Two Creation Accounts? Is There a Contradiction in the Genesis Account of Creation?

We receive lots of emails every week from people about cults, movements, teachers, religions, the Bible, but every fall as soon as colleges get started we see more than one question about the supposed contradiction in the early chapters of Genesis about creation. Sure enough two days ago, right on schedule, the question came again...

"I was reading this text book for my mythology class and it says that there are two creation stories in the Bible. I looked it up and sure enough, it seems like there is. This is really shaking my faith. Why does the Bible say that man was created on the sixth day, after plants, and then says Adam was created before plants??? Are there really two creation stories??? I feel like this is contradictory. PLEASE HELP."

Good Bible commentaries and books on apparent difficulties in the Bible have long addressed this issue and we suggest every Christian home own one of these for future run ins with problems like this, but how can we explain the difference in the order of creation events between Genesis 1 and 2? Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe offer a concise response in their book, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties:

PROBLEM: Genesis 1 declares that animals were created before humans, but Genesis 2:19 seems to reverse this, saying, "the Lord God formed every beast of the field and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them," implying Adam was created before they were.

SOLUTION: Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus in chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be summarized as follows:

GENESIS 1: Chronological order / Outline / Creating animals                          

GENESIS 2: Topical order / Details / Naming animals

Additional help on this issue by our friends at Answers In Genesis can be found here.

Did Moses Plagiarize from the Code of Hammurabi?

The Code of Hammurabi (Hammurapi).

Critics of the Bible use to question whether a complex code of laws, such as that which Moses penned, could have been written at so early a time (c. 1446 BC). Their question was answered in 1901. It was then that a French excavator by the name of Jacques de Morgan unearthed a black stone monument (called a stele) more than seven feet tall at Susa in southwest Iran. The monument, which is now on display at the Louvre in Paris, contains 282 laws inscribed on it and is known as the Code of Hammurapi (a spelling scholars now prefer to Hammurabi).

       Hammurapi, an Amorite, was the sixth and best-known ruler of the first dynasty of Babylon. He lived from about 1792 to 1750 BC so it is generally acknowledged that Hammurapi’s code of laws was compiled nearly three centuries before the Israelites were at Mount Sinai. [1] The discovery of these laws and other ancient codes unearthed since then [2] has forever silenced questions about whether or not complex laws existed at the time of Moses. Surely they did.

       But the discovery of the Code of Hammurapi gave rise to another challenge, one that continues to be propagated by critics of the Bible. Critics like to point out that there are similarities between the Code of Hammurapi and the Old Testament laws and then claim that Moses plagiarized or borrowed his ideas on how to govern a nation from Hammurapi. And “Because that was the case,” critics contend, “Moses’ words originated with man, not God, and Moses’ whole story about receiving instruction from God on Mount Sinai goes out the window!”

      Well, in response to this, I’ll start out by acknowledging that Christians and Jews recognize that there are some similarities between the Code of Hammurapi and the Mosaic Law. Allow me to share with you three of the more apparent examples. As you read through them, ask yourself “Does it appear as though Moses plagiarized the Code of Hammurapi or might something else be going on?”

KIDNAPPING

Code of Hammurapi, no. 14:
“If any one steal [3] the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.” [4]

Exodus 21:16:
“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.”

STEALING

Code of Hammurapi, no. 8, 22:
“If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death…If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.”

                                                                 
Exodus 22:1–4:
“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double.”

EYE FOR EYE

Code of Hammurapi, no. 196–197, 200:
“If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. If he break another man’s bone, his bone shall be broken…If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.”

Exodus 21:22–25:
“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

      So as you can see, there are some similarities. And there are a few other lines that could be compared. [5] But similarities do not prove plagiarism. Most of the similarities in the two sets of laws are limited to the fact that both codes address things like murder, stealing, adultery, kidnapping, etc., problems that every society must address. This is hardly proof of plagiarism. The country I live in, the United States of America, has hundreds of laws concerning these matters as well. So does India, France and Australia. Do the similarities between our laws mean that we plagiarized from these countries? Of course not. The similarity in some of our laws points not to plagiarism, but to the fact that humans are made in the image of God and He has written His Law on the hearts of all people (Romans 2:15). Societies of every stripe know that certain things are wrong (stealing, kidnapping, murder, etc.). And so laws against those things have shown up in codes all around the world for thousands of years. So if similarities in our laws don’t mean that we plagiarized from other countries, why conclude that the similarities between Old Testament laws and the Code of Hammurapi are the result of plagiarism?

      But the critic raises a good question, “What about this peculiar saying regarding an ‘eye for eye’? It seems odd that this saying would end up in both codes if there wasn’t some sort of plagiarism going on.”

      The “eye for eye” statement is certainly the most mentioned example of “plagiarism.” But I want you to notice something in the passage above (no. 196). Hammurapi does not say, “An eye for an eye.” He simply says, “His eye shall be put out.” Moses says, “Eye for eye,” but not Hammurapi. I see no compelling reason to conclude that Moses’ words (“life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,”) are the result of plagiarism. The concepts–that punishment should fit the crime–are similar but the words are different. I point this out to you because I’ve had people tell me, “Hammurapi said “An eye for an eye,” three hundred years before Moses!” Uh, no. That’s not accurate. The wording is different.

      And even if it could be maintained that Moses’ words concerning appropriate retribution were too similar to the Code of Hammurapi to be original, I would still not be troubled, for God may have purposely expressed His will to Moses with words and concepts that the Israelites were already familiar with. Many of the Babylonian laws were already well known in that region of the world at the time of Moses. So there’s a chance that the Israelites were familiar with Hammurapi’s laws regarding equal retribution long before they arrived at Mount Sinai. Rather than give laws to the Israelites with new terms, God may have communicated this concept (equal retribution) in terms the Israelites were already familiar with (eye for eye).

      Other blows to the plagiarism charge include the fact that the remedies and punishments for many of the legal issues are quite different (even as seen in the laws above regarding stealing) and that the Old Testament laws are presented as an expression of a holy God (Leviticus 19:1–2). This is not at all the case in the Code of Hammurapi. Fred Wight, author of Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands, comments on this:

The Mosaic Law gives strong emphasis to the recognition of sin as being the cause of the downfall of a nation. Such a thought is entirely lacking in Hammurabi’s Code…Also the great fundamental principle of the laws of God in the Hebrew Bible may be summed up in the words: “Be ye holy, for I am holy” [Lev. 11:45]. Such a principle as this was utterly unknown to the Babylonians as seen in their law code. [6]

Archaeologist, Alfred Hoerth, also comments on this:

The Old Testament law code is religiously oriented, while the others are civil. The Mesopotamians believe the god Shamash gave Hammurapi his law code so people could get along with one another. In the Bible the law code was given primarily so people could get along with God. [7]

      So, while there are some similarities between the Code of Hammurapi and the Old Testament Law, the vast differences between the codes show the plagiarism charge to be without warrant.

For more help on topics like this one and to learn how archaeology has vindicated the Bible, check out my book Archaeological Evidence for the Bible (PDF, e-book, $7.95).

NOTES:

1. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, 171.

2. The Holman Bible Dictionary states: “Archaeologists now have five cuneiform law codes which were written before the time of Moses: those of Ur-Nammu, Eshnunna, Lipit-Ishtar, Hammurabi, and the Hittites.” The code of Ur-Nammu of the city Ur dates to 2100 BC (Fant and Reddish, Lost Treasures of the Bible, 60); an excavation at a site called Nuzi in east central Mesopotamia revealed similar laws dating to the fifteenth century BC (Hoerth and McRay, Bible Archaeology, 46).

3. The use of words like “steal” or “knock” that should have an “s” on the end are not typos, but accurate to the original translation.

4. From translation of the Code of Hammurapi at http://public.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM.

5. Compare Hammurapi 195 with Exodus 21:15; 206 with Exodus 21:18–19; 209–210 with Exodus 21:22–25; 250–251 with Exodus 21:28–32.

6. Wight, Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands, 72.

7. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, 171.

Two Evidences for Noah's Flood: Fossil Graveyards and Extrabiblical Accounts

The Bible tells us that God judged sinful humanity about 2500 years before Christ with a flood that covered "all the high hills under the whole heaven" (Genesis 7:19). [1] This was a cataclysmic flood that devastated the planet. If this event happened as Moses said, and as Jesus and Peter affirmed (Matthew 24:39; 2 Peter 3:6), surely there should be some evidence for it. Is there? Yes.

Everywhere geologists dig on all seven continents, they find billions of dead animals and plants buried and fossilized inside sedimentary rock made up of sand, mud, and lime that were deposited rapidly by water. Billions of animal remains inside rocks? That’s odd. Animals that die natural deaths rapidly decompose and disappear. Consider the buffalo. Invertebrate paleontologist, Carl Dunbar, points out:

The buffalo carcasses strewn over the plains in uncounted millions two generations ago have left hardly a present trace. The flesh was devoured by wolves and vultures within hours or days after death, and even the skeletons have now largely disappeared, the bones dissolving and crumbling into dust under the attack of the weather.[2]

When animals die today, their carcasses fall to the ground and within months their bones are dragged off by scavengers or, if left alone, they begin to decay under the wear and tear of the elements.

But something different happened with the billions of creatures we find in the fossil record. Their bones are preserved, many of them wholly intact with very little evidence of decay. This has led many paleontologists, geologists and archaeologists to conclude that these creatures were killed during a flood. Their bodies were caught in the mudflow, rapidly buried in the sediment while it was still wet and soft, and then preserved. 

The fossils of billions of dead creatures encased in sedimentary rock all over the world are a powerful reminder of the Flood described in the Book of Genesis.[3]

One of the tablets making up the "Gilgamesh Epic"

In addition to the widespread fossil evidence, archaeologists have unearthed a number of ancient extrabiblical writings describing a catastrophic flood. The Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Algonquins and Hawaiians all have flood stories.[4] Although there are some differences among the accounts, the parallels are striking. Consider this list of similarities between Noah’s flood and the flood account known as the “Gilgamesh Epic,” found 150 years ago in the ancient ruins of a library at Nineveh. In both accounts:

•  the flood was divinely planned

•  the flood was connected with the defection of the human race from God/the gods

•  advance notice of the flood was given to one individual

•  there was instruction to build a boat

•  the building of a boat, pitched inside and out
•  a storm brings on the flood
•  preservation of the hero’s family and the animals aboard the boat

•  everyone not on the boat is destroyed
•  the boat coming to rest atop a mountain

•  the sending out of the birds after the flood to determine if the world was habitable
•  the offering of sacrifices after the flood [5]

With so many points in common between the Gilgamesh Epic and the Biblical account, it’s not difficult to conclude that both accounts recall a common event. But some critics of the Bible look at the similarities in the accounts and argue that Moses must have stolen his idea for a flood from an earlier source. They have no evidence that this occurred except the similarities in the accounts. But similarities in different reports of historical events don’t prove plagiarism. It is very possible that witnesses with similar details in their stories are looking back to an actual event–in this case the Flood.

The more witnesses who tell a similar story, the more likely the core of the story is actually true. Think this through with me. Let’s suppose you have two books by two different authors lying before you on the coffee table. They are both first hand accounts of surviving Auschwitz, Hitler’s infamous death camp. One of the books was released ten years after Nazi Germany was defeated; the other was released forty years later. As you read the books, you see quite a few similarities in the accounts of what life was like in that dreadful place. Descriptions about the guards, rules, cruelty, lack of food, labor, clothing, all match. Do you tear up the newer book and conclude that the author plagiarized from the other author because there are some similarities? I wouldn’t. I think it would be wiser to conclude that some of the details are similar because both accounts look back to and report on the same event (life at Auschwitz). And so it is with the similarities in the flood accounts. They exist because the accounts look back to the same event, the catastrophic Flood.

But other critics of the Bible aren’t concerned with the similarities in the accounts. They are concerned about the differences between the accounts. And there are differences:

•  the Genesis version is monotheistic

•  the Gilgamesh Epic is polytheistic

•  the God of Genesis is holy

•  the Gilgamesh gods act in unholy ways

•  the arks are shaped differently

•  the names of the boat builders are different [6]

These differences aren’t surprising. As Noah’s descendants spread out from the mountains of Ararat (c. 2400–2300 BC) to the four corners of the planet [7] and the story was told and retold over the centuries, conflicting details crept into different strains of the story. Some critics point to these differences and conclude, “All the flood stories are myths, including the Bible’s!”

But do differences in the stories mean that all of the accounts are myths and that we can’t be confident in any of them? Not at all. Imagine for a moment you are sitting in a courtroom observing a trial. As the day progresses, you notice that the witnesses taking the witness stand are giving some conflicting details of an event. What would you think if the judge threw up his hands and said, “Everyone’s lying!” laid down his gavel, declared a mistrial, and walked out of the courtroom for an early lunch? What would you think about his assessment that everyone was lying? They could all be lying; it’s possible that is the case. But I think it would be wiser to assume that even though there are some conflicting details, one or more of the people on the witness stand is likely giving a more accurate account than others. The goal of the jury is to figure out whose story is most trustworthy.

Critics who discover the differences in the flood accounts and then throw down the gavel and declare them all to be myths are making the same mistake that the judge makes in the scenario above. They are failing to give serious consideration to the possibility that one of the accounts is a more accurate account of what actually happened.

Christians and Jews believe that the Genesis account of the Flood is an accurate account of what happened. Why? Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks offer a succinct overview of the reasons:

The other versions [of the Flood] contain elaborations that display corruption. Only in Genesis is the year of the Flood given, as well as dates for the whole chronology relative to Noah’s life. In fact, Genesis reads almost like a diary or ship’s log of the events. The cubical Babylonian ship could not have saved anyone from the Flood. The raging waters would be constantly turning it over on every side. However, the biblical ark is rectangular––long, wide, and low––so that it would ride the rough seas well. The length of the rainfall in the pagan accounts (seven days) is not enough time for the devastation they describe…The idea that all of the floodwaters subsided in one day is equally absurd…in the other accounts, the hero is granted immortality and exalted, while in the Bible, we see Noah sinned. Only a version that seeks to tell the truth would include this. [8]

To these differences the Holman Bible Handbook adds:

"In the Bible, God is morally outraged by humanity’s perversity. The gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are sophomoric, perturbed, and sleepless at humanity’s noisiness. In Genesis, God’s gracious will is to save those in the ark. The hero in the Gilgamesh epic discovered the coming flood despite the will of most of the gods. [9]

The explanations above coupled with the fossil record are some of the reasons I believe the Genesis account is a superior, more accurate, retelling of the actual event. And ensuring that Moses’ account of the Flood was perfectly accurate would not be a difficult task at all for a sovereign omnipotent God. God may have providentially ensured that one strain of the story, that strain that was passed down through the Jewish people and ultimately given to Moses to compile, edit and write down as Scripture, was kept free from contamination. Another possibility is that although all the stories may have eventually taken on legendary encrustations by the time of Moses (c. 1446 BC), God straightened out the truth of the matter by direct, special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. However God accomplished an accurate preservation of the details surrounding the Flood is fine with me.

For those of us who believe God is sovereign and can watch over His Word in order to preserve it (Jeremiah 1:12, Isaiah 40:8), for those of us who trust that Jesus knew the truth about the Flood (Matthew 24:37–39), for those of us who believe that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16), we confidently affirm with Peter that “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3:6) even if the rest “willfully forget” (2 Peter 3:5). [10]

NOTES

1. There are good reasons to believe that the Flood covered the whole Earth. Genesis 7:20–21 says, “The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the Earth.” If the flood was only local as some claim, then God’s promise to not flood the Earth again (Genesis 9:11) is broken every time a severe local flood occurs.

2. Carl Dunbar, Historical Geology, 39. Cited in “Questions About Genesis 1–11,” number 37, Willmington’s Guide to the Bible, retrieved on QuickVerse software (version 2.0.2).

3. I anticipate some of you may have questions at this point: Why don’t we find fossils of people if they were killed during the Flood? Isn’t it possible that all of the animals we find in the fossil record were killed in local floods rather than a global flood? How could rain falling for 40 nights cover the top of the Himalayan Mountains? How could all of the animals fit on Noah’s ark? You can find answers to these kinds of questions at AlwaysBeReady.com. Click on “Flood.”
4. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, 182.
5. Clyde E. Fant and Mitchell G. Reddish, Lost Treasures of the Bible: Understanding the Bible Through Archaeological Artifacts in World Museums, 21. Also see Alfred J. Hoerth, Archaeology and the Old Testament, 195–196.

6. Noah is called Ziusudra by the Sumerians and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians. I think differences like this actually help fight off the charge that Moses was guilty of plagiarism.
7. I hope you won’t label me a flat-Earther because of my use of this term. The apostle John used it in Revelation 7:1 and critics have accused the Bible of teaching a flat Earth. Ridiculous! He was using a figure of speech to describe the extremities of the land in the four cardinal directions: North, South, East and West.
8. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 183.

9. David S. Dockery, general editor, “Creation and Flood Stories,” Holman Bible Handbook (1992), retrieved on QuickVerse software (version 2.0.2).

10. For further reading see: “The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh” by Frank Lorey at http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh; “A Comparative Study of the Flood Accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis” by Nozomi Osanai at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/introduction.asp

The Bible's Critics Were Wrong Again: Daniel and His Supposedly Invented King

"Belshazzar's Feast" by Rembrandt

The Book of Daniel records for us the final hours of the Babylonian empire before its fall to the Medes and Persians (539 BC). We read that:

Belshazzar the king made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in the presence of the thousand. While he tasted the wine, Belshazzar gave the command to bring the gold and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the temple which had been in Jerusalem, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them (Daniel 5:1–2).

Shortly after this, Belshazzar saw a human hand write a mysterious message on the wall that no one was able to interpret. After Daniel was called in to help interpret the message, he gave Belshazzar the interpretation:

Belshazzar…you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written…This is the interpretation…God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it…You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting…Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:22–28).

That very night Belshazzar was killed (v. 30) and the city of Babylon passed into the hands of the Medes and Persians.

This passage of Scripture was long the target of critics’ cannons. They considered Daniel’s references to Belshazzar “pure invention" [1] and “a historical blunder." [2] Why? The name Belshazzar could not be found anywhere outside the Bible and the ancient historians Berossus and Alexander Polyhistor said that the last king of the Babylonian empire was a man named Nabonidus. [3]

And so the critics appeared very wise pontificating about how the author of the Book of Daniel, not really knowing the real name of the king and writing long after the fall of Babylon, just made up the name Belshazzar. And they appeared to have a case. But, as the late Dr. James Montgomery Boice, said:

If you want to look very wise in the world’s eyes and are willing to risk looking foolish years from now, you can make a reputation for yourself by pointing out the “errors” in the Bible…But these things tend to become explained. As time passes and the data from archaeology, historical investigations, numismatics, and other disciplines accumulate, these alleged “errors” tend to explode in the faces of those who propound them. [4]

PHOTO: Babylonian Chronicle 7, known as the Nabonidus Chronicle

Explode they do. And explode they did with the mid-nineteenth century discovery of thousands of ancient clay tablets in Babylon. These clay tablets, known as the Babylonian Chronicle (see photo above), contain a treasure trove of information about Babylon’s history. They not only mention Belshazzar, they tell us that when king Nabonidus departed for a multi-year stay in the Arabian oasis town of Tema, about 450 miles away from Babylon (in modern day Saudi Arabia), he entrusted the rule of Babylon into the hands of Belshazzar, his eldest son. [5]

Belshazzar’s name has also been discovered on a clay cylinder (photo below) found in Ur in southern Iraq. The cylinder records a prayer by Nabonidus, wherein he petitions the moon god “Sin” for his son “Belshazzar, the eldest son of my offspring." [6]

So there is no doubt today that Belshazzar was a real person and co-ruler with his father on the night Babylon fell. [7]

PHOTO: Cylinder containing Nabonidus’ prayer with mention of his son Belshazzar.  © Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons
 

But there appears to be another problem in Daniel chapter five. The passage refers to Belshazzar’s “father” as Nebuchadnezzar (5:2, 11, 13, 18) not Nabonidus. Clyde Fant, Mitchell Reddish and other critics have pointed out this supposed error. [8] But the critics have overlooked something. The word “father” in Aramaic (the language Daniel 5 was written in), [9] like Hebrew, can mean “ancestor” or “predecessor." [10] As Dr. Lawrence Richards points out:

The term is often used in genealogies to indicate an individual who may be a distant ancestor. “Father” was also used in biblical times with the sense of “predecessor” on a royal throne. Even a supplanter like Jehu, who murdered the family of Ahab to set up his own dynasty, is called in Assyrian records a “son of Omri,” the founder of the earlier royal line. A third consideration is that frequently a king like Belshazzar would marry a daughter of the founding line, and in this sense too be the “son” of the “father." [11]

So with some investigation into the original languages and consideration as to how the word “father” was used in the ancient world, another apparent problem evaporates. The critics will have to turn their damaged cannons elsewhere.

---

NOTES

1. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, 201.

2. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible, 119.

3. Ibid. and Free, Archaeology and Bible History, 201.

4. Boice, Daniel: An Expositional Commentary, 60.

5. Nearly all of the books cited in my footnotes and many others not cited discuss the archaeological evidence surrounding Belshazzar.

6. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible, 119.

7. The fact that Nabonidus and Belshazzar occupied the top two ruling positions in Babylon, sheds light on Belshazzar’s offer of the third position (rather than second) to anyone able to interpret the writing on the wall (Daniel 5:7, 29).

8. Fant and Reddish, Lost Treasures of the Bible, 234.

9. The Book of Daniel was written in two languages: 1:1-2:4a and chapters 8-12 are in Hebrew, and 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic.

10. The ESV Study Bible, see notes at Daniel 5:1.

11. Richards, The 365 Day Devotional Commentary, June 19, Daniel 5:1, retrieved on QuickVerse software (version 2.0.2).

Why Would God Command the Israelites to Destroy the Canaanites?

God told the Israelites to “drive out” (Numbers 33:52) the Canaanites when they entered into the Promised Land and “conquer them and utterly destroy them…destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:2, 5). The question has often been raised as to why a loving God would command something like this. Well, archaeology has helped to at least partially answer that question, as I will show momentarily. First though, I think it’s important to point out that the Bible does not leave us in the dark regarding this matter.

Part of the answer can be found in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 18:9–14. In these passages the Bible describes the Canaanites at the time of Joshua as being an exceedingly wicked people who were indulging in incest, adultery, polygamy, bestiality, homosexuality, witchcraft, child sacrifice to Molech, and a variety of other “abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30). The people had become a dangerous threat to others and if permitted to live would have turned the Israelites away from following God (Deuteronomy 7:4). So God determined that no man would be able to stand before the Israelites until the Canaanites were destroyed (Deuteronomy 7:24).

The Bible says that God is slow to anger (Genesis 15:16, Numbers 14:18). He does not delight in the death of the wicked; He would rather people turn from their wicked ways and live (Ezekiel 18:23). Should the Canaanites have turned their backs on their evil ways as the Ninevites did (Jonah 3:10), I believe God would have shown the Canaanites mercy. But they did not repent. And so God’s judgment fell on them. God used the Israelites to drive them out of the land–just as He would use the Assyrians and Babylonians centuries later to drive the Israelites out of the land for the same sins! God does not show partiality (Ephesians 6:9).

As we consider God’s judgment on the Canaanites and later judgment on the Israelites, I think it’s important to remember that God is sovereign over life; He created humanity and He has the right to do whatever He deems best with His creation. All of life belongs to Him. If He deems a people wicked enough to deserve judgment, then He has that prerogative. And we can trust Him, for He is infinitely wiser than us and all of His works are holy and just (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Now in spite of the Bible’s numerous references to the gruesome practice of sacrificing children by fire to the god Molech [1], William F. Albright, the renowned archaeologist at Johns Hopkins University, who published more than 800 books and articles, said: “The rationalistic critics of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries refused to believe that the reports had any basis, especially since archaeological work seemed not to furnish any support." [2]

That has changed. Dr. Merrill Unger, author of Archeology and the Old Testament, writes “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination." [3] Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History Emeritus at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and a renowned expert in ancient history tells us, “Discoveries in cemeteries in Carthage, the colony of Phoenicia, have now bared grim evidence of the custom of burning babies on pyres." [4]

---

1. Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:30–31.

2. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 235.

3. Unger, Archeology and the Old Testament, 279.

4. Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures, 162.

Is Judgment Day May 21, 2011? A Response to Harold Camping's Prediction

I thought after his book 1994?, wherein Harold Camping prophesied that Jesus was coming back in 1994, that we had heard the last of Camping. Well, I was wrong. He’s back and He’s got a new date.

According to Harold Camping of Family Radio Worldwide, and thousands of his followers, the Rapture of the church is going to occur on May 21, 2011, followed by God’s judgment on the world and then the destruction of the planet on October 21, 2011.

Click here to read the remainder of this article on the ABR website.

NEW DVD! The Case for the Resurrection.

I'm excited to announce the completion and arrival of a new DVD: "The Case for the Resurrection." In this 58 minute DVD I build a case for Jesus' resurrection and responds to numerous theories, questions and objections that atheists and critics have raised regarding the empty tomb. It's available in our online store here for $11.95.

Rob Bell Spoof (A Response to Rob Bell's Video Promoting His New Book, Love Wins)

Robbed Hell - C.A.S.T. Pearls Presents from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Was Christianity Stolen from Mithraism?

Someone emailed me recently asking for help responding to a challenge an atheist had sent him. Here was the challenge:   

Atheist:  "The New Testament is a carbon copy of the older and very large Mithra religion. The bible is a bastardized mixture of cherry picked stories from Judaism and Mithraism. Christianity is Mithraism wearing a new name. Try disproving both of those claims and then get back to me. I won't hold my breath."   

Below is a slightly edited edition of my response to the Christian brother who emailed me...  

It sounds like your friend watched the online movie Zeitgeist. We have a section at AlwaysBeReady.com that responds to the claims in the movie here. But before I respond to someone who makes so many grandiose claims I like to put the burden of proof back on the person making the claims. Why should I have to disprove his claims? He made them. Let's see him offer us some good reasons why we should take him seriously.  

I like to do that by asking questions.  

I suggest calling up your friend (this prevents him from just cutting and pasting stuff off some atheist's website) in love and humility and asking questions like: 

•  You sound like you're quite an expert on the topic, and I'm open to learning if I've overlooked something, What can you tell me about Mithraism?  
•  Who started Mithraism?  
•  When and where did Mithraism get started?  
•  How did you come to your conclusion that the New Testament is a "carbon copy" of Mithraism?
•  What books did you read? 
•  Have you read any books or articles that respond to those claims or allegations? If so, which ones? If not, would you be willing to read one and let me know what you think?
•  In what ways is the New Testament a carbon copy of the "Mithra" religion?   
•  What stories specifically in the Bible were "cherry picked from Judaism or Mithraism"?  
•  Can you tell me the original places (chapter and verses) in the ancient writings where those stories were taken from? 

Asking pointed questions like that in many cases will help people see that they do not know what they are talking about. People are usually passing along hearsay, e.g., something they heard in Zeitgeist. After you're done asking questions and listening carefully to their responses, they might be more open to hearing what you have to say about the topic. This will probably require some reading and research on your part, and I'll provide some helpful in-depth articles for you to read below. 

Regarding the claim that the events surrounding Mithra’s life were stolen by the New Testament authors. These claims are not credible. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that Mithraism (the religion associated with Mithra) could not have influenced the Gospel writers. It states:

“There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world until the beginning of the 2nd century, but, from the year AD 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory inscriptions to Mithra. This renewal of interest is not easily explained. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. AD 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world.” 

The four Gospels were done well before the close of the first century. If Mithraism wasn’t even known in the Roman world in the first century, as the Encyclopedia Britannica says, then it is misguided to suggest that teachings regarding Mithra influenced the Gospel writers.  

In his book, Christianity and the Hellenistic World, Ron Nash writes:  "Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.... During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook….Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians." (p. 144).  

The apostle Peter wrote, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with Him on the sacred mountain." (2 Peter 1:16-18).  

Here are some helpful articles on this topic:

"Was Christianity Borrowed from Mithraism?" by Dr. Norman Geisler
"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions" by Ronald Nash
"The Zeitgeist of the 'Zeitgeist Movie'" by Ben Witherington
"A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy" by Mike Licona
[The Christ Conspiracy is the main source of information in Zeitgeist].
"Christianity, the Resurrection of Christ and the Mystery Religions" by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon
"Paul and the Mystery Religions" by Don Closson
"A Summary Critique: The Mythological Jesus Mysteries" by H. Wayne House
"Ancient Non-Christian Sources for the Life of Christ" by Gary Habermas

HELL UNDER FIRE: Rob Bell and His Heretical Views on Salvation, Heaven and Hell

Rob Bell, Author of the new book Love Wins.

The doctrine of Hell as revealed in the Bible has long been under fire by people who toss aside Jesus' clear warnings about it, underestimate their own evil, and scoff at the holiness and justice of God. The latest scoffer is Rob Bell, the popular teacher featured in the NOOMA videos and author of Velvet Elvis. In Rob Bell's newest book, Love Wins, he suggests that all humanity has already been forgiven of their sins, Hell is what we create for ourselves in this life when we reject God's love, Hell is not forever, there will be no eternal conscious torment, etc. If you need help dialoging with someone who has read the book, or if you just need help understanding where and how Rob Bell has departed from sound doctrine, below are some helpful reviews of the book:

"God is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School is Still True"
by Kevin DeYoung (author of the excellent book Why We're Not Emergent)

"We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology"
by Albert Mohler

"Love Wins: A Review of Rob Bell's New Book"
by Tim Challies

"Hell Under Fire: Answers to Skeptics' Top Ten Questions About Hell"
by Charlie Campbell (this is not a review of Bell's book, but answers many of the same concerns and questions that he brings up in his book).

Is There Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus?

     The Bible tells us that God delivered the Israelites from their slavery in Egypt and led them into the land to the north that He had promised to Abraham centuries earlier. Critics of the Bible have long voiced their skepticism regarding the Exodus account.

     One of the objections critics raise has to do with the massive Egyptian military presence that was along the Mediterranean coast route leading up to Canaan. [1] Critics suggest that it would have been impossible for the Israelites to make it past such a force. Well, they are failing to consider a couple of things. First off, an army of any size is no match for God. You may recall what a lone angel did to 185,000 Assyrians in a single evening (2 Kings 19:35). A second fact that critics overlook is that the Bible specifically tells us that the Israelites were not led out via the route along the Mediterranean lest they retreat when they saw the soldiers (Exodus 13:17–18). It is not uncommon for critics of the Bible to misread or fail to understand the details of a Biblical account and then attack their own misunderstanding.

     Another objection critics raise regarding the Exodus concerns the lack of any Egyptian records mentioning the Israelite’s departure from the land. But a lack of records should not concern us. It is reasonable to believe that the Egyptians had some written record of the Exodus but as British Egyptologist Kenneth A. Kitchen says, voluminous papyrus archives once stored in Egypt have vanished:

In the sopping wet mud of the Delta, no papyrus ever survives (whether it mentions fleeing Hebrews or not)…In other words, as the official thirteenth-century archives from the East Delta centers are 100 percent lost, we cannot expect to find mentions in them of the Hebrews or anybody else. [2]

     “Well,” the skeptic says, “perhaps no written record survives on papyrus, but surely there should be something in a wall relief that mentions the Exodus.”
I disagree. As Jeffery Sheler, U. S. News & World Report religion writer, says:

Official records and inscriptions in the ancient Near East often were written to impress gods and potential enemies, it would be quite surprising to find an account of the destruction of pharaoh’s army immortalized on the walls of an Egyptian temple…Indeed, the absence of direct material evidence of an Israelite sojourn in Egypt is not as surprising, or as damaging to the Bible’s credibility, as it first might seem. [3]
 

     “Okay,” the skeptic reasons, “perhaps there wouldn’t be a wall relief telling the story of the Exodus, but surely the Israelites would have left behind some pottery in the Sinai desert during their sojourn from Egypt to Canaan.”

     When it comes to archaeological evidence for the Exodus (such as pottery), it is important to remember that the Israelites lived as nomads during their time in the wilderness. Nomads living in a desert like environment, where every utensil and tool is of great value, leave few traces in the archaeological record. The Israelite’s temporary tent encampments from 3000 years ago would not have left much behind in the swirling sands of the desert.

     Former Yale professor Millar Burrows agrees: “It is hardly reasonable, in fact, to expect archeological evidence of their sojourn anywhere. We cannot expect much help from archeology in tracing the route of a people’s migration through the desert.”[4]

     We also need to keep in mind that the Israelites left Egypt “in haste” and that “they were driven out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared provisions for themselves” (Exodus 12:33, 39). They did not foresee their disobedience that would keep them from the Promised Land and lead to a prolonged time in the wilderness. The Israelites were originally setting out on a short journey to Canaan with the understanding that God was going to provide for their needs (Exodus 3:8–12). They were not going to need to haul all their heavy pottery with them.

     Now having acknowledged that the archaeological evidence for the Exodus is scant, certain details in the Biblical account have been corroborated by archaeology. For example, the BBC reports:

According to the Bible, as the Hebrews left Egypt, Pharaoh changed his mind and sent 600 chariots to chase the runaway slaves. Could 600 be a biblical exaggeration? In 1997, on the site of the city of Ramses II, German archeologists unearthed the foundations of an ancient stable. By the end of the dig, they had found enough stables for at least 500 horses and chariots. [5]

For more examples of these kinds of corroborating details see Randall Price’s excellent book The Stones Cry Out. [6]

     Let us assume though that no compelling archaeological evidence surfaces that directly affirms the events of the Exodus. [7] Does that mean that the Exodus did not take place? Of course not. There are many events mentioned in the Bible that will never be affirmed by archaeological evidence. Many events could never be affirmed by archaeological evidence because they do not leave behind the kind of evidence archaeologists can find. Or perhaps the evidence for the Exodus has just not been discovered. It may be that something will be unearthed a few years from now that will shed new light on this historical event. Numerous theories that were critical of the Bible have evaporated with the turn of the archaeologist’s spade.

     This entry was adapted from my book Archaeological Evidence for the Bible.

---

1. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 467.

2. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 466. Italics in original.

3. Jeffery Sheler, Is The Bible True? 78.

4. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? 63.

5. “Moses,” July, 2009, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/history/moses_1.shtml, accessed October 4, 2010.

6. In particular, see the chapter: “The Exodus: The First Passover Plot?” in Randall Price, The Stones Cry Out: What Archaeology Reveals About the Truth of the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997), 125–140.

7. For a critique of Bob Cornuke’s claims in In Search of the Mountain of God: The Discovery of the Real Mount Sinai (Broadman & Holman, 2000), I refer you to the article on Associates for Biblical Research website by Gordon Franz, “Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia?” June 10, 2008, accessed November 23, 2010, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/10/Is-Mount-Sinai-in-Saudi-Arabia.aspx.