Tag Archives: Apologetics

Who Were the Wise Men?

In Matthew 2:1, “wise men from the east” came to the land of Israel in association with the birth of Jesus Christ.  Here, “wise men” is a translation of the Greek word, magoi.  Modern Bible translations tend to transliterate this word as magi, from which the English words magic and magician are derived, but in doing there is a danger that an occultic connotation might be associated with them.  It should be noted that the text/context of Matthew 2 suggests no such wicked association; indeed, they are the good guys in Matthew’s birth narrative.  Thus, the KJV translators properly translated magoi as “wise men”.  In contrast, the singular magos is translated as “sorcerer” relative to the “false prophet” who went by the name “Barjesus” (cf. Act13:6).

Recognizing these “wise men” as such is an important aid in their proper identification.  They came “from the east”, which is understood to be relative to Jerusalem and the land of Israel.  In Scripture, such a geographic designation generally denotes Babylon and/or Persia (cf. Gen11:2; Isa43:5; 46:11).  In Daniel 2:2, the advisors to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon are designated as “magicians”, “astrologers”, “sorcerers”, and “Chaldeans”.  Certainly, “magicians”, “astrologers”, and “sorcerers” are all categories of occult practitioners; however, the “Chaldeans” are to be distinguished from these.  Strong’s Hebrew lexicon indicates that the “Chaldeans” (when used as a title, rather than a geographical designation) were “those persons considered to be the wisest in the land”.  After successfully interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, Daniel was promoted by the king to be “chief over all the wise men of Babylon” (Dan2:48).  Daniel outlived the Babylonian empire, and “prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (Dan6:28).  In Esther 1:13, we see that even during the Persian empire this caste of advisors to kings continued, characterized as “wise men, which knew the times”.  Research into extra-biblical literature indicates that these “Chaldean” wise men were an ancient and hereditary caste of scholars with particular expertise in astronomy and dream interpretation (which was undoubtedly why Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel the “chief” of their order).

That Daniel was made chief of these wise men “from the east”, and that they were experts at astronomy, provides the outline of a plausible explanation for why they knew what they knew, and why they came to Jerusalem when they did.  Balaam, the ancient prophet from Mesopotamia (cf. Deut23:4), who some suggest belonged to (or even began) their order, had long before prophesied that “there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall rise out of Israel” (cf. Num24:15-17); that is, the arrival of a future Jewish king (i.e., the Messiah) would be heralded by a “Star”.  Observing an unusual “star”, they associated it with “he that is born King of the Jews” (Matt2:2).  That they were anticipating the season of His arrival was nearing can be inferred from the fact that they were undoubtedly in possession of, and revered, the Book of Daniel (their former chief) which predicted the very day of Messiah’s arrival (cf. Dan9:25).

To dispel common myths, they were not kings; this is erroneously supported by Psalm 72:10, which describes the millennial kingdom.  Coming from Persia, they would have ridden horses, not camels.  Nothing in the text of Matthew 2 indicates how many “wise men” there were, but there were likely many more than three.  Furthermore, having undertaken a journey of almost a thousand miles, they would have travelled in a sizable caravan that almost certainly included a military escort.  Such a large delegation from Persia arriving unexpectedly in Jerusalem was undoubtedly the reason “Herod … was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (Matt2:3).

Who were the “wise men”?  They were an hereditary caste of Babylonian/Persian scholars (not occultists) who had been influenced by the prophet Daniel to anticipate the coming of the Messiah who was to be the King of Israel, and who was to be “worship[ed]” by all (Matt2:2).


Did Jesus Use the Septuagint?

The view of many mainstream scholars today is that Jesus used the Septuagint (LXX; i.e., the translation of the O.T. in Greek) as His Bible. The primary evidence offered in support of this view is that many of His quotations from the O.T. appear to better match the Greek text of the LXX than the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. That evidence, however, must be weighed against the fact that the earliest extant manuscript copies of the LXX come from several centuries after Christ, creating the possibility that the Greek text for these O.T. verses could have been taken from their N.T. quotations in order to create an exact, verbatim match (which otherwise is not the pattern of scriptural quotation seen in the Bible). Is there alternative evidence in favor of Jesus’ use of the Hebrew O.T. rather than the LXX? The answer to that question is YES, and the evidence is quite compelling.

In Luke 24:44, Jesus made reference to the written O.T. scriptures:

“And [Jesus] said unto them, These are the worlds which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”

Implicit in these words of Jesus is the structure and organization of the Hebrew Bible (which is equivalent in content to the O.T.). The books of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., TNK, or Tanakh) are organized into three sections: the law [of Moses] (Heb., Torah), the prophets (Heb., Nevi’im), and the writings (Heb., Ketuvim; the first book in this section is the Psalms). By referring to the entirety of the (O.T.) scriptures as the law, the prophets, and the psalms, Jesus presupposed the organization of the O.T. canon that appears only in the Hebrew scriptures. In contrast, the books in the LXX (which also contains many non-canonical books) are organized much like they appear in modern English Bibles (e.g., historical books, wisdom books, and prophetic books). Thus, Jesus’ words presuppose the Hebrew Bible, not the Greek Septuagint.

This presupposition of a Hebrew Bible is seen again in Matthew 23:35, where Jesus refers to the first and last martyrs in the O.T. as:

“That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, who ye slew between the temple and the altar.”

Abel is the first martyr recorded in Genesis 4, and Zacharias is the last martyr recorded in 2 Chronicles 24. Genesis is the first book in the Hebrew Bible, and 2 Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Bible. Again, Jesus’ words presuppose the Hebrew Bible, not the Greek Septuagint.

Did Jesus use the Septuagint? NO, Jesus used the Hebrew scriptures.


Biblical Value of π

Skeptics have long mocked the Bible’s alleged scientific inaccuracies. In the linked video, Neil deGrasse Tyson asserts the Bible teaches π = 3.0. https://youtube.com/shorts/QR2gLJtk6ro?si=_LroDB0f-vAricfc

To learn the truth, see the article Biblical Value of π under the Creation Studies tab.


When Was Jesus Born?

Although Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on December 25, that is almost certainly not the correct month/date of our Savior’s birth. Actually, Scripture gives us a relatively clear indication of when Jesus was born; namely, in the September-October timeframe. See the new Chart: WHEN WAS JESUS BORN? under the Biblical Studies tab for an overview of the calculation using scriptural clues.


Why You Should Use the King James Version

Today, though still widely read and loved by many, the King James Version is being increasingly forsaken by the Christian public at large in favor of one of the modern versions (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB). Christians are encouraged to do so by both publishers and scholars. The two most oft repeated reasons to abandon the King James Version are: 1) the archaic language used in the KJV makes it difficult for modern readers to understand, and 2) new archeological discoveries of biblical manuscripts, purported to be older than the manuscripts available to the KJV translators, differ from the Hebrew/Greek manuscripts used as the textual basis in the King James Version; thus, the KJV is derived from an inferior Hebrew/Greek textual basis. However, both of these assertions, when “weighed in the balances”, are “found [to be] wanting” (Cp., Dan5:27).

Bible-believing Christians, especially those without facility in the Hebrew/Greek scriptures, should not abandon the King James Version of the Bible for one of the hundreds of modern versions. Rather, they should continue to use the KJV as Bible-believers have for the past four centuries, for the following reasons. First, the precision of the English grammar used in the KJV accurately communicates grammatical subtleties inherent in the Hebrew/Greek, most of which are lost in the modern versions (including the New King James Version). Second, the philosophy of translation used by the KJV translators (i.e., formal equivalence, or word-for-word translation) honors the nature of scripture and stops short of introducing (potentially) biased interpretation into the translation. Third, the English used in the King James Version gives rise to essential doctrines that are absent from many modern versions. Fourth, the Hebrew/Greek textual basis undergirding the King James Version is superior to that used by the modern versions, being based on the textual tradition that has been providentially preserved by God throughout all generations.

A full-length article on this topic titled Why Use the KJV? has been added under Textual Studies.


Light vs. the Sun in Genesis 1

The creation of light on Day 1, before creation of the sun (on the 4th day), has profound theological significance.  All ancient, pagan peoples worshiped the Sun as the source of light.  In Genesis 1 God reveals that light preceded the sun, and its source was the very Word of God (Genesis 1:3).  The Apostle John makes clear in his gospel that Jesus Christ, the Word [of God] (John 1:1), was the Divine Agent of creation (John 1:3) and “the true Light” (John 1:9).  The Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of worship (Revelation 4:11), and all men past or present who “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served [any aspect of] the creation more than the Creator” are fools and idolaters (cf. Romans 1:22-25).  In Genesis 1, the literal, historical order of Divine creation is a rebuke to all pagan perversions of theological truth.


The Name of Jesus in the O.T.

“Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead … neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10,12)

The name of Jesus, as we have it in the New Testament by way of the Greek language, or Joshua (i.e., Yeshua) in Hebrew, means “Jehovah [i.e., the Lord] is salvation”. As the angel told Joseph, the child to be born of the virgin Mary was to be named “JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The child was also to be called “Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us” (Matthew 1:23); that Jesus would be known as Immanuel (i.e., a manifestation of God Himself) is not uniquely a New Testament notion, but comes directly from the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14).

In a similar way, the name JESUS also comes from the Old Testament. Isaiah 62:11 reveals:

“Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the earth, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.”

In this verse given through the prophet Isaiah, “salvation” (Heb., Yesha) is a Person (note the masculine pronouns “his” and “him” used in the clauses that follow). A Person who will be known as “salvation” is said to be coming, bringing both his “reward” and his “work”; clearly, this is the Person of JESUS. Compare this verse with Isaiah 40:10, which reads:

“Behold, the Lord God will come … behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.”

Isaiah 40:10 asserts exactly the same truth, using exactly the same words, as Isaiah 62:11, but in this instance the Person known as “salvation” is identified as “the Lord God”. Thus, the Person known as “salvation”, that is Jesus, is equated with Divinity; Jesus and Jehovah are one (cf. John 10:30). Such equations of “Jesus” and “Jehovah”, which are implicit assertions of the Deity of Jesus Christ, are common between the New and Old Testaments (Cp., Hebrews 1:8; Psalm 45:6).

Finally, consider the words of Jesus Himself, spoken in the closing chapter of the Bible. Revelation 22:12 records Jesus as saying:

“… behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me …”

Jesus takes the words of “the Lord God” spoken in Isaiah 40:10, the very same words that in Isaiah 62:11 are ascribed to a Person known as “salvation”, for Himself. Jesus connects the dots for us. The name of “Jesus”, by which alone comes salvation, just like “Immanuel” comes straight out of the Old Testament!


Humanism and Truth

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 16:25)

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life . . .” (John 14:6)

Humanism is that worldview that makes man the center of all things and exalts human reason to a position of either equality with, or even superiority over, divine revelation (i.e., the Bible). Humanism exists in two forms, secular and religious. Secular humanism is the atheistic form of humanism. It rejects the existence of God, so it must be committed solely to naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe and life. Today, it embraces the Big Bang Theory to explain the origin of the universe (which violates both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics) and the Theory of Evolution to explain the origin and development of life (which violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). It peddles these theories as “science”, though they violate the most fundamental, well-validated laws upon which all science is founded (cf. Ps14:1; Rom1:22). Secular humanism is the dominant worldview in America today, and public education, from kindergarten through graduate school, is a taxpayer-funded system committed to indoctrinating American youth in it. Secular humanism is the clearly declared enemy of the Bible-believing Christian.

But humanism also exists in a religious form. Religious humanism has a veneer that can appear religious, even Christian, and it can even profess to believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but behind the façade is an absolute commitment to naturalistic explanations in the arena of science. Religious humanism accepts the Big Bang and Evolution as proven by “science” (i.e., these are the instruments God used to “create”), so it embraces non-literal ways of interpreting the Bible in order to accommodate them. As a contemporary example of this, consider the quote from Dr. Francis Collins, current Director of the National Institutes of Heath, and founder of the BioLogos Foundation:

Foundational to the BioLogos vision is the belief that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God… We have found that the methods of the natural sciences provide the most reliable guide to understanding the material world, and the current evidence from science indicates that the diversity of life is best explained as a result of an evolutionary process. Thus we affirm that evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves His purposes. [1]

Here, “evolution” should be understood in its broadest sense as the naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe as well as all life in it. Thus, despite Dr. Collins’ claim to believe the Bible to be the “inspired and authoritative Word of God”, in the arena of the “natural sciences” he clearly subordinates divine revelation to human reason.

Similarly, Dr. Hugh Ross is an astronomer who founded the Reasons to Believe ministry for the purpose of “integrating science and faith”. His statement of faith published on the ministry’s web site affirms:

We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a “God-breathed” revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings… The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses. [2]

And yet, based on the conclusions of modern science Dr. Ross and his ministry teach that: 1) God used the Big Bang to create the universe, 2) the days of the Creation Week are really millions/billions of years in duration, 3) a pre-Fall race of hominids existed before Adam, and 4) that the Flood of Noah was not global in extent. The Bible-believer must ask, “How are these beliefs consistent with his assertion that the Bible is the supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses?” This is equivocation in the extreme, which is the only way that religious humanism can maintain its façade of an authoritative Bible.

Religious humanism, therefore, is not only bad science, it’s also bad religion (Prov14:12; Jn17:17). Religious humanism is a more subtle enemy of the Bible-believing Christian than secular humanism, but for that reason it’s probably the more dangerous one.

Endnotes:

[1]  BioLogos Foundation Website, http://biologos.org/about, accessed October 19, 2011.

[2]  Reasons to Believe Website, http://www.reasons.org/about-us/our-beliefs, accessed October 19, 2011.


The Madness of Science Falsely So Called

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some, professing, have erred concerning the faith . . .” (1 Timothy 6:20-21a)

In his 2005 book titled The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, Richard Dawkins, the undisputed leader of the aggressive New Atheists, wrote: “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing—is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice”.[1]

Dawkins has admitted what few secularists will; namely, that those who dogmatically defend the presuppositions of (so-called) modern science can be best described as being “mad”. Mark Twain, himself a legendary skeptic, offered this parody of Christian belief: “Faith is believing what you know isn’t true”. Twain’s definition is far more apropos of Dawkins and scientists like him than Bible-believing Christians. Why do I say this?

Consider what Dawkins believes to be the two foundational events on the path to explaining everything. First, that “the universe evolved literally out of nothing”, by which he means the origin of the universe in the primeval event of the Big Bang. That our universe must have had a beginning is inescapable, since according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics it would now be cold, dead, and lifeless if it were in fact eternal. However, in claiming that it originated “literally out of nothing” he is asserting that the process that brought it into existence violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. Although modern scientists will suffer no other event in all of history to be explained by a process that involves the creation or destruction of matter or energy, they accept it as the “best” explanation for the origin of the universe.

Second, that “life evolved out of nearly nothing”, by which he means the origin of life by the processes of random variation and natural selection most often attributed to Darwin. The problem is that Darwinian evolution, even if it were a valid mechanism in giving rise to new species, can only operate on life forms already capable of reproduction. Evolution cannot account for the origin of life itself. How did the first replicating life form begin? Though modern scientists are loathe to admit it, their answer is spontaneous generation in which life originated from non-life. Again, although modern scientists will suffer no other event in all of history to be explained by a process that violates their own empirically validated Law of Biogenesis, they accept it as the “best” explanation for the origin of life.

This is indeed “mad[ness]”! Such madness was foreseen in the Scriptures when Paul warned Timothy to avoid “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20). But such madness is what must be embraced by rebellious men who are philosophically committed to “chang[ing] the truth of God for a lie, and worship[ing] and serv[ing] the creat[ion] more than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). As evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin admitted, “We are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create … a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.[2]

Endnotes:

[1] Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (First Mariner Books, New York, NY, 2005) p. 613.

[2] Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons”, New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.

 


The Authority of the Bible

“The Bible is authoritative on everything of which it speaks.  Moreover, it speaks of everything.”

Cornelius Van Til