this. Up until that time I
had not given the evolution matter very much thought. On the contrary, I presumed that researchers


committed to the study of evolution possessed the same integrity as that expected of any credible scientist. ...
Subsequently, the greatest embarrassment of all was for me to find that THERE SIMPLY WAS NO VALID
SCIENCE WHATEVER, in any of these numerous publications touting evolution (Edward Boudreaux, Ph.D. in
chemistry from Tulane University, professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orleans, In Six
Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 205, 206).
Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate
factual evidence (John Cimbala, Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, In Six
Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 201).
As I looked at the evidence--trying to be a dispassionate scientist--I could not find the evidence for the
multitudes of intermediate forms which should exist if evolution was true (Raymond Jones, Ph.D. in
biology, Standing Firm, The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 28).
It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the
assumptions upon which the macro-evolutionary doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence
that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting
the truth of this doctrine (Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University, The Creationist View
of Biological Origins, NEX4 Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33).
I have never seen any evidence for evolution. All that I see around me in nature points to a divine
designer (Angela Meyer, Ph.D. in horticultural science from the University of Sydney, In Six Days, edited by
John Ashton, p. 143).
How secure is the idea that there is an uninterrupted creative sequence from the big bang through the
formation of the solar system, the solidification of the earth, the spontaneous generation of life, and the
evolution of plants, animals, and humans to end in the world around us today? Is this scheme impregnable?
By no means. It has fatal gaps and inconsistencies (Colin Mitchell, Ph.D. in desert terrain geography from
Cambridge University, In Six Days, pp. 318, 319).
I no longer believed there was any validity to Darwinism, having become convinced of this as much by the
evolutionist literature I had read as by the creationist books. The standards of evidence supporting
evolution seemed trivial compared to the evidence on which engineers have to base their work (Henry
Morris, Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota, Persuaded by the Evidence, p.
I have studied a lot of arguments from evolutionists; I have had seven formal debates with evolutionary
professors at universities, and I have never read or heard any scientific fact that contradicts what the
Bible says. There are evolutionists interpretations of the facts, but the facts themselves are not contrary to
Scripture (Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University, interview with David
Cloud at the Creation Museum, June 23, 2009).
Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature-in prestigious journals, speciality journals, or books--that describes how molecular evolution of any real,
complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. ... In the face of the enormous
complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed (Michael
Behe, Ph.D. in biology from the University of Pennsylvania, Darwins Black Box, chapters 8, 9).
For three years, I used all the evolutionary arguments I knew so well [to debate chemistry professor Dr.
Charles Signorino]. For three years, I lost every scientific argument. In dismay, I watched the myth of
evolution evaporate under the light of scientific scrutiny, while the scientific case for Creation-CorruptionCatastrophe-Christ just got better and better. Its no wonder that the ACLU (actually the anti-Christian lawyers
union) fights by any means to censor any scientific challenge to evolution! (Gary Parker, Ph.D. in biology/
geology from Ball State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 254).
After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in the
universe from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactory
explanation of evolutionary galactic origins than we were when we started to study the subject, using modern
physical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of the
beautiful and complex realities of this world from an evolutionist approach (John Rankin, Ph.D. in
mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in
Creation, p. 122).


Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as the
evidence is picked and chosen and the great poll of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As the
depth and breadth of human knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep and wide, all
pointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design (Timothy Standish, Ph.D. in biology and public policy
from George Mason University, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 117).
If the evolution or creationism discussion were decided by sensible appeals to reason, evolution would long
ago have joined the great philosophical foolishnesses of the past, with issues such as how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin, or the flat-earth concept. ... evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all.
Rather, it is clung to though flying in the face of reason, with an incredible, fanatical, and irrational religious
fervor. It loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name (Ker Thomson,
D.Sc. in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines, former director of the U.S. Air Force Terrestrial
Sciences Laboratory, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 217).
The principles and observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1,
but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days! (Jeremy Walter, Ph.D. in mechanical
engineering, Pennsylvania State University, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation,
edited by John Ashton, pp. 21, 22).
I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creation
and global Flood than there is an old earth and evolution (Keith Wanser, Ph.D. in condensed matter
physics from the University of California, Irvine, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 103, 104).
I became convinced that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to do
with evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as so many bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for the
evolution of life on earth (A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. in gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, In
Six Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 257, 259, 260, 263).

There is indeed no evidence that a self-replicating living cell could arise from non-life. There is
no evidence that mutations and natural selection could account for the vast complexity of life.
There is no evidence that man ascended from the animal kingdom.
6. The doctrine of evolution is a product of end-time apostasy.
The 19th century witnessed an explosion of apostasy. Skepticism was in the air. Theological
Modernism, Humanism, and Unitarianism prepared the soil for the acceptance of Darwinian
Consider some descriptions of this unbelieving atmosphere:
[It was a time] when speculations about the origin of species were most rife, when even the orthodox
doctrines were being modified and complicated until it was hardly possible to know where orthodoxy ended
and heresy started (Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, p. 234).
Every thinking man I have met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious faith.
And the unthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief (Thomas Huxley, cited from
Adrian Desmond, Huxley, p. 160).
The unspiritual condition of the churches and the alarmingly prevalent skepticism, infidelity, and atheism
among the masses of the people in Germany, Switzerland, and Holland is, without doubt, almost wholly
attributable to the advocacy of these criticisms by a large majority of the prominent pastors and theological
professors in those lands. The same condition of affairs is measurably true in England, Scotland, New
England, and in every community where this criticism is believed by any very considerable number of people
and openly advocated (L.W. Munhall, The Highest Critics vs. the Higher Critics, 1896).


The flood-gates of infidelity are open, and Atheism overwhelming is upon us (George Romanes, 1878,
cited from Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 371).
Attendance at places of worship is declining and reverence for holy things is vanishing. We solemnly
believe this to be largely attributable to THE SCEPTICISM WHICH HAS FLASHED FROM THE PULPIT
AND SPREAD AMONG THE PEOPLE (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sword and Trowel, November 1887).

It was within this atmosphere of spiritual skepticism that the doctrine of evolution was born and
We document this extensively in the book The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame.
7. Evolution is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and therefore is evidence of the divine origin
of the Bible.
Consider 2 Peter 3:3-7. Written 2,000 years ago, this prophecy describes the prevailing
naturalistic evolutionary philosophy of our day. The prophecy says that scoffers will come who
will deny the global flood and the second coming of Christ. The prophecy charges the scoffers
with willful ignorance (verse 5). It says they are motivated by the desire to throw off Gods law
and to walk after their own lusts (verse 3). The prophecy describes the Darwinists naturalistic,
uniformitarian view (all things continue as they were, verse 4). The scoffers have a naturalistic
faith, rejecting the supernatural, the miraculous, the Divine. As Richard Lewontin admitted, We
have a prior commitment to materialism. ... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door (Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 31).
8. Theistic evolution is not a viable option.
Probably the majority of professing Christians today believe in some type of theistic evolution.
They believe in a Creator God and they believe in salvation through Christ but they dont believe
the Bibles account of six-day creation and they give credence to evolutionary doctrines such as
the ancient age of the earth and the gradual evolution of creatures. Theistic evolutionists who
profess Christianity believe that it is possible to reconcile the Bible with evolution, but in reality
this is an impossibility.
First, the early chapters of Genesis are written as history rather than poetry or allegory.
There are 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names and at least 21 identifiable cultural
items (such as gold, bdellium, onyx, brass, iron, gopher wood, bitumen, mortar brick, stone, harp, pipe, cities,
towers) in those opening chapters. The significance of this list may be seen by comparing it, for example, with
the paucity of references in the Koran. The single tenth chapter of Genesis has five times more geographical
data of importance than the whole of the Koran. Every one of these items presents us with the possibility of
establishing the reliability of our author. The content runs head on into a description of the real world rather
than recounting events belonging to another world or level of reality (Walter Kaiser, Jr., The Literary Form of
Genesis 1-11, New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. by J. Barton Payne, 1970, p. 59).

Genesis is cited as history by Jesus. In Luke 17:26-32, for example, Jesus mentions Noah, the
Ark, the Flood, Lot, the destruction of Sodom by fire, and Lots wife. Elsewhere Jesus mentions

the Creation (Mk. 13:19), Adam and Eve (Mat. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7), Cain and Abel (Mat. 23:35;
Lk. 11:50-51), and Abraham (John 8:39-40). In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24. Christ
always treats Genesis as history, and it is impossible to honor Him as Lord and Saviour and
disregard His teaching. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ mentions both accounts of creation in
Genesis 1 and 2 and treats them as historical. Many theistic evolutionists, such as Francis
Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, claim to be evangelical and to honor Christ as
Lord and Saviour, but this is not consistent with the rejection of Christs teaching about Genesis
and human origins.
Genesis 1-11 is cited as history by seven of the eight New Testament writers (all but James).
Altogether the first eleven chapters of Genesis are quoted from or referred to 100 times in the
New Testament, and Genesis is always treated as historical.
Genesis 1-3 forms the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Adam was not a real man and
there was no literal Fall, the gospel becomes an empty religious myth.
Jesus human genealogy is traced from Adam (Luke 3:23-38). We know that this genealogy is
populated with the names of real historical people, and there is no reason to treat Adam
differently. Further, there is no room within this genealogy for millions of years of time.
Adam is compared to Christ (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). It is obvious that the apostle Paul
considered Adam an actual man and the Genesis account literal history.
Second, the teaching of Genesis cannot be reconciled with the teaching of evolution.
a. Genesis says God created the world and everything in it in six days. The days of creation in
Genesis 1 were regular 24-hour days, days with an evening and a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13,
19, 23, 31). This is repeated in Exodus 20:10-11.
b. Genesis says everything was made to reproduce after its kind. The statement after their
kind is repeated ten times in Genesis chapter one (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is
precisely what we observe in the world. Dogs reproduce dogs, spiders reproduce spiders,
birds reproduce birds, and peanuts reproduce peanuts. Animals can interbreed and adapt
within kinds (e.g., dogs can be interbred to produce different kinds of dogs), but kinds
cannot be bridged. This is what the Bible teaches and this is what we can observe
everywhere in nature, yet evolution teaches that the kinds are not stable, that the fish
evolved into the amphibian, and the amphibian into the reptile, and the reptile into the bird,
c. Genesis says the first man was created directly by God (Genesis 2) and was not the product
of gradual evolution from the animal kingdom. The Bible says Adam was the first man (1
Cor. 15:45). And Eve is the mother of all men (Gen. 3:20).


d. Genesis says man is made in Gods image and is not a part of the animal kingdom (Gen.
1:27). Evolution says man is an evolved animal.
e. Genesis says the world was created perfect, then fell under sin and has been deteriorating
ever since. This is consistent with everything we can observe. Everything is moving from
order to disorder. Everything is deteriorating, running down. This is what the Second Law
of Thermodynamics describes, as even secular evolutionists admit. Isaac Asimov was an
evolutionist, but his definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as follows, actually
refutes evolution and proves the Bible: The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!
Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. How difficult to maintain
houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them
deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses,
breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about (Asimov,
In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Cant Break Even, Smithsonian
Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 10). How contrary this is to the doctrine of evolution,
which says that things have gradually evolved from chaos to order, from non-life to life!
f. Genesis says everything was designed to fulfill Gods purposes. Wherever we look in nature,
from the microscopic to the astronomic, we see the appearance of design, which is contrary
to the principle of evolution, which says the world is the product of blind naturalistic
processes. Study the cell, the eye, the ear, the leaf, the flying wing, the atom, light, sound,
water--everywhere you find evidence of purpose and design. Dr. Michael Denton observes,
It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever
depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality,
which so mitigates against the idea of chance (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1983, p.
342). Even a simple microscopic one-celled bacterium (E. Coli) contains DNA
information units equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and all
of that information works together in perfect harmony and is self-replicating! Purpose and
design is what one would expect if God created the world as the Genesis record says He
did, but if evolution were true, we would find chaos and haphazardness.
g. Genesis indicates that the earths history is only about 6,000 years old, whereas evolution
claims that it is billions of years old.
Consider the following statement by Bert Thompson. (The documentation, which has been
removed from the quotation, can be found in the original article online.)
The truth of the matter is that the Bible, being a book grounded in history, is filled with chronological
data that may be used to establish a relative age for the Earth. It is not silent on this topic. ...
The Bible, for example, provides exact chronological data from Adam to Solomon. Combining
information from the Assyrian Eponym Lists and the Black Obelisk, the death of Ahab has been
determined to be 853-852 B.C. and therefore the reign of Solomon (some 40 years, 1 Kings 11:42)
can be dated at 971-931 B.C. According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years before Solomons fourth year of
reign (967-966 B.C.), Moses brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The date of the Exodus is 1446/
1445 B.C.


To this date is added the time of the sojourn in Egypt (430 years, Exodus 12:40), thereby producing
the date of 1876 B.C. as the year Jacob went to Egypt. Interestingly, the Bible records Pharaohs
query of Jacobs age (and Jacobs answer130 years) in Genesis 47:9, which would make the year
of Jacobs birth 2006 B.C. (Genesis 25:26). Abraham was 100 years old when he begat Isaac, giving
the date of 2166 B.C. for Abrahams birth. The chronology from Abraham to Adam is recorded very
carefully in two separate chronological tablesGenesis 5 and 11. According to Genesis 12:4,
Abraham was 75 when he left Haran, presumably after Terah died at 205 years; thus, Abraham was
born when Terah was 130 years old, albeit he is mentioned first by importance when Terah began
having sons at the age of 70 (Genesis 11:27; 12:4; Acts 7:4).
Having established the birth date of Abraham at 2166 B.C. (Archer, 1970, pp. 203-204), it is possible
to work from the time of Adams creation to Abraham in order to discern the chronology of the
beginning. The time from the creation of Adam to Seth was 130 years (Genesis 5:3), the time from
Adam to Noah was 1056 years (Packer, et al., 1980, pp. 56-57), and the time from Noahs birth to the
Flood was 600 years (Genesis 7:6), or 1656 A.A. (After Adam). It appears that Shem was about 100
years old at the time of the Flood (Genesis 5:32; 11:10) and begat Arphaxad two years after the
Flood (the Earth was not dry for more than a year; cf. Genesis 7:11 with 8:14; see also Genesis
11:10) in approximately 1659 A.A.
Arphaxad begat Salah in his thirty-fifth year; however, Luke 3:36 complements the chronological
table of Genesis 11 with the insertion of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, which indicates that
likely Arphaxad was the father of Cainan. Proceeding forward, one observes that Terah was born in
1879 A.A., and bore Abraham 130 years later (in the year 2009 A.A.). Simple arithmetic2166 B.C.
added to 2009 A.A.would place the creation date at approximately 4175 B.C. The Great Flood,
then, would have occurred around 2519 B.C. (i.e., 1656 A.A.).
Numerous objections have been leveled at the literal and consecutive chronological interpretation of
Scripture. For example, some have suggested that the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 are neither literal
nor consecutive. Yet five of the Patriarchs clearly were the literal fathers of their respective sons:
Adam named Seth (Genesis 4:25), Seth named Enos (4:26), Lamech named Noah (5:29), Noahs
sons were Shem, Ham and Japheth (cf. 5:32 with 9:18), and Terah fathered Abraham directly
(11:27,31). Judes record in the New Testament counts Enoch as the seventh from Adam (Jude
1:14), thereby acknowledging the genealogical tables as literal and consecutive. Moreover, how
better could Moses have expressed a literal and consecutive genealogy than by using the terms
lived...and begat...begat...after he begat...all the days... and he died? Without question, Moses
noted that the first three individuals (Adam, Seth, and Enos) were consecutive, and Jude stated by
inspiration that the first seven (to Enoch) were consecutive. Enochs son, Methuselah, died the year
of the Flood, and so by three steps the chronology of Adam to Noah is literal and consecutive,
producing a trustworthy genealogy/chronology.
There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providing
information on the age of the Earth and humanity. But the numerous chronological tables permeating
the Bible prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about giving
man exact chronological data and, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledge
of the period back to Abraham, plus two tableswith agesfrom Abraham to Adam. The ancient
Jewish historians (1 Chronicles 1:1-27) and the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understood
the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 as literal and consecutive. The Bible explains quite explicitly that God
created the Sun and Moon to be timekeepers (Genesis 1:16) for Adam and his descendants (notice
how Noah logged the beginning and the ending of the Flood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11;
9:14). ...
While it is true that genealogies (and chronologies) serve various functions in Scripture, one of their
main purposes is to show the historical connection of great men to the unfolding of Jehovahs
redemptive plan. These lists, therefore, are a link from the earliest days of humanity to the completion
of Gods salvation system. In order to have any evidential value, they must be substantially complete
(Bert Thompson, The Bible and the Age of the Earth, August 1999, http://www.apologeticspress.org/

Various biblical dating chronologies differ slightly--a few years here or even a hundred
years there--but no biblical dating chronology allows for a date of creation older than
several thousand years.


h. Genesis says man had the ability to use language from the beginning, so that he might
communicate with God. But according to evolution, language evolved from animal grunts
and squeals. It is important to understand that even modern archaeology says that writing
began about 5,000 years ago, which fits the Bibles record exactly (Joseph Naveh, Origins
of the Alphabets: Introduction to Archaeology, Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Publishing
House, p. 6).
i. Genesis says man had the ability to create an intelligent civilization from the very
beginning. Adams first children built cities, raised cattle, created musical instruments, and
worked in brass and iron (Gen. 4:17-22). Evolution, on the other hand, claims that mans
civilization began with a stone age during which cave men lived like animals.
9. Most people, even the most educated, know little about evolution and are not prepared to
defend it.
The Bible believer does not need to be intimidated by evolutionists. They are usually ill prepared
to defend it.
High school biology textbooks deal with the subject almost in passing and typically toss out a
few of the shopworn icons--such as the embryo and horse charts, the Miller experiment, and fruit
fly mutations--that are refuted in this course.
On a flight from San Diego to Seattle in 2010, I had a conversation with a Ph.D. candidate in
biology, and he admitted to me that the only thing he knew about Darwinian evolution is the little
he learned in college biology textbooks. Though he believed it, he was unprepared to defend it.
The Christian who studies the facts presented in this book will be more knowledgeable about
Darwinian evolution than the vast percentage of people he will meet along lifes way.
10. Darwin and his followers use a bait and switch technique.
The bait and switch routine is used continually. They try to prove the evolution of creatures, such
as a reptile turning into a bird, from evidence of minor changes within species, such as different
types of beaks on finches or different colorings of peppered moths or the change in the eating
habit of a caterpillar or the adaptation of a bacterium.
Adaptation within species is dramatically different from the changes required for the creation of
new kinds of creatures. The difference has been referred to as microevolution vs.
macroevolution, but we are not happy with the term microevolution since it falsely implies
that some type of real evolution is happening.


Darwin pointed to the variety among pigeons to prove that natural selection can produce
changes. Yet there is zero evidence that such modifications can change a pigeon into something
else, or that such modifications can create a wing or produce flight. This is to compare apples to
Darwins book On the Origin of Species is a masterpiece of bait and switch. He gave no evidence
that species could originate through his proposition. As James Perloff says, Darwins On the
Origin of Species discussed survival of the fittest--but not arrival of the fittest (Tornado in a
Junkyard, p. 47).
11. The term science must be clearly defined.
It is important to understand that there are two types of science practiced today: operational
(or empirical or observational) and historical.
Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful
products like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from
the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Recognizing that everyone has
presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical
science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we
must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions (Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, p. 20).

Scientists have accomplished wonderful things through empirical science, such as building
technological devices and exploring the living cell, but when they try to look beyond the physical
world and beyond the constraints of time, they enter into a sphere about which they are not
qualified to speak. They leave the evidence and enter into speculation.
For example, the February 5, 2004 issue of Japan Nanonet Bulletin featured an interview with
Dr. Keiichi Namba, professor, Graduate School of Frontier Biosciences, Osaka University, on the
flagellum motor. Notice the introductory paragraph:
Nature created a rotary motor with a diameter of 30 nm. Motility of bacteria, such as Salmonella and E. coli
with a body size of 1-2 microns, is driven by rapid rotation of a helical propeller by such a tiny little motor at its
base. This organelle is called the flagellum, made of a rotary motor and a thin helical filament that grows up to
about 15 microns. It rotates at around 2,000 rpm ... and with energy conversion efficiency close to 100%.

This paragraph is a mixture of empirical and historical science. The description of the flagellum
motor is based on observational science, but the statement that nature created this motor is not
based on any scientific evidence. It is pure speculation based on evolutionary assumption. The
Japan Nanonet Bulletin is qualified to report on the construction of biological nano motors, but it
is not qualified to tell us how these motors came into existence. For that, we must look beyond
mans mind. We must look to God and His divine Revelation.


12. Evolution is based upon unproven assumptions.

One thing that will become evident in this course is that evolution is based upon unproven
assumptions. If evolutionists are not allowed to assume their doctrine, they have no evidence.
In 1887, John Dawson wisely observed:
Let the reader take up either of Darwins great books, or Spencers Biology, and merely ask himself as he
reads each paragraph, What is assumed here and what is proved? and he will find the whole fabric melt
away like a vision (John William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man, 1887, p. 330).

Dawson was correct, and nothing has changed in this regard since his day.
Consider some examples:
One of the most-used icons of evolution is homology or similarity between creatures, limbs, and
organs. Darwin made so much of homology that he said that it would cause him to believe in
evolution even if there was no other evidence.
Practically every modern biology textbook and every natural history museum uses homology as
a chief evidence for evolution. For example, the Prentice Hall Biology 2002 textbook features a
drawing of a limb of a turtle, an alligator, a bird, and a mammal accompanied by the following
note, [These] homologous structures ... provide evidence of a common ancestor whose bones
may have resembled those of the ancient fish shown here.
In reality, the similarity of limbs, such as the bone structure of a human arm, an alligators leg,
and a birds wing, provides zero evidence for evolution, unless one assumes that evolution has
occurred. Similarity of structures is not evidence for common descent nor evidence against
common design. Who is to say scientifically that the limbs were not created for their individual
purposes and that the similarities of form exist because these function best to fulfill a variety of
needs? It would be reasonable for the creator to use similar structures and processes in creatures
designed to live in the same environment.
Radiometric Dating
Dr. Don DeYoung, in Thousands Not Billions, shows that radiometric dating techniques are
based on evolutionary assumptions, and if the assumptions are wrong the dates will also be


The Big Bang

The only reason evolutionists think they can trace an expanding universe back to a singularity,
is because they assume there was no creation 6,000 years ago. Like radiometric dating methods,
the Big Bang is premised upon an evolutionary uniformitarian view of the universe that denies
divine creation a priori. Astrophysicist George Ellis admits that there is a range of models that
could explain the observations (W. Wayt Gibbs, Profile: George F. R. Ellis, Scientific
American, Oct. 1995, p. 55). Ellis admits that evolutionists are using philosophical criteria in
choosing our models and that a lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
The fossil record as evidence of descent with modification
All supposed evidence for evolution from the fossil record is mere assumption. It is impossible to
prove scientifically that one fossilized creature evolved from another. This was admitted by
Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum:
transitional]. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.
Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the
question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why
the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way
of putting them to the test (Colin Patterson, letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, cited from
Sunderlands Darwins Enigma, pp. 101, 102).

Transposons are evolutionary remnants of ancient viruses

For years transposons in the DNA were almost universally interpreted by evolutionary scientists
as remnants of ancient viruses. Transposons are segments of DNA that utilize cellular
machines to replicate themselves and then splice the copies back into the host DNA (Brian
Thomas, Science Overturns Evolutions Best Arguments, Institute for Creation Research, Dec.
29, 2009). Since chimpanzees and humans share some transposons, this was supposed to be
evidence that the transposons were created by the same virus before the two species diverged
from an ape-like ancestor. It is now known that transposons contain functional code that is useful
to the organism and are not mere evolutionary junk, which is solid scientific evidence against
the evolutionary assumption. There was no real evidence all along. The facts were merely
interpreted through evolutionary assumptions and those assumptions were then used as evidence
for evolution!
Armed with the knowledge that evolutionists assume their doctrine to be true and conduct their
science on this basis, the Bible believer will not be led astray by evolutionary media
presentations, whether in print, in museums, on the web, or in documentaries.
For example, the National Geographic documentary The Known Universe 2 examines the
evidence for extra-terrestrial life. With its spectacular graphics and interviews with scientists
with impressive credentials, it has the air of great scientific authority, but it lacks real substance.

In reality, it is based upon evolutionary assumptions combined with speculation. Some major
assumptions are as follows:
Life evolved on earth; therefore, life could evolve elsewhere. With billions of stars out
there, surely theres life. This is mere assumption.
Inert molecules can form life if a liquid is present to agitate them; therefore, life could form
elsewhere if liquid water or even liquid methane is present. Molecules must move around
and interact to form the chemistry for life. Liquid allows the atoms to mix together to form
the building blocks of life. This is mere assumption. In fact, as Dr. David Stone says, Its
even worse. Its just word games. No one has ever offered a system of chemical reactions, a
proposed scientific model, at all. There is no science to support this.
Since life exists in harsh environments on earth this means life can evolve in harsh
environments elsewhere. We have to understand that life will evolve under conditions that
are horribly hostile. This is mere assumption.
Life on earth formed by adapting to the environment; therefore, extra-terrestrial life will be
adapted to its environment. Over hundreds of millions of years all of the life forms on our
planet have adapted to their environment. Scientists are quoted as imagining that life on a
high gravity planet would be squat and have many thick legs, whereas life on a low-gravity
planet would be spindly like a spider. It is pure assumption and speculation.
13. Scientists are highly motivated not to criticize evolution.
This is because Darwinian evolution is the religion of modern science and it is not acceptable to
question it. Many have lost promotions and jobs and been denied degrees, awards, and grants for
even questioning evolution, not to speak of rejecting it.
In the video documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein examines the persecution
of scientists and professors who dare to question Darwinism or to promote even the slightest
evidence for intelligent design.
In Slaughter of the Dissidents (Southworth, WA: Leafcutter Press, 2008), Jerry Bergman (Ph.D.
in human biology from Columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in measurement and evaluation
from Wayne State University) tells the shocking truth about killing the careers of Darwin
doubters. In the Introduction, John Eidsmoe says: In this fascinating book, Dr. Jerry Bergman-himself a victim--chronicles the history of modern religious persecution in America. A highly
respected, credentialed, and published professor, he was denied tenure--and subsequently fired-admittedly because of his creationist beliefs and writings. Dr. Bergman describes numerous other
cases, often concealing names to protect those who do not wish to risk losing their current
positions (a common means of persecuting those with minority views) (p. xv).


Dr. Bergman testifies:

[A] factor that moved me to the creationist side was the underhanded, often totally unethical techniques that
evolutionists typically used to suppress dissonant ideas, primarily creationism. Rarely did they carefully and
objectively examine the facts, but usually focused on suppression of creationists, denial of their degrees,
denial of their tenure, ad hominem attacks, and in general, irrational attacks on their person. In short, their
response in general was totally unscientific and one that reeks of intolerance, even hatred (Persuaded by the
Evidence, chapter 4).

William Dembski adds:

As Michael Behe pointed out in an interview with the Harvard Political Review for a biologist to question
Darwinism endangers ones career. Theres good reason to be afraid. Even if youre not fired from your job,
you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of
Darwinian theory not to make their views known. ... Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing
the party line of a Stalinist regime. ... Overzealous critics of intelligent design regard it as their moral duty to
keep biology free from intelligent design, even if that means taking extreme measures. Ive known such critics
to contact design theorists employers and notify them of the heretics in their midst. Once outed, the design
theorists themselves get harassed and harangued with e-mails. Next, the press does a story mentioning their
unsavory intelligent design associations. (The day one such story appeared, a close friend and colleague of
mine mentioned in the story was dismissed from his research position at a prestigious molecular biology
laboratory. He had worked in that lab for ten years. ... Welcome to the inquisition (The Design Revolution, pp.
304, 305).

Walt Brown, who has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT, describes the way that
evolutionists have controlled the scientific fields since the day of Thomas Huxley. He uses the
field of geology as an example:
Professors in the new and growing field of geology were primarily selected from those who supported the
anti-catastrophe principle. These professors did not advance students who espoused catastrophes. An
advocate of a global flood was branded a biblical literalist or fuzzy thinker--not worthy of an academic
degree. Geology professors also influenced, through the peer review process, what papers could be
published. Textbooks soon reflected their orthodoxy, so few students became fuzzy thinkers. This practice
continues to this day, because a major criterion for selecting professors is the number of their publications (In
the Beginning, p. 253).

Consider Dr. Caroline Crocker, a cell-biologist and full-time visiting faculty member at George
Mason University. After she showed several slides about intelligent design in a class on cells, she
was reprimanded, pulled from lecture duties, and her contract was not renewed the following
semester. She testified: Students are not allowed to question Darwinism. There are universities
where they poll students on what they believe and single them out.
Some Darwinists have even hinted at or openly called for the imprisonment of creationists.
Richard Dawkins has written that anyone who denies evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane (or
wicked--but Id rather not consider that) (New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p. 34). It isnt a big step from
calling someone wicked to taking forceful measures to put an end to their wickedness. John Maddox, the
editor of Nature, has written in his journal that it may not be long before the practice of religion must be
regarded as anti-science (Defending Science Against Anti-Science, Nature, 368, 185). In his recent book
Darwins Dangerous Idea, philosopher Daniel Dennett compares religious believers--90 percent of the
population--to wild animals who may have to be caged, and he says that parents should be prevented
(presumably by coercion) from misinforming their children about the truth of evolution, which is so evident to
him (Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box, chapter 11).


As a response to this persecution, IDEA was founded in 2001. It stands for Intelligent Design and
Evolution Awareness. It seeks to promote the free discussion of ID and has encouraged the
establishment of clubs on college and high school campuses.
14. Evolution is a religion that has been biased against the Bible and the God of the Bible
from its inception; it is more about rejecting God than it is about science.
In 2000, Dr. Michael Ruse wrote:
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an
ideology, a secular religion: a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. Evolution is a
religion (The National Post, May 13, 2000).

Dr. Ruse was one of the main witnesses for the evolutionists in the 1981 federal court trial in
Little Rock, Arkansas. There he argued that creationism is religion, whereas evolution is science,
but by 2000 he had reversed himself and acknowledged that evolution is also a religion.
Paul Beck is one of many scientists who have rejected evolution after discovering that it is more
about metaphysics than physics.
My studies led me to the ever greater conviction that evolutionism was a deeply flawed theory sustained not
by science, but by those who were determined to find any explanation--no matter how absurd--that banished
God from the scene (Paul Beck, doctorate in engineering science from Oxford, Persuaded by the Evidence,
p. 117).

The presentation of evolution as an alternative metaphysical faith began with the fathers of the
modern evolutionary theories.
Charles Lyell (1799-1873), the father of geological uniformitarianism which became a bedrock
of evolution, hated the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and hoped to use his
uniformitarian principle to drive men out of the Mosaic record (Life, Letters, and Journals of
Sir Charles Lyell, I, pp. 253, 256, 328).
Charles Darwin hated the Bible and the God of the Bible. In his Autobiography he said that the
Bible was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any
barbarian and called the doctrine of eternal torment a damnable doctrine (pp. 85, 87).
Thomas Huxley, who had a major role in the popularizing of Darwinian evolution, was very bold
in his rejection of the Bible. He mocked biblical creation in Zoological Evidences as to Mans
Place in Nature (1863) and The Physical Basis of Life (1868). In 1893, Huxley boasted, ...
history records that whenever science and [biblical] orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the
latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if
not slain. In his correspondence Huxley viciously said of Bible believers who resisted
Darwinism, I should like to get my heel into their mouths and scr-r-unch it round (Lord Ernie,


Victorian Memoirs and Memories, The Quarterly Review, 1923; cited from Ian Taylor, In the
Minds of Men, p. 363).
Ever since Darwin and Huxley, the evolutionary establishment has been committed to a
naturalistic anti-God viewpoint and has been aligned solidly against the Bible.
It was to avoid the implications of biblical creationism and the God of the Bible that scientists
like Fred Hoyle and Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins came to believe in space aliens. Michael
Behe says, The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view [life was seeded on
earth by aliens] is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable
obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation (Darwins Black Box, chapter 11).
Consider some statements that reflect the religious aspect of evolution:
Darwins real achievement was to remove the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere
of rational discussion (Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, Keynote address, Darwin Centennial,
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. ... There are no
gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. ... There is no ultimate
foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either (William Provine, biology
professor at Cornell University, Origins Research, 1994, quoted from In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p.
Man stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with
unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself that he is
responsible. He is ... his own master. He can and must decide and manage his own destiny (George
Simpson, Life of the Past, 1953, p. 155).
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of
the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a
prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we
are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door (Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997, p. 31;
Lewontin was reviewing Carl Sagans The Demon-Haunted World).
I have never liked the idea of divine tinkering: for me it is much more inspiring to believe that a set of
mathematical laws can be so clever as to bring all these things into being (Paul Davies, cited by Clive
Cookson, Scientists Who Glimpsed God, Financial Times, April 29, 1995, p. 20).
Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin
for life have failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may indicate a sudden appearance of life
on the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or process leading to life,
elsewhere. In such a case, some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however,
myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations in the hope of
selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder (Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide).
Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those
forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose
existence, in scientific terms, is unproved (15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, Scientific American, July


Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is
not naturalistic (Scott Todd, immunologist at Kansas State University, correspondence to Nature, Sept. 30,
1999, www.answersingenesis.org/todd).

The fact that evolution is an alternative metaphysical faith explains why that even when its pet
theories are proven wrong, it refuses to consider the biblical account. For example, Lyles
uniformitarianism has been replaced with catastrophic views such as the moving of continents by
plate tectonics, the destruction of dinosaurs by meteorites, and the creation of the Grand Canyon
by flooding through the broaching of an ancient lake, all of which are a repudiation of
uniformitarianism. Geologist Davis A. Young observes, The geologic community gave up
substantive uniformitarianism long ago (Christianity and the Age of the Earth, p. 142). But at
no point do evolutionists consider the possibility that the Bibles account of a worldwide Flood
might, in fact, be true. The reason is that they are committed to a naturalistic religion.
15. Science has not answered any of the important questions of life.
Science has staked out a near-God status in modern society, but in reality it cannot answer any of
the important questions of life: Where did life come from? What is man? Is there a purpose to
human life? Is there a God? If so, can we know Him? How can we know Him? What lies beyond
David Berlinski is a Jewish agnostic but he understands that modern science does not hold the
answers to life:
If science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the
conclusions of the great scientific theories. ... We know better than we did what we do not know and have not
grasped. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is there. Charles Darwin talked
speculatively of life emerging from a warm little pond. The pond is gone. We have little idea how life emerged,
and cannot with assurance say that it did. We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any
trivial theory about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial, we have no other theories. We
can say nothing of interest about the human soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct or where
the form of the good is found (David Berlinski, The Devils Delusion, pp. xiv, xv).
The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific
community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins
have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature
has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason
to think this is so (Berlinski, p. xvi).

16. Evolution is elastic and is never refuted in the eyes of convinced Darwinists.
Darwinists have an answer for everything. If it is demonstrated that evolution is not occurring
today, Darwinists run to mind-boggling eons of time in the past. If it is demonstrated that blind
processes cannot create, Darwinists protest that the processes are not really blind. If it is
demonstrated that natural selection cannot account for the formation of new organs and
creatures, Darwinists run to genetic mutations. If it is demonstrated that mutations are not
creative mechanisms, Darwinists run to the mysteries of unknown genetic processes. If it is
demonstrated that the fossil record does not display constant change, Darwinists run to hopeful

monsters and punctuated equilibrium. If it is demonstrated that no naturalistic process can

explain the origin of life, Darwinists run to extra-terrestrials and to multiverses.
Because of this, refuting evolution can be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.
Even some evolutionists have complained that Darwinism cannot be falsified.
17. Science is extremely fallible and has erred countless times.
Juan Arsuaga candidly advises,
... those seeking absolute truth or an immutable and unassailable dogma should look in a field other than
science (Neanderthals Necklace, p. 17).

This is true, because science is so incredibly fallible. Consider the case of Ignaz Philipp
On July 1, 1818, a little boy was born in Budapest, Hungary. His mother named him Ignaz. As the boy grew,
so did his interest in medicine and the sciences. Eventually, he became a doctor. In his work at the Vienna
General Hospital, Ignaz saw many victims of the highly contagious and often deadly puerperal fever. Slowly
he began to suspect an increased risk for anyone having contact with fever victims. In time his tentative
suspicions became firm convictions. Reasoning that physicians in the hospital were somehow carrying the
disease from the autopsy room and transmitting it to women in the maternity ward, Ignaz ordered all of the
physicians in his service to wash their hands thoroughly in a solution of chlorinated lime before examining
patients. This was a radical and controversial move, and it resulted in big trouble for the young doctor.
Keep in mind that Ignaz took this stand years before Louis Pasteur, with his microscope, ever scientifically
documented the danger of infectious bacteria. To say the least, at the time in which Ignaz lived, such a radical
position was just not politically-scientifically correct. As a result, great pressure was brought to bear on the
young man. He was ridiculed, hounded, and even viciously attacked. His character was smeared mercilessly.
Crazy old Ignaz was the growing sentiment of young and old that seemed to follow him everywhere he went.
Yet he stood his ground, entirely alone--one man against the entire scientific establishment of his day. No
one--absolutely no one--agreed with him. He was universally regarded as a nut.
In the end, although he never gave ground scientifically, the incredible, relentless, pressure got to him. Ignaz
lapsed into insanity. His death followed on August 1, 1865. At the age of 47, Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was
just as right as he could be, though the entire world and all of the scientific experts thought otherwise. Shortly
thereafter, Joseph Lister performed his first antiseptic operation and Semmelweis, dead less than a year, was
on his way to a full vindication (When Science Errs: The Oft Times Lonely Stand for Truth, http://

A recent example of how science has erred is the so-called junk DNA. The term, which was
introduced in 1972 by Susumu Ohno, refers to the alleged non-coding part of DNA consisted
of randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability or partially duplicated genes
that were non-functional. Evolutionists argued that God would not make flawed DNA.
A 1980 article by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick said non-coding DNA has little specificity and
conveys little or no selective advantage to the organism. Junk DNA as an evolutionary
vestigial was argued by Darrel Falk in Coming to Peace with Science.


It turns out that junk DNA isnt junk, and any creationist could have predicted that this is the
Gretchen Vogel said, The term junk DNA is a reflection of our ignorance (Why Sequence
the Junk? Science, Vol. 291, Feb. 16, 2001, p. 1184).
John Mattick observed, The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA]
may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology (quote by
W. Wayt Gibbs, The Unseen Genome, Scientific American, Vol. 289, Nov. 2003, pp. 49-50).
18. The foundational issue is God and a personal relationship with Him through Christ.
We must not forget that the foundational issue in apologetics is to introduce men and women to
God through Christ. It is a supporting discipline for the overriding goal of the Great
Commission (David Stone).
If you believe in the Almighty God of Scripture, it is a simple matter to accept what the Bible
says, whether it is a six-day creation or Christs virgin birth, bodily resurrection and Second
Coming, or anything else. The fact is that these are all things that pertain to the supernatural and
they cannot be tested by natural science.
D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry and D.Sc. from the University of London, writes:
It was about this time, in the mid-1960s, that my ideas of the greatness of God were transformed. No longer
was He a pocket God who did things as I could imagine from my human viewpoint, but He had
staggeringly great power, far beyond anything I could possibly comprehend. If God is so great, then there is
nothing He could not do (In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 266).

This hits the nail on the head. The problem with people who cant believe in the miracles of the
Bible is that they believe either in no God or a pocket God. When you believe in the Almighty
God revealed in Scripture, it is easy to believe that the world was made in six days. In fact, it is
easy to believe that it was made in six micro-seconds, if the Bible said so.
Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the 20th century, proficient in
dozens of ancient languages, divided men into two categories: big-godders and little-godders,
and that pretty much sums it up.
One of the students of Princeton Theological Seminary professor Robert Dick Wilson had been invited to
preach in Miller Chapel 12 years after his graduation. Dr. Wilson came and sat near the front. When chapel
ended, the old professor came up to his former student, cocked his head to one side in his characteristic way,
extended his hand, and said, I'm glad that you're a big-godder. When my boys come back, I come to see if
they're big-godders or little-godders. Then I know what their ministry will be.
His former student asked him to explain. Wilson replied, Well, some men have a little God, and they're
always in trouble with Him. He can't do any miracles. He can't take care of the inspiration and transmission of
the Scripture to us. He doesn't intervene on behalf of His people. Then, there are those who have a great
God. He speaks and it is done. He commands and it stands fast. He knows how to show Himself strong on


behalf of them that fear Him. You have a great God; and He'll bless your ministry (John Huffman, Whos in
Charge Here?).

The Christian apologists objective is to make big-godders of people.

This comes through knowing God personally by faith in Jesus Christ. We are separated from God
by our sin, both inherited and personal, and Christ died to pay the price Gods Law demands so
that we can be reconciled to Him. When a sinner repents of his sin and puts his faith in Jesus
Christ as only Lord and Saviour, a dramatic change occurs. He is born again and receives the
indwelling Holy Spirit as his Teacher. His thinking is changed. This happened to me in 1973
when I was 23 years old. Before that I was antagonistic toward the Bible. I doubted the Bibles
teaching on things such as judgment, salvation, and the future, but those doubts were resolved by
my new relationship with God in Christ.
Christ instructed us to be witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8). We must inform people of who He is and
why He came to earth. Apologetics can remove barriers that people have that keep them from
considering Christ, but our goal is not to win arguments about evidences; our goal is to introduce
people to Christ.
1. What verse says God has revealed the truth to babes?
2. What book and chapter says God has chosen the weak in this world to confound the mighty?
3. What does the believer have that allows him to test the doctrine of evolution?
4. What are three benefits of creation science material?
5. What is one of the ways that modernists and skeptics were wrong about the Bible?
6. Why did Arthur Keith turn away from Christ?
7. Why is it wrong to call evolution a theory?
8. Is it correct to call evolution an hypothesis?
9. List four evolutionists who doubt Darwinism.
10. In what century was skepticism in the air?
11. Thomas Huxley said that every thinking man he met was in a state of _________.
12. How is evolution itself an evidence of the divine origin of the Bible?
13. What Bible prophecy describes end-times skeptics?
14. What are two major reasons why it is impossible to reconcile evolution with the Bible?
15. The first 11 chapters of Genesis are quoted or referred to _______ times in the New
16. Why does it affect the Gospel if Adam was not a real man?
17. Jesus genealogy begins with what man?
18. What are four ways that the Genesis account of creation contradicts evolution.
19. How many times does Genesis say that things were made to reproduce after their kind?
20. How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics support the Genesis account of creation?
21. What bait and switch techniques do Darwinists use?
22. What are two types of science?

23. If evolutionists are not allowed to ____________ their doctrine, they have no evidence.
24. Why are scientists motivated not to criticize evolution?
25. In what video documentary does Ben Stein examine the persecution of scientists and
professors who dare to question Darwinism?
26. Evolution is more about _________________________ than it is about science.
27. Who was Charles Lyell and what was his objective?
28. What did Charles Darwin call the doctrine of eternal torment?
29. What has driven some evolutionists to believe in space aliens?
30. Julian Huxley said that Darwins achievement was what?
31. Who said, We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door?
32. What are some questions that science cannot answer?
33. How did scientists err by saying that some DNA is junk?
34. What is the foundational issue in the creation science debate?


A History of Evolution
In this section we give a brief summary of evolution.
The doctrine of evolution is an ancient heresy.
Anaximander (611-546 B.C.) taught that man evolved from fish (Evolution and Paleontology in
the Ancient World, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html).
Xenophanes (d. 490 B.C.) believed that life arose from the primordial mud.
Empedocles of Acragas (5th century B.C.) taught that the earth gave birth to living creatures that
were first disembodied organs, which eventually joined into whole organisms.
The Greek Epicureans believed that the universe evolved through naturalistic mechanisms apart
from God or the supernatural. The Roman philosopher Titus Lecretius Carus (95-55 B.C.)
described the Epicurean view in the influential poem On the Nature of Things.
The Taoists (founded in the 4th century B.C. by Chuang Tzu) denied the fixity of species. Taoism
regards nature as existing in a state of constant transformation known as the tao (James Miller,
Taoism and Nature, Royal Asiatic Society, Jan. 8, 2008).
Some Muslim scholars from the 8th to the 14th centuries A.D. held to the transmutation of
creatures from non-living to living: from mineral to plant, from plant to animal, and from
animal to man. In 1377, for example, Ibn Khaldun said that humans developed from the world
of monkeys in his book Muqaddimah.
The history of modern evolution begins with Charles Darwins influential paternal grandfather,
There was a vein of skepticism in the Darwin family (John Wehler, Charles Darwin: Growing
up in Shrewsbury).
Erasmus (1731-1802) was a materialist who discarded the Bible and Jesus and adored in the
Temple of Nature. For him Reason was divine, and Progress its prophet (Adrian Desmond,
Darwin, pp. 5, 9).


Erasmus was a tremendously influential man, a pioneering medical doctor, inventor, poet,
philosopher, and naturalist. He invented a speaking machine, a copying machine, and the steering
mechanism used in modern cars. His close friends consisted of men such as Benjamin Franklin,
one of Americas founding fathers; John Michell, the father of seismology; John Whitehurst,
inventor of the factory time clock; John Baskerville, famous printer and type font designer;
James Watt, perfecter of the steam engine; and James Brindley, creator of Englands canal
Erasmus was a Fellow of the Royal Society, the first in a line of six generations of Darwins to be
so honored.
Erasmus wife, Polly, the mother of Charles Darwins father, Robert, was non-religious in a
religious age, and she faced death calmly without supernatural assistance (Desmond KingHele, Erasmus Darwin, p. 94).
Erasmus was a moral scoundrel who was fond of sacrificing to both Bacchus and Venus (KingHele, p. 18), meaning he loved alcohol and women. After the death of Polly, Erasmus bore two
daughters out of wedlock with his live-in governess, who was 22 years his junior. He also
composed lush erotic verse (Desmond, p. 6).
Erasmus god was a First Cause that had some vague part in bringing life into existence but had
no role in mens lives. Rejecting the true and living God, Erasmus worshiped a distant Deity ...
the vast Unknown. By his student years at Cambridge, he had rejected the biblical view of God.
There he was deeply influenced in Deism by Albert Reimarus, the son of German philosopher
Hermann Reimarus. This is the doctrine of an absentee God who merely set things in motion, a
God who has not intervened in human affairs nor revealed Himself in Scripture. Deism has been
described as the Clockwork universe theory, in which God builds the universe and then lets it
run on its own.
Erasmus believed in the evolution of life from an original microscopic biological speck to man.
His family coat of arms consisted of three scallop shells with the motto E conchis omnia or
everything from shells, referring to his belief in the evolution of life from the sea.
Erasmus was influenced by his friend James Huttons view of long geological ages and
uniformitarianism (King-Hele, p. 245). Without this doctrine, the theory of evolution would
not be possible.
Erasmus proclaimed his doctrine of evolution in a popular two-volume set of books entitled
Zoonomia; or, the Laws of Organic Life (1794-96). The books went through many editions in
England and America, with translations into German, Italian, French, and Portuguese.
Zoonomia promotes the very concepts later popularized by Charles Darwin: natural selection,
survival of the fittest, sexual selection, homology, and vestigial organs.

Erasmus believed that everything has risen from an original living filament which was formed
by spontaneous vitality in the primeval ocean. He wrote:
Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps
millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all
warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with
animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations,
sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own
inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without
end! (Zoonomia, Vol. 2, p. 240).

Erasmus Darwins book The Temple of Nature was published the year following his death. It
presents the doctrine of evolution under the guise of lessons he supposedly learned from the
goddess Urania, Priestess of Nature.
Ere Time began, from flaming Chaos hurld
Rose the bright spheres, which form the circling world ...
Nursd by warm sun-beams in primeval caves,
Organic Life began beneath the waves. ...
Hence without parent by spontaneous birth
Rise the first specks of animated earth;
From Natures womb the plant or insect swims,
And buds or breathes, with microscopic limbs. ...
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.

In the second volume of Zoonomia, Erasmus labeled religion by various psychological diseases.
One of these was spes religiosa or superstitious hope. He called this a maniacal
hallucination, an insanity that has produced cruelties, murders, massacres into the world.
Thus, Erasmus Darwin, the God hater who did not distinguish false religion from true, predated
the so-called new atheists like Richard Dawkins by more than two centuries.
Another alleged psychological disease that Erasmus identified was orci timor or the fear of
hell. After his death, an obituary in the Monthly Magazine stated that Erasmus told a friend let
us not hear anything about hell.
Erasmus was a close associate of Unitarian Christ-denier Joseph Priestley, the French Deist
Voltaire, and other skeptics who rejected divine Revelation. One of Erasmus closest friends was
the Unitarian Josiah Wedgwood, the grandfather of Charles Darwins wife. Wedgwood was a
disciple of Priestly. Josiahs famous Wedgwood pottery firm even honored Priestly with a
medallion featuring his likeness.
The two grandfathers bequeathed a mixture of free thought and radical Christianity to their
grandchildren (Desmond, Darwin, p. 5).


Erasmus died seven years before Charles birth, but the grandson read Zoonomia twice in his
youth (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, p. 49).
Belief in evolution, passed on to his son Robert and reincarnated in his grandson Charles, can
be seen as the finest of Erasmuss legacies (Desmond King-Hele, p. 363).
Charles Darwin (1809-82) is the most prominent name in the field of modern evolution. His
books are considered pivotal in popularizing the evolutionary doctrine. These are On the Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle
for Life (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871).
Kimballs high school biology textbook (1965) said that On the Origin of Species ranks second
only to the Holy Bible in its impact on mans thinking.
Charles mother, Susannah, was a Unitarian, following in the footsteps of her father Josiah
Wedgwood. Susannah attended High Street Chapel in Shrewsbury, which had become a fullblown Unitarian congregation during the pastorate of George Case (1797-1831). Unitarians
denied the Trinity, believing that Jesus is not God. Charles was educated for a short time at a
school operated by Case. Today the church is called Shrewsbury Unitarian Church, High Street,
and a plaque inside the building says: To the memory of Charles Robert Darwin, author of The
Origin Of Species, born in Shrewsbury, February 12, 1809, in early life a member of and a
constant worshipper in this church.
Charles father, Robert, was also a skeptic. His disbelief extended to the borders of
atheism (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 113). He adopted his father Erasmus motto E
Conchis Omnia (all things out of shells) as his own and displayed it on his bookplate. Erasmus
Darwins biographer says that Robert never abandoned his belief in evolution and that he
deserves much credit for bringing up Charles in an evolution-friendly atmosphere. ... Robert
greatly helped Charles to bring himself to believe in evolution in defiance of orthodox scientific
thinking (Desmond King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin, p. 359).
Robert was not brave, though, and hid his skepticism behind a public mask of Anglican
respectability. Charles inherited his fathers reticence about being forthright in his religious
skepticism and largely left it to others, such as Thomas Huxley, to fight publicly for what he
Darwins elder brother Erasmus, named after their famous grandfather, was a radical skeptic in
his own right. As a young man Charles loved to spend time there, where the buzz was radical
and Dissenting and heterodoxy was the norm (Desmond, Darwin, p. 216). This crowd was
deeply influenced by German biblical criticism and its accompanying theological modernism.

Charles father wanted him to be a doctor and sent him to Edinburgh University for that
purpose. There he cast his lot with the most radical, skeptical crowd. He was elected to the
Plinian Society in 1826, at a time when it had been penetrated by radical students--fiery,
freethinking democrats who demanded that science be based on physical causes, not supernatural
forces (Desmond, Darwin, p. 31). Darwins membership was sponsored by William Browne,
who had no time for souls and saints.
Darwins closest friend at Edinburgh was professor Robert Edmond Grant, another member of
the Plinian society. He was an uncompromising evolutionist who believed that the origin and
evolution of life were due simply to physical and chemical forces, all obeying natural
laws (Desmond, Darwin, p. 34). A man for whom nothing was sacred, he was savagely antiChristian (p. 40). Grant loved Erasmus Darwins Zoonomia. He believed in spontaneous
generation of life from monads or elementary living particles and that the sponge is the
parent of higher animals.
Darwin also attended Robert Jamesons lectures at Edinburgh entitled Origin of Species of
Animals, promoting the theory that the higher animals evolved from the simplest worms.
Jameson, wild-haired Regis Professor of Natural History, was the founder of the Plinian
Not being able to stomach the blood and guts aspect of the medical field (at a time when
operations were conducted without anesthesia), Darwin sought his fathers counsel and was
advised to study for the Anglican ministry at Cambridge University. Neither man believed the
Bible or the Gospel of Christ, but that was not necessary for an Anglican rector in that day. The
Anglican Church, fat, complacent, and corrupt, lived luxuriously on its tithes and endowments,
as it had for a century. Desirable parishes were routinely auctioned to the highest
bidder (Desmond, Darwin, p. 47). If Darwin obtained a country rectory he could live the
leisurely and respected life of a gentleman.
Darwin claimed that at this point in his life he fully accepted the Anglican creed, and much has
been made of this by some biographers, but he didnt take the creed literally. He was convinced
that he could accept the Thirty-Nine Articles without maintaining actual belief of each and
every separate proposition contained in them (Desmond, Darwin, p. 86). At no point in his life
did Charles Darwin believe the Bible!
Darwin was unconcerned about his soul (p. 57) and made no personal commitment to Jesus
Many biographers have noted that Darwin enjoyed William Paleys writings in his student days,
implying that this was a strong Christian influence, but this is not the case. Paleys watchmaker
argument is famous, but he was not defending the Bible; he was defending natural revelation. (If
you find a watch lying in the woods, you would assume it was made by an intelligent being;

likewise, the design of creation points to an intelligent creator.) Paley, a senior Anglican
clergyman, did not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. His God was Aristotles God--a
master designer but now remote from his creation and that he tended to leave God out there
remote from his creation (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, pp. 115, 349).
In 1831, Darwin began his famous five year journey on the H.M.S. Beagle. The captain, Robert
Fitz-Roy, believed the Bible and personally conducted the mandatory Sunday services.
Ironically, one of Fitz-Roys objectives (beyond the official one of mapping coast lines for the
British navy) was to substantiate the book of Genesis. In his journal, FitzRoy said that geology
rightly understood is compatible with the Genesis Flood.
Darwin was heavily influenced during the voyage by reading the Principles of Geology by
Charles Lyell, which he studied attentively (Autobiography, p. 77). Lyellss uniformitarianism
was a bold and brash denial of the Bibles teaching of divine Creation and the universal Flood,
and this was his express objective. Darwin described Lyell as thoroughly liberal in his religious
beliefs or rather disbeliefs (Autobiography, p. 100). Lyell was a supporter of John William
Colenso, the Anglican Bishop of Natal, who likened the Pentateuch to the mythical accounts of
King Arthurs Court (Di Gregorio, From Here to Eternity, p. 240).
Darwin claims that he was quite orthodox during the Beagle journey, but he was grossly
abusing the term orthodox. Note the full quotation from his Autobiography:
Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox ... But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that
the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow
as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more
to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. ... By further
reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by
which Christianity is supported,--that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible
do miracles become,--that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost
incomprehensible by us,--that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the
events ... by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they
influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation (Autobiography, pp. 85,

Like his grandfather Erasmus, Charles Darwin especially hated the doctrine of eternal torment.
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the
text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost
all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine (Autobiography, p. 87).

In rejecting God and promoting life as a product of blind evolution, Darwin was sinning against
his conscience and he suffered greatly for it. He was destitute of faith, yet terrified at
scepticism (Desmond, Darwin, p. 268). He felt like he was committing murder. When Darwin
did come out of his closet and bare his soul to a friend, he used a telling expression. He said it
was like confessing a murder (Desmond, p. xviii). The title to Adrian Desmonds biography is
Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist.


He cut himself off, ducked parties and declined engagements; he even installed a mirror outside his study
window to spy on visitors as they came up his drive. ... for years after reaching his rural retreat he refused to
sleep anywhere else, unless it was a safe house, a close relatives home. This was a worried man. ... He
was living a double life with double standards, unable to broach his species work with anyone except
Erasmus, for fear he be branded irresponsible, irreligious, or worse. It began to tell in the pit of his
stomach (pp. xix, 233).

Darwin suffered much of his life from debilitating sickness, so much so that he was largely a
recluse during his last 30 years. His sickness took the form of stomach problems, heart
palpitations, vomiting, and eczema (chronic skin disorder). ... a third of his working life was
spent doubled up, trembling, vomiting, and dowsing himself in icy water (Desmond, Darwin, p.
Before the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin had uncomfortable palpitation of the
heart and a terrible long fit of vomiting, and upon the first sight of the book one leg swelled
like elephantiasis--eyes almost closed up--covered with a rash and fiery boils (Desmond,
Huxley, p. 257, Darwin, p. 233). He hid out for the next two months at a hydropathic spa, living
in Hell, waiting for the furor to die down.
Darwin sought relief from a variety of quacks. He experimented with electric chains made of
brass and zinc wires, which he looped around his neck and waist. He drenched his skin with
vinegar. He followed a regimen of ice-bags in the small of the back three times a day for 90
minutes at a time. He half-starved himself on crash diets. He spent months at hydropathic spas,
particularly James Gullys at Malvern, Worcestershire. There he was wrapped in wet sheets,
drenched with buckets of cold water, lounged for hours in mineral springs, and fed cold biscuits
and water for breakfast.
By 1871, the year he published The Descent of Man, Darwin was a confirmed invalid who sat
engulfed in fog, downhearted, drawing up his will (Desmond, Darwin, p. 597).
Darwin started a myth that has been repeated ad infinitum by his disciples, and that is that he
was a Bible-believing Christian who was an unwilling convert to evolution, capitulating to it
only because of the overwhelming scientific facts. In his autobiography, Darwin presented
himself as a man who was not deeply influenced by the skeptical environment in which he grew
up. He claimed, in fact, to have believed the Bible as a Cambridge student and even during his
voyage on the Beagle and only gradually to have become a skeptic solely as the product of
independent scientific investigation.
This is a self-serving myth. In fact, as we have seen, he never was a true Bible believer, never
professed Christ as his Saviour, and was influenced deeply by skepticism from a young age.
Darwin claimed that he came to his evolutionary theories quite independently. But even
sympathetic biographers such as Gertrude Himmelfarb characterize that as not entirely candid.
Indeed, it was a bold lie. Darwin had read many books and attended lectures promoting


evolutionary ideas very similar to those he later promoted, and it is impossible to form an idea
independently of things you have actually heard!
The fact is that Darwins views and his book were most definitely the products of a skeptical
environment. Jacques Barzun rightly says, Clearly, the spirit of evolution hovered over the
cradle of the new century (Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 46). Unitarianism, German higher
criticism, and humanistic philosophy had greatly weakened biblical faith within the Church of
England and throughout society at large.
Darwin could have believed the Bible, because he had it in his possession and knew men that
believed it, but he chose to reject it. There is no evidence that he even tried to find answers to the
skeptical attacks upon Scripture. The answers were available, but Darwin was not interested in
proving the Bible, only in disproving it. This willful skepticism has characterized committed
Darwinists ever since and is a fulfillment of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:3-6.
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days SCOFFERS, walking after their own lusts, And
saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were
from the beginning of the creation. For this they WILLINGLY ARE IGNORANT of, that by the word of God
the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that
then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

Some have pointed to Darwins reference to creation at the end of On the Origin of Species as
evidence that he continued to believe in God, but that was a mere sap thrown out by a weak man
who feared the social and financial consequences of his own views. It must never be forgotten
that Darwin was not a brave man. To reference creation in Origin of Species when he had
rejected the concept of an intelligent creator was hypocrisy and cowardice. In fact, he came to
regret it privately and expressed this in a letter to a friend to whom he admitted that he had
feared public opinion: I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the
Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant appeared by some wholly unknown
process (Darwin, Autobiography. p. 272).
Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey with a full-blown Anglican funeral. The elders of
science, State, and Church, the nobility of birth and talent were in attendance. The coffin was
draped in black velvet and covered with white flowers. Choristers hypocritically sang I am the
resurrection. A special hymn composed for the occasion was taken from the book of Proverbs.
Incongruously, it began, Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and getting understanding and
ended with, His ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. As the coffin was
lowered into the grave, the choristers sang, His body is buried in peace, but his name liveth
There is a popular myth that Darwin was converted on his deathbed. It is said that this occurred
during a visit by a Lady Hope to Darwins house in 1881, but it isnt true. Darwin biographer
James Moore calls this the Darwin Legend. Charless daughter (Henrietta Litchfield) wrote on
page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, dated February 23, 1922, I was


present at his deathbed. ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.
Even Lady Hopes own account of the story did not claim that Darwin actually renounced
evolution or embraced Christianity. She merely said that he expressed concern over the fate of
his youthful speculations.
Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) was called Darwins Bulldog because he was the premier public
defender of Darwinian evolution in Darwins day. Whereas Charles Darwin was reclusive and
mild tempered and fearful of conflict, Huxley was combative and loved the limelight. Never
one to enter the public fray, Darwin needed a champion as Huxley needed a cause (Desmond,
Huxley, p. 260).
When his first son died at age four, the grieving Huxley rejected the idea that he needed the
hope and consolation of Christ and considered the temptation to turn to such a hope a scoffing
devil. When the preacher read about the bodily resurrection from 1 Corinthians 15 at the
funeral, Huxley said, They shocked me, and, I could have laughed with scorn (Desmond, pp.
287, 288). Calling good evil and evil good, Huxley claimed that biblical faith is the
unpardonable sin (p. 345).
Huxleys life spanned a time of great change. It looked like science would conquer every human
problem and carry men into a glorious millennium. The transatlantic cable carried messages
instantly across vast oceans. Railroads crisscrossed England on 6800 miles of track by 1851,
drawing far-flung towns together and accelerating the pace of life. The newly opened London
Underground carried men quickly from one side of the great city to the other. Cities were
building modern sewage systems to flush out medieval diseases. Alexander Graham Bells
telephone was the first step toward the Internet. The typewriter revolutionized writing, and
Thomas Edisons light bulb turned night into day, allowing men to work around the clock and
carry forth the scientific revolution with even greater speed.
In this time of change, skepticism was in the air. It seemed like the Bible would become just
another religious fable to fall before mighty science. Huxley said, Every thinking man I have
met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious faith. And the
unthinking men ... are in as complete a state of practical unbelief (Huxley, 1851, cited from
Desmond, p. 160).
Huxley counted radical God-hating skeptics such as Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill, and
George Eliot as his best friends. Secularity was their watchword.
They wanted a hammer to break the creationist shackles (Desmond, p. 186), and Darwinism
became that hammer. It was also described as a cleansing solvent, dissolving the dross of
biblical miracles (p. 306).


Huxley thrived in this sea-mist of rationalism (Desmond, p. 169), and became one of the
prominent voices in England for the overthrow of the Christian faith. He called Darwinism the
New Reformation. Huxley wanted to see the foot of Science on the necks of her Enemies (p.
253), and his children in the evolutionary faith have lived to see that dream fulfilled to a great
Huxley eventually attacked the resurrection of Christ. In his article The Evolution of Theology,
which was published in Nineteenth Century magazine, Huxley claimed that Jehovah God was a
product of evolution. He blasphemously hated the Elohim ghost-deity of the Old Testament
who policed moral behaviour with promises of rewards and threats of unearthly torment (p.
547). It is obvious that he did not understand either God or His Gospel. Huxley called the
account of Jesus casting out the demons in Gadarene preposterous and immoral. He claimed
that Jesus was just another orthodox Jewish teacher. He called Pauls theology Neoplatonic
mystigogy (p. 571). Huxleys largest book, Controverted Questions, was on Biblical criticism.
Huxley had a great capacity for hatred, and he loved trashing reputations and received
wisdom (Desmond, p. 227). The Pall Mall Gazette said that cutting up monkeys was his forte,
and cutting up men was his foible. He said, There is no doubt I have a hot bad temper. If I hate
a man, I despise him (p. 213), and he aimed the full force of that temper at Bible believers. He
was a parson hater. Huxley said of scientists who resisted Darwinism, I should like to get my
heel into their mouths and scr-r-unch it round (Lord Ernie, Victorian Memoirs and Memories,
The Quarterly Review, 1923, cited from Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 363). Of Richard
Owen, one of the scientists holding out against Darwinism, Huxley said, Before I have done
with that mendacious humbug I will nail him out, like a kite to a barn door, an example to all evil
doers (Desmond, Darwin, p. 504).
Of anyone who attempted to defend the Bible at any level, even those compromisers who were
trying to reconcile it with evolution, proud Huxley said that if he were Commander in Chief in
their universe he would dump them in a hot locus in the lower regions (p. 505). Thus, the man
who mocked the doctrine of a God of judgment who would send men to hell, would have sent his
own enemies to such a place if he had the power! What unmitigated hypocrisy!
Huxley intended to take control of science in England and he was largely successful. He founded
the secretive X-Club, which was dedicated to science, pure and free, untrammeled by religious
dogmas. Opponents were locked out, ignored, and mocked (Wiker, The Darwin Myth, p.
105). From X-Club ranks came three presidents of the Royal Society and five presidents of the
British Association (Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 35). Cambridge biology teacher
Michael Pitman observes: It is certain that the gay and conspiratorial X Club, which was
strongly evolutionist in character, not only influenced the appointments made for senior positions
in the newly formed universities of the Victorian era but also, until its demise in the 1890s,
practically controlled the business of the Royal Society (Adam and Evolution, p. 64).


The X-Club published its own periodical called Nature as part of their aggressive campaign of
selling Darwinism to the public. As of 2009, Nature was still standing true to its founding vision.
In January of that year Nature published a free online packet entitled 15 Evolutionary Gems.
One report observed that it might have been subtitled An evangelism packet for those wishing
to spread the good news about Darwinism.
Pope Huxley and his fellow bishops in the Church of Science brought back the inquisition by
disallowing challenges to evolutionary doctrine and excommunicating those who dared to
question it. Consider St. George Mivart. He started out as an ardent evolutionist and a disciple of
Huxley, but he was savaged when he had the audacity to publish a book debunking Darwinism
and warning that it would destroy morality and produce despair (Desmond, p. 455). The Huxley
inquisitors had Mivarts membership in the prestigious Athenaeum Club nixed. Mivart was
shunned as a leper by the Darwinian elite, and he wasnt even a Bible believer; he was a liberal
Roman Catholic who held to theistic evolution.
Mivart was only the first victim of the Darwinian inquisition, a phenomenon that has broadened
in scope and intensity in our day. By 1995, Phillip Johnson observed:
Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. Its the officially sponsored, government financed
creation myth that the public is supported to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the
priesthood. ... So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has
to protect its mystery that gives it that authority--thats why theyre so vicious towards critics (In the
Beginning: The Creationist Controversy, PBS documentary, May 30-31, 1995).

The Darwinian inquisition has largely shut creationists out of the public school/scientific
establishment. Dr. Henry Morris described this extreme bias:
It is not that creationist scientists have not published in their own scientific fields. For example, before
coming to ICR, Dr. Duane Gish had published at least 25 articles on biochemistry in secular science
journals, Dr. Ken Cumming over 18 articles in biology, and Dr. Larry Vardiman at least 10 articles in
atmospheric physics. My own publications in engineering include five books and 20 articles. One of the
books, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, has been continuously in print since 1963 and has been used as
a textbook in scores of universities.
But none of us can get a scientific article promoting creationism published in the secular journals, whether
technical journals or popular magazines such as Reader's Digest or National Geographic. In fact, very few
religious magazines will accept an article on creationism, especially one that promotes six-day creation and
a global Flood.
On one occasion, a member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists was able to get an invitation for me
to speak at their convention, with an agreement that the Society would publish the paper in its journal. When
they saw my paper, however, they quickly reneged, even though the article had no religious material in it at
all, only science. It was later published by ICR as the small book, The Scientific Case for Creation (Morris,
Bigotry in Science, Institute for Creation Research, n.d.).

Countless other examples could be given. In fact, entire books have been written to document the
Darwinian inquisition. In his book Darwin Day in America, John Day devotes a chapter to this
entitled Banned in Burlington.


Huxley coined the term agnostic to describe the state of supposedly not knowing whether there
is a God and glorifying a skeptical mindset. The word means no knowledge. Darwin adopted
this term for himself. In fact, Huxleys biographer said, Agnosticism was to become the new
faith of the West.
In Huxleys lifetime a radical change came over England, and he played a large part in this
phenomenon. His biographer describes him as an evolutionary propagandist and proselytizer of
a new scientific authority (p. 617). He was a revolutionist.
Huxley realized that education was the key to the promotion of evolution and the overthrow of
the Bible in mens hearts. Huxley called for the removal of the Bible from public school
classrooms (Desmond, p. 580). Since Huxleys day Darwins disciples have taken over the public
education systems and brainwashed generation after generation of gullible, unsuspecting
students. This is why Darwinists have fought so hard and have been willing to use any trick in
the book, including deception, to keep intelligent design from being taught in Americas
Huxley and Darwin both believed that a moral code can be maintained even if one rejects God
and believes in naturalistic evolution. Huxley proclaimed that though man descended from
brutes, he is assuredly not of them, which makes no sense whatsoever. He held out for a high
moral code that included traditional marriage, but Huxley was wrong to pretend that the doctrine
of evolution would not destroy morality. If there is no law-giving creator God, there is no basis
for absolute morality. If man is a product of the blind forces of nature, he is no better than an
animal and there is no ultimate reason why he should not act out any and every impulse. The
century that followed Darwin and Huxley has demonstrated the truth of this to anyone not
willfully blind.
In fact, Huxley lived to despise the nihilistic culture that he helped create. Darwin biographer
Jacques Barzun said, He was trying to lay the ghost he had raised, but lacked the
formula (Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 103). One evening the flamboyant homosexual Oscar Wilde
came to the sixty-year-old Huxleys house with a coterie of his daughter Netties self-obsessed
hedonist artsy friends. Wilde projected all the petulances and flippancies of the decadence, the
febrile self-assertion, the voluptuousness, the perversity of the new Hedonism (Desmond, p.
540). Huxley responded, That man never enters my house again. Both Darwin and Huxley
were faithful husbands and moralists. Neither liked flaming homosexuals and moral decadence,
but no-fault divorce and homosexual rights and legalized abortion and the pornography
revolution are direct products of their evolutionary doctrine and religious skepticism.
Huxleys views left him and his world naked before moral adversity ... and he died
heavyhearted with forebodings of the kind of future he had helped to prepare (Jacques Barzun,
Darwin, Marx, Wagner, p. 64). He became increasingly depressed and nihilistic. A death shroud
descended over Huxleys philosophy (Desmond, p. 560). He and Darwin believed that mankind
was destined to perish in a final universal winter when the universe ceased to sustain life.

Insanity and depression run deeply in the skeptical Huxley family.

Huxleys father died in an asylum. His two brothers suffered extreme mental anxiety and near
Thomas himself had many debilitating bouts with deep depression, periods when he was unable
to face the world and a deadness hangs about me. He was said to carry a strain of madness in
him and to carry on lengthy conversations between unknown persons living within his
brain (p. 555).
Huxleys daughter Mady was troubled by mental illness for years, prey to gloom and horrors,
before her death in her mid-twenties. She hardly knew her three-year-old. She died in nearmadness and despair, desperately wanting to believe in another happier world that shall make
up for all the cruelties of this (p. 558). Her own fathers philosophy provided no comfort, no
purpose, no hope, no salvation.
One of Huxleys grandsons, Noel Trevelyan, committed suicide at age 25 and another, Julian
Huxley, suffered six mental breakdowns.
1. Name three ancient philosophers who taught evolution.
2. In what year did Erasmus Darwin die?
3. What relation was Erasmus Darwin to Charles?
4. Erasmus wife was _____________ in a religious age.
5. Erasmus god was a _______________.
6. At Cambridge Erasmus was deeply influenced by what philosophy?
7. What is Deism?
8. What did Erasmus coat of arms consist of and what did it mean?
9. Without the doctrine of ______________, the doctrine of evolution would not be possible.
10. What was the title of Erasmus popular set of books in which he preached evolution?
11. Erasmus believed that everything has risen from an original ___________________.
12. Erasmus called religion _____________ hope.
13. Erasmus did not want to hear anything about _____.
14. Josiah Wedgwood was the grandfather of Charles Darwins ______.
15. Who was Joseph Priestley?
16. In what year did Charles Darwin die?
17. What were Darwins two most popular books?
18. Charles mother was a _____________.
19. Who was Robert Darwin?
20. He hid his skepticism behind a public mask of ______________________.
21. At Edinburgh University Darwin joined what skeptical organization?

22. Who was Darwins closest friend at Edinburgh and what did he believe about the sponge?
23. How could Darwin study for the Anglican ministry when he did not believe the Bible?
24. In what way did Darwin believe the Anglican creed when he was at Cambridge?
25. William Paley was the author of what famous argument?
26. Did Paley defend the Bible as divinely inspired?
27. What was the name of the ship on which Darwin made a five-year voyage?
28. Who was the captain of this ship and what did he believe about the book of Genesis?
29. What is the name of the man who influenced Darwin about uniformitarianism?
30. Darwin said the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the
31. Darwin called the doctrine of eternal torment a _____________ doctrine.
32. Darwin felt like he was committing _____________ by rejecting the Bible for the doctrine of
33. Darwin was largely a ___________ during his last 30 years.
34. Darwins favorite quack remedy was _______________.
35. What myth did Darwin create?
36. The skepticism of Darwin and his followers is a fulfillment of what prophecy?
37. Where was Darwin buried?
38. Is there evidence to suggest that Darwin was converted on his death bed?
39. Thomas Huxley was called Darwins _____________.
40. Huxley called the biblical faith the _____________________.
41. Huxley said that thinking men in his day were in a state of __________.
42. The watchword of Huxley and his friends was _______________.
43. They wanted to break the _______________ shackles.
44. What was the hammer they used for this purpose?
45. Huxley thrived in a sea-mist of __________________.
46. Huxley called Darwinism the _______________________.
47. Huxley hated Gods ________________ and _______________.
48. What did Huxley think of Jesus?
49. Huxley said, There is no doubt I have a ____________________.
50. He was a __________ hater.
51. What was the name of the organization that Huxley founded to control science in England?
52. What is the name of the periodical published by this organization?
53. Who was the first victim of the Darwinian inquisition?
54. Phillip Johnson warns about the _______________ of ______________ that is vicious
towards its critics.
55. What term did Huxley coin to describe his view of God?
56. Huxley realized that _______________ was the key to the promotion of evolution and the
overthrow of the Bible.
57. Why is it not possible to defend a code of absolute morality while believing in evolution?
58. Huxley died ______________ with _______________ of the kind of future he helped to


Icons of Evolution
A PowerPoint presentation of the material on Icons of Evolution is included in the
Unshakeable Faith apologetics course package. See Suggestions for Teachers and Private
Study at the beginning of the course for tips on using this material.
Kenneth Poppe, a career biology instructor who has taught science in public school classrooms
for 30 years, says,
I have never seen a biology textbook that did not examine a few of the old-time scientific myths and
superstitions that have since been debunked (Reclaiming Science from Darwinism, 2006, p. 27).

In 2010, I examined five high school textbooks and found that each one used debunked icons-such as the peppered moth, the horse chart, the four-winged fruit fly, and the embryo chart.
For a much expanded list of icons of evolution see the book Seeing the Non-existent: Evolutions
Myths and Hoaxes, available from Way of Life Literature.

Natural selection is a concept developed in Charles Darwins On the Origin of Species as the
major mechanism of evolution. It is considered to be Darwins most brilliant discovery.
In Darwinian terms, natural selection refers to survival of the fittest. It says that traits that
improve a creatures chance for survival are preserved for future generations, and in this way
small beneficial changes direct evolution. Over millions of years tiny changes produce new
structures and new creatures. Darwin called this descent with modification.
For example, a drought on the Galapagos Islands in 1977 caused a shortage of small seeds which
finches prefer and they were forced to eat larger and tougher ones. In one generation the average
size of the birds increased slightly because the smaller ones did not survive. Only the fittest
survived, and according to Darwinism this slight environment-induced change would eventually
produce not only different types of birds but also different types of creatures.
Darwin, a pigeon breeder, used artificial selection to prove natural selection. Through selective
breeding techniques an amazing variety of pigeons have been produced, including ones with tail
feathers that fan out like a peacocks, hooded pigeons, hen-shaped pigeons, beautiful multicolored pigeons, even owl-like pigeons.
To Darwin, the breeding experiments are evidence that environmental pressures can produce the
same type of change through natural selection and that eventually the accumulation of small
changes over great periods of time would produce new limbs, organs, and creatures.


It is important to understand that Darwin emphasized the word natural. Darwinism emphasizes
the word natural. Darwin rejected any idea of design by an outside intelligence. He said,
There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and the action of natural
selection, than in the course which the wind blows (Autobiography).
Darwins objective was to provide a mechanism to explain life apart from God. The fierce debate
today between Darwinian evolutionists and proponents of Intelligent Design prove this. Any hint
that there might be an intelligent designer involved in life makes establishment Darwinists
fighting mad and has resulted in the blacklisting of fellow scientists who dare to question
whether purely naturalistic processes can explain the origin of life. Evolutionists in America have
even argued this point before the Supreme Court. The National Academy of Sciences told the
court that the basic characteristic of modern science is reliance upon naturalistic explanations.
It is, therefore, a fundamental fact that Darwinian natural selection is a blind, non-intelligent
Consider the following statements by prominent Darwinists:
Darwinism is the theory of random, purposeless variations acted on by blind, purposeless natural
selection (Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology textbook).
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now
know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind
and no minds eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be
said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (Richard Dawkins, The Blind
Watchmaker, p. 5).
If the history of life teaches us any lesson, it is that human beings arose as a kind of glorious accident ...
surely a kind of glorious cosmic accident resulting from the catenation [linking] of thousands of improbable
events (Stephen Jay Gould, April 22, 1984, 60 Minutes television program).
Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind (George Gaylord
Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, 1949, p. 344).
Science has no need of purpose ... all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of the world can be expressed
as growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption (Peter Atkins, cited from T. Schick Jr.,
Readings in the Philosophy of Science, p. 351).

Darwinists must, therefore, explain how their processes work without regard to any type of
intelligence or design, which, as we will see, puts them into a serious quandary.
A century and a half after the publication of On the Origin of Species, natural selection remains
the major mechanism of evolution. Stuart Kauffman says, Biologists now tend to believe
profoundly that natural selection is the invisible hand that crafts well-wrought forms. ... If current
biology has a central canon, you have now heard it (At Home in the Universe: The Search for
the Laws of Self-organization and Complexity, 1995).


In answering Darwinian natural selection, we observe:

1. Natural selection can only explain minor variations within a species.
Natural selection might explain something like the size of a finchs beak, but it has never proven
to be a mechanism for the supposed transmigration of species.
Though Charles Darwin titled his book On the Origin of Species, in reality he did not give any
evidence of how one type of animal could evolve into another. His evidence only demonstrated
that there can be variety within one kind of animal.
The change in the size of a finchs beak is interesting, but no matter what size of beak it has, it
remains a finch. The same is true for the change in the color of the peppered moth. It is still a
moth; in fact it is still a peppered moth. Centuries of pigeon breeding experiments have never
produced anything other than pigeons.
A recent example of the type of minor change that is offered as evidence of evolution is the apple
maggot. This example is found under the evidence section of the British Natural History
Museums web site.
One example of evolution in recent history is that of the apple maggot in North America. Apple maggots, as
their name suggests, eat apples, but this has not always been true. They used to feed on a plant called
hawthorn (and were called hawthorn maggots), but in the 1700s when apples were introduced to North
America some hawthorn maggots started to feed on apples. Nearly identical as adult flies, the apple maggot
evolved from hawthorn maggots when apple trees were introduced to North America. This shift in diet
separated the maggots into two groups, hawthorn maggots and apple maggots. Both groups are still
biologically very similar, but because of their food preferences they will no longer breed with one
another (Living Evidence, April 27, 2005, www.nhm.ac.uk).

The apple-loving hawthorn maggot is still a maggot and it still produces the same kind of fly as
the hawthorn maggot. Giving it a new name does not change the fact that nothing of significance
has evolved beyond its diet. It has not evolved; it has adapted. The admission that both groups
are biologically very similar is an understatement.
The fact that this type of thing is offered as evidence of evolution by one of the worlds premier
natural history museums demonstrates the bankruptcy of Darwinism.
The process that produces minor adaptive changes in a creature and the isolation of various
inherent genetic traits has never been demonstrated to be a process that can change one type of
animal or plant into another.
2. Natural selection can only select, as its name implies; it cannot build.
Being natural and therefore blind and unintelligent, natural selection cannot see the future and
work toward a goal. It cannot produce new genetic information or new structures. Natural


selection knows nothing about propulsion, flight, swimming, breathing, hearing, seeing, blood
(Neo-evolutionists add the mechanism of mutations to provide new information for natural
selection to act on, but we will see that mutations provide no such thing.)
Consider the bacterial flagellum. This microscopic motor-driven propeller drives certain
bacteria. Molecular scientists are amazed at its apparent design. Harvard biologist Howard
Berg calls it the most efficient machine in the universe. It is composed of a propeller, drive
shaft, stator, bushing, u-joint, and a hydrogen ion powered rotary engine. It turns at up to
100,000 revolutions per minute, and can change direction in a quarter of a turn. It can propel
itself at speeds up to 60 cell lengths per second, which by proportion is more than twice as fast as
a cheetah. They also have intricate sensors, switches, control mechanisms, and a short-term
memory. All this is highly miniaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit inside
the circular cross section of a human hair (Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning).
How could natural selection produce such a thing? The evolutionists answer is that natural
selection used parts from other cellular machinery, but this is ridiculous on its face. How could
blind natural selection, which cant see the future and doesnt work toward a goal and has no
intelligence, co-opt various parts to build something like this (even if all of the parts exist
elsewhere, which they dont)? How could natural selection even see the need for such a thing, let
alone produce it? As Dr. Phillip Johnson says:
... natural selection doesnt know a thing about bacterial flagella. ... natural selection can only select for
preexisting function. ... for co-option to result in a structure like the bacterial flagellum, we are not talking
about enhancing the function of an existing structure or reassigning an existing structure to a different
function. Rather, we are talking about reassigning multiple structures previously targeted for different
functions to a novel structure exhibiting a novel function (Darwin on Trial, pp. 276, 277).

3. Natural selection, not being able to see or work toward a future goal, would not select
something that would not be helpful for the creatures immediate survival.
Charles Darwin wrote:
On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly
destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural
Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left
a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic (On the Origin of Species, p.

This means that partly-formed and therefore presently-useless structures such as a developing
wing or leg or flipper or lung or heart would not be preserved.
Some clever Darwinists can create a just-so story that finds a beneficial function in some partlyformed structure or organ; but what is required from Darwinism is to demonstrate that every


partly-formed structure or organ is beneficial and is therefore something that would be selected
because Darwinism requires the routine selection of billions of such things.
Take the example of the birds marvelous flying wing. Evolutionists theorize that it developed
gradually as a reptile became a bird. But a part wing would provide no benefit and would, in fact,
be a definite hindrance. If scales somehow gradually lost their hardness on the way to somehow
becoming feathers, the protective benefit of the scale would be lost eons before any benefit of
flight was achieved.
4. Natural selection requires competition for survival of the fittest, but nature shows
more symbiosis and interrelatedness than struggle.
Darwin described nature as being everywhere red in tooth and claw, but this is not what we
see. Evolutionists such as Pierre-Paul Grass and Michael Pitman have acknowledged this:
Far from nature red in tooth and claw, each creature is skilled at extracting energy in a different way from
its own particular niche in the environment; many of them have roles in the ecosystem that avoid
competition. As Grass noted, even in the mud of a pond ... cohabitation of species belonging to groups
widely different in system teaches us that in one and the same environment separate types of biological
system ensure the survival of one and all (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 78).

Consider pollination. Here we see amazing harmony between flowering plants and the
pollinating creatures.
Though nature does demonstrate tooth and claw since the fall of man, we do not observe the
constant, everywhere-fought struggle for survival via competition that Darwins doctrine
5. There are countless examples in nature where the fittest are not the ones that survive.
It is remarkable that Darwin failed to notice the truth in the converse of what he had said; the catastrophes
that end lives--drought, flood, starvation, plague--are non-selective. The strong are struck down with the
weak. Is the blackbirds early worm less fit? It has been shown, by night-time photography that lions do not
necessarily seek out the smallest, weakest buffalo. They may take fully adult males (Michael Pitman, Adam
and Evolution, p. 78).

This is true throughout life. When men go to war, it is not the weakest that go; it is the fittest; and
they are the ones who are killed in disproportionate numbers.
In fact, the strongest often sacrifice themselves to secure the survival of the weakest, such as
when mother creatures die to protect their young.
Further, there are many creatures and living processes that have survived even though they
display no evidence of being the fittest.
Consider the koala. It is perpetually slow and sleepy!


Consider the peacock. Its massive, brilliant array of tail feathers do not give it any advantage in
the forest. It is cumbersome for flying; it is the opposite of camouflage; and scientific studies
have shown that it is not even attractive to the pea hen!
Consider the human child. It requires nearly two decades of nurture before it is ready to live on
its own.
6. Natural selection cannot explain the fact that plants and animals have remained the
same for supposed millions of years.
If natural selection were true, it would mean that creatures are in a perpetual state of
environment-induced change, but many of the creatures observed in the so-called Cambrian
layer, which is supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old, are still with us today and
havent changed at all.
Consider the bat. There are fossils of bats that are dated at 54 million years old, but it is the same
creature that flies in modern skies. The 54-million-year-old bat looked exactly like a modern
bat and had the same complex echolocation equipment in its inner ears.
Consider the Lungfish. It is supposed to be 360 million years old, but it hasnt changed at all. A
report in Nature magazine observed that the Lungfishs teeth structure has not changed in all that
(supposed) time (Lungfish dental pattern conserved for 360 million years, May 31, 2001). As
hatchlings, Lungfish have small teeth which fuse into a bony dental plate as it matures. There are
thousands of well-preserved fossils of hatchlings and adult Lungfish that exhibit this exact dental
Creation Moments well observes, One cannot escape the conclusion that there has been no
evolution of Lungfish since they first swam the seas. This agrees with Scripture (Lungfish
takes a bite out of evolution, Creation Moments, Jan. 8, 2011).
7. Natural selection is utterly helpless to produce life in the first place.
Even if natural selection were true and even if it could account for the development of creatures,
it would not explain the origin of life. Natural selection can only select; it cannot create. As
Michael Pitman writes, to observe that nature selects the fittest is far from explaining where
the fittest come from (Adam and Evolution, p. 78).
We see that natural selection offers zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life, and
evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even a hypothesis. It is a mythical story.



1. Natural selection has no creative power. It can sometimes possibly explain minor changes
within a type of creature, but it cannot explain how creatures came into existence.
2. Natural selection would not preserve something that would not be helpful for the creatures
immediate survival, such as a partial wing.
3. Natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism is disproven by the fact that creatures remain
the same.
1. In Darwinian terms, natural selection refers to _____________________________.
2. According to Darwin, how does natural selection produce new creatures?
3. How do the Galapagos finches supposedly prove the theory of natural selection?
4. According to Darwin, how do artificial breeding experiments provide evidence for natural
5. Darwins objective was to provide a mechanism to explain life apart from _______.
6. The National Academy of Sciences says the basic characteristic of modern science is its
reliance upon ________________ explanations.
7. Richard Dawkins wrote The ____________ Watchmaker.
8. What are four reasons why we reject natural selection?
9. What evidence did Darwin give that one type of animal could evolve into another?
10. Why do evolutionists say that the apple maggot proves evolution?
11. Why does the apple maggot not prove evolution?
12. How do we know that natural selection could not build complex structures?
13. What is the bacterial flagellum?
14. Why would natural selection not select a half-formed wing?
15. Nature shows more ________________ and ____________________ than struggle.
16. How does pollination disprove natural selection?
17. What are two examples of how the fittest are not always the ones that survive?
18. How does the fact that creatures remain unchanged over long periods of time disprove
19. What is an example of a creature that has remained unchanged since it first appears in the
fossil record?
20. How does natural selection account for the origin of life?

Evolutionists believe that genetic mutation is the mechanism that adds information to a creatures
genome so that it can be naturally selected as advantageous and thus produce new types of


biological structures and creatures. A mutation is an error in the DNA of a living organism, an
alteration of the genetic code.
The theory proposes that there is the infrequent appearance of a mutation where by chance the individual is
more favorably suited to its environment. While admitted to be rare, the mutant then finds an exactly matching
mate. Then, since they are slightly better fitted to the environment, it is supposed they tend to have more
offspring than the normal variants. This chance process is repeated over countless generations, and the small
mutant changes accumulate and eventually lead to the appearance of an entirely new species (Ian Taylor, In
the Minds of Men, p. 159).

Richard Dawkins says:

... mutation is, ultimately, the only way in which new variation enters the species. All that natural selection can
do is accept certain new variations, and reject others (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 125).

The problem is that mutations are very rare, are almost always harmful, and have never proven to
provide the type of positive, creative genetic change necessary for evolution. Mutations dont
1. Scientists generally agree that known mutations are either neutral in their effect or
harmful. Further, they do not add new information to the genome.
Consider the following statements by Theodosius Dobzhansky of Columbia University, who
succeeded T.H. Morgan, father of the fruit fly mutation experiments:
A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce
deteriorations of viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly
serve as evolutionary building blocks (Genetics and the Origin of Species, p. 73).
The mass evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and
the few remaining ones are highly suspect (Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, pp. 88-103, 170).

Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry, worked for many years in pharmaceutical research at Cornell
University, the University of California, and the Upjohn Company. He co-authored a number of
publications in the peptide chemistry. Of mutations, Dr. Gish says:
The genes are ordinarily very stable. A particular gene (in the form of its successors) may exist many
thousands of years without alteration in its structure. Very rarely, however, the chemical structure of a gene
does undergo a change. Such a change is called a mutation. Mutations may be caused by chemicals, X-rays,
ultraviolet light, cosmic rays, and other causes. Some may occur during cell reproduction due to copying
errors. Very often a mutation proves to be lethal, and they are almost universally harmful (The Fossil
Record Still Says No, p. 37).

For mutations to create new structures, organs, and creatures, they would need to add
information to the genetic code. A vast amount of new information would be required to turn a
simple ameba into a man or even a wolf into a whale. But in fact mutations either subtract
from the existing genetic code or simply modify it.
Moreover, the mutation does not introduce a new level of complexity, and it cannot be known that it is a
step in the right direction--that it will integrate with other mutations in the future for an increase in functional


information that will code for adaptations for greater complexity (Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People,
p. 66).

Dr. Ian Macreadie, principal research scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia
and one of the southern hemispheres top AIDS researchers, says:
All you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss
of information) that might help a bug to survive--say by not being able to fight the drug as effectively. But you
never see any new information arising in a cell. Sometimes a bacterium can inject information into
another one, so its new to that bacterium--but that information had to arise somewhere, and we just dont
observe it happening. Its hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise
just by itself, from nothing (Creation in the Research Lab, The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 36).

Dr. Lee Spetner, a biophysicist who worked at Johns Hopkins University, says:
But in all the reading Ive done in the life-sciences literature, Ive 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. ... Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business cant
make money by losing it a little at a time. The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary
changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose
information they cant be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to
explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations
that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up
in volume. ... Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome.
That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory
demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information
is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory (Not By
Chance, 1997, pp. 131, 132, 159, 160).

The million-dollar question is this: where does genetic information come from? Evolution has no
answer. Top geneticists say that it does not come through mutations, and obviously it doesnt
come through natural selection. The Bible believer has a simple and effective reply which fits all
the evidence. The information in the living cell was placed there by the Creator. Each plant and
animal has the exact genetic information needed for its operation survival, and reproduction.
There is a certain elasticity within the genetic code to allow the entity to adapt to a changing
environment, but there is no change or evolution beyond this simple adaptation.
Consider the mutation that produces sickle-cell anemia. This has been offered as an example of
a beneficial mutation, but we need to look at the whole picture. The mutation does provide
some protection from the effects of malaria (the distorted blood cells are not as suitable for the
malaria pathogen), but it does so at the expense of a serious and painful impairment to the bodys
ability to transport oxygen, an impairment that causes such things as anemia, poor circulation,
lack of resistance to infection, and damage to organs. Thus, overall this mutation is much more
harmful to the creature than beneficial and would definitely not be the path toward turning a
reptile into a bird!
Another example offered by evolutionists to demonstrate that mutations can drive evolution is
bacterial resistance to antibiotics.


For example, the Staphyloccus bacterium builds resistance to penicillin. This is said to prove that
bacteria evolved by adapting to the environment.
In fact, though, there is no addition of genetic information and therefore no support for creature
to creature evolution. This is another example of the evolutionists bait and switch tactic. They
use the term evolution to describe simple adaptability within a species, and then use this to
prove that kind to kind evolution is possible. The first can be proven, while the second is mere
presumption. No matter what type of resistance it develops or what adaptations it makes, the
bacterium remains a bacterium; in fact, it remains the same basic kind of bacterium.
Consider two of the major ways that bacteria achieve immunity to antibiotics.
First, some of the bacteria within a certain strain already have immunity to a certain antibiotic.
These bacteria therefore survive and multiply, while those lacking this immunity die out. Lee
Spetner observes:
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner ... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the
mutations needed to account for Evolution. ... The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not
only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The
horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species (Lee Spetner/
Edward Max Dialogue, 2001, www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp).

A few years ago the bodies of three Arctic explorers who died in 1845 were recovered. Samples
of bacteria were taken from their intestines and it was found that some of the bacteria were
indeed resistant to modern-day antibiotics. This is just as the creation scientist would predict.
There have always been some populations of bacteria that have had genes conferring a resistance
to antibiotics (Alan Gillen, M.D., Body by Design, p. 141).
The Staphyloccus bacterium isnt evolving. It isnt turning into something else. It is simply
responding to the environment according to the way that God made it.
Second, some bacteria gain immunity by a loss of genetic information. Dr. Lee Spetner gives the
example of bacteria that become immune to streptomycin by the decomposition of the ribosome
in its cell due to a destructive mutation.
This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from
attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and
therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution cannot be achieved by mutations of this
sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only
degrade specificity (Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue, 2001, www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp).

Far from being a genetic advance for the bacterium, the mutation causes it to become less
functional overall.
Mutations of this sort are the path toward gradual degradation of the creature rather than the path
of an upward evolution.


We would warn our readers to beware of Darwinists citation of genetic research. In spite of
the powerful evidence that has built up over the past century against mutations being a
mechanism of evolution, some Darwinists still cling to this myth. And they regularly cite new
research as proof. In fact, they appear to be fleeing to genetics as the final and ultimate proof of
evolution. I believe that this is for two reasons. First, the traditional evidences for evolution (e.g.,
ape-men, dino-bird, Darwins finches, peppered moth, Miller experiment, embryonic chart) have
been effectively challenged in popular books such as Jonathan Wells Icons of Evolution. Second,
very few people are equipped to analyze genetic research. Therefore, the average person cant
refute Darwinists claims in this area. This is why they typically make no effort to simplify the
results of genetic research and they strive to be as technical as possible even in describing it.
Thankfully, there are qualified geneticists who are skeptical of Darwinism and who are capable
of analyzing the new claims.
For example, in the book The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins says that Richard
Lenskis work with the E. coli virus has proven that mutations do add information to the genetic
code, but in The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe, Ph.D. in Biochemistry, has demonstrated that
this is not true. After reviewing the results of Lenski's research, Behe concludes that the
observed adaptive mutations all entail either loss or modification--but not gain--of Functional
Coding Elements (FCTs) (Michael Behes Quarterly Review, Evolution News & Views,
Discovery Institute, Dec. 8, 2010).
Even some scientists who believe in evolution have rejected the doctrine that it could be driven
by mutations.
I. L. Cohen, mathematician, member of the New York Academy of Sciences, called evolution by
mutation a metaphysical theory.
Micro mutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either
falsified or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a
great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what
happened in biology ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the
history of science (Cohen, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, 1987, p. 422).
To propose and argue that mutations even tandem with natural selection are the root causes for 6,000,000
viable, enormously complex species is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the
fundamentals of mathematical probability (Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities, 1984, p.

Theodosius Dobzhansky called the hypothesis of evolution by mutation day dreaming.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. ... A single plant or a
single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would
become the rule: events with infinitesimal probability could no longer fail to occur. ... There is no law against
day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it (Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, pp. 88-103, 170).

2. There are amazing repair mechanisms within the cell to thwart the distribution of


Even if it could be proven that a few mutations are somehow beneficial to the creature, the fact is
that there are many mechanisms within the cell that thwart their distribution.
Biologists have identified more than 50 different types of repair enzymes.
Lowell Coker, Ph.D. in microbiology and biochemistry, writes:
Numerous repair mechanisms have been found which ensure the accuracy of the replication process by
correcting any errors that occur, even those that occur after replication in the complete DNA molecule. Please
observe that these repair mechanisms work against the hypothesized mechanism of mutation as a principal
means for operation in the theory of evolution. ... Each cell continuously monitors and repairs its genetic
material. ... The universal existence of repair mechanisms in DNA not only ensures faithful replication
of this master blueprint of life, but also ensures stasis in its function in the manner intended in
continuing generations. This strong evidence falsifies the mechanism of evolution which requires multiple
and continued mutation or change over vast periods of time in the DNA molecule, the blueprint of life, to effect
the kinds and diversity of life that we see (Lowell Coker, Darwins Design Dilemma, pp. 120, 121).

Bacteriologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago says the cell even has the ability to
modify its repair systems:
It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of
accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By
virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not the passive victims of the random forces of
chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the
capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair
systems (A Third Way, p. 33).

Even simple bacteria have incredibly effective error-correcting systems. Shapiro writes:
The fast-growing bacterial cell is the ultimate just in time production facility. When an E. coli cell divides every
20 minutes, exquisitely reliable coordination has been achieved for hundreds of millions of biochemical
reactions and biomechanical events. ... This incredible precision is accomplished not by rigid mechanical
precision -but rather by using two layers of expert error monitoring and correction systems: (1)
exonuclease proofreading in the polymerase itself, which catches and corrects over 99.9% of all mistakes as
soon as they are made (Kunkel & Bebenek, 2000), and (2) the methyl-directed mismatch repair (MMR)
system, which subsequently detects and fixes over 99% of any errors that escaped the exonuclease (Modrich,
1991). Together, this multilayered proofreading system boosts the 99.999% precision of the
polymerase to over 99.99999999% (Shapiro, Bacteria are small but not stupid, Exeter Meeting, 2006).

In commenting on these facts, the blog Truthmatters.info says:

All cells on planet earth are working very hard to prevent the very thing that supposedly created
them!! [e.g. genetic mutations] Think about that!! If that isnt evidence against the non-Intelligent Design view
of Origins then I dont know what is (Did DNA Copying Errors Create Systems for Preventing DNA Copying
Errors? Truthmatters.info, Sept. 12, 2010).

3. The fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not produce positive change in species.
As we will see in the section on the fruit fly, for one hundred years these creatures have been
subjected to every scheme that man can devise to produce mutations. One objective of the
experiments has been to prove that evolution is true, but the result has been to disprove it. The


only thing that has been produced is crippled and mutant fruit flies. No beneficial mutation has
resulted. No different type of fly or different type of creature has been produced. Mutations
produce crippled monsters rather than the beautifully adapted creatures we observe in nature.
As E.W. MacBride stated,
Creatures with shrivelled-up wings and defective vision, or no eyes, offer poor material for evolutionary
progress (quoted in H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation, 1966, p. 75).

The scientific facts pertaining to genetic mutations refute the doctrine of evolution and
demonstrate that it is not qualified as a theory or even a hypothesis.
1. Mutations are overwhelmingly either neutral in their effect or harmful. Duane Gish, Ph.D. in
biochemistry, says, Very often a mutation proves to be lethal, and they are almost universally
harmful (The Fossil Record Still Says No, p. 37).
2. Mutations do not add new genetic information. They either subtract from the existing genetic
code or simply modify it. Mutations could not have produced the vast amount of new
information required to turn an ameba into a man or even a wolf into a whale.
3. The amazing repair mechanisms within the cell thwart the distribution of mutations and work
against evolution.
4. The fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not result in new organs and creatures.
1. Scientists generally agree that mutations are either ___________ or _____________.
2. Who was Theodosius Dobzhansky?
3. He said that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably ______________ and the
few remaining ones are ________________ _______________.
4. Dr. Duane Gish says that mutations are almost universally _________________.
5. Dr. Ian Macreadie says that you never see any new _____________ arising in a cell.
6. Dr. Lee Spetner says that not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little
__________ to the genome.
7. If new information doesnt come from mutations, where does it come from?
8. Why is sickle-cell anemia offered as an example of a beneficial mutation?
9. Why is sickle-cell anemia not a good evidence for evolution?
10. What are two ways that bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics?
11. Why is bacterial resistance to antibiotics not an evidence for evolution?
12. What are two reasons why Darwinists are fleeing to genetics as evidence for evolution?
13. What did Theodosius Dobzhansky call the hypothesis of evolution by mutation?

14. The repair mechanisms in the cell ensure faithful _____________ of the master blueprint of
life as well as ensuring ___________ in its function.
15. The two layers of error monitoring proofreading in the E. coli bacterium boosts the perfection
of genetic copying to what percentage?
16. How can mutations be the path of evolution when the living cell is designed to keep
mutations from happening and from being distributed to the next generation?
17. How do the fruit fly experiments prove that mutations do not produce positive change in


Museums, textbooks, and documentaries use the fossil record as a major icon of evolution, but
the fact is that if you remove the evolutionary presumptions, the evidence refutes evolution and
supports creationism.
By way of introduction, we observe that the fossil record is vast.
Charles Darwin knew that the fossil record did not provide evidence for his doctrine, because it
did not provide evidence for a vast number of missing links, but he believed this problem
could be explained by the incompleteness of the record and the rudimentary state of paleontology
in his day.
This can no longer be used as an excuse. Driven largely by the desire to find evidence for
evolution, paleontologists launched a frenzy of activity throughout the 20th century. Today there
are an estimated 200 million fossils in museums worldwide, including 100 million invertebrates,
one million vertebrates, and one million plants (Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment,
Vol. 1, p. 77). Evolution: The Grand Experiment (volume 1) by Carl Werner breaks down the
fossil evidence by plant and animal, giving the statistics for specimens in museums worldwide
(pp. 76-85).
1. The fossil record cannot prove evolutionary descent.
This point cannot be emphasized too much. An evolutionary view of the fossil record is pure
assumption. It is impossible to prove that long-dead creatures have some sort of evolutionary
genealogy. Some evolutionists have admitted this.
Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum said:
... statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. ... It is easy enough to make
up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by
natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (letter
to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, cited from Sunderlands Darwins Enigma, pp. 101, 102).

Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature magazine, said:


No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. ... [Each fossil] is an isolated point, with no knowable connection to
any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. ... To take a line of fossils and
claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that
carries the same authority as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific (In Search
of Deep Time).

Laying out a line of fossils that have similarities (homology) does not prove that creatures
evolved. As Dr. David Stone says: A fossil record displaying creatures with some modest
similarities in form, but enormous differences in other organs, functions, genetics, embryological
development, etc., speak directly to special creation and against evolution. If evolution were true,
the fossil record would show a continually smooth variation of forms, and classification into
species, genera, etc., would be impossible.
All of the creatures in the fossil record are fully-developed plants and animals. To prove
Darwinian evolution would require the existence of a vast number of partly-formed creatures and
organs and structures, but apart from a few questionable examples the record does not
demonstrate this.
2. The fossil records geological column has major problems.
The column supposedly consists of the Paleozoic, the supposed age of multi-celled organisms,
fish, and amphibians, the Mesozoic, the age of reptiles and dinosaurs, and the Cenozoic, the age
of mammals and birds. These three major time periods are further divided into 12 divisions: The
Paleozoic consists of Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian,
Permian. The Mesozoic consists of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. The Cenozoic consists of
Tertiary and Quaternary.
One major problem with this is the missing strata.
William Corliss, an evolutionist, acknowledges:
Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of
geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel
and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though
controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on (Unknown
Earth, 1980, p. 219).

It would be wiser to admit that the entire principle needs to be discarded because it doesnt fit the
Another problem is that the geological column is often jumbled together.
Since 1840 there have been many rock formations discovered with fossils completely out of order according
to the geologic column--like Precambrian sitting on dinosaur-age Cretaceous--but these have been either
explained away or simply ignored (Luther Sunderland, Darwins Enigma, p. 51).


Another problem is the fossilized trees that pierce geological layers.

This contradicts the idea that the strata were laid down gradually over millions of years. The
trees would have rotted away had this been the case. These have been found in Alaska, Alabama,
Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia,
Washington state, England, Germany, France, Nova Scotia, and elsewhere. Near Joggins, Nova
Scotia, 14,000 feet of sedimentary strata is exposed in the cliff faces along the Bay of Fundy and
there are many fossilized trees piercing 2,500 feet of geological layers. Many others have been
found in Lancashire, England, and in the coal fields of Rhein-Westfalen in Germany (Richard
Milton, Shattering the Myths, p. 84).
Another problem is the out-of-place fossils.
Many out-of-place fossils have been found that disprove the evolutionary fossil column, but they
are usually ignored. In the many natural history museums I have visited, I have never seen a
discussion of this contradictory evidence.
Walt Brown, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from MIT and former Chief of Science and
Technology Studies at the Air War College, provides the following examples of out-of-place
fossils in his book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood:
For example, at Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the
dinosaurs. Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia. A leading
authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according
to the theory of evolution predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years. Dinosaur and humanlike
footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and
marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock. Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other
fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. Coal beds
contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100
million years after the coal bed was formed. In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana,
spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrian rocks--rocks supposedly deposited
before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambrian rocks deposited before life
allegedly evolved. Petrified trees in Arizonas Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees
and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering
plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later. Pollinating insects and fossil
flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers
are assumed to have evolved (Brown, In the Beginning, p. 12).

The documentation for these can be found in Dr. Browns book on pages 67-68.
A list of nearly 200 wrong-order formations in the U.S. alone can be found in an eight-part series
by Walter Lammerts (Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations, Creation Research
Society Quarterly, September 1984, December 1984, March 1985, December 1985, March 1986,
June 1986, December 1986, June 1987).
3. The fossil record disproves evolution in that the fossilization itself is evidence of a great
worldwide catastrophe.


The massive worldwide fossil beds are evidence for the biblical account of the worldwide Flood.
rather than for a uniformitarian evolutionary process.
There is no large-scale fossilization happening today. Fossilization does not naturally occur.
Instead, dead animals are quickly consumed by animals, insects, worms, and bacteria, and are
destroyed through the action of the environment (sun, rain, wind, moving water, etc.).
This is true even for the largest creatures on earth. The video Blue Ocean, produced by the
British Broadcasting Corporation, shows a huge dead whale being devoured by fish, worms, and
bacteria at the bottom of the sea.
The vast western plains of the United States were once populated with millions of bison, which
roamed in enormous herds until they were nearly slaughtered to extinction during a short period
of a time in the late 19th century. Today there is zero evidence of fossil bison. The countless
bison skeletons that once littered the landscape simply disappeared through the aforementioned
The Old Testament indicates that the land of Israel was infested with lions for centuries (Job
38:38; Prov. 22:13; 2 Kings 17:25), but there are no fossilized lions there (John Whitcomb, The
World That Perished, p. 76).
The facts about the true nature of fossilization are typically ignored in natural history museums.
For example, the Chicago Field Museum has a display allegedly proving that fossilization can
occur naturally by dead creatures soaking in ground water for a long, long time. This doesnt
produce fossilization; it produces disintegrated animals!
The British Museum of Natural History has the same fallacy in its display on fossilization. The
following statements are found near a slab of rock containing the fossils of a school of fish:
Fishy death -- The fossils in this slab belong to a school of fish that died in the same place at the same
time. Their freshwater lake dried out during a hot spell leaving the trapped fish to die.
How was this fossil fish preserved? When the fish dies, it falls to the sea floor and becomes buried in
sediments. The soft body parts rot away leaving the hard bones. Sediment layers accumulate and become
compacted over time, forming a rock mould around the skeleton. The skeleton is gradually replaced by other
minerals. Over millions of years the sediments may be eroded away exposing the rock containing the fossil.

These are unscientific statements. Fossilization doesnt happen this way. When fish die, they are
consumed flesh and bone by fish and birds, crabs, worms, bacteria, and by the action of the
environment. Dead fish dont lie on the bottom of the sea or a dry lake bed waiting for millions
of years of fossilization.


The fossil record shows fossilization occurring so rapidly and involving such immense quantities
of creatures and preserving such amazing details that it is obvious that they were buried alive in a
process that was cataclysmic and anything but gradual.
Clams, for instance, open up soon after they die, but there are fossil graveyards in many parts of
the world containing millions of clams that are closed (Luther Sunderland, Darwins Enigma, p.
The coal deposits are said by evolutionists to have formed over millions of years, but they
contain the fossils of perfectly-preserved skeletons, including two-ton dinosaurs, which would
have had to have been covered almost instantly. In 1878, miners working in the Mons coalfield
in Belgium discovered 39 iguanodon dinosaur skeletons, many of them complete, at a depth of
322 meters. They were 10 meters long and weighed two tons each. For their bodies to be rapidly
buried would require rates of deposition thousands or even millions of times greater than the
average 0.2 millimeters per year proposed by uniformitarians (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p.
There is a seven-foot ichthyosaur that was fossilized while giving birth (Carl Wieland, Stones
and Bones, 1994).
Amazingly, the fossil record includes millions of soft-bodied organisms, including bacteria,
embryos, plants, leaves, flowers, worms, jellyfish, fish eggs, and insects, including butterflies.
Plants and animals have been preserved in the most incredible detail.
Throughout the earth there are massive fossil graveyards that offer profound witness to a global
Flood. Consider some examples:
The Burgess Shale in British Columbia contains countless thousands of marine invertebrates
that have been preserved in exquisite detail, with soft parts intact, often with food still in their
guts (Dr. Andrew Snelling, Earths Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 537). It is obvious that they
were buried in a highly unusual and catastrophic manner.
The Burgess Shale is, therefore, an enormous fossil graveyard, produced by countless animals living on the
sea floor being catastrophically swept away in landslide-generated turbidity currents, and then buried almost
instantly in the resultant massive turbidite layers, to be exquisitely preserved and fossilized (Snelling, p. 538).

The Ordovician Soom Shale in South Africa is 30 feet thick and stretches hundreds of miles. It
contains thousands of exceptionally-preserved fossils. The eurypterids even show walking
appendages that are normally lost to early decay after death and some of the fibrous muscular
masses that operated these appendages (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 538).
The evidence is clearly consistent with catastrophic burial of countless thousands of these organisms over
thousands of square kilometers, which implies that the shale itself had to be catastrophically deposited and
covered under more sediments before burrowing organisms could destroy the laminations (Snelling, Vol. 2, p.


The Devonian Thunder Bay Limestone formation in Michigan is 12 feet thick and stretches for
many hundreds of miles. It contains billions of fossils that were catastrophically buried.
The Carboniferous Montceau Shale in central France has yielded the fossilized remains of
nearly 300 species of plants and 16 classes of animals. There are fossilized scorpions with their
venomous vesicle and sting preserved.
... numerous footprints of amphibians and reptiles have been found, complete with finger and claw marks,
and sinuous lines made by tails trailing in the mud. Even raindrop imprints and ripple marks have been found
preserved, signifying that burial and lithification must have been extremely rapid. Similarly, the preservation of
the fragile hinges in the bivalve mollusk fossils suggests that these animals were not transported before burial,
but were entombed abruptly by rapid deposition of sediment (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 540).

The Carboniferous Francis Creek Shale in Illinois forms a fossil graveyard containing
specimens representing more than 400 species of a mixture of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine
organisms. The preservation of soft part details is evidence of rapid burial.
The Triassic Mont San Giorgio Basin in Italy and Switzerland, 300 feet deep and about four
miles in diameter, contains thousands of well-preserved fossils of fish and reptiles. Details of
delicate bones, tiny spines, and scales are distinctly visible. Fossilized fish contain embryos
inside their abdomens. The fossilized Tanystropheus, a 4.5-meter giraffe-necked saurian, also
contains the remains of unborn young.
Fish, like so many other creatures, do not naturally become entombed like this, but are usually devoured by
other fish or scavengers after dying. Furthermore, when most fish die their bodies float. In the fossil
assemblage at Mont San Giorgio are some indisputable terrestrial reptiles among the marine reptiles and
fishes. Thus, to fossilize all those fish with the large marine and terrestrial reptiles, so that they are all
exquisitely preserved, would have required a catastrophic water flow to sweep all these animals together and
bury them in fine-grained mud (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 543).

The Triassic Cow Brand Formation in Virginia also contains a mixture of fossilized terrestrial,
freshwater, and marine plants, insects, and reptiles that were buried together in a massive
graveyard. Microscopic details are preserved with great fidelity, and the resolution of preserved
detail is approximately 1 micron (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 543).
The Cretaceous Santana Formation in Brazil preserves fossils of marine and land plants and
animals, including shrimp, bivalves, fish, sharks, crocodiles, spiders, frogs, turtles, dinosaurs,
and pterosaurs [extinct flying reptiles], including pterodactyles with wingspans of over nine feet.
Preservation has been so rapid, and so perfect, that structures such as muscle fibers with banding present,
some displaying ultrastructure, fibrils, and even cell nuclei arranged in neat rows, have been fossilized.
Underneath the scales, small pieces of skin are preserved and show thin sheets of muscle and connective
tissue. In a female specimen the ovaries have been preserved with developing eggs inside, and one egg even
had phosphatized yolk. Many specimens display the stomach wall with all its reticulations, and often with the
last meal still in the stomach. One specimen has no fewer than 13 small fish in its alimentary tract, with a
number of shrimps, that even had their compound eyes preserved with the lenses in place. But the most
spectacular tissues found in these fish specimens are the gills, many having the arteries and veins of the gills
preserved with the secondary lamellae intact. ... It is clear, therefore, that the fossilization process took place


moments after the fish had died, and was completed within only a few (probably less than five)
hours (Snelling, Vol. 2, p. 545).

The Siwalki Hills north of Delhi, India, 2,000 to 3,000 feet high and several hundred miles
long, are composed of sediment laid down by water and are packed with fossils of land animals.
Similar deposits thousands of feet thick are located in central Burma. These are packed with the
fossils of large animals such as mastodon, hippopotamus, and ox, plus fossilized tree trunks.
The Morrison Formation covers an area of about a million square miles in 13 U.S. states and
three Canadian provinces, stretching from Manitoba to Arizona, and from Alberta to Texas.
Dinosaur bones have been found at hundreds of sites, fossilized together with fish, turtles,
crocodiles, and mammals.
The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado contains fossils of palms,
sycamores, maples, poplars, deep-sea bass, sunfish, herring, alligators, turtles, lizards, frogs,
snakes, crocodiles, birds, bats, beetles, flies, dragonflies, grasshoppers, moths, butterflies, wasps,
ants, and other plants and animals, terrestrial and marine.
A fossil graveyard near Florissant, Colorado, contains fossilized fish, birds, insects, and
hundreds of species of plants. Fruit and even blossoms have been found.
The lignite beds of Geiseltal in Germany contain a complete mixture of plants and insects from
all climatic zones and all recognized regions of the geography of plants or animals. Leaves have
been so well preserved that alpha and beta types of chlorophyll can be recognized.
[Also preserved are] the soft parts of insects: muscles, corium, epidermis, keratin, color stuffs as melamine
and lipochrome, glands, and the contents of the intestines. Well preserved bits of hair, feathers and scales ...
stomach contents of beetles, amphibia, fishes, birds and mammals ... Fungi were identified on leaves and the
original plant pigments, chlorophyll and coproporphyrin, were found preserved in some of the leaves (N. O.
Newell, Adequacy of the Fossil Record, Journal of Paleontology, 1959, 33: 496).

These are merely a few examples of the amazing fossil graveyards that blanket the earth.
As noted, the fossil record contains incredible detail. The trilobites compound eye has been
fossilized in such detail that scientists have been able to study it microscopically to determine
that some of these creatures had 15,000 lenses in one eye, with each lens being double!
There are fossilized soft bodied non-vertebrate creatures and even fossilized microscopic
So much for Darwins claim that the fossil record has not preserved such detail. In On the Origin
of Species he proclaimed, No organism wholly soft can be preserved.


The fossilization that is evident throughout the earth could occur only by a rapid cataclysmic
process such as in a global Flood.
4. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it does not contain the countless transitional
creatures that Darwinian evolution requires.
In On the Origin of Species Darwin acknowledged that his proposition requires ENORMOUS
numbers of intermediate links. He wrote:
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number
of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly ENORMOUS. Why then is not every
geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any
such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can
be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological

Darwin devoted two chapters of his book to an attempt to explain this problem. His answer to the
issue of the missing links was that the fossil record was too incomplete in his day. He predicted
that subsequent research would unearth the missing links to prove his doctrine. We have seen,
though, that the evidence has failed to materialize.
In fact, subsequent research into the fossil record has refuted Darwins proposition for those who
look at the evidence without bias. Instead of countless numbers of transitional limbs and
creatures, evolutionists can only point to a few highly questionable ones.
This has been admitted by some evolutionists, though they have hesitated to say it too loudly lest
they give ammunition to the despised creationists and draw upon themselves the wrath of the
evolutionary gestapo.
In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, highly respected physicists, wrote:
... either there were no transitions or the transitions were so rapid as to be analogous to quantum jumps. ...
[For flying insects] it is particularly remarkable that no forms with the wings at an intermediate stage of
development have been found. Where fossil insects have wings at all they are fully functional to serve the
purposes of flight, and often enough in ancient fossils the wings are essentially identical to what can be found
Darwinism (Evolution from Space, pp. 82, 86, 89, 94).

Hoyle was not a creationist; neither is Wickramasinghe. In making this statement they had no
agenda of discrediting Darwinism; they were simply being honest with the facts; and the facts
are that the fossil record provides no evidence of the myriad of transitional structures and
creatures that the doctrine of Darwinian evolution requires. By the way, for their honesty they
were persecuted by the evolutionary gestapo.


Many evolutionists claim to have found missing links, but when those links are examined they
are invariably found to have serious problems, and even the evolutionists themselves cannot
agree about them.
Francis Hitching, who is an evolutionist, says:
It takes a while to realize that the thousands of intermediates being referred to have no obvious relevance to
the origin of lions and jellyfish and things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind of
creature, artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work, and then
rearranged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the arrangement. ... The thousands of
intermediates also include a number of creatures of about the same explanatory value as the crossopterygian
fish--this is, almost none. They are simply speculative candidates in the evolutionary ladder--disconnected
links in a hypothetical chain (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 19).

In Evolution: The Grand Experiment (volume 1), Dr. Carl Werner examines the fossil record for
evidence of the evolution of invertebrates, fish, bats, pinnipeds, flying reptiles, dinosaurs,
whales, birds, and flowering plants. He traveled to major natural history museums and
interviewed the experts. The book provides evidence that all of the links are still missing.
Consider the following quotes from scientists who were interviewed for Dr. Werners book. As
far as we know, all of these experts are evolutionists.
Evidence for the evolution of Invertebrates:
Despite 30 years of research on Ediacaran fossils, there are very few, if any, unambiguous ancestors of
things that appear in the Cambrian (Dr. Andrew Knoll, Paleontologist and Professor of Biology, Harvard

Evidence for the evolution of fish:

... the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and
many theories abound as to how the changes took place (Dr. John Long, an evolutionist and the author of
The Rise of Fishes).

Evidence for the evolution of bats:

Theres a ten-million-year period of early mammal evolution where you would guess that thered be some sort
of bat precursor, but once again, nothing (Dr. Gary Morgan, Assistant Curator of Paleontology, New Mexico
Museum of Natural History and Science and a specialist in bat evolution).

Evidence for the evolution of pterosaurs:

The ancestors are not known (Dr. Gunter Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany).

Evidence for the evolution of dinosaurs:

Early on, again, I think researchers and even maybe lay people really felt that we had more ancestors in the
fossil record than we actually do ... WE DONT HAVE A LOT OF ANCESTORS; WE HAVE A LOT OF
TWIGS (Dr. Paul Sereno, Paleontologist and Professor at the University of Chicago and a leading expert on
dinosaur evolution).


This quote debunks the evolutionary Tree of Life. There is no trunk and no branches, only
twigs! This, of course, is evidence for creation and not evolution.
Evidence for the evolution of plants:
It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing
groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must freely be admitted that this aspiration
has been fulfilled to a very slight extent (Dr. Chester Arnold, Professor of Botany and Curator of Fossil Plants,
University of Michigan).

We see, therefore, that the fossil record disproves evolution in that it does not contain the
countless transitional creatures that Darwinian evolution requires.
5. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it shows creatures appearing suddenly, fully
formed, with no evolutionary history.
Jeffrey Schwartz says the major animal groups appear in the fossil record as Athena did from
the head of Zeus--full blown and raring to go (Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 41).
The testimony of Stephen Gould (d. 2002), one of the most influential evolutionists of the 20th
In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears
all at once and fully formed (Gould, Wonderful Life, cited from Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 50).

The testimony of D. M. Raup and S. M. Stanley:

Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher
categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms (Raup and Stanley,
Principles of Paleontology, 1971, p. 306).

Eugene Koonin of the National Institutes of Health says:

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a
new level of complexity. ... In each of these pivotal nexuses in lifes history [e.g., viruses, bacteria, animal
phyla], the principal types seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the
respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate grades or intermediate forms between
different types are detectable (The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution, 2007).

The suddenness of the appearance of creatures has even been given the name Cambrian
explosion or biologys big bang.
The Cambrian layer is named after rocks in Cambria, Wales. This layer is supposed to be 500
to 600 million years old and to represent the beginning of life on earth.
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. in cell biology from the University of California, Berkeley, states:


Although the abrupt appearance of animal fossils in the Cambrian was known to Darwin, the full extent of the
phenomenon wasnt appreciated until the 1980s, when fossils from the previously-discovered Burgess Shale
in Canada were re-analyzed by paleontologists Harry Whittington, Derek Briggs, and Simon Conway Morris.
The 1980s also marked the discovery of two other fossil locations similar to the Burgess Shale: the Sirius
Passet in northern Greenland, and the Chengjiang in southern China. All of these locations document the
bewildering variety of animals that appeared in the Cambrian (Icons of Evolution, pp. 38, 39).

Spiders appear fully developed in the Cambrian. There are even fossilized spider webs with
bugs caught on them (e.g., on display at the American Museum of Natural History).
... the trilobites appear in the geological record suddenly, fully formed ... without any hint or trace of an
ancestor in the many rock layers beneath (Andrew Snelling, In Six Days, edited by John Ashton, pp. 294,
295; Snelling has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney).

Bingo, they just show up (Dr. Gary Morgan, Assistant Curator of Paleontology, New Mexico Museum of
Natural History and Science and a specialist in bat evolution, quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol.
1, by Dr. Carl Werner).
The bats appear perfectly developed in the Eocene (Dr. Gunter Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum in
Eichstatt, Germany, quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, by Dr. Carl Werner).

When the pterosaurs first appear in the geological record, they were completely perfect (Dr. Gunter
Viohl, Curator of the Jura Museum, Eichstatt, Germany, quoted in Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 1, by
Dr. Carl Werner).

Some evolutionists have pointed to relatively recent discoveries of life at the so-called preCambrian level, but this does not provide anything like the long history of gradual divergence
required by Darwins theory (Jonathan Wells, The Icons of Evolution, p. 38).
Darwinism predicts that the fossil record will show that creatures gradually evolve, but in fact it
shows creatures appearing fully formed.
6. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it demonstrates complexity from its earliest
According to the Darwinian doctrine of evolution, life arose from a simple creature such as a
bacterium to higher and higher life forms.
The fossil record disproves this, even if you allow for evolutionary dating schemes. Creatures
appear not only fully developed but with incredibly complex features such as the bats
echolocation equipment.


The oldest bat fossils, belonging to an extinct lineage, were unearthed from rocks about 54 million years old,
but the creatures that they represent arent dramatically different from living bats, says Mark S. Springer, an
evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Riverside. Hallmark features of these creatures include
the elongated fingers that support the wing membranes and the extensive coiling of bony structures in the
inner ears, a sign that they were capable of detecting the high-frequency chirps used in echolocation (J.
Bergman, Evidence for the Evolution of Bats, Origins, Feb. 2008, cited from Jonathan Sarfati, By Design, p.
The fossil record does not provide evidence for the transition towards either pterosaurs or bats: The earliest
known members of these groups had already evolved an advanced flight apparatus (R. Carroll, Patterns and
Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 277).

Consider the trilobite, which is found at the earliest stages of life by evolutionary thinking. It is
an amazingly complex creature. It is thought to have had a set of gills associated with each of its
jointed legs. It would have had complex muscle systems to move its legs. It is thought to have
had a circulation system, including a heart. It had antennae which probably had a sensory
function. It had a complex brain and nervous system to control all of these organs. The trilobite
had a compound eye with as many as 15,000 lenses per eye, all of which worked together in
perfect harmony to provide exceptional vision for this simple creature. Dr. Andrew Snelling
calls it the most sophisticated optical system ever utilized by any organism (cited from In Six
Days, edited by John Ashton, p. 295).
The mind-boggling complexity of creatures at every level of the fossil record disproves
In fact, microbiology has taught us that there is no such thing as a simple creature. A bacterium
is more complex than a modern city.
Darwinism predicts that the earliest forms of life found in the fossil record will be very simple,
but in fact what we find is mind-boggling complexity from the beginning.
7. The fossil record disproves evolution in that it exhibits stasis or stability of species rather
than change.
Creatures not only appear in the fossil record fully formed but they also retain the same form and
habits throughout their existence, even over supposed millions of years.
Paleontologists call this observable phenomenon stasis.
Steven Stanley, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, pulled no punches in his admission that
the fossil record shows stasis rather than gradualism:
Having carefully scrutinized data from the fossil record during the past decade, however, I have demonstrated
a biological stability for species of animals and plants that I think would have shocked Darwin.
Certainly it has jolted many modern evolutionists. ... Once established, an average species of animal or
plant will not change enough to be regarded as a new species, even after surviving for something like
a hundred thousand, or a million, or even ten million generations. ... Something tends to prevent the


wholesale restructuring of species, once it has become well established on earth (The New Evolution,
Johns Hopkins Magazine, June 1982, cited from Sunderland, Darwins Enigma, pp. 117, 118).

Prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was equally candid:

Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record
looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
directionless (Gould, Wonderful Life, cited from Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 50)

In February 1980, at a conference at Hobart and William Smith College in honor of Mary
Leakey, Gould said:
The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation ... one thing it does show that
cannot be attributed to its imperfection is that most species dont change. ... They may get a little bigger or
bumpier but they remain the same species and thats not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. ...
The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists dont care much for gradualism is because the fossil
record doesnt show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier. If you
want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows
that most species dont change. Thats bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be
gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again,
because you dont see it, that brings terrible distress (Luther Sunderland, Darwins Enigma, pp. 121, 122).

This statement is consistent with creation but entirely inconsistent with Darwinian evolution.
Gould refused to believe in divine creation, though, so he invented a theory of evolution by
giant leaps through punctuated equilibrium, even though there is no scientific evidence for
such a thing.
Luther Sunderland, who was an aeronautics engineer with General Electric for 30 years,
Frank statements like these by Dr. Gould are censored for school materials. Textbooks frequently contain
dogmatic statement about how well the fossil record documents evolution, so instead of experiencing terrible
distress, students develop a comforting faith that there must be some good evidence somewhere that would
substantiate common-ancestry evolution (Darwins Enigma, p. 122).

Consider the bat. A fossil bat, Icaronycteris index, dated at 50 million years old, is on display at
the Museum of Natural History at Princeton University, and it looks the same as a modern bat.
Consider plants. At the Burke Museum of Natural History in Seattle there is a display of
supposed 50 million year old fossilized leaves of cedar, pine, ginkgo, birch, and dawn redwood,
and they look exactly like the modern varieties. While living on an island in the Pacific
Northwest for a decade I had a hobby of studying the regional trees, and in examining the fossil
leaves at the Burke Museum it is evident to me that they simply havent changed.
Not only do creatures look the same throughout their history, they act the same. In 2010,
Discovery News ran a report on a supposed 100 million-year-old lizard and dragonfly fossilized
into amber. The lizard had caught the dragonfly and bit off its head just before being frozen in
time by tree rosin. The report quotes George Poinar, professor emeritus at Oregon State


University: This shows once again how behaviors of various life forms are retained over vast
amounts of time... (Lizard Entombed with Dragonfly Head in Mouth, Discovery News, Oct.
27, 2010).
This stability of behavior is not consistent with an evolutionary view of life, but it is entirely
consistent with creation. Creatures remain unchanged because God created them to reproduce
after their own kind.
Darwinism predicts that the fossil record will demonstrate constant change and non-stability of
species, but in fact it shows sudden appearance followed by amazing stability.
A creationist view of the fossil record
The global Flood explains why we find massive beds of fossils throughout the earth. It explains
why certain bottom-dwelling sea creatures are often found at the lower levels of the fossil strata,
as these creatures would typically have been buried first.
Many books have been written to present the creationist view of the fossil record, including the
following by men who hold Ph.D.s in geology, hydraulics, and mechanical engineering:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walt Brown
Earths Catastrophic Past (2 volumes) by Andrew Snelling
The uniformitarian theory that has dominated geology since Darwins day is being
rejected even by evolutionists.
The uniformitarian doctrine, devised in Darwins day by Charles Lyell, says that the successive
geological layers represent millions of years of gradual buildup. He said the past is the key to
the present, meaning that conditions have remained the same over eons of time. Darwin
enthusiastically accepted Lyells principle, saying that Lyell had produced a revolution in
natural science.
By the mid-20th century, uniformitarianism was being rejected.
The geologic community gave up substantive uniformitarianism long ago (Davis Young, Christianity and the
Age of the Earth, 1988, p. 142).

Uniformitarinism is under assault today from the growing evidence that things formerly thought
to have required thousands or millions of years can actually occur quickly.
Consider some examples:


Guy Berthault conducted extensive laboratory experiments demonstrating that sediments
naturally and quickly form layers in moving water and that the sediment is sorted in the same
manner that is found in the geological column. The results of this research was published in the
late 1980s and presented to the National Congress of Sedimentologists at Brest in 1991.
What Berthault found was that when the sediments settled on the bottom they recreated the appearance of
the original rocks from which they had come. But the strata were not formed by the deposition of a succession
of layers as had been formerly assumed. Instead, the sediments settled on the bottom more or less
immediately, but the fine particles were separated from larger particles by current flow, giving the appearance
of layers. Moreover, the lamination was found to have a thickness that was independent of the length of time
taken to deposit that sediment--another fundamental assumption of classic geology. It follows, observed
Berthault, that no deduction of the duration of sedimentation can be made by simple observation of rock
laminae (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 77).

The laboratory work was supplemented by field observations from Mount St. Helens and other
places, proving that phenomena such as the formation of canyons previously thought to require
thousands or millions of years can occur in a matter of days or even hours.
It was long thought that stalagmites were formed at an incredibly slow rate and that this proved
the ancient age of caves. In fact, stalagmites were used as an icon of evolution for many decades.
It is now known that they can form very quickly.
In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches or 1 inch / year. At
this rate they could have grown 300 ft. in just 3600 years. The picture at right is of a bat discovered in 1953 in
a stalagmite, in Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico. The stalagmite grew around the bat before it could decay or
be eaten. The temperature where this bat is found is just above freezing at a constant 40o F. The water
dripping from the stalactite above it is very salty. This would impede but not prevent decay. Also it would not
prevent the bat from being eaten. So this stalagmite still had to form quite rapidly, certainly far less than 5,000
years (http://creationwiki.org/Stalactites_and_Stalagmites).

Petrified trees
It has also been learned that wood can petrify quickly and that formations such as those in the
Petrified Forest National Park of Arizona did not necessarily take long periods of time to form,
as previously thought.
Indeed, as part of a study of the petrified wood in the Petrified Forest National Park of Arizona, an experiment
was conducted in which blocks of wood were placed in hot alkaline springs in the Yellowstone National Park to
test the rate at which silica is deposited in the cellular structure of the wood. The measured rate was between
0.1 and 4.0 mm/year. Other similar experiments have been conducted in laboratories. Furthermore, as a result
of testing for petrification in a Japanese volcanic spring, it was concluded that petrified wood in ancient
volcanic ash beds in sedimentary strata in volcanic regions could have thus been silicified by hot flowing
ground water with high silica content in a fairly short period of time, in the order of several tens to hundreds of
years. Such rapid petrification of wood is confirmed by many field observations of trees cut down by early
settlers in Australia that were subsequently buried in the soil, then later dug up and found to be petrified,
including the axe marks (Andrew Snelling, Earths Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 958).


Evolutionists have long used the massive coal beds that are scattered throughout the earth as
evidence of an ancient age for the earth, because it was believed that millions of years were
required for their formation. It has been demonstrated scientifically, though, that this is a false
assumption. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology, writes:
Laboratory experiments have been quite successful in artificially producing coal-like materials relatively
rapidly, under conditions designed to simulate those present in sedimentary basins where coal measure strata
have accumulated. ...
A research team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois made insoluble material resembling coal
macerals (components) by heating lignin with clay minerals at 150 degrees C for 2 to 8 months in the absence
of oxygen. It was discovered that the longer heating times produced higher rank coal macerals, and the clays
appeared to serve as catalysts that speed the coalification reactions...
More recent coalification experiments have tried to more closely simulate the natural geologic conditions, with
temperatures of only 125 degrees C in both lithostatic and fluid pressures equivalent to burial under 1,800
meters of wet sediments, yet maintained as a geologically open system which allowed by-products that may
retard coalification to escape. In that experiment, after only 75 days, the original peat and petrified wood had
been transformed into coalified peat and coalified wood, comparable chemically and structurally to lignite and
coalified wood from the same geographical region as the original peat and petrified wood samples (Earths
Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, pp. 584-586).

Canyons and Stratification

The explosion of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and the subsequent dramatic transformation of the
surrounding landscape have provided a laboratory to study the formation of canyons and
A canyon 700 feet deep and several miles long was carved (at some places even into solid
bedrock) by the violent mudflows. One series of canyons are one fortieth the scale of the Grand
Canyon in Arizona, with individual canyons having depths of up to 140 feet, with sheer cliffs of
up to almost 100 feet (Earths Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 718).
The blast also caused the formation of up to 600 feet of strata, caused by landslides, flowing
water from Spirit Lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water.
In less than five hours, 25 feet of very extensive strata had accumulated, even containing thin laminae and
cross-bedding from 1 mm thick to >1 meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of
accumulation (Earths Catastrophic Past, Vol. 2, p. 724).

It is evident that large canyons and massive stratification can occur very quickly and that these
do not require millions of years to form.
The uniformitarian model has also been undermined by newer evolutionary theories that the
world has witnessed a series of global catastrophes, such as the one that allegedly killed off the
dinosaurs. The fossil section of the Field Museum in Chicago is arranged around a series of six


mass extinctions that supposedly wiped out most life forms. These are said to have been
caused by things such as shifting continents, volcanic activity, meteors, and global warming.
If mass extinctions were caused by dramatic global events, it is obvious that the earlier view of
uniformitarianism was fundamentally wrong, but it was this very doctrine that caused scientists
to reject the Bible in the first place! The fact that they wont admit that a terrible mistake was
made and that the Bible needs to be reconsidered is evidence that we are not dealing with
rational, empirical science but with religion disguised as science.
The fossil record demonstrates that evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even as a
hypothesis. It is a mythical story.
Far from providing evidence for the evolution of life, the fossil record disproves evolution.
1. The fossilization itself is evidence of a great worldwide catastrophe.
2. The fossil record does not contain the countless transitional creatures that Darwinian evolution
3. The fossil record shows creatures appearing suddenly, fully formed, with no evolutionary
4. The fossil record demonstrates complexity from its earliest layers.
5. The fossil record exhibits stasis or stability of species rather than change.
1. Why did Darwin know that the fossil record did not provide evidence for his theory?
2. How did he answer this problem?
3. Why can this no longer be used as an excuse?
4. How can someone prove for sure that one fossil evolved from another?
5. Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum said statements about ____________
and _____________ are not applicable in the fossil record.
6. Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature magazine, said that to take a line of fossils and
claim that they represent a lineage is not a _______________ ________________ that can be
tested, but an assertion that carries the same authority as a _______________.
7. To prove Darwinian evolution would require the existence of a _____ number of _________
creatures and organs and structures.
8. What are the three major evolutionary ages?
9. What are four problems with the evolutionary geological column?
10. How do the multi-strata fossilized trees disprove evolution?
11. How do out-of-place fossils disprove evolution?
12. How does the fossil record give evidence of a worldwide Flood?
13. Why does fossilization not occur by animals soaking in ground water for a long time?

14. Why is it significant that many fossil clams are closed?

15. What type of soft-bodied organisms are found in the fossil record?
16. How could a fragile creature like a butterfly be fossilized?
17. In what area of the world do we find fossil graveyards?
18. List three great fossil graveyards.
19. Darwin said that if evolution is true the number of intermediate varieties of creatures would
be truly _____________.
20. Physicist Fred Hoyle said that the evidence for major changes and linkages is conspicuously
_______________ from the fossil record.
21. Francis Hitching said the fossil intermediates offered by evolutionists are simply
______________ candidates.
22. How does the fact that creatures appear in the fossil record suddenly, fully formed disprove
23. How does the trilobite disprove evolution?
24. What is stasis?
25. How does stasis disprove evolution?
26. Stephen Jay Gould said that most species exhibit no directional _________ during their
tenure on earth.
27. What evidence at the Burke Museum in Seattle disproves evolution?
28. What Bible event explains the massive fossil beds throughout the earth?
29. What is the uniformitarian theory of geology?
30. Who was the inventor of the uniformitarian theory?
31. What evidence do we have that stalagmites can form quickly?
32. What evidence did the explosion of Mt. St. Helens provide against evolution?
33. What are the five ways that the fossil record disproves evolution?

One of the most-used icons of evolution is homology or similarity between creatures, limbs, and
organs. This is supposed to show evolutionary descent. Darwin said,
I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have
descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed (On the Origin of Species).

Practically every modern biology textbook and every natural history museum uses homology as
a chief evidence for evolution.
The Prentice Hall Biology 2002 textbook is typical. It features a drawing of a limb of a turtle, an
alligator, a bird, and a mammal, accompanied by the following note, [These] homologous
structures ... provide evidence of a common ancestor whose bones may have resembled those of
the ancient fish shown here.
The argument from homology or similarity is used in every facet of evolutionary doctrine.


To show how the eye evolved, for example, various types of eyes are arranged in a way that
ascends from the simple to the complex.
Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of the horse. Various four-legged animals are
arranged in an ascending lineage, from small to large. They all look vaguely like horses and have
four legs, dont they?
Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of the whale from a wolf-like creature through
successful stages to the giant blue whale.
Homology is used to demonstrate the evolution of man from apes. One of the most effective
evolutionary icons was the Parade of Man, which depicts 15 figures evolving from apes to
modern humans. All of the creatures have two arms, and two legs, and two ears, and one nose,
and they are walking upright (which is actually a deception), so they must be connected by
evolution. This is the argument from homology.
In reply we offer the following points:
1. If you remove the evolutionary assumptions, this amounts to zero evidence.
The statement in the Miller-Levine Biology textbook -- Each of these limbs has adapted in ways
that enable organisms to survive in different environments -- is pure evolutionary assumption.
Nothing is proven.
It could as easily be true that similarity of structure is the product of common design as common
descent. When something works, why reinvent the wheel? This is why engineers use devices like
gears, wheels, ball joints, solenoids, and switches repeatedly in different kinds of machines. Dr.
Terry Mortenson rightly observes:
Similarity of shape or design can just as well, if not more so, point to a common designer, rather than a
common ancestor. Roller skates, bikes, cars, trucks, busses and trains all have wheels, but one is not the
ancestor of the other. They are similar because intelligent human designers have all thought that wheels are a
good way to move things on land. So too living creatures that share the same planet and are interdependently
linked in a complex ecosystem will have many similarities and those which live in very similar environments on
earth (e.g., in water or air or on land) will share even more similarities. Our infinitely wise Creator is smarter
than all the engineers put together. Good designs can be, and are, easily modified for different
applications (Mortenson, National Geographic Is Wrong, Answers in Genesis, Nov. 6, 2004).

Commenting on the supposed evolution of the eye, William Dembski, Ph.D. mathematics,
But hasnt the biological community explained the evolution of such complicated structures as the mammalian
eye? Actually it hasnt. What the biological community has done is noted that there are many different eyes
exhibiting varying degrees of complexity--everything from the full mammalian eye at the high end of the
complexity scale to a mere light-sensitive spot at the low end. But slapping down eyes of varying
complexity on a chart and then drawing arrows from less complex to more complex eyes to signify


evolutionary relationships does nothing to explain how increasingly complex eyes emerged. The gaps
between these increasingly complex eyes become unbridgeable chasms once you begin to think like
an engineer and actually look at the astonishing and irreducibly complex components. ... Darwinian
stories ... are just-so stories--fictional tales that entertain and lull the Darwinian faithful into thinking theyve
resolved the problem of biological complexity when in fact its solution continues to elude them (The Design
Revolution, p. 217).

Why would blind evolutionary processes produce similar structures? Stuart Burgess, an engineer,
... a classification tree can be produced for any type of man-made device, such as gears, bearings, doors
and windows. The reason why a classification tree can be produced for different kinds of man-made
products is that these products have intelligent designers who plan similarity. ... The only way in which
similarity could be considered evidence for evolution is if the evolutionist could show that the similarity seen
in nature is what would be expected from evolution rather than design (Hallmarks of Design, p. 120).

2. The argument from homology is based on the unproven assumption that evolution has a
mechanism that could create complex structures.
To say that homology is evidence of evolution is to assume that evolution has a mechanism that
can account for the creation of complex structures and organs, but this has never been proven.
The two classic mechanisms of Darwinism are natural selection and genetic mutation. But
natural selection has no creative power. Through environmental pressures, natural selection
might be able to select a certain beak size on a finch, but it cant create a beak. A beak is a
complex structure that has every sign of being intelligently designed and made. Genetic mutation
also has no creative power. As we have seen, mutations are overwhelmingly harmful and do not
add the information to the genome that would be required to create complex new structures.
Another mechanism proposed by Darwinists is geographic and reproductive isolation. This
says that when a small group of creatures is isolated by geographic barriers, evolution will
occur more quickly because of the smaller gene pool. But this only deals with existing genes and
offers no possibility of being a mechanism to add new genetic information and create new
structures and organs and creatures.
Since Darwinists wont want to allow a Divine Foot in the door, they are back at square one
with no answer to the million dollar question: What is the power that fashioned such an amazing
world of living things?
3. The founders of the biological classification systems did not believe that homology
pointed to evolution.
Carl Linneaus, who formulated the system for classifying plants and animals that is still used
today, and Georges Cuvier, one of the founders of comparative anatomy, were not evolutionists
and did not believe that the similarities between creatures was evidence that they evolved. Stuart
Burgess observes, It is ironic that many modern scientists quote classification trees,
comparative anatomy and palaeontology as evidence for evolution, when the main founding


scientists of these subjects were actually strong supporters of biblical creation (Hallmarks of
Design, p. 129).
4. The limbs and creatures typically used as homologies by evolutionists are actually more
different than similar.
In reality, a frogs leg, a bats wing, and a horses leg are dramatically different from a human
And a man is dramatically different from an ape!
And a simple eye is dramatically different from a human eye.
Evolutionists emphasize vague similarities while ignoring vast differences.
5. At the genetic and embryonic level the supposed homologous structures are not formed
in the same way or with the same genes.
The Prentice Hall Biology textbook (2002) says, ... the limbs ... derive from the same structures
in the embryo.
But this is not the case.
British biologist Gavin de Beer said, The fact is that correspondence between homologous
structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells in the embryo, or of the
parts of the egg out of which the structures are ultimately composed, or of developmental
mechanisms by which they are formed (cited from Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 71).
Consider the formation of human and frog digits. In humans, cell death divides the ridge into five
regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). In frogs, the digits grow outward from
buds as cells divide (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution 2, p. 110, citing Langmans Medical
Embryology edited by T.W. Sadler and Australian Frogs by M.J. Tyler).
Thus, the fact that there are similarities of structures within the animal kingdom is therefore
meaningless at the genetic level.
Homology offers zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life.
1. What is homology?
2. What are three examples of how homology is used by evolutionists?
3. How is the Parade of Man an example of homology?

4. It could as easily be true that similar structures are the product of common _________ as
common ___________.
5. How much of the evolutionary argument from homology is based on assumption?
6. What is the major assumption underlying this argument?
7. What are the two classic mechanisms of Darwinism?
8. Why is it impossible for natural selection to create complex structures?
9. What is it impossible for genetic mutations to create complex structures?
10. Who was the father of the biological classification system?
11. How do human digits and frog digits differ in their construction in the embryo?


One of the most oft-used icons for evolution is the peppered moth, Biston betularia.
In the book New Guide to Science, Isaac Asimov devoted a small section to proving Darwinian
evolution and his sole evidence was the peppered moth. Stephen Jay Gould also used the
peppered moth as one of the supposed irrefutable evidences for evolution (Hens Teeth and
Horses Toes, p. 257).
It has been touted as evolutions prize horse and described as the slam dunk of natural
selection, the paradigmatic story that converts high school and college students to Darwin, the
thundering left hook to the jaw of creationism (Judith Hooper, Of Moths and Men, p. xvii).
The following statement from Biology: The Dynamics of Life by Merrill Publishing is typical of
the way that textbooks use the peppered moth as a major evidence of evolution:
The evolution of new species is seldom observed because the changes usually require many generations.
However, scientists have observed many examples of the natural selection of adaptations. One of the beststudied examples involves the peppered moth in England. During the 1800s, there were two kinds of
peppered moths--a common light-colored variety and a rarer dark-colored variety. These moths rested
during the day on light-colored tree trunks. In 1850, almost all the moths were light in color. Then, during a
rapid expansion of industry around that time, the air became full of smoke and soot. This extreme pollution
of the air turned the trunks of trees black. By the end of the century, most of the peppered moth population in
England was dark colored. The light-colored individuals had become rare. ... In 1950, scientists performed
an experiment to determine if natural selection had caused the dark variety of months to become more
numerous. They observed light and dark moths in both industrial and rural areas. The experiment showed
that birds ate more dark moths in rural areas where the trees were light-colored and more light moths in
industrial areas where the trees were dark-colored. Through natural selection, populations of peppered
moths had become adapted to living in industrial areas. The experiment showed that organisms whose color
provides better camouflage are more likely to survive and reproduce (Biology: The Dynamics of Life, Merrill
Publishing, 1991, p. 209).

Thus, in a short time the population of peppered moths in that area changed from predominately
light gray to predominately dark colored. The new moth was even given a new name, Biston
betularia carbonaria, a supposed new subspecies.
The proposed explanation was that the industrial pollution had killed the light-colored lichen on
the trees where the moths rested, and the light-colored moths could therefore be seen more easily

against the natural brown of the trees bark. Thus, the light-colored moths were eaten by
predators at a prodigious rate while the dark-colored ones survived and increased.
This evidence for evolution was devised by Bernard Kettlewell. His objective in quitting his
15-year medical practice was to prove evolution by studying the peppered moth, and he found
what he wanted to see. In Scientific American magazine, Kettlewell proclaimed that he had
discovered Darwins missing evidence.
Kettlewell published a photo that became a major icon of evolution and influenced countless
people to believe that Darwinian evolution is true. It is a photo of two peppered moths seemingly
resting on a tree trunk.
For over a century, the peppered moth has been offered as proof of the Darwinian mechanism of
survival of the fittest or natural selection, but there are serious problems with this
evolutionary icon.
1. The adaptation of a species to its environment and the variety that can be exhibited
within a species do not explain Darwinian evolution.
Variety within a species is not evidence for transmutation from one kind of creature to another!
Natural selection might sometimes account for the distribution of different colors of moths and
for different sizes of dogs and different shapes of beaks on a finch, but it cannot account for life
coming into existence or a wolf becoming a whale or a reptile becoming a bird. No matter what
an evolutionist might say about light- and dark-colored peppered moths, they are all still moths.
In fact, they are still peppered moths. Not even a new color was produced, because the darkcolored moths already existed.
Adaptability of species is not evidence for Darwinian molecules to man evolution, but it does
fit perfectly into the biblical model of creation by an all-wise God who designed the creatures to
adapt to changing environments on a fallen earth.
2. Studies have debunked the correlation between pollution and tree lichens and the change
in moth color.
Field studies have demonstrated that pollution and tree lichens are not always correlated with a greater
proportion of darker moths. In one place, for example, the number of darker moths increased after pollution
decreased. In another area, the number of darker moths began decreasing before lichens returned to the
trees (John Day, Darwin Day in America, p. 246).

3. The evidence was doctored.

The aforementioned photograph of moths resting on a tree trunk, which has influenced the
thinking and philosophy of countless people, was A FAKE. It turns out that peppered moths dont
naturally rest on tree trunks. The moths were glued to the trunk!


After more than fifty years it is now admitted that these moths do not rest on tree trunks ... The well-known
photograph of the black and white species together that appears in every high-school textbook was taken
using two moths glued to a tree trunk (Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, p. 168).

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. in cell biology, gives further refutation to the peppered moth myth:
Since 1980, evidence has accumulated showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks.
Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported an experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assess
normal resting places. Mikkola observed that the normal resting place of the peppered moth is beneath
small, more or less horizontal branches (but not on narrow twigs), probably high up in the canopies. ... In
twenty-five years of field work, Cyril Clarke and his colleagues found only one peppered moth
naturally perched on a tree trunk. ...
Manually positioned moths have also been used to make television nature documentaries. University of
Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent told a Washington Times reporter in 1999 that he once glued
some dead specimens on a tree trunk for a TV documentary about peppered moths (The Washington
Times, Jan. 17, 1999). Staged photos may have been reasonable when biologists thought they were
simulating the normal resting-places of peppered moths. By the late 1980s, however, the practice should
have stopped. Yet according to Sargent, a lot of faked photographs have been made since then. ...
Open almost any biology textbook dealing with evolution, and youll find the peppered moth presented as a
classical demonstration of natural selection in action--complete with faked photos of moths on tree trunks.
This is not science, but myth-making (Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 149, 150, 155).

In fact, the original researchers knew that peppered moths dont naturally rest on tree trunks.
Cyril Clarke, who was a bosom friend of Bernard Kettlewell, said: In 25 years we have only
found two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (Judith Hooper, Of Moths
and Men, p. xviii).
Some have tried to debunk Jonathan Wells report on the peppered moth, but they have not been
successful. Take Kenneth Miller, for example.
Kenneth Miller was one of the most vocal defenders of the standard peppered moth story, which he had
included in his own textbooks. At a meeting of the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002, Miller
accused Wells of engaging in repeated misrepresentations and even fraud. Wellss critique of the peppered
moth story was exhibit number one in Millers indictment: In his book, Dr. Wells made the claim, quote
Peppered moths dont rest on tree trunks. But he didnt present any data. When you do look at the data,
what you discover is that the major observations that have been made of peppered moths in the wild most
frequently shows that they rest on tree trunks--and therefore, that claim is incorrect. As for the photos of
peppered moths resting on tree trunks that appear in biology textbooks like his own, Miller insisted that
those faked photographs arent faked at all; theyre real moths, on real trees, in the real positions that
moths have actually been found in the wild. ...
Readers of Wellss book, however, might have concluded that it was Miller who was engaging in
misrepresentation. Contrary to Millers claim that Wells didnt present any data in his book to back up
his arguments, Wells in fact provided a detailed examination of the scientific research showing that
peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. When Wells responded to Millers accusations with
a careful rebuttal reciting the evidence for his view, Miller posted an essay on his website with the selfpitying title Paying the Price. Although Miller had previously accused Wells of being a liar and a fraud,
he now portrayed himself as an aggrieved victim. ... According to Miller, Wellss factual rebuttal to Millers
previous attack was an effort to smear me. Miller also played the religion card, deriding Wells as the
Reverend Jonathan Wells and supplying a link to a Unification Church website. For someone so loudly
complaining about smears and personal attacks, it was a performance of giddy chutzpah.
Despite Kenneth Millers vigorous public defense of the peppered moth story during the first half of
2002, it was deleted from the next edition of one of his own biology textbooks. The change was just in


time. Later that year a devastating book-length critique of the conventional peppered moth story was
published by science journalist Judith Hooper. Hoopers Of Moths and Men suggested not only that the
standard peppered moth account was unsupported by more recent research, but that the original
experiments by Kettlewell were full of holes. Wells was fully vindicated, but no apologies were
forthcoming from his critics (John Day, Darwin Day in America, pp. 247, 248).

The peppered moth demonstrates that evolution does not qualify as a scientific theory or even a
hypothesis. It is a mythical story.
1. The peppered moth has not proved that one kind of creature can turn into another. Not even a
different type of moth was observed. The peppered moth has remained a peppered moth. The
case of the peppered moth actually proves the truth of the Bible, that God made creatures to
reproduce within kind and that one kind of creature does not change into another kind.
2. The major icon for the peppered moth evolution was a photo of moths resting on tree trunks,
but this was a myth, as they dont naturally rest on trunks but hide in the branches.
1. Who was the man who first proposed the peppered moth as evidence for evolution?
2. What aspect of evolution is the peppered moth supposed to prove?
3. What is the first reason why we reject the peppered moth as evidence for evolution?
4. How have subsequent studies shown that Kettlewells conclusions were inaccurate?
5. How was the evidence faked?
6. Where do peppered moths naturally rest?
7. Who is the author of Icons of Evolution?
8. Who tried unsuccessfully to debunk this authors position on the peppered moth?

Another major evolutionary icon is Darwins finches.
On the voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin found several varieties of finches on the Galapagos
Islands in the Pacific Ocean 600 miles off the west coast of Ecuador, South America, but these
actually played no part in the development of his doctrine. It was not until the 20th century that
the finches became an icon of evolution. Percy Lowe first called them Darwins finches in
1936 and David Lack published a book by that title in 1947 after Julian Huxley urged him to do
so, believing that it would help prove Darwinism in the minds of the populace.
We are reminded by this that Darwinists have always been searching for simple icons to
convince the public of the truth of their doctrine. These icons are effective because they are


simple and highly visual (e.g., Haeckels embryos, the horse chart, the peppered month, the
Parade of Man, Lucy). It does not seem to matter that the icons do not provide scientific evident
for molecules to man evolution but rather are based on evolutionary assumptions.
Since the 1940s, Darwins finches have become an iconic evidence for evolution. The following
from the Miller and Levine Biology textbook by Pearson Education (2002) is typical:
The Grants work demonstrates that finch beak size can be changed by natural selection. If we combine this
information with other evolutionary concepts you have learned in this chapter, we can devise a hypothetical
scenario for the evolution of all Galapagos finches from a single group of founding birds. Speciation in the
Galapagos finches occurred by founding of a new population, geographic isolation, changes in the new
populations gene pool, reproductive isolation, and ecological competition (Miller and Levine, Biology, pp. 372,

According to this icon, a slight variety in finch beaks proves that creatures evolve in response
to a change in their environment. For example, during drought, when only big tough seeds are
available, those finches with slightly larger beaks survive better than those with smaller beaks.
Voil, you supposedly have descent with modification!
Evolutionists have made much of Darwins finches. Jonathan Weiner called the change in the
finch beak the best and most detailed demonstration to date of the power of Darwins
process (The Beak of the Finch, 1994).
In reply to this evolutionary icon we offer the following points:
1. The Galapagos finches are still finches.
The minor change in the finches beaks is not evidence of the evolution of kinds but of
adaptation within kinds. There is no evidence here for molecules to man evolution. Though
evolutionists have been studying the Galapagos finches for nearly a century, there is no evidence
that they could ever change into anything else. They havent even changed into a different kind
of bird.
2. Evolutionists have so narrowed the term species that finches with very minute
differences are labeled different species.
It is important to understand that the modern term species is not the same as the biblical kind
as used in Genesis 1, which is the Hebrew word baramin. Andrew Lamb of Creation Ministries
writes: The biblical kind often equates to the family level in the modern biological classification
scheme, and sometimes to genus or order. Some excellent baraminology papers have appeared in
recent issues of Journal of Creation (Sheep and Goats? Creation Ministries International,
Evolutionists have played their species card to create the illusion that the Galapagos finches
have undergone truly significant change. One variety of the Galapagos finch is called scandens,

while another is called fortis. But in 1983 it was found that a male scandens bred with a female
fortis and produced four chicks, proving that they are the same biblical kind (Genesis 1:21). As
Richard Milton observes:
In almost all respects, the finches of the Galapagos are so similar that it is difficult to tell them apart. ... It is
very difficult for an objective observer to see how a group of finches who find it hard to tell themselves apart,
and who do in fact interbreed, can legitimately be called different species. ... But it is from this kind of wordplay
that all their subsequent claims of speciation and evolution flow (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, pp. 150,

3. The Galapagos finches actually provide evidence against evolution.

First, they provide evidence for the Bibles claim that God made creatures to reproduce after
their own kind. This is repeated 10 times in Genesis 1, and this is what we see in finches
everywhere. Further, the ability to adapt to the environment is what we would expect if creatures
were designed by an Almighty God who knows the future and who knew that His creatures
would need to adapt to a changing and oftentimes harsh environment in a sin-cursed world.
Darwins finches offer zero evidence for the doctrine of the evolution of life.
1. The Galapagos finch provides zero scientific evidence that a finch could change into any other
type of creature. It only demonstrates that creatures adapt in minor ways to the environment.
2. The Galapagos finch actually proves the truth of the Bible, that God made creatures to
reproduce within kind and that one kind of creature does not change into another kind.
1. Who was the man who first named the Galapagos finches Darwins finches?
2. What is the first reason why we reject the Galapagos finches as evidence for evolution?
3. The change in the finches beaks is not evidence of the ____________ of kinds but of the
_____________ within kinds.
4. What is the Hebrew word for kind in Genesis 1?
5. The biblical kind often equates to the __________ level in the modern biological classification
6. What is the term that refers to the study of kinds?
7. How have evolutionists played the species card?
8. How do we know that the different species of Galapagos finches are the same biblical kind?
9. What are two ways that the Galapagos finches provide evidence against evolution?



Another major icon of evolution is the four-winged fruit fly. The amazing little fruit fly naturally
has two wings, and the addition of two more wings through genetic mutations would seem, at
first glance, to support the real possibility that creatures could evolve new organs.
Practically every biology textbook uses the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) as evidence for
evolution. The 2002 Miller-Levine textbook is an example:
At the beginning of the 1900s, the American geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan decided to look for a model
organism to advance the study of genetics. He wanted an animal that was small, easy to keep in the
laboratory, and able to produce large numbers of offspring in a short period of time. He decided to work on a
tiny insect that kept showing up, uninvited, in his laboratory. The insect was the common fruit fly, Drosophila
melanogaster, shown in Figure 11-13. Morgan grew the flies in small milk bottles stoppered with cotton gauze.
Morgan found that he could breed a new generation of flies every 14 days. A single pair of flies could produce
as many as 100 offspring. Drosophila was an ideal organism for genetics because it could produce plenty of
offspring, and it did so quickly (Miller and Levine, Biology, Pearson Education, p. 274).

All sorts of mutant flies have been produced from this experimentation. The Merrill Biology: The
Dynamics of Life textbook shows some of these on page 169. They include vestigial wings,
curled wings, white-eyed, prune-eyed, brown-eyed, and eyeless.
One product of the experiments is a four-winged fruit fly. At first glance, this would appear to
provide dramatic evidence that genetic mutations can add information and produce new organs,
but this is decidedly not the case.
What is typically not told about the mutant fruit fly experiments is the following:
1. The four-winged fruit fly is a crippled monstrosity.
The extra wings lack flight muscles, so that not only do they not help the creature fly better, they
hinder it in flying at all. In fact, the second set of wings are not actually wings. They are a gross
distortion of the insects two halteres, which are small appendages behind the wings that
enable it to balance in flight. Thus, not only has the four-winged fruit fly lost the effective use of
these highly complex organs, it has developed two large, useless mutant appendages.
As evidence for evolution, the four-winged fruit fly is no better than a two-headed calf in a circus
sideshow (Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp. 186, 187, 18).

It has been recently discovered that the fruit flys halteres are amazingly complex organs. They
are small vibrating organs ... that act as gyroscopic sensors [which] serve as detectors of body
angular velocity that quickly trigger muscle action. ... The velocity is sensed by the halteres,
processed by a neural controller, and transmitted by the flight motor into specific wing motions
that generate aerodynamic torque (David Tyler, Design Principles in the Flight Autostabilizer
of Fruit Flies, Uncommon Descent, March 23, 2010). Experiments have shown that the fruit fly
can recover its heading to within 2 degrees in less than a tenth of a second, and the halteres are

an integral part of this amazing flight system which the most technologically advanced fighter jet
cannot begin to emulate.
2. The mutant flies are constitutionally weaker than the parent form and would be
eliminated in a free competition environment.
The Darwinian law of survival of the fittest would not select the four-wing fruit fly. As we
have seen, the extra wings are not only useless; they are a positive hindrance. Further, the fourwing fly has difficulty mating, so that unless the line is carefully maintained in a laboratory it
quickly dies out (Wells, p. 186).
This is true for all of the mutant varieties of fruit flies that have been produced in the laboratory.
"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the
mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a
population with free competition they are eliminated ... Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a
single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutations), and therefore, they are able to appear only
in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory (H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung,
1954, p. 1186, cited from the Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, chapter 14).

3. The fruit fly experiments are actually strong evidence against evolution and for biblical
First, the extensive fruit fly experiments, which have been conducted for a century, have proven
that mutations do not produce useful new structures or new creatures.
Beginning with the work of Thomas Hunt Morgan at Columbia University in 1906, millions of
fruit flies have been radiated, poisoned, and subjected to extreme conditions of light and dark,
cold and heat. There were 100 fruit fly genetics labs in the United States alone from the 1930s to
the 1960s, and these tested hundreds of thousands of generations of mutant genes (Creation
Spelled Out, p. 14). Radiation has greatly multiplied the number of mutations that would occur
The fruit fly was chosen for these experiments because its grows from egg to adult in 10-12 days,
lays up to 100 eggs a day, and it is a relatively simple creature with only four chromosomes
per cell (as if any tiny creature that can fly and reproduce itself could reasonably be called
The century of fruit fly experiments represents millions of years of evolutionary time.
The result has been a variety of mutant fruit flies--with various colored eyes and bodies, different
sizes of eyes, no eyes, short wings, large wings, no wings, extra wings, twisted wings, legs
growing out of its head, etc.--but absolutely no evidence that the fruit fly could evolve through
mutations into some other type of insect or animal--or even into a different type of fly.


The fruit fly experiments scientifically falsify the neo-Darwinism claim that mutations are the
driving force of species-to-species evolution.
German geneticists Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus were using a technique called
saturation muta-genesis to search for every possible mutation involved in fruit fly development. They
discovered dozens of mutations that affect development at various stages and produce a variety of
malformations. Their Herculean efforts earned them a Nobel prize, but they did not turn up a single
morphological mutation that would benefit a fly in the wild (Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, p. 190).

Theodosius Dobzhansky, who succeeded T.H. Morgan at Columbia University, made the
following telling admission,
Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement
of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown (Evolution, Genetics, and Man, 1955, p.

Second, the fruit fly experiments demonstrate that the kinds of creatures are stable and that there
are strict limits to the amount of change they can experience. These experiments support the
Bibles declaration that God formed every plant and animal to reproduce after its own kind.
No matter what we do to the genes of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes: a normal
fruit fly, a defective fruit fly or a dead fruit fly (Jonathan Wells, The Problem of Evidence, Forbes, Feb. 5,

The fruit fly experiments are a powerful refutation of the doctrine of evolution and an icon for
1. The four-winged fruit fly is a crippled monstrosity that is no more an evidence for evolution
than a two-headed calf.
2. The fruit fly experiments are evidence that mutations are harmful and that they never improve
the creature and are not a path to evolution.
3. The fruit fly experiments prove the truth of the Bible in that one kind of creature does not
change into another kind. God has put genetic barriers in place that cannot be crossed, so that
there are strict limits to the amount of change they can experience.
1. Who is the father of the fruit fly experimentation?
2. When did these experiments begin?
3. Researchers can breed a new generation of fruit flies every ____ days.
4. What are three types of mutations that have been produced through this experimentation?


5. Why is the four-winged fruit fly not a good evidence for evolution?
6. The two extra wings are a distortion of the fruit flys ____________.
7. What is the function of the fruit flys haltere?
8. Why would fruit fly mutants be eliminated in a free competition environment?
9. Mutant fruit flies are always constitutionally ____________ than their parent form.
10. What are two ways that the fruit fly experiments provide evidence against evolution and for
11. The century of fruit fly experiments represents ____________ of years of evolutionary
12. What are the only three possible outcomes of fruit fly experiments?

One of the most widely-used icons of evolution is Lucy, the name given to a fossilized ape of the
australopithecine class that is supposed to be millions of years old and is alleged to be a missing
link between apes and man.
The Lucy bones have been the subject of fierce debate, even among evolutionists.
Lucy was a tiny creature standing about three and a half feet high.
The bones were found in 1974 in northern Ethiopia by Donald Johanson and his colleagues. He
thereupon declared on the spot that he had discovered a three million year old human
ancestor (Duane Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, p. 241).
They named the fragmentary skeleton Lucy after playing the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky
with Diamonds repeatedly at the camp party the night of the discovery. John Lennons 1971
song Imagine would have been more suitable, as Johanson and crew were living out the vain
Darwinian dream that there is no God, no heaven or hell, only blind evolution. In the chorus,
Lennon sang, You may say that Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one/ And some day I hope
youll join us/ And the world will be as one. Evolutionary scientists are at the forefront of
pushing this dream of a world united in a damnable myth, and it is a fulfillment of Bible
prophecy (e.g., Psalm 2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 3:2-4).
After Johanson announced to the world that he had discovered a new missing link, he was
showered with international acclaim. The National Geographic Society promised funds and
assigned a photographer to Johansons expedition. Money came from several sources. Johansons
future was secure (Gish, The Fossils Still Say No, p. 243).
Donald Johanson and company believed they had found the original stem that led from
Australopithecus to man. Thus, they gave the creature the name Australopithecus afarensis to
distinguish it from other forms of Australopithecus. (There is no consensus on this, though, even
among evolutionists.)

Australopithecus has long been promoted as a link in the evolution of man. The Early Man
(Time-Life, 1965), which contained the famous Parade of Man, featured Australopithecus
prominently as a Pre-Man. It was depicted as an upright, hairy semi-ape-faced creature with
human arms, hands, legs, and feet. The Last Human (Yale University, 2007) describes four types
of Australopithecus: anamensis, afarensis, garhi, and africanus.
(In the book Seeing the Non-Existent we deal with all of the major evolutionary ape men,
including Java Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Australopithecus africanus,
Ramapithecus, Zinjanthropus, Ida, Ardi, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, and Neanderthal.)
It is impossible scientifically to prove that Lucy was any sort of missing link.
As we have seen in the section on the fossil record, it is impossible to prove that one type of
extinct creature had any sort of evolutionary connection with another. How could one possibly
prove such a thing? Just because there were certain similarities of structure does not prove
evolutionary descent. This can only be presumed from a philosophical bias.
The debate over Lucys gait
Though evolutionists admit that the creature had an apes head and brain and ape-like arms,
hands, and feet, and no speech capacity, it is alleged by many that it walked uprightly, which was
the first step toward becoming human. This is called bipedalism.
There is wide disagreement on this point even among evolutionists, though you wouldnt know it
from popular reports and from most museum exhibitions.
Dr. Solly Zuckerman, for many years the head of the Department of Anatomy of the University
of Birmingham in England, said of the Australopithecus family that THEY ARE JUST
APES (Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 164). Zuckerman studied the fossils of this
creature for 15 years in minute detail with a team of scientists. They compared every important
detail of Australopithecus fossils with the bones of hundreds of humans and apes. For example,
they compared the pelvic bones of Australopithecus with those of more than 70 humans, 94 great
apes, and many others of monkeys and baboons. That is an impressive piece of scientific
research. Zuckerman concluded that Australopithecus did not walk erect. He said:
For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the australopithecines walked and ran upright like
man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant
of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable (Beyond the Ivory Tower, p. 93).

Zuckermans detailed scientific research into Australopithecus, the largest and most serious
project of its nature ever conducted, to my knowledge, was largely rejected by
paleoanthropologists. But this is because his conclusions did not fit their pet theories. Zuckerman
was basically excommunicated by the paleoanthropological community for his conclusions, but

this is not because his research and conclusions were scientifically disproven; it was because he
veered from the party line.
Zuckermans team was not working on the so-called Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) but on
fossils of other types of Australopithecus, but others have reached the same conclusion for socalled Australopithecus afarensis. Further, not everyone believes the Lucy group or the so-called
afarensis even represents a different category of Australopithecus.
In 1982, Bill Jungers at the Stony Brook Institute in New York argued that Lucys legs were
too short, in relation to her arms, for her species to have achieved a fully modern
adaptation to bipedalism (Lucys Child, p. 194).
In 1983, Randy Susman and Jack Stern, also of Stony Brook, concluded that Lucy and her kin
spent most of their time climbing trees. They detailed more than two dozen separate anatomical
traits suggesting that the species was a less efficient biped than modern humans (Lucys Child,
p. 194). They described Lucys hands and feet as being long and curved, typical of a treedwelling ape, even more highly curved than a chimpanzee (Milton, Shattering the Myths, p.
That year Susman and Stern reported in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology:
The fact that the anterior portion of the iliac blade faces laterally in humans but not in chimpanzees is
obvious. The marked resemblance of AL 288-1 [Lucy] to the chimpanzee is equally obvious (J. T. Stern and
R.L. Susman, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 80:279, 1983).

Russell Tuttle of the University of Chicago reached the same conclusion as Jungers, Susman, and
Stern. He pointed to the curved fingers and toes as an apelike adaptation for grasping tree
In 1983, a conference was held at the Institute of Human Origins at Berkeley in California to
discuss the issue of Lucys bipedalism. Russell Tuttle argued that the Laetoli footprints could not
have been made by a Lucy-type creature because its long, curved toes and other features
would have left a different sort of print (Lucys Child, p. 196). Randy Susman emphasized that
the creatures strong, curved, apelike finger bones, and its long arms relative to its legs
speak of tree living. Jack Stern used features of the hip, knee, ankle, and pelvis as evidence for
his view that the creature did not walk in a human fashion.
In 1984, Charles Oxnard, professor of Anatomy and Biological Sciences at the University of
Southern California, concluded that australopithecine was definitely not a missing link. ... the
australopithecines known over the last few decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdrai,
EVOLUTION OF HUMAN BIPEDALISM, possibly from a place in a group of any closer to
humans than the African apes and certainly from a place in the direct human lineage. All this
should make us wonder about the unusual presentation of human evolution in introductory

textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications (The Order of Man: A

Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, p. 332).
It must be understood that Oxnard is not a creationist. He is an evolutionist, but he is being
honest with the facts presented in the fossil record as he sees them.
In 1987, Oxnard did an extensive computer analysis of the existing bones of Australopithecus
and concluded that it walked like an ape, not a man. He demonstrated that the creatures big toe
stuck out as in chimpanzees.
In 1993, Christine Tardieu, an anthropologist in Paris, reported that Lucys locking mechanism
was not developed. Humans have a locking mechanism in the knees that allow us to stand
upright comfortably for long periods of time. Lucy didnt have that, so she certainly didnt stand
around nonchalantly like she is depicted in the museums.
In 1994, Dr. Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, using CT scans of
australopithecine inner ear canals, demonstrated that they did not walk habitually upright
(New Evidence: Lucy Was a Knuckle-walker, Creation Ministries International, May 5, 2000,
citing F. Spoor, B. Wood and F. Zonneveld, Implications of early hominid morphology for
evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369(6482):645648, 1994).
In 1994, Jack T. Stern, Jr., told the 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists that he believes that A. afarensis walked funny, not like humans (Gish, p.
In 2000, Science magazine reported that Lucy has the morphology that was classic for
knuckle walkers (Erik Stokstad, Hominid Ancestors May Have Knuckle Walked, Science,
March 24, 2000, Vol. 287, no. 5461, pp. 2131-2132). Stokstad says, I walked over to the
cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and shazam! -- she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle
In 2009, after anthropologists gathered at the Institute of Human Origins in New York to discuss
Lucy, a report in the New York Times made the following interesting conclusion:
The debate over whether the primate Lucy actually stood up on two feet three million years ago and walked-thus becoming one of mankinds most important ancestors--has evolved into two interpretive viewpoints, three
family trees, spats over four scientific techniques and too many personality clashes to count. ... The long and
short of it is, according to a participant, that bipedality lies in the eye of the beholder (Did Lucy Actually
Stand on Her Own Two Feet? (New York Times, Aug. 29, 2009).

In 2012, researchers who had spent 11 years studying the shoulder blades of an Australopithecus
afarensis skeleton reported that Lucy definitely lived in trees, at least for much of the time. They
found that Lucys shoulder sockets face upward like modern apes rather than outward as with
humans (Early Human Lucy Swing from the Trees, Fox News, Oct. 26, 2012). Researcher


David Green said, These remarkable fossils provide strong evidence that these individuals were
still climbing [trees] at this stage in human evolution.
In fact, there is zero scientific evidence that the little apes were anything other than little apes or
that human evolution is anything other than a fairy tale.
The fact that textbooks and museums typically portray Lucy as an unquestionable human
ancestor and as an upright walker is evidence that their objective is to brainwash the public with
an evolutionary myth rather than provide real objective education.
It is probable that Lucy and her kin typically walked on all fours like an ape, while walking
upright for short distances. One day in Kathmandu, Nepal, in 2008, I saw a rhesus macaque
monkey walk about 100 feet on his back legs. He was just cruising along and seemed very
pleased with himself! A macaque monkey at the Israel Zoo walks upright much of the time. Apes
can walk upright, but they arent designed to do it comfortably and naturally like a man does;
they are more comfortable climbing trees. The mountain gorilla from Zaire has an arm-leg
proportion closer to humans than other apes and a young gorilla can rear up and walk in a
human way, resting on the sole of its foot rather than the side (Michael Pitman, Adam and
Evolution, p. 242).
When it comes to Lucys hands, all authorities agree that they were ape-like, and as for her feet,
Dr. Randall Susman and Dr. Jack Stern of the State University of New York at Stony Brook,
described them as showing a retention of grasping tendencies with long and curved
digits (New York Times, Aug. 29, 2009).
Why would Lucy evolve upright walking?
Michael Pitman, who taught biology at Cambridge University, makes the following important
But if a group of them decided to swing down from the trees and become meat-eating Homo erectus on the
plain, upright gait would be the last thing they would want. Their first efforts would give them an uncomfortable
short-stretch roll, and a slow one at that. Man walks about as fast as a chicken; he runs upright at 12 m.p.h.
while the patas monkey can run two-and-a-half times as fast. Indeed, the new man would have been about
the slowest mammal on the savannah; rolling like a boat in high seas and still wearing that tiny
chimpish head, hed have had little chance in the survival stakes (Adam and Evolution, p. 249).

Lucy Art: Perpetrating a myth

Artistic reconstructions typically depict Lucy with human hands, walking uprightly in a purely
human manner on human feet, and typically with human-proportioned arms and legs. This is true
for the models and drawings that I have seen personally at the Museum of Natural History in
New York City, the American Museum of Natural Sciences in Washington D.C., the British
Museum of Natural History, the Field Museum in Chicago, Yale Universitys Peabody Museum,


the Museum of Man in San Diego, the St. Louis Zoo, and the natural history museum at
Michigan State University Ann Arbor.
These reconstructions are not scientific; they are brainwashing tools.
Dr. David Menton complained to the St. Louis Zoo about their Lucy exhibit, but his protests
were rebuffed. Menton, who has a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University, said: I think the
zoo owes it to all the people who helped pay for that exhibit to give (Lucy) an honest
presentation. But Bruce Carr, the zoos director of education, said they had no plans to change
the exhibit. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that
the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct (Creation Ex Nihilo, Volume 19 Number 1,
Dec 1996 - Feb. 1997).
In fact, the overall impression that this Lucy model creates is that Australopithecus was an apeman, a creature that had some ape-like features but walked erect like a man and had human
hands and feet. This is a false impression that is contradicted by the evidence, but it is exactly the
impression that they desire to give in these reconstructions.
1. It is impossible to prove scientifically that one type of extinct creature had any sort of
evolutionary connection with another.
2. The idea that Lucy walked upright is unproven scientifically and there are many scientists who
disbelieve it.
3. The reconstructions of Lucy in textbooks and museums are not based on science but on myth.
Forgetting for a moment the controversy surrounding Lucys gait, the fossil record proves that
Lucy did not have human hands and feet or human-proportioned arms and legs.
1. What is Lucy? What is her evolutionary family name?
2. Where was the Lucy fossil discovered?
3. How did Lucy get her name?
4. The ability to walk uprightly is called what?
5. What happened to Solly Zuckerman after he went against the evolutionary party line?
6. Susman and Stern said that Lucys hands and feet are _________ and ___________.
7. Russell Tuttle points to Lucys __________ fingers and toes.
8. Charles Oxnard said that the australopithecines are irrevocably removed from a place in the
evolution of human _________________.
9. Oxnard also said Australopithecus big toe stuck out as in _________________.
10. Jack Stern says Lucy walked ____________, not like _______________.

11. Erik Stokstad said Lucy had the morphology that was classic for ____________ walkers.
12. What conclusion did a reporter reach at a gathering of anthropologists in 2009 that proves
that there is no consensus as to whether Lucy walked uprightly?
13. What advantage would a clumsy new walker have over a monkey?
14. What is mythical about the standard reconstructions of Lucy?


Most prominent natural history museums feature a model or photo of the Laetoli footprints that
purport to prove that evolving apes walked upright in a human manner over a million years
The footprints were discovered in 1978 by the team of the famous anthropologist Mary Leakey
(wife of Louis) at a site called Laetoli in Tanzania.
Two sets of prints run parallel to each other for a length of about 80 feet. One set of prints is
man-sized while the other is smaller. They could have been made by a male and a female or by
an adult and a child. There are also many animal prints preserved in the same strata.
The footprints are used as an argument for depicting Australopithecus afarensess feet (Lucy) as
human-like, in spite of the fact that no Australopithecus afarenses fossils were found in Laetoli
and in spite of the evidence that Lucy could not have made the prints. Typical of the claims is
that by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall,
Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the bipedality of this early form is the set of footprints that have been
found at Laetoli (The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 7).

A drawing at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History depicts human legs and feet making
the prints, and the text claims that Australopithecus afarensis made them. The museum
obviously wants its visitors to assume that Lucy had human-like legs and feet.
In reply we offer the following points:
1. If you remove the evolutionary assumptions, there is no reason to think that the
footprints were made by any creature other than man.
Mary Leakey and her team were amazed at how very human they were (Ancestral Passions, p.
486). Tim White, who was involved in excavating the prints, acknowledged:
They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a fouryear-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldnt be able
to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There
is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight
in line. It doesnt stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of
Australopithecines in books (Johanson and Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, p. 250).


White and his colleagues believe that the modern human footprints prove that Lucy had feet
like humans and walked in a human fashion, but there is nothing to connect Lucys kind with the
Laetoli prints other than evolutionary assumption and circular argumentation.
Melvin Lubenow says:
Interpreting the Laetoli footprints is not a question of scholarship; it is a question of logic and the basic rules
of evidence. We know what the human foot looks like. There is no evidence that any other creature, past or
present, had a foot exactly like the human foot. We also know what human footprints look like. But we will
never know for sure what australopithecine footprints look like, because there is no way of associating
beyond reasonable doubt those extinct creatures with any fossil we might discover (Bones of Contention, p.

2. The Lucy creature had ape-like feet and could not have made human-looking footprints.
Russell Tuttle has rightly argued that a creature such as Lucy, with long curved toes, could not
have left the prints and concluded that we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli
footprints were made by Lucys kind (The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet, Natural History,
March 1990).
Further, the footprints are nearly 12 inches long and were obviously made by a large individual. I
am six-feet tall and when I put my size 11 shoe beside a model of the Laetoli footprints at the
Seattle Science Center it was obvious that the individual that made those prints could have been
comfortable in my shoes.
But Lucy was only three feet tall. My, what big feet she had!
3. The Laetoli footprints are actually evidence against evolution.
If the evolutionary assumptions are removed, the Laetoli footprints are powerful evidence that
modern man lived at the same time as creatures that are supposedly millions of years old.
Either this means that the evolutionary dating methods are wrong and the entire fossil strata
concept should be discarded, or it means that modern man is millions of years old.
Either way, the Laetoli footprints disprove standard evolutionary thinking.
1. Where were the Laetoli footprints found?
2. By what famous anthropologist were they found?
3. Evolutionists say that the footprints were made by what creature?
4. What scientific evidence connects this creature with the Laetoli footprints?
5. How do we know that this creature could not have made the footprints?
6. Why is the fact that the footprints are 12 inches long significant to this debate?

7. How are the Laetoli footprints evidence against evolution?

Another major icon of evolution is the so-called vestigial organ.
Vestigial organs are said to be hang-ons from mans evolutionary past that no longer have a
In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed vestigial organs as proof of his doctrine. He
listed wisdom teeth, the appendix, the coccyx (pronounced kock-six) or tailbone, body hair, and
other things.
Robert Wiedersheim, a Darwinist in Germany, greatly extended the list of vestigial organs in his
book The Structure of Man. Wiedersheim added the pineal gland, the pituitary gland, the tonsils,
the thymus, the thyroid, and many others--180 in all. Wiedersheim was a world authority and his
book was very influential, widely quoted in biology textbooks.
The concept of vestigial organs was so popular as an evolutionary icon that Ernst Haeckel,
Charles Darwins apostle in Germany, gave it the name Dysteleology or the science of
rudimentary organs.
The refutation of this evolutionary icon is simple. Today the number of vestigial organs in
humans has been reduced to ZERO.
It has been learned, for example, that the TONSILS are important in the growth of the immune
system. In the 1930s, over half of the children had their tonsils and adenoids removed. Then
medical scientists learned that tonsils are important to young people in helping to establish the
bodys defense capabilities by producing antibodies. Once these defense mechanisms develop,
the tonsils shrink to a smaller size in adults (Alan Gillen, Body by Design, p. 34).
Researchers at Duke University reported in 2007 that the APPENDIX is a safe house for good
bacteria so the intestine can be repopulated after flushing out a pathogen (Purpose of Appendix
Believed Found, CNN.com, Oct. 5, 2007)
The human COCCYX is not any sort of vestigial tail. Instead it serves as a point of attachment
for several important muscles of the pelvic floor (Of Pandas and People, p. 128).
1. What does vestigial organ refer to?
2. What are two examples of supposed vestigial organs that Darwin mentioned?
3. How many vestigial organs did Robert Wiedersheim come up with?

4. What name did Haeckel give to the science of rudimentary organs?

5. How do we know that the evolutionary concept of vestigial organs is wrong?
6. What is the purpose of the tonsils?


Most people living during the past 100 years have seen the horse series, which depicts the
supposed evolution of the horse from a dog-like creature with three toes to the modern onetoed creature that cowboys and Indians ride in western movies. It must be true, because the chart
says so!
The horse series was developed by Othniel Marsh who discovered 30 different kinds of supposed
fossil horses in Wyoming and Nebraska in the 1870s. In 1879, after consultation with Thomas
Huxley, he arranged these in an evolutionary sequence and put them on display at Yale
Universitys Peabody Museum.
The exhibit has been duplicated in countless museums and textbooks.
It is featured prominently in the Field Museum in Chicago. On a visit there in 2010, I saw a
display of fossils ranging from a small dog-like creature to the modern horse. This is
accompanied by the following statement:
... these three horses illustrate a general trend to longer legs with fewer toes. The earliest horses were small
and multi-toed. But as grasslands spread, longer legs with lighter single-toed feet allowed horses to run faster
and travel farther.

The three horses are as follows:

hyracotherium (56 million years ago), which had multiple small hooves
misohippus (33 million years ago), with longer legs and a bigger central toe
pliohippus (15 million years ago), with even longer legs and a bigger toe
The horse series is still promoted by Yales Peabody Museum. On a visit there in 2010, I saw the
large display devoted to this myth. In one section of the display, the heads of the horses are
arranged in six supposed evolutionary steps from small to large: hyracotherium, misohippus,
miohippus, merychippus, pliohippus, equus.
The horse series is an ideal evolutionary propaganda tool. Horses are interesting, and the display
is easy to comprehend and dramatic in its presentation.
1. This is a vain exercise in homology
The only evidence for evolution is the vague similarity of the creatures when arranged in a
certain order. It is impossible to prove scientifically that one fossilized creature descended from

another. To make such a claim is speculation. Remove the evolutionary assumption, and the
evidence disappears. It can as easily be said that each of the fossilized creatures was created by
God and here was no evolutionary attachment. The bones themselves simply dont provide this
2. Evolutionists admit that the horse chart is not accurate.
George Simpson, who was so dogmatic about horse evolution in his 1951 textbook Horses, had
changed his tune by 1953, claiming that generations of students had been misinformed about the
real meaning of the evolution of the horse (The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 259). That
same year, Simpson wrote, The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into
Equuus, so dear to the heart of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature (Life
of the Past, pp. 125, 127).
In 1979, Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, made the
following admission to Luther Sunderland in a taped interview for the New York State Education
I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most
famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the Natural History Museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution
prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I
think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kind of stories themselves
may be aware of the speculative nature of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, weve
got science as truth and weve got a problem (Darwins Enigma, pp. 90, 91; Sunderland was
commissioned by the New York State Education Department to interview influential scientists at five natural
history museums for a revision of the states Regents Biology Syllabus).

In October 1980, the inaccuracy of the horse chart was admitted by the evolutionists who met at
the Chicago Field Museum. In a report on that four-day meeting, Boyce Rensberger said:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from fourtoed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to todays much larger one-toed horse, has
long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear
fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown (Houston
Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1980, sec. 4, p. 15).

That is a bold admission!

3. Two major problems with the horse series are as follows:
First, the various types of horses co-exist in the fossil record.
In one fossil graveyard in northeastern Nebraska they found five species of horses co-existing at
one time and place, including three-toed and one-toed (Bruce MacFadden, Fossil Horses, 1992,
p. 255).


Second, there is no reason to consider the Hyracotherium any type of horse.

The Hyracotherium fossil was discovered by prominent British paleontologist Richard Owen in
1841 and he thought it was a creature similar to the rock badger. This is why he named it
Hyracotherium, which means hyrax-like animal.
It was evolutionist Othniel Marsh in America who changed the Hyracotherium into the Eohippus
or dawn horse, because he and Thomas Huxley, who visited him in 1876, determined that it
was the evolutionary predecessor of the horse. There was no scientific reason to believe that the
Hyracotherium ever evolved into anything else. The decision was based strictly on evolutionary
assumptions and objectives. They were desperate to find some missing links.
The reconstructions of Hyracotherium in textbooks and museums are designed to make the
creature look as horse-like as possible, but this is not science; it is myth-making. Some of the
models even depict the creature galloping or pawing the ground and running in herds without a
shred of substantiating evidence!
In reality, the Hyracotheriums rear legs were much longer than its front legs and it would have
looked and moved nothing like a horse.
4. To arrange horses in an evolutionary order according to size ignores the fact that
modern horses come in a wide variety.
You could as easily arrange living horses in an impressive evolutionary order.
One modern breed of horse in Argentina averages only 43 centimeters (17 inches) in height. Shire horses
weigh up to a ton, while Shetland ponies weigh only 400 pounds. If all three types were to be found fossilized,
they could easily be arranged to claim that they have evolved over millions of years to show gradually
increasing size (David Watson, Myths and Miracles).

The evolutionary horses series is not science; it is myth making.

1. Evolutionary descent cannot be proven from the fossil record. It is impossible to prove that
one type of extinct creature is connected with another through evolution.
2. The various types of horses co-exist in the fossil record. In one fossil graveyard in
northeastern Nebraska they found five species of horses co-existing at one time and place,
including three-toed and one-toed (Bruce MacFadden, Fossil Horses, 1992, p. 255).
3. There is no reason to consider the Hyracotherium any type of horse.



1. What does the horse series depict?
2. Who devised the horse series?
3. Who did this man consult with?
4. Where did the horse series first go on display?
5. What is the first alleged horse?
6. How many evolutionary steps are presented in the Peabody Museums horse series?
7. The horse series is an exercise in ________________.
8. What is the scientific evidence that these creatures are the product of evolutionary descent?
9. What are two major problems with the horse series?
10. What name did Othniel Marsh give to the first horse?
11. How do we know that the Hyracotherium didnt look like a horse?


Another major icon of evolution is the embryo chart.
The alleged fact that the human embryo looks like that of animals was mentioned by Charles
Darwin in On the Origin of Species, as follows:
Thus the embryo comes to be left as a sort of picture, preserved by nature, of the ancient and less modified
condition of each animal (p. 664).
The embryos, also, of distinct animals within the same class are often strikingly similar (p. 728).
Embryology rises greatly in interest, when we thus look at the embryo as a picture, more or less obscured,
of the common parent-form of each great class of animals (p. 735).

The embryo chart was developed by Darwins German disciple Ernst Haeckel. He invented the
law of recapitulation (also called the biogenetic law) which stated that the human embryo
progresses from a single cell to a fish to an amphibian to a reptile to a mammal to an ape to a
Haeckel summarized this law with the saying ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Ontogeny
refers to the growth of the embryo; phylogeny refers to evolutionary history.
Haeckels embryo chart first appeared in print in 1866 in his book Generalle Morphologie der
Organismen. Since then it has been republished in various forms in countless textbooks, journals,
popular reports, and museums, and it is still appearing in textbooks in the 21st century. One
teacher said, I have taught Jr. High Science for over 35 years. Every textbook from every major
publisher I have ever seen has had Haeckels embryos pictured and the text usually claims this as
a proof for evolution (http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered).


The influence of the embryo chart has been incalculable. Carl Werner, M.D., testifies that he was
confronted with Haeckels embryo chart in his first class in medical school in 1977 and it
convinced him that evolution is true.
These drawings were extremely compelling to me, especially the fact that humans had gills and a tail. After
this lecture, I found myself rapidly accepting evolution (Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, p. 2).

The problem is that it is a grand scientific fraud, and it has been known to be a fraud since the
19th century!
1. Haeckel fabricated his embryo chart.
That Haeckel was guilty of fabricating his embryo chart was exposed in his own day.
It was exposed first by Ludwig Rutimeyer, a professor at the University of Basel, who brought
the fabrications to the attention of the university at Jena. Rutimeyer called the drawings a sin
against scientific truthfulness. He showed that Haeckel had used the same woodcut of a dog
embryo three times to depict the supposed wormlike stage of what he called the embryos of a
dog, a chicken, and a tortoise. Haeckel was convicted at a university tribunal and made a
confession of sorts, but even his confession was a lie. He claimed that his draughtsman made the
blunder, not acknowledging that he was the draughtsman (Russell Grigg, Fraud Rediscovered,
Haeckels embryo fraud was also exposed early on by Wilhelm His, Sr., professor of anatomy at
the University of Leipzig. Dr. His demonstrated that Haeckel had doctored his embryo charts to
make them fit his proposition and concluded that anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud had
forfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks of scientific research
workers of any stature (Shawn Boonstra, Out of Thin Air, p. 47).
Haeckel huffed and puffed at his adversaries, but he was guilty as charged. He mislabeled
embryos; he changed the size of embryos; he deleted parts; he added parts; he changed parts. For
example, he took a drawing of a monkey embryo and removed its arms, legs, navel, heart, and
yolk sac to make it look like a fish embryo. He then labeled it Embryo of a Gibbon in the fishstage.
For his embryo of man in the fish-stage, Haeckel either removed or doctored more than half of
the embryos essential organs.
In spite of his deception, Haeckel continued as a professor at Jena for another 30 years and
continued to promote his evolutionary deception far and wide.
In 1915, Haeckels fraud was publicized in the book Haeckels Frauds and Forgeries by Joseph
Assmuth and Ernest Hull, which cited 19 authorities, but this carefully documented work was


largely ignored by Darwinian scientists and educators in their haste to prove evolution and
disprove the Bible.
In the late 1990s, a team led by Michael Richardson, embryologist at St. Georges Hospital
Medical School, London, did extensive research into the embryo to test Haeckels chart.
Richardson gathered an international team of scientists who examined and photographed
embryos of 39 different species at stages comparable to those depicted in Haeckels series.
Richardson concluded that Haeckel was an embryonic liar. In a 1997 interview with Nigel
Hawkes, Richardson said:
THIS IS ONE OF THE WORST CASES OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. Its shocking to find that somebody one
thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry What he [Haeckel] did was to
take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the
same at the same stage of development. They dont These are fakes (Nigel Hawkes interview with
Richardson, The Times, Aug. 11, 1997, p. 14).

A major error of Haeckels embryo chart is the misidentification of gill slits on the
human embryo.

In fact, they are not gill slits at all. They have no respiratory function at any stage. Dr. Alan
Gillen states:
The so-called gill slits are really wrinkles in the throat region. This body tissue becomes the palatine tonsils,
middle ear canal, parathyroid gland, and thymus. ... These folds in the neck region of the mammalian embryo
are not gills in any sense of the word and never have anything to do with breathing. They are merely inward
folds, or wrinkles, in the neck region resulting from the sharply down-turned head and protruding heart of the
developing embryo (Gillen, Body by Design, p. 33).

3. Haeckels myth that the developing human embryo is animal-like has encouraged the
modern abortion industry.
Dr. Henry Morris wrote:
We can justifiably charge this evolutionary nonsense of recapitulation with responsibility for the slaughter of
helpless, pre-natal children--or at least for giving it a pseudo-scientific rationale (The Long War against God,
1989, p. 139).

Haeckel believed that the embryo is still in the evolutionary stage and not fully human. He said
that it is completely devoid of consciousness, is a pure reflex machine, just like a lower
vertebrate (Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 147).
Thus, killing an unborn baby would be no different than killing an animal.
Haeckel taught that even a newborn child has no soul and therefore infanticide cannot rationally
be classed as murder (Haeckel, The Wonders of Life, 1904, p. 21). He not only supported
abortion but infanticide as well. For physically or mentally handicapped infants, Haeckel
recommended a small dose of morphine or cyanide (Weikart, p. 147).


In 1990, the famous astronomer Carl Sagan and his wife, Ann Druyan, argued that abortion is
ethical on the grounds that the fetus is not fully human until the sixth month. Taking Haeckels
recapitulation theory as fact, they claimed that the embryo begins as a kind of parasite and
changes into something like a fish with gill arches and then becomes reptilian and finally
mammalian. By the end of the second month, the fetus is still not quite human (The
Question of Abortion: A Search for the Answers, Parade, April 22, 1990). Later, in his book
Billions and Billions, Sagan denied that he was referring to Haeckels theory of recapitulation,
but his statement was disingenuous. Though Sagan didnt use the term recapitulation, he was
definitely using the concept of recapitulation, that the human embryo goes through apparent
stages of evolutionary development in the womb.
4. The only evidence for evolution in the embryo chart is the assumption of evolution!
The embryo chart is actually a vain exercise in homology. Consider the following statement from
a 2002 biology textbook:
In their early stages of development, chickens, turtles, and rats look similar, providing evidence that they
shared a common ancestry (Prentice Hall Biology, p. 385).

Why is this evidence of a common ancestry? Laying out a series of embryos and saying that
they are similar in appearance is actually zero evidence that the creatures share an evolutionary
descent. As usual, remove the evolutionary assumption and the evidence simply disappears!
5. Haeckels law is still being taught!
In spite of the fact that Haeckel was caught red-handed fabricating the embryo chart and in spite
of the fact that there was never a hint of evidence for the doctrine of recapitulation, the Haeckel
chart was used widely throughout the 20th century and, in fact, is still used today.
Walter Bock of the Department of Biological Sciences of Columbia University said, ... the
biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in
spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars (Science
164:684, 1969).
Child psychologist Benjamin Spock promoted Haeckels doctrine of recapitulation in his popular
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... (Baby and Child Care, 1957,
p. 223).

No wonder Spock had no clue about how to raise a child, when he thought that the child is an
evolved fish!


Biology textbooks continue to use the embryo chart as a major evidence for evolution. In some
cases, they repeat Haeckels doctrine of recapitulation, but it is more common for the embryo
chart to be used today as an example of homology.
Biology: The Dynamics of Life by Merrill Publishing (1991) goes full bore for the doctrine of
The fossil record indicates that aquatic, gill-breathing vertebrates preceded air-breathing land forms, and
comparisons of embryos of different classes of vertebrates support this view of evolutionary change. An
embryo is an organism in its earliest stages of development. In the early stages of embryo development of
reptiles, birds, and mammals, a tail and gill slits can be observed. As you know, fish use gills to breathe under
water. Fish embryos retain these structures; reptile, bird, and mammal embryos lose them as their
development continues. In the human embryo, a tail is visible up to the sixth week of development. In humans,
the tail disappears, but in fish, reptiles, and birds the tail is retained into maturity (Biology: The Dynamics of
Life, p. 202).

The Prentice Hall Biology textbook of 2002, edited by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine, uses
the embryo chart as homology, as we have seen.
Modern Biology by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (1999) features the chart on page 291 with this
accompanying text: Although modern embryologists have discovered that Haeckel exaggerated
some features in his drawings, it is true that early embryos of many different vertebrate species
look remarkably similar.
Observe how casually this scientific textbook whitewashes Haeckels blatant deception!
While some evolutionists are using modified editions of Haeckels embryo chart, others have
removed his name and attributed the chart to Karl Ernst von Baer, the discoverer of the female
egg cell. This is a great error, because von Baer taught against Darwinian evolution as well as
against Haeckels doctrine of recapitulation!
This error of attributing embryonic recapitulation to von Baer actually started with Charles
Darwin, who quoted him in On the Origin of Species.
Darwin cited von Baer as the source of his embryological evidence, but at the crucial point Darwin distorted
that evidence to make it fit his theory. Von Baer lived long enough to object to Darwins misuse of his
observations, and he was a strong critic of Darwinian evolution until his death in 1876 (Jonathan Wells,
Icons of Evolution, p. 86).

In the 2006 documentary Flock of Dodos, Randy Olson claimed that Jonathan Wells lied in
saying that Haeckels embryo chart has appeared in many modern textbooks. The documentary
shows someone flipping through a textbook unable to find the diagrams and with Olson
eventually finding only a 1914 textbook containing the embryo chart.
The clear message communicated was that Wells and other ID proponents were perpetrating a hoax. But if
anyone was perpetrating a hoax, it was Olson. ... In 2001, New York Times science reporter James Glanz
stated that Haeckels drawings were reproduced in textbook after textbook for more than a century,


including a textbook coauthored by Bruce Alberts, then-head of the National Academy of Sciences, and
Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson (John West, Darwin Day in America, p. 266).

While some evolutionists have downplayed the significance of the Haeckel drawings, Stephen
Jay Gould, one of the most influential evolutionists of this generation, admitted that it was
shameful that the drawings were perpetuated throughout the 20th century:
But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless
recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of
modern textbooks!" (Abscheulich! Natural History, March 2000, pp. 42, 4445).

Science is self-correcting, we are told. But deceptive evolutionary icons such as the embryo
chart, the horse series, and the peppered moth have continued to be used decade after decade
even though they have been either totally debunked or seriously questioned, and rarely are
readers/students informed of the heavy cloud of doubt that hangs over them.
Great spiritual and moral damage can be done by the perpetuation of myths. Not only did
Haeckels false doctrine provide phony evidence for evolution, it gave ammunition for the
murder of unborn babies and provided intellectual fodder for the eugenics movement and the
Nazi death machine.
The scientific tradition established by the work of Haeckel and his followers enabled the Nazi doctors to erase
the healing/killing boundary by enforcing the grandiose Volkish mission for the healing of the German race by
killing off the lower races. It was the stamp of scientific legitimacy afforded by academia that enabled the
great evils to come (Phil Orenstein, July 2006, www.discoverthenetworks.org).

(For more on this see the chapter Darwins Social Influence in Seeing the Non-Existent:
Evolutions Myths and Hoaxes, which is available in print and eBook formats from Way of Life
1. Haeckels embryo chart has been exposed as fraudulent from the beginning.
2. There is no evidence for the doctrine of recapitulation, that the embryo goes through any sort
of evolutionary stages. It is pure myth.
3. The human embryo never has gill slits.
4. The myth of recapitulation has encouraged the modern abortion industry.
1. Darwin said the embryo is a ______________ ... of the common parent-form of each great
class of animals.

2. What Darwin disciple developed the law of recapitulation?

3. What does this law teach?
4. What is ontogeny?
5. What is phylogeny?
6. What effect has the embryo chart had on many people such as Dr. Carl Werner?
7. Haeckel was guilty of ______________ his embryo chart.
8. What two professors in that day exposed Haeckels deception?
9. What embryologist exposed Haeckel in the 1990s?
10. This scientist called Haeckel an embryonic _________.
11. He also said it is one of the worst cases of scientific __________.
12. What are the supposed gill slits in the human embryo?
13. How has the evolutionary myth of recapitulation encouraged the modern abortion industry?
14. What did Haeckel recommend for physically or mentally handicapped infants?
15. What famous astronomer argued for abortion on the grounds of Haeckels theory? This
scientist called the human embryo a kind of ____________.
16. What is the only evidence for evolution in the embryo chart?
17. What famous child psychologist promoted Haeckels doctrine?
18. What was Karl Ernst von Baers position in regard to Darwinian evolution?
19. Stephen Jay Gould said it is right to be both _____________ and _____________ by the
century of ___________ recycling of the embryo chart.


In 1953, Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago performed a scientific experiment that has
become a major icon of evolution. It is widely used as evidence for the proposition that life can
generate from chemicals.
Miller was a graduate student in the laboratory of Harold Urey at the University of Chicago
(winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1934), and their experiments were an attempt to
validate an idea proposed by Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane, Marxists who were
attempting to disprove creationism. They theorized that the original atmosphere of the earth
allowed the formation of organic compounds which produced a prebiotic soup (before
biological life) or primordial soup that became the birthplace of self-assembling life. (To
believe in self-assembling life requires far more faith than belief in an Almighty Creator.)
Oparin and Haldane theorized that the early earth had an atmosphere composed primarily of
methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and water vapor, with little or no free oxygen. As we will see, the
lack of oxygen was a necessary ingredient in their proposition.
They did not propose these compositions because they had scientific evidence that such an
atmosphere actually existed at any point of earths history, but because this type of atmosphere
was believed by them to provide the best chance for the evolution of life.


Urey had concluded that the Oparin-Haldane theory was correct, and Miller joined him in
attempting to demonstrate that the building blocks of life could originate in such an
The Miller-Urey experiment consisted of the creation of a gaseous environment to simulate the
alleged atmosphere of the early earth with the insertion of an electric discharge to simulate
Miller and Urey placed a mixture of gases into a flask containing water. These gases were in the proportions
believed present in the primitive atmosphere of Earth. The flask was subjected to electrical sparks that
simulated lightning. Miller and Urey also repeatedly heated and cooled the mixture, simulating changes in
daily temperatures (Merrill Biology: The Dynamics of Life, 1991).

In spite of the nebulous and highly questionable character of Millers experiment, the claim was
made by evolutionists that the mystery of lifes origin had been solved.
The New Scientist magazine ridiculously proclaimed, In the beginning ... life assembled
itself (S. Fox, New Scientist, Feb. 27, 1969).
The Miller experiment continues to be referenced in textbooks and used as evidence for
evolution. It is typical to leave the impression with readers that the experiment was successful.
Dr. Gary Parker, a geneticist who once used the Miller experiment as an icon for evolution in his
science classes before he rejected the doctrine of evolution, says that Miller (1) used the wrong
materials, (2) established the wrong conditions, and (3) got the wrong results. Other than that,
Dr. Parker quips, it was a brilliant experiment!
1. The Miller experiment is based on evolutionary assumptions.
The Miller experiment assumes a universe and an earth and a primordial soup in which life could
evolve. But science has not proven that the universe and the earth could have happened by
chance naturalistic means so that it could be the birthplace of evolutionary life. There are
hypotheses, such as the big bang and multi-universes, but these are not scientific facts. The
Miller experiment is meaningless apart from evolutionary assumptions.
There is no scientific evidence for the pre-biotic soup doctrine of evolution. It is, in fact, a
grand myth based on evolutionary assumptions and wishful thinking:
Considering the way the pre-biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an
already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive
evidence for its existence (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Denton has a Ph.D. in biochemistry
from Kings College London).


2. Miller used the wrong materials.

Since Miller conducted his experiment, scientists have determined that the atmosphere of a
supposed ancient earth would not have been composed of the elements used in the experiment.
Dr. Jonathan Wells says, For more than a decade most geochemists have been convinced that
the experiment failed to simulate conditions on the early Earth, and thus has little or nothing to
do with the origin of life (Icons of Evolution, p. 11).
Most significantly, it has been demonstrated that oxygen has always been present in large
Canadian geologists Erich Dimroth and Michael Kimberly wrote in 1979 that they saw no evidence in the
sedimentary distribution of iron that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the
span of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks. ... [In 1982] British geologists
Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham wrote that the evidence showed from the time of the earliest dated
rocks at 3.7 billion years ago, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere. ... In fact, evidence for primitive
oxygen continues to mount: Smithsonian Institution paleobiologist Kenneth Towe (now emeritus) reviewed the
evidence in 1996, and concluded that the early Earth very likely had an atmosphere that contained free
oxygen. ... Although geochemists were sharply divided on the oxygen issue, they soon reached a nearconsensus that the primitive atmosphere was nothing like the one Miller used (Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp.
16, 18, 19).

And the presence of oxygen would preclude organic synthesis.

An electric spark in a closed container of swamp gas (methane) might produce some interesting organic
molecules, but if even a little oxygen is present the spark will cause an explosion. Just as a closed container
excludes oxygen and prevents swamp gas from exploding, so compartments in living cells exclude oxygen
from the processes of organic synthesis. ... Since free oxygen can destroy many organic molecules, chemists
often must remove oxygen and use closed containers when they synthesize and store organic chemicals in
the laboratory. But before the origin of life, when there were neither chemists nor laboratories, the chemical
building blocks of life could have formed only in a natural environment lacking oxygen (Wells, pp. 12, 13).
Without this assumption [that a primeval atmosphere had an absence of oxygen], the whole evolutionary
scenario fails, for even the simple organic compounds--the smallest bricks of living material--would have
crumbled as soon as they formed if oxygen were present (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 138;
Pitman taught biology at Cambridge).

3. The Miller experiment added unnatural elements.

The conditions of the experiment were not realistic.
Under normal conditions hydrogen escapes into space, but it had no way to escape in the Miller
Further, under normal conditions any soluble organic products that happened to be formed would
be quickly broken down, but Miller precluded this by building a trap in his apparatus to prevent
such an occurrence.
The spark of electricity used by Miller to create the amino acids would have destroyed them under real
conditions. The same spark that puts amino acids together also tears them apart and its much better at
destroying them than making them. Gary Parker says, Miller knew this, so he circulated the gases, trapped


out the molecules he wanted using a well-known biochemist trick. But that would be cheating, because you
are supposed to say that this is how life arose before there was any intelligent design. So its the wrong
conditions (A Question of Origins, DVD, Eternal Productions).

As Michael Pitman, biology teacher at Cambridge, observes:

As water finds its own level, the natural tendency is towards chemical equilibrium; earths tendency is not to
produce proteins, DNA and other complex molecules, but to destroy them (Adam and Evolution, p. 52).

4. The Miller experiment got the wrong results.

Even if the Miller experiment had produced proteins (which it did not), it would have fallen far
short of its objective, which was to prove that life could arise from chemicals.
Nothing that has been produced in these experiments was living or self-replicating. Proteins do
not exist and proliferate on their own. They operate as part of the mechanism of the living cell.
The main product of the Miller experience, in fact, was tar!
What Miller actually produced was a poisonous brew that would destroy any hope for the chemical evolution
of life (A Question of Origins).
The theistic evolutionary paleontologist Simon Conway Morris called the product of typical origin-of-life
experiments muck, goo and gunk, echoing chemical evolutionist Graham Cairns-Smiths term grossly
contaminated gunks (Jonathan Sarfati, By Design, p. 170).

The trace amounts of amino acids that were produced were both left-handed and right-handed.
But only the left-handed amino acids make up the proteins of life, and just one right-handed
molecule prevents the creation of proteins.
Stephen Grocott, Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Western Australia
and a leading research scientist in industrial chemistry, says:
Even if there were some source of optical activity in a primordial soup, it would quickly disappear anyway.
The recent idea of polarized light from a nearby galaxy doesnt help. They talk of it possibly causing a slight
imbalance, say 51 percent right-handed and 49 percent left-handed. But in time that will decay anyway, and
you need 100 percent pure, not just a slight increase (The Creation Couple, The Genesis Files, edited by
Carl Wieland, p. 68).
Suppose that you could go back in your time machine to a time when, according to evolutionists, a lifeless
world existed. Assume that you have taken with you an ocean full of organic precursors of life. What would
happen to them? They would all decompose to simpler and simpler molecules and mostly would end up as
lifeless common inorganic substances. Sterilize a frog and put it in a sterile blender--buzzzzzz. Seal up
the mixture in a sterile container and leave it as long as you want. You wont get life, despite the fact
that you started with the best possible mixture of so-called precursors to life. Repeat the experiment a million
times--in the sun, in the dark; with oxygen, without; with clay, without; with UV, without. It wont make any
difference. Thermodynamics clearly states that the mixture will decompose to si