A Great New YouTube Documentary on the Creation Museum

I wanted to alert people about a new documentary on the Creation Museum by a Primatologist named Erika who runs the YouTube channel Gutsick Gibbon. It basically rocks out on electric guitars while making science look cool. In other words, it accomplishes in reality what Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks he is in his head. Erika grew up reading those same Young Earth picture books I had at my bedside as a kid that depict hadrosaurs spewing fire out of their pie holes into the faces of previously vegetarian T-Rexes like a Wehrmacht Flammenwerfer. Don't ask me to explain, I don't have time here to unpack Young Earth deep lore. Anyways, Erika visited the Creation Museum in her childhood and probably knows its literature better than Ken Ham himself (ʿalayhi as-salām). Now, as a budding scientist and adult, we get to watch her revisit the Museum and Ark Encounter and laugh with and at her as the process of scientifically dismantling all their major claims slowly unravels her sanity over the

On William Lane Craig's (mis)interpretation of Othmar Keel and criticism of my Hebrew cosmology illustration

William Lane Craig has written a few blog posts addressing the Bible's ancient Near Eastern cosmology. As a theologian, Craig is averse to having the Bible say things about cosmology that aren't true. I have no such theological concerns. I'm just a guy trying to understand ancient Semitic culture. My book's illustration of ancient Hebrew cosmology has been popular on the web and was used as the header in this article Craig is critiquing . Craig attempts to refute my cosmology illustration along with the others shown by quoting the Swiss Egyptologist Othmar Keel. It's a big deal for Craig to claim Keel to his side because he's one of leading scholars in the world on biblical iconography. The amusing thing is I literally based my illustration off of Keel's . Compare:  Othmar Keel, Altorientalische Miniaturkunst: Die ältesten visuellen Massenkommunikationsmittel. Ein Blick in die Sammlungen des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz (Universi

Eve: A “help-meet,” or co-warrior?

Examination of the Hebrew in Genesis may imply Eve was created was created as Adam's "sustainer." Digital illustration by the author. In my last post I summarized a doctoral dissertation by J. J. Van Ee that studies the Creation Mandate in Genesis 1:28. When God tells humanity to "rule" and "subdue" the earth in that passage, a comprehensive study of the Hebrew verbs implies they are actually far harsher than theologians would typically care to admit. I know that claim sounds outlandish and violates centuries of church tradition, but you can look over the 39 comparative witnesses yourself in that post and see that I'm not bluffing. In addition to Van Ee's thesis, here is another free article  from the Journal Old Testament Essays  discussing the subject for those interested. When we look up how these terms are used throughout the Bible, we find them most frequently appearing in military contexts. In fact, after the Flood in the opening of Gene

Semitic Scholarship Confirms Animal Death Before the Fall in Genesis 1

Digital painting by the author. The most sophisticated academic study on the Fall and animal death to date  In my recent book critiquing Answers in Genesis’ Bible interpretation , I summarized a 2013 doctoral dissertation by J. J. Van Ee entitled, “Death and the Garden: An Examination of Original Immortality, Vegetarianism, and Animal Peace in the Hebrew Bible and Mesopotamia.” The PDF of the full dissertation is available free here . As someone who has dumped months of research into the topic, I’m convinced Van Ee’s thesis is by far the most comprehensive and sophisticated exegetical treatment that exists on the issue of death before the Fall in the Hebrew Bible. (Disclaimer: I've never spoken with Van Ee, and my views in this article are my own.) My friend Mike Jones at Inspiring Philosophy was also so impressed with Van Ee’s dissertation that he included a summary of some of its contents in a video entitled: “ TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism ” which has cur

Behemoth's tail isn't about his tail. It's about his penis (part 2)

In my last post , I argued that the monster Behemoth in the biblical book of Job was a mythic Semitic chaos deity. We can infer this because we can be certain his literary ‘twin’ Leviathan was. Leviathan breathes fire, has multiple heads, and is openly related to the chaos dragon god in Mesopotamian and West Semitic Baal mythology by the biblical authors themselves.  This post continues my response to an article from by Paul Price that attempts to argue Behemoth was a sauropod dinosaur. Price argues this mainly on the basis that the book of Job compares Behemoth’s tail to a cedar. Contrary to Price, I believe Behemoth was most likely a mythological super-ox based on features of the Hebrew texts and comparative ancient mythology. What about his cedar-like “tail”? I think there is firm evidence that the Hebrew term for “tail” here is actually a euphemism for the creature’s penis—a view shared by scads of Jobian specialists.  Only a liberal evolutionist would claim Behemoth

Nose rings: A Biblical Symbol of Modesty

Snippet from Bailey's book showing woman wearing shnaf nose ring. One of my favorite books I stumbled upon last year was Clinton Bailey's, Bedouin Culture in the Bible  (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018). Bailey is a world leading authority on the modern Bedouin living in biblical lands, and his book examines how its culture sheds light on things modern people are inclined to find strange in the Old Testament. As Bailey writes, "Bedouin culture goes back 4,500 years. Owing to the unchangeability of desert conditions, this culture remained largely unchanged and is recognizable in the Bible." The following is an interesting portion from his book: Women in the biblical world wore nose rings as a symbol of sexual modesty (pgs. 61-3): “Nose rings play a role in the modesty of women, about which the Bedouin are zealous. …[F]ar-reaching obligations to, and burdens upon, clansmen are weighty—too weighty to be borne for people not of their blood. Thus, the possibility of disagrees with me about Behemoth’s penis

Image has published this piece attempting to debunk my research on the biblical monster Behemoth. Those of you devastatingly attractive loose-cannon rock stars that have read my book on the Creation Museum (Why haven’t you? The reviews melt faces.) know that I argue Behemoth was not a real animal, but a west Semitic chaos deity. Along with many Semitists from backwards, rinky-dink institutions you’ve probably never heard of like the Hebrew University of Jerusalem or Oxford, I believe Behemoth was probably a mythological creature based around the attributes of a bull--a view going back to early Judaism.  Additionally, examining features of the Hebrew texts, I agree with many translators like Rob Alter at Berkley or Edward Greenstein at Bar-Ilan University that the infamous verse about Behemoth’s tail being “like a cedar” is likely a reference to the creature’s penis. That last sentence is what we call foreshadowing in the writing biz and is designed to hold everyone's int