Noah, the Flood, and the Nature of Animals

Question #1:

Robert.

Thanks for the information, It will help me understand some questions.. The reason I had this initial quest was in regard to the Bible version you used in your teaching of the "Gap" and the reference to 2 Peter 3: 5-7?

But it escapes their notice in asserting this, namely, that there were heavens long ago too, and an earth, which was [re-]established out from under water (i.e., the "waters below") and through [the midst of] water (i.e., the "waters above") by the Word of God – [and that it was] through these two [sets of waters] that the world of that time (i.e., in Noah's day) was [again] deluged by water [from above and below] and destroyed. Now the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire by that same Word (of God), preserved for the day of judgment and the destruction of godless men.
2nd Peter 3:5-7

If you don't mind I'd like to ask another question;

Do you believe that the Noah flood was a world wide flood or a more localize flood?

Robert I am an elderly Lutheran and in the last year became familiar with Dr. Arnold Murray's TV broadcasts where this "Gap' idea is also presented. I recently asked my Lutheran pastors what they knew about 3 earth ages and the claimed no knowledge of it. However, I am intrigued by it since it seems to my relatively uneducated mind to make a lot of sense. What kind of acceptance does this idea have in the church culture? I've been hesitant to speak much about it because no one, I speak to, has ever heard of it.

Thanks so much for taking time to deal with me.

Response #1:

You are most welcome.

As to your question, the great flood was, just as the Bible states in no uncertain terms, a world-wide phenomenon. The waters once released did not cease until they had crested the highest mountains on earth by over twenty feet (i.e., just deep enough that nothing drawing breath could possibly survive anywhere on earth – outside of the ark: Gen.7:20). Here are some links on this:

The effects of the great flood (in SR 5)

Genesis Questions

Noah's Ark

The Genesis Flood is no "myth"

As to your other question, it's really a broader phenomenon, not restricted to this one area of God's truth. You seem to be setting yourself to learn the truths of the Bible, and you will find as you do so that there will be opposition at every turn. We live in the last days of the Church (the era of Laodicea; see the link), where lukewarmness is the order of the day. Those who "catch fire" for the Lord and thirstily begin to drink down the refreshing water of the Word quickly find themselves out of step with just about everyone else who darkens the doors local churches around the planet. But hearing, learning, and believing the truth of all of the doctrines of scripture, then applying them to one's life in a truly godly fashion, is the only way to grow and advance spiritually, and the only way to truly follow and glorify our dear Lord Jesus (see the link: "The judgment and reward of the Church" in CT 6).

Your are certainly welcome at Ichthys for this noble quest – do feel free to write any time.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #2:

Dr. Luginbill,

It was several years ago when I wrote you that it would be "full speed ahead" with Bible study – and while I have had to throttle back a time or two, that has been the case. The tools available to us these days for the study and sharing of the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus are almost limitless. About a month ago though I hit a major "pot-hole" - the story with which I am sure you are familiar regarding an earlier record of The Flood and Noah’s Ark.

An excerpt from one of many articles:

In light of Genesis 1.1 and the Lords re-creation of the earth and coupled with the possibility of "long creation days" (day being and an indeterminate time period but one with a beginning and end) it has been possible for me to reconcile "the General & Special revelations" with the daily influx of DNA, Archeology, and Cosmos discoveries of our sciences.

The "ark tale", as it is being described in most articles, is particularly troublesome for me as it does seem to be a plagiarized version.

I have noted in some of your e-mail responses that you are going through some rough times and I do not wish to add to them – you have been and continue to be a blessing me with your keen insight – but I am hoping you have had some time to consider this issue since it came to light and have some answers that I have been unable to find.

I pray that the Lord will lift your burdens so that you will be able to continue to be such an inspiration for many of us,

Response #2:

Good to hear from you again, my friend, and very good to hear that you are still on course with your plan to grow closer to Jesus Christ through His truth and the Spirit's ministry of that truth.

As to your question, when you say that the "ark tale", seems to be "a plagiarized version", I assume you are speaking of the extra-biblical renditions? Moses wrote Genesis ca. 1,400 B.C. While it is true that some of the Sumerian accounts, for example, predate this, it really is a question of apples and oranges. For one thing, the epic of Gilgamesh, as even modern research shows, is an amalgamation, with the flood story having been added later (see The evolution of the Gilgamesh epic by Tigay, Jeffrey H.; UPenn 1982). Secondly, there was a great flood, after all, so that the idea that its memory might have been preserved so as to have been incorporated into later mythologies is hardly cause for alarm or excitement. Thirdly and most critically, logically this has nothing to do with the Bible – and that is true factually as well: Moses wrote under divine inspiration. The only way he knew what he knew about the flood, an event which transpired over 1,000 years earlier, was through the Spirit's prophetic revelation to him (he drew nothing from secular sources). So we know that Moses' account is correct, regardless of what others wrote earlier or later, and whether or not there was a germ of truth in what they wrote, plastered over with a patchwork of fantasy, or pure fantasy altogether. The two have nothing to with each other in any way, shape or form.

"Let the prophet who has a dream recount the dream, but let the one who has my word speak it faithfully. For what has straw to do with grain?" declares the LORD.
Jeremiah 23:28 NIV

The seven days of Genesis chapter one are of a re-construction of the world following Satan's revolt. No one knows how much time passed before the world was restored to habitability, so there is ample space for all the fossil evidence (falling as it were within the "Genesis Gap"; see the link). As to DNA, this is a "science" which is still very much in flux, especially when it concerns hypothetical considerations of ancient human ancestry. If you are concerned with what science proclaims about it today, don't worry, because there will be significant changes in the "model" tomorrow (as there are comparing science's "truth" of yesterday to their "truth" today).

Thanks also for your concern! Everyone who want to "live godly in Christ Jesus" will face persecution, if not from visible sources, then certainly from the evil one. Your prayers are much appreciated!

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Dr. Luginbill,

I fear that I have left a wrong impression with you – There is no way would I ever refer to anything the Scriptures say as a "tale". I wish it were possible to "take back" the sentence "The "ark tale", as it is being described in most articles, is particularly troublesome for me as it does seem to be a plagiarized version."

There is much I do not understand, there are many explanations I do not agree with, but the problem is ME, my limited education and understanding. I am fully aware I am not just reading a "good book" when I spend time in the Bible.

The crux of the matter I suppose is this: The artifact ("ark tablet") pre-dates the Biblical narrative according to Finkel and others: It contains 600 cuneiform characters and is dated between 1900 and 1700 BC, while you and many others agree that "Moses wrote Genesis ca. 1,400 B.C."

So either the tablet is a fake, the dating of the tablet is incorrect or the dating of the Biblical account is in error. Since your almost unbelievably quick reply (thank you, do not understand how you are able to so) I have "poked around" a bit – something I should have done before writing you. The result is for me there is such a margin for error everywhere that a precise answer is really not possible. A sample is listed below:

Much harm, in my opinion, will be done when a TV documentary airs later this year dealing with this "find" and painting the Biblical account as a "copy".

In closing I am very sorry if I offended you in any way since you have been and will continue to be THE place I go to find answers to the many things I do not understand in God’s Word.

With much respect for your work,

Response #3:

No need to apologize and absolutely no offense taken! I'm the one who is having a hard time getting the point across. I do understand where you are coming from, and you are not alone in your wrestling with these issues. What I try to impress upon Christians is that the fact of some archaeological item pre-dating the Bible is an insignificant one. That is because from the point of view of scripture, the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so whatever it says is true, regardless of when it was written; and from the point of view of some secular document, regardless of when it was written, it is not scripture, so that whatever it says which contradicts scripture is not true. What enemies of scripture wish to imply, of course, is that because something preceded scripture chronologically, that therefore scripture must be derivative (i.e., "borrowed" from the earlier document, e.g.). That is an argument so illogical as to be absurd, and only has credence with those who have decided a priori as a matter of "faith" that the Bible cannot be the Word of God (which of course it most definitely is).

Even if there were Sumerian tablets which reproduced parts of Genesis verbatim (there are not), there would be no reason for alarm among the community of the faithful – we walk by faith, not by sight. And there would, in that hypothetical case, be potential explanations:

1) As shared before, the flood actually did happen, and it was of course the most significant event that the family of Noah, the only survivors, would ever experience. As such, it would be completely contrary to human nature to assume that they failed to pass down stories about this most dramatic event. Assuming that there was, therefore, an oral tradition about the flood in antiquity is only logical.

2) The evil one certainly knew and knows all the facts about the flood. And he has a vested interest in putting stumbling blocks into the path of the faithful. The Holy Spirit is the One who inspired the true prophets; the evil one inspires his own.

3) Just because a book or article (especially a non-scholarly one or, gasp, a website) makes some claim, does not make it true. And even if the claim is partially true, the gap between the claim and the reality is often large enough to discredit easily the essence of the false claim that "scripture is derived". For example, any tablet this old would have to be in Sumerian. But no one really knows how to read Sumerian with absolute accuracy; put another way, as it is often quipped, "there are as many Sumerian languages as there are Sumerologists". You do not include a text. I would be willing to bet that the work we are talking about here is some variation of the Gilgamesh story (even if some English version of it has been deliberately tailored to seem more like Genesis – that would be derivation, in reverse). Any believer reading the Gilgamesh epic in a reputable translation will see that the differences between the Sumerian story and the account in Genesis are greater and more important than the similarities. In fact, the only points of comparison are the flood and the story of survival. Not exactly evidence of derivation (especially since the flood did happen in fact, and Noah and his family did survive in fact).

4) Radio-carbon dating and all similar technologies are fundamentally flawed by the fact that they assume, with no proof whatsoever, that a) the rate of change (in this case of the isotope) is a temporal straight line rather than being curved or irregular, and b) that the world has always been much the same as it is today (contrast with Hebrews 11:3). The second assumption is particularly ironic in this case, inasmuch as it was the great flood which was largely responsible for dramatically altering our planet to its present condition, affecting its rotation and drastically changing its magnetic fields (on whose constancy most of these investigative technologies are completely dependent). Here's a link to an article which at least demonstrates the possibility of such things happening because of a parallel phenomenon on the sun (Solar Cycle: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-calm-solar-prompts-impact-earth.html). And here are some other links at Ichthys which address these issues:

Science and the Bible

The problem of science and the Bible

Charles Hodge and Charles Darwin

Is the earth ever described as round in the Bible?

The Shape of the Universe, Hominids, and the Genesis Gap

The shifting the earth's axis and magnetic fields, and creating seasons

The cataclysmic flooding and blacking out of the entire universe

So when you say, "So either a) the tablet is a fake, b) the dating of the tablet is incorrect c) or the dating of the Biblical account is in error", I would reply that:

a) Whether it is a fake or it a genuine Sumerian artifact makes no difference. Anything true it contains is accidental (perhaps stemming from oral tradition, perhaps from satanic inspiration – a crumb of truth included to make a poison loaf more palatable), and anything incorrect is merely attributable to the sort mythologizing of which this type of literature is part and parcel.

b) The date is insignificant since in any case the Genesis account was not derived from this tablet nor from the traditions it may exemplify; the Genesis account came straight from God to Moses through the Holy Spirit, irrespective of any other story or stories about the flood which were around in Moses' day, whether partially true for whatever reason or completely false.

c) We are relatively secure in our dating of the Pentateuch to ca. 1,400 B.C. The precise date may be uncertain; no doubt it took Moses many years to pen it, but it was finished (with exception of the final portion of Deuteronomy) before Israel entered the land of promise. But, again, the date is of no consequence to this discussion because the tablet to which you are referring has absolutely nothing to do with the Genesis account. The two are completely independent of each other.

For me, the last point above is the only really important "take-away" from such discussions. The evil one uses this sort of concern to exercise believers and get them doubting their faith. So you have absolutely no need to be sorry for writing me about this. It's the purpose of this ministry to help fellow Christians find and fix upon the truth to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #4:

Hello Doctor--I just have a quick question for you--is there a Hebrew word, modern or ancient, that means "ventilator" or "airshaft"? A Mormon on CARM claims that the word used of the Ark in Genesis, for what was under the roof, is "nappashu" meaning "ventilator shaft or "breather" or "airshaft." I can't find that word anywhere in the Bible. The words used in the Ark story are "tsohar" and "challown." So, I can only assume this guy got this information from some Mormon source, to try to justify their Jaredites going around the world in their wooden submersibles, with stoppers in the top and bottom (yep, that story is in the Book of Mormon, believe it or not). They think the stoppers used in the story must mean airholes or some such and that Noah's Ark had the same.

Thanks for your help, as always. Hope you had a wonderful holiday season. God bless you.

Response #4:

These people do have their own books in addition to the Book of Mormon (and I can't account for that, of course, since they are all in English, the "original" having been in all cases "lost"); but if this is meant to be a biblical reference it would seem of necessity to refer to the following verse:

Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.
Genesis 6:16 NIV

The word here for door is a standard word for any sort of door or tent flap or opening in Hebrew (petach). I cite the NIV's rendering of "an opening" here as helpful for this question; the Hebrew says a bit more literally what we find in the NKJV: "and you shall finish it to a cubit from above". The interpretation of the NIV and a good number of scholars may be what correspondent is thinking of: if the wall of the ark was finished "to a cubit" from the top, it would seem that there is a space all around the ark which would supply ventilation (except of course for the beams which support its room). There is no Hebrew word in this resembling anything like "nappashu"; indeed, as shown above, the literal Hebrew does not even use a particular word to identify this space through which fresh air no doubt came.

Yours in Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #5:

Hi--Thanks for your help. I just have one more question: Does the word "nappashu" even exist in Hebrew, ancient or modern? If so, what does it really mean? Thanks.

Response #5:

This "word" does not occur in ancient Hebrew (nor can I find anything like it in my MH dictionary); small wonder: it's root would indicate it comes from nphsh, the root of nephesh, meaning "life/soul/appetite" – but Hebrew nouns don't form with a "u" on the end (it sounds more like something made-up, or borrowed from Sumerian or Akkadian, or something of that sort).

From a work I found on the internet (supporting the "works of the prophet Joseph Smith"), it appears that this reference is to a work called "the Book of Ether" (part of the book of Mormon). The author of the internet book (Of Faith and Reason: Eighty Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith, By Michael R. Ash) makes a claim on p.76 that appears to be the provenance of your correspondent's idea. He says "the ark had not only a door which could be shut but at least one nappashu -- this word is translated as "window" or "airhole", but means "breather" or "ventilator", and was not an ordinary window". The author does not make clear whether he believes the fictional word to exist in Genesis (it is not) or in the book of Mormon (which is only available in English, I believe). In any case, correspondent is apparently relying on a deeply flawed and partisan apologetic source for this non-biblical idea.

Yours in Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #6:

Hi--Thanks for the information. The Mormons on carm took exception to my referring to the wooden submersibles as "wooden submarines". But it was the only thing I could think of to call them until a more reasonable Mormon came up with submersibles. But the whole story of the submersible boats with stoppered holes in the tops AND bottoms, for when the huge waves would push the boats to the depths of the sea--even making them roll over, hence the holes in the bottom of the boats...I guess everyone inside, including the bees, must have been wearing seat belts, strapping themselves to the inner bulkhead, for when the waves got really fierce...but what did they do with all of the body waste and such while the boats were being driven to the depths of the sea and rolled over? They just don't think things through. It's hard to be believe intelligent people buy this nonsense.

The whole story of the Jaredite boats is absurd in the extreme. It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people believe this story, but then they must, or admit that Joe Smith was a false prophet and only the Holy Spirit can help them see that!

Thanks for your help in this and finding the reference for where neppashu supposedly comes from. God bless!

Response #6:

You're very welcome, !

Thanks for the info. Yes, in my experience and observation, people of all stripes only have trouble believing the truth; everything else is easily accepted, no matter how big a "whopper" it might be (evolution, extra-terrestrials, mass-political "philosophies", false religions . . . and soon enough, antichrist). Satan and the innate arrogance of our sinful nature have more than a little to do with this phenomenon.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #7:

Hi Bob,

Since the advent of the new NOAH movie, a lot of chatter is upon the minds of men. Please give me some clarity here. Per your website - One leads me to consider Noah was 480 years old when he began to work on the ark and the other leads me to think Noah was 200 years old when he began to work on the ark? Accepting Noah was 600 years old when they were sealed in the ark and the flood came upon the earth. Also, how did you achieve the measurements (square ft) and human capacity?

1) Link: https://ichthys.com/Satans-Rebellion-Part5.htm#Noah

Given the mammoth nature of the task, it must have taken Noah the better part of the 120 year grace period that preceded the flood to build this vessel capable of containing not only himself and his family,

2) Link: https://ichthys.com/mail-Numbers-Letters.htm

Just think, Noah had to get up early every day for some 400 years and work on that massive project with all his energy in order to be done in time (and he was done just in time:

3) Link: https://ichthys.com/mail-Numbers-Letters.htm

But if a person wants do some apologetics here, it is true that the ark consisted of over a million and a half square feet. Assuming a person on a bunk takes up a minimum of ten square feet, that would mean that the ark would have a maximum capacity of 150,000 people. It would seem to me that this is enough space for the job at hand.

Response #7:

To take the last question first, 45 x 75 x 450 feet (converting from cubits) = over a million and a half cubic feet.

On questions 1 and 2, I used the 400 year figure as the maximum possible for emphasis, but I agree that it may be a bit misleading since my best estimate is that Noah began to build the ark after the 120 year warning was given (i.e., that this was probably the point at which the Lord gave Him the command to do so). So I have now changed that number so that the two references correspond. Thanks!

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #8:

Hello Brother Bob - Ohio calling-

I don't know if you remember me, but in the past I had contacted you on many different subjects. Your answers spoke wisdom to my heart, and your prompt replies were to me like a kid awaiting his decoder ring, to be delivered to his mailbox.

I am looking spiritual thoughts on Noah Gen. 6-10. The new movie has opened great opportunity to talk about Hollywood, and Biblical Truth, and is a great topic for group discussion. Have you any inspiration that would be helpful?

2nd question: I am feeling an encouragement to discuss a subject based on a statement I believe the Holy Spirit has given me. "You can not see what God is doing in His word, until you see what He has done". It would seem that this would lead me to Gen. 1 and 2. This would not oppose simple faith, but would simply confirm it. Thoughts?

As always, you Bless me with your Spirit led thoughts

The Kid at the mailbox,

God's Blessings to you

Response #8:

Always good to hear from you, my friend – and thanks for the encouraging words. Let me take your questions in reverse order. As to "You can not see what God is doing in His word, until you see what He has done", if by this you mean that understanding scripture (the NT, for example) requires understanding, ideally, all of scripture (as in the OT, specifically in your case, Genesis 1-2), then I would be very much in agreement. This is a fairly common hermeneutic principle (often referred to by the phrase "scripture interprets scripture").

As to Noah, this might provide an opportunity for the truth, but I saw an analysis of the movie (have not and do not plan to see the movie itself), and apparently it has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible (even more so than is the case with most "Bible movies"). So I fear than any attempt to engage an unbeliever on the basis of this movie would first require showing him/her that the movie and the Bible narrative of Noah have nothing whatsoever in common. In other words, it seems that what is needed for this movie is apologetic refutation. I don't see it is as providing any sort of light for unbeliever; rather, very much the opposite. Here are some links where the flood and related matters are discussed at Ichthys:

Genesis 6:8-10: Noah (in SR 5)

Noah and the Flood

Dinosaurs, the Nephilim, and Noah

Noah's Ark

Paganism, Idolatry, Mythology

Noah and Ham

The Analogy of Noah and the Great Flood

Your friend in Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9:

Thanks for the prompt reply. I have seen the movie, and agree with your comments. I believe that all of life itself presents opportunities to focus on God's Truth. It's being sensitive to the Spirits leading to get the conversation going.

Thanks for the references. Will look them up.

Blessings on your Ministry to the only True God

Response #9:

You're very welcome, my friend. As I say, I haven't seen the movie, and was unaware that you had done so. There is indeed a great need for genuine and faithful believers such as yourself to fight the good fight for the truth and the Word of God, taking the opportunities the Lord gives you so that you may be "always . . . prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1Pet.3:15 NIV).

So I wholeheartedly agree: every Christian has to listen carefully to the Spirit in order to grow, in order to direct his/her steps aright, and also to apply the truth to the situations we face in this life, ever being open to the opportunities He offers to fulfill the purpose Jesus has for us in the building up of His Body and in bringing the truth to those who have not yet received it.

Keep up the good work, my friend! In this there is great eternal reward.

Your friend in Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #10:

Hello Dr Luginbill, I pray all is well.

I was going over the story of Noah, and I was wondering how come the family of the wives of Shem, Ham and Japeth were not on the ark? Given the fact that people were living for longer durations at that time, makes me wonder what could of been the reason for their family being excluded.

Thanks again

Response #10:

Hello Friend,

Good to hear from you – thank you for your prayers.

We know very little from scripture about this period; the few New Testament passages which talk about it are concerned with the issue of the fallen angels and the Nephilim (although Peter does confirm that only eight were saved: Noah, his sons, and the four wives: 1Pet.3:20). I certainly do think that it is fair to assume that if these individuals you ask about were godly, room would have been made for them. So we can only speculate. It could have been the case that the parents of the three wives were dead by this time, but it does seem unlikely that the extended families were also all deceased. These were difficult times, and would have been especially so for the true human beings still alive on earth in the face of the rising tide of the Nephilim and their supporters. However, I think it more likely that none of those family members was interested in having anything to do with "crazy Noah" and his family. It had never rained before, so that the possibility of a world-wide flood that would cover with water the highest mountains on the planet by many feet must have seemed incredulous – to all the unbelievers (just as it seems incredible to all unbelievers today, and, sadly, to all too many believers). The ark was such a strange thing that it served as the perfect test of faith:

By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Hebrews 11:7

No one who did not believe in God and His Word with complete faith would have wanted to have anything to do with this ark (let alone build it). Those who were ashamed of having anything to do with it, signed their own death warrant, just as those who are ashamed to have anything to do with the Savior who bought them forfeit their eternal life:

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."
Mark 8:38 NKJV

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and King Eternal,

Bob L.

Question #11:

One question - I have heard, that Noah’s sons married within 5 years of the ark being completed. Noah’s sons all being nearly 100 years, old. Considering, before & after there were Nephilim, so it is conceivable, that Noah’s sons married women who were of Nephilim seed DNA, thus, the after? One incursion or two? Or the fallen angels bloodline DNA passed on by generation to generation thru the wives of Noah’s sons, the grandchildren, etc.?

Per your site -

the cohabitation of fallen angels with human women was a relatively common occurrence, so much so that by the time the flood waters came, Noah and his family represented the only true and completely human seed left on the earth.

Response #11:

As to your question, you make a good point – namely, that my limiting use of "only" is perhaps a bit strong and should probably be qualified with a "possibly". However, this is in fact the impression scripture gives by saying that Noah was "perfect in his generations" – as if that were something unique. So I do think it is safe to say that very few human beings at most were still around who were of non-corrupted seed at this point. There is much scripture does not tell us about this incident. We can imagine that Noah really did have his work cut out for him, not only in building the ark, but also in finding acceptable wives for his sons, women who were at a minimum 100% human. We may be sure that such was the case with the three unnamed wives. It doesn't seem to stand to reason that God would have gone to all the trouble of destroying the world to rid it of this curse of mixed seed, rescuing Noah and his family in this unique way, if conditions on the other side of the great flood were to be essentially the same in this respect. Moreover, there is nothing in scripture (or in human experience) to suggest that such was the case. The nephilim were unique (if we can strip that word of its positive connotations for a moment). One of the reasons that antichrist will be so successful in gaining prominence and power so quickly will be his similar "uniqueness" – he will amaze the world of "normal" human beings.

Finally, Noah's three sons were born when he was 500 (Gen.5:32) and the flood came when he was 600 (Gen.7:6). I'm not aware of anything in the scriptures which suggests that "Noah’s sons married within 5 years of the ark being completed". Reading between the lines, I think it more likely that their marriages occurred much earlier. In ancient times, generally, it would have been unusual for marriage to be delayed so long.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #12:

Hi Bob

Not to muddy the waters, but??? - Published today, Feb 14, 2014 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feVIidaPbFU#t=521

Link: http://thetruthwins.com/archives/dna-results-for-the-nephilim-skulls
-in-peru-are-in-and-the-results-are-absolutely-shocking

Thank you. Also, I will find the article or author of the Noah sons married comment for you.

Response #12:

Looks like all mud and no water to me! I wouldn't worry about it. DNA "results" are a work in progress, even when it comes to science versus this sort of pseudo-science. For example, a few years ago, science was proclaiming that human beings today possessed no Neanderthal DNA, then 6% percent; now back to 2%. Part of this has to do with the flimsiness of the evidence; part with the suppositions utilized in conjuring up these tests (see the link: http://www.livescience.com/42231-neanderthal-remains-disproved.html). For more on how science puts blinders on when it comes to issues it "knows can't be true" a priori (which is the polar opposite of having an open mind), see the following links:

Science and the Bible

The problem of science and the Bible

Charles Hodge and Charles Darwin

Is the earth ever described as round in the Bible?

The Shape of the Universe, Hominids, and the Genesis Gap

The shifting the earth's axis and magnetic fields, and creating seasons

The cataclysmic flooding and blacking out of the entire universe

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #13:

You're AWESOME Bob!

Here you go - Rob Skiba (you may know of him) Your thoughts?

Link: http://www.babylonrisingblog.com/Nephilim4.html

The text seems to show quite plainly that the wives were a late addition in the chronology and since they came after the corruption of "all flesh," we have to acknowledge that Noah’s choices for wives must have been rather limited indeed. All things considered, I’d say he did a pretty good job.

Response #13:

You're very welcome,

As to the "teaching" included, I see that this person is drawing "information" from outside of the Bible. The three pseudepigraphical books mentioned here are not part of scripture. They are very late fictions, and any Christian who wants to avoid spiritual shipwreck should give a wide berth to all such falsities (at least as far as giving them any serious consideration). I note that this person says "here is no contradiction, only elaboration" – and yet, it leads to an incorrect conclusion which has put you in some spiritual discomfort. This is always the way it is when lies are mingled with truth. A "teacher", therefore, who resorts to satanic materials of this sort can be no other than a deceiver, because instead of getting us to heed God and His Word he is calling attention to things that are not of Him. That is always a very clear sign of trouble. Run away yelling and screaming (as Eve should have done: Gen.3:4-5).

In Jesus Christ who is the Truth and who has given us His Word of Truth to steer by,

Bob L.

Question #14:

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I have come to something of an impasse. I read Genesis 6:12 and it says "...for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." You have written that "all flesh" refers only to humans (in one of your recent email postings, I believe) yet, in Genesis 7:15, I read that animals entered the ark, "...two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." I have understood "all flesh" in both verses to refer to, literally, all flesh.

In Genesis 6:9 I read that, "...Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations..." which I have understood to refer to lineage or pure descent from Adam in contrast to the corruption introduced by the fallen angels. That the same phrase is used of animals suggests that there was a genetic corruption that went far enough beyond the nephillim to warrant destruction of the world.

"The breath of life" in Genesis 7:15 suggests to me that the animals God selected for salvage were also pure in their generations since creation further suggesting that the corruption included at least animals, although I can think of nothing else in the Bible to support that notion.

What have I misunderstood in the two uses of "all flesh" that would help me distinguish between the two?

Genesis 6:12 says, in part, "...for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." You have written that, here, "all flesh" refers only to humans (in one of your recent email postings, I believe) yet, in Genesis 7:15, I read that animals entered the ark, "...two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." I have understood "all flesh" in both verses to refer to, literally, all flesh; which never made sense to me until I started to look at the genetic "engineering" and transhumanism going on today. The reference to the animal's breath of life in 7:15 also makes me wonder about animals without the breath of life and how they may relate to today's genetically engineered animals and humans.

In the context of corruption caused by fallen angels and nephillim, which suggests to me genetic corruption along with the physical and spiritual evil, what limits "all flesh" in 6:12 to humans?

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Response #14:

Human beings and animals – that is, true "animals", creatures with a spirit or anima, as opposed to those which do not breath – are exactly alike in their physical constitution. The critical distinction is that human beings possess "the image of God" or free will, the ability to make moral choices. Animals have bodies as we do and spirits as we do, and they may also have memories, emotions, and personalities (indeed, I personally think that they are more like us in these respects than modern science gives them proper credit for being), but they do not possess the moral self-determination that comes with being 'eliyim, that is, creatures endowed with the ability to choose (the "image of God"). Choice is what reconciles us to God when we choose to accept His Gift, the Lord Jesus Christ, through faith. Choice is what, in the passage you ask about, "corrupts our ways", when we not only fail to choose for God but instead choose what is vile and detestable to God. In the case of Genesis 6-7, the choice made by the other human lines was affinity with the fallen angels and the hybrid offspring of others who had previously mixed their line so as to no longer be "perfect in their generations". This only happened with animals before the Genesis gap (without their choice); it only happened with human beings in the era before the great flood (with their choice). Both periods of violation of God's essential "ground rules" were part and parcel of the great judgment that ended each period, the blacking out and flooding of the universe on the other side of the Genesis gap in the case of the former (see the link), the great flood and the extermination of all of this mixed seed in respect to the latter. The only other instance of this sort of behavior will be in the run up to the Tribulation (i.e., the period we are currently in), and only in a relatively few cases (antichrist and probably also the ten kings; see the link).

You make a good point about the human tinkering with genetics that is currently underway. This and many other hybristic scientific endeavors would no doubt bring a rapid end to the human race (whether through self-destruction or divine judgment), were it not for the fact that so little time is left before the end times begin and our Lord returns. Here is how our Lord encourages us on that score:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door."
Matthew 24:33-34 NIV

We don't have that long to wait until our Lord takes charge of the world visibly and personally, and we may sure that He will put an end to all such abominations. Our job in the meantime is to prepare for the difficult period to come so that we may stay strong in our faith in spite of the pressures of that future day of Tribulation.

Interestingly, the word hybrid comes from the Greek word hybris, which means transgressing boundaries which any human being should be loath to cross for fear of devastating divine reprisal. It is perhaps a mark of where we are today in a general spiritual sense that our culture has come to think of hybrids as "good things.

Yours in our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #15:

This makes perfect sense for Christians today as it did true believers back then, but it begs the question if Israel and Judah did not choose for Him as Kings through Jeremiah suggest, why weren't they utterly destroyed instead of sent into captivity? Admittedly, I'm looking at things through human eyes, but the only recorded obliterations were Sodom and Gomorrah and the complete destruction of the earth. That seems to suggest something more extreme than not choosing for God; most have not done so since.

If not genetic contamination, what could have been so extreme to warrant the destruction of the earth? The sons of God mated with the daughters of men and produced nephilim. Logically, that would seem to have spread the genetic contamination ad infinitum. I've often wondered if that weren't the basis of the adultery commandment or for that matter, if it weren't an element of Eve's "eating" of the "fruit" of the "tree" of good and evil, since all those words have alternate meanings that suggest experience and the results.

Also, I don't recall any biblical discussion of Noah's son's wives. Could they have perhaps carried the contamination forward with the results of Goliath and King Og?

I'm having trouble reconciling rejecting God with the destruction of the world. The rejection normally results in the death of an individual. All of this is perhaps irrelevant, except as it relates to recognizing the signs of the times.

This raises another question, since there are genetically modified humans now in their teenage years and since they are not a creation of God, what is their fate. If they choose properly, will they be saved?

Sorry to be a pain in the neck, but this one is really bothering me.

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Response #15:

In every generation of Israel, even today, there has always been a "remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom.11:5 KJV).

A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God. Though your people, O Israel, be like the sand by the sea, only a remnant will return. Destruction has been decreed, overwhelming and righteous.
Isaiah 10:21-22 NIV

The situation is analogous then with the flood: a small number of human beings survive, the remnant "according to the election of grace", since Noah for certain, a "preacher of righteousness", was saved (2Pet.2:5). Similarly, a remnant of animal life was also preserved. I do see your point, but 1) the animal life is not described in Genesis in the terms "perfect in their generations"; 2) there is no corresponding biblical statement alluding to the direct evidence of demonic cohabitation which produced the nephilim; 3) there is no evidence of any sort of demonic activity with animals at all. Further, the language is a bit odd if such were the case inasmuch as in Genesis 7:14 it says "They had with them every wild animal according to its kind . . . etc." (NIV), and in Genesis 7:15 it says "Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life" (NIV). On the face of it this doesn't seem to allow the exception of demonically produced hybrids who were destroyed at this time. Nephilim are hybrids, after all, and that would seem to indicate that any such manipulation of the animal kingdom would likewise produce hybrids (the origin of the dinosaurs, in my view).

Certainly, whatever fallen angels could do before the Genesis gap, they could do before the flood, and they could also certainly do the same today. The fact that there is divine restraint – and there is a good deal of divine restraint, otherwise Satan would just wipe out all of humanity instantly – is what accounts for the discontinuation of certain abuses (see the link: "The Restraining Ministry of the Holy Spirit").

The flood was designed to wipe out corrupt mankind: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain" Genesis 6:5-6 (NIV). The process of the flood ensured the destruction even of the nephilim who doubtless were more difficult to destroy than others were. It was for this reason that the flood waters were caused to top the highest mountains by more than twenty feet (Gen.7:20). It seems a bit odd if the Lord were to make such a demonstrable point of that and yet allow the inclusion of some of the offending seed onto the ark. We are not told anything whatsoever about the four women in the group of eight, but in my view it stands to reason that they likewise were genetically pure: they wouldn't have been included in the remnant without such genetic purity.

(5) if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; . . . . . (9) if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
2nd Peter 2:5 and 9

The above seems to me to categorize the two groups very clearly, with the righteous in the ark and saved and the ungodly out of the ark and destroyed. So I don't think that we can explain the prodigious size of certain Old Testament individuals and groups in the way suggested – at least not in any kind of direct genetic link with the pre-flood nephilim.

The fruit of the tree of the knowing of good and evil did just what God said it would do: it gave the ability to "know what good and evil" were (see the link). That is absolutely unnecessary for perfect, sinless people in paradise, but for the rest of us who are physically corrupt and not living in the garden, this informing of the human conscious was essential. Humanity would have had no hope of coming to repentance – or for that matter surviving with any sort of law and order – without this "knowledge" of the difference between right and wrong. Adam ate the same fruit independently. I know that many groups try to inject sex into the equation here, but I don't see it at all in the Bible (please see the links: "The Temptation of Eve" and "Cain is not Satan's literal offspring").

As to the flood and total destruction, the real miracle in all ages and in all places is our Lord's restraint. After all, He is entirely holy, and the fact that He has tolerated Satan so long and tolerates us in our sinfulness and error individually and collectively demonstrates the truth of Jeremiah's words: "[It is of] the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. [They are] new every morning: great [is] thy faithfulness." (Lam.3:22-23 KJV). Without the mercy of God, who could survive (Ps.130:3)? Unlike the elect angels, all human beings are corrupt in terms of having a sin nature, and also on account of the fact that we have committed sins, and also in that we continue to do so (1Jn.1:5-10). But there is a great difference between believers who occasionally sin and an entire civilization dedicated to godless evil. There comes a point where the Lord will intervene in the case of any group, and that accounts for numerous divine judgments throughout history, some obvious, some less so. The reason for God's intervention on the "macro" level is to preserve freedom on the "micro" level. If it were up to Satan, as in the case of the tower of Babel, he would soon set up a world where freedom no longer existed anywhere, and where worshiping himself was the only way to avoid persecution and death. Indeed, that is just what he will bring about during the Great Tribulation, and as scripture says very clearly about that short and very intense time of concentrated evil world rule under the devil's son, antichrist: "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." (Matt.24:22 NIV).

Finally, I would put the nephilim – then and now – into the category of the fallen angels in this regard. That is to say, they are inveterately opposed to reconciling with God (as indeed the vast majority of the human race is as well), so that if it were actually a case of a single individual desiring such reconciliation, God would have provided the means. But Jesus came to aid human beings (Heb.2:16-17) – fallen angels being implacably opposed to any such reconciliation. That is the unique thing about believers: we were lost, but by God's grace and mercy – and through our faith acceptance of it – we are now saved.

I hope this answers all of the issues you broached here. Please do feel free to write back about any of the above.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #16:

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I'm sorry it took so long to respond, but it's taken me a long time to digest your comments and read the links. I'm having a problem accepting your explanation of antediluvian times. Your comments make perfect sense and cover everything important, but I have some reservations. I'll tell you why. I've found so many things in the Bible with so many layers of meaning that point back to the original indiscretion that I'm inclined to think that there was, in fact, a physical manifestation of sexual corruption in the beginning that's reflected throughout the Bible. When it comes to the story of Eve's temptation, I don't doubt that there was a real tree and a real fruit. Still, we don't know what she did following the eating of that fruit when her eyes were opened and it makes sense that the Bible doesn't say directly. Otherwise, the broader lesson is lost. Considering the first born who killed his younger brother suggests that there was something of a sexual nature that occurred with Eve since the first born was the first murderer and Eve "ate the fruit" before Adam. Admittedly, that's an assumption; we're not told. Afterwards they were ashamed because they were naked, which indicates to me a sensitivity to their bodies and I can't help wondering why they were ashamed if their bodies were unchanged from before the indiscretion. Was there an actual physical change? Why were they sensitized to their bodies if they didn't know something about them that they didn't know before? If they were to be fruitful and multiply, surely they understood how their bodies worked. There are so many quasi-sexual references in the Bible that I have to wonder why, since we were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. The commandment against adultery, which I've always understood to mean pollution and corruption, and which would have been the case had Eve dallied with Satan or Satan's surrogate seems to reflect that event; the seed would have been corrupted hence the later reference to "your seed" and "my seed." True, a foreshadowing of Christ, but is that all? Is that why Cain was cast out? Unleavened bread is a further example of corruption and pollution codified in ritual prior to Jesus' crucifixion. A foreshadowing of the corruption of the Bride? More adultery? The circumcision is yet another example. As I understand, in pagan cultures, a band was considered to be either proof against or a bond containing evil. The fact that the "band" was created on the male member of the chosen further points to a prohibition on corruption having ancient roots in whatever Eve did or, at least, a strong correlation. If you consider the terminology alone. The "tree" is commonly used of decisions or families, e.g., the family tree. "Fruit" is commonly used to indicate results as in the "fruits of one's labor" or "fruit of my loins." Knowledge is used in many places in the Bible to indicate sexual activity as in, "he knew her." (I can't help but note that "knowing" Bathsheba didn't seem to be what got David in trouble - rather it was the murder of Uriah. I have to wonder why one and not the other since the result of her adultery was a good and a bad seed - just like Genesis. Is that a reflection of that earlier event?) Adultery is commonly used to indicate idolatry -- playing around with another god instead of worshiping the Ever Living. Polluting the Bride? From what I understand, sex was a part of those pagan rituals. Are there multiple levels of meaning in adultery? Then, there's the notion of "eating" as in "...he did eat of the tree..." Jesus said: John 6:51. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." which, to me, ties "eating" with participation or "indulging in." If Eve "ate" of the fruit, what, in fact, actually happened? Jesus equates himself to the bread of life and ever living water, which, while clearly a metaphor relates to activity. We must participate actively in that or die. (Actually, maybe not a metaphor. Perhaps he WAS the manna and that was merely a different expression of Him. It certainly fits.) The relevance of all this is recognizing when the fig is about ready to leaf. Many people, over the years, have assumed that the end was near and it obviously wasn't. Jesus gave us some very specific signs which includes the notion that: Mat 24:22. "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." This relates back to the flood. I can understand it in two ways, either He shortens the days or some of us will bring about the conditions that will destroy us unless the days are shortened which would further suggest that some of Satan's seed is still alive and active to create those conditions. Again, exactly like the flood which suggests the original result of Eve's dalliance has carried through. Genetic engineering and the genetic monkeying with plants, animals and even humans looks to me like the very first thing that can adulterate "all flesh" that God created. Which suggests that our worship in the church of science is opening the door to the abyss. Do we actually know that humans didn't participate in the corruption of the antediluvian world after seeing what the nephillim accomplished? As they appear to be doing today? Knowing the way genetic engineering works, the question becomes, if we are genetically engineered, either by accident or vaccine (which we choose) or other means by which we _don't_ accept that mark willingly, will we be saved. I personally believe we will because, if we consciously choose Jesus as our Lord and savior, the Holy Spirit will provide us a "sanctuary." But, that is only a guess on my part. The current adulteration by vaccines, climate engineering with nano-particles and some of the other "scientific" experiments going on makes me wonder. Could this be one of the reasons only a small remnant is saved? As far as the animals on the ark, I've understood, "breath of life" to mean "of God's design" since: Gen 2:7. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" indicating, to me, that life comes from God and if animals had that breath, they also came from God. That it's used of animals boarding the ark suggests that those animals were of God's creation - which would exclude those that were not. All flesh corrupted I understand as all living species since Noah was clearly not corrupted. I'm not yet convinced that the "dinosaurs" came before the gap since existence afterwards would be consistent with the co-mingling done with the daughters of men and consistent with the legends of the Greek and Roman gods and the dragons of myth. How could it be myth if not a memory of antediluvian times. After all, "science" has established that carbon isotopes do not decay at a constant rate on which premise all this archaeological nonsense is based. Regardless of when, corrupted animals could only be intended to corrupt God's design and would have been destroyed. I understand most of this in relation to the Sabbath; there were seven days of creation, the Sabbath memorializes God's creation which by honoring, we choose for the Ever Living. Is the prohibition against adultery any different? Is the circumcision of the spirit to be understood any differently than a bond to the bridegroom? Or stated differently, is the pollution or adultery with other beliefs and other gods not a similar rejection as the antediluvian world? I don't doubt your comments on salvation and the importance of choice. That, after all, is what's truly important. Some of your arguments against my point of view were sound and compelling but didn't convince. Since the end relates to the beginning, understanding the beginning, is, I believe, important to understanding the present. I don't mean to be argumentative except in the classic sense, I may have done what I dislike most about scientists and taken a small fragment of bone and created an entire animal out of my imagination. If I've misunderstood the mechanics, or arrived at implausible conclusions, please straighten me out. As it is, I read the English and see a much broader picture. The problem for me is one of understanding. If I've misunderstood this, I need to start back at the very beginning and rethink everything I thought I understood, e.g., does the Sabbath or circumcision really mean what I think they mean? In that case, I'll probably have to rethink what I think I know about today's conditions.

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Response #16:

Good to hear back from you – although I'm not exactly sure what or how to reply. You cover a lot of territory here, but I think it is fair to say that most of what you have written is a collection of general, personal observations and/or questions which are not necessarily things with which I would feel the need to take issue or comment upon. Also, besides a general comment at the front and the back about not being able to accept everything about what I wrote to you previously, most of this does not take my position directly to task.

The exception seems to be the main point about Eve and the devil's seed. However, if you accept that the animals which were brought onto the ark were not corrupt, then it would seem to stand to reason that all of Noah's family were similarly not corrupt (in the sense of angelic admixture). Also, since the number of survivors was very small, and since we know from Genesis chapter 10 that for some considerable time after the flood mankind lived together and spoke a common language, it would seem impossible to argue that there was not any sort of intermingling of seed between the branches of Noah's family. The dividing of the nations comes after the confusion of languages at Babel. So if there were any intermingling, we would all be intermingled – and that would have to include Christ in His humanity, and that would be an impossibility for many reasons.

Apart from Christ, we are all corrupt in the sense of possessing a sin nature as a result of the fall (the virgin birth made it possible for our Lord to avoid receiving one since the male passes that on). But we do not all have some additional admixture of the satanic line – in fact I would argue that none of us do since the flood (otherwise we would all have it, including Mary). The signal exception is antichrist, and he is the "your seed" of Genesis 3:15. But the engendering of the beast came (will come?) much later, so that this is not some endemic problem in the human race: possessing a sin nature is more than enough trouble as human history shows clearly.

Let me repeat one previous point here as well since it seems to have been overlooked. In your latest email you say, speaking of some theoretical sexual liaison on the part of Eve, "it makes sense that the Bible doesn't say directly". But in fact the Bible has no problem directly mentioning this sort of thing in every place it actually happens. It is true that the Bible sometimes uses euphemisms as opposed to gross language, but, for example, when it says in Genesis 6 that "the sons of God went into the daughters of men" or ubiquitously and famously "[so and so] knew his wife", are these not crystal clear expressions of what actually happened nonetheless? There is nothing of the sort in Genesis chapter 3. The Bible says Eve "ate it" . . . and then it says exactly the same thing about Adam: after Eve handed him the fruit "he ate it". The verb is the same in Hebrew, and I am unaware of a single instance in scripture where this verb, 'achal, is ever used as a metaphor for sexual activity. And even if that were the case here – impossible in my view since as I have explained and as you have allowed we have an actual tree with actual fruit which is actually eaten – then Adam will have to have done the same exact thing in the same exact way since he is described as having eaten the fruit in exactly the same way as Eve.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:1 KJV

In the English and in the Hebrew there is a very clear and deliberate causal link here: Cain is Adam's seed according to this verse since the "knowing" and the "conceiving" are presented as cause and effect.

Finally, I do not at all share your impressions of scripture. I don't find sexual references anywhere which are not obvious and deliberate and descriptive of actual events. For example, Genesis chapter 38 is plenty graphic in describing Judah's sons, their wickedness, and Judah's consorting with a prostitute who turned out to be his daughter-in-law. No innuendo here, but a straightforward relating of events, euphemisms aside. Of the allusions to which you refer I find not a single trace. So I suppose this comes down to an issue of hermeneutics. I am a Bible teacher whose modus operandi is to look to the literal words of scripture and, guided by the Spirit, extract the truth of the Word of God for the edification of my fellow believers. The Bible is literature, but of a unique sort. It is God's Word and was meant to be understood by all believers. That does not mean there are no euphemisms or metaphors or other figures of speech in scripture (not to mention various hermeneutic issues; please see the link). It does mean that while doctrinal formulation may not be possible without the gift of pastor/teacher and a good deal of formal training, every believer should be able to get the basic sense of the vast bulk of the Bible without having to worry about hidden layers of secret meaning (or Bible codes or any such theosophy). To put it simply, in the Bible, a tree is a tree and eating is eating – unless and until there is some concrete sign in scripture to make it clear that we do have to do with a metaphor or some such thing. Without such discipline in interpretation, it is possible to find codes everywhere. It is possible to find allegories everywhere. And in fact, the former is currently derailing the spiritual growth of many, and the later was the cause of the Greek church going off the rails during Byzantine era. As with all such matters, the safe path is the middle path. It would be wrong to say that there are no literary elements in the Bible when there are literary elements in almost every piece of human prose and poetry. On the other hand, we also have to wary of finding hidden meaning in every tree and every apple. Unless otherwise stated in some concrete and easily discernible way, a tree is a tree, even when it is the tree of knowing good and evil.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave His life for us, hanging upon Calvary's tree.

Bob L.

Question #17:

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I apologize for the rambling email last time. I am not looking for Bible codes and certainly would have nothing to do with theosophy, but, like the various stories foreshadowing Jesus' crucifixion where the simple stories portrayed a greater truth, I can't help but feel there's far more truth buried in the story of Adam and Eve than is obvious. The points you made with which I would disagree viz. a viz. the flood and gap are these:

1. I see nothing that precludes the "dinosaurs" being post gap. The remains after Mt. St. Helen layered in the ash just like the "fossil record;" small creatures in the lowest layers, larger creatures in the higher layers due to bloat. Whichever it may be, I don't believe it's relevant to salvation but may explain some references in Job if they were after the recreation.

2. I believe something changed Adam and Eve (after eating the fruit) that had the general characteristic of adulteration of God's creation and I believe the tree and fruit point to greater truths (and greater dangers.) Whether it's "Satan's seed" or "sin nature", I suspect they label the same thing, possibly genetics. I don't believe the fall is entirely the disobedience. God said that "the day you eat of the fruit you will surely die" which sounds like a major physical change to me. I also now see that there was probably nothing sexual in the temptation.

3. I also believe that those changes in Adam and Eve account for the giants and gigantic fruit post flood. The context of the verse (Genesis 6:4) is "those days" and, the days "...and also after that..." logically point to the days after the only demarcation which was the flood. If those changes were genetics and specific giant (or nephillim?) genes have been silenced, they can also be turned on. If that's the case, it could be a way for the nephillim and antichrist to make their return in the near future. Only speculation on my part. I'm just trying to understand what I've read in the Bible and what I see today within the framework of God's creation.

Thank you for the points you made and your responses to all my ramblings. They, along with your criticisms are helpful and have furthered my understanding for which I'm grateful.

In Jesus Christ,

Response #17:

No apologies necessary! As to your three points:

1) Since the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, I can't say dogmatically that they didn't exist post-gap. I don't put any reliance on the fossil record. However, the Genesis 7 narrative seems to indicate that all of the fauna of the time showed up to go on board the ark; there doesn't seem to be any way to reconcile a massive number of creatures left out, and, as pointed out earlier, the Bible doesn't make the same distinction about being "perfect in his generations" as it does with Noah (and his family by extension).

2) Here I think we are in agreement. The sin nature, a genetic corruption of the human body, is indeed the result of eating the fruit – as is the empowerment/activation of the conscience (and this may be genetic too). Scripture, of course, does not express itself in these terms (and what I don't know about microbiology is a lot – and what genetics doesn't know about spiritual realities is a lot), but it seems to me that the fact that Jesus had to be virgin-born to avoid being likewise physically contaminated tells us quite a bit on this score.

3) I don't find any giants or gigantic flora or fauna after the flood. The references often cited are either a) mistranslations by the KJV; b) deliberate exaggerations by those who spied out the land; or c) otherwise explainable. After all, there are 7 plus foot tall people around today, and in an age when most folks are, say, 5 feet tall, that would have been pretty impressive. On these matters please see the link: "Giants, Nephilim and Rephaiyim".

Antichrist will be the actual spawn of Satan, being (or already having been) engendered exactly as in Genesis chapter 6. Apparently this violation of the "ground rules" (along, I would surmise, with the engendering of the 10 kings; see the link), will be permitted in order for the biblical prophecies about these matters to be fulfilled, as well as for the Tribulation to occur.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #18:

Dear Dr. Luginbill,

I appreciate your patience. Your comments have helped coalesce a number of impressions that have hovered at the edge of understanding without quite coming together. I had jumped to the conclusion of Eve's dalliance based on the vernacular use of "Satan's seed" and the evil that's existed ever since. I assumed a reappearance of nephillim based on the "giant's" six fingers and toes, King Og's bed using 27" as an average cubit and Numbers 13:23. I assumed that bunch of grapes was so big as to require two men and a pole to carry it. My central focus was, and is, adulteration and why I didn't see that the eating of the fruit most likely caused those changes mystifies me. Perhaps I wasn't ready.

Viruses and bacteria will take on and shed DNA with relative ease as I understand. In fact, that's one of the mechanisms of genetic "engineering." In addition, microRNA, acting as a cellular messenger can repair or change DNA as the circumstances dictate and microRNA is absorbed through food according to recent Japanese research. We are largely made up of microbes and couldn't digest food with out them. Most of our known DNA is considered junk because no one knows what it does. Genetic contamination could as easily explain the extra digits as well as size or lionish physical characteristics. It occurs to me that this could also explain "Nimrod" becoming a mighty man if I understand that correctly. Logically the viruses and bacteria capable of making those changes would have crossed the flood _in_ Noah and his family and animals in addition to being wantonly created in today's labs. Our contemporary sorcerers and wizards have discovered that DNA can be activated or silenced and they're using that fact, amongst others, to create synthetic life and vaccines. The frightening part of this is they have no idea whatsoever what the effects of making those changes will be. God always seems to use natural means to effect His changes or punishments even though those natural means may seem strange (like the desert swallowing the complaining Israelites.) I think there are probably natural mechanisms that explain Biblical events. There have been several resounding palm smacks to the forehead through our exchange. Thank you for helping me with this.

Yours in Jesus Christ,

Response #18:

You're very welcome. As I said and am always quick to say, what I don't know about all things scientific is quite a lot.

On bacteria et al., it also seems that things were different before the flood on this score as well. After all, Noah is apparently surprised when the grape juice he is drinking makes him drunk. It seems that things were different in this respect before that massive deluge too (among other things, it seems to have tilted the earth's axis; see the links: "The Origin of the Four Seasons" and "Dinosaurs").

Yours in our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #19:

On the orders to Noah in Genesis 7:2, does the passage say "seven" or "seven pairs"?

Response #19:

The Hebrew says, literally, "seven / seven", which is clearly different from merely "seven" and thus usually take to mean "seven pairs" or "seven of each sex" – I agree with this.

Question #20:

A question about the material of ark. The my Bible (NIV1984) says "cypress wood", but the footnote says "The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain". Please clarify the footnote - is the meaning of the word rendered "cypress" not possible to discern?

Response #20:

The traditional translation is "gopher wood" (Heb. gopher: גפר) – while the common word for cypress is 'erez (ארז). "Gopher wood" occurs only here. There has always been plenty of speculation but no certainty as to the precise type of wood Noah was instructed to use.

Question #21:

What is meant by "springs of the deep" closed after the great flood at Genesis 8:2?

Response #21:

The biblical "geography" of the underworld is significantly different from what science supposes. When the universe was cleared of water in the seven days of reconstruction, the waters were divided into "the waters above" and the "waters below" (Gen.1:7). Some of the "waters below" are contained by the oceans, but not all. We know that from the account of the flood where in Genesis 7:11 the "fountains of the tehom" (the same phrase you ask about here) are broken open. The tehom is the sea, but it is also the "deep" which once filled the universe/cosmos and is now split between the waters below and the waters above (in the phrase you ask about we have its subterranean division). Its fountains are the channels whereby the subterranean portion of the waters below re-entered the upper world (whence they had receded during the separation in Genesis chapter one). The two sets of channels in this verse (from above and below) were the means of flooding the earth (not just rain), and both had to be stanched before the flooding stopped – there was enough water "above and below" to re-fill the universe.  Here the chart posted to Ichthys:

And please also see the link:  The Waters Above, the Firmament, and the Genesis Gap.

Question #22:

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
Genesis 9:24-25 (NIV1984)

Why does Noah call Canaan his son if he was his grandson?

Response #22:

He doesn't. Canaan must have been a mere infant when Noah pronounced this curse (born after the flood). Ham is the one who did this (cf. v.22); but Canaan, the grandson, is cursed because he is the father of the Canaanites who embody the sort of behavior Ham has evidenced here. See the link: "Why was Canaan cursed?"

Question #23:

Regarding my question about cursing of the serpent you replied:

Animals do not have free will, so, clearly, the punishment of the serpent is not really "personal". That is to say, while I cannot say definitively from scripture it seems to me that the "spirits of animals" are no more going to be lost or destroyed in the world to come than the spirits of angels and human beings. But while we moral creatures have a choice about that eternal future, animals do not -- so all the more reason for assuming that they will be present in eternity. It would be a blessed irony if Satan were to be shut out of eternity by his own choice while the serpent is not, even though it was taken over by the devil and cursed in this life. Better a thousand cursed lives than missing out on eternity.

I'm still finding it difficult to understand this issue - the serpent was condemned despite not having the free will . With the condemnation not being personal, is it thus symbolic in nature, aimed at showing us not to have anything to do with the devil?

Response #23:

I don't have a problem with that application. The main theological distinction between animals and human beings is precisely that animals have no free will. They are used symbolically in the temple rite for blood sacrifice all the time (though they have done nothing morally wrong), and all but a few representatives were wiped out during the great flood (again, through no fault of their own). God cares for all of His creatures. The fact that animals do not have free will means ipso facto that they will not be condemned as non-believing human beings and rebellious angels will be. Please see the link: "The Fate of Animals".

Question #24:

You wrote: In a similar way, I suggested that in the pre-judgment phase of earth, Satan and his minions were manipulating the genes of the animal life on the original earth (the probable origin of the dinosaurs - which makes Satan's choice of the serpent all the more understandable).

How do we know that Satan was manipulating the genes of animal life?

Response #24:

In my view, the original fauna of earth was manipulated in this way for the pleasure of the devil's followers. It is speculation (and I hope I have always made that clear), but is logical speculation. The argument is developed in part 1 of the Satanic Rebellion series. To shorten it up quite a bit, Satan had to have some way of convincing his potential followers to rebel against God – a risky business it should have been clear to any and all. The inducement of providing physical bodies seems the logical "platform" for his campaign (see the link). These are the only things in the universe that angels "lack", they seem to be fascinated with them, and, in the case of demons, desirous of possessing them. This seems not only the perfect but most likely the most logical way for the devil to have created dissension and to have motivated potential followers. When we add to this mix the actual scriptural occurrences of fallen angels being involved in just such genetic manipulation (how else did they produce offspring from human women?), the pieces seem to fit. Not only that, I see no other way of fitting the pieces we do have together, and in my view of hermeneutics we are not meant to leave the pieces on the table without making any attempt to make sense of them.

Question #25:

Could you explain this whole passage Genesis 30:37-43? What was Jacob's cutting of stripes aimed at? Was this a folk magic practice of that time?

Response #25:

There is much about the natural world that science does not yet understand; animals have spirits, and they react to stimuli, sometimes in a physical way. I would not wish to say that what Jacob was attempting to do is impossible. After all, there is a large element of selective breeding here, and I dare say that if today we had only gray wolves and no dogs, that science would scoff at the notion of developing all the wildly varying breeds we find today (most of which were developed without the help of modern science). In any case, Jacob did come to appreciate who it was that was really behind his success:

Yet your father has cheated me by changing my wages ten times. However, God has not allowed him to harm me. If he said, 'The speckled ones will be your wages,' then all the flocks gave birth to speckled young; and if he said, 'The streaked ones will be your wages,' then all the flocks bore streaked young. So God has taken away your father's livestock and has given them to me. "In breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flock were streaked, speckled or spotted. The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you.
Genesis 31:7-12 NIV

Question #26:

When reading through SR2 and some of the emails about the Genesis gap, I had a question pop into my head. I'm sure its probably been addressed somewhere else, but I couldn't find it in what time I had dedicated to searching. In the verses that discuss death in terms of sin and desire (desire--> sin --> death, cf. James 1:15), are we talking about spiritual death, or literal physical death? Some people say Romans 5:12 makes it seem like the death that came by Adam's fall was physical as well as spiritual, as if death had never existed before the fall. I have seen such people try to "disprove" the Genesis gap by saying that death could not have existed pre-fall (i.e. no animals could have died before the fall), but these verses seem to imply spiritual death more than physical death, and most importantly, they seem to imply such things just for humans. I also thought that it would not be unreasonable to suspect that animals died before the fall (perhaps even before the creation of man; I mean some of the animals that God created are carnivores, right?), which would tend to support the interpretation that these verses are indeed only talking about humans. What about plants, too? All of this would make me tend towards the opinion that these verses are only talking about humans. Could these also only be applicable to recreation instead of the original creation? Am I missing something?

Response #26:

The death brought about by the fall is threefold: spiritual death to> physical death to> eternal/second death – absent rebirth (please see the link: in BB 3B "The Three Aspects of Death"). The universe – and history – has been constructed by God for His moral creatures, those who bear the image of God. No one can say whether or not animals ever died before the judgment that resulted in the Genesis gap, or whether, if they did, it was the result of Satan's experimentation (part of his rebellion – as I have postulated before; see the link: "What does the Bible say about dinosaurs?"). I don't think the "predator" question is a concern because 1) these predators could have come into being as the result of satanic manipulation; and 2) just because they look fierce is not conclusive; consider the fact that lions and serpents, et al., will not be harmful during the millennium (e.g., Is.11:6-8).

Question #27:

I pray that things will soon be better for your friend in ministry, his wife and child.

In one of your past emails you had said that animals also have souls. Does the bible make any reference as to what happens to these animals souls or where they go when these animals die?

God Bless,

Response #27:

Thank you!

As to your question, I probably said that animals have spirits – which scripture, e.g., Eccl.3:21, certainly affirms (the word "soul" being merely a synonym for the "heart" in true biblical usage). I have opined in the past that since none of these animals is guilty of rejecting Christ (not having free will), there is certainly no question of condemnation. So while scripture does not say so definitively, it is my best guess on the matter that indeed we will see these creatures who lived in the world on the other side in the New Heavens and New Earth.

There is something about all this in an email posting at the following link: "Aspects of the Genesis Curse"

Thanks again for your prayers, my friend! You are in my prayers daily for complete deliverance.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #28:

Hello Dr Luginbill,

In the story of Balaam and his donkey (Num 22:21-39), it seems strange that Balaam is not surprised to hear his donkey speak. This story is similar to that of Eve and the serpent in Eden. Eve too was not surprised to hear an animal speak. Does this mean that talking animals was something common or known among the people of those days? Or is this more so about angelic ability to open the mouths of animals and or alter speech of humans also ie Luke 1:19?

Response #28:

Hello Friend,

Good to hear from you as always. As to Balaam, it is a good and an interesting observation and parallel. In Eve's defense, it does seem to me from the context, as I have expressed elsewhere, that it is possible that the serpent had spoken to her before. In any case, our first parents were "figuring things out" for us all from scratch (cf. Adam naming the animals), and, as amazing as this event is to us, it is certainly true that Eve had seen many things that would have amazed us, especially if happening for the first time in history and with no cultural perspective on the event in question. Balaam is clearly a different case. He is acting in very severe hardness of heart (opposing God as he is and continues to do to great extremes); people who are so self-centered through hardening themselves to the truth that they can do the things Balaam did, often engage in what would otherwise be activity we would consider "insane" (consider Pharaoh's opposition to letting Israel go, even with the result of his own and his army's complete destruction, not to mention the ten plagues). That is to say, if Balaam were not completely in the grasp of the evil one and intent on his evil mission, if his heart were not so hardened that he no longer had any fear of the Lord, he might have been more shocked at the idea of his donkey speaking to him; as it was, he was half "mad" himself through opposing God's truth to such an astounding degree that he was willing to go far out of his way to curse God's chosen people against God's will with such temerity, oblivious to the destruction he would soon bring on himself (Num.31:8). This, at any rate, is how I take the following passage:

They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
2nd Peter 2:15-16

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #29:

If animals have spirits, as you wrote, what is the relationship between what you wrote and 2 Peter 2:12:

They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

Response #29:

Technically and grammatically speaking, these "animals" are not only "unreasoning" but also "born to be captured". Many animals are quite intelligent. What they lack is the self-determination of moral free will. That is the point behind the adjective aloga (cf. logos, the Greek word for "word" and also "principle of reason", cf. all of our "-ology"s) used by Peter here. And animals are placed on this earth for the service of mankind and in that sense are "destined to be caught". That is not a problem for animals, inasmuch as they are serving their purpose in the plan of God. But for human beings who are made in the image of God, it is a fearful thing to consider oneself being reduced to this level over and beyond the invidious comparison. That is true for two reasons: 1) When people are caught they are caught, in this sense in which Peter means it, by the devil. That is the entire force of the context here and it is more than a bit ironic that these people who want to indulge in fascination with angels (Gnosticism) become mere "beasts" by so doing; 2) the result of being "caught" is losing not, as it is with animals, one's physical life (although it is certainly very true that anyone opposing God and/or joining in with the evil one is likely to regret it on that score as well) but one's eternal life. So these people are worse off than the animals not only because they are wasting the free will opportunities given them to respond to God in this life but also because they are going to find themselves subject to judgment and bereft of eternal life. This is not, mind you, true of animals, who, I suspect, will not be deprived of future life since they did not have any opportunity to reject it (not being made in the image of God).

Question #30:

Why were the animals not allowed to be eaten before the flood and how do we know this from the scripture?

Response #30:

Have I put things this way before? It's possible. The only thing I could find at the site was the following: "In Eden, the eating of meat was not permissible; after the flood, it is overtly authorized". This is clearly true. It does not mean that meat was not eaten or that doing so was sinful following the fall but before the so-called Noahic covenant. The point of that covenant from the standpoint of eating meat, moreover, is to forbid eating blood since it is the symbol of life, so that doing so interferes in turn with the symbolism of animal sacrifice foreshadowing the cross. Meat itself seems not to be important one way or the other (in Eden it was unnecessary and so I suppose "not permissible" is an acceptable way to put it, but "not overtly authorized" would be better – Adam and Eve did not worry themselves about the issue in any case it seems). There was animal sacrifice immediately after the expulsion from the garden (the "coats of skin" of the protoevangelium), so that from that point of view it would seem odd if the meat were not in fact eaten.
 

Ichthys Home