Seminar #7B - "Questions & Answers" - Dr. Kent Hovind - www.drdino.com - English Here's a question I sometimes get asked by atheists when I do debates, and I've debated 99 professors now. Doesn't the Green River Formation in Wyoming prove that the earth is millions of years old? There's a good article in one of the old "Creation" magazines. And I recommend that magazine. I disagree with a couple of things in them; but, you know, I disagree with everybody about something, except me. But it's from Australia, and it's really good. They have a good article about the Green River Formation, if you want to read that. Or you can go to their website "Creation Ministries International" at: www.creation.com. Or you can get their magazine for about $22.00 a year, I think. The Green River Formation is a layer of rock in Wyoming that contains possibly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of finely stratified layers. Well, if you go to our museum, you can get that little glass thing with two pieces of glass and different colors of sand in between. You flip it over, and it makes dozens and dozens of layers in a matter of a few seconds. Well, when they dig through the Green River (here is a picture of it), they'll say, that each of these different layers is a different season, and they go by the pollen. They say a certain pollen is produced by trees in the spring, a different kind of tree produces pollen in the fall, and if you look at the layers, it's got a spring/fall, spring/fall cycle, maybe a million times. They call them annual layers because of the pollen. Well, the truth of the matter is, all those things would sort very rapidly, just like the thing in our museum sorts things very rapidly. There are only two densities of colored sand in there - black and white; but it will make, you know, 40 layers in a few seconds; multiple layering, massive layering forms quickly. If you dig through this Green River Formation, you find layers of ash in there, from apparently a volcanic eruption. As they drill down through the ash, they count the number of layers between the two ash layers. The numbers of layers of Green River Formation. And there's up to 35% difference in two different places.You drill one hole, you have got 100 layers; you drill another hole, you only got, you know, 60 layers. Why would that be if those layers are really annual cycles? Then they should be consistent throughout the whole thing, but it simply is not. So get the article from "Creation" magazine. If somebody ever says to you that the Green River Formation proves that the earth is millions of years old. It does not. And I get asked the question - maybe you've heard the question: "What about the Mars rock, is there really life on Mars?" Like this article asks, "Are we really Martians?" There was a television program on when I was a kid called "My Favorite Martian." It was kind of like "Bewitched," one of those kinds of programs, you know. The idea that there has been life on Mars has been around for decades. Here is Percival Lowell's picture, here showing him thinking, "that Mars seems to be inhabited is not the last, but the first word on the subject." Back a hundred years ago, he said there might be life on Mars because of the canals. Well, the Mars Rover went up there. More than one have gone up there- quite a few failed, you know. Good proof against evolution. But, they sent this multi-billion dollar machine up. It landed on Mars, tested the soil, and could not even find a trace of a germ on Mars. Now Walt Brown says in his book, "In the Beginning" if there is anything found on Mars, and there may be bacteria found on Mars, he says (he predicted that), it came from Earth during the Flood when the fountains of the deep broke open. He says, he does all the physics, and he's a physics professor. He said there would be enough pressure of 10 miles (16 km) of rock pushing down on water to shoot things into orbit from earth, that would then float around for a few hundred or a few thousand years, until they happened to get caught in a gravitational pull of whatever. He thinks there might be stuff on Mars, and it would have come from planet Earth. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but a pretty convincing argument he makes for it. But there have been 35 missions to Mars. Two thirds were complete or partial failures. Lots of money we have spent trying to prove life on Mars. What's the purpose? Well, I think the whole purpose of the space program anymore is to prove evolution. They're trying desperately to prove God didn't do it. If they can find life some place else, then that‘s proof for evolution, in their mind. This little rock you see a picture of here, sample ALH 84001.0 This was the rock that they said proved that there was life on Mars. Now this rock was actually found near the South Pole. On that rock there is a little wiggly line right there in the red circle. That little line they said looks like a fossilized bacteria. This is under a microscope, highly magnified. They said, "See that's proof that there is life on Mars, because there is a fossilized bacteria." Well, in the first place, Mars is quite a ways from the Earth, okay? I mean, quite a distance from the Earth. The closest they ever get in their orbits is about one-half an astronomical unit (AU). Or about 45 million miles (75 million km). That's the closest it ever gets to us. If we shrank all the planets down to the size of tomatoes, and Earth was an average four-inch (10 cm) tomato, Mars would be a two-inch (5 cm) tomato. It's about half the diameter of Earth. And the closest it ever gets in its orbit would be about a third of a mile away at that scale. They say something hit Mars and knocked that rock over to Earth. Think about it. I want you to shoot a two-inch tomato, so that a piece of it splatters a third of a mile away, and lands on a four-inch tomato. I think you're asking for a lot- obviously, there should be some evidence of something hitting Mars that hard - like maybe a dent, you know. There ought to be something to indicate it was blasted that hard to shoot something that far. But I don't buy the Mars rock at all. Well, basically what happened was that NASA was trying desperately to get their grant money through Congress. Congress was not about to vote for 20 bazillion more dollars for NASA to go look for life on Mars. They claimed the rock came from Mars; they claim it broke off 16 million years ago, drifted through space, and finally landed 13,000 years ago near the South Pole. That's the claim. The truth of the matter is, that this rock was in the closet in NASA for about 7 years. My questions would be, what did this bacteria eat for these 16 million years, while it was flying around through space? How did it survive the impact of the initial thing blasting it out; the vacuum of space; the re-entry too. (It's going to burn up coming through!) It's going to re-melt the whole rock coming through our atmosphere. Going to melt the whole thing; and then be frozen for 13,000 years, near the South Pole? It was a NASA funded team that did the research on the rock. And at the same time NASA grant money was stalled in Congress. So what really was happening was, they said, "Guys, you have got to find something important in this rock so that we can tell the people we've got to have more grant money." And we would oftentimes read these articles about these projects. The hidden agenda was always present, "Send more money to do more research. If only we had more money, we could …." It was in just about every article in all these science magazines. As soon as the announcement was made about the Mars rock, the grant money was released. Congress voted to give NASA 40 bazillion dollars. A few months later, they studied the rock more and said, "Oh, that's not a bacteria, that's actually a crystal, a carbonate crystal; a naturally forming substance. We're sorry, folks, we'll keep looking. But thanks for the grant money." Of course, they didn't return the money after that. It is just simply a carbonate crystal that forms naturally on rocks. The Bible says Eve is the mother of all living. I do not believe that there is life on other planets. There is no evidence at all of any life on any other planet, except right here on Earth. A question that frequently comes up is, what about theistic evolution? Couldn't God have used evolution? Well, of course that depends on what you mean by God. Osama Bin Laden believes in God. He's certainly got a different God than I do. Mormons believe in God. When they say, "Our Heavenly Father," they are praying to Adam. We'll get into more about Mormonism in a minute. So what do you mean by God? The God that would create by using process of evolution would be cruel, wasteful and retarded.It is not the God of the Bible, that's for sure. It's not in the character of God to use an evil, mean process like evolution, where billions of animals have to die in order for things to improve. God is merciful; evolution is cruel; it's not merciful. The weakest is destroyed in evolution, not protected. Jacque Monod, a Nobel Prize winner said, "Natural selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species and more complex organisms. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is non-selective, where the weak is protected, which is the opposite of the so-called natural law. He said, "I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God set up, to have evolution." I am surprised too that anybody would say, God used evolution. What kind of God do they have anyway? He's mean, that's for sure. Philosopher David Hull said, "Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be, he is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of Galapagos is careless; he is wasteful; he is indifferent; he is almost diabolical." So this is not the God of the Bible. And I would have to agree. Charles Darwin in his book said, "From the war of nature, from famine and from death, the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You see, in evolution, billions of things have to die in order to make the process work. One animal evolves a little better than the rest; the rest of them have to die or the new improved genes are pushed back into the gene code - they're lost. But there are people who teach theistic evolution. The Bible says God's way is perfect. He made it right the first time. So I do not believe God would use evolution to get us here, for several reasons. I think they are talking about a different God. This is not the character of the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible doesn't do things that way. The Bible says He made everything by His Word, and it was perfect, and He made it all in six days. The Bible's real clear, and He rested on the seventh day. And He finished His works from the foundation of the world. So the Bible clearly teaches six days of Creation, rested The Seventh Day. Over and over it calls it the seventh day, and the Bible says real clearly that man brought death into the world (I Corinthians 15:21). If theistic evolution is true, then death brought man into the world. Or death was here before man arrived, and the Bible says clearly man brought death into the world. And the Bible says we were made in God's image (Genesis 1:26). So if the original created man was some kind of animal that slowly evolved, then what does God look like? You know, is He a baboon? The fourth thing to consider, I think it's a retarded God that can't make it right the first time. He's not worthy of worship, that's for sure. And it certainly, number four, it nullifies the need for the death of Christ. And fifthly, and most important probably, there's no evidence for evolution anyway. So why should we take a perfectly good Bible, which has never been proven wrong and compromise it with a stupid theory that's never been proven right? Everything about evolution is backwards to the Bible. Every single thing. Nothing matches. You can look at the chart there, and see, everything is backwards. The Bible says - man brought death into the world. Evolution says - death brought man into the world. The Bible says - God created man. Evolution says - man created God. Does evolution match the Bible? Absolutely not! It is a heresy to teach that God used evolution, and a heresy is something against the clear teaching of Scripture. And I think there are people who are heretics today. I debated Hugh Ross, "Reasons to Believe." He's written several books. I've got several of them right here: "Creator and the Cosmos", "Creation and Time", "The Genesis Solution." He's a very nice man, a very smart man and probably sincere, and probably really honestly loves the Lord in His own way. I do think he has a different God than I do, and I suspect that he probably is not a Christian in the Biblical sense. He's got a mental acceptance of Christ, but not repentance and faith. That's just my theory. These four things right here: ham, chicken, ribs, and turkey. What do they all have in common? Well, they're all meats, they're all edible, and they all have bones in them. You have to learn early in life to eat the meat and spit out the bones, or you're going to choke on something. That's just the way life is. If you don't learn that as a kid, you are going to die pretty early. And there are some good things you can learn, even from the heretics. They teach things, they've got some really good teaching in there. But you'd better spit out the bones. When I debated Hugh Ross, I asked him all kinds of questions, and we've got the whole thing. The John Ankerberg Show taped it for us. John Ankerberg is a believer that the earth is billions of years old. And he is a friend of mine, nice guy, but I think that is pure heresy to teach that. In Ross's book "Genesis Solution," right here, here's Hugh Ross's testimony. He was a teenager reading through the Bible. He said, "Eighteen months later, I arrived at Revelation 22, [in other words he finished the Bible]. During those months, I read every passage and failed to discover anything I could honestly label as an error or contradiction. Some parts I had trouble understanding, but that didn't bother me. I understood enough, just as I understood enough physics and astronomy to trust what I was learning in my university courses." He was studying astronomy, and he became an astronomer in Canada, a PhD in astronomy. Now at the bottom he says, "With some delays and more than a little wrestling with personal pride, I did make transfer of trust inviting God, the Creator of the vast cosmos, to be my God, the Master of my destiny, through Jesus Christ, His Son." Now does that mean he got saved? I don't know. It looks to me, from what he still believes that he has a mental acceptance of Christ. He is like I would consider a Catholic bishop or pope who is very sincere, very dedicated, and just simply doesn't understand repentance and faith. This is more of a mental acceptance rather than a real salvation experience, I think. I hope I'm wrong.I don't know who's going to heaven and who's not. I'm not saying he's going to hell. But I suspect he's not a Christian in the Biblical sense. I have a whole series. I debated Hugh Ross for three hours, and then we made a variety of post-debate comments, and that's all on available on our video series about the Hugh Ross debate. There's a great book by Jonathan Sarfati about Hugh Ross's heresies. Now Sarfati is a brilliant guy. He lives in Australia, and I love reading his stuff. I think he's wrong on a couple of things. Certainly, his thinking about the King James is wrong, but we can deal with that some other time. It's possible to believe in God and still not be saved. James 2:19 says, "The devils believe and tremble." They believe; but they are not saved. They have the head knowledge, but not a heart knowledge. (Matthew 7:20) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Not everybody that claims they're a Christian, really is. Okay, what about some of the other religions? I think theistic evolution would be a false religion as opposed to a branch of Christianity. But there are quite a few other religions. I mean there are a lot of religions out there. Who's right? Well, obviously, the independent Baptists are right. When you get done climbing the mountain of truth, you'll find that they've been sitting there all along. Are you still climbing? I'm not against other religions, I'm simply for truth and against error. And if the Catholics teach something that is right, I'll say, "Yea, you're right." If my mother teaches something that is right or wrong, I'll say, "That's right. That's wrong." You don't ever want to get committed to a denomination or committed to any one thing other than truth. So I'm for truth, and against error. And the Bible says in Ephesians 4:14 that you have to be careful about being carried away with every wind of doctrine. When religions differ on things, somebody must be wrong. Of course maybe they're both wrong, but at least one of them has to be wrong, if there is a difference. "He that cometh first in his own cause seemeth to be just," it says in Proverbs. And for a young person, the first time they hear somebody talk about a religion, they say, "Oh well, that sounds good." Well you'd better search it out. I remember the first time I heard the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I was a brand new Christian. I got reading some of their stuff and said, "Wow, that seems right" ‘til I studied it - "Wow, that's not right." See and that's the danger for any young person can be trapped, because the first time you hear something, "Oh wow, that sounds good." You'd better really search it out. One of the guys on staff had a book that he was giving out to everybody, and it sounded really good. But it was written by some of the heretics of the first century. Whoa, you'd better really study this out. It seems right at first until you say, "Oh, wait a moment.Is that true?" It's interesting, if you read Genesis 27:18, how Jacob tricked his father. The father went by the feeling instead of by the word. He said, "You sound like Jacob, but you feel like Esau." So he gave him Esau's blessing. The reason he got tricked is precisely because he went by the feeling. The Mormons will tell you they know they're right, because when they prayed about Mormonism, they got a burning in the bosom. They got a feeling of "Oh, wow, this feels right." Well, just kneeling down and praying to anything will give you that burning feeling. Ah, just the reverence of kneeling down and praying to this rock doesn't mean it's right. And that's their whole thinking. It's all based on feeling. A lot of the charismatics do the same stuff. They have this feeling. "Oh, wow, I just feel like I should do this." We have a demonstration in the science center about feelings. You blindfold the person on the chair that spins. Any of you ever done that thing? Sit down there and you're blindfolded, and they spin you around. Within 30 seconds, you feel like you're not spinning- even though you still are. And then when you stop the person, they feel like they're turning the other way, even though they're not turning at all. And that's how pilots crash their planes, because they go by their feelings and not by "What does the gauge say?" So, I am not anti - any other religion.I'm simply for truth, and for the Bible, and against error. So keep that in mind. And you got to be careful about going on feelings. What about the Sabbath? Well, I get asked probably every week. I get books sent to me. I've got a whole section of our library by probably every book ever written by any Seventh Day Adventist. And they're all trying to convert me over to being a Seventh Day Adventist. They send me all kind of stuff and don't send me any more. I've already got them all. I don't need any more. I've got lots of books, all the books by Ellen G. White, E. G. White, who was the prophetess of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I‘m not anti-Seventh Day Adventist. I've spoken at some of their churches. And there's a lot of good folks, who love the Lord, are genuinely saved, and are going to heaven, as much as I am. Well, what is the truth about the Sabbath? Are we supposed to rest on the seventh day? Is that the day of worship? Or the day of rest? Or what is the truth about the Sabbath? Well, Nehemiah chapter 9:13-14 says "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai and spakest with them from heaven and gavest them right judgments, true laws, good statutes, and madest known unto them Thy holy Sabbath." Wait a minute, this is Nehemiah talking about the time Moses received the Sabbath from God. That's 2,500 years after the Creation. See, I don't have Moses even on that chart, but 2,500 years after the creation, God made the Sabbath known to Moses. You mean for 2,500 years, for more than a third of human history, nobody kept this? Apparently so. He revealed it to Moses. He said in Exodus 16:29, "See that the Lord hath given you the seventh day. Every man abide in his place. Don't go out of your house on the Sabbath Day." Well, if that's really one of the laws for the Sabbath, then you can't have a seventh day church that meets someplace, because everybody's going out of their house to get there, right? You talk about a Sabbath Day's journey in Acts, chapter 1:12. Jesus traveled on the Sabbath. What is he doing out of his house? The Bible says, "Remember the Sabbath, in it thou shall not do any work." Don't you do it, nor your son, nor your maid servant, nor the stranger. Not only can you not work, you can't make anybody else work. Which means, if you really want to honor and obey the Sabbath according to Scripture, you cannot work, and you can't make anybody else work, which means you cannot use any utilities, because if you are using the city water, the city lights, the city gas, you're making somebody work. If you're watching TV, you're making somebody work on the Sabbath. If you got out to eat, you're making somebody work. You can't do that. So, he rested the seventh day. The Bible says if they worked on the seventh day, (Exodus 31) they were to be put to death. So you got to kill people that work on the Sabbath. It's punishable by death. Exodus 31:14 is a key passage on this. "The Lord said unto Moses, saying, Speak thou unto the children of Israel, saying, my Sabbaths ye shall keep; it is a sign between me and you; the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath." I mean it's right there in Exodus 31. It's pretty clear, the Sabbath was for the children of Israel. I'm Norwegian. God made some unique rules for the children of Israel, because they were to be a peculiar people. People were to look at them and say, "Wow, that's strange. What's different about you guys?" And they were to be a testimony to the world. But he didn't command all the world to keep this. He said the children of Israel should keep the Sabbath. So it's pretty clear in Exodus 31. Exodus 35:2 says you shall kindle no fire, which means you couldn't start your car. Don't they run on internal combustion? You're starting a fire, so if you really want to keep the Sabbath, you can enjoy yourself. I've never met anybody, anybody who fully keeps the Sabbath, never met one person. "The elders of Israel," he said in Ezekiel 28:1, "He says, I gave them my Sabbath to be a sign between me and them." The Sabbath is for the children of Israel, again it tells us in Ezekiel, chapter 20. Jesus was, on the Sabbath Day, going through the corn (Matthew 12:1). They plucked the corn, because they were hungry, and then they ate it. First of all, what's He doing out of His house? And what's He doing harvesting on the Sabbath Day? Did He not keep it? The Bible says in Mark chapter 2:23, "The Pharisees said, Why do you do that on the Sabbath that which is not lawful? And He said the Sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath." What's He doing out of His house and what's He doing working on the Sabbath? Jesus said in Mark 3, it's lawful to do good on the Sabbath Day, to save life, and they got angry at Him for His answer. And people today get angry at me, because I don't keep what their idea of the Sabbath is. I say, "Look, I keep every day as holy." I work seven days a week for the Lord. My whole life is soaked up into God's work.I do nothing else. This is it. Some people say, "Do you keep the Sabbath?" Yes, and Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday. I keep them all, yes, I keep them all. Jesus went outside on the Sabbath. He took His disciples with Him. What's He doing making them sin? He picked corn, He healed people. He got angry at the hypocrites, He's not resting and being refreshed, that's for sure. He's getting angry at the hypocrites on the Sabbath. There's a book that I don't know that I can highly recommend. But I recommend it, if you can read past Peter Ruckman's rude, crude, crass, mean-spirited technique of writing. "Why I am not a Seventh Day Adventist." He's got some brilliant logic in here. It's $2.00 for the book. We offer it. We don't sell it on the web site. We don't advertise it, but if you want more info, he's got brilliant logic, but it is real abrasive. I think unnecessarily so.But it's good logic on why he's not a Seventh Day Adventist. If you want to get that, you can get it. So if you want to keep the Sabbath, you just enjoy yourself. But it's interesting in Romans 13:8, he listed some of the commandments, "Owe no man anything but to love one another. For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet. And if there be any other commandment (like the Sabbath), it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." He didn't list the Sabbath here in Romans 13:8-10. The first day of the week, the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews. And I know there are arguments back and forth of which day we're supposed to meet on. I don't care. Most churches meet on Sunday. I don't think they call it a day of worship, though some do. It's the day that they meet. The Sabbath was not designed to be a day of worship, it was designed to be a day of rest. You worship God all seven days, you rest one, that's all. If you want to rest Saturday, that's fine. So the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread. It's a New Testament tradition that they met on the first day of the week. (I Corinthians 16:2), "on the first day of the week let everybody lay by in store, come bring your tithes and offerings," and that's when most churches meet. Colossians 2:16 "Let no man judge you in meat or drink or holy days or the Sabbath." Don't let anybody tell you you are wrong on that. People say, "Well, didn't the pope accept evolution?" Yes, they have several times. The popes have accepted evolution, and many people have gotten upset. There have been at least three or four, I think, articles about the popes having accepted evolution as a fact. This Catholic nun says, "People who believe this creation myth which is unscientific and not in the Bible, despite what they say, haven't really studied theology." I don't know how a nun can be that dumb. If you don't think the creation story is in the Bible, what is she reading? By the way, if you want to do some interesting study, read the 10 Commandments in Exodus chapter 20. And then go to any Catholic church and say, "Hey, do you have the 10 Commandments?" "Oh yeah," and they'll give you a copy of them. They left out the second one about don't make a graven image. The Catholic 10 Commandments skip Commandment number 2. And they take commandment number 10 and split it into two commandments to make nine and ten. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house;" which was really one commandment. Why wouldn't they want the real one in there that says don't make a graven image? Because their churches are full of graven images. So, back in the 1400's, if you committed certain sins, you could pay money to the priest and be absolved, get your sins forgiven. If you robbed a church, you'd have to pay $2.25. Here is the list of what they had to pay to get out of their sin. If you burned a house, you had to pay $2.75. If you killed a layman, $1.75. If you committed forgery or lied, $2.00. If you ate meat in Lent, $2.75. If you ravaged a virgin, $2.00. If you struck a priest, $2.75 (same as burning a house). Robbery, $3.00. A priest that kept a mistress could do so if he paid $2.25. Procuring an abortion was $1.50. Murdering of parents or wife was $2.50. You could be absolved of all crimes by paying $12.00. What's a way to describe that? Stupid? Is that the best way to describe that? I'm not anti-Catholic. I'm for truth; I'm against error. That is error to say that paying money pays for your sins. And it's error to say burning a candle pays for your sins. And it's error to say to the priest, "Father I have sinned, and would you please absolve me of my sins." That's error. The Bible says that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin – nothing else. So I'm not anti-Catholic. I'm simply for truth and against error. Keep that thought in mind. Here is a picture of the pope kissing the Koran. The Catholic catechism is in our library. You can read it for yourself. Some of the things they believe are pretty interesting. They say in the Catholic catechism 841, "The Church's relationship with the Muslims is the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, the first place amongst whom are the Muslims. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God." So let's cover just a little bit on Muslims. Ask a Muslim, How do you know Mohammed was a prophet. They'll say, "Well, he had a mole on his back." That's how you know he was a prophet, because he's got a mole on his back? I've got a mole on my back; got one right here on my cheek. Man, I must be a double prophet. I've got two moles. In one of the Muslim verses, it says Mohammed asks the question, "When I am dead and buried in the ground and go back to dust, is that all? What will happen to me?" Mohammed himself had no clue if he was going to heaven. This verse in the Koran says, "When he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a pond of murky water." Would that be scientifically accurate to say that the sun sets in a pond of murky water? No, I would say the earth turns around and the sun appears to go around the earth. That first statement is not scientifically accurate. The Koran has loads of scientific errors.It's not a holy book. Allah commands anyone who leaves Islam or encourages others to do so, should be seized and slain. There are over 100 commands in the Koran to kill people who won't convert. Anybody who won't convert has to be killed. I see Bush and these guys saying we're trying to bring democracy in Iraq. The problem with Iraq is their religion.They are being taught every couple days in the mosque you've got to kill anybody who won't convert. There probably are millions of Muslims who don't like this, and they don't want to do that, but in order to be a good Muslim, you have to kill anybody else who won't become Muslim. That's the rule. Islam is a religion where God requires you to send your son to die for him. The Bible teaches instead that God sent His Son to die for you. If you study the history of Jerusalem and the problems with Islam, it's phenomenal. Keep in mind they both come from the two sons of Abraham. If Abraham wouldn't have gone down to Egypt, gotten that Egyptian girl, and had that one baby, Ishmael, we wouldn't have this whole problem, because all the Arabs come from Ishmael. And the price of gas wouldn't be over two bucks if it hadn't been for Abraham and Hagar. It would probably be more if the Jews had control of all of it; they like money too. But the Romans and Byzantines trampled the city of Jerusalem. Dr. Chuck Missler, www.khouse.org has all kinds of information on Jerusalem and the problems they've had with Islam over the centuries. It's been trampled down by the Gentiles. The Bible says, "I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all people." We've got a ton of stuff in the college class CSE 200 series about Islam. One of the books we sell in our bookstore, (and I don't get off into every single religion there is, but Islam is a growing powerful religion, and you need to study it) is this little booklet, "Who is this Allah?" On page 27 he says, "The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them," "The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah." After killing tens of thousands of non-Muslims in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini said, "In Persia no people have been killed so far - only beasts!" He thought, they're not Muslims, so they're not really people. Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits (90 feet; 27 m) tall, according to Bakhari, volume IV. That's 90 feet tall. I mean, do you believe that Adam was 90 feet (27 m) tall? In the Third Sura, verse 105, "In the great and final redemption, only white faces will be saved; all black faces will be condemned." In other words, you have got to be white to go to heaven; to the Muslim heaven. In the fourth Sura it says, "Men marry as many women as you like. One, two, three, or four." In Islam they tell their people you can have four wives, but only four. So what they'll do is they'll get three wives, and then for the fourth one, they have a series of what they call convenience marriages. You can marry a woman for 15 minutes and then divorce her. So you can have all the concubines you want. "I was only married for 15 minutes." There's no law there against that. That's their law that says you can do that. In volume one, it says "Abu reported: When any of you awakes from sleep and performs ablution, he must clean his nose three times, for the devil spends the night in the interior of the nose." Good Muslims will get up in the morning, suck water into their nose and blow it back out three times. That's got to hurt. Why do they do it? Well, because the devil lives in your nose. While you're sleeping, the devil crawls in. That's what they teach. Bakhari volume IV says, "Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night." Well, guess what expression we get from that?The boogie man! Abu reported: The Apostle of Allah said, "People should avoid lifting their eyes towards the sky while supplicating in prayer, otherwise their eyes would be snatched away." If you're praying and you look up, your eyes may get popped out of your head. He reported, "Non-muslims eat in seven intestines while a Muslim eats in one." Is there a biological difference between non-muslims and Muslims? Non-Muslims have seven intestines? You've studied anatomy, Adam. Is that in there? Everybody is pretty much the same.If you do an autopsy, I bet you find out they're the same. Dr. Don Boys, my friend up in Chatanooga, Tennessee area has written a book called "Islam: America's Trojan Horse." His website's fabulous too. CST (common sense today) cstnews.com. You can read more about Islam. He's received some flack for even writing this book. What about Mormons? what do they believe? Are they a Christian religion? Joseph Smith said, "I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. If we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven out of it. Where this people are, there is good society. What do we care where we are, if the society be good?" Joseph Smith didn't know if he was going to heaven or hell, by the way. "God made Aaron to be a mouth piece to the children of Israel and He will make me be God to you in His stead and if you don't like it, you must lump it." That's what Joseph Smith said. Joseph Smith also said that there are men living on the Moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1,000 years old. Well, we've been to the moon a bunch of times now. Are there Quakers up there? This is scientifically inaccurate. He's wrong. Official Mormon doctrine teaches that some day we get to become God. The Mormons teach, as we are, God once was (God used to be a man), and as God is, we shall be. And they think Adam became God. So when they pray "Heavenly Father," they are praying to Adam. There are some good books we offer here you can get on Mormonism. "Secret History of the Mormon Church" is excellent. This shows some of the history of how people have been killed trying to leave Mormonism. Because if you start speaking out against Mormonism or try to leave the religion, I mean in the old days especially, you'd get killed. They'd just find you dead someplace in the middle of the desert. If you want to read more on that, "Mormonism, The Way that Seemeth Right" is also good. It is nothing more than questions for Mormons. There's one we offer by Thomas Heinze, "Answers to my Mormon Friends" if you want to read up on that. There's a good book, the red one, "Mormonism, Mama and Me." This is the more gentle approach. It's just a grandma type, "Hey honey, you know, Do you really believe that? Now why is that?" It's kind of a softer, gentler approach to reaching Mormons. The ultimate authority on Mormons, that I have seen, are Joe and Sandra Tanner in Utah, Salt Lake City- www.utlm.org (Utah Lighthouse Mission). This is real fine print of everything you ever wanted to know and a whole lot more on Mormonism. It is phenomenal the stuff that the Mormons believe. Joseph Smith forged the book. Somebody else had taken a book to the printer to get printed. It was a Baptist who got mad at his church and wrote a novel. Well, Joseph Smith apparently got a draft copy. We have this information available on CD, if you would like to get the actual photocopies of the pages that he took to the printer, and said this is what I want printed. It is claimed to be the most perfect book on earth. He said he got these special seer stones that he would put these golden plates, that he got from the angel, Moroni. He put them in a hat, he'd look in there with the seer stone, all the time hidden by a curtain. He would read it out to his friend, Hiram, I believe it was, who wrote down everything. Hiram never got to see the golden plates. Indeed, no one ever got to see them – except Joseph Smith. He only told people about them. I believe there were no golden plates. He said he translated it by looking through this special seer stone, because it was written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. But he was reading the text of this book that he stole from this printer, apparently. When it finished being copied, they took it to the printer to get printed. He claimed it's the most perfect book ever written, that it came straight from God. However, there are thousands and thousands and thousands of mistakes in it and corrections. If you want to see those photocopies, call our office. We'll have the CD available. I got it in my office stacked up. We can reproduce those on Mormonism.So I'm not anti-Mormon. I'm for truth and against error and what they teach is error. We've got a ton of stuff on Mormonism if you want to read it. Lucy Mack Smith said, "Joseph was running through the woods at the top of his speed for three miles with the gold plates tucked under his arm. And three people came out and he had to knock three different people down." While he's running with these plates, running full blast with these plates under his arm, heavy golden plates, three people attacked him, he knocked them down with one hand and kept running to the house. The size of the golden plates were, according to Joseph Smith, and the dimensions were given several times, would have been quite heavy. This is a picture of the one made following the precise dimensions, including thickness, and description, but made out of lead, that the Tanners have in their museum. Now gold is a lot heavier than lead. Golden plates that size would weigh 230 pounds (100 kg). Can you run with 230 pounds (100 kg) under one arm? No. They have a competition in New York every year, I forget what they call it, but they bring in all the body builders and huge muscle guys and say, "Let's see who can run three miles (5 km) carrying these plates under their arm." They've got a huge prize for anybody who can do it. The farthest anybody's made it, with the plates under one arm, is 75 feet (22 m). That's walking carrying 230 pounds (100 kg) under one arm. I don't buy the story that Joseph Smith told. I think he's lying. Questions: why did Joseph Smith try to join the Methodist church in 1828, when in 1820, the Lord told him all of the churches were wrong, and they were an abomination? Why? Just questions. The book, "Mormonism, the Way that Seemeth Right" is mostly just questions. Here we go. Now I would differ with these guys on several things. But this book is well done. Like, why does one of your books say that you have to have more than one wife to be saved and your other book says, if you have more than one wife, you're damned. Which is it? There are just obvious contradictions in the Mormon religion, and again, I'm not anti-Mormon. I'm for truth and against error. Why weren't the three witnesses to the book of Mormon taken to Joseph Smith's house and shown the golden plates? Why did he only take them to the woods, and they saw the plates in a vision? Nobody ever saw those golden plates. The Book of Mormon says the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites was on a hill Cumorah in New York. Well, there's nothing ever been found there. There's no evidence at all of a battle where "millions died." There are a couple of great DVD's out now called, "The Bible versus the Book of Mormon." and "DNA versus the book of Mormon." They're in the library, you can check those out. According to the claims of Mormon, the Lord lead three groups of people to America from the Middle East: the Jaredites, the Nephites and the Mulekites. But no evidence of any of these has ever been found. There is no archaeological evidence to back up the book of Mormon. If you want to study Mormonism, I'd recommend two particular DVDs that just came out in 2005, about the serious problems with the book of Mormon. And again, there are millions, I think like 10 million people, now following Mormonism. Some very good, honest, intelligent, sincere people who have just been absolutely duped, deceived, tricked, lied to.Why would Joseph Smith admonish his people not to drink wine or strong drink and then attempt to construct a bar in the Mansion House and only renege when his wife Emma declared, "Either that bar goes, or I go?" Why's he doing that? Bruce McConkie said, "These name titles that signify our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." Is that correct? Was Christ the physical son? This is heresy. "He was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father." That's what the Mormons teach. "Now remember, from this time forth and for ever, Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost," it says in the Journal of Discourses. Mormonism is not a Christian religion. It's a cult in every sense of the word. There are all kinds of errors in what they teach.We'll cover more about that in our college class. What about Jehovah's Witnesses?Well, we could spend two days on Jehovah's Witnesses. I just recommend you get the book, "Answers to my Jehovah's Witness Friends" by Thomas Heinze. There are other ministries that deal just with this religion. There's a good little pamphlet you can get, "Fifteen Reasons Why I'm not a Jehovah's Witness." Here's the address on the screen: MacGregor Ministries, www.macgregorministries.org. God has laid it on their hearts to witness to the Jehovah's Witnesses. JW's are very sincere and really duped. One of the craziest religions on the planet has got to be Jehovah's Witness. As I go speak on creation and evolution, and especially when I do debates, there is always somebody during Q & A time at the university that says there are contradictions in the Bible. As a brand new Christian, age 16, I went to the Methodist church camp one more time. I'd started going to the Baptist church. But at the Methodist church camp where I had been going before, the counselor sat us boys down on the bed and said, "Hey guys, who are you, how old are you, where do you live, etc." We told him our names. We were all sitting around on the bunks there. And he said, "Well, my name is (whatever it was) George or something. I'm a student at University of Illinois, and I want you to know I'm a humanist." I didn't know what a humanist was, so I said, "Does that mean you believe in humans?" He said, "Well, I do believe in humans, but no, that's not what that means." I said, "Well, do you believe the Bible?" He said, "Well, the Bible is a good book, but it has lots of errors." Now I had only been saved for a few months, but I was smart enough to know, because my Baptist preacher had told me, that if anybody ever says the Bible is full of errors, hand him your Bible and say, "Show me one." So I handed him my Bible and said, "Well, show me one." He said, "I'll be glad to." Here's what he showed me. (Genesis, chapter one) The Bible says pretty clearly in chapter one, the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed and fruit trees, and this happened on the third day. The counselor said, "Kent, when did God make the trees?" I said, "Day three." He said, "Alright, verse 20. Day five, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth.'" He said, "Kent, when did He make the birds?" I said, "Day five." He said, "What did he make the birds out of?" I said, "Well, it looks like he made them out of the water." "Correct, He made Adam out of the dirt; He made Eve out of the rib; made the birds out of the water." That's what it says. Verse 24, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature." He said, "Now Kent, what did God make the creatures out of?" I said, "He made them out of the earth, He made the birds out of the water, He made the animals out of the dirt, and then He made man." He said, "That's chapter one.Now look at chapter two." "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.And the Lord God made grow every tree." And he said, "Wait, wait, wait! I thought the trees were made on day three and man on day six. Here we have the man made and then the trees after man. Which is correct, were the trees made before man or after man?" Have you ever been in an argument with somebody and you knew you were losing? You married guys know about that. You just know, hey, I'm losing this argument. Might as well stop right now, alright. You might as well just quit. Verse 18, "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." Oh, here we got two problems. You've got the animals made after man, and you've got the birds made after man, and the birds are made out of the ground instead of out of the water. He said, "Kent, the Bible's a good book, but it's got lots of contradictions. Just in the first two chapters. Did chapter one say grass, plants, trees made on day three? Chapter two has plants and trees made after man on day 6. Chapter one has birds made out of the water on day 5. Chapter two has birds made out of the ground on day 6. Chapter one has animals made before man; chapter two has animals made after man." He said, "The Bible is a good book, but it's not God's Word." I'd only been saved a couple of months and I was crushed in my faith. It seems to happen to every young Christian. Satan sends somebody along to destroy their faith and get them derailed. Well, that got me, I'll tell you what. The rest of that week at camp, I was a defeated young Christian. Oh, I wish I could find that guy today. I could answer his question now. Here's what happened. On the third day, God made the plants, the grass, plants, and trees. On the fifth day He made the birds out of the water. On the sixth day, He made the animals, and then He made man. And then He made the garden and put man in the garden. Now all of chapter two is describing what happened in the Garden of Eden only. It's not describing the whole world, just the garden. God made more trees, and there are only the two kinds - the trees that are good for food and the trees that are good to the sight, for the beautiful garden. The rest of the world is already full of trees. He's describing what happened in the garden. And then He made one more of each animal, so that Adam could name them and select a wife. And so while Adam is standing there, up out of the ground is coming one more of each animal. Now the rest of the world is already full of animals. This is just for Adam to see God do it and to make a wife, to create a wife – to select a wife. Up comes a giraffe, he says, "Giraffe, no thanks. Hippopotamus, no thanks. Elephant, no thanks. Hamster, no thanks." You know, one by one, Adam names all the animals and rejects them as a wife. And then the Lord says, "Adam, go to sleep, son, I've got a surprise for you when you wake up." He put Adam to sleep, took one rib, and made the world's first woman. And so this is only describing what's happening in the garden. Now, it's interesting if you look at the sequence here. Adam actually saw God create things. Eve never saw that. Suppose God made Adam last.Satan could walk in and say, "Adam, how do you like this beautiful garden I made?" And Adam would have doubts for the rest of his life. Boy, who really made this? I don't know. I trust you God, but I don't know. There's no way he could know.Now the fact is, Eve never saw God create anything. So who did Satan go to to trick?Eve, the weaker vessel, I Timothy says. So that's what happened. There are no contradictions in the Bible. Genesis chapter one and chapter two are both fine. The Bible says in I Timothy, "Adam was first formed, then Eve and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Adam knew full well what he was doing. When she walked up and handed him that banana, or whatever it was. They say it was an apple. I don't know. We don't know. It was a fruit. He said, "Oh Eve, you blew it." He looked at that. He knew if I don't become sin for her, God's going to have to kill her. I think Adam, knowing full well what he was doing, voluntarily took that fruit, ate it, and said, "God, whatever you do to her, you've got to do to me too." That's what I think he did, just like Jesus Christ voluntarily became sin for us, so that He could save us, and we could become the Bride of Christ. That'll preach. As a young Christian, I was reading my Bible and came across II Chronicles 4:2, where it said, " Solomon made a great sea of 10 cubits (15 feet; 4.5 m) from brim to brim, and 5 cubits (2.2 m) the height thereof; and a line of 30 cubits (45 feet; 10.5 m) did compass it about." I read that, I set my Bible down on my bed, and I said, "Lord, this is wrong. If it's 10 cubits across, it's not 30 cubits around." Anybody that has studied mathematics knows, that to find the circumference of a circle, it's diameter times pi (3.14159265). I said it should not be 30 cubits around. It should be: 31.4159 cubits around. Why did he say 30 cubits around? I thought there was an error in the Bible. And I was going to quit Christianity. And I read the passage, and read it, and read it and said, "Wait a minute, wait, I'm missing something here." Verse five says, "it was an handbreadth thick (that's a lot of brass, to be that thick) and the brim of it was like the work of the brim of a cup" There are two theories of how to solve this supposed contradiction. One theory says it was 10 cubits (15 feet; 4.5 m) outside to outside, not counting the thickness of the brass. If you take 10 cubits, elbow to fingertip, subtract two handbreadths and calculate backwards, you'll get a value of pi for the inner circumference of 3.14159. It'll work fine. You can give it a try. The other theory is that the Bible says it had a brim like a cup – bowl went up and had a brim coming out, so it was 30 cubits around the bowl, but 10 cubits across brim to brim, counting the little lip sticking out like most cups are bent out just a little bit. Either theory would probably solve the problem. No, there are no contradictions. I Kings 7:26 says, "Solomon made this molten sea that held 2,000 baths. One "bath" is about 8 gallons (30 l). Yet II Chronicles 4:5 says it held 3,000 baths. Well, was it 2,000 baths or 3,000 baths?By the way, 3,000 baths, 24,000 gallons, is a small to mid-size swimming pool. It's the kind you put in your backyard - that's a 24,000 gallon pool. And that's a lot of water or oil or whatever they're going to put in this thing. Well, II Chronicles 4:5 says it held 3,000 baths. I Kings says it contained 2,000 baths. Is that a contradiction? No, it's not full.It's two-thirds full. It could hold 3,000, but it's only got 2,000 in it. How many horses did Solomon have? This is a contradiction the atheists always bring up. I Kings 4:26 says, "Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen." II Chronicles 9:25 says, "Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen." Well, which is it 40,000 or 4,000? Now we sell on our website the "Defender's Bible" by Dr. Henry Morris. I love Henry Morris and the "Defender's Bible." He's a good personal friend of mine and his son, John Morris, is a good personal friend of mine. I love what they're doing. In the "Defender's Bible," he's got a footnote right there that says that this is a copyist error. "This number is given as 4,000 in II Chronicles. This is best explained as a copyist error." Well, I read that, and I wrote a letter to Henry Morris and said, "I love you and I sell your Bible, but I'm going to have to put a disclaimer in the front page. You have a mistake, actually quite a few mistakes in your footnotes." And so I have a one-page disclaimer that goes with the "Defender's Bibles" that we sell. They've got a stack of them in shipping, if you want to read the disclaimer, that says, "We love Henry Morris. He's got many good notes in here, but like anything, you've got to eat the meat and spit out the bones. He's wrong about this one. There is not a copyist error - both of those verses are absolutely fine. Read them carefully. "Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots." Does that tell me how many chariots he had? No, that tells me how many horses he had for the chariots. II Chronicles 9:25, "And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots." Oh, now that's different. Apparently he had stalls to keep horses and chariots, and he had other stalls just for the horses for the chariots.Well, if they had 40,000 stalls of horses for the chariots, and he had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, they had 10 horses per chariot. Not a contradiction at all. King James got it exactly correct- 10 horses per chariot. They would never put one horse per chariot.I mean, one arrow takes out the whole tank. They had chariot teams, actually. The NIV Bible got it wrong! New American Standard got it right. I collect other Bible versions.I've got a bunch of them here. New Revised Standard got it wrong. How many men did David kill - 700 or 7,000? Well, look at the passages carefully. 2 Samuel 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel and David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians." I Chronicles 19:18 "David slew of the Syrians 7,000 men which fought in chariots." Well, which is it? 700 or 7,000? Read it carefully. Again, Henry Morris has a footnote here that says this is a copyist error. No, I'm sorry, Henry, it is not a copyist error. Both verses are fine. Look at them carefully. If he slew the men of 700 chariots and he slew 7,000 men which fought in chariots, what does that mean? 10 men per chariot. They had 10 men, and 10 horses for each chariot. They had chariot teams. You go out and you fight for awhile; you come back; you swap out. You see, the chariot does not get tired. The men and horses get tired, and the chariot is your tank. You don't want to lose that thing. So if somebody gets wounded, hurt, you know, bring them back, swap out. They had chariot teams. NIV got it wrong, "he killed 700 of their charioteers" and "7,000 of their charioteers." There's a clear contradiction. Most of the new Bible versions that I'm aware of have some real serious contradictions built in. I am not aware of any errors in the King James Bible. The Bible says in Genesis 10:31, "These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues," So the languages are divided in Genesis chapter 10. But when you read chapter 11, it says, "the whole earth was of one language." When I debated Farrel Till, who's the editor of an atheist magazine up in Illinois, he said, "Oh, the Bible's got a contradiction. Chapter 10 says the languages were divided up, and chapter 11 says the whole world's of one language. See, the Bible is wrong." Farrel, chapter 11 is recapping, like giving a headline. Suppose you saw the headlines in the paper, "Ten children killed in school bus accident." Then you start reading the article, "The bus was driving down Highway 12," and you say, "Wait, I thought, I thought they had a wreck." Yeah, the headline is summarizing the story, now they're going back and giving the details. Chapter 10 summarizes the story and chapter 11's going through and giving some of the details. That's not a contradiction! Here's another supposed contradiction. How many died in the plague? Numbers 25:9 says, "Those that died in the plague were 24,000." When you read the story in I Corinthians 10:8, it says, "there fell in one day 23,000." Well, which is it? 24,000 died in the plague, according to Numbers, or is it 23,000 died in the plague? Again, read it carefully, there is no contradiction.How many died in the plague? 24,000. How many died in one day? 23,000. Well, 1,000 others also died, from the same plague. It's not a contradiction at all. So we go through in our college class quite a few of the supposed contradictions in the Bible. If you think there are some, you can contact our office during our radio program. We have lots of time. We can take an hour and a half question every day on supposed contradictions in the Bible or questions on creation or evolution. 7 D – Min. 00:55 – Another contradiction people often ask about is: Isn't the word "Easter" in the King James Bible an error? Didn't they make a mistake, here? Every other version of the Bible, and I have a whole collection of them here on the table, uses the word "Passover" in Acts 12:4. You look up Acts 12:4 and they say, "After Passover." King James says: "After Easter." Well, let's read the passage and see what the truth is. Acts 12:1-4 "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." Is Easter a mistake? All the other versions say "Passover" right there. Well, let's go back and study the original Passover. In Exodus chapter 12:1-3, "The Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, this month (talking about April) shall be the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak unto all the congregation of Israel. In the 10th day of the month ye shall take a lamb." April 10th, you pick out a lamb, keep it up for four days. On April 14th you kill it, and you eat it that night. That was the Passover when they were getting ready to go out of Egypt. And then you put the blood on the two side posts and the top of your door. It says they shall eat the flesh that night - April 14th. Kill the lamb, put the blood on the door, and eat the lamb that night. Verse 11 tells us that it's the Lord's Passover. Eat it in haste; have your shoes on; hold your staff in your hand. There are Jews today still who go through this every year. They go through the Passover celebration and it is amazing to watch. My mom had our family do this several times while we were kids, and we loved it. Verse 14, "This day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast … 7 days shall ye eat unleavened bread." Here's the sequence: On the10th day, pick out a lamb. Watch it for four days, making sure there are no blemishes. On the 14th day, kill it. That night is the Passover, when the Death Angel passed over the children of Israel if they had the blood on the door posts. They were to eat it that night. For the next seven days, you're going to be traveling around, running from Pharoah, so you eat unleavened bread. God told them to put their bread without leaven into their kneeding troughs. They wrapped them up, put the troughs on their shoulders, carried them around through the wilderness, and ate unleavened bread for 7 days. That was the seven days of unleavened bread, which they still commemorate today. In verse 17, it says " you shall observe the feast of unleavened bread." (Verse 18) "In the first month, on the 14th day of the month at evening, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and 20th day of the month at evening." Starting the 14th for the next seven days, until the 21st, eat unleavened bread.Numbers chapter 28:16-17 says "The fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover, the 15th day of this month is the feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten." So, here's the sequence of events: The Passover was always at night on April the 14th (mid-April). For the next 7 days they ate unleavened bread. That always followed the Passover. Now there was a pagan festival of Astart or Ishtar, or today called Eshtar - that's Easter. That was a pagan festival that always came near the end of April. It was always so many days after the first full moon and they had all kinds of formulas to figure out when this day came. And we still use the same formulas today to calculate when Easter is. Easter was a pagan holiday to commemorate the earth's regenerating itself. You know, things start to grow again, like Easter lilies, etc. So that‘s why they have all kinds of regeneration symbolism in the Easter holiday. The Easter bunny, like the Playboy bunny, and other fertility symbols, like Easter rabbits, Easter eggs. It is definitely a pagan holiday. Now is it something worth fighting and beating somebody up over? No, Christ did rise from the dead, and if you want to celebrate that day, that's fine. Some people get carried away with the pagan background of holidays and they go around refusing to celebrate any holidays. I don't think you ought to do that. But you need to understand that (the modern) Christmas and Easter holidays both were pagan; those particular dates are anyway. But I don't think it's worth beating somebody up over. So the feast days are never called Passover anywhere in Scripture. Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. It says so very clearly in Acts 12, which means the Passover was already gone. It had to be. Herod wanted to kill him during his own pagan festival of Easter coming up in a few days. King James is the only version to get it right. Now look at Acts 12, verse 3: "Then were the days of unleavened bread. And when he apprehended him, he put him in prison and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." King James is the only one that got it right! And we'll cover that more in a minute. The man who invented the word: "Passover" is William Tyndale. He made up the word and he didn't use that word in Acts 12 in his translation. We'll cover more about that in our college class. How did King Saul die? Heretics will say, "Well look, you've got a contradiction here in the Bible. In I Samuel chapter 31:4-5, it says, "Saul took a sword and fell on it and killed himself. He committed suicide. He asked the armor bearer, "Hey, will you kill me? I'm wounded." The guy said, "No, I'm scared." And so Saul killed himself. When you read chapter two, this guy walks up to King David at the camp and says, "Hey, here's Saul's crown, and his jewelry. I killed him." He did this because he knew David and Saul were enemies. And the Amalekite said, "I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure he could not live after that he was fallen." Well, did he die by suicide, or did he die by the Amalekite? There's no contradiction here. He died by suicide and this guy's lying. He's hoping to get a reward. "Hey, David, I killed Saul. Give me my reward please." David's reward was, I'm going to cut off your head. So there are all kinds of supposed contradictions in the Bible, and we cover a lot of these in our college classes, or you can call into our radio program. We'll just cover a couple more, because we could spend forever on supposed contradictions. There's a book called "The Errors in the King James Bible" by Peter S. Ruckman. It used to be called "Problem Texts." It's basically the same book with a different cover on it. But in here he covers 500 of the supposed contradictions in the Bible. We've got about 90 pages of data on supposed contradictions in our website, in our downloadable section, on articles about contradictions. Here's one that atheists always give to me. They'll say, "Was Jonah swallowed by a whale or a fish?" If you read Jonah 1:17, it says, "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah, and he was three days and three nights in the fish's belly." He was in the fish's belly. But when you read the story in Matthew 12:40, it says, Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly. And the atheist will say, "Aha, the Bible's wrong. A fish is not a whale, a whale is not a fish. Ha, ha, ha." Well, in our modern 21st century classification system, a whale is not a fish. But in the Biblical classification, a whale is a fish. If it swims in the water, it's a fish. A dolphin is a fish, in the Biblical classification system. So you can't take Carolus Linnaeus's classification system of the last 200 years and superimpose that on the Bible and call the Bible wrong. No, a whale and a fish are the same thing in Biblical classification. And we could talk about some of the little minor stuff. There are about 500 passages that people commonly say are mistakes in the Bible, and all of them are covered in Ruckman's book. He's a little rude, crude, and unnecessarily mean about it, but he's right and his logic is really good. Here's one the atheists love coming up with. They'll say, "Well, do insects have four feet?" And I say, "No; well sort of," because I know where they're headed with that one. In Leviticus chapter 11:21-23 it says, "these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing … the locust … the beetle… grasshopper…But all other flying living things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." They'll say, "Insects have six legs. Everybody knows that. Moses must have been stupid. Or there must be a contradiction in the Bible." Well, I'm sure Moses saw plenty of insects during his life, and he knew about the six legs. Why did he say four feet? Well, insects do have six legs, according to our way of thinking. We have a model here of a giant mosquito, somebody made for us out of copper pipe. And you see, it has six legs; sort of. Spiders, do they have eight legs? Well, we'd better be cautious how we define this. If you look at the Bible carefully, you'll see Proverbs chapter 30 says, "The spider taketh hold with her hands." Could it be, that four of them which point backwards are considered feet, and the four that point forward are considered hands? Just because we consider all 8 of them to be legs, doesn't mean the spider considers them 8 legs. If a spider is going to do something, like maneuver things around, it's going to use its hands. How about the mosquito, does he have 6 legs, or 4 legs and 2 hands? Just because he happens to walk on all 6 of them doesn't mean they're all legs. I don't think there's a contradiction in the Bible. We could spend forever on supposed contradictions in the Bible. People say, "Dr. Hovind, why do you use the King James? Man, it's Old English. Nobody can understand it. It's hard to read." I understand all that, and as a brand new Christian, saved out of the Methodist church, my mom gave me every kind of Bible version there was. If a new one came out, she gave it me saying, "Heh, son, you're going to love this one." When I was 16, I had the (RSV) Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It's here someplace. I was reading it, going to church, this little independent, fundamental Baptist church. And the preacher was banging on the pulpit, saying the Bible is the Word of God. And I was making notes in my Revised Standard Version. And after a couple of months, one day he said, "Brother Hovind, you've been a Christian a few months now. It's time you get a Bible." I said, "I've got a Bible." He said, "No, you need a real Bible." I was offended.I've got a Bible. I'd been making notes. I've been reading it an hour a day, what do you mean? He said, "Well, there are real problems with that one." So, why King James? It has been 37 years now since I became a Christian that I've been studying this topic. Why? Look at Psalms, chapter 12:6-7."The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified 7 times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." What does the word "them" refer back to in that verse?"Thou shalt preserve them." Preserve what? His words. He's promising He's going to preserve His words, right? What does the NIV say there? "And the words of the LORD are flawless: like silver purified in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever." Is that saying the same thing? I mean I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. It looks like to me that somebody is wrong about this one. What does this mean? Keep us from such people? What people is it talking about? There are very serious differences between these Bible versions. We've got a book in our library, someone sent me, that took me six months to figure out what the title said. I read it, and I said, "Huh?" I went on to something else, and every time I looked at the book, I'd think, "What is this?" The title was "Things that are Different are not the Same." I thought, "Well, duh, why would you entitle a book like that?" "Things that are Different are not the Same." And then I thought, "Wow, these Bible versions are definitely different.So you can't say they're the same." As far as I understand it, there are 151 English translations of the Bible available now. The law is you cannot get a copyright, and therefore protect your work, and therefore get more money, unless you have 10% different from the original. Are there a 151 different ways to say each of the different verses in the Bible? At some point, you're going to have to stop saying it the right way and say it a wrong way, just to make it different, just to get your copyright, just to get your money. The love of money is the root of all evil. Here's a quick story. We can take an hour on this one. But right after the time of Christ, the disciples were writing their books. And they were being persecuted and spreading out. People were copying the apostle's letters and copying the gospels and spreading them around. Persecution kept hitting the church, and they spread out everywhere. For the next 1,000 years, there was horrible persecution against the church. If they caught the heretics, the Christians, they would burn them at the stake and burn their Bibles. Well, people were spreading the Word of God around, making all kinds of copies. It takes about 10 months to write out a copy of the Bible, using a pen. But you don't even have a good ink pen. You've got a feather quill. And you've got to keep dipping it in the ink and keep cutting a new point on it. You don't have a good ink pen nor do you have good paper to write on. You have lumpy parchment or leather. But, anyway with all the obstacles they had, plus, being persecuted, it took about 10 months to write out, to hand write a copy of the Bible. Well, they're making all these copies. By the time you get to the 1500 and 1600 AD, persecution lets up, and so people decided to collect the Bible copies together from all over the world, compare them, and put them into English. Now keep in mind that some of these copies of the Bible have not seen each other in 1,000 years. There might have been people in France copying the Bible, and people in Africa copying the Bible, and people in China copying the Bible. And you can only use a book so long, and it wears out. I've got I don't know how many absolutely worn-out Bibles - probably five or six. A book that is in active use is going to have a limited life. Let's just pick a number, and say, if you were really careful with your scrolls (I mean treat them very carefully), you might make a scroll last 300 years and still use it every day - just for illustration. So in 300 years, your original is worn out. It's trash. It's junk. You throw it away, because you now have possibly 800 copies, or certainly a large number of copies. Then you take those copies and make copies. And after maybe a thousand years, you might be on your fourth or fifth generation from the original, but that's perfectly fine. That doesn't matter as long as the copying process was accurate. And here's a good way to check that copying process and see if it is accurate. Each of these manuscripts, the French ones, and the German ones, and the English ones, and the Chinese ones, have gone through five generations. Collect the fifth generation copies, compare them all and see how much alike they are. That's what happened in the 1500s and 1600s. They got all these scrolls together. They found 5,000 copies of the Bible that had survived the persecution, and they were identical in everything except spelling. People's names, like Peter and Pedro and things like that had changed. So they said, "God truly preserved His Word. This is it! This is it word for word exactly. He preserved it." However, down through those centuries in Egypt, there was a group of folks, a cult sort of like Jehovah's Witnesses –I've got a Jehovah's Witness Bible here. They came to be known as the Alexandrians. The Alexandrians didn't believe in the deity of Christ They didn't believe in the bodily resurrection. They didn't believe in a lot of Christian things; kind of like Jehovah's Witnesses today. So they made their own copy of the Bible, changing things they didn't like. They made about 6,000 changes. The primary leader in this cult was Origen. He was the leader of this cult in late second and third century. The only mention of the Alexandrians in the Bible is when they were disputing with Stephen (Acts 6:9) - arguing with the real Christians. If you trust the principle of first-mention, which I think is very important, then that mean something to you. Wow, the only mention of these folks is bad. And so anything out of Alexandria anything out of Egypt period, in the Bible, seems to be bad. So, Origen was the primary guy in this cult. They made copies of their Bible also with their changes in it. And some of them survived. In 350 AD, several copies were made, and three of those still survive today. One was found in the Vatican library and is called Vaticanus. One was found in Alexandria, Egypt, and it's called Alexandrus, in the Latin. And one was found in the Sinai Peninsula in a monastery. This is an old monastery at the foot of a mountain that some princess said was Mount Sinai. It is not Mount Sinai, by the way. But since she was the princess, and she said, "That's Mount Sinai." They said, "Okay, yes ma'am." They called it Mount Sinai. They still call it Mount Sinai. There's still a monastery there. Mount Sinai is not in Sinai Peninsula. The real Mount Sinai is in Arabia. (See Galatians 4:25.) But a visitor saw an old scroll in a trashcan in this old monastery. When he asked about it, they said they didn't know anything about it, except that it had been in there for years. He pulled it out, and found that it was a (corrupted) copy of the Bible from 350 AD. That particular copy is called in Latin: Sinaiticus. Well, these three scrolls don't agree with each other on anything. Nor do they agree with the real Bible. These three are all different. The Catholic monks translated these three ancient scrolls into Latin, from centuries ago and it became known as the Latin Vulgate. Vulgate for vulgar, which means the common language. The Latin Vulgate was a really good translation of a bad book. Then the Catholics came along in 1582 and translated the Latin Vulgate into English with the Duay Confraternity, or the Duay Reams version of the Bible. And that was a really good translation of a bad book. Then two guys called Westcott and Hort came along. I've got a good book about them, "The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy" here on the table. This is a little booklet about it that you can get for $2.00 from our ministry, if you want to study more about it. Westcott and Hort were two Greek scholars who were going to make a new Bible. I don't know if they were even Christian or not. They probably claimed that they were, like a lot of people do. But they took these three old ancient manuscripts, even though they didn't agree with each other, and synthesized them into one new Greek text. Their thinking was these are older. Therefore they are better. Well, I'll go along with the older part. I'll agree there, but that doesn't mean They are better. However, they sold it this new synthesized Greek text to the world in 1875. They said, "We have the oldest and best manuscripts available now for you to translate." Yes, they got the oldest ones alright. The oldest ones that survived, is all. That doesn't mean they are better. Then people started taking that Westcott and Hort version of Greek, and translating it into English. The first one, done in 1881, is the (RSV) Revised Standard, then the Jehovah's Witness Bible, the New World Translation, done in 1950. This was a fairly good translation of a bad book. Then came the New American Standard, the NIV, the Good News Bible, the Amplified, and the Living Bible. I have copies of them. Here's the New American Standard. I think the guys who are doing this are sincere, dedicated, highly intelligent, godly Christians, who are translating the wrong book. And they don't even know it. There are basically only two Bibles in the world in the English. The first one, the Majority Text, is the King James (KJV; Authorized Version). The KJV with now 64,000 manuscripts to back it up. At the time that the King James's translators did their work, they only had 5,000. And then there is the whole other family of Bibles, all translated from the Westcott and Hort. So you have two choices. The question is: not is it a good translation? The question is: what are they translating? Get this excellent book about Westcott and Hort, if you want to read about that. Here's, for instance, NIV Acts in chapter 8. Let's see, Adam, read verse 37 to me. Acts 8:37. You can't do it, can you, because it's not there.There is no Acts 8:37. They removed it, and they removed the verse number. Now the New American Standard at least put a footnote in. In Acts 8:37 it says, "See footnote." But the verse is gone. Down at the bottom, it says, "Late manuscripts insert verse 37." No, no, no. Guys, you've got it all wrong. Those supposed early manuscripts you're going on are the ones that took it out. It wasn't that the later guys inserted it, it's that the earlier guys took one out, that's all. There are over 200 verses totally missing from the NIV. There's a good book by Sam Gipp called "Understandable History of the Bible," which is a great book.. It's a really good for understanding the history of how we got our Bible. Or get Gail Ripplinger's book "In Awe of Thy Word." It has about 1200 pages and is very reasonable at $15.00 or $18.00. It's a really, really good one. We offer many, many books on the King James controversy. If you want one that's toned down and kind of sweet and gentle and mild, get "The Answer Book" by Sam Gipp. It is an excellent book about Why King James? The Language of King James; why do they use these old words, "thee" and "thou" and stuff like that? There's a good reason for that, which we will discuss in a minute. But the whole thinking that older is better is simply wrong. And how is Satan going to use these new versions, toward bringing in his New World Order? Well, this one, "The New Age Bible Versions" is excellent by Gail Riplinger, PhD in English. So an older manuscript does not mean better. I've worn out many Bibles in my 37 years of being a Christian. Older does not mean better. There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other old book. Homer's "Iliad," for instance, only has about 650 manuscripts. In 1946, they found 24,000 more manuscripts. Then the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. And now they have 64,000 manuscripts that support the King James. But there are only 3 complete manuscripts and 46 fragments that support the Alexandrian. Then the Isaiah scroll that was found with the Dead Sea scrolls was actually a 1,000 years older than the other manuscripts. So there are plenty of good books available on that. There are all kinds of things we could talk about on the problems with the other versions. One such is II Samuel 21:19. Who killed Goliath?David killed Goliath. II Samuel 21 says Elhanan the son of uh, his dad, slew the brother of Goliath. NIV says Elhanan son of the same guy killed Goliath. This is an error. It's wrong. They blew it. They left out verses, and we could scan through some of these. All these verses that were left out. There's a list on the website: www.avpublications.com of verses that are left out. Two hundred verses are simply gone. And those that are still in there are many times are changed to something totally different. For example, Hosea 11:12 "Judah yet ruleth with God." NIV says, "Judah is unruly against God." Would you say that is saying the same thing? Judah is also unruly against God?That is not saying the same thing. "Thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth," (Genesis 27). That's one of the blessings. Modern translation: "Your dwelling shall be away from earth's richness. Away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling." They're saying the opposite, folks. It's not the same. Proverbs 18:24 "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly." Do you want to have a lot of friends? Then be friendly. NIV though, "A man of many companions may come to ruin." Are these saying the same thing? Am I missing something here? If you've got a lot of friends, you'll be ruined? That's what it says. That's not at all correct. The Bible says in Matthew 7:14 that - "straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth to life and few there be that find it." Revised Standard (RSV) says, "The gate is narrow and the way is hard." Well, is it hard to go to heaven or just not many do it? Some complain that the King James uses the "thee's" and the "thou's." There's a reason for that, and then we'll go on to another subject. Here is the reason. If such a word starts with "y," it is plural. "Ye", "your", etc. If it starts with a "t," it is singular. And that is an important reason. Nobody in 1611 was walking down the street and saying, "How art thou today?" They weren't using that. But the King James translators wisely chose to use the "thee's" and the "thou's" because of the distinction in number designation. If I walk into a room and say, "You come with me," does that mean one of you or all of you. You can't tell. But if you use "thee" and "thou," you can tell. You can see the importance of this in John 3:7, very clearly. Jesus said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee (singular), Ye (plural) must be born again." He had changed it to a plural. I'm telling you (singular) that everybody (plural) must be born again. That's a really important distinction. Otherwise, He'd be saying, "Nicodemus, I'm telling you that you have got to be born again." Well, how does that apply to Kent Hovind? It wouldn't apply. The fact is the language is very precise in the King James. We can talk all day about that and we'll cover more about that in our college class. I think the whole concept you need to get in your head is, He promised He would preserve His Word, so where is it? I would like to hold a copy of it. And after 30 some years, I was slowly dragged, kicking and screaming into the King James camp. God preserved His Word in English, and we've got it. A couple of verses really attract my attention because of my speaking on creation all the time. (Ephesians 3:9) King James says, "to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the Beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." There are two important phrases here. It says "from the beginning of the world" That's a definite time. He created all things by Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:15-16 says the same thing. Jesus created all things. Jesus is God in the flesh. Well, a lot of these new Bible versions come from the Alexandrians, and they did not believe Jesus was God in the flesh. Now bookstores, of course, want to sell lots of Bibles. The love of money is root of all evil and they don't want to offend anybody. So let's sell a Bible version that doesn't offend people. So look what they did with Ephesians 3:9. "Which for ages past was kept hidden in God who created all things." Well, they left off Jesus. You don't want to offend people, and they made it "ages past" instead of from the beginning. Nearly all the new Bible versions have changed it to say ages, ages, ages. And they leave off Jesus in every case, except for the New King James. They left Jesus in there, but they still call it ages past. That's the only one I could find that left Jesus in there. But they all changed it to "ages." They don't want to get this definite six-day, young earth creationist idea, because they might offend people, and again lose money. Oh, we could spend hours on the different problems with these verses. The last one that bothers me is, Is it the first day in Genesis 1:5 or is it one day? Every version that I found says "one day" except for King James, which says "the first day." Why would they change it to "one day"? Well, again they're trying to allow for the long periods of time, and I don't understand how somebody can read Genesis 1:5 and still believe there is a gap between verse one and two of any amount of time - more than an hour.The first day. It couldn't be more clear in my mind. The question that I get asked just about every week as I travel is, "Well, what about the Bible codes? Is it true that there is a hidden code in the Bible in the Hebrew?" Well, there are all kinds of books that have been written about the Bible code question, and we'll cover those in a second, but let me give you the basic concept. Grant Jeffries has just a great chapter in his book called "The Signature of God" about the Bible codes. Here's the concept: if you take the Hebrew language and only the Hebrew and only the King James backed Hebrew, by the way. And you put it in the computer with every single letter in a continuous string of letters, you can make an acrostic. By skipping letters, you end up with finding other words hidden in there. For instance every 13 letters in Deuteronomy, chapter 10, it spells "in the bitter sea of Auschwitz," the famous concentration camp for Adolf Hitler. Every 22 letters spelled out "Hitler". Other phrases found in this passage were all kinds of things dealing with Adolf Hitler. How can that be? Not just in the text, but in the skipping of the letters. Are there hidden messages in the Bible? Well, I'm going to say this, I don't know, but I think so. I wouldn't be dogmatic on this. Dr. Chuck Missler, a good friend of mine, has a lot of stuff on this. He's got a great book called "The Cosmic Codes," if you want to read about that. You say, who's Chuck Missler? Well, he worked for years as a cryptologist, doing code work for the government, for many years. He's now in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. But he's got some good stuff on the Bible codes. You can get his website www.khouse.org for good information on Bible codes. These are some of the things found just in Deuteronomy and Numbers about Hitler. In skipping the letters, you find Hitler, Auschwitz, Holocaust, The Holocaust, Crematorium, In Poland, Plagues, The Fuhrer, Eichmann, King of the Nazis, Genocide, Asuchwitz, Germany, Hitler, Mein Kampf. I mean, it may be just a little more than coincidence that these things are hidden in there. There must be a reason for that.If you count in Proverbs chapter 30, every 22 letter spells out Jesus. There must be something to it. Clear back in the 16th century long before they had computers, one rabbi said, "The secrets of the Torah are revealed in the skipping of the letters." Here's an example of how it can work. This sentence: "Rips explained that each code is a case of adding every fourth letter to form a word." Read the code. You skip every 4 letters. There's a hidden message inside this particular sentence. That's what Bible codes is all about. Is there a hidden message inside the Bible in addition to the message you're reading? Is there something else in there?Well, I don't know. But in the Book of Genesis, if you skip every 49 letters, you can spell out "Torah." Interesting, 49; that is: seven sevens. If you go to the book of Exodus and skip every 49 letters, you spell our Torah again. This is the Hebrew Law, Old Testament, you know, for God's Word: the Torah. Every 49 letters. If you go to the book of Numbers and skip every 49 letters, you spell out Torah backwards. And if you go to Deuteronomy and skip every 49 letters, you spell out Torah again only backwards. Let's see, Genesis and Exodus spell it forward. Leviticus doesn't have it, and Numbers and Deuteronomy spell it backwards. They're all pointing to the middle: the Book of Leviticus. In the middle, is Leviticus, and at seven letters it spells out (YHVH) Jehovah, Yahweh. Could it be that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy are all pointing to the Lord? I mean, maybe that's just a pure coincidence, but I think the mathematical possibility of that is close to zero. It's almost like there must have been something to it. The Torah always points to God. Anyway, they also ask: "Who created God?" Every week I get some atheist or skeptic call in to my radio program or come to my seminar and say, "Hey, Hovind, you said the earth is 6,000 years old, and God created the world. Then who created God?" I say, "Well, your question assumes that God needed to be created. Actually, your question assumes two things. That God needed to be created, and that God is locked in time like we are. Both of those things are faulty assumptions. If God is infinite and outside of time, then He didn't need to be created, He just is. Now the fact that my brain and your brain won't hold that doesn't matter, but it is the way God reveals Himself. Here's "Discover" magazine, "What happened, what existed before the Big Bang?" So in Genesis one, it says, "In the beginning." What was there before that? I'm going to have to say, Nothing. There was no time before that. The question of where did God come from, or what did God do before the creation, that assumes that God is sitting around locked into time like we are; i.e. that He has to wait for things to happen. No, He doesn't. He's not stuck in time. We are stuck in time. But both views, Creation and Evolution assume a beginning of some kind. Even the evolutionist will say, "Nothing really means nothing.Not only matter and energy would disappear but also space and time." Now they know full well, and it's exactly correct that you have to have time, space, and matter, come into existence simultaneously. See, if you had matter but no space, where would you put it? If you had space and matter, then when would you put it? You have got to have time, space and matter, a continuum. If you had length and width but no depth, you have nothing. It only exists in the imagination. God says He inhabits eternity in Isaiah 57:15. Deuteronomy 33:27 says He's the eternal God. Isaiah 45:22 says, "I am God. There is none else. I am the almighty God." If He is the almighty God, then He is not controlled by time, space or matter. He is right now in tomorrow. In Genesis 1:1 we see an amazing trinity of trinities. In the beginning (that's time, which has three dimensions, by the way: past, present, future) God created the heaven (which is space, which has three dimensions: length, breadth, height) and the earth (which is matter, which has three dimensions: solid, liquid, gas). A trinity of trinities in just in 10 words. He says that He did it. Okay, all I can do is believe that.In Revelation 10:6 it says, someday there shall be "time no longer." At the end, it's over. There's no more time. We've got some beautiful church hymns trying to relate time to eternity. Amy, your husband plays the guitar and banjo, and we sing all these great songs in church. "When we've been there 10,000 years." Well, that's a wonderful song, and I love it, but it's not true. We're not going to be there 10,000 years. We are going to be there. Time, space, matter must be created simultaneously. God says, "He did it." So the question, "What did God do before the creation?" is an invalid question. He is outside time, space, matter; totally outside of it. Nearly 200 times in the Bible, God says," I am." He is present. You see, right now it is not 2005, soon to be 2006 in a couple days, here on Earth. But in heaven there is no time there. No time at all. He is outside of time, space, and matter. Jesus said, "I am … I am." It's all through the Bible… Before Abraham was, "I am." They were going to stone him, when He said that one,. Because they knew He was claiming to be God. "I am the Door." "I am the Vine." "I am the Light of the World." "I am the Good Shepherd." Over and over, He said this. They knew He was claiming to be God, and they didn't like Him for it. You know why He was claiming to be God?Because He was. Next question I often get: "Who wrote the book of Genesis, anyway? " Here we've got a Bible claiming to be written by God. And we say, well, we know men wrote the Bible. Oh come on, God didn't write the Bible. And who wrote Genesis? Who wrote that book of Genesis? The skeptics for years, like Dr. Pruet, have been saying this. I've debated him four times now. He's a Genesis scholar. He believes that four different authors wrote Genesis. This is what the Germans, higher critics, started teaching about 160 years ago. They said, "Well, if you read Genesis, you can tell there are four different authors. You can tell by the different style of writing." They call it J,E,P,D for Yawest, Eloist, Priestly and Deuterist. And they're actually partially correct. There are different styles of writing in Genesis. If you look at Genesis chapter one "God created the heaven and the earth." "God said." "God saw." "God divided." "God said." "God called." 31 times it uses the word "God." When you go to chapter 2, starting with verse 4, there's a change. It says "Lord God," "Lord God," "Lord God," "Lord God" all through chapter two. It's using a different name for God and a totally different style of writing. People that study Hebrew said, "Wow, it's a new person writing this." Correct. So, who wrote Genesis anyway? Well, in Mark 12:26 tells us, "In the book of Moses," it talks about how God said certain things. That is obviously referring to Exodus. So here, the New Testament is telling us that Moses wrote Exodus. In Deuteronomy it says if a man dies and has no children, the brother marries the wife and the first child gets the inheritance of the dead father, to make sure that property doesn't scrambled up. That was the law they had. If you read in Luke 20:28, it says that Moses wrote, "raise up seed to your brother." So Luke is telling us pretty obviously that Moses wrote Deuteronomy. With a little searching through Scripture, you could prove pretty conclusively that Moses wrote these books: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. No question. It never mentions Moses as the author of Genesis. So who wrote Genesis? Actually, Moses was the editor (not author) of Genesis. He collected it, but there were 10 eyewitness accounts within Genesis. Adam actually wrote part of Genesis. There is a way to tell where it is divided. 10 different times in the book of Genesis, you will find the phrase, "These are the generations of." (Hebrew: Toledoth) That's the switching phrase where now a new author is taking over. Apparently God Himself wrote the first chapter. There's no way anybody else would have known those things. But in chapter two, Adam was there. Adam wrote chapter two, three, and four. In chapter five, he switches off. Now keep in mind that Moses edited Genesis from compiling 10 eyewitness accounts. He probably had them written on clay tablets, we would assume, preserved as a pottery record. You write it on the clay, bake it in the sun, and it lasts a lot longer than a book lasts. Noah would have taken these on the ark with him. The first few chapters in a box of clay tablets. He would have carried it on the Ark. The fact that other peoples wrote down their historical accounts, before Moses got around to doing it, does not mean they got it right. And the skeptics will say, "The Sumerian legend was written before Moses even lived," which is correct. Then they'll say, "See, that proves that Moses was copying from them." No. If you have 10 or 20 people who witness an event, and they all go home and write about it, the first one to publish his story does not necessarily have it right. The fact that somebody published first does not mean they got it right. Genesis 5:1 says, "This is the book of the generations of Adam." Adam right there is signing off, probably again on clay tablets. It makes a permanent record – lasts for millennia. Chapter 6:9 says, "These are the generations of Noah." Noah is signing off right there. He wrote chapter five and part of chapter six. In chapter 10:1, "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah." Noah's sons wrote part. They wrote more of the record. And Shem wrote some more after that (Genesis 11:10). Shem apparently was interested in keeping track of where all the grandkids were leaving to. Genesis chapter 10, is called the "Table of Nations" and it goes through 75 different original nationalities. He kept track of all of them. "Oh yeah, Uncle Herman had three kids and these are his kids. There's where they went." My oldest brother is very interested in family trees. He went over to Norway to study the Hovind family tree. Some people are just interested in genealogies. There are people who spend their lives trying to trace back, like in the movie, "Roots." "Where did my ancestors come from?" Well, apparently, Shem was the one of the three sons who was interested in this or God led him to do it. He kept the records in chapter 10, "The Table of Nations." It's kind of boring to read. But it tells all of the sons and what happened to them. Genesis 11:27, "These are the generations of Terah." Chapter 25:12, "These are the generations of Ishmael." Genesis 25:19, "These are the generations of Isaac." Genesis 36:1, "Generations of Esau." When you read through chapter 36 of Genesis, you read it and wonder what all these dukes are doing here. The person who wrote that chapter was interested in that, and God wanted it preserved in His Word. But it's interesting that no dates were given for these guys and it's not recorded how old they were when their sons were born. The only ones that get the dates mentioned and how old they were when their son was born are those in direct line to the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Nobody else matters in that way. They were there, they were good people, and they loved the Lord, but they don't matter. Jacob (Genesis 37:2) also wrote part of it. Ten times in the book of Genesis you see the phrase, "these are the generations of…" There is a great footnote in Henry Morris's "Defender's Bible". His article about: "Toledoth." There were 10 different authors of Genesis, it is fascinating. So the skeptics are partly right. There are multiple authors. And it's always wise to listen to your skeptics. If an atheist tells you that you have bad breath, they might be right. If they say you are wrong about the Bible, then they're wrong. These 10 different authors are all eyewitnesses, which makes it even better. Of course, God could have written it yesterday and gotten it right. He could inspire somebody tomorrow to write it and get it perfectly correct. Not a problem. He can preserve His Word. But the fact that it was written by 10 eyewitnesses adds even more credibility. A question again I get about every week is, "How did they have days before the sun?" Guys like Hugh Ross say maybe the first three days were different, because they didn't have the sun. So they might be billions of years long, they think. Well, He made the plants on day three, so I doubt there were billions of years waiting for the sun to come up. But how did they have light before the sun? In Genesis 1:3, "God said, Let there be light." This is the Hebrew word: "or". There are two different words in Hebrew for light. We have one word for both in English. I would say that is a light, and it produces light. We only have one word, but it means two different things. We know by the context what we're talking about. I'm talking about "turn on the light" or "light up the room". One is the substance of whatever light is, and the other one is the source of the light. God called the Light day and it happened the first day. Apparently, God. in Genesis one, energized the universe with His voice. He spoke, and the entire electromagnetic spectrum – light - was created. All the energy waves permeated everything. There's another word used in verse 14 for light giver. It's the Hebrew word maor. "Let there be lights in the firmament." The maor- that's the source of the light as opposed to just the light. So God made them for lights, that's the word: "maor" to give light upon the earth. The greater light to rule the day, that's the "maor" (verse 16). The Lord is my light (Psalm 27). That's "or" not "maor". He is the light, not just the source of the light. He is the light itself. In the New Testament, they use the Greek word "phos", from which we get the word phosphorous or phosphorescent. God is light, or radiance. Psalm 8:3, "When I consider the heavens," the stars God made. The Bible (Job 38:7) says, "the stars sang together." And there's a long conversation you can get into about the energy from starlight and from sunlight, which may produce more than we usually think of today. Besides just light, it also might have music. In Revelation 21:23, it says, they "had no need of the sun" because God is the light thereof, "the Lamb is the light thereof.." For the first 13 verses of the Bible, there is no sun, but they have light.In the last 26 verses of the Bible, there is no sun, but they still have light. So it would not be correct to say you have to have the sun in order to have a day. The one spin of the earth in relation to anything is a day.Our earth turns once every 24 hours. And we start our day at midnight when the sun's not even out. If the sun disappeared tomorrow, how long would our days be? 24 hours. But not for long, because we would all die. But they would still be 24 hours; we just wouldn't know about it. We wouldn't be here. I think God created the sun later in the creation week purposefully, so His children would know not to worship the sun. Worship Him, not the sun. Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun. You can go down to Mexico and see all the sun symbols every place, in all the gift shops. Some people have it hanging on their wall. Sunday, like all the names of the days of the week, has a pagan origin. Sunday is named after the sun. Saturday is named after Saturn, Monday for the moon, etc. Where was the Garden of Eden?The Bible says, God put a garden "eastward in Eden." So where was this beautiful garden? It says Genesis 2:14. "a river went out of Eden," parted into four heads and one of them was named Euphrates. People say, "In Baghdad, there's a river called Euphrates, so that proves that the Garden of Eden was in Baghdad." No. Anybody who studies this can tell you that the Garden of Eden was in Pensacola, Florida. I don't think there is any possible way to know where it was. The flood ruined everything. There's a city called New York, named after York, England. There's a city in Ontario called London, Ontario. I preached there. Guess what it's named after? London, England. When people came over from Europe to the New World, they said, "That looks like the old country. Let's call it the same name." That's all it is. Noah gets off of the ark. They have been floating around for a year. They have no clue where they are. They see a river. "That reminds me of the river in the Garden of Eden. Let's call that one Euphrates." You have got to pick new names. It's a whole new world. You can pick any name you want. The Garden of Eden is probably under 500 feet of mud or sand somewhere. I don't think there is any possible way to tell where. Now, Gilbert Vincent, a good friend of mine, is convinced the Garden of Eden is under Jerusalem. He gives some pretty convincing evidence to reason that that's where it was; that that's the center of God's attention. I don't know. I don't know how you could know such a thing. The world was totally destroyed by that flood. Everything was wiped out. There is no possible way to know where the Garden of Eden was. The Bible says, nothing died before Adam sinned. Man brought death into the world. Guys like Hugh Ross say, "Didn't Adam eat plants? Don't plants die?" Well, that assumes plants were alive. Look at Genesis 1:11. "God said, Let the earth bring forth the grass, the herb … the fruit trees" and so the earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees on the third day. Plants are made on day three; the sun is made on day four (verse 14). Are the plants alive? And "the moving creature that has life" was created on the fifth day (verse 20). Now He just told us that on the third day He made grass, plants and tree. And He made the moving creature that has life on the fifth day. Is that implying that the plants don't have life? If the things that have life are made on day five, then maybe the plants don't have life, in the Biblical sense. Living creatures were made on day five. Genesis 1:24, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." Living creatures made on days five and six apparently. Genesis 1:29 says "I have given you every herb bearing seed, every beast of the earth shall eat the green herbs.' He says everything wherein there is life, I have given green herbs. It looks to me like there is a distinction here. Things that are green and herbs and vegetables don't have life, because the living things are supposed to eat them. Cain brought the fruit of the ground. Abel brought the firstlings of his flock. And God did not respect the fruit of the ground. It doesn't have life. "You can't get blood out of a turnip," is the expression. It's got to have life, and blood, and death to please God. "Without the shedding of blood, there's no remission of sin." Genesis 6:17 says "And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." "Every living thing of all flesh" shalt thou bring into the ark, the fowls, the critters, etc "and take unto thee of all food that is eaten." Again, is there a distinction here? Living things get in the ark and the food, which would obviously be the plants. It think there is a distinction. The beasts, the cattle, the creeping thing, the fowls, wherein is the breath of life." The Bible talks about the breath of life in the animals. I Corinthians 15:39, "All flesh is not the same flesh. There is one of man, one of beasts, and another of birds." Different kinds of flesh. Genesis 9:1-4, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb." In Genesis 9, now He says you can eat things that live and move, whereas before you could eat only the green herbs. Again, I see a distinction. Living plants are not alive in the Biblical sense. "The life of the flesh is in the blood." Leviticus 17:10-12 tells us. "The life of the flesh is the blood thereof.' He says in Leviticus 17:13-16, "Ye shall not eat that which dieth of itself". Well, if you can't eat that which dieth of itself, don't we wait to eat the fruit and nuts until after they fall off of the tree? Would that be a violation? If they were alive, then they died, fell off of the tree, and then you ate it, you would have a problem. You couldn't let them fall off. You would actually have to eat them on the tree. Climb up the tree, try to eat the apple without breaking it loose, otherwise, you'd violate this Scripture. The Bible talks about (Revelation 22:2) the "Tree of Life, which bears 12 manner of fruits." The fruit can give you life, but the fruit itself, I don't think, is alive. The Bible says, leaves fade, they wither over and over in the Bible. Psalm 1:3; 37:2 It doesn't ever say they die. "The reeds and flags shall wither." Isaiah 19:6,7 "The reeds shall wither." Isaiah 40:24, "and they shall wither." All through the Bible, you see the leaves wither and they fade, they're not alive. Because they don't have breath; they don't have blood. They don't have a soul; they are not alive. A car can die, but it's not alive. The word "die" is just a word we use. A computer can die. There's this blue screen of death. The computer died. "Oh no, now what do I do?" The wind can die down. A dream can die.But none of those things are alive. It's just an expression. A plant is a complicated, self-replicating food source. It has no blood, no breath, no soul. They are not alive in the Biblical sense. So when Adam ate the fruit in the garden, he was not killing anything. Adam, by sinning, brought death into the world. But death did not include plant life. Question: "What does name 'Adam' mean?" The Bible says Adam was the first man. What does "Adam" mean? Interesting question, I get that once in a while. The names in the Bible have very important meanings. God gave them those names for a very specific reason. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, etc. Adam means: man. Seth means: appointed. Enos means: mortal. Cainan means: sorrow. Mahalaleel means: the blessed God. Jared means: shall come down. Enoch means: preaching. Methuselah means: his death shall bring. Lamech means: the despairing. Noah means: rest. So if you put it all together: "Man is appointed to mortal sorrow; but the blessed God shall come down preaching that His death shall bring the despairing rest." Even the names in the Bible are trying to get a message across. Pretty amazing. So, years ago I spoke at a church in Mobile, Alabama. Afterwards, I was talking to a friend I had known for 20 years. He said, "Brother Hovind, let's go to MacDonald's.I want to show you something." So we went to MacDonald's and had lunch. He tore two pieces of paper out, and he wrote on them, Mr. Flat and Mrs. Flat. I said, "Okay." He laid them there on the table. He said, "Now you taught geometry, right?" I said, "Right." I want you to imagine you are Mr. Flat and you live in Flatland. Two dimensions. There is no third dimension. You have length and width, but no height. He said, "Suppose I, as a three-dimensional being want to reveal myself to you. But you live in Flatland. How can a three-dimensional person reveal himself to a two-dimensional person?" Well, you're going to have a real problem here. He said, "If we have Mr. Flat and Mrs. Flat; they are flat. All Mr. Flat sees of Mrs. Flat is a straight line. Now he can walk around, and see she's actually a rectangle. He can perceive the depth, but he can only see the width." You and I can see width and height. You don't see depth. You perceive depth. They call it depth perception. You can take a picture of what you're looking at. And it would look exactly on flat paper as it does in real life. So he said, "If I want to reveal myself to Mr. or Mrs. Flat, I walk over and I stick my finger into the table. Mr. Flat comes over and says, "Oh, I've seen Kent Hovind before. He's a circle." All he sees is a cross section of my finger. Now then I stick three fingers into the table over there, and Mrs. Flat says, "Oh no, I've seen Kent Hovind. and he's three circles." And they're going to split the church, and start the church of the one circle and church of the three circles, I'm sure. But neither one understands me. They've each only seen just a little bitty slice of the real me. So when God wanted to reveal Himself in this little three dimensional world, He came down in the form of Jesus Christ. There's an interesting verse in Ephesians 3:18, "That we may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the length, and depth, and breadth, and height; and to understand the love of Christ which passeth knowledge." Now wait a minute. There are 4 dimensions given there: length, depth, breadth and height. Is there more to God than we understand? I would say, probably so. I'm sure there is a lot more that we don't understand about God. And I doubt anybody can say, I understand everything there is to know about God. If the infinite God would fit into my little three-pound brain, He would not be worth worshiping, that's for sure. Next question: "What about the races?" Where did they come from? Well, you don't have to look around the world very long before you realize there are different colored people out there. I remember the first time I saw a real black man. I don't mean brown; I mean black. He came from Africa. Black as my coat. I was in Atlanta, Georgia. A guy was visiting from Ethiopia. And I was probably 7 years old, and I couldn't believe it. Not only he was black, but his wife was black, and they had a baby that was black. I mean, black black. I'd seen lots of brown people, but I'd never seen a black one. Wow. Where'd the races come from? Actually, I don't think we should use the word races. There aren't different races. There are simply different skin colors. For instance, would you call these different races of cows? No. They all look the same in the meat locker, and they all taste the same in the hamburger. They are just different skin or fur colors. There are four different theories of where the skin colors come from, and I will probably use the word "races" by habit, but I'll mean skin colors. The first theory is Adam and Eve were medium brown and produced all the different varieties in their own children. It's simply a melanin count in the skin. There's a black couple that had three albino children. They didn't have much melanin in their skin. The second theory is. "The LORD set a mark upon Cain." And there are those who argue that Cain became black as a result of killing Abel. I think this is a stupid theory, but it is amazing how many folks believe that. The Mormons for instance believe that Cain was black, and black skin is a curse. "The curse of Cain." They said it's the Lord's doing. The Mormons teach that up in heaven, God has thousands of wives, and He has sex with all these wives and they produce spirit babies. Those spirit babies, if they are valiant, come down to earth and get a white skinned body. If they are not valiant, they come down to earth and get a black skinned body. So they look at black people and think, "Well, you were just inferior in your first life." What a dumb way to live, but that is what the Mormons teach. They said, "Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain." This guy said, "If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse." "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty is death on the spot." And the good book, "Secret History of the Mormon Church" covers a lot of people who have been killed in Mormonism for violating the Mormon laws. The third theory says God put a curse on Canaan. Don't confuse Canaan with Cain. Canaan was Noah's grandson. If you read Genesis chapter 9:24-25, it says, "Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done and said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be." Twice the Bible says Canaan shall be a servant. And there are those who argue, Black people are supposed to be servants, because God put a curse on Canaan. I agree that God put a curse on Canaan, but where do you get Black people are supposed to be servants out of that? Aren't you assuming that Canaan was black, and this curse applies to him? I don't believe that one either. The fourth theory and I think the only logical theory in all of this, is the tower of Babel is what caused it. God said, Spread out, move away. They said, "No we're staying right here," and they built the big tower. And God got angry and confused their languages. But not only did he divide the languages: He divided their tongues, their families, and their nations (Genesis 10:5). Shem is writing this. He's the one who kept all the family records. Chapter 10 is interesting. Small inbreeding groups will cause unusual traits to become very pronounced. For instance, for years the Hapsburgs in Europe had to marry royalty. That was just the rule. Well, sometimes the only royalty available to marry was your niece, or your aunt, or your sister. So they would marry royalty and pretty soon, they started looking real strange. You could tell a Hapsburg. He's got a real long nose, a stupid looking chin, so he's got to be a Hapsburg. This is a picture of a guy of the "Ostrich People" of Africa. There's a tribe of folks in Zimbabwe, who are required to marry within the tribe. There are only about 200 of them, so they are always marrying sisters or nieces or cousins. They are the ultimate: Red Neck. They only have two toes. Their teeth fall out in the middle of the night while they are sleeping. Those are the results of incredible inbreeding. Unusual traits can become permanent with inbreeding, and that might have first begun with the dividing up from the tower of Babel. Genesis 10:32 says, "Nations were divided after the flood." Not only the languages, but the nations were divided. There's a great book on this topic by Bill Cooper, "After the Flood". I have one in the library. It's an incredible book about the dispersions of the sons of Noah – what happened. Well, one of the three sons, Japheth had about 14 sons and grandsons. It's a little difficult to count, believe it or not. You read Genesis 10 and see if you can count it. It's hard to tell who goes with whom, but by my count, there are 14 kids and grandkids for Japheth. Ham had 31 kids and grandkids. One of them was Canaan. Now if the curse was on Canaan, we've got a problem, because the Bible tells us Egypt was the land of Ham (Psalm 105:23-27). Egypt is the land of Ham. The children of Ham migrated to Egypt. Africa was actually settled by the descendants of Ham. Black people apparently came from Ham. Japheth is the father of the Europeans; and Shem is the father of the Orientals, which includes Jesus Christ. They are actually considered Oriental, it includes the Middle East. Shem had 29 kids and grandkids, so by my count, and my count only, I would say there are about 75 original nations and languages at the tower of Babel. That I just adding up those three sons of Noah, and their descendants. I suspect that when God confused the languages, there were about 75 of them. That is purely based on this chart here. Most folks who study English will tell you that: English, German, and Danish have a basic root language. There are hundreds and hundreds of words that are identical. Here's the Beowolf poem in 518 AD. This is English actually, from 1,500 years ago. Today's English is nothing like ancient English. Ancient English is very Germanic. Spanish, Italian, French, and Latin had a common root language. You can compare the words. People that speak Spanish can go to Italy and get along pretty well. People who speak Ukrainian can listen to Russian and get along pretty well. A lot of languages have common roots. There's a good book about the Chinese language called "The Discovery of Genesis" If you want to get one of these, it's nine or ten dollars. It shows how the original Chinese characters, not all the ones they use today, but the original ancient pictograms, were actually telling the creation story. For instance, the symbol for boat is 8 mouths in a boat. Noah's ark had 8 people in it. The Chinese symbol for garden is dust, plus breath, plus two people, in an enclosure. There's also more in this book, "Search for the Truth" by Bruce Malone. A lot of his articles in here are really good and are on our website, where you are welcome to read it. There's been a sequel, "God's Promise to the Chinese" written about God's promise in the Chinese language. The Chinese symbol for righteous is a person under a lamb. The only way to be righteous is to be under the lamb, their own words were telling them. By the way we have a lot of that kind of symbolism in English, and that would make a good sermon some day too. Today there are about 1,200 recognized languages plus thousands and thousands of dialects. They probably all broke off from the original 75 languages, just like the: Australians, Irish, Georgians, and Alabamians, believe it or not, all speak English - different dialects of English. And if it weren't for rapid communication across the world today, they would be totally indecipherable in a few generations. On one trip while we were in Australia at a restaurant, I asked the waitress, "Ma'am, would you get me a napkin?" The preacher said, "Don't say that." I said, "Why?" He said, "Don't ask for a napkin over here. That's a diaper." I said, "What do I want?" He said, "You want a serviette." I thought I spoke English. They don't speak English over there. They speak Australian. But the Bible says pretty clearly in Acts 17:26 that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the earth." The Bible says in Malachi 2:10, "Have we not all one father?" There's no reason to be a racist because of someone's skin color. We cover more about that in Seminar #5. They did a search for Adam and Eve, trying to find out if we had a common ancestor. Using mitochondrial DNA changes, they found out we have a common ancestor only 200,000 years ago. One woman created this whole world of humans. Then they did more studies on this mitochondrial DNA and said we have a common ancestor only 6,000 years ago. Then they said, "No, that can't be right. Let's keep studying." Well, actually we did have a common mother 6,000 years ago, and I even know her husband's name, Adam, and a couple of their kids' names. This article says, "We're all related to a man who lived in Asia in 1400 BC." Science Correspondent in "Weekly Telegraph" in the UK says, "Everyone in the world is descended from a single person who lived around 3,500 years ago, according to a new study. Scientists have worked out the most recent common ancestor of all 6 billion people alive today probably dwelt in eastern Asia around 1415 BC. Although the date may seem relatively recent, researchers say the findings should not come as a surprise. Anyone trying to trace their family tree soon discovers that the number of direct ancestors doubles every 20 years." How many of you have 2 parents? How many of you have 4 grandparents? How many have 8 great grandparents? How many of you have 16 great, great grandparents? If you keep going back, you've got a whole lot of folks in a hurry. Well, this creates a problem, and this article says, "It takes only a few centuries to clock up thousands of direct ancestors. Using a computer model, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) attempted to trace back the most recent common ancestor using estimated patterns of migration throughout history." And they found out we all came from a common ancestor 3 or 4 thousand years ago. I could have told them that just by reading the Bible and saved them a whole lot of time. Yes, we all have one common ancestor, Adam and Eve, nothing to worry about. What about cloning? In the news, a few years ago, cloning was a big deal. Is it okay to clone people? Well, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about what may happen with cloning. We're not sure exactly what you might end up with. The DNA is an incredibly complex molecule; unbelievably complex. What they're doing with cloning is they are transplanting the DNA from one cell to another cell. They are not creating DNA. They are not creating any information. They are not creating anything new. They are just moving it from one cell to another. It's a neat genetic trick. It is very interesting, very complicated, and very expensive. But they are not really creating anything new. The DNA in your body is phenomenal. We cover all of that in Seminar #4 about the complexity of DNA. Dolly, as far as we know, is the first mammal cloned. There were 277 failures before they got Dolly to work. It cost them $50,000 for that one sheep. They said, "What do you think about cloning?!" I said, "The sheep can do this a whole lot quicker and cheaper. Just leave them alone in the pasture, and you'll have your baby sheep." Dolly aged much faster than normal and died early. Cloning is now happening all over. I think it is a waste of time and money. Interesting research. I'm not against research. I'm not against science, but I think cloning is a waste of time. And if the theory is we're going to clone humans, so that we can have organs to harvest to save us from diseases, now you have a really expensive fix to most diseases for which there is a really simple cure: vitamins, minerals, nutrition. We cover that on our video: "The Bible and Health." I've been asked to tell you about all the vitamins I take. Just get the DVD on, "The Bible and Health." You can get all kinds of nutrition tips and vitamin tips. I'm sure no expert on it, but I do intend to live in this body for the rest of my life. And I'm going to make it my goal. I got this in a debate one time. "Hovind, if God made a perfect world, why did He make poisonous snakes?" Fair question. There's no question that there are a lot of poisonous snakes. And what about mosquitoes? Didn't they bite Adam and Eve? Wouldn't that be painful? Wasn't there pain in the Garden of Eden? What about poisonous spiders, etc? These are fair, honest, legitimate questions. Well, if you get this article from JAARS, Jungle Aviation and Radio Service, they talk about using electricity to treat snakebites. "Dr. Roger Guderian in western Ecuador treated over 300 cases of snakebite. The pain is gone in 15 minutes if shock is applied within 30 minutes." What they do is use a stun gun. It makes a little electrical spark. If you get bit by a poisonous snake or a poisonous spider, they've discovered over the last 20 years - a lot of research has been done - a spark right on the entry site, will neutralize the poison. They say if you get bit by a snake, do it in an X pattern, once this way, once this way. If it's been more than 30 minutes, tie an electrode, hook a long wire, to one of these and go around the other side so the spark has to go through the limb. If it's been more than 30 minutes, you should probably also spark halfway from the injury to the heart, because the poison's traveling. A friend of mine said that they had a lady come visit their place in Texas. She had a little two-year old boy with her. This little boy got bit by a brown recluse spider, which can kill a two year old. It wouldn't kill an adult, but it would make you hurt for a long time. We have brown recluse spiders right here in Pensacola. This little brown recluse spider bit this little two-year old, right on the thigh. Within a few minutes, it was swelled up as big as a soft ball, rock hard, and red with a spot in the middle and the kid was screaming uncontrollably. This friend was asked by this lady what should she do. He told her what he would do. He told her, "I'd shock it with a stun gun. I happen to have one, but I'm no doctor. I'm not going to give you medical advice, but if you want to borrow my stun gun, I would shock it twice in an X pattern." Well she did. Within probably 30 seconds, he quit crying. In less than a minute, the swelling was going down. And in three minutes, he was back out playing, and in 15 minutes, you couldn't see anything except a little bite. I was out working in the yard by the drinking fountain and decided to pull out the weeds by the drinking fountain. There was a wasp nest that I didn't know about down there, and one of them came out and stung me on the finger. So I went right upstairs to the Van de Graaff generator, at some 500,000 volts. It makes-your-hair-stand-up generator, and flipped the switch. Instantly, in less than half a second the pain was gone from the wasp sting. I couldn't believe it. Just bam, gone! Just that quick; just an electric spark. People that work in jungles are being told to just get a spark. If you have to find an engine with a spark plug, pull the wire off, spark it. Use a chain saw, lawn mower. Do something, but spark it right away. There seems to be therapy in high voltage treatment of spider bites. There have been articles since 1991 on this. A lot of research about this. Why did God make poisonous snakes? I don't think they were poisonous in the original creation. Dr. Carl Baugh, for instance, in Glen Rose, Texas raised cottonmouths, water moccasins in his hyperbaric chamber, with a stronger, magnetic field. After two weeks of being in that stronger magnetic field, the snakes were not poisonous. The poison was not harmful. So you can study more on that. Water moccasins raised in hyperbaric conditions will not be poisonous, so maybe in the pre-flood world, these snakes had a different function. The protein they inject is actually nutritious, it's good for you. There's a lady over at Calvary Baptist who could tell about this. She was in a car accident, hit the windshield, broke her neck down deep between her shoulder blades. For treatment, she goes in once a month, even today, for an injection of cobra venom. They take the venom from a cobra, stick it down in her neck, and give her a shot, because it's a nutritious protein. I don't know what they did to it, but you can ask her if you like. Maybe the snakes had a beneficial function. So, to say, we have rattlesnakes, therefore, God is mean, is to totally misunderstand the creation concept. What about the Ark of the Covenant? The Bible says in Jeremiah, that Babylon took the spoons, the cups, the basins, the candlesticks from the temple. It names even all sorts of small things that were taken captive out of Israel. Then, in Ezra 1:9-11, when they were bringing the stuff back, it again mentions all the small stuff they brought back: the knives, the silverware. Why wouldn't it mention the Ark of the Covenant? Well in the book of II Chronicles 26:14-15, it says Uzziah had prepared great machines, and slings to sling stones, some huge catapults. Engines, cunning engines, built by smart guys were up on the walls to fling stones. They built all kinds of catapults. You attack that city, and you're going to have a rock hit you on the head. Well, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to besiege Jerusalem and take over that city, but he didn't want his soldiers to get hit by those rocks. So they calculated how far the rocks could go and built a wall outside the range of those catapults. We're going to build a wall all the way around the city, and we're going to starve them out. The siege had begun, and you can read about that in the Old Testament about the siege around Jerusalem. Well, Jeremiah 27:8-9 had said, "The nation and kingdom that will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, that nation will I punish. God told Jeremiah to go tell everyone in the city to surrender. I want these guys to win. You have been evil, you have been wicked, and this is your punishment. Don't fight them. Go with them. Be their slaves. The king says, "No, we're going to fight them," and they got slaughtered; wiped out. Jeremiah knew they were going to lose, because God told him they were going to lose. So Jeremiah apparently took the Ark of the Covenant and the temple furniture from the temple, outside of the city. There's a tunnel, called Jeremiah's Passageway, that's caved in at certain spots. Richard Reeves, who worked with Ron Wyatt, www.wyattmuseum.com, has been working on this for years, digging out this tunnel. Some places are still open. There are all kinds of tunnels under Jerusalem. There's another city hidden under that city. And who knows what hasn't been discovered? But apparently, they took the ark of the covenant and all this temple furniture outside the city wall, but still inside the siege wall. If you look where that arrow is pointing, that is Golgotha, the place where Jesus was crucified. The Garden Tomb is right there. I was there a couple years ago and am going back in the spring to Jerusalem. Oh, it was incredible. If you get the chance to go to the Holy Land, get over there. It's called the Place of the Skull. Jeremiah's Grotto is now a place where they store bananas. A couple of Muslims now own it and they store fruit there to sell. But apparently in Jeremiah's Grotto, you can see it there, the place of the skull, where they stoned Steven, the garden tomb, Gordon's Calvary, and Jesus was crucified right there, He was buried just a short distance away in the tomb. And we get into more later on the Crucifixion site. But Ron Wyatt, who died in 1999, was digging in that area. You can get all of his discoveries from our ministry. I think there are only two people who sell his DVD's, him and us. It's $100.00 for his DVD series. It's phenomenal. But Ron said he was digging out there in Jeremiah's Grotto area, and they found the Crucifixion site, and they found this little cave. They had a Muslim friend working with him, helping him dig dirt. They were paying him to dig. He was squeezing down in this little hole, digging around, and all of a sudden, he came out screaming, "I quit. I quit." And he left. So Ron went in there. Ron talked with me for hours about what he found next. He told me that if someone had told him this story, he wouldn't have believed it. "But," he said, "it happened to me. I also know all liars have their part in the lake of fire." I knew Ron personally. I think he was a good man. If I was God, I would let him find this stuff, for he wasn't looking for glory. He was looking to glorify God. Other Christians, even other friends of mine, say Ron is wrong. I get blasted for even mentioning his name. And Eric, you and I on our video series, "Creation Science: Answering the Critics" cover some of that. But Ron Wyatt said he squeezed down into this little hole, and there's this little cave about 4 feet (1.3 m) high. He saw several things in there. As he looked around with his flashlight, he found, for instance, the Table of Shewbread.- the golden table that the Jews had built 3,000 years ago. Jeremiah hid that stuff in there, built a false wall in front of it. And there was this box hollowed out of rock. The lid was broken according to Ron. He went over and looked at this lid. He couldn't see in it because the ceiling was too short. But all over this lid, was all this black stuff that looked like dried catsup, but which turned out to be blood, according to Ron. Right above the crack in the lid was a crack in the ceiling of this little short cave. That crack in the ceiling went all the way up to where Jesus was crucified 20 feet (6 m) straight up through solid rock. All this is according to Ron. I've never seen that. But there are other folks who say, yes, that is correct. I don't know. But it preaches good at least. Apparently, Jesus died on the Cross, and His blood ran right down onto the Mercy Seat, which is where the blood was supposed to go when there was a sacrifice. It was there because Jeremiah had put it there 600 years earlier. And the blood ran right down to the Mercy Seat. Now (I Chronicles 13:9-10) "Uzza put forth his hand and touched the ark" and God killed him. So when Ron told the Jewish authorities, "Here's your Ark." They said, "Oh, we're not going to touch that." It's still there, waiting for the new Temple in Jerusalem to be built. Then they're going to get it out and put it in the Temple. You can go to www.wyattmuseum.com and talk to Richard. He just says, "I don't know. It's what Ron said." And that's the best I can do too. Next question: "Is God's name in Jerusalem?" I've spoken at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church in Milton, Florida a couple of times and Pastor Carl Gallups, a good friend of mine has a great sermon on this topic. You ought to get hold of him to get that: Is God's Name in Jerusalem? Well, the Hebrew alphabet has all these different letters in it. One of them looks kind of like a "w." It's called, the "schin." That one letter is the symbol for God, and a lot of Hebrews put this on their door post or beside their house. They put the "schin" marking it as God's house. God said His name would be upon the children of Israel (Numbers 6:27). He will put "my name there forever" (I Kings 9:3). In Jerusalem I will put my name (II Kings 21:4, 21:7). In Jerusalem I will put my name forever (II Chronicles 33:7) Is God's name actually in Jerusalem? Apparently so, for there are three valleys enveloping Jerusalem that form the letter: "schin." His name is permanently stamped there on this city. So that preaches well. Now what about Big Foot? I get asked that question all the time, "Hey, what about Big Foot?" A book, "Big Foot Lives. Deal With It." Chester Moore, Jr. from the Houston area is a good friend of mine. I spoke at their Cryptozoology conference. What about Big Foot? How about "The Making of Big Foot"? This is the guy in this book, saying "I dressed up as Big Foot. I confess. It was me." And he's still got the Big Foot suit. I have interviewed 10 people who swear they have seen a Big Foot. Todd Jurasek, a good friend of mine, has seen one several times. This film, "The Patterson Film" here, is the one made by the man who confessed it was him in the suit. As a matter of fact, a Big Foot suit, not the original, but a copy of it, is coming to Dinosaur Adventureland, it is going to be in our museum soon. There is a guy in Colorado who is donating it to our museum. What about Big Foot? I don't know. Whatever these creatures are, some of them certainly are hoaxes and fakes and frauds. No question, but they've been seen in just about every state. There are several theories about Big Foot. Since I've interviewed 10 people who have seen one. And since the question comes up, I'm going to answer it. But it's not something I deal with. I deal with creation. Here are the theories. Some people say they're all hoaxes or misidentified. Well, hoaxes certainly happen. But you've got to understand, especially in the south here, who in their right mind is going to run around dressed in the woods like that? How many red necks are there within 30 miles of here who would shoot one of those things on sight? Look at that thing moving. Bang! What is it, George? I don't know. Let's go check it out. Shoot first. Ask questions later. The second theory says they are an unidentified species of ape. The Discovery channel last night had a segment on Big Foot. Some people think they're people from the 1960's that haven't come in yet. They're hairy and they stink. Some people think they're aliens from another world. I don't know about that one. Some people think they're simply genetic experiments gone bad. Bottom line is I don't know, but those are the current theories that I am aware of. So if you see one, let me know. I'd like to hear about it. Next: Genesis 6:1 says, "There were giants on the Earth in those days." Question: "Who were those giants?" "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, the "sons of God" (in the Old Testament that always refers to: angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, Genesis 6:3 "My spirit shall not always strive with man, … his days shall be 120 years." Now, I don't know what that means. If anybody knows, let me know. People have argued that people will not live past 120. Now that's not true. There are a lot of folks who have lived past 120. Some people say it was going to be 120 years until the flood. I don't know. Maybe it means there will be 120 Jubilee years of human history. Every 50 years was the year of jubilee. 120 times 50 is 6,000. I don't know. If you know, let me know. But I don't. Back to the giants. It says, (Genesis 6:4) "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Who were these giants? And is this "giants" referring to the mighty men? Or does the "after that" separate this into two totally related subjects? I can't figure it out. If somebody knows, please let me know. But "God saw the wickedness of man." He said I'm going to wipe them out, and He sent the flood. But who were these giants and who were these mighty men? It's the Hebrew word, "nephilim." Who were the nephilim? Well, some people think that Jude 1:6 ties in. "Angels which kept not their first estate." I think that ties in also, but I have no idea why I believe that, other than that is what I've been taught all my life. But I think it's always wise to question and say, "Does this really tie in?" Other people say that the I Peter 3:19 passage ties in. "the spirits in prison…waited in the days of Noah." Are the spirits in prison and the angels which kept not their first estate and the giants all referring to the same thing? I give that a definite probably, but I don't know how you could prove such a thing. Here are the theories about these "nephilim." Some people think that they are sons of God that are fallen angels that followed Satan and then married the daughters of men. The problems with that theory is angels don't marry in heaven. That doesn't mean they can't marry on earth. And it assumes that Revelation 12 means that a third of the angels followed Satan. You boys that are in Bible college, Why do we always teach that a third of the angels followed Satan? The passage in Revelation says Satan drew a third of the stars with his tail. That's it. That's the only verse they're using to say a third of the angels followed Satan. There's no question that Satan has helpers and demons. But I don't think the Bible tells us. So either we don't need to know or it just simply doesn't matter. But don't worry about it. There's not enough information . The second theory says it's the sons of God referring to the line of Seth and they're marrying Cain's descendants. It is the intermarrying of the godly and the ungodly line. I think that's a ridiculous theory, because saved and unsaved people get married all the time. And it doesn't affect their children – they don't become giants because one is saved and one's lost. Secondly, there is no evidence Seth's line was godly. I mean they all drowned in the flood too, except for one of them, Noah. Noah had brothers and sisters that drowned in the flood. It says "Lamech lived after he begat Noah so many years and begat sons and daughters." Noah's own cousins didn't come on the ark. His brothers and sisters didn't. Chuck Missler has a good audio series about the Nephilim. He thinks not only were they genetic experiments, but they are coming back. And Satan is going to use this again to infiltrate humanity. You can get Chuck Missler's stuff on that. But, whatever these nephilim were, it would appear to me that Noah's kids would have seen them. Genesis six, the first five verses are taking place just before the flood. So God said, "Build the ark and we're going to have a flood." These "nephilim" are referred to before the flood. So let's assume they were giant people with supernatural powers of some kind. Noah's kids would have seen them. After the Great Flood is over, they're going to tell stories to their kids sitting around the campfire. "Oh, you should have seen the guy that lived down the street from us. He had three eyes and could fly... Who knows what they were like?" But these stories were going to be preserved through the Flood by Noah's children, and they're going to become the legends of Zeus and Thor and all the Babylonian and Greek gods. All the mythological gods probably are actually stretched stories and maybe even not stretched stories of true things that happened. Probably this is a result of the "nephilim." There's an awful lot of stuff about these giants in the earth in those days. Maybe that is what it is. You study it for yourself. Next question, what about UFO's? Unidentified Flying Objects, what are they? I don't know, and I'm not sure how it ties into creation, but since I get asked that every week, I'll tell you my humble and totally unbiased thoughts on the topic. What are the UFO's, unidentified, flying objects? I like that cartoon picture. The alien took off his big glasses. I have been to the New Mexico UFO Museum several times. Every time I go through that area and preach, I stop in and see the UFO Museum. It's pretty interesting. It's a huge place, with all kinds of interesting stuff. There are hundreds and hundreds of books that have been written about UFO's. In Gulf Breeze, right down here 6 miles (10 km) away it is famous for its UFO sightings. What are the UFO's? There have been many Christian books written on the topic, and many heathen books written on the topic. We have these two, "UFO- End-Time Delusion" and a kind of Reader's Digest smaller version by the same author condensing the same information, "UFO 666." There's a great book by Chuck Missler again called "Alien Encounters", if you want to read his theory on UFO's. He's one of the smartest guys I know. I asked Chuck Missler a few months ago when I was preaching at a conference with him, "Dr. Missler, what really happened at Roswell, New Mexico? What is the truth about this? You know, the UFO crash site." He said, "I don't know for sure, and nobody who knows is talking. But exactly nine months later Al Gore was born." Stan Deyo has a good book. He lives in Colorado Springs. Stan Deyo's book about "The Cosmic Conspiracy" is real good about the topic. He says it's using a little understood form of propulsion called electro-gravitic propulsion. I mentioned this in a seminar years ago, and a guy came to me later. He said, "Brother Hovind, I work for the government, and how do you know about electro-gravitic propulsion? That's top secret." I said, "I read a book about it. I'm sorry." That's the book about it, if you want to read it. It's still available from www.millennium-ark.net. So, round airplanes have been made for years. This is the XF 5U which flew very well. It was used toward the end of World War II. But jet engines were invented, and round airplanes became kind of obsolete. Here's the A15. The Russians had a similar one called the A16; a round airplane, a Frisbee. The V173 flew just fine. So there are several theories about UFO's. Let me just give them to you, since I don't know, and you can study for yourself. Theory one says they're all misidentified. Somebody saw a weather balloon, swamp gas, a mirage, had too much vodka, or whatever. Second theory says they are top secret government or private experiments. Third theory says they are Satanic or demonic. See, God is all places. Satan can only be in one place, so Satan flies a UFO, according to that third theory. He has to be able to get around quickly. If they travel with electro-gravitic propulsion, then there would be no G force, because every molecule is being drawn electrically. So the craft could go from zero to 5,000 and stop on a dime, and the people inside would not be bouncing around. No G force. People describe the UFO's as going up, down, right, left, zip, zip. These are things that would kill a person in a regular plane. Pilot's blackout with too much G-force. The fourth theory says they are alien life from other planets. Now the Bible says in Genesis 3:20, "Eve is the mother of all living." So I have a hard time believing there's life on other planets. I believe there are angels out there: Seraphim or cherubim, if you that's what you mean by life outside of earth, and that I would agree with. But as far as living beings outside of that, I don't believe there is any life anywhere else. Next question. How long were they in the Garden of Eden before they sinned? The Bible says (Genesis 5:3) Adam was 130 when their son Seth was born. Before that, Cain and Abel were born, but the dates are not given, because they were not in the line of Jesus Christ. So I think they could have been in the Garden of Eden for 100 years. I don't know, but I don't think they sinned the first 30 seconds. At the end of Day Six, God said everything was very good. Adam and Eve had not sinned yet and Satan had not fallen yet. It is not logical to say Satan fell before the sixth day of creation. Because God said that everything was very good. But God drove man out, (Genesis 3:24) and put him at the east of the Garden of Eden and put some angels and cherubim there and said, "Don't come back." They had to be out of the Garden of Eden before Cain and Abel were born and before Seth was born. So it could have been up to 100 years. There's no way to tell. But certainly it was after Day Seven and before 100 years or so. What about the mark of the beast? We'll cover much more about this in our college class, CSE 200 series. But the Bible says they are going to receive a mark in their right hand or their forehead, and you cannot buy or sell without this mark. I have studied this a lot, and I'm certainly no expert. But I believe we have it available today - this little micro-chip that is about the size of the grain of rice that's been developed for 20 years now. For 15 or 20 years now they have been using this. Some of you might have been here when our local friend Dean Martin, who lives right here in town, came to speak to our staff about the micro-chip. He took one of these little chips, put it under his arm, and walked by his laptop computer, which had a little sensor built into it. And up on the screen flashed information: his name, address, phone number, social security number, and birth date. The chip doesn't store any of that. It stores a code, which triggers the computer to find all of that. The technology is already here to make a little chip that's just a transponder. A radio frequency goes out, and energizes the chip, which has no battery. The antenna picks up the energy and sends back the number. I am 32C25, whatever. At Exxon gas station you can buy these Speed-passes. You can drive up, pump your gas, touch the pump and get in your car and drive off. MacDonald's is doing this. You carry a little chip on a key chain. You walk up, touch the MacDonald's cash register, and pay for your food. Anybody ever seen that before? It's been available for 5 or 6 years. This article came out in CNN, "Is human chip implant wave of the future?" For years now, some people have been putting chips in themselves to activate their whole house. Kevin Worlwhits is very big on this. When he walks into the room, the light comes on. His whole house is computerized, and it's all based on a chip, which he has in his arm. So it can be done. Hitachi Corporation developed a new mu-chip, which only holds a 128 bits. That's the size of it there. 0.4 millimeters. You can put it inside a piece of paper and not find it. There was a family in Florida a couple years ago that was very proud of themselves. They put micro-chips in because they have health problems. And in case of an accident, they can scan their whole body and find out their name and health problems. There's a little chip there. You can see the antennae, which receives the radio signal. That signal energizes the little antennae, which activates it to send back its signal. It gets its energy from an outside source. Well, Carl Sanders has a whole lot of information on this micro-chip technology. You can reach him in Arkansas. We'll put his website up. But as far as using money, the Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. This micro-chip is going to be used to develop a one-world currency. All cash is going to become obsolete. You will have to have a chip in your hand or your forehead or you cannot buy or sell, and we are racing toward that technology, racing toward that reality right now. I don't know how much longer it's going to be, but I'll be surprised if we go 5 more years. We'd be without cash, credit cards, and everything else being eliminated, and you're forced to have a chip. I don't think there's going to be a grand moment when Christians can stand up and say, "You're not giving me that chip. I'm going to stand up for God." It's just going to be a simple matter of you're getting slowly choked out of society. "Well, you just can't buy here." "Sorry, we don't take cash. We don't take credit cards. You have to have a chip." It's going to solve a lot of problems and create a lot of problems. It will tie in probably to the HAARP technology: High Altitude Aurora Research Project. HAARP. They have been doing research for years. They are trying to use the high aurora where the northern lights are to control weather. There's a lot of stuff on the Internet where a lot of folks are thinking that probably these hurricanes the last couple of years have been controlled deliberately. By sending up microwave frequencies, they can heat up a section of the sky make a virtual lens, and then use the sun's light coming through that lens to heat up the ground, like you burn ants with your magnifying glass. High altitude research project can make a virtual mirror. How much is real? I don't know. It's an interesting study. They can also use ELF, Extra Low Frequency. You can study these things, if you'd like. There's been a ton of research done on this, and there have been a lot of strange things up in Alaska and up around the North Pole that apparently are for this purpose. They drill a hole in the ground. Everything seems to be below ground, probably for multiple reasons. I was at a debate, and someone said, "Doesn't the Shroud of Turin prove that Jesus Christ lived on Earth?" Well, I don't need the shroud of Turin to prove that Jesus lived on earth. But, what about the shroud of Turin? Somebody sent me this book and told me that I had to read this, because it was proof that Jesus was buried in the burial cloth, proof of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Well, they say the Shroud of Turin was the cloth Jesus was buried in. Now here are the facts about it. This is the picture of it. You can see the picture of the face, the arms are crossed, and they say there are holes in the hands where he was crucified, holes in his feet, and you can see the beard. There are several real serious problems with the Shroud of Turin. They say you can see the outline of his beard and his wounds. Well, the Bible says His face was bound about with a napkin. The piece around His head was different from the piece wrapped around the body. In John 20:6, it says, "Simon Peter went in and saw the linen clothes lie and the napkin around his head." Not lying with the clothes, but in a place by itself. The Shroud of Turan has one cloth covering the head and the body. It's not the burial cloth of Jesus. They saw the linen clothes laid by themselves (Luke 24:12). Isaiah 50:6 prophesied they would pluck off his hair. Well, the Shroud of Turin shows a man with a beard. He didn't have a beard by the time He got buried. They had plucked off the hair of His cheeks. I Corinthians 11:14 said, "It is a shame for a man to have long hair." This image has long hair. Jesus did not have long hair. He was not a Nazarite. He was from Nazareth. The custom of that day was to have short hair. If the custom of the day was to have short hair, then why did Judas have to kiss him to pick him out of the crowd if Jesus had long hair? He could just say, "Hey, he's the long haired guy.Go get him." No, Jesus had short hair just like everybody else. Jesus went secretly to the feast. Nobody picked him out as unusual. He looked just like everybody else. He was not a Nazarite, from Numbers 6:2-5. That was a vow they took not to cut their hair, shave, etc. Samson was a Nazarite; Jesus was from Nazareth (Matthew 2:23). Don't get the two confused. There's no connection whatsoever. So the shroud of Turin is a really old cloth. It might even be a cloth somebody was buried in. It might even be a cloth somebody who was crucified was buried in. I wouldn't argue any of that. But that person wasn't Jesus, that's for sure. Next question: When my son Eric was in Bible college, he had a teacher that taught him the words, (in Hebrew) created and made are different words. And this was used as evidence for the gap theory. Some things God created and some things God made. So I went through and searched the Scriptures, like you are supposed to do. And I found out God made the heaven and earth, but it also said He created heaven and earth. The words "created" and "made" are used interchangeably. He made the firmament in Genesis 1:7. But He created the firmament in Psalm 148:5. All through Scripture, it uses these words interchangeably: created and made. It's called Hebrew parallelism. We do the same thing in English. If you were going to describe something, you wouldn't use the same word twice. You wouldn't say, "Wow, he was huge. He was huge." You would say, "Wow, he was huge. He was big." You pick a new word for emphasis. Created and made are used interchangeably all through Scripture. The Bible says the LORD made the heavens (I Corinthians 16:26). He made the trees, but He also created the trees. He made man. He also created man. He made animals for the land and He also created animals for the land. All through Scripture He uses these words interchangeably. Sometimes they are in the very same verse. Like in Genesis 2:4. God said, (Genesis 1:26-27) Let us make man in our image, so God created man in His own image. Again, both right there in the same verse. No, those words are nothing you can use to justify the gap theory or the ruined restoration theory. The Hebrew word creation is "bara" and formed is "yatsar" and made is "asah." I'm sure I'm not pronouncing them right. I don't speak Hebrew. But here they are used all in the same verse here: (Isaiah 43:7) "Every one that is called by my name: for I have created [bara] him for my glory, I have formed [yatsar] him; yea, I have made [asah] him." He's got them all in the same verse. It couldn't be more clear. They are all talking about the same thing. Isaiah 43:1, 6, "I created thee, O Jacob, He that formed thee, O Israel… I have created him for my glory, I have formed him, yea, I have made him." Again, it's for emphasis. Not enough to make a new doctrine out of. So these (Hebrew) words for: form, create, and made are used interchangeably all through Scripture. It's just simply for emphasis. Where do you take courses in creation? Well, we offer some courses in Creation. There are several good people who supply materials on creation. Landmark Freedom Baptist Curriculum in Florida south of Orlando has some good stuff. Don Boys, my good friend, up in Georgia has some. Jill Whitlock, www.hometrainingtools.com, if you train your kids at home, has some good stuff on creation. Charles Lynn, up in Tennessee, took my seminar and made a children's curriculum out of it that you can get from him. Here's a question I get in debates all the time. "Hovind, you call yourself Dr. Hovind." By the way, I rarely do that. I'm just Kent, but I do have a PhD. They say, "Is your PhD legitimate?" I say, "Well, I think you've got a right to face your accusers. I say whoever is spreading information, will you please stand." And they don't stand, of course. I'm always ready to answer questions. But whenever someone says I don't have a legitimate degree, I know they're really using an Ad-homin attack. (They are attacking the person, not the message.) So I do take it a little cautiously. Do you have a legitimate degree? They are trying to draw attention away from their silly religion of evolution. PhD means Doctor of Philosophy. Do I have one? Yes I do. There's a picture of it hanging on the wall right inside. You can take a look at it. Patriot University started 1980 in Colorado Springs. It was a Baptist church that started this university. It's a Christian school, kind of like the one you kids went through here in Pensacola. There is nothing wrong with that. They have about 30 graduates a year. You can give them a phone call if you want. They were at Hilltop Baptist Church for years. They had 25 graduates a year. About three got doctor's degrees. They offered doctor's degrees, and they offered PhD's. They have now changed their name to Patriot Bible University. That was done just in the last few years. It used to be just Patriot University, when I went there. They offered a PhD in education. I took it. I got it. It took me 9 years to finish it. I worked hard for my degree. I don't know if other people work hard for theirs or not. But if you don't like the doctor's degree, then call me Bubba, call me Kent, call me "Hey, you" and let's get back to the topic. It's not a big deal with me. Before I finished my last course, I sat down. Put the course away. I thought about it for two weeks. Do I really want to finish this? Is this degree, the term Doctor, going to help or hurt my ministry? I just want to win souls and influence people, that's all. And I really wrestled with should I even finish it, for fear it might be a hindrance instead of a help. And I finally finished it. I ended up with two degrees, a PhD in religious education and a Doctorate in Divinity. There's nothing wrong with that, whatsoever. But if you don't like the degree, then okay, don't call me doctor. They call it the Patriot diploma mill. It is not a diploma mill. You can contact them yourself. I worked pretty hard for my degree. I don't know if they worked hard for their degree or not. So yes I have a PhD. And Darwin's degree was in theology, but they call him a scientist. Henry Morris has a great article about people. "Charles Darwin was an apostate divinity student, whose only degree was in theology. ... Alfred Russell Wallace had little formal education of any kind, with only a brief apprenticeship in surveying." And yet they say he was a great scientist. Only Jean Lamarck in France and Ernst Haeckel in Germany seemed to have had a bona fide education in the branch of evolutionary "science" that they pursued. They were the only two. Most people who were in involved in evolution in the early days were surveyors or engineers. Their training had nothing to do with biology. Yet we call them the fathers of evolution. I do have an earned PhD from a non-accredited Christian university. I have always said that. Thousands of major leaders throughout history have no degree of any kind. Thousands of universities offer distance learning via the Internet, correspondence. There's nothing wrong with that. You don't have to show up on campus. Thousands of people who attend classes in universities cheat, lie or bribe their way to get a degree. I didn't do any of those. Getting a degree from an accredited university does not guarantee any level of intelligence. I mean, most of them still believe they came from a rock, for heaven's sake. If you don't like my degree, call me Kent or Bubba, and let's get back to the topic. If I were dumb or desperate, I could travel to universities around the world and take pictures of where their degrees are actually from. I was at Rutger's University, and I saw a little closet under a stairwell. It's a converted closet, where they handle their correspondence for those who are getting degrees in, I don't know, Chinese, or something. Nobody does it, so they've only got one or two students. You don't need a whole university for that degree, because nobody's doing it. So the fact that it's a little closet under a stairwell, does that prove that it's not legitimate? No, come on, get a life. Question: Evolutionists occasionally ask, If the entire army of Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea, why haven't we found any evidence? Where's the evidence for these guys drowning in the Red Sea? And it's a fair question. Many atheists ask very fair questions. And it's time for Christians to be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh for the hope that is within you. And I'm sorry this taping has gone so long for part seven. But there are a lot of questions that get asked. In Exodus 14, God told Moses to go encamp by the sea and it says they went across on dry ground and the waters were a wall beside them. It does not say they walked through a reed sea. There are some liberal Christians who say they just walked through shallow water. Then how did Pharaoh's army drown? You tell everybody, lay down, don't get up. It was dry ground, and the Bible says God took off their chariot wheels. So what's the truth about the Red Sea crossing? It says the water returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen. If you look at the country of Egypt in the lower right hand corner of this map, you'll see Egypt has the Red Sea right beside it. It comes up into two branches, the one on the left called the Gulf of Suez where the Suez Canal is and the one on the right called the Gulf of Acaba. Actually there are two parts to the Red Sea. It splits right there around what's called the Sinai Peninsula. By the way, Mt. Sinai is not there. But the children of Israel were leaving Egypt and it took Pharaoh three days to catch them. They could not have crossed the Gulf of Suez. They went all the way across the Sinai Peninsula and crossed over there on the right at the Gulf of Acaba. Right where that red dot is next to the Gulf of Acaba is actually a beach. There's a dry river bed that runs right up to that beach. And there are mountains on both side. There is no escape in other directions. And certainly not with a bunch of people with their families, with kids, and wagons, and animals. You're not going to get over either one of those mountain ranges. This satellite view is kind of from the north, a little strange view. You can see that beach right there. The children of Israel went out of Egypt at the far upper right and traveled all the way across the Sinai Peninsula. And ended up stuck on that beach. That beach is huge. Those little squares on there are actually buildings, warehouses. It's a monster beach. It is big enough to hold two or three million people, no problem. So there are the children of Israel stuck on the beach. They can't go north or south. There are mountains both other ways. They can't go back. There's Pharaoh's army coming through the gap. They can't go ahead. There's the Red Sea in front of them. So what do you do? You cry and blame God for all of your problems. That's what everybody does. God, I can't get out of this. What do you do? Dry riverbed where they came out. at the south end of the beach, Ron Wyatt, years ago, found a pillar, right there. He pulled the pillar out, scrubbed it off, and set it up on concrete, and it was pretty badly eroded but some of it was still legible and it said in Paleo-Hebrew, (possibly) erected by King Solomon and it said, this is the pillar erected by King Solomon to commemorate the crossing of the Red Sea. Gilbert Vincent, a good friend of mine from Texas, has been there a couple of times. He got a bulldozer, to straighten it and put more dirt around it because it was kind of leaning over. He climbed up to the top of it. Right there where this beach is, it's about 8 miles (13 km) across the Red Sea. Well, at that point, there is a shallow spot. The deep part toward the city of Elat where I was a few years ago, is about 5,000 feet (1500 m) deep on both sides. The whole of this Gulf of Acaba is about 5,000 feet deep except for right there. There's a shallow spot, I probably shouldn't say shallow. It's actually 900 feet (280 m) deep. That's still pretty deep. But 900 feet (280 m) over 8 miles (13 km) is not bad. It's a gentle slope down and a gentle slope back up. And if you go scuba diving down there, you'll see the rocks have been moved out of the way. Somebody cleared a path across the bottom of the Red Sea. It was probably done by Moses and the people. The Bible says Pharaoh's army drowned while trying to cross the Red Sea. The waters were a wall unto them. To walk 8 miles (13 km) would take half a day, with all of the children of Israel pulling their wagons and everything else. At the bottom, according to Ron Wyatt, who went scuba diving down there were found human bones, horses' hooves, chariot wheels. Now there is some controversy about the chariot wheels. But this appears to be a chariot wheel, it is gold plated. They say you can't pick it up, because it of a gold veneer, it just crumbles. The wood's rotted out. It's like the chrome plating on a car. If you put a bumper in the water, let the bumper rust out, just have the chrome. You couldn't pick it up, it would crumble. But there are those that argue, it's not legitimate. I don't know. But I'm just telling you that this is what Ron told me that they were real chariot wheels. When he took the pictures to the antiquities department in Egypt, they said, "Oh wow, this is from the 18th dynasty." He said, "How do you know that?" They said, "Well the 18th dynasty is the only one that used four, six, and eight spoked chariot wheels." And all three were down there. So these were the same guys who chased Moses out of Egypt, the 18th dynasty. So that makes Mount Sinai over in Arabia. Because remember, they crossed the Red Sea, and then they came to Mount Sinai. The Sinai Peninsula is not where Mount Sinai is. Mount Sinai is in Arabia (Galatians 4:24-25). Right over in that red section, is actually the Holy Precinct where Mount Sinai is. Galatians chapter four tells us, Sinai is in Arabia. If Ron is right and I believe he is, and you can see much more on his Discoveries series (5 DVD's for $100.00) That's how they fund their ministry to go back over there and do more research. These DVDs are well worth seeing. You can see, this is apparently Mount Sinai, and there is video footage of all this. The top is still burned. It became a kind of metamorphosed glass, like dark obsidian or something. It actually burned the rock. At the bottom, you can see the outline where the border was set up. Remember, Moses told the children of Israel, "Don't come up onto the mountain. And they established a border." Well, the pillars are still there. There's also apparently the altar that Aaron made. On the side of the altar they drew a picture of a golden calf or a cow. It's still there. God told Moses to smite the rock, and water would come out. Now most of the Bible storybooks have a picture of a little trickle of water coming out of a rock and somebody holding a cup. How are you going to water 2 million people and their animals with a trickle of water coming out of a rock? That's a stupid idea. Some of them show a little better picture. Actually, it's probably huge. A lot of folks think this is the rock that Moses smote. That rock that's sticking out of that mountain is five stories tall. It is 50 feet (16 m) to the top of that rock. That's as tall as these trees around there, and it's split right down the middle. On both sides there are water erosion marks. Water came pouring out of that rock. You can see the video series from Ron if you want more information on that. He's also got a lot of stuff on his website and his video series on Sodom and Gomorrah. The Dead Sea in Israel has five spots along there that have very high salt concentration and totally destroyed landscape. Ron says he found: Sodom, Gomorrah, Gara, Gaza, Admah, Zeboim. These are the cities that were destroyed. You can read through Genesis 10:19 and Deuteronomy 29:23 in order to get more on this. But God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently Sodom and Gommorah are right there along the south end of the Dead Sea, near Masada. When I was on up on top of Masada a couple of years ago, you can look down and see this big square in the ground where apparently there used to be a city. This picture shows what looks like pilasters and towers of an ancient wall. Well, that's the way they built their cities back then. If you make it up over one wall, you've still got the enemy dumping hot arrows and oil and things on you from the second wall. We have sulfur balls. I've got some here on the table. These are actual sulfur balls from Sodom and Gomorrah. They smell like sulfur. They're 99.9% sulfa and they're burned out. If you break them open, some of them are still yellow inside. Most of them are pretty badly burned. Some of them are bigger like golf ball size. But millions of these sulfur balls are over there, right in that one area. It literally rained burning sulfur. They were so hot that they took the bricks of the city and baked them into ash. These sulfur ball specimens were tested by Michael Banilla, a friend of mine up in New York. He said they were 97.4 % pure sulfur when he had them tested. No other place else in the world has this unique phenomena. We have hundreds of them in our museum out here, sulfur balls, from Sodom and Gomorrah. Apparently the cities were actually burned up. If you dig into the ash, which looks just like a cliff of ash, that's actually the old city wall. That was the brick. Under 2,600 degree temperature, it turned into ash. Laminated. You can talk to Richard. That's Richard right there digging his finger into the ash. There are sulfur balls in there. We've got one that's apparently a part of a human bone that was baked. It's in our museum. So I believe they found Sodom and Gomorrah, and you can check the Discoveries videos, if you want more on that. I often get asked about the unicorn. The Bible talks about the unicorn. What is it? Well, I don't know, but I'll give you the theories. The Bible says he has "the strength of a unicorn" (Numbers 23:22), "the strength of a unicorn" (Numbers 24:8). Job 39:9-10, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn?" The Bible is teaching us here that the unicorn is strong, he is unwilling to be a servant, you can't tame him, and nobody ever harnesses him to plow their fields. You just can't do it. He's untameable. "Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? Wilt thou leave thy labor to him?" that he'll bring it home? No, he won't. Psalms says, He can "skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn." So the animal could skip. And it says in Psalm 92:10, "the horn of a unicorn." This is one of the only references that make people think that the unicorn had one horn. I believe the unicorn is probably more like a one horned dinosaur. I doubt it's a horse with a horn. But we've all heard that story all our life, so we're not going to get that out of our system. But if you had an open mind and could look at this. Yes, a lot of dinosaurs had a single horn – the monoclonius, styracosaurus. The triceratops had three, but maybe they're only counting the center one. The other two might have been some other projection. But anyway, I don't think the unicorn was really a horse with a horn, probably more like a giant reptile. Now, another question. Do wisdom teeth prove evolution? Well, Jack Cuozzo is a dentist from New Jersey. He spoke at our boot camp here last year. Some of you got to hear him. His book, "Buried Alive" is great about the Neanderthals. Wisdom teeth are not proof for evolution. They're actually proof that man used to live longer and grow bigger. Today, 60 % of Americans have trouble with their wisdom teeth and some have to have them removed.60%. Many other countries don't have problems with their wisdom teeth, because they have a coarser diet. Because of the rough stuff they chew more raw vegetables, etc, their wisdom teeth come in when they are 18 or 20 with no problem. Today, we have a softer diet. 60% of us have trouble. But evolutionists argue that wisdom teeth are proof for evolution, when actually, they prove that man used to live longer, matured slower, and grow bigger. If you are getting bigger by the time you are 18 or 20, your head enlarges, it's time for that last tooth to come in to fill in the back of the jaw. It's not proof for evolution. Just proof that man used to live longer. Question: Why are some names missing in the Bible? Well, before we get into the three missing names in the genealogy, you need to be aware the Bible says be careful about (I Timothy 1:4) "endless genealogies, which minister questions." It's pretty tough to follow some of the genealogies.But if you look at the genealogy in Genesis and Matthew and Luke you'll notice it gives part of the genealogy to Christ, as in Genesis. Luke, I took it and reversed the order because instead of saying which was the child of which was the child of, Luke says, who was the father of who was the father of. And by the way the two different genealogies after King David are following two different son, one to Mary and one to Joseph. One's the kingly line. One's the priestly line. That's why there's the difference there. But there's a guy mentioned here in Luke's genealogy whose name is Cainan. Who was Cainan? Jonathon Sarfati wrote an article about this on the answersingenesis.org website that says, this was a mistake. This is one of the few copyist errors in the Bible. I love Jonathon. I'm glad for what he is doing but I strongly disagree. And we wrote him a good article saying, Jonathon, you're wrong about this one. We didn't get a retraction yet. But Cainan is one of three names that is in some genealogies, but not in other genealogies. Why was Cainan added? Well, if you go to our website, www.drdino.com, there's a long article explaining why Cainan was there. I asked Gail Ripplinger, who is a King James expert, why Cainan was added. She said, "Oh, there are 8 possible reasons." She gave me all eight and they are all on our website. But Genesis 5 does not mention Cainan. Luke does mention Cainan. So we put a long article about that rather than take an hour now and answer that. Just read that and call if you have any questions. But the Amonites it says in Ezekiel 21:32, their name will be remembered no more. Some people were taken out of the genealogies, because they did things that were bad. Their names are going to be remembered no more. Ezekiel 25:10 talks about that. "Thou hast put out their name forever and ever"(Psalms 9:6). "I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered"(Zechariah 13:2). The Bible tells us in Jude that Enoch was the seventh from Adam. So there's no gap there. From Adam to Enoch there's no gap. And it says Noah the eighth person (II Peter 2:6). The Bible gives us clues. We can get pretty close on these genealogies and I think that the chart that we have is correct. Now there is a little discrepancy over how old Terah was when Abram was born. I'm aware of the discrepancy. Some people say Terah was 70; some people say he was 130. That's a 60 year difference. We cover that on our website also. We explain why we chose to use the 70 figure instead of the 130. So when did animals become carnivorous? Well, I don't know anybody who knows. Today, some animals eat meat. The Bible says in the creation everything originally ate plants. So when did that change? I don't know, but some people think it changed shortly after Adam sinned. Because once they fell, things might have changed right then with thorns and thistles, etc. It might have changed after the flood, when they got off the ark and had less food supply and more problems. But there was a lion in Hollywood that was used for years in the movie sets that refused to eat meat, called Little Tyke. She lived to be nine years old and never ate meat in its life. It refused. A lady told me she has a whole kennel of dogs. They raise them. She told me that none of their dogs eat meat, only vegetables. During World War II when meat was rare in Europe, they were feeding the zoo animals in London, vegetables. That was all they had. They lived on cabbage. A guy sent me a videotape of two hours of grisly bears up in his front yard in Canada eating grass. They were just grazing on grass for two hours. I don't want to edit in a two-hour video, because watching bears just eat grass gets boring after a while. Yogi bear likes to get a picnic basket if he can, but he will settle for nuts and berries if he has to. I don't think we can prove when animals started eating meat. I suspect they became carnivorous before the flood came or, if not then, shortly after the flood. People say, "Brother Hovind, you get kind of sarcastic with the atheists, don't you." "Yeah, I know." I'm sorry. I'm working on it. But I'm not working on it too hard. Here's why. We answer the skeptics, my son and I. We spent eight hours answering them. We'll probably re-do it some day. There are nearly 2,000 anti-Hovind websites out there. So why do you answer them and be sarcastic? Well, in my thirty-some years in the ministry, I have seen this evolutionary theory destroy the lives of thousands and thousands of kids. So I have a hard time being patient with those ones who are doing the destroying - especially when you know they are lying to support their theory. We cover that in Seminar #4. The Bible warns, Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men." If I were attacking Hitler's death camps to rescue the Jews, I would have a hard time being nice to the guards. I would probably want to shoot them and rescue the people. And I guess I have a little bit of a hard time when I go into universities, 99 times now I have debated professors, and see these guys who are lying to these kids and destroying their faith. I respect them and I am as nice to them as I can, but I do get kind of sarcastic. Here's why. The Bible says, Proverbs 19:25, "Smite the scorner and the simple will beware." Or Proverbs 21:11, "When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise." "Cast out the scorner and contention shall go out." In the book of I Kings 18:28, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal. By the way, this is where rock music was invented. Come on Baal, light my fire, he was singing. Some of the old times recognize that song. But here's a preacher mocking the false prophets. Oh, you say, that's not very tolerant. That's not tolerant at all. You're not supposed to be tolerant of false prophets. Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23:27, "hypocrites, whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones and uncleanness." O generation of vipers. He called them a bunch of snakes. You vipers, you're evil. You're a bunch of serpents and snakes. He's not being very tolerant of the other religions, is He? Jesus said, Luke 13:32, "Go tell Herod that fox." You're calling a political leader a fox? Yeah. I've called Bill Clinton and some our presidents and leaders pretty bad names too. You should if they are doing evil. The Bible talks about (Acts 7:51) the "stiffnecked., uncircumcised in heart," "full of all subtilty and mischief, you child of the devil, you enemy of righteousness, you pervert," I mean the Bible's pretty strong. All through the Bible, God calls people fools, brutish, simple, perverse, scorners, wicked, stiffnecked, full of all subtilty, evil, and mischief, child of the devil. I'm just trying to be like the Heavenly Father. That's why I'm sarcastic with these guys. So why don't I answer all the anti-Hovind websites? I've been challenged 100 times to do e-mail debates. I'm not going to get into an e-mail debate. I type 12 words a minute, with 19 mistakes. I'm just going to do that. All they want to do is tie up all my time. One man said, "Dr. Hovind, you are the most hated man in our chat room. I can't believe how many people talk about you. Apparently, you have struck a nerve. Keep up the good work!" So, I gladly answer any questions. I have question and answer time every time I go speak. We offer this question & answer video here. If you have other questions, send them in. I have a standing offer to debate any evolutionist anywhere in front of their university. I'll pay them $200.00 if they will debate me. And I'll pay them a quarter of a million, if they've got evidence for evolution. So far, nearly 4,000 have refused to debate me. Last week I spoke at University of Northern Michigan. Eighty professors refused to debate me. The week before that I was at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. One hundred professors were personally asked, all hundred of them refused. So I'm not going to get into some small e-mail debate. I speak over 900 times a year. There are millions of people who want to hear, so why waste time on those that don't want to hear? I just don't waste time on them. I don't want to "cast my pearls before swine" like it says in Matthew chapter seven. If I had to plant a garden to feed my family, and half my yard was good dirt and the half was hard rock, I'm going to plant the good dirt first. If I get time, then I'll go work on the rock. If I don't get time, Oh, well I didn't get time. And there are so many millions who want to hear, I'm going to work on those first. And then those that don't want to hear, well, I'll get to them if I get time. That's why I just don't waste much time with that. Okay, I hope you enjoyed our question and answer session. I know it's been long, but we always get questions about things like this. My schedule is on my website, www.drdino.com. If I'm coming to your area, come on out, bring skeptics and scoffers. We always have Q&A Time. Sometimes they get very lively. That's fine. I don't have all the answers, but I know who does. That is our Heavenly Father. The God that created this world told us to study to show ourselves approved unto God. He told us to be ready always to give an answer. And that's what I want to do. I want to please Him and win souls to His Kingdom. So if you have things that are keeping you from trusting Jesus Christ as your Savior, let's get them resolved. There is an answer out there. I may not have it, but I might know someone who does and I can steer you that direction. If you're listening to this message or coming to one of our seminars, and you're not sure you're going to heaven, the most important thing you need to do is to give your heart to Jesus Christ and be saved. You need to realize you're a sinner. You are going to hell. Christ died for you and He's willing to save you, if you ask Him. So we'll have an invitation here and show you how you can trust Christ as your Saviour. Go to our website, www.drdino.com and read right there How to Go to Heaven, or go to Ray Comfort's website, www.livingwaters.com. Learn more about how to go to heaven. Hope this helps. Thank you so much. For more information and other materials offered by Creation Science Evangelism, call us at 850-479-DINO. That's 850-479-3466 or visit us online at www.drdino.com END of Seminar 7B - Dr. Kent Hovind - www.drdino.com - English – [Ed.13.5]