The Bible's Internal Proofs
of its Authentic History

Probably no historical record has been more scoffed at than the Bible. However, the facts show that if it weren't a book of religion and it had only recently discovered by archaeologists, it would be proclaimed the most significant find in all history. For, its details as to family lines, lands of occupation, life spans, and events should provide positive proof to even the most skeptical observers that its accounts are genuine and accurate, because no one would go into such minute detail if they were simply creating a forged document. Oh, they could if they wished, but that would require a high level of sophistication and some very dark motives.

Take for example, the genealogies found at Genesis 4:17-5:31, 10:1-31, 11:10-32, 14:1-8, 21:32, 22:20-24, 25:1-4 & 12-19, 26:34, 28:6-19, 36:1-4 & 9-43, 38:1-5, 46:8-27, 48:7, Numbers 1:1-42, 2:5-32, 26:12-60, and 27:1, just to start with. The details in these accounts prove the Bible to be a compilation of accurate historical events, branding it as totally different from religious forgeries, such as The Book of Mormon.

Also, read the genealogies that start in First Chronicles and you'll find many names of ancient people who went on to found cities and countries that we're still familiar with today. Also, look at the long lists of names of people, then who their fathers were, who they descended from, the things they did, etc. – things that nobody would be interested in today – and ask, why would anyone make all of this up, and how could anyone fake so much detail? Also, realize that the names all meant something in Hebrew, so they weren't just a jumble of sounds.

Consider the fact that few would question the authenticity of the Tomb of King David (although the current location is questionable), since it is so well documented by known accurate historians, such as Josephus, for example. Yet, many critics claim that David may never have existed! And look at the meticulous records of King David, as can be found from 1 Chronicles 23 to the end of that book. Each person, where they were from, who they were related to, and what their positions were, are all listed in great detail.

Then consider the well-documented historical accounts of what happened when the king of Assyria attacked Judah during the time of King Hezekiah, then compare those details to what is found in Second Chronicles 32. Also notice that the Pharaoh (Necho) who fought against Israel just before the destruction of Judah by Babylon (2 Kings 23:29), is well known and documented in history (see Necho II).

As for Moses and the Exodus; consider the detailed record of the travels of Israel from their place of departure from Egypt until they entered the Promised Land, as found at Numbers Chapter 33. Why, every little town that they traveled past, the directions they went, how long they stayed in each place, and the geography of the land is covered in minute detail!

Then look at the writings of Luke (Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts) in this Bible, and click on the dozens of links which lead to historically-proven references to the names, the cities, the titles, and even the specific homes (including pictures) of the people and places mentioned there… such detailed and proven documention is virtually unparalleled in other ancient writings!

For a fact, the Bible is a vast wealth and storehouse of the history of ancient peoples, which through ignorance and prejudice goes unexplored by many. Consider, for example, the records of the peoples and the trade goods they supplied to the Mediterranean trade port of Tyre in the Seventh Century B.C.E., as found in the Twenty-seventh Chapter of the Bible book of Ezekiel. Where else can such valuable records be found?

Recent Archeological Discoveries

Why, some say that the 'Old Testament' was written more than a thousand years later than its events claim, and that the 'New Testament' and its accounts about Jesus were written almost three-hundred years after he walked the earth. But although modern archeologists have proven such claims (which originated in the mid-1800s) false, college professors continue to teach them to their philosophy classes throughout the world, and gullible students continue to believe them and pass them on.

Notice, for example, that the oldest Bible text archeologists have discovered (of the Pentateuch) appears to date to the Seventh Century B.C.E., which is before the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, and which dates to the time of the Solomon's Temple. Yet, until this discovery, many scholars were claiming that these texts were fabricated after the time of Jerusalem's reconstruction, and that there may have been no such Temple. However, Bible critics are still arguing about this today, despite the archaeological finds!

Also, many have claimed that there was no King David, and that Jerusalem was just a backwater town during the time attributed to his reign. But, recent archeological discoveries at Tel Dan (northern Palestine) have uncovered a stele from the Ninth Century B.C.E. that mentions the family line of David, and they are currently excavating a major structure that they think may prove to be David's (and Solomon's) palace.

Some have even gone so far as to claim that there was no ancient nation of Israel, yet a granite stele commemorating the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah, who reigned from 1212 to 1202-B.C.E. (currently on display at the Cairo Museum), brags of a conquest of the nation of Israel, along with the nearby Philistine cities of AshKelon, Gezer, and YanoAm. So, such claims have again been proven false by the findings of archeology.

And the fact that the Philistines existed can be documented by modern archeological discoveries of their major cities (such as AshKelon), and the land is called Palestine today, which is just a Greek corruption of the name Philistine.

Also consider the fact that most archeologists say that modern civilization began some 4400 years ago in the area of Mesopotamia… for this is when and where they find evidence of the first written records, the first kings, the first use of the wheel, and many other things. And all of these things follow the Genesis account in amazing detail! For more on archaeological discoveries, see the link A Short Introduction to Biblical Archaeology.

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

Consider, for example, the fact that archeologists have located the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which are mentioned in the early parts of the Bible book of Genesis (Chapter Nineteen), and have been confirmed as being destroyed during the lifetime of the ancient Patriarch Abraham (c. 2000-B.C.E.). Why, even the details of the destruction of these cities by God have been documented! For photos and details, see the link Sodom Found.

Then to carry the proof even farther; note that the very cave which Abraham's nephew Lot (and his daughters) fled to after the destruction of those cities, has apparently also been located (see the link The Cave of Lot's Seduction). And the nations that came though Lot's daughters (the Moabites and the Ammonites) have also been been documented by archeologists through Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions.

The Existence and Reign of JoSeph

Was there a man name JoSeph who ruled Egypt under one of its pharaOh's during the lifetime of his father Jacob and his eleven other sons? While the evidence is sketchy (due to the extremely long period since that time), there is a famous waterway that was created in Egypt around that period (the 12^th Dynasty, 1991-B.C.E. to 1802-B.C.E.) called Bahr Yussef, or the Bay of Joseph. This is is particularly interesting, because JoSeph is a Hebrew name that likely hadn't even come into existence prior to the birth of Jacob's 11^th son. For, Jacob's most-loved wife RachEl named her son that (which means in Hebrew, 'Jehovah will Expand'), because he was her first son after many barren years, and she hoped that God would give her more. So, why would Egyptians have chosen such a foreign name for this waterway, other than that it was the name of its creator, a Hebrew man named JoSeph (Yussef)?

Note that, according to our calculations, JoSeph died around the year 1870-B.C.E., which was during or just before the reign of PharaOh SenusRet II. And notice what was said about this king in the link, Famous Pharaohs (apparently, a poor English translation): 'King Senusret II (1897 BC-1878BC) or Senwosret II or Sesostris II was the fourth pharaoh of the Dynasty 12. He was the first pharaoh who [br]ought in drainage canal in Faiyum between bahr Yusuf and Lake Moeris. The purpose of Senusret II's project was to increase the amount of cultivable land here. He maybe reign of only ten Years as some scholars believed.'

In addition, the laws that were created by JoSeph during the period of the great famine in the land are arguably the basis for today's laws on taxation and Eminent Domain.

The Red Sea Crossing

Did the Israelites really flee Egypt and miraculously cross the Red Sea, followed by Pharaoh and his army? Whether it took place and the point of the crossing has been debated for centuries, and the argument against this epic event is that there is no archeological evidence to prove that it happened. However, a recent book by Jonathan Gray, In Search of Pharaoh's Lost Army, claims the finding of the needed archeological evidence. And although we are hesitant to acknowledge the veracity of this work, the maps and arguments make sense and follow the account as laid out in the Bible.

Who Wrote Genesis?

Hebrew historians and most religious commentators usually agree that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (known as the Pentateuch). However, that isn't totally accurate, for the words of Genesis (such as, 'This was the scroll of…' and 'This was the generation of…') show that almost all of the first five Chapters were compiled from previously written records or from ancient songs.

Where could such records (if they were in fact written) have come from? We simply don't know, because the Bible doesn't tell us. However, Moses could have collected them from Egyptian libraries during his life as 'the son of the daughter of Pharaoh.' And there is pretty good evidence that this is true, because Egyptian history and dates line up so closely with Bible history and dates (see the subheading How the Corrected Dates Align With Egypt's Historical Records in our linked document 'Why the Greek Septuagint?'). However, they may have also been passed along as songs through the Hebrew family line.

There is strong evidence that those first Chapters of Genesis had once actually been transmitted as songs, which was likely the only way of transmitting history before the birth of writing. This is not to say that Adam and his family didn't know how to write, but the Bible doesn't say anything about it. However, the first couple of Chapters do mention that the words came from existing scrolls. Yet, at the same time; Genesis Chapters One through Five reflects a definite cadence and follows the rules of Ancient Hebrew poetry.

While Bible critics may claim that the early Genesis accounts actually came from cuneiform clay tablets that were discovered in Mesopotamia, known as the Epic of Gilgamesh, that story (which is also written as poetry) reads more like a fairy tale and it contains no genealogies.

Did Moses In Fact Write the Pentateuch?

Yes, Moses did write parts of the first five books of the Bible, because the accounts say so (see Numbers 33:1, 2), and Hebrew historians have always claimed that he did. Yet, the fact that in most cases where his name is mentioned it is shown in the third person, may belie this view. For if Moses wrote the words found at Numbers 12:3 'Now, Moses was the humblest man on the earth' (as people say he did), then what he said was an oxymoron (a saying that disproves itself). So, we have concluded that although Moses was likely responsible for its writing, the words may have been actually written by a secretary or scribe, and possibly Moses' close assistant Joshua. For, notice what was written at Joshua 24:26. 'Then he wrote those words in The Scroll of the Laws of God.'

However, even Joshua's name is occasionally written in the third person in those accounts. And although speaking of one's self in the third person isn't an unusual style for Bible writers (we find Matthew, Mark, and John doing that in their accounts), their names aren't usually mentioned in the third person, as was the name of Moses. Nor is it unusual for Bible writers to use secretaries, because that's what Paul obviously did. Yet, the fact that Moses' name was used so frequently and in so many places (sometimes up to three times per sentence in the Hebrew text), indicates that someone else likely did the actual writing.

The book of Deuteronomy is a good example of what we're talking about here. While its name implies (and as it is often explained as meaning) that this was God's second giving of the Law to Israel, covering the different circumstances they would encounter when entering the Promised Land, a close examination of the texts shows that the book was actually a compilation of written speeches that were delivered on the very day that Israel was to enter the Promised Land (see Deuteronomy 1:1). So, Moses did write most of the speeches to clarify how the Law would apply, but these speeches were later collected and compiled into the book of Deuteronomy by someone else after his death. This has to be true, because Moses' death is also mentioned in Deuteronomy. So, Moses wrote the Laws and speeches, but he likely didn't compile and write the actual books.

Bible History or Secular History?

When Bible history and descriptions clash with secular history and descriptions, most assume that the Bible is wrong… once again. But is that really the case? Take for example, the Bible's description of Darius, the king of the Medes. He was mentioned at Ezra 4:5 as being a contemporary of of the Persian King Cyrus. However, secular historians tells us that there was no such king of the Medes. They say that Darius was in fact a Persian king, whose reign (522-BCE to 486-BCE) followed that of Cyrus. Which is view is correct?

Notice that the same account in Ezra (see Ezra 4:6, 7, 53, 54) agrees that there was also a Persian king named Darius, who reigned after Cyrus. However, it says that his reign came after that of Xerxes and his son ArtaXerxes. So, could modern historians and archeologists have confused Darius of Media with his much later Persian relative? We trust the account in Ezra, since no one questions the existence of Ezra and the period in which he lived (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra), since he is the one that is credited with compiling most of the Sacred Scriptures of Israel (OT) that we have today.

But, what about Dairus, the king of the Medes? Not only do Jewish historians (such as Josephus) claim that there truly was a Darius, king of Media, but they say that he was an uncle of Cyrus on his mother's side. And the fact that Darius was a Mede and that he did rule the land of the Chaldeans is once again confirmed by two other Bible writers, Daniel (see Daniel 9:1) and Zechariah (see Zechariah 1:1). That this is not Darius the king of Persia who historians say succeeded Cyrus, is confirmed at Zechariah 7:1-6, where it shows that God's Temple had not yet been rebuilt, and it mentions the seventy years of Jewish captivity as something that was ongoing. Also, the Persian king was said to have lived sixty-three years, while the Bible shows that the Median king lived at least sixty-six years.

So, we have three contemporaries of Darius the king of Media, who tell us that there was such a man.

The Language Changes

The Hebrew portion of the Bible was written over a period of almost sixteen-hundred years, so we would expect to see natural changes in its language over such an expended period. Is this what we find? Yes! Although the first portions of Genesis are written in the Hebrew language of Moses' time (they were probably translated by Moses or Joshua), the portion that tells of the life of Abraham is written in an ancient dialect called Ugarit, which reflects Hebrew as it was spoken before the Israelite's 400-years of living in the land of Egypt.

After that, the language continues to change until the time of Daniel, who wrote in a language that is similar to Hebrew, Aramaic (in the mid-500s B.C.E.), because of the influence of the Jew's captivity in Babylon and their subjection to the Persians.

The next major Bible language change came during the time of Jesus. Although Matthew, Paul, John, Peter, James, and Jude may have originally penned their books in Aramaic or Hebrew, Mark and Luke likely wrote in the common language of their day, Koine (pronounced ko-ee-nay) Greek. And sometime after their writing (possibly as late as the middle 2nd Century in the case of Matthew), the other books were also translated into that language.

So as you can see, charges that the Bible was written much later than its writers indicated are ludicrous. The changes in the languages prove that these charges just aren't true.

The Gospels

One of the most notable stamps of authenticity in the Christian Era Scriptures is Matthew's mention of Jesus preaching in a town called Caesarea Philippi (at Matthew 16:13). Modern archeologists have found that the Romans changed the name of this city, which is located at the northern tip of 'the Promised Land,' about 50-C.E. from Caesarea Philippi, to Banas (meaning Baths). Since this fact would have been lost to history just a few years after that date, it proves that the Book of Matthew had to be written shortly after Jesus' execution and before 50-C.E.

Also, notice the details in the genealogy of Jesus' line through his mother Mary, as found at Matthew 1:1-17, and the same details through his Joseph's line, as found at Luke 3:23-38.

And notice the methods for accurately dating events by the people who were ruling at the time of Jesus' birth, which are found at Luke 3:1, 2. Although many modern Bible critics claim that the Gospels were written 150-years or more after Jesus' death, look at the links we've provided here, which prove that the writer (Luke) knew exactly who these people were and when they ruled as documented in history! Ask yourself: How did the writer know all these accurate details a couple of hundred years later? And if he did the research just to create a forgery, whose benefit was he doing this for? Also, why would he do such research, which might only be of casual interest to people who would live 200 or 2,000-years later? Yet, the book of Luke is recognized by most scholars as the third Gospel to be written, behind Matthew and Mark, since he clearly borrowed some of his details from the writings of Matthew.

In addition; we have copies of the writings of the early 2nd Century Christian Elder Papias still available, where he speaks of the Gospels and writings of Matthew, Luke, and John. So, regardless of the unfounded claims of modern critics, there is little question that their books were all written in the middle and late 1st Century.

The Names

Another irrefutable proof of the Bible's authenticity as a historical record can be found in the names of people and places, which have never changed. And the Bible even gives the reasons why those names were chosen. Notice for example, the account found at Genesis 10:8-12, which says, 'Kush fathered Nimrod, who became a giant on the earth. He was a gigantic hunter before Jehovah God. That's why people speak of Nimrod as the gigantic hunter before Jehovah. His kingdom started with Babylon, then Orech, Archad, and ChalanNe, which were all in the land of Shinar. Then outside that land [he went to] Assyria and built Nineveh, the cities of RehobOth, Chalach, and Dase (between Nineveh, and Chalach), which is the great city.'

You can see that the names of well-known cities (not mythical) can be found there. And how did Babylon (a Hebrew word for confusion) get its name? The account at Genesis 11:8, 9 tells us, 'And [Jehovah] scattered from there over the entire face of the earth, so they stopped building the city and its tower. That is why [the city] is named Confusion (Babylon), because, that's where [Jehovah] confused all the languages of the earth, and scattered them from there over all the face of the earth.'

Why, the fact that there are so many unrelated languages among mankind today could only be explained by the events of this Bible account. And what's more, the Bible description found at Genesis 11:3 – that the people built the city out of bricks – and at 11:4, where it tells of their building a sky-scraping tower, can still be seen in the ruins of that ancient city in Western Iraq. And even the name of the founder of one of these cities (Nimrod) can still be found in the ruins of an ancient city in Assyria that was named for him, Nimrud (a spelling variation due to language differences).

Also, Nimrod's father Kush is still recognized as the progenitor of the people of Ethiopia, for his name is commonly used by archeologists and Egyptologists alike (for more information, see the Note in the book of Genesis, 'Edem'). It's only in places like North America and Europe (where the Bible is under attack) that anyone questions these names that have been written and accepted as history for millennia!

And while those are outstanding examples, the Bible is literally filled with mention of people and places that have only recently been found and documented by modern archeology. A good example of this is the nation known as the Hittites (Sons of Heth). During almost the entire Nineteenth Century, archeologists claimed that there was no such race, but now they and their cities have been found in abundance!

Why, even a stone commemorating Jesus' judge, the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate (who was also once considered mythical), has recently been located and deciphered.

So, while those who hate the Bible claim that it is just a collection of myths and fairytales, the records and ruins of places and events that we read about therein are constantly being found, proving that the Bible is in fact, the most amazing and accurate record of the history of the world!

What About the Long Lives?

Something else that has stuck in the craw of Bible critics for centuries, is the fantastic ages that people lived to prior to the downpour (Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969, etc.). Also, notice the long reproductive periods: Genesis 5:21 'Enoch was a hundred and sixty five years old when he fathered Methuselah.' Could these be actual years?

Yes they could, for as anyone who has reached the age of 70 or 80 can tell you, our lives are really too short.

But, what about the fact that human life spans seem to be about average when compared the life spans of other animals? Well, it could be (and it's likely true) that animal life spans are also much shorter than they were prior to the downpour. How could this happen?

We've heard many explanations, such as the changes in the atmosphere, or that man was getting 'farther from perfection.' And while these things could be true, the most obvious reason is that it is all the result of prolonged inbreeding. Whereas there were eight humans who survived the downpour, only six produced children thereafter, and three of them were brothers.

Consider, for example, the lines of the Hebrews, which likely reflected what was true of other families throughout the world at the time. Abraham's father was Terah and his wife's father was Terah, so she was his half sister. Their son Isaac's grandfather was thus a direct descendant of Terah on both sides, and the grandfather of the woman he married was also Terah on at least one side. So, Isaac's son Jacob's great-grandfather was Terah through at least three sides, then two of the wives he married (Rachael and Leah) were also great-granddaughters of Terah through multiple lines… and then the descendants of their sons intermarried.

It was only after God gave His Laws to Israel that sexual relations and intermarriage among close family members was forbidden. And this proves that a Divine power recognized the genetic damage that would result from further inbreeding. Also remember that these laws were given just to the descendants of Israel, not to any of the other nations of the world, so inbreeding could have continued throughout the world until the results became obvious.

What about animals? Remember that most animals (the 'unclean') were brought into the chest (ark) in single pairs, so even more genetic damage was possible for them than it was for humans. For, why do such intelligent animals as dogs or such large animals as horses live less than twenty years? This isn't normal – it's illogical.

Notice how human life spans progressively decreased after the downpour (which disproves the teaching that 'they counted years differently back then'):

Noah lived 950 years

His son Shem (the first progenitor of that line) lived 600 years

His son Arphaxad lived 500 years

His son Cainan lived 460 years

His son Sala lived 460 years

His son Heber lived 404 years

His son Phaleg lived 339 years

His son Ragau lived 337 years

His son Seruch lived 330 years

His son Nahor lived 304 years

etc.

So, by the time of the exodus from Egypt, we find the Israelites living just 70 or 80 years, for the Bible tells us that only Joshua and Caleb of all Israel's warriors who left Egypt, survived to enter the promised land.

Note this conversation between the Pharaoh of Egypt and the patriarch Jacob, as found at Genesis 47:7-9: 'Then Joseph brought his father Jacob in and stood him before Pharaoh, and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. Then Pharaoh asked Jacob, How old are you? And Jacob replied to Pharaoh, The years of my life that I've lived are a hundred and thirty. But these years have been too few and too troubled. I haven't reached the age that my ancestors [achieved], back in the days when they lived.'

So, the very aged man Jacob verified that his ancestors had lived to be much older than him.

What do scientists tell us is the likely cause of the human (and possibly animal) aging process? They say it's because the ends of our DNA strands break off as cells divide – an apparent genetic problem.

Notice that even secular history agrees with the long lifespans of ancient times! Look, for example, at the Egyptian history of their Pre-Dynastic kings (see the link Pharaohs Timeline). It says, 'Up to 13 kings ruled from Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt during this period who were known as the Horus-people or the Hawk-people.' However, look at the period during which these supposed 'Up to 13 kings' (we count 12 to Adam) ruled… 2,500 years… that is about 200 years of rule for each of them, according to Egyptologists!

And if you would like to see how closely the Bible comes to lining up with the dates given for Egypt's PharaOhs, see the subheading in the Septuagint document, How the Corrected Dates Align With Egypt's Historical Records.

As you can see, there's really no reason for anyone to question the Bible's accuracy, authenticity, or the dates that are provided there. The facts are too detailed and too well substantiated in history, and the ages of men descend in a logical order that's well in line with the understandings of medical science.

Has Much Been Lost Through the Ages?

One of the most common arguments against the authenticity of the Bible is its age. And the question is often asked, 'How do we know that what's written in there is really what was originally meant?' For, it's a fact that the Bible has been copied and translated hundreds if not thousands of times down to our day, and errors have obviously crept in.

Yes, it is true that there are many errors in common Bibles. How do we know this? Because many very ancient texts have been found (such as 'the Dead Sea Scrolls') that show where changes have been made. Sometimes the errors are copy mistakes, while in other instances there are deliberate attempts at fraud. Yet, modern scholars are aware of most errors and honest Bible translators are making the changes as they are discovered.

We not only have the Dead Sea Scrolls, but we have ancient translations of the Bible, such as the Septuagint Greek text, and what has been found is that (in most instances) there may be variations in words, but the meanings still remain the same.

What is called the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) hasn't seen many changes, for these words of creation and law were copied and spread throughout Israel, and any error would have been quickly pointed out by the zealous. However, the words of the Prophets haven't fared as well, because the things they wrote condemned Israel for the errors of their ways, so they weren't read or copied as much. And the older the writing, the easier it is to see that much has been lost. Yet, there is enough redundancy between the writings of the Prophets that any major errors would stand out, and many of the words of the Prophets have been verified, because Jesus and other Bible writers quoted them.

Understand that it is our belief that the Bible was written logically and coherently, so where we find text that doesn't make sense, we assume there has been an error in copying or translating.

A good example of this corruption of text is the book of Habakkuk, which was likely written during the early Seventh Century B.C.E. We found it extremely difficult to translate from Greek, and when checking the Hebrew-based texts, we found that they had the same problems. And because both types of texts (the Hebrew and the Greek) reflect the same problems, we can see that the corruption began sometime between the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (c. 600-B.C.E.) and their return from Exile (c. 537-B.C.E.). Yet, later writers are generally easier to follow and translate.

We were surprised to find several significant differences in the Psalms, but that book is just a record of ancient inspired songs, and we realize that the songs have likely changed through the ages.

We also found differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts in the Proverbs, so we suspect that people changed proverbs to fit their needs. Yet, the way that the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the books of the Prophets were written helps to show up any errors or deviations, for much of this writing was in done in poetry or song. So, where we find deviations from the common forms of Hebrew poetry, we know to look for errors.

What about other books, such as those of the Apocrypha and other supposed Christian writings? Some wonder why they aren't included in Bibles such as this. But if you read them, you'll see why most learned collectors have rejected them, for they all clearly speak of things that contradict the canon of sixty-six approved books, which all show a harmony and single inspiration by God.

The Dead Sea Scrolls a Hoax?

Through the years since their finding, several supposed scholars have come forward to label the Dead Sea Scrolls a hoax. Why, in the early 1950s, Professor Solomon Zeitlin of Dropsie University in Philadelphia argued strenuously that the antiquity of the Dead Sea Scrolls should be rejected on philosophical grounds. However, subsequent carbon-14 tests on their linen wrappers firmly dated the finds to the late Second Temple Period (prior to the lifetime of Jesus), which should have laid to rest arguments concerning the antiquity of the scrolls. Yet, although there are hundreds of both Bible and secular documents in that find, which no one in his right mind would go through all the trouble to forge centuries ago and then fail to reveal, the claims that they are forgeries (by those who hate the Bible) continue to make the news as though their statements were true.

The DaVinci Code?

One of the more recent claims is that the story of Jesus originated in the written myths of the pagan Roman religion, for several important features of Jesus' life are found written in Roman lore about their pagan Gods. Yet, the fact that people who point to such similarities fail to mention, is that those Roman epics were written some two-hundred years after Jesus' death. So, who borrowed from whom?

The above claim was written in a recent book about the Bible that seems to turn its entire writing into mysticism and intrigue. And it all starts out with the premise that DaVinci's painting, 'The Last Supper,' shows Mary Magdalene (not John) sitting next to Jesus, who the writer claims is Jesus' secret wife… and thousands believe this!

Yes, the person sitting on Jesus' right in DaVinci's painting does appear to be a woman, for he or she is without the traditional Jewish beard. But, did you also notice that the head is at an odd angle, separated from the neck, and is smoother than the other features in the painting? And it also appears to be up and to the left of a previous face. While this may not have a bearing on the veracity of the claim, the female face does look more like a recent addition to the painting… and why does an Apostle have his hand resting on her shoulder if she is Jesus' wife?

Now, if it were a woman, why would anyone suspect that it was Mary from Magdala? She is mentioned only briefly in the Bible accounts as part of the large crowd that traveled to Jerusalem with Jesus, and as one of the two women who visited his tomb… but never again in any bible record after that. For if DaVinci did include a woman in his painting, wouldn't it be more logical to assume it to be Jesus' mother Mary, in view of where this artwork was painted?

But let's ask; What did Leonardo DaVinci know about Jesus, since he lived fourteen centuries after Jesus died. And even if there was a 'DaVinci Code,' from whom did the painter receive it, and why should we trust their words more than the Bible?

As for the accuracy of DaVinci's knowledge of Jesus and the Bible, look at his painting… remember that early Jews didn't sit at a table, they reclined, and the table was low. There's no record of anyone sitting at a table in the Christian Era Scriptures, but there are dozens of records of their reclining (lying down) to eat. So, how much of this painting should we trust as an accurate account of history? And while we're at it; allow us to point out the name was Jesus, not Christ!

Yet, this artist's questionable depiction started a growing belief that the Bible is some sort of secret codebook, and that Jesus got his teachings while traveling in India. This is total nonsense, and it could only be believed by those who are truly unfamiliar with the Bible.

The book also claims there were other 'Gospel' accounts that were hidden, because they tell a different story of Jesus' life. But it fails to mention that these 'Gospels,' which are obviously fakes, are dated to more than a century after his death.

The 'Scientific Adam'

Recently, the National Geographic Society sponsored a genetic study to prove absolutely whether man has a single common ancestor (Adam), or if, as it has been stated many times before, man descended from a large group of evolving primates that numbered in the thousands. The study surveyed people from all around the world, checking the variations in their Y (male) chromosomes, and it proved beyond a doubt what earnest Bible students have known all along, that the Bible was right and we all did for a fact descend from a single man, whom they dubbed 'The Scientific Adam.'

While this shocking and amazing finding should have proven the Bible's authenticity beyond a doubt, it shouldn't surprise anyone that after proving the Bible once again right, the folks at National Geographic concluded that the Bible has all the details wrong. For, rather than man originating from a place in the area of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers some seven-thousand five-hundred years ago (as the Bible says), they say he actually originated in Northwestern Africa sixty-thousand years ago. Of course, this implies that 'modern man' (their words not ours) existed well before the 'stone age,' 'cave men,' and even 'Neanderthals.' But that's another story.

Their method for determining all of this was to look at genetic variations in the Y-chromosomes of modern people and search for common variations that would link all humans to a single person. Then they looked for a race of people whose Y-chromosomes are the closest to the original, and they found them in Northwest Africa near Ethiopia. So, they concluded that 'Adam' was a dark-skinned man from Northern Africa.

Of course, in their skepticism, they neglected the fact that we all have a much closer common relative than Adam, Noah. So, what they may have found was him… or at least his grandson Cush (or Kush), whose descendants in Ethiopia still call themselves 'Kushites.' And they also overlook the fact that the original Kushites (black people) settled in MesoPotamia (Nimrod was a Kushite), and later in Bible records, part of that family line lived in the area of Iran southwest of Mount Ararat. So this Scientific Adam apparently didn't really live in northeastern Africa to begin with (although his descendants do live there today). For more information on this, see the Note in Genesis titled Edem and the Associated Press document, 'Roots of Family Tree are Shallow.'

And what about the sixty-thousand years of man's existence, as opposed to the Bible's seven thousand, five hundred? Well, their dating was based on the number of genetic mutations, which they extrapolated to come up with a starting date, but that is risky science at best. For, they simply assume certain very-long periods between mutations. And as we pointed out earlier, the shortening of life spans between the time of Noah and Moses seems to indicate a period of rapid genetic decline, possibly due to prolonged inbreeding.

Also, see the interesting proof that these extended dates are wrong from the 2005 New Man magazine article by Doug Trouten, 'The Search for Adam,' when discussing genetic discoveries about Adam's 'Y chromosomal bottleneck.'

Then, why do studies show that man originated in Northeastern Africa, not the Middle East? Those who do these studies, in their quest to prove the Bible wrong, fail to recognize the fact that populations have migrated or have been forced to relocate. History shows, for example, that both the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Assyrians relocated entire populations after conquering them. And the people of Northeastern Africa (ethnic Ethiopians) prove this when they clearly claim to be descendants of Noah's grandson Kush. Bible history shows that these people once lived in and around the ancient Assyrian Empire (Middle East), and that they were conquered by the Assyrians in the late 700s B.C.E. For more information, see the Note Edem in Genesis.

Anyhow, as science continues to make advances, we are sure they will eventually get their details right. In fact, notice the precise wording of National Geographic's Atlas of Human History.

What About Obvious Evolutionary Changes?

We do find one of the latest scientific theories interesting, in line with the Bible, and sensible. It's the teaching that retroviruses (which pick up and share DNA with their hosts) cause variations within species. So, it could be that God created viruses to help all creatures adapt to their environments, and that viruses only become problems outside their environments (which the spread of AIDS testifies to). This would explain the predominance of marsupials in Australia, the prehensile tails of the monkeys in the Americas, and the reasons why variations within family types (such as parrots, horses, etc.) can't crossbreed.

Obviously, this is just another theory. However, the chest (ark) of Noah could only have held a limited number of animal types, so there are surely more animal types today than there were then. But such ideas as this are just diversions from the promises of the Bible… they aren't worthy of a debate.

So, What About All the Things You See on TV?

It is shocking to us that most people get what they believe to be reliable information about the Bible, its history, and its authenticity from television programs. For, there you will listen to 'the experts' talk about their 'facts.' Yet, no one asks why these people are considered to be authorities, or why they were specifically chosen by the show producers.

What makes a person a 'Bible expert?' Are such ones chosen because they've done decades of unbiased Bible research and translating, or because they've passed religious courses taught by skeptics and atheists? This is an area where the foxes have clearly been put in charge of the hen house. Yet, people tend to believe all that they see on TV as proven fact, because 'the experts' said so.

Our years of Bible research and translating experience (as well as watching such programs) clearly prove that few of such 'experts' have really done much personal Bible reading (they miss major details), and that most choose to deny and overlook all historically-proven evidence of the Bible's authenticity. So, the public in general is being fed on a diet of skepticism and the viewpoints of atheists or agnostics.

What Translating Has Taught Us

One of the things that we are often asked, is whether we have learned anything new in our translating. And the answer is YES! However, so far we haven't learned anything that would cause us not to believe in or not to trust the Bible as the Word of God. We've found no reason to doubt its authenticity or accuracy… in fact, after decades of extensive and unbiased research, we have even better reasons to recommend it to others today.

To return to your Bible reading, select the browser Back button.

For more information, see the linked Note 'Science and Inspiration.'

Home Page