Science within the Bible

Did you know the Bible makes several scientific claims which went against the grain of contemporary understanding? Even more impressive is the fact that, over the years, the scientific community has validated that those claims were accurate. How could this be? The Bible was written by some 40 different authors over a span of around 1,600 years (for more on why we can trust the accuracy of the Biblical accounts, see our post on Why only 66 books?). It seems clear that there must have been some sort of divine revelation given to the authors. To make it even more obvious, there are no scientific claims made in the Bible which have proven to be false. Even under the heavy scrutiny of scoffers over the centuries, the text of the canonical books of the Bible continues to show evidence that God not only exists, but has given us a peek into His omniscient realities.

Let’s first look at just 10 examples of science in the Bible that would have been impossible for the authors to have correctly understood during their lives. Then we will look at how God’s creation perfectly coincides with certain laws of science.

1)      Job 26:7 describes Earth as free floating. How could this have been known without revelation? The majority of those concerned with this issue during “Biblical” times believed Earth was carried on the back of an animal of some sort.

2)      Isaiah 40:22 and Proverbs 8:27 describe the Earth as round. The accepted thought during the time these were written was that the earth was flat. It was these verses that convinced Christopher Columbus that he could sail around the world.

3)      Job 38:16 and Jonah 2:6 explain that the oceans have mountains and valleys as well as springs. These facts were not discovered until the 20^th century. Psalm 8:8 also explains that there are paths in the ocean. This convinced Matthew Maury, an officer in the Navy, to study if there were paths in the ocean. He discovered many of them and wrote the first book on oceanography which is still referenced today.

4)      In Genesis 17:12 God commands Abraham to circumcise male babies on the 8^th day. In Genesis 21:4 we see that Abraham circumcised Isaac on the 8^th day and that God commanded him to do so there as well. Why? The Bible does not give reason and no one knew until recently. Vitamin K, when in the liver produces an element called prothrombin.  Prothrombin and vitamin K, are the 2 most needed elements for blood to properly coagulate. On the 8^th day they are at their highest levels. In fact day 8 is the only day that prothrombin reaches over 100% the normal level under normal conditions.

5)      Job 40:15-24 perfectly describes a sauropod dinosaur. God called it “Behemoth” and said it was the largest of all creatures (which referred to land animals) He made. He said it ate plants, had strength in its hips, had a tail like a cedar tree, strong bones, and explained that even when a river gushes into its mouth it is not bothered. The “fossil record” has shown sauropods as being the largest land animal that has ever lived.

6)      Hebrews 11:3 explains that the things we can see are made out of things not visible. We now know that everything is made from cells, molecules, and or atoms. Also, Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 state that we are made from the ground or “dust of the earth.” Scientist have discovered that our body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements, all of which are found in the earth.

7)      Until the 1600s there was no understanding of the hydrologic cycle of the Earth, however, the Bible spells it out with these verses; Vapors rising in Psalm 135:7 and Job 36:27, water in the clouds in Job 26:8 and Job 37:11, falling rain in Job 36:28, Isaiah 55:10, and Ecclesiastes 1:7 even speaks of how the water returns to the seas thus completing the cycle.

8)      Leviticus 17:11; 14 explains that the source of health and life in our body is blood. Up until 150 years ago medical protocol was to bleed someone out when they were sick in order to try and rid the body of their illness. This lead to premature deaths in countless incidents, including George Washington. We now know to save the blood, even to the point of giving donated blood to keep one alive.

9)      Isaac Newton discovered that light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. We know this as a rainbow (ROYGBIV). Job 38:24 claims that light can be divided. Newton’s discovery was obviously made centuries after the Bible was written.

10)   The Bible explains that all humans are descendants of one woman, Eve, who lived somewhere in or near the Middle East. In 1987 a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing mitochondrial DNA of 147 people from 5 different world locations. They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. Further studies have shown that everyone apparently has the same female ancestor and that she probably originated in the area of where Europe, Asia, and Africa meet. The name given to this one woman is “Mitochondrial Eve.”

Let's take a deeper look into how the account of God’s creation coincides with key “Laws of Science.” Here, we will give a very brief explanation of these “laws” and how they support the accounts found in the Bible. It is important to understand these laws are widely affirmed throughout the scientific community:

The Law of Biogenesis says that life can only come from life and cannot come from non-life through spontaneous generation. It is interesting to note that most evolutionist will not claim to know how the first living organism came to be. Their theories mostly begin with life in existence. The Law of Biogenesis creates a huge problem for them but coincides with life being created from God, who has always been alive. While on the topic of life it should also be recognized that the Bible explains each kind of animal can only bring forth the same kind. Even though there are multiple theories concerning macro-evolution the only observable conclusion science can give matches this claim. The Bible also claims that humans were made to be different from other animals, which of course, can be observed as we live with conscience and a higher level of intelligence.

The Laws of Thermodynamics, or life of heat energy and how said energy operates. The 1^st Law of Thermodynamics explains that the total amount of energy and matter is constant, always has been constant, and always will be constant. In laymen’s terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but has always and will always only transfer from one kind to the other. In the creation account we read that after God created humans His creation was complete and finished. (Genesis 2:2) All space, time, and matter were made and would only be used and transferred from that point on. 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics explains that in a closed system (which the Universe is) once useful energy is used it transfers to a non-usable form, and thus leads from order to disorder, or organization to disorganization. This is known as entropy. The universe, and the earth, are both captive to the laws of entropy. Nothing will get better on its own but will instead, break down to less complexity. This law is understood so universally that the scientific community has concluded the universe will experience “heat death” once all usable energy has been used. The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics creates another, entirely different challenge for evolutionist as their theory claims that things have gone from disorder to order and from simple to complex. On the other hand, it coincides with the Bible which claims that the heavens and the earth are withering away and decaying. (Hebrews 1:10-11, Isaiah 51:6, and Psalm 102:25-26.)

While science outside of the Bible supports design, and thus supports the conclusion that the world was created by God, it is also clear that science inside the Bible shows divinity and evidence for our Creator.

What is your response to these realities?

“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, 
written by those who were inspired. 
I study the Bible daily.”  ~Sir Isaac Newton 

A God-shaped Hole?

If there is a transcendent God that created the Universe and wanted a relationship with us, would we have to learn about that God’s existence, or would we know it instinctively?  Ask yourself, if you could actually create something and wanted to have a relationship with it, would you give that something a desire for that same relationship? Not that I am God, but I would and you probably would too, and I believe God did. Does it seem far-fetched to think that this is a part of our design? Mathematician and Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal clearly had this in mind when he penned these words: “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every person, and it can never be filled by any created thing. It can only be filled by God, made known through Jesus Christ.”

From outside looking in, how can we know that God wants a relationship with us? He gave us a book. If we were created by a god that did not seek relationship then why bother giving us a book containing any information at all about that god's existence let alone historical accounts, prophecies, revelations, and guidelines to live by? As a skeptic you may ask how we can know this book is divine? This topic, of course calls for a blog of it's own but as a teaser I would like to point out three truths that can not be ignored. 1) The Bible makes hundreds of prophetic proclamations that came true after being written. No other book, secular or religious, can make this claim. 2) The Bible makes several scientific claims that went completely against the grain of knowledge during the times they were written. Some of these bold claims were not even understood by the scientific community until recently. 3) The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that there was more than man involved in writing the Bible. Many skeptics claimed that some of  the Bible's fulfilled prophecies were written after the fulfillment took place. This was an argument that stood strong because the oldest scrolls known at the time were dated after the fulfillment of the prophecies spoken about. However, in the 1940s and 50s several scrolls were found in caves near the Dead Sea that contained scrolls from the Bible. They were dated well before the prophecies in question were fulfilled and the text was nearly unchanged in comparison with the text from thousands of years later. This should challenge every skeptic to consider truth within the Bible, and therefor God.

We do not know what it was like before God spoke creation into existence. We, as believers, know that there was God, as He is eternal.  As for the skeptic, with causal arguments, fundamental laws of logic, and a beginning singularity which are in harmony with secular science, it is rational and plausible to see evidence of God existing before the Universe. By way of sense, we know God wanted to create for a reason. Not that creation was necessary but many believe God wanted to be in relationship with us and this is inferred throughout the Biblical narrative. I also believe God gave us an intrinsic need to be in relationship with Him; a yearning that can only be satisfied by Him. In Acts 17 Paul is speaking to some officials in Athens (Mars Hill) about their yearning for something and how they were seeking in the wrong direction by ignoring the obvious. He pointed out that they had built things to include an altar labeled “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.”  He pointed out their ignorance and explained that the God who created everything causes everyone to seek God and that He is near each person.

In today’s society, we try to fill this yearning with things that can not satisfy the void. In place of God, we chase material gain, position and power, mental fantasies, relationships with other people, popularity and status, and the like. While these temporal things can quench our thirsting temporarily, they will never fill the spiritual void. This is why, as recorded in John 4, Jesus spoke at the well to the woman coming to know Him and never thirsting again. John 7:37-38 tells of Jesus claiming that if anyone is thirsty they can come to Him to drink. It then says, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” The Greek word for “innermost being” is koilia which describes a “hollowness” within the body, stomach, or womb. Queen Elizabeth the First was recorded as saying for her last words, “All my possessions, for a moment in time.” Here we have someone who had everything that could be had, including her own kingdom, yet she would trade it all in for some more time. Why? I can only assume that she was not satisfied? Maybe she was still thirsty.

All this brings up an interesting question: If we have a spiritual void that can only be satisfied by a relationship with God, how can a non-believer respond to it? When I was agnostic, I craved discussion about spiritual topics. I tried to fill the void I felt within me with numerous things, but still searched for different answers about the existence of a god. A hard-agnostic, or an atheist, will try to fill the void with numerous things but many respond in a hostile manner toward those who believe in God. They can be militant in their approach to marginalize evidence and intuitions of a higher power. It is easy to see this from the books they write, billboards they use to mock God, and in a twist of irony -- churches of their own. Dinesh D'Souza spoke about this and said, “I don't believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You'll notice I haven't written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don't spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I'm getting at is that you have these people out there who don't believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.” It is as if they try to fill the void by fighting the obvious in an attempt to make themselves feel better about their gamble.

So how can one satisfy his or her own thirst? How can you fill the void? Unfortunately, if you are asking this question to yourself then my answer may not make much sense. It did not for me when I first heard it. The only way to fill it is a relationship with the God of the Bible. Not just “a god,” but the one true God. The Bible explains that a “natural” person, not having a relationship with God, will not understand the things of God. It further says that a person who is "in the Spirit," meaning God has entered into his life in a personal way, will comprehend the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:9-14).  I would argue that it is the same for your understanding of the God-shaped hole this blog speaks of. Want to fill the void? We encourage you to seek God and ask that He make the truth known to you.  Dare to place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ and let the one who shaped your soul fulfill it. Then, and only then, will you thirst no more.

“There's a god-shaped hole in all of us

And the restless soul is searching
There's a god-shaped hole in all of us
And it's a void only He can fill.”   ~Plumb

Answers to Common Objections to Christianity

Objection #1

How do you know absolute truth exists?

When we talk about how to determine truth, this is called epistemology.  If we want to know if it is reasonable to make an absolute truth claim, such as those concerning God, absolute moral standards, or the way by which a person receives eternal salvation, I think the whole question is necessarily predicated by whether or not God exists. I would agree that for mankind to be able to know an absolute standard of morality would be quite impossible without God. Before I dive into defending the existence of God, I would like to look first at the consequences of a reality with no God, or in essence no absolute truth.

While one might attempt to claim that truth can be relative, is that position defensible? For example, is mutilating a living infant for the fun of it wrong or evil in all circumstances? If there is no such thing as an absolute morality, then you may not like what someone has done and society may condemn the person but there would be nothing morally wrong about it. Why is that? In Greg Koukl’s book on moral relativism, he lists the top 7 things the moral relativist cannot logically do:

1) Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing

2) Complain About the Problem of Evil

3) Place Blame or Accept Praise

4) Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust

5) Improve Their Morality

6) Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions

7) Promote the Obligation of Tolerance

Think about it.  On what basis could a person make such claims devoid of an objective moral standard? These statements are meaningless without an absolute fixed moral standard. If we believe there is such a things as any absolute moral right or wrong, it demands there be a absolute base moral standard, which requires an intelligent moral law giver. Any attempt to explain morality otherwise becomes circular reasoning and is self defeating. If one claims not to believe in absolute truth, then he has a lot of explaining to do since he lives in constant contradiction to this stated world view. It is simply an untenable philosophical position based on shear illusion without an objective point of reference.  Where would such an objective moral reference come from?  It would have to come from an intelligent moral first cause.  This first cause would have to have to be perfect in morality, eternal in order enact and enforce the standard, and all powerful in order to judge by it.

If God does not exist, then again, there is no rational basis for belief in any absolute truth or objective moral/ ethical value. Truth and morality are purely subjective for both the individual and society. We cannot speak in terms of any moral or absolute truths outside of an objective source.  Absolute truths are unchanged despite whether anyone accepts them.  In terms of morality, acts such as rape, murder, infidelity, lying, cheating, etc. cannot be considered intrinsically “wrong” without an absolute reference point. Yet, we are born with the intuitive understanding that all of the above are wrong.

If absolute truth does not exist and morality has somehow evolved and is therefore entirely relative, then all aforementioned “wrongs” could just as easily have evolved and turned out to be socially accepted as “good.” After all, if man is just the product of time, plus chance, plus matter (survival of the fittest), then it could be argued that murder is a good and necessary part of life. Social cleansing like the Holocaust could be argued to be for the betterment of society. So who gets to decide? Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden and their ilk?

Any perception or claim that human morals have evolved must first make the sweeping assumption that there is no absolute moral standard. I would argue the logically this does not make sense and does not jive with the evidence and commonality of moral values across diverse cultures throughout history, which provide not only a logical but overwhelming evidential argument for an absolute foundational moral standard. While popular opinions and social morality can and does change on the peripheral (as we know from the diversity of laws and cultural practices and standards– one might argue an isolated society practiced cannibalism or child sacrifice), but this is not a successful argument against a foundational moral law. An absolute moral standard has always been present, and we can observe this fact through the knowledge that every member of every society that has ever existed has been keenly aware of evil and good. How could they be aware of such things if there was not a point of reference that dictated what is just and unjust?

For more on this topic, see:

Dr. Paul Copan interview on relativism - http://www.apologetics315.com/2008/08/relativism-interview-with-dr-paul-copan.html

Dr. William Lane Craig Q&A - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-objective-truth

Objection #2

What about the contradictory truth claims of various world religions? What makes Christianity unique?

So how is Christian worldview distinctive and how do we know it is true? I think to understand the issue of absolute truth claims, a person must necessarily understand the law of non-contradiction. If two opposing views are found to contradict and both claim to be true, they logically cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. World religions may appear to make similar claims (“all religions are basically the same” argument). This may be true superficially but for anyone who has actually examined the major world religions, they will find they differ greatly on nearly every foundational belief. When they do, the contradictory claim must be tested. This is the foundation for all truth testing. Truth by definition must be exclusive (as unpopular and inconvenient as that might be). If you cross the street and walk in front of a bus, you get hit or you don’t. Not both. Where two or more religions make a contradictory truth claim, it is logical that either one is right and the others are wrong or they are all wrong. Two or more cannot be right. If they are, then you do not have a contradictory claim. If you ask a woman if she is pregnant and she answers “yes, in fact I am pregnant” and then in the same conversation 2 minutes later you overhear her say to someone else, “I am not pregnant,” you will either assume the person misunderstood your original question, they are mentally ill, or in one instance or the other they have lied. You would not assume both contradictory statements are true because that would be illogical. Christianity makes exclusive truth claims along with every other religion on the planet because that is what truth is.

But what is different about Christianity? I would like to look at the apostles. We know from historical accounts outside of the Bible, and also within the Bible, that all of the apostles (except John who was exiled to Patmos) who were with Christ died martyr's deaths. This fact is not very convincing at first being that every religion has its fair share of martyrs. However there is something rather unique about the deaths of these particular men. Consider their relationship with Christ. All of these men knew Christ more intimately than any other human being. When Jesus was crucified every one of them fled the scene. These men came to the harsh reality that this guy they had been following for years just died in front of them, and now their lives were at stake. Imagine following a guy who said he was God, and then witnessing people spit on him and then kill him in an effortless manner. Seriously? Who would believe this guy? What happened next is amazing; you see these men who abandoned everything they believed turn and start a revolution that would shake the world. They did this on the basis of claiming that Christ rose from the grave, and that everything he said was true. This is massive for the reason that they had no motive for making such rash claims. They had already made their getaway. So we see that the apostles went to their deaths of their own will for something that they knew first hand was either true or false. No other religion offers such things as this. And to put the icing on the cake these men were no scholars, they certainly were not warriors, and by no means were they the most noble of men. These men were uneducated Galileans who held the lowest jobs in their society, but they were able to spur on the creation of a new world religion over night, based on the truth that they experienced when they met Christ after His resurrection.

There are other examples of facts that make Christianity unique and you can view those points in the reading suggested below. This viewpoint just happens to be the one that I prefer.

The uniqueness of Christianity - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/unique.html , http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/christianity-uniqueness.htm

Dr. Norman Geisler on the uniqueness of Jesus - http://www.bethinking.org/other-religions/intermediate/the-uniqueness-of-jesus-christ.htm

Dr. Ravi Zacharias on the uniqueness of Christ in world religions (mp3) - http://m.oneplace.com/ministries/just-thinking/listen/the-uniqueness-of-christ-in-world-religions-part-1-66260.html

Objection #3

What proof can one offer for the hypothesis that God exists?

Belief must have a rational and logical basis, however most people who object to the existence of a God do so by claiming that the only rational basis or evidence that counts are those that can be tested with the scientific method. If a person seriously believes that is the only way to test a truth claim, he has a lot more reconciliation to do for the sake of his own philosophical consistency than just whether or not the God of the Bible is real. More than half of what he knows and believes is independent of the scientific method and cannot be tested or proven in a scientific experiment. In my experience, on matters of real science where the scientific method can be applied, there are no disagreements between science and Christianity. I can’t think of a single one. These do disagree on metaphysical, philosophical, and purely theoretical matters such as origins (how did life first begin), morality, macro evolution, and other claims that cannot be proved by the scientific method. I’d would like for a person who is an advocate of such claims offer even one scientifically based explanation, using the scientific method, for even one of these “scientific” beliefs. He cannot. They are believed by faith on the basis of a conclusion drawn from information, the same as the Christian faith.

Christians cannot prove with 100% scientific certainty that God exists. The same is true for the atheist who cannot claim with 100% certainty that God does not exist. So if we want to be honest, the issue is a matter of which worldview provides the most rational and probable explanation based on a culmination of evidences including but not limited to logical, philosophical, archaeological, historical, scientific, and experiential evidence available. You see on issues of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny the atheist is on the same footing as the Christian. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or intentionally disingenuous on the topic.

Evidence for God (Dr. William Lane Craig) - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/the-evidence-for-god-imperial-college-london

Resources on the evidence for God - http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=46

High-level cumulative case for existence of God - http://www.apologetics315.com/2008/01/cumulative-case-for-existence-of-god.html

Objection #4

Is the God of the Bible morally consistent?  Aren’t there times when breaking the moral code in the Bible would be justifiable?

Let's consider the second portion of the question first. I believe it is necessary for man to adhere to the standards set forth by God's Law in any circumstance because God is sovereign in all circumstances. I state this for the reason that in every situation there is never a time where it is permissible for man to take the interpretation of God's Law into his own hands, and thereby deem it an acceptable action to break the law. An example would be lying. If God is indeed sovereign then in all situations we must have faith that He will take a course of action that is cohesive with His Law. For instance when Christians bring Bibles into a country where they are prohibited, if questioned, they should not lie about their possession of the Bibles. When Rahab ( a prostitute mentioned in the Book of Joshua preceding the destruction of Jericho) lied to Her government about hiding the Israelite spies she was in the wrong. She is later blessed by God for receiving the spies in faith, but the Bible never gives any indication that she was just or counted righteous by God in her actions of lying about the presence of the spies (Hebrews 11:31, James 2:25). In any instance a firm believer in God must not worry about the outcome of telling the truth in any situation. If God is indeed sovereign, then the believer must trust God's Law in any situation. That means the believer must never sin in order to accomplish what he thinks is good, but instead the believer should attempt to carry out what is right in all situations trusting that God will accomplish what is just and righteous according to God's standard. When a person surrenders to Christ, he not only acknowledges his need to be redeemed from his rebellion, but also the person surrenders even his rights to God, and becomes a slave to Christ. We can witness this idea in the book of Acts where the apostles are put in dangerous situations because of their teachings, and they do not back down because they knew that God was in control of their lives no matter the outcome. The Apostles knew that they had surrendered everything in order that they may be called sons of the living God. This is a beautiful picture that portrays man surrendering everything so that he may be given all things. The idea of slavery is now, not a negative consequence of becoming a Christian, but instead is a celebrated surrender to the perfect will of God in one's life.

In answering the first portion of this question I would like to consider the sinfulness of Man. For one to truly grasp why the mass killings commanded by God were just, we must first look at the guilt of man vs. the Holiness of God. Sin is the act of rebellion against God's immutable righteous law. We as men have all fallen short of the commands of God, and therefore if God is to remain perfectly holy and just, punishment must be given out to those who abandon His law for their own desires. I would like to look at one popular account in the Bible in the book of Joshua where Israel destroys the city of Jericho and its inhabitants. In the first few chapters of Joshua we see Israel being commanded by God to go into Jericho and destroy the city. It is here where we meet a prostitute named Rehab. Rehab informs the Israelite spies that the entire city of Jericho was in fear of Israel for they knew of how Israel was conquering any nation that stood against it. She claims that they knew of the Lord, and His dealings with His people (Joshua 2:8-11). I mention this conversation because it is pivotal in seeing the reason for the destruction of Jericho. If God is indeed supreme ruler of the Universe, and if God has given man His law to abide by then certainly mankind deserves death for all of its infractions of that law. Jericho would fall into that category. To understand why God was just in His decision to destroy Jericho, the Amorites, and any other nation that was destroyed by the people of Israel, one must have a proper understanding of the serious attitude that God takes towards rebellion against His Law.

By definition God is perfect. He embodies perfectly what good is, and therefore His character cannot allow for injustice and rebellion to go unpunished. Jericho was not an innocent nation by any means in regard to the standards set forth by God. It is also evident from the story that the people of Jericho knew who Israel was, and also knew about the Lord of Israel. From other instances in scripture it is evident that God gives people chances to repent from their rebellion. In fact that is the story of the Bible. Jericho chose not to repent, and in accordance to His Law God decided to remove Jericho as a penalty for their sin. I am suggesting to you that because of mankind's sin we all deserve to be destroyed, but thankfully God allows each of us an opportunity to repent of our sins, and allow Him to Justify us. All God asks for is a repentant heart not a perfect person. Jericho had that chance, but chose to reject it. God by necessity in order to maintain His Holy Nature must punish the unjust. However because of God's perfect Love mankind is able to repent and turn to Him for what only He can do. And that is Justify us for our sin. This idea of God's Holy wrath toward sin, and God's perfect Love for His people can be captured in the beauty of the Cross. It was at the Cross that God executed His wrath on Christ for the sins of the entire race of mankind. It was also at the Cross that God portrayed the extent of His love for his creation by taking the penalty for our sins on Himself and providing a way by which we could be justified, and that is trusting Christ and surrendering to His will.

One might ask, so if God does exist, then why does He even allow evil to exist in the world?  That is a question that begins with the nature God, the creation of man with a free will, and takes us all the way to the cross of Jesus Christ where the sin of man was propitiated.

Again this is just one example, and I realize there are countless others in scripture where we see the Israelites committing what we may perceive from our vantage point as abominable acts. Below is a list of links that answer the other common objections that a person may have in regard to these accounts.

Is God a Moral Monster? (excellent article by Paul Copan) - http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45

Christian Think Tank on whether the Christian God is good along with objections from the Old and New Testaments - http://christianthinktank.com/sh3morals.html

Genocide in the OT - http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html



Ben Ward co-author of this Blog was a major contributor to this post.