Darkness to Light Home Page
Books and eBooks by the Director
In the following e-mail exchange, the e-mailer's comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.
> Allow me first to say thank you. I witness in chatrooms and message boards all the time and find the internet a valuable tool in reaching those who normally would not give me the time of day. I refer to your material quite a bit as I agree with nearly every response you've given to various questions and alleged 'contradictions', plus it saves me lots of time re-doing research that you've obviously spent hours painstakingly accumulating. I am also careful not to plagiarize, preferring to give credit where credit is due.
So thank you for all the long hours you've spent late at night wearing out your Strong's concordance et all. <
Thank you for the kind comments. And I am thankful my site is being of help to you in spreading the Gospel!
> My question comes from a study that I attended a couple years ago. During the study the instructor goes into great detail describing the creation of Earth and life. Do you agree with him that early in Genesis there are two different things going on: First God 'creates' man, then later he 'makes' man (two different Hebrew words: create and make) and 'forms' man. Some theories suggest that since God 'created' man and woman , and then later made man, and from man made woman, the writer is pointing out the fact that when God 'created' man He created man's spirit, since we are first and foremost a spirit being.<
The difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2 is simply one of "telescoping." In Gen 1 the creation of the universe is being described. In Gen 2, a more detailed account is given of one part of the universe, the creation of the Garden of Eden. I don't believe there is any significance between the different words used other than for literary variation.
> Then later He made a body for man and breathed life (or put the spirit of man) into the body. And yet some theories point to a pre-adamic race, of which I haven't seen you mention in any of the letters you've written, or at least if you have I haven't come across it yet.<
I don't discuss it as there is no Biblical evidence for it. The whole idea is a reading into the Bible things that are not there.
> The pre-adamic race brings up some very interesting questions. 1. Contrary to popular belief there is nowhere that I am aware of that the Bible says Adam was the first man.<
And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven (1Cor 15:45-47).
This passage makes it very clear that Adam was in fact the first man.
> 2. If there was a pre-adamic race, is it this race of people who the Bible refers to as interbreeding with fallen angels, producing Giants. Gen 6:4 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.<
Usually the pre-adamic race theory believes the pre-adamic beings were destroyed in-between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. So they couldn't have been who is referred to in Gen 6:4. But, as I said, it is reading into the Bible to hypothesize and entire civilization in-between two verses.
> 3. were there two floods? 2 Peter 3:5-7
3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Note here that he says OUT of the water and then back IN the water seemingly indicating two floods.<
I've never read it that way. The out of water and in water is usually taken as a reference to the source of the Flood waters, possibly a large amount of waters above (out of) the earth, in the earth's atmosphere, plus subterranean waters (in the waters).
> And: Jer 4:22-26
4:22 For my people [are] foolish, they have not known me; they [are] foolish children, and they have none understanding: they [are] wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.
4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
4:25 I beheld, and, lo, [there was] no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place [was] a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, [and] by his fierce anger.<
The context of this passage is the judgement on the Israelite nation. Note the first verse, "For My people are foolish, They have not known Me." "My people" would be the Israelites. It is simply metaphoric language to describe in strong terms the destruction awaiting the Israelites.
> In this flood the heavens had no light, (this could be between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2) also the mountains trembled and hills moved lightly (this could not have been Noah's flood since there is not a quake that I'm aware of being associated with Noah's flood) and in verse 25 he says there was no man and no birds (there were men and birds saved in Noah's ark) This would also give clarity as to why God gave a rainbow as a promise, seeing as how He had begun to develop a pattern of flooding His rebellious children.<
Again, one can read anything they want to in-between two verses. But since there is actually nothing in-between verses, well, it is all just idle speculation.
> 4. Another question I've not seen answered is this: I hear a lot of evolutionists say that the Earth must be older that 6,000 years, and Christians arguing that it could be that young. But I have a theory that would reconcile both.
When God formed Adam, he was pre-aged, in other words he was probably around 30 yrs old (since Jesus was a type of Adam and His ministry did not fully manifest until He was around 30) Even though he was in a 30 yr old body, after 365 days he was actually one yr old. Perhaps when God made the Earth it was pre-aged , i.e.: 65 million years old or whatever.<
This is one theory that is often stated. And it does have plausibility. But there are many others as well. Different creationist scientists address the issue in different ways.
> Or how's this one: Perhaps there are a billion years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 ? I'm interested in your thoughts on these matters. <
Again, that would be reading something in-between verses that isn't there.
> 5. I was witnessing to one person (I hesitate to call him a brother even though he claimed to be a Christian), He believed in all aspects of the Bible except the most important part; that Jesus was God. His argument was that yes He was the Son of God, and died for our sins. But that He was more of a martyr since the Bible says that we are all sons of God and also he other verse that says we are little gods. And so I went into all the scriptures about "I and the Father are one" and "if you've seen Me you've seen the Father" and how Jesus laid down His Deity. etc.. etc..." But this guy was obviously confused for a while because he had all his ammo ready and I have to give him some credit he did a lot of research in the original Greek and Hebrew text.
I said all that to say this: I found a little nugget in John that I had never seen before:
John 3: 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of Man which is in heaven.
It is the last part about 'which is in heaven' that I believe Jesus was showing His omnipresence, even though some translations have a footnote that says: NU omits this part. In my opinion the translators read this and said to themselves: 'this must have been a mistake, why would He say He was here and there at the same time?'
What is your take on this?<
This is a textual variant. I discuss it in my article: Significant Textual Variants: MT vs. CT.
>Thank you for taking the time to research all this, let me know what you think.
Love in Christ
I hope the above is helpful, and that you're not offended by any of my comments. But I do think most of the ideas you are asking about are simply a case of going beyond what is written.
>Man, you are quick! Thanks for your response.<
> I will continue to pray for wisdom and guidance in these matters. There is so much detail that we can't know simply due to our finite minds, God, in His wisdom chooses not too
flood us with details that are simply not for us to concern ourselves with, i.e.: The origin of God, the purpose of the planets, etc. But when the trumpet blasts: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."
God bless you and your work.
P.S. Did the 'infidel' read your response to his Easter Challenge? [see Easter Harmony] And if so what did he say? In his 'challenge' he said that he's still waiting for someone to come back with an answer, I doubt he'll admit that someone was successful.
He said it wasn't "complete" enough. So he wasn't satisfied. But then, I really didn't expect anything to satisfy him.
Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light
Text Search Alphabetical List of
Pages Subject Index
General Information on Articles Contact Information
to Light Home Page
Click Here for Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla