new

I once posted a long comment on a similar article by Randy Alcorn entitled: Do you believe God created the universe in six literal (24 hour) days? I certainly do. I really am not concerned with how many (is it 38%) “evangelical Christians are compromising the truth of God’s Word regarding the sex literal (24-hour) days of creation in Genesis by bowing down to scientific opinion (“from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution) that accommodates millions of years to the days of Genesis rather than the clear,straightforward , literal meaning of six literal (24-hour) days in Genesis. There is no warrant biblically, scientifically or linguistically for doing so (from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew language). I have posted many long comments why I oppose theistic evolution (accommodating long ages to the literal days of Genesis) as not biblical. Jesus Christ himself accepted the Genesis account of creation (Matthew 19:4), including the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve, as well as the biblical account of Noah’s Flood (which would radically alter everything modern uniformitarian geologists have learned in Geology) as historical fact (Matthew 19:: 4, Matthew 24:37-39). We should not be surprised by this when we remember that, though many leading scientists (i.e. “scriptural geologists”) resisted the “old earth” ideas of James Hutton and Charles Lyell (Uniformitarianism) and defended scripture as both true and scientific, Regrettably, it was Christians, not evolutionary scientists, who first lead the charge against scripture, beginning in the 1800s when theologians (theistic evolutionists) readily adopted the “old earth” ideas, of Lyell (uniformitarianism) instead of Noah’s Flood. The Bible believing scientists of the day were in a difficult position of trying to defend scripture when even theologians (who compromised the literal history of Genesis) were against them. The situation remains even worse today, despite recent scientific discoveries about the universe, atom, the internal structure and incredible complexity of cells, DNA, the natural world, etc. Believing scientists, though understandably still in a minority, are leaving Darwinian Evolution, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. Unfortunately, though they have grown weary of arguing how random mutations (essentially harmful to a living organism) in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements to it (no functional genetic information-increasing changes on which “goo to you” evolution depends). So, what do they do? They re-adopt Creation, but still hold on to the old earth and formulate a local Flood account to fit modern uniformitarian geology. How much better it would (and I believe employ better science) to come all the way back to a biblical worldview (instead of just a halfway or middle position between biblical creation and natural evolution (Theistic evolution).. See other comment below:

One could write a book on why it is imperative that Bible-believing Christians not compromise the historical truth of Genesis 1 ( i.e. Day-Age theory, Gap theory, Framework Hypothesis theory) by adding or accommodating evolution to the Genesis account. First, theistic evolution, which is just evolutionary development with God added on, is diametrically opposed to supernatural, ex nihilo (out of nothing), , fiat, (divinely spoken Word\) creation, which even Darwin, who was also a divinity student, rejected: In a letter he wrote to Charles Lyell in 1861, he stated: “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the new species out of the range of science” . Not only was theistic evolution rejected by Darwin, but also was never seriously considered by the other founding fathers of evolution. The evolutionary claim of an old earth (4.5 billion years old) denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis regarding the order of creation (contrary to evolution, the Bible says birds were created on Day 5 at the same time as the sea creatures –before dinosaurs and other land animals; the Bible says the work of shaping the earth was finished on Day 3 before the moon was made on the 4th day into earth’s creation, not smashed from the earth in a cataclysmic collision; etc.), the distinctness of created kinds (10 times in Genesis 1), the absence of death and bloodshed before the Fall (see Genesis 3; Romans 5:12), the instantaneous creation of Adam and Eve and all of creation functionally mature (which explains the appearance of age), the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the creation week (Genesis 1:31), the great longevities of the patriarchs, and the global nature of the Flood, as attested by over 200 Flood traditions by peoples all around the world, over 30 scriptural references (indicating universality of Great Flood), and layers of water-deposited sedimentary rocks containing separate and distinct and intact kinds of fossilized plants, birds, animals, etc. (not transitional or intermediate fossil) all over the earth.

Every major doctrine of Christianity stands or falls upon the historical foundation laid in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Obviously, if death were here eons before Adam sinned (Genesis 3), as evolution requires, then creation had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin, as scripture plainly teaches (Genesis 2:16; Romans 5:12). This, in turn, means that Christ’s death and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the biblical teaching (Romans 8:18-23; Rev. 21) of the final restoration (Paradise Regained) of this fallen world to its original state before the Fall (only much more magnificent and glorious)–no sin, no death. no curse–is sheer nonsense. Dr. James Barr, formerly Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University and renown as one of the world’s leading Old Testament Hebrew scholars , wrote, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that that the writer (s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” The word “day” (Hebrew yom) associated with a numeral (i.e. “first day” “second day,” “third day” in Genesis 1 (and that used 359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1 ) always means a literal 24-hour day.

To make sure that no one missed the obvious meaning of a literal 24-hour day, the writer (s) of Genesis 1 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit further qualifies “first day, ” “second day” etc. with “evening and morning”–“and the evening (that part of the day associated with darkness) and morning (that part of the day associated with light) were the first day” (“second day, “third day” etc.). But many who are easily embarrassed (yes, that includes genuine Christians and theistic evolutionists like Dr. John Lennox, astronomers like Hugh Ross and others) by the opinions of secular scientists concerning the unproven assumptions of radiometric dating (which has been off by hundreds of thousands/millions of years, even on rocks of known age) will claim that Genesis 1 and other creation passages are myths, parables, poetry, dramas, allegories or analogies–the only exceptions to the perspicuity of scripture and cardinal rule that “context defines the meaning of a word”—anything, in order to escape the obvious fact that they are written, and read as, a straightforward historical narrative.

Even such astounding scholars as Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages holds that “Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible–Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job, and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis.” He further states: “The man who says I believe that Genesis purports to be an historical account, but I don’t believe that account” is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, “I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry”. The inspired, infallible Word of God trumps the opinion (actually “faith”) of fallible scientists, my friend. Don’t undermine or sell out the firm foundation (Genesis 1-11) on which your Christian faith is based, my friend, for the favor and praise of men. God will reward you in due time for your faithfulness to His inspired, infallible Word. God bless.

So we must ask, What spots and blemishes did Yahweh God create? What “cursed children” did God create? Some so-called Identity Christians insist that the non-White races are the “beasts” of God’s creation in Genesis chapter 1. But what people as beasts did God create which were “made to be taken and destroyed”, when everything that God created was good?

We posted a draft copy of this opinion in a certain Christian Identity group on Facebook, along with a link to the Christogenea podcasts from Pragmatic Genesis which discuss the non-Adamic races. Those programs discuss the points which we have already made here, along with many similar remarks concerning the other races which were made in the prophets and the writings of the apostles which support those same points. Then a certain woman, whose name we will withhold here, came back with a remark and said “So are you saying that Satan created the dark races? And what about Lucifer (Satan) didn't God created him to be the highest angel? But look… he is now God’s greatest adversary and will not be in the kingdom in the end days. The Bible says that God created all things and without Him nothing would exist?!?”

Aside from some of her silly Catholic ideas (such as using Lucifer as a proper name), which we had purposely overlooked, we replied and said “Right God created all things that were created. But God did not create bastards. We cannot blame God for our sin when we create bastards. we would ask you to listen to the podcasts. Wow, if we could prove all of this in a Facebook post, we would have done that.”

But this woman did not want to listen to any evidence, and that attitude is very common among Identity Christians. In some respects, they are more arrogant that most of the denominational Judeo-Christians, conceited and self-righteous with what little knowledge that they have, they imagine that there is nothing beyond what they think they know. So she responded “’Bastards’ are certainly a hybrid that God did not create. But you said above that God did not create the non-White races. But he certainly did. Genesis 2:19 clearly states… ‘And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field...’ End of discussion.”

End of discussion? So she actually thinks that we missed that verse? So she wants to chime in and make a decree in defense of the non-White races, and insist that the discussion must end there, in a group for which the explicit purpose is to discuss such things. Her arrogance escapes her, and her ignorance, so the conversation only got worse from there. A lot worse. But that we would be compelled to write about elsewhere.

We know it is a common belief in Christian Identity circles, that because all of the animals of God’s creation were presented to Adam, and we are told that no fitting wife was found among them, that there must have been potential two-legged animals among them, so therefore the other races must be the “beasts” that were presented to Adam. We ourselves believed that error at one time, until around 2005 when we wrote the Broken Cisterns essays, as it was taught by most of the elder Identity teachers. But now through much study, for some time we have understood it to be just that, an error.

It is sheer sophistry to insist that Adam was presented with the other races as “beasts”, when the Scripture at Genesis 2:19 also informs us that Adam was presented with cattle and birds as well, for the same reason that he was presented with the beasts. There were three categories in Genesis 2:19 representing “every living creature” which God had made. Those three categories are “every beast of the field”, “every fowl of the air”, and “all cattle”. So if cattle are a certain type of large animal, and fowl are birds, Adam did not find a wife among them, and they too must have been candidates. Therefore, “beast of the field” in this context must stand for every other animal which was not a large ruminant or a bird. That would include chipmunks and squirrels, lions and leopards, dogs and possums and racoons and all sorts of other animals. But it does not necessarily include any so-called “people” as beasts.

It is also absolute ignorance to believe that even if God did create some cognizant race as “beasts”, that any of the non-White races of today are representative of that original “beast” race, when there is no proof upholding such an idea and much historical proof to the contrary. The ultimate hypocrisy of the so-called Identity Christians who claim these things is to claim that these so-called other races are beasts in the Old Testament, and then to claim that they are men in the New Testament. We have seen and heard them do it with our own eyes and ears. That is also an element of universalism by the back door.

In order to understand what it is that Adam is being presented with and why, which we will call the antithesis, we must understand what the sin of the fallen angels was, which we will call the thesis. Yes, Genesis is the antithesis, because the sin of the fallen angels which is partially described in Revelation chapter 12 began before the creation of Adam, and that is why the serpent is the representative of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is also why in the Revelation a flood consisting of all the world’s non-Israelite nations is said to come out of the mouth of the serpent. The Book of Enoch, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells us a little about that tree. This is from a presentation of Luke chapter 4 given at Christogenea in June of 2012:

From a translation of the Qumran scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6, which are unfortunately highly fragmented: “1 [... two hundred] 2 donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] 3 flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] 4 field from every animal, from every [bird ...] 5 [...] for miscegenation [...]”. And in the same source, 4Q531, fragment 2: “1 [...] they defiled [...] 2 [... they begot] giants and monsters [...] 3 [...] they begot, and, behold, all [the earth was corrupted ...] 4 [...] with its blood and by the hand of [...] 5 [giants] which did not suffice for them and [...] 6 [...] and they were seeking to devour many […] 7 [...] 8 the monsters attacked it.” Again, 4Q532, Col. 2 fragments 1-6: “2 [...] flesh [...] 3 al[l ...] monsters [...] will be [...] 4 [...] they would arise [...] lacking in true knowledge [...] because [...] 5 [...] the earth [grew corrupt ...] mighty [...] 6 [...] they were considering [...] 7 [...] from the angels upon [...] 8 [...] in the end it will perish and die [...] 9 [...] they caused great corruption in the [earth ...] 10 [... this did not] suffice to [...] 11 they will be [...]”. While they are quite fragmentary, the general theme of these fragments from what is known as the Book of Giants is readily evident. A very similar version of what is related here is found in 1 Enoch, i.e. chapters 86 and 88. It is highly probable that accounts such as these were the inspiration for the ancient chimera myths of both Greek and Near East mythology. The offspring which resulted from the unions of diverse species are later called bastards, for instance in the Dead Sea Scroll labelled as 4Q204 which is reckoned among the Enoch literature, and their extermination is forecast where it says “Exterminate all the spirits of the bastards and the sons of the Watchers”, which seems to have been speaking prophetically and is speaking of the offspring of the fallen angels. In the end there are sheep, and everything else is a goat destined for the Lake of Fire where are Hell and Death and the False Prophet.
Evidently, there are two trees in the Garden of Eden which without a doubt represent people. They are the Tree of Life, Christ and His Adamic race, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which are the fallen angels, as the serpent is directly linked to them in Revelation chapter 12 and Genesis chapter 3. They had the knowledge of good, and rebelling against God by corrupting His Creation they wandered off into the knowledge of evil. Among other things, the apostle Jude relates these fallen angels to Cain, to Sodom, to the error of Balaam and Balak who tried to get the children of Israel to race-mix, and he says of these fallen angels that they are bound in chains of darkness. They are not bound in darkness in chains, rather, they are bound in chains of darkness, which can only be an allegory for the dark bodies of their corrupted genetics. That is especially evident when everything else which Jude says about them is considered.

So the error of the fallen angels was to corrupt God’s creation, and race-mix even themselves. But the antithesis is this: when God created Adam He taught him the law of kind after kind, and that animals were not suitable mates for men. So his wife must be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. If one do not believe that White people could sink to the level of having sex with animals, one had better check the headlines because the stories we hear about are quite frequent. Sheep, horses, dogs, donkeys, there is nothing below a man when he rejects his God.

We have said this a thousand times. We must say it once more. There are two trees in the Garden, one of Life, and one of evil. And in the time of the end, there are only two sorts of people: sheep and goats, wheat and tares, good fish and bad. Cain is not the only corruption of the devil. There were many more before him, so there was an entire tree of good and evil which was already in the Garden when Adam was created. The tares were planted by the devil from the beginning, and all of the other races are bad in the end. Tares are not Jews only, but rather, tares are every plant which Yahweh did not plant. Unless one can show specifically where Yahweh created non-White races and they are called good, one is deceiving himself if he thinks that Yahweh created them at all.

If one chooses to dispute with this assessment, then please set forth two or three verses in Scripture by which we know with certainty that there should be other races of so-called people among us in these last days who are good. The Bible describes the aliens among us: in Deuteronomy it says that they will take our sons and daughters, and we will grieve but we will not be able to do a damned thing about it, because of our own disobedience. Since Christians are instructed to come out from among them, and be separate, not be joined to the impure, if we teach that these other races are somehow “good” then we further invite such punishment. Rather, the prophet Joel described these other races devouring our wealth and our children as locusts, caterpillars, palmerworms and cankerworms. That is how we should see the aliens consuming our wealth and our goods in all of the formerly Christian nations of today. That is the only Scriptural way in which these other races should be considered, as non-entities, because they shall prosper for a time, and then they shall be as though they had not been.

If one does not understand the things which we have said here, and refuses to go study the matter and either come to agree or produce the necessary evidence to correct us if we are wrong, then we are confident that such a person does indeed have some unseemly agenda.

We can also say this, because half of the people claiming to be Christian Identity already hate us, so it really does not matter if they hate us even more: Any so-called Identity Christian who maintains that Yahweh created the modern non-White races is a liar and a fool. Any so-called Identity Christian who maintains that Yahweh created the modern non-White races is a hypocrite and denies the very words of Yahshua Christ, who describes them as a flood coming from the mouth of the serpent. There are people born from above, and the only alternative is to be born from below. The non-White races must therefore be born from below, as they come from the mouth of the serpent, and not from the mouth of God. So the serpent is responsible for them, as the serpent is the corrupter of the Creation of God.

It is time that Identity Christians slam the back door shut in the face of such universalism.

We hear it all the time. Oh, we have no love, because we do not kiss the asses of men. Oh, we teach with hatred, because we tell them what we believe to be truth plainly and bluntly. Oh, we are mean and stubborn, because we are confident and unyielding. We hear the same old broken tunes all the time, and those who sing them never want to sit and address the issues like men.

So the people who say those things are only looking for excuses. Or being jealous for the lies they have clung to for so many years, rejecting the truth they want to keep others from hearing it as well.