Category: Essay

The Fairy Tale Bible Vs the Real Bible

The Fairy Tale Bible has the same words in it as the Real Bible. What makes it different from the Real Bible is that the words in the Fairy Tale Bible mean something different from what they mean in the Real Bible.

It is easy to get started with a Fairy Tale Bible. Go online and find any popular bible offered. To transform it into a Fairy Tale Bible rather than a Real Bible, don’t read any more of the book than you have to. This is the first rule regarding the Fairy Tale Bible. The second rule is to fake-read this bible by listening to New Age or atheist leaning commentators who will tell us what the text says since we aren’t going to be reading it ourselves anyway.

We can then babble about “evolution” or write poetic nonsense about “the universe” and pretend that we are just as “biblical” as the next guy.

Examples of Fake-Reading

Genesis 1

For example, if we were reading about the six days of creation in the Real Bible, we would understandably think of six 24-hour days because they have an evening and a morning and we know how to read.

To fake-read this in the Authorized Atheist Version of the Fairy Tale Bible we would let some commentator tell us that the word “day” means a gazillion number of years over which an unscientific process called “evolution” turned a random explosion called the “big bang” into stars, galaxies and people through chance events. The commentator may, or may not depending on how supposedly Christian he is, graciously give God permission to “guide” that unscientific process (which doesn’t actually exist) so God has something useless to do.

Admittedly fake-reading is a pathetic alternative to actually reading the Real Bible, but I suspect, indeed from my own personal experience I am convinced, that is how some people read the bible.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts – the whole NT

As another example, if we read about the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus in the Real Bible we would see these as real historical events with significance for ourselves and our families regarding repentance and salvation.

However, if we were fake-reading the Lalaland Edition of the Fairy Tale Bible we would read a commentator who’d compare what happened to Jesus to what happens in near-death experiences. Then we would listen to a commentator claim someone found the very box in which the very bones of Jesus were stored. And then we’d watch a movie based on a novel that showed us how Jesus and Mary Magdalen had children who became royalty in Lalaland.

Genesis 6-9

It doesn’t get any better when reading about Noah’s flood. In the Real Bible we would think of a global catastrophe which ultimately formed the mountains, glaciers, canyons and oceans that we see around us. Our praise and gratitude to God would be immense for His mercy in protecting those eight people along with two of each kind of breathing creature so they could have survived that event and we could be here.

Should we want to switch over to the Fairy Tale Bible all we’d have to do is pretend that flood catastrophe never happened or at least wasn’t global. We would see it as one of those goofy things primitive people without any brains make up. We’d blindly believe that “scientists” one day would be able to explain, or at least convince each other, how those mountains, glaciers, canyons and oceans got there.

Real Life Example of a Fairy Tale Bible Commentator

Consider what the philosopher and supposed Christian apologist William Lane Craig said about Genesis: There are hints in the text itself that a seven day twenty-four hour day Creation week is not contemplated by the author. (1:44)

In case you didn’t notice, Craig is reading “hints” which aren’t actually there, in spite of him saying “in the text itself”, rather than the actual words which are, indeed, in the text itself. Although I’ve been plenty gullible in the past, today, as soon as I hear words like “hint” about a bible verse I anticipate that I will be led down a rabbit hole the commentator himself can’t find his way out of.

It is also worth noting for those not familiar with fairy tale thought patterns that Craig said contemplated by the author, but not contemplated by Moses whom most people would recognize as the author of Genesis. This omission of the name “Moses” was likely deliberate. The point of the Fairy Tale Bible is to discredit the Real Bible as an historical document. One way to do that is to fictionalize the people mentioned in it. Here Craig is subliminally suggesting that someone other than Moses might have written Genesis to raise our suspicion about the truth of anything else in that book or in any other book in the bible.

If the Real Bible is history we would have to take it seriously. That is why historicity is attacked by those promoting the Fairy Tale Bible. Fairy tale commentators do not want us to take the Real Bible seriously.

Craig excuses his position in advance by saying, I think that the book of Genesis is open to a wide range of legitimate interpretations. (1:19)

That he has to make this excuse at all is a sign that he’s aware that his position is not what his audience is ready to accept. He wants to disarm any hostile reaction from them. Some of them may even see him as a heretic. To avoid such a charge up front he asserts on his own authority that the book of Genesis is “open” to “wide” interpretation.

Since Craig is a philosopher, it’s a fair question to ask him what it means philosophically for him to call his interpretation “legitimate”? Unless he’s an atheistic humanist believing that man is the standard of all things, it doesn’t really matter what he thinks. What matters is: Does God think his interpretation is legitimate? What evidence does he have that God agrees with him?

If Craig is honest, he would not be able to answer that question and so he would likely throw it back at me. He would demand to know: What evidence do I have that God agrees with me? My response would be that I am a reader of the Real Bible. My “interpretation” is neither more nor less than accepting God’s Word as it was written. Given his searching for hints that contradict the actual words in the text that would be a response Craig could no longer honestly give.

Craig also said, There is a very tiny minority of Christians today who believe that the world was created some ten to twenty thousand years ago. (0:45)

And he proudly proclaimed that he’s not one of them. Oddly, this analytic philosopher doesn’t seem to know that truth does not depend on a majority vote. His reference to “a very tiny minority” does sound like an underestimation to make his own position look better than it is.

However, even if his poll numbers were correct (which I doubt), being part of a remnant is not necessarily a bad thing especially if one considers the remnant entering by the narrow way in Matthew 7:13-14. You would have to be reading the Real Bible to even know those verses. So, just in case you aren’t, let me quote them. (The red emphasis, however, is mine.)

Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Admittedly, anyone who persists in fake-reading the Fairy Tale Bible will start thinking in fairy tale English, but the quantity of people suffering from a delusion does not make that delusion true.

Confession

The reason all of this bothers me is because I used to read, talk and think fairy tale English just as fluently as the next deluded babbler. I even tried to make sense out of atheistic big bang mythology using Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument.

But then I broke the first fake-reading rule. I actually read the Real Bible. Although I still listened to commentators, I didn’t just listen to questionable ones talk about it. I noticed that there was a history in the Real Bible that I do remember people, long ago, having mentioned but which I had forgotten. Then I became very suspicious of those commentators leading me into either an atheistic or New Age direction.

However, I can’t take full credit for this change of heart. If it were up to me alone it would not have happened, because I would not have had an experiential base for trusting what I read in the Real Bible. The Holy Spirit had to smack me around a bit.

It is helpful to realize that fairy tale English has two overlapping dialects: atheist and New Age. These dialects seem contradictory, but they actually complement each other. Each dialect contains its own blend of pseudoscientific speculation and magical witchcraft. That is, each dialect contains a different blend of Star Wars and Harry Potter, but otherwise they are pretty much the same delusion. What I have come to realize is that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with either of them.

With results coming from the James Webb Space Telescope even atheists today are smartening up. Some of them now think that the big bang either didn’t happen (which leaves them with what?) or the mythical bang has to be pushed back another gazillion years to place it outside the falsifying reach of modern technology. Although they don’t appreciate it, they are at a fortunate crossroads where they have to start thinking and make better choices.

Craig thought he saw a crack in atheism because they hypothesized a beginning to the universe. He bought into their fairy tale of deep time and imaginary chance processes just to keep this hypothetical beginning afloat. Unfortunately he had to throw Genesis under the bus to do that.

When the big bang reaches the status of a falsified hypothesis (because it really makes no sense in any self-respecting atheistic, closed universe constrained by increasing entropy) I wonder how these compromising Christians will respond? May they repent as well as I did and may they start using their academic training to do real apologetics work in support of the Real Bible.

______

It All Goes Back To Genesis 3

Genesis 3:1-5 (KJV)
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

What would be the benefits as promised by the deceiving serpent of eating that fruit?

  1. Your eyes shall be opened. You would become woke.
  2. You shall be as gods. You, not God, would become the standard.
  3. You will know good and evil. You, not God, would become the judge of others.

That is, all hell would break loose.

______

For more details see Peter Wyns, Deceiving Spirits.

Revival Requires Repentance

Being lukewarm is a serious condition. It means running out of oil when one needs it most. It means missing the bridegroom. It means being locked out of the wedding feast because one’s lamp has gone out. (Matthew 25:1-13, Revelation 3:14-22)

The Spirit’s presence within us leads to a life that bears fruit. Those who submit to the Spirit will bear the fruit of the Spirit throughout the remainder of their lives or they will need to repent and receive once again the joy of revival that they could have had all along.

Galatians 5:22-23 (AMP)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit [the result of His presence within us] is love [unselfish concern for others], joy, [inner] peace, patience [not the ability to wait, but how we act while waiting], kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

How To Write a Poem

You need two things to write a poem. You need inspiration and you need to know a few techniques. I’ll cover one of the techniques called meter, but ultimately inspiration is what counts.

    Inspiration

    Before you can even begin to write a poem, you need something to say. Once you have that then you need words.

    Occasionally you will hear poets talk about their muse who tells them what to say and how to say it. To avoid the distraction of Greek mythology, I will stop referring to a muse, which none of the poets who use that word in a modern context believe in anyway, and talk generally about a poet’s source of inspiration. However, the good thing about those poets who acknowledge a source of inspiration is that they know they themselves are not that source no matter how responsible they are for the final product.

    Poets who do not believe in a source of inspiration give themselves full credit for what and how they say things. For them, poetry is self-expression. I would like to assert, so there is no ambiguity about my own views, that self-expression is tedious and overrated.

    In addition as a poet you are always serving your source of inspiration. You are always serving that spirit who is inspiring you, helping you and comforting you even if you mistakenly believe that you yourself are that spirit.

    That spiritual source of inspiration may be a good spirit. It might also be not so good. If you write about topics that glorify, incite or condone anger, lust or some habitually dysfunctional thinking in your readers, then your source of inspiration is not so good. The poem may sound nice and people may write mushy music to sentimentalize it, but that source of inspiration will remain, in spite of all that sugar-coating, not so good.

    Once you understand that you are not expressing yourself when you write a poem but you are serving a spiritual source of inspiration and that source may be good or not so good you will begin to see what is morally at stake when you offer a poem to a reader. I hope you won’t mind me drawing the conclusion that any not so good source is a demonic source. It is out to get you so it can use you to get others.

    I see the good source of inspiration as the Holy Spirit, a Person of the Trinity with Whom the poet can enter into a relationship. I identify the demonic sources with spirits of antichrist. They are deceivers who manipulate those foolish enough to play with them.

    Bottom line: Writing a poem is not a neutral artistic expression of oneself, but a moral act of service to some spiritual source of inspiration. Make sure that spirit is the Holy Spirit.

      1 John 4:3
      And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

      Technique

      Once you have a topic, you will need to express it. Although the words may come to you from the Holy Spirit, you need to make it melodious. In English that means paying attention to meter.

      Meter is the pattern of accented and unaccented syllables in the words you use. The most memorable, and influential, poetry repeats metrical patterns. Some of these patterns are given names such as limericks or common meter, sonnets or blank verse. Others are specific to the poem itself.

      As an example, listen to the song, What a Beautiful Name, and try to note which words are accented and which are not in the lyrics. In particular there are four stanzas in this song with an almost identical metrical pattern except for an unaccented syllable on some lines. I’ve listed two of those stanzas below. The ACCENTED syllables I put in italicized bold red capital letters. The unaccented syllables I wrote normally.

      YOU have no RI-val.
      YOU have no E-qual.
      NOW and for-E-ver, GOD, you REIGN.

      YOURS is the KING-dom.
      YOURS is the GLO-ry.
      YOURS is the NAME a-BOVE all NAMES.

      Were you able to find the other two stanzas?

      If so, you know what meter is. You know why those lyrics are powerful even without the music. Make your poems memorable by using metrical patterns.

      If not, great! You now have an opportunity to start building your relationship with the Holy Spirit by asking Him to show you what you don’t understand. If you don’t think He’ll talk to you, ask Him anyway, sleep on it and wake up refreshed. Then thank Him regardless what you hear. Giving thanks means you acknowledge that you are in a personal relationship with Him.

      Conclusion

      There are many tricks that will help any poem be more powerful no matter what the source of inspiration. They are just techniques. One could even program a computer, which is neither intelligent nor inspired, to follow the meter and other aspects of the sound of a poem.

      Ultimately what matters is the source of inspiration. To write a poem you need to first choose whom you will serve.

      And that’s all there is to it.

      Joshua 24:14-15
      14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.
      15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

      Guided Evolution

      About seven years ago I was studying the Christian analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga. I think I actually reached a point where I could explain the details of his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). However, I see now that I didn’t understand what was really at stake. Because he was a Christian and an analytic philosopher I assumed he was someone I could trust. Today I see much of this very differently and I am hopefully not as gullible.

      The Capitulation

      Plantinga’s argument pitted evolution, which he didn’t seriously question, against naturalism, which he rejected, to try to show that if you believed in evolution, you should not believe in naturalism. The problem with his argument, logically sound though it was, is that he thought he could separate out evolution to save it from the false atheistic mythology of naturalism.

      To his credit Plantinga argued for a special kind of evolution which he called guided evolution. Based on this idea he hoped to resolve the alleged conflict between science and religion by compromising with, that is, capitulating to, atheism rather than rejecting it. He wrote in Where the Conflict Really Lies, (2011) page 11, the following:

      A more important source of conflict has to do with the Christian doctrine of creation, in particular the claim that God has created human beings in his image. This requires that God intended to create creatures of a certain kind—rational creatures with a moral sense and the capacity to know and love him—and then acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention. This claim is clearly consistent with evolution (ancient earth, the progress thesis, descent with modification, common ancestry), as conservative Christian theologians have pointed out as far back as 1871.

      While it may be clearly consistent in some logical system to assume the existence of a god, such as the fictitious Gaia, to guide evolution, that god could not have been the Elohim of Genesis 1 who finished creation in six days. That god who guided evolution could not have been the Christian God.

      Ignoring Genesis

      Faced with such a complaint a Christian who supports evolution, even if it is just physical/chemical evolution of planets, stars and galaxies, has to rationalize how six days can be interpreted to mean a mythologically large number of years. Plantinga does this far too quickly by dismissing young earth creationism on page 10 with the following:

      Of course Christian belief just as such doesn’t include the thought that the universe is young; and in fact as far back as Augustine (354-430) serious Christians have doubted that the scriptural days of creation correspond to 24-hour periods of time.

      He even admitted (footnote, page 144) that his resolution of the conflict between science and religion is not concerned with belief in a universal flood or with a very young earth. According to him, these are not part of Christian belief as such. On this ground alone Christians should reject his argument.

      Redefining “Evolution”

      To make his theory work he not only had to ignore Genesis, but he also had to redefine evolution to allow for creative activity of some sort. However, the very point of evolution is to come up with natural processes that completely account for changes that take one from nothing to something, from non-life to life and from pond scum to human beings without involving the creative activity of any God, angel, demon or human being.

      On this ground alone even atheists should reject his argument. It doesn’t matter whether he finds it clearly consistent to add in creative agents. According to atheist mythology they are not wanted. Atheists don’t need them. His EAAN argument attempts to show that such views, however, are not reasonable, but why should that matter to atheists who rely on randomness, not rationality, and can fantasize a multiverse of universes in which to play atheist roulette?

      Christian Alternatives

      Confronted with evolution the Christian has three options:

      1. Accept evolution and become an atheist.
      2. Compromise (capitulate) in some way as Plantinga has done.
      3. Reject evolution along with the rest of atheist mythology.

      This may cause some people grief. No one wants to capitulate regarding their faith. However, there is no need for grief. It is a rational and scientific stance to reject evolution. Just ask yourself: what repeatable, measurable, non-creative, natural processes can you use to explain how nothing (not even a quantum vacuum) can turn into something? There are no non-creative, natural processes that can explain such a transition. That means physical evolution is atheist mythology. It is neither scientific nor rational to hold such a belief.

      Continue this line of thinking. What natural processes exist that allow one to go from pond scum to human beings? If someone suggests that mutations and natural selection might work, then remind them that those processes lead to mutational meltdown (extinction). They do not lead to more complicated beings, but rather to less complicated ones. That means biological evolution is also impossible. One should reject it with the same conviction that one rejects the rest of atheist mythology.

      The problem with evolution is the problem of building a house of cards without a creative agent. In the real world, not some magical, mythological world the atheist would love to live in, if you want to get a house of cards you need a human being, a creative agent. You need someone to build it. Natural, non-creative processes, such as a gust of wind and gravity, can surely knock that house down. Natural processes, however, cannot build it. That takes a creative agent, but evolution does not acknowledge them.

      Ancient Earth

      Plantinga describes evolution in these terms: ancient earth, the progress thesis, descent with modification, common ancestry. Note that without an ancient earth there would not be enough time for the rest of that mythological stuff to happen. On the Bible’s timeline of less than 8000 years there is no time for the progress thesis, there is no time for descent with modification and there is no time for common ancestry to occur.

      Everything Plantinga wants to protect about evolution depends on an ancient earth, but what is the evidence for that?

      1. Human history does not record more than 5000 years and even much of that is sketchy. There is no evidence for an ancient earth here.
      2. Axiomatizing relativity with the two-way speed of light being what is constant in all frames of reference permits a convention of simultaneity where distant starlight arrives on earth in less than a second of time. There is no evidence for an ancient earth in distant starlight either.
      3. Measurable, non-catastrophic, natural decay processes put upper limits on the age of anything they go about destroying such as rock formations, radiocarbon in diamonds, soft tissue in fossils and genetic code. These decay rates directly falsify the mythological ages assigned to rock formations, diamonds, fossils, and DNA. There is no evidence for an ancient earth when natural decay processes are taken into account.

      Fulfilling Prophecy

      Rather than trying to help atheists maintain their mythologies, Plantinga should have pointed out that evolution has never occurred and that the earth is not as old as atheists would like you to believe. Why didn’t he do that? Why did he add atheist mythologies to his Christian presuppositions? I think 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV) tells us why:

      3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

      Alvin Plantinga is an example of the fulfillment of this New Testament prophecy. Logically there is nothing wrong with the EAAN. It just doesn’t address the right problem which is the need to reject, not capitulate to, atheist mythologies. That capitulation turned Plantinga’s ear away from the truth and toward accepting myths.

      Admittedly I used to be an example of this prophecy’s fulfillment as well and maybe I still am in ways I am not yet aware of. That is why I am writing about Plantinga’s EAAN and his claimed resolution of the conflict thesis. I want to make sure I put this stuff behind me having already repented of ever considering it helpful.

      Quiz: Do You Have a Biblical Worldview?

      I put together this six-question multiple choice test to help people see if they have a biblical worldview, or not. There’s an answer key at the end as well as a consolation prize for those who do not pass the test.

      The Test

      Is abortion wrong? (Hint: Exodus 20:13)

      A) Abortion is wrong.
B) People can decide for themselves whether abortion is wrong. 
C) What does abortion have to do with a biblical worldview?

      How many genders are there? (Hint: Genesis 1:27)

      A) There are two and only two genders.
B) People can decide for themselves how many genders there are and which gender they want to be whenever they want to be it.  
C) My gender is none of your business unless I make it your business by insisting you remember my pronouns.

      If you are on the beach looking at the ocean, where do you think all of that water came from? (Hint: Genesis 6-9)

      A) The water came from Noah's global flood.
B) The water got there somehow billions of years ago.  
C) Who cares where the water came from?

      Given that people speak many languages today where did this linguistic diversity come from? (Hint: Genesis 11:1-9 and Douglas Petrovich’s explanation)

      A) The diversity originated from God confusing the language of the people at Babel. Then the Babel dispersion began. From that dispersion language families arose.
B) The diversity happened somehow as the result of a long evolutionary process taking perhaps a million years. 
C) However it happened, no god had anything to do with it.

      What’s going to happen to us? (Hint: Revelation 4-22)

      A) Jesus will return for His bride. Our spirits will never cease to be.  Our bodies and souls will be renewed. The only concern will be whether we are part of His bride, or not.
B) Humanity will go on for millions, if not billions, of years searching the stars for other intelligent lifeforms and then it will go extinct.
C) Whatever happens there will be no heaven, no hell, no nothing—--Get used to it!

      Who is Jesus? (Hint: See this list of Bible verses.)

      A) Jesus is God, the second Person of the Trinity.
B) Jesus, like Buddha and Socrates, was a great guy with sound moral teaching whom we should use as a model if we want to be good like he was.
C) Jesus never existed.

      The Answer Key

      How did you do on the test?

      If you answered A for each of the above, then your worldview is biblical. If you answered B or C, even once, you need to ask yourself: What made you think those answers had any chance of being correct?

      The Consolation Prize

      For those who flunked the test there’s still Buddha, Sarasvati, Gaia, Thor, Moloch, Lucifer and Cosmic Consciousness to name a few of the many options that remain. Pick one or more of them. Then think and think and think going down, down, down the rabbit hole until…

      Until when?

      …until you get tired of the futility and long for the real thing.

      Old Testament Chronology and the Age of Mankind

      Douglas Petrovich presented a framework for building a sound chronology of the Old Testament at the 2023 Chafers Theological Seminary Pastors’ Conference. If one chooses appropriate assumptions one can come up with a chronology that is faithful to the Bible and also synchronizes with Egyptian and Assyrian chronologies. This confirms the reliability of the biblical record as history.

      To build this chronology one needs certain dates that one has confidence in to serve as “tent pegs” as Petrovich calls them. Reaching consensus on what those tent pegs are is not easy but it is achievable. Having that chronology allows one to date and make sense out of the archeological data. That we need to go through so much trouble to construct such a chronology is reason to believe that mankind is very young.

      Construction Begins on the First Temple—967 BC

      I Kings 6:1
      And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.

      Can we find what year Solomon began to build the first temple in our calendar? James Ussher in his Annals of the World gave the date as 1012 BC. Edwin Thiele was able to establish an absolute date based on Assyrian records linked to a solar eclipse which occurred in June 15, 763, in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. This allows one to come up with 967 BC as the year Solomon initiated the building of the first temple. There is a discrepancy of 45 years between these dates. Rodger Young clarified the issues around this discrepancy in Ussher Explained and Corrected arguing in favor of the 967 BC date which Petrovich accepts.

      Israelite Exodus from Egypt—1446 BC

      Accepting 967 BC and the information in 1 Kings 6:1 about the Exodus occurring in the 480th year one can date the Exodus back to 1446 BC (967+479=1446). From this date and knowing the Israelites wandered for 40 years in the desert (Numbers 32:13) we get the year they crossed the Jordan into Canaan as 1406 BC (1406+40=1446).

      Jacob Moves His Family to Egypt—1876 BC

      If one concludes as Petrovich does (see his Origins of the Hebrews, 2021) that the Israelites spent 430 years in Egypt, the “long sojourn”, rather than 215 years, the “short sojourn”, then the date the long sojourn began would be 1876 BC. It becomes another tent peg (1446+430=1876). The date the short sojourn began would be 1661 BC (1446+215=1661).

      The reason for the 215 year discrepancy is due to textual variants of Exodus 12:40. The Masoretic Hebrew text gives 430 years in Egypt. The Septuagint Greek text said this period of time included time in Canaan.

      ______

      This lecture highlights the resolution of difficulties permitting one to construct a sound Old Testament chronology. At 19:25 in the video Petrovich lists the major dates going back to Abraham. At 55:15 he presents the Egyptian chronological scheme.

      He recommended the following sources for those interested in pursuing biblical chronology further:
      Andrew Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul, Concordia Publishing House 2011
      Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994)
      Rodger C. Young, Ussher Explained and Corrected, Bible and Spade 31/2 (2018), 47-58

      ______

      Why Mankind Is Very Young

      William Lane Craig, the professor of philosophy at Houston Baptist University and research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, asserts, “Adam plausibly lived sometime between around 1 million years ago to 750,000 years ago, a conclusion consistent with the evidence of population genetics.” (The Historical Adam, First Things, October 2021).

      Much of the Old Testament chronology presented above goes back less than 4000 years. However, it involves controversy as to when something actually happened. This should make anyone pause who claims that humanity has been on this earth for much longer than 8000 years. Why? Because there is no historical evidence to justify that claim. Furthermore Biblical textual variants do not even justify ages as old as 8000 years.

      From available historical evidence we know we can go from stone age to space age in about 5000 years. That means if humanity were around for 100,000 years (let alone the million that Craig finds plausible) we would have historical records going back 90,000 years assuming a generous 10,000 years to go from stone age to space age.

      If we had such historical records then there would be no doubt about what happened a mere 4000 years ago. We would have archived video recordings of Solomon holding a press conference broadcasted live to the entire world via satellite in 967 BC about the construction of the temple. We would know precisely when that press conference started. Constructing a sound biblical chronology would not be the problem that it is today.

      Since we don’t have that kind of historical record it is reasonable to doubt the non-historical dating methods and speculations that extend mankind back hundreds of thousands of years. Mankind is nowhere near that old.

      God’s Very Young Universe: A Testimony

      Not many years ago I listened to and accepted words asserting the universe was over 13 billion years old. Words are powerful, but they are not always powerful in a good way. At the point where you think they are offering insight they lead you into delusions coating your eyes with a cultural cataract that blurs your vision.

      I no longer see the universe as anywhere near as old as I used to. This essay is my testimony of having been healed from that cultural blindness by going through arguments I now find convincing for a young universe.

      ______

      By Themselves the Speed of Light and a Distant Galaxy Cannot Tell Us How Old the Universe Is

      The constant of relativity known as the speed of light, or c, is not the one-way speed of light, but its average two-way speed. If you measure the speed it takes light to go from a clock to a mirror and back to the clock you will get the two-way speed, c. It is the same in any inertial frame of reference. That average two-way speed is what the constant c measures. That means the one-way speed of light could be anywhere from c/2 to some arbitrarily fast value as long as the speed going in the opposite direction compensates to make the average two-way speed equal c.

      Misunderstanding what c measures leads to the distant starlight problem used as an argument against a young universe. It is set up as follows. Find the distance of a galaxy far, far away (say, by using red shifts). If we can see the galaxy (which we obviously can through some telescope since we can measure the red shift), then assert that the universe must be at least as old as it took light to come from that galaxy to us at the two-way speed c. The problem confuses the one-way speed of light coming from that galaxy to us with the two-way speed of light going from us to that galaxy, bouncing and coming back.

      The universe does have a specific age as measured from our position on earth and the light coming from that galaxy reaches us with some average speed. We just don’t have enough information to determine what that one-way speed is. Because we cannot determine that one-way speed we cannot tell how old the universe is, at least, not using this method. We need more information not provided by the distant starlight problem.

      At the heart of this problem is a view of humanity. An old universe view of us is that we are insignificant beings residing on a blue dot lost somewhere in the universe. This view eagerly stipulates that the one-way speed of light is the same as the two-way speed c. Why? Because using that speed as a convention implies there is nothing special about us. Those claiming that the one-way speed of light reaching the earth is anywhere close to being instantaneous are saying just the opposite.

      This issue was my number one problem with accepting a young universe. Once I realized the distant starlight problem was a non-problem the other pieces fell into place.

      References:
      Brian Koberlein, There’s no way to measure the speed of light in a single direction
      Jason Lisle, Anisotropic Synchrony Convention – A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem
      John A. Winnie, Special Relativity without One-Way Velocity Assumptions

      Global Catastrophic Flooding

      Some people looking at oceans, canyons, high mountains, fossil deposits in vast sedimentation layers extending over continents and glaciers see this as the result of slow processes taking hundreds of millions of years even though it is better explained as the result of a global flooding catastrophe.

      One reason to try to avoid such a catastrophe is if it happened there would be no archeological site prior to it to dig through. Any trace of human activity from before the time of the catastrophe would be mixed, scattered and buried somewhere in the fossil record if it had not been completely destroyed. Archeological dating would have to start with the date assigned to the catastrophe.

      Think about what this would mean for archeologists today. if the catastrophe actually happened and archeologists refused to accept it, then all of the events they described prior to the catastrophe would have to be labeled modern mythology. The controversies over ape and human bones that Christopher Rupe and John Sanford document suggest to me that much of it already is modern mythology.

      Ian Shaw claimed that the Egyptian dynastic chronology begins about five thousand years ago. Let’s assume to establish a temporary anchor point that he was right and Egyptian civilization began five thousand years ago. Let’s also assume that a global catastrophe occurred. The survivors (however they managed to do that) would need a few centuries, perhaps a millennium, to get civilization started again. Then the catastrophe would have occurred somewhere between five and seven thousand years ago. The reason to claim this is if the catastrophe occurred more than, say, ten thousand years ago, I would expect evident markings of human civilization, such as a pyramid or two, from Egyptian civilization to go back at least eight thousand years, but no such markings exist.

      The lack of clear markings of human civilization before Shaw’s date suggests a line of argument against those who reject that such a catastrophe happened. If there were no catastrophe and humanity were around for the last 100,000 years, then I would expect to see chronologies of various civilizations with architecture such as pyramids, art on display in museums and literature available on the internet that goes back at least 90,000 years, but nothing like that exists.

      From a biblical perspective rather than an Egyptian one if there were a global flood as recorded in Genesis 6-9, then what we see around us makes sense and an assessment of when that occurred could be made using biblical chronology. Once one chooses which textual variants best represent the original autographs there would be enough information to come up with precise dates as anchor points. Henry B. Smith Jr and Steve Rudd both see the flood occurring about 3298 BC (and creation about 5554 BC). This is the oldest date I’ve seen for the global flood. It puts that catastrophe within the five and seven thousand year range that fits Shaw’s estimate of when Egyptian civilization began.

      Given the biblical perspective of a global flooding catastrophe what we would expect to see is what we in fact do see: continent-wide sedimentary deposits filled with fossils, tectonic plate movement and uplifted mountains, floodwater flattened planation surfaces etched by deep canyons formed when flood waters flowed into ocean basins and an ice age with glaciers that persist to this day. Without those eight men and women and all kinds of birds and beasts safe on the Ark none of us would be here.

      References:
      Steve Rudd, Nimrod, 2019
      Christopher Rupe and John Sanford, Contested Bones, 2017
      Jonathan D. Sarfati, The Genesis Account, 2015
      Ian Shaw, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, 2000 (page 4)
      Henry B. Smith Jr, The Case for the Septuagint Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11, 2018

      Decay Rates Falsify Deep Time

      If one is given a theory that something is very old, one way to test that theory would be to look for processes with measurable rates of decay that might falsify the theory. As it turns out such falsifying decay rates for deep time theories can be found.

      Erosion
      Within 50 million years the landforms we see around us should all be eroded down to sea level. That’s the decay rate. However, theories based on radiometric and fossil dating claim there are currently landforms over 500 million years old. If the modern erosion rate is correct those supposedly old landforms would no longer be here.

      Genetic Entropy
      Theory claims that mutations are the mechanism by which natural selection turns pond scum into human beings. However, mutations are generally deleterious. Our bodies do not always repair them. They are passed to the next generation. All that leads to mutational meltdown. When that occurs the species goes extinct because it is no longer able to reproduce. John Sanford called this genetic entropy. Going backwards Nathaniel Jeanson and Ashley Holland report on pedigree-based mutation rates showing that they are able to trace humanity back only thousands of years.

      Dinosaur Soft Tissue
      Collagen from a dinosaur would completely decay away within 3 million years even if optimally stored. According to theory dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago and yet some of their fossils contain original soft tissue. The conclusion should be obvious. The remains of these dinosaurs were laid down recently.

      Carbon-14 Where There Shouldn’t Be Any
      Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years. After a million years it should all be gone. However, fossils and even diamonds dating over 100 million years contain carbon-14. After a certain point does carbon-14 cease to be a reliable clock or is it that these fossils and diamonds are nowhere near as old as theory claims them to be?

      Magnetic Fields
      The earth’s magnetic field is decaying at the rate of 5% per century. Extrapolating the rate backwards the earth would have melted from the strength of the electric current as recently as 10,000 years ago. Regardless what any theory says about the age of the earth, given this rate of magnetic field decay the earth is younger than 10,000 years.

      ______

      For those accustomed to think in terms of billions of years God’s universe as I have portrayed it is shockingly young. However, there may be a hidden blessing awaiting those who finally see what is going on. The shock and bounce back could lead to a deeper appreciation of the glory of God.

      Joshua and the Sun Standing Still: The Holy Spirit Explanation

      9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night.
      10 And the Lord discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
      11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
      12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
      13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
      14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel. Joshua 10:9-14 (KJV)

      Image from the Bible Mapper Blog

      There are two kinds of explanation of what happened at the conclusion of this battle that I don’t find satisfying: (1) claims that the miracle involved the sun ceasing to move across the sky, and (2) claims that the avenging process could have occurred naturally. I am looking for a miraculous explanation that is relevant to what Joshua likely wanted to accomplish.

      When people today say the sun moves across the sky they mean the earth rotates. The sun only appears to move from the perspective of our activity on earth. Because the sun appears to move at a regular rate, we can use it as a clock to estimate how long something took.

      Bernard Ramm described various explanations for the sun appearing to stand still in The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 1954, pp 156-161. He found three that he was willing to accept preferring the third.

      • Poetic: “The cry of Joshua was then a cry for help and strength. His cry was answered with renewed vigor in his soldiers who then fought so valiantly and were so refreshed that they did a day’s work in half a day, and it seemed to them that the day had actually been lengthened.” (page 157)
      • Mirage: An unusual atmospheric refraction made it seem as if there were an extended amount of light.
      • Overcast Sky: Believing that what Joshua really asked for was darkness not a longer day, the hailstorm, mentioned in Joshua 10:11, that had already killed many Amorites while they fled from Beth-horon to Azekah continued to cool off the Israelites from the day’s heat helping them fight more effectively.

      John Walton approached the problem as a misunderstanding of an ancient text. His view is that Joshua’s intent was merely that the Amorites be psychologically disadvantaged in seeing the positions of the sun and moon as a bad omen. Although I am suspicious of this theory, it does make a good point: Whatever Joshua asked for he likely wanted it to benefit the Israelites and harm the Amorites.

      One doesn’t get such selective treatment that favors only the Israelites by asking for a change in the environment. Environmental changes such as a mirage of light to lengthen the day or clouds to shelter one from the heat would also aid the Amorites. They, too, would cool off. They would have more time to escape to walled cities. So these environmental explanations should be put aside including views that the earth or even the sun actually stopped moving.

      If that’s correct about Joshua’s intent, and we choose to take a traditional reading of the text rather than Walton’s, then only Ramm’s poetic option remains. However, this explanation, as Ramm expressed it, suggests that Joshua somehow motivated his men to overtake the Amorites before they reached safety. While that might help, it would not give us a day such that “there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel” (Joshua 10:14).

      The good thing about the poetic explanation is that it shows a way for the sun to appear to stand still. If we felt the Lord overwhelm us to the extent that we moved faster than we knew we could have moved on our own, we might be inclined to think that the sun stood still while all that happened. The sun would be a confirmation that something miraculous had happened within us.

      For this to be satisfying as an explanation, I need to clarify what such a miraculous overwhelming by the Lord might look like.

      Before I describe what I think happened, especially since I could be wrong, we should keep in mind the advice from the Got Questions site: “While we may not fully understand how this “long day” occurred, a miracle does not have to be scientifically proven—just accepted.”

      ______

      The Holy Spirit Explanation

      After the Amorites fled and suffered losses from hailstones all the way to Azekah the sun appeared to stand still only for the Israelites. They alone were overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit. This gave them the power to avenge Israel against the Amorites. For a brief period of time as measured by the sun, but a whole day as measured by the normal bodily movement of the Israelites, the Lord as Holy Spirit filled them allowing them to rapidly overtake and avenge themselves on the fleeing Amorites.

      ______

      UPDATE October 5, 2023

      Although they are not described in terms of the sun standing still there are other passages in Scripture where the Lord assists people to perform tasks much faster than others could have done them. Here are two:

      1. Elijah outruns Ahab’s chariot: 1 Kings 18:46
      2. Philip vanishes from the Ethiopian eunuch’s sight: Acts 8:39-40