Science and the Exodus

The Bible describes many miraculous events. People with a background in modern science naturally have questions and sometimes doubts about miracles. I also did when I was a young Christian. As a physics major in college, who had just become a Christian, I had trouble believing in miracles. The Exodus of the Hebrews (or Israelites) out of Egypt is a dramatic account of great events that shaped the heritage of the Jewish people. It also has important lessons about what the God of the Bible is like. I accept the Biblical accounts about Moses, the Exodus from Egypt, and the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Today this entire story is doubted completely by many scholars. In today’s way of thinking, there is often a desire to make the Biblical stories “more palatable” or easier to understand in terms of science. We need to be careful about trying to explain miraculous events with science. There is a danger we may misinterpret or confuse the message of Scripture by bringing in science when it may not be appropriate. I think science can have relevance to understanding what the Bible describes about nature sometimes, but science cannot tell us how to interpret Scripture. Scripture always has more authority and certainty than science.

Colin Humphreys is a Cambridge University Professor who has written a book in which he tries to explain the Biblical events of the Exodus in terms of science. He published a book in 2011 called “The Mystery of the Last Supper,” which I think is quite good. My article on the date of the crucifixion is largely based on that book. Since I liked that book, I decided to read his other book on the Exodus. It is entitled, “The Miracles of Exodus,” published in 2003. I read the Kindle eBook.

There is a lot in Humphrey’s book and I will only explain his ideas in a brief way. This is somewhat unfair because he does put significant research and time into the book, obviously. I can accept the God of the Bible doing miracles because of who the God of the Bible is. If He created the universe from nothing, why should we have a problem in principle with miracles? Science cannot disprove some event in the past that the Bible presents as a miracle. God is the author of physical laws that we study in science and so God can bypass or supercede natural laws to do a miracle, if that is his purpose. So on one hand it is important not to doubt that God can do miracles, but on the other hand, it is also true that Christians can misunderstand miracles or not consider natural phenomena that may have been involved in what happened. There is always a risk that in trying to figure out what happened we will make a mistake because we simply weren’t there in the past.

In a book called The Biblical Basis for Modern Science the late Henry Morris distinguished between what he called Grade A miracles and Grade B miracles. A Grade A miracle is something that could never happen by natural laws. A Grade B miracle is something that happens by natural processes, but the miracle is in the timing or the situation in which it happens. The Bible has examples of both these types of miracles. God can use either type for his purpose. It may not particularly matter much whether a miracle in the Bible is a Grade A miracle or a Grade B miracle, but the important thing in understanding the Bible is to be true to what it says. Some things about the Exodus have generally been understood as Grade A miracles, such as the crossing of the Red Sea. Humphrey’s treats it more as a Grade B miracle, caused by a powerful storm that happened just at the right time and at the right place where the Israelites needed it to happen. I think sometimes Humphrey’s errs too far on the side of “reducing the miracle” you might say. But if you reduce a miracle in the Bible from the way it is described in the text, it tends to not make sense of the story any more. This is sometimes a problem for Humphreys, but there are some worthwhile points he makes as well.

Here’s some of Humphreys ideas on the Exodus events:

1) Humphreys uses a date of the Exodus of 1326 B.C. The date of the Exodus is a controversial thing in the academic world but I think this date is clearly wrong. There is evidence of the Israelites in Egypt and later of them in Canaan. There is good evidence that dates the fall of the city of Jericho, the first city conquered by the Israelites also. So the evidence is that the Exodus was at about 1400 B.C. Humphreys approach to dating the Exodus is a major weakness of the book but much of the rest of the book does not really stand or fall too much on the date. So I would not throw out everything else in the book solely because of the date problem.

2) Humphreys tries to explain the plagues of Egypt with science. Overall I don’t think this is plausible. However, there are some aspects that seem plausible. He tries to develop an approach that says once the first plague happens, that sets off a chain of natural causes that leads to what follows. I don’t think it all works, but some of it may. One of the important things to note here is that the Egyptian people were thoroughly convinced that the plagues were well beyond anything they had ever experienced and that they were miraculously caused by the God of the Hebrews. The Egyptians had seen some somewhat similar events on lesser scales. They knew the difference between the usual seasonal changes and other occasional events, and something miraculous. How do we know this about the Egyptians? Because they willingly gave the Jews so many valuables and supplies upon leaving. They were happy for the Jews to go, though Pharaoh certainly wasn’t.


I think his explanation of the first plague is very unrealistic. Humphreys argues that there was an algal bloom at the mouth of the Nile. It is true that there is a kind of algae that is red and is toxic to fish. This is known to happen in various places around the world. It tends to happen in an area where there is salty sea water mixing with fresh water. An algal bloom can make the water look red. But the Exodus account (Ex. 7:14-25) of the first plague says there was blood in place of water all over Egypt, including in jars! To believe that a natural process could explain this you have to ignore details of what the Bible says, or take it as a sort of embellished account that doesn’t really mean what it says. But it is not enough to propose something similar to what the Bible describes. You have to be true to Scripture & interpret it carefully. An algal bloom would not be likely to affect all Egyptians all over Egypt and it would not be found in containers. An algal bloom would have had to work its way upstream against the current also, so certainly it would not affect all of Egypt. Humphreys presents it as essentially a somewhat more intense version of things that occasionally happened seasonally. I don’t buy this

On the other hand, there may be some validity to the reasoning Humphreys uses to argue that one plague could set off effects that are like the next plague. At least maybe in some cases. As an example, Humphreys has an explanation for the Third & Fourth plagues that may be possible. The fish had died, and then there were all the frogs that died. This could naturally lead to many insects. Humphreys also identifies two species of insect that could be the gnats and flies mentioned in Exodus. These are species known to exist in or near Egypt. So this may be possible, but I don’t know if the intensity of the Third and Fourth plagues are explained by this or not.

3) Humphreys suggests the number of people leaving Egypt was less than what has generally been believed by Christians. He estimates the total number of Israelites leaving Egypt as about 20,000. He suggests this includes something over 5,000 men. This is a controversy about interpreting numbers in the Hebrew. I cannot really speak to the Hebrew. It has to do with interpreting an eleph in the Hebrew. This represents a number and Bible translators have normally taken it to represent a number of one thousand. Humphreys argues it could represent a smaller group of soldiers, which he suggests to be 10 or 20. This drastically reduces the number of people. Why do this? Because several things are “easier to explain” this way. The people need less food and water, they need less space when they camp, etc. Humphreys is not the only scholar to suggest this, but the total number of men in common English Bibles in Numbers 1:46 is always 603,550. This is the men of age that could fight in the army, in a census taken after the Israelites made it to Canaan. This would imply possibly 2 million people, or even more considering family sizes. I will not argue this point too much because I’m told it is difficult to interpret numbers in the Hebrew. But, one problem with Humphreys line of thinking here is to look at Numbers 3:43. This verse indicates there were 22,273 firstborn males in Israel. This seems impossible to reconcile with Humphreys argument, particularly because it’s not talking about the army in 3:43. (There is a good discussion of this issue in the Archeological Study Bible in Numbers chapter 1 that I’d recommend.) At any rate the number of Israelites really does make a difference in understanding various details. I think we have to come back to God doing many miracles to get the Israelites through the desert and into Canaan.

4) Humphreys suggests possibilities that he says could explain the burning bush on Mt. Sinai. He takes the view that Mt. Sinai was an active volcano. He suggests that it’s possible there was a vent of natural gas out of a fissure near a bush. If the gas started burning and it was near the bush but not right under it, it’s possible the bush might look like it was burning when it wasn’t. It is possible a fissure at a volcano could emit gas that could catch fire. Such things have been observed. Humphreys however doesn’t seem to address in the book what happened when Moses got there to see the bush. If it were a gas vent, maybe Moses would have simply said “Oh is that all” and left! This seems too contrived to me, but the important question to me here is what does Humphreys think about Moses meeting with God at the bush? That was no gas vent.

5) Humphreys departs from a common “traditional view” from many scholars that says Mt. Sinai was a mountain called Jebel Musa in the Sinai Peninsula (West of the Gulf of Aqaba). Instead he puts it at a mountain in Arabia called Hala-l-Bedr, or just Mt. Bedr. Mt. Bedr is Southeast of the Southern end of Aqaba. He also believes Sinai (or Mt. Horeb) was an active volcano. I agree with Humphreys that most Bible maps are wrong to show Mt. Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula. I agree it must be in Arabia. But there are at least a couple of possible locations there as well. So I think Humphreys could be correct about Mt. Sinai but I don’t consider it certain. I won’t go into all that’s involved with this question. There’s a lot of geographical, Biblical, and historical detective work involved. This is one of the stronger aspects of Humphreys book I’d say, though going through all the geographical details is a bit tedious. Regarding Mt. Sinai being a volcano. I don’t think this is certain but it is certainly possible. The description of the mountain when Moses went up to meet with God sure sounds like a description of a volcano. But that doesn’t mean it has to be so. Humphreys uses geological data to narrow down to Mt. Bedr because it is known to be an active volcano.


Humphreys also suggests that the volcanically active Mt. Sinai was actually the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire seen by the Israelites. It was a clear landmark and the heat from a volcano can sometimes make a light at night. Since it was visible over the course of their trip it was what guided them. However, this cannot explain everything about how the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire guided the Hebrews. In Exodus 33:16 Moses describes God going with them in their travels. This included the Pillar of cloud traveling with the Hebrews because Numbers 14:14 says that the gentile people around the Israelites heard of this. The gentile people described it as “your cloud stays over them.” So, it was not the Hebrews moving to the cloud (and fire). It was the cloud moving with the Hebrews, and the gentile people of the area understood what this meant.

6) Then there is the crossing of the Red Sea. Humphreys explanation of this is very different from the scene from the famous Cecil B. DeMille movie, The Ten Commandments. He proposes that there was a powerful storm with 80-mph hurricane force winds. The winds pushed the waters of the Gulf of Aqaba back and the Jews walked across exposed land. There is a major controversy dealt with in the book a little, about what body of water it was that they crossed. I think Humphreys actually is correct that it was the Gulf of Aqaba. That is a significant story in itself and a controversy among scholars. But I think Humphreys is wrong about the location at Aqaba because of some evidence not in his book. He thinks the crossing point at Aqaba was near the Northern tip, where the water was not too deep. If the water isn’t very deep it won’t take out the Egyptian army. So I think Humphreys scenario would not kill the Egyptians very effectively. Furthermore, Humphreys seems to ignore the fact that it would be pretty hard for thousands of people to cross Aqaba under 80 mph winds. The Exodus description (see Ex. 14:22,29) twice clearly states that there was a “wall of water on their right and on their left.” Humphreys tries to relate his ideas to this but it I’m afraid it just doesn’t cut it. Humphrey’s proposal on the sea crossing just does not fit the Bible’s description of what happened. But he does have some worthwhile discussion of the question of whether the Bible means Red Sea or Reed Sea. He actually found evidence of fresh water reeds near the tip of Aqaba. This means it is possible in the past people might have called Aqaba the Reed Sea. I’m not certain on the Red Sea/Reed Sea question. But I think there is another location along the Gulf of Aqaba where the crossing could have taken place (known as Nuweiba, see below). It is deep water, the sea floor would be smooth to travel on foot, there is a geological structure there that would be convenient for the crossing, and there is evidence of Egyptian chariot wheels having been on the sea floor, from coral formations. This may not be conclusive but it is pretty impressive. There is a video about it from Questar called “The Exodus Revealed.” I think the wind that blew all night was probably mostly for the purpose of drying the sea bottom so the Israelites could walk across it easier.

The crossing of the Red Sea was a great miracle. The fact that science cannot fully explain it is not a problem. Rather it is something that points us to the greatness of God. There were many miracles God did for the ancient Israelites to give them a good land. But because they were ultimately not faithful they eventually lost the land. It all happened as God warned them in advance, and it is a lesson to us to believe God.

Possible Exodus Route

    Addition from June 2, 2013

The map above has Mt. Sinai at a mountain called Jebel el Lawz.  Humphreys argues for a different site farther South.  Jebel el Lawz is not an active volcano, Mt. Bedr, the site according to Colin Humphreys, is an active volcano.

The place I referred to above is roughly in the middle of the gulf of Aqaba. There is a narrow pass through mountains that leads up to a wide beach. This beach marks an underwater “bridge” structure that goes across Aqaba. Aqaba is very deep, several hundred meters at least. But across from this beach it is less deep. It makes a smooth surface on the bottom that could be walked across if the water were not there. Coral formations that are evidence of wheels like Egyptian chariot wheels have been found along the bottom. Corals make right angles and are formed in circular wheel-like shapes. Also one metal wheel part was found along the bottom. Looks very promising for the Exodus crossing site.



Posted in Bible Related | 1 Comment

Apologetics Good and Bad

April 2013 seems to have been a big month for Christian Apologetics in the Dallas area. On April 5-6 was a conference on the question of was there a historical Adam, organized by the International Society for Christian Apologetics. I was not familiar with this organization but the conference was great! Not that big in attendance. A significant thing about it was that the speakers were people from different backgrounds and organizations. For instance, the Institute for Creation Research was there. But so was Dr. Rana from Reasons to Believe, the ministry of Hugh Ross. Norman Geisler was also one of the speakers, as well as Walter Kaiser, well known for his expertise on the Old Testament. Then April 12-13 was the Apologia Conference, which was on the theme, “Skeptics and the Savior: Did the Word Really Become Flesh?” I attended both of these conferences. Another conference happened that I did not attend, so I won’t comment. It was at Bent Tree Bible Fellowship church I believe.

These conferences were very informative. After these conferences I ran across a website with an interesting article called “8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed.” This sounds good from the title but it’s misleading and incorrect in some of it’s information. The conferences also brought up some things that raise questions I feel I need to know more about. For instance, I found out from a book on inerrancy that Norman Geisler has criticized Darrel Bock on inerrancy and the date of the writing of New Testament books. I have a lot of respect for both Geisler and Bock, so I am a not sure what to make of this. But there are sometimes clearly wrong apologetic arguments. As Christians this day and age we need to be aware of various sources and learn what some of the best sources of information are on various issues.

On the first conference about a historical Adam. I think the highlights to me were Norman Geisler and Walter Kaiser. They both made strong arguments for a historical Adam. Dr. Kaiser brought up Acts 17, where Paul was speaking in Athens and said that “from one man” God made all nations of men. Kaiser pointed out this does not seem consistent with the new ideas on the evolution of man from a population of several thousand individuals. Geisler listed a long list of Biblical reasons to believe in a literal Adam. He also pointed out there was an extremely ancient seal that depicts the story of Adam and Eve from Genesis. The seal is estimated to be from 3500 B.C. That’s pretty old (the date may be a bit inflated in fact). There are also legends of first man and woman stories. Though they are different from the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, they have a number of aspects very close to it. Christianity does not hang together logically in explaining mankind’s sin problem without a literal Adam and Eve. Also, evolution can never agree with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve’s miraculous origin. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Fazale Rana, a life scientist from Reasons to Believe pointed out he believed Adam was miraculously created from dust. He gave some interesting biochemical evidence for the uniqueness of humans as separate from apes. I do not usually agree with Hugh Ross but there were some good talks by other scientists from Ross’ organization at the conference. The final talk was from Mary Jo Sharp, a woman who speaks on apologetics. I was impressed by her story and the unique approach she has. She reaches people with apologetics that include the young and women. She made some wonderful points connecting personal struggles in people’s lives to apologetics issues. Personal struggles can lead people to ask “why believe” questions. So apologetics can have a lot of personal relevance. It is not just an intellectual exercise.

The Apologia conference was more centered around the New Testament and various ideas from skeptics and scholars who raise issues about where the ideas of Jesus as Messiah came from, the alleged problem of oral transmission of the gospels, and other issues. Some have argued that the Apostles and early Christians essentially added the concepts about Jesus being a returning King in the future and his deity, that these were not actually from Jesus’ ministry. There are a number of scholars who question the gospels but accept more the New Testament writings of the Apostle Paul. But there are scrolls of Jewish commentaries from around 100 B.C. that sound just like the gospels in telling about the Messiah and Melchizedeck. They argue that Melchizedek is divine and if you put the pieces together it clearly points to Jesus. But these writings were from Qumran and scholars say the New Testament writers would not have known about them. They show that the Messianic ideas were not really unheard of and did not come about as late embellishments of the New Testament.

I want to briefly get back to the web article I found, “8 Reasons Jesus Definitely Existed.” The first screen says that Paul’s New Testament books predate the writing of the four gospels by 50 years. This is way off. Some of Paul’s books were earlier but it was only around 10 years, maybe less. The later dates are often suggested by scholars who are trying to chip away at the inerrancy of the New Testament and lead people to question the gospels especially. The second screen in the article makes a statement that the gospels “kinda don’t agree on anything.” It also challenges historical accuracy of certain things in the gospels. This is off also. There are some mysteries about differences between the gospels. However, I do not think there are real contradictions between the gospels, just differences in how they are written. Over time there’s usually more and more confirmations of Scripture from historical evidence. I wrote an article on the historicity of the New Testament CLICK TO GOTO. The 8 Reasons article is really not very clever at all, but seems to show ignorance of basics from the gospels. It confuses Bethehem and Nazareth regarding where Jesus was from. Bethehem was where Jesus was born, not the place where his family raised him. There is some information in the 8 Reasons article that is probably ok, so it is not all so bad as the above. But it goes to show Christians need to keep their brain in gear even as they learn about apologetics. Some apologetic arguments are better than others.

Posted in Other Apologetics or History | Leave a comment

Jesus, Who Are You?

This passage (John 8:12-59) is one of my favorites about Jesus. If you haven’t read it lately, I’d recommend it. It has Jesus speaking at length to the Pharisees about who he is. You can’t say Jesus did not try to make them understand. I think Jesus’ deity is clear from this passage, especially taken together with the miracles he did. The Pharisees seemed to be mystified about who Jesus was. They just couldn’t understand what he was saying about himself. It brings up something it took me a long time to realize about people. As a former teacher this seems like a really important thing about human nature that you are not taught in education courses. One of the reasons people may not understand something is simply that they don’t believe it, because they don’t want to believe it. Or they may not believe the person who says it. Not believing the truth blocks the understanding. Or perhaps you could say that the rejection of the truth in the will can block the mind. This is especially true in spiritual things.

Jesus was not speaking of himself and God the way prophets of the past had. He was claiming more about himself. The Old Testament prophets might have said something like “God is the light of the world” or maybe “Israel is the light of the world.” But Jesus said HE was the light of the world. No Old Testament prophet would have dared say “I am the light of the world.” The Pharisees criticized Jesus for acting like his own witness (see vv 14-18). So they were treating him like he was on trial and that his testimony would not be admissible evidence because it required someone else speaking for him. Jesus, being God and being sinless, could not call any other human being to be his defense. No other human being was worthy to be a witness for him really. So he called God the Father as his witness. He also pointed out that even if he did speak for himself and judge, it would be right. Jesus was without sin, after all. So who was qualified to accuse him? No one.

Jesus then points out how lost and confused the Pharisees really were. They did not comprehend their own spiritual condition. They seemed unable to face their own sin problem. The first way Jesus tried to communicate their lostness was in speaking about God as his Father. Jesus emphasized that the Pharisees did not know his Father. They thought they did, they knew something of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth I suspect. They didn’t understand he was speaking of God as his Father. Then he told them that he would go away and that where he was going, they could not come. Jesus spoke plainly to them that if they did not believe in who he was, they would die in their sin (v 24). This is the same quandry people are in today. They don’t realize that their eternal destiny depends on who they believe Jesus is. I think Jesus, without saying it explicitly, was clearly implying that he was the Messiah that the Jews hoped for. But the Jewish religious leaders generally wouldn’t consider this. There are times when people who do not believe the truth actually do know it inside but they will not admit it or accept it. I suspect that is what Jesus referred to regarding his death, when he said that “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me (ESV).” Saying “lifted up” is likely a reference to crucifixion. But people are responsible for what they are able to know about God. Knowledge of God comes with responsibility, even if you reject it.

Then Jesus said the most wonderful thing that is a great encouragement to Christians! “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:31-32, ESV).” But his audience here was apparently primarily the Pharisees. The Pharisees had great knowledge of God’s word. Some of them may have been able to recite it at length. But that was not enough because they did not really accept and believe it. They did not really trust in the truth of God’s word, though they knew it. Their hearts and motives were not right and they had not really faced their own sin problem. They had not made it personal. The Pharisees failure to understand their sin problem is shown by their response to this statement from Jesus. They said (v 33) “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?” Then Jesus spelled out the sin problem everyone has so even the Pharisees should be able to understand. He told them “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” Then he essentially told them He was able to change them from being a slave to being like a son in the Father’s house. The Son could set the slave free. That is what Jesus does for us.

Then Jesus goes on to tear down the thing they were trusting in to be right with God. They were children of Abraham. They were biological descendents of Abraham, but that was not enough. Jesus confronted them with their desire to kill him and pointed out that Abraham would not have done that. So even on the level of being Abraham’s “children” they fell short because they were guilty of something Abraham would not have done. At this point the Pharisees attempt to “escalate” the argument by attacking Jesus’ birth and parentage. This would be a scandalous thing in Jewish society to bring up. They claimed he was born of sexual immorality, probably assuming Mary was raped by a Roman soldier or something. They then go farther and claim God as their father. Jesus then points out that if God were their father they would love Him also, instead of wanting to kill him. Their hatred of Jesus speaks volumes. Jesus also escalates in response to them by saying that the Pharisees were of the devil and they were trying to do the will of the devil. Jesus goes on to say they were not of God. So they accused him of being demon possessed (a preposterous claim to make about Jesus). Then Jesus goes on to talk about Abraham being glad to see the day Jesus’ came. This reflects knowledge of the spirit realm apparently, something no one else could claim. Then Jesus makes the statement that made the Pharisees want to stone him, he said “Truly, Truly, before Abraham was, I am (v 58).” This statement implies Jesus existed before he was born as a baby, in eternity past. Furthermore, in this statement he uses the name God told Moses to refer to him with in speaking to the Israelites in Egypt, “I AM.” So in this Jesus is implying he is equal with God. Thus the Jewish leaders thought him guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death.

Jesus’ life and statements about himself do not make sense unless he was both fully God and fully man. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, you have to decide is Jesus a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He didn’t act like a liar and he was too good and sensible to be a lunatic. I say he was and is Lord.

Posted in Bible Related | Leave a comment

Adam and Eve

Recently a movement in some Christian circles is saying that the Bible is not literally true regarding Adam and Eve. People are doubting 1) that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, 2) that the Bible is literally accurate in what it says about Adam and Eve, and 3) that the whole human race descended from one couple. So there are various “alternatives” to believing Genesis that have been put forward.

One way is to take the early chapters of Genesis as mythological or allegorical. This is a very convenient copout because it means you can ignore the details of the text and take the meaning to be whatever symbolic concept seems convenient. From this kind of approach, different people may get different applications from the text and you would not expect there to be complete agreement between various Scripture passages about Adam and Eve, because none of them are taken as historical anyway. Indeed this is sometimes how scholars approach many things in the Old Testament since they have trouble believing the miracles and they question the historicity of much of the Old Testament. I think this whole approach is a serious mistake and that it mishandles God’s word. God revealed Truth to mankind using language and so we can do better than this sloppy approach.

The new challenge to believing in a real Adam and Eve comes from evolutionary genetics research. The idea goes something like this. Modern homo sapiens, according to evolution, did not all arrive at all our modern characteristics from one couple. It took a sizable population of maybe at least 10,000 so that some characteristics came from some and some from others. The evolutionists are hoping in chance, numbers, and time to provide the right combination of traits in our genome to make ape-man intermediates into humans. They do not allow for the possibility of God miraculously creating the first man and woman by design. With miraculous creation as Genesis 2 describes, there is no need for a sizable population at the start. Rather, the consequence of the Genesis record is that humans were created with an initially perfect genome, without mutations and with plenty of variability for what humans needed all built-in from the start. Then over the course of history, humans lost genetic information in the genome. With initially long life spans about 10 times that of us today, every married couple could have many kids with a variety of characteristics. Then there was a genetic bottleneck at the time of Noah’s Flood because the human population was reduced to 8 people. This is not just a story, according to Genesis, or even according to Jesus or the Apostle Paul. This is our history, our genesis, if you will. This does have implications for genetics and there is new evidence that this explains some aspects of human genetics beautifully.

So, another view that has been proposed on Adam and Eve is that long ago perhaps 2 million years ago there were some neolithic primative people who were farmers. God chose a pair of them to know him in a personal way. This pair of chosen primatives and their descendants have been called Homo Divinus. (You can laugh at this point if you want to.) These would have been anatomically modern humans but were very ignorant until God called them. So God developed a relationship with certain individuals as his chosen people among the many primatives. They learned and developed somehow with God’s help into more enlightened and capable people who had a faith similar to the ancient Jews. This may be a quaint idea but it will not make sense in a Christian world view.

I’d recommend reading the following blog entry commenting on this Homo Divinus idea by a well known evolutionary scientist, Jerry Coyne. CLICK TO GO TO Jerry Coyne is a well known scientist from the University of Chicago, from the department of Ecology and Evolution. Coyne has a number of very valid criticisms of this idea that I agree with. But there is another way of looking at the genetics that apparently Dr. Coyne does not know or accept. The evidence does not disprove the Bible. Scientists have learned wrong ways of approaching the problems. Science has to be rethought regarding origins and history. There is progress in this by young age creationists who have found they don’t have to turn to illogical ideas like the above to deal with the evidence. See this article by Robert Carter for a taste of this.
Dr. Coyne made an interesting point about the Homo Divinus idea above, “Of course there’s still a historical problem here: how did this pair of annointed farmers bring the curse of sin on humanity by contravening God’s will?” Dr. Coyne seems to reject Genesis altogether, but he raises a good point. Without a literal Adam and Eve, there is no explanation for what went wrong with the human race to make us need a savior!

Scripture is clear in teaching that Adam and Eve were real people. We cannot give up on the early chapters of Genesis about Adam & Eve, the Fall, and the Flood. First of all, if Adam was not a real person, why does Genesis 5 give his age? Also, who was Seth and Cain? 1 Chronicles 1 also lists Adam in the longest geneology in the Bible, thus implying he was a real person. Hosea 6:7 also mentions Adam. The New Testament mentions Adam even more than the Old Testament. In Luke 3:38 Adam is listed in Jesus’ geneology. In Romans 5:14 Adam is mentioned in the same sentence with Moses. Do we also question the existence of Moses? The Apostle Paul refers to Adam explicitly as the “first man” in 1 Corinthians 15 and in 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul says Adam was formed first, then Eve. So clearly the Apostle Paul accepted Genesis literally about Adam and Eve. Furthermore, there is no way you can make the creation of Adam and Eve from Genesis 2 agree with evolution.

We must resist Christian scholars or Christian scientists who confuse other Christians by questioning the early chapters of Genesis. The Bible hangs together logically and it is more certain and more authoritative than science. We can believe what it says, because God is able to do as He says.

Posted in Bible Related | Leave a comment

Science vs God Debate

Recently there was a debate in New York City between two men arguing from science against the existence of God and two who apparently who were arguing for God’s existence.  This is described in an article on, “Science vs. God:  does progress trump faith?”  It’s interesting who was in this debate.  Lawrence Krauss is a well-known physicist from Arizona State University and Michael Shermer is a founding publisher of Skeptic magazine.  Krauss and Shermer argue against God’s existence.  On the “God side” was Dinesh D’Souza and Ian Hutchinson.  D’Souza is well known for the 2016 documentary movie and Ian Hutchinson is a professior of nuclear engineering at MIT.  D’Souza and Hutchinson argued for the compatibility of science and religion.  But they don’t particulary argue for Christianity specifically.  Their opponents picked up on this.  I have some simpathy for atheists in some issues because the arguments of Christian apologists sometimes leave me unsatisfied.  I didn’t actually see the debate, so I’m only going by the article on Foxnews.  Don’t get me wrong, D’Souza made good points.  There is much good being done by modern Christian apologists mostly because they are having success at being heard.

But, sometimes they don’t give adequate answers because they don’t go far enough in arguing specifically for Christianity and specifically for the truth of the Bible.  There are things that require the Biblical answers in order to have a complete answer.  Also, it is not adequate to treat all religions as sort of “equal.”  The atheists at the debate pointed out that both the men representing the “God” side were Christians, so that meant they rejected all the religions in the world except one.  The atheists said they were asking them to reject one more.  Obviously Christians can’t oblige on this.  The God of the Bible is unlike the gods of all other religions.

Science cannot disprove God and science cannot really prove anything about origins.  Science can prove things that can be reproduced by experiment today, but the origin of things is not like that.  Science studies origins to determine the plausibility of the various possibilities.  Many Christian apologists fail in not rejecting evolution and the Big Bang.  Christians are called to stand on all the truth, not just part of it.  We won’t get respect for giving a mixed or contradictory message.  This is the actual impression of Christians that skeptics and nonchristians very often have.  The skeptics have the right to criticize the contradictory incoherent messages that Christian’s sometimes have about what they believe and why they believe it.

The Foxnews article says that D’Souza made the statement, “The last good argument against God came out in the 1850s.”  D’Souza was referring to Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of Species.  But Darwin was wrong.  There has never been a good argument against the existence of God.  Often arguments against God’s existence are based on misunderstandings of Biblical concepts, or they are based on evolution.  In the debate, physicist Lawrence Krauss said, “500 years of science have demonstrated that God, that vague notion, is not likely.”  Perhaps for some God is a “vague notion,” but it should not be like that for any Christian.  Christians should know better than to allow God to be a vague notion.  The God who created the universe has spoken to mankind and given us the answers we need in the Bible.  We have in the Bible much more than vague notions!  We may not always have all the information to fully answer some scientific or archeological questions regarding things in Bible.  But that doesn’t disprove the Bible.  In the light of all the wonderful confirmations of the Bible from science and archeology, we should be glad for the answers we have.

Krauss was apparently thinking of the evidence from modern science supporting evolution and the Big Bang.  Many of Darwin’s conclusions were unwarranted from the actual evidence.  In fact, he didn’t even make very good observations in ways because he didn’t keep adequate records.  Since Darwin, scientists have been locked into a wrong way of thinking.  Creationists have pointed out a number of things that not only refute evolution but also argue specifically for the truth of the Bible.  If the Bible is really true, there must be historical and scientific evidence that supports it.  That does not mean the evidence proves the Bible.  It doesn’t actually have to technically “prove” it to give people plenty of reason to believe it.  Also, Christianity is not just borne out by objective things like scientific evidence.  It explains life better than other religions.  This part is not as obvious and many Christian apologists don’t address this aspect enough.

The most interesting thing perhaps in the Foxnews article is the polling of the audience at the debate, at the end of the article.  Krauss and Shermer increased their votes about who won the debate from 37% (before the debate) to 50% (after the debate).  But D’Souza and Hutchinson only increased their votes from 34% to 38%.  This implies we need to do a better job at engaging people.  But, it probably also implies it takes more than a debate or a lecture to change someone’s mind.

Posted in Other Apologetics or History | Leave a comment


One of my favorite books in the Old Testament is Ecclesiastes, written by King Solomon of ancient Israel.  Solomon was well known in the ancient world for his wisdom and his riches.  But when his sons took over the kingdom after him, the kingdom of Israel split into two nations and went downhill dramatically.  Following are some of my thoughts on the book of Ecclesiastes.  If you haven’t read it, give it a read.  It is a book sometimes misunderstood I think.

How interesting that a book of the Bible should start out with the words, “Meaningless, meaningless, . . . everything is meaningless (Eccl. 1:2).”  The book of Ecclesiastes is a very thought-provoking book.  It is written I think from the perspective of Solomon, who, late in his life, was looking back with some regrets.  I suspect he was trying to write something to get through to people with a sort of secular mindset.  Late in the life of Solomon was a bad time in the history of Israel.  After Solomon’s sons grew up the kingdom split into Northern and Southern kingdoms under their leadership.  Solomon’s sons did not lead the nation to follow God.  I suspect Solomon looked with angst on what was happening to the nation and to the lives of his sons.  So, Solomon wrote something that you might think of as preevangelism, something intended to get the reader to think about the meaning of life.  Ecclesiastes makes you think about what you’re living for and what really makes life worth living.  It seems to me Solomon sort of switches perspectives sometimes throughout the book, sometimes writing from the “secular” or unbelieving mindset, and sometimes from the believing mindset.  Thus, Ecclesiastes makes its points in sometimes subtle ways.  If you don’t see what it is implying about God it can seem like a depressing read.  Especially the first two chapters.  But there is a good and encouraging message from Ecclesiastes.

Chapter 1 in verse 9 has the well known verse saying “there is nothing new under the sun.”  It mentions the various cycles of life in nature and the fact the man sort of goes through an endless repetitive routine in living his life.  When you view it on this level and consider only the material side of life, it can appear very empty and futile.  I think Ecclesiastes should be viewed similar to the Proverbs.  There are statements in Proverbs that should not be taken as absolutely true in all circumstances, but they are generally true in many cases.  It is making generalizations that are not intended as absolute statements that apply to all people everywhere all the time.  (Not everything in the Bible can be taken this way, but Proverbs and Ecclesiastes can be.)  Then there are other types of statements in Ecclesiastes that are expressions of feeling about how life seems, not meant to be taken as actual fact about the world.   Thus, in understanding Ecclesiastes we must understand it is making generalizations from a particular perspective.  Also, because it changes perspective, almost like changing worldviews, it looks at life in different ways in turn.

In the end of chapter 1 and on into chapter 2 Solomon comments about how even seeking wisdom and knowledge as well as seeking pleasure can seem meaningless.  In understanding the injustices of life and all the ways that life falls short of what it should be, there is sorrow.  This may be what Solomon implied in 1:18, “with much wisdom comes much sorrow.”  Yet seeking pleasure and having everything a man’s heart desires doesn’t satisfy either.  Chapter 2 verse 17 says Solomon hated life!  Solomon was fantastically rich and had owned everything and done everything a man could ask for.  In 2:2 Solomon says laughter is foolish and asks “what does pleasure accomplish?”  Even accomplishing great building projects did not satisfy.  The thing that is missing is a spiritual element that will be hinted at in later chapters of Ecclesiastes.  Solomon eventually comes to the conclusion that what makes life meaningful is to accept the good things given to us by God and live a life of obedience to Him (see Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

In some sections of Ecclesiastes Solomon looks at things from a kind of cynical angle that is very centered on only this life, as if our Earthly existence is all there is.  And the way he describes life in those sections does not seem to acknowledge God but treats earthly life as if God doesn’t really have relevance.  But in other sections he acknowledges God and does treat life as if God is relevant and as if there is more to life than what we sense in this life.  Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes is like this.  3:1 starts out “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.”  Who’s perspective is this?  Does this make sense from a human perspective?  I don’t think so.  Continuing on to verse 10 it describes the burden God has laid on men.  Then in v 11 it says He (God) has “made everything beautiful in its time.”  This is suggesting God’s providential purpose in events that seem mystifying to us.  So, when it refers to “a time for everything“, or “a time for . . . ” particular things, I think the real point is that there is a purpose in all kinds of things in life.  Both the good and the bad things that people do are wrapped into God’s providential purpose for history.  God has “set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done . . . .(Eccl. 3:11)”  Sometimes people have taken this list of “a time for ” this and that to be a sort of implication that everything is ok, as if there is no right and wrong.  But verses 2-8 do not deny right and wrong.  Man has a burden of responsibility to do what’s right even though all types of things will happen around us which God allows.  We have responsibiltiy, but God is still sovereign.  This chapter is I think Solomon presenting the wonder of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in comparison and contrast.  Verses 15 and 17 also both mention accountability to God as the judge of men.  So Solomon says the best you can do in this life is to enjoy the work God has given you and live life acknowledging Him.  Why does God want men (3:18-19) to realize that they are like the animals, that they have the same material fate as the animals?  Verse 21 sounds like a statement that an agnostic would make.  (I was once an agnostic.)  It’s like saying “who knows what happens after you die?”  I think this is a way of saying God wants people to see beyond our material life and realize this life does matter.  That we are not just animals and there is something eternal that matters for us.

Chapter 5 seems to be about having a healthy attitude toward possessions, money, and government.  The pursuit of material possessions and riches is an empty thing.  The more you have the more you want, unless you learn to have contentment with what you have.  If you have more money, you spend more and so people have a tendancy to run out of money however much they make.  We must learn to stop the spiraling pursuit before it destroys us.  Who sleeps better, the one who engages in hard physical labor but only has enough to live or the rich person, who has all kinds of things they have dreamed of having?  It is often the poor laborer who sleeps better and has more peace.  When you have less you learn contentment better.  The answer to the emptiness of the material pursuit is to appreciate what you have as a gift from God.  Thus, Solomon says “when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work—this is a gift of God. He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. (Eccl. 5:19) ”  Be content with what you have.  How long did it take Solomon to learn this?  A lifetime apparently.

Ecclesiastes is written to help people ask spiritual questions about what life is all about.

Posted in Bible Related | 1 Comment