Posts Tagged ‘Genesis’

In a recent documentary called “CREATIONISM: CONSPIRACY ROAD TRIP,” hosted by comedian Andrew Maxwell.    He took five creationist to the west coast of America to try and convince them that evolution rather than Creationism explains how we got here.  To say the least he failed miserably.

THE ROCK THAT NEVER COULD MOVE

Meet Bob the rock

The documentary was truly biased against the creationist.  As one contestant asked how many true creationist scientist were invited onto the documentary, I would say none. Within this group were five people from vatious backgrounds, but there was a least one person who was very knowledgable on creationism than the rest.  He offered up some really some good points.  I suspect that alot of what he offered up landed on the editors cutting floor  What was interesting was that at the end they visited a site  in Nevada which showed a spring flowing with bacteria that sprayed out various colours.  The scientist tried to persuade the group that all life could have arisen from such bacteria.   HOWEVER ALL EVOLUTIONIST LIKE TO CHEAT AND MOVE THE GOAL POST      They like to start where life has already been established and not where there theory demands they  begin.  The true place to start with has to be a humble piece of earth say a ROCK!!!  We shall call the ROCK “BOB.”      Say “hi” to BOB the humble ROCK! Now JOKING ASIDE BOB is TECHNICALLY dead , INANIMATE AND LIFELESS.  You can burn it, pour water over it, crush it , torture it with acid . Speak to it and try to converse with it.   You might even blow the rock up with TNT and make loads of little rocks.  You might try to reason with it and explain the complexities that it is truly alive and destined for greatness.    But BOB will remain a humble ROCK. NOW FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE?

The rock would have to evolve.  Grow extremities, an  internal organ.  It would have to find itself some DNA to work with.  Acquire some form of higher brain function that it might use to make decisions.    It has to be able to reproduce and disseminate itself into the rest of civilisation.  Otherwise Bob must have the ability to make lots and lots of little BOBs.  If it can’t then Bob will become extinct as a species.  Not only that but Bob has to grow and change and make lots and lots of other species, millions in fact.

That means every creature should be able to trace its origins back to the humble rock.  In fact if evolution really was true we would expect to see rocks evolve into sentient beings every day of the week.  Has anyone seen Bob Lately?   Has he communicated his loneliness at not having a fellow rock to keep him company?  Because for the majority the whole matter of a HE and SHE would be a disadvantage.  Why start of life as a humble rock and then continue ones existence dependent on reproduction with another of the same species.  How much more would we expect to see poor BOB out there seeking a mate to make lots of little BOBS.  But then Bob would have to grow legs to get close to another rock, never mind all the other extra bits to make things happen. 

Except for a few instances life depends on a HE and a SHE to reproduce.    That takes a lot of biology to follow-up with.  What do they do if HE was not at the right evolutionary step to mate with a she?  Whoops no little ones to continue the species.

IN THE END THE EVOLUTIONIST HAS TO PROVE HOW SOMETHING THAT DID NOT EXIST BECOMES SOMETHING THAT DOES.  THAT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ALIVE BECOMES SOMETHING WHICH IS ALIVE? 

FIRST CAUSE:

The complexities that are involved with life cannot simply be  the  product  of long periods of  time.    No matter how many millions of years that evolutionist attribute  to life.  If that life cannot have a beginning  ( A FIRST CAUSE) from something that is not alive , then it will never  grow, Even the theory that life started because some rock hit the earth which had bateria on  it.  The question still remain there had to be a point before which nothing existed.  So how did nothing become something?

A CREATOR WHO CREATED USING A SIMILAR TEMPLATE

At one point of the show they brought in a trained chimp, with the description that man has many similarities with it.  In reality all that this proved was that both were the result of a common creation.  As ape’s and chimps  were supposed to have been around the longest, they could not explain why humans are not behind the bars and the apes running the show.  In fact if anything the chain on the neck of the chimp trained or otherwise only proved its inability to go beyond its nature.  Over the years a lot has been done to stop owners from keeping chimps as pets.  They may look cute when they are young, but as they grow up they become less adapted to the home environment.  In the end man and chimps just cannot live together.  Even Michael Jackson found that out.

 Now when was the last time we saw a chimp or ape take a college degree, design and build for them something to benefit itself and the rest of the chimp world.  You mean no chimp mobile.  No articulation of some great poetic works.  No great paintings or literature.  They might mimic but they cannot create from scratch.    Its requires the imagination to go beyond , the sensitivity  to create tools and then use those tools to make bigger tools which in turn  can churn out something that no one has seen before.  Then improve on it to the betterment of that society.  The basic skills of a child truly exceed that of an adult chimp in every department.  The primate gets to a point where his education stops, but the human child just keeps going. No animal to date has had a consciousness of life beyond and a God who forgives.  When was the last time did anyone see a group of Apes congregate to pray  to God and seek help?

As for poor poor Bob the rock well he is still out there somewhere.  The wind the sun and the rain all play a part in keeping it occupied.  But the rock remains just a simply ROCK>>>   Even when the rock is crushed and made into something useful.  It never complains, never tries to argue and never gets up and walks away.   Only LIFE begets LIFE. In that arena God has proven himself over and over.  The giver and maker of life.  He alone established life and made it is what it is.   He commanded that everything should reproduce after its kind and so it was.

THE ARK THAT REFUSED TO TAKE THE WHALE

I think the most laughable highlight of this documentary was Noahs ark.  They went onto a small boat to discuss this issue with another scientist.  (dare I call him as scientist?)  The presentation was of a child toy that no where represented the true scale of the ark.  The major question that was asked was where did Noah put the WHALE. You heard right!!  The scientist wanted to know where Noah placed the humble whale on the Ark.  Had he read the account sea animals did not go onto the ark.  Then the arguement was debated that such a boat could not exist.  Yet every Boat until the invetion of Modern steel production was made of wood.  The ark was not design to sail but to floot which it did.  As God was the captain where that Boat went was his discretion.  But the Ark was not design to set sail but to become an ark of safety.

SOURCE : MATERIAL IS FROM CREATION SCIENCE MAGAZINE

Some relavant descriptions:

Flood stories around the world

Lucy : the so call ape girl

The fossile record of a humble prawn says NO CHANGE:

The fossile record of the Octupus says NO CHANGE:

There can no doubt that satan has managed to pull off one of the greatest con tricks since the snake spoke to Eve in the garden.  He has done it so masterfully that now countless Christians have come to hate a title which God now bestows on them.  In fact he has been so successful that whenever this term is used throughout in the Bible it is now overshadowed by an incident that was meant to have taken place in Gen 6.

Gen 6: 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose

For many this meant that angels went in and had sex with women.  The results were giants and when these giants died they became the demons we know of today.  But this has to be far from the truth.

Jude 1: 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The term “sons of God” must fundamentally speak of a relationship with God.  The moment these angels rebelled they would have ceased to have a relationship with God. So the term sons of God cannot be used of them from that moment onwards, yet in Gen 6: 2 God continues to call these individuals sons of God even as they entered into marriage with the daughters of men.  It was only after what took place within those marriages that the term sons of God cease to be used. 

Gen 6: 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Instead of SONS OF GOD, God declares “My spirit shall not always strive with “man”.  The relationship with God became strained and broken.  From that moment onward the term was not used.

Many use the term sons of God to apply uniquely to angels.  Yet that cannot be supportive.  However for the sake of arguments let’s say that this was the case in these verses?

Job 1: 6 Now there was a day when the sonsofGod came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them

Job 2: 1 Again there was a day when the sonsofGod came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD

Job 38: 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sonsofGod shouted for joy?

Dan 3: 25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the SonofGod

Certainly many recognisable scholars recognise that the term is used of angels in those verses.   However I could also attribute some to apply to humans as well.  However for the sake of this thread we will go with angels.

What can we say about them?  Is there any indication that the use of the word is vilified of fallen angels?  NO , in fact if anything it presents a picture of those who continued to have a living and glorious relationship with the living God,  yet because of misunderstanding of Gen 6 the terms SONS OF GOD has become vilified and hated and applied to fallen angels who desperately needed to have sex with human women.  So vilified in the minds of individuals one would wonder why God would even use the term to apply to those who continued in good standing with God angels or otherwise.    Maybe he knows something we don’t.

Because when we come to the New Testament God has this to say.

Luk 3: 38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] ofGod

The very fact that Adam is called SON OF GOD means that the term is not used uniquely for angels, and from the beginning was used of humans as well.  Why was Adam called a son, because he had a relationship with God? Is it by any chance that the term son of God may have been carried on by those who had a relationship with God?  The New Testament would suggest it was.

Gal 4: 6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father

John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sonsofGod, [even] to them that believe on his name

Why would we be called sons of God, because the term applies to those who have been brought into a living and glorious relationship with God.  What was lost in the garden has indeed been restored.

Jesus himself was called a son of God and he was no angel.  But he did have a relationship with his father.

Luk 4: 9And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the SonofGod, cast thyself down from hence.

Summary

Now you can see how satan has skilfully and maligned a glorious title, turned it on its head to apply to those who have ceased to have a relationship with God.

What a stroke of genius on his part.  So that when we come to the believer being called by that same name in the New Testament it is already overshadowed as being something less than honourable.  It is belittled and viewed with much contempt by many.  The fact that there are a few writers who have spent a lot of money writing books on glorifying these fallen angels, they have been so skilfully manipulated and blinded to the fact that they have demeaned a glorious title which God himself gives.  Even worse they are unaware that satan is using them to promote his agenda as the accuser of the brethren.    They do much service to his cause.

Gen 6: 1-6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of 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 them wives of all which they chose.

Some people believe that what took place in Genesis 6 was that fallen angels (sons of God) went into the daughters of men, had sex with them and produced giants.  The main source for this teaching comes from a book called “The book of Enoch”    We will show that the book of Enoch is not just contrary to the Bible, but is itself the work of men.

The Book of Enoch states

6.27: 2  And the Angels, the sons of Heaven, saw them and desired them. And they said to one another: “Come, let us choose for ourselves wives, from the children of men, and let us beget, for ourselves, children.”
And Semyaza, who was their leader, said to them:
“I fear that you may not wish this deed to be done and that I alone will pay for this great sin.”
And they all answered him, and said:
“Let us all swear an oath, and bind one-another with curses, so not to alter this plan, but to carry out this plan effectively.”

And these are the names of their leaders: Semyaza, who was their leader, Urakiba, Ramiel, Kokabiel, Tamiel, Ramiel, Daniel, Ezeqiel, Baraqiel, Asael, Armaros, Ananel, Zaqiel, Samsiel, Satael, Turiel, Yomiel, Araziel.

These are the leaders of the two hundred Angels and of all the others with them.
And they took wives for themselves and everyone chose for himself one each. And they began to go into them and were promiscuous with them. And they taught them charms and spells, and they showed them the cutting of roots and trees.  And they became pregnant and bore large giants. And their height was three thousand cubits.

So in this chapter we have the names.  We have these fallen angels even swearing OATHS to corrupt mankind.  However was the fall of the angels a company decision or the work of one particular angel Lucifer?  Not one of these angelic names are ever found in scripture.  However several important facts should be obvious.

People 450-Feet Tall?

Are you really gullible enough to believe that fallen angels had physical intimacy with earthly women that produced offspring 450-feet tall?  I don’t think so!  We read in chapter 7:12-15 of the Book of Enoch

7:2-5  Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them; When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;  And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.  Then the earth reproved the unrighteous.

A “cubit” is 1.5 feet.  The ark which Noah built was 300 cubits long (Genesis 6:15).  Do you mean to tell me that some women had children who were as tall as the ark was long?   You’ve got to be joking!  Such foolish conjecture is a violation of the simplest teachings of the Bible.  In Genesis 6: we read, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”  I think Pastor J. Vernon McGee interprets this Scripture exactly right…

It says, “There were giants in the earth in those days,” but it does not say they are the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. It does say this about the offspring: “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” These were not giant freaks they were men. The record here makes it very clear that the giants were in the earth before this took place, and it simply states that these men acquired for themselves a reputation.  No where does it say  that these men were the product of demonic experimentation.

The Bible makes it clear that:

  1. 1.       These giants were already on the earth when these sons of God went in to the daughters of men.  So how can they be the product of something that has not yet happened?
  2. 2.       We also know from scripture what was produced because of these relationships.   There were mighty men which were of old, men of renown.  Please note giants are not mentioned.

The Bibles verses run totally contrary to what the Book of Enoch teaches.

How could a woman give birth to a normal size baby that would then grow to be as tall as half the length of a football field?  ‘Com on, please be real.  Although the Bible does contain may miraculous and startling events (e.g., the flood), they are all explainable and have rationale.  Where are the skeletal remains of those 450-feet tall monsters?  It is clear that many unsaved scholars today are trying to discredit the Bible as a book of fables, which is what the Book of Enoch certainly is.  The Word of God is untouchable, unchangeable, and incorruptible

Book of Enoch also goes on to teach

 10.6-8 And so that, on the Great Day of Judgment, he may be hurled into the fire.
And restore the Earth which the Angels have ruined. And announce the restoration of the Earth. For I shall restore the Earth so that not all the sons of men shall be destroyed because of the knowledge which the Watchers made known and taught to their sons.
And the whole Earth has been ruined by the teaching of the works of Azazel; and against him write: ALL SIN
.”

 The Book of Enoch subscribes blame to the fallen angels for the ruin of mankind; however the Bible subscribes the blame to man for the fall of mankind.

 Gen 6: And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 Notice what the Bible says here.  “MY SPIRIT SHALL NOT ALWAYS STRIVE WITH…… “ANGELS” who had fallen?  NO but with “MAN” WHY?    Was it not the angels which had sinned and messed about with Gods creation?  Was it not the fallen angels which went unto these women and married them?  It would seem to me that God was blaming the wrong crowd there or was he?

 GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart

Notice God does not lament the angels for the sin of mankind but man himself.  God also says “IT REPENTED THE LORD THAT HE HAD MADE MAN”  He does not say he repented because the fallen angels messed about with some DNA of mankind.

  THE RAPE OF GODS JUSTICE.

 If God decided to judge mankind over the wickedness of someone or something, you would have thought that he would at least get the finger pointed at the right crowd.   If man was wicked because of his genes then he cannot be held responsible for his actions.  Yet God makes man responsible for those actions.   Now if God decided to judge mankind simply because he has the wrong genes then he was to all intends and purposes guilty of ethnic cleansing.  But it also absolves man of personal responsibility for his actions and places the blame on God for destroying this world.  And the angels for messing about with his genes.  This is a demonic and wicked doctrine.  NO where in the Bible is this ever taught?  If God ethnically cleansed the earth, suddenly man has the right to ethnically cleanse who ever they want because God did it first.  Everyone gets the blame but man.  This is not what the Bible teaches.  God holds man responsible for his actions and not his genetics. 

  The Bible also makes it clear that Noah was a preacher of righteousness.

 Gen 6: 9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God

 Hebrews 11: 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Now if Noah was called a “just man”  “Perfect in his generation”  “Heir of righteousness” Now where in these two verses does it say he got saved because he was ethnically pure?  Did God choose Noah because he had the right DNA?  For God to save this man based upon his ethnic purity would in fact be racialism.  Sin would then be equated with ones cultural background.  What colour of skin we have or are your eyes blue rather than brown.  Or in this case as some would have us believe your height.  If you are over six feet tall then your mother had sex with a demon.  This is not just another gospel but it a gospel for idiots.  We do not even know what height Adam and Eve were.  Sin is the conscious act of a person to do wrong and that is what God will judge.

CAN ANGELS REPRODUCE?

1 Cor 15: 39-40   All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

Math 22: 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Whilst we cannot say for sure what emotions angels were created with, we can say that angels were never created to have sexual desires , and certainly not with  human physical beings.  Lets be honest why would God create a being to have sexual feelings when there is no marrying in heaven.  What was the sin of these angels ?  The Bible tells it was the sin of Pride and it was that pride that led Lucifer  ( Isa 14:12 -13) to deceive a third of the angelic host to fall.  Sex never came into the debate.

 Which means they were not created to bare children?  If they did then there would have to be an argument that there are female angels and both the males and the females could reproduce.  There are no such teachings anywhere to suggest that piece of lunacy.  It would also suggest that if we are to be the same as the angels in heaven then we would still have the ability to reproduce as humans which we don’t.  That’s why there is neither MARRYING NOR GIVING IN MARRIAGE.

 Gen 1: 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

 Gen 1: 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good

 HERE WE HAVE A DIVINE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED FROM THE BEGINNING.  THAT EVERY CREATURE WOULD REPRODUCE AFTER ITS OWN KIND.  

 So we would expect a dog to breed with a horse or an evil spirit to breed with a human.

 The idea that angels even having the ability to reproduce should stagger the imagination let alone stretch fantasy beyond any credible legitimacy.

 Some have tried to argue that these fallen angels messed about with mans DNA, simply because man can do it today. However the Bible or even the Book of Enoch does not even suggests that this event even took place.  It says that the “Sons of God went unto the daughter of men and took wives “.   All that is implied is a sexual union.  Sex does not transmit to tampering with Genes.  As we see in 1 Cor 15: 39-40   the flesh of one being is different from another.  There is no way a spirit being even if he made himself visible could have a sexual encounter with a human physical being and reproduce semen in order to fertilise an egg.  Some have said that angels can eat and yes we do have an instance in scripture where angels might have indeed eaten a meal.  But eating is not the same as fertilising.

WHY would a fallen rebellious angel even contemplate taking “A WIFE”.  Some have suggested that this simply meant they had a relationship rather than actual marriage.  But this again seems strange.  These creatures cursed themselves into defiling mankind, so why would they have time to be committed to a relationship?  Is this not a human physical aspect?  Are we to believe that these fallen angels decide to be committed to their wives? 

Math 19: 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Gen 2: 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This attraction to the opposite sex is a God given, but NO where does it say it was given to angels.

Hebrews 1: 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?  That is their purpose and function.  This is what they were created to do.

Once we bin the book of Enoch which is where it should be the Bible makes all things clear.  But in case there is any doubt.

The Book of Enoch Teaches Heresy!

To the Biblically ignorant reader, the Book of Enoch might have an appeal; but to a believer grounded in the Scriptures, the Book of Enoch is packed full of heresy.  For example:

We read in chapter 40 of the Book of Enoch

1 And after that I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude
2 beyond number and reckoning, who stood before the Lord of Spirits. And on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences, different from those that sleep not, and I learnt their names: for the angel that went with me made known to me their names, and showed me all the hidden things.
3 And I heard the voices of those four presences as they uttered praises before the Lord of glory.
4 The first voice blesses the Lord of Spirits for ever and ever.
5 And the second voice I heard blessing
6 the Elect One and the elect ones who hang upon the Lord of Spirits. And the third voice I heard pray and intercede for those who dwell on the earth and supplicate in the name of the Lord of Spirits.
7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord
8 of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth.  

( SATAN IS ONE BEING NOT MANY)

After that I asked the angel of peace who went with me, who showed me everything that is hidden: ‘Who are these four presences which I have
9 seen and whose words I have heard and written down?’ And he said to me: ‘This first is Michael, the merciful and long-suffering: and the second, who is set over all the diseases and all the wounds of the children of men, is Raphael: and the third, who is set over all the powers, is Gabriel: and the fourth, who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.’
10 And these are the four angels of the Lord of Spirits and the four voices I heard in those days.

The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life.  What blasphemy!  That statement in itself contradicts everything the Word of God teaches.  We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between God and men, not some angel named Phanuel… “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  Repentance is strictly between a man and Jesus Christ alone.  Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against LIARS and imposters who would lead people to believe otherwise.  1 John 2:22 clearly indicts all Christ-deniers as LIARS, guilty before God. 

The ONLY logical conclusion:

Then what do we have here in verse 4? As I see it, Genesis is a book of genealogies—it is a book of the families. The sons of God are the godly line who has come down from Adam through Seth, and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain. What you have here now is an intermingling and intermarriage of these two lines, until finally the entire line is totally corrupted (well, not totally; there is one exception). That is the picture that is presented to us here.

SOURCE: McGee, J. Vernon, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 2000, c1981.