Friday, November 28, 2025

Great Lakes Wind, Waves, and Moses?

Great Lakes Wind, Waves, and Moses?

 Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 28, 2025 (Donate)

The Great Lakes

For those paying attention, there has been some crazy wind and gales hitting the Great Lakes, which are in the northern part of the contiguous USA. Some of the predictions were incredible to say the least, where some suggested waves over 20 feet, others were suggesting and reporting much higher. Consider this local news station situated near the Great Lakes:

 

Screenshot: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1416593713158615&set=a.295800938571237&type=3&from_lookaside=1

They suggested some wind-caused waves could reach into the 30-foot range and almost peaking at 40 feet in Lake Michigan. With buoy data and actual sightings, there were immense wave action regardless. I’ve still not seen what the final reported maximum height was in Lake Michigan.

Lake Erie, a relatively shallow Great Lake compared to the others, had much of the water being pushed by wind action to form large waves at the other end of the Lake. Reports were about 16 feet waves with 60 mph wind gusts.


Screenshot from meteorologist Ryan Wichman, 2025

While most people were focused on the waves and the power they possessed, photos began to emerged from meteorologists on Facebook that showed a grim picture of a lake without water!




Screenshots from meteorologist Chris Vickers, 2025

As the water was pushed by the wind to generate these huge waves on one side of the lake, the other side of the lake essentially lost its water. This exposed the bottom of the lake. Estimates were that it was at least 6 feet of water that was missing—which is a mind-boggling amount. 

Another Screenshot of Lake Erie, 2025


Screenshot from meteorologist Dan Smith, 2025

Theological Considerations

When reading Scripture, we can’t help but fathom the wind-caused waves by the power of God that opened the sea for Moses and the Israelites through which they walked. Some scoff at this event…but shouldn’t.

It’s an all-too-easy a task for an all-powerful God to split open the sea—considering God upholds all things into existence and knows the thoughts of all people at all times.

Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided. (Exodus 14:21, NKJV)

Yet, God reveals that He used wind to do this miraculous thing (see also Exodus 15:10). Jesus Christ, the Son of God who took on flesh, controlled the wind, waves, and storm as one might recall (Mark 4:37-41).

God also used wind during the Flood of Noah’s day (e.g., Genesis 8:1). So having God control the wind to do His bidding, again, is not that hard.

What was fascinating is that we see smaller scale occurrences of this happening naturally—and the Great Lakes wind and wave action gives us a taste of the power that wind can have on waves and the movement of water. At only 60 mph wind gusts, 6 feet of water vanished from a large Great Lake on one side of it.

With this in mind, is not too hard to see the hand of God using wind to open the door across the sea. I hope this news item is something that helps stimulate your mind to think deeper about the things of God in the Bible, in this case the crossing of the Red Sea with Moses. 

God saved the Israelites that day, and now offers eternal salvation through the blood of His Son. If you don't know what that means, please take a few moments and read this article about the Good News of Jesus Christ. 

 

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

 

 

 

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Loyalty Oaths: The US Pledge of Allegiance

Loyalty Oaths: The US Pledge of Allegiance

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 25, 2025 (Donate)

The pledge of allegiance is a loyalty oath. Loyalty oaths, pledges, and covenants are nothing new, but incredibly ancient. The Pledge of Allegiance to the US Flag, in contrast, is relatively new. 

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

But then again, the USA is still relatively new compared to ancient nations like Greece, India, and Egypt (though their governments have changed many times). In our 250 years, our governmental system changed too (e.g., from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution).   

Loyalty Oaths In Scripture

There is a scriptural basis for loyalty oaths. Throughout the 66 books of the Bible, several clear examples of loyalty oaths and pledges appear. These include a form of “national pledges” but primarily deal with solemn declarations of allegiance to God, His covenant, His law, His king, or His appointed leaders.

These pledges or oaths appear in both the Old and New Testaments and often function as covenantal commitments, sworn responsibilities, or declarations of fidelity. Here are the major examples and passages:

Covenant Oaths To The Lord (God Himself)

The most basic biblical loyalty declarations are covenant oaths affirming allegiance to God. In Exodus 24:3–8 (NKJV), Israel agrees to obey the commandments God gave through Moses, saying,

“All the words which the LORD has said we will do.”

Moses then seals this oath with blood, marking it as a binding covenant pledge.

A similar national commitment appears in Joshua 24. After recounting God’s faithfulness, Joshua challenges the nation to choose whom they will serve. The people reply three separate times that they will serve the Lord alone (Joshua 24:16–24), forming a collective pledge of loyalty to God. This is one of the clearest biblical parallels to a national oath.

Loyalty Oaths To Kings

Citizens of Israel pledged loyalty to King David and his successors. In 1 Chronicles 29:23–24, when Solomon becomes king, “all Israel obeyed him,” and the leaders “submitted themselves to King Solomon,” which in context includes formal oaths of allegiance.

King David; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (GROK)

Earlier, when David was crowned at Hebron, the elders of Israel entered into a covenant with him (2 Samuel 5:1–3), an act that involved sworn loyalty. David himself swore loyalty to King Saul (his father-in-law and God’s anointed (1 Samuel 24:6, 10; 26:9, 23)), even though Saul, in his sinful disobedience, sought to kill him.

Personal Oath

Individuals also swore loyalty to those God appointed. Ruth pledged lifelong loyalty to Naomi and Naomi’s God, declaring,

“Where you go, I will go… your people shall be my people, and your God, my God” (Ruth 1:16–17).

Though personal, this is a profound covenantal oath involving allegiance to God. Another example is found in 1 Samuel 3:17–18, where Samuel is bound by Eli to swear truthfully before the Lord. Elisha also pledges loyalty to Elijah, saying,

As the LORD lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you!” (2 Kings 2:2, NKJV).

National Oath

When kings led spiritual reforms, the people renewed their covenant allegiance through formal pledges. Under King Asa,

Then they took an oath before the LORD with a loud voice, with shouting and trumpets and rams’ horns. And all Judah rejoiced at the oath, for they had sworn with all their heart and sought Him with all their soul; and He was found by them, and the LORD gave them rest all around. (2 Chronicles 15:14-15, NKJV)

This included an oath and public celebration.

Post-Exile Oath

After the Babylonian exile, Israel once again swore formal allegiance to God’s law. Nehemiah 9–10 records the people entering “a sure covenant” in writing and “taking an oath” to obey God’s commandments and statutes (Nehemiah 10:28–31). This is one of the most detailed and explicit covenant oaths in Scripture.

New Testament Oath Of Allegiance To Christ

While the New Testament avoids formal political-style oaths to earthly rulers, early Christians pledged exclusive loyalty to Christ as Lord. Romans 10:9 (“confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus”) and 1 Corinthians 12:3 (“no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit”) function as verbal declarations of allegiance to the risen King.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Baptism itself serves as a public pledge of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). These were particularly significant because Christians refused the Roman loyalty oath declaring “Caesar is Lord.”

The Bible has numerous loyalty oaths (I only touched on some): national oaths, covenantal pledges, personal oaths, and oaths of Christ’s lordship. These function as binding declarations of allegiance and obedience, showing that proper pledges of loyalty are biblical.

Loyalty Oaths Historically

Loyalty oaths and pledges in Western countries have deep historical roots subsequent to biblical history. They are far older than the modern the American Pledge of Allegiance. Loyalty oaths abound in ancient, medieval, and early modern legal systems as a way to bind citizens, soldiers, or officials to the state, monarch, or constitution.

Rome

In ancient Rome, for example, soldiers swore the sacramentum militare, an oath of loyalty (in Latin) to the Roman emperor and obedience to military commands. This military oath, which was already established by the first century BC, possibly served as a model for later Western loyalty pledges.

Roman Army; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Germany

In early medieval Europe, Germanic tribes and feudal systems required vassals to swear personal oaths to their lords, binding them to military and political allegiance. These oaths were often religious being sworn before God thereby having a sacred obligation. As centralized kingdoms grew, national loyalty oaths developed especially with so many wars, traitors, and spies.

Germany also has a long oath tradition rooted in the medieval Holy Roman Empire, in which officials swore loyalty to the emperor or local rulers. In the nineteenth century, with the rise of the German Empire under Prussia, soldiers and officials swore allegiance to the Kaiser (ruler/emperor).

US Forces under Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower conquer Nazi Germany in WWII; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

In modern times, the Nazi regime infamously replaced traditional state oaths with personal loyalty directly to Adolf Hitler (the Führereid) starting in 1934, an example of how oaths can be manipulated for authoritarian purposes. After World War II, West Germany required oaths to the constitution and democratic order rather than any leader.

England

In England, loyalty oaths go back at least to the reign of Henry II in the AD 1100s, when commoners were required to swear allegiance against traitors. One major turning point was the Oath of Supremacy (1534), instituted under Henry VIII, requiring subjects and clergy to acknowledge the king as head of the Church of England.

Refusal was considered treason, and prominent leaders like Sir Thomas More were executed for opposing it. After the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, the 1689 Bill of Rights renewed the requirement for oaths affirming loyalty to the monarch and Protestant succession. These oaths continued to develop into the modern “Oath of Allegiance,” still taken today by public officials, members of Parliament, and naturalized citizens.

France

In France, loyalty oaths can be traced to the medieval feudal period but became especially prominent during the French Revolution. The 1791 Constitution required a serment civique (civic oath) affirming loyalty to the nation, the law, and the king, later replaced by oaths pledging fidelity to the Republic.

Clergy were also compelled to swear loyalty to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and that caused major divisions within the church. Subsequent French regimes—Napoleonic, Bourbon, republican, etc.—each required various forms of loyalty declarations, often shifting with political change.

Other Western Nations

Other Western nations developed similar practices. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand inherited British-style oaths of allegiance to the Crown, later updated to reflect constitutional norms.

Switzerland has long required military oaths tied to its confederation, while the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries maintain constitutional oaths for officials, judges, and monarchs. Many modern European pledges now emphasize loyalty to a constitution, democracy, or human rights rather than to a particular ruler.

Overall, Western loyalty oaths extend back nearly two millennia in military forms and well over a thousand years in civic and political forms. While the content and focus have changed—shifting from loyalty to kings, to nations, to constitutions—the tradition of binding public commitment through an oath or pledge was a common act in Western history. Which brings me to the United States (I know that was a long introduction!)

The USA Pledge of Allegiance

All this history brings me to the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States. Its specific history begins in the late 1880s after the Civil War. It was meant to encourage national unity and civic education among schoolchildren (especially those migrating here) and especially after war torn times as love for a nation wanes.

One of the earliest school pledges was the Balch pledge, authored in 1887 by Rear Admiral George Balch—a Civil War veteran. Balch, wanting to help immigrant children mix into American civic life, crafted a pledge that emphasized loyalty to the flag and the principles of the republic. His version read:

“We give our heads and hearts to God and our country; one country, one language, one flag.”

This pledge was adopted by many public schools and patriotic organizations, but its specific purpose eventually left educators and civic leaders wanting a more universal and national form of expression.

In 1892, Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister writing for The Youth’s Companion, composed what became known as the Bellamy Pledge. Bellamy wrote it for the national public school celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s arrival in 1492. His original wording was:

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Bellamy intended the pledge to express loyalty to the Constitution Republic and like Balch having a unity of the nation after the Civil War—as the Civil War prevented the nation from being divided. As you might be able to tell, the original wording did not include “the United States of America”, “under God”, and it also said “my flag”.  

As the pledge gained nationwide acceptance among schools and civic groups, revisions appeared to clarify its language. In 1923, during a National Flag Conference, the phrase “my Flag” was changed to “the Flag of the United States” to avoid confusion among immigrants who might think it referred to their country of origin.

In 1924, the wording was refined again to “the Flag of the United States of America,” creating the version that remained standard for the next three decades.

The most significant revisited change came in 1954 during the Cold War and about a decade after WWII. Motivated by concerns over atheistic communism and previous atheistic Nazi beliefs, US Congress added the words “under God” after “one nation.” This was a return to the godly form that was originally in the Balch pledge that was neglected for far too long. It drew the distinction that the US was founded upon and still stood on a godly heritage as opposed to the communistic trend in some places.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Christian President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was victorious militarily in WWII in Europe supported the addition, stating that it would reaffirm the spiritual foundations of the nation. It returned to a godly heritage as Balch’s pledge originally intended.

With this change, the Pledge of Allegiance reached its final and current form:

 “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Despite these changes, the pledge has consistently served as a statement of national loyalty and shared American ideals. And continues today. 

Note the importance of a pledge—both historical and today—those in the USA who refuse to honor and affirm The Pledge of Allegiance to the USA are not loyal to the USA but to a foreign nations and influence.

Post-Script: Two More Popular Pledges of Allegiance

The US Pledge is still said in many classrooms across the nation and even many churches during special occasions as well. Christians also have a Pledge of Allegiance to the Christian Flag (a couple of early variants and a final revised one that is the most common) and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Bible (which is basically a merging of some Bible verses).

Flags with the Bible; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

These are often used in Christian schools, VBS, or churches alongside the US Pledge of Allegiance. For your reference, they are printed below:

Early Christian Flag Pledge (by Lynn Harold Hough)

“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Savior for whose kingdom it stands; one brotherhood uniting all mankind in service and love.”

First Revised Version:

“I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior, for whose Kingdom it stand, one faith, uniting all Christians in service and love.”

Final Revised version:

“I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty to all who believe.”

Pledge to the Bible (based largely on Psalm 119:11 and Psalm 119:105)

“I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God’s Holy Word. I will make it a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path, and will hide its words in my heart that I might not sin against God.”

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council. 

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

 

 

Monday, November 24, 2025

The Religious Views Of The Founding Signers

The Religious Views Of The Founding Signers

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 24, 2025 (Donate)

The Signers And Their Local Denomination

Most of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were clearly members of Christian churches (Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Quaker, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.) and one was a Roman Catholic. No signer ever blatantly denied Christ or Scripture.

Several signers didn’t write much on their personal understanding of biblical matters or if they did, it hasn’t survived. Nonetheless, they were members of certain churches for their life’s duration and thus, we can know what they largely believed by that.

Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia, PA where the Continental Congress held sessions in 1775; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Rarely, especially in that age, would someone be an active member of a local Christian church as a Hindu, pagan, atheist and so on! Tallied below are the religious affiliation of the signers.

·       New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett – Congregationalist
William Whipple – Congregationalist
Matthew Thornton – Presbyterian

·       Massachusetts

John Hancock – Congregationalist
Samuel Adams – Congregationalist; wrote: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient.” (Letter to James Warren, 1775)
John Adams – Congregationalist (later Unitarian); wrote extensively of Providence: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” (Letter to Jefferson, June 28, 1813)
Robert Treat Paine – Congregationalist
Elbridge Gerry – Congregationalist

·       Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins – Quaker
William Ellery – Congregationalist

·       Connecticut

Roger Sherman – Congregationalist; helped draft the Doctrinal Creed of Yale; wrote: “I believe that there is one only living and true God... and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are a revelation from God.” (Sherman Manuscript Confession)
Samuel Huntington – Congregationalist
William Williams – Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott – Congregationalist

·       New York

William Floyd – Presbyterian
Philip Livingston – Presbyterian
Francis Lewis – Presbyterian
Lewis Morris – Episcopalian

·       New Jersey

Richard Stockton – Presbyterian
John Witherspoon – Presbyterian minister; signed as “Rev. John Witherspoon” and wrote: “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” (Sermon, 1776)
Francis Hopkinson – Episcopalian; church music composer
John Hart – Baptist
Abraham Clark – Presbyterian

·       Pennsylvania

Robert Morris – Episcopalian
Benjamin Rush – Presbyterian
Benjamin Franklin – Raised Presbyterian; wrote: “God governs in the affairs of men.” (Speech at Constitutional Convention, 1787)
John Morton – Lutheran
George Clymer – Episcopalian
James Smith – Presbyterian
George Taylor – Episcopalian
James Wilson – Presbyterian
George Ross – Episcopalian

·       Delaware

Caesar Rodney – Episcopalian
George Read – Episcopalian
Thomas McKean – Presbyterian

·       Maryland

Samuel Chase – Episcopalian
William Paca – Episcopalian
Thomas Stone – Episcopalian
Charles Carroll of Carrollton – Roman Catholic; wrote: “On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation.” (Carroll letter, 1825)

·       Virginia

George Wythe – Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee – Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson – Episcopalian for a time (theologically unorthodox, but Christian by identification); wrote: “God who gave us life gave us liberty.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII)
Benjamin Harrison – Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. – Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee – Episcopalian
Carter Braxton – Episcopalian
George Read – Episcopalian

·       North Carolina

William Hooper – Episcopalian
Joseph Hewes – Quaker (returned to Anglican fellowship near death)
John Penn – Episcopalian

·       South Carolina

Edward Rutledge – Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. – Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. – Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton – Episcopalian

·       Georgia

Button Gwinnett – Congregationalist
Lyman Hall – Congregationalist minister
George Walton – Episcopalian

The Big Three

Though some say six, there are definitely three that resisted orthodox teachings on Christ and His deity. Naturally, these are John Adams (unitarian), Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. They were resistant to the full teachings of Scripture, yet respected the Bible and often drew from it or openly borrowed from the Word of God. All acknowledged the God of the Bible, whether they ever surrendered to Christ is unknown—likely not.

Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

These men questioned certain doctrines, but never denied Christ’s existence, never denied God’s reality, and often affirmed biblical morality and Providence which was predicated on the Bible. 

Take Jefferson for instance. He believed in a form of “god” and believed this “god” to be just and often quoted from the New Testament while denying it was the true revelation from God.

But here in lies the problem. How would he know anything about the existence of “a god”, if the Bible is not a revelation from the God; how would he know that this alleged “god” of his was just? Knowing anything about God is predicated on God's revelation of Himself and knowing that God is just comes from that same revelation?

Jefferson absolutely faced this unsurmountable philosophical problem—and his entire religious system depends on rejecting biblical revelation while still trying to claim knowledge of God. This places him in a self-contradictory position when examined carefully. Thus, it is self-refuting.

Jefferson thought humans could know:

·       that “a god” exists

·       that “a god” is moral

·       that “a god” is just

·       that “a god” judges nations

·       that “a god” created moral law

·       that “a god” can be appealed to

Yet, without this alleged “god” revealing that to us, one can’t know any of it. This form of “natural religion”, that man can reason it on his own, is purely arbitrary and unsupportable logically.

Some have suggested that Jefferson’s belief was deism, however, in deism, “a god” is hands off and this alleged “god” cannot be known because “it” doesn’t reveal anything. So, you can’t know if this “god” exists or that “it” would be moral, just, and judge! This supposed “god” definitely cannot be appealed to because a deistic “god’ doesn’t act in the affairs of man. See the logical inconsistencies? Without revelation:

·       You cannot know if your “god” is just

·       You cannot know if your “god” cares about morality

·       You cannot know if your “god” rewards virtue

·       You cannot know if your “god” judges nations

·       You cannot know if your “god” is personal

·       You cannot even know if your “god” is one

·       You cannot even know if your “god” uses male pronouns!

These things are not deducible from reason alone. Jefferson arbitrarily assumed them (the reality is that he borrowed them from the Bible), but he could not ground them or have any basis for them within his own system of belief. These are fatal inconsistencies for his worldview.

Conclusion

Did you (the readers) notice the point though? Almost all the signers were blatant Christians. Even non-signers like George Washington was devout in his faith (e.g., consider his support of the John Brown Self-Interpreting Bible now known largely as the Washington Bible). And yet, we spent so much time talking about the compromised signers—like Jefferson or Franklin).

The fact is that most signers were Bible believers and followers of Christ and faithful to their local denomination. Even these others like John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, often borrowed from the Bible and appealed to it without hesitation, even though their hearts weren’t with the Christ of the Bible.

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council. 

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Friday, November 21, 2025

Chromosome 2 Fusion?

Chromosome 2 Fusion? 

(Semi-Technical)

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 21, 2025 (Donate)

Introduction

God created apes on Day 6 and man distinctly different on Day 6. The evolutionary religion doesn’t believe God on this, but have man evolving from great apes. As genetic studies and knowledge grew there was a new problem for the evolutionists.

Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs of chromosomes), while great apes have 48 (24 pairs of chromosomes). This is what we expected if God created man and apes distinctly. But in the evolutionary framework, they needed to figure out how, if humans evolved from the ape-like ancestors, did man arrive at 46?

This is where the evolutionary storytelling begins. Because two ape chromosomes are “somewhat” similar in structure and gene order to human chromosome 2, evolutionists proposed that these two chromosomes fused in a common ancestor. They even renamed these chromosomes in apes (2A and 2B). Thus, the fusion idea was suggested to explain the chromosome number difference while maintaining an evolutionary model of shared ancestry.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Creationist Researchers Did Their Homework

The idea that human chromosome 2 formed through the fusion of two ancestral ape-like chromosomes has been presented as strong evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes like chimpanzees. However, the claim is not not that good when you look closely at the observable genomic evidence, particularly the alleged telomere–telomere fusion site, the supposed remnant centromere, and the functional genetic features found in the region.

I stand with creationists researchers who maintain that the fusion model relies heavily on evolutionary assumptions and does not correspond well with the structural and biochemical expectations of chromosome biology.

Evolutionists believe that human chromosome 2 formed when two ape-like chromosomes fused end to end about 0.9 million years ago, leaving behind a relic centromere and head-to-head telomeric sequences. This has never been observed to occur nor has it been repeated; thus, it is a belief system based in the religion of evolutionary humanism.

Even so, there are millions of nucleotide differences, multiple gene-order differences, structural rearrangements, regulatory changes, centromere mismatches, and telomere-structure discrepancies between ape chromosomes 2A and 2B and human chromosome 2. Millions of genomic changes in 0.9 million years should throw up red flags even on the evolutionary side.

Evidence Analysis

The evolutionary conclusion is premature, poorly supported, and inconsistent with what is actually found in the genome. Our objections generally fall under several main problems: (1) the telomere issue, (2) the centromere issue, (3) functional DNA problems, and (4) assumptions built into evolutionary reasoning.

Telomeres

A telomere is a protective DNA sequence made of repeated patterns located at the ends of chromosomes to prevent damage during cell division.

A primary, and devastating, problem for the fusion conjecture concerns the telomeric sequences located at the proposed fusion site. A genuine end-to-end fusion of two chromosomes should contain a large block of intact telomeric repeats in a head-to-head orientation.

Instead, the region contains only a small, highly degenerated cluster of repeats that is far shorter and more disorganized than expected. These repeats are fragmented, mutated, and embedded within sequences not characteristic of functional or structural telomeres. Thus, the evolutionary prediction failed. This level of degradation is not consistent with a historic fusion event.

Centromere

A centromere is the central region of a chromosome where sister chromatids (one side of a chromosome) are held together and where spindle fibers attach during cell division.

During an alleged fusion event, there should be two centromeres from two different previous chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 doesn’t have that. So, evolutionists look and try to interpret particular regions to be a remnant or vestigial secondary centromere.

And of course, this alleged secondary centromere provides a second major point of contention. Evolutionists assert that human chromosome 2 retains a primary functional centromere and a second, vestigial centromere from one of the chromosomes that supposedly fused.

The problem is that this alleged vestigial centromere bears little resemblance to a true centromere, lacking:

·        the characteristic alpha satellite structure

·        epigenetic markers

·        specific sequence organization required for centromeric activity

What this means is that it isn’t a remnant centromere at all. The region displays only sparse repetitive content that does not match with the structure of known centromeres, refuting its identification as a functional remnant of a prior chromosomal structure.

Making matters worse, is that the evidence is not simply a genomic scar with useless information but contains functional DNA. Portions of the alleged fusion site overlap with regulatory regions and other genetic features that appear to play active roles in gene expression. In other words, it is not useless nor vestigial but proper working and fully functional genes!

From a design-based perspective, the presence of such function indicates that the region was never a meaningless leftover from a fusion event but an important and useful part of the original human genome architecture.

A Fusion Should Have Been Eliminated And Not Passed Along

In addition to sequence-based concerns, there is a huge biological challenge. This challenge has to do with fixing a broken chromosomal fusion event and then have it spread throughout a population. This is pure arbitrary storytelling.  

Chromosomal fusions often cause massive reproductive problems, like reduced fertility, due to mismatched chromosome pairing during meiosis. For a fused chromosome to spread throughout an ancestral population, multiple individuals, via dumb luck, would have needed to inherit and reproduce successfully with the same rare mutation. This scenario is just outrageous and speculative storytelling.

Evolutionary Framework Assumptions

The interpretive framework surrounding an alleged chromosome 2 fusion is influenced by a commitment to the evolutionary religion. Similarities between human and ape chromosomes are treated as evidence of ancestry rather than potentially reflecting common design.

Common design is rather a confirmation of a common designer, not ancestry. God, of course, being the Designer in this instance which is what we expect when we start with God’s Word as authoritative.  

Conclusion

When discrepancies arise—such as the degraded telomeric sequences or the lack of a recognizable secondary centromere—evolutionary decay is invoked as the explanation. This approach puts the arbitrary evolutionary assumptions into both the interpretation and the justification.

The chromosome 2 fusion argument does not withstand careful scrutiny. The fusion site lacks the intact telomeric signatures expected from a true chromosomal fusion, the supposed vestigial centromere fails to match the structural and epigenetic requirements of a centromere, the region contains functional DNA inconsistent with being a mutation-derived remnant, and the population-level feasibility of fixing such a fusion event remains questionable. These combined issues are a huge problem for the evolutionary camp.  Human chromosome 2 is best understood not as a product of ancient fusion but as a uniquely designed component of the human genome.

Recommended Reading:

·        Jeffrey P. Tomkins, October 16, 2013; Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 367–375. https://answersresearchjournal.org/alleged-human-chromosome-2-fusion-site/.

·        John Sanford, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, 2014.

·        Avery Foley Unraveling the Chromosome 2 Connection, March 21, 2021, Answers Magazine, https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/unraveling-chromosome-2-connection/.

·        Jean Lightner, Chromosome Tales and the Importance of a Biblical Worldview, Answers in Depth, June 18, 2014, https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/chromosome-tales-and-importance-biblical-worldview/.

·        Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, Glass House, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 2019.

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

 

Thursday, November 20, 2025

Can Christians Wear Fabric Woven Of Two Different Types?

Can Christians Wear Fabric Woven Of Two Different Types? 

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 20, 2025 (Donate)

All passages NKJV or NAS 

Introduction 

This question comes up from time to time—usually from the secular side as a way of putting Christians on their “back feet”. There is an Old Testament law that says: 

‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not … wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.’ (a portion of Leviticus 19:19, NAS) 

Some mistakenly think this applies to the mixing of all threaded materials used for garments. Secularists, sometimes even mockingly, call Christians out for being “sinners” for wearing the common cotton-polyester mixture that permeates our society. I had an unbeliever tell me that on the phone once. 

However, another passage later clarifies what is meant. Moses, who authored both passages by the power of the Holy Spirit, stated in Deuteronomy: 

"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.” (Deuteronomy 22:11, NAS) 

In the book of Ezekiel, this is confirmed even for Priestly garments. 

“And it shall be, whenever they enter the gates of the inner court, that they shall put on linen garments; no wool shall come upon them while they minister within the gates of the inner court or within the house. “They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen trousers on their bodies; they shall not clothe themselves with anything that causes sweat. (Ezekiel 44:17-18, NKJV)

If there was any confusion, there shouldn’t be any longer. This is specifically about not mixing wool and linen. Linen comes from the flax plant (its fibers). Wool comes from sheep. 

Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT, modified by Bodie Hodge)

Theological Understanding 

Dr. John Gill, in the 1700s, points out that ancient Jewish traditional understanding was strictly wool and flax: 

“the Jewish tradition is, nothing is forbidden on account of divers kinds (i.e. in garments) but wool and flax;”[1] 

Gill goes on to discuss the spiritual aspect of this law too. He says, 

“the design of this, as of the other, seems to be in general to caution against unnatural lusts and impure mixtures, and all communion of good and bad men, and particularly against joining the righteousness of Christ with the works of men, in the business of justification: Christ’s righteousness is often compared to a garment, and sometimes to line linen, clean and white; and men’s righteousness to filthy rags, Re 19:8 Isa 64:6; which are by no means to be put together in the said affair; such who believe in Christ are justified by the obedience of one and not of more, and by faith in that obedience and righteousness, without the works of the law, Ro 5:19 Ro 3:28 4:6; to join them together is needless, disagreeable, and dangerous.”[2] 

Even into the 1600s, John Trapp pointed out that Jews still didn’t wear wool and linen together.[3] Interestingly, the science of wool and linen being a bad mixture is confirmed today. Their physical structure makes weaving them together difficult as well: wool fibers are short and crimped, while linen fibers are long and smooth, leading to uneven weaving tension, slippage, and a coarse, unstable fabric. 

These factors also reduce the garment’s overall performance because wool is designed to insulate by trapping air, while linen cools by transferring heat away. A combined cloth fails to do either well, undermining both warmth and ability to breath. Popular commentators Jaimeson, Fausset, and Brown pointed out in the later 1800s, 

“and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that "wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister" [WHITLAW]. (See Eze 44:17,18).”[4] 

The Science Of Wool And Linen 

Wool and linen fibers behave very differently on a scientific level, which creates major problems when they are mixed in the same garment. For example, one is very coarse with certain properties and the other is very fine with different properties and they two have problems staying woven due to useful wear, fiber physics, durability, and behavior under stress.

Polyester is made from petroleum; Photo by Bodie Hodge

It’s not at all like a cotton-polyester mixture which actually work well (polyester is a synthetic manmade polymer material). Wool is highly elastic and changes size a lot with moisture and temperature; it can stretch quite a bit when wet and returns to its original shape as it dries. 

Linen, by contrast, has precious little elasticity and hardly stretches at all. When woven together, the expanding and contracting wool pulls against the rigid linen, causing the fabric to warp, twist, break, and wear out quickly. This mismatch also leads to uneven stress on the fibers, making seams tear and can cause the garment to be misshapen over time. 

Their thread shrinkage rates also differ quite a bit. Wool easily shrinks when exposed to heat or in water, while linen barely shrinks once woven (even in thread form). In blended fabric, the wool wants to contract while the linen resists, and this causes puckering, wrinkling, and even structural damage. 

Also, linen is extremely strong—especially when wet—while wool becomes weaker in moisture and water. When mixed, the stronger linen threads take the stress load, causing the wool fibers to break down more rapidly and the entire garment can fail quickly. 

The fibers also differ in electrical and thermal behavior (as mentioned by Jaimeson, Fausset, and Brown). Wool accumulates static electricity easily, while linen does not. This imbalance causes separation within the fabric, static cling, and fiber breakdown in dry conditions. Okay, enough about the science (you can probably tell I’m an engineer!) 

A Clothing Dilemma 

Back to the point—God was right all along about not mixing these two specific fabrics. And there may be spiritual aspects like what John Gill pointed out. But using one passage to clarify and understand the other passage solves the alleged behavioral inconsistency that secularists commonly suggested Christians have regarding the two fabrics.   

Clothing is biblical doctrine predicated on a literal Genesis 3; Image from Presentation Library

If I may, the secularists hurling these claims have a bigger problem. Their inconsistency is revealed when they walk around in public and wear clothes. Wearing clothes is a Christian doctrine from a literal Genesis chapter 3. When secularists wear clothes, they are being inconsistent with their professed religion of secular humanism (think evolutionism, naturalism, materialism, etc.).  

When they argue that man is just an animal and yet, defy the fact that critters don’t wear clothes on their own, it shows in their heart of hearts that they know that doctrine of clothing is a true belief. They just can’t justify it within their own religion and must borrow it from God’s Word—whether they realize it or not.

Unbelievers don’t wear clothes "just to keep warm" either—there are plenty of months where it is warm enough not to wear clothes. Yet, they wear clothes and thus, undermine their professed secular view. 

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council. 

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.



[1] John Gill, Commentary notes, Leviticus 19:19.

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Trapp, Commentary notes, Leviticus 19:19.

[4] Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary notes, Leviticus 19:19.

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

The Doctrine Of The Interpretation Of Scripture (Hermeneutics)

The Doctrine Of The Interpretation Of Scripture (Hermeneutics) 

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, November 19, 2025 (Donate)  

What Is Hermeneutics? 

Hermeneutics, in its simplest form, is about how to interpret Scripture correctly. More properly, hermeneutics is the method of interpreting written texts. The point of hermeneutics is to use consistent rules so that meaning is drawn out of the text, not read into it. 

In other words, we are trying to see what the text of the Bible is saying to us, as opposed to taking our own ideas as superior and reinterpreting God’s Word (usually Genesis by Moses) to fit modern cultural opinions. 

Proper hermeneutic method is called the historical-grammatical approach, which is about finding the plain and natural meaning of the words and sentences and surrounding context as understood by the original audience. 

Moses with the stone tablets; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (Grok)

Good hermeneutics is done by looking at the grammar, context, and style of what is written (poem, literal history, genealogies, laws, metaphors, songs, etc.). There is a biblical basis for this methodology by the way. Consider: 

·       “All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge.” (Proverbs 8:8–9, NKJV)

·       “But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2, NKJV)

·       “The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130, NKJV)

·       “So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8, NKJV) 

All Scripture is God-breathed, without error, and internally consistent; therefore, the Bible must interpret the Bible, and the meaning revealed in Scripture stands above human traditions, changing scientific models, or changing cultural assumptions. 

Hermeneutics begins with the Scriptural presupposition that the Bible speaks truthfully about history, including creation, the Flood, time, chronology, and people groups. Since an all-knowing God of perfect truth is the ultimate author, His Word is fully trustworthy in all matters it addresses. A sound hermeneutic therefore starts with God’s Word as the foundation for understanding reality. 

Because of this, good hermeneutics doesn’t ignore the Bible’s own claims about its passages. Often, other passages of Scripture help clarify a certain text—this is called interpreting Scripture with Scripture. God is His best interpreter. So, we often used other verses to help us understand the meaning of ones that you might be confused on.   

Exegesis vs. Eisegesis 

Exegesis 

Exegesis means “to draw out.” It is the process of discovering the author’s intended meaning by carefully examining the words, grammar, historical context, and literary style of the passage. Exegetical hermeneutics submits to the text, allowing Scripture to speak for itself. 

The historical-grammatical method takes the plain, natural reading of Scripture as the default unless the text signals a different genre. Thus, the exegetical approach uses historical-grammatical method. Exegesis honors the authority of God’s Word above modern assumptions, scientific models, cultural opinions, or theological traditions. 

Image from Presentation Library

Exegesis basically is: 

·        Letting the Bible interpret the Bible

·        Reading passages in their full context

·        Recognizing Scripture as inerrant and internally consistent

·        Affirming that the original meaning is knowable and authoritative 

Exegetical hermeneutics produces interpretations rooted in what the text actually says, not what the reader wishes it said. When the historical-grammatical method is neglected and man’s ideas are used to interpret God’s Word, this is no longer good exegesis but become eisegesis. Let’s discuss that. 

Eisegesis

Eisegesis means “to read into.” It is the act of inserting one’s own ideas, experiences, expectations, meanings, or external/outside ideas, myths, whims, and secular perspectives into Scripture, trying to force the text to conform to them. 

This often occurs when readers impose modern naturalistic assumptions, evolutionary timelines, or philosophical preferences onto Genesis—for instance. Instead of allowing the text to define its own meaning, eisegesis starts with a preconceived conclusion and bends Scripture to fit it. 

Image from Presentation Library

Eisegesis includes: 

·        Redefining the Genesis days as long ages because of evolutionary timescales

·        Treating Adam and Eve as symbolic rather than historical

·        Interpreting the global Flood as a local event based on modern geology

·        Turning Genesis 1–11 into myth or allegory to fit secular models 

Eisegesis undermines biblical authority and erodes foundational doctrines such as sin, death, redemption, and foundation of the Gospel with the Last Adam (Christ). It can be a dangerous slippery slope. Exegesis is the proper method for interpreting Scripture where eisegesis distorts the meaning of the biblical text by elevating human reason to supersede God’s Word. 

Applying Hermeneutics To Early Genesis 

Genesis 1–11 is written as historical narrative, not poetry or myth. Later Bible authors and Jesus Himself took it as literal history, so therefore it is. A proper hermeneutical analysis confirms this. 

The Bible repeatedly treats early Genesis as literal history. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real individuals created “at the beginning” of creation. New Testament authors ground doctrines of sin, death, marriage, atonement, and the need for Christ in the historical events of Genesis. A consistent hermeneutic requires that Scripture interpret Scripture. 

Moses wrote Genesis for ancient Israel to explain real history: Creation, the Fall, marriage, sin, bloodshed, clothing, redemption promised in Genesis 3:15, the genealogical line to Noah, the global Flood, and the origins of nations at Babel. A hermeneutic that honors intent must read the text as Moses expected it to be understood—a straightforward account of real events. 

Good thing Moses did not practice eisegesis; Image from Presentation Library

The Hebrew grammar and structure of the text uses the same narrative verbs forms found in the rest of Old Testament history books, including the use of waw-consecutive verbs—standard markers of sequential historical events. 

The repeated phrase “evening and morning” paired with ordinal numbers (“first day,” “second day,” etc.) signals literal, normal days. A historical-grammatical method therefore interprets the “days” of creation as ordinary 24-hour days, not symbolic ages. 

Genesis contains detailed genealogies with specific ages and relationships, showing it intends to provide an actual historical timeline, not open-ended eras. These genealogies continue seamlessly into Exodus, 1 Chronicles, and Luke’s Gospel. 

A sound hermeneutic is foundational to core doctrines that depend on Genesis being real history. The doctrine of the Fall, the origin of death, the need for redemption, and the Last Adam (Christ) versus the first Adam all collapse if Genesis is interpreted figuratively. Thus, an exegetical hermeneutics must be applied to Genesis and be understood as the literal, historical foundation for Christian doctrine. 

 

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.


 

Great Lakes Wind, Waves, and Moses?

Great Lakes Wind, Waves, and Moses?   Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI Biblical Authority Ministries, November 28, 2025 ( Donate ) The G...