Archives April 2011

Part Twelve: The End Times Demonic Deception

“There is no neutral ground in the universe. Every square inch, every split second is claimed by God and counter claimed by Satan.”
C.S. Lewis

The respected and late Bible expert Walter Martin said in a 1968 interview: “At some point in the near future UFO occupants would begin to interact extensively with people. Their message? We are superior beings—advanced far beyond you earthlings. Look at our technology. But we have come to help and guide you.”[i]

Walter Martin did not believe in little green men from the other side of the universe and neither do I, for the Bible in no way teaches such things. Martin was simply discussing the “alien” deception – that is that demons have been masquerading as “aliens”, “extraterrestrials” that have come from a distant galaxy and are here to help. He goes on speaking of the theology of these would be “aliens”.

Angels, Aliens, and the Antichrist Revealed

A vital clue to the UFO mystery is this: UFO theology – gained from the so-called close encounters – is diametrically opposed to Christianity. The world of the occult and the people involved in it speak constantly of contact with UFOs and their occupants, and the theology derived from UFO contact is most revealing. Extraterrestrials (according to those who claim to have spoken to them) do not believe God is a personal being; they do not believe Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and they do not believe the Bible alone is God’s Word to the world. They do not believe in eternal punishment, and they do not believe in bodily resurrection. The reincarnation of the Hindus, Kabbalah, and New Age philosophies gains a new perspective when viewed through the eyes of extraterrestrials: it transforms into planetary reincarnation, where people evolve from planet to planet in order to reach perfection.

It would be an amazing thing, from the world’s perspective, if an advanced technological civilization arrived upon the earth, claiming to be the savior of mankind and the creator of Homo sapiens. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that with all of the fanfare of scientific accomplishment, the ultimate deception could reveal itself at the end of the ages as our deliverer. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9, we are told that when Satan appears in human form, he appears as the Antichrist who leads men, through deceit, to destruction. Those who refuse the knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ will believe him,[ii] (emphasis mine).

Martin is suggesting that the powerful delusion, spoken of by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 is in fact the appearance of the so called aliens (demons) on the world scene someday.

The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous signs, lying wonders, and every type of evil to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 ISV).

According to Researchers

The fact is that many Bible researchers believe the alien phenomenon to be happening but that the so-called ”aliens” are in fact demons masquerading as intelligent life from other parts of the universe. Author David Hunt said: “UFOs […] are clearly not physical and seem to be demonic manifestations from another dimension, calculated to alter man’s way of thinking,” (emphasis mine). [iii] Bible researchers John Ankerberg and John Weldon said: “the fact that all UFO phenomena are consistent with the demonic theory, indicate that this explanation is the best possible answer for the solution to the UFO mystery,” (emphasis mine). [iv] William Goetz in his book UFOs Friend, Foe, or Fantasy stated: “I am quite convinced that the evidence reveals UFOs to be demonic,” (emphasis mine). [v] This conclusion is echoed by Dr. Pierre Guérin, senior researcher at the French National Council for Scientific Research: “UFO behavior is more akin to magic than to physics as we know it […] the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical,” (emphasis mine). [vi] Even the atheist John Keel in his book UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, concludes that the UFO phenomenon is demonic and not beings from another planet: “The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demon-ological phenomenon.”

The identification of these “aliens” as demons is clear to those who study the Bible. In fact, the entire study in this book has been pointing in this direction. The fallen angels, a.k.a. demons (sons of God) came to earth once and caused havoc and Jesus said that the last days would be like the days of Noah. Today, however, most people of the world have been so influenced by Darwinian-evolutionary thinking that they do not believe in God and certainly do not believe in demons. The change has come slowly over several decades and now has come to fruition. The Cutting Edge Newsletter # 1912 offers six points how people have gone from having at least a general belief in God or Jesus to accepting aliens as real. They note how once people begin to reject the truth of Jesus they will stop reading the Bible and applying it in their lives.  This will then lead them to believe that the Bible is just a collection of myths, there are no supernatural beings and only what we can observe through our sense is real. Next Satan convinces man that if it works then it must be true and therefore when people are exposed to some form of demonic power they accept it though not believing its origin is demonic. The Newsletter concludes with Satan proceeding “in stages of ever-increasing frequency and power, to his final Alien deception. Alien beings and UFO phenomenon begin to appear with increasing frequency and contact.” Because men no longer believe in demonic beings, they generally accept the lie that “they are an Alien race from another world. This other world is supposedly more technologically and spiritually advanced than Planet Earth.” [vii]

Bible teacher William Frederick, in his book, The Coming Epiphany (2009), suggests that the purpose of the UFOs is to condition people to accept the antichrist and to turn people away from God and abandon Christianity. He states:

I believe that they are going to be used to deceive many people into believing the lie that Jesus was an alien, and that UFOs started life on earth. And I also believe that the coming antichrist will, with great signs and wonders, get people to believe this lie and may even proclaim himself as the alien who started life on earth. In other words he will proclaim himself as god. […] As the return of Christ draws near the deception will get stronger and gain greater acceptance. [viii]

The Propaganda

War of the Worlds

In reality, there is a powerful propaganda machine working continuously to cause people to believe that one day the aliens will come to earth and this propaganda is rapidly increasing. The foundation of the propaganda was set via the theory of evolution which has programmed the modern person to accept the possibility of aliens showing up. Evolution has made man believe that if he could evolve against all odds, then, considering the trillions upon trillions of stars in the universe, there must be another hospitable planet that could also have given rise to the evolution of life. Modern day scientists like Stephen Hawking, confirm this notion that since we evolved, then it is just a matter of time before aliens will show up – based simply on the numbers. He warns, however, that they might not necessarily be nice when they do show up. “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational […] The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like”. [ix]

The academic speculations concerning the existence and arrival of aliens are then continually reinforced in the media with their stunning special effects. The media has brought us the message over the years with various angles of how we should expect these aliens. H.G. Wells’ classic War of the Worlds, first broadcast over radio left millions panicking that aliens truly had invaded the earth seeking to destroy humanity. Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster film Close Encounters of the Third Kind revealed a more benevolent alien – one who had come with peaceful motives and sought to help us rather than destroy us. The litany of global saviors is growing and the public loves it. Superheroes like Superman, Iron Man, Spider Man, and X-Men have also become earth’s heroes and saviors. Thanks to commercialism and incessant marketing, we see the images of these heroes many times a day – far more than we see reference to Jesus or the Bible.

“Aliens” Save the Human Race

The 2009 film Knowing, starring Nicholas Cage, envisions an apocalyptic scenario where earth is going to be destroyed by a solar flare of immense proportions. Throughout the movie some rather dark looking individuals are in pursuit of a boy and girl, whom they eventually convince to go with them before earth is destroyed. Nicholas Cage, who plays the father of the little boy, finally realizes that there is no hope for earth and so letting his son go with these individuals is the only option for his son. As he hands him over to the aliens, they transform themselves from their simple (but dark) human bodies into radiant beings of light, which only serves to remind us all too well of where Scripture declares that Satan and his angels can transform themselves into angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). All throughout the movie various characters make reference to God and Jesus in a fairly positive light. However, at the end of it all, the earth is destroyed and God and Jesus do absolutely nothing for humanity. Selected boy-girl couples (and two of every creature) are safely transported to other planets where they will begin again. If it were not for the oversight of the aliens, the entire human race would have been lost forever. The message is powerful that God and/or Jesus are impotent (or do not care) to help but the aliens, who have never asked anything from us, are the ones who in fact are superintending the continuation of the human race. The last scene even subtly implies that it was the aliens who originally planted humanity on earth in the same manner as they then planted the children on distant planets.

Fallen

As part of the propaganda that is intended to influence public sentiment – perhaps even to the point of empathizing with the demons and/or their offspring, ABC TV introduced a movie and series called Fallen in the fall of 2006. The concept of the story is that angels, who have fallen from heaven, will one day make it back via the “redeemer” who is a hybrid with a fallen angel and human mother – a race that the sequel calls “Nephilim”. [x] When we consider that ABC Family’s Fallen had approximately 2 million viewers weekly (according to TVGuide.com) we begin to see that the propaganda machine is in full motion.

Fallen

We might classify the ABC’s series Fallen as sympathy for the devil. While it is true that Lucifer remains a bad guy in the series, the other fallen angels (who, biblically, are demons and do his bidding) are made to look as if they have been given a bad rap. The series causes the viewer to wonder if perhaps God isn’t being unfair in some way. More importantly, it creates fascination and perhaps even desire for some to be a Nephilim (a hybrid) as well. The conditioning of the viewer’s mind to not be shocked at the thought of fallen angels mingling themselves with the seed of men is masterfully executed in the series. Lastly, we must not miss the most important element of all: it will be a demonic-human hybrid who will redeem the fallen angels and gain them access back into heaven. Could this be an allusion to Genesis 3:15 in which Satan’s seed will incarnate? Could this be why the Antichrist is often called the Beast in that he is not fully human but is a hybrid? This series and the many other TV series and movies all program mankind into accepting in the future what are today’s far out concepts.


[i] Walter Martin, Jill Martin Rische, Kurt Van Gorden, The Kingdom of The Occult, Thomas Nelson Publishing, Nashville, TN, 2008, pages 371-372.

[ii] Ibid. pg. 373.

[iii] David Hunt, The Cult Explosion (tract), n.p. 1981.

[iv] Ankerberg and Weldon, Facts on UFOs and Other Supernatural Phenomena. Eugene, OR: Harvest House 1992. p. 44

[v] Goetz, William R. UFOs Friend, Foe, or Fantasy, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Horizon Books. 1997, pg.142

[vi] Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1.

[vii] http://www.cuttingedgeministries.net/NEWS/n1912.cfm.

[viii] William Frederick, The Coming Epiphany (2009). Book downloaded from:  www.thecomingepiphany.com.

[ix] 4/25/2010 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece.

[x] Retrieved December 2, 2010 from: http://www.suite101.com/content/fallen-returns-to-abc-family-a25424.

Verse by Verse Bible Teaching

Man reading the bible intentlyGod  teaches us that His Word is of the utmost importance in our lives.  When we know His Word we know the Heart of God. We cantrust it and completely base our lives upon it. His Word boldly states: ¨“The entirety of Your word is truth…” (Psalm 119:160) and again ¨“You have magnified Your word above all Your name” (Psalm 138:2). God’s Word will never fail: ¨“…the word of our God stands forever.” Isaiah 40:8  – His Word is absolutely pure: “Every word of God is pure…” (Proverbs 30:5).  Jesus stated “Your word is truth” John 17:17.


Weekly Bible Studies on Books of the Bible (Verse by Verse)

The following are verse by verse Bible studies taught I taught at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (California). Teaching verse by verse and literally were my two guiding principles in these studies. I hope that you are blessed by them. – Douglas

Isaiah

Isaiah 1 March 2010

Isaiah 2 March 10 2010

Isaiah 3-5 March 17 2010

Isaiah 6-7 2010

Isaiah 7-8 April 28 2010

Isaiah 9 10 May 5 2010

Isaiah 11-12 May 12 2010

Isaiah 13-14 May 26 2010

Isaiah 14 June 2 2010

Isaiah 14 June 16 2010

Isaiah 19 July 7 2010

Isaiah 20-21 July 14 2010

coming

Isaiah 27 Oct 5 2010

Isaiah 29-30 Oct 20 2010

Isaiah 31-33 Oct 27 2010

Isaiah 34-35 Nov 3 2010

Isaiah 36-37 Nov 10 2010

Isaiah 38-39 Dec 8 2010

Isaiah 40 Dec 15 2010

Isaiah 41 Dec 22 2010

Isaiah 44 Jan 26 2011

Isaiah 45 and 46 Feb 9 2011

Isaiah 47 Feb 16 2011

Isaiah 48 49 FEb 23 2011

Isaiah 50 – March 2 2011

Isaiah 52 13 and 53 Suffering Servant March 9 2011

Isaiah 54 55 March 16 2011

Isaiah 56 57 58 March 23 2011

Isaiah 59 60 March 30 2011

Isaiah 61 April 6 2011

Isaiah 62 April 13 2011

Isaiah 63 April 20 2011

Isaiah 64 65 April 27 2011

Isaiah 65 b May 4 2011

Isaiah 65 c May 11 2011

Isaiah 66 May 18 2011

Joel

Joel 1 March 17 2009

Joel 2 April 1 2009

Joel 2b April 8 2009

Joel 3 April 15 2009

Amos

Amos 1 2 April 22 2009

Amos 2,9 – 3

Amos 4 May 6 2009

Amos 5 May 13 2009

Amos 6 7 May 2009

Amos 8-9 May 27 2009

Amos 9 June 3 2009

Zechariah

Zechariah 1 Oct 21 2009

Zechariah 2 Oct 28 2009

Zechariah 4 Nov 04 2009

Zechariah 6-7 Nov 11 2009

Zechariah 8 Nov 18 2009

Zechariah 9 Dec 2 2009

Zechariah 10 Dec 9 2009

Zechariah 11 Dec 16 2009

Zechariah 12 Jan 13 2010

More teachings

Habran Senales Douglas Hamp

Passover Seder 2009 Douglas Hamp

Corrupting the Image Lectures (Taught at Calvary Chapel Bible College extension Spring 2011)

Are demons the same as fallen angels?

I have received a number of comments from readers pointing out to me that demons and fallen angels are not one and the same. I am open to the discussion but in general I feel that the supposed distinction that many are trying to make is not based on any careful exegesis of the Bible. Below is the series of conversations I had with a good brother on this topic. His comments are in blue.

Doug, you are wrong concerning what Demons are –The Book of Enoch, The Book of Giants (both dead sea scrolls)and all the Early Church Fathers differentiated between Fallen Angels and Demons .The Greek word for Demon is dis-embodied Spirit. Fallen Angels can Shape Shift but your understanding is not accurate. The progeny of the Union between fallen angels and the daughters of men would produce a Hybrid entity and when the Giants died their Spirits became demons upon the Earth–The Word Nephilim is Different than Rephaim which translates the” dead” in the Old Testament. The Translations can read those who issued from the Nephilim versus those that are the children of the Nephilim– the “Rephaim” or Giants.

Hmm – those are some good points. I am of course aware that that the church fathers thought of the demons as the spirits of the giants – it is possible. My only concern is that I don’t clearly see that in Scripture. What I like to do is to demonstrate how passages and words are used in Scripture were interpreted by the ancients. Here is the thing – Ps 106:36 speaks of the people sacrificing their children to demons which in Hebrew is sheddim – that translated into Greek is daimonion. Liddell and Scott Classical Greek define it as such:

δαιμόνιον , τό , divine Power, Divinity, Hdt. 5.87 , E. Ba. 894 (lyr.), Isoc. 1.13 , Pl. R. 382e , etc.; τὸ δαιμόνιον ἄρ’ ἢ θεὸς ἢ θεοῦ ἔργον Arist. Rh. 1398a15 , cf. 1419a9 ; οἱ θεοὶ εἴσονται καὶ τὸ δ. D. 19.239 ; φοβεῖσθαι μή τι δ. πράγματ’ ἐλαύνῃ some fatality, Id. 9.54 ; τὰ τοῦ δ. the favours of forlune, Pl. Epin. 992d . II inferior divine being, μεταξὺ θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ Id. Smp. 202e ; καινὰ δ. εἰσφέρειν X. Mem. 1.1.2 , Pl. Ap. 24c , cf. Vett. Val. 67.5 , etc.; applied to the ‘genius’ of Socrates, X. Mem. 1.1.2 , Pl. Ap. 40a , Tht. 151a , Euthphr. 3b .

2. evil spirit, δ. φαῦλα Chrysipp.Stoic. 2.338 , cf. LXX De. 32.17 , To. 3.8 , Ev.Matt. 7.22 , al., PMag.Lond. 1.46.120 (iv A. D.).

The Hebrew word sheddim basically means: 1.  havoc, violence, destruction, devastation, ruin

a.  violence, havoc (as social sin)

b.  devastation, ruin

This definition squares quite well with the meaning of Abaddon and Apollyon – destroyer.

As for the relationship between the Nephilim and the Rephaim – I don’t think that you can make such a stark contrast between them – the data seem to suggest that they are different names for the same creatures. Here is a list I made up showing all of the biblical references to them – they look like the same creatures to me – Click here to see table

Would you agree that the Demons Jesus cast out desired to inhabit the Pigs –and that Jesus always spoke of Demons in his Teachings as seeking to re inhabit the House they left? Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus speak about casting out Fallen Angels–Just as the Fathers of the Giants were a different order then the Giants having inserted themselves into the seed of woman so did a new and Bastardized entity come into being–Therefore the Giants would be denoted differently than their fathers–The Valley of the Rapha differentiates the placement of the specific tribes of Giants. Again, the word “Rephaim” are referred to as the dead –a term not used for Fallen Angels at all. Your point that the psalm 106:36 makes gives my argument more credibility–The Giants in their earthly form desired human flesh –as the statement in Numbers that the Land devours its inhabitants as in eats up–Therefore the appetite of dis-embodied spirits seek to satisfy their former incarnate lusts is noted by all reports worldwide of Giants being cannibals. Fallen Angels are the Principalities and Powers and spiritual wickedness in the Heavenly places until  the Fallen Angels become visible on the Earth due to being kicked out of the part of the heavens they now occupy along with their bound counterparts that are released from their imprisoned state as the Gates of Hell are opened.

Thanks for the response – I am open to the discussion, by the way…that demons are looking for a new home I agree. However, didn’t Satan himself possess Judas? The other thing to consider is that in Ezekiel 28 God said that He destroyed Satan and brought fire from within him.  I see a clue in that – namely that he lost something and I have to wonder if that something was his spiritual body in some sense. Thus it could be that the fallen angels have in some way lost their spiritual body that they were created with and now are “body-less” beings – just a thought.

The word Rephaim actually means healers – though of course it is referring to the giants. These beings apparently are waiting for the coming of Satan in Isaiah 13.  I thought Tom Horn’s idea of the Nephilim as essentially being soul-less beings that were filled with other beings fascinating. Could it be that the production of the Nephilim created a body for the fallen angels to inhabit?

As for the NT not speaking of fallen angels – that is a term that we have made up. The term doesn’t appear anywhere in Scripture. Thus, we are simply attempting to define what a demon is – they were not created as such but they began as angels (Rev 12) and then fell with Satan and became “fallen angels”.  We find the terms malakhim, watchers (Irin), benei Elohim, and sheddim used in the OT.  The first two seems to always point to “good” angels, the third to either good or bad and the fourth only to bad. Of course we find the term stars as well which is neutral. In the NT we don’t find “fallen angels” either. We find the terms angels (for good and bad), stars, and demons. The fathers of the giants were the sons of God who were angels, which were of course bad angels, hence fallen.

I don’t consider the conversation over and I welcome all comments regarding the subject. However,  I would ask that people give solid biblical proof of their position.

Blessings

Part Eleven: Mingling with the Seed of Men

Daniel 2:43 predicts that demonic entities will crossbreed with humans in order to destroy the image of God in the last days.

One of the keys to understanding how the image of God will be corrupted in the last days is found in Daniel 2 where we read of the kingdoms that ruled over Israel beginning with the kingdom of Babylon all the way to the “ten toes”. God used King Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonian Empire to chastise His people for not following Him. The King carried the Jewish people away in three waves of deportation to Babylon, beginning in 606, then 597 and finally 586 BC, when he also destroyed the city of Jerusalem. Among those taken (during the first wave) was a young Jewish man named Daniel. One night King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about a massive statue of a man made of different materials. God used Daniel to interpret King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which was in fact a vision of the future kingdoms of the world.

This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together […] And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth […] you are this head of gold, (Daniel 2:32-35).

Daniel explained to King Nebuchadnezzar that he was the head of gold and after him would come another three kingdoms which are identified as the Medo-Persian Empire, the Grecian Empire and then the Roman empire.

But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay, (Daniel 2:38b-41).

The Roman Empire is described in amazing precision by noting that it would become two legs. The Roman Empire was not divided into two parts, Eastern and Western, until AD 285 by Diocletian – over 700 years later! However, the kingdom will be governed by a group of ten kings represented by the ten toes. The ten toes are equal to the ten kings found in Daniel 7:24 and Revelation 17:12 and they are partly strong and partly weak. “And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile,” (Daniel 2:42).

The Roman Empire (or some expression of it) has not yet become ten toes and therefore this is a future fulfillment waiting to happen. When it does it will be partly strong like iron and partly weak like clay. However we are told that “they” will mingle with the “seed of men” in “these days”.

As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle [mitarvin lehevon מִתְעָרְבִ֤ין לֶהֱוֹן֙] with the seed of men [bizra’ anasha בִּזְרַ֣ע אֲנָשָׁ֔א]; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever, (Daniel 2:43-44).

They Are Mingling Themselves

An important clue to understanding this phrase is to understand what is being mixed. This portion of Daniel (Daniel 2:4b-7:28) was written in Aramaic because of the direct communication to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and their visions (with the vision of chapter seven happening during Belshazzar’s reign). The word “mingle” [mitarvin מִתְעָרְבִ֤ין] is a third person plural hitpaal (as confirmed by the Westminster Hebrew Morphology Codes). The hitpaal is virtually identical to the Hebrew hitpael. The basic usage is reflexive which means that the subject is also the object, for example: “I dress myself” is where “I”, the subject, do the action (dress) and “I” also receive the action of the verb (being dressed). Thus, the hitpaal verb [i] of Daniel 2:43 conveys that same meaning. Therefore “they” are the ones doing the action, but they are also doing it to themselves. Thus, the idea is that “they” (the subject) will mingle themselves (the object of the verb) with something else. This is reflected in the numerous English translations available of Daniel 2:43.

  • they will combine with one another in the seed of men, (NASB).
  • they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, (KJV, ASV, ERV, WBT, WEB).
  • …they are mixing themselves with the seed of men, (YLT).

Bible commentators Keil and Delitzsch note the meaning of the mixing of iron and clay in Daniel 2:43: “The mixing of iron with clay represents the attempt to bind the two distinct and separate materials into one combined whole as fruitless, and altogether in vain,” (K&D, Daniel 2:43). In other words, the word is used in Scripture to denote two things that should not be mixed together. Iron and clay can be put into the same mix but they will not adhere (without heat).

While these represent by no means the total consensus of translations, they plausibly provide the preferable (literal) translation based on the grammar. The same Hebrew root (arab ערב) is used in five other passages in Scripture. Though there is a slight grammatical difference between the Hebrew hitpael and Aramaic hitpaal, the root word, nevertheless, is exactly the same in both languages. The first usage we come to outside of Daniel is Psalm 106:35 where the writer recounts the history of Israel noting that Israel did not destroy the wicked (and ostensibly Nephilim) nations that the Lord had told them to destroy – rather they mingled themselves (via marriage to them). “But were mingled [vayitarvu וַיִּתְעָרְבוּ] among the heathen, and learned their works,” (Psalms 106:35 KJV). This unfortunately led them to sacrificing their children to demons (Psalms 106:37).

The next usage of the word “mingle” is in Ezra 9:2. Again, the mingling has to do with exchanging seed or genetic material. In this case, the Jews mingled themselves with the people of the land. The concern was that the holy seed (zera זֶרַע) from which the Messiah was to come, was being mixed with people who were not of the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed [zera זֶרַע] have mingled themselves [hitarvu הִתְעָרְבוּ] with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass, (Ezra 9:2 KJV).

The holy seed and that of the nations will mix but thereby contaminating the line from which the Messiah will come and therefore the holy seed  should not be mixed with seed from outside of the Abrahamic line.  Coming back to our key verse of Daniel 2:43, we deduce that “they” should not to mix themselves with seed of a different type. Therefore, their type must be something other than the seed of men. [ii] Rendering the translation in modern terms will help to grasp the full implications of the verse: “They will hybridize [mingle, mix, crossbreed] themselves with the genetic material [seed] of mankind”, (translation mine). This rendering is further enhanced when we consider the use of “seed of men” which in Daniel is the Aramaic word for men/mankind [anasha אֲנָשָׁא], “the seed of mankind.” In Jeremiah 31:27 God declares: “the days are coming […] when I will sow [vezarati וְזָרַעְתִּי] the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man [zera Adam אָדָם זֶרַע] and the seed of beast [zera behema זֶרַע בְּהֵמָה],” (Jeremiah 31:27). In this case, God is talking about how He will cause men and animals to flourish in the land of Israel (and Judah). The contrast is made between the seed of men and the seed of beasts (animals), being two distinct kinds. Therefore, if the seed of men refers to humans as a kind (species) then the next question we come to is just who are “they” in Daniel 2:43?

Who Are “They”?

The text says that “they will mingle themselves.” The antecedent of a pronoun usually comes before it, but since there is no other defining noun for “they” we must look at the next possible noun which is “these kings” in verse 44. Thus the word that defines “they” is in fact “these kings”. Just like those two materials do not blend well, neither will “these kings” with the seed of men. This cannot be simply referring to the intermarriage of different human ethnicities. We have explored the seed already throughout the Bible and seen that seed is referring to the genetic information contained in the gametes of both men and women. For a man it is the twenty-three chromosomes contained in the sperm and for a woman it is the twenty-three chromosomes contained in the ovum.

Therefore, what is significant about the statement that “these kings” will mingle with the seed of men? After all, every human on the planet originally came from Adam; we are all sons of Adam in a grand sense. When two people (son and daughter of men [Adam]) get married and have children, they literally mingle their seed – which is what procreation or child-bearing is all about (recall our discussion of the genetics of the incarnation). So, to say that these kings will mingle with the seed of men must necessarily mean that they are different from men. That is, they are not of the seed of men. After all, there really is no need to mention that a son and daughter of Adam (Aramaic Enosh אֱנָשׁ) are mixing their seed; even though procreation is miraculous, it is nonetheless ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’. Therefore to say “they will mingle with the seed of men” must mean that “they” are not themselves of the seed of men, which is to say that “they” are not human. If they are not human, then what are they?

They (the ten kings) must be some beings that are able to mix their seed with mankind but are different from mankind and just as we saw in the Jude 1:7 passage, the strange flesh reference (mingling with a different kind) seems to be referring to demons (fallen angels) having sexual relations with women. Daniel, in fact, records the answer of who these kings are in chapter ten. As we examined before, an angel [iii] visited Daniel, who described him as:

His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude, (Daniel 10:6).

This angel (possibly Gabriel who visited Daniel in chapter 9) says to Daniel:

Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words, But the prince [sar שַׂ֣ר] of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes [hasarim harishonim הָרִאשֹׁנִ֖ים הַשָּׂרִ֥ים], came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings [malkhei מַלְכֵ֥י] of Persia, (Daniel 10:12-13).

This “man” that Daniel saw, who we would classify as an angelic being, whose “face was like lightning”, was stopped by a being of a similar likeness and power known as the prince of Persia. The word “prince” (sar שַׂר) used to describe the one who withstood is the same word used to describe Michael, the chief prince (sar שַׂ֣ר). The man states that not only had he been stopped by the prince of Persia, but that he remained alone with the kings (malkhei מַלְכֵ֥י) of Persia. The Septuagint interprets the kings simply as rulers or princes [arkhontos αρχοντος], which is the same Greek word in Ephesians 6:12. He then mentions that he must also fight against the prince of Greece.

Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince [sar שַׂ֣ר] of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince [sar שַׂ֣ר] of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince [sar שַׂ֣ר]), (Daniel 10:21).

These princes and kings are the demonic power and influence behind the earthly kings and empires. The kings in Daniel 10 must necessarily be demon kings and not human kings for not even any number of human kings would be able to imprison one (good) angel as witnessed when just one angel killed 185,000 mighty Assyrians in one night (2 Kings 19:35).

In the book of Revelation we find another evil angelic king named Abaddon in Hebrew and Apollyon in Greek. “And they had as king over them the angel (angelos ἄγγελος) of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon,” (Revelation 9:11). Angelic beings (good or bad) are referred to both as princes and also as kings. Therefore “these kings” who “mingle with the seed of men” in Daniel 2 are in fact of the angelic order; the fact that they are destroyed proves that they are not good angels but are fallen angels.

Ten Toes, Horns and Kings Are Demons

Lastly, we note that the four empires in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream are parallel to those in Daniel chapter 7. Therefore, the ten toes of Daniel 2:43 are identical to the ten horns in Daniel 7:7 (and Revelation 13:1) and from Revelation 17:12 we learn that the horns are kings. Note the following verses:

  • And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, […] they will mingle with the seed of men; […] And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed […]. (Daniel 2:42-44).
  • and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows, (Daniel 7:20).
  • The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings, (Daniel 7:24).
  • And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads, (Revelation 12:3).
  • […] And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name, (Revelation 13:1).
  • The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast, (Revelation 17:12).

We see that the ten toes are the ten horns, which are the ten kings – and these ten kings are demon kings and not specifically human (though human rulers are probably controlled by them). This squares well with the fact that we are told in Revelation 12:3 that Satan has ten horns. [iv] The same heads, horns and diadems which the dragon has are also on the beast. This presents somewhat of a challenge in that the beast sometimes appears as an empire and sometimes as an individual entity; perhaps both are true. At least part of the time the beast must refer to an individual entity because he is eventually thrown into the lake of fire along with the false prophet (Revelation 19:20). Throwing an empire into the lake of fire appears to be impossible in that an empire is not a living entity, but is a collection of individuals performing the wishes of the leader.

Revelation 17:12

The final proof that the toes / horns / kings are demons comes from Revelation 17:12 which we already considered as proof that the kings are equal to the horns. However, if we zoom in just a bit we notice [v] something important; the ten horns “are ten kings” (deka basileis eisin δέκα βασιλεῖς εἰσιν) which “have received no kingdom as yet”. John was told that there are kings (current to his day) that do not yet have a kingdom. However, these same kings (alive in John’s day) will receive their kingdom when the Beast rises to power. It has been nearly two thousand years since John received the Revelation from Jesus on the island of Patmos. What human kings have been alive for two thousand years? Clearly the answer is none! Therefore, the only option left are kings that do not die but continue – demons do not physically die and therefore the ten kings were present back in John’s day, had no kingdom but will receive the kingdom when the Beast comes and so we conclude that the kings are necessarily demonic kings. We know that the understanding of “are kings” signifying that they were alive then in John’s day must be right because Jesus used the same grammatical argument against the Sadducees to prove the resurrection: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living,” (Matthew 22:32).

Thus we see that in the last days, rulers of this dark age (Ephesians 6:12) will mingle their seed with humans just as they did in the days of Noah and also when the children of Israel went into the Promised Land. So, just as Jesus predicted, the days of His return would be like the days of Noah. The sons of God took women and the fruit of their union was the Nephilim. So too the last days will be marked by the coming of these Nephilim. In fact we see that these days have already begun to be fulfilled and so our Lord’s return cannot be far away.

The Supposed “Fact” of Evolution

A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks […]  (David Raup 1981: 832, Professor of Geology University of Chicago, Chicago Field Museum, emphasis mine)

The First Six Days Module

The primary reason that there is any question regarding the length of the creation days of Genesis is due to many people’s belief that evolution is a fact, and since it is a fact, then a literal reading of Genesis must not be valid.  Some have gone so far as to suggest that the ancient Israelites were simplistic and merely ignorant of true science, which is precisely what medical doctor William Keen did in his 1922 book entitled I Believe in God and Evolution.  Keen’s book may be somewhat dated, but the attitude he championed has not changed.  In fact, we could argue it has become even more entrenched today.

Fully convinced that evolution was an established fact, Keen argued, “A fundamental difficulty with the so called ‘Fundamentalists’ is that they fail to recognize the fact that the ‘Children of Israel’…were living in the intellectual childhood of the human race” (Keen 1922: 7).  He then goes on with his biased and incorrect version of ancient history by stating, “…their minds were cast in a poetic mold, their literature was permeated with imagery, metaphors and parables.  Bards, priests and prophets delivered it to them.  No scientists then existed”  (Keen 1922: 8).

Neither of Keen’s observations is based on historical fact.  Unfortunately, his belief in evolution has skewed his understanding of history, though his perspective is consistent with the evolutionary model.  Simply stated, the evolutionary model proposes that life forms continue to get more and more complex and so too does man’s sophistication and understanding of the world.  While mankind is more technologically advanced today than ever before, and hence we have more and usually better data to work with, ancient man was by no means primitive, nor was man at that time in the “intellectual childhood of the human race.”

The age before Abraham (approximately 2000 B.C.) saw amazing applications of scientific principles based on math, geometry, physics etc.  The ancient civilizations of the time (the Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians and Egyptians) were the ones who invented writing, an extremely complex concept not for the weak-minded.  These civilizations first developed elaborate mathematical tables.  It was even the Babylonians [1] who preempted the Greek philosopher Pythagoras with his famous discovery known as the Pythagorean Theorem by approximately 1300 years (O’Connor and Robertson 2000b).  These ancient peoples erected enormous pyramids and ziggurats, which to this day still defy some of our best engineering prowess — and they did so all without the aid of motorized machinery.  They plotted the course of the stars with incredible precision and devised extremely accurate calendars.  They wrote music and plays for entertainment, kept immaculate business records that have survived until today, and even had a postal system.  This supposedly primitive culture, to which Keen referred, codified extensive laws, which in many countries, law students are still required to study.

Keen is equally incorrect in claiming that there were no scientists.  Let’s consider some evidence that shows that ancient man was actually quite advanced and therefore was not mentally primitive as Keen as suggested.  If men were not mentally primitive, then they were able to faithfully and accurately pass down the creation account given to them by God.

What is Science?

The Collins English Dictionary defines science as “the systematic study of the nature and behavior of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.”  This description certainly applies to what we narrowly define as science today.  But the word science comes from Latin and simply means knowledge.  This meaning is reflected in the Webster’s Dictionary 1828 definition, “In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind.”  The Bible contains many astute observations about nature that demonstrate that the authors were very observant of the world around them and came to conclusions about their world.

In the book of Job, we find a statement that claims something that was not universally accepted in the ancient world.  Whereas the countries surrounding Israel believed that the world was either floating on water or founded upon the body of a dead or living god, the Bible describes the earth suspended in empty space:  “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing על־בלי־מה. [al-bli-ma literally: on-without-what]” (Job 26:7).

Ecclesiastes 1 verses 6 and 7, thought to have been written by Solomon, make keen observations regarding the circulation of the atmosphere and the water cycle:

The wind goes toward the south,

And turns around to the north;

The wind whirls about continually,

And comes again on its circuit.

All the rivers run into the sea,

Yet the sea is not full;

To the place from which the rivers come,

There they return again. (Ecclesiastes1:6, 7)

We take these passages for granted since they communicate things that are fairly common knowledge today, but these passages demonstrate an extraordinary understanding of the world – all without the benefit of high-tech measuring instruments.  At the most, these are proofs that God inspired the words of the Bible; and at the least, they demonstrate good science on man’s behalf.  Consider another example:

The birds of the air,

And the fish of the sea

That pass through the paths of the seas. (Psalm 8:8)

The fact that “the seas were circulating systems with interaction between wind and water” [2] was not known until the late 1800’s yet the Bible contained this truth almost 3000 years earlier than modern science.  In essence, William Keen and those in agreement today who claim that the Bible is just a collection of myths and therefore we need not take it literally but instead must interpret the Bible by way of modern science, have made a grave mistake.  The Bible is reliable and scientific.  Certainly, if indeed inspired by God, then it must be accurate.  However, if only inspired by men, then those men were first-rate scientists of their day.  Dr. Keen’s thesis is certainly not unique, however.  In fact, it seems that the number of individuals who claim, “I Believe in God and Evolution” only grows in spite of the authority and accuracy of the Bible.

Evolution Sunday

On February 12, 2006 hundreds of churches around the United States observed Evolution Sunday, a celebration of the 197thbirthday of Charles Darwin, in order to support the teaching of evolution in public schools.  Evolution Sunday was the culmination of approximately two years of gathering signatures from over 10,000 clergy from many mainline churches who believe that evolution is an established fact.  “At St. Dunstan’s Episcopal Church, Atlanta, the Rev. Patricia Templeton told the 85 worshipers […] ‘A faith that requires you to close your mind in order to believe is not much of a faith at all’” (New York Times, Feb 13th 2006).  A parishioner from that church commented in a similar fashion:

Observation, hypothesis and testing — that’s what science is, it’s not religion. Evolution is a fact. It’s not a theory. An example is antibiotics. If we don’t use antibiotics appropriately, bacteria become resistant.  That’s evolution, and evolution is a fact.  (ibid)

Unfortunately Rev. Patricia Templeton and her parishioners have misunderstood both the Bible and science.  She is wrong in believing that the teaching of the Bible somehow requires us to close our minds – the Bible actually gives us the correct paradigm with which to properly understand the world.  It tells us why people behave selfishly and sinfully, why there is disease and death, and why we see the scars of a global cataclysm known as the flood.  The real scientific evidence, as we will see, supports the Bible.

The parishioner that made the above statement is wrong as well since he lacks a basic understanding of the difference between macro and Natural Selection.  Natural Selection, speciation and adaptation, are embraced by essentially all Bible believers.  The person referred to merely an example of how organisms adapt to their surroundings – a fact which is recognized by all.  As noted, Darwin was correct in observing the change of the beaks of the finches.  That, however, was all that he actually observed.  The other aspects of his model are speculation and not based on “observation, hypothesis and testing,” the very requirements people claim the Bible leaves out.

Molecules-to-man evolution, that is to say the changing of one kind to another (reptile to bird, for instance), remains nothing more than a paradigm which has never been observed and cannot by any means be proven even after so many years of trying.  It is not an established fact.  Darwin himself even wrote in a letter [3] to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”  Darwin was not the only “Darwinist” to recognize this point.  L. H. Matthews wrote in the Introduction to Darwin’s (1971 edition) Origin of the Species:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory.  Is it then a science or a faith?  Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.  Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. [4] (emphasis mine)

Matthews is by far not the only person to suggest such sentiments regarding the scarcity of evidence in support of the evolutionary model.  Famed evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard, stated “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils” (1990: 13). David M. Raup, paleontologist at the University of Chicago and curator and Dean of Science at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, likewise stated:

The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would […]. Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. […] Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.  (Raup 1979: 22-29 emphasis mine)

The Clergy Letter Project

The Clergy Letter Project from which the idea of Evolution Sunday came about issued the following statement (An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science) that sadly claims that the keystone and foundational passages of Genesis are nothing more than stories with a spiritual message and are not real historical events.  The entire letter has been copied below:

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation.Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.(“An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science”, Clergy Letter Project, 2004, emphasis mine)

What Kind of Truths Are the Biblical Promises?

Whether or not religious truth is different than scientific truth is irrelevant; if something is indeed true, then it does not matter what category it falls into.  The events as described in the Bible are either true or they are not; there can be no middle ground.

The very accounts that they are dismissing as being spiritual stories or allegories are, in fact, the very foundation of the Bible.  For example, if the flood did not actually occur as Genesis declares, then the promise given by God “I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth…” (Isaiah 54:9) through the prophet Isaiah is worthless.  If God based His promise on an event that did not really occur, then what assurance would outcast Israel have that some day God would no longer hide His face but restore them?

“For a mere moment I have forsaken you,

But with great mercies I will gather you.

With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment;

But with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,”

Says the LORD, your Redeemer.

“For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;

For as I have sworn

That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,

So have I sworn

That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.

For the mountains shall depart

And the hills be removed,

But My kindness shall not depart from you,

Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”

Says the LORD, who has mercy on you. (Isaiah 54:7-10 emphasis mine)

God is comparing the judgment of the earth by the flood with the judgment on Israel.  Here He promises that just as the waters would no longer cover the earth, which is to say that the judgment would not happen again, so too was the promise that Israel’s judgment would pass.  If the story of the flood is just a timeless story to teach us about God, what do we do with the promise that He made to Israel?  If there was no real flood, was there also not a real judgment that fell on them?  Clearly from biblical and secular history we know that is not true; Israel definitely was judged as we will see in the statements of Daniel, Jeremiah and the Chronicler.  Later in chapter 11 we will look at some real-world evidence of that flood.

Furthermore, if we categorize the creation account, Adam and Eve, and Noah and the Flood as being merely figurative and non-literal stories that contain truths, all the while denying that they are in fact true in what they state about cosmology, history, and geology, then what do we do with the promise of redemption given to us concerning the current sinful condition of man?  Is Jesus the fulfillment of that promise?  Was there really ever a promise made?  And if there was a promise made, then to whom was it made if not to the real, historical Adam and real, historical Eve?  Gleason Archer stated well the importance of the Bible being true and accurate in all areas that it touches: “if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested.”  (Archer 1982: 23)

Darwin Didn’t Want God’s Help

We should not use man’s observation of nature to interpret the Bible.  Man sees things differently everyday and in a way that fits his best interests.  The data concerning the origin of the universe are out there, but how we interpret those data is the true test.  After having seen the historical and archeological confirmations of Scripture, we should therefore let Scripture be the starting point of our worldview.  We ought not let man’s interpretation of nature be used to interpret Scripture.

Accepting the various facets of the evolutionary model as fact is the only reason for arguing that the creation days mean billions of years.  Ironically, Darwinian evolution is diametrically opposed to God’s assisting in any way.  It is given as a plausible mechanism for how we are here without any first cause, not how God might have done the job!  There seems to have been no room for divine intervention in Darwin’s world.  Darwin expert Neal Gillespie noted “Darwin clearly rejected Christianity and virtually all conventional arguments in defense of the existence of God and human immortality” (Gillespie 1974: 141).

Furthermore, Sir Arthur Keith stated in the introduction to the sixth edition (1872) of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection

[…] we see that Darwin’s aim was to replace a belief in special creation by a belief in evolution and in this he did succeed, as every modern biologist will readily admit.  (Keith 1872: xvi-xvii)

Darwin himself, in Life and Letters of Charles Darwin published posthumously, describes the process by which he went from a belief in God to removing God from his world completely:

Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true.  (Darwin 1896: 274-286)

Evidently, to grant room for evolution in Genesis is contrary to what Darwin advocated.  If Darwin didn’t believe in Theistic Evolution, why should we?  Before looking at the actual text of Genesis we first need to consider what method should be used to interpret those days of creation.


[1] O’Connor and Robertson state concerning the Babylonians mathematical abilities, “Perhaps the most amazing aspect of the Babylonian’s calculating skills was their construction of tables to aid calculation. Two tablets found at Senkerah on the Euphrates in 1854 date from 2000 B.C.. They give squares of the numbers up to 59 and cubes of the numbers up to 32…”  (O’Connor and Robertson 2000a)

[2] “Late 1800’s. Dr. Matthew Maury is considered one of the major founders of the science of oceanography. He was also a creationist who believed in the absolute authority and accuracy of the Bible. One day while he was sick in bed, he asked his son to read the Bible to him. One of the verses his son read was Psalms 8:8. That particular verse mentioned “paths” in the seas. Believing that the Bible must be correct about these “paths”, he set out to find them. As a result, Dr. Maury was the first to discover (in modern times) that the seas were circulating systems with interaction between wind and water.”  Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bibleretrieved from creationists.org/foreknowledge.html October 22, 2006

[3] Quoted in N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979) p. 2 (University of Chicago book). Seenwcreation.net/evolutionism.html retrieved October 2, 2006

[4] See Introduction pages: x, xi.

Part Ten: Modern Discoveries of Giants

The Bible clearly teaches that the union of demons and women produced a race of hybrids known as the Nephilim, who were on the earth before the flood and afterwards. All ancient Jewish and (ante-Nicene) Christian literature (that spoke of the days of Noah) unanimously agreed that demons mingled their seed with women and produced the hybrid race known as the Nephilim. We should expect to find, therefore, some archaeological evidence of the Nephilim.

In addition to the many written modern accounts of explorers and miners discovering men of extremely large proportions, there are also some archaeological findings. However, in our day seeing is not always believing because computer programs like Photoshop can make the unreal look very convincing. Unfortunately there are many photos floating around the internet that are hoaxes that look fairly authentic. Thus our challenge, short of going out and doing the dig ourselves, is to sort through what is legitimate evidence and what is not. In this chapter I have, with care, selected photos taken before the advent of the computer and news reports from actual newspapers – all of which come from sources which can be verified for the skeptical reader. While the thesis of this book does not stand or fall on such evidence, it is important to help us see that there were giants in those days and afterward, always keeping in mind that Jesus said that His coming would be like the days of Noah.

Irish Giant

One way to test the genuineness of pictorial evidence is to find such pictures that were taken before the invention of the computer and Photoshop. That is not to say that the object in the picture is necessarily real, but the photograph itself is not something that has been created (or altered) with the aid of a computer. One such example is brought to us by W. G. Wood-Martin, who in 1901 wrote of the Irish Pre-Christian Traditions in his book Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland: A Folklore Sketch (Volume 1). In his book he includes both textual and photographic evidence of giants. The text is intriguing and corroborates what we have been investigating on giants. Wood-Martin quotes Augusthie from his chapter on “The Lives and Sizes of the Antediluvians” (De Civitate Dei, xv. 9):


Concerning the magnitude of their bodies, the graves laid bare by age or the force of rivers and various accidents, especially convict the incredulous where they have come to light, or where the bones of the dead of incredible magnitude have fallen. I have seen, and not I alone, on the shore of Utica, so huge a molar tooth of a man, that were it cut up into small models of teeth like ours, it would seem enough to make a hundred of them. But this I should think had belonged to some giant, for beside that the bodies of all men were then much larger than ours, the giants again far exceeding the rest.” Kirby, in his Wonderful (and Eccentric Museum), published in 1820, devotes a chapter to a description of ” Gigantic Remains,” and states that ” all the public prints make mention of an extraordinary monument of gigantic Iniman stature, found by two labourers in Leixlip Churchyard, on the 10th July, 1812. It appeared to have belonged to a man of not less than ten feet in height, and is believed to be the same mentioned by Keating — Phelim O’Tool, buried in Leixlip Churchyard, near the Salmon Leap, one thousand two hundred and fifty years ago. In the place was found a large finger-ring of pure gold. There were no inscriptions or characters of any kind upon it. One of the teeth is said to have been as large as an ordinary forefinger, (emphasis mine).

Wood-Martin then includes a story and photograph taken from Strand Magazine December, 1895 edition and he says to “let the reader judge as to the genuineness of the fossilized Irish giant, which is thus described:”

Irish Giant

Irish Giant

Pre-eminent among the most extraordinary articles ever held by a railway company is the fossilized Irish giant, which is at this moment lying at the London and North-Western Railway Company’s Broad street goods depot, and a photograph of which is reproduced here… This monstrous figure is reputed to have been dug up by a Mr. Dyer whilst prospecting for iron ore in County Antrim.

The principal measurements are: entire length, 12 ft. 2 in.; girth of chest, 6 ft. 6 in.; and length of arms, 4 ft. 6 in. There are six toes on the right foot. The gross weight is 2 tons 15 cwt.; so that it took half a dozen men and a powerful crane to place this article of lost property in position for the Strand magazine artist. (Strand Magazine December 1895, C.F. Wood-Martin, 1901:58, emphasis mine)

Just how much is 2 tons 15 CWT? Due to the fact that this artifact was measured in England, we must use the Imperial (British) units of measurement. The British ton, known as a long ton is equal to 2240 pounds whereas the American ton is 2000 pounds. The centrum weight abbreviated CWT is equal to 112 pounds. Thus the total weight of two (long) tons is 4480 pounds and 15 CWT is 1680. The entire weight in pounds therefore is 6,160. Of course, the man in the coffin did not weigh that much when alive and the fossilization process added to the overall weight. Nevertheless, the Antrim Giant corroborates what King Og of Bashan must have been like. If we return to the original calculation, first made by Galileo, then measuring twice the height of today’s man (of six feet and optimal weight of 200 lbs.), the Antrim Giant ought to have had a net weight of 1600 lbs. Not only was this Irish Giant also two feet taller than Goliath, but he also had six toes on the right foot just like the Rephaim (which were counted among the Nephilim).

Yet again there was war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, with twenty-four fingers and toes, six on each hand and six on each foot; and he also was born to the giant [Rephaim, LXX reads: giants, γιγαντες], (1 Chronicles 20:6).

The Fossilized Irish Giant is by no means the only evidence. There are many reports, written and archaeological that attest to the fact that giants were real. Like the evidence of the Irish Giant, I have sought out evidence that is not subject to Photoshop types of tricks.

Petrified Foot More Than Two Feet Long

Petrified Foot

Petrified Foot

A news report from the Chillicothe Weekly Constitution, 1917 also speaks of an enormous foot that was found in a coal mine in Iowa.

A petrified foot more than two feet long was found in a coal mine near Lehigh by miners at Fort Dodge Iowa. It is perfectly formed and weighs more than 30 pounds. The foot was dislodged by the miners at the 90 foot level of the mine.

The owner of the foot was probably about 13 feet tall (the formula is 6.6 inches in height for every inch of length of the foot).

New York Tribune: Prehistoric Giant

According to the New York Tribune, February 3, 1909 a 15 foot human skeleton tall was unearthed in Mexico. We recall that King Og of Bashan was that tall and he was reported to be of the Nephilim.

News was received here Monday from Mexico that at Ixtapalapa, a town 10 miles southeast of Mexico City there had been discovered what was believed to be the skeleton of a prehistoric giant of extraordinary size.

NY Tribune

NY Tribune

A peon while excavating for the foundation of a house on the estate of Augustin Juarez found the skeleton of a human being that is estimated to have been about 15 feet high, and who must have lived ages ago, judging from the ossified state of the bones.

Romulo Luna, judge of the District, has taken possession of the skeleton which is complete with the exception of the skull. Judge Luna says that as soon as the search for the skull is finished the skeleton will be forwarded to the national museum of Mexico, which has an almost priceless collection of Aztec antiquities. The National museum, it is said, has made arrangements to investigate this “find.”

NY Tribune Excerpt

Giant Found in Mexico

The discovery of the skeleton has revived the old Aztec legend that in a prehistoric age a race of giants lived [in the] valley of Anahuac, a name given by the aboriginal Mexicans to that part of the Mexican plateau nearly corresponding to the modern valley of Mexico City. These giants, known as Quinatzins, the story goes, were afterwards destroyed by the Ulmecas, also of great stature, who in turn, perished by earthquake, interpreted as an expression of the wrath of God, (emphasis mine).

Oelwein Register

Giants of Prehistoric France

The Oelwein Register on November 8, 1894 reported that scientists confirmed the find of a race of giants between 10 and 15 feet tall.

Figure 40  Oelwein Register on November 8, 1894

In a prehistoric cemetery recently uncovered at Montpellier, France, while workmen were excavating a waterworks reservoir, human skulls were found measuring 28, 31 and 32 inches in circumference. The bones that the workmen discovered were also of gigantic proportions. The discoveries were sent to the Paris Academy for study. One of the scientists engaged in examining the skeletons says that they belonged to a race of men who stood between 10 and 15 feet in height,” (Emphasis mine).

Strange Find by Miners of Apollo Mines

Charleroi Mail

Petrified Foot

Figure 51 Newspaper “Charleroi Mail”, July 1909

Appearing in the Newspaper “Charleroi Mail”, July 1909 edition, was a news report of a petrified giant whom the finders considered to be absolutely human. The problem is that according to evolution, no human should be found at such a depth as it would indicate the person to be millions of years old. According to the Bible, there were giants on the earth before the days of the flood and hence finding a giant so far below the ground only serves to confirm the veracity of the Bible and the flood. “75 Feet Below the Surface – Petrified Human Head and Shoulders Discovered – No Doubt About it Being Human Remains – Museums Making Inquiries Specimen is Very Hard.”

Conclusion

The evidence we have seen in this section confirms what the Bible has said. Given that there are so many fake pictures out on the internet, it seemed prudent to look for sources that predate things like Photoshop. Therefore we found sources that are copies of old newspapers including testimony and sometimes pictures of strange finds. All of the sources are given for the inquisitive reader to verify the details. Therefore the conclusion that we have arrived at is that there have been extraordinarily large men in the past. Some were found at a great depth under the earth which only serves to confirm that they were buried during a great cataclysm that came upon the earth – which obviously was the flood in the days of Noah.

Summary of Part Two: Satan’s Failed First Attempt

Let’s recap what we have seen concerning the days of Noah. First of all, we have seen that men began to multiply on the face of the earth and there were conceivably over ten billion people at the time! We investigated and without reservation concluded that the sons of God were fallen angels; they were the same fallen angels that Jude and Peter spoke about that are kept in chains of darkness reserved for judgment. They came to the daughters of Adam and from their union were born Nephilim, which consisted of human-demonic genetic material. The Nephilim (fallen ones) were known as gegenes (of the earth) in Greek. These were the famous men of the ancient world. The gegenes in the Greek traditions were hybrid creatures – half human and half god (demonic). We also saw that all of the ancient Jewish traditions believed the Nephilim to be hybrids – half human and half demonic.

The ancient Christians believed in like manner; the idea that the sons of God were the sons of Seth did not even come about until Augustine. We discovered that Augustine simply asserted that the sons of God were the sons of Seth but he in no way had any supporting evidence (or verses) to back up his claim. As such, he declared it to be true and since then Bible commentators have repeated his words without offering any more evidence than he did. We have shown that the sons of God were not the sons of Seth but were in fact fallen angels, and the daughters of Adam (men) were not the daughters of Cain, but were simply women or as the writer of Genesis already put, they were the descendants of Adam. Thus, the contrast is between direct creations of God, which the angels were (and the sons of Seth were not) and between female humans, which were procreations via Adam. With this backdrop do we read that God was grieved by the wickedness of man. Indeed, given that women were having offspring which were half demonic – how could God not be sorry that He had created man?

Without doubt we have seen that fallen angels mingled their seed (genetic information) with humans both before and after the days of Noah (more fallen angels did it again). It is this genetic mixing that makes God’s complete destruction of every man, woman and child in Noah’s day reasonable. Without question the Bible says that man’s thoughts were constantly wicked and the first four verses of Genesis 6 provide the answer to the question of how they became so wicked; the Nephilim, who had demonic fathers, were on the earth in those days!

It seems incredible, but considering that out of the billions of humans (see chapter five) on the earth only eight were saved out of it – a major reason for the flood seems to be that many of the human race had been tainted genetically. The Bible tells us that Noah was a just man (tsadik צַדִּ֛יק), perfect [tamim תָּמִ֥ים] in all his generations (Genesis 6:9), meaning that he was without genetic defect. Consider that of the eighty some times tamim is used in the Bible, it always refers to an animal without any physical blemish. Thus it would also explain why the Israelites were to destroy the people of the land, every man, woman and child – that is, they were all tainted because they were Nephilim . Whether or not all but Noah’s family were Nephilim is uncertain. However the strong implication is that many, perhaps a majority, were. When the Children of Israel saw the Nephilim they lost heart and did not trust that God could overcome the Nephilim.

Among the Nephilim that they had to fight was King Og of Bashan whom we have seen measured about 15 feet tall. He also weighed approximately 3100 lbs. and needed a minimum of about 22,000 calories just to get through each day. Judging from his stature, Canaan was indeed a land that devoured its inhabitants. Lastly, we looked for evidence of such enormous people and found that as recently as one to two hundred years ago, giant mummies, footprints and accounts all gave witness to the reality of such unnaturally enormous beings. With the thought in mind that the inhabitants of the land were Nephilim, we can understand why God commanded the Israelites to completely exterminate those seven nations. The genetic mingling of demonic and human could not be tolerated. It was not tolerated in the days of Noah and for that reason God commanded the extermination of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. Everything was to reproduce according to its kind (Genesis 1:24) and the demons clearly broke this commandment. The book of Daniel prophesizes that the mingling of demons with humanity will happen once again and Jesus Himself stated that as the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man shall be (all hearing those words would have associated the destruction of the world with the Nephilim).

If the sons of God were mingling with the human race in Noah’s days then that means that the last days will be marked by a similar occurrence. God gave the human race 120 years until the flood He would bring to destroy the world. During that final time of 120 years until the flood the mingling continued (married and given in marriage) until the very last day when Noah entered the ark and God closed the door. If we are truly in the last days of time then we ought to see biblical proof that events similar to Noah’s will repeat. We ought to see the following:

  • Demons materializing physically in some manner
  • The taking of woman
  • Demonic-human hybrids

Do we see any of these things happening in our day? Predictably all of these are happening and these are what we will examine in the next section.

The First Six Days Module

Part Two: Evolution Plus God

Evolution plus God is the position that many people have taken when it comes to the first six days of creation.  They accept the Bible as God’s divine book yet also accept the many facets of evolution as indisputable fact and are forced to squeeze the needed evolutionary time into the pages of the Bible.  Before looking at the evolution plus God theories, however, let us first consider what exactly evolution is.

What is Evolution?

Evolution in its most basic sense is any process of formation or growth; development, derived from the Latin meaning unrolling, according to Random House Dictionary(2006).  There are many things that evolve, so to speak, in our world.  All that we mean, however, is that there is a slow, gradual change occurring in different facets of life.  Let us consider a few examples.

The Changes in Language and Culture

We can speak of the slow progression of the English language as an example of evolution.  The English of today is clearly not the same as that of Shakespeare’s day.  They are both English, but many things have changed radically so that words and expressions of his day have a completely different meaning today.  The change in language is something that happens slowly and in small increments, but we can all agree that it happens.  Consider how it is that we use different expressions than our parents did and our kids use different words and expressions than we do.

Cultures are also going through a process of change or evolution as well.  The culture of America is without doubt different today than it was 50 years ago.  Things that were unacceptable back then are sometimes considered normal by today’s standards.  In both of these examples, however, we are using the word evolution as a description of the slow change that is taking place and as such, the concept is completely acceptable.  After all, these changes are observed linguistically and culturally by experts in the respective fields and simply by the general public.  In other words, we can easily document and conclusively prove that those changes have actually occurred because the starting point is only 50 years ago and not 15 billion or even 6000 years ago.

From Micro to Macro to Abiogenesis

Using the word evolution to describe the slow, steady changes that we undoubtedly witness in languages and cultures is indeed a correct use of the term.  If that were the only way that it was used then there would be no problem whatsoever.  However, the reality is that evolution has been given a new role and meaning; it is used to describe the entire progression of the universe starting with the Big Bang until the present day.  The different phases of evolution include: particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological and cultural. [1] Biological evolution purports to explain how life started from non-life (properly called abiogenesis) and then how those single-celled organisms eventually turned into you and me.  Douglas Futuyma, a foremost expert in biological evolution notes,

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution…is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual…Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”  (Futuyma 1986)

The above definition is rather misleading, however.  Dr. Futuyma should define for us the three different concepts that he is dealing with under the broad category of biological evolution, which are: Natural Selection (adaptation to an environment, which is sometimes called microevolution), molecules-to-man evolution (change in kind, e.g. reptile to bird, which is sometimes called macroevolution) and abiogenesis (a nonliving piece of rock to a living single-celled organism).  Neither the Bible nor literal six-day creationists are in any way against the concept of Natural Selection, which was actually first introduced by a creationist Edward Blythe.  Changes in species populations, by adapting to their environment, have in fact been witnessed to occur.

Charles Darwin correctly noted that the beaks of the finches on the Galapagos Islands changed according to the climatic conditions.  He called this evolution.  From there he postulated his theory that these small changes, given enough time, could account for all of the living creatures on earth.  Darwin failed to note, however, that the finches were still finches.  They never turned into something else other than finches.  Darwin observed the species’ ability to adapt to its surrounding (which is easily ascribed to an amazing Creator) and from there made the leap of faith that with the magical element of time, one creature will turn into another.

According to Its Kind

The belief in molecules-to-man evolution – that single-celled organisms turned into more complex creatures, which turned into something else, all the way to you and me – is what stands in direct conflict with the Bible and specifically the six days of creation.  Genesis 1:24 specifically states that on the fifth day, “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind [מין min]: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind’; and it was so.”  This verse acts as an insurmountable obstacle to those who would try to bridge (macro)evolution and the Bible.  God’s words cannot be misconstrued here.  He plainly says that different living creatures will come forth according to their own kind and not from one common ancestor of all.  He then defines what He means by enumerating the creatures: “cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth”, rendering impossible the paradigm that everything came from a different creature smaller and simpler than itself.  The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains:

Some have argued that when God created “min” [class, kind, species], he thereby fixed the “species.” This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word “min” with the biologist’s descriptive term “species” cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists…God created the basic forms of life called “min” which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or sometimes order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist’s view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.

Dogs Are Still Dogs

Animals reproducing fertile offspring according to their own kind, is what we see in nature.  We see hundreds of varieties of dogs, but dogs are still dogs.  This (largely human-caused) variation in dogs is often called evolution.  This is reflected in the Seed Magazine article “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” (Anthes 2006), which discusses not the macroevolution of how a non-dog turned into a dog, but how through human intervention “the domestication of dogs by humans has given rise to the immense diversity of the canine species by allowing otherwise harmful genetic mutations to survive.”  (Anthes 2006)   This “evolution” that Anthes refers to is nothing more than variation within a kind.  Nevertheless, she is echoed by the Natural History Museum in London which says that the breeding of dogs shows evolution as well.  (Batten 1996)   Here again, we are given an example of Natural Selection (adaptation and variation, which are factual and observed) and are led to believe that it is equivalent to molecules-to-man evolution.

However, there is no “evolution” of the dog at all, other than variation due greatly to humans.  Interestingly, the study of genetics confirms that all dogs have come from a common ancestry. “Most breeds have developed during the past 500 years, […] Before humans began breeding dogs for certain traits or behaviors, dogs were more general in their appearance or morphology […]” (Dalke 2002).  The multiplicity of dogs is not a proof of evolution but of dog’s best friend manipulating him to better suit man.  “Breeds tell us more about human preferences than about dogs […] Dog breeds are the result of human preferences—selected traits taken from generation to generation.” (Dalke 2002).  “The Human-Influenced Evolution of Dogs” would be better titled “Man’s Breeding of Dogs”.

Views of Biblical Creation

For those holding to the belief that God was the agent of creation, there are four possible answers to the question of how He did it.  The first view is that God took six, literal days as understood by the plain reading of the Genesis text, which is the thesis of this book.  The other three views consider the evolutionary model to be an established fact and therefore seek to reconcile the revelation of Scripture regarding creation with evolution.  The three views are Theistic Evolution, the Gap Theory, and Progressive Creationism.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution is the most liberal of the views that ascribes to God a role in creation as being the agent that jump-started the Big Bang.  According to this theory, since then He has allowed evolution to take its course thereby having very little, if any, role in His creation and dealings with man. The First Six Days Module

Proponents of the Gap Theory see the days of Genesis 1 as being literal days but with a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (some also suggest a gap between 1:2 and 1:3).  The rationale for seeking a gap, nevertheless, is due to the belief that (geological) evolution is an established fact and that the Bible must be reconciled to it.  Hence, a time gap is envisioned between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (or 1:2-1:3), which allows for the billions of years supposedly necessary for geological evolution to take place.

Progressive Creationism

Progressive Creationism seeks to reconcile the belief of evolution with the Bible, not by way of a gap between verses 1:1 and 1:2, but rather by redefining six days of Genesis 1 to mean indefinite periods of time in which millions and perhaps billions of years transpired each day.  They see God as being involved in the entire process of creation wherein every day, God was creating via the evolutionary process. [2] Van Bebber and Taylor point out:

According to the Progressive Creationist timeline, Adam was, in effect, created on top of a graveyard of decaying or fossilized animals. Almost anywhere he walked, the remains of millions of dead animals were somewhere below his feet — evidence of death and frequent misery on a massive scale (2006).

Thus, for the Progressive Creationist, both the Bible and the evolutionary model complement one another because the biblical creation account is better understood through the lens of evolutionary thinking.  Undoubtedly, most proponents of both the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism believe in the authority of the Bible.

How Much Time Does God Need?

Rather than ask why couldn’t God have taken billions of years to accomplish His work of creation, the better question is why didn’t God speak once and everything merely come into existence as suggested by Augustine (see chapter 7)?  God, the Supreme Being by which all things exist, could have snapped His divine fingers and everything would have come into being at once.  Thus, even from a literal, six-day-creation standpoint, God took His time in a big way!  Why did He take so long to create everything?  God purposely slowed Himself down rather than just getting it over with.  The reason, found in Exodus 20:11 (and 31:12-17), is that God wanted to establish a pattern which for mankind to follow; God worked for six days and then rested and so should man.

View more of The First Six Days


[1] See: http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

[2] A more predominant Progressive Creationist view is that God created the animals as we see them today (i.e. fixity of species) and they lived and died out over millions or billions of years. However, proponents of this view, such as Hugh Ross, do not believe in molecules-to-man evolution, but they do accept the evolutionary timescale for the geologic and fossil records.  (Dave Wright, Answers In Genesis staff, personal communication, June 9, 2007)

Part One: The Importance of Genesis and a Literal Six Day Creation

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

– R. Bozarth 1979: 30, “The Meaning of Evolution” American Atheist Magazine, (emphasis mine)

God’s Word is Above His Name

Does it really matter what one believes about God’s creation?  Whether we believe in a literal view of Genesis or that God used evolution; who really cares?  There are many reasons that deem this question to be extremely important.  First of all, the Psalmist declares that “I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name for Your loving kindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name” (Psalm 138:2 emphasis mine).  God’s has magnified His word, (the Bible [i]) above His name.  In Isaiah 40:8 we read, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” Thus, God is very concerned about the reputation of His word.  And if the Bible is from God, then, logically, it should be accurate and faithful in all that it says.  Consequently, we read that “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.  Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5, 6).  We want to neither add to nor subtract from His words since no true follower of God wants to be found a liar by God.  It follows then that six, literal days or fifteen billion years of creation are two radically different claims.  These are so dissimilar to one another that it certainly could be asserted as adding to or subtracting from His words depending which is in fact correct.

Genesis is Foundational

Secondly, Genesis chapters 1-11 are the foundation of our worldview.  Where we start often determines where we end up.  If we interpret those six days to mean simply six days, then we have an easy path for the remainder of the Bible – what it says is what it means.  However, if we start down the path that the Scriptures do not say what they actually mean – that there is a buried allegorical meaning that must be mined out of them to truly get to the real meaning, then we will find ourselves not really ever absolutely sure what the Bible means.  Since looking for the underlying meaning so much depends on the cleverness of the interpreter rather than on the evidence of archeology, history, biblical grammar, philology and comparative linguistics, the interpretation becomes very subjective and fuzzy.  If the Bible cannot be trusted regarding our origin, how can we trust it regarding our destiny?  If six days really means something else, then how do we know that Jesus’ statement “no one comes to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6) doesn’t also mean something else?  Or how do we know that “he who believes in Me, though he may die, shall live” (John 11:25) doesn’t mean something different?  If Genesis, the foundation of our origin, where God created man and man disobeyed God and fell, is not accurate or trustworthy, then how do we know that anything else in Scripture truly is?  How then do we know that the promises of Heaven are true?

The Origin of Marriage

Consider some of the foundational teachings that originate in those first 11 chapters of Genesis.  The first description of marriage is found in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”  If Adam and Eve were not really our first parents and God didn’t really form them as stated in Genesis, then do we really become one flesh?  We are left without a clear precedent for marriage.  Jesus certainly invoked the first marriage account as a defense against those trying to justify divorce.  “And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘…Because of the hardness of your heart He wrote you this precept.  But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:5-8).  He then added, “so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.”  The fact that Jesus said “from the beginning…” proves (if we take Him literally) that He clearly claimed Adam and Eve to have been created in the beginning not billions of years later as predicated by evolution.

The Origin of Sin and Death

Genesis chapter three offers us an insider’s view into how sin, death, and suffering came into the world as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve (whom Jesus stated were created in the beginning) to God’s commandment.  If we spiritualize this chapter of the Bible, then what is the historical foundation of our sin-filled world?  How do we account for death if Adam and Eve were merely allegorical or symbolic figures who never actually walked this earth and disobeyed their Maker?  However, if we use the simple method of literal interpretation, then understanding becomes very easy.  Understanding Genesis chapter three literally seems to be what Paul did in Romans:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.  (Romans 5:12-14)

Paul states that Adam sinned and so through him, one man, sin spread to all.  He also mentions that Adam is a type of Him who was to come.  By saying that Adam is a type in no way is he suggesting that Adam was not a real person; rather Adam was the first of a kind, that is (sinful) humanity, and so too Jesus was the first of a kind (humanity holy and without sin).  In verse 17 Paul says, “For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.”  Because Paul contrasts Adam with Jesus and since he unquestionably believed Jesus to be a real, historical person, then we can safely conclude that Paul also believed Adam to be a real, historical person.

The Promise of the Redeemer

The importance of the book of Genesis as being a trustworthy and true account of historical and actual events is hopefully evident.  Not only does it contain the true history of man’s fall, but also the promise of the coming redeemer.  In Genesis 3:15 God promised that someday, one of Eve’s offspring would come and make right and annul the effects of their disobedience.  “And I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”  Ancient Jewish interpretation [ii] of this verse likewise understands the verse to be a promise of the coming Messiah and His remedy for man.  To dismiss the creation and fall of man as figurative and not literal is to undermine the very heart of the Bible’s message of the coming redeemer.


[i] I believe the Bible is a faithful and reliable historical document inspired by God.  There are numerous excellent books and websites on the subject, which demonstrate the accuracy of the Bible.  Visit  christiananswers.net/ for general questions and answersingenesis.com for answers to many Bible and science questions.

[ii] “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons…Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha. [Messiah]” (Targum Jonathan, Genesis 3:15)