“For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself [….] Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness […] In perfect cyclic movement, being, power, and joy descended from God to man in the form of gift and returned from man to God in the form of obedient love and ecstatic adoration.”  (CS Lewis, Problem 65)

---

This Friday, barring another unforeseen illness, I will be having breast surgery. As soon as I know anything, I will let TWW know. All of the scans, etc, have been negative, but there is the issue of some bleeding and another symptom that must be figured out. My daughter’s baby is coming in September, so I want to get this over with. Todd will plan a post for Friday.

On a more positive note, I was frustrated with my computer last week and realized it is four years old. I thought it was around two years old. So, I have ordered a new one, and things should be more fluid.

---

Introduction: Why?

For those like TWW reader Muff, my interest in this subject is not surprising. In my former SBC church, which I often call my learning lab, the senior pastor deliberately hid that the church teaches Young Earth Creationism (YEC) to all age levels for at least a month every year. The Sunday school class I helped lead decided to have a class carefully elucidating the beliefs of Old Earth Creationism (OEC) and YEC. We had speakers from both sides. We were too fearful to bring up Theistic Evolution (TE), aka Evolutionary Creationism. (EC) even though a number of us tipped in that direction. (Stop…Bill and I also believe in a literal Adam and Eve, so hold your comments.) A strange group overran our class. They would meet once a month to study why YEC was correct, and the rest of the believers were barely Christians and maybe not even believers. They were so ugly in their laughing and questioning that I walked out of the class and refused to continue.

We eventually left that church. We ensured we could continue our thoughts regarding EC before joining the LCMS, which holds to YEC. Thankfully, it has never been an issue in nine years. During that time in the SBC church, my husband and I became more well-versed in our beliefs and continued to tip toward EC. I became well-read from Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis materials, having read most of the website by 2014. I have not done so since that time. I do not like Ken Ham, who I believe holds a cultic view of AIG, often cleverly accusing anyone who disagrees with him as ‘in danger of denying the Scriptures.”

Here are a few pots I have written on Ken Ham and Aig. Forgive the formatting of old posts. Some links in older posts may be broken.

• I Do Not Like Green Eggs and (ken) Ham
• More Reason$ Why I Do Not Like Green Egg$ and (ken) Ham
• Is Ken Ham’s Incessant Badgering of Tim Keller About the Recognition of the Authority of the Bible or the Authority of Ken Ham?

Here is a link to a podcast by my former (good) pastor, who recently moved towards Evolutionary Creationism.

Enough about me. I was surprised when Lee Anderson contacted me. He worked at Answers in Genesis (AIG) for several years and became concerned about the deception in materials available on the AIG website. He has since left the organization and still holds to YEC. He was aware of my TE thoughts before contacting me. His scholarly look at the information in the following article was interesting. It is more theological in presentation than scientific.

The real author of the original article has been revealed. He is Bodie Hoge, not David Abraham. Here is his bio on AIG and here is his bio on Rational Wiki. He has an odd view of lying if someone wants to discuss that further. Also, TWW has questions and may look into a few things. Why did Hoge leave AIG for his own business? Is there more to that story? Does AIG ever use his material? He is Ken Ham’s son-in-law, after all.

Rules for the rabid faithful…

• Be nice. Act like Jesus, not cult leaders.
• Long-winded rants will be deleted. Be concise.
• Do not use this post to “prove” YEC. Stick to the post.
• If you get mean, I’ll delete you and not let you complain.
• I am the Daughter of Stan, after all.

---

Deception at Answers in Genesis: Will the Real David Abrahams Please Stand Up?

Lee Anderson Jr.[1]

In 2015, Answers in Genesis produced a book entitled World Religions and Cults: Counterfeits of Christianity. The book was edited by staff writers Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, and was published by Master Books. Long associated with the modern young-earth creationist movement, Answers in Genesis had recently been seeking to branch out into other areas of Christian apologetics, including comparative religions. Select chapters of this work were later reproduced in full on Answers in Genesis’ website (https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/world-religions-and-cults-1/) and remain freely available.

World Religions and Cults offers a summary treatment, with its chapters being of uneven depth on the subjects they address. While there is useful information, the book evidences a general lack of focus in its presentation, seemingly trying to advocate apologetically for recent creation as representative of biblical Christianity, while also endeavoring to inform the reader about non-Christian belief systems for the purpose of engagement and evangelism. Arguably more concerning than its divided focus, however, are the dubiousness of many of the book’s claims, which are supported frequently by questionable web-based sources and cannot be substantiated by appeal to scholarly works.

Rather than looking at the book broadly, however, this review concentrates on critiquing a single chapter that is of unique concern. Chapter 9, entitled, “What Are the Differences Between Judaism and Christianity?” is the subject of scrutiny due to its authorship by otherwise unknown author David Abrahams. Before addressing the chapter’s authorship, though, it is necessary to consider the overall accuracy of its presentation. A careful reading of the chapter uncovers several historical inaccuracies, cultural misrepresentations, and theological fallacies, as well as the mishandling of basic Hebrew lexicography. After surveying these concerns, the question of authorship will be addressed.

Historical Inaccuracies

Because the chapter focusses principally on Jewish religion as it is taught and practiced today, there is only a summary of Jewish history. However, for what little is said on the topic, the inaccuracies are glaring.

The gravest of these errors sees the author laying the blame for the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict squarely at the feet of Jews. He claims that, had the Jews not rejected Jesus of Nazareth some two thousand years ago, then it is unlikely that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, would have received any support from pockets of the Jewish population in the Middle East who briefly considered that he might be the long-awaited Messiah. As a result, Muhammad would not have been able to assert his views and spread his religion, Islam would not have come to dominate the Middle East, and the present religious (and political) tensions in the region would thus never have arisen.

Besides framing the whole discussion of the Middle Eastern conflict as a big “what if?” question, this perspective grossly overrepresents Jewish support for Muhammad in the early stages of his rise to power and the spread of Islam. The Jewish people largely rejected any association between Muhammad and the promised Messiah. Moreover, the militant nature of Muhammad’s religious ideology all but assured its spread. To fault the Jews for the rise of Islam historically or Islamic aggression today is sheer nonsense.

Looking further back into Jewish history, the author attempts to present an overview of the sects within Judaism at the time of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. The author lists the four main sects of Judaism widely recognized from the time period—the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots—but, strangely, adds to them another sect, the “Scribes.” Apparently, the author was unfamiliar with the fact the Sopherim (scribes) were a social class of learned students of Jewish law, consisting mainly of those from the Pharisaic sect, and were thus not a sect in their own right. Additionally, glaringly absent from the author’s presentation is any notice of the fact that most of the Jewish people living in the land of Israel at the time of Jesus had no formal affiliation with any sect—Pharisees, Sadducees, or whatever else. Such a fundamental lack of awareness of Jewish history is baffling.

Cultural Misrepresentations

Confusion over the divisions within Judaism is not confined to the past, however. This chapter also misrepresents divisions within Judaism in the present day. Specifically, the author correctly identifies three major strands of modern Judaism—that is, Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative Judaism—but he completely overlooks both Hasidic Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism (representing, respectively, the most conservative and most liberal wings of modern Judaism). While it is true that these two divisions are smaller than the other three, they both have had a significant impact on Jewish culture.

Similarly problematic, the chapter seeks to summarize Orthodox Judaism with a single sentence: “a movement holding traditional beliefs and practices such as kosher diets, Sabbath rest, and distinctive dress codes.” This brief summary essentially glosses over the religious distinctives of Orthodox Judaism, focusing entirely on their most visible elements rather than on their essential beliefs. It also ignores the considerable differences between traditional mainline Orthodoxy and “Modern Orthodoxy,” an American-innovated Orthodoxy which tends to be more left-leaning in its requirements and practices.

Additionally, in presenting Jewish religious belief, the chapter summarizes, “Judaism is a set of informal beliefs about the world and how people should live their lives.” Many Jews, especially those within Orthodox Judaism, would take umbrage with the notion that their beliefs are “informal,” which is to suggest that they do not reflect concrete realities. So too, to suggest that Jewish religious belief concerns itself merely with the physical world and human behavior is to overlook the cornerstone of Jewish religion—that which it asserts about the Divine. The Shema, which is contained in Deuteronomy 6:4, states, “Hear O Israel: The Lord (YHWH) is our God; the Lord (YHWH) is one.” This statement encapsulates the fundamental monotheistic nature of Judaism and serves as a tacit assertion about Jewish religious allegiance: The God of Scripture, YHWH, is their God.

Compounding this basic misunderstanding, the chapter discusses the Thirteen Articles of Faith formulated by the medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides, asserting that they represent modern Jewish belief. However, strictly speaking, Maimonides’ Thirteen Articles of Faith are rigidly adhered to only in Orthodox Judaism. Jews outside of the Orthodox tradition have either rejected or reinterpreted some of Maimonides’ views.[2]

Theological Fallacies

Besides its misrepresentation of Judaism, this chapter struggles in its presentation of biblical teaching about the Jewish people. Accenting its groundless claims about initial Jewish support for Muhammad (discussed above) the author claims that the tension between the Jews and the Arabs originated in a “brotherly feud” between Isaac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham. However, this claim is quite overstated, for while the descendants of the two half-brothers did indeed engage in conflict, there never was any real feud that existed between the half-brothers themselves. In fact, it was due to hostility between the respective mothers of Ishmael and Isaac that Abraham sent Ishmael and his mother Hagar away while Isaac was still a very young child (Genesis 21:8–10). The Scriptures simply do not contain any record of actual conflict between Ishmael and Isaac while they lived.

A similarly unsubstantiated claim about biblical teaching (and arguably not germane to the topic) is that the Jewish practice of offerings for sin has its roots in the sacrifices offered by Abel (Genesis 4:4) and Noah (Genesis 8:20). In truth, the Jewish sacrificial system finds its origin in the Mosaic Law and is not directly connected with the practices of the pre-Abrahamic fathers. Moreover, there is absolutely no textual evidence by which to maintain that the sacrifices offered by either Abel or Noah were sin offerings. The text is actually silent as to the reason for the offerings though, if anything, in the latter case involving Noah, the circumstances suggest an offering of thanksgiving.

In any case, though not directly having much bearing on understanding Judaism, the author’s careless handling of the biblical text on these points raises questions about his ability to assess Judaism from a biblical standpoint.

Lexicographical Errors

Not far removed from the author’s dubious handling of the biblical themes just mentioned is his demonstrable ignorance of Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament and of the Jewish people. In his discussion of Isaiah 7:14, to which Christians commonly appeal in support of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the author quotes from the Reformer John Calvin, who claimed that the word translated “virgin” (or, in some English Bibles, “young woman”) derives from the root עלם (‘lm) which, he says, “signifies to hide.”

Calvin was, however, mistaken on this point. The basic sense of עלם does mean “to hide” but this is not the root which underlies עַלְמָה (‘almāh, “virgin” or “young woman”). Verbal forms derived from the root from which עַלְמָה derives are, according to Koehler and Baumgartner’s authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), unattested in the Old Testament.[3] But they note that the Hebrew noun עֶלֶם (‘elem, “youth, young man,” see 1 Samuel 17:56; 20:22) also traces back to this root, which makes a good deal more sense than Calvin’s etymological gymnastics in asserting that עַלְמָה derives from a root meaning “to hide” because, as he argues, “the shame and modesty of virgins does not allow them to appear in public.” Calvin’s claim has no grounding in the biblical text.

This leads to an unavoidable question: Why would an author who presumes to be an authority on Jewish religion and culture be apparently unaware of Calvin’s mistaken Hebrew lexicography in his comments on such a well-known verse? For that matter, why quote from Calvin at all? His work is severely dated, with much more discussion on Isaiah 7:14—in both Jewish and Christian sources—having taken place since he wrote. Moreover, it is well-recognized that Calvin was a theologian, not a Hebraist. The point is that anyone who is an authority on Jewish religion, which has, at its very heart, the Hebrew Scriptures, would know the importance of consulting actual Hebrew lexicons when discussing any Hebrew word of such significance. This unavoidable fact should give the reader pause.

Along these same lines, an expert on Judaism would know the importance, when not speaking directly from his own expertise, of supporting his views by appeals to quality source material. But an examination of the footnotes in this chapter reveals minimal reliance on traditionally-published source material. Rather, there is considerable dependence on highly questionable web-based materials, such as “Media Monitors Network,” “Jewfaq.org,” “Hebrew for Christians,” and “God’s Word First International Biblical Research and Teaching Ministry.” Why would someone who presumes to be an authority on Judaism appeal to such pedestrian (and oftentimes dubious) material? So too, why would an authority on Judaism feel the need to quote (as this author does) from the World Book Encyclopedia just to provide a simple explanation about the place of the Talmud in Jewish culture and history?

These concerns, understandably, should lead the reader to ask some fundamental questions about the author’s background and expertise.

Dishonesty About Authorship

Given the numerous aforementioned historical inaccuracies, cultural misrepresentations, and theological fallacies, along with (perhaps most tellingly) the unjustifiably amateurish handling of Hebrew lexicography, it is right for the reader to question whether the author of this chapter is actually a qualified authority on Jewish history, culture, and religion. Similarly, is he suitably qualified to speak to the subjects of biblical and theological studies, which serve to ground his critique of Judaism?

The fact is, not only is the author David Abrahams patently unqualified to address the topics he writes about, he is not even real. Stated bluntly, there is no David Abrahams. Rather, the name
“David Abrahams” is merely a pseudonym or “pen name” for the real author, Bodie Hodge, who is also one of the editors of World Religions and Cults.[4]

Reasons for the Use of a Pseudonym

There have been several justifiable reasons for the use of pseudonyms by authors. For instance, the use of a pen name has, throughout history, allowed for individuals otherwise barred from publishing the opportunity to disseminate their writings. Such was the case for several female authors (especially in pre-modern Europe) who published under men’s names before it was culturally acceptable for publishing houses to openly publish the works of female authors. There is definitely an argument to be made that Western culture is better for these works having been published under pseudonyms rather than not at all.

Another reason for a pseudonym is to protect the privacy of the author, or to help ensure safety for an author who is voicing criticism of other parties who might be prone to violent retaliation. And this is not true just of those giving voice to political dissent; pen names have often been employed by those facing potential religious persecution. To this day, it is common for Christian missionaries serving in areas hostile to the Gospel to provide updates to their supporters back home using pseudonyms, just in case their communications are intercepted by those seeking to cause the missionaries harm.

In these cases, the use of a pen name is understood and rarely regarded as deception. However, the chapter penned by Bodie Hodge under the name “David Abrahams” arguably does not fit within any of these categories.

On the contrary, the use of an ostensibly Jewish name betrays a more dishonest intent. Clearly, the intent is to elevate the author’s perceived authority to address the subjects of Jewish history, culture, and religion (as well as biblical and theological studies), even though he has no actual background in these fields. According to Hodge’s own ministry, Biblical Authority Ministries, Hodge formerly “attended Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC) earning his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degree in Mechanical Engineering and specialized in Advanced Materials Processing” (https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/p/blog-page_19.html). Obviously, this background holds no pertinence for writing on Judaism.

Also, though having worked in Christian ministry at Answers in Genesis for years, Hodge claims no formal education in any area of biblical or theological studies, apologetics, comparative religions, or Judaism. Simply put, he has no meaningful qualifications whatsoever to address the subject matter about which he purports to speak authoritatively. Further, his use of the distinctly Jewish-sounding pen name “David Abrahams” must have been selected to give the illusion of an author intimately acquainted with Judaism.

Hodge’s Denial of Any “Righteous Lie”

Hodge’s misrepresentation of his own identity and, by extension, his qualifications to address the subject matter contained in his chapter on Judaism, certainly veer into the realm of dishonesty. Perhaps, were he to be given the benefit of the doubt, it might be thought that there was some good motive behind it. Perhaps Hodge’s zeal to see the Jewish people find salvation through the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, overruled any concerns he may have had about the questionable ethics of using a pen name for this chapter.

But there is a good reason to believe such is not the case. The 2010 book Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions, volume 1, edited by Ken Ham, and published by Master Books contains a chapter by Hodge entitled “A Righteous Lie?” (https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/a-righteous-lie/). Additionally, the Answers in Genesis website features two articles responding to inquirers’ questions (see https://answersingenesis.org/morality/a-righteous-lie/ and https://answersingenesis.org/morality/more-righteous-lies/). These articles, likewise written by Hodge, advance the same line of argumentation evidenced in his 2010 book chapter that all lies are sinful and dishonoring to God, and, further, that the Bible never provides justification for deliberate dishonesty.

In the interest of not getting tied up in a discussion that requires the explanation of several ethical exegetical, theological, and philosophical underpinnings, it is perhaps best to highlight just how extreme Hodge’s perspective is. In the first of his feedback articles, Hodge goes so far as to argue that it would not be justifiable, even during the time of the Holocaust, to lie to a Nazi official for the purpose of trying to protect the lives of one’s Jewish neighbors! While not wanting to ignore the complex moral issues at play, the raw fact of the matter is that this perspective is despicable.[5] If this is representative of Hodge’s regard for the Jewish people, how dare he presume to play the expert in writing on Judaism.

But that aside, if deception cannot be justified under even such an extreme and life-threatening circumstance as facing interrogation by a Nazi official, then deception surely cannot be justified either in the case of Hodge using a pen name to bolster his credibility in addressing questions about Jewish culture, history, and religion.

The bottom line is that Bodie Hodge lies to his readers in his chapter on Judaism by presenting himself as “David Abrahams.” While he might contend that the Jewishness of that name, along with any attendant notions of his qualifications to address the subjects of Jewish history, culture, and religion are assumptions on the part of the reader, they are reasonable assumptions. Readers are led to those false assumptions specifically because of Hodge’s deliberate misrepresentation of his identity, thus compounding his deception.

Conclusion: A Deliberate Attempt to Deceive  

Hodge’s act of deceiving his readers has consequences. First, it undermines the ability of readers to have confidence in the reliability of his chapter’s content. Although this review has already sought to expose and critique the chapter’s numerous errors in content, Hodge’s act of deception only serves to reinforce suspicion of the chapter’s accuracy.

Second, Hodge’s act of deceiving his readers undermines the credibility of Answers in Genesis as a whole. The book World Religions and Cults was a ministry project. And while I do not think that most people working for Answers in Genesis share Hodge’s questionable moral compass, I freely admit that this casts a shadow of doubt upon all resources the ministry has produced. If Answers in Genesis was willing to underwrite Hodge’s deceit (it was, after all, theirbook), what else might they not be telling the truth about?

Third, Hodge’s act of deceiving his readers undermines the Gospel witness. The purpose of any book like World Religions and Cults is to help Christians understand the beliefs and practices of their non-Christian friends, family, and acquaintances, and equip Christians to share the truth of the Gospel. But if Christians are actually being taught falsehoods from supposedly trustworthy “authorities” about other religions, their ability to connect with those of other faiths will suffer. Apologetically speaking, it is very hard to persuade someone of the truth—even the truth of the Gospel—if it is riding on a presentation riddled with lies.

What is to be done? For those who choose to rely on material produced by Answers in Genesis, they need to exercise heightened discernment. At the very least, it seems necessary to consider the background and qualifications of the authors Answers in Genesis selects to write on the many different topics they endeavor to address. If an author’s qualifications are absent or questionable, perhaps look elsewhere for a quality resource.

As for Answers in Genesis itself, the ministry needs to do better! Apparently, Hodge is no longer employed there, the reasons for his departure being unstated. However, Answers in Genesis still promotes and markets many resources produced by Hodge during the time of his employment. In the face of Hodge’s deception of his readers, they need to seriously reconsider whether this is a wise choice. They also need to apologize to their readers and supporters for their complicity in Hodge’s deception, pursue higher standards of fact-checking in their publications, and seek to be truthful and transparent with their supporters.

Answers in Genesis needs to do this not only to improve their own credibility; they need to do this because, biblically speaking, it is the right things to do. How appropriate are the words of Proverbs 16:6: “By lovingkindness and truthiniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord one keeps away from evil” (nasb; emphasis added).

[1] Lee Anderson Jr. holds a B.A. and M.A. in Biblical Studies, as well as an M.A. in Biblical Apologetics. He is the author of numerous articles on the topics of biblical interpretation and theological method.

[2] One additional criticism concerning the author’s representation of modern Judaism regards assumptions made about the cultural-political identity of present-day Jews. Following a summary of the persecutions faced by Ashkenazi Jews, the author asserts, “Sadly, there are still tensions in Europe today between Europeans and Jews.” How might this be understood except as an implicit charge that the Jews in Europe, many of whom can claim Europe as the home of their ancestors for well over a millennium, are not legitimate Europeans? The insensitivity of this remark, to say nothing of its inaccuracy, it startling.

[3] David J. A. Clines, in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCL) disputes this, arguing for one appearance of a verbal form in Nahum 3:11. He states the Niphal participle נַֽעֲלָמָה means “be deflowered, i.e., robbed of virginity,” though this translation is rejected by most English versions.

[4] The similarities in literary style and theological outlook in comparison to Hodge’s other works are striking. The aspects of theology stressed in this chapter, when compared with Hodge’s other material, are likewise quite similar. Additionally, in its discussion of Ashkenazi Jews, this chapter appeals to another resource by Hodge, The Tower of Babel (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2012), which is obscure and exists outside of mainstream scholarship. Reference to Hodge’s book at this point in the chapter’s discussion is arguably quite unnecessary, with the only reason for its inclusion being, ostensibly, to promote Hodge’s book. However, the clearest piece of evidence for the fact that Hodge, rather than “David Abrahams,” wrote this chapter is the fact that such was told to me directly in a personal conversation by the co-editor of World Religions and Cults, Roger Patterson. This conversation took place shortly after the book’s publication during the brief stint of my professional career when I worked for the Answers in Genesis ministry. At the time, I was involved with a research project funded by Answers in Genesis, though I did not agree with many of the positions that Answers in Genesis espouses. Since my departure from the ministry, I have diverged even further from Answers in Genesis’ views.

[5] More recent writings from Hodge evidence what seems to be an increasingly negative outlook on the Jewish people. See, for example, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2020/06/revelation-day-15.html. Here, he reiterates the old antisemitic trope of charging the Jews with deicide, even though it is demonstrable, both biblically and historically, that only a small number of the Jews appointed to the Sanhedrin (predominantly Sadducees) were directly involved in the Crucifixion (cf. Matthew 26:57–66; Luke 22:66–71). Furthermore, it was a Roman authority that gave the final authorization for execution (John 18:31–32). Certainly, there is no basis for claiming, as Hodge does, that the Jews collectively are to blame for Christ’s death.