Dr Paul Allen

QUESTION: Has it been proven that Moses existed? DICK HARFIELD RESPONSE H istorians took the biblical narrative for granted until the Rosetta Stone was deciphered at the beginning of the nineteenth century, enabling linguists to begin translating Egyptian hieroglyphics. There was the expectation that evidence of the Israelites in Egypt would soon be found in the copious ancient Egyptian writings, but this gradually gave way to puzzlement because there was clearly no evidence of any Israelites in Egypt, nor of the ten plagues of Moses or even the biblical Exodus. Historians had to begin thinking the unthinkable: either there was no Exodus, or it was simply a minor event that did not really change history. Either way, there was no catastrophic series of plagues, loss of an entire army in pursuit of the Israelites, or even the dramatic economic downturn that one would expect after the loss of a huge number of productive slaves. The evidence is now in: nothing happened—there was  no bi...

If you want a clean, comfortable Barbie Christianity that never costs you anything, the Apostle Paul is your enemy. It's not that he was harsh, but rather that his life reveals our vulnerability. Paul didn’t just “have a hard season.” His entire ministry reads like a war log—pain stacked on pain—and he kept going anyway. Paul’s story is not the inspirational poster version most people want. It’s the version God actually used. Before Paul ever preached freely, he met Jesus in a way that shattered his identity and humbled his pride. And from that moment forward, suffering wasn’t an interruption to his calling—it was stitched into it. Paul got opposed everywhere he went. He was chased out of cities. He was publicly humiliated. He was attacked for speaking the name of Christ. He was beaten with rods. He was whipped. He was stoned and left for dead. He spent nights exposed, hungry, exhausted, and threatened. He was betrayed by false believers and targeted by religious crowds. He lived w...

Y eah, the first guy died, but the next guy got SUPER blessed! Most people remember the story's frightening part: Uzzah touches the Ark of the Covenant and dies instantly. But here's what you missed! People often talk about this passage in hushed tones because it doesn’t fit the idea of a “safe” God. But there’s a bigger lesson in what happens next. The Ark doesn’t disappear; it still needs somewhere to stay. After Uzzah dies, David becomes afraid. He was FREAKING OUT! As the nation's leader, he suddenly feels that God’s presence is dangerous. Like many people today, David pulls away. He stops what he was doing and delays obeying because he’s scared. The Bible says David was afraid and wouldn’t bring the Ark into the City of David, so he sent it to the house of a man named Obed-Edom. Obed-Edom isn’t well-known. He isn’t a king or a famous priest. He’s just willing and available. This next part challenges simple thinking. The Ark stays in Obed-Edom’s house for three months, ...

Most Christians have never heard this story preached from a pulpit. This isn't because the story lacks veracity. This isn't because the story isn't found in Scripture. But because it doesn’t fit the safe, sanitised version of faith we’ve grown comfortable with. After the prophet Elisha died, the Bible says his body was placed in a tomb. No ceremony. No miracle moment. The scene consists solely of bones in the ground. Then something bizarre happens. Raiders are approaching, and a group of men panic while burying another man. In their fear, they throw the corpse into Elisha’s tomb. The body hits Elisha’s bones—and immediately, the dead man comes back to life and stands on his feet (2 Kings 13:20–21). Read that again. A dead man touched the bones of a dead prophet and was resurrected. No prayer. No warning. No explanation. Just power. This wasn’t Elisha doing anything. He was dead. This display wasn’t theatrics. Such an act wasn’t symbolism. The miracle was a raw display of Go...

Modern Christianity has turned spiritual warfare into motivational talk. We tell people to “stay positive,” “protect their peace,” and “set boundaries,” while Scripture tells a very different story. The Bible does not frame life as a self-care exercise. It frames it as a battlefield. And the reason many believers keep losing is simple: they are swinging flesh when God calls for faith. Scripture never says the battle belongs to the strongest, the loudest, or the most disciplined. It says, “The battle is the LORD’s” (1 Samuel 17:47). David didn’t defeat Goliath because he had superior skill. He won because he understood authority. He showed up with prayer-anchored faith, while everyone else showed up with fear and armour they trusted more than God. Prayer is not passive. Faith is not weakness. These are not symbolic gestures for emotional comfort. Prayer is how heaven is invoked in earthly conflict. Faith is how invisible authority overrides visible opposition. Paul is explicit: “We do n...

Most Christians can list the so-called seven deadly sins without hesitation. Pride. Lust. Greed. Gluttony. Sloth. Envy. Wrath. They’re preached, dramatized, and recycled endlessly. There is just one problem: the Bible never lists them like that. Not once. Not together. It is not regarded as a divine classification. The “seven deadly sins” are not a biblical list. They were systematized centuries later by Pope Gregory I in the sixth century as a moral teaching tool. While useful for instruction, the "seven deadly sins" are not found in Scripture. And somewhere along the way, tradition quietly replaced text. What Scripture actually gives us is far more direct—and far more uncomfortable. Proverbs 6:16–19 does not speculate. It does not symbolize. It does not philosophise. It says plainly, “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to Him.” Then God lists them. Haughty eyes. A lying tongue. Some hands cause innocent blood to spill. There exists a heart that i...

This statement offends people because it destroys a comforting myth. Hell is full of people who knew better. Scripture does not describe hell as a tragic accident for the uninformed. It is the end for those who refused to repent when faced with the truth. The Bible is clear that ignorance is not the issue. Paul writes that God has made Himself known plainly through creation, conscience, and truth, so that people are “without excuse” (Romans 1:19–20). The problem is not a lack of information. The problem is rejection. Suppression. Resistance. Truth was seen—and then pushed aside. Jesus never spoke of hell as a misunderstanding. He spoke of it as the consequence of refusal. “This is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil” (John 3:19). That is not ignorance. That is a preference. Unrepentance is not accidental. It is willful. It involves repeatedly choosing to cling to sin despite knowing that God ...

In Saul’s next attempt to destroy David, he unrealistically tried to involve those around him who loved David. Jonathan’s fondness for David is expressed by the same word as is used for the pleasure Saul had previously taken in David (18:22). It may be that Jonathan’s calm good sense in removing David from the scene and then facing his father with the realities of David’s support, through which the LORD won a great victory for all Israel, brought Saul back to one of his periods of reality. Jonathan must have had some awareness of Saul’s fear that David would replace him.  Still, his serene acceptance of the implications of David’s victories was maybe a further factor in Saul’s recovery of perspective. Jonathan’s attempts to prevent his father from further damaging himself by his obsession are admirable. Saul was persuaded, and David, at least for a while, was able to return to court. Saul’s confirmation of his word with an oath reflects the extremes of his mood swings. 19:8–10 / A ...

In everyday Christian language, terms like "hell," "outer darkness," and "the lake of fire" are often used interchangeably to describe the final destiny of those who reject Christ. But while all of these expressions point to the same ultimate reality (eternal separation from God), Scripture itself teaches an important distinction between Hades and the lake of fire. The word "hell" is an older English term used in the King James Version as a broad translation for several different biblical words, including the Greek "Hades," the Hebrew "Sheol," "Gehenna," and the verb "tartarōō" (Tartarus). This broad usage has contributed to a widespread misunderstanding of the nature of biblical punishment in the afterlife. As a result, "hell" has come to represent the final place of eternal punishment, even though biblically speaking, hell (Hades) is not the same as the eternal lake of fire. Because of this, man...

Below is Dick Harfield (Quora) answering the following submitted question:  Is Prophet  Amos  the 'first historically verifiable prophet' in the Bible? There may have been other prophets, all the way back to Abraham, but their existence has not been verified and is increasingly considered unlikely. Based on  Amos  1:1,  Amos  began to prophesy in the days of Uzziah, king of Judah, in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel and two years before the earthquake of 760 BCE, making him just a little earlier than the prophet Isaiah. On the face of it, that means that  Amos  may be the first historically verifiable prophet in the Bible. Amos  6:2, which warns the reader to see what the Assyrians had done to the cities of Calneh, Hamath and Gath, provides reason for doubt. Assyria defeated the kingdoms of Calneh and Hamath in 738 BCE, and Gath in 734, much later than the earthquake during the reigns of Uzziah and Joash. Since it wo...