Christ The Creationist

The Bible is full of affirmations for a recent creation, if one properly reads, exegetes, and believes in it!  Both Old and New Testaments confirm this fact to be true.  Jesus Christ also validates this often, and a couple more of His references are cited below, in the devotional “Days Of Praise” from the Institute For Creation Research.  This article was written by their founder, Dr. Henry M. Morris:

Christ the Creationist
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. | Oct. 5, 2017
“For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.” (Mark 13:19)
In predicting a future judgment on the unbelieving world, the Lord Jesus referred to “the beginning of the creation which God created,” thus affirming the biblical doctrine of supernatural, sudden creation. In the pagan world of His day, evolutionism was dominant almost everywhere. The Epicureans, for example, were atheistic evolutionists. The Stoics, Gnostics, Platonists, and others were pantheistic evolutionists. None of the extra-biblical philosophers of His day believed in a God who had created all things, including even the universe itself.
But Christ was a creationist, and the much-maligned “scientific creationists” of today are following His example and teaching. He even believed in recent creation, for He said (speaking of Adam and Eve) that “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). The pagans all believed in an eternal cosmos, but Jesus said it had a beginning and that man and woman were a part of that beginning creation, following which “the sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27).
He also believed that the “two accounts” of creation (Genesis 1 and 2) were complementary, not contradictory, for He quoted from both in the same context. “Have ye not read,” He said, “that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female [Genesis 1], And said For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [Genesis 2]” (Matthew 19:4-6).
There may be some Christians who are evolutionists, but there is no such thing as “Christian evolution,” for Christ was a creationist! HMM

Advertisements

Massive Full-Scale Version of Noah’s Ark Comes to Life in Kentucky

 

 

There might not be a flood of biblical proportions in the forecast, but Noah’s Ark is coming to Williamstown, Kentucky, this summer.

Massive Full-Size Version of Noah's Ark Comes to Life in Kentucky

A full-size version of Noah’s Ark is expected to be completed before Ark Encounter, a Bible-themed park, opens July 7.

Ken Ham had the massive ship built to match the dimensions set out in the Bible. The entire project is expected to cost $100 million.

“The message that we have — it’s making the Bible come alive, really. By building Noah’s Ark, we’re saying, ‘This really happened. This is plausible,'” Ham told “Nightline.”

According to Ham, his ark is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide and 51 feet high. “It gets bigger and bigger. When you get inside, it gets bigger again,” he said.

Ark Encounter is just a few miles from Ham’s Creation Museum, which attracts nearly half a million visitors a year and teaches a young Earth theory of creation. Ham calls his ministry Answers in Genesis.

“We have a lot of people who are not Christians who come here, and they appreciate the way it’s presented. It’s presented very tastefully,” said Ham. “It’s educational.”

Visitors to the Creation Museum can find exhibits like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which is next to one showing dinosaurs playfully eating fruit.

One of Ham’s biggest critics is Bill Nye, an evolutionist who is known as the television personality the Science Guy. He dismissed Ham’s creationist exhibits as biblical propaganda. Nye said dinosaurs died out long before human beings ever came along.

“I can prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. That is what’s very troubling. Allosauruses and humans did not live at the same time. Teaching the earth is 6,000 years old is completely wrong and inappropriate,” he told “Nightline.”

“When they dig up dinosaur bones, they don’t dig them up with labels on saying, ‘Hi, I’m 70 million years old,’ or whatever it is,” Ham said. “We’re saying that most of those bones they dig up are actually from the flood of Noah’s day, not from millions of years ago.”

Ham rejected mainstream science institutions as evolutionary doctrinaires.

“Museums like the Natural History Museum inWashington, D.C., Smithsonian or Chicago Field Museum, mostly they teach that we supposedly evolved [from] apelike creatures. Why shouldn’t we be able to use the same technology and really challenge people to consider the Bible as the true history of the world?” he said.

Ham’s Noah’s Ark project took advantage of $18 million in tax benefits and tourism incentives.

The state of Kentucky attempted to block the project from receiving public funding, but Ham took his case to court and won. “Christians pay taxes in this world. We live in this world. We’re not second-class citizens. The federal judge rule in our favor,” he said.

“It’s just inappropriate. To me, [it’s] a clear violation of the First Amendment, for crying out loud,” Nye argued.

To work at Ark Encounter, job applicants must sign a statement of faith, professing a Christian belief in the creation story. For instance, they agree that the “great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide in its extent and effect.”

Ham said this is necessary because “we are a Christian organization and we have a Christian message.”

Among the construction workers who have helped build the ark are Amish carpenters who said part of their faith included accepting the Bible as truth. The artists who created the ark’s exhibits are believers too.

“There’s a lot of people that scoff,” Ham said. “We get a lot of attacks by some of the aggressive secularists. Sometimes I feel a bit like Noah.”

Admission to Ark Encounter will be $40 for adults and $28 for children, and Ham said he expects that fascination with Noah and his ark will result in 1 million to 2 million visitors in the first year.

“We really do believe that if we build it, they will come. And they’re going to come,” Ham said.

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

About 4,000 years ago, the people laughed at Noah because he built the ark on dry land.  Today, the people laugh at Ken Ham for building a replica of the ark on dry land.  Yes indeed, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Pagan evolutionists like Bill Nye, actually despise the replica of the ark being built because they hate the truth.  The Scopes’ Monkey Trial of 1925 asserted that evolutionists simply desired an equal voice.  That “equal” voice has snuffed God and prayer out of the classroom, and contributed to moral decadence throughout this once great nation.  Abortion, euphanasia, fornication, and every other form of debauchery find their roots in this godless philosophy.  A mere generation ago, Christianity ruled the land as we enjoyed a wonderful way of life.  We have “sown the wind, and we are reaping the whirlwind.”  Hosea 8:7    Maranatha, Pastor Steve

For comprehensive information on the ark to be displayed in Kentucky on 7/7/16, go to arkencounter.com

 

Hard To Harmonize

The following statistics are certainly eye opening, and reveal volumes about the spiritual status of our nation:

1)88% of Americans own at least one Bible.

2)More Americans believe in aliens and extra terrestrials than believe in God!

Blending these facts together, I believe they reveal that our nation is totally brainwashed by evolution.  If one does not believe in God, then by default they believe there is no such thing as a creation. and they must search in the past for changes in life forms, usually believing they exist elsewhere in a more advanced state.  Evidently, their “god” is random chance plus time.  In other words, time plus nothing made everything.  Life originally was the result of mere chance, and everything in the universe is the result of a great cosmic crap shoot!  You know, when I was an unbeliever and lost, I still realized that there was a God who made everything.  The Bible tells us that all men are given proof of the reality of the Godhead through our conscience within and the creation around us.  (Romans 1:19-21)  The beautiful, intricate and orderly design of the universe shouts out for a perfect, all seeing, all powerful and all knowing Creator!  The proof is in the pudding.  You think about that.  Pastor Steve

***   For further information, please refer to the Creation/Evolution category in this blog site.  Scroll back through older posts until you get to the original articles that explain God’s marvelous creation and refute evolution in great detail.   ***

John MacArthur On Creation

If you deny the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, you’ve undermined every major doctrine of the Bible, including the sovereignty of God, the inerrancy of Scripture, the depravity of man, and the gospel itself.  If Genesis is not divinely, authoritatively, and inerrantly true and sufficient, all moral obligations to God are null and void.  It’s no coincidence that fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are being celebrated today.  We live in a Romans 1 world where people have suppressed the evident truth about God’s reign as Creator.  The result is that God has given them over to their lusts.  The unrestrained, disastrous plunge into sin we’re witnessing is both the cause and result of God’s judgment.

Mark 10:6 Proves A Recent Creation

Days of Praise

The Beginning of the Creation

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)

These words of the Lord Jesus Christ ought to settle once and for all, for those who take His words seriously, the controversial question of the age of the earth. The earth was created essentially at the same time, He said, as the creation of Adam and Eve. Christ was quoting from Genesis 1:27: “male and female created He them.” This greatest of God’s creative works was “from the beginning of the creation,” not 13 billion years after the beginning of the creation, as modern old-earth advocates allege.

One can understand why atheists believe in evolution and an almost infinitely old universe, for they really have no other alternative. One who believes in a personal God, on the other hand, only dishonors God if he believes such humanistic speculations rather than God’s Word. God is omniscient and omnipotent, as well as loving and merciful, and He would never do anything like this. The great ages assumed by evolutionary geologists supposedly involved billions of years of suffering and dying by billions of animals before man ever evolved. Surely this would have been the most inefficient, wasteful, and cruel method that ever could have been devised for “creating” human beings. Since man’s creation was God’s main purpose, there is no conceivable reason why He would waste billions of years in such a meaningless charade as this before getting to the point.

In fact, the only reason He took six days instead of an instant of time was to serve as a pattern for man’s work week (Exodus 20:8-11). In fact, the Lord Jesus Christ was not only a creationist, but was Himself the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; etc.). Therefore, He is the best possible witness as to when He created man and woman, and He said it was “from the beginning of the creation!” HMM

While God and I Shall Be

“For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39) More…

His Everlasting Arms

“The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee.” (Deuteronomy 33:27) More…

Appreciating God’s Creation

“And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” (Genesis 2:8-9) More…

Everlasting Love

“The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.” (Jeremiah 31:3) More…

More Articles

List of previous Days of Praise Articles

In The News: Dragon Dinosaur Discovered In China

I find it totally amazing that the dragons supposedly roamed China 160 million years ago, when in fact this magnificent reptile is represented today in their holidays and in their parades.  My, they must have a long standing and strong sense of tradition.  The reality of the recent existence of  dinosaurs can be found on every continent, for those who seek the truth.  Beware of scientists who leave true science and enter the arena of mere speculation.  Refer to the category Creation/Evolution on this blog site for further information.  Blessings, Pastor Steve

Paleontologists have discovered a 50-ft “dragon” dinosaur species in China that may have roamed the earth 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic period.

‘Dragon Dinosaur’ discovered in China

Paleontologists have discovered a 50-ft “dragon” dinosaur species in China that may have roamed the earth 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic period.

 

Incredible 50-ft ‘dragon’ dinosaur unearthed by Chinese farmers

 

Hong Kong (CNN)Paleontologists have discovered a 50-ft “dragon” dinosaur species in China that may have roamed the earth 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic period.

The long skeleton was found in 2006 by some local farmers digging for a fishpond in Qijiang city in China’s southwestern Chongqing province.

Lida Xing, a member of the research team from the University of Alberta who made the discovery, told CNN it was named Qijianglong, the “dragon of Qijiang” because farmers thought the bones resembled the shape of Chinese mythical dragons.

The reconstructed skeleton of Qijianglong in Qijiang Museum in China

“We found the dinosaur’s huge vertebrae with the skull and the tail,  but couldn’t find any bones from the hands or the legs. So the locals began to say the long body looked just like a dragon from ancient Chinese stories,” he said Xing.

The findings, published earlier this week in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, show that the new species belongs to a group of dinosaurs called mamenchisaurids, known for their extremely long necks, which would measure up to half their body length.

Most sauropods, or long-necked dinosaurs, such as those depicted in the popular animated series, “The Land Before Time,” have necks that only span one third of their body length.

“Qijianglong is a cool animal. If you imagine a big animal that is half-neck, you can see that evolution can do quite extraordinary things,” Tetsuto Miyashita, a PhD student at the University of Alberta, said in a press release.

The dinosaur is the youngest addition to the mamenchisaurid group, which is only found in Asia. The discovery suggests that there may be other species of long-necks within the genus from different continents.

“Qijianglong shows that long-necked dinosaurs diversified in unique ways in Asia during Jurassic times — something very special was going on in that continent,” said Miyashita.

“Nowhere else we can find dinosaurs with longer necks than those in China. The new dinosaur tells us that these extreme species thrived in isolation from the rest of the world.”

The skeleton is now housed in a local museum in Qijiang, but will be moved to a new dinosaur museum in the city that is currently being built.

Do The Ica Stones From Ica, Peru Prove The Recent Existence Of Dinosaurs?

Skeptics call the Ica Stones hoaxes, perpetrated by Javier Cabrera and carved by local farmer Basilio Uschuya for the tourist industry, yet Dennis Swift has been studying them for several decades.  Dinosaurs, a man with a telescope, open heart surgery and brain surgery are depicted on the stones.  A Spanish Jesuit priest was the first one to record seeing them in 1535 and some were sent to Spain in 1562.  How could this be if they were recently carved hoaxes?  Check out and surf the website below.  It is a very good one.  Pastor Steve

Are the Ica Stones Fake? Skeptics Under Fire

By Dr. Dennis Swift – Courtesy of  The Dinosaur Institute

The Fortean Times published an article on the Ica Stones by Filip Coppens entitled, “Jurassic Library.” Filip dismisses the Ica Stones as clever hoaxes perpetuated by Javier Cabrera and carved by Basilio Uschuya for the tourist industry.1 Creationists have presented the Ica Stones as prima facia evidence that dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together. The stones depict dinosaurs in such vivid detail that paleontologists pale at the disturbing representations of dinosaurs. Is Filip Coppens correct in his assertion that the stones are forged? Has Coppens blatantly disregarded the facts and unwittingly passed on erroneous secondhand information about the stones?

Any investigation into the authenticity of the stones should begin with the facts. The history and scientific analysis of the stones should be considered before tossing them aside as tourist trinkets.

The first mention of the stones is from a Spanish priest journeying to the region of Ica in 1535.2 Father Simon, a Jesuit missionary, accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast and recorded his amazement upon viewing the stones. In 1562, Spanish explorers sent some of the stones back to Spain. The Indian chronicler, Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamqui, wrote at the time of the Inca Pachacutec many carved stones were found in the kingdom of Chincha in Chimchayunga which was called Manco.3 Chinchayunga was known as the low country of the central coast of Peru where Ica is located today.

Javier Cabrera’s father, Dom Pedro, was about nine years old in 1906, when he witnessed his father excavating outside of Ica and discovering three or four stones in tombs. Javier Cabrera’s grandfather, like many other wealthy Peruvians, had an extensive collection of Pre-Columbian artifacts. The three or four engraved stones were stolen or lost long before Javier Cabrera was born in 1926.4 In 1936, peasants plowing in the fields outside of Ica in Salas uncovered a single stone. The authorities attributed the engraved stones to the Incas because the preponderance of ceramics, textiles, and mummies were associated with the Incas in the Salas region.

The first collectors were Carlos and Pablo Soldi, who owned a plantation in Ocucaje. In 1955, stones were excavated from tombs on their property. Pablo and Carlos Soldi began to acquire other stones found by the huaqueros of Ocucaje. The Soldi brothers were eyewitnesses of stones being dug up with the mummies and other artifacts from the tombs on their property. The Soldi brothers were the first to recognize the scientific significance of the stones. They requested that official testing be conducted.

Herman Buse gives this account that Pablo Soldi said, “a thick layer of salt pepper covering the main specimens could only be explained by the passage of considerable time.” Peruvian archaeologists were invited to excavate on the plantation or to witness firsthand where some of the stones came from. Peruvian archaeologists did not avail themselves of the opportunity. Eventually, Carlos and Pablo had a very large collection of engraved stones. Carlos and Pablo were passionate archaeology buffs, and they endeavored to preserve the stones for the museums of Peru.

In 1967, the Soldi brothers approached Dr. Cabrera about purchasing the majority of their collection. Cabrera was curious but skeptical, because the stones depicted heart surgeries, Indians staring into the sky with telescopes, and dinosaurs. After examining the collection, he realized that they were ancient antiquities of major scientific importance. The Soldi brothers sold him 341 stones for the ridiculous sum of $7,000 old Peruvian soles—about forty-five American dollars. Javier had the stones stored in one of the rooms of his Spanish mansion.

In the late 1950’s, Commander Elias, curator of the Callao Naval Museum until 1973, acquired stones from huaqueros including some individuals who resided in Ocucaje. There were deposits of stones found about twenty miles south-southwest of Ica near Ocuaje and the Rio Ica. The stones were documented to have been discovered in caves and graves. Commander Elias was a man with an ardent interest in archaeology, and he, by 1973, had approximately three hundred stones displayed in the Naval Museum.

The Regional Museum of Ica had a few stones from the tombs around Ica. Carlos and Pablo Soldi sought to preserve the stones for the museums of Peru. Carlos died in 1967 and Pablo in 1968; 114 of the stones were given to the Regional Museum in Ica. Some of these stones were on public exhibition at the Ica Museum in the 1960’s.

Colonel Omar Chioino Carraza, who was the Director of the Peruvian Aeronautical Museum, has no doubt about the stones authenticity. After official government tests, Carraza declared in 1974:

“It seems certain to me . . .that they are a message from a very ancient people whose memory has been lost to history. They were engraved several thousand years ago. They’ve been known in Peru for a long time and my museum has more than four hundred of them.”

The National Aeronautical Museum’s collection of engraved stones including dinosaurs was acquired from various locations throughout Peru. Very few of these stones were from Ocucaje.

Herman Buse revealed that in 1961, there was a flooding of the Ica River, and that a large number of engraved stones had been uncovered. Huaqueros (looters of the tombs) have sold many of them to museums and to the Soldi brothers.5

In the early 1960’s, architect Santiago Agurto Calvo, a former rector of the National University of Engineering, had a growing collection of engraved stones. Agurto Calvo never gave any of the stones to the Ica Museum. The Calvo family still retains that collection of stones, and they are in storage. Calvo published an article in the El Comercio Newspaper in Lima about the fantastic things engraved on the stones.6 Agurto Calvo also submitted stones for scientific laboratory analysis to the National University of Engineering and to the Maurico Hochshild Mining Company.

Archaeologist Alejandro Pezzia Asserto, who was in charge of archaeological investigations in the cultural province of Ica and a trustee of the Ica Museum, conducted official excavations in the ancient Paracas and Ica cemeteries of Max Uhle and Toma Luz. On two separate occasions, engraved stones were excavated from Pre-Hispanic Indian tombs dating from 400 B.C. to 700 A.D. The engraved stones were embedded in the side of the mortuary chamber of the tombs and next to mummies. Alejandro Pezzia Asserto was an archaeologist from the National Archaeology Department of Peru. In 1968, Alejandro Pezzia Asserto published his work with drawings and descriptions of the stones with a five-toed llama that was supposed to be extinct for over forty million years.7 Other stones were of a fish that allegedly had been extinct for over 100 million years and a bird in flight. These stones became the possession of the Ica Museum as part of the Colca Collection.

In 1966, Felix Llosa Romero presented Javier Cabrera with an ovalshaped stone; on one side was engraved a species of fish that was supposed to be extinct millions of years ago. The stone given to Javier was one that had been excavated from the Max Uhle and Toma Luz tomb sites near Ocucaje. Dr. Cabrera told me that the gift of the stone triggered his memory of having seen a similar engraved stone in 1936, when he was about ten years of age. Javier had a lucrative career as a distinguished doctor of medicine. He was the founder of San Luis Gonzaga Ica National University, and he founded the “Casa de Cultura” of Ica to scientifically investigate and preserve the engraved stones.

I heard about the strange engraved stones of Ica in the early 1970’s. I was intrigued by periodic reports in obscure journals and magazines of the Cabrera Collection. Occasionally, late night television programs on ancient astronaunts or unexplained mysteries contained film footage of Dr. Cabrera and the stones. I contacted Dr. Cabrera and corresponded with him maintaining an interest in the stones over the ensuing years. I have spent years studying the stones and have brought back over twenty of them from the six expeditions I have made to Peru.

I was fascinated by Filip Coppens’ article “Jurassic Library” in the Fortean Times. It was obvious that he had no first-hand knowledge of the stones and relied on information that is misleading and inaccurate. He begins his article by saying, “Our story has several possible beginnings . . “. I suggest that the beginning should be the truth and a factual history not rumor or entertainment. Coppens says that Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father. That is not true as I have demonstrated from the interviews with Dr. Cabrera’s family and himself. Dr. Cabrera’s father’s name was not Bolivia and neither did he gather numbers of stones from the fields of the family plantation in the late 1930’s.

Any unprejudiced account of the stones must deal with the scientific studies already carried out on the stones. Coppens leads one to believe by his article that the various tests done on the stones were inconclusive or that the stones had patina on them but not in the grooves. He even suggests that Javier Cabrera added that “the coating of natural oxidation covers the incisions as well.”

I have seen the reports from the National University of Engineering, the University of Bonn, and the Maurico Hochshild Mining Company of Lima, Peru. In 1967, Dr. Cabrera selected 33 stones from his collection and sent them to the Maurico Hochshild Mining Company. The laboratory sent back an analysis signed by geologist Eric Wolf. The document states,

The stones are covered with a fine patina of natural oxidation which also covers the grooves, by which age should be able to be deduced . . .
Eric Wolf
Lima June 8, 1967

Dr. Cabrera did not add anything regarding oxidation in the grooves; that was part of the laboratory report.

On January 28, 1969, Dr. Cabrera received the results of the laboratory tests conducted by Professor Frenchen at the University of Bonn. Professor Frenchen’s report confirmed the earlier report: “The stones were andesites and were covered by a patina or film of natural oxidation which also covered the etchings.”

In 1966, Santiago Agurto Calvo submitted some of his stones to a laboratory at the National University of Engineering of Peru. The tests’ conclusions lead unmistakably to the conclusion that the stones were indeed of Pre-Hispanic origin.

Joseph F. Blumrich, who was a prominent NASA scientist, developed the design on the Saturn V missile and worked on the design of the Skylab, also studied the stones. Dr. Blumrich wrote that the stones, according to laboratory tests, were authentic and “there is no doubt in my mind about the authenticity of these pictures.

It seems that Filip Coppens has done very little research into the Ica Stones. His article is replete with errors and fictional anecdotes. In fact, Coppens writes “arguing for their genuine origins cast Cabrera into the camp of the Von Danikenites, is both comical and ironic as Von Daniken himself has written that he believes the stones are most likely fakes.”

Erich Von Daniken never believed the Ica Stones were fakes. Erich Von Daniken had a stone from Basilio and a stone from Cabrera. In the words of Von Daniken,

Right angled, clean scratches showed on the new stone under the microscope, whereas microorganisms could be seen in the grooves of Cabrera’s stones under a fine glaze. That was the tiny major difference between genuine and false stones.8

Coppens knows full well that Von Daniken believed Cabrera’s Collection to be genuine, and Filip has seen the photographs taken from the microscopic analysis of Von Daniken. Those photographs show clearly no patina in the grooves of Basilio’s fake and heavy oxidation in the grooves of Cabrera’s stone.

Any scholarly scientific pursuit would have revealed other tests done on the stones. Ryan Drum, an American biologist, brought back two stones to America and did some microscopic studies of them:

I have examined the rocks at 30 and 60 magnification in a stereo microscope, and found no obvious grinding or polishing marks . . .9

Robert Charroux also had stones tested, and the results revealed that there was no evidence of a rotary powered tool utilized to make the stones:

It did establish one thing quite clearly: the drawings on the Ica stones were not done in our time with an electric tool.10

Coppens marshals the support of Neil Steede, who does archaeological work. Bill Cote produced a video, Jurassic Art, with Neil Steede as the researcher. Neil Steede, wearing bifocals, looks at the rocks in Cabrera’s Museum and says confidently, “The stones have patina, but there is no patina in the grooves.” Is that really science or speculation? Does Steede have x-ray vision?

Why have the laboratories with stereoscopic microscopes revealed just the opposite? Is that kind of research professional? Is Coppens’ article an informed record or something that should have appeared in the National Enquirer? Neil Steede, by his own admission, says that he is legally blind.

Coppens asserts that investigators claim they have been refused permission to see the Colca Collection at the Ica Museum. This author was refused permission on five separate occasions and museum authorities denied the existence of any stones in the collection. A National Geographic film crew was also denied access to either see or film the Colca Collection.

Neil Steede, on the video, Jurassic Art, adamantly proclaimed that this Colca Collection was authentic. He concluded that these “definitely genuine stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones.” Are you wearing your skepticals? Get out your baloney detector! How could Neil know how deep the cuts were by looking at them behind bifocals?

On April 6, 2002, I finally was allowed to see the Colca Collection. I was told, “No, there are no stones in storage upstairs. Senor, you are confused.” After ample evidence was presented, then, “Yes, we have stones, but absolutely no one is permitted to view them. They are not for public display.” I continued my appeals and was ignored until Jesus Cabel Moscoso, Director for the Department of Culture for the Province of Ica intervened and let me in to scientifically examine the collection. The process was restricted by the Ica Museum authorities, because they would not allow more than three stones to be photographed. They thought they could stop me by charging ridiculous sums of money, but I agreed to pay their price. I could not photograph a group of stones, but could look at and measure stones.

There are approximately 121 stones in the Colca Collection. An exact inventory was halted by the officials at the museum. The stones vary in size from three inches long and two inches wide to up to twenty inches long and twelve inches wide. The weight varies from a few ounces to over fifteen pounds. This is consistent with Cabrera’s stones in weight and kind of stones: andesites and river rocks. The stones in the Colca and Cabrera Collections are, contrary to Steede, the same kinds of stones.

The stones in the Colca Collection vary in artesian skill from the primitive to high artistry. This is true of the Cabrera Collection, from crude, rough drawings to stones that would make Michelangelo blush with the elaborate detail and beautiful ornamentation. The grooves in the stones of the Colca Collection measure from less than 1/16th of an inch deep to slightly more than 1/16th of an inch. The stones have both grooves and bas relief style, where the depictions are raised above the surface of the stone. The Cabrera Collection has the identical kinds of stones. At this point, the Cabrera Collection and the Colca Collection are indistinguishable.

The Cabrera Collection has stones with a blackish polish whereas, I found no stones with this black polish on the stones in the Colca Collection. The Cabrera Collection has stones that are plain just like the Colca Collection.

My examination of the Colca Collection was abruptly ended because I began to reveal my historical knowledge of the stones:

  1. That 114 of the stones were donated to the museum by the Soldi brothers.
  2. That Alejandro Pezzia Asserto had given three stones to the museum.
  3. That Dr. Javier Cabrera had given a few stones to the museum.

Neil Steede finds himself on the horns of a trilimma. In authenticating the Colca Collection, he has also authenticated the Cabrera Collection. Some of the identical kinds of stones are at the Ica Museum and the Cabrera Museum from the same sources. Neil Steede must also disregard his own tests done on the stones and wood from the Cabrera Collection. The wood and samples of black tar scraped from stones dated at two thousand years old. A popular misconception is that the black material rubbed on the Cabrera stones is shoe polish. In reality, it is a tar substance from tar pits south of Ocucaje.

Coppens says, “ . . .even if we assume they are genuine and millions of years old, they do not necessarily contain the type of information that Cabrera maintains; the heart and brain transplants could just as well be mutilations or acts of cannibalism.”

Such a statement reveals that Coppens has never been to the Cabrera Museum or studied the stones. Dr. E. Stanton Maxey, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons says,

“…in the photographs of stone carvings depicting heart surgery, the detail is clear—seven blood vessels coming from the heart are faithfully copied. The whole thing looks like a cardiac operation, and the surgeons seem to be using techniques that fit with our modern knowledge.”

The Peruvian Times wrote an article about the stones in 1972, and they concluded their article with, “they give very clear pictures of the operations which twentieth century surgeons are only just contemplating.11

Coppens’ displays an ignorance of just how advanced the ancient Peruvian people were. R.L. Moodie, the great paleopathologist, summed up his study of ancient Peruvian surgery:

I believe it to be correct to state that no primitive or ancient race of people anywhere in the world had developed such a field of surgical knowledge as had the Pre-Columbian Peruvians. Their surgical attempts are truly amazing and include amputations, excissions, trephinning, bandaging, bone transplants, cauterization and other less evident procedures.12

There is ample evidence that the ancient Peruvians engaged in brain surgery, caesarian sections and treatments of some diseases still confounding modern science. There is a growing body of evidence that they performed heart surgeries. My forthcoming book, The Mystery of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines: Proofs That Dinosaurs and Man Lived Together, exhaustively covers this dimension of advanced surgeries among Pre-Columbian people.

The debate on the stones depicting dinosaurs with dermal spines and many other anatomical features that only recently have been discovered by paleontologists is disturbing. Coppens tries to account for the origin of the stones by an alternative explanation. He postulates that if authentic, this may be the “votive renderings by the tribe’s shaman . . . could not a shaman have picked up a dinosaur bone, entered a trance connected with the bones’ previous owner and seen the dinosaur age in a vision.” Who says journalists don’t believe in miracles?

The riddle of the Ica stones is to be solved by solid scientific research not unsubstantiated claims that counter logic. If drug-induced hallucinogenic San Pedro cactus drinks can cause you to see into the Jurassic, then every paleontologist needs to have a mind altered state and not a university degree. Sherlock Holmes said, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.” The truth seems that Pre-Columbian people saw dinosaurs.

Whenever the Ica stones are mentioned, Basilio Uschuya is claimed to be the forger. I have known Basilio for many years and visited him in Ocucaje on several occasions. Basilio is a poor uneducated Peruvian, who has been at the center of the maelstrom over the authenticity of the Ica stones. Basilio lives in a dirt floor shack without any modern devices. He has no television, no electric generator, and lives on about twenty dollars a month. There are some curious features about Basilio. If you arrive in Ocucaje with a television camera and crew, then he is a consummate showman. With camera rolling, he will tell you that he made stones for Cabrera and give a demonstration with a piece of hacksaw blade as to how he makes them. Basilio will give you a big toothy grim and accept whatever payment offered for his services. Over the years, as I have befriended Basilio, he has opened up and revealed why he puts on an act for television people. First, it gives him a few dollars for his family that is poor even by Peruvian standards. Second, it exonerates him from the charge of peddling antiquities as a tomb robber. Third, it helps him sell a few stones to tourists in Ica. As I have gained his friendship, he has taken me with my wife to the Max Uhle and Toma Luz Pre-Columbian tombs northwest of Ocucaje. It is in this cemetery of thousands of unexcavated tombs that Alejandro Pezzia Asserto, in an official archaeological excavation, found engraved stones.13 While we were walking over the huge gray hill that is a burial mound, we came to some tombs that had recently caved in and there to our surprise was an engraved stone in situ, embedded in the side of the tomb. We filmed this with our camcorder.

Basilio privately admits, that in the tombs, he has found stones and engaged in tomb looting. Publicly, he will not say that because it would mean a long prison sentence in violation of the antiquities laws of Peru. Basilio has shown me other items he has found in the tombs.

Basilio made stones for tourists. His stones are easily identified. They often have dinosaurs with an airplane flying overhead or with a coke machine. Basilio has no idea of the evolutionary time line and when dinosaurs were supposed to be extinct. He has no knowledge of different dinosaur species except the Diplodicus-type dinosaur.

I asked Basilio to make me a stone with certain dinosaurs. He had never heard of those kinds of dinosaurs or even seen a book with dinosaur pictures in it. One of Basilio’s sons, who has received an education, said that he had heard of such dinosaurs. I brought Basilio a picture of that species of dinosaur. He carved the stone with a single dinosaur taking him a period of a day. The stone was crudely done and very ordinary.

I had in my possession, a Basilio original, which I was going to utilize in a test for authenticity. Basilio’s production is about four or five stones a month. These stones have bright white incisions. Cabrera’s Collection has over 11,000 stones. It would take a minimum of fifteen hours to produce the engravings on an average stone in Cabrera’s Collection, not to mention Cabrera’s stones are done with outstanding artistic skill and imagination. It has been estimated that it would take a forger three hundred seventy-five thousand working hours or 31,250 days to make the stones in Cabrera’s Collection. If Basilio made the stones, then he had an army of elves working with him. Basilio admits that he acquired stones for Cabrera. These stones came from tombs and caves in the Ocucaje region. Under threat of a prison sentence, he said he made them.

I have a full and complete account of the Basilio controversy in my forthcoming book. Basilio says that over five thousand of Cabrera’s stones are real. When pressed, he confesses it may be that ten thousand are real.

Coppens seems to overlook the following facts. First, there are the references from the Jesuit missionaries in 1535 and in 1562; the Spanish sent some of the stones back to Spain. Second, archaeologists found stones in Paracas, Tiahuanaco, and Ica tombs dating from 500 B.C. to 1,000 A.D. Third, laboratory tests indicate a degree of antiquity with patina covering the grooves of the stones. Fourth, microscopic analysis reveals that there is no evidence that rotary tools or saw blades were used to carve the stones. Fifth, there are twelve Moche vases in Peruvian museums dating from 70 A.D. to 900 A.D. with dinosaurs on them. Sixth, a Nazcan textile depicts thirty-one dinosaur figures. The textile was found in a Nazcan tomb. The textile had been authenticated and dated between 400 A.D. to 700 A.D. Seventh, there are over thirty thousand figures engraved on more than three thousand stones discovered in Southern Peru in 1951 at Toro Muerto.

Many of the stones are engraved like those in the Cabrera Museum in bas relief style. The stones are believed to be done by the Wari who inhabited the region from 500 to 1,000 A.D. Some of the stones depict dinosaurs. Dr. Cabrera is often accused of being the diabolical mastermind with an ingenious scheme to deceive mankind and have himself enthroned as a genius. I have known Dr. Cabrera for many years and have corresponded with and visited him on numerous occasions.

Javier Cabrera began as a sincere seeker of truth. There is no doubt in the early years, he sought to preserve the stones. Cabrera was eccentric, and his kooky ideas about civilizations, medicine, proto-people, and women cause one to experience information overload. Many dismiss Dr. Cabrera with the rolling of the eyes, shrug of the shoulders, and a “bah humbug.” I quickly learned to take Dr. Cabrera earnestly, for beneath the layers of outlandish theories were patches of unvarnished truth. Just because Cabrera has imaginary flights of fancy into ethereal clouds of nonsense does not discredit the stones.

In the early years, Dr. Cabrera collected the stones and stored them at his mansion. I believe that the stones from the 1960’s to early 1970’s were untainted by any association with fraud. Coppens engages in fantasy when he says that in the late 1960’s, Cabrera bought thousands of stones from Basilio. I have already demonstrated by the history of the stones, that collections were held by several people independent of each other. Many of those collections were acquired by Cabrera. While I personally knew and befriended Dr. Cabrera, there are things he did that I cannot defend or condone.

  1. He talked about a mysterious cave where thousands of those stones were deposited. He refused to take anyone there. I ascertain that at one point, he told the story to make himself look like the discoverer of a great archaeological treasure. The truth of the matter is that there were several caves where a few stones were found. It may well be that the caches of the stones were buried by the Indians living in the Ica region when the conquistadors invaded Peru. It seems feasible that the flooding of the Ica River in 1961 revealed such a deposit of stones. Independent parties say that such stones were exposed in the Ica River flood. Cabrera may have embellished the story to enhance his reputation.
  2. There were occasions in my friendship with Dr. Cabrera that I challenged him for proof. On those occasions, he produced documentation. He gave me a copy of Asserto Pezzia’s book of an official archaeological excavation where engraved stones were discovered. I asked a director of the Ica Museum for Asserto’s materials. They denied he even was associated with the museum, and said that they know of no such book. They repeatedly told me it never happened. I looked up on the bookshelf over the director’s desk and saw Pezzia’s book. I reached up and pulled the book off the shelf. “Is this the book you don’t have,” I asked. I asked if I could xerox pages from the book and was immediately asked to leave. Dr. Cabrera did give me confidential papers and documentation of other statements he made concerning the stones.
  3. Dr. Cabrera, in his later years, suffered from some form of dementia or Alzheimer’s. In the years that I knew him, I noticed a deterioration in his mental stability. He was extremely brilliant and recognized as an exceptional medical doctor. However, he so wanted the stones to be validated, (which indeed scientific laboratory tests had shown patina in the grooves) that he opened the door to deception. I noticed this in 1996, when he took me to a back room, and there were boxes of pottery. These pottery pieces were of dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs. I raised my eyebrows in disbelief. Dr. Cabrera himself did not believe deep down that they were necessarily authentic. In his more lucid moments, he doubted it himself. He bought boxes of them and put them in the back storeroom. He never displayed them in the museum. He rarely took anyone to see them. Coppens incorrectly asserts that Von Daniken had suspicions that Cabrera’s Stone Collection was fake.
  4. What Von Daniken questioned and tested was the pottery pieces. They were fakes.

My last visit with Dr. Cabrera was in May of 2001. For two days, he did not even remember who I was. He was so weak that he had to be helped downstairs to his museum, and he forgot how to open the door.

Throughout the years, Dr. Cabrera had given me a few stones on which to do research. In the spring of 2001, I was notified by authorities in Nazca that an engraved stone with dinosaurs and other animals had been excavated from a tomb near the Rio Grande Palpa. The stone had been found in a Nazcan tomb and dated between 400 to 700 A.D. There were about thirty eyewitnesses to the discovery.

I took the stone carved by Basilio, a stone from Cabrera, and the stone from the tomb at Rio Grande Palpa to two different laboratories. These laboratories conducted independent blind tests on the three stones.

The Rocks Begin To Speak

The stones give mute testimony to the fact that man walked with dinosaurs. I was certain that in the laboratory, the rocks would break that silence and communicate in the language of scientific assertion, that they are ancient carved canvasses.

I brought three stones to Mason Optical, Inc. for analysis. Mason Optical invented a revolutionary stereoscopic microscope that costs between eighty to one hundred thousand dollars. The three stones included in the study:

A) The fake stone carved by Basilio
B) An Ica stone from Cabrera’s Collection
C) The stone from the tomb in Rio Grande, Nazca
The laboratory results revealed several defining characteristics of the stones:

A) The first stone, under microscopic investigation, showed very shallow incisions with small scratches and chips from the stone. Minute specks of blue metal (steel) were found on the stone. The incisions were clean and angled. There was no patina or film of oxidation on the stone; no microorganisms or salt peter were found on the stone. The laboratory conclusion was that the stone was of recent manufacture. Someone had used a metal blade or tool with short strokes to carve the grooves in the stone. The tool left behind the minute specks of metal that could be seen under the optical microscope. The laboratory’s discovery was consistent with the truth. I had watched Basilio with a four-inch piece of blue steel hacksaw blade making short, hard strokes on the stone.

I owned a Basilio “original.” Were the Cabrera rocks also Basilio originals?

In 1978, the NOVA program aired, “The Case of the Ancient Astronauts.” They included the Ica stones as part of their analysis of the claims that ancient astronauts visited earth. NOVA showed the viewing audience close-ups of the incisions on the rocks. The incisions appeared to be fairly new. If they were new, how new? Cabrera claimed the rocks were carved one hundred million years ago. Such a claim is sheer nonsense, but what about thousands or a few hundred years old?

B) The microscopic analysis of the Cabrera rock or Ica Stone revealed that it had a fine patina covering the grooves and incisions of the stone. There was dirt and sand embedded in the crevices of the stone including some of the incisions. The natural oxidation had slightly colored the incisions so that they did not have a bright-white look. No evidence of modern tool usage or minute metal particles were found. The laboratory conclusion was that the engravings on the stone were not recent but of some age. That age could not be determined because patina and natural oxidation cannot be accurately measured. The patina is not an absolute proof of age, but it would be impossible to find patina on a recently engraved stone.

The stone has an outside layer of coloration and weathering. When an incision (cut) is made, it breaks that layer. If the weathering has been scraped away and the stone’s natural color shows at the base of the incision, the cut is probably new. If the incisions have become weathered and the stone’s coloration extends down into the incisions, then the stone’s incisions are at least “old” to some degree.

Any attempt to date the stones is a doomed exercise. The stones themselves are eons old. We can’t date the stones, and we don’t even want to try. We want to date the lines or incisions on the stones. The line we scratch on it today is only as old as—well, today. So the only way to date the scratch is to look for patina, weathering oxidation, microorganisms, lichens or other features indicative of age.

The NOVA television special on Ancient Astronauts left the audience with the undeniable impression that the cuts on the stones were so new that they had to be made in the last few years or even “yesterday.” However, under a microscope and not a television camera closeup, there was real patina and a film of oxidation.

In the American Southwest, archaeologists regularly dig up pottery or other artifacts that show no patina or very little patina. F.G. Hawley, a chemist with years of experience in archaeology wrote, “Many (artifacts) in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years.

Anyone who has studied Andean archaeology and been involved in excavations in the southern desert of Peru knows that the textiles, pottery, and other artifacts from the tombs are in an astonishing state of preservation. The fact that the Cabrera rock had any patina on it may mean that it is much older than seven or eight hundred years.

C) The third stone from the tomb at Rio Grande, Nazca, was examined under the stereo zoom microscope. This stone had a heavy coat of patination and oxidation. Microorganisms could be seen in the grooves and the incisions. There is a uniformity of coloration and weathering. The incisions and cuts are as dark and weathered as the rest of the stone. There are several thick concentrations of salt peter that are so full of salt buildup that it covers parts of the carving with a white layer obscuring the image below. There are seriations and slight fizzures in the grooves. This could only happen over a considerable period of time with the change of heat and cold through the seasons in the desert. There is a notable irregular wear on the edges of the incisions that leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this stone had undergone considerable wear. Lichen growth was also found on one section of the stone. Dirt and sand were embedded in the grooves, cracks, crevices, and orifices of the stone. There is a dark blackish stain covering the body of one of the dinosaur zoomorph images. The salient conclusion of the laboratory is that the stone is of some age, in fact, of antiquity of hundreds or thousands of years old.

I contacted Dr. John Verano of the Department of Anthropology, Tulane University. Dr. Verano is one of the premier authorities in the world on Andean archaeology, and he has specialized in the study of mummies relating to prehistoric diseases as well as ritual sacrifice in ancient Peru.14 Dr. Verano confirmed that the characteristic blood stain on Andean artifacts is impossible to fake. The colloquial term is “burning” because the blood and body fluids leave a blackened carbonization. Attempts to fake this by paint have been miserable failures. While there can be bacterial contamination in the blood stain, it is still recognized as a “burn.”

I discussed with Dr. Verano the salt on the stone artifact. I did not divulge where the stone was found. Dr. Verano said that it was a common occurrence in their excavations on the northern coast of Peru near the Pacific Ocean, to find artifacts with marine salts on them. These objects came out of the tombs with salt peter concentrations on them. The inland arid desert tombs seldom if ever have artifacts with salt peter, because the desert is almost completely devoid of moisture.

From the speechless mouths of stone effigies discovered in the tombs of Peru comes the refutation of evolutionist claims that dinosaurs and man did not coexist. After looking at the stones with an optical microscope, there are three types of reactions: the stone from the Rio Grande tomb is of deep scientific discovery or the “AHA!” reaction, the Cabrera rock is of a pondering certitude or the “AH” reaction that we are on to something of scientific importance, the Basilio original leaves one with the “HA HA!” reaction that what we have here is comic inventiveness.

There is a core of ancient stones, and they can be differentiated from the modern curios that are made to sell to tourists. Any bogus stone suffers from disqualifying liabilities that are readily revealed in the most cursory examination. Qualified experts have attested that the engravings were scratched on Cabrera’s stones before oxidation films formed. The stone from the Rio Grande, Nazca, has passed the closest scientific scrutiny and was declared legitimately old.

I decided to have other tests done on the stones since skeptics might question the analysis of a single laboratory. The stones were taken to the Palm Abrasive Company in Portland, Oregon. Palm Abrasive sells the highest quality and most precise microscopic equipment. Their equipment is able to measure objects within one millionth of an inch and take photographs as well as video footage of the specimens. The stones were examined by an ROI optical video probe, an incredible, non-contact measurement and inspection system. The ROI delivers zoom microscopical viewing in the 20x to 500x range. The ROI is connected to a coordinate measuring machine which positions resolution to better than 50 millionths of an inch.

The three stones were subjected to a blind test by Richard Sutcliffe who trains others in the use of the ROI video probe. The results were both revealing and conclusive. The fake stone carved by Basilio had grooves that showed up as white under the magnification and lights of the ROI. The surrounding area of the stone was covered with patina. The ROI also picked up the smallest of particles of quartz and pyrite that sparkled when the zoom microscope was at high magnification. The grooves had to be recently cut to break the layer over the quartz and pyrite causing them to shine. The microscope at 25x to 75x caught the telltale signs of cuts made at right angles and minuscule blue metal flakes. There was no evidence of rotary powered tool use.

The second stone from the Cabrera Museum was thoroughly examined. The groove did not appear bright or fresh but dull and slightly gray. This was verification that they were not of recent manufacture. The stone had no pitting or pock marks in the grooves which are the result of saws or rotary powered tools. The stone had an even wear to the grooves except in one area where there was considerable wear. The worn area may have been caused by constant handling before it was buried.

The third stone from the tomb in the Nazca desert had grooves that were dark gray, weathered, cracked, and embedded with salt peter. The salt peter under 75x magnification looked like a growth of algae all over a section of the stone. No doubt this stone had been buried for centuries. There were five patches of lichens growing on the stone. The image of two dinosaurs, a sea creature, and some unknown animal were calculated to be 1/16th of an inch on average above the stone. The figures were done in bas relief. How the stone was carved away to make the figures higher than the stone is a mystery. Richard Sutcliffe, who performed the microscopic probe, is an expert in machine made tools. Richard theorized that the ancient people might have used a tool with a diamond-type bit.

The ROI probe was used to film a thirty-eight minute video of the three stones. How the authentic stones were carved may go unsolved, but they display the traces of the past: patina, salt peter, lichen growth, and weatherization. The blood stain on the stone from Rio Grande Nazca was saturated with bacterial contamination. The Peruvian archaeologists who saw the stone gave definitive statements that the stain was caused by the fluids from a mummy. When told of the dinosaur images, they said, “Well, we don’t have an opinion about that. We’re saying the stain is characteristic of that found on textiles and ceramics that are interred with mummies.

A thirty-eight minute video of the test was recorded, and upon viewing, skeptics lapse into a profound prolonged silence. After years of exhaustive investigation and enormous expense, the verdict was in. There is an ancient core of stones from Ica, Nazca, Paracas, Tiahuanaco, and Wari tombs. Anyone who postulates that they are fakes has gone out on a broken limb without historical or scientific support.

References:

  1. Filip Coppens. “Jurassic Library.” http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/isi.
  2. Cientifico Descubre Dinosaurios en Ica. Ojo-Lima, Domingo 03 de Octobre de 1993, p. 7.
  3. Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamquie: Relacion de antiquedades deste reyno del Piru. 1571.
  4. Interviews with Dr. Javier Cabrera, his sister, Isabel Cabrera, and his daughter, Eugenia Cabrera.
  5. Herman buse. Introduccion Al Peru. Lima, 1965.
  6. Santiago Agurto Calvo. “Las piedras magicas de Ocucaje”. El Comercio. Lima, 11 December, 1966.
  7. Alejandro Pezzia Asserto. Ica y el Peru Precolombino. Volume I (Ica: 1968), p. 25ff.
  8. Erich Von Daniken. According to the Evidence. (Souvenier Press: Great Britain, 1976), pp 284ff. For a full account read my forthcoming book, Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines: Proofs that Dinosaurs and Man Lived Together.
  9. Ryan Drum. “The Cabrera Rocks,” Info Journal. No. 17 (May, 1976), p. 10.
  10. Robert Charrous. L’Enigme des Andes Editions. (Robert Laffont: Paris, 1974), p. 72.
  11. “The Amazing Ica Stones. The Peruvian Times. (August, 25, 1972).
  12. Roy L. Moodie. “Injuries to the Head Among the Pre-Columbian Peruvians”. Annals of Medical History. (Vol. 9), p 278.
  13. Alejandro Pezzia Asserto. Ica y el Peru Pre-Colombino, Vol. 1. (Ica: 1968).
  14. John W. Verano. “Prehistoric Disease and Demography in the Andes.” In Disease and Demography in the Americas. Ed. J. Verano and D. Ubelaker, pp. 15-24, (Washington D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution Press), 1992. John W. Verano. “Physical Evidence of Human Sacrifice in Ancient Peru.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru. Ed. Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Gouv, (Austin: University of Texas Press), 2001, pp. 165-184.

7 Responses to Are the Ica Stones Fake? Skeptics Under Fire

  1. Brennan Bortz says:

    Hey, I’m a young creationist looking for the most convincing proof of God’s existence. I really enjoyed this article. I was wondering where I can find the 38 minute video mentioned at the end of this article that disclose the findings. Also, is there any further documented proof on this subject? I want it all! 🙂

    The things you discovered through this journey are outstanding and very convincing. However, an atheist can easily lead themselves and others astray just by pointing out that you have no documents or videos that detail the parts of your journey (specifically, the ROI video would be enough, one would think- although, these are atheists that I’m talking about after all).

    Furthermore, thank you so much for your hard work and heavy contributions to helping others find the truth in all of the confusion!

    Will be looking forward to your reply (gbrennanbortz@hotmail.com).

    -Brennan

  2. Betsy says:

    I was a professional archeologist for a few years in my youth, and I have always been fascinated with human prehistory. Something that bothers me, still, is hearing from my favorite professor/mentor that if an artifact “doesn’t fit” it should be discounted: The phrase he told me is, “When in doubt, leave it out.” That continues to rankle me. If archeologists and other scientists want to recreate and rediscover a clearer picture of our ancestors, what they knew, and how they lived, then why discard information that “doesn’t fit” what we expect? The Ica Stones are definitely out-of-place curiosities, and they are by far not the only such curios that have been found. Indeed; after hearing the “leave it out” pronouncement of my former teacher, one wonders what incredible artifacts — or even what whole sites — may have been covered up, destroyed, or otherwise erased because they just “didn’t fit” the status quo of expectations. I continue to believe that a hypothesis or theory is simply that; it is an educated guess that needs to be proven or to be disproven. And — if it is disproved — then one must develop another hypothesis to fit the evidence that is on hand. One of the main reasons I didn’t continue in archeology is because I steadfastly promoted embracing completely honest investigations, and I also advocated adopting a flexible scientific attitude: If one’s hypothesis is disproved, then develop a better one! And I was openly attacked for these beliefs. But I think human egos interfere with objectivity, and professions tend to support certain ideas and conclusions — while any other speculations (even if they are backed with strong evidence) are ignored or ridiculed. However, just imagine what we may be able to discover if we simply allow more supported yet uncomfortable truth (such as strange archeological artifacts) to add to our knowledge. . .

  3. William JoSeph says:

    Hey I saw something about the stones on T.V. and was fairly glad that after a quick search I found someone like you that had done the independent research and proven them real. I’m sure that there is a lot politics and not wanting to admit that we have been wrong for the past hundreds of years about the dates of dinosaurs. but if all of this is true and I would assume it is. thin I see no reason why anyone would question the authenticity of these stones. and since it rewrites our prehistory I would truly like to know if you have taken any steps to try and get the finding’s out there. I’m sure that you are not the first to do the testing of the stones so there should be people out there that would help in publishing. I would also like to see the video if it is available. I look forward to your email. and hope this webpage isn’t to old and you still respond to commits form it.

  4. Jamaal says:

    Interesting. Please check out this Google Plus Community about dinosaurs coexisting with man https://plus.google.com/communities/111476983873839641670

  5. Jonathan says:

    Hi! I would also like the 38-minute video recording, or any other material in addition to this. Very great work!

  6. Scott says:

    I have been looking for the whole story on these stones for a while. I believe I have found it.Thank you, fascinating article

The Giants Of The Old Testament……

The following is a mind boggling quotation if you have never been exposed to this teaching. I include this particular quote because it is given by one of the most respected and learned Christians of all time– Francis Schaeffer. Why is this important to the believer? Because “….as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man.” Blessings, Pastor Steve

Christian and ancient Jewish scholarship are in agreement with this quote by Francis Schaeffer. The article following is a synopsis of a book by Douglas Van Dorn: Giants: Sons of the Gods. This is cutting edge teaching and becoming more replete throughout Christianity in recent years:

Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
Giants on the Earth
“More and more we are finding that mythology in general, though greatly contorted, very often
has some historic base. And the interesting thing is that one myth that one finds over and over
again in many parts of the world is that somewhere a long time ago supernatural beings had
sexual intercourse with natural women and produced a special breed of people.”
(Francis Schaeffer, “Genesis in Space and Time”)
1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any
they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be
120 years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in
to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of
old, the men of renown.
Genesis 6:1-4
History of a Controversy
A Great Battle
“So it begins.” Thus says King Théoden as the orcs stand ready for war at
the walls of Helm’s Deep. Sometimes I feel like the passage before us today is the
Helm’s Deep of the Bible–the first great exegetical battle over Scripture. To the
victor belong the spoils and the right to govern the worldview of Christians
regarding the interpretation of many supernatural things in the Bible.
Here is a sampling of the language used to discuss this passage. “Genesis
6:1-4 is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible.”1 “The four verses
of our pericope have generated controversy and many different
1 Hank Hanegraaff, http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/thetruth77/gen614study.html.
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
interpretations.”2 “There is great controversy over the identification of the
phrase ‘the sons of God.’”3 “Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or
Sethites?”4 “There is no question that the identity of the ‘sons of God” in Gen
6:2 has been a point of controversy for many years … the context is perhaps just
as controversial as the [phrase] … The controversy over the identity of the ‘sons
of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ has implications.”5
What is a controversy? A controversy is a “disagreement, typically
prolonged, public, and heated.” What is the controversy? It is over the
interpretation of several words or phrases in Genesis 6:1-4: “the sons of God,”
“the daughters of men,” “and also afterward,” “Nephilim,” and “men of
renown.” That is a lot of storm over four little verses.
In my mind, there are two basic interpretations of this passage, each
having their own sub-interpretations. There is a supernatural interpretation: the
sons of God are heavenly beings, the daughters of men are human women, the
Nephilim and men of renown are the same group—gigantic hybrids who were
on the earth both prior to and after the flood. How these giants came to be is the
subject of the sub-interpretations: angels and women mated, angels somehow
manipulated human DNA, and so on.
Then there is the natural interpretation: the sons of God are godly male
Sethites from the lineage of Seth, the daughters of men are ungodly women from
the line of Cain. Together they produced a line of very wicked but perfectly
human tyrants, not physically gigantic, but spiritually gigantic in their own
eyes—tall with pride. They were only on the earth prior to the flood.
There is a third view, which some see as distinctly different from the other
two, but which I see as being compatible with either a supernatural or natural
interpretation. This is the so-called dynastic ruler view. It holds that the
Nephilim were great rulers and kings of old. Most who hold this view, like the
Rabbis of the 2nd century A.D. and later, believe that they were perfectly human.
But some who hold it believe that they were the giants and demigods like
2 Willem van Gemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?).”
Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1981): 322 [320-348].
http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_Nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Van%20Gemeren%20-
%20The%20Sons%20of%20God%20in%20Gen%206.1-4-Evangelical%20Demythologization.pdf
3 Free Bible Commentary, “Special Topic: ‘The Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” Bible Lessons International.
http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/sons_of_god.html
4 Chuck Missler, “Textual Controversy: Mischievous Angels or Sethites?”, Personal Update News Journal
[Aug 1997]. http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/
5 Thomas A. Howe, Ph.D. “Who are the Sons of God in Genesis 6? Part 2: The Tyrants View,” Professor of
Bible and Biblical Languages as Southern Evangelical Seminary, 2004: 1.
http://www.richardghowe.com/WhoaretheSonsofGodinGenesis6Pt2.pdf
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
Hercules or Gilgamesh (supernatural fathers/human mothers). There seems to
me nothing about a king per se that would limit him to one category or the other.
A Brief History
The very brief history of interpretation of this text is that from
somewhere in the mid second century as far back as you want to go in Jewish
circles and for the first two and a half centuries of church history (or longer than
the United States has been a nation), the only view even known was the
supernatural view. Not only is it found dozens of times in different Jewish
works, and it was held by the likes of Justin Martyr; Irenaeus; Athenagoras;
Pseudo Clement; Clement of Alexandria; Tertullian; Lactantius; Eusebius;
Commodian; Ambrose; Jerome; and Sulpicius Severus.6
Sometime near the middle of the 3rd century A.D., a historian named
Julius Africanus wrote about an idea that he had heard, probably from the Jews,
which said Sethite men were marrying Cainite women. He said this seemed
probable to him, but he admitted that it could also be angels. This natural
interpretation mentioned by Julius seems to have been invented by Rabbis
sometime well after their temple was destroyed, quite possibly because they
began losing so many of their people to this sect called Christianity, a religion
that taught that a God-man had come claiming to be the Messiah. It was not
until Augustine and Chrysostom came along at the turn of the 5th century A.D.
that the natural interpretation really gained any traction in the church.7
A Sharp Tongue: The Weapon of a War
If you don’t know anything about this controversy, you can probably see
from these differences why it has been such a heated debate. I mean, heavenly
beings and human women? It just seems absurd, perhaps even blasphemous. So
how heated has this controversy been? Let me use the language that has been
used by some of my own personal church heroes of centuries past. Calvin said,
“That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is
abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men
should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious” (John
6 A good summary is Robert C. Newman “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4.” Grace Theological Journal
5.1 (1984): 13-36.
7 I deal with all of this in the Introduction of my book Giants: Sons of the Gods (Erie, CO: Waters of Creation
Pub., 2013).
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
Calvin, Genesis 6:1).8 Martin Luther called the supernatural view, “The silly
ideas of the Jews” (Martin Luther, Genesis 6:2).9 Theodoret, a contemporary of
Augustine, calls anyone who holds the angelic view “mad fools” (Theodoret,
Questions on Genesis: XLVII). Chrysostom seems to border on turning it into an
all out war, throwing the whole tradition not only under the bus, but sending
those poor run-over souls right into the pit of hell when he says, “[We need to]
confute the fanciful interpretations of those people whose every remark is made
rashly … by demonstrating the absurdity of what is said by them … so that you
will not lend your ears idly to people uttering those blasphemies and presuming
to speak in a way that brings their own persons into jeopardy” (Chrysostom,
Homilies on Genesis 22.6).
Every one of these objections to the older view is rooted in the logical
fallacy called an ad hominem, basically, name calling. This is what children do on
the playground during recess when they say, “Your momma wears combat
boots.” Unfortunately, it isn’t an argument, but a cut down, an attempt to win
by making the other side look like idiots or even non-Christians.
Augustine is a little different. His basic argument is, “I could by no means
believe that God’s holy angels could at that time have so fallen” (Augustine, City
of God 15:23).10 Likewise, Luther similarly says, “That anything could be born
from [the union of a devil and a human being],11 this I do not believe.” In other
words, it is just too incredible. I wonder though, if the supernatural view is to be
rejected simply because it is incredible, what would happen to the virgin birth,
the deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, miracles and the resurrection if all theology
was accepted or rejected because it is difficult to accept?
A Moral Imperative
Before we start looking at this passage, I want to begin with a moral
imperative, something that I believe may in fact be much more important than
the interpretation of our passage today. How are we as Christians to deal with
8 John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 2010), Gen 6:1.
9 Martin Luther, vol. 2, Luther’s Works, Vol. 2 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan,
Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther’s Works (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1999), Gen 6:2. In reality, the Sethite interpretation would also be a “silly idea of the Jews” except it would be
a newer idea.
10 Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. II (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 303.
11 Luther is most likely technically incorrect. The supernatural view is not that devils mated with women, but
that the heavenly sons of God did. The early church saw a big difference between these two kinds of creatures.
See below.
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
such controversies? I’m not talking about a controversy that strikes at the heart
of the Christian faith, destroying something essential to the gospel. I’m talking
about something that, while important and having far reaching implications for
one’s worldview, nevertheless is not a gospel essential (it isn’t even a confessional
issue). Both views actually get to the gospel, but neither saves nor damns anyone.
Let me suggest a couple of things. First, using logical fallacies such as name
calling and arguments like “I couldn’t believe it” are not befitting the people of
God. The later are not helpful, and the former border on being out and out
sinful. I have seen much passion on both sides of this interpretive battle. That can
be fine. But not always. I’ve seen an over-zeal that comes when people (myself
included) come to a different interpretation than the one they grew up holding.
I’ve also seen visceral anger from some that are quite fine where they are and do
not want to be bothered with another opinion. Neither of these reactions are the
best for God’s people to engage in either. And does not the way we conduct
ourselves mean as much, if not more, to the Lord God than what we believe
about a thing like this? Yes, doctrine matters, but so too does our behavior, both
internally and externally. Our internal behavior keeps us from being fair and
objective, our outward behavior can cause us to sin against our brother.
Let me suggest that we reason together, that we each look within and
think about our own presuppositions, why we hold them so tightly, that we each
be willing to fairly examine the evidence (all of which I cannot possibly give in a
sermon like this), and that when we come to our own conclusions on a matter,
that we hold one other in the highest esteem in the bonds of love, as those for
whom Christ has also died and shed his blood. This, it seems to me, may be the
most important thing we can take away practically speaking from a controversy
such as the one we will now explore together. Otherwise, we may find ourselves
behind the wall of Helm’s Deep.
A Defense of the Supernatural View
My basic view of preaching on a topic of controversy is that if I have an
opinion on the matter, I’m going to preach it. I’m not going to preach as, “Here
are the views, go and decide for yourself.” I will only do that if I don’t have an
opinion. If I believe something, it is because I believe I have reasons for it. I
believe those reasons are sound, otherwise I wouldn’t believe it (do you believe
something you think is wrong?). Since I believe they are sound, I believe others
ought to believe what I believe (do you believe things that you don’t think
others should also believe?). So, I’m going to try and persuade you of my
position.
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
Nevertheless, at the same time, because it is not a matter of gospelsalvation,
I also want to make sure you know that if you disagree with me at the
end of the day, I respect your position, especially if you can give reasons for it. I
want you to know that if you disagree with me on a matter like this, that I still
love and respect you. My hope is that you will offer me that same charity and
kindness. As its pastor, this is what I desire our congregation to be known for.
Not necessarily how much we believe. Nor how passionately we believe it. But
that we believe things passionately and are still willing to talk about them with
one another, loving one another in Christ-like love with the fruit of the Spirit.
My view has changed on this matter over the past half-dozen years or so. I
used to hold Augustine’s natural-Sethite interpretation of the two-cities. I now
believe this is an error, and hold instead that the older church view was correct.
The sons of God are heavenly beings. Let me tell you some reasons why.
The Language of the Text
The first reason is linguistic. There are four main phrases up for grabs in
this passage. The first is the “sons of God.” This phrase occurs 10 times in the
OT, if you count the LXX.
“SONS OF GOD” PASSAGE HEBREW PHRASE
Genesis 6:2
Genesis 6:4
Job 1:6
Job 2:1
Job 38:7
beney ha-’elohim
Psalm 29:1
Psalm 89:6
beney ’elim
Psalm 82:6 beney ’elyon
Deut 32:8 aggelōn theou*
Deut 32:43 uioi theou*
* signifies only found in LXX12
In each case, the phrase means a heavenly being.13 You can see this best in Job
38:7, a creation story that says the sons of God were shouting for joy prior to
God creating mankind.
Those who take the Sethite interpretation will say that Israel is sometimes
called God’s son (Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1). This is true enough, but I want to say two
things here. First, our phrase is actually a technical phrase used outside of Israel,
12 The LXX reading is almost certainly the original. See Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons
of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra: 158:629 (Jan-Mar, 2001): 52-74.
13 I realize people dispute this. So I deal with it at length in my Introduction in the Giants book.
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
and it always refers to the heavenly divine council, the 70 sons of El who
administer the affairs of the cosmos. There is no technical phrase involved in
calling Israel his son. Second, this phrase is always translated as angels by the
LXX, showing that this was the view of those in the early days.14 Moreover,
there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the Bible that “sons of God” means
“sons of Seth.” It is never used like this anywhere else. In fact, when you think
about it, what sense does it even make to substitute “Seth” for “God?” It says
sons of “God,” not “godly sons.” It is a noun, not an adverb.
In a similar fashion, there is absolutely no biblical evidence that “daughters
of men” are Cainites. Cain was a man, yes. But there were many more lines of
men than just Cain’s. These are the daughters of “men.” Is not Seth a man? Why
couldn’t they be Sethites? According to Jewish tradition, Adam had thirty other
sons, besides Cain, Abel, and Seth.15 Given how long he lived and how long they
were fertile, that seems reasonable to me. Why couldn’t the daughters of men be
those descendents? Aren’t they men too? With all things being equal, each child
of Adam having the same number of babies, simply put, the Sethite view only
even deals with 6% of all human beings on earth.16 Yet the next verse says that all
human beings had become utterly corrupt (Gen 6:5), and our passage is here
partly to demonstrate this and provide justification for exterminating mankind,
save Noah and his family.
The final two words are important. The word “Nephilim” is surrounded
by controversy. What does it mean? Most of your Bibles won’t give an opinion,
so they just transliterate the word. Many say it comes from the word naphal,
meaning “to fall.” So Nephilim are “fallen ones.” The better ground to stand on
here is that Nephilim means “giant.”17 This is how the LXX, Vulgate, and
Aramaic Targums all translate the word, and it is the only way to account for the
alternate spelling of the word in the Hebrew of Numbers 13:33. In that passage,
it is very clear that the Nephilim are giants.
14 I do not have time to deal in the sermon with how “angels” and the “sons of God” relate. Basically, the “sons
of God” was an early term used in early books of the Bible. “Angel” in those days was a technical term for a
messenger, almost always heavenly in origin. By the time the LXX was translated, the term “angel” had
become a broad word that could encompass almost any kind of heavenly being. We still use “angel” in this
broad sense today.
15 Life of Adam and Eve 24:3.
16 30 other sons divided by 32 sons (not counting Abel) is 6.25%.
17 This view is proposed by H. Gunkel, Genesis (Göttingen, 1910), 58-59, and elaborated on by Michael
Heiser, The Myth That Is True (unpublished), 79-83. Heiser interacts with a recent objection to his view here:
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2013/03/thoughts-Nephilim-answering-criticism/
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
The “mighty heroes of old” are the Nephilim. The LXX translates both
words as gigantes. This is introduced here because in a few chapters, the first of
these mighty heroes, a fellow named Nimrod, will be discussed. At any rate, the
linguistic evidence for the Sethite view is scant to completely absent in my
estimation.
NT Interpretation
The second reason I hold my view is historical. To me, this is even more
powerful, in fact was the final nail in the coffin for me personally holding the
natural interpretation. This history is both outside and inside of the Bible.
Outside the Bible, this view of the sons of God is exactly what Israel’s neighbors
believed, using in fact the exact same phrase to talk about the heavenly beings of
the divine council. They did not believe that the sons of God were humans.
Neither does the OT.
The biblical history is much more important. It circles around the books
of 2 Peter and Jude. Again, the supernatural view is the only known view of our
text at the time of the NT. If the NT differs, it goes against all known
interpretation for 250 years in both directions, with the exception of those
Rabbis in the second century A.D. that I mentioned earlier.
The NT speaks directly to these verses. 2 Peter 2:4 says, “For if God did
not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell (tartarus) and
committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment…”
Some commentators will say that Peter is referring to the initial fall of the angels
when Satan fell. This is problematic for three reasons. First, we don’t know that
a host of angels fell with Satan. Second, Peter uses the unique word tartarus for
“hell.” Tartarus has only one use in the ancient world. It is the place where God
bound the angels who fell in the Gigantomachy (the Greek equivalent of the
supernatural interpretation of our passage). Here is Hesiod on the matter:
Among the foremost Cottus and Briareos and Gyes18 insatiate for war raised
fierce fighting: three hundred rocks, one upon another, they launched from
their strong hands and overshadowed the Titans with their missiles, and buried
them beneath the wise-pathed earth, and bound them in bitter chains when
they had conquered them by their strength for all their great spirit, as far
beneath the earth to Tartarus.
(Hesiod, Theogony 313-320)
Third, and most importantly, Peter has in mind the book of Jude. Jude and
2 Peter parallel one another in remarkable ways. Jude says, “And the angels who
18 Giants of incredible strength and ferocity, even superior to that of the Titans.
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper
dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the
judgment of the great day– (Jude 1:6).
Here is where I want to return to Genesis 5 for a moment, and the person
of Enoch. It says that Enoch did not die, but was translated (Gen 5:24).
Presumably, he was taken to heaven. Later in his epistle, Jude quotes Enoch,
saying that Enoch prophesied before the flood (Jude 14-15). These words of
Enoch were remembered for generations by Jews, until they were finally put
into writing in the book we know as 1 Enoch.
Now, 1 Enoch is not in our Bible, and most Christians do not consider it
to be inspired.19 The reason Augustine gave for why is that it was too old to trust
(City of God 15:23). That is, we couldn’t be sure that words not from Enoch were
added, and in fact, in certain parts later in the book, this seems to be the case.
Nevertheless, Jude says the words of Enoch are recorded here.
What is important is that throughout his tiny letter, Jesus’ half-brother
quotes or alludes to the book of 1 Enoch almost a dozen times. These are always
favorable. Considering that the letter is only 25 verses long, one could almost
call Jude the “Little Enoch.” He clearly holds this book in very high esteem. I
believe, based on this, that we should treat 1 Enoch much like Reformed
Christians treat Calvin: In very high esteem, certainly capable of telling us truth
and giving us actual history like any other book, but not holy Scripture.
SOME OF JUDE’S ALLUSIONS TO 1 ENOCH
JUDE 1 ENOCH
Jude 6 “The angels that did not keep
their own position but left
their proper dwelling.”
“[The angels] have
abandoned the high
heaven, the holy eternal
place.”
1 En 12:4
“until the judgment of the
great day”
“preserved for the day of
suffering”
1 En 45:2
(1 En 10:6)
“angels … kept in eternal
chains under gloomy
darkness”
“this is the prison of the
angels, and here they will
be imprisoned forever”
1 En 21:10
(1 En 10:4)
Jude 12 “waterless clouds” “every cloud … rain shall
be withheld”
1 En 100:11
“raging waves” “ships tossed to and fro by
the waves”
1 En 101:2
“fruitless trees” “fruit of the trees shall be
withheld”
1 En 80:3
Jude 13 “wandering stars” “stars that transgress the
order”
1 En 80:6
“the gloom of utter darkness
has been reserved forever”
“darkness shall be their
dwelling”
1 En 46:6
Jude 14 “Enoch the seventh from
Adam”
“my grandfather [Enoch] …
seventh from Adam”
1 En 60:8
Jude
14-15
… saying, “Behold, the
Lord comes with ten
“And behold!
He comes with ten
1 En 1:9
19 The Coptic Ethiopian church is the one exception in our day. A few church Fathers such as Tertullian also
believed it was inspired.
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
thousands of his holy ones,
15 to execute judgment
on all and to
convict all the ungodly
of all their deeds of
ungodliness that they have
committed in such an
ungodly way,
and of all the harsh things
that ungodly sinners
have spoken against him.”
thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgment
upon all, and he will
destroy all the ungodly,
and convict all flesh about
all works of their
ungodliness which they
have ungodly
committed,
And of all the hard things
which ungodly sinners
have spoken against Him.
Why is Jude’s treatment of 1 Enoch important? It is because when Jude
makes this comment about angels, he does so in the context of a book that spends
chapter after chapter explaining our very passage, explicitly telling us that the
sons of God are heavenly beings and that the Nephilim are demi-gods and giants.
To me, it is absurd to think that Jude would favorably cite or allude to 1 Enoch
almost a dozen times in 25 verses,20 and yet at this one point, the most basic point
of 1 Enoch, he would give a view that goes directly against it without even
telling us that he is doing so. As I said, when I realized these things about 2 Peter
and Jude, that was the nail in the coffin for me, because I can’t find an honest
way to get around that fact that these two NT books are talking about Genesis
6:1-4, and I believe as Holy Scripture that they are inspired by God. Thus, I am
compelled to believe the supernatural view, even though it seems bizarre.
Why is this Passage Here?
So that is the controversy, and that is my position. For the last section of
this sermon, I want to ask the question of why this passage is here, and then how
it contributes to our understanding of the gospel, even though it, in fact, is not
good news but bad news. So why is it here?
When we consider what comes before it and after it, in some ways, it
seems out of place. However, it does serve both the immediate context and the
larger context of the whole OT going right on into the NT. As for the
immediate context, we should look at the last verse of Genesis 5. It says, “After
Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth” (Gen 5:32).
This introduces us to the hero of the flood story, if we can call Noah a hero. In
contrast, this story shows how everyone but Noah became polluted. If the
daughters of men really could include any and every lineage from Adam, as I
20 In fact, the book of 1 Enoch seems to be alluded to throughout the NT. I have three books that each give
various cross references between certain NT verses and corresponding verses in 1 Enoch. These are Steve
Delamarter, A Scripture Index to Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Sheffield
Acedemic Press Ltd, 2002); Craig Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Pub, 1992), 190-219; Ronald K. Brown, The Book of Enoch: Second Edition (San Antonio,
TX: Guadalupe Baptist Theological Seminary Press, 2000).
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
believe, then we see that the corruption that spread to mankind, both of their
own prerogative and angelic initiative, was indeed universal. Rather than a mere
6% of the population from the lines of Seth and Cain, everyone is involved.
Furthermore, the kind of pollution involved here is almost unthinkable. It
is a pollution of the very meaning of what constitutes a human being. The idea
of a Nephilim is that it is not fully human. Using Genesis 1 language (which is
part of the larger context), it is a pollution of the kinds. To put it bluntly, human
beings were ceasing to be human beings.
There is a frightening parallel to this going on in the minds of mad
scientists today in the form of something known as Transhumanism. According
to the Wiki, Transhumanism is “an international cultural and intellectual
movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human
condition by developing and making widely available technologies to
greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.” It
sounds wonderful, until you consider the dark side portrayed by movies like The
Island of Dr. Moreau or Splice. It sounds like science fiction, until you realize
that we have fully mapped the human genome. Basically, these guys are now
tinkering with DNA. We already have state laws on the books outlawing animal
hybridization, because we actually have the scientific know-how to make animal hybrids.
These guys want to do the same thing to human beings. Consider this the idea
behind the supernatural view of Genesis 6:1-4, only it occurred at the hands of
heavenly beings that have been a around a lot longer and have an intellect that
far outstrips that of the human being. As we will see next week, on the
supernatural reading, this seems to be the idea behind telling us that Noah was
“perfect” in his “generations” (Gen 6:9). This would refer not to moral
perfection (have you read the story of Noah and the vineyard immediately after
the fall?), but to biological purity.
How This Helps our View of the Gospel
So how does this passage fit into our view of the gospel? First, let me say
something about the natural interpretation of Augustine. I will say up front that
I think Augustine had the best of intentions in giving his proposal that the sons
of God are Sethites and that the problem was basically Christians marrying non-
Christians. His idea that there is a godly line that was being mixed through these
marriages does point us to election and God’s choice to preserve a line through
which Christ would come. He was very concerned with two-cities, and making
sure that we understand how these interact and how they are to remain distinct
for Christians. That was his context, but he seems to have read his context into
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
the text. As we saw last week (in Genesis 5), I believe the essential theology of a
godly line and a wicked line is basically correct. I’m not fully convinced about all
of the particulars, but the basic idea is biblical follows from Genesis 4-5.
It was out of this context and a zeal for the two cities that Augustine read
Genesis 6:1-4. His concern is pastoral. God wiped out the whole world because
Christians were not keeping themselves separate from the world. Who can blame
Augustine for that? The problem is, I’m personally convinced that Genesis 6:1-4
is just not talking about this. Rather, its context comes from something earlier.
I heard a defense of the Sethite view which said there is nothing
supernatural in the entire Bible up to Genesis 6:1-4. So all of the sudden, out of
the blue, with no warning or prior foreshadowing, I’m just supposed to accept
that angels are meant in this passage? When I heard this, I was struck by Genesis
3, because I know this pastor believes in Satan. Isn’t he a supernatural being? And
then, aren’t there two cherubim that are guarding the gates of Eden? Don’t
forget the LORD himself walking around. The whole of Genesis 3 teaches that
many supernatural beings were walking around on earth in the paradise of God.
Then there is that promise that God gave to Eve: She would have a Seed
who would crush the head of the serpent. But the serpent would also have a seed.
As we saw, spiritually speaking Satan had a seed. His name was Cain, and this is
part of the purpose of Genesis 4, to show what happens when people spiritually
belong to the devil.
But to be consistent, if Eve’s seed is physical and biological, it would make
sense that Satan would also have a physical and biological seed. I believe this is
exactly what the story of the Nephilim is. It introduces us to a lineage that not
only was partially responsible for the Flood, but which will also play a major role
in the rest of the story of Genesis, and beyond.
And I believe this strikes at the heart of Satan’s anger and futile plan to
overthrow the prophecy. “If God is going to have a seed from the woman, then I
will ensure that there are no women left that can have a seed.” And so he
corrupts the human line through the daughters of men. That way, Messiah
cannot come. Satan cannot be defeated. This idea fits the context of the
supernatural of Genesis 3 and the “kinds” that play such a prominent role in
Genesis 1 and again in Genesis 7 when God brings the kinds into the ark. It
makes sense of the NT’s interpretation, and of the great story of the Bible—the
coming seed of Christ. It makes sense of why God would elect Noah and
preserve his line all the way to the NT.
In fact, this allows us to see a golden thread of the Bible, a supernatural
war that God is waging through his chosen people that almost all commentaries
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
miss. It will begin with Abraham and the giant wars of Genesis 14. It will
continue on with Esau and Jacob and Judah and Moses and especially Joshua and
David. You find it also with Saul and Balaam and even Esther. You find it in the
prophets: Isaiah, Amos, Ezekiel, and Daniel. This war will finally culminate in
none other than a war that Jesus Christ himself will wage in both his life and his
death on the cross.
This war involves both the demons of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the
heavenly beings that he conquers in his death, resurrection, and ascension. Do
you remember last week that I told you about Hesiod who believed that the
Heroes before the flood became the demons? Well, this was the same view of the
early Jews and Christians. In fact, this view was taught throughout the ancient
world in one form or another. Somehow, this became a stock belief of ancient
peoples. Justin Martyr and Eusebius are good examples of how the early church
thought. Justin says, “But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were
captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called
demons” (Justin Martyr, 2 Apology 5). “For one might say that these daemons are
those giants [Gen 6:4], and that their spirits have been deified by the subsequent
generations of men, and that their battles, and their quarrels among themselves,
and their wars are the subjects of these legends that are told as of gods” (Eusebius,
Preparation for the Gospel 5.4).
As for the heavenly beings, the Scripture tells us that because of his great
work, Christ is now “above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and
above every name that is named” (Eph 1:21). This was God’s plan all along, a
secret unveiled only after the fact. For it says, “None of the rulers of this age
understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory” (1 Cor 2:8). 1 Peter even uses the story of the flood to teach us about
Christ’s great work and concludes that Christ, “Has gone into heaven and is at
the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been
subjected to him” (1 Pet 3:22; cf. vv. 18-21 for context).
But there is one final thing to say. The NT uses our passage very
specifically, as a warning to us today. Both Jude and Peter use this passage along
with Sodom and Gomorrah as a warning against sexual immorality, for they
understand that supernatural beings can be involved in the sexual sins of
mankind, tempting us and even being lured by us in a kind of evil erotic dance
from hell. This is why it says, in my opinion, that a “wife ought to have a
symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (1 Cor 11:10). We have
no idea what kinds of things we are messing around with in sexual sin. As bad as
© Reformed Baptist Church of Northern Colorado and Pastor Doug Van Dorn
All Rights Reserved
it is for us, it also brings the very heavens and pits of hell into the mix. Do you
think you have the power to fight both them and yourself?
Then our passage is used as a warning by Jude to keep us under the
authority of Christ, not forsaking authority which is the cause of so much
disruption in the churches. As it also says, there are angels over the seven
churches, and some have become the very synagogues of Satan. This is
supernatural language involving these beings, is it not? We must watch
ourselves, lest we pervert or disregard God’s authority structure in the churches,
as angels did, as Korah did, as Satan did with the body of Moses.
Each of the sins listed in Jude and 2 Peter contribute to this supernatural
uprising, as well as to the uprising of wickedness in our own hearts. Beloved,
there is a supernatural world, and it is tied to this world in ways that we cannot
possible imagine. The Scripture is clear about it. Beware and open your eyes. But
most of all, trust in Christ who has overcome the devil. He is able to keep you
from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory
with great joy. To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be
glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever.
Amen. with this quotation:

The Missing Link

Dear Folks, Following is a comment I made in reference to an article on a “missing link” found in North America. It was an article found in Yahoo, and they afford others the opportunity to react to your comment– either “for” or “against.” My comment at last check had 3 for and 18 opposed. No surprise. Do not expect popularity when expounding upon truth. The Deceiver and Father Of Lies is doing a great job, eh? Why do I do this? In order to be God’s tool to touch someone somewhere. Whatever it takes. By the way, I noticed it is Darwin Day and there is more than one article espousing evolution. I saw another article discrediting the Bible as well. Blessings, Pastor Steve

“Ah yes, another missing link has been found. I am glad that these fascinating articles are all “scientific.” Like the prior findings of Cro Magnum and Neanderthal by Dr. Leakey in Africa, and a host of others in the last sixty to seventy years. One link was built upon the tooth of an extinct pig, with other totally unrelated bones in the area arbitrarily added. Another ape man was later found to be a part of a people group who were infected with rickets. Yet another was simply found to be an extinct ape. This “science” is the equivalent to speculating over the stock market and forecasting the hurricane season before it occurs. If you consider this science, then please: “beam me up Scottie…” There is NEVER contrition displayed when it is revealed that they have once again dropped the ball. If you want to claim this “ape man” as your ancestor then go for it. I was made, however, in the image of God. Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer who made everything perfect. This is not a cosmic crapshoot. The only change ever observed by REAL science is microevolution, which is within the same kind and species. Macroevolution, however, has never been observed — rocks to slime to fish to amoeba to ape to man, etc.”