How Can A Loving God Send People To Hell?

This is perhaps one of the most commonly used objection to Christianity. Notably, there are several misconceptions when it comes to this topic, and is likely the reason some Christians cannot give an adequate answer when the skeptic asks, or even the Christian himself questioning God. For example, some claim that God is unjust because He condemns those who do not agree with the Bible. Another objection is that Christians are narrow-minded in that they think they are the only ones who will enter into Heaven. In this entry, we will attempt to examine such things and answer the question, "How Can A Loving God Send People To Hell?" (Photo credit: Nashville Criminal Law Report, Daily Record)

Both of the aforementioned objections are fallacies. First off, let us examine the question itself. Author and Pastor Timothy Keller succinctly conveys, "Today many of the skeptics I talk to say, as I once did, they can't believe in the God of the Bible, who punishes and judges people, because they 'believe in a God of Love.' I now ask, what makes them think God is love? Can they look at life in the world today and say, 'This proves that the God of the world is a God of love'? Can they look at history and say, 'This all shows that the God of history is a God of love?' Can they look at the religious texts of the world and conclude that God is a God of love? By no means is that the dominant, ruling attribute of God as understood in any of the major faiths. I must conclude that the source of the idea that God is Love is the Bible itself. And the Bible tells us that the God of love is also a God of judgment who will put all things in the world to rights in the end."[1]

Keller makes a good point. By examining the world around us, without the Bible, would we perceive a God of Love? Would we glean this from Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism? Most certainly not, for example, Allah (God) of Islam is an impersonal God, not a loving, personal God. In no other religious texts aside from the Bible have I discerned that God created the universe out of delight and love. The Bible is the text which claims that "God is love" (1st John 4:8), and also portrays God as a Judge. Is that contradictory? Not at all.

Now, consider the following analogy originally put forth by author and speaker Bill Wiese.[2] Suppose you decide one day that you are going to move in with the one of the richest people in the country, say, Bill Gates. You bring everything with you, and knock on his door. "Hey Bill! It's me. I've decided to move in with you, because I'm a good person." What do you think Gates would say? He would say no, of course. Reason being: you have never personally met him. Or perhaps you have briefly. The issue? You do not have a relationship with him.

Likewise, if we expect to live "good lives" and be allowed into God's Kingdom, that is simply not the way it works. What right do we have to move into God's Kingdom? You never asked him to be your Father, despite the fact that he offered, numerous times, and you rejected him, for whatever reason. By denying the Father, you are also denying the Son, and the Bible clearly teaches that accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is the only way to get into Heaven. (John 3:36, 11:25-26, 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 3:30, 10:9-10; 1st Timothy 2:5, 1st John 5:12)

Another common objection about God is, "Don't all roads lead to God?" Though we have covered this in a previous entry, we will briefly touch on this, as it is relative to the topic at hand. Let's use another analogy. Say perhaps that yes, all roads lead to the same door. However, that door (God) is locked, and only one key fits the lock. That key is Jesus Christ. So even if all religions pointed to the same God, there is only one way to enter into God's presence. (For more, see entry: "Don't All Roads Lead To God?")

There is a non sequitur regarding God. Many claim that we are "all children of God." According to the Bible, which has shown to be archaeologically, historically, scientifically accurate in past entries, "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith." (Galatians 3:26) Here, Scripture clearly shows that one can only become a "child of God," adopted in His family, by faith in Christ. (See Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:35-36; Romans 9:7-8; Galatians 4:19; Ephesians 5:1; 1st Thessalonians 5:5)

For clarification, John 1:12-13 says, "Yet to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God - children not born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." John certainly gives us the answer: you are only a child of God if you have accepted Christ. Now, I want you to consider something. If God is pure love (including His fair justice), what would be the exact opposite? Hatred, malice, ill will, death, disease, unrest, the like. 

That is a description of Hell, aside from the literal fire. The reason Hell is what it is - is simply this: God does not abide in Hell. Where there is an absence of God, such things are. That is Hell, the absence of God. Does God send anyone to Hell? A resounding NO! It is the antithesis of God's pure nature. God has given man a free will to do what he chooses to do. God has given us Commandments to follow, and if we choose to disobey and break His commandments, it is us to blame, not Him. Anyone who has broken even one commandment is guilty of breaking all of them. (James 2:10, see entry: "The Ten Commandments - Have We Followed Them All?")

Consider that there are many who simply do not want to be with God. They may acknowledge His presence, but resist Him. By this, Hell is your personal choice. If you choose to live an eternity without God, Hell is the only other choice, and as noted, God is not there. We are all without excuse. If you have only once heard of Jesus and Salvation in your life, you are without excuse. "What about the people in the jungle," people ask. God writes His law on everyone's hearts. We all know we should not kill, should not commit adultery, should not steal, should honor our parents, should not lie, etc. If an individual recognizes the existence of God, He will make himself known to them.

However, we are not saved simply by believing in God. James 2:19 says, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder." Will the man in the jungle be saved if he asks God to save him? Of course. But for those who know of Christ, we are without excuse. Only through Christ can we be saved. Bill Wiese gives another great analogy:

"Suppose I invited you over for dinner but told you not to open the large steel door that is next to the garage because there is a lion behind that door. Would you still open it? I even posted warning signs all over the door that a deadly lion is behind the door. The warning reads, 'Do not open the door under any circumstance, or you will die.' You then, have a choice. You can deliberately not listen, think you know all there is to know about lions, and lose your life by opening the door. Or you could heed the warning and choose not to open the door. My desire is that you never open the door. However, you decide to open the door and you die. It wasn't my will or my desire that you die. I didn't 'send' you to your death. It's the same way with God. The Bible says that it isn't God's will for any to perish (2 Pet. 3:9). Just because it is God's will for you to receive eternal life and not perish doesn't mean you'll listen to Him and make that choice."[3]

I hear another common objection, which has been explored in entries such as "Satan and the Origin of Evil," that goes something like, "If there is a God, why is there so much evil in the world." Question: "If there is no God, why is there so much good in the world?" Another point to consider: I have also heard it said by people, "God does not exist." No one can know this! By saying, "God does not exist," or "God does not exist," you are stating a universal negative.

In other words, you are making a statement you cannot possibly know. Thomas Edison, famous for inventing the lightbulb (and for a number of other inventions), has been quoted as stating, "We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything." Sir Isaac Netwon, one of the most renowned scientists of all time, said something similar. Let's shrink the number to 1% of everything. If man does not know 1% of everything there is to know in the Universe, in that 99%, is it not possible that God exists? Any logical and rational thinker must admit such.

To know that there is no God would require all the knowledge in the Universe, something no one has, and even if we put all of the people currently living on the planet together, we would still not know everything there is to know about the Universe. Even if you were the smartest person on the planet and somehow happened to know half of everything there is to know, there is still a 50% chance that God exists. One cannot simply deny the existence of God, the arguments against God are fallacious at best.

God does not send anyone to Hell, we send ourselves. We have all broken the law, and are guilty. That is the reason God the Son became flesh, the Creator entering into His Creation to pay the penalty for us. Consider this: if you and a friend were walking along a river together, and the friend turns to you and says, "Because I am going to save you, love me." The friend jumps in the river, and drowns as a fool. You would think less of your friend, because there was no reason whatsoever to have jumped in! If, however, you had fallen in, and the friend jumped in and saved you, you would be grateful. Likewise, all of humanity has fallen short, and due to the Fall of Man and successive generations of sinful creatures, this necessitates a Savior, who is Jesus Christ.

Another objection that has been prevalent for a long time goes something like this, "God will not send me to Hell because I am a good person." As noted earlier, God does not send anyone to Hell, that is personal choice. We are without excuse. Also, all of us have broken the law, and according to God the Son, "No one is good - except God alone." (Luke 18:19b) But before any hands go in the air, another point to consider. Suppose all of humanity was in a courtroom. God is the judge, and we have all been sentenced, because we have all broken the law. 

Someone stands up and says, "But Judge, I was a good, kind person. I donated to charity, I spent time with the elderly and helped others to repair their marriage. I was a good person!" The Judge, if He is a good, fair, just Judge (which God is), will likely reply, "That's wonderful! However, you are not here for that, you are here because you have been convicted of breaking the law." Likewise, if you were convicted for breaking someone's vehicle, the Judge (if he was just) we say the same. 

Luckily, Jesus already paid the fine, so that none of us have to. But we must leave the courtroom with Him, because if we choose not to follow him and accept his free gift, we are sentenced, not because of the Judge, but because of our own personal choices and actions. According to Yale theologian Miroslav Volf, a Croation who saw the violence in the Balkans:

"If God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence - that God would not be worthy of worship... The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God... My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many... in the West... [But] it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human non-violence [results from the belief in] God's refusal to judge. In a sun-scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die... [with] other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind."[4]

Author, apologist, and theologian C.S. Lewis once said, "There are only two kinds of people - those who say 'Thy will be done' to God or those to whom God in the end says, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn't be Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."[5] Lewis makes a wonderful point here, driving home our point. Hell is a personal choice, not God's choice. In fact, God does not want any of us to go there. 

In Ezekiel 33:11, God conveys, "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the turn from their ways and live..." There are several other times where God affirms this in Scripture, but is is certainly evident that God does not want any to go to Hell. However, the choice is ours, and He's left that choice to us. That choice, whether you believe or not, will irrevocably determine your eternal destination. So, How Could a Loving God Send People to Hell? He doesn't: we send ourselves.

Romans 10:9 says, "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and if you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." 1st John 1:9 says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." According to Scripture, to be saved, we must declare, "Jesus is Lord," and if we have confessed and repented of our sins (we sin daily, likewise pray daily for repentance of sins), and if you believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead three days later, you will be saved.

Thank you for taking the time to read this entry of "The Truth." We trust you have found it informative and insightful. Feel free to comment below (but remain civil in your comments), email vexx801@yahoo.com or the ministry team at thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit the ministry homepage, or visit the facebook page. Take care, and may God bless you. Troy Hillman

Sources:

[1] Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. 1st ed. New York City, New York: Riverhead Books, 2008. 85. Print.

[2] Wiese, Bill. Hell: Separate Truth From Fiction And Get Your Toughest Questions Answered. 1st ed. Lake Mary, Florida: Charisma House, 2008. 12-13. Print.

[3] Ibid, pp.15

[4] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Abingdon, 1996), pp.303-304.

[5] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Macmillan, 1961), p.116.

Who Was Balaam And What Is His Importance?

In the third book of the Old Testament, Numbers, chapters 22-25 (and briefly in 31) convey the account of a man named Balaam son of Beor. (Hebrew: בִּלְעָם, Standard Bilʻam Tiberian Bilʻām) Balaam was summoned by Balak son of Zippor, who was the king of Moab, to come and put a curse upon the Israelites. Thrice he tried to curse, yet all three times God used Balaam to bless Israel. This individual is mentioned in other parts of Scripture, and has both a prophetic and archaeological importance - archaeology which confirms his existence and veracity of the biblical account. *Note: This entry is double-length. (Photo credit: Rembrandt van Rijn, 1626; Livius)

The main account we have concerning Balaam occurs during the sojourn of Israel on the plains of Midian near the close of the forty years of wandering, just before the death of Moses. By this time, the Israelites have defeated Sihon of the Amorites and Og, King of Bashan. Balak, King of Moab sends ambassadors to Balaam, to ask for him to put a curse on Israel. When the elders of Moab and Midian came to Balaam, they stayed the night, and the following morning, after having been visited by God in a dream, Balaam conveys that he cannot go.

God had said to Balaam, "Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed." (Numbers 22:12, NIV) The officials returned, but Balak sent "other officials, more numerous and more distinguished than the first." (Numbers 22:15) Again, Balaam sought the counsel of God at night, and God said to Balaam: "Since these men have come to summon you, go with them, but do only what I tell you." (Numbers 22:20) Balaam left in the morning with the officials on his donkey.

From Numbers 22:21-41 we can easily glean that God wanted to make a point to Balaam. God sent the Angel of the Lord, (who is often identified as the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ) to stand in front of Balaam. Numbers 22:21-25 says, "When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand. it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road. Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam's foot against it. So he beat the donkey again."(See entry: "Who Is 'The Angel of the Lord?'", "The Holy Trinity (Part Two)")

The donkey would not be swayed. Note that Balaam did not yet see the angel (messenger) of the Lord. Numbers 22:26-28 continue, "Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and it said to Balaam, 'What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?'"

Ordinarily, if one were to ride on a donkey, and all of a sudden that donkey turns and begins to speak, you think you would be frightened or taken aback! No such awe was seemingly found in Balaam. "Balaam answered the donkey, 'You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.' The donkey said to Balaam, 'Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?' 'No,' he said. Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown." (Numbers 22:29-31)

From: Rembrandt van Rijn, 1626

Skeptics love to point out passages of Scripture like Jonah in the belly of a huge fish (Jonah 2, Matthew 12:40) and the talking donkey to illustrate the "ridiculousness of Scripture." Quite the opposite. This passage simply illustrates for us another clear example of God's control of all creation: even speaking through a donkey. There are a few ideas on whether or not it was the donkey that actually spoke or the LORD, but it was likely God using the donkey to make a point to Balaam.

In fact, Peter elaborates on this as a historical event in 2nd Peter 2:15-16, "They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, [also called Beor] who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey - an animal without speech - who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet's madness." The angel of the Lord proceeded to speak to Balaam:

"The angel of the LORD asked him, 'Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me. The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.' Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, 'I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back. The angel of the Lord said to Balaam, 'Go with the men, but speak only what I tell you.' So Balaam went with Balak's officials." (Numbers 22:32-35)

Josephus, first century Jewish historian, writes in The Antiquities of the Jews 4.6.3, "but when his ass, upon the angel's continuing to distress her, and upon the stripes which were given her, fell down, by the will of God, she made use of the voice of a man, and complained of Balaam as acting unjustly to her; that whereas he had no fault to find him in what he was now going about, by the providence of God. And when he was disturbed by reason of the voice of the ass, which was that of a man, the angel plain appeared to him, and blamed him for the stripes he had given his ass; and informed him that the brute creature was not in fault, but that he was himself come to obstruct his journey, as being contrary to the will of God."[1]

Balaam was asked thrice by Balak to curse the Israelites, and thrice God told him to bless Israel. Though Balaam was a corrupted and false prophet, God still used him. Numbers 24:1-2 reveals, "Now when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he did not resort to divination as at other times, but turned his face toward the wilderness. When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God [Holy Spirit] came on him." Balaam proceeded to give five more prophecies.

Perhaps one of the most important was the fourth message that he gave (the second after receiving the Holy Spirit), found in Numbers 24:17a, "I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel." (cf. Matthew 2) This prophecy has been used in the context of the Star of Bethlehem that heralded the birth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, around 1400 years after this prophecy was given. (For more, see entry: "Prophecy And The Birth of Christ")

Balaam's final message, the seventh (fifth after receiving the Spirit), conveys, "Ah, who can live when God does this? Ships will come from the shores of Cyprus; they will subdue Ashur and Eber, but they too will come to ruin." (Numbers 24:23b-24) This prophecy has been interpreted a few different ways, the most prominent of which say that the prophecy refers to the Sea Peoples who some scholars allege invaded Cyprus, or the interpretation which says that Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) is the one who led this invasion.[2]

Sadly, Balaam showed Balak how to seduce the Israelites. "While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to sacrifice to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the LORD's anger burned against them." God was angry with good reason. The Israelites had violated the covenant made with God on Mount Sinai not forty years prior. 

In Numbers 31:8, we find out the fate of Balaam. "Among [the Israelites victims in the fight with Midian] were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba - the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword." In verse 16 we read, "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD's people." Thus ended the life of Balaam. He is, however, mentioned elsewhere in Scripture.

Deuteronomy 23:4 reads, "For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim [Northwest Mesopotamia] to pronounce a curse on you." From this verse we can glean that Balaam was from Pethor in Aram. Joshua 24:9-10 says, "When Balaak son of Zippor, the king of Moab, prepared to fight against Israel, he sent for Balaam son of Beor to put a curse on you. But I would not listen to Balaam, so he blessed you again and again, and I delivered you out of his hand."

Micah also makes reference to Balaam. Micah 6:5a says, "My people, remember what Balak king of Moab plotted and what Balaam son of Beor answered." We can also look at Jude 11, when Jude is referring to false teaching. Jude 11 says, "Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit in Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion." Also, Revelation 2:14 makes reference to Balaam: "Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality."

Balaam was obviously a conflicted man. As elaborated in the Oxford Companion To The Bible, "On the one hand, Balaam is often portrayed as an example of an evil diviner who would sell his prophetic powers to the highest bidder, often in conflict with God's will (Num. 31.8, 16; Deut. 23.4-5; Josh. 13.22; 24.9-10; Neh. 13.2; Mic. 6:5; 2 Pet. 2.15; Jude 11; Rev 2.14)... On the other hand, Numbers 22-24 as a whole portrays Balaam in a favorable light. When the Moabite king Balak hires Balaam to curse his enemy Israel as they cross his territory on the way to the Promised Land, Balaam replies piously that as a prophet he can speak only the words God gives to him (Num. 22.18; see also Num. 24.13)."[3] As noted, we can clearly see in Balaam's character internal conflict.

Philo, a biblical philosopher, described Balaam as a great magician, and of "the sophist Balaam, being," symbolizing "a vain crowd of contrary and warring opinions" and again as "a vain people." Both of these were based on a mistaken etymology for the name Balaam, yet regardless, Philo recognized the historicity of the existence of Balaam when referring to him.[4] The name Balaam means "Lord of the people; foreigner or glutton, as interpreted by other."[5] Early in the entry, it was mentioned that Balaam not only had a prophetic importance (the prophecy concerning the star which heralded Christ's birth) but also an archaeological importance. Let us now take a look at the archaeological evidence for Balaam, son of Beor.

In 1967, in Deir Alla, Jordan, an archaeological dig found an inscription made in red and black in on plaster walls. "It described a prophecy from something called the book of Balaam. Balaam was described as the son of Beor, as is the Balaam we read about in the book of Numbers, In this prophecy, however, he is further described as a prophet for Shamash, the sun god worshiped by the Babylonians and Sumerians."[6] Three times in the first four lines alone, Balaam is called the "son of Beor." 

The Deir Alla Inscription (Credit: Livius)

According to Bryant G. Wood, "The remarkable text found at Deir Alla consists of 119 fragments of plaster inscribed with black and red ink. It was among the rubble of a building destroyed in an earthquake. It seems to have been one long column with at least 50 lines, displayed on a plastered wall. According to the excavators' dating, the disaster was most likely the severe earthquake which occurred in the time of King Uzziah (Azariah) and the prophet Amos in about 760 BC (Amos 1:1; Zec 14:5). The lower part of the text shows signs of wear, indicating that it had been on the wall for some time prior to the earthquake."[7]

By referring to the "Book of Balaam," it is evident that the mentioned document was a pre-existing document, likely around a while before the inscription. Kyle J. McCarter Jr. translated and reconstructed part of the inscription as follows:

"(1) [VACAT] The sa]ying[s of Bala]am, [son of Be]or, the man who was a seer of the gods. Lo! Gods came to him in the night [and spoke to] him (2) according to these w[ord]s. Then they said to [Bala]am, son of Beor, thus: Let someone make a [ ] hearafter, so that [what] you have hea[rd may be se]en!" (3) And Balaam rose in the morning [ ] right hand [ ] and could not [eat] and wept (4) aloud. Then his people came in to him [and said] to Balaam, son of Beor, "Do you fast? [ ] Do you weep?" And he (5) said to them, "Si[t] do]wn! I shall inform you what the Shad[daying have done]. Now come, see the deeds of the g[o]ds!. The g[o]ds have gathered (6) and the Shaddayin have taken their places in the assembly and said to Sh[ , thus:] 'Sew the skies shut with your thick cloud! There let there be darkness and no (7) perpetual shining and n[o] radiance! For you will put a sea[l upon the thick] cloud of darkness and you will not remove it forever! For the swift has (8) reproached the eagle, the voice of vultures resounds. The st[ork has ] the young of the NHS-bird and ripped up the chicks of the heron. The swallow has belittled (9) the dove, and the sparrow [ ] and [ ] the staff. Instead of ewes the stick is driven along. Hares have eaten (10) [ ]. Freemen [] have drunk wine, and hyenas have listened to instruction. The whelps of the (11) f[ox] laughs at wise men, and the poor woman has mixed myrhh, and the priestess (12) [ ] to the one who wears a girdle of threads. The esteemed esteems and the esteemer is es[teemed. ] and everyone has seen those things that decree offspring and young. (15) [ ] to the leopard. The piglet has chased the young (16) [of] those who are girded and the eye ....'"[8]

There are several parallels and similarities between the Deir Alla Inscription and Numbers 22-24. For one, the events described in Numbers took place in the general area that the Inscription was found. As is clearly shown by the biblical text, Balaam was known as a "cursing prophet," as this is reason Balak summoned him. The Deir Alla text clearly shows this as well. There are other general similarities, but most importantly, it is well agreed upon that this archaeological find confirms the existence of Balaam son of Beor.[9]

With this extraordinary find, we ought to bear in mind: if Balaam was real, couldn't Moses, Joshua, Balak, Aaron, David, Solomon, the like have been historical figures? Certainly! Biblical archaeology is yet another confirmation of Biblical authority and authenticity, yet not the only authenticator. Could it be perhaps that the Bible is true, that we are all under the curse of sin, have all transgressed the Creator's law, and are in need of a Savior?

Indeed, the breaking of the law necessitates a Savior, and that Savior is Christ. Romans 10:9 tells us that "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and if you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." To be saved by faith in Christ, we must also confess our sins, and "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1st John 1:9)

In the coming weeks, we will be looking at the historical evidences for Jesus Christ - which do not lead to the popular secular opinion, but rather to a confirmation of the Biblical events, including the resurrection. Thank you for taking the time to read this double-length entry of "The Truth." Feel free to comment below (but remain civil in your comments), email vexx801@yahoo.com or the ministry team at thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit our facebook page, or visit our ministry website. May God bless. Troy Hillman

Sources:

[1] Josephus, Flavius, translated by William Whiston. Josephus: The Complete Works. 1st ed. Nashville, Tennesse: Thomas Nelson, 1998. 129. Print.

[2] "Alexander the Great." History of Macedonia. History of Macedonia.org, 2003. Web. 27 Mar 2011. .

[3] Dennis T. Olson, et al. The Oxford Companion To The Bible. 1st ed. New York City, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. 72-73. Print.

[4] Philo, The Life of Moses.

[5] "Balaam." Web Bible Encyclopedia. Christian Answers Network, n.d. Web. 26 Mar 2011. .

[6] Stan Campbell, Stephen Clark, et al. "A Donkey Talks." Inside The Mysteries Of The Bible: New Perspectives On Ancient Truths. 2010: 74-75. Print.

[7] Wood, Bryant G. "Is there any evidence to prove the existence of the prophet, Balaam?." Christian Answers Network. Christian Answers Network, 1995. Web. 26 Mar 2011. .

[8] P. Kyle McCarter Jr., The Balaam Texts from Deir 'Alla: The First Combination", Bulletin of the Schools of Oriental Research 237 (1980): 49-60

[9] Ibid, [7]

Is Tiktaalik The "Missing Link?"

More specifically known as the Tiktaalik roseae, the Tiktaalik is allegedly the "missing link" between fish and tetrapods that "proves" Evolution. Does this claim have any credence, or when carefully investigated, does the claim not hold any water at all? In this entry, we will seek to answer these questions from a Creationist perspective.(Photo credit: Ted Daeschler, Zina Deretsky)

The Tiktaalik is an extinct species of sarcopterygian fish, discovered on Ellesmere Island on April 6, 2006. According to seemingly reliable evolutionary dating methods, the Tiktaalik lived during the Late Devonian period, allegedly 375 million years ago. This creature is claimed to be the missing link between tetrapods and fish, called "fishapod" by Neil Shubin (one of those who discovered the fossil).

Now, bear in mind that as long as Evolution is around, there will be claims of "irrefutable evidence" and "proof" for Evolution. When examined fully, however, the "proofs" do not hold water, so to speak. According to FishBase's February 2011 update, there are currently approximately 32,000 known species of fish - both living and fossilized, and more are discovered - not evolved - about 200-300, per year. Some experts believe there was once nearly one million species of fish on the planet.[1]

The fact that thousands of species of fish have been lost or not yet discovered adds nothing to Evolution, it merely shows that extinction is a very real thing. Species become extinct, it is part of the process God set up when He created the Universe. Fish are typically classified as one of two things: jawless fish and jawed fish. An Evolutionist will admit that many once alleged transitional forms have since been discredited, dismissed, or discovered. Take the coelacanth for example.

The Coelacanth, thought to have died off ca. 70-80 million years ago, were found alive and rather unchanged in 1938. The fins are not radically different, as they ought to be, and the fish itself has not evolved. It is true that the body has adapted to fit its environment, but this is not Evolution, that is adaption. This may be microevolution (which both sides agree upon), but certainly not macroevolution. (which Evolution highly postulates.)

According to Dr. David N Menton, "During the embryological development of invertebrates, most bones develop first as cartilage models that are later replaced by bone (called endochondral bone). Following the dictates of the embryonic recapitulation myth, it would be attractive for evolutionists to propose that cartilaginous fish evolved into bony fish, but most evolutionists consider the cartilaginous fish to be far too specialized to have been the ancestors of bony fish."[2]

Since lobe-finned fish such as the Coelacanth, Crossopterygians, the like, have not met the evolutionary expectations as transitional forms, Evolutionists have turned to other fossilized lobe-finned fish. The three most popular ones are the Eusthenopteron, the Panderichthys, and the Tiktaalik. Generally, when we look in a high school textbook that teaches Evolution, the Eusthenopteron is typically the illustration that can be found.

Tiktaalik

The Eusthenopteron has its pectoral fin girdle (these are bones which anchor the pectoral fins) that are attached to the back of its skull by a dermal bone called the cleithrum. These dermal bones develop from connective tissue under the skin, instead of from cartilage models as we find with endochondral bones. Note that fish scales are also dermal bones, and are under a superficial layer of skin. The Eusthenopteron was merely another jawed fish. [3]

As for the Panderichthys, another supposed ancestor of tetrapods, this creature lacks dorsal and ventral fins, and has a small caudal fin. Shubin, Daeschler, and Jenkins, who discovered the Tiktaalik, claim that "Panderichthys possesses relatively few tetrapod synapomorphies, and provides only partial insight into the origin of major features of the skull, limbs, and axial skeleton of early tetrapods."[4]

Let us then examine the Tiktaalik. One of the fundamental issues with claiming that Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil is it's fin. The fin was not connected to the main skeleton, and could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom, which is similar to the claim that the Coelacanth's fin, but when the "living fossil" was discovered in 1938, it was found that the fin was not used for walking, but for deft maneuvering when swimming. In fact, Coelacanths have been seen swimming backward, upside-down, forward, side to side, and even standing on their head - but never walking.

According to Geologist Paul Garner, "[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills. However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.[5]

Consider the following for a moment: given enough time, will you develop fins, since you live on land? I should hope you answer no. In the same fashion, given enough time, would a fish develop legs, since they live in the water? No. Note that where Evolution postulates a common ancestor, Creation advocates a common designer. Regardless of how much time is allotted for a creature to "evolve," no such evolution has ever been observed.

According to Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist, "When analyzed in detail, the evidence is consistent not with evolution, but with a particular form of intelligent design. But not just intelligent design in the broad sense, which allows for any sort of designer(s), even aliens (such as the Raëlian cult), and even can allow for evolution (Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, accepts evolution, for example). Rather, it supports a particular subset of ID: the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine in The Biotic Message. That is, the evidence from nature points to a single designer, but with a pattern which thwarts evolutionary explanations. In this case, the common modules point to one common designer, but evolution is powerless to explain this modular pattern, since natural selection can work only on organisms as a whole. That is, it cannot select for particular head design as such, but only for creatures that have a head that confers superior fitness. But a designer who worked with different modules could create different creatures with different modules, that fit no consistent evolutionary pattern. But as we say, Design is not enough! Nature does not reveal the identity of the Intelligent Designer. Fortunately, the Designer already has."[6]

When the Tiktaalik is examined, many of the features necessary for terrestrial existence are simply nonexistent. This is inconsistent with the Evolutionist claim, and shows that the Tiktaalik could not have survived on land. As noted earlier, it could not hold its own weight on land as well. The specimen of Tiktaalik that was found consisted of a skull and several bone fragments. More specifically, the shoulder, wrist, fin, as well as others.

According to evolutionists, the Tiktaalik was an intermediate form between fish and tetrapods, based on its similarities (Marine life and land life). It is assumed to have had the scales and gills of a fish and yet at the same time, also to have had tetrapod limbs and lungs, as well as a mobile neck. The Tiktaalik's supposed half-fish and half-tetrapod characteristics include limb bones and joints which resembled those of a tetrapod but had fins rather than toes on the "feet". 

Consider this: if I called my arms legs, or feet, would that make them legs? Not at all, just because I call my arms legs and my hands feet does not make them legs and feet, they are still arms and hands. In the same way, merely because theory postulates that these are legs does not make them legs. Those who discovered Tiktaalik claim that its bony fins show a reduction in the dermal bone and an increase in endochondral bone. Why is this important to them? It is because the bones of tetrapods are endochondral. 

They also make the claim that the cleithrum is detached from the skull, resembling the position of the shoulder blade on a tetrapod. A further claim is made that the bones of the fin are similar to tetrapod's in structure and range of motion. The important question is: what does this have to do with Tiktaalik's ability to walk or support its weight out of water? Absolutely nothing. None of these things prove that the Tiktaalik could support its weight out of water or walk.

Most fish, including the Tiktaalik, have small pelvic fins that are relative to their pectoral fins. However, the legs of tetrapods are quite the opposite. The pelvic fins of all fish are small, and are not attached to the axial skeleton: and cannot bear weight on land. This includes the Tiktaalik, as aforementioned. As noted by fish evolution experts Ahlberg and Clack:

"although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging."[7]

It is clear that Tiktaalik was merely a fish. Its lobed fins appear better suited for swimming in water rather than crawling on land, and is full fish. Further investigation can be done of course, but note that these entries are for the laymen and not as a technical paper or scientific journal. Also according to Ahlberg and Clack, "[these] unfounded notions of evolutionary 'progress' and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition," when referring to "missing links."[8]

Artist's Rendition of Tiktaalik (Zina Deretsky)

So, is the Tiktaalik a "missing link?" Simply put, no. The Tiktaalik's origin is clearly outlined in the book given to us by the Creator of the Universe. "And God said, 'Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.' So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. And there was evening, and there was morning - the fifth day." (Genesis 1:20-23, TNIV)

The Tiktaalik, like all other water creatures, was created on Day 5 of Creation Week by the Intelligent Designer, who is Christ. (Genesis 1-2; John 1:1-3, 8:58, 10:30; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-4; Revelation 22:13, etc.) This occurred a little over 6,000 years ago, ca. 4004 BC. God created the Tiktaalik, just as He created all things that have the "breath of life" in them. The Tiktaalik is a fish, not a transitional fossil. There are other points we could make, other evidences against the use of Tiktaalik as a transitional (intermediate) fossil, but perhaps we may investigate these in another entry.

What is important is that the Creator, Jesus, provided a way for salvation. We often hear it said, "If God is good, why doesn't he do something about the sin, death and suffering in this world?" While the answer is lofty, there's a much simpler answer: He already did. He provided God the Son, who is Jesus Christ, the Creator, who came to Earth, was hung on a Roman Cross ca.30-33 AD, rose from the dead three days later, was on the Earth for forty more days, appearing to over 500 people at one time, and ascended to Heaven to be with God the Father. 

How then are we saved? Romans 10:9 conveys, "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and if you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." 1st John 1:9 conveys, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." If we declare that "Jesus is Lord," and if we believe that He died and rose again, and confess our sins to God, we are saved. Regarding the Tiktaalik, we ought to stop thinking of creatures with a "common ancestor," but with a "common designer."

For a more detailed examination of the fossil record concerning "early" tetrapods, be sure to take a look here. Thank you for taking the time to read this entry of "The Truth." Understand that these conclusions are the result of careful examination summed up in layman's terms, and it is expected that not everyone will agree with the results. If you wish to comment below, please remain civil in your comments. Feel free to email vexx801@yahoo.com, thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit the facebook page, or visit the ministry website. Take care, dear reader, and may God bless you. Troy Hillman

Sources:

[1] "FishBase." FishBase. N.p., Feb 2011. Web. 25 Mar 2011. .

[2] Mention, Dr. David N. The New Answers Book 3. 3rd ed. 3. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2010. 243. Print.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, "A Devonian Tetrapid-like Fish and the Evolution of the Tetrapod Body Plan," Nature 440 no. 6 (2006): 757-763.

[5] Garner, Paul. "The fossil record of ‘early’ tetrapods: evidence of a major evolutionary transition?." Creation Ministries International. Creation Ministries International, Aug 2003. Web. 25 Mar 2011. .

[6] Sarafti, Dr. Jonathan D. "Tiktaalik roseae—a fishy ‘missing link’." Creation Ministries International. Creation Ministries International, 15 April 2006. Web. 25 Mar 2011. .

[7] P.E. Ahlberg and J.A. Clack, News and Views, Nature 440 no. 6 (2006): 747-749.

[8] Ibid.

Why Does God Seem Absent Or Silent In Our Lives At Times?

There are times in an individual's life where it seems as if God is silent, or even absent. "Why have you abandoned me," the individual inquires, with no audible response. At these times, we wonder, "Lord, where are you? Why are you silent?" Does God's Word offer answers... and is God truly silent, or are we simply not listening hard enough? (Photo credit: Captiol Columns)

In 1st Kings 19:9-10, we read an account concerning the prophet Elijah. Let us first examine the account. "And the word of the LORD came to him, 'What are you doing here, Elijah?' He replied, 'I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.'"

Verses 11-13a continue, "The Lord said, 'Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire, And after the fire came a still, small voice."

Here, we determine that Elijah's fallible ideas fell flat. Elijah had believed that God had abandoned him, that God was silent. Then, God showed up - not in the wind, not in the earthquake, not in the fire - but in a still, small voice. God revealed to Elijah that he was not alone at all in 1st Kings 19:18, "Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel - all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him." (Baal was a pagan god.)

In the same way, sometimes it seems as if God has abandoned us, that He is absent or even silent. Bear in mind, God is never silent. It is whether or not we take the opportunity to listen to the "still small voice" of God. That is not to say that God does not have a loud, audible voice, but sometimes, He speaks to us through other means, not a loud, audible voice. This can be related to what Jesus said concerning parables:

"In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts..." (Matthew 13:14-15a) God is never silent, but sometimes we simply do not take the time to listen, or we do not listen hard enough.

God is active in every part of our life. He knows the number of hairs on our head (Mark 10:30; Luke 12:7), He is with us always (Matthew 28:20), He helps us through life (Isaiah 41:13), He establishes our plans (Proverbs 16:3), His eyes "saw [our] unformed body, All the days ordained for [us] were written in [His] book, before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:16)

God also speaks to us through His Word. We need to be mindful of this. Consider Isaiah 55:8-11. "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

When it appears as if God is silent or absent in our life, perhaps what we ought to consider is if we are silent or absent toward Him. Are we listening hard enough, are we still listening for His voice? We need to block our the white noise of the world and listen to the glorious voice of the King. It is not God who is never-faithful, it is the individual.

Consider the words of Psalm 146:6, "He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them - He remains faithful forever." Indeed, even John confirms this, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1st John 1:9, emphasis added) God is ever-faithful, ever-present, ever-loving. But are we returning the faith? Are we returning the love?

How then can we recognize the voice of God? In 1st Samuel 3:1-10, we read the infamous account of Samuel, Eli, and God. God calls to Samuel three times, and twice he thought it was Eli, until Eli told him that if the voice called again, to say, "Speak Lord, for your servant is listening." (1st Samuel 3:9) In another instance, Gideon, who was one of Israel's Judges, asked for a physical sign though he had just spoken with God, and doubted: three times. (Judges 6:17-22, 36-40)

Bear in mind that we have something that neither Samuel nor Gideon had: the Word of God. When we wonder about certain things in life, seek first what God has to say about it via His Word. All too often, we ask God questions which He has already answered through the Bible. As Titus 1:2 reveals, "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time;" from this we can glean that God does not lie, it is against His very nature. His nature is perfect, and lies and perfection cannot mesh, they are mutually exclusive.

Jesus conveyed in John 10:27, "My sheep listen to my voice; no one will snatch them out of my hand." How do we hear God's voice? Those who belong to Jesus hear His voice, not those who have not accepted Him. Generally, we hear His voice through a myriad of ways: careful prayer, time spent in God's Word, the like. God speaks through God the Spirit (The Holy Spirit), directly to our consciences, and also speaks through His Word.

While it is possible to hear the audible voice of God, He generally speaks to us through our conscience or through His Word. Be sure to spend time in prayer. Prayer is crucial and vital to the life of every believer. Note Colossians 1:9-10, which state, "For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of God." Go and do likewise.

If you have never accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, I would invite you to do so now. Romans 10:9-10 conveys, "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and if you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."

Why does God seem absent or silent in our lives at times? Perhaps we are not paying attention to what is important. Perhaps we are not listening close enough to hear His "still small voice," or not reading what He has given us, or perhaps we are not praying as we ought to. God is always speaking, it is whether or not we choose to listen, and when it seems like we cannot hear Him, to believe by faith.

Thank you for taking the time to read this entry of "The Truth." Feel free to comment below, email vexx801@yahoo.com or the Ministry team at thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit the facebook page, or visit the ministry website. Take care, dear reader, and may God bless you. Troy Hillman

Did The Authors Of The Bible Believe In A Literal Genesis 1-11?

Due to a plethora of factors, involving films, television, "modern" education, books, and many other such things, there is a belief that the Earth and the Universe around it are millions to billions of years old. Allegedly, the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years Old (BYO) and the Universe is 13.7 BYO. However, this assumption is not held by all. There are those that believe in a Young Earth, a Young Universe. There are those that believe that an Intelligent Designer of the Universe - a Creator. (Photo credit: Rick Richards, NASA/Hubble)

Those who believe in a Young Creation believe that God created in six, literal days (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11, 31:17; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6) a little over 6000 years ago. (ca. 4004 BC) In past entries, we have attempted to establish a layman's view of evidence for Christianity, evidence for the Tower of Babel, evidence for the existence of God, evidence for a Young Creation, evidence for a Global Flood, and what have you. The Truth Ministries accepts Genesis 1-11 as literal history, for several reasons, most of which have been outlined in the past. We do, however, follow the "Golden Rule of Interpretation," which states:

"When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, and axiomatic and fundamental truths, studied in the light of related passages indicate clearly otherwise."[1] Now, often the accusation is made about Biblical Literalists that we take the entire Bible literally, meaning, that we allegedly take all Psalms literally. That is not so. The clear plain sense of the Psalms is poetic in nature, and several of these Psalms describe Creation in some aspects, whereas others (such as Psalm 2, Psalm 22, Psalm 110) are prophetic in nature, concerning Jesus.

Certainly, there are proverbs, epistles, prophecy, poetry, parables, dreams and visions, history, and what have you in the Bible. Sadly, in today's society, Genesis 1-11are not interpreted as literal history, when in fact they are, and we have evidence to support such a claim, and have examined some in past entries. Now then, let the reader understand what I mean by an interpretation other than the plain sense of Scripture.

Jesus says in John 6:53-58, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood had eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever ears my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

Was Jesus telling us that if we literally ate him and drank his blood that we would have eternal life? Certainly not! What then did He mean? From a one-time reading, we can determine that it appears Jesus means that through Him we can have eternal life. However, once other parts of Scripture are examined, specifically the Last Supper, we can determine that here, Jesus is referring to the New Covenant. This is merely one example of Biblical interpretation. But when in Luke 9:22 we read:

"And he said, 'The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.'" Here, Jesus clearly means what He said to be taken literally. Jesus suffered many things and was rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, He was killed for our sins and three days later, He was raised to life. Now, there are many lines evidence to consider when examining Scripture, and when examining the external evidence as well, we can determine that we stand on a firm foundation. But how did the authors of the Bible interpret Genesis?

Consider what God said to Aaron and Miriam (brother and sister of Moses) in Numbers 12:6-8a, "When there are prophets of the LORD among you, I reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD." God clearly said that he speaks "clearly" with Moses. In other words, what God had Moses write, He meant clearly what He said, not some dark, mysterious meaning. Moses himself clearly believed in a literal interpretation.

1st Chronicles 1 clearly illustrates the author's (thought to be Ezra) view of Genesis: literal history. For example, 1st Chronicles 1:1-4 gives the beginning of the genealogy of the line of David. "Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. The sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth." This clearly shows that the author believed Genesis to be literal history. When 1st Chronicles 1 is compared with the genealogy found in Genesis 5 and 11, we find that there have been no changes, nor add-ons. 

Psalm 29:10-11 says, "The LORD sits enthroned over the flood, the LORD is enthroned as King forever. The LORD gives strength to His people; the LORD blesses His people with peace." Here, the Hebrew word mabbul is used for flood. God was the King at the Global Flood of Noah's Day. If this event was not literal, than neither can His promise to his people in verse 11 be of any comfort. When Psalm 33:6-9 is examined, we clearly see that God supernaturally created by His Word, which Genesis states over and over. When God spoke, "Let there be..." it came to be. Just as Psalm 33:9 states, "For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm."

In other words, the Lord did not wait for millions or billions of years, what He spoke came to be suddenly. Psalm 104:5 and 19 are clearly events during Creation Week. Verses 6-9 say, "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled. at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." Here, it is easily shown that the Psalmist is describing the Global Flood. (cf. Genesis 7-8)

From a clear reading of Psalm 136, many of the acts of God are recounted in poetic form. We now take a look at Isaiah 54:9, "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again." (cf. Psalm 104:9) God's promise holds no water (no pun intended) if the Flood was not global, was not literal! God, through Isaiah, clearly says, that the waters of the Flood "cover[ed] the earth."

Ezekiel 14:14-20 refers to Noah, Daniel and Job, indicating that these were historical (and righteous) men. Everything God conveyed through Genesis, the Old Testament authors believed was true and literal. But what about the Old Testament Authors? (*Note: Bear in mind that we have already covered in a past entry, which you can find here, that the New Testament authors regarded the whole of the Old Testament as literal history. In this entry, we are just discussing Genesis.)

The genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 show Genesis as literal history. If Jesus descended from a myth, neither would He have been a real being - but historical evidence confirms the existence of Jesus. Also, if there was not literal Fall of Man, why then would Jesus need to pay for our sins, if He was dying for a myth? Now of course in Matthew 1:1-17, Matthew left out a few names in the genealogy only for a literary purpose, but Dr. Luke traces Jesus all the way back to Adam. Dr. Luke's full genealogy matches the ones found in Genesis 5, 11; and in 1st Chronicles.

Paul the Apostle built the doctrine of sin and salvation upon the literal historical fact that sin, death and suffering entered into the world through Adam, and therefore, this necessitated a Savior, who is Christ, the "Last Adam." (Romans 5:12-19; 1st Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-47) Paul also states that the serpent (Satan) deceived Eve, and not Adam (2nd Corinthians 11:3; 1st Timothy 2:13-14) In this, Paul shows that he believed Genesis to be literal history, including the fact that he took Genesis 1-2 literally, going as far to affirm that Adam was created first, and Eve out of Adam. (1st Corinthians 11:8-9)

Also, Paul clearly says in Romans 1:20, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Paul, giving evidence for Creation, indicates that in the beginning, there must been something there to actually see it. Peter, one of the close disciples of Jesus, also based several of his teachings upon a literal Genesis 1-11.

For example, Peter refers to the Flood in 1st Peter 3:20, 2nd Peter 2:4-9, and 2nd Peter 3:3-7, in which he shows his belief that there was a Global Flood, that eight people survived, that Noah preached to those before the Flood, and that there was an Ark. Peter argued that just as people disbelieved in a supernatural creation and global flood, that people would scoff at the Second Coming. In fact, Peter went so far as to allude to the method by which many subscribe to as a way of denying these things, called uniformitarian naturalism "all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." (2nd Peter 3:4)

As noted by Dr. Terry Mortenson, "It has been objected that the apostles did not know the difference between truth and myth. But this is also false. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 Paul refers to a number of passages from the Pentateuch where miracles are described and he emphasizes in verses 6 and 11 that 'these things happened.' In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 Paul wrote: 'For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.' The Greek word translated here as 'fables' is muthos, from which we get our english word 'myth.' In contrast to 'truth' or 'sound doctrine,' the same Greek word is used in 1 Timothy 1:4, 4:7; Titus 1:14; and 2 Peter 1:16. In a first-century world filled with Greek, Roman, and Jewish myths, the apostles clearly knew the difference between truth and myth. And they constantly affirmed that the Word of God contains truth, not myth."[2]

More importantly, what did Jesus himself have to say about Genesis? In John 10:34-35, Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6, asserting that "Scripture cannot be broken," in other words, it is reliable, infallible, faithful, as well as truthful. Several times, He shows that all that is written in the books of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms are true. Jesus believed that all Scripture is trustworthy and true. In past entries, we have examined that Jesus believed the accounts found in the Old Testament to be historical fact, not historical fiction. 

Jesus treated Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, Abel's murder, Lot and his wife, Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses and the serpent, Elijah and his miracles, Jonah in the fish, etc, as historical fact! 11 times Jesus is recorded as saying "Have you not read..." and 30 times as saying "It is written...", and he rebuked people for not understanding Scripture. Let us look at three important verses: Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19-20, and Luke 11:50-51.

Mark 10:6 says, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Jesus did not say, "He made them later on," or "millions/billions of years later, he made them male and female." He stated succinctly, "...at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Adam and Eve were created in the beginning, not millions or billions of years later. Mark 13:19-20 says, "because those will be the days of distress unequaled from the beginning when God created the world, until now - and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them."

Mark 13:19-20 is in the midst of Christ discussing the end times, and the "days of distress" he is referring to are the Tribulation. However, we can glean the same as before: Jesus believed in a young creation. The third verse, Luke 11:50-51 states, "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary..." From this passage, we can determine that Jesus placed the murder of Abel not long after the beginning of the world - not millions of years later.

From these and other passages we can easily determine that Jesus was a young-earth Creationist. Dr. Mortenson also points out, "It has been objected that in these statements Jesus was just accommodating the cultural beliefs of His day. But this is false for four reasons. First, Jesus was the truth (John 14:6), and therefore He always spoke the truth. No deceitful or misleading words ever came from His mouth (1 Peter 2:22). Even his enemies said, 'Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth' (Mark 12:14, NASB). Second, Jesus taught with authority on the basis of God's Word, which he called 'truth' (John 17:17), not as the scribes and Pharisees taught based on their traditions (Matthew 7:28-29). Third, Jesus repeatedly and boldly confronted all kinds of wrong thinking and behavior in his listeners' lives, in spite of the threat of persecution for doing so (Matthew 22:29; John 2:15-16, 3:10, 4:3-4, 9; Mark 7:9-13). And finally, Jesus emphasized the foundational importance of believing what Moses wrote in an straightforward way (John 5:45; Luke 16:31, 24:25-27, 24:44-45; John 3:12, Matthew 17:5)."[3]

Credit to: NASA/Hubble; Orion Nebula pictured

The author of Hebrews (Paul, Barnabas, or perhaps Apollos) considered Genesis 1-11 as well as the whole of the Old Testament as literal history. The infamous "Faith in Action," concerning the "Heroes of Faith" found in Hebrews 11 mentions several historical points related to Genesis 1-11. Hebrews 11:3-4 says, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead."

Hebrews 11:5-7 continue, "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: 'He could not be found, because God had taken him away.' For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith."

Besides actually quoting Genesis, here the author of Hebrews clearly demonstrates a literal view of Genesis: mentioning the Creation of the Universe - formed at God's command, the offering and death of Abel and existence of Cain too, the historical existence and subsequent translation of Enoch, as well as Noah and the ark. Revelation 22:2 mentions Eden restored, after the events of the End Times and after the 1000 year reign of Christ. Here, the tree of life is clearly a callback to the original, which is found in Genesis 1-3. 

Except this time, instead of being withheld from man, it is freely given. (see Genesis 3:21-24) Also, Jude believed in a literal Genesis. Jude 11, "Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion." Jude 14, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam..." (cf. Genesis 5, 1st Chronicles 1, Luke 3) The answer is clear: yes, the authors of the Bible believed in a literal Genesis.

If the authors of Scripture took Genesis 1-11 as literal history, including Jesus, who is God Himself (for example, see John 10:30), then we should too. Contrary to popular belief, secular science, specifically evolution, has never disproved Creation, including a Young Creation. God supernaturally created "the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) a little over 6000 years ago, over a period of six days, just as the Bible teaches and as the evidence suggests. 

It is important to take Genesis 1-11 as literal history. Why? If the foundation of the Bible is taken away, this opens the door to compromise and everything else crumbles. Jesus came into the world to die for the past, present, an future sins of humanity because our ancestors, two historical people: Adam and Eve, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, disobeying God, and opening these realms, the whole universe, to sin. God's perfect creation was corrupted by man. This necessitated - and still necessitates - a Savior. 

Jesus is that Savior. He is coming again soon in order to take His people. The world will go through Seven Years of Tribulation, and then, in the second phase of the Second Coming, Jesus will come to liberate creation from the bondage of corruption, for "we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:22, see 8:18-25) Understand that a person does not have to believe that Genesis 1-11 is literal to be saved. We are saved by grace, through faith - not by works, so that no one can boast. But a belief in a literal Genesis 1-11 is important in that it provides a firm foundation and makes sense of the world around us and for the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

How are we saved? Romans 10:9-10 reveals, "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." We must also confess our sins to God regularly, and "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1st John 1:9)

Thank you for taking the time to read this entry of "The Truth." Feel free to comment below - but remain civil in your comment(s) - email vexx801@yahoo.com or thetruth.ministryweb@gmail.com, visit the Ministry website, or visit the Facebook page. Take care, dear reader, we appreciate your support. May God bless. Maranatha. Troy Hillman

Sources:

[1] Wallace, Ron. "THE GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION." Bible Fragrances. Ron Wallace, n.d. Web. 20 Mar 2011. .

[2] Mortenson, Dr. Terry. The New Answers Book 3. 3rd ed. 3. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2010. 86. Print.

[3] Ibid, 88.