Deception At Its Finest

We are taking a break from the look at biblical scholars and their views. Today we turn our attention to the topic of transgender. We doubt we will be saying anything earth-shattering here but we wanted to address the issue because of the latest and more recent news concerning a reality show personality.  Our main source of information will come from the following article

Then if you want more information on this so-called gender confirmation surgery, just click the next two links

Yes we are using Wikipedia for this as it is a very thorough and detailed article on the topic.

The nature of transgender is pure deception and the person in the articles demonstrates this deception quite clearly.

#1. Transgender teen and reality TV star Jazz Jennings posted a video to fans Monday proclaiming great excitement over finally being scheduled to get “new genitalia” later this month: “Like penis to vagina. That’s some serious s**t, y’all … I can’t believe it. I’m gonna have a vagina!

We are sorry ladies but a male being excited about receiving a vagina is not exciting to us. But the problem here is that that boy is not getting a vagina. What he is getting is a poor copy of one and one that doesn’t work like a vagina. This is what deception does. It alters the thinking of people  and gets them to believe they are getting the real deal when in reality, they are getting a forgery.

Deception is used quite often in art, where fakes are sold to unwary elites. This boy has been sold a bill of goods and he has believed it for too many years. Deception is not of God as he makes it very clear which gender a person is born as when the make their initial appearance in the world. To be excited about mutilating oneself demonstrates that there is a problem in the thinking of not only the boy but also his parents who allowed this to take place.

#2. Jennings — who was born a male but has been living as a female since the age of 5

If the boy was allowed to be living as a girl since he was 5 then we know that his parents have been deceived, as they helped him in this lifestyle. He could not have one it without their aid. What we see here is the bible verse ‘train up a child in the path he shall go and he will not depart from it’ being shown to be true. This boy has been taught that he was a girl and now he has altered his body to match what he has been taught.

A 5-year-old boy does not know enough about the world or biology, etc., to determine their own gender. His parents should have nipped this thinking in the butt and taught him that his thinking is the product of deception. They should not have encouraged this misconception ad shown him how to get rid of such thinking. That is one of the duties of a parent.

The parent is to teach the child right from wrong and as Deut. 6 tells us, they need to teach their children God’s ways, commandments and instructions. We cannot totally fault the boy because he has been enabled by those who should have known better.

#3. Jennings will receive a vaginoplasty, in which the penis is basically turned inside out to create a vagina,

This is what the surgery is called. It is also described as gender confirmation surgery yet to the rational and logical mind no surgery is needed to confirm one’s gender. The surgery is only needed to help a disturbed mind alter themselves to look like something they are not but think they are.

For more than 11 years, I have performed gender confirmation surgery as part of my surgical practice. I call it “gender confirmation surgery” because I believe that out of the myriad labels I’ve heard for the procedure — “sex reassignment surgery,” “gender reassignment surgery,” and “sex change operation,” to name but a few — none is as accurate when it comes to describing what is actually taking place as “gender confirmation surgery.”

These quoted words are from the Huffington Post link above.  It gives you one surgeon’s point of view on the name and purpose of the surgery. The problem is, it is only confirming the deception not the reality. Surgery cannot confirm gender. DNA does that and a person’s DNA never changes. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. No amount of body altering surgery, playing dress up or enabling will change that fact.

#4. On Thursday, she wrote on Instagram, “I’m doing great, thanks for all of the love and support,” and posted a hospital selfie. Jennings was assigned male at birth, but has lived as a female with the support of her family since the age of 5. (

This is one of the biggest myths in the transgender topic. There is no fairy godmother or Gandalf wizard waving a magic wand or saying an incantation to assign a baby’s gender at conception. If God does it, he hasn’t told us but it is highly unlikely he does. But even if God did do it, he is perfect and his assignments are not wrong nor a result of a mistake.

We can’t get the reference to this fact but maybe someday we will find it again. When the egg and the sperm connect, there is something like a billion options available for them to develop the body. But those options have to do with the color of a person’s skin, the shape of their face, the color of their hair and so on. This is why Black African parents have albino children from time to time.

BUT gender is not a part of this lottery. There is ony 2 options for gender and once conception is completed, the gender is decided and the DNA affixed. This is the simple way to explain it. There is no mistake, no real assignment, no process where the male can say I am really a girl or where the girl can say I am really a boy. No mistake was made.

The only mistake lies with the parents and society who let the child continue to be deceived and let them live in the delusion they are not whom they were born as.

#5. For me, most if not all the other names used for the procedure — or, more accurately, the family of procedures — suggest that a person is making a choice to switch genders. From the hundreds of discussions I’ve had with individuals over the years, nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about choice; it’s about using surgery as one of the therapeutic tools to enable people to be comfortable with their gendered self. (Huff Post Link)

This is the type of deceptive thinking that is part of the transgender issue. They are not making the person comfortable in their gendered self for the surgeries are not keeping the person as they were born. They are altering them to fit the delusion.

#6. Merriam-Webster’s defines “confirmation” as follows: “confirming proof; corroboration; the process of supporting a statement by evidence.” That said, if such surgery helps confirm the way a person feels he or she was meant to be, shouldn’t the name reflect that truth(Huff Post Link)

This is how far off the rails this thinking goes.The gender confirmation surgery does none of those. It mutilates the body, not bring proof to anyone and does not corroborate any thinking or statement. It is a procedure to change the body to fit the delusion in the person’s mind. Distorting definitions does not prove that transgenders had their genders switched at birth; it is merely desperate attempts to justify the thinking of those who reject God’s reproduction system.

Confirmation surgery goes along the lines of a biopsy. A person is sick and it is thought they have cancer or some other illness. Confirmation surgery looks into the body to see what is really wrong with a person. Once that is done, then steps can be taken to heal the person. None of this takes place in this gender confirmation surgery. If a person wants to confirm their gender, then just need to take a DNA test and they will know.

#7. If I can use my surgical skills and advanced microsurgical training to help people with an often lifelong struggle find peace of mind and comfort with their bodies, why wouldn’t I? (Huff Post LInk)

Because it is wrong. It helps people violate biblical teaching. It allows evil to continue to destroy a person. His talents would be better utilized on people who have real problems not on those who want to play dress up and pretend they are a man or a woman.

We have hesitated to call transgender a mental illness because we believe it is a spiritual problem and not something borne from real mental illness. It is deception and the deception is targeted at young children who do not know anything or how to protect themselves. It is also evil spirits having their way with young children. If you do not believe in spiritual warfare, you should change your mind. It is real and it does affect vulnerable children.

Many in North America do not recognize spiritual warfare for it is carefully hidden and very subtle. The secular part of society helps keep it that way. Parents do need to take it serious if their child is claiming to be another gender. Some will grow out of that thinking but others will need good, honest, correct spiritual help to guide them back to the truth.

But one thing is for sure, parents are not to listen to the ungodly secular world on these issues. They do not have the truth about transgender identification. They do not have the truth about sexual preferences either. Sadly, we do not think that the majority of pastors, youth pastors, church members are prepared enough to handle these issues. Hopefully we are wrong. Protecting our children from spiritual deception begins at the moment of conception.

Benjamin Corey & Christianity

We kind of get upset when progressive Christians start talking about the Christian faith and who is or isn’t practicing the faith correctly. 99.99% of the time, they do not use one scripture to support their points. Their ideas on how Christianity should be practiced comes from their own point of view and preferences. Never do they show God’s desires for his followers. It is always their desires.

Benjamin Corey is one such progressive. You can read the full article we are about to address at the following link:

#1. Sadly, my old tribe seems to collectively struggle to realize they’ve done exactly what they spent the entire Left Behind series warning me not to do: they have fallen in line behind a worldly leader who arose to power during a time of “wars and rumors of wars,” who did so by falsely pretending to be a Christian, but who would ultimately lead them to follow an entirely new religion

This point is not even true. From what we have read on the subject, not one evangelical is looking to Trump to lead them to a new religion. They are looking to him as a civil leader to restore some normality, some old-fashioned right and wrong and curb the left’s desire to sin at all costs. But that is not the only issue in those quoted words that rankle us.

The words ‘fallen in line…’ etc, shows us that Mr. Corey seems to be doing some fear mongering of his own. This is not a new phenomenon. This has been happening at least since Reagan took office and possibly prior to that president. Misleading people is not the right thing to do. Also, Mr. Corey says that Trump falsely pretending to be a Christian. How does he know this? What evidence does he have that shows Mr. Trump lying about his belief about his own faith and spiritual status?

If Mr.Trump believes he is a Christian and promotes that belief, he is not falsely claiming anything. That is what he believes and represents. Whether he is or isn’t is up to God to determine, not Mr. Corey.

#2.You spent 8 years criticizing every move of Obama, but the minute Trump was sworn in you started telling everyone that “Christians should respect the president” and that being “divisive” is a sin.

One of the things that bothers us about atheists, progressives and other people is that they leave words out and distort what really is taking place. There are two ways to criticize and Mr. Corey conveniently leaves out those categories and lumps everyone into the same group. That is not fair and it is unjust. We originally supported Obama but over the years we saw his words and they did not line up with his declared Christian faith.

We did criticize him and so did many others but we did not criticize him in a sinful way but according to Mr. Corey’s words we are still wrong if we say to respect the president. There is a way of criticizing that maintains respect but that option does not fit Mr. Corey’s point so it is left out.  We also do not see him respect President Trump and as his article testifies, he criticizes him unfairly and in a wrong manner. His hupocrisy is showing here.

#3.You think, “but we’re a nation of laws” somehow trumps biblical teachings on how immigrants are to be treated

The only people trumping biblical teaching on immigrants is the left and the progressives. This is another case of distorting the issue by leaving out key words. There are legal immigrants who get treated very well, then there are illegal immigrants who are trying to break the law. The former is doing immigration right and should be treated in a proper manner.

The latter are sinning, violating the law and need to be arrested for their crimes. They are not true immigrants but criminals. There is a big difference between the two groups. The left and progressives tend to ignore that difference and work to undermine the law of the land. That is something neither God nor Jesus said to do. If Mr. Corey wants to prooftext and quote ‘we obey God rather than man’ we would point out that God did not command or instruct anyone to support sin or illegal activity.

To be biblical, the American government needs to be just, fair and even merciful in many cases when handling the issues brought on the nation by those not respecting the country’s laws. American does not have to blindly accept illegals into the country. That is not governing the nation well and ignoring the needs of their natural-born citizens. That is something we have seen take place in Canada as well as America. The governments, progressives, the left tend to ignore those who follow the law and give all sorts of benefits and rights to those who do not. That is not what the Bible says to do.

Biblical teaching is often ignored when progressives have a cause they want to promote.

#4.Your church is planning a “patriotic worship service” for the 4th of July

This is a useless and meaningless point. These services have taken place for as long as America has been a country. Mr. Corey is desperate to fill his list to make his point. It is also an issue for another day.

#5.You instinctively applaud when Trump threatens to “bomb the shit” out of people, but quickly push back if someone quotes what Jesus taught about violence and enemy love

Mr. Corey and progressives like to be selective in their use of bible verses. They also demonstrate that they do not know God’s definition of the words love, violence and so on. He also fails to understand that there are different levels of the Christian faith. Those that may applaud in this case may not be sound, mature believers but working their way up to being holy. They may make mistakes. These mistakes are quickly capitalized on by the PC progressive police and they use zero tolerance (another non-biblical teaching) and apply it to those believers they do not like.

Instead of criticizing and judging, Mr. Corey shouold be feeling sad and seeking to help believers grow. Not make them part of some list because he does not like Mr. Trump. Judging and condemning others was forbidden by God, yet the progressives seem to feel that they are free from that ban.

#6.You think that having a filthy mouth and boasting about sexual immorality is a sign of being unsaved, but when it comes to Trump you all of a sudden have a “Who am I to judge?” attitude

Again, this is another issue that started long before Mr. Trump won the presidency. Mr.Corey, other progressives and the left all seem to have a selective memory which only kicks in when a president is in office that they do not like. What we will say is that sin is sin no matter who does it and the offender needs to repent of all their sins. No matter what office they hold. Jonah and Nineveh are an important example here.

But Mr Corey needs to remove the beams from his own eyes before trying to improve the vision of those who only have a speck in theirs.

#7.You think it’s God-honoring to refuse to bow to a national statue, but that you should be fired from your job, kicked out of the country, or even charged with treason for refusing to stand for the flag.

Hypocrisy is great with Mr. Corey, progressives, liberals and many other people. We cannot count how many times we have seen those exact same people advocate the loss of employment, etc., for very minor offenses committed. Roseanne Barr is an example off the top of our heads. What makes their actions worse, is that they let those who agree with them off without any harsh words or extreme calls to action against them.

Mr. Corey and others like him lose their credibility here. If they want to be taken seriously, then they need to honestly apply their points equally to all no matter their ideology. If you want a presidential example we will drop a couple of names here- Clinton and Kennedy. people like Mr. Corey and the left change their tunes when addressing the same issues with these men.

#8.You want the nation to return to “biblical values”… except for all those socialist sounding biblical things like caring for the poor, welcoming the stranger, giving food to the hungry, etc.

The wonderful thing about Christianity is that it does not conform to the views of people like Mr. Corey. He forgets that there are many non-progressive believers who actually do more than he claims they do in these areas. But again his lack of credibility and his non-love for those he does not like just make him sound like a crashing cymbal.

His selective nature seems to also influence his point making.

#9.Your church spends one month a year celebrating the story of refugee family who fled their violent homeland and secretly crossed the border to safety, only to return home years later where their son became another unarmed person of color killed by the state’s violent security forces because they “felt threatened”…

He gets the story wrong. It wasn’t Pilate and the Romans who wanted Jesus dead. In fact, Pilate said he found no guilt in Jesus. Mr. Corey distorts the life of Jesus for his own agenda. It wasn’t the Romans who felt threatened and it was hatred by the Jewsh leaders that brought Jesus to the cross. The Jews could not execute anyone so they had to get the Romans to carry out their plan.

If you are going to make a point using the Bible, do not distort the Bible. You just look bad when you do. If Mr. Corey wants to call for application of biblical teaching then he should practice it first. The Bible does not say to distort biblical events or people’s lives to make your point.

The last 2 points are not even worth giving time to here. They are more of Mr.Corey’s wild-eyed thinking that elevates him to being superior to everyone else. He thinks he has a handle on what constitutes the Christian faith. Sadly, he has forsaken the Christian faith for something that he designed. That is the problem with people like Mr. Corey. They think they know the Christian faith but in reality, they leave God out of his own creation and redesign the faith after their own human thinking.

What these people try to do is force their human version on the church. They do so by judging, condemning, wrongfully criticizing, distorting and much more. They also try to use guilt and these lists to browbeat those who truly follow what God says to do. They do everything they say is wrong when others do it. There is an article at the Christian Post that addresses that thinking for it is not just found in progressives but the political liberal left as well

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter is set in 1642. Three hundred and seventy five years later, the political left is publicly shaming those who don’t publicly align with the new Puritanism of the political left.

Everyone, including the left and the right, in church and politics really should take Jesus’ teaching about removing the beam from their own eyes first seriously. People like Mr. Corey, no matter where they are found, are not practicing biblical teaching correctly. They ignore it when it is convenient for them to do so and when it benefits them and their ideology.

It is a good thing that the Christian faith is not up to humans. They would mess it up and they have done so,  We look to Jesus to guide us to the correct way to live the Christian life, not so-called bible scholars, progressives, liberals  or even conservatives, etc.

Peter Enns & Academics

Over the years we have heard many atheists, unbelievers and scholars caim that the evangelical does not know how to think. They also claim that those believers and academic institutions which hold to traditional views are not educated nor perform to certain academic standards. Of course, these complaints come from those who feel that being educated and offering an education must meet their secular ideas.

They ignore what God has to say on the subject and feel that to be educated one must be secular in nature. According to them, the educated person discards biblical teaching and condemns the Bible or classify it as a human book. Peter Enns is one such scholar and is the example today as we look at education and the Christian. You can read his full article at the following link

We will simply quote a few questions and comments he asked/made and then address those.  His first question comes in the title

#1. are “evangelical” and “academic” oxymorons?

In the eyes of those who do not like the Bible, the answer to that question would be-yes. They think that modern science and other subjects have proven the Bible to be a book full of fairy tales. But to those of us who are both Christian and educated we know that the answer to the question is- no. Evangelicals can be educated and God has even told us how he wants us to be educated

Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the Lord your God has commanded me to teach you, that you might do them in the land where you are going over to possess it, so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. O Israel, you should listen and [a]be careful to do it, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly (Deut. 6 NASB)

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as [b]frontals [c]on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates (Deut. 6 NASB

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. (2 Tim. 2:15 NASB)

In the last verse’s case we prefer the KJV version which reads

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But what are we to study? We can study most topics for God wants educated people defending the faith, his words and they need to know the truth. God’s people need to be able to distinguish between what is or isn’t true and then teach the truth to their children. This does not mean we do not know what the unbeliever’s know. We need to know the different theories so we can refute them with the truth.

In other words, evangelical education is not going to look like secular education. We do not accept false teaching over God’s word. This result is what makes Mr. Enns ask that question above. Evangelicals and other true believers are not going to be educated the same as unbelievers but that difference does not make them non-academic. It means that they hold to different views than people like Mr. Enns.

#2. The issues that get at the heart of evangelical concerns were are remain: when the Bible was written, by whom, and whether it is historically accurate.

We can never be sure when the Bible was specifically written. That is information that is withheld from us and is not pertinent to any real discussion. Only the unbeliever has trouble with it because the earlier the Bible is written the more it proves their arguments are wrong and misleading. For example, the Books of Moses being written in the 14th or 15th century BC undermines the illiterate argument many archaeologists and scholars hold concerning the ancient world.

We know that the Bible is historically accurate for if it wasn’t, it would make Israel the only nation in the world incapable of writing their own history.  The idea that the Bible isn’t historically accurate is not only an insult to the people of Israel but to God as well. That argument makes him incapable of recording what he saw take place and what he did in history.

#3. Can an institution claim to be fundamentally academic while at the same time centered on defending certain positions that are largely, if not wholly, out of sync with generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries?

Of course it can. One reason is that the secular world is not in harge of what is or isn’t academic. Another reason is that it is the secular world that is blind and deceived not God or the true Christian academic world. It is not the true Christian academic institution that is out of sync. The reverse is true and the secular academic institutions and academics who are out of sync with God and the truth.

#4. It is common for evangelical institutions to have as part of their statements of faith clear articulations about biblical inerrancy and how that dogmatic starting point (either implicitly or implicitly) dictates interpretive conclusions. The question, simply put, is whether such a posture can be called “academic” by generally agreed upon standards—which are standards that evangelicals would quickly agree to in areas that do not touch evangelical dogma.

Again, of course it can. These institutions are speaking the truth about the Bible and its inerrant status. Giving students the truth is what academics is all and supposed to be about. Mr. Enns may use labels like dogmatic and interpretive conclusions but that is a reflection of his attitude towards the Bible not any academic mis-step by evangelical institutions,

He does not like the truth and has opted to take the secular world’s ideas over the one true God who does not lie. The mistake is his not the evangelical who believes God and stands by his word. The generally agreed upon standards may not disobey God and play no part in determining if inerrancy etc., are or are not academic or educational. We can agree to general terms if they do not violate God’s definitions, rules, instructions or commands.

#5. Can evangelical institutions maintain a credible academic reputation when they officially promulgate positions that are only held among a small group of “sister” institutions of similar ideology and not the academic discipline of biblical scholarship in general?

Again the answer to the question is yes. The problem comes in when people like Mr. Enns disagree with what constitutes education in the evangelical context. His appeal to the general world of biblical scholarship is misleading as most of the information disseminated in that world is done by unbelieving scholars. Even some Christian scholars get it wrong.

The general biblical scholarship argument does not work because the truth is often left out or attacked by the very scholars Mr. Enns is appealing to. He assumes they are on the right track and ignores other biblical teachings which warn the believer about false teaching. The biblical scholarship world is not the bastion for truth.

Then, the evangelical academic institution does not have to maintain a credible academic reputation according to the secular world’s standards That is not its purpose or objective. Those must teach the truth, so God’s people know what is right and wrong and make the correct choice to follow what is right. Being academically hailed is not what true Christians strive for. They need to find the truth, accept it, change to it and then teach it correctly to their students.

The Christian academic institution takes its marching orders from God, not the secular academic world. If this means giving up accreditation then so be it.

#6.Adam as the first man; the essential historical reliability (rather than mythic content) of the creation stories, the Patriarchs, the exodus, and conquest; the fundamentally early authorship of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and Daniel. These are well-known issues that evangelicalism has tended to defend along traditional lines.

By contrast, these issues are either largely settled or at least engaged along very different lines in academic contexts outside of conservative Christian circles.

This is an issue of faith and belief not academics. Secular academics has a hard enough time trying to prove the existence of many historical figures, pointing a finger at the biblical figures is not helping their academic standing but shows their hypocrisy. We believers do not give up the truth just to have an academic reputation.

#7. In response, it is often claimed that the “guild” of biblical scholarship is too blinded by its own presuppositions to handle the word of God well, or there is some conspiracy afoot, or the better scholars reside in the evangelical camp.

So true christians cannot read their own holy words correctly and only unbelievers can do it? That is some attitude that Mr. Enns possesses. It goes back to the Israel failure to write their own history mentioned earlier. He and other unbelievers have a lot of arrogance especially since they cannot have the spirit of truth guiding them.

The true Christian is not the one who is blind.

#8. At what point does the reasoned exposition of an evangelical theological tradition cross over to an unreasonable, idiosyncratic—unacademic—rejection of positions that are essentially non-controversial outside of those boundaries?

Never. Christians are to stick with the truth regardless of what the secular academic world says. Most of the secular academic work on biblical matters originates with their unbelief and doubt. It does not come from God. The evangelical and other true Christians reject the lies of the secular world and in so doing do not damage their academic or educated standing. We are allowed to disagree with the unbelieving world.

#9. Should such institutions publicly acknowledge that they are centers of theological apologetics and therefore not places of academic training? Should they even be allowed to grant academic degrees?

No because education and academics is not limited to the secular world’s ideas on what constitutes either. This question is merely the result of the thinking that says- if you do not do it my way then you can’t do it? Mr. Enns needs to ask why should evangelical schools follow his way or the way of the secular world when they are followers of God and are to teach God’s way following his instructions?

He is like the kid who is spoiled or who thinks he owns the ball and will take it home if no one does what he says. Mr. Enns is just one of many unbelievers who hold this attitude. The reason they do is because they are tools of evil and have been deceived. While they will not acknowledge that point it is a fact none-the-less. They are attacking those organizations and people who have the truth in hope of keeping the truth away. Their reasons may vary but one of them is clear- they do not want to hear the truth themselves and see that they are on the road to destruction.

This is a battle that will not go away and true Christians need to be prepared to continue waging it as evil wants the truth to be hidden and Christians and their academic institutions destroyed.

If evangelical schools do academics and education correclty, then they are academic and educational. Only what God thinks matters. Christians and their schools are not to please the secular world.


Rachel Held Evans & God

When people read the Bible on their own, without the Spirit of Truth guiding them, they come to some sinful conclusions about God and his character. Ms. Evans is one of those people. She had left following the Spirit of Truth long ago and misses the mark when it comes to God. What we are going to address today is an excerpt from her new book. The title of which you can get from clicking the following link and going to her website

We will take a few quotes from that excerpt and address them here:

#1. The question of God’s character haunted every scene and every act and every drama of the Bible. It wasn’t just the story of Noah’s flood or Joshua’s conquests that unsettled me.

One of the problems that come when reading the Bible on your own strength and using your own understanding is that you do not get the full picture of God and many times people simply do not read the whole story. They view God through their own personal preferences, their own ideas of right and wrong, morality and immorality and so on.

They ignore passages like

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6 NASB)

because those passages show that God’s character is not a blood thirsty, genocidal loving nature, but one that is holy and judges sin. If people like Ms. Evans are unsettled by God’s holy and just nature, then they may need to re-evaluate their lives and how they conduct them.

#2. The book of Judges recounts several horrific war stories in which women’s bodies are used as weapons, barter, or plunder, without so much as a peep of objection from the God in whose name these atrocities are committed.

It is clear that Ms. Evans does not read the whole Bible and apply its teachings to these specific events. She ignores the fact that God had spoken and given his instructions. For the ancient Israelites, it was the Mosaic law given at Mt. Sinai. For modern Christians it is both the OT & the NT. God has clearly laid out for his followers what they are to do, including how to treat women.

Every person in the OT that belonged to the people of Israel were well aware of what God instructed. But just like today, they make decisions and go against God’s will and desire for his people and commit atrocious acts. Or they did what most people like Ms. Evans do, and interpret God’s word so they can  feel good about disobeying him.

Now what Ms. Evans misses in the 2 examples she gives immediately after that quote is that God did not command those men to dismember the concubine or make the promise to sacrifice his daughter. She may not be so unsettled if she looked at the whole picture instead of doing what so any people do, leap to a conclusion and blame God for man’s decisions {the word man here means we are including both genders}.

As for the Midianites, she misses the words

Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may [a]go against Midian to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian (Num. 30 NASB)

God does not kill to satisfy some blood lust. But that part of God’s nature is missed by those who attack and judge God using their own understanding and moral codes.

#3. They kill all except the young virgin girls whom the soldiers divide up as spoils of war. Feminist scholar Phyllis Trible aptly named these narratives “texts of terror.”

When people label biblical passages to fit their own preferences, they tend to miss out on God’s true nature and paint him with a broad brush influenced by evil. They see God as evil wants them to see him. This influence then helps to destroy the faith of a person, sending them to destruction. Ms Evans is well on that road. We do not know if it is too late for her but she should stop leading people to sin and destruction.

Her following words tells us that Ms. Evans does not understand the Bible but is looking for the answers she wants

Rereading the texts of terror as a young woman, I kept anticipating some sort of postscript or epilogue chastising the major players for their sins, a sort of Arrested Development–style “lesson” to wrap it all up—“And that’s why you should always challenge the patriarchy!” But no such epilogue exists. While women are raped, killed, and divided as plunder, God stands by, mute as clay.

She repeats the claim that God was mute, yet she fails to see that sin is committed today even though God has spoken through his Bible. The church is not innocent here.We also have to ask why she goes after patriarchy when that system did not command men to kill, rape, dismember, sacrifice and so on. Ms. Evans misses the point that it is the sin nature influenced by evil that lead people to make the bad decisions they make, even when they are major characters in biblical accounts.

She should be angry at evil, not God. The Bible tells us that God does not lead or command his people to sin so why is she up in arms and angry at God for something he did not do? She goes after God’s patriarchal system as if it is some sort of evil entity, refusing to understand that the patriarchal system is not wrong just because men let evil influence them to do evil acts.

If honesty and the truth  were her goals, she would have seen this. We do not challenge God’s systems or choices of leaders. We challenge their sins. We do not throw the  baby out with the bath water. God did not do that when his perfect creation was marred by sin. he provided a way to get back to paradise. Ms. Evans wants everyone to stay away from paradise by attacking God and his system

#4. I waited for a word from God, but no word came.

She just had to read her Bible and she would have seen that his word came. God does not say ‘Go and do though likewise’…’when his people commit sin and make bad decisions. In other words, men are not to commit adultery or murder just because King David did it. They are to follow the commands and instructions of God correctly. If Ms. Evans had read the Bible, she would see what she is to do, yet she takes this supposed silence as permission to ignore God’s word to her and all women.

#5. t was as though I lived suspended in the tension of two apparently competing convictions: that every human being is of infinite worth and value, and that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. These beliefs pulled at me with the gravitational forces of large planets. I couldn’t get rid of them, and yet I couldn’t seem to resolve them either. The tension was compounded by a growing confluence of mis- givings I had about the absence of women in leadership in my church, the shaming of young women perceived to be immodest or “impure,” and the insistence that God is most pleased when women are submissive and quiet. My home had always been a place of refuge, where the voices of women were valued and honored, but as I graduated from high school and entered college, I began to wonder if the same was true for the broader Christian community to which I belonged.

Ms. Evans demonstrates her lack of understanding when it comes to reading and grasping the Bible. God spoke countless times of the worth of a human but he did not say that worth made humans immune from discipline and punishment for their sins. Ms. Evans is quite misguided as she continues to ignore tha evil exists in the world and it is tempting, influencing, leading people to do things against God’s will and instructions.

She also equates her home with infallibility and assumes that her parents did everything according to God’s word. She then uses her growing up experience as the benchmark to judge the church, Christian academic institutions and so on. That is not right nor of God. Instead of questioning God and the Bible, why didn’t she question her parents first and seek understanding between the difference?

We see her problem. She took her upbringing to be more correct than God’s teaching in the Bible. We wish people would stop using the word ‘shaming’ as it has nothing to do with discipline, correction or even justice. It is a modern term being applied to stop people from doing what is right and correcting those in error. God’s kingdom is not a kingdom where everyone gets to do as they please. There are rules and those rules are found in the Bible, not secular culture, or leaning to one’s own understanding.

Then, while we agree that her account of the type of help she was receiving seems to be lacking in biblical thinking, and we say her account because we do not have the full transcripts in front of us of what was said in those meetings. We only have her word. It would help in future similar situations  if biblical men learned the truth first and how to communicate it properly before counseling women who disagree with God’s teaching.

#6. Piper’s dispassionate acceptance represented pure, committed faith, I was told, while mine had been infected by humanism and emotion—“a good example of why women should be kept from church leadership,” one acquaintance said

We put this in here because we want to make a point about the complexity of leadership. Years ago, one female US Senator from California said something to the effect , what is best for the children.  The statement caused us to think about leadership and why God said what he said about who occupies that office. Leadership is not just about children. Leaders have to govern everyone and do it without favoritism. They also have to apply the  rules equally to all and this includes men, women and children.

As we pointed out in our previous post, God does not suspend or change his rules just because children are  involved. Real leadership has to be tough but fair. It has to be strong but just. It has to make the hard decisions, even when applying mercy. The church, parents, leadership and so on do not exist for the children. The latter are the ones who have to be taught correctly. Deut. 4 has God telling  Moses what is to be taught to them- his ways, his commands, his instructions and so on.

When courts and politicians talk about ‘what is best for the child’ (which is not a biblical teaching), they need to look up Deut. 4 and similar passages to see what is best for the child. God has already laid it out for everyone how to raise their children correctly. Leadership has to govern everyone not one segment of society. Unfortunately, many women do not get this fact, including Ms. Evans. They limit their leadership to the children only and ignore other vital aspects of life. real leadership cannot afford to do this.

Many people think that women should be appointed to leadership positions just because they are female. The point to women like Deborah who was a judge and a prophetess to support their views. But what they do not take into consideration is that maybe God did not appoint her just to appease secular cultural demands or a small group of people. She got the job because she was spiritually qualified and governed everyone correctly.

We must repeat ourselves from other posts here- Deborah was not made head of the  temple. She did not violate God’s instructions on  who was to lead the temple. She also did not lead a movement to usurp authority from Gods appointed men who were charged with being the temple leaders. True leadership does not lead the people to sin and destruction. Nor does it elevate one segment of society over the others.

#7. If we train ourselves not to ask hard questions about the Bible, and to emotionally distance ourselves from any potential conflicts or doubts, then where will we find the courage to challenge interpretations that justify injustice? How will we know when we’ve got it wrong?

It is okay to ask hard questions about the Bible. That is how you learn the true nature of God and see the difference between the world’s view and the biblical view. God acts justly and is not some homicidal maniac who hates women. He has his way of doing things and that is what we are to humbly accept & follow. BUT when you ask those hard questions, you need to be prepared for the truth that answers those questions. You also  need to be prepared to accept those hard answer especially when they go against your preferences and understanding.

Ms. Evans does not do that. We know because we have tried on her website to answer her questions only to be banned from posting.

#8. “Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man,” Thomas Paine said.  If the Bible teaches that God is love, and love can look like genocide and violence and rape, then love can look like . . . anything. It’s as much an invitation to moral relativism as you’ll find anywhere.

She does not help her case by quoting someone who misunderstand the Bible and did not know God. God does not commit sin, he doe snot command anyone to sin but he has given everyone the right of free choice, even those major biblical characters that Ms. Evans has a hard time with. It is time for Ms. Evans to apply that fact to her understanding of the Bible and see where she made her mistakes. Biblical characters had the same option to freely choose what they will do and follow. You cannot blame God for their words and deeds if they commit sin.

Part of her problem is that she and others like her do not understand how God defines love. They apply their own subjective definition to the term then judge God by that inferior meaning. That is not fair to God and it only lets evil ruin a person’s faith in God.

#9. I figured if God was real, then God didn’t want the empty devotion of some shadow version of Rachel, but rather my whole, integrated self.

As we read these final quoted words, we are struck by the thought that Ms. Evans did not mention one word about sin against men. Or the fact that women do sinful thinks to men. Her words were all about how women were treated That is not a wholistic view or even fair to men. She is not giving God her whole self but only that self that wants to attack men and remove them from their rightful place in the Church and the home.

She really does not  understand the character or nature of God. She should start with the fact that God is holy, does not make mistakes and is not wrong- even when he made his instructions about who leads the church and the family.

No, God Is NOT On Your Side

We say this to Maxine Waters and every person who tells people to sin.  We needed to interrupt our examination of different scholars because the abuse of the Bible, the abuse of God is not limited to Jeff Sessions only. Everything we say here applies to both sides of the issue and beyond that issue. You can read the full article here:

At a weekend rally in California, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters encouraged her supporters to “absolutely harass” Trump staffers when they visit restaurants, gas stations or departmental stores as a way to protest the president’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy.

Ms. Waters is probably reading a different Bible than we our. Ours says that we are not to return evil for evil. Our Bible does not instruct us to harass those we do not like, but to pray for them. Our Bible tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves, not to set them up as possible targets for evil. The distortion of the ‘zero-tolerance immigration policy’ has reached its zenith. Also, our Bible says we are to obey the government except when their commands, etc., lead us to disobey God. Ms. Waters’ Bible seems to be saying a lot of different things. By the way, stopping illegal immigration is not against God’s commands or instructions.

“I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it is wrong what they’re doing on so many fronts but they tend to not want to confront this president,” Waters told her supporters in Los Angeles Saturday, according to a video.

Wrong in whose eyes? Governments have difficult jobs to do.  They need to govern wisely but it is rare for them to make a decision everyone in the country is going to agree with. When it comes to children, the government is in a no win situation and that is unfair. The children are being used for whatever purpose the parents and other adults have in mind, so why aren’t Ms. Waters and her supporters outraged at those actions? They are just as sinful as the ones they claim the government is committing. Remember the distorted and misused image on Time’s cover? Ms. Waters and the Left do not have clean hands nor a pure heart in this issue.

Why is not Ms. Waters outraged that so many people are disrespecting the laws of America and other western nations? Escaping poverty is not a reason to ignore one’s country’s laws. But people lose their heads when children are involved and stop thinking rationally, logically and biblically. The government has the right to handle the nation’s affairs as they see fit. God will bring them into account for their actions. He will also bring into account those people like Ms Waters who advocate bringing evil to those they do not like. We do not throw out biblical instruction just because children are involved.

Waters also told the crowd “God is on our side,” in reference to Trump’s immigration policies.

Sorry Ms. Waters, but when you do and advocate that evil be done, then God is not on your side. If you recall, God punished sinful unrepentant children when it was time for them to be judged.  He did not throw out his rules just because a child was involved. God is on the side of honesty, honest justice, mercy, fairness and other non-sinful actions for all parties involved, not just for a few favored God is not on the side of those who do evil, whether they are Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. God is on the side of those who obey him and Ms. Waters is not obeying God. She is not even close to it.

While you try and quote the Bible, Jeff Sessions and others, you really don’t know the Bible. God is on our side, on the side of the children, on the side of what’s right …,” she said.

Again we must say no to Ms. Waters. Her side is not right and she knows the Bible less than Mr. Sessions does. She is telling people to disobey God’s word. But we are not the only ones who see the evil in her words. As you read that article you will see that there are those who have realized how dangerous her words really are

“This is an elected official in America coming very close to encouraging mob violence… This is also very disturbing,” he tweeted.

Then the words of the restaurant owner do not help in this issue

“I’m not a huge fan of confrontation,” co-owner Stephanie Wilkinson told The Washington Post. “I have a business, and I want the business to thrive. This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”

If she wanted to uphold her morals and make an uncomfortable decision then she should not have asked Ms. Saunders to leave. It is clear that her morals come from a different Bible than the one we read. Ms. Saunders and her party had done nothing wrong. Jesus ate with sinners and did not kick them out when they wanted something to eat. Surely, the owner of that restaurant is not greater than he. There is also no biblical instruction to throw people out of a restaurant when you merely disagree with them politically.

Our Bible says to feed your enemies, not persecute them. Our Bible tells us that the only time Jesus threw someone out of a place was when they made his father’s house a mockery.  What is clear is that both the owner of the restaurant and Ms. Waters have no idea what the Bible says. What is also clear from this and many other incidents, is that people from both sides will use the Bible to their advantage and support their agenda. Our Bible tells us to not throw the first stone when catching someone in sin.

We are sure that Ms. Waters, the restaurant owner and so many others are not without sin. Christians cannot throw the first stone but seek to humbly obey God even in this immigration and political issue. We are not going to solve any problem by exploiting it for political, spiritual or other gain or by encouraging others to sin.

In an interview aired Saturday on Trinity Broadcasting Network, Trump told former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee that Democrats failed to “sit down to draw an agreement that’s good for security.”

It is pretty hard to get rational, logical and biblical conversations going when one side is being irrational, illogical and unbiblical. Remember children are not the defining point on what laws are to be obeyed or not. Hell will be filled with children who did not repent of their sins. If you need an example to support that statement, then go to Genesis 6.

When God says everyone thought of nothing but evil, he did not exempt the children. Romans 3:23 & 6:23 do not leave children out either. It would be wise to teach your children the ways, laws and commands of God so that they may obey God, live long, miss hell, and not be used as pawns by others.

Robert Cargill & The Flood

We went to the Bible & Interpretation webpage to look for our next installment for the scholar’s series and we decided to address Robert Cargill’s view that the flood did not take place. Knowing we have addressed one of Dr. Cargill’s biblical fallacies and that we have addressed the flood topic before on numerous occasions, we decided to do it again as he raises some interesting ponts.

We are not going to go science expert v. science expert in this rendition of rebutting anti-flood thinking. That would be boring and a waste of time. But we will address his one or two uses of science as we go. You can read the whole article at:

#1. So, instead of addressing their spurious claims yet again, I thought I would approach the issue from a different angle: forget about Noah’s ark; there was no world-wide flood.

His post was written in 2010 and he was referring to the group called Noah’s Ark Ministries International. We are not worried about the 8 year time gap because what he says then is still being said today. For example, his claim that there was no world-wide flood. That is a spurious statement that is based more on unbelief than it is on science. There are a lot of people today who make that claim.

Such claims are made because people are unable to use faith to believe God. If we want to, we could pull out the Love chapter and quote that if people love God, they would believe him when he says there was a flood. Love believes all things. We would only use that to point out that Dr. Cargill does not love God and he has said that many times.

#2. The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives

He might have a case if the ancient world did not have multitude of flood stories in almost every civilization that was in existence after the flood. What Dr. Cargill does not realize is that for his theory to work, every member of Israel would have to be brain-dead and not once question the source of the stories. He does not seem to give the ancient people any credit for intelligence, curiosity, or desire to find the truth. He makes them all blindly accepting people who just pray, eat and  sleep the day away.

Since people questioned Moses and his leadership, we are sure that there would be some who would question the adoption of myths created outside of Israel. Someone would investigate to see if the stories in their religious and holy book were true. If they did and found that it was false, they would most certainly have those portions removed. They would not let them remain in their holy words. Since we have no record of anyone doing that, the onus is on Dr.Cargill t provide proof that the flood accounts were copied from secular societies.

#3. Most biblical and ancient Near Eastern scholars argue that the flood is a mythical story adopted from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts.

Yes they do but they cannot provide one real piece of evidence that the Israelites copied from those unbelieving civilizations surrounding them. We have said this before, the Old Babylonians enjoyed a reputation for copying from other societies but there is not one hint that the Israelites did. Where do scholars  get the idea that the biblical writers copied? From the fact that certain secular works appeared before the OT did.

They base this thinking on the idea that the oldest discovered was the first one written. But that can’t be proven either since Moses wrote roughly around the 15th century BC. Plus, chronology tells us that the truth appeared first. Noah and his family told their descendants about the flood. As those descendants strayed from God so did their literature content.

It was not the biblical writers who copied or adopted but the authors who wrote the Gilgamesh Epic and other flood accounts.

#4.These flood stories appear to have been transmitted to the Israelites early in Israel’s history. Contact between the Assyrians and the Israelites is known from the conquest of Israel and its capitol, Samaria, in 721 BCE by Assyrian King Shalmaneser V (727-722 BCE), and from the attempted conquest of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). These stories were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith

If Dr. Cargill’s theory was correct, then that may explain the Israelites including the account in the OT. It does not explain why those ancient societies far from and never hearing of the Babylonians and Assyrians would also include a flood myth in their ancient literature. Especially if they never experienced a flood. Where did those societies get their information and why would they include and adopt stories from a far-a-way kingdom in their religious writings? Dr.  Cargill cannot explain that phenomenon.

The story of Babel does explain why those far-a-way civilizations would have a flood account in their historical records. Their ancestors got it from Noah and his family. Then to make his thinking sound credible, Dr. Cargill has to change the date of the writing of the OT, especially the book of Genesis. He has no proof that the OT was written in the 5th-7th centuries BC but it is a widely held convenient theory among scholars. One that has been disproven countless times.

Two key words in that quote tell us that Dr. Cargill cannot prove his theory. Those words are ‘appear’ & ‘apparently’. He does not know yet he will go with that thinking over the truth. He also cannot prove it either. The thought that there are two flood stories melded into one is read into the contents of the Biblical account, not taken out of it. There is no ancient evidence that those early accounts were used to make one biblical flood story. That idea is based upon the misreading of the biblical texts by unbelieving scholars.

#5. The combined story preserves vestigial indicators that the account was originally two separate narratives.

This is proof for what we said immediately above the quote. Because Dr. Cargill does not understand the Bible and does not follow the Holy Spirit to the truth, he cannot know what the truth is. More detailed instruction is not evidence for the editing of two secular flood accounts. Dr. Cargill continues to demonstrate his ignorance of reading the biblical text when he states that the flood was recorded as lasting for to different lengths of time.

He misunderstands the Bible when it says

24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. (Gen. 7 NASB)

17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days (Ibid)

The receding of the water added the extra time and he does not take into account context before making his claim:

For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; (Ibid)

Avoid context and you can get confused very easily. The term flood in verse 17 obviously refers to the rains God promised and the length of time he said it would rain. The word water in verse 24 is talking about how long the water remained on the earth. There is no contradiction here, water in a flood does not normally disappear overnight.

#6. Further evidence for the presence of two flood stories comes from the fact that in the narratives that speak about 40 days of flooding, god is referred to as the divine name YHWH, which supposedly was not revealed to readers until the episode of the burning bush in Exodus 3. However, in the portions of the flood texts that refer to 150 days of flooding, god is referred to as elohim…

This isn’t evidence. It is made evidence by unbelieving scholars but it is not evidence. It is evidence that unbelieving scholars are reading into the account what they want to see but it is not indication that 2 different accounts were used. It is evidence that Moses used two different names for God but that is about it. Dr. Cargill cannot produce any real evidence that two secular accounts of local floods were used to record the biblical story.

#7. But for some, the literary evidence is not compelling. So, allow me present some scientific evidence: there could not have been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible because there is simply not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to produce such a flood

This is where Dr.Cargill uses science to support his point and as accurate as people think science is about the past, it is not. No one knows how much moisture exists in the atmosphere and underground. They can speculate but no one can accurately measure it. Plus, measuring modern conditions does not mean that those conditions were exactly the same in ancient times.

Then when you look at the amount of water Dr. Cargill claims to be in existence today outside of the rivers and oceans, you begin to wonder about all those global warming scientists who warn of devastating floods to come once the earth warms up. Since underground water supplies are not affected by global warming… You  get the picture. Then, he says there is only enough water to raise the oceans by about 1 inch or a little more.

Thus, in order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many biblical literalists are willing to do. It is hypothetically possible that, say, the polar ice caps melted. This could raise the ocean levels beyond the 2.5 centimeters that all the earth’s atmospheric water could were it to all rain down, but even then the thaw would only slightly affect the world’s coastlines.

Mor evidence against global warming threats and predictions.

Dr. Cargill has neither textual evidence nor scientific evidence to prove his thesis. His statement is still founded only in unbelief and not fact.

#8. Simply put: there is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In other words, it’s impossible. There is not enough water in the earth’s atmospheric system to even come close to covering all of the earth’s land masses.

Considering that there has only been 1 world-wide flood in al of history it is a bit presumptuous and arrogant to make such a claim as Dr. Cargill does. He is ignoring the boatloads of evidence we do have for the flood. You can read a lot of it at the following link

But that is what unbelievers do. They distort and lie about the facts so they can continue blissfully in their ignorance and unbelief.

#9. It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical.

NO… it is time for unbelievers to concede that their arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny. For one thing if the biblical account of the flood was untrue, it would not have made it out of OT times. Someone or a group of someone would have proven the account false and a lot of protests would have been made. Then someone would have taken power who believed the protests and had the OT changed. No OT manuscript reflects this possibility. Plus, Dr. Cargill and other scholars do not produce credible, authentic, alternative OT manuscripts that state otherwise.

Producing those would be actual evidence. Making arguments about different names, different numbers is not evidence. From a textual point of view, all Dr. Cargill has is subjective unbelieving opinion. Opinions that do not accept rational and logical counter arguments.

#10. Simply because a factual error exists in the text of the Bible does not mean that an ethical truth or principal cannot still be conveyed. It is time for Christians to concede that “inspiration” does not equal “inerrancy,” and that “biblical” does not equal “historical” or even “factual.”

We are not addressing his

It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period

because that whole idea is based on a myth about science and its supposed authority. Science has no authority and it is not the last word on anything.

What Dr.Cargill does not understand is that a factual error undermines the ethical truth. Simply because the supposed ethical truth allowed for lies to be told. That means that the ethical truth is not ethical or truth at all but will use whatever it can to make its point. Inspiration does equal inerrancy because if God allowed sin into his holy word then that means God promotes sin and contradicts his own word and being.

Then biblical does mean historical because God cannot lie. SInce Dr. Cargill and his fellow like-minded scholars cannot produce divinely inspired OT manuscripts that say something different from all our preserved and authentic OT manuscripts, then their arguments are not  based on fact but their unbelief. Their deceived minds have been taken on a fairy tale ride and led to believe they are following the truth. When in reality, they are doing what the ancient authors of the alternative flood accounts did- they stray from the truth because their unbelief and evil wont let them accept what ‘God did in man’s history.

It is time for the Christian to ignore secular scholars and uphold  the word of God as true, historical and inerrant.

Bad Archaeology & Archaeology

The first two terms are the name of a couple of websites owned and used by

The problem, of course, comes in when that person and his writing partner set themselves up as the final authority on the research field of archaeology. They aren’t but they like to see changes take place in the field of archaeology. We will look at some selected quotes taken from several different pages on that website.

#1. James and I are fed up with the distorted view of the past that passes for knowledge in popular culture. We are unhappy that books written by people with no knowledge of real archaeology dominate the shelves at respectable bookshops

They have good company. Eric Cline, Robert Cargill, Joe Zias and other archaeologists do not like this either. To a point we do not either. But the real problem  comes in when these archaeologists lump legitimate Christian and other researchers in with the likes of Ron Wyatt, S. Jacobovici and others who really do distort the field of archaeology with their weird views and conclusions.

We take issues with the authors of that website because they use their own standards to make the divide between real and bad archaeology. That is their first mistake. Their second mistake comes in when they declare that their accepted way to do archaeology is the only way to do it. Well archaeology is not like God’s plan of salvation which only has one way of being saved. There are many ways to dig into the past to get the information needed to decipher what actually took place.

Not all the paths are correct but there is more than one way to do archaeology. Oh and, once you get to the truth, no more corrections are needed.

#2. A quick look through the comments that have been made on various pages will throw up some interesting views. In particular, you will find that our critics accuse us of arrogance, bullying, closed-mindedness, even being in the pay of governments to suppress The Truth™. We are none of these. If you return to the site time and again, you will find that we update our pages when new information comes along, correcting errors that we have made. This is something that Bad Archaeologists never do.

You may say this is a good thing as science says it is self-correcting. But the problem is that who is to say that the corrections are correct? Because secular science and archaeology are deceived fields of research and do not have the Spirit of Truth guiding them, there is no guarantee that these men got it right with the second, third or even fourth correction. It is also wrong and irresponsible to develop theories based on limited information.

Another problem is that these men are not going for the truth. If they were, they would realize that the truth is not always found in their accepted ways of doing archaeological research. Sometimes the fringe people stumble onto the truth and do not know how they got there. For the believer, archaeology is all about getting to the truth not the best explanation or the best description of a given excavation site. We are not to lie or sin in our historical work. We are also not to mislead either.

#3. Bad Archaeology is all around us. Many of its ideas are pervasive in popular culture. Its publications sell more than publications dealing with real archaeology. Its web presence is much stronger than that of real archaeology. This is especially true of internet forums, where the most bizarre of conspiracy-oriented ideas are given free rein. With this site we are trying to show that most Bad Archaeology is completely vacuous and valueless. In doing so, I hope that we can also provide a reference point for Good (or at least, Better) Archaeology.

Again the issue is that the term Bad Archaeology is far too broad and generic. It is also very subjective and can contain anything the authors of that website do not like. That means they will include many good archaeologists and the information they uncover. We read several of their articles, the one we thought was the most honest and factual was the one on the Peri Reis map. They made some good points that bear analyzing and reconsidering. We like Dr.Hapgood and read his 3 books which are filled with a lot of useful information. We are prepared to take Matthews’ analysis if it bears out to be correct.

But with that said, real biblical archaeologists have debated this point and those arguments are featured over at Bible and Interp website. There are many problems with communication by real archaeologists which make this situation true. It is too long to go into here, but suffice it to say that sensationalism sells. It sells better than religion sells the ancient past.

We will agree that there are a lot of bad archaeologists out there and most of them try to convince everyone that aliens did it. The other problem we find with this category is that the authors of that website think they get to pick and choose who is a bad archaeologist and who isn’t. There is a lot of bias at play here and that is unfair to those archaeologists who do not meet the approval of the establishment. There is a lot of bias in the field of archaeology. But this does not make the searchers for Noah’s ark credible. Many of those would fit into the category of bad archaeology.

#4. By and large, Bad Archaeologists do not cite excavation reports, catalogues of artefact types, studies of monument classes or the sites and monuments records of places. Perhaps they find the amount of detail overwhelming. Perhaps they do not understand the technical jargon used by their authors. Perhaps they believe that the answers to the questions they pose are not to be found in these minutiae because their questions are too big.

We do not cite excavation reports catalogs, studies, etc., very often. This does not make us bad archaeologists. It makes us discerning because those reports are more subjective than factual. One example is Stephen Collins. He states in almost every report that Tall el-Hamman is likely Sodom. That is a biased opinion not a conclusion based on fact.

We also do not quote from many of the studies on monuments because again, those are subjective and a lot of reading into those monuments take place. Archaeologists tend to think they can read long dead minds and know the motivation behind why something was carved or placed where it was found. They can’t and sometimes, those monuments, if portable enough, could have been moved several times, for different reasons, over the millennia.

To say that good archaeologists must quote from these works is unrealistic and limits the work of archaeologist. We could say that non-Christian archaeologists’ work should be ignored because it is bad archaeology. Their work doesn’t fit with the Bible. We do apply that rule to their conclusions, assumptions, speculations and so on but it does not apply to their work.

Why is this so? Because Christians are not part of every dig. Non-Christian archaeologists do uncover information that no believer has first-hand access to. They cannot get it till the excavation report or book is published. We encourage believers to read non-Christian archaeologists not for their deceived opinions and conclusions but for the information they cannot get anywhere else. To cast them off would be a disservice to believers.

Same with this bad archaeology mentality used by Matthews and his writing partner. They are closing off sources of information needed to learn about the past. Bad archaeologists do dig up information that is sometimes useful. Not everything they do is bad. Of course, not everything established archaeologists do is good. Their work is filled with their perspective and their unbelief.

#5. Many Bad Archaeologists make extensive use of ‘out-of-place artefacts’ or ‘archaeological erratics’. The purpose of drawing these artefacts to their readers’ attention is to cast doubt on the orthodox interpretations of the past that have been developed by archaeologists, usually by questioning what they wrongly perceive to be a linear view of cultural evolution or by trying to undermine conventional chronologies. Occasionally, they are used to cast doubt on models of human evolution (either to demonstrate the creationist claim that humans were created a little over six thousand years ago on the sixth day of Genesis or to demonstrate that humans have been around for billions of years or originally came from elsewhere). More frequently, they are used to cast doubt on the origins of technological civilisation and to show that phenomena such as electricity were known and exploited in the distant past. A few have used them as evidence for time travel or clairvoyance.

The bias of Matthews and his writing partner are exposed. They do not like anything Christian which tells you that their whole definition of bad archaeology is based on their personal bias and nothing objective or superior to them. Those writers are also of the mindset that ony an archaeologist can determine what took place in the past. They are mistaken as archaeology is far too limited for them to ascertain much about past activities.

Because they do not accept the discoveries does not mean they did not take place when they are dated. Their skepticism is not the deciding factor on what did or did not take place. While we will agree that the use of time travel and clairvoyance is wrong, neither are of God, we do not agree with their bias about bad archaeology. Non-believers and bad archaeologists will get some things correct.

Archaeology does not help the theory of evolution at all. Archaeology is a study of ancient societies and civilizations not a study of supposed life development. Archaeology has yet to prove evolution correct and in all cases has shown it to be wrong.

But bias plays a role in what information does or does not get out to the public. What we see in Matthews and his writing partner is the same attitude we see in Jim West, Eric Cline,Robert Cargill  and other biblical archaeologists. They think only they can determine what took place in the past and that the Bible can only be understood and expounded upon by scientific experts.  Those are very elitist attitudes and very wrong.

It tells us that they want to close the field of archaeology to only those who meet their demands and criteria, for the sole reason they do not want to be embarrassed. They know as well as we do that the majority of major archaeological discoveries have come from amateurs or non-archaeologists. Their jealousy plays a role in their division of the field.

Just think, if archaeological excavation was limited to professional archaeologists we would not have the Nag Hammadi library, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Computer and much more. Professional archaeologists do not always dig in the right places and there are far more sites waiting to be excavated than there are professional archaeologists.

You need to remember that dating is very subjective and fallible. The dating systems were created by sinful, fallible imperfect people. Do not expect perfection from imperfect people.

#6. Some Bad Archaeologists believe that there are missing elements of our shared history: achievements that have been overlooked or suppressed, links between times and places that have not hitherto been noticed, whole civilisations that are unknown to conventional history.

We know that the establishment has done just that. They did it with Woolley and they do it with anyone who disagrees with their accepted conclusions. This is a fact of life in the field of archaeology. Egyptologists do it to those who disagree with their theories about the Sphinx and the Pyramids. Now not all those people who disagree with the establishment is correct, but they need to be taken on a case by case basis and not lumped into one category based on secular human bias.

One of the most successful fringe writers of recent years, Graham Hancock is a leading light of a group of people who like to call themselves the ‘New Egyptologists’ to give a spurious sense of academic credibility. Others include his contemporary David Rohl, who has proposed a radical new chronology of Egyptian history to align it with the chronology of the Old Testament by reducing the dates of Egyptian kings. Hancock also tries to establish an alternative chronology, but it is one that pushes back some of Egypt’s most familiar monuments into a very distant past

We like Hancock because he does a lot of our legwork for us. His books are filled with information that is very useful in understanding the past and the Bible. We do not agree with his conclusions but that does not make him a bad archaeologist. It makes him misguided and wandering down the wrong path. It also shows us that evil will let people discover some truths while deceiving them to go into the wrong direction when talking about the past.

We do agree that the Egyptian chronology is off. By how much, we are not sure. The main source for the Egyptian chronology comes from a couple of sources. One source is Manetho. An Egyptian priest writing not from the beginning but somewhere in the middle or later stages of the Egyptian empire. We do not have one original or copy of his complete work. In fact, his work survives be mere quotes from other ancient authors. A couple of those authors also do not agree with each other on what Manetho said. This is not enough to build a whole history on but archaeologists and Egyptologists do it.

There are more details about this but again that would be a topic for another day.

While we like some of the information we can glean from the Bad Archaeology website, we do not like or agree with their elitist attitude. We also do not like their bias, their hatred for the truth and so on. People like this are not trying to get the truth exposed, they are trying to keep it under wraps. Their generic category hides so much information while letting false teaching get to the public. They are not doing anyone a great service.

We could say that they were doing a lot of self-serving work but we cannot read their minds. Their real reasons are their own. But one thing is for sure, they are not working with God to get the right information to the people. Believers need to work with the Spirit of Truth if they want the right information and to have the truth.