2007 and Older

I was reading over your belief statement and fully understand your conjecture that the death of Jesus is assumed to be the resolution of all your difficulties with God's intention to punish sinners. Further I fully understand your conjecture that you have assumed that God has elected you, respecting your personage, and excluding the others. I do not disagree with you that you have been elected by God even, but I think your election is confirmed by 1Pt. 2:8b rather than any other proposal that you might have access to. There are two major flaws with your belief system one is philosophical the other is theological.

1. All natural descendants and, because of this process in regard to the human, are guaranteed NOT to be children of God. Jn. 1:13. The problem of your conjecture of having been elected for salvation, as I see it, is assuming election for salvation occurring before the natural birth process. According to Paul the natural comes first, then the spiritual. Your idea reverses this.

(a). Rom. 10:17 states that faith only comes by hearing the (their) message. If your philosophy were true there is no need for this process to occur since the outcome of your conclusion is static and any pressure that might change change the outcome must be met with objection to keep the philosophy intact. (I use the word philosophy to identify a belief specific to personage or what one conjectures about his self.)

(b). "You must be born again." If your philosophical conjecture is true then this statement is entirely false. Your faith about yourself abhors the must necessity of having to actually obey Jesus.

2. The theological error in your system of faith is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. The actual truth about this concept is that the methodology required to try and prove the concept as correct actually constructs the condition of MUST give an accounting directly to God rather than any exoneration from having to comply with this process as the theory of Jesus having died in your place proposes. The taking of Jesus' life by bloodshed makes it absolutely mandatory for EACH man too to give an accounting directly to God relative to the guilt regarding the one sin of crucifying Jesus. There is no resolution of any issue between you and God by crucifying Jesus but there might be full reprieve from death by your will to obey his command by repenting of the one sin of his murder for the forgiveness of ALL sins. Therefore this law, REPENT, was added so that the trespass of NOT repenting of Jesus' murder is the guarantee of not having been born again. The people in your class have been elected by God for the proof that even if one is elected by him nonetheless that person has NOT been elected for salvation for no one can be saved by a faith that cannot require him to repent of Jesus' murder. For the Way into the kingdom of God is only by the small narrow door perfected by the crucifixion of Jesus his death having been caused by bloodshed which requires each man to obey him by repenting of the one sin of his murder. There is no other way to be born of God. The gospel of God teaches a man the only acceptable Way his added command might be obeyed.

TAJ

--

Mr. J

Thank you for taking the time to consider our faith statement and offer your criticisms of it. You stated that you "fully understand" our position with respect to God's plan of salvation. I don't think you do. Let me explain.

For some reason you have us pegged as "hyper-Calvinistic", which is to say, that God chose before creation those whom He would and would not save. On this view, human free will is non existent, the preaching of the cross becomes pointless, and scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2:4 would force us to conclude that what are dealing with here is a schizophrenic god who wills all men to be saved, but refuses to declare it so. No, we believe that God does in fact will all men to be saved, and that whoever will may come (Revelation 22:17). Of course, this "freewill" position must somehow be reconciled to passages such as Ephesians 1:4-5:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will…"

Quite honestly, I don't know how to reconcile the Bible's clear teaching that each of us is endowed with the capacity to acknowledge whatever truth God has given us that we may "seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him" (Acts 17:27), with the fact that God already knew from before creation who would accept and who would reject His offer. A similar situation exists in Peter's speech to the Jewish leaders in Acts 2:23:

"Him [Jesus], being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken with, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain;"

Likewise Philippians 2:12:

"Wherefore my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Taken in isolation the verse seems to be preaching some sort of works-based salvation, with the responsibly resting squarely on our shoulders, yet the very next verse states:

"For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Concerning our freewill vs. divine election, I have to say that both must be true because the Bible states that it is so. I can't fully explain this except to say that God is so great and so wise, that what may appear irrational on its face is in fact super rational. To sum up, I do believe that everyone has a free will to either accept or reject God's offer, even though God Himself has always known who will and who won't believe. No, I don't understand it all fully, but then again if I could fully fathom God and His awesome ways then He would cease to be God.

Your other contentions, that Jesus' death wasn't substitutionary, and that the only way to be born again is by repenting of the murder of Jesus, I find to be without scriptural support whatsoever. (It is curious that you did not support your views with chapters and verses that I could meditate upon). This in itself I find telling. If God really does will that all men be saved, why offer the salvation message to us in such a cryptic fashion as you have proposed? For centuries millions of Christians have found in the Scriptures the message that Christ's death was substitutionary, and that what we really need to repent from is our current attitudes and actions. You stated in your mail that you saw a philosophical and theological problem with our faith statement. The shortcomings in your own view may similarly fall into these same categories. Let's look at them together.

The Substitutionary Death of Jesus

Jesus stated that the entire Old Testament was referring to Him (John 5:39, Luke 24:27, 44). There are at least two clear indications that Christ's death would be a substitutionary atonement.

1. The slain animal in Genesis 3. The account is familiar to us. God commands Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or he will die that very day (Genesis 2:17). We know, of course, that Adam disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. What happened next is very instructive: before that day was over, Adam was still alive (physically), but an animal was dead (Genesis 3:21). What was Adam to learn from this? Was he supposed to conclude that God didn't know what was about to happen? Or was God lying altogether? Neither. Adam, I'm convinced was supposed to learn something about God's provisional substitution.

2. The Ram of Genesis 22. In this memorable account, God instructs Abraham to kill his beloved son, Isaac, as a burnt offering. Abraham demonstrates great faith in obeying the Lord, and just before he slays his son he is stopped by an angelic messenger. The entire exercise, it seems, was not to have Isaac killed, but to demonstrate, among other things, what genuine faith is all about. But this is not the whole story. The significance of the whole affair is, as they say, in the details.

Recall that in verses 7 Isaac asks his father, "where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" Abraham responds in verse 8, "My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering." Now notice verses 13-14

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen."

The whole event is prophetic in nature, with substitution definitely being the major theme. Abraham's prophecy looks ahead to its fulfillment 2 millennia later in the person of Jesus Christ (called the Lamb of God in John 1:29).

Jesus Himself made this comment concerning Abraham's knowledge:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." John 8:56

It's obvious that Abraham had an understanding of the gospel, which, as we have seen, included substitution.

2 Corinthians 5:21 is as clear as any describing what Christ's death actually accomplished for us:

"For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Notice the phrase in bold. "Hyper haymon" here appears in the genitive case and may be rendered, "for us", "for the sake of us", or "instead of us". This is the way the term is translated in the previous verse:

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

There is no question in my mind that Christ's death was indeed substitutionary.

Repenting of Christ's Murder

Your contention that we all must repent of the murder of Jesus doesn't square with what we know about what repentance actually is. Nor does it square with what we know of God’s part in Christ's sacrifice. Let's look at each of these.

What does it mean to "repent"? The term is (metanoeo, which means to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction). The Strong's Concordance states that it is "to change any or all of the elements composing one's life: attitudes, thoughts and behaviours concerning the demands of God for right living."

The question is, how can a person possibly "repent" of anything they've done in the past? They can't. We can only repent of attitudes and actions we are currently engaged in. This goes in spades for past deeds that I didn't even commit. The crucifixion of Jesus is one such deed. The whole plan of salvation was God's idea. Jesus was the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. The commandment have I received of my Father." John 19:17-18

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." Isaiah 53:10-11

I can repent, that is, change my mind about Jesus and His gracious offer to save me. This kind of repentance causes me to turn to God for mercy, knowing that I cannot do a thing to change my sinful condition and obtain a right standing before a holy God. Of course, when I turn to God this way, I wind up turning my back on attitudes and actions that are displeasing to Him. This, I am convinced, is what the Bible is taking about when it speaks of repentance. I simply cannot find any scriptural support for your views on repentance whatever. Quite the contrary in fact. Consider Hebrews chapter 6, for example. Here we get a breakdown of the very basics of the Christian faith:

"Therefore leaving the principle of the doctrine of Christ, let us go one to perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"

Note the plural - "dead works". There is not a whisper of any need to repent of killing Christ here. In fact, what is arguably the New Testament's greatest treatise on the doctrine of justification, the epistle to the Romans (Chpts 4-5 especially) are equally devoid of any indication that the believer must first repent of killing Jesus. These are curious omissions if this doctrine is as essential as you claim.

I must therefore, respectfully disagree with your position.

John Feakes

I apologize if this is an inappropriate question to you. However, I would appreciate if you will respond to it.

I accepted Christ three years ago after being an atheist for 36 years. I have seen evidences of God's existences in my life in the forms of answered prayers, guidance and minor miracles. Other than these spiritual evidences, I am eager to see and understand the material evidences of God's existence in this world. Can you indicate such evidences if it's in your line of apologetics?

Thank you.
L____

Hi L____, thank you for your question. There are at least 8 lines of evidence for the existence of God that I personally find compelling. Not all of them are "air tight", but all carry some weight and I feel are accumulative in their persuasive power. Here they are.

1. God makes sense of the universe's origin. Everything with a beginning has a cause. Since this universe had a beginning, it only makes sense to consider its cause. The eternal God of the Bible makes a likely candidate as the causeless cause of our universe.

2. God makes sense of the universe's complexity. The universe is running down, wearing out. Everywhere we look systems and structures are tending toward disorder. All scientists agree that this is a natural outworking of the second law of thermodynamics - the best attested physical law. Yet notice the incredible complexity displayed throughout the universe. A single cell contains amazing micro machinery that staggers the mind. In a universe where everything is falling apart, what caused the incredible complexity seen in living things? No physical process in operation today can account for such specified complexity. Truly the level of complexity seen in living systems could have only arisen by intelligent creative effort.

3. God makes sense of absolute moral values. Everyone, even the atheist agrees that some things are just plain wrong. Most atheists would say that rape and torture are wrong. They would also argue that teaching creation to children is wrong. The question we must ask them is: Why are these things wrong? Who said so? Unless there's a God, all declarations about right and wrong are simply arbitrary opinions of human beings. So the question becomes, If human beings decide what is absolutely right and wrong, then who are we to listen to and why? Also, if humans decide right and wrong, then these "absolutes" really aren’t absolute at all. If humans decide right and wrong then humans can amend these declarations whenever they want, making all moral "absolutes" subject to change. But wait a minute. Didn't we just agree that everyone, including the atheist recognizes the existence of absolute moral values? What are these absolute moral values anchored to if it isn't God? In other words, absolute moral values cannot exist without God, but they do exist. So God must exist!

4. The anthropic principle. The conditions for life on planet earth are so finely tuned for life to exist that it staggers the imagination to suggest it all happened by accident. For example, earth's position in space is at just the right distance from the sun to allow life on our planet to survive. Closer and we'd be burned. Further away and we'd freeze. The relative size of the earth and the sun is likewise just right to allow for the required orbital dynamics. Earth also finds itself in the right place within the solar system. The large planets (Jupiter and Saturn) act as giant vacuums, pulling debris toward themselves, effectively shielding the earth. Furthermore, our solar system is situated in just the right place within the Milky Way galaxy, just near the outer edge and just outside one of the spiral arms. Closer to the galactic center and gravitational forces would crush us. Our position likewise shields us from harmful supernovae radiation.

Now all of this might be considered coincidence, but there's something else to consider. It just so happens that the only planet that we know of that can sustain life, is also the very best place to make scientific discovery. For example, total solar eclipses are best seen from earth because of the relative sizes and distances of the sun and moon. It is during these eclipses, unique to earth, that the sun's atmosphere becomes visible, allowing scientists a brief period in which to analyse it. Likewise, scientific analysis of our galaxy is only possible from our present position. Of course, all this is possible because our life-sustaining atmosphere just happens to be transparent, unlike so many other planets in our solar system. For many, this highly unlikely convergence of physical phenomena speaks of a Creator who wishes for his creatures to intelligently consider the universe in which they are situated. Romans 1:20 tells us that the creation itself is evidence of a creator. People who refuse to admit as much are without excuse.

5. The validity of thought. The atheist believes that everything can be reduced to atoms. Every action that occurs, including thinking, are said to be nothing more than chemical reactions. Now think about it for a second. If everything including the thoughts that we think are nothing more than chemical reactions, how can any thought be said to be more "valid" than another. In other words, if the entire universe got here through meaningless, irrational causes, then our minds are also meaningless and irrational. How can we then trust their judgment? Yet the atheist maintains that his thoughts are more valid than the Bible-believing Christian. Such a worldview is self contradictory at its core.

6. The Bible. This book is absolutely unique. It is unique in its continuity, its profound teachings, and its remarkable preservation. It was written over a period of about 1600 years by 40+ writers, and despite the diversity among them, what came off their pens is remarkably consistent. This is noteworthy considering that these books are commenting on very controversial subjects including God, man, salvation, law, justice, and religion. Probably the best evidence for the divine authorship of the Bible is the fulfilled prophecies it contains. The book of Daniel, for example, contains a series of prophecies that were recorded in the 6th century BC, which found their fulfillment centuries later. These prophecies are so specific that there is no room for any latitude in their interpretation. Because of the incredible accuracy of these prophecies many believe the book was written after the events it predicts. This is simply a denial of the supernatural, and ignores the overwhelming historical data that clearly shows the work to be from the 6th century. The point is, the entire Bible is filled with such prophecies. For all intent and purpose, the Bible is a miracle book. Such a book points, in my opinion, to a divine author.

7. The resurrection of Jesus Christ. Many a skeptic have considered the evidence for the resurrection and come away believing. Frank Morrison, for example, was a British lawyer who for many years planned to write a book refuting the Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead. When all the research was done Morrison did indeed write a book. But this book was quite different than the one he had planned to write. The book he did write was titled "Who Moved the Stone?", which laid out the historic case for the resurrection. In the process, Morrison became a believer. Others have followed a similar path. Royal professor of Law, Simon Greenleaf and legal expert Lee Strobel, are among the many intellectuals who have come to believe in the reality of the resurrection. If the resurrection is a fact, which it appears to be, then we have a genuine miracle on our hands. Acts of God - miracles - only make sense if there exists a God who can act! The resurrection, therefore, may be seen as another evidence for the existence of God.

8. God can be experienced. This is what led you to believe. God is intimately involved in the believer's life, giving him a "peace that passes all understanding." Though the subjective assurance that God is near cannot be measured in the laboratory, God’s presence in the believer's life can and does produce observable effects in his conduct. How can we explain the total character transformation of hardened criminals into humble servants of Christ? Or the quiet, steadfast, and peaceful trust the believer displays when faced with something as horrendous as, say, cancer, or some other tragic news. Subjective though this point may be, it is legitimate nonetheless, and ought not to be overlooked.

These then, are a brief summation of some of the reasons that I see for believing in the existence of a personal God. Each may be greatly expanded and explored, and I encourage you to do so. Have a look at my "100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution" and my "100 Reasons to Trust the New Testament" on our site. Also have a look at our additional resources page.

Thanks again for the mail, and welcome to the family!

John Feakes

Q: Doesn't Hebrews 6:4-6 contradict God's promise to not remember our sins again?

A: The real question here is, "Can we lose our salvation?" This isn't an easy question to answer simply because of the numerous arguments leveled on the field of ideas today. For centuries this debate has been fought and it seems the battle has left enough people weary to the point of saying 'we can't be sure until we get there'. That viewpoint, in my opinion, is worst of them all because it is a copout.

As I don't have the time or space to dig as deep as could be necessary, at least not without writing a book in response, I will attempt to provide clearly and concisely what the specific scriptures mentioned have to say. Following will be a brief observation of my own.

The Hebrews 6 passage: This passage has in the past tripped me up in my tidy theologies and beliefs but a study of what is specifically said, in detail, clears it up satisfactorily in my mind. Note that twice it uses the word "taste". From scripture and from the Greek language, there is a difference between tasting and drinking. Jesus while on the cross tasted the vinegar given Him but he did not drink (Matt 27:34) Apply this distinction to the Hebrews 6 context and we should get that the ones tasting have not swallowed or internalized the Holy Spirit, thus are not saved. Jesus said he would give rivers of flowing water from which we must drink (John 7:37-38). Therefore, how can they lose what they don't have? This is similar to the story of the ten lepers whom Jesus healed. Only one fell in worship and thanksgiving of God but all ten took part in the healing work of God in their life. Ten men 'tasted' but only one realized the significance and placed Christ on the seat of worship in his life (Lk 17:12-19). Likewise when Hebrews 6 speaks of those who are partakers, it is not meaning those who are in the ranks of the saved. It means those that are associated with, or are in proximity to those that are saved, but are not included as one of them. This passage doesn't in any way teach we can lose our salvation.

Now, referring to the greater issue at hand…

Paul, in his various epistles and letters had 100% certainty of his salvation and of the salvation of others. Just take a cursory glance through them (Phil 3:20-21 and 4:3, 1Thess 1:2-4, 2 Thess 1:3-5, 2 Tim 1:12, Rom 8:31-39, 2 Cor 1:7, Eph 1:7-14, Titus 1:1-3. See also 1 Peter 1:3-9, 1 John 3:14 and 5:13)

This leads me to believe assurance of salvation should mark the life of Spirit filled individuals. The Holy Spirit 1- makes us alive (Gal 5:24), 2- seals us (Eph 1:13), 3- is eternal (Heb 9:14), 4- is the only one who searches and knows the mind of God (1Cor 2:10), 5- inspired every word of scripture (2Tim 3:16-17). Therefore, there should be no higher authority in the life of Christians today than the indwelt Spirit and holy word of God. That same spirit inspired word tells us that Jesus will not lose any that God has given Him (John 6:39-40).

If you don't know, by that authority, you have assurance of eternal forgiveness and life with God, than did you ever get saved or do you not study the word of God? I say this in love, you must ask yourself if you have asked forgiveness for your sins, turned away from rebellion against your creator, and given Him full control of your heart, mind, soul, and body (2 Cor 13:5-6). If you have, then you must be like Jesus, and hide the word in your heart and mind for when doubt and temptation comes (as did Jesus in Matt 4).

In the sincere love of Christ,
Arron

Hello. I was the last caller on CJOB'S 'God talk' this past sunday(Sept 24th, 2006)… I asked if it could have been possible for Adam to have existed for an extended period of time(read 1000's of years) in paradise before the eviction and curse. unfortunately the host hung up on me so i didn't hear your answer. i've just looked at c.a.r.e. winnipeg and so i think you will tell me the answer to my question is no, it can't be possible- reason being, we live on a 'young earth'.

your apologetics seem tiny in comparison to the beliefs that exist in the minds of the world at large. and please don't take that as an insult! simply a personal observation. The subject is one that i havent thought too much about, my position is the bible is literal and true , and 'somehow' my experience and knowledge of the world can be reconciled to the fact.

D____.

--

Hi D____

I can think of at least 2 scriptural reasons why Adam could not have existed for 1000's of years prior to the fall:

1. Adam and Eve's first child - Cain - was born after they had sinned. Remember God's mandate to them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). How long would it take a perfect pair of humans to obey His command? 1000's of years seem out of the question

2. Genesis 5:3 is clear that Adam was 130 when Cain was conceived.

Also note the symbolism here. God killed an animal in the garden to cover Adam and Eve after they sinned. Though the text is not explicit, many believe that the animal was a lamb. This would make sense because Jesus is the Lamb (John 1:29) that takes away the sin of the world. He is also called our Passover (1 Cor 5:7). Like the Passover Lamb, Jesus' bones weren't broken (John 19:33). In Exodus 12:5 we read that the Passover lamb was without blemish and of the first year. If Adam and Eve fell within a year of their creation, which is reasonable to assume, then the symbolism of the slain animal is even more profound

Hope this helps

John Feakes

Arron,
I know I'm opening up a can of worms here, but what's wrong with the Narnia series?

--

J____, what's most important is what scripture has to say on this subject. Christians are called to be discerning (Heb 5:14), to test all things (2 Thes 5:21-22/1John 4:1), and to cling to what is noble and meditate on it (Phil 4:8). As a Christian, our perspective on Narnia, or L.O.T.R. since it's related, must be aligned with these scriptural commands. Can you with a pure conscience do that as you look at these movies for both entertainment and/or spiritual insight? (see also Deut 18:9-12/ Gal 5:20)

I know many Christians have taken part in the hype of the L.O.T.R. and Narnia movies over the last few years, but here is the background most do not know.

C.S. Lewis

• Denied we could ever be sure of salvation in ourselves or others. This assurance should categorize real believers
• Believed other ways to heaven besides Jesus were available or possible
• Called the Old Testament "suspect" as to whether we could really trust its worth. He calls some of the Psalms "devilish". What does scripture teach about attributing to the devil what are truly the works of the Spirit?
• He admitted he never understood what "God forgives sins" really meant, even after he had the bulk of his works published
• Though it is denied, there is sufficient evidence to show the Narnia series was mostly conceived before his 'conversion'. That would mean it was not the Holy Spirit inspiring this Messiah type Aslan; in the end that leaves us with a diabolical counterfeit.

J.R.R. Tolkien in "The letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" …

• He says there are no Christian symbols in his book series L.O.T.R. (pg 235). I have to double check the sources, but on one account it has been said he was angered by such allegations.
• In other letters and writings he admits to having a fascination with Celtic and Norse mythology, the belief that God might use reincarnation, and the use of much occultic imagery and references (though he could have been ignorant of their occultic foundations). These he admittedly intentionally included in his trilogy. Past this he says by doing such in his writings, he is actually fulfilling God's purposes.

What does this mean? Tolkien intentionally included the occult in his books, yet there can be made no attempt to tie the books to Christian teachings. This is the man who supposedly led Lewis to Christ when he was not a believer, and there is no evidence to suggest he ever was.

This is just a snapshot, I know. Digest this information and see if you can endorse these movies as 'good' by the Bible's definition of the word. We must be on guard about what we put in our heads. There is no blending of truth with lies allowed for believers and followers of Christ.

Keep a look out on our website in the cults and false religions section for the more in depth article on this, which will include the references for this info. It should be posted soon.

Grace and Peace.
Arron

K___,

Here are the answers you were looking for. I also enlisted some help from another member of the CARE team. The blue texts are John's responses, and the green are mine. I'm sure you'll recognize the black as your questions. Enjoy!

1. We've been talking about the creation story in my Bible class, and according to them, the Bible tells two different stories in chapters 1 and 2. Things like how the "order" of how God created things is different (ex. in ch 1 it says that "such and such was created on the first day" and so on whereas in ch 2 there is no specific "order" of things), in ch 1:27 it says that male and female were created at the same time whereas in ch 2:7, 21-22 male was created first and then female. Because of things like this, they're saying that these stories are contradictions. I don't believe this, because the Bible can't contradict itself. So why are these stories different, if there are in fact two stories? I don't think there are, that chapter 1 is more of a generalization and ch. 2 goes into specifics.

The first chapter tells us of the first week of creation. Chapter two is an explanation of what took place in the Garden of Eden on day six. This had, in part, to do with the object lesson that God was giving to Adam, in that it is not good for man to be alone (Gen 2:18). There are a couple clues which show this differentiation. The birds, for example, were made from the water before Adam on day 5 (Gen 1:20-23), yet chapter two says they were made from earth after and in front of Adam (Gen 2:19).

The bible has not changed in thousands of years. If this was a contradiction, then I'm sure something would have been done about it to "fix it up". The fact that it has remained a part of the text should be evidence enough that people throughout the centuries have viewed it as a macroscopic and then microscopic view of the same events.

Newspapers use the same technique today. They give a headline, a brief statement about what happened, then backtrack and fill in the details. Genesis follows a similar format. No contradiction here.

Chapter two focuses mainly on what was going on in the Garden of Eden on day six. God created another set of each animal to be named by Adam right there in front of him so that there would be no doubt about who their creator was. The world was already filled with animals that God created as described in chapter one.

2. My prof suggests that it's almost like there are two different Gods. What I mean is this: in the first chapter it describes God who is transcendent, who could speak and the world was made. In the second ch. God is more "human like" as in he could walk on the earth and speak with Adam and so on. But these are just different traits God, right?

There are many references in scripture where God speaks through the prophets declaring that He alone is one God. Deu 6:4-5 is the precursor to the greatest commandment, which Jesus Himself quotes in Mark 12:29-30. God speaks through Isaiah, giving the same details about Himself emphatically (43:10, 44:6, 45:5+18), that there is no other God but Him. These are at most different aspects of the same God.

I agree with her assessment. These are different traits of the same God. In chapter one, the focus is on the creation as a whole, and the transcendent God responsible for it. Here he is referred to as Elohim, an expression that denotes a plurality of divine attributes. Chapter two focuses on man, the apex of God's creative efforts, and his relationship to God. Hence in chapter two, God's covenant name is used. Some argue that the use of two different names denotes different authorship, but this notion is false. For example check Psalm 19. Vv 1-6 speak of the mighty God of creation -Elohim. From v.17-14 the focus is on God's relationship to mankind through the giving of the law. Here His covenant name - YHWH is used. Clearly only one writer, David, is responsible for this Psalm, and clearly he has only one God in mind.

3. My prof also suggests that there is something called a "divine council" made up of more lesser gods, at which our God is the head, because of verses like Gen 1: 27: "let us make humankind in our image" and Psalm 82: 1, "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment…" I don't believe this either. There is only one living God. I know that other nations have gods, but these gods aren't real. So, what does this mean, then?

The bible contains many references where God is speaking in a singular plural combination. As you've mentioned, Gen 1:26 ("let Us make man in our image"), is followed by verse 27 ("So God created man in His own image". See also Gen 3:22-24/ Gen 11:7-8). Jesus believed in only one God, the Father, yet at the same time He claimed the name for God given to Moses (Ex 3:14, the "I AM") for Himself (John 8:58). The bottom line is, though it's difficult to understand the doctrine of the triunity, it is the only explanation. On the carewinnipeg.com site, under the doctrines section, I have an in depth, yet still incomplete compilation of verses which demonstrate the triunity. Check it out.

If you simply read the text of Psalm 82, verse 6 states that these people will die like other men for their unrighteous judgements. This is not saying there are other gods, but that these men exalt themselves as Gods, and will suffer the true God's judgement as a result. There is always a danger in reading or using one verse at a time without checking the context. Your prof is definitely guilty of that error. Besides that, the bible context as a whole demonstrates monotheism in quite black and white terms. We have to use the clear passages of scripture to interpret the less clear and ambiguous ones, not the other way around.

Gen 1:26 (not 27) The text cannot be speaking about a plurality of gods, because Adam was not formed in "their" image, but in "His" [God's] image. Though your prof will deny this, the only real answer to this, and every other mysterious singular-plural combination with respect to God is to propose that God exists as three distinct, though inseparable persons.

Psalm 82:1 - The context makes it clear that the Psalmist is speaking metaphorically about human judges, who, though they have taken to the role of "gods", have executed their office wickedly and so will die like men. The Lord Jesus offered His divine commentary on this verse in John 10:34-35:

   "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods' If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken…"

Who's being called a god here? Jesus said it was those to whom the word of God came. According to Romans 3:2, it was the very human Jewish nation that received the oracles of God.

Your prof is no doubt a full fledged evolutionist, and so believes that religion evolved - from polytheism to monotheism. Committed to this ideology, he/she simply must believe that the Jewish religion was originally polytheistic. To substantiate this belief from the Bible, he will have to misapply scripture (like Psalm 82). The claim is often made that the Genesis account borrowed from and modified the Babylonian creation stories, which were polytheistic in nature. The discovery of the Ebla tablets in Syria in 1974 has severely shaken this notion. The creation account found recorded on these tablets is decidedly monotheistic, and dates some 600 years earlier than the Babylonian story (see the Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 208).

4. Modern biblical scholars argue that Genesis 6:5 - 9:17 is composed of two, originally separate flood stories that have been interwoven in the biblical text. Is there any evidence to support this position? And so you know, my class is using The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New Revised Standard Version).

There may be as many as three flood accounts here! Note that nowhere in the Bible is Moses flatly referred to as the writer of Genesis. Traditionally Genesis and the other 4 books of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible) have been lumped together as "the Law". Moses certainly was the compiler and editor of the documents that make up the book of Genesis, but where did these documents come from?

Notice the phrase "these are the generations of…" that runs throughout the book. This is called a colophon phrase. In ancient times, this phrase was placed at the end of documents pertinent to family history. One theory is that Moses gathered up and edited the family histories that were originally recorded by the men whose names appear in the Genesis record. For example, Genesis 37:2 states "these are the generations of Jacob". This could hardly be a heading since the following verses focus not on Jacob, but Joseph. Furthermore, the verses preceding this colophon phrase DO focus on Jacob. The idea here this that Jacob was the actual writer of part of the book of Genesis - from just after the last colophon up to and concluding with Gen 37:2.

Back to the flood account. Genesis 10:1 reads, "these are the generations of the sons of Noah" If this theory is true - that this phrase denotes authorship of the preceding verse up until the next colophon phrase, then the flood story from Gen 6:9b to 10:1 was written by the three sons of Noah. I'm not sure if this is true but read carefully this section. Note how many times phrases are repeated not once, but twice. That is, many details are given in this section not twice but three times. Isn't this what we would expect to see if three accounts were taken together and woven into the Genesis record?

Regardless, the flood account contains no internal inconsistencies, and there is nothing scientific, historic or linguistic to lead us to believe the account is not factual.

I definitely agree with John's response, and so I'm leaving it stand on it's own for this question. I'm not as thoroughly studied in that area, and so I don't know how to handle the info well enough to do it justice and bring it across as coherently. However, my initial response to this question is simple; there are no contradictions in this passage of scripture even if there are multiple accounts being given, which I believe to be the case. In the end, there still is no reason to doubt God at His word, that He left us a record which is complete, literal, and inerrant.

Thanks for your help and God bless!
Walking in faith, K___

And thank you. When challenges to our faith come, it only serves to strengthen it when we see there is no question which cannot be answered by digging in scripture.

Grace and peace,
Arron Bergeron
John Feakes