OUR
FATHER'S
WORD
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light
unto my path."
Psalm 119:105
________________________________________________________________________________
THE
BIBLE
IS IT THE GOD'S TRUTH
OR IS JULIA SWEENEY CORRECT?
by Jim Lisenby
________________________________________________________________________________
Her story.
On Saturday, June 04, 2005, while listening to
National Public
Radio (America's NPR) I heard
Julia Sweeney relating her story of wrestling with the questions of
God, the
Bible, and religion. Actually her talk was being aired through a
program called This
American Life which some NPR stations broadcast. Anyway,
being an entertainer
she was a regular on Saturday Night Live
back ten years or so
her presentation was very entertaining. And
shocking! It has caused a shaking, about 7.0 on the Richter
Scale. I was doing my daily morning walk listening to my radio
and she sure made my day interesting. You can learn more of her
at JuliaSweeney.com.
It seems it all started when she was visited by two
young men witnessing for the Mormon faith who were working her
neighborhood. Patiently, although reluctantly, she obliged them
and listened to what
they had to say concerning their faith. She had never heard
anything like it before, and it piqued her curiosity to the
extent that she
read the Book of Mormon which they had given her. She had never
heard such things. No priest in her parish ever told her anything
like she read in that book. Why not? What if the things in
it were true? Or worse yet, what if they weren't?
After reading it
she began to wonder about God and the book on which her faith was based
the
Bible. Had she been truthfully told all the things that were in
it? She became concerned, after all, she had
never really studied it before even though she was a Christian.
Like so many others, she simply
accepted what she heard in church and catechism without proving
it. She began
to read the Bible, and while doing so she
became alarmed at what she read. To her,
it seemed to be an awful book filled
with evil, and in her mind God started to become an unjust demanding
diety. She began
to doubt a lifetime of church teachings and to wonder whether or not
it was all just a wonderful, skillfully woven fabrication.
She evidentally pursued the subject relentlessly, and what is the end
result of her considerable efforts? After years of study and
seeking enlightenment she is now a self-proclaimed atheist. Many
religious souls, of all faiths, will undoubtedly think that is really
bad, but maybe not.
What? Why do I
say such a thing? Because she is no worse off than she was
before. And, even though she has rejected traditional religion
she is still religious in a way. Atheism is a kind of religious
belief, in opposition to conventional religious thought.
Christians, and other religions, believe that there is a God, while she
on the other hand believes that there is none. They all have
faith in what they believe. That could fit within a broad
definition of religion, couldn't it?
Religion is
bunko!
Anyway, as far as she is concerned, I don't agree with her conclusions
but I definitely think that she is on the right track in one
respect. Religion, all religions, are specious and they are the
creation of mankind. They are most often used to shape the
thinking of the masses and to bring them into subjection to the powers
that rule over them. They are the traditions of men
that Jesus condemns so strongly on occasion in the Gospels, as did His
disciples later. It is my confident assertion that God hates
religion because it obscures the truth concerning Him, and I hate
religion for that same reason. It is nothing more than
psychological slavery.
Julia, in case you ever read this, please know that God never once
mentioned religion to those that He had created. It came later as
a result of neglecting what He actually did tell them. As a
result, they lost the true knowledge and began to substitute their own
ignorant ideas and superstitious beliefs into their lives.
Religion was born and mankind eventually was enslaved by it. None
of us are totally free of it, or at least the effects of it. Even
evolution
can be a religion in a sense.
What about the Bible?
Now, for those of us living in this modern spiritual Babylon, from
where did we get the preponderance of our religious ideas?
Basically, from the best selling compendium of western literature in
the world. The Bible. What a book!
The
Judeo-Christian religions all claim to have their bases in the
Bible, and to some extent even Islam may also. If
I'm not terribly mistaken, Muslims recognize the books that Moses
wrote, and perhaps more.
So, when you think about it, it is the primary
source on which many people base their faith, and that being the case
it should be examined with
the utmost care. Arguably, Julia has done
that, or certainly feels that she has. She has basically rejected
it as proof of God's truth, or proof of His existence, but we shouldn't
do that until we examine it closely with an open mind. That
right! We all need to understand
it individually, and personally, and learn to
deal
with the issues if we are ever to get comfortable with it as God's
Word. You can't simply accept what Julia has to say about it, or
what I say about it, without proving it to yourself beyond a shadow of
doubt. If that is possible???
A word of caution now. While
simply reading the Bible is a good thing, it is not enough to fully
comprehend what is written in
it. The Bible can become problematic for
some, like Julia, especially if we fail to approach it rightly.
You have to be serious about it and look deeply into it. She did
and found it wanting, but after all is said and done perhaps you can
come to a different conclusion.
Some questions about the Bible.
Okay, first things first.
First, we should ask a couple of questions. What is the Bible, and
from where did it come? Let's work with those questions in this
lesson, but from a little
different perspective than the normal scholarly, or classical approach.
Why do it that way, you might ask?
Because there are many works out there already about
where and how we got
the Bible, and they are all readily available at your local library or
book store. They are easily accessible, so go search them out and
study them if you like, but in
today's information age there is an even faster and simpler way.
The
Internet. Simply go online and type the word Bible into your
browsers search window, and voila!
Instantly
there will be innumerable websites devoted to Biblical received
knowledge, received
opinion, and other scholarly Biblical minutiae available to
you.
So, because there is an abundance of scholarly
Biblical information readily available elsewhere, for the purposes of
this lesson we don't need to take that path. Instead let's take
a different look at it from a less formal
perspective.
Julia, may be like Virginia in one of Billy Joel's songs, in that they
didn't give her quite enough information when the priests at her church
taught her of God, and the Bible. I have visited her website and
I can tell you without a doubt that she is extremely intelligent, and
that she has done a lot of research on the subject, and I respect her
opinions, but maybe she should continue to pursue the subject.
In her case, I almost feel like I am singing to the choir, and I know
to a certainty that I am not as intelligent as she, but brainpower is
not always the determining factor in sorting some things out. It
would please me to no
end if she somehow read this lesson and gained a somewhat different
perspective from it. I feel
the same for everyone who reads it, and so in an effort to enhance your
overall understanding I present some general
statements
about the Bible for your
consideration.
You judge them for yourself, but before you do,
open up your mind
and
think about them. Don't simply take them lightly, or reject
them quickly without giving them due consideration just because they
may be outside mainstream thinking. Some of my
statements may seem a little curious to you, perhaps even oblique, but
I assure that they all affect and flavor the Biblical text and how
you perceive it. So, in that case you need to be zealous
and prove me wrong, or prove
me right.
Here we go.
Statements concerning the Bible.
1)
The Bible was
almost certainly written exclusively by men, that is, the male
gender. Women
are mentioned to be sure, and often they are
important personages, but the words about them were written by men from
a male
perspective during their time and place. Women were basically
given a
subordinate position in many ancient societies, and that is certainly
found to be
so within the pages of the Bible. That doesn't always set well
with the modern enlightened female.
Is the Bible antifeminist
then? It certainly could be taken that way if we judge it by
today's feminist interpretation of that word. Does that mean that
God thinks less of females than males. Absolutely not! Like
any good parent He loves all of His children. True, He is more
pleased with some children than others but He has never preferred any
based on gender.
The simple truth is that males are more agressive than females and
that primarily accounts for male dominance. That is due to
biological and hormonal differences. God created us that
way. That is also true throughout most of the animal
kingdom. In any case, human females in most societies (but not
all) have submitted to male dominance, and human males have assumed the
dominant position. That is evident in the Bible. It is
normal, and natural, and it certainly is no cause for concern, or harsh
criticism. God is not unfair in His creation. Male and
female are just different.
2) Not only was
it written by men, it was also written
exclusively by white
men, or
those that we consider to be white men.
I was lunching with an African-American male in Macon, Georgia several
years ago and the conversation finally got around to religion and the
Bible. He was giving me his perspective on it when suddenly I
asked him, "you
know that the
Bible is a white man's book, don't you"? I will never
forget the look on his face as he realized that it probably was so.
A young black South African male once lamented (c. the late
1960's), "when the
white man
first came to Africa we had the land and he had the Bible. Now
four hundred years later he has the land and we have the Bible".
Think about the truth in that statement.
Is the Bible racist then? In some ways it is, or better
stated,
it could be taken that way by some. It is clear to me that the
Creator did not approve of the hybridization, or the adulteration, of
anything that He had
created. He looked at it and said that it was very good.
Just the way He had done it.
Genesis 1:31 And
God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the
evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy
cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with
mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come
upon thee.
Noah found favor with God because of his pure
pedigree. That is, he had no DNA from any source other than
Adam. Based on the verse
below one gets the impression that Noah was aware of the prohibition on
hybridization and did everything that he could to comply.
Incidentally, so did all his forebears mentioned in Genesis.
Genesis 6:9 These
are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations,
and Noah walked with God.
The children of Israel, who were also the descendants of
Noah, the apple of God's eye, and the people on whom He placed His
hopes, were commanded from Sinai to not mix with the nations around
them.
Exodus 20:14 Thou
shalt not commit adultery.
Look up the meaning of the
noun adultery,
and the verb adulterate
from whence it comes, in any good dictionary.
Is God a racist? Certainly not! He loves all of his
children that He created, but the Messiah was to spring from Adam and
his children, not from a mixture of species. It was planned that
way.
3) The Bible, as we know
it today, was written solely
by men of the Adamic
race, that is, those who descended from
Adam. Nobody from any of the other races on Earth authored any of
the books
included in the accepted western Bibles.
4) Further, the
documentation contained in the Bible,
as
we know it today, was not only originally written by some few men of
the Adamic
race, it was primarily written to the Adamic race, and for the Adamic
race. It
was only
later
that other people throughout the world embraced it as the
Judeo-Christian
religions spread across the face of the Earth through
proselytization.
5) The original
authors of the books in the Bible were
the descendants of Shem, the son of Noah. Again, I am
talking exclusively about the documentation included in the Bible as we
know it today. Therefore, they were a subgroup of Adamites which
we could properly call Semites (or
Shemites).
6) The Bible is
a collection of literature that has its
roots
mainly in a subgroup of those Semitic people known collectively as
Hebrews.
7)
Additionally, it is a collection of literature that
came to us
mainly through a subgroup of those Hebrew people called the children of
Israel, or the Israelites, primarily starting with Moses after
they
came out of
Egypt approximately 3,500 years ago. He is the assumed author of
the first five books of the Old Testament
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Now, just
because they are the first five books in the Bible does not mean that
they
are the oldest. The book of Job may be
older than they, and its author is unknown.
8) That same
subgroup of Hebrews that were called
Israel, all twelve tribes including Judah, were a rather small
and insignificant group of people in the ancient world. That's
right! In ancient times they were only a small fish in a very
large pond. Their cultural and religious beliefs were then rather
insignificant to the rest of the world, but not so today. Now
some of them are a huge part
of western culture.
9) Although
the Bible speaks of many things, the
central underlying theme throughout the book is the promised
Messiah. A Saviour, as it were, who was to come to set things
right.
Why did God deem a Saviour necessary? Go to ourfathersword.org
and read the article
Christmas - Why Was Christ Born?.
10) Therefore,
with Messiah being the central figure,
the people listed as the descendants of Adam
in Genesis, and certain others throughout the Bible, were primarily
those
who were the ancestors of that Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and those
who directly interacted with them. See Matthew 1 and Luke
3:23-38. That means that the rest (i.e.
the majority) of the children of Adam and Eve, and also those not
descended from Adam and Eve who inhabited the rest of the world, the
numbers of
whom are staggering today, are not really addressed in the
Bible. Don't let that concern you because there is other
documentation found throughout the world that concerns them.
Put another way, in
Genesis, and in other books of the Bible as well, those directly in the
ancestoral line
of Jesus Christ, that is, those within His DNA gene pool, are the
principal
characters mentioned. That means that the vast majority of
humanity is essentially omitted. They number in the billions
today. Think about that.
NOTE:
At this juncture I feel that the following should be mentioned.
Cain was not the son of Adam. He came
through the one that we know as Lucifer as a result of
his seduction of Eve in the mythical place that we know as the Garden
of Eden. Why the mainstream churches don't still
commonly teach that fact is suspect. Is there a coverup going on
in the churches? I think that maybe there is, or at least a
falling away from the truth, because Cain
is assumed to be the son of Adam by most Christians. The Bible
doesn't teach that and telling people that Cain was of Adam hides
the fact that he was the son of the Devil himself. That
essentially
makes the children of Cain the offspring of the evil one, and they are
still with us today. A New Testament example was Judas Iscariot.
John 6:70
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a
devil?
John
6:71 He
spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should
betray him, being one of the twelve.
11)
The documentation that makes up the
Bible,
all versions,
has been translated many times from many different sources and
languages, and by many
different
translators and bodies of translators, who all left a part of
themselves within their work. As a result, there are many errors
within the Bible whether deliberate or by mistake, and there are many
interpolations within its text planted by those who have handled the
Word of God. Or perhaps I should say, by those who mishandled the
Word of God. Why did they do it? Most of them undoubtedly
thought that what they were doing was okay, and right, and good, and
acceptable. Too bad for us who rely on it.
12) In general,
you should not take Bible text literally.
That is not always the case, but it is generally the case.
Why? Because oftentimes what you are reading will have a
figurative meaning such as analogies, allegories, metaphors, or
symbolism. Additionally, there are many other figures of speech
within the Bible, such as
idioms, proverbs, parables and maxims that were in use in their
particular time and place where the document
was written, or translated, but whose meaning is lost or obscure to us
today. That means that each has to be
examined and put in perspective with relation to its time
and
place, either of its original writing or its later translations.
Not an easy task, but it can be done over time with effort.
There is another problem with taking everything written in the Bible
literally
words don't necessarily mean the same thing today that they did when
they were either originally written or spoken, or later
translated. Some English words used by the King James
translators have changed in meaning as to how we understand them
today.
Additionally, some words in Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, or Latin have no
comparable words in English, or German, or French, or Chinese, or
Hindi, ad
infinitum. You get the point.
13) Everything
found written in the Bible should not be
taken as true or sacrosanct, because like any other written document,
or any
other
verbal
conversation, things are found within it that are not necessarily
verity. Just because someone said it or wrote it in the Bible
doesn't make it
so. The first 37 chapters of the book of Job are an
example. Job, and his three friends, said many things that were
just their opinion and not necessarily so. God began to set them
straight in chapter 38.
I had some fun with this same thing many years ago with a
friend of
mine. Several of us were standing around talking after a church
meeting was over when I slipped over to this guy and whispered in his
ear with a solemn, straight face, "you know, of course,
that the Bible has lies in it". He stepped away from me
like I had the pox and gave me a surprised look. He then told me
firmly that that was just my opinion, and that he didn't believe
it. I then responded with "well, what about the
lie that Lucifer told Eve in the Garden of Eden"? He blushed and grinned
sheepishly as he realized that I was just messing with him. Like
Flip Wilson's Geraldine,
I can only say "the
Devil made me do it".
14) Some things
that applied in
ancient times don't
necessarily apply today. That is true for both the Old and the
New Testaments in the Bible. The things that the apostle Paul
sometimes told Christians under his
charge to do on occasion are good examples. He instructed them to
do things in a certain way, the way that he saw fit at the time.
They don't necessarily apply today in the same way.
Example:
women were not allowed to speak in the synagogues or
churches in Paul's day, whereas today they are. At least they are
in some churches. That was the custom in Paul's day which was
probably derived from established synagogue protocol, and Paul went
along with it because he was profoundly trained in his youth in a
Pharisaical environment. Well, so what? It worked for him
in his day I guess, but we don't have that
custom today in most of our modern churches. So be it.
Abraham's
sacrifice of Isaac.
Now let's get back to Julia and sort through a couple of events
that caused her
consternation. I wish that I could remember all of the things she
mentioned from the Bible in her talk, but I can't. I do remember
that she cited an event recorded in Genesis 22 where
God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on a mountain in
Moriah. She
could not understand how a just and loving God could tell His most
loyal subject to do such a thing.
I agree with her questioning
such a thing, and so may have Sarah, Abraham's wife, because when she
died they were not living together. She must have thought that
Abraham was a raving lunatic to even think of sacrificing their only
child, like perhaps some insane heathen. But, God was not unjust
or unloving here and that will come out as we examine the details of
that event. I have included the entire text of that story here.
Gen. 22:1 And it
came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said
unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Abraham was one of those rare individuals whom God chose to
commune with at various times throughout his life. Notice that
God tested him. Think of the words did tempt here
as did test for the sake of clarity.
Gen. 22:
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou
lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a
burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
This had to be very puzzling to Abraham because he knew what
God had previously told him concerning Isaac. You know, the time
when God told Abraham and Sarah that late in life they would have a son
and great
things were to come of him.
All this began on what was later to become the tenth day of the first
month. In other words all this was happening ten days after the
Vernal Equinox which began each new year. Bear with me now for a
little bit.
Gen.
22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his
ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and
clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the
place of which God had told him.
Even though Abraham was not afraid to cautiously question God
about
things that he didn't understand, he obeyed without question in this
case. Why? Because he trusted God and knew that no matter
what came out of this, that it would be all right, and God would keep
His promises concerning Isaac. Like his father Abraham, Isaac was
to become the father of many nations, and more importantly, the Messiah
was to spring from him. Both Abraham and Isaac knew and
understood that fact.
Now, concerning my comment above about the Vernal Equinox.
Whether you know it already or not, these events are a precursor type
of what was to happen on the then future holy day known as the
Passover. Here
Abraham is a type for our Father in Heaven, and Isaac is a type for the
Anointed One who was to be sacrificed on Passover nearly two millenia
into the
future in Jerusalem.
The initial instructions for that ceremonious event were given in
Exodus 12. Go there now and read of it. Notice that on the
tenth day
of that first month, they were to choose a suitable lamb or
kid and to pen him up until the evening (afternoon) of the fourteenth
day of that month, or a little less than four days.
Gen.
22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw
the place afar off.
Notice here that the time approximates that span that I just
mentioned above. The Lamb was about to be sacrificed.
Gen.
22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the
ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to
you.
Isn't it interesting that Christ promised the same thing to
His disciples?
John 14:3 And if
I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you
unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
The wording may differ somewhat but it
seems to me that the intent is somehow related. Julia has stated
at her website that she has looked into many statements and concepts
like that where people seem to see things that aren't really
there. I agree with her to a point, but I am a Biblical analyst
more than anything else and I like to examine, and sometimes express,
all possiblities. Even if they seem iffy to most. Work with
it.
Gen.
22:6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it
upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and
they went both of them together.
Notice that Isaac bore the burden of the firewood, just as
our Lord had to bear His wooden cross. It is also significant
that Isaac did not argue or protest to his father Abraham, but did it
willingly.
Gen.
22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My
father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire
and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
Gen.
22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb
for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Abraham, still trusting God, went forward with his only
heir. His firstborn son, Ishmael was a vexation to Sarah and she
pressed upon Abraham to send him and his mother away. Which thing
Abraham did. Sounds like the makings of a good soap opera,
doesn't it? Anyway, God did not approve of Ishmael as the heir to
Abraham's promises, so that left only Isaac. Isaac was a type for
the real sacrificial Lamb that was to come much later from God Himself.
Gen.
22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and
Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound
Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
Gen.
22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to
slay his son.
Abraham instinctively obeyed what God had told him. It
came from a lifetime of dealing with Him and never once had He failed
him. He knew that no matter what this sacrifice thing God
demanded of Him was, Isaac would certainly live on in the flesh and go
on to produce many children, and ultimately, the Messiah. Abraham
had that special something called faith, and it
produces works.
James 2:21 Was
not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar?
James
2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works
was faith made perfect?
James
2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was
called the Friend of God.
Too bad that we all can't be like Abraham. I wish I
could. I wish Julia could. She may wish it also.
Gen.
22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven,
and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
Gen.
22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do
thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Gen.
22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold
behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and
took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of
his son.
Gen.
22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as
it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Somehow, I feel very confident that although the exact
location where this typical sacrifice took place is unknown to us
today, it was the same place where the ultimate sacrifice took place,
the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which is also unknown to us.
Gen.
22:15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven
the second time,
Gen.
22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for
because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine
only son:
Gen.
22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I
will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand
which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies;
Gen.
22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Gen.
22:19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up
and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
A little later in Genesis it states that Sarah died in
Hebron. Why did Abraham dwell at Beersheba, and why did Sarah die
in Hebron while separated from her husband Abraham? Were they
separated because of this event? Were Sarah and Abraham in
serious disagreement because of this? Who knows? Most wives
would take a dim view of their husband going off somehwere to sacrifice
their only child. Think about it.
Incest!
Another thing I remember Julia commenting on in her talk was the
case of incest against Lot and his daughters.
I agree that it seems a very distasteful thing to have happened to one
whom God thought a lot of, at least enough to have miraculously saved
him from a horrible event. That being the awful catastrophe
which had just happened to Sodom and Gommorha and the surrounding area
that we know today as the Dead Sea.
Maybe all she needs is a little more information like we all do
sometimes. Things aren't always what they seem, and in the Bible,
they seldom are.
I wish that I could include all the scriptures, facts and events
leading up to this incident in the cave, but this lesson is already
longer than I originally intended. To get a handle on what really
happened at Sodom go to my website ourfathersword.org,
and study the article, "Sodom, Lot, And The
End Of This Age".
Lot, his wife, and two of his daughters had just been
extracted from Sodom by two angels and taken to a safe place to keep
them from dying in a impending catastrophe which was to destroy Sodom
and its environs. Sadly, not all of his children were saved, or
any grandchildren that he may have had. They died in the
conflagration as did his grieving wife when she evidently placed
herself in harms way. Of Lot's family, only he and his two unwed
daughters ultimately found safe shelter.
Why was Sodom and that area destroyed? You can get a lot more
detail if you will study the article at my website that I just
referenced above, but here it is in a nutshell. We have all been
taught that the people of that area were mainly destroyed for being
sexual deviates, but that is a falsehood. What they had done was
committed adultery and had polluted their DNA to the extent that God
destroyed them. It was just like in the days before the flood of
Noah, they also had crossbred with other species and their DNA was
corrupted.
Now before you get all bent out of shape over a cruel sky-god who
unjustly destroys people for their mistakes, you have to look at it
from His point of view. He had given strict instructions as to
how the Adamic people should conduct themselves. They were not to
crossbreed with anybody, or anything, especially renegade angels.
They did not heed His instructions and corrupted themselves
genetically. The corrupted ones had to be removed before they
corrupted all the others.
In the case of the flood of Noah, apparently only he and his family
were pure genetically, all the others living in the Tarim Basin in
central Asia where the Adamic people lived had tainted DNA. But
that event should have served as a stern warning to the later offspring
of Adam not to make the same mistake as that those who died in the
flood during the time of Noah.
Apparently they disregarded God's instructions and warning to them, and
they too crossbred with other species, including the second influx of
fallen angels. Nimrod is a good example of what happens when
Adamic females crossbreed with angels. As Genesis 6 says, there
were giants in the land in those days.
What was the method of destruction at Sodom? Nobody knows to a
certainty, but it was natural, and it was catastrophic, and it was
somewhat widespread. It certainly could have been impact by a
bolide, or vulcanism, or a combination of them. One thing is for
certain, it was devastating to the region, and it may have resulted in
the death of up to 1.5 million souls overall.
Lot and his daughters were absolutely devastated mentally. It may
have seemed to them that it was the end of the world. In
addition, they knew that the destruction came as a result of
hybridization of the people. That being the case, it is not
inconceivable that Lot and his two daughters thought that they alone
had survived the holocaust. Their mother was dead, and perhaps
everyone else, so they reasoned that they had to become impregnated if
mankind was to survive. Who knows to a certainty? But I
feel confident that their intentions were good. The circumstances
were extreme and confusing, and I think that they acted in a way that
they thought was logical.
Why was Lot and his girls in the cave after arguing against it in the
beginning? I don't know for sure but he certainly changed his
mind about going to, or perhaps staying in, Zoar. Maybe Zoar had
become a dangerous place for them for whatever reason. Perhaps
Lot thought that all of the men there, like Sodom, were unsuitable as
husbands for his daughters. Perhaps the people of Zoar had
something against them for being the only survivors of Sodom.
Regardless of the reasons, he and his two daughters were in the cave,
they did have sex, and the girls became pregnant.
Actually, the way we look at it today it was incest pure and simple,
but the DNA seemed to have been stronger in those days. Incest
today produces undesirable effects but maybe not as much back
then. God instructed Israel through Moses not to commit incest,
but that law was given perhaps over four hundred years later after the
children of Israel departed Egypt.
Think about the situation of Lot and his daughters. Under the
circumstances they did what they thought was right at the time, even
though we may not understand it nor condone it today. Based on
their situation, I won't condemn them even if their actions were
iffy. The two children born of the act in the cave were named
Ammon and Moab. It is entirely possible that some of their
offspring are still with us today.
Conclusion.
I don't know Julia Sweeney, but I know what is at her
website, and I know what I heard last Saturday morning on NPR.
She is an open, highly intelligent woman. A thinking person,
focused, no longer gullible, and probably secure in her beliefs
now. In a way, I admire her for she is not afraid to question and
explore the world. Too many of us are, and that is why she shines
brighter than we do.
Is she in danger of roasting in that mythical place called Hell?
No more than any of the rest of us are. In fact, she may be
in less danger ultimately because she is not religious. That's
one to think about.
Summing it all up now, the Bible is a viable and valuable document in
many ways, and there is truth in it which can be seen if one
approaches it in the proper manner. Anyway, it is the main
document that we have to work with, so don't dismiss it as being
totally irrelevant.
Julia, if by some stroke of
Providence you read this article, I apologize if I have misspelled any
words, or if my grammar is bad. I know how you hate that.
God bless with
understanding
of His word.
Home
/ General
Bible Studies /
Revelation
Bible Studies / Genesis
Bible
Studies
email: ourfathersword@yahoo.com
www.ourfathersword.org
Copyright ©
2005 by Jim
Lisenby. All Rights Reserved