This relates to your post on Ida, the supposed "missing link" fossil. Would it be possible that this animal (and other fossils, dinosaurs included) never actually lived and walked the earth but were simply placed by God as fossils to test our faith? I know there is an animal in the Old Testament that sounds similar to a dinosaur, but couldn't it have been an elephant or some other large animal?

Sincerely, Planted Evidence

Dear Planted Evidence,

The problem with God placing the fossils in the earth on the first several days of Creation is that it would be a willful act on the part of God to deceive mankind. God never deceives (Tit 1:2). He also says that the Creation is evidence of His existence (Rom 1:19-20). Evolutionary “missing links” being planted in the geologic strata would be a direct contradiction of God’s promise.

No, fossils aren’t planted evidence against God. Most creation scientists will tell you that fossils are a great example of what would have happened to animals under the intense pressure created by the Great Flood of Noah’s day (Gen 7:17-24). Geology, like all fields of science, screams of God’s existence. It isn’t science that is against the Bible; it is scientists that are against the Gospel.

As for the creature from the book of Job… it isn’t necessarily a dinosaur, but it sure isn’t an elephant. Elephants don’t have tails the size of cedar trees (Job 40:17). There are no guarantees that the ‘Behemoth’ of Job 40:15-24 or the ‘Leviathan’ of Job 41:1-10 are dinosaurs, but they certainly don’t match the description of any animals we see roaming around today.

From birth to age twenty-eight, I was a practicing Catholic. Whenever God in His three parts was referred to (by teachers, fellow believers, priest, sermons etc.), it was with the word ‘Trinity’. At the age of twenty-eight, I converted to being a christian only.  Since that time, when God is spoken of in His three parts, it has been with the word ‘Godhead’. Both seem to be talking about the same mysterious thing - one God but three distinct persons – Father (Jehovah), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (dove at Jesus’ baptism). When I look in the concordance, I can find the word ‘Godhead’ used by several different versions of Bible translations but never find the word ‘Trinity’. The only way I can research ‘Trinity’ is to use secular or Catholic sources. Can you please tell me where the differences/similarities are between the two words? Thanks for your time and effort to sort this out.

Gratefully, Then and Now

Dear Then and Now,

The words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Godhead’ are both attempting to grapple with the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unique individuals and yet also one. The word ‘Godhead’ comes from a Greek word used in Col 2:9 which means ‘the state of being God’. Some translations use the word ‘Deity’ instead of ‘Godhead’.

If we were to get technical, and this IS a technical question, ‘Trinity’ is a word created by theologians to describe the interactions among the three deities of the Bible. Alternatively, ‘Godhead’ is a direct Bible description of how all three individuals are equally God. ‘Trinity’ was first recorded as being used in 170 AD by Theophilus of Antioch. ‘Godhead’ is first recorded as being used by the apostle Paul.

‘Trinity’ is correct terminology, but it is man-made terminology. Once again, we are being technical, but technically speaking, ‘Godhead’ is the most Biblically accurate descriptor of the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

My husband and I are currently setting up a saltwater fish tank.  In doing so, it made me think about Noah's Ark and the flood. At that time, the entire surface of the earth was covered with water.  We know that freshwater fish cannot live in saltwater, and saltwater fish cannot live in fresh water; yet at this time, God in His wisdom was able to have all fish survive inside His giant aquarium.  The beauty of God never ceases to amaze me.  Do you have any thoughts on this?

Sincerely, Fish Friend

Dear Fish Friend,

Your question is more of a scientific one than a Biblical one… but it certainly has pertinence. The Bible says that God flooded the whole earth (Gen 6:17) and that Noah only saved the land-based animals on the ship (Gen 6:19-20). The fish, saltwater and freshwater, would have been left to fend for themselves. There is an excellent technical article on this subject here at AnswersInGenesis.

The short version is that most fish didn’t survive the cataclysmic disasters of the flood. Just like the land-based animals, most of the aquatic life would have been destroyed under all the upheaval (hence all the fossils we have today). However, some did survive, probably in ‘pockets’ of freshwater in various areas of the globe. Even today, we can find areas where freshwater and saltwater meet and pockets of freshwater are formed. Nobody definitively knows the answer to how the fish survived, but many scientists have studied the topic and have proven that the science does not contradict the Biblical account of the flood.

I'm sure you have seen the “47-million-year-old” fossil of the "human" that evolutionists found.  I mean, it is ridiculous; it doesn't even look human. It looks like an animal. I don't understand how they can say they found a 47-million-year-old human.

Sincerely, My Uncle Isn’t An Ape

Dear My Uncle Isn’t An Ape,

From time to time, evolutionists proclaim that they have found some spectacular new evidence that demonstrates that we evolved, and therefore the Bible is wrong. Every time they do this, the media becomes enamored, and a gigantic whirlwind of publicity ensues. Publicity is not the same as reality. Just because evolutionists say that ‘Ida’ (the name of the fossil) is a 47-million-year-old ‘missing link’ between mankind and primates doesn’t make it so.

The Bible answer is the same today as it was yesterday. God says He made the whole world in six days (Gen 1) and did it roughly 6,000 years ago. We were created and designed. I’m more inclined to believe God who was there than a bunch of scientists with an agenda.

Having said that, there is plenty of scientific evidence to refute ‘Ida’ being our evolutionary ancestor. I highly recommend reading this article from the scientists at Answers in Genesis. They specialize in studying these issues and the science behind them. The story is still fresh, and few scientists have had a chance to really take a look at the evidence, but as far as it looks now, ‘Ida’ is just another fossil of an extinct lemur species. ‘Ida’ would have been created on day 6… just like all the other lemurs.

When a person loses their spouse or child to death, how does that remaining person keep from becoming like Jacob in the book of Genesis when he lost his son Joseph, and he mourned so hard he "let his grey hair down to Sheol"?

Sincerely, Deep In Sorrow

Dear Deep In Sorrow,

This is a great question… which is why thousands of books have been written

on the subject of grief. The statement you referred to is made by Jacob immediately upon hearing of his son's death and when he contemplates the loss of a second son (Gen 37:35, Gen 42:38). That emotion is a normal one. When one learns of the death of a spouse or child, their first reaction is so painful and the grief is so deep that they feel they will never have another happy moment on this earth. Jacob's first reaction was normal in this respect. Jacob later received the good news that his son was alive, so he didn't have to go to his grave in pain.

But your question is about us today. How do we handle grief, so that we will be able to recover and find happiness again? This process of handling grief is called "Healing Grief." It means we go through the grieving process in the right way, so we can heal. This is where those thousands of books come in, and I suggest you read many of them if you are in this condition. Some of the major things most people need to do are:

1) Go ahead and cry your eyes out. Don't be ashamed to express your pain by crying. (Ps 6:6-7)

2) If you have a friend who will listen, talk, talk, talk. Crying and talking are very therapeutic. Don't hold it in! Cry and talk. (Eccl 4:10)

3) Cry out to God in prayer and listen to God as He speaks to you through His Bible, especially the book of Psalms (Phil 4:6; 1 Pet 5:6-7). 4) This next one sounds funny to someone who has not been through this experience, but those who have will know what I am saying. After a few months, you will realize that you don't want to let go of your loved one. You don't want them forgotten. You actually hope they might, in some way, come back. At this stage, you must accept the fact that they are gone. This is not easy, but it is a big step that is necessary to healing. (2 Sam 12:22-23)

When this acceptance actually comes into your life, you will begin the final period called ‘recovery’. It is at this time that hope will come back into your life, and you will find happiness again. You are going through a grieving process God built within us humans who are made in His image… so don’t give up. Even Jesus Himself experienced this emotion (John 11:35).