Check back because new questions and answers are being added regularly
Question: The Bible speaks of “one God” (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet also speaks
of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Is there one God or three?
Answer: The word “God” in Genesis 1:1 and elsewhere is from the
Hebrew “Elohim,” a plural noun which is translated “God” in the
plural form. Elohim occurs some 195 times in the Old Testament. Jehovah’s
Witnesses argue that this use of “Elohim” is the “pluralis majestalis”
(using the plural to denote great, lofty, and supreme majesty). While this is
not uncommon in some Eastern languages, and may occasionally have such use in
the Hebrew, it is not used that way in Genesis 1:1 (more on this in the next
question). The word “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 comes from the Hebrew
“echad” which denotes “a united one” as opposed to “yachid”
which denotes “an absolute one.” “Echad” is also used in Genesis 1:5:
“So the evening and the morning were the first [one] day,” and
Genesis 2:24: “they shall become one flesh”. Jehovah’s Witnesses ridicule
the 1+1+1=1 concept of the Trinity, but have no answer for 1+1=1 when it comes
to Genesis 1:5, and 2:24. This does not mean there are three God’s (that would
be polytheism), nor does it mean that the ONE God displays Himself in three
different forms at various times. Rather, it means the Godhead (or Elohim) is
composed of three separate and distinct personalities (persons), each of whom
fulfill a specific function, and work jointly to accomplish a common end. All
three personalities are represented in several passages (Matthew 3:16-17 [also
Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22]; Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2
Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; 1 Peter 1:2, and Jude 20-21).[1]
Also
consider Zechariah 2:10-11: “‘Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For
behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,’ says the LORD. ‘Many
nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My
people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of
hosts has sent Me to you.’” Who sent the Lord? The LORD sent the Lord, or
in other words, one member of the Godhead sent another member. (Also see:
Zechariah 2:8-9).
Clearly, these passages reveal that God is not all wrapped up in one person, but that the Godhead is made up of three distinct persons while at the same time each being one in the sense of unity, purpose, and spirit with the other. Jesus said, “I and My Father are one” (John 10:20). The Jews understood this kind of oneness to mean a claim to deity. This is why they took up stones to kill Him. In saying, “I and My Father are one,” Jesus was not simply claiming to be one in purpose or one in spirit with the Father, but to be one in divine essence. It was a claim to deity. Although the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all “one” in the sense of all possessing deity (a divine nature), each of these divine Persons also possesses His own personal characteristics and is clearly distinguished from the other Persons (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:7-15). Yet each is called “God” (John 6:27; Hebrews 1:8; Acts 5:3-4) and each possesses all the divine characteristics (James 1:17; Hebrews 13:8; 9:14); each also performs divine works (John 5:21; Romans 8:11); and each receives divine honors (John 5:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
There is also some confusion regarding the English terms “LORD” and “Lord.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the word LORD comes from the Hebrew tetragrammation “JHVH,” “YHWH,” “YHVH,” and “JHWH,” and should be rendered “Yahweh,” or “Jehovah.” The vowels were omitted because it was believed the word was too sacred to write in its entirety. However, in most Bible translations, the tetragrammaton is simply translated as “LORD.” It is said that among the Jewish people of long ago, God’s name was viewed as being so holy that no one other than the priests could speak the name of God. And this was only done once during the entire year – on the Day of Atonement – and then only in a low whisper. When a Jew read from the Old Testament and came across the name of God, he would say “Adonai” instead, which is the Hebrew term for “Lord.” However, the terms “Jehovah” and “Yahweh,” though probably the most common, are only two of the many presumptuous translations that have been made from the Tetragrammaton. The King James Version uses the name “Jehovah” four times, when other translations (New American Standard Version) do not use it at all. In the New Testament and the Septuagint (LXX), which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the two words used most often with reference to God are “Theos” (translated “God”) and “Kurios” (translated “Lord”). The Septuagint (LXX) uses “Kurios“ instead of “Adonai” to designate God's name in passages that contain the tetragrammaton “JHWH.” Some translations in the New Testament capitalize all the letters in “LORD” if it is a quote from the Old Testament where the tetragrammaton is used; but even in this, the original Greek is still “Kurios” (Lord). There is no Greek equivalent for the tetragrammaton, even though in the Jehovah Witnesses' version of the Bible (The New World Translation), “Jehovah” has been presumptuously inserted 237 times in the text and 72 additional times in the margin. If referring to God as “Jehovah” were that essential, then why didn’t Jesus use it Himself, or teach His disciples to call God by the term “Jehovah?” When Jesus taught His disciples a lesson on prayer, He told His followers to address God as “Father” (Matthew 6:9). Jesus also used the term “Father” no less than six times in just one prayer alone (John 17). He also referred to the Father as “God,” which comes from the Greek word “Theos,” (Matthew 6:30) and “Lord” which comes from the Greek word “Kurios” (Luke 10:21). The title “Lord” implies authority to be revered, and means “one who has dominion over others; a master, chief, or ruler.” (See: 1 Peter 3:1-6)
Answer: First, God could not have been speaking to angels, because the next verse says, “God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him...” (Genesis 1:27). Man was not created in the image of angels since man is “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:6-8) in the sense that man is not a heavenly being like the angels, but is a spiritual being confined to a physical body and dwells on the earth. So, when God said “let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness,” God (Elohim - God in the plural) was speaking to the other members of the Godhead. Second, consider “Godhead.” The term may be understood as “Godhood” in the same sense as “manhood, womanhood, childhood,” meaning the Godhead is composed of those beings who possess the qualities and characteristics of deity, or who possess a divine nature (making them God). Colossians 2:9 says in Christ “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily,” that is, the qualities and characteristics of God (Godhood) are seen in the bodily presence of Jesus (deity). This is the meaning behind Jesus’ statement to Phillip. There we’re told, “Philip said to Him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father?” Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.” (John 14:8-11). When the disciples saw Jesus, they saw God (the divine attributes and character of God in human flesh). Also see Hebrews 1:1-3 (“who being the brightness of His glory and the express image [lit. “the exact reproduction”] of His person”), and Colossians 1:15 (“He is the image of the invisible God...”)
Questions: How are we made in the image of God? Does God look like us?
Answer: We are created in the “image” of God, or in the “likeness” of God in two distinct ways: (1) In regard to the spiritual nature of our being. “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). Likewise, man is a “spirit” (or has a soul) and possesses an eternal nature (whatever is said of the man’s “spirit” in the Scriptures is also often said of man’s “soul”); (2) In regard to our intellectual nature. God is intellectual, cognizant and rational (God thinks and reasons). Likewise, man is an intellectual, cognizant and rational being (capable of thinking and reasoning). The spirit or soul of man is the eternal part of man that thinks and reasons. Examples of this characteristic are seen in man’s ability to understand and obey the commandments of God (Genesis 2:15-17 and 3:1-13). It may also be said that man was created in the image of God in that we were created pure and sinless (a characteristic of God’s divine nature), but our sinless nature was shattered by sin. This does not mean that we have inherited the sin of Adam. We still enter the world pure and sinless. But the Scriptures are very clear about our being responsible for our own sins (Ezekiel 18:19-32; James 1:13-15).
Several references that speak of various physical characteristics of God have caused some confusion – specifically, references to “the hand of God,” or “the eye of God,” etc. For example, the reference of Moses seeing the “back” of God (Exodus 33:20-23) is often misunderstood that God has a physical body like ours. Moses did not see the “back” of God in the sense that we would see someone from behind. Moses asked to see God’s “glory” (Exodus 33:18), to which the Lord said “I will make all My goodness pass before you...” (v. 19), and would hide Moses in the cleft of the rock when “My glory passes by” (v. 22). However, rather than see the glory of God completely, Moses was allowed to see the glory of God in a limited, incomplete sense – much in the same way as seeing a person from behind gives us a limited and incomplete look at the person. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, his face shined with the radiance of God’s glory (Exodus 34:29-35). The apostle Paul also makes reference to this event in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18. References to the Lord’s “face” (v. 20), His “hand” (v. 22) or His “back” (v. 23), are all figures of speech known as anthropomorphisms – (lit. “ascribing human form or attributes to a thing or being not human, as to a deity”).
Answer: There are two questions here. First, are the “days” of creation to be taken as literal periods of 24 hours each? Yes. Although there are numerous Scriptural references in which the word “day” refers to an indefinite period of time (cf. 2 Peter 3:8), there is no reason to assume the days of creation were indefinite periods of time. In fact, is safe to assume just the opposite. The word “day” is used 1,480 times in the Old Testament alone, and in each of these instances it refers to a literal day of 24 hours each. The days of Genesis chapter 1 are identified with the words “the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5; also see vs. 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31). The Hebrew is even more emphatic. It literally says, “and evening was, and morning was, day one” – the combination of evening with morning constitutes one day. Furthermore, the language of the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) makes it clear that the days of creation were six literal days as we know them.
This leads to the second question. How do we explain the age of the earth? First, it needs to be understood that science has not proven the earth was formed billions of years ago. Radiocarbon (C-14), and other similar forms of dating are based on a number of assumptions that not even all scientists agree upon. So, how do we explain the age of the earth? When Adam was created on the sixth day, he was created as a full-grown, mature man. The same goes for the creation of woman. For arguments sake, let’s say a full-grown, mature man or woman would be approximately 30 years old. Therefore, when God created Adam in one day, Adam came on the scene appearing to be a full-grown, mature man of 30 years. And yet, Adam was not 30 years old, but only one day old. If the Lord could instantly create a full-grown, mature, 30-year-old-looking man in one day, why couldn’t He also create a fully-grown, mature, 5-billion-year-old-looking universe and earth in one day? There is no reason why the believer in the Biblical account of creation has to concede to the theories of science when it comes to the age of the earth. Just as Adam would have appeared to be a 30-year-old man (even though he was created in one day), the earth and the universe can appear to be 5 billion years old (even though they were also created in only one day).
Question: What about the fossil record? Doesn’t that prove evolution?
Answer: The fossil record of former living things, as preserved in the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, is offered as an actual documented history of organic evolution. Scientists argue that the complexity of these fossils up to 1 billion years old supposedly become increasingly advanced as they are found closer to our own day and time. This is their main proof that these organisms gradually developed into more complex creatures over the past 1 billion years, eventually resulting in the complex organisms, such as plants, animals, insects, and man, that we see inhabiting the earth today.
However, there are at least two major problems with this line of proof. First, there are vast missing links (one scientists said, “an innumerable host of ‘missing links’”) between these alleged periods of evolutionary development. While there are a number of species that have become extinct, there is nothing in the fossil record that shows a link between reptiles and birds, or between primates and man – just to name a few. The best the fossil record can show is that there may have been different organisms that appeared at various times in the history of the world and evolved somewhat within their own species. But there is nothing whatsoever to suggest a transmutation of species – or one species evolving into another. Those so-called “proofs” are only in the minds of the evolutionist.
Furthermore, there is New Testament proof that man, animals, fish and birds do not come from the same source. In the apostle Paul’s discourse concerning the resurrection, he said, “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, and another of birds” (1 Corinthians 15:39). The second problem with the so-called fossil record is that the entire premise of dating these various fossils – that is, determining whether they became extinct 1 billion years ago, or 1,000 years ago – is based on where these fossils are found in the various strata of earth from which they are taken. Scientists have divided the numerous stratum of earth into various geological periods of time known as the “Geologic Time Table.” This time table ranges from the “Archeozoic” period (approximately 1 to 1.8 billion years ago), to the “Cenozoic” period (which covers the last 1 million years, or so).
But, here’s the problem. How do the scientists date fossils? By determining in which strata of earth, or “geological period” those fossils were found. But how do they determine the age of a strata of rock, or a certain “geological period?” By looking to see what fossils are found there. That’s a blatant case of “circular reasoning!” Neither one proves the other. There are other problems as well. For example, these strata of rock are not always in a uniform order – from the oldest (at the bottom) to the newest (near the top). There are places all over the world where so-called ancient strata are actually on top of more recent strata of rock moved there by some obvious cataclysmic event (most likely Noah’s flood). Furthermore, there are large deposits of fossil remains where plants, insects and animals from various regions of the earth are all found mixed together. There are also numerous finds where fossils are grossly out of place in the so-called “geological record.” For example, the fossil remains of dinosaurs have been found with the fossil remains of ordinary mammals. And yet, dinosaurs and mammals are supposed to be separated by nearly 35 million years of evolution. Scientists say this is simple “displacement” – the vertical or horizontal movement of smaller fossils to other stratum of earth. But the problems that raises are (1) how do we know this so-called “simple displacement” actually occurred, and (2) if the only way we can date a strata is by the fossils found there, how do we know if this particular strata is old or new? One of the most puzzling fossil finds was in the river bed of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas where scientists found the fossilized footprints of a dinosaur from the “Jurassic Period,” next to large fossilized footprints of man, all found in rock from the “Cretaceous Period.” The bottom line is that the entire fossil record is filled with numerous inconsistencies, and is highly unreliable.
All the fossil record proves is that there was a cataclysmic event in earth history that had never been experienced before, nor since. There are innumerable places around the world where fossil remains are all mixed up geologically and found pooled together, and where strata of earth has been twisted and turned upside down (so that younger strata are now found buried beneath older strata), all testify to a cataclysmic event that radically altered life on this planet, and dramatically changed the face of the earth forever. We know that event to have been the Flood. That’s what the fossil record really testifies to – the Flood during the days of Noah when God brought divine judgment on a sinful and unrighteous world.
Answer: The objections made by many unbelievers regarding the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are disagreements between the order of events in the two accounts. For example, critics say, “in Genesis chapter one, man and woman seem to have been created together, after the creation of animals.(Genesis 1:24-28), but in chapter two, man appears to have been created first, followed by the animals, which was eventually followed by the creation of woman (Genesis 2:7-8, 19, 20-25). There are two important facts to consider in answering this question. First, Genesis chapter one is not a concise but general account of the creation as a whole, while chapter two focus’ mainly upon the creation of Adam and Eve (chapter two is a more detailed account of the creation of man). Secondly, chapter two does not attempt to give the chronological order of the events. Furthermore, the emphasis of Genesis 2:19 is not when God created the animals, but rather that the animals He created were brought to Adam to name, and none could provide Adam with the companionship he needed. Thus, the creation of Eve. Neither does Genesis 1:27 say that God created man and woman at the same time. Genesis chapter one is simply a brief, generic, chronological account of the creation. While Genesis chapter one and two provide two accounts of the creation, they do not contradict each other at all. Chapter one provides a general account of creation as a whole, while chapter two is a specific and more detailed account of the creation of man and woman.
Question: Where did Satan come from? Did God create evil?
Answer: The Scriptures do not specifically state where Satan came from, but give us a few hints as to the origin of Satan. First, we need to understand that all things were created by Jesus Christ. “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and by Him” (Colossians 1:16). Included in the phrase “all things” would be angels, who were created for a specific purpose. “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). Angels were required to give their allegiance and worship to Jesus Christ (the Son of God). “But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’” (Hebrews 1:6). However, not all angels kept their allegiance to God and Christ. “And the angels who did not keep their proper dominion, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6). This has led many to conclude that Satan (the Devil and his angels) were formerly angels who made a deliberate choice to rebel against God, especially since “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). There are other passages of Scripture that suggest the Devil and his angels were cast out of heaven as the result of some kind of war or rebellion in heaven which occurred in the pre-history of man. However, these passages are frequently taken out of context and misapplied (Ezekiel 28:12-15; Isaiah 14:12-14; Luke 10:18; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Revelation 12:9). Some have suggested “the sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2 who “saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful; and took them wives for themselves...” may have been angels – perhaps even the angels Jude speaks about. However, the statement of Jesus in Luke 20:35-36 about angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage” would seem to contradict that theory.
Most believe the contrast between “sons of God” and “daughters of men” is simply
referring to marriages between those who were faithful to Jehovah and those who
were worldly in nature. These “sons of God” didn’t take time to carefully
examine the inner qualities of the spirit, but were simply drawn to the external
appearance of their potential marriage partners. Thus, the “sons of God”
eventually compromised their faithfulness, and took upon the worldly nature of
the “daughters of men.” If Satan is an angel who rebelled against God,
why has God allowed him to continue leading people into sin? Since there are no
Scriptures that specifically answer that question, we can only assume God has
allowed Satan to continue because the Devil and his angels serve some purpose we
do not completely understand – remember “all things were created by
Him (Christ) and for Him” (Colossians 1:16b).
For a more complete answer to this question: False
Theories About Satan Falling From Heaven
Answer: First, we need to remember that while God may test us through various trials (cf. Hebrews 11:13; James 1:2-3), He does not tempt (allure) us to commit sin (James 1:13). Therefore, the placing of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden cannot be seen as God tempting (alluring) man to sin. James says “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed” (James 1:14). Adam and Eve’s sin was a result of them being “drawn away and enticed by their own lusts.” They are completely responsible for breaking God’s commandment – although the man blamed the woman, and the woman blamed the serpent (Satan). Did God know they would sin? There should be no question about God’s foreknowledge regarding the fall of man.
Paul speaks of God having chosen “us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4-5), and goes on to speak of how through Christ, God’s “eternal purpose” is made known (Ephesians 3:1-11). God made provisions for man’s redemption through the blood of Christ even before man was ever created or the foundations of the world were formed. But foreknowledge is not the same thing as foreordination or predestination. God’s foreknowledge of an event does not mean He made it happen. So, why did God place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden? God did it to give man a choice. Man was not created like a robot (with no will of his own), but man was created with the same free will God gave to the angels of heaven (Jude 6, speaks of “angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation...”). God has never wanted our obedience to be compulsory, but rather voluntary (cf. Philemon 1:14). Man had two God-given choices: (1) obey God and live forever, (2) disobey God and die. Adam and Eve surrendered to temptation and deliberately made the wrong choice. God still gives us the same two choices today: (1) obey God and live, (2) disobey God and die.
Let’s first look at the account of this event in the book of Genesis. We’re told, Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." (Genesis 4:2-7)
Although we aren’t specifically told why God accepted Abel’s sacrifice and not Cain’s, there are some clues in the text. First, we are told that “Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD,” (Genesis 4:3), while Abel’s sacrifice was “of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat” (Genesis 4:4). From this we know Abel offered a blood sacrifice to God – a sacrifice that would require the taking of the life of the firstborn of his flock and thereby shedding its blood. We know this was a burnt offering because to offer a sacrifice “of their fat” (Genesis 4:4) would imply that the sacrifice was slain and that it was burned in fire.
There is also a passage in the book of Hebrews that tell us something about Cain and Able’s sacrifice. The Hebrew writer tells is, “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks” (Hebrews 11:4).
There are several important things that are said about Abel and his sacrifice in this passage. But the key points we need to consider are these. First, notice that Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice to God “by faith.” Second, we’re told that through his sacrifice “he obtained witness that he was righteous.” We can assume two things from this in regard to Cain’s sacrifice: (1) his sacrifice was not by faith, and, (2) his sacrifice did not testify that he was righteous.
There is also another passage from the book of Romans that will also help us to understand something about these sacrifices. The apostle Paul wrote, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
When we put all these facts together we learn that Able “obtained witness that he was righteous” because his sacrifice was offered “by faith.” Since we know Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted, we can conclude that Cain did not obtain witness that he was righteous because he did not offer his sacrifice by faith. Furthermore, from the statement of the apostle Paul that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” it seems reasonable to conclude that God told Cain and Abel the kind of sacrifice he wanted. Abel obeyed, and Cain disobeyed.
The sacrifice of Abel was the same kind of sacrifices God required of the children of Israel. They were sacrifices that required the shedding of blood. All of those sacrifices pointed toward the day when Jesus would come as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world to offer Himself once for all time as a sacrifice for sins on the cross – by shedding His own blood.
However, there are two additional passages that give us another possible reason why Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted. The apostle John writes, “For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous” (1 John 3:11-12). Cain was a wicked man whose works are characterized as evil and sinful. Second, Jude wrote, “Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah” (Jude 11). The sin of Balaam was greed and covetousness all motivated by pride. Therefore, we can conclude that another possible reason why Cain’s sacrifice was not acceptable to God is simply because Cain was a wicked man whose heart was filled with greed and covetousness.
God doesn’t accept the worship or the sacrifice of those whose hearts are unclean and filled with wickedness. In Psalms 15 the psalmist asks the question, “LORD, who may abide in Your tabernacle? Who may dwell in Your holy hill?” (Psalm 15:1). In other words, the psalmist wanted to know what kind of person is able to have fellowship with the Lord. The answer is found in the verses that follow. “He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart; He who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor does he take up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a vile person is despised, but he honors those who fear the LORD; He who swears to his own hurt and does not change; He who does not put out his money at usury, nor does he take a bribe against the innocent” (Psalm 15:2-5). From what we read about Cain in the Scriptures, he was none of these things.
So Cain not only offered a sacrifice that was different from what God wanted, Cain’s heart was filled with wickedness and sin, making his worship and sacrifice to God empty and useless.
Answer: After Cain killed his brother Abel, God placed a curse on him that he would be “a fugitive and a vagabond...on the earth” (Genesis 4:12). Since Cain feared for his own life, God “set a mark on Cain” (v. 15) so that anyone finding him would not kill him and receive vengeance from the Lord “sevenfold.” In the verses that follow, we learn that Cain “went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden, and Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch...” (vs. 16-17a). In answering the questions “who was there for Cain to fear,” and “where did he get his wife,” there are a few verses we need to consider. (1) Genesis 3:20 says “Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” Therefore, those whom Cain feared, and the woman he took for his wife were descendants of Adam and Eve. (2) We know from Genesis 5:4 that Adam had other unnamed sons and daughters. Since Eve was the “mother of all living,” we can safely assume that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters were permitted to inner-marry for the purpose of populating the earth. (3) Seth was born to Adam and Eve shortly after the murder of Abel, at which time Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3). During the 130 year period between Adam’s creation and the birth of Seth, many generations of people could have inhabited the earth. For example, if Adam and Eve had only 6 children (3 sons and 3 daughters), and if each of those 3 families had six children each, and so on – generation after generation, there could have easily been a world population of several million by the time Cain was banished some 130 years later.
Answer: Surprisingly, some Biblical commentators believe some of the beasts mentioned in the Bible may have been references to dinosaurs. For example, some commentators believe the “behemoth” of Job 40:15-24, and the “Leviathan” of Job 41:1-34 may be references to dinosaurs and so-called “pre-historic” sea creatures (see: Genesis 1:21). Others say this is simply poetic Hebrew describing some large, unnamed creatures. Whatever they were, they are described as having great size, are impervious to man’s attack, cannot be subdued, and even cause the mighty to be afraid. (Similar references are found in Job. 3:8; Psalms 74:14; 104:25-26, and Isaiah 27:1). If these are references to dinosaurs and giant sea creatures, they would have been created on the fifth and sixth days of creation before the creation of man, which was at the end of the sixth day, which does not contradict the Bible at all.
Question: Were dinosaurs on the ark? If not, why?
Answer: The biblical account of the flood does not specify what animals went into the ark, other than to distinguish between those designated as “clean” and “unclean.” Simply put, any animal with a cleft hoof and that chewed the cud was clean, and therefore suitable for food. Any animal that did not meet these specifications was considered unclean, and was not to be eaten. If an animal such as a camel possessed only one of the two stated requirements, it was still regarded as unclean. Because birds later formed part of the diet of the children of Israel, a list of those species suitable for food excluded the ones that might carry communicable diseases. What the Genesis account of the flood says is that various “kinds” (species) of animals were placed aboard the ark. Of the “clean,” there would be seven (the Hebrew probably means seven individuals rather than seven pairs), and of the “unclean,” there would be two each (“a male and his female”). There would also be seven each of the birds of the air.
Some have suggested that if dinosaurs were placed on the ark, they would have been very young because of their size. If that actually occurred, then some believe that following the flood some of these species may have eventually become extinct due to a radically changed environment. Others feel God may have simply chosen to exclude certain species on the ark because they were marked for extinction anyway. It appears, however, that the flood was the main catastrophic event that brought an end to the dinosaurs, along with other species destined to extinction.
Question: How was it possible for all those animals to fit on the ark?
Answer: In answering this question there are two factors to consider. First, the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Depending on the size of a cubit (estimated to have an average length of approximately 17.5 inches), the ark would have been 437.5 feet in length, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. Since it had three decks (Genesis 6:16), the total deck space would have been approximately 95,700 square feet. This would have given the ark approximately 1,396,000 cubic feet of storage space. Based on 1 ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of storage, the ark would have had a gross tonnage of 13,960 tons. If we estimate the size of the ark based on the Egyptian long cubit (20.65 inches long), the ark’s dimensions would have been 516.25 feet long, 86 feet wide, and 51.625 feet high). These calculations would give the ark a deck space of approximately 133,192.5 square feet, or approximately 2,292,000 cubic feet of storage space. These calculations would have given the ark a gross tonnage of approximately 22,920 tons. These figures place the ark well within the size of most cruise ships today.
The second factor to consider is that God instructed Noah to take various “kinds” (species) of animals aboard the ark. It is suggested that within each species, there would be the genetic code to allow for all the sub-species we see today. For example, if Noah took those animals of the foxlike species, as well as the doglike species, and the hyena-like species, these would cross-breed to produce the arctic fox, the gray fox, the red fox, the wolf, the dog, the coyote, the jackal and the hyena. Therefore, it would not be necessary to take animals of every sub-species, but only from among the general species.
Based on various calculations, it has been estimated that the ark probably carried around 17,000 various animals, birds, reptiles, etc. that would have needed the protection of the ark. This number could have easily been accommodated in the ark, and still leave room for vast storehouses of food, and reasonable living accommodations for Noah and his family. Aquatic animals, including seals, otters, sea lions, etc., could have easily survived outside the ark.
Question: Why did people live so long before the flood? Were those literal years?
Answer: Prior to the flood, people lived hundreds of years. Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912, and Methuselah lived 969 years. Almost immediately following the flood, the life span of man was reduced by approximately 50 percent. Shem lived 600 years (Genesis 11:10), Arphaxad lived 438 years (vs. 11-12). And life spans continued to decrease. Terah, the father of Abraham, lived 205 years (v. 32), Abraham lived 175 years, and Moses lived 120 years. However, Psalms 90:10 (a psalm containing a prayer of Moses) states that man’s time on earth has been limited to approximately 70 to 80 years (plus or minus). There are several possible reasons why people lived longer before the flood. (1) Some biblical scientists believe that the canopy of water vapor (Genesis 1:6-8) which surrounded the earth from the time of creation, emptied itself during the flood and was never restored. The loss of that protective canopy resulted in a dramatic increase of radiation on the earth which impacted all life. (2) While the population of the earth was sizable (estimated to have been several hundred million by the time of Noah), disease was apparently at a minimum because of the relative newness of the earth. As to whether or not the life span of those living before the flood is to be counted in literal years, there is nothing to suggest otherwise.
Question: What geological or other evidence is there of a worldwide flood?
Answer: There is considerable geological evidence of a worldwide flood. The sudden deluge of the flood instantly trapped countless millions upon millions of plants and animals in the mass of sediment that eventually produced the vast numbers of fossil remains. Never before or since the flood have such conditions been favorable for the formations of such vast numbers of fossil remains. Furthermore, the mountain ranges we know today (including the world’s highest peaks in the Alps, the Himalayas, and the Peruvian Andes) were probably formed during the tremendous upheavals during the flood, especially since they all contain fossil remains of vertebrates near their summits.
In addition to the geological evidence, there is also archeological and anthropological evidence of a worldwide flood. Every ancient civilization, from the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians, to the ancient Inca civilizations of South America, has a universal flood story that was handed down through time, and all of these stories contain similarities to the biblical record. Generally, they state that (1) the flood was divinely planned, (2) the impending catastrophe was divinely revealed to the hero of the flood, (3) the flood was because of the defection in the human race, (4) the hero and his family were the only ones to be delivered, (5) the hero was divinely instructed to build a large boat to preserve life, (6) the causes of the flood were torrential downpours and the flood lasted for a long period of time, (7) name the landing place of the boat, (8) state that birds were sent forth at varying intervals to determine the decrease of the waters, (9) describe acts of worship by the hero after his deliverance, and (10) speak of special blessings bestowed on the hero after the disaster.
Question: How is it possible for all the different races of people to come from Noah and his sons?
Answer: Some skeptics say that for all the races to have originated from Noah and his sons, Noah would have had to have a white son (who would have been the forefather of the Anglo and European races), a yellow son (who would have been the forefather of the Asiatic races), and a black son (who would have been the forefather of the African races). We do know, however, that Shem was the forefather of the Semitic races, including the Jews and Arabic nations (through Abraham), as well as Syrians, and the Assyrians who dwelled in ancient Mesopotamia. Ham was the forefather of dark skinned races which included the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites, and through his descendant Nimrod, he was also the forefather of the Babylonian empire (which Nimrod founded). Japheth was the forefather of the peoples who inhabited northern and southeastern Europe (more commonly known as Asia Minor), including Greeks and Romans.
In answering the question, “how is it possible for all the different races of people to come from Noah and his sons,” we need to remember that these men also had wives with their own unique set of genetic codes. When the genetic codes of all six are taken into consideration, it is quite possible for different races to begin developing, and given sufficient time, to cause further genetic variations within each lineage (such as darker or lighter skin color, etc.). Incidentally, the curse Noah pronounced upon Ham was directed primarily to his descendants, the Canaanites (Ham is called “the father of Canaan” in connection with the curse [Genesis 9:22]). The Canaanites would eventually be driven out of their land by the descendants of Shem (the Israelites). Those who were allowed to remain in the land clearly lived in subjection to the Israelites.
[1] 1 John. 5:7, “For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” does not appear in some early manuscripts because its origin is doubtful. Certain versions of the New Testament, including the New International Version (NIV) omit the passage altogether.