When Was Genesis Written?

In the 19th Century many academics were eagerly embracing the theory of evolution and applying it to all sorts of situations; from human origins, to eugenics, to social structures, and to sadly, to legalise racism. They also applied this presupposition to Judaeo-Christian theology in order to destroy it. All Biblical narrative was suspect and subject to review from academics who had finally unlocked the key to a true understanding of how religions began. German higher critics proposed very successfully that religion evolved from simple to complex structures as society evolved.

The champion of these scholars was Julius Wellhousen. Using what he called the Documentary Hypothesis, he persuasively argued in his Prolegomena to the History of Israel that Genesis was written in the middle of the millennium just before Christ, not a full millennium before that, as stated in the Old Testament. He theorised that there were four authors who wrote the Old Testament from 850BC through to 450BC as a way of justifying social structures. Wellhousen’s theories dominated Biblical studies for a hundred years and still influence critics today.

But is this theory true in the light of discoveries made since he propagated his theories?

First of all we must be very suspicious of any theory that relies on evolutionary presuppositions for its foundation. A multitude of genetic discoveries (links here, here, here, here, here and here) in the last two decades are rapidly undermining the entire superstructure of evolutionary theory and providing startling evidence that our genome is not evolving upward at all but rather heading quite rapidly toward genetic entropy, or in layman’s terms, extinction!

But more importantly there is an abundance of evidence from within the Old Testament itself, and particularly Genesis, that the origin of these writings lies in deep history. Here are some of those evidences for an origin for Genesis somewhere in the early second Millennium BC:

Genesis describes a war in the Middle East between international foes. Many of the names mentioned in Genesis 14:1-9 appear only in the period 2,000-1,500 BC and no later. In addition, only in this era were armies able to move across this area with ease.

Some customs that appear in Genesis do continue into later periods, but their concentration in Genesis is unique. These include the custom of taking a surrogate if ones wife was barren for seven years (Genesis 16:1-4) and a betrothal gift that allows the bridegroom to marry (Genesis 34:12).

The city of Harran appears again and again, in Genesis 11:31-32, 12:4, 27:43, 28:10 and 29:4. Archaeology confirms that this city was occupied and thriving in the early second Millennium BC occupied by coalitions of Amorites.

Grazing in great distances (100km) from one’s home only occurs in Genesis, but not later in the Old Testament. For example, Joseph’s brothers graze their flocks some 100km north of Hebron, in the high country now occupied by Jerusalem. Only in this era and no later do we find confirming evidence from non-Biblical accounts of similar activity by other groups such as the Amorites in Northern Syria.

Benjamin is the only son named by his father after the family migrates south to the area of Bethlehem, just outside Jerusalem. His name is identical to an 18th Century BC tribal confederation that lived in Syria known as the Binu-Yamina, meaning south. The names for his two brothers Asher and Zebulon also only occur in this era in all extra-Biblical records.

Joseph’s brothers sell him for 20 shekels of silver. This was the price of a young male slave only in the second Millennium BC.

The closest parallel to Genesis 1-11 comes not from the 7th Century BC Babylonian Enuma Elish, but from the 18th Century BC Atrahasis Epic.

The global flood mentioned in Genesis 6-9 is confirmed by the Gilgamesh Epic on display at the British Museum and the Atrahasis Epic mentioned above. It is also confirmed by over two hundred indigenous flood legends from around the world.

Some of the names that occur in Genesis 1-11 only occur in extra-Biblical sources from the first half of the 2nd Millennium BC. These include Methuselah, Methushael, Tubal-Cain and Jabal.

As can clearly be seen, the traditional understanding of the timeframe of Genesis is on safe ground. You can read it with confidence in the events spoken of. It is important to note that none of the evidences listed above delve into the extensive scientific evidences for the accuracy of Genesis. They will be tackled in another blog.

Kevin Davis

Radiometric dating: Assumption One Debunked

Last year I started studying radiometric dating to see if the grand old ages for the earth, as presented by the evolutionary establishment do indeed stack up. This is something every thinking person on the planet should do. Below is a snippet of what I found out and will be in an essay published on the website later this year.

Modern radioisotope dating methods are like watching sand slide through an hour glass and working backwards to find the initial starting time. To trust an hour glass that is running with sand at the bottom we have to know if it was empty when we started, whether the flow has been consistent and unclogged, and whether no sand was added or subtracted from the pile at the bottom before we observed it.

The first of those three assumptions, in science-speak, goes something like this:

When the rock forms and hardens there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic atoms derived by radioactive decay.

If this assumption is violated, then the technique fails and all dates produced are false. If daughter atoms were present then the assumed age would be much older than the real age. Lets look at this assumption in detail to see if it stacks up by looking at the ages given for rocks that have a known historical age.

The potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating method is often used to date volcanic rocks. In using this method, it is always assumed that there was no daughter radiogenic argon in rocks when they formed. The K–Ar method works on the assumption that the radioactive decay ‘clock’ begins to ‘tick’ after the lava cooled and solidified as the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate.

For volcanic rocks which cool from molten lava, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Because argon is a gas, it should escape to the atmosphere due to the intense heat of the lava. It also assumes that no argon from radioactive decay was present initially. We can test these assumptions by studying modern lava flows of a known historic date.

In 1996 geologist Andrew Snelling investigated lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand (Mt Doom in the Lord of the Rings movies!). Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows that occurred in 1949, 1954 and 1975.

The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Boston for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating. Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, with the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lava 25–50 years ago. The lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real.

Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?

Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, the K–Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands of years must be due to excess argon the rock inherited from the magma deep in the earth when the rock first formed. When the lava cooled the rocks contained higher than zero concentrations of normal radiogenic argon, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic argon derived by radioactive decay of its parent potassium.

Some critics have argued that the magma must have picked up chunks of old rock as it moved through the Earth. They claim, without evidence, that these pieces of old rock, xenoliths, contaminated the sample and gave the very old age. Dr Austin anticipated this line of criticism and was particularly careful to identify xenoliths and ensure none were included in the sample. Other critics suggested feldspar crystal size gave wrong ages. This criticism was also anticipated, and proved incorrect as the old ages came from multiple crystals.

In another obvious example of dating error, rock samples from a lava dome within the Mount St Helens in the USA were dated using the K-Ar method. Whole-rock samples gave ages from 1.0 to 3.5 million years. However, the lava dome only formed after Mount St Helens exploded in 1980 and the samples were just 10 years old at the time the samples were tested. Similar errors have been compiled for historically known lava flows in Hawaii, Mt Etna in Italy, Mt Lassen in California and the Sunset crater in Arizona.

These examples of dating error clearly violate assumption number one of radioactive dating. The bottom of the geological hourglass was not empty of radioactive “sand” when it was flipped. Therefore, all potassium-argon tests and dates for the earth’s basement rocks are invalid. If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?

In regards to rocks of unknown history but the same origin and location, radioisotope dating often gives us vastly inconsistent ages. This is another clue that daughter atoms were present when the rocks were formed. One study took samples of rock from the Grand Canyon and tested their ages with respected laboratories. Seven samples from one rock formation, which should all be the same age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, gave ages ranging from 1,060 million to 2,574 million years. This includes two samples only 0.84 meters apart that yielded K-Ar model ages of 1,205 million years and 2,574 million years respectively. Is it any wonder that preconceived assumptions about the age of the earth play such a huge role in the dates that are accepted and those that are rejected?

Kevin Davis


Meet John Money, The Father of Gender Theory

John Money was a New Zealander who grew up in a Christian home, but rebelled against the teachings of his parents. He went on to become a psychologist and moved to John Hopkins University in the USA, where he worked for many years. In 1955 he published an article in the Bulletin of the John Hopkins Hospital in which we see the word gender being used for the very first time to replace the traditional word sex in describing male and female. Seemed harmless enough until you understand more about Dr John Money.

As an adult, John Money had become a self-confessed “missionary of sex”, encouraging bisexual group sex, open marriages and refusing to condemn incest and paedophilia. It was he who unveiled to the world the novel idea that gender was a social construct rather than a biological certainty.

In 1967 Dr Money got to try out his theory on a little boy who had been through a botched circumcision and had lost most of his penis. His name was Bruce Reimer. Money advised the parents to tidy up the wound with a virginal fold, raise the boy as a girl and all would be fine. Since in Dr Money’s thinking gender was simply a social construct there would be no problem, the child would become what ever society said it should be. Bruce Reimer became Brenda Reimer.

Money misrepresented the case in glowing terms in a series of published papers, telling the world that Reimer had changed happily to the feminine gender. Time Magazine (January 1973) was sucked in by it all, declaring that this case was “providing strong support  for a major contention of women’s liberationists: that conventional patterns of masculine and feminine behaviour can be altered”. His case was used as justification for the sex resaignment of hundreds of babies in the years that followed.

But it was all a lie. Brenda never self-identified as a girl and found the medical and psychological treatment by Dr Money deeply traumatic. According to The Guardian (May 12th 2004) Reimer recounts therapy sessions where Money would show him and his twin brother explicit pornographic pictures and yell at the boys to take their clothes off.

When Brenda Reimer was finally told at the age of 14 about his original sex was male, Brenda promptly reverted to male, took the name David and tried to undo the hormonal feminisation he has been subjected to. He underwent a double mastectomy, had testosterone injections and a penile reconstruction. In 1990 he married and was a dad to three stepchildren. In December 1997 David Reimer finally went public with the sad truth in the Rolling Stone Magazine, the same year that the truth was told to the medical profession in a March article in the Archives of Adolescent and Pediatric Medicine.

After 14 years of marriage his wife left David Reimer. It was too much for this sad young man and he took his life at the age of just 38 years, thanks to the seriously disturbing theories of a psychologist who was on a mission to change societies understanding of sexuality into his own warped mold. Because of him, the myth that gender is simply a social construct has gone from strength to strength and thousands of mentally disturbed young people are suffering a similar fate as David/Brenda/David Reimer, with a suicide rate 20 times the average.

Kevin Davis


How Many Mutations Are Accumulating Each Generation?

Exactly how many deleterious mutations are accumulating inside humanity each generation? To put this another way, at what rate is the mutational load increasing? How quickly are the deleterious mutations accumulating in our genomes over time, and is this accumulation a danger to our future existence?

Let’s start by stating that mutation rates affect different species differently. Single-celled asexually reproducing organisms tend to have far lower genetic complexity so obviously experience fewer mutations per individual. E. coli has 4.8 million nucleotides while humans have 3 billion. E. coli is a single cell while we have between 50 and 100 trillion cells. Natural selection is also extremely severe in these “simple” species as every single cell is independently subject to natural selection after every single cell division.

Therefore mutations are a much larger problem in sexually reproducing larger species of trillions of cells and billions of reproductive cells which divide many times before reproduction. The potential for something to go wrong rises exponentially with time. In addition, larger sexually reproducing organisms have a greater accumulation of mutations in the male reproductive cells before reproduction, because of their Y chromosome. Mutations double every 16.5 years in human males as they age, resulting in 76% of all mutations coming down through the paternal line.

Many larger animal species have the additional problem of a relatively low population size with a highly complex genome. Humans have a different problem; a large population but a very low reproductive rate. Finally, the larger the species, the smaller overall effect of each individual mutation on the individual and therefore the less likely it is to be removed via natural selection. In these species, including us, the environment and homeostasis will have a far greater influence on reproduction than natural selection.

The Nobel Prize winning grandfather of modern human genetics, Herman Muller  established in 1950 that a mutational load of 0.3 mutations per individual per generation was the limit of human mutational tolerance. The logic was simple. If we have three children per family, we can only afford one of them to carry a large increase in mutational load, and if all carried mutations at this low level they could easily be selected out. However, if all our children had mutational loads above this level then they could not be eliminated from the human race. Mutations would begin to accumulate in a linear fashion over time. Instead of evolving upward, the human race would be on a one way trip to eventual extinction.

In 1971 fellow Nobel Prize winner, Manfred Eigen, also calculated that the maximum number of mutations allowable for evolution to progress as 1/n, or one per genome. Any figure above this would eventually result in genetic “error catastrophe”, a term he coined. For many years geneticists, such as James Crow have continued to worry about the effect of increasing numbers of deleterious mutations are having on the human population, particularly with the trend toward older parenting.

So, how many mutations per person per generation are we actually producing? Is it still within the confines needed for evolutionary theory to work suggested by Muller? Advanced studies on the human genome have now shown us the true figure. Sadly, we now know that the single point mutations (SNV’s) alone, without even counting the many other types of mutations, are accumulating on average at between 75 and 175 in our reproductive cells per person, per generation!

This is a profound discovery with huge ramifications for the future of humanity. Because this astounding fact is foundational to the evolutionary thesis, I have quoted the following admissions from evolutionary geneticists to these mutation rates in humans:

  1. Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell, Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans.

The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. The authors find this figure hard to reconcile with evolutionary theory and suggest a mutual cancelling out of mutant nucleotides via epistasis.”

  1. Catarina D. Campbell, Evan E. Eichler, Properties and Rates of Germline Mutations in Humans

Recent genome-wide studies of the SNV mutation rate in humans have started to converge. Studies based on whole-genome sequencing and direct estimates of de novo mutations give an average SNV mutation rate of 1.16 × 10−8 mutations per base pair per generation.”

In plain English this estimate is about 30 new SNV’s per person per generation. Table one of their paper gives a mean mutation rate of 96.3 per person per generation. They go on to say that this is a “lower boundary” estimate and that…

Notably, when considering the total number of mutated base pairs between SNVs and CNVs, CNVs account for the vast majority. CNV’s being copy and deletion mutations covering large number of nucleotides. Put together these two sources of mutations represent hundreds of new mutations per generation.”

  1. Neel JV, Satoh C, Goriki K, Fujita M, Takahashi N, Asakawa J, Hazama R, The Rate With Which Spontaneous Mutation Alters the Electrophoretic Mobility of Polypeptides.

The implication, if these exon rates can be generalized, is of approximately equal to 20 nucleotide mutations per gamete per generation. This estimate of the frequency of point mutations does not include small duplications, rearrangements, or deletions resulting from unequal crossing-over, transcription errors, etc.”

  1. Ellie Dolgin, Nature The Real Mutation Rate Revealed, August 29, 2009

 “Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.”

Confessions do not come clearer than that, and from the pens of the worlds leading human population geneticists. We are clearly generating an abundance of deleterious mutations, and practically zero beneficial mutations. This has profound implications for anyone who has built their worldview on the assumption that evolutionary theory has slam-dunked all opposing theories of our origins.

China’s One Belt, One Road Grand Plan

Two years ago I was in Kazakhstan visiting my brother. We were taken for a drive one day out to a national park 3 hours east of Almaty. Part of the trip was on your average Soviet era road system. However, for about 30 km we intersected a brand new concrete four lane highway. It was world class. It was part of China’s One Belt-One Road infrastructure grand plan. Its real, its being built. When we flew out a few days alter I could see this concrete snake taking shape over hundreds of kilometers.

I just read this interesting summary of the plan by John Mauldin. Enjoy.

China’s Belt & Road Initiative looks like a giant infrastructure program, and it is, but that’s not all. It is Xi’s mercantilist version of the US-led postwar Marshall Program. Where we carved out leadership via institutions and trade agreements, while at the same time supplying much-needed money, China seeks to do the same by physically connecting itself with the Eurasian continent. I have said from the beginning that this may be one of Xi’s most profoundly disruptive and transformative policies of his career. There was some skepticism when it was first announced as the scope was so massive, but I think everyone is now a true believer. China is committing to putting its hard dollars into completing this project’s multi-decade vision.

(Click to enlarge)

As my friend George Friedman often says, China’s main strategic challenge is that the US controls the seas. Geography means China’s imports and exports must traverse coastal bottlenecks the US could easily close if it wished. That’s intolerable if your goal is to be a superpower, and that’s definitely what Xi wants.

One Belt, One Road is the answer. It will link the Eurasian land mass into a giant trading bloc with Europe at one end and China at the other. The project will open land routes the US cannot interdict, thereby letting China take what it feels is its rightful place of leadership. The scope is breathtaking, but Beijing is determined to make it happen. Again, I would not bet against Xi on this.

Notice all the smaller Asian countries that the One Road goes through. It will give you access to not only East Asia but Europe as well. China is building a “main pipeline” not unlike Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. And that means all those little countries will access that main road. Ultimately, China wants to pay for all the products it buys in Renminbi and have those small countries make it part of their central bank holdings. That is part of the process of becoming a reserve currency, which is something China covets. The same thing is true for the project’s ocean and seaport aspects.

Whatever your feelings about Chinese leadership, you have to admire a country that can undertake such a huge project that will take decades to fulfill. While Xi and his team may be starting it, it is unlikely anyone currently on top will still be on top in 30 years. That is Vision with a capital V.

Transgender Agenda Part 4

In recent blogs I have highlighted the danger to Judao-Christian culture from the transgender agenda. Today I want to talk about their Australian “Trojan horse”, the Safe Schools Program.

Let’s begin by acknowledging we live in the most sexually saturated culture in the history of the planet. Pornography is now normalised in teenagers, even down to primary school. My own surveys of high school students as a teacher over many years confirm this brutal fact. Average first exposure is now 11 years, and thats average, so half are being exposed earlier than that. Most paedophiles are actually young men, saturated in pornography. Teenage girls are being shamed and abused by young men in a way that will make you blush, porn acts are now expected of them. Homosexuality has also been normalised. Experimentation is expected and “cool”.

Into this bonfire of human dignity comes the transgender agenda and the Safe Schools Program. It is compulsory in all Victorian schools from 2018. Under the pretence of an anti-bullying program it has quickly morphed into a gay/porn grooming agenda. It promotes the idea that sexuality is fluid, all choices are valid, gender is disposable and anyone who questions it is a “bully”. It is gay group-think gone mad and imposed on impressionable youth. Its philosophy says humans are no longer born into a biological sexuality, children can invent and choose it for themselves. The child is now the king of its own sexual destiny over and above its parents, and the exaltation of various child sexual rights is the ground zero in the transgender and “Safe Schools” debate.

This program presents a fundamental philosophical conflict between those who believe in the binary nature of human biology and those who believe in a non-binary view of sexuality. It goes right down to the ultimate question: what is a human being? It is an attempt to overturn what God has decided! Year 7-8 children are being told their gender is fluid and they are informed sexual agents. Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to, gender identity is who you identify as. If it is a continuum, then every human can choose any one of dozens, hundreds, and perhaps millions of genders, defying biology.

The architect of the Safe Schools program is on the public record as advocating paedophilia. If children can choose their gender and be sexualised, then the laws about paedophilia will eventually be changed. A group called MINUS18 provides 80% of resources for the Safe Schools program. It is an overtly homosexual organisation with close links with the seedy underworld of the gay movement. I know, I checked the links on its brochures. It was that simple. The sexualisation of kids now being institutionalised and funded by taxpayers. The Safe Schools program is a legally enforced government funded homosexual grooming agenda designed to destroy heterosexuality and female/ male differences. Children who object to the program are now being bullied by teachers.

The law is rapidly setting this new philosophy into social concrete. Universities teach from day one that all relationships are social constructs. Ontario, Canada recently passed a law (sponsored by the MP the Reverend Cheri DiNovo, who also describes herself as a “Christian”) banning conversion therapy for transgender children, even though studies have shown about 90% of them grow out of it. When confronted with this fact by Professor John Whitehall, she said she was unaware of the research. Such astounding ignorance from such a strong advocate. From February 17th 2017, medical practitioners in Victoria became liable if they do not comply with wishes of children who wish to undergo a gender realignment therapy or sex change. The head of the world’s leading research unit into child sexuality had to resign and the unit shut down right after the Ontario bill was passed. It advocated and successfully used conversion therapy as a healthy way to deal with transgender kids.

This issue is not going away.

Kevin Davis

A Liger, a Wolphin and a Zorse!

Check out the three photos below, one of a liger (cross between a lion and a tiger), a wolphen (a cross between a killer whale, which is in reality a large dolphin, and a dolphin) and a zorse (a cross between a horse and a zebra). Each is a hybrid between two species and a hybrid is often has better vigour, as can be seen in the size of the liger.

How can these creatures exist? It’s a hard question for an evolutionist but an easy one for a creationist.

God made all creatures “after their own kind” and this means there was a cat kind, a bear kind, dolphn kind, horse kind etc. Our modern classification of “species” is one level down from “kind”. The modern name for “kind” is genus.

This explains how Noah could have taken all the animals onto the ark. He only needed one sample from each kind on the ship. One bear, one cat, one dog. Evolutionists often laugh at the concept of all species fitting into a ship 140m by 50m, when in reality they weren’t there and the kinds could have fitted easily, with room to spare.

Insights into the Apostle Peter’s Family

In Matthew 8:14-15 (and in Mark and Luke) an event is recorded where Jesus was back in his local area around Lake Galilee and visiting Peter’s home. Peter’s mother-in-law was in the house and very sick with a fever of an unknown description. Upon becoming aware of the situation Jesus heals the woman and she joins the other women in cooking and caring for Jesus and his noisy team of trainees, the disciples.

This gives a little bit of information about Jesus’ methods of travel and team dynamics. It suggests they frequented the homes of team members and supporters often for both nourishment and rest. This is confirmed by their strong relationship and extended visits with Mary, Martha and their brother Lazarus when down at Jerusalem.

It also tells us a little about family structure in ancient Israel. Family looked after family, regardless of generational and relational differences. Since he was married, it is highly probable that Peter had children, possibly quite a few. Jesus was one of at least 6 children born to Mary and Joseph (Matthew 13:55-56) so this was probably a normal sized family for that era before birth control.

Why would a married, tough, smelly, burly fisherman leave his business, wife and children for 3 years? Since there was no government welfare state and these men were often the breadwinners for their families. The businesses were probably left in the hands of relatives, or if Peter was an older man, with an eldest son. The family must have been looked after somehow. In any case they were back home visiting friends and relatives frequently.

Fishermen, like dairy farmers, would only leave their livelihood if they had a very strong reason. That reason must have been the ongoing evidence that Jesus was a very special man worth the sacrifice. Peter announces his own conclusion in Matthew 16:16 where he says publically he believes Jesus is the promised Messiah, long prophesied in Jewish scripture.

This brings us the question of Peter’s wife. She is not mentioned in scripture, but we have some clues as to what she was like. 1 Peter 3:1-7 gives us a description of the ideal wife. He talks about inner beauty, a gentle heart, purity, and a women tuned into her husband. Could it be that Peter’s wife was the opposite of Peter, who was a brash man, given to compulsive behaviour (Matthew 14:22-23), taking risks and speaking his mind when not it was not appropriate (Matthew 26:69-76)? Opposites attract so this is a real possibility.

Did Peter’s wife join him in ministry after the resurrection of Jesus, after her mother-in-law had passed away and the children had grown up? Probably! There is a clue in 1 Corinthians 9: 5 where Paul makes the following statement: “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles?” The whole tone of 1 Corinthians 9 suggests there was obviously friction between Paul and the other church leaders at the time, which, because of his big mouth, probably meant Peter.

Most scholars agree that there was a significant gap of some 10 years between the resurrection of Jesus and the reluctant decision by the apostles to begin reaching out beyond Israel after getting a spiritual kick up the backside by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10). This would have meant Peter spent a lot of time at home, the children would have grown up and the middle-aged couple were free to engage in serious ministry to the wider Roman Empire. Were their children in ministry too as they grew older?

This brings us to the final question. Was Peter’s wife in Rome when he was crucified? Once again, probably! If she was travelling with him she would have wanted to be there when he was incarcerated and facing the death penalty. If not travelling with him she would have heard about it quickly through the now widespread Christian grapevine and tried to get there ASAP as he was incarcerated for some time. If she was already with him when he was caught, was she also caught ministering with him and killed at the same time? These are questions that we cannot answer but history leans that way.

I trust this helps you as much as it helped me when I first started asking questions about Peter’s family.


Solving the Dilemma of Matthew 27:9-10

In Matthew 27:9-10 we see Matthew quoting from Jeremiah to bolster the case that the betrayal of Jesus was prophetically announced hundreds of years before. The problem correctly pointed out by Biblical critics is that the quote has nothing to do with Jeremiah!

Wikipedia, fountain of all unbiased knowledge, gleefully pronounces that this is an example of ” the early Christians’ fictional and imaginative use of the Old Testament as a book about Jesus.”

However, as usual the truth lies buried deeper in antiquity. We have two better options:

1. Combined Prophecies…

It turns out there could be two passages being welded together into this quote. This was a common rabbinical technique that combined related prophetic passages to reveal meaning. In this case combining Jeremiah 19:1-11 and Zechariah 11:12-13.

However, Jeremiah mentions nothing of the field, the price, or the potters field. But it does contain a clear prophecy about a coming judgement on Israel that begins in the area of the garden of Gethsemane/Mount Zion/Kidron Valley. It lines up very closely with the prophecies given by Jesus about the destruction of the Temple and city of Jerusalem in Matthew chapter 24.

Because Zachariah mentions details of the silver, potters field and betrayal, but is not a prophecy, it is combined with Jeremiah. Because Jeremiah is the major prophet he gets the credit. I don’t like this interpretation!

2. Just Zachariah…

The second possibility is that there was an error in translating the story into the Greek manuscripts, which came after earlier versions in Aramaic or Hebrew. The Greek manuscripts only mention Jeremiah. However, the earlier Aramaic version of Matthew doesn’t even mention the name of any prophet. In addition, the quote is clearly a paraphrase from Zachariah, not Jeremiah as you will see if you go to this link.

In the footnotes to Matthew 27:9-10 in the Passion Translation there is also a reference to the Hebrew version of Matthew with a claim that it only mentions Zachariah as the source of the scriptures. I have now verified this source. I have also emailed the publishers to send me the link to their Hebrew Version of Matthew to double check.

So the evidence is that it is clearly a quote from Zachariah and that the Greek translators of Matthew got it wrong. It is also clear that the Greek translations come after earlier versions in the languages of Israel at the time; Aramaic and Hebrew. This would make perfect sense given Greek was of no use to the first readers who were mainly Jewish and several early church fathers speak of earlier Hebrew versions of Matthew in circulation.

This also explains why Wikipedia critics, using only the Greek, have once again come to a conclusion that suits their worldview.

Kevin Davis

Evidence for Genetic Entropy From the Real World

The second law of thermodynamics states that total energy always decreases over time in a closed system. Things break down! The human genome is also subject to mutational entropy at 300 mutations per generation. So, if we extrapolate backwards we come to a point at which our genome must have zero entropy and was perfect. Travelling forward in time we come to a point when all genomes will be extinct. Here are six lines of evidence proving genetic entropy:

1. RNA viruses

The Spanish Flu, H1N1, killed between 50 and 100 million people. By 2009 it was extinct after 15% of its genome of 12,600 nucleotides had mutated. It followed a perfect linear mutation accumulation rate and a perfect exponential biological decay curve. The H2N2 and H3N2 outbreaks are now following the same decay curve.

2. From 450,000 to 3.6 million in 4,000 years

The accumulation of human mutations has grown from 450,000 in Eskimos that lived 4,000 years ago to approximately 3.6 million mutations today. Extrapolating backwards gives us a perfect human genome around 4,000BC. This equates to 15,000 new mutations per generation sometime in our recent past compared to the 300 per generation today. This is a differential demanding further study.

3. Recent Deterioration

In addition, a 2013 study of 6,515 individuals concluded that approximately 86% of all single nucleotide mutations predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000-10,000 years. These are definitely not figures and dates friendly to evolutionary theory.

4. Research Numbers

Professor James Crow estimates we are experiencing a 1-2% drop in human genetic fitness per generation.  Professor Michael Lynch estimates we are experiencing an even more alarming 5% drop in genetic fitness per generation.

5. From the pens of geneticists

Herman Muller

“…an asexual population incorporates a kind of ratchet mechanism, such that…lines become more loaded with mutations.”

Alexy Kondrashov

“Accumulation of VSDM’s (very slightly harmful mutations) in a linage…acts like a time bomb…the existence of vertebrate lineages should be limited to 106-107 generations.

Michael Lynch

Our results provide no evidence for the existence of a threshold population size beyond which a population is completely invulnerable to a mutational meltdown.

Noel Howell

“We should increase our attention to the broader question of how (or whether) organisms can tolerate, in the sense of evolution, a genetic system with such a high mutational burden.”

James Crow

“I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse.”

Fred Hoyle

“When the environment is not fixed there is a slow genetic erosion… which natural selection cannot prevent.”

Adam Eyre-Walker & Peter Keightley

“…deleterious mutation rates appear to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive…”

Michael Lynch

“Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents in the industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries.”

6. Genetic diseases are increasing

The World Health Organisation estimates that 10,000 diseases are now known to be caused by point mutations in reproductive DNA. The number is increasing annually. As more and more recessive mutations are colliding with each other.

7. The Biblical genealogies

There is one other recorded long term exponential biological decay in nature. This time it is actually in us humans. The ancient Hebrew people faithfully recorded the lifespans of all descendants over 70 generations after Noah. The result is astounding. It also follows a near perfect exponential biological decay curve.  In addition science has now proved all women are descended from a single woman, and all men from a single man. The dates given for these two ancestors range from 25,000 to 450,000 years, far too short for the evolutionary timescale.


Evidence for genetic entropy does indeed exist in the real world. Evidence comes from RNA viruses, ancient preserved human DNA, ancient genealogies, increasing genetic disease load and verified human fitness decline. Problems with the concept of mutational advance and natural selection are also acknowledged, over and over again, by the world’s leading population geneticists. One researcher even suggested in the title of his research paper that we as humans should have “died 100 times over”. Evolution is a myth. The evidence says we were quite recently made perfect and are heading on a one way path to extinction.

If you would like to read more click on this link