A Heart of Contentment (Audio) 30 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/a-heart-of-contentment-audio/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Does the Bible Contain Fables?

Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersBible Interpretation

Critiques of the Bible come in all shapes and sizes—some more informed than others. Critics often describe the Bible as fiction, a fable, an allegory, a metaphor, or historical fiction. Many modern critics use these terms interchangeably with little regard for their meanings or whether they accurately describe any material in the biblical text.1 In virtually every case, these classifications—which are distinctly different from one another—are grossly misused to discredit the truthfulness and authority of Scripture.

Claims that the Bible is a book of fables appear frequently in memes and videos on various media platforms. They also appear in the writings of prominent atheists. “The Great Agnostic” Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) wrote that the Bible “is a book of fable, legend and lies.”2 More recently, the late Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) called the Bible “a mass of fables and traditions, some of them attractive, many of them repellent, not a guide to morality.”3 As we shall see, these charges miss the mark badly.

Fables consist of a short, fictional narrative that conveys a moral message or practical life lesson, often using animals that speak and behave like humans. Stith Thompson, an early giant in folklore studies, best known for his work on folk narrative classification, states that a fable is an “animal tale…told with an acknowledged moral purpose.”4 Using animal characters immediately distinguishes these stories from other literary forms, such as historically based narratives. Scholarly definitions of this genre include necessary elements such as a moral or didactic (teaching) purpose, anthropomorphism, brevity or simplicity, and use of symbolism.5 We might illustrate each of these points using Aesop’s classic fable, The Tortoise and the Hare:

• Moral/Didactic Purpose: This story teaches the important lesson that consistent effort and humility can be more productive than superior abilities hampered by overconfidence.
• Anthropomorphism: The tortoise and hare dialogue, boasting and challenging one another, much like human competitors in a sport.
• Brevity/Simplicity: The story is concise and straightforward, with no subplots.
• Allegory/Symbolism: The two animals represent archetypes of human behavior; the tortoise represents perseverance and humility, while the hare symbolizes arrogance and the complacency it often creates, and illustrates the tendency for the prideful to underestimate others.

The Tortoise and the Hare illustrates an important life lesson and is merely one example of a fable; others include memorable stories like “The Fox and the Grapes” and “The Crow and the Pitcher.” Observant readers should immediately notice that this pattern does not fit narratives in the Bible. Even passages that depict animals as having the ability to speak (such as the serpent in Genesis 3 or Balaam’s donkey in Numbers 22) cannot be classified as fables because they do not demonstrate the necessary literary pattern, which is well-established in scholarship and widely recognized across diverse cultures worldwide. Put another way, scholars apply specific criteria when identifying different genres of literature, and over 99% of the biblical text does not meet the criteria required to classify it as a fable.

Contrary to popular notions, fables are exceedingly rare in Scripture. In fact, there are only two in the Hebrew Bible.6 The first appears in Judges 9:7-15, following the murder of nearly all of Gideon’s sons by their brother Abimelech. One son, named Jotham, escapes the terrible purge. He goes to the men of Shechem to tell the “fable of the trees” to critique Abimelech’s rise to power and warn the inhabitants of the danger he poses. In this fable, a group of trees seeks to anoint a king. They ask the olive tree, the fig tree, and a vine if they will serve, but each declines the offer. Finally, the group asks the thornbush, who agrees to rule but threatens destruction if not given sufficient honor. This story fits scholarly definitions of a fable quite well:

• Moral/Didactic Purpose: Much like Aesop’s tales, Jotham’s story drives home a specific moral point: choosing an unworthy ruler (e.g., Abimelech) will lead to ruin. As H.J. Blackham notes, this particular story is a fable “because it can stand on its own with a more general application.”7 The lesson it teaches is that bad rulers spell disaster for the nations they govern—a universal truth applicable in any time or place.
• Anthropomorphism: Trees speak, make decisions, and hold a political council, much like human authorities.
• Brevity/Simplicity: The story makes its point without distraction.
• Allegory/Symbolism: The trees represent various members of a society. The first three represent capable individuals unwilling to rule, while the thornbush symbolizes the stereotypical tyrant—arrogant, self-promoting, and destructive (e.g., Pharaoh, Herod, Nero, Hitler, etc.).

A second, much briefer fable appears in 2 Kings 14. After King Amaziah of Judah defeats an Edomite army in battle (vs. 7), he turns his attention to Israel and issues a formal challenge to battle. Jehoash warns his fellow king about getting too greedy: “A thistle on Lebanon sent to a cedar on Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son for a wife,’ and a wild beast of Lebanon passed by and trampled down the thistle” (vs. 9). Like other fables, this story combines a moral purpose (warning against pride and ambition), anthropomorphism, and brevity. It also features symbolism, depicting Amaziah as the thistle (weak and presumptuous) and Jehoash as the cedar tree (stronger and more established).8 The wild beast and its actions punctuate the lesson: beware the consequences of provoking a more powerful adversary. Unfortunately, Amaziah does not heed Jehoash’s advice and is subsequently humiliated in battle (vss. 12-14, ESV).

Upon examining the characteristics of fables closely, it becomes clear that this genre represents a minuscule portion of the biblical text (parables are a similar yet distinct genre).9 Readers should recognize that the Bible’s authors never intended these stories to be understood literally. Instead, they offer moral clarity and insight into human behavior through storytelling. While many other biblical texts and stories provide moral instruction, they cannot be classified as fables.

Conclusion

The Bible contains many diverse genres, including narrative, prophecy, songs, wisdom literature, genealogy, legal texts, apocalypse, Gospel, and epistle. Still, it is rooted in real people, places, and events. To say the Bible is a “book of fables” fundamentally misunderstands both the literary definition of a fable and the nature of Scripture itself. The use of stories as teaching tools does not indicate that they should be considered fictional or unbelievable. Saying that readers cannot trust the Bible because it contains fables is analogous to saying that an audience cannot trust a speaker if he uses illustrations in a speech. A pair of fables used for moral instruction does not reduce the Bible to fiction; they demonstrate that truth can be communicated through many literary forms. Those who dismiss God’s Word as mere fable apparently have not taken the time to read it.

Endnotes

1 Fiction is a narrative that features imaginary people, events, or places not intended to be factually or historically accurate. As a genre, it appeared around the second century A.D. A fable is a short tale featuring anthropomorphized animals and inanimate objects. The best-known examples were collected by the semi-legendary Greek writer Aesop in the 6th century B.C. An allegory is a narrative in which characters, events, and details symbolize deeper spiritual truths (such as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave). Metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is described in terms of another to imply likeness (e.g., “the Lord is my Shepherd”). Historical fiction blends storytelling with historical settings and did not develop until at least the 18th century A.D., making this genre only a couple of centuries old. The Bible often uses figures of speech (such as metaphor) and includes two fables, but the use of allegory is relatively rare (cf. Galatians 4:21-31). The other categories mentioned here are non-existent in Scripture and did not appear until long after the biblical writers had finished their work.

2 Robert G. Ingersoll (1900), The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll in Twelve Volumes, vol. 4, Lectures (New York: Dresden Publishing Co.), “What Must We Do to Be Saved?” Section XI, “What Do You Propose?”

3 Christopher Hitchens (2007), God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve Books), p. 110.

4 Stith Thompson (1946), The Folktale (New York: The Dryden Press, Inc.), p. 15.

5 For a discussion of these qualities, see D.L. Ashliman (2004), Folk and Fairy Tales (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press), pp. 35-37.

6 Two stories in Ezekiel look like fables but are probably better classified as parables (Ezekiel 17:1-10; 19:1-9). The New Testament does not appear to include any fables, although some English versions use the term when translating the word mythos (1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16). It should be noted that every occurrence of this word in the New Testament is negative. The term mythos is better translated as “myths” in the sense of a story that is legendary and unreliable. In early Christianity, believers considered mythos to be the opposite of “truth” (Greek aletheia).

7 H. J. Blackham (2014), The Fable as Literature (London: Bloomsbury), p. xiv.

8 The description of the two kingdoms in this fable accurately captures the actual political, economic, and military standing of Israel and Judah in the eighth century B.C. The Southern Kingdom was smaller, poorer, and less powerful than her northern neighbor. Jehoash’s warning is not merely a boast, but a call for Amaziah to recognize the reality of his situation and respond wisely—the precise response a fable is designed to elicit.

9 Parables appear frequently in the teachings of Jesus, but some also appear in the Hebrew Bible (2 Samuel 12:1-4; 1 Kings 20:39-42; Isaiah 5:1-7). The difference between biblical parables and fables is that the former typically use human or divine figures in a realistic scenario to teach a spiritual or theological truth (e.g., a farmer sowing seeds, an owner hiring workers for his vineyard, etc.). Fables typically use anthropomorphized animals, plants, and inanimate objects exhibiting human characteristics in unrealistic situations to teach a moral lesson. Further, parables often invite deeper self-reflection about spiritual matters, while fables offer universal wisdom about human behavior and its consequences.

---

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

How Can Jesus be the Only True God? Video 11 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/how-can-jesus-be-the-only-true-god/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

WAS GENESIS COPIED FROM PAGAN MYTHS?

 WAS GENESIS COPIED FROM PAGAN MYTHS?

One of the most repeated atheists talking points here, is the claim that Genesis was copied from older pagan sources. The argument sounds scholarly until it is examined carefully. Critics point to ancient texts like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish and argue that because these writings appear earlier in history, Genesis must be borrowed fiction. But this reasoning collapses under scrutiny. Earlier does not mean truer, and similarity does not mean copying.

If a global Flood actually occurred, as Genesis records, then every surviving culture would retain some memory of it. After the dispersion at Babel, humanity scattered across the world, carrying fragments of that shared history. Over time those memories were corrupted, embellished, and reshaped by pagan worldviews. That is exactly what we see. Flood stories appear worldwide, from Mesopotamia to the Americas to Asia, all echoing the same core event but wrapped in false gods and moral confusion. Genesis is not borrowing from these accounts. It is correcting them.

Consider the differences. Pagan flood myths portray many competing gods acting selfishly or irrationally. Humanity survives almost by accident. Genesis presents one sovereign God acting with moral purpose, judging wickedness while preserving life through mercy. The structure is coherent, ethical, and historically grounded. Myth drifts toward chaos. Scripture moves toward order and meaning. The contrast is not subtle.

The same applies to creation accounts. The Enuma Elish describes gods emerging from chaos, murdering one another, and forming the world from violence. Genesis opens with a transcendent Creator speaking the universe into existence by authority and design. Light precedes the sun. Order replaces chaos. Humanity is made in God’s image, not as slave labor for petty deities. These are not copied stories. They are opposing worldviews.

The atheist objection also ignores a basic principle of historical reasoning. Distortions of truth do not disprove the original event. Counterfeit currency does not disprove the existence of real money. False gospels do not negate the true Gospel. In fact, the presence of corrupted versions strongly implies an original source. Genesis stands as that source.

Genesis does not borrow its authority from surrounding cultures. It confronts them. It strips away myth, exposes false gods, and presents history as it actually happened under the rule of one holy Creator. The pagan stories are echoes. Genesis is the foundation.

The real issue is not literary borrowing. It is authority. If Genesis is true, then God defines reality, morality, sin, judgment, and redemption. That is why critics attack it. Undermine the beginning, and you weaken everything that follows. But when Genesis stands, the rest of Scripture stands with it.

Genesis was not copied. It was remembered, preserved, and revealed.

 

10 Things You Should Know About the Wisdom of God

March 17, 2026by: Matthew S. Harmon

This article is part of the 10 Things You Should Know series.

We Need God’s Wisdom

We live in a world where the amount of knowledge increases at an overwhelming rate. Despite this explosion of knowledge (or perhaps because of it), we find ourselves with an even greater need for wisdom. Human wisdom has its place and its uses, but it is inevitably affected by the effects of the fall and the curse on creation that resulted. What we most desperately need is the wisdom of God.

The expression “wisdom of God” can refer to several different realities. As an attribute of God, it reminds us that God is wise. But the wisdom of God can also refer to something that God reveals and something we, as human beings, must embrace. Understood this way, wisdom refers to the ability to discern good from evil and apply knowledge, skill, and experience in order to live in right relationship with God and others within the world that God made. Finally, the wisdom of God can also refer to a person—the Lord Jesus Christ. So, keep that in mind as we consider these ten things you should know about the wisdom of God.

1. The wisdom of God is rooted in the fear of the Lord.

The Bible makes it clear that if we want to have wisdom, the starting point is the fear of the Lord. Proverbs 9:10 states this truth with refreshing clarity: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” Several other passages make a similar point, each with its own nuance (see Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7). The kind of fear described here is not being afraid of something or someone, but a profound reverence and awe of who he is and a willing submission to his sovereign rule over us and the world.

2. The wisdom of God comes to us by revelation.

As the source of wisdom, God is the only one who can give wisdom. Proverbs 2:6 states it succinctly: “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” King Solomon understood this truth. When Yahweh appeared to him and invited Solomon to ask for anything, Solomon asked for wisdom to rule over Israel (1 Kings 3:1–14). Centuries later, Daniel, when confronted with the need to know the king’s dream and its interpretation (Dan. 2:1–16), prayed for God to reveal it to him (Dan. 2:17–19). When God answered his prayer, Daniel praised God as the one who has given him wisdom (Dan. 2:20–23). James 1:5 makes it clear that God offers wisdom to everyone: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

3. The wisdom of God is embedded within creation itself.

While it is true that God must reveal his wisdom, it is also true that he has embedded his wisdom within creation itself. It is evident in the way he made this world. Genesis 1–2 clearly implies this by stressing the orderliness and beauty of creation. Psalm 104:24 affirms this when it states, “O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” Proverbs 3:19–20 strikes a similar note: “The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew.” Simply by observing how the world around us works, we see God’s wisdom on display.

4. The wisdom of God and human wisdom sometimes align.

Because God has embedded his wisdom within creation itself, even those who do not know him can recognize his wisdom. Proverbs is full of observations about how the world generally works that even the most ardent atheist can affirm. Consider, for example, Proverbs 6:6–10:

Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest. How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest . . .

The point this passage makes is that laziness usually results in not having even the basic necessities of life, while hard work (as a general rule) enables one to have them. This truth can often be seen in our everyday experience, and it aligns with what God has revealed as wisdom in Scripture.

5. The wisdom of God and human wisdom often conflict.

But human wisdom and God’s wisdom do not always align. This contrast between God’s wisdom and human wisdom is at the heart of the gospel itself, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 1:21 when he writes “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” To those who are wise in the world’s eyes, the gospel seems foolish, since it is predicated on God’s grace shown in Christ. Because of this frequent tension between human/worldly wisdom and God’s wisdom, Proverbs 3:5–7 exhorts us to “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.”

Knowing the person who is the embodiment of wisdom is far better than knowing an abstract concept of wisdom.

 

6. The wisdom of God is an attribute that unites his other attributes.

All that God is and all that he does is shaped by wisdom. Thus, his love is a wise love, his justice is a wise justice, etc. After a lengthy explanation of God’s redemptive purposes for both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 9–11), Paul concludes by exclaiming “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33). Even in the midst of his unexplained suffering, Job affirms that “With God are wisdom and might; he has counsel and understanding.” (Job 12:13). Thus, in the ultimate sense, God is on the only being who is truly wise (Rom. 16:27), since he alone sees the beginning from the end and knows all things.

7. The wisdom of God is routinely reviled by human beings.

Although we can look at Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God from multiple angles, one that is often neglected is that their sin was a rejection of God’s wisdom. The serpent tempts Eve by saying that if she eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she “will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). The following verse reveals that part of her thought process is that eating from the tree would make her wise (Gen. 3:6). Instead of submitting to God’s revealed wisdom that she should not eat from the tree, she decided to determine right and wrong for herself. When Paul describes humanity’s rebellion against God, he also frames it in terms of rejecting God’s wisdom: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Rom. 1:21–23). In our natural state, we revile God’s wisdom because we want the freedom to do as we wish.

8. The wisdom of God is reverberated in this life.

God does not permit his wisdom to be reviled without consequence. He vindicates it in many ways, such as allowing the natural results of sin come to fruition. But when it comes to God’s wisdom in the gospel itself, one of the surprising ways he reverberates it is in the church. Paul argues this in Ephesians 3:8–10 when he writes, “To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.”

9. The wisdom of God will be fully consummated in the new creation.

Although the pattern of God revealing his wisdom, human beings reviling, and God reverberating it runs throughout Scripture and history, there will come a day when that pattern ends. In the new creation, God’s wisdom will be fully on display as his redeemed people live out their identity as divine image-bearers. Revelation 22:3–5 gives us a glimpse of this reality: In the New Eden, “no longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.” What a glorious reality to reflect on that in the new creation there will not even be the possibility of reviling God’s wisdom!

10. The wisdom of God is embodied by Jesus Christ.

The wisdom of God is more than an attribute of God or something we as human beings need. Part of what separates Christianity from all other worldviews and belief systems is that the wisdom of God took on flesh and dwelt among us. Although Proverbs 8:22–36 foreshadowed this reality, Colossians 2:3 makes this truth crystal clear when it says that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Knowing the person who is the embodiment of wisdom is far better than knowing an abstract concept of wisdom. Through the gospel, Jesus Christ, the wisdom of God, takes up residence in our lives not merely to know wisdom but to live it out in the power of the Spirit.

 

The Skeptic and the Old Testament

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Misc.

It is a common tactic among skeptics today to point to certain verses in the Bible, and then demand that said verses contradict each other. For many years, Dan Barker, a denominational preacher-turned-atheist, has insisted that the Bible contains hundreds of such contradictions. As proof of this assertion, he gives a list of these alleged contradictions in chapter 23 of his most famous work, Losing Faith in Faith. A brief look at that list gives the reader a keen insight into the many weaknesses of these supposed contradictions. One of those glaring weaknesses is the failure to understand that the Old Testament laws no longer are binding upon men today unless they are reiterated in the new law of Christ (i.e., the New Testament).

 

For example, on page 166, Barker poses the question, “Shall we keep the Sabbath?” He then cites Exodus 20:8 (among other Old Testament passages), which reads: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” In supposed contradiction to this verse, he quotes Colossians 2:16: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.” According to Barker’s logic, the Bible says in one place that people should keep the Sabbath, but it says in another place that the Sabbath does not necessarily have to be kept, therefore the Bible contradicts itself.

It is easy to see, however, that Barker refuses to recognize one of the central tenants of the New Testament: The Old Law (Old Testament) was specifically for the Jewish nation, it was done away with at the death of Christ, and the New Law (The New Testament) replaced it. The New Testament books of Hebrews and Galatians were written specifically to confirm that very fact. Hebrews 8:13 explains that the Old Testament laws had become obsolete at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews. If Dan Barker would have read just a few verses before Colossians 2:16, he would have encountered the fact that the Old Law had been “nailed” to the cross (2:14). Ephesians 2:14-17 explains that in His death, Jesus Christ abolished the Old Law and brought in a New Law. Under that New Law, people no longer are required to keep the Sabbath, offer bulls and goats for sin sacrifices, or make yearly trips to the temple.

Any person who accuses the Bible of a contradiction in this instance (and others similar to it) is guilty of misunderstanding two crucial issues: (1) the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament in the Bible; and (2) the law of contradiction. The law of contradiction states that two opposing statements cannot be both true and not true in the same respect at the same time. Barker’s supposed contradiction about the Sabbath does not take into account that the statements were written nearly 1,500 years apart, that the Old Law had been abolished, and that the New Law contains no commandment to keep the Sabbath.

In order for a person to make such an obviously mistaken allegation, one of the following options must be the case: (1) he has done very little Bible study; (2) he has misunderstood large sections of the New Testament; or (3) he has intentionally misled his readers, all the while knowing that the law of contradiction was not violated. Which of these three situations applies to the current discussion, I do not know. But it is abundantly evident that no legitimate Bible contradiction exists.

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

---

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.

 

Homo Naledi—Kind of Shady?

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Creation vs. EvolutionAlleged Human EvolutionFossil RecordIn the NewsPaleontolog

On September 10th the media began highlighting the latest fossil find which is argued, once again, to be representative of an ancient ancestor of humans—Homo naledi. We are wary about how we respond to brand new discoveries, since always the “jury is still out” when these stories are first splashed in the media and portrayed as conclusive proof of various claims. We have documented their rashness time and again (e.g., Miller, 2015a; Miller, 2015b; Miller, 2015c), and this story is no exception. Fox News highlighted South African deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa’s statement that “history books will have to be rewritten” based on this discovery (Tilsley, 2015), a statement very reminiscent of how the media viewed the Homo floresiensis fossils when they were discovered in 2004. In 2014 a new study suggested that the fossils were merely modern humans with Down Syndrome (Miller, 2015b). In keeping with previous trends among naturalists and the media, it seems likely that this newest discovery will again, in the long run, prove not to be what the media is currently claiming it to be, once further study has been done on the fossils—as was the case with Homo floresiensis,Australopithecus sediba (Miller, 2015c), and the Big Bang inflation debacle last year (Miller, 2015a). With these facts in mind, here are some of the details we can gather at this initial stage.

Lee Berger is the evolutionary paleoanthropologist of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa who has been in the media a lot the past few years due to the discovery of the Australopithecus sediba fossils (Miller, 2012a; Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2015c). Once again, his team has been at the heart of the newest discovery. Though the find is only now being broadcast, the discovery took place in 2013 and was kept secret for two years. They discovered ancient bones and teeth in a cave system in Africa that now number over 1,500 in specimens—an unheard of cache of “human-like” fossils from a single site (Callaway, 2015). The bones are thought to be representative of some 15 individuals.

Credit: Lee Roger Berger research team  (http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560) [CC BY 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The first thing you will likely notice in many of the articles splashing the find is the paleoartist depiction of what Homo naledi is thought to have looked like (e.g., Shreeve, 2015; Barras, 2015; Watson, 2015). This portrait should immediately cause skepticism, since mere bones do not tell you what a person’s facial expressions, eye color, skin color, facial wrinkles, hair color, or lips would have looked like, even if a complete skull had been found. Yet all of these features are brazenly depicted in the naledi reconstruction (and even emphasized in the case of National Geographic’s home Web page the day after running the story, which featured a close-up of nadeli’s eye region, complete with freckles around the eyes and red blood vessels in the whites of its eyes).  As When such liberties are taken and brazenly broadcast to the media’s audience as solid science, the effect is powerful reported earlier this year regarding the sediba fossils (Miller, 2015c), paleoartists have been extremely influential in shaping the minds of the masses in whether they view evolution as true or false, in spite of the fact that their artistic depictions are typically created based on meager evidence—what New Scientist calls “part of a face here” or “a jawbone fragment there” (Barras). USA Today described the nadeli discovery as “1,550-plus bits of fossil” (Watson, emp. added). New Scientist highlighted Berger’s contention that the naledi discovery “has implications for how we interpret the other early human fossil finds…. These fossils generally amount to just a few fragments rather than complete skeletons” (Barras, emp. added). As he pointed out after discovering the sediba fossils, Berger now adds, “Both sediba and naledi say you can’t take a mandible [lower jaw], a maxilla [upper jaw] or a collection of teeth and try to predict what the rest of the body looks like” (as quoted in Barras). Based on what happened in the case of the sediba fossils, having more than said evidence still does not guarantee correct depictions (Miller, 2015c). Apparently the paleoartists are still not getting the message from leading paleoanthropologists.

There are other curiosities already being highlighted at this early stage of the discovery: the age of the fossils is unclear—anywhere between 200,000 and 2,800,000 years (Tilsley), based on evolutionary dating schemes, and where the fossils fall in that range is significant from an evolutionary perspective. [NOTE: Creationists would argue that those dates correlate to the post-Flood period a few thousand years ago.] USA Today quoted Berger’s thoughts regarding the fossils:

[T]he bodies may have been deliberately placed in the cave, suggesting that long-ago, human relatives were engaged in ritual disposals of their dead. “It’s enormously surprising to see a very primitive member of the genus, something with this small a brain,” engaged in activity that was thought to be unique to modern humans (as quoted in Watson).

Fox News quoted Berger saying, “‘This is a new species of human that deliberately disposed of bodies in this chamber.’…Up until now, Berger adds, it was thought that Homo sapiens were the first beings to choose to dispose of their dead. ‘Now, with Homo naledi, we have evidence of the world’s first burial site,’ he said” (Tilsley).

This claim is, as Berger notes, completely inconsistent with the paleoanthropology community’s previous claims about Homo sapiens. If Berger is right that the naledi buried their dead, and if the fossils are dated by evolutionists to be over a million years old (using their time scales), then paleoanthropologists have been wrong in their bold claims about Homo sapiens. Previously, the oldest evidence of human burial was dated by evolutionists as 430,000 years ago (Callaway). Since burial of dead bodies is considered a mark of intelligence that distinguishes humans from the animal kingdom, Berger’s find could provide tangible evidence that what we would call “humans” (roughly the genus “Homo”) have always been intelligent, rather than that trait evolving within humans. [NOTE: Creationists argue that there would have been a few thousand “proto-species” (called “kinds” in the Bible—cf. Genesis 7:14), on Noah’s Ark with immense genetic capability for creating the diversity we see on the planet today within those kinds, including the diversity we see within Homo sapiens. Humans, therefore, would not have necessarily looked exactly as we do today, but would have still been humans (just as caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid physiologies today do not look exactly the same). Legitimate examples of ancient humans are likely representative of the humans flourishing in the centuries immediately following the Flood a few thousand years ago. Dating schemes that expand that time scale to hundreds of thousands or millions of years suffer from flawed assumptions—cf. Houts, 2015; Miller, 2013.]

Another inconsistency in the naledi discovery: the jumble of fossils that were found in the shaft, if they all belong to the same species, seem to represent a species with a strange hodgepodge of characteristics that do not seem plausible. The skull seems to have harbored a smaller, ape-like brain, while the lower limbs, feet, and hands that were discovered, according to paleoanthropologists, seem to be more like that of modern humans. New Scientist reported,

The species the bones belonged to had a unique mix of characteristics. Look at its pelvis or shoulders, says Berger, and you would think it was an apelike Australopithecus which appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago and is thought to be an ancestor of Homo. But look at its foot and you could think it belonged to our species…. Its skull, though, makes clear that the brain was less than half the size of ours, and more like that of some species of Homo that lived about 2 million years ago. “It doesn’t look a lot like us,” says Berger (Barras).

Quoting John Hawks, paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Nature reported, “It is a very strange combination of features, some that we’ve never seen before and some that we would have never expected to find together” (Callaway, emp. added). Of course, the reason for that expectation is justified: the combination of such body components does not make sense. It is very possible that in actuality the bones might not actually belong together at all—a contention that was argued by paleoanthropologists against Berger’s sediba fossils last year (Miller, 2015c). As with sediba, they may be merely a jumble of bones from different species. After all, Hawks, who helped coordinate the dig for naledi, admitted that “the team took flak for its unorthodox approach. ‘There’s a lot of the field that really believed we’re just a couple of cowboys who don’t know how things should be done’” (as quoted in Callaway). Of course, when the strange inconsistencies of this find are added to the previously botched assertions of Berger in the sediba find, it provides evidence that the critics may have a point.

Berger argues that “the bodies appear to have been dropped from above down a chute formed by rocks which forms the entrance to the chamber” (Tilsley). Could it, instead, be the case that the bodies of several different people and animals all fell down the chute and were trapped there, rather than having been intentionally dropped down the chute? Science highlighted that possibility (Gibbons, 2015, p. 1150). Such would explain why there’s a hodgepodge of bones from apparently different species. Remains from rodents and an owl were also found (p. 1150). Since the hundreds of bones were found disarticulated (i.e., separated from one another rather than in skeletal frame position), there is no conclusive way to know which bones go with which species—and by implication, no way to know if there are or are not multiple species represented.

No wonder, even at this early stage, paleoanthropologists who are critical of Berger’s claims are not hard to find. USA Today reported reactions by two of them:

Other scientists find the new trove of fossils tantalizing but don’t necessarily agree with Berger and his team on what, exactly, has been found. The fossils are “fabulous and a bit confusing,” says New York University’s Susan Anton via email. “There are some things in this that just don’t look like early Homo,” or at least the fossils of early Homo from east Africa. “The material is spectacular,” says the University of Pittsburgh’s [sic] Jeffrey Schwartz….” But “the interpretation of it … is doubtful.” He points out varying skull shapes, among other features, among the Naledi specimens and argues the Homo family is so poorly defined that it’s not clear Naledi fits into it (Watson, emp. added).

Apparently the find isn’t as clear as it is being portrayed. Nature quoted Schwartz as well: “However, Jeffrey Schwartz, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, thinks that the material is too varied to represent a single species. ‘I could show those images to my students and they would say that they’re not the same,’ he says. One of the skulls looks more like it comes from an australopithecine, he says, as do certain features of the femurs” (Callaway). Apparently, Schwartz agrees with my first take on the evidence: there’s more than one species represented by the fossils. Fox News admitted that “[n]ot everybody agreed that the discovery revealed a new species. Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley [who is most known for his work on the famous “Lucy” fossils—JM], told The Associated Press the claim is questionable. ‘From what is presented here, (the fossils) belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s,’ he said” (Tilsley, parenthetical statement in orig.). New Scientist included its disclaimers as well:

Inevitably, though, there are dissenting views. “To me, having studied virtually the entire human fossil record, the specimens lumped together as Homo naledi represent two cranial morphs,” says Jeffrey Schwartz at the University of Pittsburgh in Philadelphia. Ian Tattersall at the American Museum of Natural History in New York shares that view. Last month, he and Schwartz wrote an article calling for researchers to think carefully about classifying new fossils as belonging to Homo. As for the Dinaledi finds, Schwartz and Tattersall point out that although the foreheads of some of the new skulls are gently sloped, one skull has a taller forehead with a distinct brow ridge—suggesting two species are present. “Putting these fossils in the genus Homo adds to the lack of clarity in trying to sort out human evolution,” says Schwartz (Barras).

Bottom line: the evolutionary community must continue its search for conclusive evidence of its claims that we evolved from an ape-like creature. On a positive note, it is refreshing that Lee Berger, unlike the bulk of the paleoanthropological community, is insistent about not hoarding his fossil finds where few can examine them to see the evidence for themselves. Noting the change in practice that Berger is creating in the community by being so open, paleoanthropologist of the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK, Tracy Kivell, said, “There’s lots of fossils out there no one has ever seen, except for a few select people. Palaeoanthropology is really rotten that way” (Callaway). Is it possible that if the paleoanthropological community was more forthcoming with their alleged evidences for evolution, more scientists would be able to assess the evidence and more quickly discover flaws in claims being made? In so doing, would they not highlight for the world, before the world forgets the previous flawed claims, how unsupported by solid evidence the theory of evolution truly is?

REFERENCES

Barras, Colin (2015), “New Species of Extinct Human Found in Cave May Rewrite History,” NewScientist.com, September 10, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730383-700-new-species-extinct-human-found-in-cave-may-rewrite-history/.

Callaway, Ewen (2015), “Crowdsourcing Digs Up an Early Human Species,” Nature.com, September 10, http://www.nature.com/news/crowdsourcing-digs-up-an-early-human-species-1.18305.

Gibbons, Ann (2015), “New Human Species Discovered,” Science, 349[6253]:1149-1150, September 11.

Houts, Michael G. (2015), “Assumptions and the Age of the Earth,” Reason & Revelation, 35[3]:26-34, March, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1185.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer?” Reason & Revelation, 32[3]:33-35, March, https://apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1024&article=1741#.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “Sediba Hype Continues,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:92-93, September, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1093&article=2039.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]:62-70, June, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122.

Miller, Jeff (2015a), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65, June, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1195&article=2514.

Miller, Jeff (2015b), “Hobbit Man: Another Blunder…And an Insult,” Reason & Revelation, 35[4]:46-47, April, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1188&article=2503.

Miller, Jeff (2015c), “Sediba: Yet Another Paleo-Blunder,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:66, June, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1195&article=2516.

Shreeve, Jamie (2015), “This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?” NationalGeographic.com, September 10, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/.

Tilsley, Paul (2015), “Mass Grave of New Human Relative Discovered in South Africa, Claim Scientists,” FoxNews.com, September 10, http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/09/10/mass-grave-new-human-relative-discovered-in-south-africa-claim-scientists/?intcmp=hpbt1.

Watson, Traci (2015), “Ancient Fossils in African Cave are Tantalizing Glimpse of Early Man,” USAToday.com, September 10, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/10/fossils-humans-cave-ancient-bones/71966570/?hootPostID=69a85859aa6fa7ba18f77917410b6df1.

---

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.