Let Brotherly Love Continue

By Andy Robison 

The book of Hebrews consists of a long doctrinal section defending the supremacy of Christ (1:1-10:18), followed by a section of practical exhortation to live by faith for Him (10:19-12:29). Arguably, the exhortation section extends through the end of the book (13:25). Yet, chapter thirteen takes on a little character of its own. 

 In the last chapter, it seems as if a mind full of thought is relaying brief, staccato

 instructions on a variety of matters not necessarily related to the treatise’s main point. There is instruction on hospitality (13:2), prison labors (13:3), marriage and morality (13:4), covetous ness (13:5), and fearlessness (13:6). Depending on who is referenced by the phrase, “those who rule over you,” in verses seven and seventeen, there is instruction to obey the doctrine of the apostles and/or the judgment calls of elders who “watch out for (their) souls.” There also exist some vague references to the topic of the contrast of the Old and New Covenants in verses ten through fifteen, with a nod the necessity of benevolence in verse sixteen. Then, there are per sonal greetings. 

 This is not unlike the apostle Paul (again, though, one cannot be certain he wrote He brews) in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-28, leaving the main topic to cover a wide array of reminders. Reminders, God knows, are needed for forgetful humans.

 It is striking in Hebrews that this list of reminders begins with a simple four-word phrase, “Let brotherly love continue” (v. 1). The means by which the world would know disciples of Christ would be their love for one another (John 13:34-35). One cannot love God without loving his brother (1 John 4:20-21). Submission and preference of others—so central to Christianity—is based on brotherly love (Rom. 12:3, 10, 16). 

 Brotherly love is central to Christianity because the Gospel is based on love (John 3:16); it teaches the ways to avoid the hatred and/or apathy of the world. 

 One could say that love is the Gospel call in short, if one defined love correctly. 

 For example, John (often styled “the apostle of love”) wrote letters that emphasize love in connection with—and not in contrast to—commandment keeping. 

 1 John 2:5: “But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know we are in Him.” 

 1 John 5:3: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” 

 2 John 6: “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.” Brethren who love one another show it by keeping God’s commandments as a whole. 

 Brethren who neglect God’s commandments are showing a lack of love. God’s commandments are for the purpose of love. As Paul elsewhere said, “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5). 

 “Let brotherly love continue” (Heb. 13:1), may be regarded as not just one of a list of topics, but an overall heading that encompasses the purpose and actions of the Christian walk. 

 

The Beni Hasan Tomb Inscription and the Patriarchal Period

Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.

Creation vs. EvolutionDeity of ChristInspiration of the BibleArchaeologyArchaeologyFactual AccuracyFactual AccuracyHistoricity

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dewayne Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is a doctoral candidate at Amridge University. He has participated in an archaeological dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional membership in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Archaeological Institute of America.]

The patriarchal narratives of Genesis are some of the most beloved passages in the Bible. They are also some of the most heavily criticized. Before the middle of the 20th century, many scholars assumed the historicity of the patriarchs. In the 1970s, two minimalists published what is regarded by many in academia as one of the greatest of one-two punches in the history of biblical studies. John Van Seters (Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975) and Thomas Thompson (The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, 1974) each questioned the historicity of the patriarchs. Their study was so influential in academic circles that, since that time, few scholars have written in support of the historicity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Van Seters and Thompson are much like other critics who feel quite comfortable in approaching the Bible with a level of academic condescension and suspicion that is nearly unparalleled in other disciplines. Although their work was helpful in weeding out faulty assumptions and recognizing instances of misuse of archaeology, their objections go too far and are flawed. Scholars have answered them accordingly. In his book The Bible in its World (1977), Kenneth Kitchen first tackled the objections raised against the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. Others scholars have followed (see Millard and Wiseman, 1983; Yamauchi, 1994).

Ancient Near Eastern scholarship has continued to vindicate the patriarchal narratives. One particularly interesting piece of archaeological data comes from the modern village of Beni Hasan, which lies 160 miles south of Cairo. It is home to 39 monumental tombs of Egyptian officials from the Middle Kingdom Period (2050-1650 B.C.), in addition to a few tombs from the Old Kingdom Period (2686-2186 B.C.). The tomb of a nomarch (governor) named Khnumhotep II is particularly interesting for the study of the patriarchs.

The walls of Khnumhotep’s tomb contain paintings portraying scenes from his life. The most famous, however, is a depiction of a caravan from Canaan. The accompanying hieroglyphic inscription indicates that there were 37 members of this caravan. The exact purpose of their visit is debated among scholars, but most agree that it was some kind of commercial venture (Hoffmeier, 1996, p. 61).

The differences between the Egyptians and the Canaanite merchants depicted in the scene is immediately obvious. While the Egyptians wear their customary white linen kilts, the merchants wear multi-colored garments. The clothing worn by the men is a sign of their wealth. This calls to mind the passim of Joseph that sparked jealousy in his brothers (NOTE: the Hebrew word passim, or “coat,” is difficult to understand because it appears only twice in the Old Testament. While interpretations include “long-sleeved,” “multi-colored,” and “decorated,” it would appear that being multi-colored would be an attractive possibility, since to have such a garment would be quite costly). The merchants also have full heads of hair with beards. This differed from Egyptian men, who shaved their heads and faces (cf. Genesis 41:14).

The Beni Hasan tomb painting recalls two important details about the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. First, each of the patriarchs spent time in Egypt. The fact that they traveled in groups—as in the case of Jacob prior to his encounter with Esau (Genesis 33), as well as his move to Egypt with the extended family (Genesis 46)—also fits the biblical text.

Second, the fact that the merchants move relatively freely in Egypt is reminiscent of Egyptian-Canaanite relations prior to the Hyksos invasion. Prior to the arrival of the Semitic rulers known as the Hyksos (c. 1750 BC), Egyptian rulers allowed settlers from Canaan to settle temporarily in the northeastern corner of the country during times of famine (although they did build a line of forts to regulate the visits of these visitors). The border was permeable, and visits from Canaanite people were often permitted. This changed after the Egyptians drove the Hyksos from Egypt.

The Hyksos were foreign rulers who took control of the northern part of Egypt. Scholars are uncertain whether they came to power by peaceful infiltration or military invasion. What is indisputable is that this takeover engendered hatred on the part of the Egyptians. After the Hyksos had been expelled by pharaoh Ahmose I (c. 1560 B.C.), the Egyptians became somewhat xenophobic and had a particular dislike for Canaanite peoples (often calling them “wretched Asiatics”). The fact that the book of Genesis preserves this memory of Egypt’s permeable borders means that the stories had to exist prior to seventeenth century B.C., when the Hyksos invaded. Later Hebrew scribes could not have known these historical details and would have had no reason to invent them.

Although the patriarchs are not mentioned by name in any extant historical or archaeological sources, this should not be cause for concern among Christians. Archaeology rarely speaks to any single individual, especially when it comes to those who are not nationally or internationally known (e.g., kings, high-ranking political officials, and important religious figures). It also shows that the narratives in Genesis fit with the proper time period. Later scribes could not have known some of the details presented, meaning that the text of Genesis is not a later fiction as many critics attempt to claim. Far from showing the unreliability of the Bible, archaeology has proved to be one of Scripture’s strongest allies.

REFERENCES

Hoffmeier, James L. (1996), Israel in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1977), The Bible in its World: The Bible & Archaeology Today (Carlisle: Paternoster Press).

Millard, Alan and Donald J. Wiseman (1983), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

Thompson, Thomas (1974), The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).

Van Seters, John (1975), Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Yamauchi, Edwin (1994), “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography” in Faith, Tradition and History. Alan R. Millard, James K. Hofmeier, and David W. Baker, eds. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Does God Know the Future?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Alleged DiscrepanciesExistence of GodNature of God

From Issue: R&R – Issue 45 #1

After God inflicted 10 dazzling, catastrophic afflictions on Pharaoh and the Egyptian population, the Israelites commenced their exit from Egypt. We are informed that God issued special instructions to Moses concerning their travel route:

Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.” So God led the people around by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea. And the children of Israel went up in orderly ranks out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 13:17-18).

It has been suggested that here we have a case where God speaks of the future in conditional terms. It is claimed that God selected a certain route for the Exodus because of what the Israelites might have done otherwise—thus evoking the question, “Don’t we see God here considering the possibility—but not the certainty—that the Israelites would change their minds if they faced battle?” The implication is that God’s omniscience is limited to the extent that He could not know for sure ahead of time whether the Israelites might change their minds and desire to return to Egypt. Hence, God is omniscient only in those areas where knowledge is available, but He is not omniscient in those areas that are “unknowable”—as in the case of the Israelites’ potential decision to abandon their attempt to exit Egypt.

Such a view most certainly makes God appear to be a precarious leader of His people: “We better do it this way, no, wait, we might better do it that way.” Such thinking borders on disrespect and a demeaning view of God which misapprehends the nature of Deity—Who is infinite in all His attributes. It is difficult for we humans—who are so enmeshed in a time/space continuum—to grasp the eternality of God and the fact that He is not subject to time or, in any way, restricted, limited, or confined by time. As the creator of time, He exists outside of time. So when the Bible depicts Him speaking of the future, such references are for the benefit of humans.

The underlying Hebrew grammar in this passage does not suggest that God, Himself, was uncertain about or unaware of what the Israelites would ultimately do. Uncertainty is not built into the word, though it may be used in a sentence where uncertainty is involved. The English rendering “lest perhaps” (NKJV) or “lest peradventure” (ASV/KJV) is one word in the original. The premiere Hebrew lexicon of our day defines the Hebrew term [פֶּן־] as “so that not, lest”—which does not inherently or necessarily imply uncertain possibility. If there are passages where the notion of “perhaps/possibility” are present, but there are also many passages where the same Hebrew term is used with no notion of “perhaps” or “possibly,” then the element of possibility or uncertainty is not inherent in the Hebrew word. Consequently, we must refrain from imposing or forcing that element onto the passage. Consider these English translations that capture the thrust of Exodus 13:17—

Christian Standard Bible: “for God said, ‘The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.’”

Common English Bible: “God thought, If the people have to fight and face war, they will run back to Egypt.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible: “The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.”

The MSG: “for God thought, ‘If the people encounter war, they’ll change their minds and go back to Egypt.’”

These renderings rightly convey that God knew ahead of time that the Israelites would change their minds if they encountered the Philistine obstacle. It is stated in Scripture for the benefit of the reader.

Consider the following verses where the same Hebrew term is used that is used in Exodus 13:17—

Genesis 26:7—“The men who live there will kill me for Rebekah because she’s very beautiful” (CEB).1

Genesis 26:9—“I was afraid that you would kill me so that you could have her” (ERV).2

Genesis 31:31—“I thought that you would take your daughters from me by force” (NASB).3

Genesis 44:34—“Do not let me see the misery that would come on my father” (NIV).4

Judges 7:2—“Israel would boast against me” (NIV).5

Observe that, even if the wording of a number of translations leaves the inaccurate impression that God did not know what they would do, consider: To whom was God speaking when He made the statement, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt”? Moses had just completed an address to the entire nation regarding the necessity of an annual commemoration of their exit from Egypt. God must have been speaking to Moses and, perhaps, the elders of the nation, when He stated the rationale for His selected travel route. The verse simply reads, “and God said….” Surely, He was not just speaking into the air with no particular audience. Since they had just left Egypt, it makes perfect sense that, in His miraculous guidance of the nation via their divinely-designated leader, He spoke the words to Moses as an explanation for why he (Moses) was being instructed to take the route that avoided Philistine territory. In which case God was introducing into Moses’ mind the need for him as their leader to consider the possibility (which God knew to be a reality) that they might not follow through with their commitment to God. In that scenario, God would have been giving Moses a leadership lesson.

Built into God’s relationship with His people was the fact that He continuously placed before them two options: obey or disobey. He warned of punishment if they chose to disobey, but also refrained from punishment if they would repent and obey. So the “change of mind” that God often expressed in His dealings with Israel was not unanticipated or based on uncertainty within Himself as to what the people might do. He knew ahead of time whether they would repent, and so He reacted accordingly. There was no uncertainty or lack of knowledge involved on God’s part. Jonah 3:10 illustrates this consistent pattern: “Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” God’s changing responses were not due to His lack of knowledge, but to the people’s own free will decisions. Just because every verse does not offer this technical explanation as to God’s operations, we must, nevertheless, assume that it applies to all such situations. So His “change of mind” is simply the application of His intention to act in relation to their actions: “If they do this, I will do this; if they do that, this will be My response.” In other words, God accommodates human limitations by couching His actions in time-laden expressions. The issue is not whether God will change His mind (as in Numbers 14:19-20), but whether He knows ahead of time that He will do so. Changing His mind does not imply limited omniscience. Human free will is so delicate and sensitive that God goes out of His way not to interfere with it or short circuit the process necessary for free will to be exercised unimpeded.

Endnotes

1 Of 15 English translations, 7 have “will kill me,” 7 have “would kill him,” and 1 has “would kill me.”

2 Of 20 English translations, 14 have “lest I die,” 2 have “lest I should die,” 2 have “I would die,” and 2 have “I will/I’ll die.” Use of the term “lest” does not suggest only possibility, since the statement that Isaac makes indicates that he concocted the lie for the very reason that he was convinced they would (not might) kill him if they thought she was his wife.

3 Of 34 English translations, 3 have “lest thou/you take,” 3 have “lest thou shouldest take”/“lest you should take,” 1 has “lest thou wouldst take,” 1 has “lest thou wouldst violently take away,” 1 has “thou wouldst have taken,” 1 has “He’ll take his daughters,” and 24 have “thou/you wouldst/would take.” The context shows that Jacob was confident that Laban would (not might) take back his daughters by force.

4 Judah insisted to Joseph that if he and his brothers returned to Jacob without Benjamin, it would devastate their father—not might, may, possibly, or perhaps—but, rather, it would destroy him.

5 God required Gideon to reduce the size of his army for the expressed reason that if such were not done, the Israelites would—for certain—take credit for their victory. The NASB has, “for Israel would become boastful.” The New Revised Standard reads, “Israel would only take credit away from me.”  

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Studying Science From a Biblical Perspective

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Creation vs. EvolutionFlood

 Article in Brief

Thousands of years ago, God mandated the study of science, knowing that the physical evidence that proclaims His amazing works provides one of the most powerful testaments to His existence and activity in the Universe. Christian educators must be prepared to help youth see the evidence that undergirds our faith and defend their faith. Apologetics Press now has an option for high schoolers to help make that possible.

In 2022, at the request of one of our supporters, I began teaching my book Flooded in Arizona to high schoolers as a short course that they can take for high school credit (see “The Flooded Foundations of Science Course for High Schoolers” article on our website for information on future course offerings). The spiritual impact on the dozens of youth who have been able to attend over the past three years has been more profound than I anticipated, prompting us to schedule even more course options in 2025. Why is the course so valuable to Christian youth?

Many people simply do not like science. They could not stand Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Earth Science in school. Believe it or not, even though I am now a scientist, I would have agreed with them for most of my education, prior to the final science course I took in high school. There were some key concepts missing from my public school education that would have changed everything. It is one of my goals in life to help youth to have the right perspective about science, because I believe a lack of that perspective is a key factor in why 40%, and possibly as high as 80%, of Christian youth are leaving Christianity behind when they leave home for college.1

The modern naturalistic monopoly on science—I’ll admit—put a bad taste in my mouth every time I was forced to study science as a younger student in junior high and high school in public school. It was natural to equate science with evolution and other false ideas that alarmed me and challenged my beliefs. No doubt many students shared my feelings and, over the years, it has caused many people to consider science and religion to be two separate domains that do not have anything to do with each other. “Trying to harmonize the two shouldn’t be done—and couldn’t be done even if you wanted to,” they claim. To attempt to do so would be like, in the words of famous skeptic Michael Shermer, trying “to squeeze the round peg of science into the square hole of religion.” It would be a “logical absurdity” to do that, he said.2 The result of such thinking has been to convince youth that the claims of Scripture (especially those that have scientific implications, like Creation and the Flood) are “unscientific” and require a “blind,” evidence-less faith to accept them.3 Many rational-minded youth, therefore, are finding (what they assume to be) more support for a natural explanation of the Universe (rather than a supernatural one), since that’s the only “side” they hear being argued from virtually every academic mountain top. “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17), but few are having the opportunity to hear the case of the neighbor.

The truth of the matter is that God owns science: He is actually the One Who initially instituted and defined science and now endorses, encourages—even commands—scientific study.4 A person must conduct science, however, from the right perspective—the biblical perspective—or his results and conclusions will often be incorrect.

As most of us studied science in school, progressing from year to year, the classes and texts tended to be divided into general categories, like “Life Science,” “Earth Science,” or “Physical Science.” As we moved into high school, we probably took “Biology,” “Chemistry,” and “Physics,” and if we pursued science in college, perhaps “Geology,” “Astronomy,” “Genetics,” “Thermal Science,” etc. While it can be convenient to use such distinctions as we teach science, there is a serious drawback to doing so if we fail to step back and keep in mind the “big picture”: the ultimate purposes of science from a biblical perspective, as God intended. Having the right frame of mind about the God-given purposes of science will affect our emphasis of the subject in our lives and the lives of the youth we mentor. It will also affect the way we evangelize in some cases, and may even affect the eternal destinies of individuals in our sphere of influence.

It is important that Christian-minded parents and teachers not merely exclude un-Christian concepts while teaching (which is what many Christian schools do), but actually teach students the subjects from a Christian perspective. So, what should that look like in science?

Teaching Science from a Christian Worldview

Authority and Mandate for Scientific Study

First, keep in mind that if God does not want us to use time doing something, we should not do it (1 Corinthians 4:6)! He has objectives in mind for His followers, and we will give an account of how we use our time (Ephesians 5:16; Colossians 4:5). And so, we should consider whether God even wants us to teach our children science. Whatever we do, “in word or deed,” should be authorized by God (Colossians 3:17; Acts 4:7). Do we have God’s authority to engage in and teach science to our students?

Absolutely. In fact, according to the Bible, God Himself instituted the field of science.

• When God created human beings on Day Six and told them to “have dominion” over the Earth and “subdue” it (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 8:6-8), He was commanding mankind to do something that would require extensive scientific investigation and experimentation.
• When God, through His servant Paul, said in Romans 1:20 that His existence and some of His attributes could be learned from studying His creation, He was putting His stamp of approval on the scientific study of creation—“the things that are made.”
• When He said in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “[t]est all things; hold fast what is good,” He was essentially summarizing the scientific method.
• By encouraging humans to study “the works of the Lord” (i.e., the things God has done, such as Creation and the Flood of Genesis 6-9), He was endorsing science (Psalm 111:2; cf. 66:5).

Scientific Disciplines Delineated in Scripture

• When God instructed Adam to name the animals, He instituted the fields of biology and zoology (Genesis 2:19).
• When He highlighted to Job the natural laws that govern the Universe, He was encouraging the study of physics (Job 38:33; cf. Jeremiah 33:25-26; Psalm 148:5-8). Several laws of science are alluded to by implication in Scripture, including the Law of Causality (Hebrews 3:4), Law of Biogenesis (Acts 17:25; 1 Timothy 6:13; Galatians 6:7), First Law of Thermodynamics (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:11; Hebrews 4:3), and Second Law of Thermodynamics (Psalm 102:25-27).
• Job 12:8-10 emphasizes geology.
• Psalm 19:1 and Genesis 15:5 encourage astronomy.
• Numbers 19 even delineates a basic recipe for antibacterial soap—chemistry in action.
• Solomon, in his inspired wisdom, endorsed the study of biological science, encouraging the study of eagles and serpents (Proverbs 30:18-19), as well as ants, badgers, locusts, and spiders (Proverbs 30:25-28).
• Jesus encouraged botany when drawing His audience’s attention to the lilies of the field (Matthew 6:28), seeds (Matthew 13:1-9,24-30), trees and vines (Matthew 7:16-20), and grass (Matthew 6:30); ornithology by pointing to the birds of the air as an illustration (Matthew 6:26); entomology when mentioning moths (Matthew 6:19-20); and zoology when discussing sheep, dogs, and swine (Luke 15:3-7; Matthew 7:6).
• In God’s sermon to Job in chapters 38-41, He chose to humble Job and instruct him by giving him, not a Bible lesson, but a science lesson covering geology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, oceanography, nomology, optics, meteorology, and biology, including zoology, ornithology, entomology, herpetology, botany, and marine biology.
• Similarly, in Psalm 104 the psalmist used beautiful figurative language to present a science lesson covering astronomy, meteorology, geology, physics, oceanography, and biology, including mammalogy, ornithology, botany, and marine biology.

Bottom line: God founded, endorsed, and encourages science. As an educator, you are a key factor in ensuring that God’s desire (that we engage in science) is carried out—and that it is carried out with the right perspective and purpose in mind.

The Definition and Purpose of Science, According to Scripture

What is science? There are probably as many definitions as there are scientific subjects (since humans determine word definitions), but a basic definition would be, “the acquisition of knowledge through study of the natural world/Universe.” Naturalists argue that science seeks to determine natural explanations for those things we observe in nature (eliminating even the possibility of God’s miraculous intervention in any aspect of the Universe throughout history). Such a diminished perspective, however, was not how science has been viewed throughout history,5 because it neglects the definitive evidence for God,6 is irrational, and even self-contradictory.7 Instead, science seeks to acquire explanations—whether natural or supernatural—for those things we observe in nature.

The ultimate purposes of science are more important to Christian educators, since at least three of those are, first and foremost, defined by God, not man. The purpose of science is to gain knowledge (Proverbs 8:10) from observations of the natural realm (i.e., “the things that are made”—Romans 1:20) that will help humans to:

(1) subdue and have dominion over the Earth (Genesis 1:28; 9:2) so that they can live a good life (Ecclesiastes 2:24) in service to God (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), helping others (Ecclesiastes 3:12; Galatians 6:10; 1 Timothy 6:188);

(2) learn about God—His existence and nature (Romans 1:20; Hebrews 11:6; Psalm 19:1)—by studying the things He has done (Psalm 111:2; Romans 1:20); and

(3) defend the truth against those who would seek to discredit it (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3).

Logically, therefore, Creation and Flood Science should be the foundations upon which a student’s study of science is built, since they are the two greatest physical works God has authored throughout Earth history. Although few scientists think about their mission in such terms, most science disciplines today are focused more on the first purpose above (at least, a portion of it): subduing and having dominion over the Earth in order to live a good life. The second and third extremely important purposes are, sadly, often completely neglected, even in our Christian schools. Our parents and science teachers are charged with the critically important task of making sure our students/children can defend the truth, and know and do not forget about the great works of the Lord as exhibited through physical evidence in the Universe (like the Flood—Genesis 9:12-17). Yet, oftentimes, we fall down on the job, allowing the world around us—our children/students—to forget (2 Peter 3:3-9).

• Psalm 111:2—“The works of the Lord are great, studied by all who have pleasure in them.”
• 2 Peter 3:5-9—“For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Are you ready to teach youth science the way God intended? Do you have any high school age children, students, grandchildren, nieces/nephews, neighbors, or members of your church youth group who would benefit from a study of the biblical foundations of science in the Flood, solidifying their faith, preparing them for evangelism, and helping them to know more about God, all the while receiving course credit? Have them join me in Arizona for a life-changing experience.

Endnotes

1 Flavil Yeakley (2012), Why They Left (Gospel Advocate), p. 39; Kevin Cain (2019), “Why Are We Losing Them When They Leave For College?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/why-are-we-losing-them-when-they-leave-for-college-5738/.

2 Michael Shermer (2007), Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York: Henry Holt), Kindle edition, p. 162.

3 Contrary to the teachings of Scripture. See Dave Miller (2003), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/blind-faith-444/.

4 Note: While conducting science (i.e., the study of “the things that are made”) is necessary to fulfill God’s expectations, there are certainly different levels/depths of scientific study in which a person could engage. Virtually every person engages in science in various ways, even if doing so is often an unconscious decision and at a very basic level. We are not suggesting that God expects every person to become a full-time, credentialed scientist.

5 For examples of famous scientists, considered the “fathers” of various scientific disciplines, who were biblical creationists, see Jeff Miller (2012), “‘You Creationists Are Not Qualified to Discuss Such Matters!’” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:141-143, December, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1212.pdf.

6 Dave Miller, ed. (2017), Does God Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

7 Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 2nd edition.

8 See also James 4:17 and Mark 10:45.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.