Christian Evidences


Paul proclaimed that he was "set for a defense" of the Gospel.  These studies have been designed with that in mind.  To explain, to give reasons for our faith.  They are by design very basic, but can be used with great profit when strengthening your faith.  We pray they will be a blessing to you.


Creation and Evolution

Is evolution a fact of science? The way it is taught in our schools and promoted in the media, one would think that it was proven beyond all doubt. In Genesis 1:1 the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But many people do not believe the Bible record. Since many reject the Bible, let's compare evolution with creation from a scientific standpoint. Will the theory of evolution stand the scrutiny of true science? Does it bear up under the weight of the evidence? Large volumes have been written by qualified scientists that thoroughly discredit evolution. In the short space allowed, we will examine just a portion of the evidence. The results may surprise you. Evolution is not a proven fact of science. In fact, the evidence in nature more strongly supports creation! Let's start out by comparing the respective stories of creation and evolution.

First, look at the Bible record of creation. In Genesis 1:1 the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind..." Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind..." Genesis 1:24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." This is the origin of life as told in God’s word. To many, this is unbelievable. They feel only the ignorant and superstitious accept the Bible story. Well, let's look at the alternative, the story of evolution.

Once, some inert matter in a pool of water was struck by an energy source such as lightening, and amino acids formed. Without any help of a designer or a creator, these developed into a living single cell. The cell began to multiply. It divided into two cells, then four, then eight, then sixteen. Without any designer to guide it, it eventually developed into some small water type animals such as jelly fish and other animals of this nature. These continued to change until they developed into fish. Some of them began to flop out on the shore. This continued until they developed lungs, their fins turned into feet, they dropped their scales and turned into amphibians like frogs and salamanders. These gradually changed into reptiles like alligators and snakes. Then the reptiles began to change in two different directions. Some developed long front feet and toes which changed into wings. They grew feathers and flew away. Others grew hair on their bodies and became mammals like bears and cows and similar types of animals. Eventually some of these mammals turned into a half monkey-half man. Some of these began to rear up on their back feet and walk around. Most of their hair fell of as they grew more manlike. Eventually there appeared modern man. All this happened by pure chance, without any design.

What do you think of that story? Doesn't it sound more fantastic that the creation story? It sounds more like fairy tale than science. Some may protest, "But the evolutionary process took millions of years." Whether one day or a million years, the story is still the same. As children we heard the story of how a beautiful young lady kissed a frog and the frog turned into a prince. We understand that is just a fairy tale. Evolution removes the kiss, adds a few million years and calls it science. And we are supposed to be fools for not believing this story?!

Let's take a closer look at creation and evolution, to see which the evidence best supports. We will begin this section by defining what we mean by evolution. The word "evolution" just means change. We might say that a lot of things evolve as far as change is concerned. But this is not what we mean when we are discussing the theory of evolution. We are talking about the change of one kind of animal into another: the change of a single cell into a fish, of a fish into a frog, frogs into alligators, alligators into birds and monkeys, and monkeys into men. This is the kind of change involved in the evolutionary theory.

Furthermore, by evolution, we are not talking about variation within a certain kind of animal such as the cross-breeding of cattle to develop different kinds of cattle; nor the cross-pollination of corn to produce hybrid corn. There is certainly variation within a certain kind of animal or plant. We are not talking about variation within corn, but the changing of corn into okra, okra into spinach, and spinach into the pine tree. We are not talking about variation within cows; but we are talking about the changing of cows into bears, bears into monkeys, and monkeys into men. We are not talking about variation within kinds, but the changing of one kind into another kind. There has never been observed an instance of variation within a kind that has produced a different kind. Neither has man by experimentation been able to produce a different kind. All we have seen is that each kind produces only its own kind as the Bible says in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24. What we see in nature is totally consistent with the creation account and contradictory to the evolutionary theory.

Some object to creation because they say it is not scientific. Neither creation nor evolution are subject to scientific investigation. Sir Francis Bacon defined the scientific process as follows:

1. State the problem or question.

2. Form a hypothesis or possible solution to the problem.

3. Experiment and observe along the lines of this hypothesis and record the results.

4. Interpret the data.

5. Draw conclusions based on the data from your observations.

Let's compare creation and evolution to the scientific process, Step 1: The question is easily stated: Where did life come from? Where did this universe come from? Step 2: The Bible puts forth the idea that God, an intelligent being, created all the different kinds of life and the universe as we have it today. The evolutionists put forth the hypothesis that life started from lifeless matter and evolved into higher life forms. These two steps are as far as the scientific process can be taken with either the creation hypothesis or the evolutionary hypothesis. In step 3, as far as observing the evolution or the origin of life, the development of the first cell, as far as experimenting with the evolution of life, man has been completely unsuccessful. The same can be said of creation. No one has ever observed the creation of life. We cannot go back and see God create life or see it evolve. So for step three, we have nothing to observe and no data to record. In step 4 we have no data to interpret. In step 5 we can draw no conclusions because we have no data upon which to base those conclusions. Evolution is no more scientific than creation. It does not belong in the field of observable science because it has never been and cannot be observed. If evolutionary thought has any place today, it's place is in the field of philosophy.

Some will argue there is scientific data available that proves evolution. Let's consider what creation and evolution predict and compare that with the available data. Then we will see which one fits the facts better with the least amount of secondary assumptions or explanations.

First, consider animals as we see them today. How do they fit the two stories? Evolution would most obviously predict that there would not be distinct kinds of animals but there would be a number of transitional forms between the different kinds of animals. There should be hundreds of thousands of these transitional forms. There would not be the ape, ape-man, and then man. There would be thousands of different steps or transitional forms between monkey and man. These kinds of transitional forms should exist along all points of the evolutionary scale. Conversely, creation predicts that there should be distinct, different kinds of animals that have remained basically the same over the years.

Now which story fits the facts of living animals today? Creation fits exactly without the need of secondary assumptions and explanations. Creation predicts no transitional forms, and this is exactly the case. But evolution does not fit because we see no transitional forms alive today. Consequently, evolution has to make some secondary assumptions.

Evolution's secondary assumption is that evolution moves too slow to be observed today and that some kind of natural phenomenon or process destroyed the transitional forms. Creation needs no such assumptions.

Now let's compare creation and evolution with the fossil record. The creation story predicts that fossils should be only of distinct kinds of animals, just like what we see among living animals. There should be no transitional forms, according to creation. On the other hand, evolution again predicts that hundreds of thousands of transitional forms should be in the fossil record. This should especially be true because evolution maintains all the living transitional forms have been killed off by natural processes. The fossil beds should be rich with these transitional forms.

Which idea fits the facts of the fossil record? The fossil record contains the same gaps between different kinds of animals just as we find among living animals. Even evolutionists admit that the fossil record is a problem for their theory. Transitional forms between the frog and the turtle are not in the fossil record! Transitional forms between single cell creatures and the first complex creatures are not in the fossils! The Cambrian period, which evolutionists date back about six-hundred million years ago, is the first sign of any kind of fossils at all. Fossils appear there as complex creatures such as jelly fish, worms and trilobites. There are no transitional forms between invertebrates and the vertebrates. There are no transitional forms between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, etc. The fossil record does not favor evolution! It greatly favors the creation model.

With these kinds of problems associated with evolutionary theory, why do scientists believe it. Actually, some do not. Many outstanding scientists of the past believed in creation such as, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Leonardo Da Vinci, Samuel F. B. Morse, Francis Bacon, and others. Additionally, many scientists today do not believe in evolution. Still, others stubbornly hold on to this unproven theory. One evolutionist explained it this way. "The scientific difficulties with evolution are many and great, but the only alternative is creation and to me this is incredible." Do you want to believe a theory that rests on that kind of ground? Why not accept the story of creation as God revealed it in the Bible? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Jesus The Son Of God

Who was Jesus? Was he a divine being? Was he God? Was he a man simply representing God? Or was he a fraud, an impostor seeking some glorious claim to fame? This is a brief study to answer these questions.

The acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is, ultimately, a question of faith. Today, it is faith in the historical record that provides the information of Jesus and his work. Is there adequate evidence of the truthfulness of the New Testament? Can we trust its claims?


Let us first consider some prophecies in the Old Testament. These prophecies spoke much about the coming of a Messiah. We will see how Jesus fulfilled them in every detail. This is important because the Old Testament was finished, recorded and in existence when Jesus was here.

Seven hundred years before Christ was born, it was prophesied that he would be born in Bethlehem (Mic.5:2); that he would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14); that he would be called out of Egypt (Hos.l:l); that he would be despised and rejected (Isa. 53:3); that he would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12); that he would suffer, be rejected, and slain (Isa. 53); that he would be given vinegar to drink in his suffering (Psa. 69:21); that his garments would be parted (Psa. 22:18); that he would make his grave with the rich (Isa. 53:9); and that he would be resurrected from the dead (Psa. 16:8-11).

Remember, these were documented statements recorded hundreds of years before Jesus' birth. Also remember that these are just a few of the prophecies regarding Christ. Consider the impossibility of picking an individual at birth and manipulating all these circumstances to accomplish an apparent fulfillment of prophecy. A family with the right ancestry would have to be willing to have a baby conceived before marriage, and have him born in Bethlehem, be willing to take him to Egypt for a while, bring him back to the city of Nazareth, have him grow up doing nothing but nice things yet make sure people despised and rejected him. Wow!! Talk about manipulation! But we're not through. Someone would have to agree to betray him for thirty pieces of silver. The Roman government would have to agree to crucify him with a couple of thieves. Someone would have to give him vinegar, make sure his garments were parted and sold, and find a rich man willing to provide a burial place. And then there is the echo of the empty tomb. His body would have to have been stolen from a guarded and sealed tomb and hid in such a way as to never be found.


No, I'll take the New Testament account. I just don't believe that much manipulation could have taken place, over that long a time, involving that many people, without a mishap.

If all that is not enough, think of the credibility of the men who were with Jesus, his disciples. They were good and moral in every way. Not the kind of men who would plot and put together a lie, especially when it meant they would die horrendous deaths to perpetuate this lie. From the best historical sources found, all of Jesus' apostles except John died violent deaths because of their faith and allegiance to Jesus Christ. Matthew was slain with a sword, James was beheaded, James (the Lord's brother) was thrown from a pinnacle of the temple and beaten with clubs, Philip was hanged, Bartholomew was flayed alive, Andrew was martyred on a cross, Thomas killed with a lance, Thaddeaus was shot with arrows, Simmon Zelotes was crucified, Peter crucified head down, Matthias was stoned and Paul was beheaded. Would these and many more suffer so much for a cause they knew to be false?


Another point to consider is if the gospel accounts were fiction, they had to originate in one of two ways; independently or in cooperation with one another. It is impossible that their accounts were arrived at independently because the agreements are too consistent. It would be absurd to think that four men could write four accounts of something that never existed independently of one another and yet make their stories agree to the extent these do.

Consider also the apparent discrepancies (such as Matt. 8:5-13 with Luke 7:1-10), of their accounts. If mere men were writing separate accounts about Jesus’ life, his teaching, and death, and only doing it to perpetuate a lie, they would have made sure that every detail was described exactly the same to avoid any kind of criticism. If they were not made up independently of one another, and there was no collaboration, then the only choice we have is to accept them as true accounts of facts that actually occurred.

What facts do these accounts teach about Jesus? Matthew and Luke give us a detailed account of Jesus' virgin birth, showing clearly His divinity, yet showing us His humanity as well. Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." This is a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy found in Isa. 7:14. Note the meaning given to the word "Emmanuel ... God with us!"

Luke's account of the birth of Jesus is more detailed. (Lk.1:26-35) The angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, telling her that she had found favor with God and that she would conceive and bring forth a son that she was to name Jesus. In verse 32 Gabriel said, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David." Mary wanted to know how such a thing could happen since she had not been with a man. Gabriel said in verse 35, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." If there is any credibility to the scriptures, surely we can see from these few verses the divine nature of Jesus as well as the human nature. He was born of a human, Mary. Yet, as we read of his conception, we clearly see that he was the divine Son of God. We might also add that Jesus was divine from the very beginning. Notice Mary was told, "that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

So as Matthew and Luke began their narrative of Jesus and his work, they made it very plain that though he had come in the flesh, he was holy, divine, the Son of God. John, however, uses another approach in explaining Jesus. Instead of giving us an account of his birth, he explains his pre-existence, showing us that he existed as deity before his birth. Since he was a divine entity before his birth, he was a divine entity after his birth.

John begins his gospel account by declaring that Jesus was in the beginning, that he came from God, and that he was God. (Jno.1:1-2) The title that John used here was "Word". The Word was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God. John is telling us that the Word was deity and had the nature of God. This is a tremendous and wonderful title given to Jesus. The words we speak are a most important expression of our character. Christ is the supreme expression of God's character. He is much more than the mere actions of God. His whole personality and life are the perfect expression of what God is and does. As John says in John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father hath declared him." Jesus coming in the flesh has expressed plainly to human senses the nature and the will of God whom no man hath seen or known adequately. Jesus was such an adequate manifestation of God that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (Jno. 14:9), and again, "I and my father are one." (Jno. 10:30).


When Jesus asked his disciples who they understood him to be, Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." Jesus told Peter, "flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but his Father in heaven." God had revealed the person of Christ through Jesus' words and works. Look at Jno. 5:36, "I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." Also in Jno. 3:34-35 we read, "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand." Again, God was in Christ revealing himself and reconciling the world unto himself.

When John was in prison, and about to be executed he sent two of his disciples to Jesus to ask him if he was the messiah to come or if they were to look for another. Jesus sent them back and said tell John what you see and hear, that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear. (Mt.11:1-5)

Consider Nicodemus who was a ruler of the Jews. When he came to Jesus he recognized Jesus to be a teacher who had come from God because of the miracles he did. Nicodemus rightly said, "for no man can do these miracles except God be with him." The miracles and wonders that Jesus performed were to clearly show that he was of God, from God, in fact, was God for all intent and purpose.

When Peter preached to the Jews on Pentecost he said, "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know." (Acts 2:22)

When he preached to the Gentiles in Acts 10 he declared that, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." The miracles and works that Jesus did were signs to show that he was the Son of God. But they were not signs just for the people who lived then. They were for all men of all ages. John stated, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book: But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:30-31).

Consider His miracles: The sick that he healed, the blind he restored, the lame he cured, the lepers he cleansed, calming the wind and sea, raising the dead, especially Lazarus. Consider John 11:3 when Jesus heard of his sickness. Jesus said to his disciples, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby." Of course the greatest sign was Christ's own resurrection from the dead. Jesus said to the Jews, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John 2:19). In John 10:18 Jesus said he had power to lay down his life and had power to take it up again.

Not only did he have the power to raise his own life, but he has the power to raise all the dead at the last day. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

Jesus Christ is the Son of God! He declared it! God confirmed it! His works prove it! His followers preached it! His enemies admitted it! Many witnesses testified to it, even in the face of death! But most of all, an empty tomb settles it!

The Canon Of The New Testament

Some claim there are many lost books of the New Testament, that we don't have all the books we should have, and that what we do have is corrupt and unreliable. Do we have all the New Testament as God intended for us to have? Are there really portions of it lost? Should some of the New Testament books not be included? Answers to these questions are obtained by a study of the canon of the New Testament.

The word "canon" is derived from a term indicating an old carpenter's tool. It was a tool used to measure and, therefore, designates the rule or measure. In theology, "canon" simply means the books that are inspired by God. There have been many books and letters written by men of God over the years. We must be able to examine these writings to see which ones are inspired and should be included in the Bible. So, when we talk about the canon of the New Testament, we are talking about the collection of books that comprise the New Testament, the books that are inspired by God. "Canon Law" are the guidelines used to determine which books are to be included in the canon and which are not.


Some claim the Catholics decided which books are inspired and which books are not, thereby giving us the Bible. This is based on the Council of Trent held in 1546 by the Catholic church. At this council, there was an intense study of the canon to determine which books should be considered scripture. However, there are complete copies of the New Testament canon, as we have it today, predating the Council of Trent by centuries. This shatters the myth that the Catholics gave us the Bible. By examining this manuscript evidence and the internal evidence of the New Testament, we can verify the authenticity of the New Testament text.


First, let's look at the manuscript evidence available. There are Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament that date as far back as the second century. These contain the same books we have today, just as we have them today. There are also translations of these into other languages that date from the third and fourth century. From these several versions, we have the same twenty-seven New Testament books as in our modern canon. Furthermore, these books, when translated into English, read essentially the same as the King James Version and other credible translations of today. This is true because the texts behind our modern English translations are based on Greek New Testaments that were constructed from these earlier manuscripts and their later Greek copies. In all, there are thousands of manuscripts and translations, some dating close to the time of Christ. These form a powerful testimony to the legitimacy of the New Testament canon.


History further verifies the New Testament canon in the writings of the Anti-Nicean Fathers. These were Christian men who lived before the council of Nice (hence the name Anti-Nicean) who wrote articles and commentary on the Bible. A few of them were contemporaries of the Apostles. Others followed in the second and third centuries. In their writings they often quoted passages from the New Testament. The entire New Testament canon, as we have it today, can be compiled from these quotations!

How can people question the authenticity of the New Testament documents when we have such impressive facts as evidence we can search ourselves? Rather than being subject to doubt, the New Testament is the best verified ancient document known to man. No other ancient document can boast so many manuscripts. No other ancient document has manuscripts that date back so close to the original writings. Other ancient writings aren't even close. The evidence from history is overwhelming in substantiating the New Testament canon.


The canon of the New Testament can also be verified from the internal evidence. When one inspired author refers to the work of another, that is a solid endorsement of that work. For example, in 2 Peter 3:15-16 the Apostle Peter says, "And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." So Peter confirms the authenticity of the Paul’s epistles.

Also, New Testament writers sometimes referred to other letters they had written. Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, alludes to his gospel in Acts 1:1 when he says, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach." In 2 Corinthians 7:8 Paul refers to his previous letter, 1 Corinthians. In 2 Peter 3:1 Peter says, "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance." By calling this his second epistle, it acknowledges the validity of I Peter.

But how were these books collected into one volume? This happened over a few decades, and was probably fully accomplished before the end of the first century. When the inspired writers penned their letters, they instructed that these letters be shared with other Christians and other congregations. In 1 Thessalonians 5:27 Paul says, "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren." In Colossians 4:16 the Bible says, "And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." The New Testament congregations shared and copied these letters until they had them in one book. They knew which letters were inspired and which ones were not because they were working under the direction of the inspired apostles. Also, Paul signed his letters so the church would know they were authentic. This fact is noted in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 where the Bible says, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write."

This kind of internal evidence, coupled with manuscript historical evidence, makes it obvious the New Testament is a well-preserved ancient document. The twenty-seven books we have are the books God wants us to have. God has preserved his word for us. Why would God go to the trouble to inspire the New Testament writers, allow many of them to die for preaching their message, and then fail to protect it's content through time? Since God could inspire these writers, he can also insure their message, his message, is preserved and available for mankind to read and study today.

The Canon Of The Old Testament

Are their lost books that should be in the Old Testament? Does the Old Testament contain books that should not be there? In a time when many are questioning the validity of the Bible, these are important questions. Answering these questions can give us faith and confidence that the Bible, as we have it today, is the inspired word of God. We can have the assurance of knowing that God has preserved his word for mankind today. In this study we will examine the canon of the Old Testament.

The word "canon" is derived from an old carpenter's tool. It was a tool used to measure and, therefore, designates the rule or measure. In theology, "canon" simply means the books that are inspired by God. There have been many books and letters written by men of God over the years. We must be able to examine these books to see which ones are inspired and should be included in the Bible. So, when we talk about the canon of the Old Testament, we are talking about the collection of books that comprise the Old Testament, the books that are inspired by God. "Canon Law" are the guidelines used to determine which books are to be included in the canon and which are not.

In Isaiah 40:8 The Bible says, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." We have a promise from God that he would preserve his word through the ages. Has God kept this promise? Is there enough evidence to prove the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are the books God intends for us to have? We believe there is. We will first look at the historical evidence.

In Romans 3:1-2 the Bible says, "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Here is inspired testimony that says God committed the keeping of his oracles (law) to the Jewish nation. This is a very strong endorsement of the Old Testament canon they had preserved up to the first century. If Israel had failed to preserve the Hebrew canon, would God have credited them with keeping his oracles? Surely not. Through strict scribal law and tedious copying methods, the Jews passed the Old Testament canon through the generations down to the first century.

We should not be amazed that the Jews preserved God's word so well through the centuries. In Psalms 78:1-7 God gave them the solemn charge to pass the law down from one generation to the next. So whatever canon of the Old Testament the Jews had passed down by the first century represents the inspired record God committed to their trust.

What canon did the Jews pass down to the first century? According to Josephus (a Jewish historian from the first century), they had twenty-two books they considered inspired. This Hebrew canon (the canon passed down by Israel) contains the same books included in the thirty-nine Old Testament books we have today! They counted some combinations of books as one. For example, our two books of First and Second Kings was counted as one book. The same is true of Judges and Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, and so on. With our thrity-nine books, we have the same Old Testament books the Jews had in the first century. God committed these books to their care and they preserved them well.

There is additional historical testimony that verifies the content of the Old Testament text. In the late 1940's and early 1950's the caves of Qumran were discovered. Inside these caves are many ancient writings, some secular and some sacred. These caves were once inhabited by the Essenes, a sect of the Jews who withdrew to the desert during the Greek occupation of Judah. This means the writings date back as far as the third century b.c. Much of the scrolls contain portions of the Old Testament. Given the date when the Essene community began, it is reasonable to say that what they had is a fair representation of the canon passed down by the previous century. This practically takes their canon back to the time of the prophets.

With the exception of Esther, they had all the books we have in our Hebrew canon today. Although the caves also contain some Apocryphal books (discussed later), these books were not written until later, so the original Essene community could not have included them in their canon. The Hebrew canon is further verified by an examination of Secular Jewish writings of the third and second century b.c. For example, the Maccabean writings refer to Daniel. Although some suggest Daniel is a second century a.d. addition, and not part of the Hebrew canon, references such as these show clearly that Daniel's writing was considered canonical at least as early as the second or third century b.c. This is a good example of how history vindicates the canon of the Old Testament.

Now let's look at some internal evidence that supports the canon of the Old Testament. First, consider that Jesus divided the Old Testament into three sections. Look at Luke 24:44 where Jesus says, "These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me." Jesus divided the Old testament into the law, the prophets and the psalms (poetry). This gives us a good idea of what books were canonical, according to Jesus. Jesus and others elsewhere summed up the Old Testament canon in two categories; the law and the prophets. See Matthew 5:17, Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16, John 1:45, Acts 13:15, Acts 24:14, etc. Every Old Testament book we have today fits into the division of books Jesus placed on the Old Testament.

Additionally, other New Testament writers quoted Old Testament books or mentioned their authors by name. This too is an impressive endorsement of their authenticity. Luke 20:42, Acts 1:20 and Acts 13:33, 35 all refer to the Psalms. James 5:10-11 mentions Job. Mark 12:19 and Luke 20:28 speak of Moses' writings. Mark 12:26 refers to the book of Moses. Galatians 3:10 mentions the book of the law. Luke 4:17 mentions the book of Isaiah. Matthew 3:3, Mark 7:6, Acts 8:28, 30 and many others refer to Isaiah as a prophet. In Matthew 24:15 Jesus quoted Daniel. Matthew 16:14 speaks of Jeremiah as a prophet. Acts 7:42 refers to the book of the prophets. Countless other New Testament passages quote large sections of the Old Testament. All these references show that the canon of the Old Testament, as we have it today, is well supported in the writings of other inspired men.

What about the Apocrypha? "Apocrypha" means hidden. It is a collection of books some versions of the Bible include. The Catholic Bible includes six of them, and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament made by seventy Jewish scholars) includes fourteen. They are also included in some of the earliest versions of our English Bible. Why are these not in most of our Bibles today? Should they be included in the canon of the Old Testament?

While they are in the Septuagint, they are not in the Hebrew canon passed down by Israel. The Jews of the first century rejected them as spurious. Some hold that the apostles used the Septuagint as a basis for some quotations. Even if they did, they never quoted the apocryphal books! As we learned earlier, God committed the keeping of his oracles to the Jews. Since the Jews, whom God trusted to care for his word, rejected the Apocryphal books, we are safe to do the same.

Does the fact these books are included in the Septuagint mean they are inspired? After all, the Septuagint was a work of the Jews wasn't it? Although Jewish scholars translated the Septuagint, it was commissioned in 280 b.c. by Ptolemy Philadelfus. He was an Egyptian king, not a Jew. Furthermore, the apocryphal books hadn't even been written when the Septuagint was first commissioned. Therefore, they could not have been included in the Septuagint at first. Why these books were included later is a mystery. Many first century Jews considered the Septuagint profane. Consequently, they would not have used it in their temple readings. They rejected the apocryphal books along with the Septuagint that included them. The Septuagint is an important and valuable Greek translation of the Old Testament, but it's inclusion of the Apocrypha does not mean the Jews accepted the Apocryphal books as canonical. These apocryphal books are important as secular history, but there is no reason to regard them as part of God’s inspired record.

God promised to preserve his word through the centuries, and he has done exactly that. History is replete with copies of the present canon at different points on the time line. Thousands of ancient manuscripts across the centuries contain the same books we have today. New Testament writers endorsed our Old Testament canon through a wealth of quotations and references. You can have complete confidence that when you pick up your Old Testament, you are holding the very books God wants you to have. To have the entirety of God's Old Testament, you need no more, and should have no less.

The Existence of God

In the small town where I grew up most everyone believed in God; everyone I knew except one man. He was a decent man as far as I know. He treated his wife and children well, and ran a successful and respected business. But he didn't believe in God, not that he was an active atheist. He didn't campaign to take prayer out of school or 'In God We Trust' off the money. He was an agnostic. He wasn't sure God didn't exist. He just wasn't sure that He did. I recall him saying, "God is for people who need something to believe in." These thoughts are for those who are not sure they can believe in God.

Do you have to turn off your brain and just accept God on 'blind faith'? Faith that refuses to look at the facts ... that closes it's mind and blindly denies all the 'evidence' of science? Faith yes, blind faith no. Jesus required that people, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". 1 Thessalonians 5:21. In fact, if you will open your mind for a few moments, I want to consider with you some scientific facts which will reassure you that you can be intellectual and honest and still believe in God. Not obscure, debated, or uncommon facts, but facts that in a world where almost everything is debated, are nearly universally accepted as true, even by atheists, agnostics, scientists and skeptics.

Fact 1: The Universe Exists

No one but a fool would deny that the universe exists. I have never known or known of a scientist that does not believe the universe exists. In fact, the job of a scientist is to study the universe, and how can you study what does not exist? Now, think about this for a moment. Why is there a universe instead of nothing? It is well known to be impossible that the universe has always existed. So where did it come from? What caused it? There are two possible answers to this question. 1) It just happened by accident, or 2) It was created. Let's consider these options.

Is it more reasonable to believe this all just happened by accident or it was planned, designed and created? Suppose you asked me where I got the shirt I am wearing today, and I told you that I was driving through Western Oklahoma on a clear day, and I passed a freshly planted cotton field. Suddenly there was a flash of lightening which struck the field. As I watched, this shirt just came flying out of the resulting explosion. If I truly believed this, and tried to convince you of it, you would call me insane. You would not believe me even if I insulted you by saying, "You are just close minded. You are just too ignorant to realize that my story is true."

How then can we be swayed by those who would tell us the universe "just happened"? We are asked to believe there "just happened to be a 'primordial soup' that just happened to be hit by lightning which just happened to create amino acids which just happened ... ad infinitum." Where did the primordial soup come from? Where did the lightning come from? I believe that an intelligent personal creator is the only reasonable way to explain the existence of the universe.

Fact 2: The Universe Has Order

This is also a universally accepted truth. The 'Laws of Nature' are really just explanations of the order that exists in nature. Every time you drop something here on earth it falls down. It never falls up. The earth is just close enough to the sun to keep us from freezing, yet far enough away to keep us from burning up. Gravity is just strong enough to keep us from being flung into outer space, yet not too strong. The atmosphere has just the right amount of oxygen, just enough moisture, etc. It is obvious there is design and order in our universe.

So, why is there order in our universe? If it's existence is an accident why is it not just random? Either, 1) This 'cosmic accident' just happened to make everything perfect or 2) The intelligent being who created this universe designed it just right to sustain life. Remember the shirt from the cotton field? Suppose I was to tell you that, not only did I see the shirt come flying out, there also was a flawless suit with matching tie, kerchief, belt, shoes and socks which fit me perfectly. Would you be any more inclined to believe me now? Of course not. If I were to disassemble your watch, and put all the pieces (including the battery and band) in a small box, how long do you think you would have to shake that box until the watch was assembled, correctly set and keeping perfect time? Why that would never happen. Is it reasonable then to believe that the universe which runs so perfectly and delicately balanced "just happened"?

Fact 3: Man Is Unique In The Universe

Who would dare to deny that people are different from other creatures? This is why it is not morally wrong to exterminate the neighborhood for mosquitoes. Yet you would be decried a criminal and punished severely if you tried to exterminate all the neighborhood children. Everyone knows humans are different, and the difference is something beyond just being more highly evolved. In fact, scientists don't agree about just who is more highly evolved. 1) Did that difference just happen, or 2) Did the being who created and designed the universe to sustain life also create us in His own image, making humans different from all of his other creations? A creator is obviously the more rational answer.

So the universe exists, has order, and mankind is different from other things. This cannot be denied. The most rational response is to believe that there is a God. We understand why King David wrote in Psalms 53:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God'" Don't let someone tell you that you can't be honest and rational and still believe in God. The truth is that no one can prove that God does not exist. To prove there is no God, you would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time for He might be somewhere that you weren't at that particular moment. In short, you would have to be God to prove He doesn't exist.

You, my friend can open your eyes, not be afraid and not doubt. You can believe in God. Have confidence and believe for: "without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6.

The Validity Of The Bible

Of all the books written none has been the subject of more controversy than the book called the Bible. It has for centuries been challenged by the most determined critics. From Voltaire to the critics of today the Bible has withstood the assault like no other book. It stands alone because it was not written by men only, but was inspired by the living God.

The Bible being the inspired word of God means that the men who wrote the Bible were filled with revelation from God and were guided by God to write down the revelation. The Bible makes this claim of inspiration in 2 Tim 3:16 which says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." Notice that the writer says that all scripture is inspired. 2 Pet 1:20-21 proclaims, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The Bible claims when we read scripture it is God speaking to us. This can only be true if the writers were inspired by God. That is why Heb 1:1-2 proclaims, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..." God could speak to men through the prophets because these men "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The fact that the Bible claims to be the inspired word of God does not prove it to be so. Therefore, let's examine some proof to show that the Bible is inspired.


Critics of the Bible once claimed the Bible was in error because of passages such as Gen 23:10 which spoke of a people called the Hittites. There was no evidence of such a people outside the Bible. Archaeologists in Turkey, however, discovered what the Bible maintained all along, that there was a nation of people called Hittites. In fact, they were a powerful people that survived for at least seven centuries. The spade of the archaeologist proved the Bible true and the critics wrong.

The book of Daniel has often been the target of critics of the Bible. Daniel speaks of the final king of Babylon as Belshazzar, a ruler unknown for many years. Bible critics cited this as an error in scripture. Modern archeology discovered Babylonian inscriptions which not only revealed a king of Babylon named Belshazzar, but also explained a difficult passage in Daniel 5:29. Daniel claimed to be made third in the kingdom next to Belshazzar. The inscriptions explain this because Belshazzar was a co-regent with his father Nabonidus. Being at the right hand of Belshazzar would make Daniel third in the kingdom just as the word of God said.

Critics once argued that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible, claiming writing had not been invented yet. The archaeologists once again proved the critics wrong and the Bible right when a black stele in Persia was discovered with writing containing the laws of a Babylonian king named Hammurabi who lived centuries before Moses. Once more, archaeologists vindicated the Bible record.

Many other examples can be given to show how archeology has repeatedly proven the Bible true. When the Bible gives the location of a city, it is found right where it was said to be. Names of rulers and others found in the Bible continue to be discovered. The Bible is never disproved and will always be proven true by archaeology because it is the inspired word of God.


Despite the claims of many, true science has never disproved the Bible. The false theories and pseudo-science of man may have conflicted with the Bible, but true, provable science has never proven the Bible wrong. Actually, the Bible has been confirmed by true science. The Bible has stated facts that science has later proven to be true.

In the nineteenth century a famous scientist named Herbert Spencer proclaimed the five fundamentals of science to be time, force, action, space, and matter. This was hailed as a great proclamation. It was, in fact, something the Bible had shown millenniums before. Listen to Moses in Gen 1:1, "In the beginning (time) God (force) created (action) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)." Moses knew through inspiration what it took science centuries to discover.

Matthew Fontaine Maury is considered to be the father of modern oceanography. He is thought of as the discoverer of the paths that run through the oceans, and his maps of the shipping lanes are still used. The idea to find these paths came to Maury when his son was reading him Psalms 8:8 which speaks of "the paths of the sea." He only discovered what was already stated in the Bible.

The first law of thermodynamics states that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Moses recognized this fact centuries before modern science made this claim when he said in Gen 2:1 that, "...the heavens and the earth were finished..." God rested from his work and creation ceased. Now science has unknowingly confirmed Moses right.

Similarly, the Bible is also confirmed by the second law of thermodynamics which states that things degenerate over time. Things do not become more complex as evolutionists would have us believe. They degenerate. The Bible states this fact when it says in Psalms 102:25-26 and other places that the earth is "waxing old like a garment." The earth is wearing out, according to the Bible, and this is now recognized by science.

Many other examples can be given where the Bible has been proven to be scientifically sound. Isa 40:22 describes the earth as being round, hundreds of years before Christ. Job 26:7 gives a picture of the earth suspended in space much like is seen from rocket ships and satellites today. The Bible also speaks of recesses of the deep, springs in the seas, and of all the oceans lying in one bed. All these facts have been proven true. True science has never, and will never, disprove the Bible.


The Bible is, actually, not one book but a collection of books. It is often thought of as a single book because of its uniformity. The Bible was written by some forty different authors over about a 1500 year period, and yet, its unity exceeds any one book written by a single author. The Bible was written by kings, peasants, fishermen, poets, shepherds, and men from all walks of life. It was penned from wildernesses, king's palaces, and even from prisons. It was written in three distinct languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) in three separate continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa). The Bible covers hundreds of controversial and philosophical questions. It deals with morality, creation, eschatology, and hundreds of other difficult themes. Through the Bible all its books agree and harmonize like no other book.

It would be impossible to find any two men from the same country, living at the same time, from the same neighborhood, and even raised the same way to agree on various subjects like the different writers of the Bible do. The Bible only has one theme, the fall and redemption of man, and it masterfully reveals this theme through the ages of time. Geisler and Nix write, "The 'paradise lost' of Genesis becomes the 'paradise regained' of Revelation. Whereas the gate to the tree of life is closed in Genesis, it is opened forevermore in Revelation." The Bible reveals to man redemption through the blood of Christ and is inspired by the author of that plan, God.


The Bible shows itself to be the word of God because of its numerous fulfilled prophecy. The Bible was written years, and even centuries, before events that it described took place. The Bible reveals things that no man could know unless it was revealed to him by God.

Cyrus the Great, for example, is mentioned by name as the liberator and restorer of the Jews and Jerusalem in Isa 44:28. This prophesy is given more than two hundred years before he conquered Babylon and fulfilled this prophecy. No man could have known the name of a king who had not yet been born, who would liberate a people that were not captives yet, and would let them rebuild their city which had not been destroyed yet, unless God revealed it to him.

Isaiah predicts the destruction of Babylon in Isa 12-13 over 150 years before the event. Daniel details the eventual history of four empires, before two of them were even created in Daniel 2. Moses gives the entire history of the Jewish nation in Deut 28. He gives a complete and accurate outline of their history before it takes place!

In 1 Kings 13:2 the writer here mentions king Josiah by name and tells about his life three hundred years before the king ruled. It mentions him by name despite the fact that he was centuries away from even being born. No person could have known the name and character of an unborn king unless God inspired him to write it down.

The greatest prophecies of all are those concerning Jesus Christ. The life of Christ is given in incredible detail hundreds of years before He was born. The old testament states that he would be born in Bethlehem. No person can choose where they will be born, so this is not something Christ could have chosen to fulfill were He not the Son of God. It was also foretold that He would heal many, teach great things, die on a cross between thieves, not have a bone broken, be buried in a rich man's tomb, be resurrected, and enter heaven. All this and many other things Jesus did to fulfill prophecy. This is why He was able to declare on the cross, "it is finished." He fulfilled the numerous prophecies down to the very last detail. Only men inspired of God could have told of His life in such detail, hundreds of years before he was born.


More than anything else, it is the power of the word of God which convinces me that the Bible is the inspired word. The Bible is not a dead book. It lives in the hearts and minds of those who read it. It influences the lives of men like no other book ever written. The Bible can turn a murderer into a preacher, and a drunkard into a respectable citizen and family man. It has impacted more lives than all other books put together. It can influence the soul and direction of a nation. It is the foundation upon which moral principles are based. Its teachings do more to help mankind than any book or philosophy.

The Bible inspires men to give and be charitable. It has influenced the building of more hospitals than any medical book or journal. It has helped more people with emotional problems than all the psychology books ever written. It is the greatest book ever written, and it tells the greatest story ever told.

It has changed my life and given me a purpose and reason to live. It is the power of the word which tells me beyond any doubt that this is no ordinary book. It is a book authored by the living God and it can change your life too. The Bible is the inspired word of God.

What History Says About The Resurrection Of Christ

Did Jesus really rise from the dead? It has been said that the resurrection of Christ is the best established fact of ancient history. Is this true? Is there really strong historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ? Can we find enough testimony to merit saying that it is an established fact of history?

To explore this subject in greater detail, we will look at three basic groups of evidence. First, the New Testament (more specifically the four Gospels) as history. Second, non-biblical Christian testimony (the record of early Christian writers). Third, non-biblical, non Christian testimony (the record of secular historians on the matter).

First, should we regard the New Testament writings as history? Skeptics may protest using Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to prove the resurrection since these are part of the Bible. Many will say, "If I believed the Bible, I would believe the resurrection. Using the Bible to prove the resurrection is true assumes the Bible is true. The belief in the Bible as truth is based in part on the assumption that the resurrection is true. This is circular reasoning. The resurrection is true because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because it tells of the resurrection, which is true." Should we therefore completely disregard the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Let's look at it this way. Don't think of the four Gospels as part of a book we call the Bible or the New Testament. Let's think of them as four independent records that spoke of the same event. Matthew, a Jewish tax-collector and Apostle; Mark, an early disciple; Luke, likely a Greek physician; and John, an Apostle, all give consistent record of Christ's death and resurrection. There are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts, translations and quotations of these men's writings. No other historical document can boast such testimony! Surely the record is worthy of the same consideration given any other historical writing. Therefore, we do not casually dismiss their books. They are valid historians who have earned their place of integrity among first century writers. Their accounts must be reckoned with. Even most unbelievers acknowledge this fact and attempt to reconcile the Gospel record with their rejection of Christ's resurrection. So, we examine the Gospels and use their witness to contemplate the resurrection of Christ.

In Matthew 28:5-7 Matthew says, "And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead..." Mark says in Mark 16:9, "Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." In Luke 24:5-6 the angels said, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen..." In John 20:1-8 John tells how he and Peter went to Christ's tomb and found the empty graveclothes. At this point John believed. Thus, all four historians record the resurrection of Christ as a fact of history.

Besides their plain statements of the resurrection, let's notice some facts regarding the death of Jesus these men record, and most scholars (unbelievers included) seem to accept as true. These are;

1.) Jesus died from the rigors of crucifixion.

2.) Jesus was buried in a guarded, sealed tomb.

3.) His tomb was found empty.

4.) The disciples fell into fear and despair. For a while, none of them believed Christ had risen from the dead except John.

5.) Later, the disciples believed they saw Jesus alive.

6.) The disciples were transformed into brave champions of their cause. Most eventually dying as martyrs.

Note that none of these facts by themselves demand anything miraculous. This is why unbelieving historians generally accept them. Even the fact that the disciples believed they saw Jesus could, by itself, be explained as an ordinary hallucination caused by stress. In fact, this is the factor to which some attribute the post resurrection appearances of Christ.

As stated above, these facts independently do not demand we conclude a miraculous resurrection. However, when considered collectively, they constitute a powerful confirmation of Christ's resurrection.

If Christ died and was buried in a tomb, how could the tomb be empty three days later? Either the enemies of Jesus stole the body, the disciples stole the body, or his body left the grave on it's own power. The enemies would not have stolen the body because that would perpetuate the doctrine of Christ's resurrection, which they despised. Furthermore, if they stole it, they could have produced it later, proving the resurrection to be a hoax and stopping Christianity dead in it's tracks.

The disciples could not have stolen the body because Roman soldiers guarded the tomb. Furthermore, if they stole the body, why would they fall into despair and disbelief, then later stand up as brave martyrs, dying for a cause they knew to be untrue? This also contradicts the fact that the disciples truly believed they say Jesus alive. If they plotted a resurrection hoax and stole the body, they would have had no such visions.

Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that Christ's body came forth from the grave victorious over death. He presented himself alive to his disciples and hundreds of others. Faithful followers believed him and told his story for centuries until now. Others recorded the events of his life, death and resurrection, which record we now have in the pages of the New Testament. From the Gospel record we have found facts generally accepted by unbelievers, which are sufficient to prove the resurrection of Christ as a fact of history. But we have testimony beyond what the Bible says.

Dozens of Christian historians from the first and second century record Christ's resurrection as a fact of history. These were men who wrote early Christian literature and commentaries on scripture. Some of them are said to have been personal acquaintances of Christ's Apostles. Though they were Christians and their record is, therefore, biased, their testimony is still abundant. It must be given the same attention as any other testimony of history. Just because they were Christians doesn’t automatically mean their record is untrue.

Additionally, there is secular history that speaks of the death and resurrection of Christ. Josephus, the Jewish (not a Christian!) historian speaks of Christ's life, miracles, death and resurrection as a historical fact. Pagan historians such as Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius speak of Christ's death and to some degree the belief by some that he arose from the dead. Can these non-Christian witnesses be completely ignored? Surely their record carries great weight, especially in light of what has already been proven from the Gospel record.

Add to this the fact that no first century historian testifies to the contrary. I know of no first century historian that claimed to have found the body of Jesus. I know of no first century historian that says the tomb was not empty. I know of no first century historian that was there when the disciples claimed to have seen Jesus after his resurrection and discredits their claim. We have abundant historical proof of Christ's resurrection and NO KNOWN DENIAL in early history. Truly, the resurrection of Christ is an established fact of history. You can believe it and place your hope on it's promise that someday, those faithful to God will also break forth from their graves, glorified and immortal. Or, you could join the ranks of unbelievers who deny the plain record of history and suffer the consequences at the end of time.

What Prophesy Says About The Resurrection Of Christ

How can you be sure Jesus rose from the dead? This is a fact all true Christians readily accept. However, unbelievers generally regard the resurrection story as a myth. Is there any way we can prove the resurrection of Christ as a fact of history? Is there any evidence to back up our faith?

There are a number of approaches that can be made to prove the resurrection of Christ. One of the most remarkable evidences of the resurrection is what we will call the resurrection model. The resurrection model is the story of Christ’s death and resurrection prophesied in the Old Testament and also by Christ. In this study, we will see that Old Testament prophets painted a consistent and complete scenario of what would happen in the events of Christ's death and resurrection. Furthermore, we will discover that Christ prophesied his own death and resurrection in a way that exactly matches the scenario depicted in the prophets. We will examine this resurrection model as built in the prophets, as told by Jesus, and what actually took place. From this examination we will build a case for the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ.

The Resurrection Model From The Prophets

In this section of our study, we will examine the writings of three different prophets; David (in the Psalms), Isaiah and Zechariah. Many other prophets could be used to strengthen the case, but with limited space we will use just these three. David lived about 1000 b.c. He was a shepherd boy, a musician, a warrior and finally, king over Israel for the last forty years of his life. Isaiah was a prophet of God in the land of Judah around 750 b.c. Zechariah prophesied after the Babylonian captivity around 500 b.c.

All their writings are well preserved in ancient manuscripts, translations and historical writings. There is no reasonable doubt that there was once a David, an Isaiah and a Zechariah who wrote the things ascribed to them. Even though these men's lives were separated by centuries, culture and circumstance, they all paint a consistent picture of what would happen in the death and resurrection of Christ. This collective prophetic picture constitutes our resurrection model.

1. In Psalm 22:6 David says of Jesus, "But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people." According to Isaiah in Isaiah 53:3 "He is despised and rejected of men...he was despised, and we esteemed him not." These men prophesied Jesus would be rejected by his generation. This is the first piece in our resurrection model.

2. The second piece is found in Psalm 35:11 where David says, "False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not." This is the prophesy that witnesses would lie about him and falsely accuse him in order to get him crucified.

3. Next, the prophets said he would be delivered to the Gentiles to be killed. In Psalm 22:16 David says, "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." The words "dogs" and "assembly of the wicked" refer to the Gentiles, indicating the Gentiles would have part in crucifying Jesus.

4. The fourth element of the resurrection model is the fact that Christ was scorned and mocked. This is found in Psalm 22:7-8 where David says, "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, [saying], He trusted on the LORD [that] he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." Also note Psalm 35:16. "...With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth." These and many other verses depict a consistent picture of his shame and suffering.

5. The fifth component of our resurrection model is that he was spat upon. In Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah prophesied of Christ, "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting."

6. Number six is his manner of death, the fact that he was crucified. This manner of death is implied in Psalms 22:16 where he said, "they pierced my hands and my feet." This, of course, was accomplished in crucifixion.

7. The seventh component in our resurrection model is the prophesy that Christ's suffering would take place at Jerusalem. In Zechariah 9:9 the prophet says, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." This says the Christ would bring his salvation (vicarious death) to Jerusalem.

8. The final segment in our resurrection model is David's prophesy of the resurrection of Christ in Psalm 16:10 where he says, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." The holy one of Israel, Christ, would not be left in his tomb. Instead, he would rise from the grave victorious over death.

The Resurrection Model From Jesus

Christ built the same picture of his resurrection as did the prophets long before him. Great details of these events are mentioned in the following passages and in many other places.

1. In Luke 17:25 Jesus said of himself, "he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation."

2. In Matthew 16:21 he referred to those who lied about him when he said, "...he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes..."

3. In Matthew 20:19 he spoke of the Gentile's part in his crucifixion. He said, "And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]."

4. This reference also mentions the fourth element of our model, that Jesus would be scorned and mocked.

5. Luke 18:32 says he would be spat upon.

6. The above reference in Matthew 20:19 confirms that crucifixion would be his manner of death.

7. In Luke 18:31 Jesus said these things would take place in Jerusalem.

8. Finally, in Matthew 17:23 Jesus prophesied, "...the third day he shall be raised again."

Throughout his ministry, Jesus consistently built the same resurrection model found in the prophets. This in itself is remarkable, that several independent prophets, separated by centuries, would construct a consistent story and then Jesus comes along and builds the exact same model of events. What is even more remarkable is the fact that this model was exactly fulfilled!

What Actually Happened

It is a matter of historical record that Jesus was crucified. Not only do we have the testimony of the four gospel writers, we also have record from other historians, both Christian and non-Christian. Suffice to say that the gospel accounts recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are consistent with the record of Roman and Jewish history from the first century. Here is what their record says took place.

1. In Matthew 27:23 the people of Christ's own generation rejected him as they, "...cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified."

2. In Matthew 26:59-60 it gives record of the false witnesses saying, "The chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death; But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [yet] found they none. At the last came two false witnesses."

3. In Matthew 27:2 he was delivered to the Gentiles, "when they had bound him, they led [him] away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor."

4. In Matthew 27:27-31 we read of how they mocked Jesus. "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band [of soldiers]. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put [it] upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify [him]."

5. The above reference and Matthew 26:67 records how "...they spit in his face..."

6. Matthew 27:35 confirms that crucifixion was the manner of death which he died.

7. Matthew 27:33 and the context verifies that this all took place at Jerusalem and Golgotha, a hill just outside the city.

8. Matthew 28:6-7 The angel said of Jesus, "He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead..."

The prophets and Jesus constructed a resurrection model prophesying these and many other events. In every detail they were all historically fulfilled. The model predicted Jesus would be rejected by his generation, and he was. The model predicted he would be lied about, and he was. The model predicted the Gentiles would be directly involved in his death, and they were. The model predicted he would be scorned and mocked, and he was. The model said people would spit upon him, and they did. The model predicted he would die by crucifixion, and he did. The model said this would happen at Jerusalem, and that is where it all took place. In every detail the predictions of the prophets and Jesus were fulfilled. The fulfillment of these first seven points is verified in history, in and out of the Bible. Why should we then believe the last prediction did not come true? If Christ and these prophets could independently foresee these events exactly as they were to take place, why could they not also foresee the resurrection? In fact they did, and the resurrection is just as true as their other things prophesied.

Skeptics might say Jesus could have read the prophets and based his predictions on theirs. Then push the Jewish and Roman officials to kill him. However, if he were an ordinary man, there were many events beyond his control. He could not make them lie about him. He could not force them to mock him or spit on him. He could not make them crucify him. The elements of the resurrection model were too specific and dependant on others for an ordinary man to manipulate. Since these events would be beyond the control of an ordinary man, Jesus was obviously no ordinary man. The same power that allowed him to foresee and control the events of his death also allowed him to come out of his grave, victorious over death. The resurrection of Christ is a fact of history well supported by strong evidence. You can serve Christ with the assurance that he arose from the dead.

What The Bible Says About Evolution And Creation

Did God really create this world? Or, did God use the evolutionary process to bring into existence the world as we know it today? Evolution is being taught to our children in grade school, junior high, high school and college. We are constantly exposed to it on television, magazines, park and museum tours, and in virtually every form of media today. This constant bombardment assumes that evolution is a fact of science.

If man is just the product of evolution, then man is nothing more than a glorified animal. This destroys any sense of an obligation to a God, a creator, or any particular set of moral standards other than whatever we think is right. Evolution has some very serious implications. Therefore, it is appropriate to question the validity of this theory.

With the current assault on the Bible and assumption of evolution, many Christians are led to doubt and compromise. Some attempt to maintain a degree of faith in the Bible while accepting the theory of evolution. This writing speaks to Bible believers and calls for a consideration of the Bible evidence to evaluate the theory of evolution.

The Bible does not teach evolution! The Bible teaches CREATION. There are those who feel that the creation story in Genesis chapter one allows perhaps for billions of years in which evolution perhaps took place. But even they must admit two things: First, the Bible does not teach billions of years. The time of Genesis 1 could be as short as a week. Second, if the earth has been here for 4 1/2 billion years, the Bible does not teach evolution during that time. The Bible teaches creation!

The Bible teaches God is a creator. In Revelation 4:11 the Bible says, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." In Malachi 2:10 the prophet says, "...Hath not one God created us?" In Psalm 148:5 David writes, "Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created."

The Bible teaches God created all things. In Isaiah 45:12 the Lord says, "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded." In Isaiah 42:5 the Bible says, "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:" In these and similar passages the Bible consistently teaches creation. There is no hint that God used evolution to bring this world to be.

A critical feature of the evolutionary theory is that it calls for billions of years of time. If God used evolution to create the world, then the creation week of Genesis 1 lasted billions of years. But, the Bible teaches creation took six days. In Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-2 it depicts creation taking place through six days. Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 speak of these days consisting of evenings and mornings. This makes it sound like our ordinary day doesn't it?

Additionally, the Bible compares the creation week with our literal week of seven twenty-four-hour days. Exodus 20:8-11 says, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the Sabbath of the LORD thy God...For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day..." Doesn't this sound like a literal week? The Jewish week was just as long as the creation week. The days of creation were no longer than the Sabbath day. If the week of Genesis was billions of years long, the Jews were to understand their week to be the same.

Another problem with the idea of creation week lasting billions of years is it would not have man coming onto the scene until billions of years after the earth was created. This is a problem because the Bible says man has been here since the beginning of creation.

In Mark 10:6 Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Humans have been here since the beginning of creation. In Luke 11:50 says, "...The blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world..." According to this passage, prophets have been dying since the foundation, or beginning of the world. If the earth was created billions of years before man, this could not be true.

Another problem with saying the earth was here billions of years before man is revealed in Isaiah 45:18 where the Bible says, "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited..." The earth was created for the specific purpose of being inhabited. Since the earth was created for the habitation of man, why would God let it set here for a few billion years before placing man on it?

In summary, the Bible teaches that God created the earth in six days to be inhabited by man and that man has been here from the beginning of the creation. There is no basis for a compromise with the human philosophy of evolutionary theory.

People in the world may act as though evolution is true. They may belittle you for believing the Bible. But the evidence for evolution is not as compelling as people want us to believe. The theory of evolution is evolving itself. It has changed dramatically since it was first popularized by Darwin and company. It is still changing. Why? Because its components are constantly being discredited. The fossil record has not corroborated evolution. There is no need to be bullied by evolutionists into believing something that isn't true. You can be confident that the Bible record is true. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."