Friday, July 11, 2025

Defending The Six Days Of Creation

Defending The Six Days Of Creation

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

Biblical Authority Ministries, July 11, 2025 (Donate)

The six days of creation are a hot-button of debate ever since the secular humanistic idea of long ages (i.e., millions of years) began to develop in the late 1700s and early 1800s. When many Christians were presented with this false idea, far too many just bought into it!

Don’t get me wrong, there were plenty of Christians that opposed long ages (e.g., Scriptural geologists). But church leaders in hosts of denominations and church splits entertained the mixing of Christianity with this origins story from the secular side.

They just “synchronized” or “merged” Genesis with long ages and millions of years—which is technically called geological evolution. So why is it “geological” evolution, unlike biological evolution (alleged animal and human evolution as discussed by Darwin for instance).

Image from Presentation Library

Geological Evolution

“Geology” and “Geological” derive from the Greek word “geo” which means earth. Hence, geophyte means soil or ground and geography is the study of the land and political boundaries on earth.

Geology is the study of the rock and rock layers on the earth. So, it has to do with an alleged history of the rocks and rock layers.

Growing up, I was drilled with the idea of long ages and millions of years in the rock layers. It was presumed that it took millions of years to lay down and form all that rock in the rock record.  Slow gradual accumulations supposedly caused the rock and rock layers to form over vast ages. This is what geological evolution is.

Image from Presentation Library 

As a Bible believing Christian, I recognize that most of the rock layers were formed during the global, world-covering Flood of Noah—with some subsequently since then (e.g., volcanoes, local catastrophes, etc.), but most were laid down during the days of the Ark. So, you need to understand that there are distinctly different understandings of the rock layers between those who believe the Bible’s account of the global Flood versus those who hold to geological evolution and its long ages of slow accumulation (technically called “uniformitarianism”).

These are not compatible in any way. If one tries to suggest millions of years and a global Flood, then the Flood would tear up and destroy those previous rock layers and lay down new layers. So, the evidence of alleged long ages would be washed away—literally. Don’t get me wrong, there is the possibility of residuals of creation and early post-Fall (pre-Flood) rock (and possible early rocks layers) that survived and were buried in the Flood, but most would have been utterly destroyed and soil, mud, sediment, and rock would be reformed into new layers.

So What Does This Have To Do With 6 Day Creation?

In the 1800s, when the idea of long ages and millions of years were presented to leading Christians, a number of them simply added it to the Bible. But where do you add millions of years?

You can’t fit it in the genealogies—we have a continuous lineage from Adam to Christ. So, Christians began looking prior to Adam’s creation—hence Creation Week became one of the most controversial chapters in the entire Bible!

Image from Presentation Library

One of the first to mix these religions was Thomas Chalmers. He was a Scottish theologian in the early 1800s, and he inserted these alleged millions of years of rock layers in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. And so the idea of “gap theory” was invented.

The problem was that Chalmers just didn’t want to address the issue to he crammed all that alleged time and rock layers between the first two verses in the Bible in hopes of not having to deal with it. Of course, this meant that all those rock layers weren’t formed in the Flood of Noah day by this viewpoint—if gap theorists try to follow through with this idea!

Thus, Chalmers just “deleted” all the evidence of the Flood by adopting the secular view of long ages in early Genesis 1! See the total inconsistency of this position? Since Chalmers, variations on gap theory have abounded. With each of these variations, there are plenty of problems with gap theory models—namely death before sin.

After Chalmers, others began inserting long ages into creation week in other ways besides gaps—such as stretching out the days in Genesis 1 (day-age or progressive creation models) or reinterpreting the days in Genesis 1 (framework hypothesis, cosmic temple, etc.).

Some have gone so far as to reinterpret Genesis 1-11 and just replace it with the secular humanistic religious view of big bang, millions of years, and evolution, while retaining that God somehow did it—and then just pick up with Abraham (theistic evolution, evolutionary creation, etc.). All these suffer the problem of death before sin though—which undermines the Gospel.

Image from Presentation Library

But for anyone to propose long ages, they usually have to deal with the days of Creation Week. They must argue that they don’t mean what they clearly mean. Even in gap theory, the first day is extremely long!

The Six Days Of Creation

The six days of creation described in Genesis 1 were ordinary, consecutive, 24-hour days. This understanding is foundational to a biblical worldview and is based on a plain reading of Scripture (e.g., Proverbs 8:8-9, 2 Corinthians 4:2), in accordance with Hebrew grammar, biblical context, and theological considerations—unlike the old earth models of Creation Week.

The Hebrew Word “Yom” (Day)

In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word yom is used for “day.” While yom can have various meanings depending on context (like “time” or “age”). The context reveals yom means and ordinary day and popular lexicons like BDB and HALOT assert this:

  • Yom: “day as defined by evening and morning: Genesis 1:5” [Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 9th Printing, Hendrickson Publishers, 1906, page 398.]
  • Yom: “Day of twenty-four hours: Genesis 1:5” [Koehler & Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Volume 1, Koninklijke Brill N.V., 2001, page 399.]

Whenever yom is used with a number (e.g., one day, second day) and/or with the phrase “evening and morning,” it always refers to a normal-length day elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Genesis 1 uses both ordinal and numerical qualifiers ("one day," "second day," etc.) and “evening and morning” for each of the six creation days. In once instance night is also used (Genesis 1:5). This double clarification makes the intention unmistakable: God is communicating that these were normal days as understood by the original audience. Extensive research has been done on this—particularly by James Stambaugh.

Summary of James Stambaugh’s Research on the Days of Creation

James Stambaugh did an exhaustive study on the Hebrew word yom in context in the Old Testament. He originally published a preliminary journal article on the subject to stimulate debate. Then he finalized it with an ETS paper(Evangelical Theological Society). Most numbers that you see published are from the ETS paper and the finalized results—however, the preliminary journal article is at your fingertips and many can access it freely. But the numbers a don’t quite match from the initial paper and that is why.

Nevertheless, Stambaugh argues that the “days” of Genesis 1 should be understood as literal, consecutive, 24-hour days, based on linguistic, grammatical, and contextual evidence derived via the Hebrew text.

The Meaning of “Yom” (Day)

Stambaugh conducts a detailed lexical study of the Hebrew word yom (“day”) and demonstrated that when yom is used with ordinal or cardinal numbers (one, second, etc.) and the phrase “evening and morning,” it always refers to a normal-length day in Old Testament usage.

Image from Presentation Library 

“Evening and Morning” as Literal Time Indicators

The phrase “evening and morning” is used for each day of creation in Genesis 1. Stambaugh points out that this expression, when used in Scripture, always refers to literal days, reinforcing the plain-sense reading of the text.

Image from Presentation Library 

Image from Presentation Library 

Each day of creation is described with the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning.” argues that this phrase reinforces the idea of a normal 24-hour cycle. “Evening” and “morning” are time markers that define a literal day-night period and were never used metaphorically in this way elsewhere in Scripture.

Image from Presentation Library 

When we look at Creation Week in Genesis 1:1-2:3, it uses these qualifies extensively—as if God was trying to make the point exceptionally clear! 

Image from Presentation Library 

The Pattern Of Six Days of Work, One Day Of Rest

In Exodus 20:11, part of the Ten Commandments, God says:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.”

Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 state that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. These passages connect the creation week with the human work week, confirming that the days in Genesis were literal and not symbolic.

These passages establish the basis for the human work week—six days of work followed by one day of rest—explicitly modeled after God's activity during creation. This command has no meaning if the days were long ages or symbolic. A literal interpretation is the only reading that makes the commandment coherent.

Genesis as Historical Narrative

Stambaugh also argues that the literary structure and verb forms in Genesis 1 align with Hebrew historical narrative, not poetry or allegory, indicating the author intended to describe actual historical events. Furthermore, Steven Boyd also affirmed the genre of literature was an historical narrative in early Genesis in his work on the RATE project.

The literary style of Genesis 1–11 is historical narrative, not poetry or allegory—of course there are obvious allegories in places in the text intentionally so (e.g., “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh”, etc.). These spots are blatantly easy to spot.

But the historical narrative style is what guides Genesis. This is indicated by the consistent use of Hebrew narrative grammar, including waw-consecutive verb forms (a grammatical feature of narrative). Therefore, the text is meant to be read as a straightforward historical account, not metaphor or myth.

Jesus Affirmed A Young Creation

In passages like Mark 10:6, Jesus says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” This indicates that humans were created at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after it began, as evolutionary or old-earth views claim. 

This is consistent with a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I wrote and extensive article on this called Jesus Devastates An Old Earth. 

Theological Implications Of A Non-Literal View

If one abandons the literal six-day creation, then it undermines key doctrines, including the origin of sin and death—which is the foundation of the Gospel. If the earth and life evolved over millions of years, then death existed before Adam's sin, which contradicts Genesis 1:29-31, 3; Romans 5:12; Romans 8; (“through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin”); and Revelation 21-22—where our new creation mimics the original creation without death or suffering.

Moreover, accepting long ages implies that God a world full of death, disease, and suffering (as seen in the fossil record) as very good (Genesis 1:31) and perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4), which contradicts God's nature and the goodness of His creation.

Testimony Of Later Bible Writers And Church History Supports Literal Day

Throughout Scripture after Genesis 1-11, Bible authors consistently maintained that Genesis was real, historical narrative. For instance, Peter affirmed the universality of the global Flood (1 Peter 3:20), etc. Paul affirmed that there was a literal Adam and Eve (1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 11:3), and as discussed, Moses further affirmed the six days of Creation Week in Exodus 20 and 31. 

What about 2 Peter 3:8 where God says a day is like a thousand years? I hear this far too often! First, even if one were to attempt to add 1,000 years to each of the creation days, you still don't arrive 13+ billion years. So, it doesn't help the case for alleged billions of years. 

Secondarily, this is in the context of the Lord's patience, not Creation Week. So it is a contextual fallacy to use this for Genesis days. Also, did you realize that the next verse shows the irrelevance of applying it to creation days?  

Images from Presentation Library

Many of the early Church Fathers, reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, and most Christian theologians throughout history believed in six literal creation days. The idea of long ages only arose when 18th- and 19th-century secular-thinking geologists and evolutionists began to reinterpret nature without reference to Scripture.

Re-interpreting Scripture to fit secular models is an easy way to get errant theology and a misunderstanding of history. Instead, we should recognize that God is the authority and thus, Scripture must be the lens through which we interpret the world. 

God Could Create Instantly—But Chose Six Days

I’ve had people ask, if God is all-powerful why couldn’t He created everything instantly? It is not that God doesn’t have that power—of course He does—but the issue why did God take six days and rest on the seventh? And God answers that openly—He did it for us—as a basis for our work week.

There’s no theological or scientific reason to stretch these days into millions of years, and doing so compromises the purpose of the creation account. Let the six days, remain ordinary six days.

Conclusion

The six days of creation are literal, normal-length consecutive 24-hour days based on a straightforward reading of the Bible, particularly the language and grammar of Genesis 1, the structure of the Ten Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus. Reinterpreting the Genesis days leads to theological inconsistencies and undermines the authority of Scripture—and even the Gospel itself.

The Bible—not secular interpretations of history and science—is the final authority. And the Bible clearly teaches that the heavens and the earth were created, formed and filled in six normal days, followed by an instituted literal day of rest.


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, July 8, 2025

Animal Migrations From The Ark

Animal Migrations From The Ark To Remote Places…Really?

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

Biblical Authority Ministries, July 8, 2025 (Donate)

I’m surprised how often I’m asked a question like this. But let’s look at the obvious migrations first. As animals migrated from the Ark landing site in the mountains of Ararat, they surely took a variety of routes initially (Genesis 8:4, 19).

Obviously, they could progress throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa rather easily, since those areas are connected by land. Of course, they would have had hurdles such as mountains and rivers to go around or cross, among other issues with terrain.[1]  

Photo by Bodie Hodge

These obstacles would not be such a hindrance for birds and other flying creatures. It only took starlings about 100 years to cover the entire North American continent when about 60 were released in New York City in 1890. With this in mind, it probably did not take long for many places to be populated with flying creatures after the Flood. Many birds, bats, insects and other flying creatures can transverse great distances over lakes, seas, and oceans.

Some birds and other flying creatures may have lost the ability to fly due to mutations or breeding since the Flood. This could have occurred after migrating long distances which cause population isolates leading to severe inbreeding. On the farm where I grew up, we had some giant white turkeys.

They were so large, awkward, and had such poor feathers that with one look at them you would be able to discern they could never fly. In fact, I’ve thought the same thing when I first saw an emu, kiwi, ostrich, and some others—surely, they could never fly! But is their current look the result of mutations and breeding? It is possible.

We also had wild turkeys where I lived. I often frightened them so that they took flight, and they could fly very well. I once spooked a few turkeys into flight to such a degree that one of them flew immensely high; I could hardly see it! It was much higher than the high-flying vultures that dominated our area. And it flew so far that it was miles before it descended. The giant white turkeys that could never fly resulted from breeding of wild turkeys to be large supermarket specials. Considering this, it is easy to see how other birds may have lost their ability to fly. I would also leave this option open with other [currently] flightless birds.

Land Animals

In general, placental animals would move slower than marsupials, which can collect their young (e.g., in pouches) and continue. Many placental animals need to stop and settle for a time to raise their young. But theoretically, great varieties of land animals could have gone to any region of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Still, this doesn’t mean they did.

Some may have migrated to certain areas but not to other areas. In other instances, some of these animals may have made it to a particular area and became extinct. One objection to this is that we should find fossils of them if they lived in an area, but this is fallacious.[2] Paul Taylor states the following regarding this subject on fossils:

“But the expectation of such fossils is a presuppositional error. Such an expectation is predicated on the assumption that fossils form gradually and inevitably from animal populations. In fact, fossilization is by no means inevitable. It usually requires sudden, rapid burial. Otherwise the bones would decompose before permineralization. One ought likewise to ask why it is that, despite the fact that millions of bison used to roam the prairies of North America, hardly any bison fossils are found there. Similarly, lion fossils are not found in Israel even though we know that lions once lived there.”[3]

Researchers have declared that the West African Black Rhinoceros has gone extinct in our own lifetime. However, other rhinoceroses have continued in different areas of Africa and Asia—including the unicorn rhino. This is a good example of how a species can die out while another member of the same kind remains in other parts around the world. Could this have happened with other animals?[4] Surely it has.

Image from Presentation Library

Is it possible that kangaroos made it to Europe or India and died out? It is possible, and I would leave open such an option. There is evidence that kangaroos once roamed in ancient India.[5] What we do know is that kangaroos have thrived in Australia, where they currently live.

Kangaroos, being marsupials, have a travel advantage over some placental animals. When a marsupial has its young, they can hop into the mother’s pouch, and the mother can continue migrating. In other words, marsupials can travel farther faster than many placentals. This may help explain why marsupials dominated Australia, but more on this in a moment.

Land Bridges To The Americas And Australia?

But how did they get to Australia? How did animals get to the Americas or remote islands?

Most creationists believe there was an Ice Age.[6] An ice age is a rare event. If the globe simply cools down, that does not cause an ice age; instead, it causes a cool globe. An ice age requires cool summers and warm oceans. Here is why: with warmer oceans we get more accumulation during winter months with layers of snow and ice topping one another. With cool summers, it does not heat up enough to melt off the previous accumulation. So during the next winter even more ice layers accumulate, causing an ice age.

Most believe the Ice Age was triggered by the Flood of Noah. Continental plate movements likely caused ocean temperatures to rise as well as volcanic release during the Flood. Also, fine ash, particulates, and dioxins from volcanic eruptions probably lingered in the upper atmosphere 9just like we observe occurring today during large eruptions) in post Flood years, which, unlike a greenhouse effect, would reduce the sunlight for cooler summers. So the mechanism for such rare event was in place due to Genesis 6–8.

But what happens in an ice age? A lot of water is taken out of the ocean and deposited on land, so the ocean level drops. This exposes land bridges. One well-known land bridge was the one that crossed what we call today “the Bering Sea” from Alaska to Russia. So it is easily feasible for animals to have walked from Asia to North and South America.

Potential land bridges during the Ice Age peak; Image from Presentation Library

Other land bridges would have opened to connect the British Isles to the mainland, Japan to Korea, and potentially Japan to the mainland as well; it is possible that Australia could have been connected to Southeast Asia, although today this route is much deeper and may not have been open as long.

That area is known for tectonic activity, and we still see reflections of plate movements from the many earthquakes in Southeast Asia (e.g., consider the earthquake and resultant tsunami in 2004). So the depth today may well be a result of activity since the Flood and Ice Age. But let’s look at this in more detail.

Ice Age And Other Natural Effects

We also need to keep in mind that tectonic activity has been occurring since the time of the Flood, causing earthquakes and other issues, and we have seen examples even today when faults shift—some even cause tsunamis. Two large earthquakes and resultant tsunamis have recently occurred in Eastern Japan in 2011 and Southeast Asia in 2004 that were due to ocean floor shifting.

It is possible that some land bridges sunk or were destroyed by these movements of the earth and ocean floor? And could this be the case with the connection between Australia and Southeast Asia since the time of the Ice Age? It seems to be a bit deeper today than what it likely was many years ago. Also, Scripture often records earthquakes (e.g., Amos 1:1; Matthew 28:2), and we need to keep in mind that many are not felt in other parts of the world—even very large ones! If tectonic activity reduced this bridge so that it wasn’t open as long, this helps explain the following concept.

If this Southeast Asia-Australia land bridge was not in existence for as long as others, like the Bering Sea Bridge, that could explain why marsupials dominated the continent. Recall that marsupials travel farther faster compared to some placental animals, which lag behind. Marsupials could have made it across the land bridge during the migratory period, prior to the arrival of most placentals which could displace them and hinder their numbers.

This makes much more sense than the common evolutionary model where marsupials evolved in Australia, which can’t explain why marsupials like opossums came to North and South America. The common explanation that Australia and South America were linked is much harder to believe than a short-lived land bridge to Southeast Asia. Furthermore, if South America and Australia were linked (barring any global Flood, as the secularists teach), then why doesn’t South America abound with marsupials?

The Ice Age may also have contributed something else to animal migrations. Generally speaking, reptiles are found in larger numbers and greater varieties in warmer climates, potentially like most dinosaurs, and would not thrive as well in the cold. It makes sense that they strayed from such areas, died out, or their numbers were at least reduced. It also makes sense that mammals would thrive in colder climates.

Many believe that the post-Flood era has more extreme weather patterns (e.g., colder winters). In line with this, Adam and Eve did not wear clothes originally in the Garden of Eden, so it makes sense that people should have been able to fill the earth without needing clothes. After sin and the curse, things changed, but the continent(s) and arrangements were not affected at the curse (that we know of). So at least the pre-Flood topography was a little closer to a perfect world. The world after the Flood is a demolished remnant of the pre-Flood created continent(s).


Our current arrangements of continents makes some areas colder and some hotter, due to different elevation, latitude, etc. Then, there is Antarctica sitting at the South Pole! Many ideal habitats could have been completely eradicated during the Flood, never to be replaced. Insects that grew large in the past now die out by winter in many parts of the world before reaching maturity. Therefore, it is possible that the ones that matured more quickly, although they were smaller, laid their eggs prior to winter, and thus had a better chance of surviving.

Even desertification may have been triggered by the Ice Age and the new weather patterns after the Flood. This could wipe out populations in those areas or permit a select few to survive the new conditions. With variations of creatures after the Flood, things had to find a new niche or die out. The Ice Age and new weather patterns surely helped solidify where things lived and flourished from that time until now.

Could animals have migrated to a part of the world they were previously familiar with (latitude and longitude)? I’ve always wondered this—there is a 1 in 6 odds they do because there are only 6 habitable continents (for most critters anyway)! If a continent ended up at a particular place on the globe, and migratory animals thrived in those former areas before continental movement, is it possible that some attempted to migrate back to that original latitude and longitude? I would leave that option open.


Image from Presentation Library

In some cases, animals could have ridden on floating debris from pre-Flood forests to make it to islands or other far-reaching places—particularly in post-Flood storms—we observe things like this today to a lesser degree. Consider tsunamis, hurricanes, or other storms that force animals near coasts to grab onto things for their survival. They may be whisked out to sea only to arrive at another place to make their home.

What We See Today

Let’s not forget another major factor to animal distribution—humans! Humans have been involved since the Flood. In fact, due to the Ark, land animals and birds exist today.

Although rats had already traveled to many parts of the world, by the age of exploration (AD 1400–1800), they were easily distributed around the world in all the European exploits and trade. They were commonplace on most ships and ended up all over the world because men accidentally transported them. Think how many insects were surely taken to various places in the same manner.

Throughout history, people have brought plants and animals to new locations, and those organisms have become permanent populations, interacting with the original creatures. For example, it is claimed that the Romans brought pheasants (members of the chicken kind) to England, and they have since been regular inhabitants of various habitats. In fact, the Romans redistributed organisms from one side of the Roman Empire to the other.[7]

When I was in Australia and went out to Green Island, I found out that the coconuts that grew there were planted to provide food for shipwrecked people. Horses, wild boars, fallow deer, and wild goats are well-known examples of animals introduced to North America.

The point is that many animals and plants have been redistributed to places all over the world by mankind. Many were pets and went wild (such as dingoes); many were introduced as potential food sources (e.g., pigs), and so on. Imagine how much of this redistribution was done prior to the years when we actually started keeping track!

Conclusion

We know that a host of factors are involved with getting animals to various places. In fact, there are likely options that were not explored in this response.

The Bible gives us a framework in which to interpret this topic even though little is given by way of specifics. When it comes to answering questions like this, it is always best to uphold the Bible as our authority and reject ideas that are inconsistent with God’s Word.

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. 

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.



[1] Keep in mind the weather patterns and climates for places may not have been established yet and were still under constant flux at this time. So, many rivers may have been smaller in places and larger in others (like areas that later became deserts).  For example, many areas that are deserts today would not have been so right after the Flood. Instead, they were likely the results of later weather patterns (e.g., Genesis 12:10; 26:1)

[2] Many fossils can be determined if they are in situ or were transported. But many are still difficult to ascertain. If something is found fossilized someplace, the one thing we can be certain about is its final burial place.

[3] The New Answers Book 1, Ken Ham, Gen. Ed., chapter by Paul Taylor: “How did animals spread all over the world from where the Ark landed?”,  Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2006, page 144, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread.

[4] There are slim possibilities that they could be living elsewhere in remote areas, but the point is that many animals are going extinct even today, despite conservation efforts.

[6] We refer to the Ice Age in caps so it is not confused with the alleged numerous ice ages that are supposedly going back many years and repeating themselves. The Ice Age was triggered by the Global Flood in Noah’s day.

[7] Editors, Taste of History, Pheasant, September 30, 2015, https://tastesofhistory.blogspot.com/2015/09/pheasant.html.

The False Doctrine Of Addition And Subtraction To Scripture

Can Churches Add Or Subtract Scripture? Beware Of This A False Doctrine Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI Biblical Authority Ministries, Se...