Skating on Thin Ice
Benny Hinn’s Fiasco in New Guinea

by G. Richard Fisher with M. Kurt Goedelman

Gilbert Chesterton declared: “It is this silent swerving from accuracy by an inch that is the uncanny element in everything.”¹

Faith healer Benny Hinn has been swerving from truth and accuracy for years and continues to do so not by inches but by miles. It is nothing short of amazing that no matter what Hinn says, teaches or practices — even if it is outrageously unbiblical and outlandish — his adoring fans blindly follow and attack anyone who points out his heresies and untruths.

A broadcast of the Praise the Lord show in May 1999 — on which Hinn was the featured guest — was a liberal specimen of the faith healer’s distortion of facts and his torture of responsible scriptural interpretations.²

When Hinn took his “miracle crusade” to Papua New Guinea, it was not his “anointing” that ruled but Murphy’s Law. It was not miracles but mishaps that ruled the day. Hinn’s efforts there were a public relations disaster from start to finish.

Papua New Guinea is a Pacific island nation of about 4.5 million people, 96.8% of whom profess Christianity. There are 600,000 Pentecostals alone.³ It is one of the most evangelized places on earth.

The Roman Catholic population is over a million strong and is a potent religious and political force. With all these demographics working in Hinn’s favor, it is no wonder he was able to pull in 300,000 people for the meeting. He was, for the most part, preaching to a largely Pentecostal “choir.” All those who attended the New Guinea meetings became unwitting partners in this charade, becoming free “extras” for what amounted to a slick promotional film that tried to foster the illusion that Hinn had won an entire heathen nation to Christ. During the Praise the Lord show, the people of Papua New Guinea were referred to by Hinn and Jan Crouch as “headhunters.” Hinn’s promotional piece called them “witch doctors and headhunters.”⁴

Paul Crouch, Trinity Broadcasting Network’s chief executive, was trying to establish a TBN affiliate in Papua New Guinea. A letter from Crouch to New Guinea’s Prime Minister apparently tried to capitalize upon what appeared to be Hinn’s influence with the chief political leader of the country. Hinn promised that because of his intervention through the Prime Minister, TBN would be moving into Papua New Guinea.

RAGING ROMANS

Hinn’s Papua saga all started with advertisements for the crusade, which enraged the Roman Catholic establishment. Hinn had a photograph published in the local newspapers of himself with Pope John Paul II. It was supposed to give him credibility and acceptability but backfired with a vengeance.

The Post-Courier of Papua announced, “Hinn’s crusade gets Catholic rebuff.” The newspaper’s report disclosed:

“THE Catholic Church has questioned the benefits and genuineness of the Benny Hinn crusade to be held in Port Moresby over the next two nights. The church said this in a statement issued yesterday when objecting to the use of a photograph of Pastor Hinn’s meeting with the Pope to promote the crusade. President of the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of PNG and Solomon Islands, Bishop Stephen Reichert, said the advertisement implied that the Holy Father (Pope) and the Catholic Church gave uncritical support for this and similar crusades. ... ‘We see the use of Pope John Paul’s picture in the advertisement for the Benny Hinn Crusade as an unscrupulous misrepresentation that is meant to mislead those who see it.’ ... Fr. Ambane said in a statement that people should be wary of televangelists who line their already rich pockets under the guise of faith healing. He said Pastor Hinn had come under strong criticism, doubt and skepticism by those he tried unsuccessfully to heal, theologians and by the international media.”⁵

The news article went on to fault Hinn for being a “multi-millionaire” who lives in a “luxurious mansion,” suggesting he was a con artist who was in collusion with certain politicians there for mutual gain.

Hinn was off to a bad start, but it got worse.

NO MIRACULOUS FORESIGHT

Hinn says he has a gift of “revelation knowledge” and can speak “words of knowledge.” His faithful believe he can somehow discern their ailments, call them out and pronounce healings. Although this is more like fortune-telling than truth, it is always used on those who blindly believe in Hinn’s powers. It is an illusion based on the laws of probability that anyone can perform. There are no supernatural powers involved.⁶

Apparently Hinn’s supernatural radar was off considerably in angering the Catholic Church and stirring their ire even more by showcasing his meetings with Bill Skate, Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. Skate was, for months before Hinn’s crusade, under attack by members of his parliament and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church for poor management, corruption and unethical and immoral behavior. His administration, from the very start, was rife with scandals. An international news report disclosed:

“Just four months after national elections in Papua New Guinea resulted in the installation of Bill Skate as head of an unstable coalition, a corruption scandal has left the government in disarray.”⁷

Hinn presumably was oblivious to the sour political climate of the country; knowledge of which could have been easily obtained from published news reports by the self-proclaimed conduit of supernatural information. Such information would have perhaps kept Hinn from making the bold pronouncement that “God has put you [Skate] in that position because you are a righteous man. And I am volunteering as your ambassador at large, spiritually speaking, to keep promoting your country.”⁸

Skate was a poor poster boy for Hinn in spite of his political position. Tete-a-tetes with corrupt politicians are not the best advertisement for a Christian minister. The local headlines could have read “Skate on thin ice.” It was, perhaps, thinner than Hinn and Skate realized.

The Post-Courier newspaper reported on Jan. 4, 1999, that the Catholic Archbishop of Papua New Guinea had called for Skate’s ouster to “rescue the country and its people from suffering and disaster.”⁹

Skate, the man whom Hinn was using as a photo opportunity, was a corrupt politician who in turn thought he was using Hinn to bolster his image as a moral kind of guy. Hinn would have been just as well off buddying up to a mobster.

Despite the political unrest prior to and in the wake of his crusade, Hinn apparently decided to pitch his New Guinea Crusade on TBN to prove to his supporters and partners all that God was doing through him. Perhaps Hinn reasoned that there was no use in dumping a perfectly good publicity newsreel — especially when the presentation stemmed from a small, otherwise remote, island in the Pacific. Patronizing and fawning, Jan and Paul Crouch surely agreed with Hinn as they gushed all over him at the amazing demonstration of his abilities, great powers and political influence.

Hinn’s ministry web site advertised that “Prime Minister Bill Skate, a Christian, personally invited Pastor Benny Hinn to come and speak to the nation.”¹⁰

It was during this time that Skate was under investigation by his own cabinet for corruption and was in a struggle for his political life. He had been firing opponents and hiring accomplices to try to hold onto his faltering position. This political battle was being reported daily by the news media.

Yet those with a handle on New Guinea’s political climate and Skate’s legacy were not beguiled by Hinn. A reporter who specializes in Pacific politics told PFO:

“I take it you saw the way Hinn made sure to build up Skate at his rally in PNG? Sickening and utterly transparent. The pair needed each other — Skate because he desperately required some sort of religious backing to deflect the criticism from the churches, and Hinn because he can use his relay station in PNG to extort more money from gullible Americans on the theory that he is saving a whole country from cannibalism and headhunting and turning the poor ignorant savages to Jesus. Never mind that PNG has been almost totally Christian for the last hundred or so years and the place is overrun with churches, that won’t get widows digging into their pensions in Indiana to send to Benny Hinn to ‘convert the natives’.”¹¹

But Skate’s effort at a public relations coup failed.

EXIT STAGE RIGHT

Just two months after Hinn’s crusade, on July 7, Skate resigned as Prime Minister to pre-empt his expected ouster by a no-confidence motion of his cabinet. He stated that his resignation was to stabilize Papua New Guinea’s politics. If Hinn accomplished nothing else, he helped to hasten the demise of Bill Skate. Unwittingly, Hinn and Skate focused the opponents and set up Skate’s last outrage. Many there would say that this is the only blessing that came out of Hinn’s visit.

Everything around the New Guinea Crusade and its aftermath conspired against Hinn. As the Pacific politics reporter told PFO, “Now that Skate is gone, it looks as if Hinn and Crouch have lost their chance.”¹² Even before Skate’s departure, influential parties were calling “for PNG not to grant U.S. televangelists broadcast license.”¹³

An Australian radio news article reported:

“Church leaders in Papua New Guinea have reacted angrily to comments by a leading American evangelist that the country needs a Christian television station because Papua New Guineans are cannibals and head hunters. Prime Minister Bill Skate has indicated approval for American evangelists Paul Crouch and Benny Hinn to set up a Christian television station in PNG. But, the general secretary of the Catholic Bishops conference of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, Father Henk Kronenberg, says the comments are un-Christian and a disgrace.”¹⁴

DOMESTIC PROBLEMS AS WELL

Within weeks of Hinn’s TBN appearance and just days before Skate’s political life unraveled, an embarrassing video clip from World Outreach Church (Hinn’s church) was broadcast. The footage was aired on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and featured Hinn’s wife Suzanne bellowing to the congregation at WOC that, “If your engine’s not revving up — you need a Holy Ghost enema right up your rear end.”¹⁵

The comedy show’s “God Stuff” segment concluded with Mrs. Hinn frantically darting back and forth behind the pulpit, shrieking and finally taking an unladylike belly flop on the platform.

Hinn and his organization, obviously embarrassed by the unsavory conduct of his wife, directed lawyers to issue a letter to Comedy Central, its producers and associate companies, including Time Warner Entertainment and Viacom, Inc. The correspondence charged commercial exploitation of Mrs. Hinn’s comments from stolen videotape. In addition, the letter suggested that if the network was involved in any way with the theft or misappropriation of the heretofore unreleased tape, it would be held liable. Hinn’s lawyers further demanded that Comedy Central reveal how it obtained the footage.

Here the question is begged: If Hinn possesses the gift of “revelation knowledge” and is repeatedly in direct communication with the Divine, why does he need lawyers to demand such information?

Comedy Central and its lawyers were not intimidated by Hinn’s threats.

MORE CONFUSING FAMILY CONVERSIONS

Hinn’s Praise the Lord show appearance was not limited to a publicity project of his New Guinea crusade. As the program progressed, Hinn digressed into unfounded biblical interpretations of the demonic and even spun off a wild tale of the conversion of his father. The latter found him mired in more documented lies and fabrications.

Hinn had previously told two conflicting stories of his father Costandi’s conversion to Christianity.¹⁶ His father died in Canada in 1983 of lung cancer. On the May 12 TBN broadcast, Hinn issued a third one — entirely different and consistently contradictory to the previous two. Now there are three conversion stories for his deceased father, just as there are three contradictory conversion stories for Hinn himself.

The first conversion of his father appeared in Hinn’s 1984 book, War in the Heavenlies. In this volume, he writes of his parents’ resistance to the Gospel. Hinn claims he had an instant “revelation” which was the key to his parents’ salvation. He was to “take authority” and he immediately did that. He then records that his parents, along with all of his brothers and sisters, “came to the Lord.” He is specific and clear to say it was “one night.”¹⁷ Boldness and “authority” mark the first conversion story. Hinn “took authority.”

However, just six years later, the story and the picture changes in his 1990, commercially successful book, Good Morning, Holy Spirit. As noted above, although Hinn often claims direct revelation from God, his memory obviously fails him here.

Hinn wrote in Good Morning, Holy Spirit that one “unforgettable night” he opened the Bible and led his parents “to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.” He is clear to give the precipitating factors as:

1) They came to hear him preach at a church service,

2) At home they asked: “how can we become like you?” and

3) His father was convinced by his preaching.¹⁸

In this 1990 second version there is nothing about taking “authority” and, in fact, Hinn says he “tiptoed” into his parents’ house hoping not to encounter them for fear of their displeasure. When he saw his parents waiting for him, he was “startled,” “began to tremble” and described his condition as “even worse” than being “panic-stricken.”¹⁹ So according to his best-selling publication, it is timidity, fear and surprise — and a total lack of “taking authority” that mark the second story. The only commonality between the two vastly different versions is that they both occurred at night. The other details are totally different.

In Hinn’s third and latest attempt to describe his father’s conversion, there again is no mention of “taking authority.” But here, too, his parents’ attendance of a church service to hear young Hinn preach also falls by the wayside. There are now new wrinkles and new details totally unlike the previous two reports. In fact, the father’s conversion in this new story is totally different by way of Hinn having to destroy a mysterious black book that had amazing properties. But let Hinn tell the story as he did that evening on the TBN broadcast:

“My father, right before he got saved, he used to always enjoy smoking a hubbly-bubbly. Hubbly-bubbly is a big water bottle that you smoke and it brings — it causes bubbles. Well, he brought this hubbly-bubbly thing from Israel to Canada. And when he quit using it ‘cause he had a new one, he stuck some stuff in it and put a book in it. A little book in it. I prayed for my parents to get saved for a long time, nothing happened. One night in prayer, the Lord said, ‘Go destroy the book!’ Well, I knew I could not because it was inside this bottle. So the Lord said, ‘Destroy the bottle!’ I said, ‘Lord, if my daddy finds out, I’m in trouble.’ That’s what I said to God. And the convicting power of the Holy Spirit was so strong, I had to go and smash that thing. Now saints, you believe this; you don’t, it don’t matter. Because I’m going to tell you what happened. I—I—I destroyed that hubbly-bubbly thing, when my daddy was sleeping, took the book, threw it in the fireplace, it would not burn. I’m telling you, that book would not burn. Now I’d only heard about those things happening. I thought they were lying to me. I have preachers talk about — oh, yeah, bunch of — I saw it. So I thought, ‘Now, come on.’ So I’m looking at this thing in the fireplace not burning. So I picked up a little thing there by the — by the — by the fireplace and took the book back out with these tongs. And that thing, not even smoke on it. Ahh, now that can’t be, come on, you know, this is not a dream here. It was paper, just like any book. Threw it back in. That thing just laid there with the — with the fire and the fire was hot in there. And something said to me, something said to me, ‘Say in the name of Jesus.’ And when I said, ‘In the name of Jesus’ that thing burned. But the biggest miracle was my — my dad and mom were saved the next day. And — and this is when I began realizing the importance of destroying things that can keep demons in our homes.”²⁰

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH

God the Father is a God of truth (Deuteronomy 32:4). Jesus the Son is truth (John 14:6). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (John 15:26). However the Apostle Paul warned that people would turn from truth to fables and lies (2 Timothy 4:4). Anyone claiming to represent God should tell the truth at all times. There should be no question about their honesty and genuineness. The spokesman for Hinn’s ministry, David Brokaw, currently speaks to the media for him. Hinn is wise to have a public spokesman because he constantly contradicts himself and cannot keep his stories straight. Brokaw recently told the news media that “critics have hounded the pastor but have yet to turn up evidence of any impropriety.”²¹

Is Brokaw’s remark truthful? It is, but only if you exclude Hinn’s lies, fabrications, myths, exaggerations, fables, tall tales and unbiblical teachings, all of which have been documented.

The dictionary defines truth as: “The quality or state of being true. ... sincerity, genuineness, honesty. ... correctness, accuracy.”²² That which is true corresponds with reality and facts.

In the Greek New Testament the word used for truth is alethes. Akin to it is alethinos. Both are adjectives. W.E. Vine describes the meanings: “actual, true to fact, ... of things, true, conforming to reality, ... denotes true in the sense of real, ideal, genuine; ... of Christ, ... God’s words.”²³

Vine then explains the verb form (aletheuo): “signifies to deal faithfully or truly with anyone ... Eph. 4:15, ‘speaking the truth;’ Gal. 3:16, ‘I tell (you) the truth,’ where probably the Apostle is referring to the contents of his Epistle.”²⁴

Greek authority Kenneth S. Wuest says this about those who twist or refuse the truth:

“When people avert their ears from the truth, they lay themselves open to every Satanic influence, and are easily turned aside to error. Instead of being in correct adjustment to the truth, namely, that of seeking it for the purpose of appropriating it, these people have put themselves out of adjustment and have been consequently wrenched out of place. They have become dislocated, put out of joint. Like a dislocated arm which has no freedom of action, they have given themselves over to a delusion which incapacitates them for any independent thinking along religious lines which they might do for themselves.”²⁵

God wants truth externally as well as deep within us (Psalm 51:6). If we cannot trust men who claim to be men of God to tell the truth, whom can we trust?

Apologist Craig Hawkins reminds us:

“God is not glorified nor Christianity benefited by Christians, no matter how well-meaning, who proclaim untruthfulness, even in the attempt to defend and advance the truth.”²⁶

RECKLESS BIBLE COMMENTARY

On the same TBN broadcast in which Hinn boasted of his “accomplishments” in New Guinea and spawned a third conversion story for his father, he also demonstrated how he continues with irresponsible biblical exegesis and ignorance of Scripture.

“And I compared Moses and his boldness to ask, ‘What is your name?’ to God and took the story of the two on the road to Emmaus who never once said, ‘Who are you?’ When Jesus was walking with them, they not one time they said, ‘Well how do you know all this?’ and ‘Where are you from?’ And frankly missed an incredible opportunity. And the Holy Spirit made it so clear to us that these two were never mentioned again in the Bible. It’s almost like they were dis — dishonored. We don’t even know who they are. To this day we do not know their names. And it’s very clear that God Almighty, seeing that they’ve missed their incredible opportunity to say, ‘Who are you Lord?’ God wouldn’t even honor them to give us their names.”²⁷

The scriptural record of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus and their encounter with the risen Christ in Luke 24:13-35 provides a portrait quite dissimilar from the one Hinn painted.

Here are just six facts from Scripture that Hinn disregards:

1) One of the disciples is named. His name is Cleopas (v. 18).

2) Their inability to discern that it was the Lord who walked with them was a result of divine intervention (vv. 16, 31).

3) The Lord went to great lengths to teach the pair from the Word (v. 27).

4) Their hearts burned as the Lord revealed the fulfilled Scriptures to them (v. 32).

5) The two disciples were not dishonored but are again distinguished to witness the resurrected Lord when He appeared to His group of apostles (vv. 33-36).

6) Although not by name, these disciples are mentioned again in God’s Word, as they would certainly be part of the collective number who witnessed the resurrected Christ described by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:5-8).

It is, without doubt, ironic that Hinn would contort this exact scriptural record. In verse 27, Luke tells us, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.” The word “explained” in the text is the Greek word, diermeneuo, which is a strengthened form of the word for hermeneutics. Luke is telling us that Jesus carefully and thoroughly interpreted and explained the Word of God. How unlike the exegetical antics of Benny Hinn.

Hinn was not finished. He went on to teach a convoluted creation account from Genesis 1.

AN ADAM BEFORE ADAM

As Hinn taught the TBN audience on demons and their strongholds, he drifted into a rehash of his 1984 book, War in the Heavenlies. He proposed the creation of Genesis 1:1 occurred billions of years ago, thereby placing a long gap between it and Genesis 1:2. This idea and teaching departs drastically from historical orthodox interpretations of creation.

Hinn’s “gap theory” idea (as have many other heresies and quirky doctrines) has been fostered straight out of the dangerous and heretical Dake Annotated Study Bible.²⁸ “I found out some things that to this day most Christians have no clue about,” he boasted.

The view of creation Hinn presented has been referred to as the “Ruin/Reconstruction theory” or more simply, the “gap theory.” Briefly, it proposes that God created everything in Genesis 1:1 including dinosaurs, land animals, and multitudes of people (a pre-Adamic race). It was during this juncture that Satan fell and became the god of this world. Women from this pre-Adamic race had sexual relations with fallen angels, producing grotesque and monstrous offspring. Chaos followed and the world entered into God’s judgment.

God then sent a flood, called “Lucifer’s flood,” to annihilate the former world and we today walk on the graveyard of fossils from this former ruined creation. In Genesis 1:3, God began a new work or restoration of creation to substitute for the original one. So it would be generation in Genesis 1:1, then degeneration in verse 2, and regeneration in verse 3, and on. According to Hinn (and others who subscribe to this theory), the fossil evidence in the earth has no relationship with any creatures today as they are the remains of the pre-Adamic creation.

A NEW THEORY

Some, like Arthur Custance in his book, Without Form and Void, suggest that ancient sources support this gap. As already stated, it is referred to as the Ruin/Reconstruction theory. It has also been called the Ruin/Re-creation theory. Studies of ancient Jewish and Christian sources reveal that in a very few cases some ancient writings may possibly refer to a time gap, however, none suggest a pre-Adamic race, a Lucifer’s flood or another prior creation.²⁹

The Ruin/Reconstruction theory is less than 200 years old. The impetus for the gap theory was Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), who proposed many, many floods before Genesis 1 to account for the fossil evidence. It presupposed a prior creation sometime before Genesis 1:1.

The person responsible for the gap theory as we know it today was Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847). Chalmers missed the implications, impact and effect of Noah’s flood as a way to account for geological deposits and wanted to harmonize Scripture and “science.” He took the theory of evolution far too seriously.

John Davis looks at the motive behind the gap theory:

“While the motive of gap theorists — the harmonization of the Bible with current geological theory — is commendable, the validity of their argument is extremely doubtful.”³⁰

Weston W. Fields concludes:

“The Gap Theory was not generated by compelling exegetical considerations. On the contrary, it arose in recent times, and its popularity has been maintained for one and only one reason — the fixation of science-intimidated minds upon harmonizations, a practice not only futile if all the pronouncements of science are accepted uncritically, but something highly dangerous as well.”³¹

Bernard Ramm addresses the historical background of Chalmers and his advancement of the gap invention:

“Creation-ruination-re-creation theory — or restitution theory, or gap theory. ... its great popularity dates from the work of Chalmers. ... If it was Chalmers who first vigorously advocated it in modern times, it was the work of G.H. Pember (Earth’s Earliest Ages, first edition, 1876; frequently republished) which canonized it. The gap theory was adopted by Scofield in his Reference Bible and so accumulated to itself all the veneration and publicity of that edition of the Bible.”³²

Later editions of the Scofield Bible dropped the footnote to the gap theory. However, Finis Dake would then popularize the theory for the Pentecostal world.

There is a paucity of ancient sources that may be construed to believe in a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and it must again be stated that these works would not have postulated any ruin, reconstruction and worldwide work of Satan ending in Lucifer’s flood. There are no real philosophical or historical roots for the Ruin/Reconstruction ideas. Its origins are in the 19^th century.

The theory also has no linguistic support, as Fields points out:

“There does not seem to be one shred of evidence in favor of the Gap Theory left remaining. Its fanciful cosmogony, Satanology, and allowance for billions of years, all, indeed, appeal to the imagination; but the facts of grammar have consigned the Gap Theory to the graveyard of exegetical misconceptions. We must forever rid ourselves of harmonizations with science which are based on its intimidating power. We must embrace a presuppositional method of apologetics which will deliver us from such an ever-present and powerful danger.”³³

After 222 pages of exhaustive investigation of the historical, biblical and linguistic deficiencies of this theory, Fields then concludes:

“It is our inescapable conclusion that the only interpretation of Genesis 1:1, 2, which accounts for all the facts of grammar and all the facts of analogous Scripture is one which makes 1:1 refer to creatio ex nihilo of the heavens and the earth on the first day of creation, 1:2 refer to the state of the earth as it was first created and as it existed on the first day; and the remainder of Genesis 1 refer to an original filling and forming of the heavens and the earth but a few thousand years ago.”³⁴

There are a number of Scriptures which clearly militate against Hinn’s view. For example, Exodus 20:11 declares: “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 31:17 repeats the above, showing that the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) is clearly connected with the seven-day creation, not separate from it.

SEVEN WEIGHTY OBJECTIONS

Creation apologist Henry Morris, in his book, Studies in the Bible and Science, provides a lengthy refutation of what he calls the “Ruin-and-Reconstruction Theory.” We summarize:

“1. It is explicitly contradicted by the explanatory clause of the fourth Commandment: ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day’ (Exodus 20:11). ... 2. The Bible teaches plainly that sin and death entered this earth only as a result of Adam’s sin. (See I Corinthians 15:21; Romans 8:20-22; Romans 5:12.) ... 3. No worldwide geologic catastrophe such as the theory requires is found in the historical geology which the theory attempts to adopt. Many fossils, attributed by the theory to pre-Adamic ages, including human fossils, are practically identical with modern plants and animals. ... 4. No passage of Scripture anywhere plainly and unequivocally teaches the ruin theory. The few passages that have been offered as possibly implying a ruin and reconstruction of the earth before Adam can easily be shown to yield other and preferable interpretations. ... 5. None of the standard translations of Genesis 1:2 renders the verse as: ‘The earth became waste and void’ as the theory requires. ... 6. The Hebrew words for ‘create’ (bara) and for ‘make’ (asah) are very often used quite interchangeably in Scripture, at least when God is the one referred to as creating or making. ... Finally, the summary verse (Genesis 2:3) clearly says that all of God’s works, both of ‘creating’ and ‘making,’ were completed with the six days, after which God ‘rested.’ 7. The chief proof-text for the theory, Isaiah 45:18, which says that ‘God created the earth not in vain (Heb. tohu, same word as ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2), can easily be understood without any reference to a hypothetical ruin of the primeval earth. ... God created the earth not without a purpose — to be forever empty and formless — but rather He formed it with the intent that it would be inhabited.”³⁵

FALSE DISTINCTIONS

Hinn and his fellow gap theorists also try to make an artificial distinction between the word “created” (bara in Hebrew — Genesis 1:1, “God created”) and the word “made” (asa or asah in Hebrew). The word “made” is used for God’s other creative acts on the other days of creation. However, this false distinction cannot be supported because the words bara and asa are synonymous and interchangeable.³⁶

John Davis also affirms that the Hebrew language allows for no gap in the first two verses of Genesis. He writes that “Hebrew grammar will not allow for a chronological gap between verses 1 and 2.”³⁷

IS “WAS” — WAS?

The gap theory is premised on translating Genesis 1:2 not as “the earth was without form and void” but as “the earth became without form and void.” Can the word was be properly changed and translated as became? After a painstaking search into the Hebrew text, Weston Fields states that it is a grotesque error to do so. He emphasizes: “We must conclude that the traditional translation of hayeta as ‘was’ is the only legitimate one.”³⁸

The respected Hebrew linguists, Keil and Delitzsch, arrive at essentially the same conclusion:

“‘And the earth was (not became) waste and void.’ The alliterative nouns tohu vabohu, the etymology of which is lost, signify waste and empty (barren), but not laying waste and desolating. ... The coming earth was at first waste and desolate, a formless, lifeless mass, ... the theosophic speculation of those who ‘make a gap between the first two verses, and fill it with a wild horde of evil spirits and their demoniacal works, is an arbitrary interpolation’ (Ziegler).”³⁹

John Davis concurs and says it is reckless exegesis to suggest that was can be translated became:

“The fact is, the verb is used as a simple copulative in circumstantial clauses: Jonah ‘went unto Nineveh. ... Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city. ...’ (Jonah 3:3); ‘He shewed me Joshua. ... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments. ...’ (Zech. 3:1-3).”⁴⁰

So as Davis’ commentary indicates, Ninevah did not become a great city nor did Joshua’s clothes become filthy, but were already.

Hinn also makes a false case for the English word “replenish” in Genesis 1:28 (“Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth”). On the face of it, replenish would mean to “fill again” or to “supply again.” The problem is that the Hebrew word only meant to “fill.” Literally the command is to “fill” the earth. Again we refer to Davis:

“The argument based on the English rendering, ‘replenish the earth,’ is extremely weak. The Hebrew verb simply means ‘fill,’ not ‘refill.’ The gap theory postulates a pre-Adamic population that was violently destroyed, but this is neither described nor alluded to in the Bible. Such a theory lends itself too easily to uncontrolled subjectivism and imagination. Almost anything can be postulated for this mysterious gap of indefinite duration.”⁴¹

The Septuagint, as well as all other modern translations, translates Genesis 1:28 with the word “fill.”

What is more appalling about Hinn’s gap theory teaching is that when one examines the preface of his book, War in the Heavenlies, it is claimed to be “direct revelations from God’s Word and great insight of the scriptures.”⁴² Hinn’s outdated, unbiblical borrowing from Dake and others is neither direct revelation nor great insight. Hinn is not skating on thin ice here but is unsuccessfully trying to walk on water.

On the TBN broadcast, Hinn proceeded step-by-step through his book, all to the amazement of the Crouches. So enthralled by Hinn’s marvelous scriptural insight, Jan asks, “Have you written a book on this?” Of course, the answer should be a resounding, “Yes!” But Hinn responds without missing a beat, “No, I never have written a book.” Paul then bids: “You must write.” Hinn’s response to the Crouches and their viewing audience is patently a lie. It is mind-boggling to try to understand why Hinn answered as he did unless he is planning to reissue War in the Heavenlies to try to sell it as a new book.

Another reason for the untruth may possibly be that the 1984 volume includes some even more damaging statements. At that time Hinn wrote of his spiritistic practices. He reveals himself as an occult practitioner. He has never repented of these things.

CONFESSIONS OF OCCULTISM

Hinn’s regurgitation of his gap theory on TBN may do him more harm than good. For one thing, it will cause researchers and critics to revisit his War in the Heavenlies. The stumbling block occurs within the publication as Hinn boasts of practicing an occult art called astral projection or astral travel. Throughout Hinn’s prominence as a Charismatic superstar, his legacy includes claimed anointings at grave sites of dead faith healers and of visions of the dead. So his prior admission of astral travel is not surprising. The occult kingdom is on the move and Hinn is helping to advance it.

Hinn boasted in the book:

“...the most unusual thing happened. In an instant, I was out of my body. I assure you I was out of my body. ... I was out of my body. John says also ‘I was in the spirit’ which means he was out of the body. I came out of my body in a split moment. I know exactly what it feels like when you die. Believe me, you will feel nothing. ... Michael now looks at this angel and asks him to take care of me, and leaves the room. As he said that, I was straight back in my body. The Lord gave me that mighty experience. I was now back in my body, ... I had this experience, please believe me. I did not see the angels nor hear the angels until I was out of the body.”⁴³

On the Praise the Lord show, Hinn repeated the above with a few variations.

Kurt Koch describes this occultic practice:

“Astral Traveling (Astroprojection) Spiritists who practice the excursion of the soul send their souls on journeys around this world only. Strong mediums who have mastered astral traveling claim that they can send their soul to the moon or the planets to discover things there. Some are even so bold that they claim to have penetrated the sphere of God. This is completely absurd.”⁴⁴

Craig Hawkins describes the tools of the trade for the occultists, which include out-of-body experiences:

“Irrespective of the view held of what magic is and how and why it works, magic is very important to many witches. In fact, the working of magic, diverse divination techniques, and other ‘occultic technologies,’ are part and parcel of their religion. Altered states of consciousness (e.g., trance states), astrology, astral projection (out-of-body experiences), divination, incantations, the making of potions, mediumship (channeling), necromancy, raising psychic power, sex magic, spell casting, and spiritism are all tools of their craft.”⁴⁵

APOSTLE JOHN OR OCCULTIST JOHN?

It is one thing for Hinn to applaud himself for an occult pursuit. However, when he tries to justify his unbiblical behavior by attributing occult and demonic phenomena to the Apostle John, it becomes appalling. Does John’s statement “I was in the Spirit” mean the Apostle John was out of his body as Hinn alleges? No careful exegete of God’s Word would agree. How could “in the Spirit” equate to “out of the body”?

The verse from Revelation 1:10, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” is straightforward. It has always been translated by commentators and exegetes as a term for spiritual ecstasy and is connected with divine revelation.⁴⁶ It is something the Scripture writers (given direct divine revelation) experienced in their bodies. It is a purification and elevation of the mind. We only experience this today in a faint, secondary and derivative way as we meditate on Scripture and are strengthened and blessed by its promises. It is not in any way even remotely related to an occultic experience.

John Walvoord gives us the meaning of the phrase, “in the Spirit”:

“John’s statement in verse 10 that he was in the Spirit refers to his experience of being carried beyond normal sense into a state where God could reveal supernaturally the contents of this book.”⁴⁷

Linguist Gerhard Kittel explores the meaning of “in the Spirit” (Greek = en pneumati):

“The reference here is obviously to an extraordinary event: the state en pneumati is differentiated from the usual state, 1:10; ... The pneuma is the power which gives visions the ordinary man cannot have.”⁴⁸

Nowhere does Kittel suggest in this state of direct divine revelation given to the Scripture writers that they left their body. Therefore, it is obvious that John did not go anywhere since he states that he heard behind him a loud voice (verse 10). His faculties were still working.

Paying careful attention to the language, William Henrikson offers this:

“He is in direct spiritual contact with his Saviour. He is alone ... with God! ... He is wide awake and every avenue of his soul is wide open to the direct communication coming from God.”⁴⁹

Alexander Maclaren describes “in the Spirit” as “a state of elevated consciousness and communion.”⁵⁰

A BETTER MOUSETRAP? MAYBE NOT!

Hinn may have thought himself on more solid biblical ground when he appealed Paul’s experience of being caught up into heaven in 2 Corinthians 12. However, his citation is no better for the following reasons:

1. Hinn is not Paul. Paul was the recipient of unique and solitary visions, revelations and experiences as he affirms in 2 Corinthians 12:1. Being knocked off a horse at conversion, blinded and later encountering a serpent without harm were other unique events that made Paul one of a kind. Paul called us to emulate his faith, not his exploits (2 Timothy 3:10-11), to follow his ways, not his wonders (Philippians 4:9).

2. This dramatic, unique vision and revelation of heaven as told by Paul to the Corinthians was not to be discussed in detail, nor rejoiced in (2 Corinthians 12:5). It had no informational value as far as details.

3. The purpose of this one time experience of a heavenly visit was to further verify Paul as an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:11-12). Though Hinn may try to claim he does what the apostles did, he has not claimed to be an apostle — yet.

4. Paul minimized the heavenly experience and told his hearers that it was dangerous in that it could engender pride (2 Corinthians 12:7). It was more negative than positive.

5. Paul talked of the extreme value of suffering over even a heavenly experience (2 Corinthians 12:10), truth which Hinn would deny.

6. Since God was the direct author of this experience for purposes of divine revelation, it is totally unlike anything Satan would do either in quality or intent.

7. The self-serving nature of Hinn’s claim to astral projection is obvious. He is “super-healer,” a cut above the rest, one who can go out of his body and interact with angels.

8. Though we will never know for sure and cannot be dogmatic, it is possible that Paul actually died and that the 2 Corinthians 12 experience is connected to a real death experience (possibly in Acts 14:19). Paradise mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:4 is shown in Luke 23:43 to be a place where the righteous dead go. If this is true and the suggestion correct, Paul would have had an experience similar to Lazarus or others who were raised from the dead.

In any event, Paul’s experience cannot be connected to anything demonic nor could it be used to justify claims of astral projection. Astral projection in the end may only be in the mind and imagination of the practitioner or a demonic hoax. Historically, it has been connected with Gnosticism, Shamanism, Theosophy and Witchcraft.⁵¹

CONCLUSIONS

It is the view of PFO that Hinn made up the space travel story and fabricated his out-of-body experience as he has so many other stories, not even realizing he has implicated himself in spiritism. As has become his legacy, it was all for effect and drama because Hinn always combines religion and show biz. It is well-documented that Hinn, from a youth, loved to perform and has even referred to himself as an “artist.”⁵²

The Skate fiasco was religion, politics and theatrics in a comic opera. Hinn was loathe to admit to writing War in the Heavenlies, perhaps because of its occult teaching or for the sake of a reissue and new profits under the pretense of a new book and a new title.

Because of the Skate debacle in New Guinea, the constant lying, the promotion of an outdated, defunct theory as “revelation,” contradictory conversion stories and the promotion of occultism (and now denial of the book, not repentance), Benny Hinn’s world is not only confusing but it is a disastrous world as well. It is a dark world, filled with untruth and make-believe. It is sad that so many gullible people hang on the words of such a confused man.

Endnotes:

1. P.J. Kavanagh, A G.K. Chesterton Anthology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986, pg. 282.
2. Trinity Broadcasting Network, Praise the Lord show, May 12, 1999. Tape on file.
3. Patrick Johnstone, Operation World. Seattle: Youth With a Mission, 1993, pp. 438-441. See also The NIV Study Bible, Map 12: Christianity in the World Today, which indicates the Christian population of Papua New Guinea in 1982 as “Over 90%.”
4. Praise the Lord show, op. cit.
5. Post-Courier (Papua New Guinea), “Hinn’s crusade gets Catholic rebuff,” April 29, 1999.
6. See G. Richard Fisher’s article, “Words of Knowledge: Mystical or Statistical? — The Truth Behind the Sham,” The Quarterly Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pg. 4.
7. Peter Symonds, “Australian connection in PNG corruption scandal,” Workers News Online, International News, December 17, 1997 - January 28, 1998. Available online at: http://www.workersnews.flex.com.au/wn/wn171297/png.html.
8. Praise the Lord show, op. cit.
9. Post-Courier, “Bishop: Government must go,” April 1, 1999.
10. Benny Hinn Ministries web site, “Papua New Guinea Crusade exceeds all expectations,” http://www.bennyhinn.org/pngnews.asp.
11. Personal correspondence to G. Richard Fisher from a Pacific news reporter. Quoted by permission.
12. Ibid.
13. Pacific Islands Report, “Call for PNG not to grant US televangelist broadcast license,” radio news item, June 4, 1999.
14. Ibid.
15. Comedy Central, The Daily Show, “God Stuff” segment for June 21, 1999. Tape on file.
16. See further, G. Richard Fisher and M. Kurt Goedelman, The Confusing World of Benny Hinn. Saint Louis: Personal Freedom Outreach, 1995, pp. 65-66. 17. Benny Hinn, War in the Heavenlies. Orlando, Fla.: Orlando Christian Center, 1984, pp. 115-117.
18. Benny Hinn, Good Morning, Holy Spirit. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990, pp. 173-175 (also see pp. 46-47).
19. Ibid.
20. Praise the Lord show, op. cit.
21. Steve Chambers, “Preacher inspires many followers, and skeptics,” The Star Ledger (Newark, N.J.), July 21, 1999, pg. 12.
22. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the English Language. Cleveland: Simon and Schuster, 1984, “truth,” pg. 1528.
23. W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming Revell, 1966, pg. 158.
24. Ibid.
25. Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952, Vol. 2, “The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament,” pg. 158.
26. Craig Hawkins, Witchcraft. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1996, pg. 15.
27. Praise the Lord show, op. cit., emphasis added.
28. Finis Dake, Dake Annotated Study Bible. Lawrenceville, Ga.: Dake Bible Sales, 1963, pp. 1, 54.
29. See further, Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled — The Gap Theory. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishers, 1978, pp. 5-47.
30. John David, Paradise to Prison — Studies in Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1982, pg. 44.
31. Unformed and Unfilled, op. cit., pg. 45.
32. Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and the Scriptures. London: Paternoster Press, 1965, pp. 134-135.
33. Unformed and Unfilled, op. cit., pp. 221-222.
34. Ibid., pg. 222.
35. Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1966, pp. 31-33.
36. See W.E. Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985, pp. 51-52.
37. Paradise to Prison — Studies in Genesis, op. cit., pg. 44.
38. Unformed and Unfilled, op. cit., pg. 112.
39. C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 48-49.
40. Paradise to Prison — Studies in Genesis, op. cit., pg. 45.
41. Ibid., pg. 46.
42. War in the Heavenlies, op. cit., pg. ii.
43. Ibid., pp. 16-17.
44. Kurt Koch, Occult ABC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregal Publications, 1993, pg. 222.
45. Witchcraft, op. cit., pg. 75, emphasis added.
46. See, for example, The Ryrie Study Bible, New Testament, Revelation 1:10, pg. 1895.
47. John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966, pg. 42.
48. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdman Publishing Co., 1968, Vol. 6, pg. 449.
49. William Henrikson, More Than Conquerors. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983, pp. 55-56. 50. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1984, pg. 145.
51. See further, Leonard George, Alternative Realities. New York: Facts On File, 1995, pp. 204-208.
52. The Confusing World of Benny Hinn, op. cit., pg. 49.

© 2000 - PFO. All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. This article may not be stored on BBS or Internet sites without permission. Reproduction is prohibited, except for portions intended for personal use and non-commercial purposes. For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136.