The Last Days of Jesus

The Last Days of Jesus

by Bill 0’Reilly 

a review by John Haynes

I find it interesting that this is written completely by O’Reilly, without Martin Dugard. This book is written primarily for children.

Flyleaf: He lists some contemporaries of Jesus, which include Julius Caesar. Caesar died in March of 44 b.c., so I don’t know how he could be called a contemporary. Even Herod the Great died probably the year after Jesus’ birth, so again, he wasn’t really a contemporary.

p. ix I don’t like the way he numbers the preface pages. Most pages don’t have numbers, and it is hard to identify what page I’m on.

He uses the terms “gospels” of the first four books of the New Testament. This should be capped: “Gospels.”

p. x The Family of Jesus: It lists Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. No mention of his half brothers and sisters. Typical Catholic nonsense. Disregard what the Bible says.

p. xii Joseph of Arimithea: He says he “gave his tomb for Jesus’s body.” First off, this should be “Jesus’.” That is the normal way of making Jesus possessive. Second, what is this like a trade?  Joseph gave his tomb in trade for Jesus’ body? It should say that he “gave his tomb for the burial of Jesus’ body.”

p. xiii “Anna: Pilgrim at the temple who bore witness to the divinity of Jesus.” Killing Jesus was touted at a book of history, not of theology. I don’t know if this book is the same. He does say earlier that “this is a story of the struggle between good and evil” (p. ix).

p. xx There is a lot of mention on this page about God. Again, I wonder if this is a book of history or theology or both.

p. xx “They journeyed each year to their birthplace for the census count.” I’m not sure about that. I’ve never heard that the census in Luke 2:1 was anything other than a one-time occurrence. It may have become a yearly matter after this, but I’m not sure it was something that had always happened.

p. 3 “March, 5 BC” Should be small caps: b.c. Also how does he know the month? And no information is given about how he arrives at this specific date.

p. 5 The Tanakh is also the Jewish Bible, what Protestants call the Old Testament. This is important to note.

p. 5 “The wealthy foreigners [Magi] travel almost a thousand miles.” Then at the bottom of the page, “The wealthy foreigners travel more than a thousand miles.” Which is it?

p. 6 “The Magi see through the deceit [of Herod the Great].” No, they didn’t. God made clear to them to leave another way (Matt. 2:12).

p. 9 The Temple was “rebuilt nearly fifty years later [after the Captivity]”. Probably much later. The Captivity lasted 70 years (Jer. 25:11).

p. 13 Says that Anna “was an eighty-four-year-old widowed prophetess.” First off, we don’t need a gender-specific term like “prophetess.” We don’t say “doctoress” or “lawerette” for females of that job description. Prophet serves both sexes well. Second, it is uncertain how old Anna was. The language of Luke 2:37 is unclear. It could mean she had been a widow for eighty-four years. The King James Version says, “She was a widow of about fourscore and four years.” Since the KJV is painstakingly literal, this could mean she had been a widow that long.

p. 13 “Then she [Anna] made a most unusual claim, predicting to Mary and Joseph that their son would free Jerusalem from Roman rule.” She did nothing of the sort. The Scripture says, “She talked about Jesus to everyone who had been waiting for the promised King to come and deliver Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38, NLT). It does not say what deliverance meant. But from Jesus’ ministry, it is clear that it was talking about spiritual deliverance.

p. 22 Note at the bottom of the page says that the previous page contains the text of the Shema. It does not. I know Hebrew, and this is definitely not the Shema.

p. 27 Calls the Israelites the “ancestors of the Jews.” That’s just nonsense. The word “Israelite(s)” appears 18 times in the Old Testament. You didn’t have to be an Israelite to be a Jew (you could be a convert, as were many Egyptians after the Exodus (Exod. 12:38), but all Israelites were Jews.

p. 29 Talks about things he thinks Mary, Joseph, and Jesus saw, such as “the crucifixion of more than two thousand Jewish rebels outside Jerusalem’s city walls.” He doesn’t know that they saw this. Pure speculation.

p. 31 Mentions Augustus Caesar at the top of the page and at the bottom it says, “Casaer Augustus.” Which is it?

p. 33 March 22, AD 7. He doesn’t know the exact date. Same with p. 35.

p. 35 “Son of God, as Jesus will refer to himself for the first time this on this very day.” No, he didn’t. He called God his Father. He said, “You should have known that I would be in my Father’s house” (Luke 2:49). Jesus rarely called himself the Son of God.

p. 36 Says about Jesus that it “never crosses his mind that Mary and Joseph will be worried about him.” Really? You don’t know much about what it means that he is God, do you? He knew all (John 2:25).

p. 38 “The place where God is thought to have gathered the dust to make Adam.” Unless God decided to take it from someplace quite a ways away instead of locally, this is probably not true. The Garden of Eden was near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (as well as two other rivers that have since disappeared, Gen. 2:11-14). Mount Moriah is in Israel, near Jerusalem. Also mentioned on pages 40 and 76.

p. 47 Gives specific description of Herod Antipas. How does he know what he looked like?

p. 57 “The end of the known world is coming, John [the Baptist] preaches.” I don’t think anything John said can be construed to mean that he was saying the end of the known world was coming.

p. 57 Bill seems to think John baptized by immersion. That is the description he gives. We don’t know how John baptized.

p. 58 “Isaiah had foretold that a man would come to tell the people about the day the world would end and God would appear on earth.” I don’t think that is what Isaiah said at all.

p. 65 Discusses the Sadducees and Pharisees. Never mentions that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection or angels or anything supernatural. The Pharisees did. 

p. 65 Says the Sanhedrin had 71 members. Not true. Probably had 69.

p. 66 “Speaking softly with John the Baptist, Jesus does declare who he is. Bowing his head to accept the water, he tells John ‘Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.’” That does not declare who Jesus is. And we don’t know that he said this softly.

p. 66 Says that John the Baptist said about Jesus “This is the Son of God.” Not true. I can find no evidence in Scripture that John said anything like this.

p. 72 “The spiritual emotion that flows through the city is wondrous, as these many Jews come together.” Simple grammatical mistake that drives me nuts. Should say, “since (or because) these many Jews come together.”

p. 76 “Seventy years later, on the same site, construction began on a new sanctuary, which was finished in 516 b.c.” This is accurate but in contrast with what he says on p. 9, where he says it was built some fifty years after the Captivity began.

p. 71 “The Temple itself was visited by only the most senior high priests.” I think the word “Temple” should be capped, but Ø’Reilly isn’t consistent with this. See p. xiii, p. 116, and p. 134. Also, there is only one high priest. This should read, “The Temple itself was visited by only the most senior priests.”

p. 80 “April, AD 27.” How does he know it was in April? He doesn’t.

p. 81 “‘Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” Incorrect. Unless he is born again. “No one” is singular.

p. 81 “He has been telling all who listen that a person must be spiritually reborn to be judged kindly by God.” That’s not it at all. Being born again is the only way into the Kingdom of Heaven.

pp. 87-88 “Jesus should remember his place: his family is not the wealthiest in town, nor is he the smartest among them.” I’m betting he is the smartest. He is God incarnate, genius!

p. 93, bottom “Colored engraving, no date.” So why is the picture not in color?

p. 102-03 “The sermon [on the Mount] is intended to remind the men and women of Galilee, who feel oppressed and hopeless, that their current circumstances will not last forever.” This sermon was not preached to the masses. It was preached to his disciples. See Matt. 5:1: “Jesus went up the mountainside with his disciples and sat down to teach them.” He taught his disciples, not the crowds.

p. 104-05 “For the peasants of Galilee, his [Jesus’] words off solace for their life under Roman rule: the need to rely on God, the worry about daily nourishment, the constant struggle to stay out of debt, and finally a reminder that in the midst of this cruel life, succumbing to the temptation to lie, cheat, or steal will only lead people farther and farther away from God.” No, it should be “further and further away.”

p. 105 “There, soon after entering the city, a most amazing thing happens: the Roman military officer in charge of Capernaum declares himself to be a follower of Jesus.” He didn’t just declare that he was a follower of Jesus; there was something that happened first. Matt. 8:5-10 says that the centurion’s servant was sick and that he wanted Jesus to heal him. But he said that Jesus didn’t need to come to his house for that; he could do it from where he was. That’s why Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all the land of Israel!” (v. 10, NLT).

p. 107 I don't think there’s any biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Some people think that, but it doesn’t make it so. Ø’Reilly also puts Mary Magdalene in the home of Simon the Pharisee. He says she anointed Jesus head with the expensive perfume. No evidence in the Bible that it was Mary Magdalene. John 11:2 and 12:3 says that a woman name Mary anointed his head with the essence of nard, but this Mary was the sister of Lazarus. And that didn’t happen in the home of Simon. The Simon in whose house there was an anointing was called Simon the leper (Mark 14:3). Nothing about him being a Pharisee. Luke 7:37 says that a woman anointed him in the home of a Pharisee. Jesus later identifies him as Simon (v. 40). That may have been the same as the Simon the leper. But we still don’t know who the woman was.

p. 113 “The eager disciples go on to tell John [the Baptist] that Jesus not only alluded to his own virgin birth, as foretold by Scripture.” I see no evidence of this at all. This is recorded only in Luke 7. Nothing at all about his virgin birth.

p. 116 “Other than the lone incident with the temple money changers.” Jesus did this twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of his ministry. See John 2:14; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45.

p. 119 “Jesus is a spiritual and intellectual rival unlike any they have ever faced.” But what about what was said on p. 87-88, where he said he wasn’t the smartest among them?

p. 124 “Now Jesus’s words push him farther away from the group.” Two problems here; it’s “Jesus’” and it should be further.

p. 127 “‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my father in heaven.’” Father should be capped. I don’t know why it’s not.

p. 134 “And they [Pilate and Caiaphas] consider themselves devout men.” We know nothing about Pilate’s religious proclivities. I’m sure he worshiped the emperor, but that’s all we know for sure.

p. 134 Discussion about Jesus’ disciples telling Jesus to go to Judea to be a more public figure. I don’t know that his disciples ever did this. I know his brothers did, but they were not his disciples (John 7:3-7).

p. 140 “At the age of thirty-six, Jesus is clever enough to act out any prophecy.” He wasn’t 36. He was 33. He began his ministry at the age of 30 (Luke 3:23). It lasted about three and a half years. That makes him 33.

p. 144 March 30/31, AD 30. He doesn’t know this. It could have been a.d. 29 for all we know.

p. 145 “They have followed Jesus as a group for more than two years.” Yes, but it was actually for about three and a half years.

p. 145 “Peter is so sure that Jesus is going to use military might that he is making plans to purchase a sword.” I don’t know where he gets that. Also, what a great example for the first “pope,” eh?

p. 149 “As Jesus learned on the road yesterday morning, the local fig and date orchards will not ripen for months to come.” Really? Even a normal Jew would know this, and this is the Son of God! I don’t think he just found this out.

p. 150 “Sunday, April 1, AD 30.” Again, he doesn’t know the exact date.

p. 152 “Bethpage” Incorrect. Even the NIV has it as “Bethphage.”

p. 157 “Suddenly, Jesus begins to weep.” Nothing in the NT about Jesus weeping on Palm Sunday.

p. 160 Jesus “walks alone to the tree, hoping to pluck a piece of fruit, even though he know that figs are out of season.” Yet look at the discussion on p. 149. So did he know or not?

p. 163 “‘If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or a wonder,’ read the Book of Deuteronomy, ‘that prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God.’” He isn’t quoting the passage accurately. This is from Deut. 13:1-5. The punishment of death isn’t for simply announcing a sign or wonder. It’s when the prophet tells the people to worship other gods (v. 2). That is what makes this a death offense.

p. 169 “‘Why are you trying to trap me?’ Jesus seethes.” I don’t know that Jesus was angry when asked if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. If anything, I think Jesus delighted in showing them what fools they were to ask such a question.

p. 170 “But Jesus does not choose from one of the established laws. Instead, he articulates a new one: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.’” This is not a new commandment. Moses wrote this in Deut. 6:5. It appears many times in the book of Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the OT.

p. 170 “Then Jesus goes on to add a second law: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” This is from Lev. 19:18, and again, it is not new.

p. 170 “Jesus says these words [about destroying the Temple] to his disciples, but a Pharisee overhears. That statement will become a capital crime.” That is not why Jesus was put to death. It is because he admitted to being the Son of God. See Matt. 26:61-66. The Jewish leaders tried to make a case out of Jesus’ statement about the Temple, but what really got Jesus into trouble was his admission in verse 64 that he was the Christ, the Son of God.

p. 171 “A week that began in this very spot with him weeping while astride a donkey now finds him reflective.” Weeping on Palm Sunday? Again, where is this in the NT? Luke 19:41 says that Jesus wept over Jerusalem, but this wasn’t on Palm Sunday.

p. 173 “Jesus has yet to publically announce that he is the Christ.” Actually, he has announced this to his disciples. When Peter made his declaration in Matt. 16:16, Jesus never corrected him. He accepted what Peter had said. He was indeed the Christ.

p. 174 “This time he [Judas Iscariot] is not alone in his disgust. Several other disciples join in before Jesus puts an end to the discussion.” He’s getting stories confused. When Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with perfume, no one but Judas complained. There is another time when at the home of Simon the leper (Matt. 26:6) when the disciples complained. But these are two different occasions.

p. 177 “Judas has live the hand-to-mouth existence of Jesus’s disciples for two long years.” No, it was about three and a half years. That is how long Jesus ministry was. All you have to do is read the Gospels and add up the time. This is a well-established fact of Jesus’ life.

p. 186 Discussion about Jesus washing the disciples feet. Nothing is said about Peter objecting to Jesus doing this (John 13:6-9).

p. 191 “Peter draws his new sword and cuts off the ear of one of the men.” I don’t know how he knows it was a new sword, and I also don’t know why he doesn’t mention that Jesus healed the man’s ear. Luke 22:50 says it was his right ear, and verse 51 says Jesus healed him. John 18:10 says the man’s name was Malchus.

p. 194. “Jesus sees . . . Annas, the aging and regal leader of a priestly dynasty dating back a thousand years.” How does he know this? He gives no proof for almost everything in this book.

p. 196 “Annas, his sons, and his son-in-law Caiaphas will all take turns serving as high priest.” Again, how does he know?

pp, 201-02 “Voices of dissent come from Nicodemus and from a wealthy Sadducee named Joseph of Arimathea.” How does he know Joseph was a Sadducee?

p. 212 “‘It was your own people and chief priests handed you over to me.’” Grammatical error. Should read, “‘chief priests who handed you over to me.’”

p. 222 This chapter deals with the crucifixion, which he dates as “Friday, April 6, AD 30.” But there is no certainty about that date. It could have been a.d. 29.

p. 228. “Jesus of Nazareth is dead. He is thirty-six years old.” Again, not true. He was thirty-three. I don’t know where he gets this idea.

p. 231 “They have received permission from Pilate to take the body, as the governor wants to put this execution to rest as soon as possible.” That stupid “as” again. Should read, “to take the body, for” or “to take the body because [since].”

p. 232 “Then they wrong the body tightly in linen, making sure to keep it loose around Jesus’s face in case he is not really dead, but merely unconscious.” No comma needed after “dead.” Also, I doubt they did this. There was no question that Jesus was dead. The Romans never made a mistake.

p. 234 “But now they [Caiaphas and the Pharisees] are inside the palace, no longer fearful of being made unclean by the governor’s presence, for Passover is done.” Yes, but Saturday is still the Jewish Sabbath.

p. 236 “Mary Magdalene now takes it upon herself to perform the traditional task of examining the dead body.” Maybe this is true, but Scripture says that the reason she and other women went to the tomb was to finish anointing his body with spices (Luke 23:55—24:1).

p. 237 “And just as she [Mary Madalene] once anointed him with perfume and washed his feet with her tears, so now she plans to anoint the body with spices.” No evidence in Scripture that Mary Magdalene anointed him with perfume and washed his feet with her tears. See discussion at p. 107.

p. 239 “Peter’s missionary work eventually took him to Rome, where he formalized the new Cathloic Church.” No evidence that Peter ever went to Rome. He may have, but he certainly didn’t establish the Roman Catholic Church. That came long after by Pope Leo I, the Great (c. a.d. 400 to 461.

p. 240 “John died in AD 100 in Ephesus, in what is now Turkey. He was ninety-four, and the only apostle not to have been martyred.” He doesn’t know the exact year John died or how old he was. This is nothing more than a guess.

p. 241 Says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was mentioned in “the book of Revelation as “a woman clothed with the sun.” That is from Rev. 12:1, but it is not certain that this is Jesus’ mother.

p. 241 “On November 1, 1950, the Roman Cathlic Church decreed that her [Mary’s] body had been ‘assumed into heaven.’ Pope Pius XII noted that Mary, ‘having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.’” That’s a nice story, but there’s no truth to it whatsoever. No evidence at all, and it is beyond the bounds of credibility. She died just like anyone else.

p. 251 “The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built on the location of Jesus’s crucifixion, is a sacred site in the city.” No one knows exactly where Jesus was crucified. This is nothing more than a guess.

pp. 252-53 This map is said to show Jerusalem about 4 b.c. But that cannot be. It shows the Muslim quarter and the Christian quarter as well as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. These didn’t exist in 4 b.c.

p. 254 “It [the NT] contains twenty-seven books written between AD 50 and AD 100.” I think it was more like a.d. 45 to a.d. 95, but I won’t quibble too much.

p. 254 His list of writers of the NT do not include the writer of Hebrews. It was not Paul, but we don’t know who it was.

p. 260 “However, by the second century, Christians began touching their forehead, chest, and each shoulder to make the sign of the cross as a way of warding off demons.” I wonder where he gets this. Protestants disavowed this practice.

p. 260 “The iconic image showing the body of Jesus affixed to a cross did not become part of the Christian culture until six centuries after his death.” Not Christian culture but Roman Catholic culture.

p. 261 “It is said that the priest used the coins to buy a field to be used as a cemetery for foreigners.” He makes it sound like this is just a supposition and may or may not be true. It is true. The Bible says so (see Matt. 27:7-10 and Acts 1:18-19).

p. 263 Why list Oceania? Most people have no idea where this is. For the record, it is Australia and many island groups in that vicinity including Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia.

p. 265 He discusses the Roman Empire in 44 b.c. Why does this matter? This was decades before Jesus was born. It is not during the lifetime of Jesus.

pp. 266-67 Why show a map of The Roman Republic  about 44 b.c.? Why not show it at its height in a.d. 117 (p. 265).

p. 279 “Apostle.” Should have some mention of being sent, since that’s what the Greek word means.

p. 279 “Heresy.” He defines it as “Views different from those of a particular religion.” There needs to be some negativity. A Christian heresy is something very bad, not just a “different” view.

p. 280 “Magi: The legendary wise men who visited Jesus soon after he was born.” Nothing legendary about them. They were real. The Bible says so. Also, we don’t know when they visited. The Bible says that they came when Joseph and Mary were in a house (Matt. 2:11). Jesus could have been two years old or more.

p. 285 In his recommended readings, he recommends the Jesus Seminar (www.virtualreligion.net/forum)I have heard R. C. Sproul talk many times about this heretical group. Not to be recommended!

Son of God

Son of God, My Take (spoilers alert)

I went to see the movie Son of God recently. I was very impressed. This movie was based somewhat on the TV miniseries I believe of last year called The Bible. I took issue with some of the liberties of that miniseries, but I must say, I think maybe they listened when doing this film. It is very accurate. Is it perfect? Of course not, and I’ll get to that.

The film begins with the apostle John narrating. He’s recalling what he wrote in John 1. They quote him accurately: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (v. 1). I’m glad they got that right. The Word was God. Not the Word was a god as the Jehovah False Witness Bible has it. No, the Word was God. The movie is called the Son of God, but it could easily be called God the Son.

The first miracle they show Jesus doing was the healing of the man who was dropped through the roof (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5). I know that wasn’t his first miracle. Changing the water into wine was (John 2). But it’s okay. The film makes a big deal about when Jesus told the Pharisees, “Is it easier to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or ‘Get up and walk’?” That is important, because right from the beginning, we see that Jesus is not just another rabbi. He is the Son of God.

The character of Nicodemus is a bit odd. He is pretty tight with Caiaphas, the High Priest, throughout the film. It is not until late in the film that he goes to Jesus for his “You must be born again” talk. In fact, it takes place after Palm Sunday. I don’t think he went to see Jesus that late in his ministry. I think that’s inaccurate. But do I know for sure? No. So it’s not a big deal.

When Jesus first meets Peter, he gets into Peter’s boat. Peter is rather surprised. Peter tells him there are no fish in the water that day. Jesus doesn’t tell him to go out and cast his nets again; Peter just does it. And he is shocked when the fish nearly come leaping into the nets. He questions Jesus about what he wants with him. Jesus tells him that he wants to make him a fisher of men. Peter asks, “What are we going to do?” Jesus replies, “Change the world.” Now, I know Jesus didn’t say it like that, but you have to admit, it’s a great line. And the fact is that Jesus was going to change the world with Peter and the other apostles.

Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times. We see two of those denials, but for whatever reason, we don’t see the last one. Yet Peter later says he had denied Christ three times.

Jesus doesn’t do as many miracles as you find in the Gospels. Of course, that would make for a very long movie if he did. They show him raising Lazarus. They compress that scene quite a bit. Nothing is said about Jesus taking his time to get there or about Mary and Martha telling Jesus that if he had been there, their brother would not have died. But the raising of Lazarus is pretty cool. And the people are so very happy to see him.

They show the scene in John 8 about the woman caught in adultery. Again, they compress the scene quite a bit. And yes, I know the better manuscripts do not contain this. Did this actually happen? I don’t know, but it’s so in character with who Jesus is that it very well could have. I don’t have a problem with its inclusion. It is in most Bibles.

Most of the other scenes in the movie are pretty biblically accurate, although they leave out some details. Would I have done it that way? Hard to say. I know they’re up against time constraints. They do get the essence of what actually happened, so I really can’t fault them.

The crucifixion was hard to watch. They do show it in detail. One part that I think was inaccurate was when Pilate orders him to be whipped with “40 lashes.” That was a Jewish thing. (See Deuteronomy 25:3.) The Romans didn’t care a bit how many times someone was beaten.

When the High Priest comes to Pilate to ask about the writing that will be put on the cross, Pilate hasn’t written it yet. The High Priest objects to what he will write. Pilate says, What I’ve ordered, I’ve ordered. The Bible says the religious leaders came after Pilate had written it to question what was written (John 19:22). Inaccurate, yes, but not a big deal.

After Jesus was raised, the scene with Thomas is not quite the way it happened. They take out the part where Thomas isn’t there and says he won’t believe it unless he sees for himself. Again, yes, it’s inaccurate, but not that big a deal.

The movie lasts 2 hours 18 minutes. How many of you know the time listed on a movie always includes the credits? It does. It was time well spent. It’s sad that I was the only one in the theater to see this movie. Please go see it if you can. You won’t be disappointed. Or get it on DVD when it comes out. This is a keeper. Jesus is the Son of God.

God's Not Dead

God’s Not Dead (spoilers alert)

I recently went to see the movie God’s Not Dead. This is a fantastic movie. Perhaps the best I have ever seen. I’m sure you’re at least somewhat familiar with the premise: a college freshman (Josh Wheaton, played by Shane Harper) is in a philosophy class where the professor (Radisson, played by Kevin Sorbo) has made it clear to his students that God is dead. By that he, says, it’s not that God was once alive. No, the very idea of God is a myth. He does not and has never existed. In the first meeting of this philosophy class of the semester, he points out many atheist thinkers who agree with him. These include Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertram Russell, John Stuart Mill, and even Ayn Rand, among many others. He hands out paper to all the students and instructs them to write on the paper, “God is dead” and then sign it. Then they can get on with the rest of the semester having dispensed with the formality of getting over this God business. As he collects the papers, he sees that one student has written, “god is dead,” with a lowercase “g.” He toys with giving that student extra credit. Then he sees that one student, Josh Wheaton, is fumbling with admitting the premise. He challenges him. Wheaton says he’s a Christian and that he cannot agree with what the professor is saying. “Then you will have to defend the antithesis,” Professor Radisson explains.

So Josh does. And he is challenged on many fronts. His parents don’t want him to do this, although we never see them say this. But his girlfriend, Kara (played by Cassidy Gifford), who claims to be a Christian, tells him that this will be the end of his law school plans if he pursues this. And the end of their relationship. Sadly, it is. She leaves him because he won’t give up on defending God.

Josh convinces his professor to let him defend his view and let the class be the jury to decide if he’s right. The professor agrees. But he does not let up on giving Josh a hard time about believing what he considers nonsense.

As Josh goes before the class on three occasions, he gives very good evidence to prove his point. He quotes people like John Lennox (you’ll want to look him up) and even Fyodor Dostoevsky, who famously said, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” What that means is that if there is no God, there must be no morality. We can live like the animals. Murder and other crimes aren’t really crimes if there is no God.

As with any good story, there are several threads in this one. And you know they will all come together; you just don’t know how or when. I won’t give away how they do; you’ll have to see the movie to see that. But they all do intersect in terrific ways.

In addition to Professor Radisson, there are several other nonbelievers. Amy Ryan (played by Trisha LaFache) is a well-known blogger who loves to get interviews from believers and mock them. She gets one interview with Willie Robertson (yes, the Willie Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame). Willie is not at all flustered by her questions. He makes clear what he believes. This is a good part of the movie. Some see this as a paper thin thread of the movie, but I don’t. Willie is a common man who believes in God. And nothing can shake his faith. He gives Amy a big smile and goes into a church with his wife after inviting her to come with them. She declines.

As I said, I don’t want to give away the subplots and how they intersect. There is one subplot in which a young Muslim girl is secretly a Christian. Her younger brother sees that she is listening to Franklin Graham on her iPod. She makes him swear not to tell their father. But he does. And when her father finds out, he kicks her out. That kind of thing does indeed happen. Maybe not as much in America, but it does happen around the world. Where will she go? Has she made a mistake? We’ll have to see.

There was only one part of the movie that I objected to. Near the beginning, there were several scenes where the camera angle shows a woman’s attractive legs or other body parts. I wondered what that was all about. It was clear that we were supposed to notice these physical parts of the women. I don’t think that was necessary. As I said, it was near the beginning, and it did not continue throughout the film.

Perhaps the best part of the movie is the end, where we see the Newsboys in concert. They have a special place in my heart. Although the group has changed a few faces from when I first started listening to them in 2002, they are still a strong Christian group and have a terrific presence in the movie. And they’re not bad actors, either. They sing the title song, God’s Not Dead, which honestly brought tears to my eyes. No, God isn’t dead. He is at work in my life and I suspect in yours too.

The very end of the movie is quite tragic. I won’t give it away, but it’s terribly sad. Yet it really demonstrates God’s amazing grace.

You have got to see this movie. In fact, this is a keeper. When it comes out on DVD, I will get it. No, God’s not dead. He’s surely alive!

Heaven Is for Real

Heaven Is for Real (spoilers alert)

I finally went to see the movie Heaven Is for Real. It was quite a disappointment, but I’ll get to that. I like to be positive if I can, so I’ll start with the positives.

The acting in this movie is quite good. Todd Burpo (played by Greg Kinnear) is a fine actor. I was not familiar with many of the other cast members, but they did a good job. There is some good Christian music, and I especially enjoyed Amazing Grace. That has always been one of my favorites. The script was well written too. And the scenery was very good. You may take that for granted, but the movie takes place in Nebraska. I’ve been there. Nebraska is flat and covered with crop fields all over. Not much to see. But somehow the director got in some good and very beautiful scenery.

The foundation for the movie doesn’t really begin until 25 minutes into the movie. That is a long time to build up to the story. What takes place in that first 25 minutes is that we meet the Burpo family. They are a normal, hard-working American family who is just trying to get by. Todd (the father) is a pastor, but he has two other jobs. He also works with the fire department, and he repairs garage doors. The family is having a hard time financially. It is hard to see how the bills will be paid.

Suddenly, Colton (the four-year-old boy who becomes the focus of the story) is seen throwing up. They take him to the hospital and they find out that he has appendicitis. They must operate immediately. So they do. At no time is the boy in any serious distress. He does not die on the operating table. He does not have a Near Death Experience (NDE). That fact is established at least 3 times during the movie. But something did happen.

In the days that follow the operation, Colton starts talking about what he saw during his operation. He says he went to Heaven. He says he saw Jesus and sat on his lap. More on that later. He also says he met his dad’s grandfather and said that he is young. “Everyone is young in Heaven,” Colton reports. He also says he met a little girl who turned out to be his sister, a sister that his parents lost before she was born. She has no name because his parents never named her. What? So God didn’t give her a name? I find that incredulous.

So Todd is in quite a crisis. He talks about it somewhat at church, and the leaders are concerned that their church may be turning into a sideshow. They don’t want that. They are even thinking of replacing Todd as the pastor. But Todd doesn’t back down. He believes his son.

There are a couple things I find interesting about this story. I haven’t read the book and don’t intend to, but there is no mention of the Bible at all. Sure, they show the Bible on the pulpit when Todd is preaching, but there’s no talk of what happened to Colton in light of what Scripture says. The church they go to is a Wesleyan Church. I’m not a Wesleyan (I’m a Presbyterian), but as far as I know, Wesleyans still believe the Bible. Except, apparently, in this movie. There is only one verse mentioned. I honestly can’t remember what it is right now, but when I remember, I’ll let you know. I do know that the verse had nothing to do with Heaven. Later on in the movie, Todd mentions part of the Lord’s Prayer. But it’s clear that Scripture takes a back seat to what Colton saw.

Another interesting fact is that it is clear that Colton did not die or have an NDE, as I mentioned before. Yet at one point Todd is Googling “Near Death Experiences.” He wants to find out more, and he even goes to a psychologist for help. It is a short visit. The psychologist is not a believer in any religion, so it appears she’s little help.

Colton also did not have a vision of Heaven. That is quite clear in the film. He says in no uncertain terms that he actually went to Heaven. He saw Jesus and the angels. The Bible does mention that some will see visions in the last days (Acts 2:17). If the story were about this boy seeing a vision, I would take issue with the fact that he is not a “young man” as Acts says. But I would admit that it could happen. But the story isn’t based on a vision. It is assumed that Colton’s visit to Heaven was real. That’s why I take serious issue with it.

I don’t know what Colton saw. And neither does anyone else. Furthermore, Colton doesn’t know what he saw. Yes, he’s convinced that he went to Heaven. But this clearly is not true. The Bible makes it clear that “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man” (John 3:13, NASB). Proverbs 30:4 says, “Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!” (NASB).

Also, the Bible says clearly that “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18, NLT; cf. 1 John 4:12; Exod. 33:20). John wrote these verses after A.D. 90, probably when no one but he had seen Jesus (all the others who had probably had already died). It’s clear that he is excepting himself. He did see Jesus. Jesus is God, and John clearly spent a lot of time with Jesus.

I will also add that I do not automatically assume that what the boy saw was from the Devil. It may have been. The fact that he talked about his great-grandfather and lost sister could easily be a demonic deception. Do you think Satan didn’t know these people? Satan also has access to Heaven (Job 2:1). It is possible that he knows certain individuals who are in Heaven. Again, I’m not saying Colton’s experience was definitely demonic. But it certainly could have been.

In 2 Cor. 12:1-4, Paul talks about a man (ostensibly himself) who had a vision of Heaven. Paul says that this man “was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (NASB). So apparently Colton is the exception. He speaks voluminously on the subject of Heaven. John went to Heaven too, but that was clearly a vision. Rev. 4:2 says, “Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne” (NASB). John wasn’t actually there. He was there in the Spirit (or a spirit). Finally, 1 Timothy 6:16 says that Christ “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (NASB). Scripture is clear.

You are free to disagree with me, and many have. I’ve actually been surprised at how many Christians say that this boy could have gone to Heaven. Again, no he couldn’t have. Look at the biblical evidence. This isn’t me saying he couldn’t and didn’t go; it’s God saying he couldn’t and didn’t go. So if you disagree, I would like to hear your biblical arguments for why you believe that.

Yes, Heaven is for real. I know that because I have faith in God and his Word, not because somebody tells me s/he’s been there.

“God has reserved a priceless inheritance for his children. It is kept in heaven for you, pure and undefiled, beyond the reach of change and decay” (1 Pet. 1:4, NLT).

Noah

Noah: My Take (spoilers alert)

Many of you probably know that I recently saw the movie Noah. Some of you take issue with that, and I’m well aware of that. I can’t say I completely enjoyed the movie, but I can say there are good things about it and bad things. I will deal with each here.

First the good. Noah is bigger than life. Truly an epic presentation. And it should be. Even though the story of Noah doesn’t occupy much space in Scripture, it is a very important story. Just as important as Adam and Eve.

It is very clear in the movie that mankind is going to be destroyed by a deluge because of their sin. Noah talks about that a lot. I’ve read some comments from reviewers that there is a big environmental push in the movie, that the sin of mankind was in not being environmentally conscious. That’s not true at all. The only thing I saw was a comment that Noah made that could be taken as meaning that mankind was being punished for sinning against the earth. But the statement could also be taken as meaning that mankind had sinned, period.

The Bible says that not only did rain fall, but there were also waters under the ground that broke upon the earth. (Gen. 7:11). This is clearly seen in the movie.

There are a couple flashback scenes of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve taking the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, also called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:3; 2:17). The fruit clearly does not look like an apple. I’m glad, because many people think it was an apple. It could have been, but the Bible doesn’t say it was. It just says it was fruit (Gen. 3:6).

The ark looks like an ark. It is a huge structure, very capable of holding many animals. And it’s clear that there is pitch, or tar, in places on it (Gen. 6:14).

They do show a raven scanning the earth but never finding a place to land. And later they show a dove with an olive twig in its beak (Gen. 8:11). There is also a rainbow at the very end of the movie, long after Noah and his family came off the ark. I don’t know when God sent the rainbow, but from Gen. 9:13 it was clearly after they came off the ark.

Methuselah is part of the movie. He is presented as Noah’s grandfather. This is accurate according to Gen. 5:26-28. And Methuselah dies in the flood. I don’t know if this is true or not. From the historical evidence, it is clear that Methuselah died in the year of the flood, but he may have died just prior to it.

Before the deluge, Noah goes to visit Methuselah. He gives Noah some advice, but it’s somewhat veiled. There is a scene later in which Methuselah heals Ila (Seth’s wife) of her barrenness. I don’t think that happened at all.

Now about what some are calling the “rock people.” There were no rock people. The rock creatures in the movie were fallen angels, not people at all. The movie explains how they became that way. They had tried to help Adam and Eve after they fell. God cursed them and made them into rock creatures. Okay, whatever. We don’t know what angels look like, other than the fact that they often appear like humans when they appear to humans. That doesn’t mean that’s what they always look like.

The biggest problem I had with the fallen angels was not their appearance. There were three issues: first, they helped humans. No, fallen angels, like Satan, want to destroy humans. They won’t ever help people. Second, when Noah is building his ark, they help him build it. No, that would never happen. See point one. Third, just before the floods came, they start breaking apart from their rock formations and their spirit goes upward, ostensibly to Heaven. I don’t know where they went, but it was not to the abode of God. They’re f-a-l-l-e-n. Sinful.

Another problem is why Ham and Japheth do not have wives. For whatever reason, Noah doesn’t permit it. Um, the Bible makes clear that there were 8 people on the ark (Gen. 7:7; 1 Pet. 3:20). At one point just before the rains take the ark away, Japheth is bringing a girl with him that he wants to take. She gets caught on a bear trap of sorts that Noah had set much earlier. Why he set it, I don’t know. But she’s caught in it, and a crowd runs over her, so she doesn’t get to go.

So when Seth’s wife has two baby girls (more on that later), what is that all about? Are they one day going to marry Ham and Japheth? They would have to, because there are no other humans on the earth after the flood waters recede. The movie doesn’t address that. I don’t know why Aronofsky wrote the absence of wives for Ham and Japheth into the script. Why not just let Ham and Japheth bring wives like Scripture says? I honestly think it makes Aronofsky look silly.

Another wrong fact: Tubal-Cain was a stowaway on the ark. No, he wasn’t. As I said before, there were eight people on the ark: Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives. Tubal-Cain gets killed while on the ark in the movie, so he doesn’t survive to the new world, but still, it’s inaccurate.

About Tubal-Cain: they do portray him pretty accurately. He is a metal worker (Gen. 4:22). Nothing about him being a king in the Bible or even that he was an enemy of Noah, but he’s the king of the land in the movie and Noah’s archenemy.

During the battle between Tubal-Cain and Noah, something hits the boat (I don’t recall how it all happened) and causes some damage. Water starts coming it. The boat is not in any danger of sinking, but it clearly is a problem. Did something like this happen? I don’t know. It could have. Scripture doesn’t say.

In the movie, Japheth looks to be about a teenager. I don’t think this is accurate. I think all the sons were grown men. It took a long time to build the ark. Some think it took 120 years to build it, based on Gen. 6:3. I don’t think that’s an accurate representation of what that verse teaches, but that’s what some people believe. They also had wives, which is another reason to believe they were grown men. Finally, Gen. 5:32 says Noah was 500 years old when he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In Gen. 7:6, he was 600 years old when the flood started. So his boys were 100 years old, clearly adults.

Before the deluge hits, some men on the earth kill and eat animals. Did this happen? I don’t think it’s likely, based on Gen. 9:3. But it’s hardly a serious issue for me.

The animals come to the ark. Noah doesn’t have to go get them. That doesn’t appear to be accurate according to Gen. 6:19; 6:2. These verses say that Noah was to “bring” and “take” the animals. Also, the first animals that come are birds. Hundreds and hundreds of them. I don’t know how many birds were on the ark, but the Bible clearly says that Noah was to take “kinds” (Gen. 6:20) of birds and animals. In the movie, there was a raven and a dove (true according to Gen. 8:7 and 11, so those clearly are two different kinds). But I don’t think he took every dog there is. I think he took 2 (or maybe 7; Gen. 7:2) dogs and no more. Then when the snakes came, again there were hundreds and hundreds. But to be accurate, there should be only the separate kinds of snakes. I’m not a biologist, so I don’t know the breakdown of the kinds.

There are a couple weird scenes where Noah wraps a snakeskin around his arm. Some reviewers have tried to point out that this is a form of Gnosticism. If so, it is lost on pretty much everyone. It’s not clear in the movie what the purpose of the snakeskin is for. I took it to mean mankind’s conquering of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. To be fair, Adam didn’t conquer the serpent. But there is a prophecy that the Messiah would (Gen. 3:15).

Back to the daughters of Seth and his wife (Ila). There’s nothing in the Bible about any children being born on the ark. I don’t think that happened. In Gen. 9:1, after the family leaves the ark, God tells them to be fruitful and multiply, which seems to mean it they hadn’t been fruitful yet.. But the bigger issue is why Noah wanted to kill the babies. Noah makes it clear that everyone is evil, including him and his family. And he’s right. The Bible makes clear that there is no one who is righteous (Rom. 3:10). But Noah takes that a bit far. He thinks that the only people God intended to save are him, his wife, his sons, and his adopted daughter (who married Seth). So he reasons that these children must die. He ends up not killing them, but it eventually leads to an estrangement from his wife. No evidence of that in Scripture.

In one of the last scenes of the movie, Noah is seen naked on the beach. Ham sees his father, which is what the Bible says happened (Gen. 9:22). But then the Bible says that Seth and Japheth walked backwards with a robe to cover their father. In the movie, this is done by Seth and his wife (Ila) (Gen. 9:23). In the movie, Noah gets upset, but he doesn’t curse Ham’s descendants, as the Bible says happened (Gen. 9:25). Also, there is some evidence from some writers that what Ham did was have a sexual encounter with his father. The Bible doesn’t say, and I’d rather not speculate. See http://community .beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22320721/Is_it_true_that_Noah_had_sex_with_a_man for one person’s opinion.

So that’s my take on it. In some respects, it’s good. But in others, it’s highly inaccurate. But it’s not the Devil, which is how some people portray it. I’ve read that the director, Darren Aronofsky, has said that this is the most unbiblical movie ever made. I’m not sure if that’s true, but I doubt it. There’s a lot of accurate information in this movie. Is it perfect? Of course not. It wouldn’t be perfect if you or I made it, either.

I welcome your comments, but I would please ask you to state whether you have seen the movie, and if you have not, whether you intend to. And be aware that if you haven’t seen it and don’t plan to, your opinion is based on the opinions of others and not based on the facts of the movie.

EXPELLED: The Review

EXPELLED: The Review

It's been a while since the movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed came out (2008), but it is still a great film. You must see this movie.

The beginning shows black and white film clips of post-World War II Germany. Workers are building the Berlin Wall. It soon becomes apparent that the analogy is to a wall in the academic community. Just as the Communists put up a wall to prevent their subjects from leaving East Berlin, so the academics have put a wall around the doctrine of Darwinian Evolution. No other viewpoint is allowed in, and anyone who so much as questions Darwinism is cast out.

Ben Stein talks to many people in the film. Some are proponents of Darwinian Evolution, some are decidedly against evolution. The first man he talks to is neither. But he had the audacity to use the term “Intelligent Design” in one of his papers. He worked for the Smithsonian Institute. But not any longer.

Other examples were given of eminent professors who were fired, even a tenured one who lost funding for questioning evolution. These people weren’t Bible-thumpers at all. But they had the audacity to point out that some intelligence may have played a part in the origin of life on this planet.

You will be glad to know that John Lennox is in it. You may recall hearing a debate he did some time ago against Richard Dawkins (who is also in the film). Dr. Lennox is as eloquent as ever. Dr. Dawkins is eloquent too, but he has an ax to grind against religion. To his credit, he didn’t call names. Another evolutionist did refer to people of faith as “idiots.” Nothing like a good ad hominem argument to show how insecure you really are about your position.

This is not a Christian film. It’s not advocating that a person watching it has to believe in Intelligent Design or Biblical Creationism or anything else. It is simply pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of the academic community, which claims to promote free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Just as long as those ideas don’t question Darwinism. Those professors who dare question evolution—no matter how esteemed they are—will be gone quite soon.

This film is about freedom. We live in a great country. One thing that has made this country great is the fact that we can question ideas. It’s not a crime to debate ideas. Well, unless you teach in a secular university.

Yes, you must see this film.

Bachelor's Bounty

Bachelor’s Bounty

by Grace S. Richmond

This is a fantastic book. It talks about Scott Farrington, a bachelor who has just bought a rather run-down home in the small village of Derwent, Connecticut. In this small town, talk runs rampant. Who is this newcomer? Scott makes friends quickly, especially with the neighbors, Barbara Keane and her father, Jeremiah. They will prove useful to him in later days when he decides to buy the town's weekly newspaper.

A dear friend, Caroline Lenhart, has just dropped off her young son, John, with Scott. She is going jaunting over Europe. Scott is a bit taken aback by this, but since her late husband, John, was a dear friend, he obliges her. They get along famously. After a few letters between them, Caroline shows up at his door not feeling well. Scott calls a doctor and a nurse to care for her. Caroline wants Scott to talk to her, but he won't. Scott is definitely interested in her, but he doesn't think now is the time.

Then Barbara's father dies. This is quite a blow, for he had worked at Scott's newspaper. Barbara decides to go back to Oxford, England, where her father was from. Scott can't bear for her to leave. Wait, is he now interested in Barbara? What happened to Caroline? You'll have to read it to find out.

I am amazed at how readable this book is. It was written in 1932. It is a good book for all ages, although some of the language has changed. Make love to someone means something entirely different today than it meant in 1932. I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for an enjoyable novel.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Exodus: Gods and Kings

I've decided to start listing movie reviews on my blog. These reviews will be pretty much limited to just biblical movies. I will also eventually post some I've done reviews of in the past. Now about the recent film Exodus: Gods and Kings:

This has to be the absolute worst Bible movie I’ve ever seen. Very little of it resembled the story in the book of Exodus. But I like to be positive, so I’ll start with what I liked about the movie.

First, it shows the pyramids. That is true. The pyramids were in Egypt long before the Israelites ever showed up.

The scenes are fantastic. Very authentic. From the costumes to the chariots, it all looks like 1500 B.C.

That brings me to my first complaint. At the beginning of the movie, they date this as 1300 B.C.E. That is not possible for several reasons. First, that is a liberal date. Liberals date the Exodus as taking place in the 1200s, the 13th century. They do this because of the Bible’s mention of Pithom and Ramses. Exodus 1:11 says that “And they [the Israelite slaves] built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.” There was a pharaoh named Rameses, but that’s not what this verse is talking about. It’s talking about the names of cities. You will not find one conservative scholar who uses the 13th century date for the Exodus. They all give the date as around 1445 B.C.

Second, the Bible makes clear how long ago the Exodus occurred. If you look at Genesis 47:27, it tells when the Israelites first came to Egypt. This was during the lifetime of Joseph. If the date of the Exodus was 1445 B.C., that would make the date in Genesis about 1875 B.C., since it mentions 430 years. We know when Abraham lived (around 2000 B.C., and Joseph was a little while later, so 1875 B.C. would be accurate.

Also, 1 Kings 6:1 tells us another date that tells us when the Exodus occurred. It says, “It was in midspring, during the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, that he began the construction of the Temple of the LORD. This was 480 years after the people of Israel were delivered from their slavery in the land of Egypt” (NLT). We know when Solomon lived because we know when David lived. Solomon lived sometime in the 10th century (the 900s). If you count back from say 965 (a reasonable date), you come to 1445 B.C. And that is when it happened.

You also do not need to say it was B.C.E. That stands for “before the common [Christian] era.” But that is offensive to Christians. Aren’t they trying to make money off Christians with this film?

In a couple places, the Israelites talk about not forgetting their homeland and that they are praying to see Canaan again. But they had never seen it in the first place.

At the beginning of the movie, we see Moses as a young adult in the home of Pharaoh. He is with his brother Rameses (spelled Ramses on IMDB). Moses and Rameses get along pretty well. But after the pharaoh dies and Rameses becomes the new pharaoh, things change. He calls in Miriam to question her about her relationship with Moses. He threatens to cut off her arm if she won’t tell the truth. Moses sticks up for his sister and tries to keep their secret. Nothing about this in the Bible. Didn’t happen.

At one point, Moses and Rameses are talking about the meaning of Israel. Rameses says it means “he who struggles with God.” Moses corrects him and says it means “he who wrestles with God.” Actually, it means “God prevails,” but is there a real semantic difference between struggling and wrestling?

The Bible makes clear that Moses had killed one of the Egyptian taskmasters, and when Pharaoh found out about it, he wanted to kill Moses (see Exod. 2:12-15). But that’s not what happens in the movie. Moses is visiting some Israelites, and when he comes out of the dwelling where they were, some men try to attack him. Moses kills one and another is injured. When pharaoh (Rameses) finds out, he banishes Moses from Egypt. That’s just silly. The pharaoh would have killed him. Period.

When Moses is wandering in the desert, he meets up with the woman who will become his wife (Zipporah). She is with her sisters watering their flocks at the well. Some men come along with their flocks and tell these women to get lost. Moses stands up to them and defends them. He chases these men off. That did happen (Exod. 2:16-17). So I will give credit for that. This is the first of only two accurate events in the film.

There is a scene of the burning bush, although you don’t know that this is what it is. You can’t tell that the bush isn’t really burning. But God doesn’t speak to Moses from the bush. He reveals himself as a 9-year-old boy. Really? Where did that come from?

When Moses decides to obey God and go back to Egypt to lead his people to the Promised Land, he leaves his wife and son at home. I doubt this happened. Zipporah (Moses’ wife) is not happy about this.

When Moses talks to the Israelites, he often talks to Nun, the father of Joshua. I’m sure he was a godly man, but we have no record in the Bible of anything he ever said to Moses or anyone else.

When Moses gets to Egypt, he goes in the royal horse stable. Pharaoh is there, and Moses draws his sword and threatens him. Didn’t happen. Not in the Bible.

The scenes with the plagues are really a piece of work. At no time does Moses ever confront the pharaoh and tell him that God wants him to let his people go. The order of the plagues is somewhat biblical. They have blood, frogs, flies, boils, death of animals, hail, darkness, and death of the firstborn.

The actual biblical order is blood, frogs, gnats, flies, livestock (plague), boils, hail, locusts, darkness, firstborn. So it appears that they combine the gnats and the flies. And they switch the boils and the animals. The darkness really isn’t that dark. The boils last until the end of the movie, which is rather odd. It doesn’t say, but it seems that like the other plagues, the boils came to an end.

In the plague of blood, the way the Nile becomes blood is very strange. Men are fishing on the Nile when many crocs (or maybe alligators?) attack them. So that’s where the blood comes from. Nothing miraculous about that.

At one point Moses complains to God that these plagues are hurting the Israelites too. But that’s not accurate. In Exodus 8:22 says, “But it will be very different in the land of Goshen, where the Israelites live. No flies will be found there” (NLT; see also 9:4; 10:23 Was that true of all the plagues? Maybe. It seems that perhaps some of the plagues did affect the Israelites but not all did.

When God tells Moses that he will kill the firstborn, Moses gets angry and says he won’t have anything to do with that. Sorry, that absolutely didn’t happen. Moses was on God’s side.

Moses does tell Israel to sacrifice a lamb and put its blood over their doors. That is biblical, so I will give credit for that. Moses also tells Pharaoh that not a single Israelite boy died. Only the second and third accurate events in the film.

When Israel finally crossed the Red Sea, some odd things happen. First of all, the sea wasn’t dry ground. But the Bible makes it clear that they crossed on dry ground (Exod. 14:16, 21-22).

I’m almost certain that in the movie they said that 400,000 Israelites left Egypt. IMDB says 600,000. See Numb. 1:46. The number of men 20 years old or older was 603,550. That didn’t include the Levites or the women and children. There were probably at least 2 million people who left Egypt.

When the waters of the Red Sea finally came back over the Egyptian army, that water killed the army, but not Pharaoh or Moses. How did they survive? That’s just silly.

There was too much in this film that was not accurate to give it any good rating. I gave it one star out of ten on IMDB.com. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t let the Bible speak for itself. Well, I suppose I do. The makers of this film believe the Bible is all make believe, so they don’t have a problem making their own set of “facts” in their version of what they think happened.