CHAPTER 6

ABIOGENESIS

          Abiogenesis is the term used to describe the historical event in which atoms and molecules became organized as living conglomerates, a complex transition as profound as the conversion of raw sand, gypsum, wood, silica and metal ores into an office building. There is a massive schism between an aggregate of the basic elements comprising the universe swirling around on a dead planet and the first extremely complex, functional structures we call living things represented by fossils of thermophilic blue-green algae, thought to be 3.9 billion years old. In order to get a feel for how vast this gap is, consider the bridge that would be necessary to travel from a chemical mixture being energized randomly with super-heated water, lighting bolts or radiation from space to the miracle of complexity and information detailed below.  It is a simple living cell, the most basic form of what we consider life, described by micro-biologist Michael Denton in his book, “Evolution, a Theory in Crisis.” That cell, magnified a thousand million times until it is 15 miles across, would appear thus. 

          “What we would see then would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.  On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port-holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out.  If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.  We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units.  The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules.  A huge range of products and raw materials are being transported to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell. 

     We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison.  We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines.  We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation.  We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine – that is one single functional protein molecule – would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the… (21st century).  Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules. 

     We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory bands for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction.  In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.

     What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth.  However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.  To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle. 

     To gain a more objective grasp of the level of complexity the cell represents, consider the problem of constructing an atomic model.  Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million atoms.  Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale of one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a tennis ball.  Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometers in diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid.”

         There are statistical and chemical categories of evidence directly refuting any assertion that the engineering marvel described above could have originated strictly through natural means.  Furthermore, the explanation naturalists typically offer for the origin of a living cell should be ignored simply because of its irrelevancy to the issue at hand. We will look at that “explanation” first.

          Darwinists glibly but feloniously apply the principals of mutation and natural selection to the world of chemistry.  Those principals are not relevant to non-living molecular structures, however.  Something has to be alive in order to metabolize and reproduce and natural selection can only operate on organisms that reproduce.  We see minor mutations causing changes in species in the form of micro-evolution.  Darwinists then use this data to support speculation that the same thing occurs in larger groups of organisms, macro-evolution, which has been exposed as a giant leap of faith on their part.  But at least that leap warrants investigation.  They have, however, absolutely no grounds whatsoever for claiming that principals of “random genetic mutation” & “natural selection” apply to non-living structures and the allegation doesn’t really deserve to be entertained. 

          Suppose a city’s organizational scheme changed over time because the course of a river meandering through it shifted randomly during the city’s history. This would be an example of two principals, “random course alteration” (mutation) and “natural re-organization” (natural selection), causing the geographic evolution of a city, a fact easily confirmed by on-going observation and historical maps of the city. But would our conviction that the city’s organizational pattern had evolved over time also justify utilizing the principals of random course alteration and natural re-organization to explain the origin of the city’s very first structure, an outer wall made of bricks.  In other words, could we say with credibility that those principals caused some bricks to form from river mud and then assemble themselves into walls and ramparts?  Of course not!  In our analogy, principals affecting the changing organizational pattern of the city over time can hardly be used to explain that city’s origin.  It is an example of expanding the causal influences of the river beyond reason and the same holds true for the principals of mutation and natural selection as inadequate explanations for the origin of a cell.  In the latter case, the causal influences were broadened beyond their scope simply to support a philosophical commitment.  Mutation and natural selection could only have been exerted as causal influences if the phenomena of self-duplication was present during the process that produced the first living cell, and it was not.

         Think of the cell described by Denton as a mobile shoe factory filled with automated machines that process and gather the material necessary to build an exact replica of the “mother factory” every 6 months, as well as making shoes. The factory is made of concrete, steel, glass, and so forth, and the automated machines are made of copper wire, cables and ball bearings.  All are precisely fitted together. Similarly, the cell is constructed of sugars, phosphates and amino acids precisely fitted together to form proteins that make up the functional systems of the cell.  The proteins are analogous to the automated machines.  The factory may change in appearance and function over time, that is evolve, because of random events. If it accidentally made a duplicate of itself that was more efficient, maybe because its machines fortuitously gathered some crude oil instead of compost as fuel, the duplicate might produce shoes faster, thus making it more likely to survive in the volatile shoe market. Eventually the duplicate might become dominant and replace the original factory. But how could a random assembly of nuts, bolts and wire vaguely resembling a robotic arm, for example, have a better chance of evolving into an automated robotic machine than a neighboring random assembly of nuts, bolts and wire that appeared to be a piece of useless junk?  Neither “hardware molecule” could reproduce and then “submit” a potentially more viable “mutant offspring” to an imaginary marketplace of “machine molecules” waiting to be bonded as a completed robotic machine. The whole idea is absurd but these same ideas are applied to the origin of cells. Amino acids, sugars and other inorganic molecules, the building blocks of life, have no way of reproducing themselves. A random assembly of such material would stay just that, a non-living inorganic conglomerate of atoms. Simply put, the evolutionary principles of mutation and natural selection do not apply to amino acids or sugars any more than they apply to the nuts and bolts filling the bins in a hardware store.  Let’s say a simple hardware molecule appeared because a nut and washer threaded themselves onto a bolt when someone shook a hardware bin.  How could this haphazard union of hardware become more fit for survival by possibly becoming a different size in order to meet the specifications of some future, but as yet notional, robotic arm unless it knew in advance where it was going to be inserted? And more significant, how could it do this unless it could reproduce itself and give birth to some mutated siblings that might meet the future specifications? The point is this. The evolutionary principals of random mutation and natural selection do not offer any sort of explanation for the origin of the first living cell.

         Statistical probability experts and organic chemists not only agree that a living cell could not have originated through evolutionary principals but condemn another evolutionary theory postulating that the first living cell resulted from a series of undirected chance chemical reactions and that natural selection wasn’t necessary. Consider the following.

          All living cells, whether they are simple bacteria or the tissue of a human brain, have as their nucleus DNA and are made of protein molecules.  DNA is a complex macro-molecule constructed in such a way that it stores and furnishes the information necessary for metabolism and reproduction of the organism which it represents. It holds within itself the instructions for this function in an alphabet made up of four chemical “bases” called nucleotides. Each 3 base “triplet” in the long chain of bases making up DNA specifies a particular amino acid out of exactly twenty.  There are many more but only the select twenty are used in biological systems.  A specific sequence of amino acids spelled out in triplet code represents a particular protein.  A molecule similar to DNA named RNA then copies the sequence and transfers the information to the manufacturing area of the cell.  There the specific protein is constructed and transported to its ultimate cellular location where it performs a precise metabolic function.  It may have an assembly or transport function or be part of the protective cellular membrane, or catalyze other metabolic processes or perform any one of hundreds of other functions.  If the proteins are not coded for and manufactured correctly, the cells they are a part of will die and ultimately the organism the cells are a part of will die as well.

          Organic chemists are now demonstrating that chemical reactions between various amino acids, sugars, phosphates and other inorganic molecules will not build the complex systems described above, and many of them go out on a professional limb and say that intelligent design was necessary. Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen in the “The Mystery of Life’s Origin” detail why.  It is a book well received and reviewed by the author’s peers for its scientific accuracy. It spells out in very thorough fashion, through the use of equations on thermodynamics as they relate to chemical reactions, why any attempts to build complex living cells through the use of random energy input have failed.  It demonstrates that the compounds break down as quickly as they are generated before they even come close to something as complex as DNA.

          In virtually every single attempt to build a living cell from a simulated chemical mixture using various types of contrived energy sources imitating what conditions may have been like on a pre-biotic earth, it has taken “investigator interference” and advanced technology to prevent any compounds formed from breaking down.  And the compounds that were attained were far from anything that could remotely be thought of as living.  They were simply life’s building blocks.      

          Like Bradley, Thaxton and Olsen, probability theorists also strenuously maintain that living cells will never form naturally, effectively closing the door on the flimsy attempts to explain the origin of life within the evolutionary paradigm. We will again use the factory analogy to help show why.

          It’s as though a brick vault in the center of the factory is constructed of 26 differently encoded bricks.  Each brick has a letter of the English alphabet carved on its face and the bricks are precisely sequenced in order to convey instructions for building duplicate vaults, foundations, floors and roofs for future factories.  They also spell out instructions for the construction of robotic assembly machines that, after reading the instructions encoded on the bricks of the vault at the center of the “mother” factory, gather the materials and assemble new factories. They also assemble duplicates of themselves to work in the new factories. This is similar to the “working system” of every living cell on the face of the earth, whether that cell makes up a plant’s leaf , a zebra’s skin, an octopuses retina or a spider’s stomach lining. It is an extremely complex system. Many biologists, after understanding this system, ask the following question. How did the first DNA information storage and retrieval molecule appear without the cellular factory in place to make and sustain it or how did the cellular factory appear without the blueprint for its construction in place in the form of DNA?  It’s like asking how the first vault with its inlaid building instructions got built without building instructions.  They are valid questions.

            The reason probability theorists say it’s a problem getting a system like a cell or factory to assemble at all is because they’re so complex.  The very simplest life form, by definition the simplest free living thing that can duplicate itself, a biological cell utilizing the system analogized above, theoretically would be comprised of 239 protein molecules.  Each of these would contain an average of 445 amino acids in perfect sequence of the 20 different types, and all 445 would have to be precisely slotted into position.  The probability that such a simple creature could come together by chance, and none so simple have yet been found, is 1 in 10~137,915.  That's a 10 with 137,915 zeros following it.  Just to put this number in perspective, the age of the universe would be written as only 10~18 seconds.  There are only 10~80 fundamental particles (electrons, neutrons & protons) in the entire universe.  The scientific community in general agrees that if something has odds greater than 1 in 10~50 of occurring, it should be considered, for all practical purposes, impossible.  All of this means that the mathematical probability of life forming on its own anywhere is totally incomprehensible.

With tongue in cheek, we could use decks of cards to confirm the odds that a simple cell could not have assembled randomly. There would be 239 decks, representing proteins, and each deck would have a unique color and would consist of 445 cards, representing amino acids, and each card would have a number anywhere from 1 through 20. We could then write down several different sequences 445 units long, representing several types of protein, always using numbers from 1 to 20.  We could document each of the several different sequences on a sheet of paper and call this “information Code A”, sealing the data in an envelope. We could then write down a separate, unique sequence of numbers, using the numbers 1 through 239, with each number representing a differently colored deck, and put it in the envelope as well, calling it “information Code B”. At this point we could manufacture millions of sets of cards and enlist millions of unsuspecting scientists to begin laying out the cards on a floor in any pattern they choose, all 106,355 of them from each set (445 x 239).  For any given set, how long would it take before the properly colored cards from each color-coded deck were laid end to end in the several different sequences listed in information Code A, with each full deck lined up according to the sequence in information Code B?  The resulting arrangement would be extremely simple compared to an actual living cell, but if we had forever, it would never happen.

          If such a fortuitous outcome is supposed to be the natural course of events, it should be no problem to experimentally demonstrate that non-living matter will chemically bond into something we call living.  In fact, a good scientific theory demands experimental verification.  It has not been accomplished in almost 50 years of trying - nor has anyone come even close.

          A notable experiment was performed by Stanley Miller in the 50's in which he attempted to duplicate what he thought a "primordial soup" might consist of, the basic elements of which living cells are constructed, and charge it with electricity to represent an electrically charged atmosphere. He produced some amino acids, the building blocks of life, but nothing that could even remotely be considered living.  A very good analogy would be that he produced a few lettered bricks, a few bags of concrete, several pallets of roof tile, some sensors and one arm of a robotic worker in his attempt to produce a functional factory building with robotic workers. 

Later two scientists, Spiegelman and Kornberg, independently doing experimental work in the field of molecular biology, synthesized a replicative form of double stranded, circular, viral DNA.  But two facts prevent these experiments, exceptional though they were, from supporting molecular evolution.  First, they both required the use of living viruses to create synthetic ones, meaning life was used to produce more life, not that life was produced from non-living matter. Second, their experiments involved the clever “assembling” of various biological components.  In other words, the synthesis would not have taken place without intelligent intervention.  Simply put, they showed that life can be created, and we need to expand the definition of living even to say that, but they did not prove that life spontaneously ignites.

All origin of life experiments, without exception, have failed to demonstrate that a living cell can originate through the random mixing of chemical components. Any successes, such as the creation of amino acids or basic protein, have simply been successful demonstrations that life's building blocks can be produced in a laboratory by the creative intellect of scientists working with highly sophisticated technology developed through intelligence. But the order and complexity of the arrangement of those building blocks in a living cell is the barrier that natural forces, or mankind, can not surmount.

Consider one example, among many, of the special bonding requirements necessary for biological systems to work. It is the phenomenon of chirality, a biological term referring to one particular way in which the linking of amino acids to form proteins must take place.  Protein is formed by very long chains of 3-dimensional amino acids that must all be left-handed.  In a pool of randomly formed amino acids, such as those created by origin of life experiments like Miller’s, an equal number of race-mates, left and right handed amino acids, is always present. Gloves can be used as an analogy in visualizing race-mates. A left-handed glove can’t fit into a right-handed glove even though the construction is identical and symmetrical. In the case of biologically functional proteins combining from a pool of left and right handed race-mates, it would be necessary for the decoding RNA molecule to form through the random linking of many thousands of left-handed amino-acids without a miss. Accidentally incorporating a right-handed molecule somewhere in the chain would be lethal to the protein, without exception, as it could not perform its metabolic function. 

A common misconception about the original organization of complex macro molecules is promoted by naturalists and chirality can be used to illustrate this misconception.  In discussing the first appearance of a perfect sequence of 1000 left-handed amino acids, for example, naturalists will say the odds are, that on the first try, about 500 will be left handed, and they are right.  In time, they say, more and more left handed race-mates will be added to the sequence until all the amino acids are left handed. The problem is, the 500 appearing in the first “attempt” do not hang around waiting for more of their fellows. In the volatile and unstable world of “pre-organic” chemical bonding, any resulting molecule that isn’t living and can’t reproduce disappears by breaking down chemically or bonding with other molecules into something permanently stable but inorganic.  It is an all or nothing, now or never, situation.  

Consequently, the phenomenon of chirality can be vigorously cited as one of several denials of the possibility of a biologically functional protein appearing through random chemical bonding.  Even though biologists understand this problem, evolutionists suggest that billions of years ago chirality was not necessary for living tissue, as it is now. They do not explain why this would be so and they offer no experimental evidence demonstrating that living tissue can, or ever could, function non-chiraltic.

Not only is the organization of a cell complex beyond comprehension, it is a complexity rich in teleological information.  The brick vault, by itself, may be very complex because its bricks have to be precisely laid, plumb and level, with even gaps and reinforcing steel placed at regular intervals, and so forth.  In other words, a brick vault is far more complex than a pile of bricks. But the brick vault is increased in complexity many times over by the requirement that it also spell out instructions to a robotic worker.  The instructions convey to the robot not only how to make the bricks and steel but how to lay them so as to assemble another “tutorial” brick vault, as well as assembling more robots like itself.  In building this vault, we can’t simply pick up bricks randomly and lay them end to end.  We must carefully choose each brick one at a time and then lay them end to end so they convey teleological information in the form of a language code. 

Teleological information is the most complex of all information in that it is information directing an end purpose.  A sign reading “Santa Monica – ten miles” is a sign conveying information.  But it is not as complex as a radio broadcast that says, “The Santa Monica Freeway to Santa Monica is blocked at Crenshaw Blvd. To reach Santa Monica, turn north on Fairfax and then west on Wilshire.”  Both examples use language codes to convey information but the radio broadcast conveys information directing an end result and is more complex. Furthermore, human language codes, that is symbols placed in sequence that convey teleological information, are always, and there are no exceptions, the result of what we call intelligence, meaning intelligence always precedes language. 

DNA is a molecule made up of nucleotides in a sequence conveying teleological information, how to construct an anteater, for example, and that is why we say DNA houses the “genetic code”. The genetic code and human language are analogous in that both convey teleological information through the use of sequence.  The obvious inference, therefore, is that intelligence preceded the genetic code.

We say that the triplet code sequence in DNA is a language because the specific sequence has meaning in terms of the particular protein it refers to in the same way the letter sequence B-R-I-C-K has meaning in terms of the particular type of building material it refers to.  As these sequences are stored, retrieved and incorporated as information in a lengthy sequence specifying the placement and purpose of various building materials and proteins, they ultimately convey information for the purpose of constructing a factory or a cell. 

The analogy above is not meant to imply that the genetic code is the result of intelligence, as an end in itself.  Instead, just as human language is an intermediate tool for further purposes, the genetic code is an intermediate tool for the primary end purpose - living things. The code is a tool to implement the plan, just like a set of specifications helps implement a plan to build a factory.  Neither the factory nor the living thing would ever appear without the use of building specifications in the form of a language code created by an intelligent entity.

The DNA molecule contains the genetic code for every living structure and without it life wouldn't exist.  The genetic code for any given species specifies the growth and development of billions of cells, how those cells will be organized and how each individual “organization” will react to the environment in such a way as to gain the privilege of being called living.

In the face of all this, it is no wonder that the dismal history of origin of life experiments leaves us with the feeling that it takes an intelligent being vastly more intelligent than us to create life.  As a gauge of the gap between us and our Designer, the amount of information in human DNA, as measured by information theorists, would fill 1000 volumes the size of a standard encyclopedia in print much smaller than the print on this page.  That is a stack of books about 200 feet high.  An average reader would take about 15 years to read that much information, reading at a pace of 8 hours per day, 7 days per week.

At the present time we can’t duplicate the level of information in terms of quantity and sophistication displayed by a living organism. We can, however, determine objective criteria for establishing a measurement of that information. Primarily this involves a computer program.  If we were able to write a program that would accurately and completely represent the structure and behavior of a living organism, we could measure that program in terms of “bits” of information.  The genetic programs (genomes) of higher living organisms consist of something like a thousand million bits of information. 

We have the intelligence and computer capability to store and retrieve the information specifying the construction of an automobile, for example, but not for a living organism.  For a living organism the program would necessarily have to provide the information necessary to describe the construction of a machine which could diagnose it's own ailments, repair itself, utilize raw material from it's environment in order to sustain itself without outside help and reproduce itself.  That is frankly beyond the limits of human ability, at least now or in the near future.  But within the DNA of every living thing is written such a program.  If we suggested that one of mankind's computer systems with a comparable storage and retrieval system could appear by chance, we'd be told to see a therapist.  But that is exactly what evolutionists are theorizing.  They are saying the DNA housed information code that puts our best computers to shame appeared by chance.

Darwin said the key to understanding the past is to understand the present and extrapolate backwards. Using that line of reasoning, we see today that specific information directing the organization of material for a purpose, such as what we would see in blueprints, design specifications or computer software, for example, is always the result of intelligence. DNA therefore, being perfectly analogous to all three of these examples, although it arrived long before us, must also be the result of intelligence. That intelligence must not only surpass intelligence as defined by human standards, it must exceed those standards at least beyond the lofty heights we have aimed for but consistently failed to reach.  Put another way, living organisms must have been designed and programmed by an intellect far superior to ours because the function of DNA is far more complex than the most complex thing of which we can conceive of and create.

The use of language as a means of conveying purposeful information is one of many measuring devices used for determining the level of an individual’s intelligence. In all cases, the greater the informative content of the language code, the greater the level of intelligence present prior to the appearance of the informative code.  In other words, it takes more intelligence to write the specifications for constructing a nuclear reactor than it does for a brick. The informative content of the genetic code, if used as a tool to measure the level of intelligence necessary to produce that code, renders us as being dull in comparison.  This means some of our species, naturalists, consider a chemical reaction capable of generating more intelligence than all of us put together.

What are they thinking? A single human cell is vastly more complex in terms of information than the simplest living cell.  It contains about three or four billion amino acids.  A Mercedes Benz is an engineering marvel and yet the human cell, in complexity of information, makes the Mercedes Benz look like a child's toy.  Would anyone propose that a Mercedes could appear by chance?  The gas-powered lawn mower is about as simple, compared to the Mercedes, as a simple life form is to the human cell in information content.  It is no more likely that the lawn mower appeared by chance than the Mercedes.  The lawn mower, the Mercedes and the living cell need planning and know-how to be assembled.  Existence of the raw materials from which they are made is simply not enough.

   Symbols arranged in sequences conveying information directing the effective use of energy and raw materials for the construction of something according to a design do not occur by accident.  They are always the result of intelligence.  The blueprints, engineering calculations and design specifications for the Mercedes Benz would not have appeared through natural forces in the production foreman's office if he had waited forever.  They needed an engineer.

Let’s say we some day create a species of intelligent robot with self-awareness.  The species might work in an isolated environment, say on another planet mining uranium, and in time may become interested in its own origin. To what characteristic of the robotic species nature would we attribute the unwavering position, by certain  “intellectual” segments within the robot’s social-structure, that it had originated via natural causes only, without the benefit of intelligent design?  We might be tempted to program a little more common sense and less imagination into our robots.  But intellectual pride probably renders common sense useless.  Regardless, those robots who recognized that their own complexity resulted from intelligent design would stand a far better chance of discovering the mechanism of their own construction than those who wasted their time and resources doing dead end research intended to prove that they had originated by chance. Those holding out for intelligent design could enthusiastically explore the inner workings of their own structure with awe and wonder. They could attribute their design and original appearance to a “supernatural” entity with far greater resources than their own and could certainly do so without jeopardizing their intellectual integrity.

Everything we have considered so far, when linked with the fact that no experimental duplication or verification of natural biogenesis has ever occurred, forces us to ask how it can be credibly postulated that a living cell popped into existence by accident just because the earth happened to become suitable?  The answer is that it can't and to so propose is an insult to the human race.  Our species’ deductive and inductive capacities either represent a masterpiece of molecular design in the form of teleological information or those capacities are of no more significance than any other by-product of a material interaction. If the latter is true, strict material determinism is a fact and free will is a whimsical idea. The choice to feed a hungry stranger rather than kill him on the spot is of no more consequence than a bolt of lightning hitting a tree rather than a rock. But man’s soul screams in protest at the extreme reductionist thinking naturalists have forced on his attempts at self-understanding.  The God-fearing among us can be grateful, therefore, that science is finally and convincingly providing evidence in support of what our instincts have told us all along, that we are something special.

It's amazing the ho-hum appearance the conclusions reached from our analogies and inferences have when placed on paper or a computer screen somewhere in a sea of words. They deserve better. They need to be shouted in the streets.  We are not randomly forged carbon based aggregates.  We are created beings and when we begin to understand that, it becomes obvious we have a purpose. Nothing is created without a purpose and nothing has a purpose unless it was created. So, as the only species on earth with the created genetic capacity to comprehend even the concept of purpose, it makes sense for us to further assume it is knowable and attainable. 

As for naturalism, it must be remembered that it's rampaging step-child, Darwinism, was initially promoted over 130 years ago, long before the information aspect and nature of the genome governing all biology was known - in other words before we were aware of the gravity and complexity of the DNA code.

   The idea of naturalism is now so thoroughly entrenched within the fabric of materialistic society, however, that some scientists have jeopardized their careers by supporting the position outlined above.  Sir Frederic Hoyle, the famous astronomer, was well on his way to being nominated for the Nobel prize until he published his books expressing mathematically based doubts as to naturalist/Darwinism.  He was rapidly eliminated.

 Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith, holder of three PHDs, the first in physical organic chemistry, gave the Huxley Memorial Lecture at Oxford University in 1986.  Although his thesis proposing an alternative to naturalist theories of life's origin was well received even by his opponents, he has since been unable to have it published by any reputable scientific journal.  (His alternative introduced a factor representing intelligent input for the origin of teleological (purposeful) information, the type of information theorists say appears in DNA.) Any criticism of naturalist/Darwinism has been effectively censored at the professional level and the lay-public never hears it. This is the climate we find ourselves in as we search for truth.     

   The truth can be censored but not eliminated however.  A detailed analysis of information theory relating to the genome effectively buries the philosophy of naturalism.  One is sufficient but naturalism has suffered from three deadly blows.

1.                 The only evidence presented as support for naturalist/evolution, the fossil record, was originally organized by evolutionists in order to jell with the assumptions of Darwinism but in reality it indicates stasis and huge gaps between sub-groups of living things, past and present.

2.                 The reality of the big bang mandates a universe with a beginning, thus eliminating an infinite universe both spatially and in time as a naturalist bulwark and necessitating a first cause or creator.  It also necessitates intelligent design as an explanation for the finely tuned structure of the universe and the solar system.

3.                 The huge quantity of information and complexity contained in the DNA molecule and a living cell prohibits any possibility of their chance random assembly, and their accidental organization is also prohibited by thermodynamic laws of organic chemistry.

The obvious conclusion many scientists are now reaching is that nature alone as an explanation for the origin of life is grossly erroneous.  Science is finally doing its job, admitting its mistakes and gradually leading us down the path of truth.  But of course science is limited by the “Singularity”, the big bang, and so eternal truth must be found elsewhere.

CHAPTER 7

WHAT ABOUT RELIGION?

The previous chapter highlighted “intelligent design” as one of the arguments theists use to support the existence of God. The universal need to discover a purpose for living and the rationale that such a need would not exist in a god-less, hence purposeless, universe is another argument offered by theists for the existence of God. It is similar to the "universal moral consciousness" line of reasoning mentioned in Chapter 2. It should be noted that each of these philosophic arguments for the existence of God has been thoroughly developed throughout history and has been accepted by some of the greatest minds to have represented humanity.  Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, Einstein and many other celebrated thinkers all believed in a supreme intelligence. We continue to mention these arguments because at some point one realizes that multiple lines of evidence and philosophic arguments in favor of a given belief system, by their sheer weight, give credibility to that belief system and they should ultimately converge and harmonize.  Theists believe that God exists and if they are mistaken then these lines of evidence and philosophic arguments would tend to contradict each other or diverge.  One bit of evidence or argument can be resisted to some degree but, as in a court of law, it is finally an overwhelming “body” of evidence that decides the case.  In our case, that body of evidence is providing just enough light to confirm that we are on the right path in our search.

On the other hand, Darwin’s naturalist dogma is a casualty on an unlit dead-end street.  Good riddance! Why mourn the inevitable demise of a mistake affecting the behavior of millions?  Anyone who believes we are merely clever bipedal brutes will act accordingly - or wish they could. 

As criminologists and detectives combed through the basement of Jeffrey Dahlmer's home in Milwaukee several years ago, they were sickened.  They must have wondered if they were searching the residence of a human being or combing the lair of some carnivorous beast.  They found the skeletal and decomposing remains of 17 young men, some partially eaten.  After Dahlmer's conviction, even his fellow inmates considered him not of their kind and he was beaten to death in a prison shower room. He lived and died like a predatory beast and we can only speculate as to whether or not he believed his ancestors were such.  If he accepted the false notion that his family tree included hyenas, there was no motivation to resist the dark impulses that drove him.

Criminal behaviorists know that imprisonment alone will not significantly deter the exhibition of behavior society considers evil.  It takes a change of heart.  Sadly, as it must have been in Dahlmer's case, the theory of naturalist/evolution is solidly entrenched in the minds and hearts of many and could prevent them from knowing and accounting to their creator until it's too late. 

But it’s never too late for those willing to open their minds, so for us a further expose' of the truth is in order.  We recognize our status as created beings but knowing something has been designed and built isn't enough to determine its purpose.  We may reasonably conclude that an unfamiliar automobile parked in front of our house didn't appear there because of an explosion in the junk-yard down the street, that is by natural forces operating randomly upon car components.  We can then speculate that it was designed and built by Ford Motor Company.  But if it was really built by General Electric as a prototype solar powered vehicle, our attempts to fuel it with gas will be wasted and may ruin it.  Before attempting to use the vehicle, therefore, we had better locate the stamp of the manufacturer and the instruction manual.  In other words, we had better communicate with the maker.  For mankind, religion has been offered as the legitimate conduit for that communication - meaning its spokesmen claim to correctly state our purpose and how to go about fulfilling it. 

   But prior to examining that assertion, and in the interest of leaving no naturalist stone unturned, we will consider the supreme last-ditch effort at naturalist intellectual gymnastics by some modern physicists.  They use phenomena observed within the realm of quantum mechanics as a springboard for various notions intended to eliminate God as the cause of the universe, one of which actually attributes the origin of the universe to man. This is included in the chapter on religion because it is definitely metaphysical in its content and is a shrewd attempt to “deify” man by making him the creator. 

   Some physicists postulate that reality doesn't exist until it's observed and by observing the universe we bring it into the status of reality.  They draw an illogical parallel with delayed choice experiments in quantum mechanics where it has been demonstrated that the observer can influence the outcome of quantum mechanical events.

   An associated wave exists with every quantum entity, meaning protons, neutrons, electrons and such can be mathematically described as either waves or particles and how they manifest themselves is determined by how we choose to observe them. The act of observation is said to give specific reality to the quantum entity.  Performing cerebral somersaults in their application of one of several “quantum interpretations” of reality, some physicists say we've given reality to the entire universe by observing it, using their observations of sub-atomic quantum entities as analogous.  They say that as we observe the background radiation left over from the big bang, we have brought the creation event into the status of reality.  They imply that said reality didn’t exist prior to our observation.  It seems they've not only answered the old question about whether a falling tree makes a loud crash if there are no ears around to hear it, they’ve gone a step further and said that by stumbling upon its petrified trunk laying on the ground, we caused its fall.  This is not the stuff of science but rather of philosophical speculation squared.

   Most of us believe that the observer doesn't actually convey the status of reality upon the entity but simply chooses certain methods of observation and those methods seem to affect whether the entity will behave as a classic physical particle or as part of a mathematically expressed probability wave function.  It has the potential to act as either. That potential defines its real status, not the observer.

  There are levels of thought in the realm of philosophy, and now unfortunately in the realm of science, having no practical application for those of us who strongly suspect that we are not the creator and further allow for at least the possibility that a creator exists to whom we will answer some day.  The “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum physics, as the above philosophy is officially named, is just one of several quantum interpretations of reality and basically says that we determine reality by our acts of observation.

A differing interpretation of quantum effects called the “Many Worlds Interpretation” says all potentials are real but they exist in an infinite number of parallel universes, none of which are accessible to each other.  The example typically used to support this view is the cat in a box.  Its death can be brought about by the observation of a quantum entity and consequent triggering of cyanide by a Geiger counter, the observer, which may or may not, depending upon the 1/2 life of the radioactive material in question, detect (observe) the quantum entity within a particular time period. Is the cat alive or dead during this period?  The Copenhagen view says its ultimate state is determined by the act of observation and until then the cat exists only as a probability wave.  The “Many Worlds” view says it is both alive and dead but in different worlds. According to the “Many Worlds Interpretation”, because an infinite number of possible worlds exist, ours is not so surprising.  This philosophy neatly allows for a naturalist explanation for our world because of the infinite number of chances for a world like ours to be observed, while the observer based reality view makes us the creator.  Both of these interpretations imply that God is not necessary to explain our existence. 

A third view, however, is not incompatible with a Creator and as we will see, the Copenhagen view is not as well. Called the “Transactional Interpretation”, it supposedly resolves the many problems inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation, such as the fact that many parts of the universe have yet to be observed but they must certainly exist.  They must exist because of the anthropic principal, which recognizes that the entire universe is describable through precise mathematical equations and that unobserved portions of the universe must be real as described by those equations or we, as carbon based life forms, wouldn’t exist.  The Transactional Interpretation has quantum entities moving backwards in time, resolving paradoxes created by observer-based experiments, upon which the above mentioned interpretations are based. These experiments show that sub-atomic entities seem to “know” whether we are going to measure their “spin” on a vertical or horizontal axis. The equations of the Transactional Interpretation actually work so maybe subatomic particles can travel backwards in time and if they do, it has yet to be demonstrated how that fact would eliminate God. 

In any case, quantum mechanics is a mysterious world and many physicists, in an attempt to salvage naturalism, take advantage of that mysteriousness by promoting their own philosophies. Why are naturalists so willing to embrace any viewpoint that eliminates God?  Certainly the conjecture that an intellect superior to man designed the highly complex and sophisticated structures comprising and supporting life is as credible a view of reality as the Copenhagen Interpretation, and all the others.  The simple fact that “all the others” are there is evidence that science certainly hasn’t proven anything regarding the basis of reality.  In fact, even the Copenhagen view is not incompatible with a God transcendent to time, space and matter. God, as the ultimate observer, would have brought the universe to the status of reality, according to the Copenhagen interpretation. 

Still yet another view, the “Pilot Wave” Interpretation”, like the Transactional Interpretation in its recognition of the experimental verification of a “non-local” relationship between different parts of the same original subatomic entity, attempts to come to grips with such a strange phenomena.  It is strange because if one part of the entity is measured along a vertical axis and is observed as spinning up, the other portion will instantly and automatically manifest itself as spinning down, and vice versa.  But if we choose to observe the first part on a horizontal axis and it spins right, the second part will spin left and vice versa.  The second part always “knows” instantaneously how the first was measured, horizontally or vertically, even though they are separated by great distances.  This phenomena contributed to the Pilot Wave Interpretation, which essentially postulates a thoroughly holistic universe, meaning every quantum event is manifested universally because at the instant of the big bang the entire universe was a single quantum entity.  A good theist would have no difficulty with this view.  Actually, a good theist philosopher would have no problem with at least three of the current quantum interpretations of reality, the Copenhagen version, the Transactional version and the Pilot Wave version.  The only one immune to theist harmonization is the many worlds view and it is conveniently beyond the horizon of experimental verification, as by definition the barriers between the many worlds are impenetrable. But formulating an idea that is forever immune from any type of verification does not provide any credible or logical basis for rejecting a conflicting idea.  It is a fallacious argument and does not deserve consideration, except as entertainment along the lines of Alice in Wonderland.

In any case, this profusion of ideas about the nature of our universe has stimulated the search for a “Grand Unified Theory” of everything and the number one contender seems to be “String Theory”.  In 1984 physicists discovered that all possible symmetries of nature can be included in only two possible models, one with 10 dimensions and one with 26 dimensions of space and time.  The dimensions are tied together with “string”, which at certain temperatures shrinks to the point type fundamental particles we can observe in our four dimensions of space and time.  According to string theory we can never experience the other dimensions.  Presently the whole concept is purely theoretical but so far its predictions are borne out in experiments.  Theists welcome further insight in the field of string theory as the God they propose is one with access to dimensions beyond our own and, in fact, His existence requires them.

But mystic dialogue of this type can only side-track us in the discovery of our eternal destiny and we’ll probably be dead before anyone figures it out so let’s move on. Until now we’ve received worthwhile guidance through philosophy and science, but not enough to draw any firm conclusions about our fate, so with guarded optimism we'll see if religion has the answer.  But that religion must not be just another portrait of God painted by man.  It must include a “revelation” from the Creator as the basis of its credibility.    

We will assume the Creator knows our purpose and destiny and that He chose to tell us what it is.  If He set the universe in motion and remained incommunicado ever since, His creation is a grand paradox populated by moral beings with a sense of purpose who can't discover why they're here or why they should care. Our pursuit of truth is an exercise in futility.  Without a revelation from God, we're back where we started.  We must formulate our own ideas regarding His nature, and that means anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.  So our search in the area of religion will only include those belief systems alleging to include knowledge imparted to man by God.  That narrows the field substantially but still leaves too great a selection.  We must therefore establish some guidelines. 

First, there's a certain amount of knowledge about God attainable simply by observing His creation.  This method of pursuing “God knowledge” is called "natural theology" because we learn about God by studying nature.  In fact, prior to the modern age men who performed what today would be referred to as scientific inquiry were called natural theologians or philosophers, men like Galileo or Newton, for instance. It's a valid enterprise, as any created thing is a key to the nature of its creator.  Anarchists build survival camps, not courthouses, and we would never attribute the “creation” of Disneyland to a man with Hitler’s nature or the creation of Buchenwald to a man like Walt Disney.  Their creations wouldn’t match with what we know about them and if we weren’t familiar with their nature, common sense would tell us that a man who built concentration camps was not motivated by the laughter of children.

A creation also tells us something about the level of knowledge and wisdom possessed by its creator.  For example the Egyptian pyramids tell us their builders had an extensive knowledge of classical physics, surveying techniques and structural engineering.  Similarly, because we were created as intelligent beings and the cause is always greater than what it produces (2nd law of thermodynamics), our Creator must be vastly superior to us in intellect.  We also have an instinct about what constitutes evil, making us created beings not only possessing intellect but a moral nature as well, so God must also have a moral nature, but one we would expect to be more acutely sensitive to evil than ours. 

Modern scientists have provided keen insight to natural theologians.  They have exposed the profoundly beautiful and awe inspiring combination of simplicity and intricacy manifested by the universe and the life forms it supports, confirming our intuitive sentiment that God is not only vastly superior to us in intellect but literally incomprehensibly more intelligent, powerful and wise.  Philosophy and the mind sciences also give us insight into the complex duality of our moral nature.  We not only sense evil but seem to know instinctively “the right way” while having the capacity to love others and appreciate justice, therefore God must not only be more acutely sensitive to evil than us but must be vastly more righteous, loving and just. 

A purported revelation from God then, given to us in the name of a specific religion, must not contradict what we can glean for ourselves from His creation.  Simply put, we will shy away from gods who are purported to be capricious, mean or incapable like those typical of pagan religions. Second, God's communication must bear a stamp absolutely beyond the ability of man to duplicate and that communication's claim to supernatural origin must be its defining characteristic.

   Prior to beginning the process of elimination however, we must dispel a commonly held world-view that all religions lead to “peace” with the supreme being, whoever He may be. The sentiment is that sincere worship of a “higher power” will be rewarded regardless of the nature of the higher power or the belief system through which the worship is offered.  That may be a comforting thought but it's just another way of saying that it doesn't really matter what a man believes, an idea permeated with problems. 

  Those who believe all “spiritual” expressions have the same end result fail to account for that basic of logic we referred to earlier, the law of non-contradiction, which says something can't be and not be at the same time.  If conservative Christian theologians say there's only one path to God and spiritualists or ecumenical theologians say all paths lead to God, one viewpoint is wrong.  Earlier we considered the possibility of experiencing dire consequences by adopting a false belief system or philosophy so we will certainly resist the temptation to rest comfortably with the notion that whatever we worship will reward us. Besides, from natural theology it would seem the Creator places a high premium on men who are correct in what they believe.  Why else would He create us with such a sensitive capacity to choose between good and evil, or to know the difference, and why is life so intolerant of moral mistakes? Every society in history has produced a proverb or two informing men that evil choices have grim repercussions.  It makes more sense to assume that we are expected to be right in what we believe so a religion saying it reveals the one true God will not be disqualified on that basis alone.

If all sincere behavior, ritual worship, meditation and prayer taking place as a means of making oneself acceptable to a god are equally valid then either there are multiple gods or one schizophrenic god because the moral standards that many of these behaviors and methods of worship represent contradict each other.  That is precisely why we’re seeking a religion that authoritatively claims to have a revelation from God.  It is also why we would trust that revelation a little more if it didn’t make the absurd and contradictory claim that everyone’s idea about God is valid.

Of course naturalists jump at any opening and say that if humanity’s moral standards contradict each other, we don’t have a universal moral consciousness and therefore we can’t attribute morality to God through natural theology.  But natural theology doesn’t say that every man has correctly determined God’s moral standard, rather, that men simply make moral judgments, meaning that as creatures men are moral beings and therefore their Creator must also be a moral being. 

We are seeking a religion that is consistent with the nature of the created world and its beings but also one that has a unique stamp of divinity.  Earlier we said if truth is knowable, someone in history must have known it.  So if to know the truth is to know the Creator, then presumably someone knows Him.  There are many self-proclaimed religious superstars who have claimed that intimacy. 

If one of these so called prophets alleges to have divine authority, however, we should examine his credentials with no less vigor than we would anyone else who was intent upon dramatically affecting our future.  When engaging an attorney or doctor, for example, that is an individual claiming to have the knowledge & wisdom to authoritatively suggest courses of action that will profoundly impact our lives, we are obligated to verify their credentials.  We are fools if we don’t.  Proper inquiry will verify their status as professionals, masters in their field.  In every calling known to man and for every warped reason imaginable, successful impersonations have been accomplished but a deception will become readily apparent with diligent investigation.  We don't want to waste time with impostors and we certainly want to avoid following them.

 Because this is not a leisurely study in the field of comparative religion but rather a quest for truth in the matter of eternal security, we will look first and foremost at any claim so uniquely appealing it demands priority.  We want to unlock the mystery of death because of an instinctive dread that our destiny after that impending event is affected by our moral choices during life. Anyone claiming to have done this certainly qualifies to be heard.  If the claim appears to have substance, we will scrutinize whatever credentials are offered, with our fingers crossed, because if the credentials are valid, we will have been liberated by the truth.

Books on comparative religion are invariably quite thick.  The printed material and oral traditions emanating from the major religions of the world are even more overwhelming.  We might be occupying a cemetery plot before we could analyze all of it thoroughly. How then do we proceed?  If it were riches we were seeking, we wouldn’t spend much time with offers of wealth through various franchises if the President said we could tour Fort Knox with a voucher for all the gold we could carry.  We might briefly scan the business opportunities but would settle down comfortably for a good hard look at the Fort Knox deal.  Here are some of the spiritual offers that have been made throughout history.

Confucious:  He lived around 500 BC in China and had some commendable ideas about how to behave ethically and as such could have been included in the chapter dealing with philosophy.  Confucians revere their ancestors but as to victory over death or claims to know the will of God, neither Confucius or his followers ever offered anything unique as proof that their opinions as to human purpose and destiny should be given any more credence than anyone else’s.   

Buddha:  He lived about the same time as Confucius in India and the same general description can be applied to Buddha as was given to Confucius.  He was a religious figure who believed the annihilation of desire was the supreme achievement and that by living “right” according to a prescribed eight point ethical system one could break the cycle of karma and endless rebirth.  He simply offered another ethical system of behavior, proving he was a moral creature, but one with no greater lock on truth than any other intelligent human being who decided to formulate a standard of behavior and present his ideas to the rest of us. Neither he nor his contemporary in China made any victorious claims regarding man’s ultimate enemy, death.

Mohammed: He was a self-proclaimed prophet who said he received revelation from God through dreams and visions.  Great, maybe that’s what we’re looking for. But is that all?  Purported spiritual revelations through dreams and visions are certainly not extraordinary, as any medicine man on peyote will confirm. Actually Mohammed seems to have been nothing more than the prototype cult leader of today.  He took a mixture of existing religions - Judaism, Christianity and an ancient Arab cult that worshipped the moon and twisted their doctrines to suit his purposes.  Mohammed never offered any assurance other than his word that he was a legitimate spokesman for the Creator of this universe.  But why should we take his word?  Is it more valid than Buddha’s word, or Confucius’ or the neighbor’s?  What proof did he offer that his authority should be accepted?  History teaches us that the proof he offered was a sword.  Convert or else and such is the principal of Islamic fundamentalism today.  But force is not a legitimate vehicle for disseminating truth.  If it was, then truth changes because history teaches us that the philosophies put forth by empires change as their power base changes. And if proof is needed that Islam doesn’t free one’s mind from concern over what lies beyond the grave, simply ask a Muslim if he’s certain of his eternal future. The stock answer is no. The Koran, which supposedly came directly from Allah, says that Allah may choose not to show mercy even on those who practice Islam. Allah is aloof and capricious. But worse than that, even if what the Koran said about God did not leave us a little nervous, we couldn’t trust it anyway.  It is basically a contradictory revelation. Islam, through the Koran, claims to accept the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity as a revelation from God but then denies what those scriptures say about their prophets.  We have decided not to waste time with contradictory religions.

  The Dali Lama, Elron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, Ghandi, Shirley Maclaine, David Koresh, Moon, Hindu Gurus by the trainload – enough.  We could spend our entire lives looking at the claims of every self-anointed prophet the world has produced.  What we seek is more than rhetoric about achieving bliss offered by mere mortals with no more verifiable claim to metaphysical truth than quantum physicists.  We must look at the one individual who made the boldest claims of all and see if he backed them up.

CHAPTER 8

IN THE FLESH

He is Jesus of Nazereth.  His life is the fulcrum of human history. His birth provides the frame of reference used to record the events of our lives as the world synchronizes its calendars using the appearance of the man from Galilee as a starting point.  He did not claim to have the answer to every question plaguing humanity - He claimed to be the answer.  It was written that He predicted His death and resurrection. To a man His disciples spent their lives testifying that He fulfilled that promise.  With billions of followers, His tomb should be the most celebrated religious monument in the world.  It isn’t because it’s been empty since 3 days after His execution.  He also said He was the Son of God and held the key to eternal life.  It is obvious we need to examine the credentials of Jesus.  If they're valid, He is the culmination of our search and to look further would be pointless.

   The Normandy Club, a gambling casino in Gardena, California, has a rigid security system, as all casinos do.  They accumulate large sums of cash daily, attracting individuals who would risk their lives and freedom to have it.  After the day’s receipts are tallied and reconciled, they're locked in a safe and guarded by armed security officers and then turned over to an armored transport company for deposit in the bank.

One day in January, 1995, the cashier in charge unlocked the safe and, after checking his credentials, turned the funds over to a properly uniformed individual purporting to be a transport company employee whose authentic appearing vehicle was parked near the front door.  The routine was automatic and took no more than a moment.  About twenty minutes later another armed guard showed up asking for the daily receipts.  He was the real thing but by that time the imposter was long gone.  He and his accomplice, who was driving the fake armored car, had pulled off a masterful impersonation.

It is one thing for a pretender to imitate someone in a position of authority and gain a measure of acceptance in a specific situation.  He might catch his victims napping and be successful, as were the two outlaws in Gardena.   But consider the awesome task of preparing a cover allowing someone to successfully impersonate the President of the United States, for example.  It would be impossible.  Only the true president could withstand the intense scrutiny heaped on a man in his position, on a moment by moment basis, by hundreds of people in the press, the secret service and on his staff.  Now look at just a few statements attributed to Jesus Christ, out of scores similar in context, and see if He is claiming a position of authority at least equal to the current most powerful man on earth.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" Mark 28:18

"I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold I am alive for evermore" Revelation 1:18

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" John 14:6

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish" John 10:28

"Whoever acknowledges Me before men I will acknowledge him before My father in heaven" Matthew 10:32

"I and my Father are one" John 10:30

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:11

   These claims are certainly for a position of authority far greater than that of the president.  Jesus Christ appears to be saying he is equal with God.  That would be difficult to fake.  Unless He can live up to those statements, we must scorn Him as the most presumptuous fraud in history, or a raving lunatic.  Either that or He spoke the truth.   One thing is sure, however, he did not allow us the option of considering Him wise and good while rejecting His claims.  If someone says Jesus was a wise and good man but not the Son of God, they don't know what He is reported to have said.  A wise and good man would not make those claims unless they were true. But what has been offered in the area of credibility?  What are His credentials?

Although there are ancient non-biblical sources of information corroborating the life of Jesus Christ as a fact of history, the primary source of information about Him is the Bible.  Holy Scripture and Jesus Christ are inevitably and eternally entwined.  Jesus Christ is referred to in Scripture as the “Word”.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." John 1:1

  Simply put, the Bible claims that Jesus Christ, the living Word, is the supreme revelation of God in the flesh.  The Bible, or written word, also claims to be the revelation of God.  Jesus Christ claims to be the fulfillment of the Bible.  What the written word says about God, therefore, is fulfilled in the flesh by the living Word, Jesus Christ. 

So Jesus Christ is whatever He is revealed as in the Bible.  The credibility of the living “Word” depends absolutely and irrevocably on the written word.  The credibility of a journalist or a scientist is determined by the truth of what he reports in his journal.  If what he writes is found to be false, his credibility has been lost.  If the Bible is not true, we can dismiss Jesus Christ as a charlatan with no more claim to truth than the editor of a supermarket tabloid.  Therefore we will examine the Bible a little more closely.

   We will not be the first.  Throughout history the Bible has been subjected to intimate scrutiny.  This analysis became extremely critical beginning in the 19th century, about the same time Darwin's theory surfaced. It is no coincidence that negative criticism of a book immersed in supernaturalism began in earnest at the same time naturalism was gaining cultural prominence.  So the credentials of Jesus Christ have been meticulously reviewed by Hebrew and Greek language scholars, historians, archaeologists, philosophers, scientists in a variety of disciplines, linguists, theologians and millions of lay people from every walk of life.  Most of this inquiry is carried out as a sincere quest for truth but, with equal enthusiasm, skeptics attempt to discredit the supernatural claims of the Bible and thus support their own naturalist philosophical bent.  Regardless, it is not a book shrouded in mystery.  It is the most widely read and printed book in history and has been translated into more languages than any other literary work.

No subject known to man triggers a deeper emotional response than the identity of Jesus Christ as portrayed in scripture, ranging from outright antagonism to reverence and faith.  Anyone seeking the truth must be prepared to sort out the rock-hard convictions of people on both sides of the issue.  Is Jesus Christ who He claims to be - or not? 

When a genuine skeptical inquest, a challenge of faith, leads someone to the Bible, intellectual integrity demands reading it thoroughly and with an open mind. At first glance the reading may appear formidable but achieving open mindedness is probably the more difficult. Both exercises, however, opening one’s mind and reading through the Bible from cover to cover will prove rewarding.  It is the most challenging literary work ever assembled and to pass through life on planet earth without knowing its contents is to forfeit a rich experience.  And of course we must do so in order to accurately assess its claims.  What follows, therefore, can easily be confirmed by simply picking up a Bible. 

It presents a single theme from beginning to end.  The story opens with the creation of the universe and closes with God’s judgment of humanity.  About ½ of one per cent of the total text is devoted to the creation of the universe and the history of man from his appearance and subsequent rebellion against God’s authority until the time of Abraham, about 1900 BC.  The remaining 99.5 % of the text broadly lays out God’s formula for our redemption through the Jewish people in the person of a savior, a messiah, Jesus Christ.  It is woven together as if conceived by a solitary author and manifests a single-mindedness, the first hint of its validity and uniqueness, because it was written from about 1400 BC to about 90 AD in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek by many men with differing backgrounds.  They were kings, shepherds, tax collectors, physicians, priests, tent-makers, soldiers, fishermen and prophets.  Their writings included history, philosophy, ethics, theology, science, politics, anthropology, sociology, religion and metaphysics, every topic pertinent to the existence, purpose and destiny of mankind.  But in spite of the wide range of differing material that was consolidated from a variety of intellectual perspectives, it emerged as a wholly concordant message. 

In contrast, consider members of the same family unit - brothers, uncles, cousins, etc. - writing independently over a period of 100 years, maybe three or four generations.  If they utilized their family epic as a medium to formulate an in-depth message explaining and solving the problems associated with the core issues of men - good and evil, justice and mercy, freedom and bondage, guilt and innocence - they would never remain harmonious and accurate in their theology, ethics and history.  They would fail miserably unless they conspired to get their story straight, and the task would be even more formidable if they were required to duplicate the biblical phenomenon of “unfolding revelation”.

Unfolding revelation means that God’s plan for humanity was disclosed partially by individual writers and that only over the course of time was the entire strategy of judgment and redemption through Jesus Christ exposed and made clear, culminating with Christ’s appearance in the first century.  It was as if many men each drew only a portion of a map and the map couldn’t be understood until the last part was drawn and all the pieces were fitted in place.  And although each individual didn’t know the exact location of the treasure when he drew his portion of the map, the final integration of map segments made its location clear.

In order to understand how they accomplished their feat, we must take seriously the writer’s claims regarding how their individual treatises originated. Their assertion, made cumulatively over 2500 times, was that their words were inspired by the Creator of the universe. But critics are far more intent on discrediting any text directly attacking naturalist philosophy.

They generally make three claims in their attempts to deny that the Bible was inspired supernaturally.  They say, chiefly in reference to that portion written after the appearance of Jesus Christ, the New Testament, that the writers, in the interest of promoting their own agenda rather than the truth, produced a pious fraud.  They also deny that the Bible is a consistent narrative throughout, saying rather that it is a compilation of fables, myths and rambling stories and they insist that the Bible is filled with contradictions.

First of all, to say that the Bible is a pious fraud defies reason. To suggest that a book recognized globally as containing the soundest of moral teachings and wisdom men ever produced could have originated with a collection of men who were lying or deceived is to patronize implausibility in the extreme. The Bible writers claimed to be under the authority of a God who commanded the practice of truth and discernment.  They would have been liars preaching morality or lunatics offering wisdom and we would have to believe that their emotional instability and/or socio-pathology back-fired by producing a literary document heralded by millions - scholars and ethicists included.  Even by those who adhere to other belief systems, the Bible is recognized as a book offering the firmest of moral ground.

Second, the insinuation has also been made that the Bible is an inconsistent literary medley of metaphysical meandering created by self-serving religious zealots and is therefore not credible.  But those claims are made without any consideration for the integrity of those who penned the Bible, although no historical evidence has ever been produced suggesting that they were anything less than honest and ethical men.  In other words, there is no historical justification for charging the writers of scripture with intentionally or whimsically creating spurious documents. Actually, the various books of the Bible, rather than displaying inconsistency, reflect a consistent moral and intellectual harmony. But more than that, they present and challenge us with some rather amazing phenomena.

One of these occurring throughout the Old Testament is called “typology”.  The only conclusion its existence allows is that the individual contributors to scripture were guided by an “intelligence” with supernatural knowledge of history, a bold assertion. But to examine such a claim, we must decide how any written historical record should be approached, religious or otherwise.

In a search for truth it should, of course, be approached with an open mind.  Its historical claims should be taken at face value unless we have direct knowledge refuting them. The writers of the Bible, particularly those of the New Testament, claimed that many historical events and persons described in the Old Testament were recorded typologically.  This means that the descriptions of events and persons, although originally recorded accurately as bona-fide history, were also intended to be representative of future, grander events and persons that were to occur or appear later in time.  Because the thread tying the entire Bible together is the salvation and judgment of God through a Jewish messiah called Jesus, many of the historical events recorded therein are intentional representations of His person and work, although He was destined to appear at a time subsequent to the original representation. Recognition of this literary apparition has the effect of forcing an open-minded reader of scripture to stand astonished.  It would mean that events in the history of one specific ethnic group were purposely orchestrated, not only to fulfill an immediate goal or purpose, but also to represent the ultimate fulfillment of that same goal in a more complete and thorough sense.  Could this be true?

Consider the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of his son Isaac in the Book of Genesis.  Isaac was a “type” of Christ in that:  He was a child promised by God. His birth was announced by a messenger of God.  He was supernaturally begotten.  He was born at an appointed time. He was named by God.  He was the “seed” to whom the promises of a land specifically for the Hebrew people were made and through whom they were to be “saved”. He became obedient unto death.  He carried on his own shoulder the wood on which he was to be offered.  He was securely fastened to the object upon which he would die.  He was presented as a sacrifice to God.  He was offered on Mount Moriah – the same place on which, two thousand years later, Jesus Christ was offered.  And, it was on the “third day” that Abraham received him back “in a figure” from the dead.

Theological considerations aside, if this historical incident was just one of many, each expressly staged to partially foreshadow a future and final series of episodes to be recorded and enacted hundreds of years in the future, namely the claims of lordship by Jesus Christ, including his crucifixion and resurrection, then only God could have arranged the incidents and episodes and their subsequent documentation.  It is very unusual that only one person in the entire history of man fits the picture painted by the Hebrew Scriptures, in historical incidents, of the reconciliation of man to God through a messiah. Then again, if Jesus Christ is who he claims to be, the messiah predicted in the Old Testament, it is not unusual at all.  

The point is that critical analysis of the Bible can not be taken seriously unless the Bible’s claims for itself are taken at face value first and read in that light.  If further examination exposes those claims as false, so be it, but it is biased to presuppose as untruthful the Bible’s self-revelatory statements regarding typology, or any other biblical phenomenon, such as miracles or prophecy, because they contradict a naturalist explanation.  But skeptics do just that and then apply negative criticism to scripture, dissecting it line by line and passage by passage, comparing the individual parts rather than attempting to fit them together as a whole.  Doing this is like trashing an entire puzzle because a piece from the perimeter and a piece from the middle do not match up with each other.

But subversion is the strategy of Biblical criticism.  It is a strategy designed to win an argument and protect a particular world-view, not find the truth, however.  So a third broad based insinuation is made that the Bible is not free from contradictions and is therefore untrue in part.  And of course if we can’t trust part of it….and so on.  There are several types of alleged contradictions cited. First are those verses of scripture that are said to contradict 20th century cultural standards by critics who require the Bible to read like a laboratory or research report.  They demand far more from a specific verse than the author intended or they completely ignore the intended meaning.  Because the individual scripture passage in question does not meet their demand, they extrapolate their criticism and ultimately deny the credibility of the Bible as a whole. As an illustration of this corrupt interpretative method, consider the following passage.

Mark 4:30-32  "And He said, whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God?  Or with what shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth.  But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all the herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it"

  Critics read such passages, saying correctly in this case that a mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds now known to man, and then conclude that because the Bible technically erred in it's statement about seeds, at least from a botanists perspective, its overall message that Jesus Christ is Lord can not be trusted.  They ignore the intended meaning of the gospel of Mark in this scripture and fail to consider the passage in its cultural and historical context.  First, Jesus was instructing about the nature of the appearance of His “kingdom” – namely that the kingdom would have humble beginnings, represented by a mere seed, and expand vastly beyond what its initial appearance would seem to indicate. Second, the comparison is quite accurate within the context of knowledge and culture in first century Israel. A certain strain of mustard grown in Israel has the smallest seed of all herbs grown in the Middle East.

Critics subpoena and hold aloft the orchid seed as being actually smaller than a mustard seed, thereby proving the Bible to be erroneous. They ignore the fact that orchids did not grow in Israel and had Jesus referred to orchid seeds, His listeners would have been mystified at the use of a word they had never heard.  It would be as if a modern speaker described the growth of the original 13 colonies of the United States by saying they “flourished like a wild grazimba”. Actually the analogy Jesus used was perfect, for not only conveying His message to people in 1st century Israel, but to all people everywhere at all times.  The entire Bible seems to accomplish the same end.

Anyone rejecting Mark's record of Jesus’ teaching because of unwarranted demands placed upon the text beyond what Jesus intended to teach is intentionally closing his mind to the message, an irrational and slanted approach.  The Bible writers were intent on communicating to their readers specific information about God and His dealings with men.  Jesus could have included a botanical treatise on how to plant, harvest and prepare herbs and vegetables and Mark could have included it in his gospel but those matters would have been irrelevant.  To expect an ancient metaphysical revelation to digress by defining every word and phrase in its fullest current linguistic and scientific sense is unrealistic.

Another type of contradiction cited by critics is one in which a verse in the Bible allegedly contradicts a verse elsewhere in the Bible.  An example of this might be scriptures which say God will not repent and other scriptures which say God will repent, an apparent contradiction and typical of the type of scriptures critics cite as contradictory.  If they were contradictory, by the law of non-contradiction discussed previously, meaning both scriptures were presented in the Bible as being true in the same circumstances at the same time, the credibility of the Bible as a whole would be disparaged. But again, the scriptures are not taken in context and the balance of scripture is not considered to determine, in this case, if the God of the Bible is revealed as a God who might repent in one circumstance and not repent in another. This is a critical error in interpretation, and it is made continually by Bible critics, but only when they interpret the Bible. They would not make such an error in reading a secular document for the purpose of discovering what the document is saying.  The mistake is failing to recognize that a topic within a document is built upon by the whole document and that a worthwhile understanding of a biblical topic can not be achieved through one scripture, or even one book, any more than the complete concept presented in a doctor's thesis can be determined by one chapter in that thesis.  This mistake is the result of a presupposition that the Bible is not the word of God and must therefore be filled with contradictions because it was conceived in the minds of many men.  So rather than search the entire document for a resolution to an apparent conflict, an apparent conflict between two scriptures is simply cited as evidence for the existence of contradictions. As this conclusion was the premise, the reasoning is bogus.

 In the case above, the obvious resolution to the problem lies in the nature of God as revealed throughout the Bible. That is, He is consistent and will not change his mind (repent) regarding His attitude to rebellion on the one hand or obedience on the other. We must understand that He has a different attitude towards each and that in each case that attitude will not change. He has promised to repent of His eternal wrath if an individual sincerely turns from evil and expresses faith in His plan of redemption.  He has promised not to repent of His wrath in the face of continuing rebellion. There is no contradiction either in His nature or in His action and the law of non-contradiction is not violated, as the circumstances are different for each individual.

The Bible claims to be the revelation of an infinite, omnipotent God.  As finite creatures we are intellectually incapable of fully comprehending the multi-dimensional nature of any such entity.  Consequently the Bible presents some difficult concepts. What should finite creatures expect from a God who claims to be free from the restraints of time and space?  The Bible presents us with certain paradoxes, which the New World Dictionary defines this way.  "A statement that seems contradictory, unbelievable or absurd but that may be actually true in fact."  It is important to understand the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.  A contradiction between two statements would legitimately render at least one of the statements as false whereas a pair of statements producing a paradox, although seemingly contradictory, could both be true.  And of course paradoxes involving time and motion, the type most commonly found in the Bible because of the dimensionally transcendent nature of the God revealed in said Bible, can be the most puzzling.  Consider these two statements as an example.

1.  A runner in a race can never cross the finish line.  2. The winner of the race crossed the finish line first.  These statements not only seem to be contradictory, statement number one seems obviously false.  But in fact Zeno, a Greek philosopher from the fourth century BC, has bewildered many a high school student with his claim that number one is true. He said, in effect, that a runner can never arrive at the finish line because he must always travel at least half the distance remaining in the race. This means that at any given moment in time, he will only have traversed some portion of the distance between the starting line and the halfway mark. If and when he arrives at the first halfway point he will still have some remaining distance to cover represented by the other half, which will also have a halfway point he must reach.  No matter how many halfway points he reaches, he will always have some further distance to travel and although they will become shorter and shorter, they will stretch out infinitely, meaning he will never arrive at the finish line.

       Although any physicist can demonstrate that Zeno is wrong if we assume certain characteristics for the runner, such as physical mass, any physicist can also demonstrate that Zeno is right if we assume other characteristics for a “hypothetical” runner, namely that he is represented by a “point” in space. In fairness to the writers of these two statements, who may have made them at different times and in different places to illustrate certain unrelated but equally true concepts, we must investigate these statements in context relative to the entire treatise in which they may have been found.  We must be just as fair with paradoxical claims found in the Bible and not blindly condemn the entire manuscript because at first glance two or more statements appear contradictory.  

Some critics say the Bible reveals a God whose behavior and nature as revealed in the Old Testament contradicts His nature as revealed in the New Testament. They point to scriptures documenting that God commanded His people to wipe out entire cities - men, women and children - and then point to other scriptures as contradictory, particularly those in the New Testament identifying God as loving and forgiving and as a Sovereign who commands us to be the same.  They insist that a God who would command His people to carry out mass annihilation and at the same time implore them to love their neighbors according to His own Godly standard is a hypocrite and unethical. 

The Bible is being accused of presenting conflicting descriptions of God’s “kingdom”.  It is being presumed by the critics that God’s kingdom as described in the Old Testament could not possibly be the same kingdom described in the New Testament, that the character of the kingdom changed and so God must have changed.  The Bible, therefore, can’t be trusted because it says that God does not change.

It is insinuated that the order of extermination issued by God against Canaan was mass murder.  The argument has emotional appeal but that is all. The Bible says that God was exercising judgment on Canaan in the form of capital punishment for gross immorality, including mass child sacrifice over an extended number of centuries.  It says that ample admonishment was provided but that the Canaanites knowingly persisted in their abhorrent practices regardless.  Like it or not, if capital punishment is the law of the land, or the law of God’s kingdom in this case, a legal execution is not murder, no matter how strongly one may oppose it.  It is not inconsistent for a just king to administer the law of the land and be loving and merciful at the same time. According to the Bible God presides over the earth and its people and administers justice. A skeptic may be revolted by the idea of retribution as a form of justice but his revulsion has no bearing on whether or not a book reporting such information is credible.

A modern-day analogy can be made using the practice of abortion.  If it is duly reported that the taking of a human fetus’s life is legal under the laws of a country that also feeds the poor through welfare programs, we can’t say the reporter contradicted himself and can’t be trusted simply because we think abortion and benevolence are incompatible.  We can even call abortion murder and rage about the inconsistency of mercy for some and the murder of others but the reporter can’t be accused of distorting the truth. The law of the land says abortion is legal and that certain poor people should be fed.  The law of God’s kingdom is that severe but justly deserved punishment will be administered upon those who disobey him and that He may use His followers as instruments of administering justice.  If that is false, the skeptic will have to prove it in some other way than by shrewdly but erroneously labeling the report as contradictory.

What really happens is the critic attacks the ethics of God as revealed in the Bible as contradictory to his own ethics. He has the privilege of doing that but the holder of a particular ethical position can not logically say the written record documenting a differing ethical position is false simply because it reports an opposing ethical position. It may very well be reporting the opposing ethical position accurately.

But the skeptic becomes indignant and says that the extermination of Canaan included innocent children and that because the taking of an innocent life is murder, we must admit that God committed murder.  If God committed murder, He can’t be just because, according to the Bible, murder is unjust. That would mean God is unjust yet the Bible says He is just.  The Bible, therefore, has erroneously and inconsistently reported that a God exists who couldn’t logically exist. Something can’t be and not be.  The Bible can’t be trusted.

But that critique fails to recognize the biblical revelation that God has the power to control an individuals eternal destiny and that death is not the end of everything. If we consider death to be the end of conscious existence forever, hence the worst thing that could happen, then certainly the taking of an innocent child’s life is unjust. But the Bible says death is not the end.  If God allowed the death of an innocent child as part of the judgment on a corrupt and vicious civilization in order to provide a place where suffering was nonexistent for that child, God would be merciful, ethical and just.  Therefore God would not have a contradictory nature and the Bible’s report would be logically correct.

We are commanded to be merciful and just but because we do not have power over death, we are told in the Bible that it is against God’s law to take the life of an innocent person. On the other hand, for God to take an innocent life from earth to paradise would be like us transferring an unjustly incarcerated man from San Quentin Prison to the French Riviera and therefore not only just, but kind and merciful as well.  The same could be said if God took the life of a guilty adult who had been given ample revelation of the truth and time to repent, that it would be just and therefore ethical. In other words, the judgment of God only presents a logical problem if we presuppose the book is false regarding God’s control of an individual's eternal destiny.

 In fact, if the book is true, all contradictions of the "unethical God" variety can be eliminated. One may not feel comfortable with a just and retributive God who controls life and death. But one's biases, in this case one’s basic views on capital punishment or on a judgmental God, are not relevant to the investigation of a metaphysical revelation charged with ethical inconsistency. 

And biased world-views are primarily responsible for faulty interpretations of the Bible. This bias primarily manifests itself in the unequivocal rejection of miracles.  But the Bible is filled with such accounts. So if one presupposes that miracles cannot occur, then what might otherwise be considered credible eyewitness accounts of actual events are dismissed as lies, delusions or myth.  However, if one considers that naturalists have yet to properly explain the origin of life and that naturalists are limited forever from possessing knowledge beyond the horizon of certain phenomena like the big bang and black holes and that they can't explain the unpredictable nature of fundamental particles and must concede the apparent existence of dimensions beyond the four comprising our universe, it hardly seems logical for them to automatically dismiss accounts of miracles.  To do so is to claim omniscience and omnipresence, two of the very attributes they are rejecting as even a possibility.

Actually, there is evidence for the occurrence of miracles all around us of a type commonly recorded in the Bible, healing.  Naturalists rush to point out that charlatans and faith healers have been exposed in the past but automatically dismiss any apparent genuine miraculous healing incident as the product of faulty diagnostic work initially. In other words, they reflexively say a healed person was never organically sick to begin with.

The Bible says that divine healing will not occur in the presence of unbelief.  But missionaries report that in Asia, India and Africa, where a belief in the supernatural is taken for granted, healing miracles are common.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is exploding on those continents and wouldn't be if healing did not accompany it's preaching. The Bible records healing as a means to lead people to Christ, that it will only occur with faith, and that is exactly what is happening. The William Carey Library at the U.S. Center for World Missions in Pasadena, CA., has thousands of documented accounts of miraculous recoveries in the mission field, many of which were witnessed and investigated by trained medical personnel.

Proper application of the rules of evidence mandates that documents, ancient or otherwise, be accepted at face value unless and until they can be demonstrated to be fraudulent.  That is how other ancient texts are viewed.  So with that understanding and an awareness of the most common interpretive mistakes made by Bible critics, let's look at some of the characteristics making the Bible unique.

ONE OF A KIND

Chapter 9

Through historical narratives that serve to illuminate God’s multi-faceted nature as well as his purposes, the Bible reveals man’s Creator as being personally and intimately involved in their affairs. The accounts do not come across as fanciful yarns or mythical tales but instead read like bona fide history, that is, they are detailed descriptions of distinct people, places, and events.  In many instances the writers documented episodes from the past but they also reported as first-person witnesses.  Kings, soldiers, craftsmen, priests, prophets and others are named as well as the cities and provinces where they lived and their customs and rituals are described in detail.  Verifiable information of that type is never found in religious mythology.

In Genesis, Moses tells the story of man’s beginnings using some obvious figurative and symbolic language, although the description of the first “spiritual” inhabitant of the earth, Adam, is intended as an historical account.  From Adam, through the recording of a great flood in which Noah and his family were spared the judgment of God, until the time of Abraham, the history is broad and sweeping but from then on it becomes very specific. Beginning with Abraham, his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, who fathered the twelve tribes of Israel, it focuses on the Jewish nation, its allies and its enemies. 

Abraham was from an area now in present day Iraq and lived around 1900 BC.  About five or six hundred years later his Jewish descendents settled in Canaan, which was located in what is now Israel.  Geographically, that area was a melting pot for the major ancient civilizations and consequently the Jews bumped heads with the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires, as well as many to which secular historians have paid little attention, like the Hittites and the Canaanites.  So the Bible exposes God as being expressly embroiled in the lives of real people in real places.  Those places have become the most extensively excavated lands on earth, meaning biblical chronicles are subject to scientific verification, and that is exactly what has occurred.  The science of archaeology has consistently verified the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Biblical archaeology is a thoroughly documented field and can be explored in detail through archaeological reference works.  Some of the more important archaeological enterprises have been the excavation of ancient cities such as Ur, Abraham’s home, Ugarit in Northern Syria and of course many in Israel such as Jericho, Bethlehem and Jerusalem. There have been numerous important literary finds also, such as the Mari letters in Syria and the Nuzi tablets in Iraq, which are clay tablets numbering in the thousands, engraved in cuneiform and describing life in detail in the 2nd millennium before Christ.  Those discoveries resulted in the corroboration of many unknown and unusual customs described in the Old Testament but doubted by skeptics prior to the finds. 

In fact, until the 20th century, critics dismissed the first five books of the Bible, attributed to Moses, as being mythological because it was believed that complex written languages had not yet been developed at the time the books were supposed to have been penned (1400 BC).  Excavations at Ugarit revealed a library consisting of manuscripts written in complex alphabetized languages that have been dated around 2000 BC, meaning not only are Moses’ books historically possible but documents written by Abraham and his descendents, from which Moses could have drawn, are possible as well.

Other finds have been made confirming peculiar and deviant practices described in the Old Testament.  Regarding the “promised land” Canaan, for example, inscriptions have been discovered documenting human sacrifice to the Canaanite gods, Baal and Dagon.  Sacrificial alters and human infant remains have also been excavated.  The Bible says the Canaanites practiced loathsome rituals and archaeology proved that it was true. 

Additionally, numerous Canaanite cities reveal destruction and conquest during the period between 1400-1200 BC, including the flattened ancient walls of Jericho, as the Bible describes.  These discoveries confirm Joshua’s documentation in the Old Testament of the conquest of Canaan by the Jews.    Archaeological discoveries relating to Bible history have been so numerous that the latest revision to Halley's Bible Handbook records 107 of just the major ones and each authenticates the biblical record. 

If any of those finds had contradicted scripture, which none have, we could invalidate things written about non-verifiable subjects.  The Bible speaks about Heaven and Hell, for example, but no known scientific discipline can either substantiate or disprove the existence of spiritual realms.  But confidence in the writers' truthfulness on subjective topics is enhanced if they are accurate in areas that can be verified, such as history.

It is worth noting that we always seem to want extra-biblical testimony before agreeing with the Bible.  And the standards applied to the acceptance of historical narratives in the Bible are far greater than what is required of other ancient secular histories.  Historians remain skeptical until a biblical narrative is confirmed from an outside source, such as a secular manuscript or an archaeological discovery but as biblical archaeology has shown, it should probably be the other way around. 

  What can be said about Old Testament history can also be said about the New Testament.  Sir William Ramsey was a noted historian near the turn of the century.  Like other 19th century Bible critics he believed that the accounts of Luke, who wrote the third gospel and The Book of Acts, were fabrications of the second century church and couldn't be trusted.  But as he attempted to compile a history of Asia Minor he suffered a lack of source material.  He began turning more and more to those two books as an aid in his studies.  The conclusion of his labors, which took years, prompted the following quote.

"Luke's work is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness. Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."

New Testament writers did not begin their narratives with "Once upon a time..."  Read the first verses of The Gospel of Luke and note his stated intent and then look at statements by the apostles Peter and John.  Fables, myths or fictional accounts do not begin this way.

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were entrusted."  Luke 1:1-4

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ..." 2nd Peter 1:16

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." 1st John 1:1

Peter, Luke and John say they are reporting eye-witness testimony to the things they describe, their own as well as their acquaintances, which means their contemporaries could have rejected their claims if they were not supported by historical fact.  In other words, their writings were not placed in a time capsule for future generations but were circulated immediately for peer review. 

Suppose a book were written today by Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the 60's, attempting to convince the world that John F. Kennedy actually “lived” and that his tomb was empty because he’d been placed in a cybernetic freeze tank.  It would be discarded and trashed as nonsense.  It certainly would not be enthusiastically copied and circulated by Robert’s associates in an attempt to preserve and pass on the truth, as were the books of the New Testament. In making their writings subject to censure by men living at the time the events being documented actually took place, the New Testament “journalists” demonstrated their veracity and accuracy, attributes overwhelmingly corroborated by archaeologists of today.

It can be categorically stated that not one archaeological discovery has ever directly refuted any historical reference made in either the Old or New Testaments.  Whenever the science of archaeology, or any other scientific discipline, is able to shed light on some historical detail of the Bible, it confirms rather than refutes that fact.  In “The Stones Cry Out”, a recent book by Randall Price, Ph.D. in Middle Eastern Studies, the discoveries of biblical archaeology from the time of Abraham through the 1st Century are thoroughly discussed as to their support for the historical credibility of the Bible.  Here is a quote from that book.

“When we consider the relationship of the Bible to history, we are faced with two options: 1) All the Bible’s statements are to be regarded from a theological rather than factual perspective, or 2) all the Bible’s statements are to be regarded as factual even though a theological perspective is adopted.  The first option fails, as archaeology itself has shown, because many aspects of the history of the Bible have already been demonstrated to be factual.  The discoveries of the places, the people, the wars, the cultural contacts, the forms of treaties, and more--down to the smallest details--have verified the accuracy of the text.  These details, used in context in support of the theological statements, argue for the second option.  The Bible’s authors never imply that the historical or scientific events they reported are anything less than fact.  If it is objected that they may have only thought that they were factual, we still must contend with museums filled with archaeological evidence that many events were indeed factual.  With respect to the paucity of archaeological evidence for early biblical history, judgment should at least be tempered by the fact that archaeology has shown, in later periods, that the historical statements are reliable.”

Another area setting the Bible apart in the family of ancient literature is the enigma of its survival and accurate preservation in spite of the persecution and suppression it and its advocates suffered throughout history.  The Old Testament was written between 1400 B.C. and 400 B.C.  The writers were all Jews who claimed to be God's prophets and they used headings such as, "God says...Thus sayeth the Lord...The Lord has said," and so on. Israel was conquered or dominated by several empires during that period and their ancient history finally climaxed with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under the Emperor Titus in 70 A.D.  After that, the Jews lost their homeland and they were literally scattered around the world.

 The New Testament was written in the first century A.D. beginning a little before mid-century and continuing through about 90A.D.  The writers of the New Testament and their followers were severely punished or martyred for their beliefs and that persecution and murder has continued intermittently to this day.  The Bible has been banned and scourged in many countries and cultures.  Today it is a crime to bring the book into certain nations like Lybia and in the United States it is currently illegal to teach from it, or even about it, in public schools.  It has been derided by liberal critics and pronounced as archaic by "enlightened" scholars.  What has been the result?  

It would be logical to assume that centuries of adversity would have caused the Bible to suffer at least some corruption within the text. One could make a case that words and phrases had been changed or omitted over time because of negative cultural influences and deficient copying techniques necessitated by secrecy or that new words and phrases had been added ambiguously by those who did not hold the original text in high esteem. Critics say a good portion of the text has been changed and re-changed so many times throughout the centuries that what we are reading now is only a dim reflection of the original and actually represents viewpoints on God, Judaism and Christianity that have changed with the evolution of western society.  In other words, we can’t trust what the Bible said yesterday because it may say something different tomorrow.

But actually the critics are dead wrong.  It not only flourished in the face of powerful suppression, becoming the world's all time "best seller,” the original text has been transmitted completely in tact and the reason has been an unwavering and fervent devotion to its accurate preservation by Jews and Christians throughout history.

 Until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, it had to be copied entirely by hand.  A devoted sect of Hebrew scholars between 500 and 900 AD, the Masoretes, epitomized the zeal with which those who worshipped the God of the Bible passed the text from generation to generation by hand.  One method used by the Masoretes was to number each letter and word within specific sections and verify the count in future copies.  Even if a word appeared to be erroneous, it was faithfully transmitted.  A possible correction was never included in the copied text but entered in the margin. The Catholic monks were equally devoted to the task. In many cases it was their life’s work, their only responsibility.

 The work of translation from the Greek and Hebrew into various languages has been approached with the same diligence.  The King James Version of the Bible in English, for example, has been recognized as a solid effort in scholarly integrity.  Honest and knowledgeable Bible critics seldom claim that the meaning originally intended by the writers, as they wrote in their native language, was not translated properly.  Their quarrel with scripture is not with the meaning of the words as they were initially conceived, but rather, with the truth of the message.  Consider this passage of scripture.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven but it is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” John 6:32

Academic unbelievers recognize that John intended to report in the Greek language that Jesus referred to himself as the “bread of life”, one of the metaphors he used to convey the message that he was the Son of God.  They know that over time copyists did not gradually distort a passage that, at first, meant something different.  What they say is that Jesus could not be the Son of God because the manuscript originally presenting that concept, the Bible, isn’t true, a conclusion they reach for reasons derived from the corrupt critical techniques described previously.  In other words, they do not mock Christians for believing that John thought and wrote that Jesus was the Son of God, but for agreeing with him. 

Those who say the Bible was transmitted or translated incorrectly are simply ignorant of the history of the Bible.  As for the charge that current Bible translations differ in meaning, a quick scan of several chapters from a Bible that has several translations printed side by side reveals that all the standard translations are identical in meaning even though some passages are couched in different words.

We can appreciate the effort displayed by those who spent their lives preserving the original text of the Bible, but why are scholars so sure the enterprise was successful?  Archaeology provides the answer.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the greatest ancient manuscript discovery of modern times.  They are writings in Hebrew and Aramaic, on leather, and were discovered in the late 1940's and early 50's.  They contain portions from every book in the Old Testament except Esther and Ruth and include the entire text of the Book of Isaiah.  When they were discovered Bible critics expected to have a field day with discrepancies between the scrolls and modern texts but they were sorely disappointed.  The text in the scrolls is basically what we read in the Old Testament as it is printed today.  There are only minor discrepancies in sentence structure, punctuation and spelling but they have no effect on the meaning. 

 The scrolls were written from around 200 BC through the 1st century, according to carbon-14 and archaeological dating methods.  That means some books of the Old Testament represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls were copied within several generations of the last of the original books of the Old Testament, Malachi, written around 400 BC, only 300 years prior to the oldest scrolls.  Until the scrolls were found, the oldest existing copy of any Old Testament book was made around 1000 A.D., meaning there was at least a 1400 year gap between it and the book of Malachi, which is why the critics anticipated a bonanza.  They didn't really believe the original Old Testament documents could be faithfully copied and recopied for fourteen centuries without major changes.  The Dead Sea Scrolls popped their bubble.  In the book, “The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament”, 1993, Harold Scanlin had this to say.

"Those who anticipated some revolutionary revelations which would require dramatic changes in the O.T. will be disappointed.  The textual evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in fact, confirms the general reliability and stability of the text of the Old Testament as we have it today..."

Scanlin unintentionally highlights another area in which the Bible demonstrates credibility, that is, its self-revelatory claims are always realized.  In this case the Bible claims that God’s word will remain unchanged and it has.

 "Your Word O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Your faithfulness continues through all generations; you established the earth, and it endures." Psalm 119:89

The science of textual criticism has done for the New Testament what the Dead Sea Scrolls did for the Old Testament, which is to demonstrate that what we are reading today, even though it was written about 2000 years ago, is what the authors wanted to say. That is because the analysts have over 5,000 ancient copies to work with and another 20,000 copies more than 1000 years old. The oldest copies date within 50 years of the originals and in some cases there are copy fragments made within the same generation as the original manuscript.  There are far more ancient extant copies of New Testament books than any other body of literature.  “Homer”, the closest challenger, is surpassed by light-years with only 643 copies and they are dated approximately 500 years from the original.   Textual criticism guarantees a greater level of accuracy in confirming the original text if more copies are available for examination.  With the number of copies existing of the New Testament, the original text is certain.  Even if we had no copies of the New Testament, it could be completely reconstructed from writings by Christian church leaders in the first through the fourth century, except for a few verses.  

Textual criticism takes into account cultural and historical influences that could have caused alterations in the text but it primarily works this way.  Assume someone wrote a will and allowed each of several relatives enough time with the original to hand copy it before passing it to their kin.  After copies had been made the original is destroyed.  Using the copies, textual critics could accurately reconstruct the original in spite of copying errors.

  Some of those errors might include the misspelling of a word, the intentional or unintentional insertion or deletion of a word or phrase in order to change the meaning or the transposition of two or more words.  What is the probability that two copyists would make the exact same error in an identical location of the text?  What are the odds that every copyist would make the same error?  It would be unlikely as errors would tend to be individual in nature.  Portions of the text containing errors would deviate from that same portion of text in the majority of other copies.  Because textual critics have over 5,000 ancient copies of the New Testament to work with, errors are discovered easily as they are conspicuous by their irregularity.  As they are weeded out the original text is exposed.

The Bible has been accurately transmitted for 3500 years and during that time it has been impossible to suppress politically, academically or culturally.    It far surpasses all other literary works as the most widely published and read in spite of numerous attempts to discredit it.  Currently it is printed in at least 1500 languages and portions of it have been translated into nearly 13,000 dialects with more in process.  Some of those languages serve as few as 50,000 people, again fulfilling a biblical commitment. It says God’s word would eventually reach all nations and tongues and that is exactly what is occurring today.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all nations, and then the end shall come." Matthew 24:14

In the Bible Jesus Christ claims to “be” the truth.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" John 14:6

  We should expect at least two things from the truth.  First, that it be irrepressible and second, unchanging.  The Bible has demonstrated to the world that it meets both requirements.  It has withstood all efforts to eliminate it and as valid “ID” authenticating the message of Jesus Christ, it has not been altered to suit circumstances in spite of the harsh scrutiny heaped upon it from a vast number of examiners.  Napoleon said this about it.

"The Bible is no mere book but a living creature that conquers all who try and oppose it." 

At first glance the credentials of Jesus Christ appear to be valid.  We seek something irrefutable, however, something analogous to a fingerprint or royal seal, and that will be forthcoming, but first there are a few more significant characteristics of the Bible worthy of exploration.