A review of David Instone-Brewer's Bible Contexts Series - Chapter 20: Cain's "wife"

Dr. David Instone-Brewer is an eminent Bible Scholar in England, one of the experts responsible for the last tranche of changes to the NIV. He knows a lot more than I do about a lot of things, and since he makes it easy to access most of what he writes, I follow him to my advantage--especially in the area of Old Testament Studies, which is his specialty. What I've learned from him, however, are generally facts and insights I hadn't been exposed to before. I don't sit at his feet for much of what he weaves into his teaching, which are just standard tenets of atheism (although I admit, some of them are new to me as well). For although he identifies as an evangelical, he nonetheless looks to atheist scholars and their disciples to inform his interpretation of the Scriptures--and is thus oft led astray.

Dr. D is greatly hampered in his ability to gain insights from the book of Genesis, believing as he does that it was composed as a sort of religious fiction during the Babylonian captivity to inspire Jews not to lose hope in their present situation, or something along those lines. He doesn't believe that it is even intended to be a serious historical record, and certainly not that it was compiled from written eyewitness accounts. There is therefore no apparent limit to the imaginations his mind can supply from a reading of this section of the Scriptures, guided by the speculations of the atheists which lie behind much of his theology. And since he drinks deeply at the font of those who have no access to absolute truth, he all but admits that what he sincerely believes to be true today may be ridiculed a decade or a century from now, as atheist philosophers discard old and unworkable alternative explanations for how the world works, and imagine new ones yet to be disproven. This approach leads him far astray from orthodox understanding. 

Take, for example, his chapter on Cain's Wife. He already reinterprets the first two chapters of Genesis in an atheistic framework, starting with a random humanoid whose ancestral line went back to stardust. He then departs from the atheist narrative just a bit to give God credit for taking this human-looking animal, the pinnacle of billions of years of random evolution, miraculously granting him a human spirit, and then--in a most unusual departure from his involvement of the previous billions of years, and in a biological process we can hardly imagine, much less explain scientifically--splitting off a half-clone which became the first human woman. He then set the newly enlightened couple in special walled enclosure he called Eden and commanded them not to eat a certain fruit. They did so regardless, and as a result they were cast out of Eden to resume their evolutionary progress without any life-sustaining access to the fruit of the tree that conveyed some sort of immortality. And here enters Cain's Wife, who he proposes was a non-human, implying along the way that the host of present mankind must be descended from her.

I hesitate to critique Dr. D in any area of actual OT Studies, as he is an acknowledged expert in both the Hebrew language and rabbinical literature. But here he has left far behind anything directly related to the Hebrew Scriptures to dabble in Evolutionary Biology, in which he is no expert--leaving me on much firmer ground to dispute him. [Edit: he does claim biological expertise based on his undergraduate studies, but then, so could I, having sat for General Science in Bible College.]

I will be interacting in this post with Chapter 20 of his book Bible Contexts which, at least for now, can be found at his website http://www.biblecontexts.com/. He introduces the chapter as follows:

If Cain married someone living outside Eden, this would explain some strange details in Genesis. It would also explain how our gene pool contains so much variation.

---

His book is all about explaining strange details in Genesis with even stranger speculations. He sees a problem with God selecting just two humanoids--really, only one--to begin the human family tree. Although his God is capable of many amazing feats, Dr. D seems constrained by his acceptance of atheist teaching to place the Laws of Nature at a higher tier on the hierarchy than that occupied by Nature's God. The God who could split the first man in half at the sub-cellular level to produce the first woman was nonetheless stumped at providing this pair's descendants with enough genetic variety to produce the four blood types, so He needed to pull in some genes from the neighboring humanoids to pull it off. Thus, Cain's Wife. 

Now Mrs. Cain was not a Neanderthal, mind you--Cain had already inherited those genes from his long-dead humanoid ancestors. What she provided instead was access to the "rich gene pool" that had resulted from millions of years of primate evolution. Dr. D uses a modern analogy to explain why this was not only sufficient, but necessary, if humanity were to survive The Fall:

 Cain could, of course, have married his sister – though the Bible doesn’t say this happened. It is difficult to imagine her wanting to marry a brother (especially the nasty brother who murdered the nice one). Presumably this incest wouldn’t be dangerous like it is today because God could have made sure there weren’t any dangerous recessive genes in Adam’s chromosomes. However, our human race would be very weak if the entire gene pool had been limited to just Adam’s chromosomes. Restricted gene pools often cause problems in overrefined agricultural animals or crop lines because this makes them vulnerable to pests and changes in the environment. This is solved by interbreeding with wild species to reinvigorate the gene pool by introducing more variety.

Here he makes a mistake commonly perpetuated by pseudoscientists, assuming that a genetic bottleneck always results in a dangerously depleted gene pool. The reason modern agricultural crops and animals have depleted gene pools, and wild varieties don't, is precisely the result of human intervention to breed out unwanted variation. Absent that unnatural selection, a fairly robust set of genes will continue to be passed on, even in a small population. But racism is a powerful and primordial urge, such that organisms resist hybridisation and generally seek to mate with creatures most like themselves, resulting in further speciation, as any organisms that depart from the standard in the same direction tend to seek out each other for breeding, leaving an even more depleted genome to their descendants. Were it not for the balancing act of another primordial urge--that of men, having gone forth to conquer, seeking and finding sexual release amongst the females of the conquered races--humans would be much more genetically depleted than we are. 

If I were to hypothesize myself, I would say that God created Adam with two completely different sets of chromosomes, with each of the millions of gene pairs consisting of different alleles. Thus Eve was far more distant from Adam, genetically, than any two humans are today; at the time she was split off from him, she only shared 50 per cent of his genetic material. And if God were powerful enough to pull off forming yet another haploid set for the rest of Eve, then he only shared half of her genome--providing far more diversity than Cain could have brought into the young race by impregnating a distant descendant of the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Adam could well have carried one haploid gene for Type A blood, and one for Type B. We don't even have to split that in half again to get all three of the blood types just among their children, provided that Eve possessed the same. And if, post-Fall, any two of their children ended up with an allele that lacked the information for producing either the A or B antigen, Type O could emerge as early as their grandchildren's generation. It's a stupendous pity that Dr. D, with all his learning, didn't see how God could accomplish this without having Cain interbreed with a non-human. 

       Mutations occur very rarely, unless there are carcinogens present. This is good, because most mutations are dangerous – as seen by the effects of carcinogens. Reproductive cells are protected from mutations by DNA repair mechanisms, which make sure that accidental mutations are rarely passed on to our children. A few do get through – on average sixty-four mutations – though this is tiny compared to the three billion base pairs that are copied perfectly.⁴ However, some of these are so harmful that they result in miscarriage – about 10 percent of pregnancies end this way. So even a small increase in mutation rate would result in a lot more miscarriages.

Dr. D goes on at length to describe just how humanly impossible it would have been for God to actually get the human race going with just two people. Okay, and where does the book of Genesis imply that God can't do anything humanly impossible? This cognitive dissonance would be laughable, did he not with such sincerity lend credence to the atheist hypotheses. Of course, the way heredity works now, in our currently depleted human population, where any two humans on the planet share at least 99.9 per cent of the same genome, does not necessarily speak to how things would have worked back when they shared barely half of that. We don't really have any idea what a genuinely rich gene pool looks like, as the nature of genetic recombination means that some genes go missing with each successive generation, and after several thousands of years, every genome has become depleted to one extent or another--unnatural selection greatly accelerating the process. And since this goes against the collective wisdom of Evolution--which imagines, contrary to all evidence, the gene pool at large becoming progressively richer over time--Dr. D. just isn't going to hear this from his atheist mentors or their disciples.

So whom DID Cain marry? Well, as all scholars have noted, Genesis doesn't say. And why should it? If humanity began with only one man and one woman, and no ape-men to "enrich the gene pool," then of course he married his sister. Anyone with even half a human brain could figure that out with just a little help; there's no need to state the obvious. All we need is the succinct statement of the compiler of Genesis 3 that Eve was "the mother of all living." That leaves no room for any previous races to insert their alleles into the human genome, period. 

Dr. D should have stuck with interpreting and explaining the Bible, and left fairy-tale speculations to those who reject the Genesis account out of theological necessity. 

The Brimstone that fell on The Cities of the Plain

As I Bible scholar, I continue to look for groundbreaking research on topics that help us understand the Bible better. YouTube is a great resource in this area, and recently I spent a lot of time watching videos about the destruction of the Cities of the Plain (b`iri hakikar). The problem is, no one can agree just what the Plain was, or where the cities were, other than that they were all in the vicinity of the Dead Sea: either to the north, the south, the east, or the west. This website makes a strong case for Tel el Hammam, north of the Sea. Strong, that is, until you actually examine the biblical record. The ONLY correlation between the ruins of this unidentified city and those of the Cities of the Plain, is summed up in the closing paragraph of the website:

That the most productive agricultural land in the region, which had supported flourishing civilizations continuously for at least 3,000 years, should suddenly relinquish, then resist, human habitation for such a long period of time has begged investigation. Research results concerning the "3.7KYrBP Kikkar Event" are presently being compiled for publication and presentation.

There are many things to keep in mind here. Perhaps we could list some of them.
1. The destruction of the Cities (basically Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar) was complete. The word used (mahpekah) refers to utter desolation. The Cities were never conquered by enemies, or even destroyed by natural disasters; their unique obliteration was accomplished directly by the Hand of God: burning sulphur from the sky. The ruins of Tel el Hammam simply don't fit this description.
But other ruins do. Beginning with Ron Hyatt, amateur archaeologists have identified at least four discrete sites along the west shore of the Dead Sea by three or four unique characteristics they all share: the outline of the city is a distinct ashy colour; all that is left are layers of ash, interspersed with carbonized wood and underlaid by layers of calcium sulphate, scattered throughout with colourless balls of sulphur that is purer than any naturally occurring deposits anywhere in the world.

2. The destruction was accomplished by intense heat accompanied by sulphur, which reacted chemically to destroy stone structures, replacing them with layers of sulphate ash. Even crops were wiped out in this way. Sulphur residue rendered the soil toxic to plant life. The area of the Dead Sea is proverbial for nothing being able to grow there. So, not only were the cities destroyed, but the entire area, which had a population density comparable to the Nile Delta, became uninhabitable--as it is to this day; no cities have ever been built there, and the main industry is mining the harsh chemicals that render it so hostile to life.

3. The cities, and their surrounding lush farm and pasture land, were so utterly desolated that no one would ever live in them again. It is no wonder that even now, 4000 years later, one can walk through the region picking up balls of brimstone from off the ground; no one has ever even attempted to mine it, despite its amazing purity. The very desolation that resulted from God's judgement has protected these ruins from exploitation to this very day.

Who killed whom when the giant died? An exercise in textual reconstruction

[NOTE: I guest-posted this on Nazaroo's blog back in 2011. Now that his blog is being shut down, I'm moving it here. You can read my other such posts by searching on 'Nazaroo'.]

And there was againe a battell in Gob, with the Philistines, where Elhanan the sonne of Iaare-Oregim a Bethlehemite, slewe the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staffe of whose speare was like a weauers beame. 

So the original KJV at 2 Samuel 21:19. Much ink has been spilt attempting to justify the KJV's interpolation of the brother of in order to keep the text from reading as the Hebrew does, that Elhanan, rather than David, killed Goliath. But what most KJV proponents fail to mention is that the lack of 'brother' is not the only textual problem in this verse. There are only a couple ways to reconcile this verse with 1 Chronicles 20:5--

And there was warre againe with the Philistines, and Elhanan the sonne of Iair, slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spearestaffe was like a weauers beame. 

Disregarding all the spelling variations, the core of both verses reads thus:

Elhanan the son of Jair slew Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

To which Samuel adds "Oregim the Bethlehemite" and Chronicles adds "Lahmi the brother of". 

So the KJV stopped short of interpolating the whole plus from Chronicles into Samuel--Lahmi is not named. Or is he--but as the killer, not the killed? Let's look at the Hebrew.

2 Samuel 21:19b
WYK ALXNN BN-Ya3RI ARGIM BITh H-LXMI ATh GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Yari weavers house-of-the-bread: Goliath the-Gittite and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

1 Chronicles 20:5b
WYK ALXNN BN-[K:YA3UR] [Q:YA3IR] ATh-LXMI AXI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Yaur: Bready, brother-of Goliath the-Gittite; and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

In these transcriptions I have added vowels only for the name of Elhanan's father, which is found in two forms (K and Q) in the Masoretic text of Chronicles. The Masoretes themselves obviously recognized a corruption here, but couldn't settle on how to fix it.

Note that the last word in the verse, ARGIM, is an element in the extra of 2 Samuel, where it is tacked on to Jair's name. Note also that the word LXMI, which is an element in the name Bethlehem ("House of Bread"), is given as an extra in 1 Chronicles for the name of Goliah's brother. Furthermore, the name Jair is spelled two (or four) different ways in the two texts, and all cases are Hebrew hapax legomena: Jair is always spelled differently in the Hebrew Bible than either verse has it, whether Q or K.

Clearly there are three different places where the two verses need to be reconciled, not just one. I propose, therefore, the following possibilities for reconstructing of the source for both verses (the changes could have happened in a different order, especially with the first possibility):


 Possibility #1: Only Samuel is corrupted; Chronicles has the correct reading

WYK ALXNN BN-Y3UR ATh-LXMI AXI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Yaur: Bready brother-of Goliath the-Gittite, and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

1. The last word of the verse was copied into the first half, probably due to skipping to the next line of text, so that both lines now end with the same 7 letters:
H-MLXMH B-GUB 3M-FLSTIM WYK ALXNN BN-YA3UR ARGIM
ATh-LXMI AXI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.

2.The  text suffered loss of the word אֲחִי AXI (the brother of), by homoeoteleuton I ... I :

WYK ALXNN BN-Y3UR ARGIM ATh-LXMI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Yaur Weavers: Bready Goliath the-Gittite, and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

3. A 'helpful' scribe changed the unheard-of name Y3UR to the equally unheard of plural form Y3RI, both of which are cognates of a word that means 'wood' (in the British meaning of 'forest'):

WYK ALXNN BN-Y3RI ARGIM ATh LXMI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Woods-of-Weavers: Bready Goliath the-Gittite, and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

4. Another 'helpful' scribe changed ATh-LXMI to BITh-H-LXMI, changing the meaning again: 

WYK ALXNN BN-Y3RI ARGIM BITh H-LXMI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Yariorgim the Bethlehemite Goliath the-Gittite and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

5. A final scribe put the ATh back in where it now belonged, tidying up the grammar to yield the Samuel reading: 

WYK ALXNN BN-Y3RI ARGIM BITh H-LXMI ATh GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Yariorgim the Bethlehemite: Goliath the-Gittite, and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

That's a lot of changes to hypothesise! And it doesn't even account for the K-Q variants in the Masoretic text. Let's try for a simpler solution.


Possibility #2: Both verses are equally corrupted forms of the archetype.

Reconstruction A: The original text read:

WYK ALXNN BN-YAIR BITh H-LXMI ATh AXI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Ya'ir the Bethlehemite: the-brother-of Goliath the-Gittite, and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

1a,b. While the Samuel scribe dropped  אֲחִי AXI, the Chronicles scribe dropped אֵת ATh, the Hebrew indicator of a following direct object :

WYK ALXNN BN-YAIR BITh H-LXMI [S:Ath][C:AXI] GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Ya'ir the Bethlehemite[S:] [C:the-brother-of] Goliath the-Gittite, and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

2a. In Chronicles, a 'helpful' scribe re-inserted ATh in place of BITh H-:

WYK ALXNN BN-YAIR ATh LXMI AXI GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Ya'ir: Lehmi the-brother-of Goliath the-Gittite, and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

2b. In Samuel, ARGIM got duplicated after YAIR, as explained above:

WYK ALXNN BN-YAIR ARGIM BITh H-LXMI Ath GLITh H-GThI W-3Ts XNIThU KMNUR ARGIM.
and-killed Elhanan son-of-Ya'ir Weavers Bethlehemite: Goliath the-Gittite and-wood-of spear-his as-beam of-weavers.

3a,b. Finally, the Chronicles scribe changed the spelling of YAIR to Y3UR, while the Samuel scribe changed the spelling to Y3RI to better fit the corrupted context.

WYK ALXNN BN-Y[S:3RI][C:3UR]  . . . thus yielding the final readings in only three steps each.

Other reconstructions are possible, but this one best passes Occam's Razor: three steps, to account for three differences between the texts, prior to the Masoretes taking over the transmission of the two texts. So what was Goliath's brother's name? Well, according to this reconstruction, we don't know, and we can only guess that Elhanan's father was a man who spelled his name the same way that four other Jairs in the OT did. It's also possible that this was the Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem mentioned in both books, but that would involve a greater level of corruption in the transmission.

These three corruptions, by the way, must have been very early. The Septuagint reads exactly like the Hebrew, even down to a reasonable approximation of the names.

The Targum for Chronicles isn't much help. It reads: "David, the son of Jesse, a pious man, who rose at midnight to sing praises to God, slew Lachmi, the brother of Goliath, the same day on which he slew Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver's beam."

The other ancient versions supply the word 'brother' in Samuel, although, as did the KJV, they may well have just moved it in from Chronicles. 

The Syriac also paraphrases somewhat, while translating the invented name in Samuel:
Samuel: Elhanan the son of forest a weaver, a Beth-lehemite, slew a brother of Goliath the Philistine, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
Chronicles: Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi of the descendants of the giants, who was the brother of Goliath the mighty man of Gath, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam. 

The Vulgate also translates Elhanan and Jair/Jaare-Oregim: 
Samuel: God-given the son of Forest Weaver, a Bethlehemite, struck the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear wood was like a weaver's beam.
Chronicles: God-given the son of Forest struck Lehmites the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the wood of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.


[ADDED] CONCLUSION:
Sam Gipp uses one aspect of this textual problem to ridicule "modern" translations that don't have 'brother' in Samuel. But he totally disregards the other aspects, thus avoiding a real solution to the problem. There is a real problem here--one that has a real solution--but the KJV and its devoted advocates don't have it.

According to the NIV, Ishmael was always in his brothers' face. But was he?

Genesis 16:12 O/T/N/NIV
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward[b] all his brothers.”
[b] Or live to the east of

Genesis 25:17-18 O/T/N/NIV
Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people. His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt, as you go toward Ashur. And they lived in hostility toward[b] all the tribes related to them.
[b] Or lived to the east of

The Hebrew phrase is the same both places, and literally means, "in the face of all his brothers."

Now, what we have here is an idiom carried over literally from Hebrew to English, and then paraphrased.

However, it is nonsense. If Ishmael lived in hostility with all his brothers,  then we would expect to read about it. However, nothing is ever said about Ishmael fighting with Isaac, Esau, Jacob, and the six sons of Keturah. In fact, he married off his daughter to Esau! And whatever differences he had with Isaac, they patched them up enough to cooperate in conducting their father's burial. Yes, his descendants took their second cousin Joseph captive to Egypt, but they did it in collusion not only with their other second cousins, the Midianites/Medanites, but also Joseph's own half-brothers! So, nothing to indicate the fulfillment of any particular prophecy about Ishmaelites not getting along with ANY of their relatives.

"To the east of" is even stupider. The area of Havilah and Shur is WEST of the areas where the other descendants of Abraham settled. The only place it is EAST of is Egypt itself.

What the translation should read is "in the presence of all his brothers."  In other words, Ishmael's descendants settled in the same general area as the rest of Abraham's descendents. In fact, their seed intermingled to the point now that you can't distinguish the descendents of Abraham through Keturah, Sarah, and Hagar. They are all now known as Arabs, with the exception of the seed of Jacob.

A Review of R. H. Allen's "Guidance on Abortion"

I recently came across what purported to be a Bible-based look at the abortion issue, written by a youth pastor. Since probably most abortions are of a child of a youth group member, this would be an important issue. The link to the pdf can be found here.

The full title of Allen's article is, "A Christian Looks to the Bible for Guidance on Abortion," but when Allen looks to the Bible, he doesn't look very far. In fact, he doesn't get much past Exodus 21:22-25, which he quotes from the King James Version:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Convenient that he did this, because just about any other English translation will totally defeat his purpose, which is to show that abortion is biblical, based on the conclusion that
"The scripture directs that if the fetus is aborted as a result of the injury, the offending man must pay retribution as determined by the woman’s husband. However, if the woman herself dies, then the man must die (i.e., “give life for life”)."

Take, for example, the ONIV:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"
 [a] Or she has a miscarriage

The NNIV, of course, changes 'men' to 'people,' which brings in the off-the-wall possibility that the mother herself is at least partially responsible for the abrupt delivery of her child. But there's still nothing about the woman being killed in the process.

Here are the possible interpretations of the English text:

1) Child dies: man fined. Woman dies: capital punishment. (Allen's view)
2) Child is born prematurely but lives: man fined. Child born prematurely but dies: capital punishment. (possible view based on NIV text)

The view derived from the NIV marginal reading is a bit hard to pin down. If causing a miscarriage isn't 'serious injury' (and it is so considered in all 50 states), then what is, short of the woman herself dying? The passage really just doesn't make sense as translated from Hebrew to English.

What happens, though, if we look at the Greek translation of this passage?

22 ἐὰν δὲ μάχωνται δύο ἄνδρες καὶ πατάξωσιν γυναῖκα ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσαν καὶ ἐξέλθῃ τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον ἐπιζήμιον ζημιωθήσεται καθότι ἂν ἐπιβάλῃ ὁ ἀνὴρ τῆς γυναικός δώσει μετὰ ἀξιώματος 23 ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ἦν δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς   --Septuagint

Daniel L. Christiansen has provided the following translation:

"If two men are fighting, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her not-fully-formed child comes out, the man should be punished by a fine: in keeping with the court's decision, he is to pay as much as the woman's husband might demand. 23 But if [the child] was fully-formed, the man is to give [his] life in exchange for [the child's] life."

A more literal translation would be:

"If two men are fighting, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her not-fully-formed child comes out, the man should be punished by a fine: in keeping with the court's decision, he is to pay as much as the woman's husband might demand. 23 But if it was fully-formed, he is to give life for life."

Both of these offer a third possible interpretation:

3) Child is born so prematurely that it can't survive: man fined. Child is born prematurely, though viable, but dies anyway: capital punishment. (Daniel L. Christiansen's view)

One thing that all these interpretations have in common is that they accept the fact that striking a pregnant woman may cause her pregnancy to terminate early. There are actually not just three, but four possible results from this:

1) A pregnancy that could have proceeded to term is ended before the fetus is viable, causing avoidable death;

2)  A pregnancy that could have proceeded to term is ended after the fetus is viable, but before it is strong enough to survive outside the womb, still causing avoidable death;

3) A pregnancy that could not have proceeded to term anyway--because of a defective fetus--is ended before the fetus has a chance to spontaneously abort, causing death that would have happened later anyway;

4) A pregnancy that could have proceeded to term is ended after the fetus is viable, and strong enough to survive the experience, resulting in emotional harm to the mother, but not physical harm to her child.

This third possibility comes out in Breton's translation of the Greek:

"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life"

Neither the second nor fourth possibility is in view in either translation of the Greek. It is assumed in verse 23 that the expelled child dies; the only possibilities are the death of an imperfectly formed fetus that couldn't have survived outside the womb, or the death of a fully formed fetus that could have.

Now, we know more about human physiology than did the Greek scholars who first translated the Pentateuch. Unless we get our education from watching television and movies, we know that a fetus is well-protected inside its mother's womb, and a blow to the outside of her body is not going to hurt it directly. While the trauma may send her into labor early, the only danger to the child is that it may not yet be ready for the experience.

So the idea of a perfectly formed fetus dying from this sort of trauma only makes sense if it were extremely premature--basically, first or second trimester (although, with modern medical intervention, viability is pushed back a ways into the second trimester). Thus, according to the Greek translation of this passage, causing a woman to abort her child IS grounds for the death penalty, the only defense being that a postmortem revealed the fetus to have been doomed regardless of when it was born.

So, here's the scenario: A woman gets involved in a fight between two men, gets punched in the gut, and stumbles off to recover. Before she is fully recovered, however, she experiences a miscarriage. The question is, was this just a coincidence, or is the miscarriage a direct result of the blow she received?

The only way to determine this is to examine the fetus. If it proves defective, like other fetuses from miscarriages not know to have been associated with an abdominal blow, the man is not subject to charges of murder (of the child), but only assault and battery (of the mother). The possible death of the mother is not at all in view here, contra Allen.

Now, that's what the Greek translation says. But what about the Hebrew?

22 וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃  וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ 23

"If men strive, and strike a pregnant woman, and her children come forth, and no mishap comes about*-- fining he shall be fined, according as the woman's husband will impose upon him; and he shall pay in pleadings. 23  And if mishap comes about*, then you shall give soul in place of soul."

It's important that the Hebrew word here is not that of an embryo, but of a baby. It's probably in the plural to avoid the misconception that only a male child is in view here. The text is ambiguous, but only to a limited extent: the LXX interpretation is certainly possible, but only as Breton translates it; it's not an unformed embryo, but a baby.

So, in conclusion, R.A. Allen is way off base linguistically. He takes an obscure translation of an obscure passage, twists it like a pretzel, and viola--gets the interpretation he started with. Ironically, most of his article is a warning against doing this very thing.

Now, perhaps you're in agreement with me, that there is nothing in this verse laying a different valuation on the life of an inviable fetus, versus a viable one.  But, it turns out, that's not the way the ancients understood it.

Thanks are due to Thomas F. McDaniel for the following quotes.

Philo (Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia, xxiv 137):
"And with respect to these matters the following law has been enacted with great beauty and propriety: “If while two men are fighting one should strike a woman who is great with child, and her child should come from her before it is completely formed, he shall be mulcted in a fine, according to what the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall pay the fine deservedly. But if the child be fully formed, he shall pay life for life. For it was not the same thing, to destroy a perfect and an imperfect work”

He goes on, (De Specialibus Legibun, iii 108–109):
"But if any one has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor's workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world."

*According to McDaniel, this phrase should be translated, "[not] perfect it has become."

   **********************************************

So, we see the possibility of my interpretation after all. In either case, a postmortem ensues, no doubt before the same judges who are to decide whether to apply a fine or the death penalty. The expelled fetus is examined, and if it can be see to be perfectly formed, it is assumed that it could have survived if left to term; if it is still too early in gestation to determine whether some fatal genetic abnormality is present, then the accused retains the assumption of innocence as regards to murder, and is only fined for assault.

What then, is the implication for R. A. Allen? Simply that according to this verse, anyone who causes the death of a fully formed yet unborn human, is guilty of murder.

That's not a pro-choice position.

Was Rachab a Harlot?

Was Rahab Really a Harlot?

So asks the title of an article in the September-October issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.  But that's not the real issue--it's just a catch phrase. The real questions about Rahab may not be any easier to answer, but they're of much more significance to the scholastic disciplines of biblical inerrancy and translation.

The first question to be answered, I suppose, is the most basic: was Rahab an actual historical figure? Bible skeptics, who don't believe that Joshua even conquered the city of Jericho--despite all agreeing that a particular mound of rubble along the lower Jordan is in fact the city of Jericho that Joshua didn't destroy--will of course say 'no.' But even for those who take Scripture at its word, questions remain as to Rahab's identity.

For example, was there just one Rahab, or two? Because the bewildering variety of ways in which Rahab is referenced in the hagiographic literature could point to distinct personalities.

There is the Rahab of Joshua chapters two and six. She treasonously protected the two Israelite spies in exchange for protection when Israel destroyed her city. She has quite an entry in Jewish hagiography, going on to marry Joshua himself and becoming the ancestress of at least nine notable Judeans.

On the other hand, the more ancient tradition of Rahab as the wife of Salmon and ancestress of Boaz (and thus eventually of the entire Davidic line right down to Jesus the Messiah) comes from the Christian scriptures--which nonetheless hold out the possibilities of two distinct individuals, Rachab in Matthew 1:5 (spelled Ῥαχάβ) as the mother of Boaz, and Rahab in Hebrew and James where she is identified quite unambiguously as   Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη, or Rahab the Harlot.

In either case, there has been cultural pressure to redeem Rahab's occupation, first suggested in the turn-of-the-era Targums, which used a cognate Aramaic word that meant 'feeder' (and thus translated 'innkeeper,' for example by Josephus) rather than the original Hebrew word which has always been translated 'prostitute.'

Germane to that point is the question of Rahab's husband: if she didn't have one, it would definitely strengthen the case for her being a prostitute, as no unmarried woman of good repute would have put up men in her own home.  As it turns out, the book of Joshua does mention her family members, rather specifically in fact. And here, once again, we run up against the translation philosophy of the NIV's Committee for Bible Translation--whether for good or ill, remains to be demonstrated.

Joshua 2:12-13 "Swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death"  --KJV

 Joshua 2:12-13 "Now then, please swear to me by the LORD that you will show kindness to my family, because I have shown kindness to you, that you will spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them--and that you will save us from death" --NIV

Now, there are two noticeable differences between the KJV and the NIV here, and they both relate to the identity of those who Rabab is requesting to be spared.

1. "my father's house" v. "my family."  The English term "my family" is rather ambiguous. It can refer to either of two subsets, or to both, along with an even larger circle of extended family.  "My father's house," on the other hand, specifies only a single lineage and their spouses.  Inasmuch as Rahab goes on to delineate exactly who is in her father's house, the NIV's ambiguity here is as harmless as it goes. But the harm starts as soon as we get to the list of relatives, because the testimony here is far from unanimous.

2. "all that they have" v. "all who belong to them."  This is a question of translation--whether 'all' should be taken as neuter or masculine plural. Inasmuch as both the Codex Vaticanus copy of Joshua and the NKJV translate it as neuter (all the things that they have), one would think this to be a legitimate translation. But the exact same phrase is found in the Hebrew of 6:17, where there didn't appear to be any question (except to the LXX, who at least were consistent here) that those saved were people, not things. [CORRECTION: the word πάντα  appears to be a form shared by the masculine singular and neuter plural declensions in the accusative, so that the Greek would be ambiguous as to 'all things' or 'all people' where it refers to Rahab in the book of Joshua.]

So, if you're keeping score in the NIV's attempt to improve on the KJV, we have one win, one draw. And on this score, the New KJV doesn't come out any better than the Old. But what about the gender sensitivity question?

As we have seen elsewhere in our study of the NNIV, the CBT doesn't seem to know quite what to do with lists of relatives that include 'brothers and sisters' in the original. It doesn't sit very well with their firm belief that 'brothers' always really means 'brothers and sisters. But whether they intended to or not, they did miss a great chance improve significantly on the KJV, by taking into account the existence of polygamy in the Ancient Near East.

You see, the way the KJV reads, "my father's house" would include Rahab's father and all his wives, along with all their children--whether or not 'all that they have' ended up being translated as neuter (things) or masculine (people). But the NIV's "my family" wouldn't. One of Today's Young People does not think of his half-sibling's other parent as belonging to "my family."  And by putting "all who belong to them" at the end of the list of relatives, it's not at all obvious that the CBT intended to include any of Rahab's stepmothers.

6: 17  "only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house"  --KJV

6:17  "Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared"--NIV

Here is another question, one that could be either textual or translational (but only in the case of a really loose translation like the NIV). Clearly, the Hebrew reads "in the house" and the Vaticanus Greek reads "in her house."  Since the house in question was already identified as hers back in 2:1 and 19, it's a simple paraphrase to call it "her house" here, and that is apparently what the LXX did to set the example for future translators. We could maybe even be magnanimous here, and say that the literal meaning of 'at home to her' could well be accurately translated as "in with her in her house."

There's just a couple more verses to look at, and then we're done.

2:18 "thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household, home unto thee."  --KJV

2:18 "unless you have brought your father and mother, your brothers and all your family into your house" --NIV

Oh ho ho, suddenly the CBT doesn't feel a need to translate "brothers" as "brothers and sisters," even though the same loose approach to translation by which they translate "the house" as "your house" would demand it!  Is is that they are subtly trying to hide the elephant in the room, Rahab's stepmothers? Because, by leaving out specific mention of the sisters just this one time, they leave the impression that "all your family" encompasses them categorically (whilst rejecting, virtually every other place it occurs, the idea that 'brothers' could also encompass sisters categorically).  But, like so many writers of historical fiction, they are transplanting their modern (at least as of 1967) idea of what constitutes a 'family' back to a different time and place, where Rahab knew full well that her hypothetical stepmothers were part of her father's household, but wouldn't necessarily have considered them part of her 'family.'  And in so doing, they also skillfully disguise the obvious non-existence of Rahab's husband. He sneaks in under the guise of being a part of HER family, when in fact it was only her FATHER's family, which would not have included her husband, that was delivered. Thus they join a long line of theologians trying to salvage Rahab's reputation by concealing the obvious nature of her occupation.

There's one other note to make here: there's a textual problem in verse 13--the Masoretic Text reads 'sister,' but the Masoretes had a footnote reading 'sisters.' Codex Vaticanus left out the word entirely, probably indicating either that the original Hebrew was using 'brothers' collectively, or that the LXX did when they translated it. No one seems to think that Rahab had only one sister living in her father's house, although that is entirely within the realm of possibility, her married sisters not having been included in her father's household.

6:24-25 "And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho." --KJV

6:24-25  "Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the LORD's house. But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho--and she lives among the Israelites to this day." --NIV

Now, there are other members of Rahab's father's household who are less hypothetical: the slaves. Rahab's house was in a strategic location, built into the city wall so that her customers could come and go discreetly after the city gates were locked (an obvious choice, then, for the spies--who needed just such an accommodation).  It's commonly known in the business that prostitutes don't function as proprietors, but are always under the patronage of a pimp, to whom they remit the lion's share of their income. It would appear that Rahab's profession was one chosen by her father, who was wealthy enough to set her up for business in the prime location of the city. Ergo, he must have also owned slaves--some of whom no doubt served as her associates. In fact, there's a good chance that they did all the dirty work for her, and that her position was more of a madam rather than a streetwalker. Because whether you follow the Talmud or Matthew 1:5 in fitting Rahab further into Jewish history, she clearly married into the upper class of Jewish society.

Okay, despite the inconsistencies of the KJV and the ambiguities of the NIV, I think we can finally come up with a list of the people who were eligible to escape total destruction by taking refuge in Rahab's house of prostitution (fortunately for them, it must have had a large capacity):

- Rahab, the proprietress
- Rahab's two parents
- Everyone who lived in Rahab's house (basically, her trafficked humans)
- Everyone who lived in Rahab's father's home compound (including his slaves and his married sons' families)

Of course, as in the case of Lot's deliverance from Sodom, only those who actually chose to take refuge escaped destruction. It appears from the text that, this time, nobody turned down the offer.

One more note on the 'things' versus 'people' question. Since all the riches of Jericho were to be devoted to utter destruction (witness the problem Achan got himself into when he couldn't bear to see some of those riches go to waste), it is germane to the question whether Rahab got to keep all of her wealth, or was spared with her life only, and those of her father's house. It appears obvious, if not from the text then from the context, that Rahab was spared not only her people, but also all their goods. This certainly would have made her more attractive as a potential wife to Salmon, prince of Judah. This reminds of of our post on Genesis 12:5, where there also appear to be used an expression which encompasses both all of one's goods, and all of one's people.

Where in the Middle East was the Red Sea?

95,295 views
I've been online a bit of late researching the fairly recent (as Bible scholarship goes) theory that the Israelites, upon escaping from Israel, crossed that part of the Red Sea now known as the Gulf of Aqaba (in Israel, the Gulf of Eilat). Even Snopes has tried to debunk the theory, and the best they can come up with after five years is "Undetermined."

I'm not happy with the slipshod manner in which this theory has been investigated on the ground, but I will say one thing: It's clear that "the Red Sea" (when doubly capitalised in the KJV, it's always a translation of yam suf) does, in at least a handful of places in the Torah, refer to the shoreline of Edom on an arm of the Indian Ocean (interestingly, both 'Edom' and 'Indian' can carry the connotation of the colour red).

Thus it has to be at least a possibility, from a biblical perspective, that the Israelites walked across the Gulf of Aqaba on dry ground. Moreover, even Eusebius in his Encyclopedia located it there. However, apparently out of respect for Constantine's mother, who had located Mt Sinai in what is now (because of her) known as the Sinai Peninsula, he failed to explicitly locate Mt. Sinai in Midian (where it must have been, if the Gulf of Aqaba was crossed in the Exodus).

The problem is, it doesn't appear to be a physical possibility. The Gulf is at least 800 meters deep at the center of its portion of the Great Rift Valley. I have yet to see a sea chart of any stretch of the Gulf that would allow for passage by foot should the water level drop--unless it were to freeze over, and that goes against the statement that the Israelites crossed over "on dry ground."

The Gulf-of-Eilat theory requires that the Israelites covered about 200 miles in what appears from Exodus to be a three-day period. Usually proponents of this route are semantically able to stretch that out to about a week, but still--could an entire nation really cover 30 miles a day, even if that day were prolonged by a massive nightlight overhead?

I found documentation to show that this is basically impossible by natural means--of course if God wanted to, he could have made all the toddlers run 10 miles an hour around the clock, but were that the case, they could have made the trip in only one day!

The Spanish Road was a 16th-century supply line linking the Hapsburg Empire's domains in the Low Countries and Italy. Although sea travel around the Iberian peninsula was faster, the Road was preferred because it ran entirely through territory friendly to the Hapsburgs. Marching soldiers could average 12-15 miles a day along its 1000-km length. And it wasn't darkness that limited them to that--it was the sapping heat of summer, when the days were longest. The fastest trek on record, during the dark month of February, averaged 23 miles a day.

If an army at forced march couldn't top 23 miles a day, even 30 miles a day for an entire nation on the move is supernaturally fast. Fifty to sixty miles in three days over level land, however, is entirely within the realm of possibility. Thus we are forced to accept a Red Sea Passage over the Gulf of Suez.

The NIV and God's three loaves of bread

"Then you will go on from there until you reach the great tree of Tabor. Three men going up to worship God at Bethel will meet you there. One will be carrying three young goats, another three loaves of bread, and another a skin of wine."   --I Samuel 10:3 NIV (2011)

"And thou shalt go on forward from thence, and shalt come to the oak of Tabor, and there shall meet thee three men going up to God, to Bethel, one carrying three kids, and another carrying three cakes of bread, and another carrying a flask of wine." --I Samuel 10:3 Darby (1890)

"Go on from there, and you will come to the Oak of Tavor. Three men will meet you there on their way up to God at Beit-El. One of them will be carrying three kids, another three loaves of bread and the third a skin of wine." --I Samuel 10:3 Complete Jewish Bible (1998)

Well, this is about a blatant translation error on the part of the CBT, but really it's not fair to single out the NIV without mentioning that virtually every English Bible in the last 400 years has read "three loaves of bread" in 1 Samuel 10:3. Specifically worthy of mention is the Complete Jewish Bible, the editor of which really should have known better.

What is the problem? Well, in English now, as in 1890, "loaf" carries the distinct connotation of leavened bread. Darby knew that, so he used a word that was rather awkward, but nonetheless more accurate: 'cake'. It's the best English word to use to describe what isn't all that common in English culture: a flat piece of yeastless bread baked by turning it on a skillet. Such a food item is actually quite common as a breakfast dish, but as such it is always made with use of a leavening agent: a pancake.

Cakes of unleavened bread, however, were specifically prescribed for offerings to the LORD:

“‘When you bring a grain offering which has been baked in the oven, it is to consist of either unleavened cakes made of fine flour mixed with olive oil or matzah spread with olive oil." --Leviticus 2:4, CJB

"And if thou present an offering of an oblation baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." --Leviticus 2:4, Darby

Okay, so David Stern at least recognized the need to use "cakes" here, where "unleavened loaves" just wouldn't make sense in English. But there was a disconnect between the prohibition on offering leavened loaves here, and the implication of offering leavened loaves just six books later.

Now, there's' something interesting about the word translated 'cakes' in 1 Sam 10:3; it's the Hebrew feminine plural noun kikkaroth, from the verb karar, 'to spin or whirl.' The implication is that these are round slabs of bread, like those from which pizza crusts originated. Although the word itself is not used in Leviticus, clearly there are no grounds for assuming that these round cakes of bread being brought before God at Bethel were anything but unleavened.

Simply put, "loaves" was a bad translation back in 1611, still a bad translation in 1890, and unmistakably a bad translation in 2011.

We haven't made much progress--or even regress--in the past 120 years.

"Then you will go on from there until you reach the Oak of Tabor. Three men going up to worship God at Bethel will meet you there. One will be carrying three cabritos, another three tortillas, and another a skin of wine."   --I Samuel 10:3 The Complete Latino Bible (yet to be published)

UPDATE July 2013
It just occurred to me that the NNIV also mentions "three loaves of bread"  in Luke 11:5--
Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread,--

As in all the versions cited. As if such a huge amount of food was needed for a traveler's midnight snack.

Kent Hovind on defending the King James Bible, from the very seventh word

Having written earlier on Mike Pearl's King-James-Only cosmology, I now note Kent Hovind's report that he came on board this bandwagon 15 years ago. I can't seem to link to his site (2peter3.com) so I quote it here in full:

Open letter to Brother Tom Ish- Editor of Creation Illustrated

 Thank you for your excellent magazine!  I have been a long time supporter of and advertiser in it and recommend it to all.

 With that said, I must object to an article in your Winter 2013 issue: "Creation Day 2" by Paul Taylor.  In this article Mr. Taylor objects to the teaching of a canopy above the atmosphere in the original creation.

 I don't recall ever having met Mr. Taylor but when I was given my "extended vacation" by the feds (for some illegal, bogus and hotly contested reasons you can read about on www.2peter3.com if you wish) I asked my son Eric to manage the Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) Ministry in Pensacola, Florida until my return.  Within a year he began a new ministry called Creation Today.  Soon thereafter he hired Paul Taylor to come from England and join his team and they have been doing a great job of spreading the creation message.

 I in no way wish to hinder anyone's outreach for the Lord or harm their reputation or hurt anyone's feelings but I also cannot sit silently after reading the many errors in that article!  These errors and the flawed premise they are based on may not only cast doubt in the minds of your readers about what I believe and teach on other issues, since I teach about the canopy in Seminar #2, they may also adversely affect my son's thinking (and your readers) on two critical topics as I will explain below.

 I try to be constantly alert for false doctrine.  I understand it can come from ANY source- even within myself- and it spreads quickly like a virus and can infect healthy organisms if not stopped and treated in time.  After all the years and money I invested in my son and the creation ministry in Pensacola I've got to stay vigilant as God gives me strength and insight to be sure it is not undermined or derailed in my absence.  I have paid a HIGH price for my convictions and won't let anyone destroy them now.  Jesus rebuked Peter (Mt. 16:23) when he taught something wrong.  Peter seems to have received the rebuke and correction.  I pray Paul and Eric will receive mine.  Nehemiah had to set a few things right after his extended absence (Neh. 13). So did the Apostle Paul (I Cor. 11:34).

 In the article Paul explains some problems with a canopy model that I don't think anyone believes or promotes today-I don't.  He is right that 20 inches of water above the atmosphere would not be enough to flood the world.  I sure never said it would. Beating up a "straw man" image you set up does NOT mean you have beaten the real man.

 His article starts with a false dichotomy when he says, "What I am about to suggest to you may be argumentative to some while others will wholeheartedly agree with my research."  Obviously this type of statement gives two false choices and makes it look like you either: A-argue with him or B. agree with his "research."  As if those who may disagree with him do not also do research.  The obvious third option is that his "research" has led him to the wrong conclusion or the forth option is that he researched the wrong canopy model or a fifth option that he was using the wrong Bible to study this topic.  It is rather like the Russians who first circled the moon and concluded there was no God since they didn't see Him out there during their "research."  Ah...not good logic fellas!

 So, I will address 3 points:
1-Which Bible should we use to determine ANY doctrine including the canopy?
2- The problems with Paul's article.
3- The canopy theory I teach.

1- Which Bible?

 I fully agree with Paul when he says that "No opinion on it (the canopy) should be elevated to the status of biblical inerrancy."  He also says, "God's Word is unchangeable and never up for review."  I actually REALLY believe that but from his frequent use of other versions and his criticism of the King James I don't think he really does. I would love for him to send me a copy of what he will stand by as "God's Word" which is "unchangeable" since the one he quotes from for the article has THOUSANDS of changes from the one I use and the one the church has used for over 400 years.

 For example: Let's look at Genesis 1:1 where we can't even read 7 WORDS without spotting a "change" in God's "unchangeable" Word.  The change I will point out is critical to lay the simple foundation for a discussion of the "canopy theory" in part 3 so bear with me please.

 Moses (1,400 BC) collected and edited Genesis from 10 eyewitness accounts (see seminar #7) and then wrote the next 4 books Ex.-Dt.  The Jews then CAREFULLY copied it thousands of times and spread it to all their synagogues.  They were concerned with every "jot and tittle" (Mt. 5:18) as they copied.  They also wrote scores of commentaries about the Torah.  Let's see if the copies were kept pure and "unchanged" in just Genesis 1:1.

 Genesis 1:1 in the Jewish Torah (OT) says, "In the beginning God created the heaven..."  Hmmm?  Heaven is in the singular and has been for 3,400 years in Jewish literature as well as the thousands of copies scattered around the world.

Early English translations of Genesis 1:1.

1384 John Wycliffe- "In the bigynnyng God made out of nouyt heuene and erthe." Heaven is Singular.
1525 William Tyndale- "In the begynnynge God created heauen and erth."  Singular
1535 Miles Coverdale- "In ye begynnynge God created heauen & earth."  Singular
1537 Matthew Bible- "In the beginnyng God created heauen and erth." Singular
1539 Taverner Bible- " In the begynnynge created God heuen and erth." Singular
1540 Great Bible- "In the begynnynge God created heuen and earthe." Singular. Gen. 2:1 The heauens also ...plural
1568 Bishops Bible- Gen 2:1- "The heavens also the earth were finished..." Plural in 2:1
1579, 1599, 1606, 1611 Geneva Bible- heaven singular in 1:1 and heavens plural in 2:1
1587 Geneva Bible- " the heauen " Singular
1609 Doway Bible- 2:1 "The heavens therfore ..." plural
1611 King James Bible- "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Singular
1750 Challoner DRV Bible- "...created the heaven " Singular  heavens plural in 2:1
1885 English Revised "...created the heaven " Singular
1886 Parallel RV/AV "...created the heaven...." Singular in both columns and plural for 2:1
1895 and 1898 English Revised "...created the heaven..." Both have Singular

French-
1555 1:1 Diev crea au commencemet le ciel & la terra. Singular- Les cieux... Plural in 2:1
1561 1:1 ...le ciel & la terra." singular, Les cieux donc... plural in 2:1
1562 1:1 ...le ciel- singular.  2:1 Les cieux donc... plural
1956 1:1 Au commencement, Dieu crea le ciel et la terre. Singular (La Sainte Bible Tranduite en Francais sous la direction de L'ecole Biblique de Jerusalem.)

German-
1535 Gen. 1:1 "Amanfang schuff Gott Himel und Erden." Singular
1540 Dietenberger Bible- hymmel- singular
1556 Himel- singular
1591 Himmel- singular
1599 Luther Bible- Hemmel- singular

 The FIRST "bible" I can find that uses "heavens" plural in 1:1 is the 1553 Spanish "Inquisition Approved Old Testament" -"En Principio crio el dio alos cielos y ala tierra."  Plural. Catholic Spanish Inquisition... Hmmm?  Satan plans lo-o-o-o-ong term!

 The first English one I can find that says heavens -plural- in Gen. 1:1 is the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) which was based on the recently completed perversion of the Bible by two British cultists (and Darwin admirers) named Westcott and Hort in 1881.  They chose the manuscript found in the Vatican basement in 1481 (on leather in "EXCELLENT SHAPE") as the basis for their text in spite of the fact that it did NOT have: the first 45 1/2 chapters of Genesis, Psalms 106-138, I & II Tim. and Titus, nearly 5 chapters from Hebrews and all of Revelation.  It was also missing numerous individual verses and had thousands of individual word changes.  It had been rejected as corrupt by most scholars.

 They filled in the missing chapters from 2 even MORE corrupt Egyptian texts and ignored the reading in over 5,000 ancient texts because they didn't fit their theology!  Since those two evil men resurrected and synthesized the 3 corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and published it in 1881 there have been nearly 1,000 English translations of this altered and perverted text. NIV, NKJV, etc. There are SCORES of great books on the King James controversy for those who wish to look further.  I know full well that some don't WANT to "look further" into this issue because they LIKE the freedom to alter God's "unchangeable Words" if need be and they LIKE the feeling of power and prestige they get when people have to come to THEM to know what the Word REALLY says on a topic.  But, IF you are honest and seeking truth see www.chick.com & www.avpublications.com for starters or my Seminar Part 7.

 ALL new Bible (per)versions I have seen after 1901 including the "New King James" Paul quotes in his article have "heavens" in the plural in verse 1. Hmmm?  I can't even read 7 WORDS into the Bible without finding that somebody changed the "unchangeable" Word!  This is NOT a minor point! (I used to think it was) Which Bible you BASE your theology and SCIENCE on reflects on scores of things later, including the "canopy theory" as we will see.  Just that one letter "s" changing singular to plural totally changes the meaning.

 Satan took just three words- "God hath said..." and only changed the ORDER to "Hath God said...?" and fooled Eve in a PERFECT world!  ALL the new "bibles" I have seen (even NKJV) change ONE LETTER in Rev. 13:16 and 14:9 from saying the mark of the beast goes "IN the hand" to make it say "ON the hand."  Ya think Satan will use THAT to fool folks into getting "micro-chipped" soon?

 LITTLE details like a small "O" ring on the space shuttle can make a BIG difference!  Ask NASA!

 Jesus said "netS" and Peter left off the "s." See Lk. 5:4-5

 Ya'll can do what you want, and you will, but I'm not going to sit by and let ANYONE change ONE letter in my Bible.  Satan is too slick and he can even get good, godly, sweet, mild-mannered, kind, intelligent men who "love the Lord" to work for him.  He did it with Peter.  Even if NO other creation ministries want to take a stand on the Bible version issue I WILL!  Any ministry I have will not only "defend the Bible from the very first verse" but will be able to hand you a copy of it.

 "Heaven" is SINGULAR in Gen. 1:1 in the REAL unchangeable Word of God and THAT is a beginning point for discussing the canopy.  "Heaven" is used 7 times in Gen. 1 in the KJB.

 Genesis 2:1 in nearly ALL versions I have seen including KJB have "heavens" in the plural so the translators listed above who used "heaven" singular in Genesis 1:1 certainly KNEW the difference between singular and plural.  Why did they ALL choose the singular?  Were they stupid?  Were they waiting for a "modern scholar" to show them the truth and the light?  OR, did someone change it?

 If God's Word is "unchangeable" how did it change from singular to plural found only in a few corrupt Catholic versions?  Which is right?  Before we get into a discussion or debate about God's Word and what it means on ANY topic (including the canopy) we must first be sure we are all on the same page and talking about the same Bible!

 In my Seminar Part 4, I explain the importance of defining the slippery word "evolution" BEFORE proceeding with the discussion.  It is ESSENTIAL to define terms in a discussion or debate.  Do WE have authority over the Word of God or does IT have authority over us?  Do I need some guru to tell me what the Word REALLY says or can I just read it on my own and not be misled?  To discuss or debate the canopy only to have the opponent say, "What this verse really means..." is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall!

 For about 28 years of my Christian life I used, promoted and defended many of the new "Bible" versions.  I have a huge collection of them at home.  About 15 years ago I devoted hundreds of hours to the study and I was forced by the overwhelming evidence to agree with millions of other Christians before me that God preserved His very Words (as He promised in Ps. 12:6-7) for the English speaking world in the King James.  So, I agree with Paul that God's Word is "never up for review" but I take it further and can actually hand you a copy of God's Word.  I don't think Paul or any of those who use other modern versions can do that.  I know that some like the feeling of being superior to the Word when they say, "What this really means in the Hebrew (or Greek) ..."  The Pharisees loved the greetings in the marketplace and to be called Rabbi... Mt 23:2-7

 These new Bible versions are always "correcting" the KJB and will hinder people from simply trusting God's Word and His ability to preserve it for us today.  They even change Ps. 12:6-7 where God promised to preserve HIS WORDS!  Hmmm?

Problems with Paul Taylor's article on the Canopy Theory.

1. I already mentioned the false dichotomy Paul creates in the first sentence of his article.  If I find a problem with one of the old canopy models does that proves them all wrong?  Does one flat tire prove tires don't work?

2. PT- "The Canopy Theory is an honorable attempt to interpret Scripture correctly and also to account for the waters of the flood." p. 22.

KH- I agree that the canopy theory is an honorable attempt to interpret scripture and, as we will see in part 3 of my answer, is still very likely the correct way to interpret it but the canopy water/ice probably contributed VERY little to the flood.  Most creationists believe and teach the flood waters came from inside the earth when the fountains of the deep (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Job 38:8, 16; Ps. 24:1; 33:7 133:6; Pr 8:28) broke open.

3. "The basis of the Canopy Theory is that the firmament represents earth's atmosphere."

KH- I AGREE on this one.  No scripture is to be interpreted privately (II Pt. 1:20) and Gen. 1:20 tells us clearly that the "fowl (birds) that may fly ABOVE the earth IN the open firmament of heaven."  That would be clear biblical evidence that the "firmament" is the atmosphere we are breathing now and the birds fly in.

4. "It is thought that this canopy could have been the source, or at least a source, for the waters of the Flood. The Flood would have been initiated, therefore, by the collapse of this canopy." p. 23

KH- NO! This is but another example of why we need to settle on the Word of God first!  The KJB clearly says "the fountains of the great deep" broke up FIRST and THEN "the windows of heaven were opened." Gen. 7:11.  The Canopy collapsing did NOT initiate the flood. The breaking open of the great deep did.  This may have triggered the collapse of the canopy however.

5. "the pre-Flood canopy would have caused conditions of environment and weather before the Flood to be very different from those of today."

KH- I AGREE!  It is obvious to all, creationists and evolutionists alike, that the earth was VERY different in the past.  Giant Red Wood tree stumps are found in the arctic circle. Coal (from trees) is found near the South Pole.  The Sahara was a forest at one time.  HUGE animals and insects of nearly all kinds are found as fossils.  They could not grow that large today. Some argue about WHEN it was different with evolutionists claiming it was during the mythical "Jurassic" period but all agree it was different.  Nearly all Young Earth Creationists agree these giant animals including dinosaurs lived before the flood and maybe even after the flood for a while with smaller specimens possibly alive today!  See Seminar Part 2.

6. "My rejection of their support for the Canopy Theory is merely an indication that our understanding moves on." p. 24

KH- WOW!  "My rejection" and "our understanding".  Hmmm?  Would that imply that if anyone still believes there was a canopy they lack understanding enough to move on?  I sort of resent that insinuation!

7. "In 1976 Morris was satisfied that such a vapor canopy would provide the water required for the Flood." p. 24

KH- As I recall Dr. Morris always taught that flood waters came from inside the earth and only part of it from the canopy.  Even so- 1976?  Our understanding moves on.  The purpose of the canopy was not to be a source of water to later flood the world but to provide perfect living conditions.  If Dr. Morris had a wrong idea about the size of the canopy that doesn't prove the entire idea wrong.  Edison had about 1,000 FAILED attempts to make a light bulb.  Does that prove it can't be done or that the theory needs tweaked.  Let me turn on my light to study this one!  Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

8. "Some creationists, however, have suggested a canopy of ice.  Carl Baugh, for example, suggests a crystalline canopy.  In this theory, the ice would be made either of ice crystals or of a solid, metallic-hydrogen lattice, suspended above the earth by magnetic levitation.  This specific crystalline canopy has particular problems.  Magnetic levitation would not work on molecules like water or hydrogen..."

KH. Are you sure magnetic levitation won't work on super cold ice?  You may want to follow the latest research on that. Visit www.creationevidence.org ; Dr. Baugh- 254-897-3200 to see scores of articles that disagree with this statement.  More about that in part 3 below.

9. "a solid lattice of ice would make it difficult or impossible to see the stars." p. 25

KH. What?  Who says?  Does a "solid lattice" of melted sand (i.e. glass) make it impossible to see the stars?  NO! Glass is used for lenses to ENHANCE our vision of the stars.  Telescopes and microscopes use lenses and mirrors to great effect.  An ice canopy that compressed the atmosphere to say, 10 miles rather than the current 60+, would eliminate most atmospheric distortion (twinkle) as well.  Under a solid clear crystalline canopy the pre-flood people would see the stars even more clearly than we can today!

10.  "Finally, hydrogen can exhibit metallic properties only under extreme conditions of high pressure and temperatures near absolute zero."

KH- And?  Outer space IS near absolute zero, +3K or -170 C or - 456+F.  A canopy of ice in contact with outer space would act like an Eskimo's igloo.  He can build a fire inside and not melt the ice roof because it conducts heat to the frigid outside.  You can also boil water in a paper cup because of the same effect.  Maybe the canopy provided a way to transfer heat and prevent "global warming" or the "greenhouse effect" some seem so worried about a canopy producing?

11. "Canopy theorists have also claimed that the giant insects seen in the fossil record would not have been able to breathe without increased oxygen partial pressure.  Again, this position can be shown to not be the case."

KH- OK, I'd like to see where it has been "shown not to be the case."  I'd also like Paul's explanation for the giant insects.  They did live on earth once and they don't now.  He offers no explanation.  Giant insects have a surface area to volume problem explained in Part 3 below.

12. "increased oxygen partial pressure can actually be shown to have a deleterious effect on longevity of humans."

KH- I'm gonna have to see proof of that!  Hundreds if not thousands of hospitals and sports teams use hyperbaric chambers every day where people get 100% oxygen at triple pressure with GREAT results.  I've done it.  It is true that over 35% oxygen can be bad long term but 1.5 ATM and 25-30% oxygen has GREAT positive effects and no "deleterious effect" on humans or animals or plants.  No one knows what pressure and % oxygen the pre-flood world had but I would bet God made it "just right" since God Himself pronounced it "very good" when He was done. (in the KJB- I didn't and won't check all the others on that one.)

13. "it has been suggested that the longevity of humans before the flood was due to greater atmospheric pressure.  However, a better explanation of this longevity is the comparative absence of mutations among the human gene pool.  The level of mutations would have greatly increased after the Flood; so, this could explain the rapid decrease in longevity."

KH- What??  I have never heard that one suggested by anyone nor do I think the sudden drop from 912 avg to 70-80 within a short time can be explained by mutations!  That's quite a stretch!  Noah lived to be 950 and Shem lived to 600.  How would Shem inherit a mutation that made him live 35% less than his dad since Shem was conceived and born 100 years BEFORE the flood?  Noah lived 350 years AFTER the flood.  Did this same mythical mutation problem affect all the animals and plants since they are all smaller now too?  I'd like to see the evidence for that claim!

14. "any vapor canopy would trap heat from the sun, leading to increased temperatures at earth's surface." p. 25

KH- And???  What is the problem here?  It's -10F wind chill outside in NH right now as I write this.  I'd LOVE an increase in temperature!  A LARGE % of earth's surface is too cold to raise crops or support any significant # of humans today due to the cold.  Antarctica is bigger than America I believe and NOBODY can live there without LOTS of outside support.  Estimates are that 3% of the earth is habitable today yet the Bible says God "formed it to be inhabited." Is. 45:18. SOMETHING must have changed since then.  An increase in temperature with a system to keep the temperature evenly distributed worldwide would lead to the earth being habitable from pole to pole.  Sounds good to me!  No one has demonstrated that a canopy would create a serious temperature problem at the surface.  See #10 above.

15. "A better model for how the Flood began is the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model, which shows that the major source of water would probably have been the mantle." p. 26

KH- I MAY agree with him on this one if I heard his details but that would NOT mean there wasn't a canopy as well.

16. "Dr. Russell Humphreys has suggested a cosmology based on the stretching of space.  In this cosmology, Humphreys has suggested that the firmament, which divides the waters above from the waters below, in Genesis 1:6-8, represents the stretching universe. ... a side effect of this theory is that the waters above would therefore be beyond the stars.."

KH- Ps. 148:4 says "the waters THAT BE above the heavens."  Based on that verse I believe the entire universe we see is inside a water canopy right now.  That would not negate the idea that there was also one over the first heaven as we will cover in part 3.  The birds fly in the firmament (KJB).  That means it is the air not the stretching.  I do agree the heavens have been or are being stretched.  The Bible says they are at least 11 times.

17. "Second, some have pointed to birds flying in the canopy, as pointing to the canopy being at the edge of the atmosphere.  However, if the canopy were at the edge of the universe, this position would not contradict this verse (Genesis 1:20).  Moreover, the Hebrew version actually talks about the "face of the firmament."

KH- First the Bible says the birds fly in the firmament NOT the canopy.  The waters were ABOVE the firmament where the birds fly.  This is why point 1 about which Bible to use must be agreed on first!  The Bible does NOT say the birds fly in the "face of the firmament."  We don't need any Hebrew or helper to understand exactly what it says.  Birds fly in the firmament. Gen. 1:20.

18. "Some versions, such as the NKJV, refer to this statement: 'let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.' So, the birds are not actually in the firmament but flying across the face of it."

KH- Do you see why I had to make point #1 first!  ERIC!  Please DON'T fall for any of this!  This is why I have been harping for 15 years now that we must first find God's Words BEFORE we can claim we are defending them!  Defending WHAT EXACTLY?  Is it heaven or heavens?  I found God's exact Words!  I had them all along but it was various "Bible scholars" and Bible correctors that made me doubt for 28 years!  After spending hundreds of hours studying the Bible version issue it was such a relief when I FINALLY got through that jungle of wondering "what the Bible REALLY meant."  I remember sitting on my bed with my Bible in hand and saying, "This is it!  I'm holding God's Words."  I got down on my knees and told God I was sorry for doubting His ability to preserve His Words and I thanked Him for letting me have a copy!  I pray you and Paul come to that point one day soon.

Nehemiah 8:8 has the right sequence.  A. Read the Word as it is.  B. Explain it all you want.  C. Help the people understand.  DON'T change the Words and THEN explain your new version of them!

19. "Scriptural analysis and modern scientific understandings both show that the canopy model is not necessary." p. 27

KH- WHAT?  You sure didn't do that in this article!  You never did explain the giant insects or long life spans.  You never did give a model to explain red wood trees in the arctic or coal at the South Pole.  I'd sure be willing to examine any theories you put forth but please don't think you "demolished the canopy theory" with this post.

20. "It seems today that the effects, for which the Canopy Theory was developed to explain, are actually better explained by other means."

KH- Such as???  Paul is right that some older models of the canopy theory have serious flaws and are most likely unworkable but don't be too hasty here!  After 1,000 failures at making a light bulb Tom knew 1,000 ways that didn't work so he knew he must be closer to finding the right way!  Hmmm?  Go Tom!  Ditto the canopy.

In part 3 of this way to long response I will present what I teach about the canopy.

THE ORIGINAL CREATION-HOVIND'S CANOPY THEORY
What was the original creation like?  Why did they live 900+ years before the flood (Gen. 5)?  Where do dinosaurs fit in?  Why don't we live to be 900?

Let's look at the facts from Scripture, Science and History and see if we can make a reasonable theory to explain it all. This is indeed a theory and subject to change as new data is obtained.  The Bible is not subject to change.

BIBLE FACTS:
 Genesis 1:6-7, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

 We see from this passage that this "firmament" -whatever that is, divides the waters.  Some water is UNDER it and other water is ABOVE it.  The Bible normally interprets itself if you keep reading so let’s look at the next time the firmament is mentioned.

 Genesis 1:20 "...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."  Here we learn that the birds fly in it.  That would mean it must be the air.  We also see that the firmament is called heaven.  Water ABOVE the air?  Hmmm?

 Genesis 1:1 told us God created the heaven-singular.  Now, starting in verse 6-7 He is starting to divide it up into heavens-plural.  It would be WRONG to say there were heavens -plural- in verse 1.  The Bible does NOT tell us how MUCH water was above the firmament nor does it tell us if it was solid, liquid or gas nor does it tell us what held it up nor does us tell us WHY God put it there.  It DOES tell us there WAS water ABOVE the firmament.  I may never be able to UNDERSTAND all the details but the Bible says it was there.  Case closed for me.

 Gen. 1:14-18 says stars are in the heavens.  Psalm 148:4 says "ye waters THAT BE above the heavens."  David wrote this about 1,000 B.C. so there must STILL be water beyond the stars.

1. The Bible says there was water above the firmament (not across the face of it as some bible perversions say).  Above means--are you ready?-- above.
2. The word "firmament" is used 9 times in Genesis 1!  I think God is trying to get our attention to study that word!  It is used 17 times in the Bible. (THAT #17 is a study in itself!  See my blog on that!)  By looking at these 17 references we see: it divides the waters above from the waters below (Gen. 1:6-7); birds fly in it (Gen. 1:20); stars are in it (Gen. 1:14-18); it shows God's handiwork (Ps. 19:1); We can praise God in the firmament (Ps. 150:1); it is associated with a "color of the terrible crystal, stretched over their heads above" (Ez. 1:22-23); a throne (of God?) is above the firmament (Ez. 1:26-27: 10:1); the ones who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament (Dan. 12:3)
3. The average age recorded before the flood was 912.  After the flood it dropped to 600, then 400's then 200's and today very few make it to 100.  Something that GREATLY affected life spans must have happened at the time of the flood.
4. The Bible clearly teaches there are three heavens today and Paul was caught up to the 3rd one (II Cor. 12:2).

SCIENCE FACTS TO CONSIDER:
1. Fossils of GIANT insects have been found like: 2' grasshoppers, 18" cockroaches, 3' spiders, 50" dragonflies etc.  See Sem. Part 2 for more on that.
2. Insect size is limited due to their surface area to volume ratio problem since they breathe through their skin.  For example-a 1 inch cube has a volume of 1 cu. in. and a surface area (SA) of 6 sq. inches. 6/1 ratio.  A 2 inch cube has a vol. of 8 cu. in. and a SA of 24 sq. in. 3/1 ratio.  Hmmm?  If the interior must be supplied with oxygen through the skin the bigger it is the more of a problem this becomes.  They don't have enough surface to supply the air for the volume.  Giant insects would need greater air pressure or higher oxygen % or both.
3. Air bubbles trapped in amber are often found to have 30-35% oxygen rather than the 21% we breathe today. We can reasonably presume the air trapped is pre-flood air.
4. An atmosphere of oxygen beyond 35% can create problems but below that is beneficial.
5. Hundreds of hospitals and sports teams have hyperbaric chambers to give people 100% oxygen under double or triple normal pressure and have great results with health and healing.
6. Fossils of giant dinosaurs indicate they had small nostrils and small lungs.  This would be a problem in today's atmosphere but if there was higher % of oxygen or higher pressure (or both) they could breathe just fine.
7. HUGE bird (and flying insect) fossils have been found.  It would be difficult if not impossible for them to fly in today's "thin" atmosphere.
8. Most reptiles never stop growing. If they could live long enough we would call them dinosaurs.
9. The earth's magnetic field is getting weaker fast!  NASA estimates it is losing half of its strength every 800-1400 years.  6,000 years ago it would have been up to 20 times stronger than it is today.  At this intensity humans have enough iron in their blood to have a built in compass and "feel" which way is North.  A built in GPS!  You could never get lost or disoriented.
10. HUGE inflatable buildings are used all the time.  In a windless environment they can be held up with very little internal pressure. The Minnesota Viking's Football Stadium- The Metro dome is inflated.
11. A 3" layer of ice would weigh about 15 pounds /sq. ft.  It would only take 1.1 ATM (a 10% increase) to support that over the whole earth.
12. Squeezing the current 60 miles of air down to 10 miles inside a canopy of ice with metallic strength would be very feasible.
13. Ice at extremely low temperatures becomes laminated, metallic and magnetic.  It becomes a photo-amplifier and will act like a crystal radio and change radio waves to audible frequencies.  The music of the stars?  See Job 38:7.  See www.creationevidence.org (P.O. Box 309 Glen Rose, TX 76043; 254-897-3200) for more on that.  Magnetic lines tend to concentrate in laminated metals.
 I would also highly recommend the somewhat technical book "God Created the Earth-Genesis of Creation Chemistry" by Dr. Edward Boudreaux and Eric Baxter from Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship, PO Box 3451, Littleton, CO 80161; eaboudre@yahoo.com.  Their explanation of God using water (Genesis 1:2) to form ALL of the elements is fabulous!  So is their evidence that high temperature, pressure and magnetic fields all shortened radioactive element's half lives from billions of years to minutes!  They calculate that the pressure inside the ice canopy would be about double what it is now.  That explains a lot of things we find as fossils.
14. Outer space is near absolute 0 Kelvin which is -459.6 F.
15. Greater air pressure creates "thicker" air making it easier for all insects, birds and even a few fish, snakes and mammals to fly or soar through the air.  It also allows bigger ones to fly like the 50 ft wingspan pterodactyls that have been found. They could not fly in today's atmosphere.
16. A layer of metallic ice would also filter out many harmful rays like ultraviolet (UV) that comes from the sun and can damage skin and body cells.
17. With uniformly higher pressure world-wide storms and wild weather would be impossible.  Watch the weather channel-high pressure? Clear skies.  Low pressure? rain, tornados, hurricanes, thunderstorms etc.
18. The earth may not have been tilted 23.5 degrees like it is today.  This also evens out the weather to spring like conditions everywhere.
19. Today's atmosphere has .06% Carbon Dioxide (CO2).  A 50% boost to .09% would make plants grow MUCH faster, bigger and produce more fruit.  Fossils of club moss are found 150 feet tall.  Today they reach about 1.5 feet.  SOMETHING was different!

HISTORY FACTS TO CONSIDER:
1. MANY ancient cultures have legends of a "Golden Age" where people lived to be 1,000 years old.
2. Many cultures have taught the earth is only a few thousand years old.
3. The Jews taught there was a crystalline canopy over the earth. The 1st century Jewish historian Josephus said, "After this, on the second day, He placed the heavens over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts: and determined that it should stand by itself.  He also placed a crystalline firmament around it, and put together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews." Flavius Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 1.
4. Another Jewish text states, "and God made the firmament, its thickness being three fingers between (separating) the limits of the heavens (atmosphere) and the waters of the oceans." J. Bowers, D. S. Joanthgan translation, The Taroums and Rabbinin Literature, Cambridge University Press, 1969, P. 95.  (My three fingers total 2.4 inches in thickness.)

So, Here is the "Hovind version" of the "canopy theory."

 I believe God created everything in 6 literal 24 hours days exactly as recorded in Genesis 1 in the KJB. In verse one there was just the earth and one "heaven."  Starting in v. 6 God began dividing the heaven into 3 heavens by placing a "crystalline sphere" above the first heaven (atmosphere) and then another one above the second heaven where the stars are (Ps. 148:4).  The first canopy fell down or condensed at the flood and the second "canopy" is still there beyond the stars.  The entire universe that we marvel at is probably a little snow globe on God's dresser.  In the Wizard of OZ the witch watched Dorothy in one of those.  Hmmm? Satan always imitates the Most High. See Isaiah 14:13-14.

 This first canopy made in Gen. 1:6-7 was probably super cold (-450F?) perfectly clear crystalline ice about 3 inches thick and maybe 10 miles above the ground but containing all the atmosphere.  3" of ice weighs about 15 lbs/sq ft so 1.1 atmospheres would support it without the magnetic field helping.  However, it was probably also held up by the earth's magnetic field which was MUCH stronger 6,000 years ago.

 The second "Canopy" is probably also clear crystalline ice beyond the stars and is still there today.  See. EZ. 1:22-27.  No one knows where space ends.  I think God did that so we would say, like David in Ps. 8, When I consider the heavens...what is man...?

 The Bible clearly teaches there was water UNDER the crust of the earth in Ps. 24:1-2; 33:7; 136:7.  Earth's crust varies from 3-25 miles thick today.  This water under the crust came gushing out like water out of a womb (Job 38:8) when the fountains of the great deep broke open in Genesis 7:11.  THIS is where the flood water AND the 40 days of rain came from!

 The crust of the earth would sink into the void as the water left further flooding the surface and trapping huge pockets of hot water that STILL shoot up into the bottom of the ocean in tens of thousands of hot water springs along the mid-Atlantic ridge and various fault lines.  God asked Job if he had entered into the springs of the sea (38:16).  These were not discovered until 1977!  More about the waters under the crust in Appendix 2 of my book "What on Earth is About to Happen for Heaven's Sake?" (due out in March, 2013) or in Creation Seminar Part 6 and in Dr. Walt Brown's book, "In the Beginning".

 The crust sinking in would also speed up the earth's spin.  Maybe there were 360 days/year originally and 365.2422 today?  THAT would explain ancient calendars and other phenomenon-but that's for another book! Japan's 2011 tsunami and underwater land slide sped up the earth 1/1000th of a second.

 Under the first canopy of ice the people, plants and animals would live MUCH longer and grow MUCH bigger!  Fossils of giant animals have been found like: 6' beavers, 1,500 lb guinea pigs, 15' tall camels, 10' Kangaroos and 50' crocodiles.  Reptiles which never stop growing would become dinosaurs.

 Adam and Eve could see the stars MUCH more clearly and even hear the music of the stars as they sang together. Job 38:7.

 The flood began with the fountains of the deep breaking open. (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Pro. 8:28).  Dr. Walt Brown offers convincing evidence that 10 miles of rock on top of the subterranean waters (which would have a pressure of about 10 million pounds/square foot) would jet water, mud and rock into orbit!  The canopy of ice may have been destroyed and collapsed at this time.  3 inches of ice would contribute VERY little to the flood itself.

 Both the waters above and most of the waters below are now on the surface.  Oceans cover 70% of the earth God created to be inhabited.  Redistributing this mass of rock and water may have caused the earth to wobble and SLOWLY change its tilt from maybe 0 degrees (causing more uniform spring-like temperatures from pole to pole preflood) to 23.5 degrees today (which causes our seasons).  Hmmm??

SUMMARY

Tom, thanks for reading this LONG post.  I pray it will better explain my position and passion for the Word of God.  Please post it or print it if you like.  Your magazine is a GREAT blessing to many and makes and EXCELLENT gift for those wondering how they can influence others for Christ.  I pray that MANY who read my blogs will go to www.creationillustrated.com and get a subscription for themselves and a loved one.  I'm sorry the article by Paul made me give this public response.  I'd sure much rather solve differences without the whole world watching if possible but it was too late for that this time.

Eric (and Paul and any who have ears to hear), the two MAJOR reasons some otherwise intelligent fellow creationists do NOT believe there was a canopy above the originally created atmosphere is because:
1. they are not studying the right Bible and
2. they have the wrong canopy model.

1. As we have seen, some don't believe they have God's exact Words to even begin to evaluate the canopy topic or, if they have His Words they don't trust them or feel that they must submit to them.  In every article I have read by those who oppose the idea of a canopy above the atmosphere the author is always changing the words in Genesis from the KJB to fit his theory rather than changing his theory to fit the Word of God.

   Hundreds of great books have been written on the King James topic already.  I implore you to study this topic.  You will NEED a SOLID WORD to hold to in the tribulation time that is coming here soon.  I can clearly remember the feeling I got in about 1998 or so when, after pouring scores of hours into the study of the issue, I became convinced by the overwhelming evidence that God DID preserve His Words as He promised He would in Ps. 12:6-7.  I remember when I knelt by my bed and held my Bible and looked at it for a minute as my rebellious spirit softened.  Finally I prayed, "Lord, I'm sorry for the way I have treated Your Word all these years.  I have always been quick to adjust it or change it if I felt the need to make it match what I believed or wanted to believe.  I felt superior to Your Word rather than trusting it as my inflexible perfect standard.  Starting today It is my master, I am not its master.  Thank you for all the millions of saints over the years who have given their lives so I can hold a copy of your perfect Word.  Please guide me as I preach to defend it against all attacks.  In Jesus' Name. Amen."

   Once you get the issue settled that we have the Perfect Word of God, the rest is easy.  Just read it and try to rightly divide it.  You can't even read 7 WORDS into the various Bible versions before there is a profound difference!  KJB says "heaven" and almost all the others say "heavens."  Somebody is WRONG!  Ditto with the canopy teaching.  The Bible could not be more clear when it says there was water ABOVE the firmament (Gen. 1:6-7).  Verse 20 is clear that the firmament is where the birds fly-i.e. the atmosphere.  If there was no canopy what does that mean?

  I'm not sure which part of the word "above" the critics don't understand.  Is it the "a" part or the "bove" part?  These verses CANNOT be referring to clouds IN the atmosphere or "across the face of" or "the stretching" like some foolishly claim.  The Bible does NOT say there was 20 feet of water up there.  Nor does it say the flood water came from the water above the heaven.  We covered that.  It came from INSIDE the earth.

   If the Word says it, we are to believe it even if it has no scientific explanation.  I believe in the creation, resurrection and all the miracles WITHOUT any scientific explanation.  It is the same with the idea of "water above the firmament."  I believe it because it says it.  Now, with that said, that does NOT mean I cannot try to study and understand HOW God did it.  He WANTS us to "study to shew ourselves approved unto God."  I try HARD to do that!  I know you do too.

  I think anyone is authorized to give their "opinion" or "theories" about what God's Word says and means (but keep James 3:1 in mind!) but they are NOT authorized to "change the Words" themselves and THEN give their ideas about what THEIR translation says or means.  The Word says there was water above the firmament.  That issue is closed for me.

  The New King James (NKJV) Paul used to critique the canopy also says people "are being saved" (Catholic teaching) rather than "are saved" (KJB) in I Cor. 1:18.  Is Jesus God's SON (KJB Acts 3:26) or His Servant (NKJV)?  Will God provide Himself as the lamb (Gen 22:8) which has a double meaning or does God need to provide FOR Himself a lamb as if He sinned and needs a sacrifice (NKJV)?  Did God tell Noah to COME into the ark (God's inside and going with on the trip) Gen. 7:1 KJB or GO into the ark (NIV) like, "see ya later Noah-hope ya make it?"  This Bible version issue is MUCH more serious than most realize.  PLEASE seek His face on it Eric and Paul (and all others!)

2. They are studying the wrong model.  Jesus' critics said no prophet comes from Galilee. (Jn. 7:52)  They challenged those who believed he was a prophet to go home and study for themselves!  They were searching in vain for the wrong thing!  Jesus was born in Bethlehem but raised in Nazareth.  I think Paul may have rightly criticized flaws with some older canopy models but he threw out the baby with the bath water.  More and more evidence is coming in to support the idea of a 3" canopy of super cold ice above the atmosphere.  This would be true to the Bible AND answer loads of questions about the world and the pre-flood world.

  I may not have all the details about the water above the firmament perfect myself.  I would gladly hear any reasonable criticism of my canopy theory.  It may need to be adjusted and modified many times.  That is fine if it stays in the parameters of God's infallible Word.  I started with assumption that I held the perfect Word and sought for a model that would stay true to that standard.  I think the God who sees the heart will like that.  I suggest you do the same.

Kent Hovind