ALIENS AND CREATION (The Theory of Panspermia) Donald R. Fox


(The Theory of Panspermia)
Donald R. Fox

There is no disputation; atheism rejects the word of God, the Bible. They side with the evolutionists who believe in an assortment of theories on how life began. Further, evolutionists’s doubt among themselves on how our earth and the cosmos began. Our solar system is vast and complex, yet these multiparty arrangements run like a clock, perfect. Life itself is beyond comprehension from us humans to the animal world. On and on we all understand this multifaceted nature of our universe and our perfect globe, beautiful unique earth.

I have several debates conducted over many years between Christians and an assortment of deniers of creation and God Almighty. Some of the debates are preserved on an audio format, and others are in book form. Whatever the case is, the non-believer or the evolutionists, their presentation supporting their theories falls short, at the point of nonsense. One theory of the evolutionist I have never heard of on the polemic platform is the theory of Panspermia. To boil that theory down for us who are not familiar with such, it is a hypothesis that aliens from other planets created life upon our earth.

The following is extractions from “That Their Words May be Used Against Them. Quotes from Evolutionists Useful for Creationists." Complied by Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA published 1997.

From page 61 of Henry M. Morris’ work, “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth, Science”, vol. 130 (July 31, 1959).
Surely one of the most marvelous feats of 20th-century science would be the firm proof that life exists on another planet. All the projected space flights and the high costs of such developments would be fully justified if they were able to establish the existence of life on either Mars or Venus. In that case, the thesis that life develops spontaneously when conditions are favorable would be far more firmly established, and our whole view of the problem of the origin of life would be confirmed.”

Mitton, Simon, and Roger Lewin, “Is Anyone Out There?” New Scientist (August 16, 1973). Mitton is Secretary of the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge. Page 380, “They hypothesize that thousands of millions of years ago, an intelligent civilization decided to seed other nearby planets with primitive forms of life in hope that more advance civilizations might develop. Crick and Orgel that their proposal---called Directed Panspermia---is an tenable as other theories that aim to explain the origin of life on Earth.”
Side Note: I am not a mind-reader, but I wonder if you thought as you read this essay, “How did the aliens from outer space come into being?”

So friends, these brilliant scientists reject the simplicity of “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1 KJV).

NOTE: For a few web sites that dwell on this science fiction theory: http://www.google.com/search?q=Aliens+Created+Earth&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rlz=1D1DLUS_enUS303US315 and

NOTE: For additional study see essay titled “ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION.”

Church Discipline & Spousal Relationship By Louis Rushmore


By Louis Rushmore

Church Discipline
& Spousal Relationship

I used your article on Church Discipline from the Firm Foundation web in our bulletin today.  We had one man take exception to the statement, “Admittedly, church discipline is not intended to interrupt other divinely approved relationships (e.g., husband/wife, parents/dependent children).”  He felt that if a husband or wife be withdrawn from the faithful partner would have to leave so as to submit to the withdrawal.  I advised him that one had obligations to the spouse given in scripture and while he must make sure to make his dissatisfaction in the spouses spiritual relationship is known and work to encourage their return he has no obligation or biblical authority to leave the spouse that was withdrawn from.  Can you help me out on further explanation? ~ Michael D. Barclay
First, let me observe that brother Barclay correctly answered the objection raised above.  Second, I felt sure that my affirmation that ‘family members have a responsibility to participate in legitimate church discipline toward their other family members’ was itself difficult for members of the Lord’s church to appreciate.  I reaffirm that such is biblically defensible and obligatory.  Yet, the brother, to whom reference is made above, goes further, and beyond biblical warrant, to suppose that other biblically obligatory responsibilities, namely marital union, should be disrupted because of church discipline.  Please consider the following points. (1) The position that a spouse must separate from his or her spouse toward whom the Lord’s church has exercised church discipline is to pit Scripture against Scripture, command against command, and God against himself.  For any references to withdrawal of fellowship to include one leaving his spouse (which no passage pertaining to church discipline states or implies) would involve violation of passages that forbid husbands and wives to separate.
“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (1 Cor. 7:3-5). “. . . Let not the wife depart from her husband . . . let not the husband put away his wife. . . . If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. . . . For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” (1 Cor. 7:10-13, 16).
“. . . whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery . . .” (Matt. 5:32).
(2) The position that a spouse must separate from his or her spouse toward whom the Lord’s church has exercised church discipline would manufacture yet one more so-called ‘biblical grounds for divorce.’  Our brethren have cleverly conjured additional grounds for divorce beyond what Jesus himself commanded (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) to rationalize the intrusion of unscriptural divorce and remarriage into the Lord’s church and the families that comprise it.  “Leave,” “put away,” “divorcement” and “depart” (in Greek and in English) represent different words pertaining to divorce.  What the brother cited above is proposing is that a spouse divorce him or herself from the spouse from whom the church has withdrawn (irrespective of whether any remarriage may be entertained later).  The addition of this as another ‘grounds for divorce’ is neither warranted nor contained in the Scripture. (3) Rather than “leave,” the faithful Christian spouse, when married to a non-believer, is required by Scripture to continue in that marriage (1 Cor. 7:10, 12-13).  If, though, a separation or divorce occurs, the faithful child of God is required to be passive, not encouraging the leaving (1 Cor. 7:15).  Remaining in the married state permits the Christian to directly or indirectly teach the non-Christian (1 Cor. 7:16; 1 Pet. 3:1-2).  Since, therefore, the Christian spouse is required to remain with the non-Christian spouse, the same principles apply equally to the marriage of a Christians to a Christian who does not act like a Christian (from whom the church has withdrawn).  There is no biblical evidence that the Christian spouse is any more obligated or even permitted to leave the Christian spouse from whom the church has withdrawn than there is that a Christian spouse ought to leave the non-Christian spouse.
(4) Parents may have dependent children who are Christians and from whom the church has withdrawn (“husband/wife, parents/dependent children”).  Consistency demands that the brother cited above equally affirm that godly parents should “leave” the house to the withdrawn from dependent children.  To coin a popular contemporary phrase, “I don’t think so!”  Perhaps in this instance, the brother above would instead have the minor children toward whom the church has exercised discipline evicted from the home.  Even this, of course, conflicts with biblical parental responsibility.
(5) The position that a spouse must leave his or her spouse toward whom the Lord’s church has exercised church discipline would leave, in the case of a wife (especially with young children), her destitute.  She would not qualify as a “widow indeed” (1 Tim. 5:3ff) for whom the church is responsible to support.  She could not remarry as that passage exhorts since she has a living husband (Rom. 7:2-3).
(6) The separation resulting from the proposition proposed by the brother would also encourage adultery by either of the separated spouses (1 Cor. 7:5; Matt. 5:32).
Doubtless out of good intentions and an interest in restoring the lost, yet, the proposition that a spouse must leave his or her spouse toward whom the Lord’s church has exercised church discipline is biblically incorrect.  We would do well to exercise ourselves more fully regarding the exhortations that are clearly present in Scripture (which sometimes, especially pertaining to church discipline, we generally fail to do) rather than venturing into extremes beyond what inspiration stipulates.

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" Saul The Persecutor (8:1-3) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                     Saul The Persecutor (8:1-3)


1. Following Stephen's death, a great persecution arose against the church...
   a. Disciples in Jerusalem were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria - Ac 8:1
   b. The apostles, however, remained in Jerusalem - ibid.

2. Leading the persecution against the church was a young man...
   a. Whose name was Saul - Ac 8:3
   b. Who later became known as Paul, the apostle - cf. Ac 13:9

(We will consider Saul's conversion later.  But to appreciate the
significance of his conversion, we should know his background and what
motivated him as a persecutor, beginning with Saul's...]


      1. Born in Tarsus of Cilicia - Ac 21:39; 22:3; 23:34
         a. Cilicia was a Roman province in SE Asia Minor (modern Turkey)
         b. Tarsus was the capital ("no mean city"), known for its
            culture and learning said to exceed even those of Athens and
            Alexandria - Strabo, Geography 14.5
      2. Born of Jewish ancestry
         a. A Hebrew, or Israelite, of the seed of Abraham - 2Co 11:22
         b. Of the tribe of Benjamin - Ro 11:1
         c. A Hebrew of the Hebrews (both parents Hebrews?) - Php 3:5
      3. Born a Roman citizen - Ac 22:25-29
         a. Some think because Tarsus was a free city, but such a
            designation did not automatically impart citizenship
         b. One of Paul's ancestors either purchased or was rewarded
            citizenship for services rendered to Rome - W. M. Ramsay
         c. We do not know the date of his birth, some place it around the time of Jesus' birth

      1. Taught in Jerusalem by Gamaliel, a Pharisee and respected teacher of the Law - Ac 22:3; cf. Ac 5:34-40
      2. A son of a Pharisee, he became a strict Pharisee - Ac 23:6; 26:4-5; Php 3:5
      3. He excelled above his contemporaries in Judaism - Ga 1:13-14
      4. Was also trained as tent-maker - Ac 18:1-3

      1. He was zealous in persecuting the church, concerning the Law blameless - Php 3:6
      2. He served God with a pure conscience - 2Ti 1:3; Ac 23:1
      3. Thus he was ignorant of his blasphemy and persecution - 1Ti 1:12-13

[With his early life and training, Saul of Tarsus was on the "fast track"
when it came to his religious faith.  It was sincere zeal in defending his faith that led to his brief but fervent career as...]


      1. Saul was present at the death of the first Christian martyr - Ac 7:57-58
      2. He consented to the death of Stephen - Ac 8:1; 22:20

      1. Entering homes, dragging men and women to prison - Ac 8:3; 22:4
      2. Entering synagogues, imprisoning and beating those who believed in Jesus - Ac 22:19
      3. He believed it necessary to do things contrary to the name of Jesus - Ac 26:9-11
         a. Imprisoning believers by the authority of the chief priests
         b. Casting his vote against them as they were put to death
         c. Compelling them to blaspheme
         d. Pursuing them to foreign cities (such as Damascus) - cf. Ac 9:1-2

      1. Admits he persecuted the church "beyond measure" in an attempt to destroy it - Ga 1:13
      2. It was due to his great zeal - Php 3:6
      3. Though ignorant, he was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent man - 1Ti 1:13
      4. For such reasons, he considered himself the least of the
         apostles, not worthy to be called an apostle - 1Co 15:9


1. From being the worst foe of the church, Paul would later become one of its best friends...
   a. Saul the persecutor would soon become Paul the preacher - Ga 1:22-24
   b. Paul attributed it to the grace and mercy of God - 1Co 15:9-10; 1Ti 1:12-14

2. Every aspect of Saul's life prior to his conversion prepared him for the task the Lord gave him...
   a. His Jewish heritage and Roman citizenship suited him for preaching to both Jews and Gentiles
   b. His training by Gamaliel would serve him well in his writings on the Law in Romans, Galatians
   c. His skill as a tent-maker would assist him in his travels
   d. Even his history as persecutor would strengthen his testimony as an eyewitness of Christ

But most of all, his conversion despite his persecution of the church
serves as a wonderful example of God's mercy:

   "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that 
   Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am
   chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me 
   first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern
   to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life." - 1Ti 1:15-16

Have you obtained the mercy offered in Jesus Christ (Tit 3:4-7)?  No
matter how you have lived in the past, you can be justified by His grace...! - Ac 22:16
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" The First Martyr (6:8-7:60) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                     The First Martyr (6:8-7:60)


1. As the church in Jerusalem grew, persecution intensified...
   a. Beginning with threats not to preach - Ac 4:18-21
   b. Followed by beatings and more threats - Ac 5:40

2. The persecution soon reached a new level...
   a. Beginning with the martyrdom of Stephen, one of the seven - Ac 6:5
   b. Leading to a great persecution against the whole church - Ac 8:1

[Stephen was the first martyr who gave his life for Christ.  A man "full
of faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Ac 6:5), his example has inspired many
to suffer for Christ in a similar manner.  To appreciate why, let's begin by reviewing...]


      1. Full of faith and power, he did great wonders and signs among the people - Ac 6:8
      2. He disputed with some from the Synagogue of the Freedmen - Ac 6:9-10
         a. Cyrenians, Alexandrians (Africa), and those from Cilicia and Asia (Turkey)
         b. Who were unable to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke

      1. By men secretly induced to charge him with blasphemy against Moses and God - Ac 6:11-12
         a. Who stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes
         b. To seize and bring him to the council (the Sanhedrin)
      2. By false witnesses set up to charge Stephen with blasphemy - Ac 6:13-14
         a. Against the holy place (temple):  "We have heard him say
            that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place"
         b. Against the law (of Moses):  "and change the customs which Moses delivered to us"
      3. Stephen may have referred to what Jesus spoke about:
         a. Destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days - Mk 14:58
         b. Which John explained referred to the temple of His body - Jn 2:19-21  
      4. Stephen may also referred to what Jesus spoke about:
         a. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple - Mt 24:1-2; Mk 13:1-2; Lk 21:5-6
         b. Which did affect customs that Moses delivered (e.g., animal sacrifices ceased)

      1. All who sat in the council looked steadfastly at him - Ac 6:15
      2. They saw his face as the face of an angel - ibid.
      3. Evidence that he was filled with the Spirit - cf. Ac 6:5; Ga 5:22-23

[Stephen faced his accusers with "a presence marked by confidence,
serenity, and courage." (EBC)  With the question of the high priest (Ac7:1), the stage is set for Stephen's defense...]


      1. The call to leave Mesopotamia - Ac 7:2-3
      2. The sojourn in Canaan - Ac 7:4
      3. The promise of possession to his descendants - Ac 7:5-7
      4. The covenant of circumcision - Ac 7:8
      5. His descendants:  Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs - Ac 7:8

      1. Joseph sold into Egypt, becomes governor - Ac 7:9-10
      2. Jacob and his sons move to Egypt during the famine - Ac 7:11-14
      3. The patriarchs buried in Canaan - Ac 7:15-16

      1. The children Israel in Egypt become slaves - Ac 7:17-19
      2. The work of Moses, deliverer of Israel
         a. Raised by Pharaoh's daughter - Ac 7:20-21
         b. Educated by Egyptians, mighty in words and deeds - Ac 7:22
         c. Kills an Egyptian, but despised by his brethren - Ac 7:23-28
         d. Flees to Midian where he has two sons - Ac 7:29
         e. The Lord appears to him in a burning bush at Mount Sinai - Ac 7:30-34
         f. Returns to Egypt, delivers Israel and brings them into the wilderness - Ac 7:35-36

      1. Moses is the person:
         a. Who said God would raise up another prophet like him - Ac 7:37
         b. Who spoke to the Angel on Mount Sinai - Ac 7:38
         c. Who received living oracles to give to Israel - Ac 7:38
         d. Whom the fathers would not obey but rejected - Ac 7:39
      2. Israel is the nation:
         a. Who turned back into Egypt in their hearts - Ac 7:39
         b. Who pressured Aaron to make a golden calf - Ac 7:40-41
         c. Whom God gave up to worship idols for forty years in the wilderness - Ac 7:42-43
            1) They may have offered sacrifices to the Lord
            2) But they also worshiped Moloch and Remphan - cf. Am 5:25-27

      1. The fathers of Israel had the tabernacle of witness
         a. In the wilderness, built according to the pattern shown Moses - Ac 7:44
         b. Brought into the promised land by Joshua - Ac 7:45
      2. They also had the temple
         a. Asked for by David, who found favor before God - Ac 7:46
         b. Built by his son Solomon - Ac 7:47
      3. Yet the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands
         a. For heaven is His throne and earth is His footstool - Ac 7:48-49
         b. His hand has made all these things - Ac 7:50; cf. Isa 66:1-2
         c. This may have been to allay any concern about the
            destruction of the temple, as God is not bound to be 
            worshipped at just one location - cf. Jn 4:19-24

      1. Stephen charges the council of resisting the Holy Spirit, like their fathers - Ac 7:51
      2. Their fathers persecuted and killed the prophets, so they have killed the Just One - Ac 7:52
      3. They received the law, but did not keep it - Ac 7:53

[Stephen surveyed Israel's history of rejecting God and His Spirit, then
charged that they followed in their fathers' rebellion by having murdered
the Just One (Jesus).  They themselves had not kept the very Law they
accused him of having blasphemed!  With such accusers, the outcome is not surprising...]


      1. They were cut to the heart
         a. They gnashed at Stephen with their teeth - Ac 7:54
         b. Compare those on the day of Pentecost - cf. Ac 2:37
      2. Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven
         a. He saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God - Ac 7:55
         b. He tells what he saw:  "The Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!" - Ac 7:56
         c. Why is Jesus standing?
            1) He is otherwise described as sitting - Lk 22:69; Mk 16:19;
               Ac 2:34; Ep 1:20; Col 3:1; He 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Re 3:21
            2) Could it be out of respect, to welcome His first martyr?
      3. In response, the council:
         a. Cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears - Ac 7:57
         b. Ran at him with one accord, and cast him out of the city  - Ac 7:58

      1. The witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of Saul - Ac 7:58; 22:20
         a. Who consented to Stephen's death - Ac 8:1
         b. Who later led a great persecution against the church - Ac 8:3; 9:1-2
      2. They stoned Stephen as he was calling on God - Ac 7:59-60
         a. "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" - cf. Lk 23:46
         b. "Lord, do not charge them with this sin" - cf. Lk 23:34
      3. Having said this, he fell asleep (i.e., died) - Ac 7:60; 8:1


1. Stephen's death was the first of many...
   a. Saul (Paul) would later confess of others - Ac 22:4; 26:9-11
   b. We read of other martyrs:  James, Antipas - Ac 12:1-2; Re 2:13
   c. Countless thousands have died for Christ over the years, even to the present day

2. We may never face martyrdom; but when we encounter persecution for our faith, we should...
   a. Face with it the composure of Stephen - Ac 6:15
   b. Possess the forgiving spirit of both Jesus and Stephen - Lk 23:34; Ac 7:60

Remembering Jesus' promise:  "Be faithful until death, and I will give
you the crown of life." - Re 2:10
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

Reincarnation and the Bible by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Reincarnation and the Bible

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The American Heritage Dictionary states that reincarnation is the “rebirth of the soul in another body.” For many years, the belief in reincarnation was generally associated with eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. However, it is becoming increasingly popular to proclaim a belief in the Bible as the inspired Word of God, yet still maintain a belief in reincarnation. The obvious question arises from such a situation, “What does the Bible say about reincarnation?”
One straightforward statement that speaks directly to the idea of reincarnation is found in Hebrews 9:27-28: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” Without any vague terms, the writer of Hebrews explains that the general course of man’s existence is to taste death only once, and then be judged based on the actions that were accomplished in that one life. In order to underscore the number of times a person dies, the inspired writer declared that men die the same number of times that Christ was offered on the cross—only once. Such a statement goes a long way to prove that the Bible does not teach for reincarnation. (This verse deals with the generality of man’s existence, and excludes miraculous situations, where Christ, an apostle, or a prophet raised someone from the dead.)
Another biblical passage that militates against the idea of reincarnation is found in Luke 16:19-31. In this passage, Jesus told a story in which a poor man named Lazarus, and a rich man, both died. The Bible explains that Lazarus died and “was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom” (16:22), but the rich went to “torments in Hades” (16:23). The text further states that the rich man “lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom” (16:23). Here we have three men who once lived upon the Earth but have died, yet we do not see their souls or spirits reinhabiting some earthly body. Instead, we see the three men—Lazarus, Abraham, and the rich man—in a fully cognizant state in the realm of the dead, separate and apart from any earthly ties. In fact, the rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus back to Earth to warn his brothers, but Abraham refuses. Therefore, if Lazarus had died, and his soul no longer was on Earth, then he could not have been reincarnated to another earthly body or person. Furthermore, Abraham’s presence in this “realm of the dead” shows that Abraham had not been reincarnated either.
Again, in Luke 23:43, Jesus told the penitent thief who was crucified next to Him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” One must ask, if the body of the thief was going to remain on the Earth, and the soul of the thief was going to be with Jesus in Paradise, then what part of that man would be left to reincarnate into another earthly body?
Matthew 17:1-13 poses yet another situation that speaks against the idea that reincarnation occurs. In this passage, Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus to a high mountain where Jesus was “transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him” (17:2-3). The presence of Moses and Elijah in this instance raises a very important question: If men are reincarnated, what were Moses and Elijah doing talking with Jesus? We know that the physical bodies of Moses and Elijah were not present (see Jude 9). Therefore, their spirits were present, which means that those spirits were not inhabiting some other earthly bodies. It is interesting to note that those who believe that the Bible allows for reincarnation sometimes use Matthew 11:8-14 to claim that John the baptizer was Elijah reincarnate, yet Matthew 17:3 proves that Elijah’s spirit was not in the body of John the baptizer. On the contrary, when Jesus mentioned that John had come in “the spirit of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), He simply meant that John had similar attributes to Elijah.
In looking at the Bible, one gets the clear picture that humans die only once, and that their disembodied spirits go to a “realm of the dead” to wait for the final judgment. The idea of reincarnation does not derive from nor can it be sustained by, the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible implicitly denies even the possibility of reincarnation. Because it is “appointed for men to die once,” we should be that much more diligent to make sure that the one life we live on this Earth accords with the will of the Divine Parent of the human race (Acts 17:29).


American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

The Stirring of the Water and Bible Integrity by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The Stirring of the Water and Bible Integrity

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Though skeptics have leveled many charges against the integrity of the Bible through the centuries, proof of its divine origin remains self-evident. Nevertheless, some claim that the Bible endorses the common superstitions that characterized the primitive peoples of antiquity. One such case pertains to the sick man who lay beside the pool of Bethesda. The NKJV reads:
Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, [waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.] Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me.” Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked (John 5:2-9, emp. added).
Observe that the man (and “a great multitude” of others) believed the popular conception regarding the alleged periodic appearance of an angel to stir the water of the pool. The Bible is not to be blamed as giving sanction to this idea merely on the basis of the personal sentiments held by the people of the day, since the Bible merely reports their beliefs—as indicated by the sick man’s own remarks. Jesus certainly said nothing to give that belief credibility. However, the words indicated above by the bracketed bold type are couched in authorial narration, which would imply that the inspired writer of the book of John also believed the superstition. Does the Bible, in this instance, give credence to an outlandish notion, thereby casting suspicion on its inspiration?
In the first place, granted, the idea of God sending an angel to stir the water of a pool, at which point the water is invested with miraculous healing properties, is a nonsensical notion that would be uncharacteristic of the God of the Bible (in contrast to the "God" of the Quran—see Miller, 2005b, pp. 60-61). Jesus might have helped the man get to the water, but He did not do so. Second, nor would God place poor sick folk in competition with each other, allowing only one individual to benefit from the healing, since He shows no partiality (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11). Third, such an occurrence would contradict the Bible’s own explanation for the purpose of miracles—the miracle of healing not being simply to heal or relieve suffering (see Miller, 2003, 23[3]:17-23).
The ultimate answer to this challenge to the Bible’s integrity is found in the fact that the last part of John 5:3 and the entirety of verse four were not a part of the original inspired autograph by John. The oldest, most reliable manuscripts omit the words, and with near unanimity scholars agree that the preponderance of the evidence shows its spurious status to be “virtually certain” (Metzger, 1971, p. 209). Renowned Greek scholar A.T. Robertson observed: “It is a relief to many to know that the verse is spurious” (1932, 5:79). Most English versions omit the words from the text altogether, relegating them to a footnote, including the ASV, ESV, et al. Among churches of Christ, J.W. McGarvey (n.d., p. 195), Guy N. Woods (1989, p. 95), David Lipscomb (1962, p. 74), George DeHoff (1981, 5:297), Frank Pack (1975, pp. 84-85), Burton Coffman (1974, p. 138), and B.W. Johnson (1886, p. 86) acknowledged the words are not a part of the original. [NOTE: Those who are fearful that the integrity of the text of the Bible is compromised by the reality of textual variants need to be reminded that the world’s foremost textual critics have demonstrated that currently circulating copies of the New Testament do not differ substantially from the original (see Miller, 2005a, “Is Mark...,” 25[12]:89-95; Miller, 2010).]


Coffman, James B. (1974), A Commentary on John (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House).
DeHoff, George (1981), DeHoff’s Commentary (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Christian Bookstore).
Johnson, B.W. (1886), The New Testament Commentary: John (Des Moines, IA: Christian Publishing).
Lipscomb, David (1962 reprint), Commentary on the Gospel of John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” Reason & Revelation, 23[3]:17-23, March, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569.
Miller, Dave (2005a), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, December, [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780.
Miller, Dave (2005b), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Robertson, A.T. (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

The Immutability of God by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


The Immutability of God

by  Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

[NOTE: During the February 12, 2009 Darwin Day debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker listed 14 alleged Bible discrepancies as evidence against God’s existence. His first claim (six minutes and 25 seconds into his opening speech) was that the Bible gives contradictory descriptions of God because it says that God changes and does not change. His allegation is refuted in the following article written by Caleb Colley in 2004.]
The Bible plainly asserts that the qualities of God have never changed, and will never change. Consider a sampling of what the inspired writers penned concerning God’s immutability:
  • Psalm 90:2: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the Earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”
  • Psalm 102:25-27: “Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.”
  • Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I do not change.”
  • Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
  • James 1:17: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”
Some assert that the concept of an unchanging God is ridiculous. As one critic put it,
Christians believe that [a] their God is “unchanging.” They also believe that [b] their God is jealous, as mentioned explicitly in Exodus 20:5, and that [c] their God is also full of wrath and anger (numerous citations can be found in the Bible which support this). If the Christian believes [a], [b], and [c] above, then according to them their God must always be jealous, angry and wrathful (i.e., God must be pretty miserable) [Thorn, 2000, parenthetical item in orig.].
Of course, the fact that our unchanging God has emotions such as anger and wrath (and emotions that are antithetical to anger and wrath, such as happiness and gladness, which Thorn ignored completely), based on His perfectly righteous nature, does not detract from His deity. After all, if God’s nature did not cause sin to anger Him, and righteousness did not please Him, His nature, as revealed in the Bible, would be both false and irrelevant. God would be incapable of making decisions based on His objective standards, and would be unqualified to be our God.
God, in His relations with humans, is unchanging in that He opposes all sin and unrighteousness, while approving and appreciating righteous living, and giving all men the opportunity to be saved. God certainly is capable of changing His mind without changing His nature. For example, God tested Moses by telling him to get out of the way, so that God could destroy the “stiff-necked” nation of Israel, and make of Moses a great nation (Exodus 32:9-10). Moses, however, pleaded with God, and He “relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people” (verse 14). God knew ahead of time what Moses’ answer would be, just as He knew that Abraham would do His will when He tested Abraham by commanding him to sacrifice his special son, Isaac (see Genesis 22; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalm 94:9-10; John 2:25). In this instance, God simply presented Moses (later labeled the meekest man in the entire world—Numbers 12:3) with the opportunity to become the ancestor of the divinely chosen people, but Moses refused, choosing to appeal to God’s mercy. God considered Moses’ humble appeal when He decided to preserve Israel; it was the unchanging nature of God that caused Him, in this particular instance, to act as He did (cf. Genesis 6:6; Jonah 3:10).
God had not promised a particular punishment to the people of Israel for their disobedience—God did not break a promise to Israel. God cannot lie, and He certainly did not do so in this case (see Colley, 2004a). God had merely told Moses what He intended to do, and reciprocated Moses’ “repentance,” on the behalf of the entire nation, with His own.
Inherent in the fact that God cannot lie (see Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Romans 3:4; Hebrews 6:18) is the fact that His characteristics do not change. If they did, the righteous attributes of humans that please Him one day might not please Him on the next day, and humans would never know what to do in order to satisfy Him. Worse still, we might approach the judgment seat of Christ in the Day of Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10), only to discover that God had created different rules, of which we were unaware.
To twist Exodus 32:9-14 into an attack on God’s reliability, then, is blasphemous. Instead, we should understand the clear implications of the passage: (1) the fervent prayers of righteous people really do “avail much” (James 5:16); (2) it is unpleasant for God to destroy His creatures (2 Peter 3:9; see Keil, 1996, 1:468); and (3) God allows Himself to change His purpose when the actions of humans justify it (Jonah 3:10; see Coffman, 1985, p. 444).
Some assert that the Bible is not reliable because it makes evident that God changed the requirements for serving Him when He nailed the Old Law to the cross of Christ (Colossians 2:16). They assert that when God put away the Old Law and brought the New Law into effect, God evinced that He can change, so, even if He does exist, He cannot be trusted. Indeed, if it were true that God’s changing of some requirements rendered His divine nature altered, then the biblical concept of God would be shattered, because, in that case, God frequently would have stood in complete contradiction of Himself. And so would Jesus when He spoke certain teachings while in human form. As one skeptic, writing for Agnostic Review of Christianity, commented: “If Jesus has always existed, has always been the same, and is also God, then this deity is psychotic. He issues laws that he ignores, commands people to obey these laws, rebukes them for trying to follow the laws, and practices situational ethics” (“Sticks and Stones…,” n.d., emp. added). First-century gnostic Christians, in attempting to reconcile perceived differences between the character of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, asserted that two distinct gods were responsible for the two testaments. They believed that the Old Testament god, Jehovah, was bumbling and inept, while the god revealed in the New Testament was the true god (see Layton, 1987, p. 134).
However, God did not change His nature in order to bring the New Testament into effect. The New Testament church, in which men can be saved from damnation, was in the mind of God from before the Earth was established; it was His eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:10-11). In fact, the Old Testament contains many prophecies concerning the church (e.g., Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 2:2-3; Daniel 2:44; see Silcox, n.d.), helping us to see that one purpose of the Old Law was to prepare humanity (in several different aspects, not the least of which was the establishment of Christ’s lineage) for the coming of Christ and His Law (Luke 24:44; Galatians 3:24). When the Old Law was nailed to Christ’s cross, the rules for obedience were changed in order to allow men to appropriate the blood of Christ to their souls (to wash away sin; see Acts 22:16). The blood of bulls and goats no longer was necessary in order to appease God’s anger, because the perfect Lamb had been sacrificed once and for all (Hebrews 9:12; 1 Peter 3:18).
Finally, observe that the fact that God is not opposed to all change does not impose upon His immutability. He instituted the changing seasons (Genesis 1:14), and Psalm 102:25-26 illustrates that the Earth can be changed by an unchanging God, a fact that also was illustrated quite graphically by the Noahic Flood (Genesis 6-8). And, when we leave this life to slip into the timeless side of eternity, we will be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).
God is not going to budge in His firm stand against sin. Ultimately, unforgiven sin will be punished (Romans 6:23; see Colley, 2004b). However, just as sin always has demanded strict punishment in every dispensation, God always has freely offered salvation to those willing to obey His message. God will pardon, through Christ’s sacrifice, those who repent and obey Him.
Coffman, James Burton (1985), Commentary on Exodus (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Colley, Caleb (2004a), “God Cannot Lie,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2561.
Colley, Caleb (2004b), “God’s Mercy and Justice,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1860.
Keil, C.F. (1996 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament—The Pentateuch (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Layton, Bentley (1987), The Gnostic Scriptures (Canterbury: SCM Press).
Silcox, Preston (no date), “The Church Promised and Prophesied,” [On-line], URL: http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/SilcoxP5.htm.
“Sticks and Stones, or, Jesus the Son of God Thumbs His Nose at God the Father” (no date), Agnostic Review of Christianity, [On-Line], URL: http://members.fortunecity.com/brad1/stick_stone.html.
Thorn, Anton (2000), “An Unchanging God?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Unchanging_God.htm.

Joseph of Arimathea and the Great Stone by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Joseph of Arimathea and the Great Stone

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Recently, a gentleman contacted our offices questioning some of the events surrounding the burial of Christ. He specifically wanted to know about the likelihood of Joseph of Arimathea being able to roll “a great stone” (Matthew 27:60) against the entrance of the tomb. A person can understand how one man could transport the body of Jesus, wrap it in linen, and lay it in a tomb (27:59-60), but how could one man roll a “very large” (Mark 16:4) stone over the opening of the tomb of Jesus?
First, one should keep in mind that Joseph was very familiar with this tomb. He was the owner of it and also the one who had hewn the tomb out of the rock (Matthew 27:60; cf. Isaiah 53:9). It could be that he had made provision so that a large stone could easily be set against the entrance of the tomb (even by one man), yet when set in place, it might be extremely difficult to remove (even for several men). If the entrance of the tomb, for example, was at a lower elevation, and the large stone was on an incline, temporarily held in place by smaller stones and/or by a slight indentation in the ground, Joseph might easily have been able to roll the stone against the entrance by himself.
Second, and more importantly, Joseph was not by himself. Although Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not mention anyone else helping Joseph roll the stone against the tomb’s entrance, they also do not expressly state or imply that he was alone. In fact, John records that Nicodemus helped Joseph prepare Jesus’ body for burial, and afterwards “they laid Jesus” in the tomb (John 19:42, emp. added). In truth, since none of the gospel writers indicates that only one or two men buried Jesus, an untold number of people (e.g., Joseph’s servants) may have helped Joseph and Nicodemus roll the “great stone” against the entrance of Jesus’ tomb.
It is imperative for Bible students and skeptics to keep in mind as they read through Scripture, and especially the gospel accounts, that silence does not negate supplementation. Just because the synoptic writers were silent about Nicodemus helping Joseph bury Jesus, does not mean Nicodemus could not have helped Joseph or that John was mistaken. Furthermore, simply because the gospel writers were silent about others (such as servants that a “rich man” like Joseph probably had—Matthew 27:57) who might have helped Joseph and Nicodemus roll the large stone over the entrance of the tomb, does not mean there were not any. In short, nothing in the gospel accounts concerning Joseph of Arimathea or the great stone that covered the entrance of Jesus’ tomb is impossible or discrepant.

Jesus Christ—The Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Jesus Christ—The Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The inspired penman of Hebrews reminds us repeatedly throughout his epistle of the preeminence of Christ. The Lord Jesus is greater than angels; He is superior to Moses; He is higher than the Jewish high priesthood. His sacrifice is better; His everlasting covenant is better; His ministry is better. The eternal Savior (not expired Judaism) reigns supreme.
Jesus is preeminent for countless reasons. He is Divine and thus worthy of worship (Hebrews 1:5-9). He is the creator and sustainer of the Universe (1:2-3). His reign is “forever and ever” (1:12,8). He is without blemish (4:15; 9:14). He defeated death (13:20). He alone is the “author of eternal salvation” (5:9).
Jesus’ excellency is further established in Hebrews by appealing to the Lord’s amazing immutability. Near the end of the epistle, after an exhortation to remember one’s spiritual leaders (13:7), and prior to giving a warning against “strange doctrines” (13:9), the Hebrews writer reminds his readers of the precious, faith-building truth that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8).

Jesus’ Consistent Character

Society benefits greatly from the dependable and consistent character of its citizens. The steady marriage of a faithful husband and wife will only strengthen the foundation of civilization. The stable, strong, and reliable father gives his family a backbone upon which to lean that will not easily degenerate in difficult times. Faithful, spiritual leaders help keep churches grounded in the Truth, rather than led astray by false doctrine. But such dependable leadership is only found among those who genuinely strive to imitate the consistency of Christ (Hebrews 13:7-9).
By the very fact that Jesus is Divine, He is changeless. God said, “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). With the Father of lights, “there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Though the material universe will grow old and be changed, God said to Jesus, “You are the same, and Your years will not fail” (Hebrews 1:10-12; Psalm 102:25-27).
Christians should rejoice in the fact that, though “time is filled with swift transition,” our High Priest is perpetually dependable. Our Savior is endlessly steadfast. Christ revealed Himself as the perfectly consistent One. Though He “was in all points tempted as we are,” He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus never once broke the old law, nor was His purpose to destroy it. He came to fulfill it perfectly and completely (Matthew 5:17-19), and through His unblemished sacrifice He established the new covenant (Hebrews 9:14-15).
Even the most difficult of circumstances never caused Jesus’ perfect character to change. Neither 40 days of fasting nor a face-to-face confrontation with the deceitful devil broke His resolve to live consistently with the Will of God. He did not use hunger, homelessness, or weariness as an excuse to become bitter and fickle. Jesus is the perfect foundation of the church because nothing could break His will to build her. Not torture or tears, not the betrayal of friends or the shadow of death, could shake Jesus’ resolve to offer salvation to a fallen world in desperate need of a steadfast Savior.

Jesus’ Consistent Teachings

Jesus’ preeminence is further seen in His perfectly reliable instruction. Unlike the father of lies in whom “there is no truth” (John 8:44), Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6). Unlike the contradictory and “strange doctrines” of false teachers, Jesus’ teachings are beautifully and powerfully dependable. His witness is true. His judgments are true. His counsel is perfectly consistent.
Though the Herodians and the disciples of the Pharisees came to Jesus with phony flattery in hopes of entangling Him in His talk, truer words could actually never be spoken of Jesus: “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men” (Matthew 22:16). Proof of Christ’s genuineness and consistency on this occasion is seen in the fact that He immediately called out their hypocrisy before briefly and powerfully answering their question (22:18-22).
Jesus preached a consistent message that was so often about the importance of being consistent. The Sermon on the Mount is a discourse on authentic righteousness in which Jesus gets to the heart of the matter. Praying, fasting, making judgments, doing charitable deeds, etc. are important, but without the proper attitudes and motivations behind these actions—without being righteous on the inside—they profit us nothing (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Jesus would later rebuke the scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” saying, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you…, ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Matthew 15:7-8). Outwardly many of the scribes and Pharisees appeared righteous, yet inwardly they were “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:28). Jesus refused to overlook the inconsistency among the religious leaders of His day. His unchanging nature and consistent message were then, and are today, the greatest tools to fight the “various and strange doctrines” that so often carry men away from the Truth (Hebrews 13:9).


Meditating upon the magnificence of the Messiah is faith building and inspiring. In the book of Hebrews, the Holy Spirit has given us a gold mine of motivation to lift up and serve Jesus as the Son of God. He reigns supreme, and His unwavering, unchangeable nature and message are to be loved and lauded. Praise God that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever!”

*Originally published in Gospel Advocate, December 2014, 156[12]:17-19.

Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent on Earth; humans have inhabited, and continue to inhabit, every continent on Earth. Thus, it would seem that if dinosaurs and humans really did live as contemporaries at one time, as creationists contend, human fossils would have been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. So, is there evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?
Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling, at least on the surface. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). Furthermore, many ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth (see Lyons and Butt, 2008). Still, many wonder why, at first glance, the fossil record seems not to substantiate creationists’ claims that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries?

Fossilization is Rare

First, one must understand that fossils are rare, relatively speaking. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place. Consider as an example all the bison that were killed and left to decompose on the Great Plains of the United States. In the late 19th century, a man could purchase a window seat on a train, have the conductor stop close to a herd of American bison, and pull out his rifle and fire upon the herd until he ran out of ammunition. The locomotive would then move on, leaving behind countless dead and dying animals. By the end of the 19th century, the bison population in America had been reduced from millions to approximately 500 (Jones, n.d.). What happened to the millions of carcasses? They are not scattered all along the Great Plains today. Why? Because their flesh and bones were scavenged by insects, worms, birds, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by fungi, bacteria, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains disappeared. Even oxygen plays a role in the breakdown of chemicals that make up living things.
Evolutionary scientist James Powell described another situation where a rather large population of animals died. He wrote:
[I]n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earth’s normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues (1998, p. xv, emp. added).
Normally, as Powell indicated, living things do not fossilize. Under normal conditions, living things decay and rot. It is atypical for plants and animals to fossilize, because they must avoid even the tiniest of scavengers, bacteria, fungi, etc. For bones to fossilize, they must be buried—the sooner and deeper the better. Mud, silt, and other fine sediments are good for fossilization because they can block out oxygen. In this “protected” environment, bones and teeth may even last long enough to mineralize. But, normally, carcasses do not find themselves in such environments.

Not as Many Dinosaur Fossils as You Think

Although dinosaur graveyards have been discovered in various countries around the world (e.g., Tanzania, Africa; Jenson, Utah [USA]) where thousands of dinosaur bones are jumbled together (obviously due to some sort of catastrophe—e.g., a flood), most people are unaware of the fact that, in museums, “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). Furthermore, in an article in the October 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania reported that almost half (45.3%) of all dinosaur genera are based on a single specimen, and 74% are represented by five specimens or less (87:7608). Even some of the most famous dinosaurs are based on a fraction of what they were originally. For example, the 120-foot-long Argentinosaurus replica (housed in the Fernbank Museum of Natural History in Atlanta, Georgia) is based on only 10 percent of its remains (a dozen backbone vertebrae, a few limb bones and part of the hips) [Meyer, 2002]. Truthfully, although dinosaurs have captured the attention of scientists for more than 150 years, their fossilized remains are not as prevalent as many would think.

Human Fossils—Extremely Scarce!

Humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. In a 1981 New Scientistarticle, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table" (89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). In 2004, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are among the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found.
As you can see, the question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”
Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

A Lesson Learned from “Living Fossils”

We learn from “living fossils” that animals and plants can live long periods of time (allegedly millions of years) without leaving behind fossil evidence. For example, evolutionists believe Gingko trees were thriving 240 million years ago, before dinosaurs allegedly evolved (see Krock, 2003). Interestingly, Gingko fossils are absent in rock layers reportedly representing many millions of years, yet they are alive today (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Consequently, simply because they are absent in certain rock strata does not mean they were non-existent during the alleged millions of years it took those layers of rock to form. Likewise, simply because human fossils are missing in certain layers of rock does not mean they were not living at the time those rock layers were formed.
Consider also the living fossil known as the coelacanth. From 1839 (when fossil coelacanths were first discovered—Perkins, 2001) to 1938, evolutionists alleged that these fish were the missing link in the evolution of fish to amphibians (“Diver Finds…,” n.d.). Supposedly, coelacanths had existed “for nearly 400 million years” (“Diver Finds…”). Evolutionists firmly believed that “the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago [about the same time dinosaurs died out—EL] because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this” (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Science News declared that coelacanths “disappeared from the fossil record 75 million years ago” (Perkins, 2001, emp. added). Until 1938, evolutionists believed that men and coelacanths could not possibly have lived at the same time. These creatures were known only from rock layers that evolutionists claimed were 70+ million years old.
On December 24, 1938, the scientific world was rocked when an unidentified fish five feet long and over 100 pounds was brought to shore in South Africa. It was caught in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar. The fisherman who netted the fish (having no idea what the creature’s proper name was) called it “the great sea lizard” because its pectoral fins looked more like little fringed legs. Once scientists examined this strange creature, however, they confirmed what formerly was thought impossible—a live coelacanth had been caught in modern times (see “Coelacanth,” n.d.)! It was as shocking as if a living T. rex had been found. After all, they supposedly became extinct at the same time.
Since 1938, more than 100 coelacanths have been caught and many more sighted (see “Coelacanth”). In 1952, they were seen swimming near the Comoro Islands in the Indian Ocean. Another population was found in 1998 off the coast of Indonesia. Surprisingly, local Indonesian fishermen were quite familiar with this fish, having been catching them for years; though scientists were totally unaware they lived in that region.
Modern-day coelacanths look exactly like their fossil counterparts (which are mistakenly dated as being millions of years old). This living fossil is a thorn in the side of evolutionists. It makes a mockery of evolutionary dating methods, provides further proof of the myths of missing links, and exposes their “facts” for what they really are—unproven assumptions.
Moreover, consider that evolutionists admit that the fossil record of the past “70 million years” shows no evidence of coelacanths. Yet, we know they lived during these alleged “70 million years,” because they are still alive today. Like Gingko trees, coelacanths’ absence in certain rock strata does not mean they were not living during the alleged millions of years it took the rock layers to form; it simply means that they were not buried and fossilized in those layers of rock. Similarly, humans just as easily could have been alive when the various rock layers were formed, without leaving human fossils. Think about it: we have just as much fossil evidence for humans living the past “70 million years” on Earth as we do coelacanths and Gingkos. In short, living fossils help us understand that simply because human fossils are missing in certain layers of rock does not mean humans were not living at the time those rock layers were formed.

Slim Chance

Considering that sedimentary rock (the type of rock in which fossils are most likely to be discovered) covers about 75% of Earth’s land area and much of the ocean floor, and is tens of thousands of feet thick in certain places (Crawford, 1988, 17:278), even if there are dinosaur and human remains fossilized in the same rock, the chance of them being exposed, discovered, recognized, and reported together is very improbable. They might be exposed somewhere in the world today (like in a mine, cliff, or road cutting), but unless they are discovered before the Sun, wind, and rain turn them to dust, such exposure is useless to scientists.

Humans and the Flood

It could be that in the time of Noah, the human population was confined mainly to the Middle East, while most dinosaurs roamed in other parts of the world. If this was the case, and the global Flood of Noah’s day caused most of the fossils on Earth (as creationists believe), then one would not expect to find many (if any) humans buried with dinosaurs. What’s more, humans would have been less likely (than various animals) to be buried rapidly and fossilized during the Flood. As Bodie Hodge noted:
Since the rains of Noah’s Flood took weeks to cover the earth, many people [unlike dinosaurs—EL] could have made it to boats, grabbed on to floating debris, and so on. Some may have made it to higher ground. Although they wouldn’t have lasted long and would have eventually perished, they might not fossilize (Hodge, 2006, p. 179).
The fact is, in most cases, living things do not fossilize.
[D]ead things decompose or get eaten. They just disappear and nothing is left. The 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia was a shocking reminder of the speed with which water and other forces can eliminate all trace of bodies, even when we know where to look. According to the United Nation’s Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, nearly 43,000 tsunami victims were never found (Hodge, p. 180).

Could it be…?

It may very well be the case that human and dinosaur fossilized footprints have been discovered together, or at the very least in the same vicinity or in the same layer of rock in which dinosaur tracks are found (see Woetzel, 2013, p. 28). It may also be that human and dinosaur bones have been discovered together in times past, but for at least two reasons, were not reported. First, someone who might have found these bones in a quarry could react by saying, “Look at these old bones. Fascinating!... Okay, now, hurry up and hand me another explosive so we can meet our quota of coal for the day.” It could be that the fossil evidence for the cohabitation of men and dinosaurs went up in smoke long ago. Second, it may be possible that human bones have been found by scientists alongside dinosaur fossils, yet simply have not been reported widely. We are not suggesting that all evolutionary scientists are dishonest. Rather, we simply believe they are blinded by presuppositions that affect their judgment (even as many “Christians” are). Since evolutionists seem so certain that hominid/human fossils should never be found in layers of rock more than a few million years old, if they ever did, likely they would just explain away the evidence. “It just cannot be, if evolution is true…. There must be some explanation other than humans and dinosaurs really lived together.” If evolutionists can “confuse” a dolphin’s rib for a human collarbone (Anderson, 1983, p. 199), or an extinct pig’s tooth for a human tooth (e.g., Nebraska Man; see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 88-89), then similar mistakes could easily be made concerning human and dinosaur fossils. If one ever has been found with another, scientists could have misinterpreted the “anomaly.”


It may be that dinosaur and human fossils are never found together. But, whether they are or not, the evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs at one time in the past is undeniable to the unbiased truth seeker (see Lyons and Butt, 2008). Indeed, there is a mountain of biblical, historical, and physical evidence which indicates that dinosaurs and humans once walked this Earth at the same time.


Anderson, I. (1983), “Humanoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib,” New Scientist, April 28.
Begun, David (2004), “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?” Science, 3003:1478-1480, March 5.
“Coelacanth” (no date), American Museum of Natural History, http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/bob13.asp.
Crawford, Maria Luisa (1988), “Sedimentary Rock,” The World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago, IL: World Book).
“Diver Finds ‘Living Fossil’” (no date), Science Now, http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/archive/headline_science/coelacanth_010601.php.
Dodson, Peter (1990), “Counting Dinosaurs: How Many Kinds Were There?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87:7608-7612, October.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Hodge, Bodie (2006), The New Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Jones, Alvin T. (no date), “The American Bison,” http://www.texasbison.org/bisonstory.html.
Krock, Lexi (2003), “Other Fish in the Sea,” NOVA, January, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/other.html.
Lewin, Roger (1990), “Science: Dinosaur Count Reveals Surprisingly Few Species,” New Scientist Archive, 128[1745], December, http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg12817452.700.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion: Dismantling Evolution’s Most Cherished Icon (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Meyer, Pedro (2002), “Does the Original Matter?” WashingtonPost.com, http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/zonezero/jan_02.htm.
Perkins, Sid (2001), “The Latest Pisces of an Evolutionary Puzzle—Discovery of Coelacanth off Coast of South Africa,” Science News, May 5, 159:282, www. sciencenews.org/articles/20010505/bob13.asp.
Powell, James Lawrence (1998), Night Comes to the Cretaceous (New York: Harcourt Brace).
Reader, John (1981), “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist, 89:802, March 26.
Snelling, Andrew (1991), “Where are All the Human Fossils?” Creation Ex Nihilo, 14[1]:28-33, December 1991-February 1992.
Watson, Lyall (1982), “The Water People,” Science Digest, 90[5]:44, May.
Woetzel, Dave (2013), Chronicles of Dinosauria (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).