You are hereEast of Eden Revisited

East of Eden Revisited


By Starlight - Posted on 23 October 2006

by Norman Voss
The Genesis story regarding the lineages of Cain and Seth in the early chapters presents many questions and bafflements for most readers. It is in actuality a most remarkable story of beginnings. This article is an attempt to bridge the Old and the New in light of covenantal auspices. The Genesis story regarding the lineages of Cain and Seth in the early chapters presents many questions and bafflements for most readers. It is in actuality a most remarkable story of beginnings. This article is an attempt to bridge the Old and the New in light of covenantal auspices. One of the benefits of Covenant Eschatology is the rewarding biblical discoveries that arise due to that exegetical method. A covenant hermeneutic will help open one’s spiritual eyes that have formerly been covered with a veil because of erroneous assumptions. Many biblical truths that literally have previously lain as dry bones will be raised with tendons and flesh and skin and become alive again. This in turn brings an increase awareness of the total picture to the story of redemption. Then as we begin to see the big picture, more of those past murky details will start to develop and can create a snowball effect towards insight. Therefore when it comes to understanding scripture this principal that Jesus declares seems applicable.

(Mat 13:12 NIV) Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance.

I would like to explore some of the murky details in this writing, hoping to glean some new concepts concerning covenant patterns. While much of our past critical analysis has been performed on end time aspects that are concerned with Peter, Paul and John’s writings in the NT, it should not remain there. I believe it would be beneficial and helpful to make the connection from the earliest chapters of Genesis and incorporate those few chapters fully into our covenantal understanding as well.

We will start by picking up a section of Paul’s writings in Romans 8 which is instrumental in illuminating the principal of our adoption as sons of God. We will then proceed to follow the themes that are prominent there and investigate their origins starting in Genesis. What we discern in Genesis could have new implications for our view of that story of origins. We will look afresh at Cain and follow his story line into new realms for some. We will look at who his people were and then we will open the book to Adam’s other son, Seth, who did survive and fostered a lineage that had world wide repercussions. Along the way we are going to visit two other books that many do not often visit, Job and Ecclesiastes, possibly because they are perceived somewhat pessimistically.

Let’s now consider Paul’s description of adoption for 1st century believers.

(Rom 8:14 NIV) “Because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. …….19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

What is all this groaning, creation and redemption about? Where did Paul get these concepts? In Kurt Simmons book “The Consummation of the Ages” he addresses this section in depth during his introductory material. Kurt sets the table from where I want to proceed and I quote “From Adam to Moses the creature had been subjected to futility and Death.” I’ll begin our investigation in Genesis by examining where this futility thinking originated.
Let’s follow this theme of dust, curse, death and separation from Gods presence, but in the process continue to keep referencing Romans 8 in your thoughts.

Gen 2:7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

1 Cor 15: 47 NIV The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven….. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

Gen 3:14 NIV So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

Dust becomes a metaphor associated with death, particularly sin death.

Gen 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Be aware of the similarities of these two stories, but there are also added implications in Cain’s account.

Gen 4:10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

Cain has committed a terrible sin and the consequence of this wickedness is the same as for Adam’s sin but with even a more severe penalty. Cain’s separation from God imposes this added burden of “restless wandering” or groaning which Cain feels because of the curse of sin death. The separation from God’s presence meant the loss of eternal life. Is it any wonder then that Cain is burdened (more than I can bear) now with being killed himself; he understands fully the consequences, as he has no spiritual hope? We have here the beginnings of a language of death that becomes endemic throughout the course of Old and New Testament literature. In so doing it creates continuity through its usage which solidifies the old redemption story. These mini stories in Genesis originate this same theme that is played out constantly and indeed the rescue from the sin consequence is the “hope of Israel” that Paul brings forth as the “good news”.

Acts 26:6 NIV And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers… Acts 24:15and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection…

One of the significant points that I believe preterist should understand and reinforce is that scripture indeed interprets scripture. There are some basic story lines in the Old and New testaments that are solid foundations which will reflect each other continually. That is one of the reasons that my acceptance of preterism went quickly and smoothly. I had enough biblical foundation to readily identify whether positions were true or false. It is also the reason that I always rejected the dispensational position, as it did not take much understanding to recognize that a second physical reign on earth by Christ went against every thing that had already been accomplished. This is the point that I want keep in our mind as we continue to read, that there are themes in the scriptures that are always true and if our pet belief jumps outside those markers we need to throw up red flags.

Let’s review some OT scriptures that carry forth these same themes. Starting in Job we see exceedingly how much restlessness and groaning that the spirit of man endures.

Job 14:1 NIV "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? ……10 But man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more. 11 As water disappears from the sea or a riverbed becomes parched and dry, 12 so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep. 13 "If only you would hide me in the grave and conceal me till your anger has passed! If only you would set me a time and then remember me! 14 If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait for my renewal to come. 15 You will call and I will answer you; you will long for the creature your hands have made. 16 Surely then you will count my steps but not keep track of my sin. 17 My offenses will be sealed up in a bag; you will cover over my sin.

Job 17:1 My spirit is broken, my days are cut short, the grave awaits me

Job 23:2 "Even today my complaint is bitter; his hand is heavy in spite of my groaning. 3 If only I knew where to find him; if only I could go to his dwelling!

Many believe that Moses was the author or editor of Job. It makes sense when you see the common themes that are portrayed here. This author is intimately aware of the elements of the sin curse of death and all of its ramifications. I would highly recommend that after contemplation of the Genesis curse and its manifestations that the reader take some leisurely time and read over the story of Job. Read it in a covenantal frame of reference with a Romans 8 background in mind.
In essence though the book of Job discloses a bleak picture of mankind’s loneliness, as it justly depicts the misery and abandonment that Cain may have felt and lamented as well. So maybe this is where Paul investigates for his understanding of groaning, bondage and decay as well as hope. The adoption to be sons of God which Paul speaks of is what we all hope for. This is why a complete Covenantal understanding is so encouraging to us. The burden and restless wanderings have been removed. We no longer rest in the dust of the earth with no hope.

But Job is not alone with Cain in this regard; consider Solomon in his inspired rendition of similar themes.
Eccl 3:9 What does the worker gain from his toil? 10 I have seen the burden God has laid on men. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end……. 16 And I saw something else under the sun: In the place of judgment—wickedness was there, in the place of justice—wickedness was there. …. 18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Restlessness and groaning magnified it seems, but did you also notice previously in Adam and Cain’s toiling and work that their labor isn’t fruitful; and Solomon just said that everything is meaningless. So will Job depict the same lack of satisfaction as well for man as Adam and Cain received from the curse. Sin has severe consequences for us while here on the good earth working for the fruits of our labor. The collected bounty of our attempt at fruitful labor will not excuse the curse nor will it redeem us either.

Job 20:17 He will not enjoy the streams, the rivers flowing with honey and cream. 18 What he toiled for he must give back uneaten; he will not enjoy the profit from his trading. …..20 "Surely he will have no respite from his craving; he cannot save himself by his treasure. 21 Nothing is left for him to devour; his prosperity will not endure. 22 In the midst of his plenty, distress will overtake him; the full force of misery will come upon him. 23 When he has filled his belly, God will vent his burning anger against him and rain down his blows upon him. …..Terrors will come over him; 26 total darkness lies in wait for his treasures. A fire unfanned will consume him and devour what is left in his tent. 27 The heavens will expose his guilt; the earth will rise up against him. 28 A flood will carry off his house, rushing waters on the day of God's wrath. 29 Such is the fate God allots the wicked, the heritage appointed for them by God."

Does this story remind you of one of Jesus Parables?

All of these stories can derive their root implication from the very beginning in Genesis.

Lk 12:15Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." 16And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.' 18"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." ' 20"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'

The theme from Genesis is a profound message for those who ignore God, “When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you” Evil becomes a thorn in the flesh and prevents Gods blessings on us and its treasure is of no benefit for securing eternal peace.

We also need to be aware that themes in the bible transcend all kinds of literary genera; from poetic, narrative, apocalyptic, you name it they all carry the same story line. They are all relating the same story of redemption whether it’s Solomon’s Ecclesiastes, or if it’s the story of the man from the east in Job. Even the writings of the prophets, apostles, the Hebrew writer, or Jesus speaking in parables as Gods word, it’s one and the same. Scripture was originated for the purpose of informing us of covenantal promises. We should then be wary indeed of attempting to construct contemporary dogma out of scripture. Sometimes doing so may be akin to taking an Aesop fable and attempt to construct a rational theory out of talking animals when they were nothing more than anthropomorphic instruments for morality lessons. A reader that is not aware of the use and implications of mythological language in biblical cultures of antiquity is in effect disabling their ability to fully grasp the message intended.

One of the interesting characteristics of the literature of Genesis is the use on the play on words. In fact that aspect is especially hidden to contemporary readers due to our lack of cultural and linguistic background concerning the Hebrews of antiquity. To really understand Genesis and in particular the early chapters require a serious investigation by those who truly desire to unlock those meanings. The names in particular have exquisite meaning which in effect amplify the story and help develop the theme. In actuality it appears that the story is simple but in reality there is more. I’m going to quote now from Henri Blocher’s book “In the Beginning” The Opening Chapters of Genesis” to illustrate one of his examples of how names were utilized.

“Over against the civilized consolidation of violence in the tradition of the Cainites and of Lamech, God raises up another tradition within the human race. In place of Abel he bestows another son, Seth(Gn.4:25). It is interesting that the name Seth (set) should be connected by his mother with the word sut, to place, to designate, to institute. For it is the same verb as is used in Genesis 3:15 I will put {or, institute} enmity. Seth and his descendants will maintain hostility towards the snake. The text adds that with Enosh, the son of Seth, men began to call upon the name of the Lord (4:26) which suggests that an organized system of worship, with its own institutions, countered the civilization of evil. Enoch who walked with God (Gn. 5:22,24) and Noah, the instrument of relief (lGn5:29, show that the grace of God was not in vain in the line of Seth.”

Returning now to Romans 8, I now want to explore how Genesis uses the terminology “sons of God” contrasted to Paul’s designation

(Rom 8:14 NIV) because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Where do these sons of God originate? Looking at Genesis 4 we have just finished the lineage of sinful Cain and then we see a transition as “men began to call on the name of the Lord” and we have a reaffirmation that originally Adam was created in the likeness of God. We then proceed into Seth’s lineage which is designated with long years of life which symbolizes them with this Godly label associating an eternal benefit. Those who called on Gods name received special designation in regard to these life spans, but they could not receive eternity just yet, we remember in Hebrews chapter 11 that they were waiting in paradise for the consummation, to be with God. It’s interesting that the earlier lineages had higher numbers attributed to them and as they moved closer to Christ the numbers decreased, just something for the reader to contemplate. This is contrasted to Cain’s lineage of which there was no such designation connected with them. We now have an exclusivity attributed to Seth’s seed line.
Just to reinforce how this designation of long life entails a singular Godly indicator lets look at the life spans that were given to Abraham and his progeny as an example. These long life spans with numerical meanings may have been lost to us from antiquity but it’s apparent they meant something special to the Hebrews.

Abraham 175 years =7 X 25 5 (squared)
Isaac 180 years = 5 X 36 6 (squared)
Jacob 147 years = 3 X 49 7 (squared)
Joseph 110 years = 1 X 25+36+49

I don’t think we can attribute these life span numbers to coincidence as it appears that Joseph is the culmination of the Abraham line numerically. We see other special designations of numbers for Seth’ line as well such as Enoch’s 365 years and Lamech’s 777 years. But again I emphasize that these numbers are strictly for those who begin to call on the name of the Lord and became Gods intermediaries to man and not the Gentiles. The one exception that we find is Ishmael who is the offspring of Hagar the surrogate mother of Sarah’s desire for a child from Abraham.

(Gen 4:26 NIV) Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.
(Gen 5:1 NIV) This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
(Rom 8:9 NIV) You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.

We now proceed to a new problem, we have just observed that Seth’s line began to call on the name of the Lord and we are brought to Noah at this point. It’s important to keep in mind that we are into a new story starting immediately after the listing of Cain’s lineage. There has been a break in the continuity and a new focus is upon a special lineage, Seth’s. They look around and see the opportunity to intermarry with those from the “east” Cain’s line in essence. What we have here is the first designation of an ongoing biblical theme maintaining that the sons of God were to remain pure and apart from the world at large. The author utilizes literary omission by assuming the reader would recognize this new principle even though he fails to instruct in detail. Remember Genesis early chapters are sparse story lines by design. The reason for the exclusion of men was from chapter 4 and the wickedness that keeps sons of men from the presence of God. Let’s examine the consequences that will befall the “seed” in the future as well.

(Gen 6:1 NIV) When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ;

(Gen 6:7 NASB) The LORD said, "I will blot out man, whom I have created from the face of the land,

We can distinguish here a new beginning theme of God’s displeasure with his spiritual lineage attempting to intermarry with sons of men (Gentiles). As a point of reference, both Luther and Calvin adhered to this same designation identifying Seth’s line as the sons of God but the stronger testimony is the context of the narrative itself. Remember in Gen 5:1-2 we have the author designating a new beginning or generation’s story and it would be misplaced to now insert Cain’s lineage back into this new story as the object of covenantal purification since they were already described with wickedness previously in their own listing. (Gen 5:1 NIV) This is the written account of Adam's line.
In fact doing so would break all biblical precedent that will be recognized in the forthcoming examples which we will now examine.

Let’s first consider the story of Jacob’s daughter Dinah, and how in this instance God blessed the “line” because of their refusal to intermarry. God did not intend for the “line” to be fruitful and multiply with wickedness but only within their Godly lineage.

(Gen 34:9 NIV) Intermarry with us; give us your daughters and take our daughters for yourselves. 10 You can settle among us; the land is open to you. Live in it, trade in it, and acquire property in it."
(Gen 34:26 NIV) They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem's house and left.
(Gen 35:9 NIV) After Jacob returned from Paddan Aram, God appeared to him again and blessed him. 10 God said to him, "Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel. " So he named him Israel.

God was obviously pleased with Jacobs’s response and blessed him greatly. We will now see more explicitly what Gods intention for these sons of God are. God has a plan and it does not allow for polluting their line with other men’s wickedness. There is obviously a covenantal instruction that originated and manifested itself with Noah’s “sons of God” generation initially that is continuing. Let’s look further at their continued instruction.

(Deu 7:1 NIV) When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--… …then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

(Josh 23:11 NIV) "But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them,13 then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you.

We now come to the next episode of intermarrying and find out that there are indeed still consequences for the “line” just as there was for Noah’s generation. The theme continues.

(1 Ki 11:1 NIV) King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter--….. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love….. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. …11 So the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.

(Ezra 9:1 NIV) 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."
(Ezra 10:10 NIV) Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. 11 Now make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives."12 The whole assembly responded with a loud voice: "You are right! We must do as you say.

We now have clear indication that there was a covenantal purpose for God to cleanse the “sons of God” lineage back in Genesis 6. When we identify the covenant and perceive Genesis in that “light” we then recognize clearly that the flood was God’s covenantal response to keeping his called ones pure and undefiled. There was no such decree or issue for Cain’s line though. That is a separate line as I highlighted earlier, it did not have the Godly designation that Seth’s line received. Again I declare the story of Cain ended with Gen 4:24, at that point there arises a brand new story beginning with Seth.

There is also another pattern beginning in Gen 4 which happens to be another indicator of separateness. The author beginning with Cain always lists the non seed line before the seed line. The reader may recall and consider how Ishmael’s descendants are also listed separately and before Isaac’s and also Esau’s are listed before Jacob’s. These lineages are never instructed to remain aloof from others. Notice that there is not a focus upon Esau marrying outside of the prescribed line.

(Gen 28:6 NIV) Now Esau learned that Isaac had blessed Jacob and had sent him to Paddan Aram to take a wife from there, and that when he blessed him he commanded him, "Do not marry a Canaanite woman," ….8 Esau then realized how displeasing the Canaanite women were to his father Isaac; 9 so he went to Ishmael and married Mahalath, the sister of Nebaioth and daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, in addition to the wives he already had.

Other evidence offered, is Cain’s designation of being sent to the land “East of Eden” this is important to recognize as it clearly depicts his line as not having direct access to God. This is made manifest in the institution of the tabernacle and temple pattern. There is a dividing wall there which is entered only from the “east” entrance, but do we remember who was excluded from entering the “east” entrance. Yes it was the Gentiles but Christ came and destroyed the dividing wall, forever reconciling the sons of God with the sons of men by his shed blood.

Let’s now also consider some of Cain’s offspring their legacy and the descriptive characteristics attributed to them.

(Gen 4:20 NIV) Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.

The language usage here describing Cain’s “line” is instructive as well in indicating that the author of Genesis is not regarding this line as an extinct line for posterity. The vocabulary indicates that Cain’s offspring was alive and well performing all these different functions in the existing world that he was acquainted with. Trying to read into the wording something dissimilar would not do justice to the context. The fact is that his line was there producing the problem of intermarriage that confronts the Godly “seed” line. It was never Cain’s line that was under the covenant and therefore Noah’s flood is not concerned with their lineage at all except to keep them out at that point.

Let us also now consider some NT ramifications of the Cain “line” or gentiles. It would be helpful to reflect on some instances of gentile encounters and look at the response.

(Mat 8:8 NIV) The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed………I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside,

(Acts 10:1 NIV) At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment…. 4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked. The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.

God’s receiving of Cornelius prayers and gifts are quite a contrast to Cain’s offerings.

Gen 4:5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

(Acts 11:9 NIV) "The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'…. 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" 18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

(Rom 9:22 NIV)
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?
What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called
'sons of the living God.'"

This is a beautiful heart warming inclusion stated here, but Paul also knew where the gentiles were previously in regard to God.

(Eph 4:17 NIV) So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.

Cain’s lineage seemed to disappear from the redemption story, unless perhaps it is the Gentile branch that is picked up as a “people who are not my people” in Isaiah and becomes grafted back in at the Consummation of the ages. This has significant application for the story of Genesis if that is so; it means that the flood story is indeed about the destruction only of the world of Seth’s (seed) line and not of the entire world lineage. The non seed line was never totally destroyed in a physical global manner after the flood and therefore it is going against all manner of precedent to imply that it was globally in nature then.
Cain was banished to the “East of Eden” just as the Gentiles were not allowed to enter into the eastern entrance of the tabernacle or temple. They were not in the same “heavens and earth” as Noah was found nor were they allowed in at this point. This position appears to be in harmony with the terminology used by Moses, Isaiah, Jesus and Peter and John concerning the words “heavens and earth” and appears descriptive of this particular lineage.

(Deu 32:1 NIV) Listen, O heavens, and I will speak; hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
(Isa 1:2 NIV) Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! For the LORD has spoken:
(Mat 5:18 NIV) I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
(2 Pet 3:7 NIV) By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire
(Rev 21:1 NIV) Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,

Only later would Cain’s lineage be allowed into the “New Heavens and Earth”.
Gentiles were always on the outside looking in but as the saying goes “a funny thing happened on the way to the forum”.

(Rom 15:8 NIV) For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs
(Mat 15:24 NIV) He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."… 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27
"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Now we can identify mans lineage back through Cain the son of Adam and Eve. Profound implications for Gentiles and how “we” were grafted back into the tree of life to also become “sons of God”. We may have been reading the bible with the wrong framework in mind all of these years, but understanding covenantal aspects sharpens our focus and gives us new tools to properly understand everything in a coherent manner. Genesis is indeed not a science textbook and is not to be used in this manner in any sense or fashion. The covenantal approach to language makes so much more sense when we grasp this important concept, this is why the language from Genesis to Revelation has a resonance that matches and must be understood and conceptualized in the totality of its original design and purpose. This is also why Paul is able to write with authority in Romans 8 describing man’s plight and groaning, as the story never changes it was always the same.

Genesis begins with the tree of life, the curse and removal from his presence; Revelation ends with the removal of the curse, eating again of the tree of life and reinstatement to his presence. This includes Cain’s lineage as well. This is all the more reason to portray a new paradigm to the religious world of the proper hermeneutical understanding of the bible. We can no longer in good conscience encourage people to read with a literalistic westernized concept and expect to have any true understanding of the total overall plan. As an example we in the preterist community have recognized the importance of portraying the big picture of the Revelation story to others, this then allows us to fill in the details, but we can only do this if we have the correct big picture. If we are off in that area no matter how hard we try we cannot make the facts fit in properly. The proverbial square peg never fits in the round hole. This is the beauty of finding the preterist hermeneutic principles for guiding us in our biblical study. We have wandered in the wilderness for to many years without the correct concepts of Genesis its time to enter fully anew this covenantal promised land!

Rev 22:1
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city.
On each side of the river stood the
tree of life,
bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are
for the healing of the nations.
No longer will there be any curse.

I would like to end now with Paul’s exquisite quote of Job and Isaiah at the end of his heart pouring rendition of his concern for Israel.

(Rom 11:33 NIV)
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
"Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"
"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever!
Amen

______________________________________________________________________________________
Solomon once said there was nothing new under the sun. That is a true statement especially when it comes to ideas. I want to acknowledge that I have drawn heavily upon those who write here at PP and other locations as well. I’ve already mentioned Kurt Simmons, but others are Don Preston, Timothy Martin, Sam Frost and countless others. In so doing I do not want to infer that any of those individuals agree with my articles conclusions, in fact I would expect there would be honorable disagreement. I do want though to take this space to thank all of these writers for their contributions to my understanding. I am approaching the one year anniversary of my coming to the preterist position and without the influence of so many of these free thinkers it would have been difficult to have done so. I especially want to acknowledge Virgil Vaduva and Todd Dennis as well for their invaluable web sites. Their tireless work is greatly appreciated as I made heavy use and still do of their sites for my educational process into preterism.
Thank you one and all.

Norman Voss

Works referenced for this piece were “Genesis” The NIV application commentary” by John H. Walton, “Genesis” A commentary by Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, “In the Beginning” The Opening Chapters of Genesis by Henri Blocher, “The Consummation of the Ages” by Kurt M. Simmons

valensname's picture

Norm,

In continuing our discussion on the Seth line and the Cain line, I recommend you read the excellent article: The Meaning of “Sons of God” In Genesis 6:1-4

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Sons-of-God-in-Genesis-6.pdf

I agree that the Seth line were the one’s who called on the name of the Lord and the Cain line and/or the other son’s of Adam were the one’s who didn’t call on the name of the Lord. Again I don’t believe that the wicked were destroyed in the flood because of intermarriage but because of their wickedness and their thoughts were on evil continually. No where do we read that there should not or God commanded no intermarriage prior to the flood account. Yes the Seth line married outside of their “family” but that was not the problem. The problem was that they allowed the other side of the family to influence them to do evil instead of them influencing the other side of the family to call on the name of the Lord. Thus evil grew and grew to the point that God was grieved that He made man. Both the Seth line and Cain line and I’d say the other son’s of Adam all intermarried and were all wicked, except for those mentioned – Enoch, Noah, etc…Thus all mankind became evil and were subject to God’s judgment and thus all men were destroyed from the face of the Earth with the planet wide Genesis flood.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,
Then why did Moses insert the intermarriage issue here in Gen 6 knowing it would be contrasted with the other intermarriage statements that he provides? Moses doesn’t randomly insert casual items in his writings.

I believe this issue of intermarriage was a very strongly supported observation made in the article. If you remember I started my points off listing Jacobs’s family rejection of allowing their sister Dinah to “intermarry” with an outside clan that was wicked in the manner of their treatment of Dinah. In fact Moses makes this an issue by stating that she had been “violated”. Moses also highlights this story as the precursor of the great blessing that Jacob was to receive because he kept the lineage separate. Immediately upon their killing all of this family God became directly involved in helping direct them to flee to Bethel where he had gone to flee Esau previously. Then God blessed him with the Great Blessing calling him “Israel”, but the obedience, “refraining from intermarriage” was before the blessing.

This pattern of intermarriage that we see here before the promise given, was reinforced continually as I have carefully outlined in my article. Perhaps the best commentary you can read though would be Ezra chapters 9 and 10, as they give exceeding reinforcement to the reasons and degree of wrath that “intermarriage” brings upon them. Ezra details how wickedness just as in Noah’s day was the prime reason to keep the “holy race” pure. So in effect you are correct about the wickedness, and that is just the point that God is trying to drive home with his “called people”. There is no concern whatsoever for any of the other clans in Genesis to remain separate through intermarriage except Seth’s, as they had a special rendezvous with destiny. By listing them with the attribute “they begin to call on the name of the Lord” Moses was identifying that this line had something special going for it. And that turns out to be in essence the whole story of Genesis. But this separateness was a qualifier even before there was an “Israel” to deal with. Sometimes Moses lets action speak louder than words.

I don’t really see the reason why this remarriage observation should be so strongly resisted especially since it is so easily identified as an ongoing characteristic in the Genesis story. It really shouldn’t affect your position drastically one way or the other. If you remember I built my case against a global flood primarily upon Cain’s lineage surviving because they weren’t under the promise. One thing we should recognize about Genesis language is that there is hardly any subject, word, detail or you name it that is put there accidentally or without reason. Putting the “intermarriage” aspect into Genesis 6 was not done so hap hazardously by Moses that is not his style.

Notice in Ezra 9 that they were guilty of mingling the “holy race” with themselves.

“2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the “holy race” with the peoples around them.”

Let’s look at some listings of how Holy People are utilized in scripture.

.
(Deu 28:9 NIV) The LORD will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the LORD your God and walk in his ways.

Now look here at Isaiah’s prophecy of who the “Holy People” are eventually going to be, and in 2 Thessalonians Paul confirms Isaiah’s prophecy.

(Isa 62:12 NIV) They will be called the Holy People, the Redeemed of the LORD; and you will be called Sought After, the City No Longer Deserted.

(2 Th 1:10 NIV) on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

What we have here beginning in Genesis starting with Seth’s line is a pattern that is still in effect for today. That is not to yoke righteousness with unrighteousness. We are the new “Holy people” when we call on the name of the Lord just as they did. Then Paul says we are to be “sons of God” (Rom 8:14 NIV) because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Just look at Hebrews 11 and notice the list of those who are “worthies” and who it starts with, these are the “Holy People” all the way back to Abel. You and I are part of the lineage today just as they were.

(Heb 11:1 NIV) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

Glenn you are right when you state that all mankind is evil, as we all inherited that “sin death” from Adam, and Cain as well as Seth. God’s plan though was to rectify this ultimately and finally through the “seed” line. Of course the consequences were world wide. But the cure was through local remedies.
Just as the cross was regional with global ramifications we should think spiritual not physical.

Norm

PS. I’m still working on my answer for the “Heavens and Earth” but may be contemplating an article instead to deal with that subject.

valensname's picture

Norm,

I think I am understanding your points. However, I disagree and still say you are making a doctrine from silence and making inferences that are not there plus not dealing, as far as the Genesis flood, with the context that clearly states all flesh, not some Seth line only, was destroyed.

Did you read the article I recommended?

I look forward to reading your upcoming article on Heavens and Earth.

Have you read Kurt's new article? Kinda puts a dent in the local flood view.

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

No, Kurt's new article suggests Kurt believes Tim's argument is very strong. The comparison in Daniel and in the NT between The Flood and the Parousia is valid. Kurt is trying to create a Global Parousia to match his Global Flood.

Ed Stevens has said he would reject Preterism and go back to Dispensationalism if Tim adequately demonstrates this equivalence.

Tommy Ice, in his recent debate with Gary DeMar, attempted to make the same argument. Two of Gary's last three newsletters have rather poor attempts to refute the argument and, from Gary's website, a third attempt is coming. That's a lot of print for something that was not noticed or understood by the people who witnessed the debate. But if you saw Gary's face (and all the print), you'd know Gary takes this argument seriously. (Contrary to what Gary said here after that debate.)

You have two choices: 1) Global Flood followed by Global Parousia or 2) Local Flood followed by Local Parousia. Tommy Ice, Ken Ham, and Kurt Simmons have chosen the first. Tim and I have chosen the second. You will eventually have to choose sides.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL,

What there is no other choice? :-)

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

There's always another choice. Irrationality, for example.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Starlight's picture

JL,

I agree, Kurt is trying to set the table for what you recognize. But I think he is left empty as it's a very simple analogy to compare local flood and local Parousia to Universal consequences.

Norm

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Yes Norm,

The real problem here is the tendency for preterists to be symbolically challenged in their understandings. The assumption is that if something is to be universally applicable, it must be global in some kind of physical detail. If you think about it, it's just dispensational baggage.

I consider Kurt's new article to be the greatest compliment I've received from my work with Jeff on Genesis. Kurt is now attempting a rewrite of preterism from scratch in order to save dispensationalism's global flood. Good luck.

He's admitted that we've won the argument: Preterism (as we know it) refutes a global flood. Therefore, preterism (as we know it) must go.

Thanks Kurt,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Starlight's picture

Tim,
Sorry, I meant "local flood"
Norm

Starlight's picture

Tim,

I’m not really worried about Kurt’s approach; I don’t think he will ever be able to produce credible work in Genesis, because of his fallacious hermeneutic there. We saw the difference this summer when he made an attempt to refute the global flood, there was a tremendous drop-off in scholarship.

Norm

Starlight's picture

Glenn,
Yes, I finally read the article. I could not get it to open up at first but read it this morning.
I can’t believe you still think I’m making doctrine from silence after reading it though. This guy completely vindicates my intermarriage position.

And I quote.
“God already had promised a way of overcoming sin through a descendant of Adam and Eve(Genesis 3:15), and hence must have decided that unless He intervened in a miraculous way, the integrity of the messianic line would be defiled, and man would have no chance of redemption. Therefore, the sons of God departing from their mission and marring in an improper manner, leading to an overwhelming apostasy, provides the appropriate connection between the parallel genealogies of Genesis 1-5 and the Noahic Flood of Genesis 6-9.”

The only difference is I would correct it to say Genesis 2:4-4 and 5-9 as he did not recognize the correct break in the two different stories that are being paralleled. It makes a big difference ultimately, as Moses designed it for emphasis.

I’m assuming that since you recommended his article to me that you agree with his conclusion about the intermarriage issue and concede that point.

Yes, I have read Kurt’s article and I hope you’re sitting down when you read what I’m about to state.

I happen to be a great admirer of Kurt Simmons, I think he has added immeasurably to our understanding and I would give my eye teeth to have just a little of his intellectual and writing talent. But before I confer sainthood on Kurt I believe he is not inspired and is fallible:-)
Having stated that, from my first reading perspective I do not see any major areas of which I would have disagreement with. I actually think that his position is possibly the correct viewpoint. I do think that I may have some specific questions before I completely accept it in totality though.
Now some may wish that his Universal position could be construed to be used in arguing against the local flood position, but that is not the case from my perspective. I actually see vindication within that point of view. In fact it is possibly providing me with important concepts with which to build on.

Glenn, I have very little difference with Kurt except when it comes to the Genesis issues. In fact I would say his perspective in the NT is my view almost entirely. My main problem with Kurt arises due to his continuing to hold to a completely literalistic Genesis perspective. He seems to be able to rationally go from literal to spiritual in all other venues except there. To me this seems to be a highly improbable hermeneutical approach as far as consistency goes. If we used that same approach in the rest of scriptures I guarantee you we would not be preterist today. But even though I have those opinions of Kurt’s approach he is someone that I would not hesitate for one second to trust covering my back in war (unless he’s a pacifist):-)

Kurt is planning his first conference this spring and I would love to go and meet him first hand and sit at his feet.
Of course I would be a good boy while there:-)

Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

If the Seth and Cain lines intermarried and they all became wicked, except for Enoch, Noah, etc...then how can you say that only the Seth line got destroyed in some undefined local flood? How can you separate the two for a flood and then how from Scripture can you separate them to allow such a local flood to take out only the Seth line? Did Noah separate them two by two or something? The idea just sounds far fetched to me not to mention exegetically unsupportable.

I have to ask since you are talking about approaches...how do you view the time statements in the NT? Are they valid, do they have their plain meaning? The time was indeed near, the time was indeed at hand, it was indeed to happen soon, and it indeed was to come on that generation? I'm assuming we understand the eschatological time statements the same? I'm looking for something we have in common here because I don't think we even agree on what Genesis 1:1 means.

You have before brought up the thousand years in Revelation 20, which is clearly prophetic language as a reason to say that the time language of Genesis means something other than its plain contextual use. Then if you say that about Revelation 20 then what do you say about the time language in Revelation 22? If I use your hermeneutic for Revelation 20 in Genesis then why does it not apply for the time statements in Revelation 22? You see to me you are picking and choosing which time statements suit your preconceived view of a local Genesis flood and billion year old Earth. I see Kurt as being completely consist, you I don't see as being consistent.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

The Cain line was declared wicked and not dealt with by destruction in Gen 4, they were “driven from the land” and occupied the land of Nod “east of Eden” Also as I have stated before, the story of Cain was over at the end of Gen 4 when Moses starts afresh with his new “accounting” of the Seth line.

This is where the importance of the intermarriage principal becomes important. That principal was strictly about maintaining the purity of the “seed” line just as your article which you referred emphasizes as well. This is a pattern that is always present from beginning to the end and since Moses begins the separate story of Seth in Gen 5:1 he is emphasizing that aspect as well. God is dealing here with only the purpose of bringing forth the instrument of mankind’s redemption and it does not involve the peoples from all over the globe or even those of the then know world. I won’t even get into the discussion on utilizing the proper language from the Hebrews for “earth” which should be translated “land”. Also why is it that in Genesis 6:7 that its ok to include wiping “mankind” from the face of the earth as global language but when we get to Revelation 9:15-20 the killing of mankind is somehow recognized in its proper context. Looks like a double standard to me.

I also don’t understand your fascination with the time statements as context drives the answer. And as far as agreeing on Genesis 1:1 I’m sure we would most likely disagree there as long as you are holding to a completely literal reading of Genesis. This is my main beef with your position as there seems to be no balanced understanding or recognizing when scriptures in Genesis are speaking in symbolic language, metaphorically or in narrative format. How one can continue to hold that all those seemingly symbolic usages in Genesis 3 can be in a literal rendition there but somehow magically change to symbolism in Revelation and other scripture is beyond me. What about the “water of life”, “the tree of life” and the “curse” and what about “God having to physically walk around looking for Adam and Eve, and the talking serpent. And yes I am picking and choosing scripture, but it’s according to contextual usage, this is why I’m able to recognize the difference between the application of the 1000 years in Revelation 20 and the time statements in Revelation 22.

Oh BTW it looks like I got usurped on the “heavens and earth” article, did you read the new article this weekend “The Covenant Judgments of Revelation” by Duncan McKenzi? Towards the end of his article he spells out good background info on the proper understanding of how “heavens and earth” is utilized in scripture. If I end up writing an article now I will have to come up with a more unique approach so as not to appear to be appropriating his material.

Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah. And he lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Cain I assume walked to the land of Nod. And I don't think it was all that far away or he would not have been afraid that his brother's and sisters and their children would be after him. You are assuming that the land of Nod was I suppose too far away to be affected by this undefined local flood.

I thought you agreed with the article that the Seth and Cain lines intermarried? How can you state "the story of Cain was over at the end of Gen 4..." you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I don't recall the article saying that God told the Seth line not to intermarry? Genesis records that they intermarried but nowhere is this prohibited. You are adding to Scripture.

"Also why is it that in Genesis 6:7 that its ok to include wiping “mankind” from the face of the earth as global language but when we get to Revelation 9:15-20 the killing of mankind is somehow recognized in its proper context. Looks like a double standard to me."

And again you are equating using the same method of interpreting the prophetic language of Revelation with the historical record of Genesis. That is not proper hermeneutics. No matter how you want to classify Genesis it is a historical record, written after the events took place.

"How one can continue to hold that all those seemingly symbolic usages in Genesis 3 can be in a literal rendition there but somehow magically change to symbolism in Revelation and other scripture is beyond me. What about the “water of life”, “the tree of life” and the “curse” and what about “God having to physically walk around looking for Adam and Eve, and the talking serpent. And yes I am picking and choosing scripture, but it’s according to contextual usage, this is why I’m able to recognize the difference between the application of the 1000 years in Revelation 20 and the time statements in Revelation 22."

What in the narrative of Genesis 3 suggest that they were not real events? Could God not have been manifested as in angel form just as in other places of Scripture? I take it you don't believe the serpent talked? I guess you don't believe Balaam's donkey talked either? Why don't you? Why do you believe the miracles in the NT (if you do) but deny them in the OT? How do you go in and out of the Genesis record making something a historical event while other parts just a symbolic event? From what I'm reading, you imply no one could have ever had a clue what Genesis meant without Revelation to guide them.

And Norm time is an element in Genesis. Unless you want to take scissors and cut it out of Scripture - time is an element in Scripture and it is everywhere. Not dealing with it is the same as some futuristic eschatology that ignore the time statements of prophecy.

No I haven't read Duncan's article yet.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

Let me clarify about my statement on Seth, I stated that his “story” which entailed 7 generations ended; not his offspring, sorry if I mislead. I wanted to emphasize that his line produced wickedness which should have brought on the same consequences of destruction but Moses abruptly ends that “story” and starts a new one with Seth and then decides to show Seth’s line not Cain’s receiving the destruction.

“I don't recall the article saying that God told the Seth line not to intermarry”

Good point, but remember neither Isaac nor Jacob was directed to either but they sure had an aversion to it, Gen 28:8. Somehow this principal worked its way into their culture and it appears to have been from the get go of Seth’s line.

And Glenn there is a big difference between not believing in miracles and wanting to be accurate in scripturally applying them. One is rooted in heresy and the other is rooted in wanting to properly apply God’s word with honor and respect to its original meaning. It’s a desire to uphold the highest of standards in biblical hermeneutics and I will be the first to acknowledge error if I have been guilty of it and am convinced of my error. But like the Berean’s there is a nobility in searching the scriptures to see if these things are true and I will not be intimidated by insinuations of sacrilege which I hope you are not inferring. In fact the opposite can be just as destructive, the tendency to want to suppress any open examination of scripture is ripe with historical precedent where those who were considered radicals were ostracized. I can think of a few current fellow preterist at the moment who have suffered this indignation toward them.

I just don’t think we are going to have any common ground on a discussion of Genesis as it is apparent we differ significantly on the designation of scripture classification. I think we are both becoming redundant and it serves no purpose to continue until we are both blue in the face.

I surely appreciate your conscientious responses to my article and you have been a blessing to me in my endeavor to explore more fully God’s Word.

Blessings
Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

I don't see how you can cut off Cain's line from the flood destruction, especially if you believe Cain's line and Seth's intermarried.

I have a suggestion. How about starting a discussion from Genesis 1:1 and going on verse by verse from there? State what we understand regarding the verse and make a few counter points if any, then move on to the next verse. Not so much to argue but to present our understanding. I don't have a good grasp of what all the billion year old Earth and local flood preterist view is apart from that those two points. I'd appreciate clarification or a more comprehensive overview.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,
I don't know if I'm up to a verse by verse approach, as that's really what a commentary is for. What might help if its clarification of old earth views that you are looking for is to simply state your questions to me and let me respond to them. You realize of course that my perspective is not representitave of all. As example Hugh Ross has a science approach to scriptures while I consider mine more theological. Also I reserve the right to "evolve" my understanding as new insights from scripture are clarified for me. Who knows I might even change my mind on something:-)
Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

I'll just ask as things come up then. When I looked at Hugh Ross' material I was surprised to find it was very similar to what other billion year old Earth preterists had been saying. Not exact but similar.

Thank you for the discussion. Until next time :-).

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

Yes Hugh has some similarities as he is a believer, what I meant by science approach was that he tries to reconcile Genesis using science extensively which I consider misguided as I do not think it was intended to be taken in that manner.
I look at Genesis as a Covenantal language which I am becoming more and more convinced of especially since my introduction to Preterism.
I leave you with this final scripture from Paul detailing the story of Israel.

Rom 9: 4 NIV
the people of Israel.
Theirs is the adoption as sons;
theirs the divine glory,
the covenants,
the receiving of the law,
the temple worship
and the promises.
Theirs are the patriarchs,
and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ,
who is God over all,
forever praised!
Amen.

Blessings
Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

I hope you will expand sometime soon on how you see Genesis as "...a covenantal language..."

I'll stay tuned.

Glenn

JL's picture

Is it science or is it dispy-literalism? Ross is a dispensationalist. His view of Genesis is just as literal as any YEC's. When literalism runs into a contradiction, Ross just makes a different choice as to which is literal and which is figurative.

The most literal interpretation of Genesis that I'm aware of is in Dick Fischer's, The Origins Solution. What does Fischer get for all his literalism? Theistic Evolution, an old earth, and a lot of grief from less literal YECs.

I'm with you Norm. Genesis is covenant. It is written in covenant language. It will not work to literalize it. Neither will it work to force it to match science or science to match it. Genesis is discussing a different subject altogether.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Starlight's picture

JL,
You're exactly right on Hugh, that's why it didn't take me long to see the same old tired mistakes toward scripture when I started reading his work several years ago.
I also think we need a good covenental discussion about Genesis just amongst ourselves sometime soon. We all need to get together and do some brainstorming.

Norm

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Norm,

This is a masterpiece.

Thank you very much for all your hard work. There are enough connections and thoughts in this one article to keep one busy thinking on Genesis for quite some time.

In fact, I think you spawned an idea for an article of my own on a semi-related subject. Stay tuned.

Keep up the great work,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Starlight's picture

Tim,

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes there is a lot to chew on in this work and I debated whether to break it up into two or three separate sections. But I decided to keep everything together realizing that it would be hard to do so effectively.

What I am hoping to accomplish is to initiate a fresh model in how we approach Genesis. By including Paul’s Romans section I was attempting to bridge the Cain story with conventional theology and then move into the desired principals that I wanted to emphasize about Cain and Seth. I wanted the reader to be more comfortable foundationally with Cain than we typically are. I believe when we are able to put a face on Genesis is when the message will become more perceptible to us. We do the same thing in Revelation now; it is now standard MO to recognize that all the strange terminology there actually has rational meaning. The same goes for Genesis, all the exotic things that we perceive about that story really do have a rationale behind them.

So much of our discussion here at PP has revolved around chapters 1-3 and the chapters about Noah’s flood. This has tended to leave out some of the important information that we should be paying attention to on Chapters 4-6. I hope this article is complimentary toward your work in that regard.

Tim thanks again.

Norm

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Norm,

Very much so.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

valensname's picture

Norm,

I will re-read this article again, but at first read, you seem to jump around so often and just quote Scipture using it as proof texts that I don't believe you are making connections properly. Your statements regarding the Genesis flood for example.

I would like to ask, you do seem to take the position that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc...the people mentioned in Genesis were in fact real historical people? Then do you believe the ages that they lived are historically accurate? I ask this because in some sense you seem to imply the ages for Abram...Joseph are more literary devices of some sort?

And although, I don't think you intended it this way, some of your statements about understanding the cultural and linguistic aspects and what preterists have to offer about understanding Genesis covenantually suggest that preterists have an arrogance about them and that others may have never considered the cultural, linguistic, nor covenental aspects in Genesis which is not true. Bible students with other eschatology views have done indepth study of the cultural and linguistic aspects of Genesis and the covenants in Genesis as well. I think a fallacy may be trying to make covenant applications where they do not exist.

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Glenn,

Could you please e-mail me at jvhsa@jeffersonvalley.net. I lost your e-mail address and would like to contact you again.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Starlight's picture

Glenn,
Yes you have identified some of my weakness, first off I’m not a polished writer and the way I think can come out somewhat spastically, I need the reader to hopefully overlook those shortcomings and see the big picture. In the famous words of Forest Gump “I’m not a bright man”. :-)
And yes I can come off somewhat in an arrogant manner when I write and I need to correct those implications as I depend heavily upon people who have performed most of the work for me but may differ with my conclusions.

What I’m attempting to emphasize is that Genesis early chapters is very similar in many regards to Revelation in some of the ways that tend to throw people off in their interpretation. I believe what keeps Genesis shrouded in darkness for many in my estimation is what keeps many from seeing clearly the Revelation big picture. That is in effect what kept me from understanding Revelation for many years.

My key points in this article was the discussion about what triggered God’s response to bring about the flood in Genesis 6, which I believe was their intermarriage with those who were not of the Godly Seth lineage.
And that brings me to the question of whether these individuals were real people, yes I believe they were, just as those individuals were real people that Jesus spoke of in the parables. But the details surrounding them in their stories become more challenging to explain such as the meaning of their ages. I believe the ages represent much more detail than meets the eye, which is why I included the information about Abraham and his descendents. This is why I draw the conclusion that this lost information is similar to the mysteries of Revelation and many people do not want to bring those same standards to Genesis because of preconceived points of view.
As far as their ages being historically accurate, I believe they were accurate for the stories purpose and represented the ages for what they were intended for. What those intentions were is still open for discussion and we as preterist need to be heavily involved in seeking Gods purpose in them. I believe what I reviewed about the Abraham lineage is just the tip of the iceberg for number crunching:-) Where is “Isaac Newton” when you really need him?
I also believe the information I discussed about Cain is of significance as well, as I attempted to (but poorly I’m sure) show that his lineage was not involved in the flood.

Glenn I appreciate your response brother and you surely keep me on my toes. I always appreciate you honest desire to be right with God and may he continue to bless you for it.

Also when I posted the article all my emphasis and formatting was lost. I believe my original word document reads somewhat better as it shows my points more empatically. If anyone would like a copy of the word doc they should send me a message with their email and I'll send it to them.

Blessings
Norm Voss

PS. Glenn maybe we can get together for some English writing courses for me soon:-)

valensname's picture

Norm,

But doesn't Scripture state that God wiped out all the wicked with the Genesis flood because they were wicked, not because of intermarrying?

I of course, disagree about Cain's lineage not being killed in the Flood. I don't see how the context from Genesis 1:1 to the flood in any way limits it to only part of mankind.

How can one consistently say the time statements regarding prophecy and especially the Parousia be understood in their normal plan sense then say that the years of those in Genesis are not also taken the same way? Your statement, "As far as their ages being historically accurate, I believe they were accurate for the stories purpose and represented the ages for what they were intended for." seems to make no sense to me or that one can't really understand it, which is like what many say about Revelation - because they ignore the plain time statements in the prophecy.

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Glenn,

I don't want to renew any argument, but I do think it might be helpful to show that others have seen the transition in Genesis 5 of which Norm speaks.

***************

First, a very old author and historian. Here's Josephus, ANTIQUITIES, 1:3:1:

"Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as Lord of the Universe and to have an entire regard to virtue for seven generations; but in the process of time they were perverted."

Josephus goes on from here to recount the flood event with many interesting comments. He's talking about no one but Seth's line.

****************

Now a modern writer. Here is John Sailhamer from THE PENTATEUCH AS NARRATIVE (1992), p. 119:

"The geneaological list in chapter 5 has been purposefully restructured at its conclusion in order to accommodate the Flood narrative. The Flood narrative has been inserted into the genealogy between the notation of the total length of Noah’s age at the time he engendered his three sons [5:32] and the notation of his total length of his life (9:28) and his death (9:29)."

Sailhamer's observation leads to an obvious conclusion. Just as we find in Josephus, the flood account is directly relevant to the line of Seth. Of course, I've never seen any global flood advocate deal with the context set in Gen. 5.

*************

I guess what I'm saying is that all the universal language of the flood event used in 6-9 must be understood in the wider context Gen. 5 sets. When dealing with Seth, we are not talking about every son of Adam. The author of Genesis makes this clear if we are paying attention to the story, and not just leaping in at Gen 6:1.

Context, context.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

valensname's picture

Tim,

I don't really want to argue either...

but how is what you are saying any different than since there are no children of Adam and Eve besides Cain, Abel, and Seth mentioned by name in Genesis that they somehow escaped the Genesis flood, or were not part of the evil of man that was great on the earth etc... I see you and Norm making inferences from silence and creating doctrines from where there are not any. The Bible doesn't tell us Eve physically died or as I mentioned the other sons of Adam and Eve. Does this mean they are still physically alive on the Earth today? I don't believe so. Although some of the Mormon doctrine says some of the first century apostles still walk the planet (since the Bible does not record their deaths) I don't think that is truth.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

“Norm making inferences from silence and creating doctrines from where there are not any”

I’m somewhat surprised that you state that “I’m creating out of nothing”:-)

Let me present again an item that I offered in my article concerning Cain and his offspring. I’ll list two different versions describing that his offspring were the “ancestors of all those who live in tents and have livestock” and “who play the lyre and pipe”.

They lived before the flood and I do not see how they could have been wiped out and still be the ancestors or fathers of contemporary peoples that “Moses” is writing about that still inhabited the earth. If that is not verification from scripture I don’t know what is. Unless of course the language for some strange reason doesn’t mean what it says.

Glenn all I’m stating is what “Moses” is stating, and I do not consider his words as silence.

(Gen 4:20 NRSV) Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe.

(Gen 4:20 KJV) And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

So anyone who has lived in a tent, raised livestock and played the musical instruments mentioned could have only been descendants of Cain? Guess that makes me a descendant of Cain since my family raise cattle.

I think you are making a leap here. I think you are trying to separate out the children of Adam into some type of boxes to fit your, what I would call, imposed framework.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

No, all I’m presenting is the clear scripture that Moses gave us indicating that those listed there under Cain’s line were the “forefathers” for those attributes Moses details. Don’t you think it strange that he would designate them with these characteristics which he implies was passed on to mankind knowing they would be wiped out? How does that make any sense?
It only makes sense if Moses considered Cain’s line an off shoot of the Godly line, just as Ham and Japheth, Ishmael and Esau were treated by Moses in like manner.

Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

I'd have to later look at the Hebrew for the "forefather" but I believe the text is saying that they were the first ones to live in tents, run livestock, make things etc...and they passed this on to everyone. You seem to be inferring that Cain's line kept this knowledge to themselves or something or that they were the only ones who figured the things mentioned out. I can only speculate but some reasons it may be in the text is to show that in the beginning man was intelligent and not some stupid cave dwelling evolutionary ape and that Cain's line had some good contributions to mankind.

I don't think there was a godly line as you are suggesting. There were godly people in the Seth line yes but many wicked as well or they would have been on the ark with Noah. I'd say there were probably "godly" people in the Cain line and the other sons of Adam's line as well but they all became wicked by the time of the flood. Abel probably had sons and daughters as well that survived him. Can't say for sure but I don't think mom and dad would have really let Cain and his sister marry after he became a murderer.

And you seem to be suggesting that all the sons and daughters of Adam moved so far away from each other that they had no contact with each other to escape what you believe to have been some type of undefined local flood. And you would think then that there would be all these stories of how the Seth line got wiped out in a local flood and we non-godly line survived. They would have rubbed that in just as Lamech was doing about killing someone. But are not most if not all of non-scriptural flood stories all global?

Moses mentions rivers that did not exist post flood and a Garden that for sure was gone after the flood. Why mention this then as well?

Again, I think that you are making conclusions where there are not any in the text in order to support a preconceived belief about the early chapters of Genesis.

Glenn

PS. I'm not trying to pick on you. I have even refrained from mentioning you were quoting from the NIV and you know what I think about that version :-).

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

I would have been sorely disappointed if you hadn’t picked on me, as I consider you the premier defender of your position on this site. I also believe two brothers should be able to openly discuss their conscientious beliefs with respect, honor and integrity, and I consider your responses in such manner. Now back to the issues:-)

I pulled “forefathers” out of strong’s which compares favorably to “ancestors” or “fathers” in the NRSV and KJV.
See I happen to have anticipated you’re consideration of the lack of accuracy from that silly NIV:-)

“You seem to be inferring that Cain's line kept this knowledge to themselves or something or that they were the only ones who figured the things mentioned out”

I don’t harbor any such conclusions as you have mentioned, I believe that the scripture is just plainly stating that those individuals were the lineages of the peoples Moses was identifying that were out there milling around in tents and playing their harmonicas in that day and age. It’s really just that simple, if you want more out of it you’ll have to ask Moses.

I think the question for you is more profound, you seem to be attempting to diminish what plain language is revealing. Your approach appears to be similar to the discussion of Matt 24:34 where futurist attempt to divide the message by trying to apply new meaning to the word “but”. Or as Bill Clinton famously tried to insist that it “all depends upon what the word “is” means”. I believe you need to investigate these verses without reading your personal bias into them.

“I'd say there were probably "godly" people in the Cain line and the other sons of Adam's line as well but they all became wicked by the time of the flood”

I believe you are overstepping here in this statement, Moses clearly stated specifically in Gen 4:26 “at that time men began to call on the name of the Lord”. Moses intended for the reader to be aware that these men of the line of Seth were the instigators of what was revealed to Moses as the true worship of the One God. Sure there are good people out there in varying degrees but they were not included in Gods plan of redemption.

This listing of Seth’s lineage which is the repository of the future messiah was a holy calling from the beginning. That is why Moses starts a new account beginning in Gen 5:1 detailing it and giving it attributes that were never given to other lineages. This identification is not anything new; every reliable Genesis commentary I have read notates this important aspect. So in that regard I’m not inserting any new material on the special recognition of the Seth line.

“But are not most if not all of non-scriptural flood stories all global?”

I haven’t concerned myself with determining whether the “mythological” flood stories were global or not, but if they were they would have been recognized for what they were designed for which was to explain things in a manner that people would understand their context. Kind of like how Aesop Fairy tales were used to teach to people.

“Moses mentions rivers that did not exist post flood and a Garden that for sure was gone after the flood.”

That’s interesting that you would say that the Garden was gone, especially in the sense that the tree of life was found there and was being guarded to keep man out. Where then resides the tree of life that we now have access to because the curse has been removed?

Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

I'll only comment on one item, or I'll never get to read anything besides posts :-).

I believe the tree of life of Genesis 2 was an actual physical tree but the tree of life in Revelation 22 is not a literal physical tree. The Bible goes from the physical to the spiritual.

I am still "working" on my understanding of the tree of life in Genesis but at this time I don't believe Adam and Eve or any of the animals (unlike some of the 6,000 year old Earth futuristic eschatology holders do) were created immortal physical beings that then were subjected to physical death after the fall. I don't believe the tree of life would have allowed Adam and Eve to live physically forever if they had not sinned and ate of it or continued to eat from it. I think God removing the tree so that they would not live forever in their sin was a blessing by God not some type of consequence or punishment. If they had access to the tree then they would have lived forever in sin and would not have had the blessing of Christ. Like I said I'm still working out this but the best explanation I have heard has been from William Bell at last years Ardmore conference.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

I guess where I have a problem with moving from the physical to the spiritual in Genesis to Revelation is audience relevance. I would expect those to whom John is addressing Revelation would understand Genesis Tree of Life as no different as Johns Revelation Tree of Life. I also don’t see why we have to expect Moses not to mix his physical and spiritual teachings when many of the other prophets did as well as Jesus.

Lets look at a verse or two depicting spiritual language and see if we can determine whether we should exclude the early Chapters of Genesis from the spiritual language.

(Isa 65:25 NIV) The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

(Isa 65:20 NIV) "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; ……

Now look at these passages below from the song of Moses which appear to be the origination from which Isaiah rendered his “New Jerusalem” message. See the reference to “dust”, “viper”, “serpent”, “infants” and “gray-haired men” just to mention a few examples of common themes becoming part of the continuity of scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.

(Deu 32:24 NIV) …….I will send against them the fangs of wild beasts, the venom of vipers that glide in the dust.

(Deu 32:25 NIV) In the street the sword will make them childless; in their homes terror will reign. Young men and young women will perish, infants and gray-haired men.

Now consider how Moses used similar language from Gen 6 and the flood story later on in his song about the coming future destruction.

Deu 32:26 I said I would scatter them and blot out their memory from mankind,

(Gen 6:7 NASB) The LORD said, "I will blot out man, whom I have created from the face of the land,

A literal reading of the song of Moses would seem to entail a complete destruction of physical earth, but we preterist have become savvy unto the meanings of Heaven and Earth except it seems when we get to Genesis which also was penned by Moses.

Let’s look at “Heavens and Earth”

(Deu 32:1 NRSV) Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; let the earth hear the words of my mouth.

(Gen 2:1 NIV) Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

(Gen 2:4 NIV) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens—

(Gen 5:1 NIV) This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

Isn’t it interesting that the physical ordering of Heavens and Earth were finished in Gen 2:1, but we then have another Heavens and Earth Accounting given in Gen 2:4, and then we have the next accounting given in Gen 5:1. Yes the accounting of Seth’s Line. What I’m saying is that Isaiah picked up his Heavens and Earth terminology straight from Moses and we know Moses used it to describe “Israel” so we have to be very careful in utilizing Moses Genesis “Heavens and Earth” outside the context of “Israel”. The question becomes when did Moses start ascribing the “Heavens and Earth” description to Israel.

That is a question that I’m still trying to get my head around as it seems important to clarify.

Norm

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Norm,

The connections between the Law and Isaiah 65 are great. Thanks for that!

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

valensname's picture

Norm,

What about context? The context determines if the phrase "heavens and earth" refer to the physical heavens and earth or figuratively refer to a nation or another type of non-physical creation.

In the narrative of Scripture, Israel does not exist until God changes Jacob's name. Thus to suggest that earlier in Genesis it is not referring to the physical heavens is not proper hermeneutics.

And Norm, Deut 32 and in Isaiah it is clear from the context that it is a prophecy (regarding future events) not an historical account. God said He would blot man out not if you do this then I will do this like in Deut 32.

Again, I see you trying to make applications where there is no basis. You are trying to make an apple become an orange. It is no different then saying because both say something about dying in passages like if you believe in me you will never see death to passages in the NT that clearly speak of someone physically dead then because death is referred in both then maybe the both have spiritual covenantal applications.

If I am following you, you seem to be suggesting that maybe the heavens and earth of Genesis 1 is not the Universe but Israel's world? I see no heremeneutical, contextual, grammatical, or any other reason to suggest this. As I said, Israel's world doesn't come into existence until God changed Jacob's name and then until God gave them the Law.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,
I'm thinking my answer needs a little more time for me to develop it properly so I'm going to take a day or two to see what I can conjure up:-)

I'll take a rain check until then.

Actually my lovely wife would like for me to visit with her too.

I'll be back!

Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

And I think I need to spend more time just asking clarification questions on what you and billion year Earth and universe local flood preterists are believing and not making arguments.

Have a great weekend. Try to stay dry!

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

No man is a master of every technology. It has always been impossible. We specialize and learn one thing well. Others pay us for that specialized skill as we pay others for their specialized skills. It makes us all richer.

There are several highly specialized technologies mentioned before the Flood. The original inventor before the Flood was given credit by God for that invention.

Noah was a vine-dresser and a vintner. Apparently a very successful one. That is, he had very little practical knowledge of metallurgy, tent-making, musical instruments, animal husbandry, and a whole host of other technologies.

If the flood was global or universal, Jubal would have in no wise been the "father" of harpists. The harp would have been lost and would have had to be invented from scratch. One of Noah's descendants would properly be the father of those who play the harp.

If you really think Noah and his sons could have mastered all of this technology, then you are clearly not thinking carefully. This is an obvious and significant problem for you to explain. Before you start, please ponder your pencil. Something so simple, yet no one knows how to make one.

The technology invented before The Flood was not lost in The Flood. Therefore, people who knew that technology either survived The Flood or just weren't there where The Flood occurred. Technology requires specialists. Specialists were in very short supply on the ark.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Starlight's picture

Glenn,

“I don't see how the context from Genesis 1:1 to the flood in any way limits it to only part of mankind.”

I think this is where one needs to think of the covenantal framework that I outlined in my article. I believe I answered those questions there. It’s important to remember as I pointed out that Genesis 5 is the beginning of a whole new discourse on a separate lineage and is similar to breaks in the storyline before and after this section. The writer segmented Genesis if you look closely, trying to heap all the stories together does not fit into the intended structure of the author. I really did not pickup on this until I purchased a commentary that deals specifically with these outline structures in detail.

If you followed the idea that I presented “and I realize that’s a challenge, partially because of the large amount of information presented” you will see the point was made that God was only concerned with the line of Seth in this intermarriage issue and that this is a covenantal aspect that was pertinent only to them. I was wondering if you had picked up on that theme and if you would like to address the specific points that I proposed in the article

Glenn, I realize that the time statements are a favorite counter that you like to utilize but I’m not accepting your rationale in this instance as those time statements have no bearing on this contextual issue. These ages that are utilized in Genesis could easily be of similar attributes as items in Revelation have such as the “dragon”, “1000 year reign”, “the beast” or the “harlot”. We have to understand their contextual usage, and I must say other scripture utilizes such language as well such as Daniel, Isaiah, Ezra, and so forth.

We just can’t pick and choose to categorically state that the 1000 year reign fell within only 40 years and then turn around and state that there is no way you can’t use the same principal for Genesis and the numbers encountered there. I assume of course that you don’t take the 1000 years literally.

I realize that you may need to reread my article as it is long and seemly convoluted, and in fact I followed it much better when I printed it out and just sat down and worked through it. It’s kind of like Genesis in that regard:-)

Thanks again for the interaction, as Robert Duvall once said, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning”, in like manner I love the smell of Iron sharpening Iron.

Norm

valensname's picture

Norm,

I think you are trying to force or interject a old/new covenant framework where the application does not exist or is not proper. For example, if I am not mistaken, the first time "covenant" is mentioned in Scripture is post flood in Genesis 9 and I don't think the NT or another place refers back prior to Genesis 9 in covenantial terms.

Glenn

Starlight's picture

Glenn,
At first glance I would agree with you, as it’s actually Gen 6:18 where the covenant is promised to Noah. So in that sense my use of the word “covenant” could be somewhat construed as misappropriating it.

But on second looks the writer whom we identify as Moses seems to want to tag the line of Seth which he starts in Gen 5 with the same long lives as those others listed after Noah. The special life spans, their own separate linage, their separateness from Cain’s lineage, and most importantly the extreme disapproval of intermarriage starting in Gen 6:1. These are the same characteristics which are given or imposed upon only the seed line whether before or after the flood. I don’t think there is any getting around that issue.

Glenn, I don’t expect this new concept that I’m proposing to be readily grasped as I did not recognize these features until I started intensely studying this section of Genesis, but the characteristic of intermarriage was definitely the clincher for me. Read Ezra 9 and 10 to grasp how strong this intermarriage issue was with the Hebrews, you have to ask yourself why this pre flood line would have this restriction imposed upon it if previously Cain’s lineage didn’t. It appears to be completely an issue of keeping the seed line pure and holy for God’s plan.

You also have to realize that Seth’s lineage was the bearer of the “covenantal like promise” of Genesis 3.

(Gen 3:15 NIV) And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

This could not be fulfilled through Cain but only through Seth. I’ll emphasize again something I covered in my article which was that when “men began to call on the name of the Lord” under Seth’s line, they became in essence the beginning of “Pure Religion” and therefore they were the designated cup bearers. So in name “no” but in reality “yes” they were covenantal.

(Gen 4:26 NIV) Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.

Look closely at the following verses, this designation was in no way afforded Cain’s lineage which exposes him as without hope. The very position Gentiles found themselves in

(Gen 5:1 NIV) This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man."

Glenn you’re raising all the right questions!

Norm

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
24%
No only registered users should comment
76%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 41