|
|
|
Continuing
our study of the Holy Bible, last week we finished with Adam's fall and
exile from Paradise. The next chapter deals with the immediate
descendants of Adam and Eve and how the consequences of the fall
continue to plunge man deeper and deeper into sin.
Chapter
four begins: "Now Adam knew Eva his wife, and she
conceived and bare Cain and said, I have gotten a man through God."
Only after the exile from Paradise did sexual relations between Adam and
Eve begin. Before this they lived an angelic life. The first chapter
tells us that when God created them male and female he blessed them,
saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. This was said in
anticipation of the fall. God knew the risk of creating Adam with a free
will and foresaw that he would fall into sin and death. Thus from the
very beginning God pronounced the plan of salvation that would allow
Adam to re-unite with him. This plan was the process of regeneration,
"the increase and multiply" which through
children, Adam or Adam's nature would continue to live until the plan of
salvation should be fulfilled with the coming of Christ.
We
saw that the first chapter was a chronological order of creation without
specific details. Chapter two came and supplemented this general outline
of creation telling us how Adam was created and why and how Eve was
fashioned from Adam's rib. Now in chapter four, after the fall, we are
given the supplementary details of the "Increase
and multiply" Thus Adam did not know Eve in the biblical sense
while still in Paradise as many would say and because of this was exiled
from Paradise. This we also understand from Eve's words: "I have gotten
a man through God." She could have said I have gotten a man through my
husband Adam, but seeing the beautiful creation she brought forth with
much pain and labour, she had in mind the promise God made to her of a
future saviour and rejoiced greatly. She had in mind God's commandment
to Increase and multiply, thus it was through God because he
foreordained and made possible the Increase and multiply.
Immediately
after giving birth to Cain, Eve also gave birth to his brother Abel. We
are not told of another pregnancy so it is possible that Cain and Abel
were twins. Twins may look the same but differ in characters often being
the complete opposite of each other. This is verified by the next line:
"And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a
tiller of the earth."
Taking
for granted that we understand that the boys are now fully grown men,
they may even be well over a hundred years old, Genesis then proceeds to
tell us about offerings of sacrifice. "And after
some days it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a
sacrifice unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of
his sheep and of his fatlings. And God looked upon Abel and upon his
gifts, but upon Cain and upon his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain
was exceeding sorrowful, and his countenance fell." This is
probably not the first time the brother's offered up sacrifices to God.
God would have taught Adam to offer visible gifts to him after the fall
as an expression of Adam's awareness of dependency towards him, a form
of worship, repentance, loyalty and gratitude to God and through this
form of sacrifice, for Adam to see the symbolism and pre-figuration of
the promised future saviour and be reconciled to God. Adam would have
taught his children from a young age to do the same. Thus the sacrifice
mentioned here is not the first but rather the sacrifice where we see a
difference in the attitude between the two brothers which was the cause
that led to Cain killing Abel.
We
are not told in clear terms why God accepted Abel's offering and why he
rejected Cain's but it wasn't because God had a preference to burnt
meat. Both brothers brought of the work of their hands but whereas Abel
offered to God of the very best of his flock, Cain probably kept the
best of his harvest for himself and offered to God the second best. We
can deduce this meaning from what God tells Cain: you would not have
sinned if you offered it rightly but you didn't divide it rightly.
Another reason why God rejected Cain's offering is because he did not
offer it with faith. Paul tells us in Hebrews that by faith Abel offered
a better sacrifice than Cain.
God
would have shown his acceptance of an offering by sending down fire to
consume it as we read many times in other books of the Old Testament.
Seeing Abel's offering consumed with fire and not his own, Cain became
very sorrowful and sulked. God explains to him why he rejected his
offering, not to reprimand him, but to help him see the error of his way
and repent. God was willing to forgive him if he repented for his sin
and to help soften his heart, he reminds him that, because he is the
firstborn, he is favoured above Abel who will be submissive to him and
he will rule over him. Cain closes his ears to what God has to say and
clouded with envy has other plans. He tells Abel to go with him for a
walk into the plain and once there "he rose up
against Abel his brother, and slew him."
Then
God said unto Cain, "Where is Abel thy brother?
and he said, I know not: am I my brother’s keeper?" God does not
ask Cain where his brother is to learn where he is, in his mercy God is
giving Cain another chance to repent even after the grave sin of murder,
but Cain not only does not accept the opportunity, he lies on top of the
sin of murder by telling God: how should I know where he is
"am I my brother's keeper?"
Seeing
that Cain is unrepentant and that there is still no judge upon the earth
to pass sentence God himself takes the role of judge to avenge the crime
committed against righteous Abel. He confronts Cain with the crime he
has committed and passes sentence: "now art thou
cursed from the earth" When Adam sinned, God cursed the earth,
because Adam himself was blessed with the divine breath. But now because
of the frightful crime of murder followed by lying and insolence, the
sinner himself is punished. His punishment is threefold. Firstly he is
cursed and exiled from the land which received the blood of his brother
Abel. Secondly when he tills the earth it will not produce quality goods
because the earth will withhold her strength and thirdly Cain will be
groaning and trembling upon the earth. The KJB says a fugitive and a
vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
He
will be groaning because he will live a life of roaming from place to
place and he will be trembling because he will live in fear lest one of
his brothers or descendants decides to take revenge and seek him out to
kill him. Hearing his sentence, Cain says to the Lord:
"My crime is too great for me to be forgiven. If
Thou castest me out this day from the face of the earth, then shall I be
hid from Thy face: and I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth;
and it shall come to pass, that any one that findeth me shall slay me."
Cain's worst hell is that he will he hid from the face of God meaning
that he will be totally separated from him: Cain will no longer be under
God's protection, but his only real fear is that he will be killed. God
reassures him that no one will kill him and anyone who would slay him
will receive a punishment seven times more harsh than Cain's punishment.
"And the Lord God set a mark upon Cain, that none
finding him should kill him." What this mark was we cannot say.
It may not even be a mark, because the Greek word translated as mark is
usually interpreted as a sign and could be simply that God gave Cain a
sign of reassurance that on one would kill him. It is unlikely that God
branded him with a mark on his forehead or changed his skin colour to
black as some interpreters suggest.
So
having been banished from his parent's homeland which was near to the
entrance of Paradise, and from the presence of God, Cain came and dwelt
in the land called Naid (Nod). We are then told that
"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bare
Enoch. And he builded a city, and he called the city after the name of
his son, Enoch." Did Cain find his wife in Naid and where did she
come from? If we read the bible only as a historical book and take the
chronological order of events in the literal sense then we are justified
in thinking that God created many Adam and Eves. There are many
historical facts in the Bible, but its main purpose is not to give us a
historical record, but to reveal to us God's plan of Salvation. Thus
Genesis only gives us the names of people that have a role to play in
this plan of salvation.
As
we shall see next the line of salvation is taken up by Adam's son Seth
who was born when Adam was 230 years old. If Cain and Abel were born
just after Adam and Eve were exiled from Paradise, did they not have
other children until more than two hundred years had passed? It seems
very unlikely. They would have had many children between the firstborn
mentioned and Seth, but they are not mentioned because they do not play
a direct role in the plan of salvation. Up to when Seth was born, Adam
and Eve probably had great, great, great grandchildren and probably even
more descendants if we take into account that each generation is 25-30
years. We don't know how long after Abel was murdered that Seth was
born, but it couldn't have been many years cause Eve says that "God hath
raised up to me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." If that
is the case then Abel was more than two hundred years old when he was
murdered. Both he and Cain would have taken one of their sisters as a
wife a great many years before and would probably be themselves great,
great, great grandfathers. Thus when Cain was banished from the land of
his parents, he left with all his household which included his wife,
children, grandchildren and other descendants.
When
it says "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and
bare Enoch. And he builded a city, and he called the city after the name
of his son, Enoch" it does not mean that Cain knew his wife for
the first time, but that Enoch was born in the land of Naid and through
his line we are given the genealogy of the people no longer under God's
protection. They are not of the line of salvation, but are mentioned so
that we can understand later events that lead to the flood. With Cain's
son Enoch we have the first mention of a city. We should not understand
city by today's standards like London or New York. Cain was a wanderer
and this city refers to a permanent dwelling place. It probably
consisted of a few huts surrounded by a strong protective wall made of
large stones to protect them from wide animals and from anyone who
wanted to take revenge on Cain for the death of Abel. As Cain's
descendants increased so would the city.
Cain's
genealogy ends with Lamech and his children. Lamech is the first in the
Bible who practiced polygamy: he took two wives. He is also mentioned as
having killed someone as did his ancestor Cain. From his first wife Ada
we are given the information that one son was the father of the nomadic
life that moved around living in tents to feed their cattle. The other
son mentioned from the same wife was the inventor of the harp and
composed poems and psalms which he put to music. From his second wife he
bore a son who was a forger of brass and iron. A daughter is also
mentioned who according to Hebrew tradition invented spinning and
weaving. Thus from Lamech's children we have the first signs of
civilization. The purpose of this genealogy from Cain is to show the
evil line of men who came to be known as the sons of men as opposed to
the genealogy from Seth who were known as the sons of God. This is
verified by the last two verses of this chapter.
"Now Adam knew Eva his wife; and she conceived, and bare a son, and
called his name Seth, saying, For God hath raised up to me another seed
instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth there was born a son; and
he called his name Enos: he hoped to call upon the name of the Lord
God." Seth is chosen as the line of salvation and his son Enos,
we are told, hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God. Worship to God
existed before Enos so why is it mentioned here. It probably refers to
the first public and group worship making Enos the first founder of the
church. It also gives emphasis to his father's piety because even though
he was not the firstborn, through faith and piety he became the
patriarch of the genealogical line from which Christ would come as
opposed to the generations of Cain who were evil and godless.
Chapter
five begins with a summary of man's creation followed with the
genealogical line of Christ's ancestors from Adam to Noah and his sons.
For each name in the salvation line we are given how old the father was
when he had the son and how old he was when he died. Thus Adam lived two
hundred and thirty years, and begat a son after his own likeness and
after his image, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam that he
lived after he had begotten Seth were seven hundred years, and he begat
sons and daughters. Notice that Seth was not made according to the image
and likeness of God like Adam was. He was made according to the likeness
and image of fallen Adam.
The
genealogical line is straightforward and only one name needs a special
mention: Noah's great-grandfather Enoch. Two things are mentioned about
Enoch: the first that he was 165 years old when he begat Methuselah:
"And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah two hundred years,
and begat sons and daughters." Enoch only began to walk with God after
he begat Methuselah at the age of hundred and sixty five. We can assume
then that after Seth's son Enos, who called upon the name of the Lord,
people began to distance themselves from God and began to live evil and
wicked lives. Enoch lived like everyone else of his generation until
suddenly after the birth of his son Methuselah he began walking with
God. So the birth of his son stirred something in Enoch's heart which
means he seriously repented and pleased God with his repentance. The
second thing mentioned about Enoch is that he didn't die. And Enoch was
well pleasing to God after he begat Methuselah for two hundred years,
and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Enoch were three
hundred and sixty and five years. And Enoch was well pleasing to God,
and he was not found, for God translated him. Both Jews and Christians
believe that Enoch's death was postponed and he was taken bodily to
heaven until God returns him to earth to finish his earthly course. St.
Paul writing to the Hebrews verifies this belief saying:
"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not
see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before
his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
(Hebrews 11:5) If you remember last season in our talks on Revelation,
we saw that Enoch and the prophet Elias who also was taken up to heaven
bodily without dying, are to return to earth in the last days as the two
prophets who will point out the antichrist, suffer martyrdom, die and
then resurrect unto eternal life.
Chapter
four gave us the genealogy of Cain and Chapter five gave us the
genealogy of Seth. Now because Cain was cursed from the face of the
earth and banished from the presence of God, it was forbidden to Seth
and his family to have any contact with the family of Cain and any
intermarrying of the two lines would be seen as a grave sin. Up until
Noah’s time the races that descended from the Sons of Adam, Cain and
Seth, lived separately. Those who descended from Righteous Seth were
considered sons of God because they lived somewhat piously and those
from Cain who killed his own brother were called sons of men because
they had totally abandoned God. Seth’s descendants were by no means all
righteous, but neither were they cursed. The Bible tells us that at some
point during Noah’s time, there began to be a mixing of these two races,
the good and the bad. "And it came to pass when
men began to be many on the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and
they took unto them wives of all which they chose."
As
already said this mixing of the two races was forbidden by God and as a
first punishment the Lord said: My Spirit shall not abide in these men
for ever, for they are flesh; but their days shall be an hundred and
twenty years. So here we have a drastic reduction in man’s lifespan,
which was in fact not to punish him but to make him aware that death
will come and that he should repent and change his ways. Up until then
the average life span was over 900 years, Adam lived 930 years, Seth
912, Enos 905, Cainan 910 and Methuselah the longest living man with 969
years. By living nearly a thousand years men probably thought that they
were almost immortal, but now with only 100 or 120 years of life, death
would approach must sooner forcing man to remember death and turn to God
for salvation.
We
are then told that "there were giants in the earth
in those days; and after that when the sons of God went in unto the
daughters of men, they bare children to them: those were the giants of
old, the men of renown." Now as a result of this mixing of the
good and bad bloods, a deformity could have developed that would account
for their children to become oversized but Genesis doesn’t actually say
this. In fact it says that there were already giants on the earth before
the mixing of the two lines, but by the mixing of the two races of Seth
and Cain their numbers were increased. This is not unfeasible if we
consider that after the fall man is in a state of death and death acts
on the human body by deteriorating human nature. This deterioration is
expressed with various illnesses and diseases; they are the consequences
of the fall and with sin upon sin the deterioration continues. Even
today there are giants which medical science recognizes as a rare
disorder of the growth hormone and is called Gigantism.
But
let's take this from the beginning of the chapter because many modern
western scholars believe that Chapter six of Genesis refers to the fall
of the angels and that they came down to earth and took for themselves
wives from the daughters of men and as a result the offspring were
giants that roamed the earth. The sons of God they say refers to the
fallen angels because elsewhere in the Old Testament angels are referred
to as the sons of God for example it says in the Book of Job:
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to
present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.”
(Job 1:6 KJV) This is from the KJB but in the Septuagint version the
quote from Job does not read “the sons of God came to present
themselves” but “the angels of God” The
only other example of “sons of God” meaning angels is from Daniel where
king Nebuchadnezzar looks into the fiery furnace and sees four men and
says that “the appearance of the fourth is like
the son of God.” Here indeed the son of God means an angel of
God, but we cannot take this as proof that the “sons of God in Genesis
also refers to angels. Nebuchadnezzar was a Babylonian king and in their
mythology the Babylonians believed in many gods and sons of gods. Angels
were also worshiped as the offspring of the gods so it was quite natural
for Nebuchadnezzar to call an angel the son of god. But even if we
accept the Masoretic text for Job where it has sons of God for angels of
God, there are also other Old Testament quotes that call men the sons of
God: “Ye are the sons of the living God.”
(Hosea 1:10)
The
Old Testament can only be interpreted in the light of the New Testament
so let’s see who the New Testament calls the sons of God or children of
God.
“But as many as received him, to them gave he
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”
(John 1:12); “For as many as are led by the Spirit
of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14);
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God.” (Romans 8:16);
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath
bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God” and
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God” (1
John 3: 1-2); “Blessed are the peacemakers: for
they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt. 5:9);
“Neither can they die any more: for they are equal
unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the
resurrection.” (Luke 20:36); “And not for
that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the
children of God that were scattered abroad.” (John 11:52).
There
are many more passages we can quote, but I think these more than show
that scripture calls men the sons of God, but not all men in general;
only those who believe in Jesus Christ and who have God as their Father
have the right to be called the sons of God. The passage from Romans
clearly defines who the sons of God are: “For as
many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
Thus both angels and men who are led by the spirit of God are children
of God. The sons of God in chapter six of Genesis cannot therefore refer
to fallen angels because fallen angels are no longer led by the Spirit
of God and thus have lost every right to be called sons of God,
certainly Moses or other writers of the Old Testament would not have
referred to them as such. The passage from Job which is used to support
this ridiculous theory clearly shows that Satan is no more included in
the “sons of God” and has to give an account of how he came to be among
the assembly of the angels. If Satan is not included as a son of God
then neither are his followers. If his followers are not included in the
statement “sons of God”, then the “sons of God” that came unto the
daughters of men were not fallen angels.
We
do not know when the angels were created although it is believed that
they were created at the same time as heaven. Certainly it was before
God created the stars because it says in the Book of Job:
“When the stars were made, all Mine angels praised
Me with a loud voice.” (Job 38:7) The fall of Lucifer and a great
number of angels that followed him happened before the fall of man
otherwise Satan would not have been in the Paradise of Edem slandering
God to tempt Eve to also rebel against God. Orthodox tradition says that
when the angels fell the Archangel Michael gathered all the ranks of the
angels and cried aloud: “Let us stand upright, let us stand with fear”
and from that time the angels remained steadfast in their loyalty and
obedience to the will of God and with a special grace of God have
remained steadfast in holiness and goodness and can no more fall into
sin. The fall of the angels happened before the fall of man: there was
not a separate fall of Lucifer and then at a later stage, many years
after the fall of man, another fall of the angels.
The
belief in this ludicrous story is not something new; it has its roots in
the Apocryphal Book of Enoch. In this book it says: “And it came to pass
when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born
unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children
of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: Come,
let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us
children.” The story continues with how two hundred fallen angels, lead
by Semjâzâ, came down to earth on the summit of Mount Hermon “and took
unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to
go in unto them and to defile themselves with them… And they became
pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand
ells (450feet). These super creatures of half angel half man were the
result of the mixing of the fallen angels’ DNA with the genes of human
beings. These giants caused havoc on earth and began to devour mankind.
The reason for the flood was according to the Book of Enoch to rid the
earth of these fantastical gigantic creatures.
Giants
certainly means people taller than the average but the 450 feet giants
from the Book of Enoch is far fetched and pure fantasy. Goliath was
considered a giant and he was according to the Septuagint version 4
cubits and a span, in other words 4˝ cubits, but according to the King
James 6 ˝ cubits. The Hebrews had two cubit measurements, the common
cubit which is 0.45m and the royal cubit which is 0.525m. If we assume
that we are given the common cubit for Goliath’s height, he was 2.025m
or 6ft 7˝ins according to the Septuagint and 2.92m or 9ft 7ins according
to the King James. If we take the Septuagint measurement as correct then
it’s not something that seems too incredible, there are many men today
that are more than 6˝ ft and would seem like giants in comparison to
Middle Eastern men.
If
angels are only spirit can they have a bodily DNA? We know from
scripture that angels have appeared to men in bodily form but they
cannot take on the form of man without permission from God. Angels have
no bodies and so have no desire for sexual activities and cannot
multiply. When we show those in favour of the fallen angel story that
Christ said “For in the resurrection they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
heaven.” (Matth. 22:29-30) they reply that Jesus compared men in
heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be
sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no
marriage. This does not rule out that on earth angels cannot engage in
sexual activities just like men, in other words, if they are capable of
performing human functions like eating, drinking, walking and talking
then they are even capable of sexual activity and fathering children. To
such stupidity we can only answer as Christ did
“Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
(Matt. 22: 29) Angels can appear as men and can appear to men to be able
of human activities, but it doesn’t mean that they actually engage in
them. In the Book of Tobit where the angel Raphael accompanied Tobit for
many days it says: “All these days did I appear
unto you; but I did neither eat nor drink, but ye did see a vision.”
(Tobit 12:19) Raphael had no desire or need for food or drink
because he did not have a true body to sustain. For the same reason
angels do not have sexual desires because they were not created with
bodily functions for this purpose: they were not created like men to be
“fruitful and multiply.”
Thus
the “sons of God” in Genesis does not refer to fallen angels but to men.
It could simply be that the “sons of God and the daughters of men” are
terms used in keeping with the Genesis account of the origin of men and
women. The first is used of males because Adam originated from God
breathing life into him and the latter is used of females because God
created Eve from man. Those in favour of this explanation support it
with a quote from St. Paul: “For a man indeed
ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of
God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (I Cor. 11:7) This
simple explanation is feasible but it does not take into account that
chapter 6 is not unconnected to the previous chapters: as we have
already seen, both chapters 4 and 5 prepare the ground for chapter 6.
The
only logical explanation of the "sons of God and
the daughters of men" is that it refers to the two families
descending from Seth and Cain, which is supported by the previous
chapters of Genesis. In chapter four we are told how Adam’s son Cain
killed his brother Abel. As punishment he was cursed from the earth and
banished from the presence of God and dwelt in the land of Naid. In
other words Cain’s sin had lost him the right to be called a son of God
and was no more “lead by the Spirit of God.” The Chapter then gives us
Cain’s genealogy – the genealogy of the family line that were not “led
by the Spirit of God and who where not recognized as children of God.
Chapter five then gives us Adam’s genealogy through his son Seth until
Noah and his sons. In comparison to the previous genealogy this is now
the genealogy of the sons of God through whom would descent the Messiah.
As
a first punishment of this mixing of the descendants of Cain with the
descendants of Seth, God punished man by drastically reducing his
lifespan from almost a thousand years to just over a hundred. This is
only for the period before the flood because after the flood again we
have men living over four, five and six hundred years.
The
descendants of Cain, as already said, were cursed, but now even the
descendants of Seth, who were the chosen line of salvation, had fallen
away from God. Their action of taking as wives the daughters of Cain
shows that they had lost all sense of spirituality and God's
commandments and their only concern was the lusts of the body. Even with
the drastic reduction in man's lifespan, people did not repent, but
continued to live ungodly lives.
Genesis
continues telling us that "the Lord God saw that
the wickedness of men was multiplied upon the earth, and that every one
in his heart thinketh diligently upon evil all the days. And God
considered that He had made man on the earth, and He thought upon it.
And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the
earth, from man to cattle, and from creeping things to fowls of the
heaven; for it repenteth Me that I have made them." Here God
decides to destroy everything he has created, but one man, Noah, found
grace in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was a just man and perfect in his
generations, and was well pleasing to God. Thus God plans to save Noah
and his family by having him build an ark that would house and protect
them from the forthcoming flood, together with the animals that God
would specify so that the world could have a second chance.
We
saw in the introduction talk that archaeology has proven that the flood
was an actual event so there is no need today to repeat what has already
been given as proof of the historical fact. But the flood does open up
certain questions like why did God destroy the animals along with man
and was the flood local or universal?
The question concerning the animals can be answered very simply. The
world and everything in it, the plants and animals were created for man.
If man is to be destroyed then there is no reason for the animals to
exist. The second question on whether the flood was local or universal
depends on how we interpret the Biblical passages. Interpreted literally
it would mean a universal flood covering the whole earth. But the Bible
often uses a language that literally means everywhere, but in reality
means from many places. For example, in Acts we read:
"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout
men, out of every nation under heaven." What it really means is
that there were Jews in Jerusalem from every nation where Jews lived. In
Genesis we read of the famine during the time of Joseph:
"And the famine was over all the face of the
earth." The famine affected a very large area, probably Africa
and the Middle East and maybe parts of Europe, but its very unlikely
that it refers to all the continents.
So
how should we understand the extent of the flood? Up until now we saw
that the Bible was concerned with two sons of Adam and Eve, Cain and
Seth. Of these descended the family lines of the Cainites and the
Sethites. Adam and Eve had many more children, but the Bible remains
silent of their family lines and just concentrates on the ancestors of
the chosen people of God. Thus the flood is aimed against the two lines
stemming from Cain and Seth and not against the whole human race. In the
eyes of the author of Genesis these two races were mankind, and
especially the line of Seth who was the chosen line for the people of
God and the ancestor of the Messiah, the saviour of mankind. But it is
logical to say that there were other races from Adams other children who
travelled far from Armenia and the Middle East area to places beyond the
Mediterranean and Northern Africa. It is possible then that the flood
did not cover all the earth but only the lands in which dwelt the
descendants of Cain and Seth.
The
building of the ark took about 100 years and during this time Noah
preached repentance, for as the Apostle Peter tells us, he was
"a preacher of righteousness." (2 Peter
2:5) Noah's preaching was in vain because no one believed him, but as we
will see much later in the story of Jonah and the Ninevites, that
through repentance the people of Nineveh were spared from certain death.
Thus in Biblical terms God does change his mind if people also change
from their evil ways. Those who heard of Noah's preaching were given the
opportunity to repent, but what of those races that were in distance
lands, it is impossible to assume that they also heard of Noah's
warning: they were not given the same opportunity so it is fair to
assume that the flood did not reach their lands and they were not
destroyed. Of course we must also understand that a local or partial
flood goes against the tradition of the Church which unanimously accepts
that it was a universal flood covering all the earth. In favour of a
universal flood is the argument that if the flood was only partial then
there would have been no reason to build the ark for Noah and his
family's salvation. God could simply have had them move to another
location that would not be affected by the flood. In answer to this,
those in favour of a partial flood can answer that the ark also had an
educational meaning, because in the long period of time it took to build
it, people continually saw its construction which accentuated Noah's
preaching of repentance towards them.
I
mentioned that the ark took about 100 years to be constructed. We arrive
at this conclusion because in the previous chapter dealing with the
genealogy we are told that Noah was five hundred years old when he had
his three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth and when he entered the ark he was
six hundred years old. The dimensions of the ark were 300x50x30 cubits.
As mentioned earlier, there were two measurements for the Hebrew cubit.
The common cubit was just under half a metre and the royal cubit which
was just over. For simplicity if we calculate it as half a metre, then
the ark was 150m long by 25 metres wide and 15metres in height. There
were three floors, a ground level, a second and third level which were
divided into many compartments to house the various animals, to store
the food and the family living quarters.
So
with the ark ready how did Noah collect all the animals? The animals
must have come miraculously by God's calling in the same way as they
came to Adam so that he could name them. But now we may ask how did all
the various animals fit into the ark? If we accept the argument that the
flood was only partial, then the answer is that only the local animals
from the flooded areas entered the ark.
It
is generally understood that the animals came two by two, but this does
not mean that there were only two of each species. Of the clean animals
and birds, meaning the animals that could be eaten, there were seven
pairs and of the unclean animals only one pair. The extra clean animals
were probably for food and for offering sacrifice to God.
The
waters needed to cause the great flood were from two sources. The first
was from fountains beneath the earth which burst open to let the waters
come to the surface and the second was from rainwater. In the language
of the Bible the cataracts of heaven were opened. In other words it was
not a case of usual heavy rainfall, but a downfall so heavy that it is
described as a waterfall. The rains poured down upon the earth for forty
days, but Noah and his family remained in the ark for a whole year until
all the water subsided and the earth was dry. In the seventh month the
ark came to rest on Mount Ararat and in the tenth month were the peaks
of the mountain visible.
After
the flood, God blessed Noah as the new father of mankind as he blessed
Adam the first father. The blessing was threefold, to increase and
multiply, to rule over the earth and to eat the flesh of animals. This
is the first time that it explicitly mentions meat eating. Before the
fall God gave Adam the fruits of the earth for food, and after the fall
we are told that Abel was a shepherd of animals. If there was no meat
eating then there would have been no reason for Abel to be a shepherd.
Thus after the fall man had already began to eat meat. The difference is
that up until the flood men used to eat the flesh with the blood of the
animals and now God commands them that the blood of the animals must
first be drained. Blood was considered the life of the animal and when
the blood was drained the life of the animal departed. Together with
this law on blood, God also forbids the killing of man because he was
made in the image of God.
God
then promises that he will never again destroy the earth through another
flood and set as a sign of this promise the rainbow in the sky. The
rainbow probably existed even before the flood, but now is was to serve
as a sign, that when we see it we should remember the promise God gave
to Noah and mankind.
The flood and the ark have become types for the Mystery of Baptism and
the Church. Through the flood were destroyed the evil men and through
baptism the old man is buried and resurrected unto a new life. The ark
is an image of the church because in it we find salvation, being
protected from the many and great waves of this world that beat upon
her. The higher the flood, the higher the ark rises, thus also the
church; the greater the temptations that beat against her, the higher
she rises and touches heaven.
This
is where I intended to finish with today's talk, but last week Corina
asked when are we going to talk about the dinosaurs? I replied that we
aren't but I think its important to say something because evolutionists
place dinosaurs 235 million years ago yet the bible says that life on
earth began 7 and a half thousand years ago. Where the Bible comes into
conflict with evolutionists is when dinosaurs existed.
The
Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs but then it wouldn't because the word
dinosaur was coined by a famous British scientist, Dr Richard Owen, in
the middle of the 19th century. Dinosaur is a Greek compound word
meaning “terrible lizard,” which is what he thought of when he saw the
huge bones. So the word dinosaur certainly would not be in the Bible.
But even though they are not mentioned it doesn't mean that they didn't
exist. None of the animals are mentioned by name except the serpent,
sheep and cattle and a few other animals. Dinosaurs certainly did exist
because fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and
their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have
been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about
how they may have looked.
Evolutionists
claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that
one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a
different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians
changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process.
This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of
creatures during that time that would be “in between,” as amphibians
evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these “transitional forms,” as they
are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that
not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures
and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from
amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals
that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no
proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see
fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between.
There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100%
dinosaur!
According
to many evolutionists today, dinosaurs are not really extinct but rather
have evolved to become birds like the common pigeon or budgie that we
keep as pets. For them birds are simply dinosaurs.
The
Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day
of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on
this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six
(Genesis 1:24–31). The birds and the sea creatures were created before
this on the fifth day.
According
to evolutionists, the dinosaurs “ruled the Earth” for 140 million years,
dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up
anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover the bones of dead
dinosaurs and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old
they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the
evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the
dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no
proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of
years old. But because they believe in evolution they must allow
millions of years for this to happen, because simply something cannot
evolve into something else overnight. Evolutionists also believe that
dinosaurs lived long before the existence of man and that they were long
extinct before man came into the picture. They therefore have to reject
the Bible that has man and the animals created on the same day because
then they would have to reject their own theories of evolution.
If
the Bible is correct then dinosaurs lived just a few thousand years ago
but not necessarily in the same places as man. We do not live together
with wild animals today so why should we assume that they lived
alongside each other in the beginning. But even if they did, dinosaurs
were mainly vegetarians and had no need to attack man for food. Just
because they had big teeth doesn't mean that they used their teeth to
tear up man flesh or any other animal.
According
to evolutionists dinosaurs died and became extinct very suddenly about
65 million years ago. They give many theories to explain this: Dinosaurs
starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they
became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their
eggs. Other causes include volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets,
sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking
brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition
of air, etc. It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened
and are grasping at straws.
In
a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, “A New Look At the Dinosaurs,”
the author made the statement: "What caused all these extinctions at one
particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of
reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite
crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with
new theories on this thorny problem... Alas, no such one explanation
exists." (Alan Charig, p. 150)
But,
one such explanation does exist. If you remove the evolutionary
framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible
seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes
perfect sense. With the Flood that we spoke about earlier, all the
animals outside of the ark died. If representatives of dinosaurs where
taken aboard then they would have been young adults because the reason
for taking them into the ark was for them to repopulate the earth. The
majority of dinosaurs are not very big in size, many being the size of a
lamb. Dinosaurs are said to be like reptiles that grow as they live so
the large dinosaurs were probably very old ones and not taken into the
ark. After the flood the new world was very different and all the
animals had to compete for food which was no longer in abundance. This
and other catastrophes and man killing for food soon lead to the
extinction of many species of animals including the dinosaurs.
Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history not the formation of
new types of animals as you would expect from evolution.
It
is generally accepted that Fossil formation requires a sudden burial.
When an animal dies, it usually gets eaten or decays until there is
nothing left. To form a fossil, unique conditions are required to
preserve the animal and replace it with minerals, etc. To form the
billions of fossils worldwide, in layers sometimes kilometers thick, the
organisms, by and large, must have been buried quickly. The land animals
that were not on the Ark, including dinosaurs, were preserved in the
layers formed by the Flood, thus giving us the millions of fossils we
have today. The contorted shapes of these animals preserved in the
rocks, the massive numbers of them in fossil graveyards, their wide
distribution, and some whole skeletons, all provide convincing evidence
that they were buried rapidly, testifying to massive flooding.
But
are all the dinosaurs dead? There are many places in the Bible that
mention dragons. If the word dragon is the equivalent to what we today
call dinosaurs, then there is clear evidence in the Bible that dinosaurs
lived at the same time as men. Dragons are not to be dismissed as some
mythical creatures; there are legends of dragons from all over the
world. China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are
prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery, and carvings. Christianity
retains the story of St. George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
There is the story of a tenth-century Irishman who wrote of his
encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus. In the 1500s, a
European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several living
animals that we would call dinosaurs. A well-known naturalist of the
time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named
Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur
Tanystropheus. The encounter was on May 13, 1572, near Bologna in Italy,
and the peasant killed the dragon. Also, there are many very old history
books in various libraries around the world that have detailed records
of dragons and their encounters with people. Many of these descriptions
of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even
Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by
evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs
did not live at the same time!
|
|
|
