I praise God for all of you who completed your Bible reading in 2019! This is the end of the 10th year for this website, and it is something like my 15th year to read through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. My daughter, who also uses this schedule and is 10 years old, begins her 5th year of reading through the Bible. Nothing has blessed our spiritual life more than this daily, disiplined reading through the Bible. 

If this will not be your first time reading through the Bible, I encourage you to consider reading in a different version. I have included the main (non-paraphrase) versions on this site under Account > Your Account. 

If this site has blessed your reading of God's Word, please REPLY to this email and let me know. I want to praise God for you.

Blessings!
Yujin

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’... (Genesis 3:17).

Perhaps the most influential person in a man's life is his wife, whether for good or for evil. Even though the man is called to be the head of the home, as one Greek mother told her daughter, "the wife controls the neck". We think that in a perfect world this would not be the case, but here in Genesis 3 we find a perfect world, and it was the case. 

While I would be among the first to extol the value of a virtuous wife, let us also recognize the tremendous damage an unwise or ungodly wife can do to her husband and to the family. Consider for a moment the following examples in the Bible:

• Adam's wife, Eve, influenced Adam to sin against God by eating fruit from the forbidden tree.
• It is likely that Cain's wicked daugters married Seth's godly sons and plunged the world into universal wickedness leading to God's judgment by the Great Flood. 
• Abraham's wife, Sarah, pressured Abraham to have children by her maidservant, Hagar, so that Ishamel, the founder of the Arab people and the perpetual enemy of Israel, was born.
• Lot's wife, who was turned into a pillar of salt, and his daughters, who tricked him into incestuous relations, are portrayed as ungodly influences in his life.
• Job's wife advised Job to curse God and die. 
• Moses' wife, Zipporah, was likely the one keeping Moses from circumcising his son, which nearly led to his death before he fulfilled his mission.
• Midianite women married the Israelite men that came out of the Exodus and influenced them to worship Baal of Peor.
• Samson's wife, Delilah, enticed and then destroyed Samson.
• Even Solomon's wisdom was not great enough to counter the wicked influence of his Canaanite wives, who led him to embrace idolatry.
• Ahab's wife, Jezebel, led her husband and the nation of Israel into one of its deepest and darkest periods of idolatry.

Solomon wrote, 

I found one upright man among a thousand,
    but not one upright woman among them all (Ecclesiastes 7:28).

Again, he wrote, perhaps even rhetorically,

A wife of noble character who can find? (Proverbs 31:10).

When you read through Provebs 31, most would conclude that such a woman does not exist. Perhaps that is Solomon's point.

Friends, this sharing is not for women but for men, particularly those that have already relinquished to their wives their responsibility in providing the spiritual leadership in their homes and ministries.

Women have a powerful influence, and it is not too seldom for harm rather than for good. It is not without reason that while Scripture commands men to resist the devil, it commands men to flee the immoral woman. They are that potent an influence. I believe that because of the greater possibility for harm than for good wives are more often called to submit to their husbands rather than the other way around. This is the gist of Paul's argument here:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

The husband that does not understand this faces a great spiritual danger to himself and to his family. Even a well-meaning wife can do great harm. I don't think Eve meant to harm Adam by giving him some of the forbidden fruit. I don't think Sarah meant harm to Abraham by pressuring him to have children by Hagar. I don't think Jezebel meant harm to Ahab by inducing him to kill Naboth and take his land for himsef. In every case there was no malicious intent toward the husband, but the influence led to evil in the eyes of God. Therefore, the husband must take the spiritual lead in his household and ministry and be alert with respect to the inluence of his wife. 

Friends, almost all of the great men of the Bible were at one point or another adversely affected by women, particularly their wives. It is not to say that all of these women were evil, but they had such an influence. Men are often caricatured as weak, foolish, and stupid. I daresay much of this reputation stems from their relinquishing their God-given responsibilities to their wives. 

I personally know of two great guys, with great futures, who foolishly followed the influence of their wives and forfeited their great futures. Sure, there are positive examples like Ruth, Abigail, and Mary, but these examples are few and far between.

Therefore, men, you must take charge of your spiritual health and that of your wife and family. You must keep your eyes on God and find discernment from His Word. Spiritual leadership in the home is not a partnership between the husband and the wife. As politically correct as the notion of partnership may be, it is not biblically correct. You are the leader, even as Christ leads the church. You are to present your wife as a pure and holy vessel to God and not the other way around. You are also the primary agent to instruct your children:

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4; cf. Colossians 3:21).

Now, some commentaries argue that mothers are included in this reference to "fathers". The only problem with this view is that there is a separate Greek word for "parents", which would include both mothers and fathers (γονεῖς, goneis, cf. Mark 13:12; Luke 2:27). Paul was aware of this word (e.g. 2 Corinthians 12:14). Why wouldn't Paul use this word rather than the word that everywhere else clearly refers to just fathers? What is more, no modern Bible version translates this Greek word for "fathers" as "parents" or as "mothers and fathers". Even if Paul had mothers also in mind, he clearly wanted to emphasize the role of fathers in the spiritual upbringing of their children. 

God told Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife...cursed..."

Brothers, what will you do? Be very careful in what you listen to from your wives and how they influence you. You must take the lead, especially the spiritual lead, for your families. 

Sisters, you did not choose to be the descendants of Eve, even as men did not choose to be the descendants of Adam; however, you must be aware of your weaknesses and responsibilities just as the men must be of theirs.

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

We have creation's categories by days, in Genesis 1; we then get a story of creation in Genesis 2.

I don't hold to a literal 7 24-hour day creation process, partly because of the empirical debate offered by science and partly because of the 'yom' debate. In connection to the 'yom' debate, 'toledat' I think adds something to consider.

"Toledot," meaning 'generations,' is used later in Genesis 5 when laying out the posterity of Adam, Genesis 6 for the posterity of Noah, chapter 10, 11, 25 and others to lay out a sequential order of things using Toledot– it gives an ordinal value to the discussion: what came first, then next.

Genesis 1 paints a story that culminates with man as the pinnacle of creation.
Genesis 2 directs creation for man.

There are 2 accounts in Genesis, and in apparent significant value, they are side by side. Why 2 accounts?

Genesis 1 starts with: day/night >waters above/below>land/sea/vegetation>Sun, stars & moon> sea and air creatures>man and other creatures

Genesis 2 :4 starts with a time when no vegetation was, because there was no rain (it would be a stretch to say “no waters above”) the lord formed man; and placed him in a garden. He then made the ground sprout vegetation

I think Genesis 1 speaks to the crowning creation by Jesus: mankind. For even when he is done he blesses the work and as if to say "it is done," rests:
Genesis 2,
2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.

Immediately, following this in the second chapter, we have a story that slightly changes our explanation from creation in genesis 1. In Genesis 2, first the heavens and the earth, then male man was created; then the earth was filled for man to rule over.

Setting aside ‘Yom’ for a moment, there are no time values here, but at least ordinal values. Unless you add to the text to say God created man and held him in a cloud until the latter days of creation, there must be a purpose to these accounts.

I think one (Genesis 1) is to highlight the significance of man; the other (Genesis 2) is the true order of things.
What of the problems and challenges this poses? I have found the following:

• 6 days is explicitly mentioned as the reason for ceremonial models – therefore it is true
• “Yom,” or “Day,” is explicitly define in Day 4 of creation – there is no ambiguity how this should be used
• It is an inferior credibility to start your premise outside of scripture – science is less reliable that the word of God
• “Restoration” speaks of returning to a time of no death or suffering, which is excluded from the scientific model – The story painted by science is wrong
• Sin Doctrine is destroyed – from sin came death, science offers death long before man

6-Day Creation explicitly mentioned

Exodus 20:8-11 (paraphrase)

Remember to keep the sabbath. Six days are for labor, the seventh is for rest. For in six days the lord made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh, therefore the lord blessed the Sabbath day.

I already mentioned Toledot, which I think makes a window for another option. Does the lord really rest? Does this mean he raised his feet and ignored prayers? Does this mean he stopped managing the universe and Space-Time? I suspect that much of what Moses wrote was not literal but literary. For example the use of “all” was not always all encompassing as “all” infers.

Exodus 9:6 All the Egyptian livestock died.

Exodus 9:19 Livestock from the field are brought in.

Could it be that just as the ceremonies have effect to bring God’s presence to mind, the 6 day creation has a similar effect to remind us we are the pinnacle of God’s creation. And as if to say, “remember the value he places on you by this story,” he says in Exodus 20, “remember the story by this ceremony.”

I think this is plausible, again, because:

Genesis 1 reminds us we are the pinnacle of God’s creation – we remember this in ceremonies.

Genesis 2 informs us of the proper account of things. Why did God create all things? This is not explicitly seen in the account of things (the science of things) - we must be told through revelation. We are given a story of creation, Genesis 1, to give a literary account to remember and to know why.

“Yom,” or “Day,” is explicitly define in Day 4 of creation

Genesis 1:14 (paraphrase)

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse. And let them be signs and for seasons, and for days and years.”

Here it goes that we have Yom defined to represent a 24 hour period, after all they are used to be a sign for time “days and years.” “Yom” is also defined in Genesis 1:5 explicitly as “Light” and “Darkness” as night. Yom is used in the same chapter as light, the lit portion of a day, and later we are told that we should see that it is defined as 24 hours.

Again, I think this points to a literary story. “Yom” is all over the place, no time values are given. We are told once that Yom is simply light, not that some portion of day there was light and some time later there was night, but that they were in existence. It is not until the 4^th day that we get a sense that things changed regularly to allow for a measure of time and seasons - signs for man.

The ‘explicit’ definition could only be used for the last 3 days. The other days still have no explicit anchor for time values.

 Inferior credulity

The argument suggests that there is a lack of maturity. I would need to be convinced that God’s character does not apply in nature. I would need to be convinced:

• That as orderly as God is, he is not in the testimony of nature
• That as evidential as God is, he is not in the testimony of nature
• That as truthful as God is, he is not in nature’s testimony

We know that where lawlessness is, God’s testimony is:

Romans 2: 14-15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

There is no place that God has not left his orderly ways. Even evil must walk on the path of order and good, in order to create evil and sustain it.

We know where God has put his works, God’s testimony is:

Psalm 8 (paraphrase) How majestic is your name! You have set your glory above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger. When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, what is man that you are mindful of him. How majestic is your name in all the earth

Even the greatest testimony, the resurrection, was given as evidence of God’s presence. He does not require us to ‘take a leap of faith’ but instead gives us deeds, convictions, and a cloud of witnesses to establish his truth from the lies around us. A cloud of witnesses, not in written pages alone and independently, but in the works of their lives and the fingerprints they left. You can piece together many aspects of Jesus outside the bible. You can do the same for Daniel, and David. You can the same for the Apostles.

We know that among confusion, God’s testimony is:

James 1 (paraphrase) Don’t be deceived. Everything from the father is good and has no variation. Of his own will, the word of truth

 Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God"

God’s glory is all around us and undeniable. Scriptures are not to be used to tell us everything but as a means to recognize when we are looking at God’s fingerprint or the corruption of it. Only he has creative powers, for creation declares his glory.

I think there is a lot of speculation and there is room for it, since scripture seems concerned with demonstrating Himself, not in explaining how or why, but simply demonstrating Himself for a relationship. So I would certainly tip my hat to the idea that men are liars (Rom 3:4), including this one, and so their ideas need to be of the kind of mettle scripture offers.

Ultimately, anything is fair game; any idea is fair game as long as it is holds in light of scripture

1 Thessalonians 5:  Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.

The biggest of these arguments I think comes in the last 2 arguments, which I found less sturdy than I originally thought I would find.

“Restoration”, a return to the garden

The argument goes that if you take the observations of an old earth, therein implies that death and decay which cannot be true since scriptures promises a “restoration.” “Restoration” implies a return to a previous state: the state of the garden; a place of peace, ‘vegetarianism’ (maybe not literally) and God’s provision and of walking with him.

For example, Acts 3:21

²¹ whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago

The argument is carried forward to the image given in Revelation 21-22 of the New Jerusalem and the River of Life; if we are being restored to how things were, therefore the past must look like Revelation 21-22.

The Lord has done a lot of ‘restoration’ but it has been with the Nation of Israel and never as it was previously. We get a spiritual restoration in the New Testament, but restoration to what? The kind of restoration that you found in the garden, the kind of restoration that made it possible for the Israelites to crush the inhabitants of the promised land, the kind that made the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls possible – the restoration the cross accomplished.

The restoration is in terms of a relationship, only. We once walked with God (Genesis 3:8). We are not looking to go back to the Garden, where we can fall. Where we did not know Good and Evil, like children. We are looking forward to a time when all things are in their proper place – God at the top, man underneath him, all creation below them (re: Genesis 1-2). A time that a New Jerusalem and a New River of Life flow, nothing old or what was, but something New!

God created light and darkness, he created the water above and below, he created land then said it was good. He made vegetation and said it was good. He made the seasons, stars and days and said it was good. He saw everything and saw it was very good, even though it was not perfected, even though it would fall; I think it was “good” because of what it was intended for; it was good because it would glorify God, not because it was ideal or good in its own right.

The Sin Doctrine Unravel

Lastly the sin doctrine is said to be unraveled. For death and decay come from sin:

James 1: 15 Sin gives birth to death

Romans 5:12 Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this death came to all people, because all sinned

An old earth would imply that there was death of animals and decay of matter. Yet it is not until Adam’s sin that the ground is said to be cursed and as sons become more distant from Adam they lived shorter lives until God caps it at 120 years.

God had the Israelites go in the promise land with ceremonies to wash hands, not cut their hair, not to boil calves in their mother’s milk, and to wear certain accessories, and not work on a particular day. The lord did this to discipline them, not because they were explicitly meaningful, but they had implicit value in shaping the minds and hearts of the people, and ultimately for us.

If the ceremonies were not important for God (since he needs nothing; not that he has no purpose for them), but rather important for us in our discipline; and if the argument can be made that the Sabbath was made to reflect God’s purpose for creation (I’ll admit I did not say “reflect his order of creation” so to stay on agreed terms) – namely to first glorify himself, then to discipline us, then to honor his work – then just as the scripture has always done in telling us what we need to hear to shape us, this too should be extended to the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2, and the possibility of how the Sin Doctrine actually is applied to reality.

What I mean by ‘telling us what we need to hear to shape us’ I don’t at all mean God lies, deceives or misinforms as a human teacher or parent might do for a student or child’s ‘good.’ But as we know, ‘no man is good, only God is good’ we hear things like ‘Job was blameless and upright’ & ‘among those born of women there is no one greater than john;’ and Solomon being told that no one will arise to be wise and discerning like him again. Yet in spite of these things the literal meaning should not be held, but rather the literary effect should be seen. Job was great, John was great, ‘this guy’ is good, no one will be like Solomon, but if you wanted to be literal you could say the writings are wrong.

The following isn’t taught in scriptures, but I don’t see anything that would go against it. I think the silent areas of scriptures make room for discussing such an option:

Just as Christ work on the cross work forwards and backwards in time, so did Adam’s work in the garden.

Genesis 1:25 ‘Let us make mankind in our image.’ Technically this does not say, let us make man and make him in our image, but rather, as if to say, let us take that man creature and turn him into us – implying we were already here, he had already created us. After Adam, was Cain who had a wife, and his son Enoch had a wife, the bible is silent where these women came from.

Genesis 6:2, some even interpret Sons of God to be those who were of the Adam lineage, the holy lineage; this would distinguishes between the human-mammals and the children of Adam, the children of God. All men are by default the children of Satan, until adopted by God. Because Adam broke the only link existent, God has since then offered new links knowing beforehand they all would fail and only his grace and predestination and sovereignty would lead to an eternal kingdom.

Genesis 2 also speaks of the garden as being a real localized place here in time and space:

⁸ Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. ⁹ The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

¹⁰ A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. ¹¹ The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. ¹² (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) ¹³ The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. ¹⁴ The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The characteristics of the garden do not need to apply to what was happening in Egypt, or Brazil, or Antarctica, but rather we are told explicitly that the garden is a localized event. Pointing back to the “restoration” idea, do we find the restoration promise referring to something that happened in a localized event, the garden, or de we find evidence that all (literally, not just literarily) of the earth was garden-like?

As for death and decay, I think there is some sign of decay: Adam and Eve needed to eat – they and their posterity were vegetarians until Noah. Unless eating was only for pleasure in the garden this points to a replenishment that was required and therefore a depletion (a decay; Ref Gen 1: 30)

Going back to the premise that as the cross-event crosses time and space, so does Adam’s event, consider the contrast and similarities we get for the 2 Adams.

Romans 5:13-14

¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

(v13)Sin was here before the law was given – or to say another way, “before a command was given.” Sin is not charged to anyone where there is no command.

(v14)Nevertheless, death was around from the time of Adam to Moses (a time when no commands were given), even over those who did not sin (by not obeying a command) as Adam had done by not obeying a command. Adam is a pattern of the one to come.

The first to be given a relational-requiring command failed (Adam). The last to be given a relational-requiring command succeeded (Jesus).

Romans 5:17

¹⁷ For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

It was not because the human man Adam had a special ontology that he was able to cause corruption, nor is it the human man Jesus had a special ontology that he caused Life; but rather it was the Spirit of God that was over the face of the waters and breathed into Adam that His rejection of it (creation and Adam) that caused corruption forwards and backwards in time, and the Spirit of God that was in Jesus that he had power over death and cause Everlasting Overflowing Life forwards and backwards in time.

Romans 5:12 Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this death came to all people, because all sinned

Did sin actually enter the world, or was it the Spirit leaving the world? Did God create sin for it to enter or does the absence of God lead to sin? Just as the injection of God’s spirit made all things good (forwards and backwards), his departure made all things corrupt (forwards and backwards) and ultimately his return restores all things (forwards and backwards) until something truly new comes:

Philippians 3:²¹ who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Revelation 22

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life… And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. And they will reign for ever and ever.

Someone brought up an interesting point with respect to questions like that found in Genesis 3, where God asks Adam, "Where are you?" Here's their comment and my reply.

The comment...

You refer to God's question to Adam in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:9). My understanding of this question (& others, some mentioned layer in this post) was that it is a rhetorical one. As not to contradict the fact of God's omniscience, one might argue that since God knew where he was He was not literally asking the question for His own benefit but for the benefit of Adam. Other instances of this literary example are when God asks Cain "where is your brother" (Gen. 4:9) & Jacob "what is your name?" (Gen. 32:27) & Abraham "why did Sarah laugh?" (Gen. 18:13) among others. In each case I believe the questions were asked for the benefit of the person being asked. It's like a parent asking their child if they did their homework as it sits in their backpack not having been touched since they got home from school. In this respect I guess one might argue that using rhetoric is a form of anthropomorphism if only humans use it.

My response...

In the beginning God... (Genesis 1:1)

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).

The Scriptures begin with an assumption, namely, that God exists, even the presumption that everything we know and understand begins with God. The Scriptures also judge that the one who rejects this premise is the fool. Why? 

As one scientist has declared, it takes greater faith to believe that everything came into being by chance than to believe that God created everything. All of creation testifies to God's existence:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

For this is what the Lord says— he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:18).

In view of the natural world and the observable and logical order of things, Thomas Aquinas famously developed these syllogistic proofs for the existence of God:

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. 1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

   2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

   3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

   4. Nothing can be at once actual and potential in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

   5. Therefore, nothing can move itself.

   6. Therefore, each thing in motion is moved by something else.

   7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

   8. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. 1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

   2. Nothing exists prior to itself.

   3. Therefore, nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

   4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

   5. Therefore, if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

   6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

   7. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. 1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, which come into being and go out of being (i.e., contingent beings).

   2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

   3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

   4. Therefore, it is impossible for these always to exist.

   5. Therefore, there could have been a time when no things existed.

   6. Therefore, at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

   7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

   8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

   9. Therefore, not every being is a contingent being.

   10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. 1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

   2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter as it more nearly resembles what is hottest).

   3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

   4. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

2. Most natural things lack knowledge.

3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligent.

4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

(slightly modified from Theodore Gracyk analysis of Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God)

So an interesting question popped up in my head as I read from Genesis 1-3. WHY did Adam take of the fruit? He had to know what it looked like, what it was, what color, shape, and size it was, and where the tree was located. In Chapter 2 v. 8 says the tree was in the garden when God created Adam. Eve's creation is not mentioned until v. 21. Adam walked with God in the garden, and God pointed the tree out to Adam in v. 17.

So why did Adam take of the fruit? Eve had an excuse: she hadn't walked with God as long as Adam had. She didn't have the same relationship with God that Adam had. Adam, on the other hand, had NO excuse! I think that Adam remembered his life before Eve, and as much as he loved God, he wanted to keep his help mate more. I think his love for his wife at that very moment, when she bit into the fruit, overwhelmed him and he forgot who God was and how beautiful of a relationship he had with God in his fear that God would take Eve away. He was very very afraid of the consequences that Eve would incur... Also, what the serpent said made sense. So even though he knew God would be displeased, he bit into the apple anyway.

 There was a clever phrase I heard one time and I will say it here: it wasn't the apple, it was the pair.

Isn't it interesting that innocence is equated with nakedness in these scriptures. 2:25 says they were both naked and they weren't ashamed. 3:7 says their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked. Talk about an awkward moment. I can just see them scrambling to make clothes and hide from each other until they were clothed.

When we become a Christian, in God's eyes we have this innocence again. In effect, the Blood of Jesus becomes our clothing.  It also permeates every dark corner of our hearts, until we are naked to the blinding Glory of being free from sin forever.

I find the pair's confrontation with God interesting. God already knows what they have done. He asks "where are you?" Adam's reply is that he was naked so he hid from God. The symbolism is that Adam was spiritually naked. He had no way of covering up his sin, so he used the distraction of being naked to hide from the burden of what he has done. Adam also blames Eve, and Eve in turn blames the serpent. So the Lord punishes the serpent first, because he is the indirect cause of the whole debacle. Then he punishes Eve with pain in child bearing and the struggle of always wanting to rule the household. Then Adam is punished with the burden of being the head of the household.

Until that moment, Adam and Eve were equal. They shared all responsibility in every matter. Then Eve took a big step sideways, and Adam did NOTHING to stop her. He could have said, "Don't do this, honey! God was pretty clear that we aren't supposed to eat from this tree! It's not right!" So Adam's one moment of weakness got him the burden of always providing for everything emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual leadership. In effect, it is a bigger burden than Eve's punishment.

Yujin's editorial comment... Your theory in the second paragraph, namely, that Adam disobeyed God because he did not want to lose Eve, is also famously presented by the poet, John Milton, in the classic work Paradise Lost.

Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! If you have followed the reading schedule on this site, you have completed the Bible through in one year. Take just a moment to give God an offering of thanksgiving. 

Now, immediately move forward into the new year of reading. Some milestones are done and over, but this one is like laying stones on the Taj Mahal. You are undertaking a great task, and every stone is progress; however, one stone, or even a few stones, does not complete the structure. 

While I do not encourage radical departures from your reading discipline, one thing that I have found helpful is to read a different Bible version every year. For example, I just completed reading the New King James Version (NKJV). This year I will read the American Standard Version (ASV). On this site you can change your default version by logging in, going to Account > Your Account, and then choosing the version you want from the Bible Version dropdown menu. 

--------------------

Just a comment for some of you that are novices like myself in the debate over evolution. Perhaps someone here, who has studied this, can shed some light. As I understand it, evolution generally defines change based on natural selection over time. There are two broad categories of evolution, namely, macro evolution and micro evolution. The former argues for change between species, so that proponents for this believe, for example, that human beings originated from fish. The latter argues that within a species there is adaptive change, such that, you find variations in skin tone, eye color, leg length, which may be influenced by the environment in which they live. 

Christians readily embrace micro evolution, change within species, as long as they are understood to stay within the parameters of their own kind; however, we reject macro evolution because it is counter to the biblical thesis that God created the various species that exist on the earth, each "according to its kind" (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 25). Furthermore, while the former is not only biblical but also scientifically proven, the latter is theoretical and unproven. The Bible is not primarily a scientific book, but where it addresses a scientific matter it is accurate and true. 

----------------- 

Another area of contention is the meaning of "day" in Genesis 1. In order to make the Scriptures more consistent with scientific theory, many try to argue that "day" in Genesis 1 is not a literal, 24-hour day but rather a day-age, representing thousands and perhaps millions of years. But this view is problematic both to the immediate and wider context of Scripture, and, therefore, must be rejected. Here's a good article by Ken Ham on "The Necessity of Believing in Six Literal Days":

The majority of Christians in churches probably aren’t sure whether God really created everything in six literal days. Many believe it doesn’t matter whether it took six days or six million years. However, it is vital to believe in six literal days for many reasons. Foremost is that allowing these days to be long periods of time undermines the foundations of the message of the Cross.

Why do people doubt the days?

Fossils are the remains of dead creatures and plants buried by water.

Many fossils clearly show death consistent with sudden, catastrophic burial, supporting the Bible’s account of a worldwide Flood.

The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.

If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8, “. . . one day is with the Lord as a thousand years . . .“. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says, “. . . and a thousand years as one day“. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word “day” already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference in this passage to the days of creation.

What does “day” mean?

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.¹

Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like the Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages they give for yom‘s meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning’, anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, “evening and morning’. There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.

What if the days were millions of years?

The whole of the creation restored . . . to what?

The Bible says there will be a future restoration (Acts 3:21), with no death or suffering. How could all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if you allow millions of years (with death and suffering) for the world’s creation.

The idea of millions of years came from the belief that the fossil record was built up over a long time. As soon as people allow for millions of years, they allow for the fossil record to be millions of years old. This creates an insurmountable problem regarding the gospel. The fossil record consists of the death of billions of creatures. In fact, it is a record of death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record.

The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin, then, is totally undermined.

If there were death, disease, and suffering before Adam rebelled—then what did sin do to the world? What does Paul mean in Romans 8 when he says the whole of creation groans in pain because of the Curse? How can all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering, unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world.

How should we approach scripture?

One of the major problems we all have (in fact, it is the same problem Adam and Eve had) is that we tend to start from outside God’s Word and then go to what God has written in the Bible (or—in Adam’s case—what God said directly to him) to try to interpret it on the basis of our own ideas. This is really the major reason why most people question the days of creation.

We need to realize that the Bible is God’s Word. And as it is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator, God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting. Thus, we should always start with what God’s Word says regardless of outside ideas. Only God’s Word is infallible.

If we allow our children to accept the possibility that we can doubt the days of creation when the language speaks so plainly, then we are teaching them a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn’t they then start to doubt that Christ’s Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn’t they start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?

In fact, there are many theologians who doubt these very things, as they have come to disbelieve the plain words of Scripture written in the foundational Book of Genesis.

Why did God take six days?

Was there death, pain, and suffering before Adam and Eve’s sin?

At the close of the Creation Week, God called everything He had made “very good.” This is powerful evidence against the idea that long ages of suffering and dying took place before the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, appeared.

If you think about it, an infinite Creator God could have created everything in no time. Why, then, did He take as long as six days? The answer is given in Exodus 20:11. Here we find that God tells us that He deliberately took six days and rested for one as a pattern for man—this is where the seven-day week comes from. The seven-day week has no basis for existing except from Scripture. If one believes that the days of creation are long periods of time, then the week becomes meaningless.

The Bible tells us that Adam was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.

Were the days 24 hours? Most definitely! “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Having just read the 1st 3 chapters of Genesis, it just confirmed for me why we need to read the Bible (over and over again, year after year).

Friends, we begin just the 2nd full year of our joint Quiet Time experience through this website. I hope 2010 was a meaningful year for you in God's Word. But I know that it was not so for all of you. In my own experience, I've learned that enduring transformation happens through fits and starts in a context of longstanding obedience. Therefore, my charge to you this year is to persevere. For "at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up" (Galatians 6:9). Recall the collective testimonies of the saints of old through which we understand that the life of faith is a life of constant discipline, and "no discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it" (Hebrews 12:11). Therefore, looking forward to that "harvest of righteousness and peace," let us persevere.

Someone recently asked me what the serpent meant when he said to Eve in Genesis 3:5 that they would "be like God, knowing good and evil," particularly when later God seems to confirm this result in Genesis 3:22 in saying,"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." An example of this "knowing good and evil" was their change from being unaware of the shame in their nakedness (cf. Genesis 2:25)  to their awareness of it (cf. Genesis 3:7-8). This change was punctuated by God's confrontative question: "Who told you that you were naked?" And if no one told them, God follows up with another question: "Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Genesis 3:11).

This interchange helps us to undersand what happened when the first man and woman ate the fruit in disobedience to God. They did gain something, but they also lost something. They gained knowledge, even moral awareness of what is good and evil, but they also lost their innocence. They trusted the serpent ("You surely will NOT die!" in Genesis 3:4) over God ("You will surely die" in Genesis 2:17) and followed their own desire (cf. Genesis 3:6) rather than God's command (cf. Genesis 2:16-17). Rather than being satisfied in God's gracious provision ("From any tree of the garden you may eat freely" in Genesis 2:16), they questioned God's goodness and believed Satan's lie (cf. Genesis 3:1), choosing to fixate on the one tree that was prohibited. Before this disobedience, they trusted in God alone, and, thus, they only knew what was good and only did what was good. However, the moment they disobeyed, they severed their pure depedence upon God, They became self-aware, independent, and morally separated from the God, who created them. Thus, from the moment of their disobedience, they began to "die" (cf. Genesis 2:17). This sentence of death was punctuated by removal from Eden, and particularly by the new restriction from eating from the tree of life, which gave them immortality (cf. Genesis 3:22-24).

Interestingly, a well-known Christian psychologist, Larry Crabb, once wrote that every human problem can be traced back to our desire for independence from God. Therefore, all the psychological counsel and techniques that may be employed to help people are merely bandaids, which sometimes do more harm than good. The real solution, he would say, is expressed in a return to a simple dependence upon God alone. John Piper echoes this principle but expressed it as a complete delight in God alone. Friends, let us learn from these early chapters in Genesis what is true now as it was in the beginning, that we were created to simply and completely depend upon and delight in God alone.

As I was doing a search on verse 3:22 I came across this explanation of the serpent's original lie (Gen 3:4-5).  What I found interesting is that in a worldly sense there is truth; however, in the spiritual sense it is a complete lie.  What's even more eye opening is the reminder that Satan still uses this tactic today.

It made no sense to me that the serpent should tell the truth since he is the Father of lies. So I dug deeper.

There are four points to his lie.
1. You shall not die
2. Your eyes will be opened
3. You shall be like God
4. You shall know good and evil

Various groups claim that one or more of these points are true.
But if you consider them closely, each point is both true and false depending whether you see it in the flesh or the spirit.

In the flesh:
1. They did not die but lived many years after
2. Their eyes were opened and they knew new things
3. They became self-determinate like God
4. They now had experienced both good and evil

In the spirit:
1. They died the same day they ate. God is not a liar. So they died spiritually. When we are born in the image and likeness of Seth as he was of Adam, we are born with living bodies and 'dead' spirits which is why we must be born again.
2. They became blind just as 'the spirit of the age has blinded them'
3. They became slaves to sin and death.
4. They now could only do evil all day long, being slaves to sin.

"In the beginning God" - This is an amazing start of an amazing book. The Bible begins with the presumption of God's existence and preeminence. As all things must have a start, and what starts all things extend beyond our perception, the Bible says that this starting point that exceeds our perceptions is God.