Showing posts with label hugh ross. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hugh ross. Show all posts

Monday, November 23, 2020

The Creation Controversy, Part Eighteen: Some Considerations from Science


Also in this series:


Thus far, I’ve been looking at the creation controversy in light of what we can learn from scripture rather than from science, as scripture is the most important aspect of the debate for believers. That said, however, as I have already discussed, our understanding of scripture is to at least some degree informed by our understanding of the natural world.

God has created us to live in this world and to interact with it, which necessitates that we have the capacity to understand it. I do not claim that scientists don’t make mistakes or that humanity will ever attain a perfect understanding of nature on this side of the kingdom, but scripture itself bears out the fact that humanity is not a race of imbeciles. The technological achievements of this age demonstrate that we are quite capable when it comes to analyzing the creation, discovering the mechanisms that drive it, and applying what we learn to various useful applications. The impact of modern science has been nothing short of a revolution in human affairs.

While I have had an avid interest in science all of my life—astronomy in particular—I am not a scientist. I do not have the academic background and technical expertise required to evaluate scientific literature or experimental methods and findings in any real depth. Even speaking as a layman, however, I do have a sufficient understanding of scientific theories and discoveries to offer some informed observations that may be of interest to other laymen observing this debate in the church. To that end, I present a few of what I feel are perhaps the most compelling evidences for an old cosmos, followed by a look at one prominent young-earth scientific project and the results it produced.

A Waste of Space?

The renowned astronomer Carl Sagan once remarked: “The universe is a pretty big place. If it’s just us, seems like an awful waste of space.” Were he alive today, Sagan might very well recant this statement. As our knowledge of the universe has expanded, we’ve learned that its fundamental structure, including the amount of mass it contains, is in fact critical for life. The matter-energy ratio of the universe is perfectly balanced with its expansion rate within a remarkably narrow range. This state of affairs has resulted in the right materials being available in the right proportions over the right amount of time to assemble atoms, light and heavy elements, stars, planets, and galaxies.[1]

Simply put, there is no waste of space here. The universe must exist as it does—and must have existed for as long as it has—in order for us to exist as we do. Evidence such as this has allowed Christian apologists to appeal to the element of fine-tuning in making the case for theism.

As I discussed in chapter four, the implications of Big Bang cosmology have proven disquieting for atheists, to the point where they are seeking proof of alternative theories such as the Multiverse Hypothesis in order to circumvent the need for a beginning and to downplay the significance of fine-tuning. The universe gives every appearance of having been “programmed,” as it were, from the very beginning, to produce the conditions we find in it over a time period that exactly corresponds to its observed age.

In a young-earth paradigm, however, I would expect things to be quite different. With all of the elements necessary to life and living already present from the very beginning, the great mass of the universe would not be necessary to produce or maintain anything. Indeed, why should anything beyond about 6-10,000 light years even exist in a young cosmos brought to full maturity in six calendar days? Not only should we not expect to find evidence of great age in the universe, it seems that we ought to find ourselves in a relatively small and static universe, one in which the laws of nature are designed around station-keeping. Why should the vast bulk of the universe even exist in that paradigm? What purpose would it serve? Very few objects beyond our own Local Group of galaxies are even visible from earth or distinguishable as anything more than star-like or cloud-like objects without a telescope.

It may be answered here that “The heavens declare the glory of God,” and this is reason enough for us to find ourselves in an enormous universe full of stars and galaxies: so that we might appreciate the majesty of the Creator. It is certainly true that the wonders of the universe do cause us to stand in awe of its Creator; however, I remind the reader that this scripture was written during a time when men could see only naked-eye objects and the majority of the universe lay unknown and unknowable. Even the magnificent details of nearby objects like the Orion Nebula were lost for the lack of instruments with which to observe them properly. But then why should the Orion Nebula even exist? Why should any gas or dust clouds exist? They’re not needed to produce stars, after all, since God supposedly created everything in place and in a mature state of being. They do make for lovely images, if you have the technology with which to observe them, but mankind didn’t have this technology for most of its history.

As of this writing, astronomers have confirmed the discovery of 4,306 exoplanets—that is to say, planets that orbit other stars.[2] Yet, why should exoplanets even exist in a young-earth, six-calendar-day creation? What benefit do they provide? They do not give light on the earth, nor do they serve for signs or seasons, to put things in the language of creation Day Four. In fact, they are only detectable with extremely sensitive equipment. They make perfect sense in an old universe defined by Big Bang cosmology: a universe in which God took the time to carefully craft humanity’s home and countless stars have formed, generating their own solar systems in the process. In the young-earth paradigm, however, they make no apparent sense at all. Nor do black holes, magnetars, quasars, pulsars, neutron stars, or even asteroids and comets (essentially space debris) or dwarf planets within our own solar system. None of these objects have any apparent function or explanation in a young-earth, six-calendar-day, fully mature creation scenario.[3]

Stellar Z-Axis Motion

Just as the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun, so the sun is orbiting the center of our galaxy. If you want to get an idea of what this entails, imagine the Milky Way Galaxy, which is a medium-sized spiral galaxy, oriented in such a way that you can see it edge on (you can find such images of spiral galaxies with a simple search online). Seen edge on, our galaxy has a classic flying saucer shape: more or less a pancake with a bulge in the center. Now imagine a horizontal line drawn through the middle of the saucer so that it splits the galaxy evenly in half. This line is what you might call the galactic plane or equator. The sun follows this course in its orbit around the center of the galaxy, as do the other stars that comprise the Milky Way.

The sun does not follow this orbit in a perfectly straight line, however. Instead, it dips slightly above and below the galactic equator. This type of movement is what we call the sun’s “z-axis motion.” As a result of this motion, the bulk of the galaxy lies between our solar system and the center of the galaxy, thus shielding us from harmful radiation emitted by occasional supernova explosions and the energetic core of the galaxy, which lies about 26,000 light years away.

In his book Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home, Dr. Hugh Ross observes that our sun, unlike many other stars, does not wander very far either above or below the galactic equator, at least as compared with most other stars. This means that, in comparison with other star systems, our solar system enjoys ideal protection from radiation hazards.[4] He further notes that, at this moment, our solar system is located where that degree of protection is close to “maximal.”[5]

All of this is marvelous evidence of God’s provision for our little world, but it only makes sense within an old-earth paradigm. The fact that the sun does not wander far from the galactic equator only protects us in a long-term scenario because the wandering process takes millions of years. If the earth were only 6-10,000 years old, the sun could have a relatively wild z-axis motion and it wouldn’t matter to life on earth because we would not have been around long enough for the sun to carry the solar system into a zone where it would be at risk. The fact that the sun has just the right z-axis motion to protect the solar system over a period of tens of millions of years strongly indicates that those timescales are real.

Colliding Galaxies

When we look out into the universe, we find galaxies that are actively colliding with one another and others that appear to have collided at some point in the past. Many of these galaxies are misshapen, and we sometimes see trails of stars, gas, and dust linking them to one another. When we consider how far apart these galaxies are (those not currently interacting, that is) and how quickly they are moving with respect to one another, it’s immediately apparent that a great amount of time has passed—at the very least, hundreds of thousands of years. In this sense, colliding galaxies are a type of universal timepiece and strong evidence for an old universe.

An Interstellar Visitor

In October of 2017, astronomer Robert Weryk at the Haleakalā Observatory in Hawaii spotted an unusual object now known as ‘Oumuamua. While scientists have not been able to determine exactly what ‘Oumuamua is, the object’s speed and trajectory reveal that it originated in another solar system.[6] In fact, ‘Oumuamua is the first object astronomers have spotted that they’ve since confirmed to be from another solar system. This realization led the International Astronomical Union to create a new naming categorization: “I,” for “interstellar.” ‘Oumuamua is designated 1I—the first object of confirmed interstellar origin.

‘Oumuamua entered our solar system traveling approximately 58,000 miles per hour. By comparison, the fastest space probe ever launched—the New Horizons probe that imaged Pluto in 2016—is traveling at 52,000 miles per hour. At this speed, New Horizons took over nine years to reach Pluto, which was three billion miles from the sun at the time of their rendezvous. At this same speed, New Horizons would take approximately 54,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our sun, which lies 4.22 light years, or about 25 trillion miles, away. Scientists have already determined that ‘Oumuamua could not have traveled to our solar system from any of the closest twelve star systems,[7] meaning that, at minimum, the object has been traveling for hundreds of thousands of years.[8]

Here again we have an object that, given a young-earth paradigm, really should not exist, but is perfectly in line with modern cosmological observations, theories, and predictions. Young-earth creationists have speculated as to various ways distant starlight might have arrived on earth in a 6,000-year timeframe, but ‘Oumuamua is a physical object with a known velocity. There are no stars close enough to us to get it here within 6,000 years.

Unless one wants to argue that God created miscellaneous debris to drift between the stars for some reason, we really have no choice but to conclude that ‘Oumuamua really has been traveling the cosmic night for far longer than young-earth creationism allows.

Thousands…Not Billions?

In the early 2000s, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) commissioned a group of scientists known as the RATE team (RATE - Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) to re-evaluate radiometric dating results for various rock samples in an effort to produce hard evidence for its belief that the earth is only around 6,000 years old. The results of the RATE study were eventually published in a book entitled Thousands…Not Billions.

Oddly enough, and quite obviously contrary to ICR’s intent, Thousands...Not Billions helped to finally cement my conversion from young-earth to old-earth creationism. By the time I read the book, I was already convinced that the biblical text did not require a young-earth interpretation, but I was still hung up on a few questions. For that reason, when a representative from Answers in Genesis stopped by our church one Sunday in 2006, I picked this book up from his table and quickly got into it.

I don’t know that I have ever been more simultaneously disillusioned and enlightened than I was while reading this book. In short, Thousands…Not Billions is a capsule look at the young-earth community’s approach to science in general, and is worth showcasing here for that reason.

RATE collected and tested various rock samples from sites that had been dated previously using conventional radiometric dating methods, the validity of which young-earth organizations consistently and vociferously dispute. This seemed like a sound enough approach to me. After all, if conventional dating methods were reliable, they should hold up under repeated testing—and hold up they did. While the samples studied by RATE sometimes returned dates that were in fact different than those of previously published studies (even markedly different), I was impressed by the fact that they still consistently added up to many millions of years. The differences found were nowhere near the orders of magnitude necessary to bring the dates down to a young-earth timeframe. The RATE team had to admit that eons worth of radioactive decay actually appear to have taken place on the earth and in the local universe as well.

 

The history of radioactive decay is amply demonstrated by accumulated daughter decay products in close association with their parent isotopes in many earth materials. There are also vast numbers of defects caused by nuclear decay in crystalline rocks, including radiohalos and fission tracks. We assume that the earth was not created with an appearance of age at this microscopic level of detail…[9]

 

Radioisotope studies of lunar rocks and meteorites also yield ancient radioisotope ages.[10]

Faced with results confirming that long ages worth of radioactive decay was indeed indicated by study samples, the RATE team postulated that periods of accelerated nuclear decay must have taken place in the distant past:

 

If the earth’s age truly is only thousands of years instead of multi-billions, then nuclear decay was greatly increased, in some cases a billion-fold or more.[11]

 

In the conventional timescale, the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras alone span more than four hundred million years. The RATE research concludes that accelerated nuclear decay on this scale occurred during the single year of the Flood...[12]

This proposal—vastly accelerated nuclear decay, “in some cases a billion-fold or more”—is the only possible way in which the scientific data can be reconciled with young-earth theological interpretations outside of the classic “appearance of age” argument. In fact, given that extraterrestrial materials such as moon rocks also evidence great age, RATE suggests that “the concept of accelerated nuclear decay needs to be extended to include the solar system and space beyond. Indeed, half-life alteration appears to be a cosmic or universe-wide phenomenon.”[13]

The idea of accelerated nuclear decay may sound like an attractive solution at first, but it is fraught with difficulty, as the team itself admitted. For instance, the team observed that the heat released by accelerated nuclear decay on the level their speculation requires “could melt or even vaporize the earth.”[14] Yet, they also admitted that the samples they examined “have not experienced excessive heating.”[15] In other words, while there is abundant evidence that millions of years of nuclear decay have taken place in the earth (and on the moon and elsewhere as well), there is no corresponding evidence that this decay took place in the dramatically accelerated manner required to reconcile scientific findings with a young earth.

So, what happened to all of that heat—heat sufficient to “melt or even vaporize the earth”—and more than sufficient to kill every living thing on the Noah’s ark during the flood? The RATE team speculates that “cosmological or volume cooling, the rapid result of an expansion of space” may have occurred during times of accelerated nuclear decay in order to dissipate the heat.[16] As for the ark, they speculate that “The water barrier between the ark and the earth’s rock layers could have played a major role along with divine intervention” in safeguarding the ark’s cargo.[17]

Thus, the RATE team was forced to concede that the physical evidence (including the testing of materials recovered from bodies outside of the earth) is solidly on the side of an ancient universe, right down to the microscopic level. This must have been a difficult admission for them to make given the expectations associated with their project, their mistrust of mainstream scientific methods, and their confidence in the accuracy of their biblical interpretations. It must also have made them rather uncomfortable to so confidently assert that God must have accelerated nuclear decay rates in the past when they were unable to offer any suggestions as to why he might have done so. This issue is included with what they term “basic unanswered questions” on page 180 of the book.

Could God potentially do such a thing: produce accelerated nuclear decay while leaving no trace of it in the earth’s crust? Yes, of course; but, again, why would he do it? RATE has no answers for us here; yet they affirm that he must have done so because their interpretation of scripture leaves them with no choice but to conclude this. They have a theory to offer, but they can offer no reason for its necessity and no actual evidence of its occurrence. They do argue that they feel there is too much helium in zircons for the minerals to have existed for any more than 6,000 years +/- 2,000 years, given known, consistent nuclear decay rates, but I am not aware of even a single scientist outside of the young-earth camp who either concurs with their methodology and findings in this matter or even considers the issue doubtful.[18]

Furthermore, consider the plausibility of RATE’s take on accelerated nuclear decay during the flood. They argue that the waters of the flood and the earth’s own rock formations could have protected Noah and his family, but if the heat released by exponentially accelerated nuclear decay has the potential to melt or vaporize the planet itself, how was a relatively thin layer of water supposed to offer any real protection?

Additionally, if God’s intent in sending the flood was simply to kill everything living on the surface of the earth with water, why would he need to accelerate nuclear decay rates in the first place? The end result was merely to make the earth appear older than it is—for no evident reason, and with no trace of its occurrence; and why would he also accelerate nuclear decay rates on bodies beyond the earth, where there was no flood?

As I finished reading Thousands…Not Billions, I could find no reason why God would have accelerated nuclear decay rates except to deliberately make the universe look older than it is, right down to the microscopic level, as the RATE team itself observed. There was no halfway compelling reason to accept the RATE team’s theories that didn’t boil down to maintaining a particular interpretation of scripture, which I had already realized wasn’t necessary. I closed the book thinking that these well-meaning young-earthers had not only failed to produce evidence in their favor but had actually ended up lending more credibility to the old-earth position.

Conclusion

While I have only just scratched the surface of the scientific aspect of the creation controversy in this chapter, the evidences offered here are strongly compelling indicators that we live in a truly old universe. The physics of the universe, observed conditions within it, and scientifically-tested dating methodologies all correspond exactly as they should. The only alternative is to believe that God has somehow deliberately engineered the universe with an appearance of age at every level, and in some cases (such as with the sun’s z-axis motion and colliding galaxies) did so long before mankind had developed the technology to investigate such matters. This is rather like a father writing a contradictory poem on the day his child is born, and leaving it in a place where the child will find it decades later only to be utterly bewildered and misled by it. What would a rational mind gain from mounting such a production? The young-earth approach to science is inherently tied to the perceived need to defend a particular interpretation of scripture. Young-earth teachers routinely decry “man’s flawed methods,” but they selectively confine such flaws to the realm of science and to theological opinions that differ from their own. Quixotically, the scientists they criticize as being apostles of deception have produced the most compelling evidences available to support the biblical claim that we live in a universe that had a definite beginning and is uniquely fine-tuned to support life forms just like us.

 

Next in this series: Conclusion 


[1] For a lay-friendly secular source on cosmic fine-tuning, see: Ethan Siegel, “The Universe Really Is Fine-Tuned, And Our Existence Is the Proof,” Forbes, December 19, 2019.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/19/the-universe-really-is-fine-tuned-and-our-existence-is-the-proof/

For a Christian perspective, see: Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016). This book by Dr. Ross is probably the best creation resource I have ever found, as it explains in great detail the pain-staking process through which our planet was made suitable for life, using mainstream scientific resources.

[2] https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/discovery/exoplanet-catalog/

[3] See chapter six for a thorough discussion of the effects of the Fall of Man.

[4] Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet, pp. 40-41.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Elizabeth Landau, “What We Know—And Don’t Know—About ‘Oumuamua,” NASA.gov., June 27, 2018.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/473/what-we-knowand-dont-knowabout-oumuamua/

[7] Eric Mamajek, “Kinematics of the Interstellar Vagabond 1I/’Oumuamua (A/2017 U1),” Cornell University, Last revised November 20, 2017.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.11364

[8] The twelfth-closest star to our sun (counting Proxima, Alpha, and Beta Centauri as one system, and including brown dwarf Luhman 16) is Ross 128, a red dwarf star located a little over 11 light years from earth.

[9] Don DeYoung, Thousands…Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution. Questioning the Age of the Earth (Portland, OR: Master Books, 2005), p. 175. Fission tracks are a type of damage left in materials by the nuclear decay process.

[10] Ibid, p. 180.

[11] Ibid, pp. 142-143.

[12] Ibid, p. 151.

[13] Ibid, p. 180.

[14] Ibid. p. 151.

[15] Ibid. p. 180.

[16] Ibid. p. 180.

[17] Ibid. p. 151.

[18] For a lay-friendly look at the problems with RATE’s conclusions about helium in zircons, see Dr. Gary Loechelt, “Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument,” Reasons.org (in two parts).

 

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/tnrtb/read/tnrtb/2008/09/09/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-flaws-in-a-young-earth-argument-part-1-of-2

 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 28, 2020

The Creation Controversy, Part Eleven: The Other Realm and the Other Fall



Also in this series:


Introduction
Part One: Biblical Authority
Part Two: Authority from Tradition – the Jewish Sages and the Early Church Fathers
Part Three: The Weight of Traditional Views
Part Four: Man’s Fallible Opinions
Part Five: Clues in the Text
Part Six: More Clues in the Text
Part Seven: What are the Days of Genesis?
Part Eight: Misconceptions of Paradise
Part Nine: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, I
Part Ten: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, II





“For now we see in a mirror dimly…” – 1 Corinthians 13:12

As I’ve discussed in previous chapters, debate over how the Fall of Man affected the physical universe has had the unfortunate consequence of blinding many believers to the greater purposes of God in creation. The young-earth interpretation has produced a narrow, overly simplistic, man-centered theology in which God ordains a particular plan for creation, man messes it up, and then God has to go about cleaning up the resultant mess. By that model, the creation goes from Perfection to Ruin to Restoration.

By contrast, in the old-earth interpretation, creation is a place of testing and refinement, where perfection is not the beginning state but rather the end result. Creation begins with Sufficiency and then progresses through Refinement to Perfection. This is not a result of some inadequacy on God’s part, whereby he requires time to achieve perfection, but rather reflects how he has chosen to deal with the creatures he created with intelligence, free will, and a moral capacity.

As it happens, however, apart from Gap Theory proponents, most old-earth creationists have also limited the bulk of their thinking and apologetics to man, all the while overlooking another class of created moral beings: that is, the angels.[1] The purpose of this chapter will be to examine what the Bible reveals about angels and how they fit into the created order.

God’s Elder Children

On the whole, the Bible tells us relatively little about angels. The following are some of the more important things that it does tell us concerning them:

 

  1. They existed before the creation of the earth (Job 38:7), and in all likelihood, before the creation of the universe itself (see Ephesians 3:8-11, John 17:5). John 17:5 is particularly important here given Jesus’ statement that he wished to return to the “glory” that he shared with the Father “before the world [kosmos] was.” The word “glory” is translated from the Greek word doxa, which in the New Testament always refers to something held in a position of honor. For the Son to be held in a position of honor with the Father “before the kosmos was” implies that others were present from whom the Son was differentiated and before whom he was exalted.
  2. They are intelligent beings with will and a moral capacity. The Bible records several instances of angels talking with humans, conveying messages, and engaging in activities such as warfare. Some angels are holy and serve God, while others have fallen and are now under the sentence of condemnation, meaning that they have free will and are held responsible by God for their actions (for example: Psalm 82, Job 4:18, Luke 1:8-20, Jude 1:6-9, Revelation 12:7-12; 9:13-15).
  3. They were created to serve God in both heaven and on earth, and they are divided into ranks with varying areas of responsibility and degrees of power and authority (Daniel 10:10-13; Ephesians 6:12, Revelation 12:7-12). They bring regular reports to God of their doings (Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2; Matthew 18:10) and are at times employed to carry out judgment on humankind (Genesis 3:24, 19:1-22; II Samuel 24:15-17; Psalm 78:48-49; Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).
  4. They are not all-powerful, nor are they of one mind, nor do they possess perfect wisdom. In Daniel 9, the angel Gabriel tells Daniel that he was held at bay for twenty-one days by a supernatural being called the Prince of Persia, and required assistance from the archangel Michael in order to break through, indicating that some angels are more powerful than others. In I Kings 22, the Lord puts the question of how to kill Ahab to his heavenly host, “and one said this, while another said that” (v 20), indicating that angels think as individuals rather than as members of some kind of supernatural hive mind. The imperfect wisdom of angels is seen in Matthew 13, where Jesus gives his Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. In this parable, a farmer (who represents the Lord) rejects a suggestion by the reapers (who symbolize angels) to root up tares from his field, on the basis that they might accidentally damage the wheat as well.
  5. They watch over human nations to some extent and engage in warfare over the affairs of mankind (Daniel 10:12-13, 20-21). Gabriel specifically mentions that Michael (one of the “chief princes”) “stands” or contends for the people of Israel (Daniel 10:21, 12:1). Following the Tower of Babel incident, God apparently gave the rebellious nations over to the rule of various angelic powers (see Psalm 82, along with the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9)[2], while setting aside the Hebrews for himself. We seem to find a glimpse of this in Daniel 4, where Nebuchadnezzar describes a dream in which “an angelic watcher, a holy one,” descends from heaven and decrees judgment against Nebuchadnezzar, stating, “This sentence is by decree of the angelic watchers, and the decision is a command of the holy ones” (Daniel 4:13-17).[3] Finally, although it isn’t mentioned in Exodus, Paul and the writer of Hebrews tell us that angels actually facilitated the giving of the Law to Israel at Sinai (Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2).
  6. They engage in the worship of God, and appear to act in a priestly role to at least some degree (Isaiah 6:1-7, Revelation 8:3-4).
  7. At least some angels are part of what has been referred to as “the divine council,” an angelic body that sits as a type of court, sometimes assisting God with decision making (I Kings 22:19-23, Psalm 82:1 (LXX), Daniel 7:9-10, 21-22). It’s my opinion that the twenty-four elders of Revelation are in fact the divine council, the same heavenly court for which thrones are set up around the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.[4] [5]

As these scriptures demonstrate, angels do not simply stand around in heaven looking spiritual. They are actively involved in the plan and purposes of God in the creation. They are also keenly interested in the affairs of mankind. In fact, the New Testament tells us that God is demonstrating certain things to the angels via his dealings with the church, and that the ministry of Christ had effects that resonated in the spiritual world as well as in the physical:

 

For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the whole world, both to angles and to men. – 1 Corinthians 4:9

 

To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Ephesians 3:8-11

 

For by Him [Jesus Christ], all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him…When He [God] had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him [Christ]. – Colossians 1:16, 2:15

 

It was revealed to them [the Old Testament prophets] that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look. – I Peter 1:2

 

The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. – 1 John 3:8

Indeed, the apostle Paul tells us that, in spite of how things may seem to us on the physical level, the warfare in which we are engaged is primarily “against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). Thus, it is plain from scripture that the human side of the story is only part of the whole picture of creation. The angelic realm is playing a major role in the eternal drama as well. Angels were on the scene before man, and given what little we know of the role they play now, we can only wonder what role they might have played in ages past. God’s purposes include them as well. In fact, given that God is testing and refining man through his experiences in this world, it seems at least plausible that the angels may be experiencing a similar work of God in their own affairs.

This seems all the more likely when you consider that the Bible implies that there has been more than one fall amongst the angels. Both Peter and Jude tell us of angels who sinned and were cast down and are now imprisoned, whereas we know that other fallen angels (such as Daniel’s princes of Greece and Persia) are freely roaming about. So while all fallen angels have sinned, it seems evident that they did not all sin in the same manner or at the same time.[6]

Consequently, it is not just the foreknowledge of God with regard to man and his fall that we must contend with in the creation controversy. There is also the question of the angels and the divine foreknowledge of their fall(s) as well. For this reason alone, we do well to take a humble approach to what God meant when he ordered his creation and called it “very good.” Man is not the only force in play here, nor was he first on the scene. We do not share God’s mind, nor do we understand the entirety of his purposes, nor do we have access to the spirit world to see what is happening there now or what may have transpired in ages past. On the whole, I believe we know far less than we would like to think we do. The angelic realm represents a critical gap in our understanding of creation and of the causes and effects that preceded man.

In fact, it’s entirely possible that physical reality somehow mirrors certain conditions in the spiritual realm. The Bible reveals that this was true with the respect to the Old Testament Tabernacle. At Sinai, God gave Moses a pattern to follow for the Tabernacle and its furnishings:

 

Let them [the sons of Israel] construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them. According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it…See that you make them after the pattern for them, which was shown to you on the mountain… – Exodus 25:9, 40

 

Now this was the workmanship of the lampstand, hammered work of gold; from its base to its flowers it was hammered work; according to the pattern which the Lord had shown Moses, so he made the lampstand. – Numbers 8:4

The author of Hebrews tells us that this pattern was based on objects in heaven:

 

Now if He [Christ] were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” – Hebrews 8:4-5

Lastly, the apostle John speaks of a temple that exists in heaven:

 

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm. – Revelation 11:19

 

After these things I looked, and the temple of the tabernacle of testimony in heaven was opened… – Revelation 15:5

The Bible does not tell us how the heavenly temple functions; we know only that it exists and that the Tabernacle of the Jews was based upon it. However, we might well suppose that other aspects of the earth and creation as a whole may reflect realities in the spiritual realm. Only on the other side of “this present age” are we likely to understand the whole truth of the matter.

Servants in the Creation?

Given that we know that angels serve God in many different ways in the present time, and given the clear biblical indications that he takes council with them in aspects of decision making, it seems at least plausible that angels may have played a role in planning creation. They may also have played an active role in bringing it about and managing it before man came on the scene. If this is so, it would help to explain why the work of creation went on for so long. As we’ve already seen, angels are not all-powerful nor are they perfect in their wisdom and understanding. It is reasonable to think that they have gone through a learning process of their own over time. It is evident that they know more about the purposes of God than we do, since they are able to view events in both their realm and ours, but some things are hidden even from them (I Corinthians 2:7-8, I Peter 1:12).

Consider for a moment here that God has been using flawed human beings to build up the body of Christ for the last two thousand years—and we do not have the advantage of immortality, such as the angels enjoy. If he has allowed so much time to pass in order for men to carry out limited aspects of his will here on this one planet, how much time might have been required for the angelic host to manage the entire universe through its various stages of development? In thinking on this, I’m reminded that, when Satan appears before God in Job 1 and 2, God asks him, “From where have you come?” Satan responds that he has come from the earth. This would seem to necessitate that there are other places from which he might have come. In considering this, we should bear in mind that we know very little of the universe beyond our own earth, and almost nothing of the spiritual realm. Creation may be far more complex than we realize.

Now, I imagine it will be immediately objected here by some that the text of Genesis clearly tells us “God created,” “And God said…and it was so,” etc. No other agencies are said to be involved in the creation process beyond, of course, the pre-incarnate Word (see John 1:1). In response, I point out the following:

First, I am not being dogmatic on this issue. I am merely suggesting what seems to be a plausible scenario, given what we know of angels and their activities. God does act directly in his creation at times, but scripture demonstrates clearly and repeatedly that he also uses the angels to carry out his will. In the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, Jesus himself likened the angelic host to the slaves of a landowner who employs them in his field to help with his crops (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). While explaining the parable to his disciples, Jesus said that the angels will be sent forth at the end of the age to remove “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” and cast them into Gehenna. God is capable of doing all of this by himself, but Jesus said that he will use the angels to do it.

On another front, when Jesus was taken by soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, what did he tell his disciples would happen if he prayed to the Father for help? He said that the Father would put twelve legions of angels at his disposal (Matthew 26:53). Thus, he did not portray the Father as intervening directly, but as dispatching the heavenly host to do what was necessary.[7]

Second, as was demonstrated previously, Exodus makes no mention whatsoever of angels with regard to the giving of the Law at Sinai. Going strictly by the text there, it would seem that God himself literally handed over the tablets to Moses. Yet, as we have already seen, two passages in the New Testament tell us that angels acted as facilitators in the process. In light of this, we might wonder whether angels were involved in other notable events in the Bible, even where they are not actually mentioned. They are capable of performing what we call miracles to at least a limited degree, as evidenced by the angels who struck the men of Sodom with blindness (Genesis 19:11) and the satanic powers that worked through the magicians of Egypt in their opposition to Moses (Exodus 7:8-8:7). Bearing this in mind, it’s possible that, acting at God’s direction, they were responsible for at least some of the miracles and other divine acts mentioned in scripture.

Going back to Sodom for a moment, observe what one of the two angels who escorted Lot and his family from the city says in Genesis 19:22: “Hurry, escape there [to Zoar], for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” Verse 24 says that “the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,” but in verse 22 it seems that the angel is talking about taking some type of action himself. Indeed, the angel granted Lot’s request to spare the city of Zoar so that Lot and his family could flee to it (verse 21). The full extent of the angel’s involvement here is unclear. Did he merely ‘give the signal’ for the judgment to be poured out once Lot and his family were clear, or did he do more than that, acting in the Lord’s stead? Which brings me to the next point…

Third, throughout scripture, various kinds of acts are attributed to the people who instigated or supervised them, although others actually did what we would call “the grunt work.” For some prominent examples of this, see I Kings chapters 3, 6, and 7, where we’re told that Solomon spent seven years building the house of the Lord, thirteen years building his own house, and that he built a wall around Jerusalem. No one seriously believes that Solomon got up every morning, strapped on his tool belt, and went off to build these things by himself. It would actually be misleading to read the text so literally in these instances. No, we understand that the text attributes these projects to Solomon because he initiated and oversaw them. This is still a common practice today. For instance, Americans often say, “The founding fathers built this country,” because a group of prominent individuals led the effort that resulted in the United States of America; but those individuals did not do all of the work by themselves, or even most of it. They had a great deal of help from many people whose names have long been forgotten.

In light of these things, I suggest it is possible—and I stress possible—that angels may have played a role in planning the creation with God and executing some of the commandments found in Genesis chapter one. In fact, the text of Genesis itself may hint at this.

The statement recorded in Genesis 1:24, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind,” seems a bit odd in the way it’s phrased. It doesn’t read like a direct command to the earth—for instance, “And God said to the earth, ‘Bring forth living creatures after their kind…’.” It seems uncertain exactly how this act of creation was carried out. To whom or what was the command given? And then there is also the fact that Moses comments afterward, “And God saw that it was good,” suggesting that God had to review the outcome of his creative act. But if God acted alone in creation, why was it necessary for him to see whether the outcome of his action was good or not? How could it be anything but good?

And why would God specify that animals must reproduce “after their kind”? This could simply be a matter of God ‘thinking out loud,’ as it were, for the benefit of the reader, or it could be a specification for those whose job it would be to look after his creations, indicating that kinds were to be preserved and not mixed with one another. The latter would make sense, if, as I have suggested, Genesis 1 is depicting God in the role of a landowner organizing his property, and particularly if the landowner in question is using servants to help him do so. Naturally, he would specify how the work was to be done and would follow up on it to see if it were satisfactory.

Let me be clear: I do not suggest here that angels actually created life. The Bible seems to indicate that this is something only God can do, given the inability of the Egyptian magicians to bring up gnats (or lice) from the dust of the earth (Exodus 8:18-19). Indeed, the Bible repeatedly refers to life as the “breath” or “spirit” of God, going forth and returning to him at his will, with the result that organisms either live or die. But angels may very well be able to alter existing forms of life. Even we humans can do this. We’ve been cross-breeding animals in order to promote and eliminate certain traits for thousands of years now, and the strides we’ve made in genetic engineering of late demonstrate that far more radical alterations of life are within our grasp. Angels, who are “greater in might and power” (II Peter 2:11), could surely do even better. In Daniel 4, when the “angelic watcher” descends from heaven and proclaims the judgment decided upon Nebuchadnezzar “by the decree of the angelic watchers,” the angel states: “Let his mind be changed from that of a man, and let a beast’s mind be given to him” (Daniel 4:16). Clearly, angels had the power in this instance to cause a man to think and act like an animal. This may be only a sampling of what they can do with living things.

The Creative Progression

It’s evident from Genesis that God used a process in creation. What is not so evident is why he did this. The Almighty didn’t need six days, six hours, six minutes, or even six seconds to create the universe, the earth, and life. Had he wished to, he might have established everything in finished form instantaneously, just as some of the ancient Jewish and Christian writers believed that he actually did. Genesis 1 and Job 38 make it clear that he used a progressive approach, however. He created everything in stages; and as I discussed at length in chapter five, that progressive approach makes little sense with a literal, calendar-day interpretation. Why would God create certain conditions, and then reverse those conditions almost immediately? Why create the earth, wrap it in darkness, and then dispel the darkness in only about twelve hours? Why flood the earth and then disperse the flood waters almost immediately?

The creative process makes more sense to me if God, after establishing certain initial conditions, instructed his servants to modify those conditions over time. Each stage of the creative process reached completion when God stepped in, reviewed the progress that had been made, and pronounced it satisfactory—just as any ancient landowner or modern corporate boss would check up on the work done by his employees. Again, I’m not being dogmatic in asserting these things. I am simply laying out a case that seems biblically consistent and removes the textual oddities I’ve pointed to previously.

The First Fall

Scripture reveals that the Fall of Man was not the first time that God’s intelligent, moral creations turned against him. The angels were God’s first children, as it were, and they were also the first rebels. Exactly when and how this angelic rebellion happened, we don’t know, but scripture gives us some clues about it that may be helpful in our understanding of creation issues as well.

Isaiah 14:1-23 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 have long been thought of as describing the fall of Satan.[8] This is a disputed matter in evangelical scholarship, however, with some maintaining that these passages merely speak of human rulers in symbolic terms. I cannot get into the details of that controversy here, as it goes too far afield of my focus on creation. For the purposes of this discussion, I will simply say that I believe that Isaiah 14:1-23 is primarily about the human king of Babylon but also speaks somewhat to the satanic power behind him, whereas Ezekiel 28:11-19 is purely about the devil himself. For this reason, I will focus more on Ezekiel 28:

 

You had the seal of perfection

Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty,

You were in Eden, the Garden of God;

Every precious stone was your covering…

 

You were the anointed cherub who covers,

And I placed you there.

You were on the holy mountain of God;

You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. – Ezekiel 28:12-13, 14

Satan is described here as being present in the garden as a royal figure, full of beauty and authority. He was the “anointed” (chosen) cherub who “covered” in the mountain of God.[9] The translation given here from the NASB is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, from which most modern English Bibles derive their Old Testaments. The Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 28:14 reads a bit differently: “From the day that thou wast created thou was with the cherub,” suggesting that Satan may not have been the anointed (or guardian) cherub himself, but rather, was a companion of that being. In the Masoretic Text, Ezekiel 28 goes on to say: “Therefore I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God, and I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire” (v 16). By contrast, the Septuagint reads: “Therefore, thou hast been cast down wounded from the mount of God, and the cherub has brought thee out of the midst of the stones of fire.” Thus, in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, Ezekiel seems to present Satan as the guardian spirit of Eden, whereas the Septuagint makes him a companion of that spirit instead.[10]

As to the “mountain of God,” this is a phrase that appears a number of times in scripture, and is identified with several known mountains, including Sinai, Horeb, and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Exodus 3:1, 24:13; I Kings 19:8; Isaiah 2:3). The plural form “mountains of God” is also used in scripture (Psalm 36:6). Taken together, these are references to places that are set aside for the worship of God, or where his presence is located or else represented.

Thus, Eden is portrayed as both a garden and a mountain in scripture. The garden description seems quite literal, whereas the mountain aspect may be more figurative. As mentioned previously, the Garden of Eden’s location is disputed. Some feel it may have been located in what is now southern Turkey, at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.[11] If so, then the “mountain” reference may in fact have a literal application, as that particular region is mountainous. This is not to say that the garden was located on the top of some high mountain, however, like a type of Olympus. It may simply be that it was located at a higher elevation than the surrounding land. If this is true, lingering cultural memories of the Garden of Eden may explain why so many pagan religions depict the gods living in high places. Whether this is literally so or not, however, the garden was still the “mountain of God” in that it was the place of his presence on the earth.

Thus, Satan was placed in Eden by God, either as the guardian/overseer of the place of divine worship on the earth, or as a companion to that being; but he ultimately sought to turn the worship of God into the exaltation of himself.

 

But you said in your heart,

“I will ascend to heaven,

I will raise my throne above the stars of God,

And I will sit in the mount of assembly

In the recesses of the north.

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.” – Isaiah 14:13-14

Note the “mount of assembly” here, as well as the reference to ascending “above the heights of the clouds.” This high place imagery is reminiscent of the “mountain of God” mentioned in Ezekiel 28, and is also consistent with what the New Testament says concerning how Satan will work through the end-time Beast:

 

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. – II Thessalonians 2:3-4

 

And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority…and the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; they worshipped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?” – Revelation 13:2-4

Okay…So, When?

So, if Satan ruled in Eden, when did he do so, and when was he finally “cast as profane from the mountain of God”?

As I mentioned in chapter five, the statement in Genesis 2:8 that God “planted” a garden in Eden is in the Qal Imperfect tense, meaning that it could be translated “had planted.” Since plant life was created on Day Three, I think it likely that this is when the garden was actually planted, even though it is not mentioned until the events of Day Six. For this reason, Satan’s rule in the garden could have been anywhere from Day Three up until Day Six.

At this point, things get a bit murkier. There are those who feel that Satan fell through his temptation of Eve in the garden, but there are problems with that idea. First, when God created man he specifically said that man would be given dominion over the earth and its creatures, and he directly commissioned Adam to be caretaker of the garden. For this reason, it does not seem that angels were present in the garden at that time, at least in any kind of authoritative or protective capacity. Indeed, after Adam and Eve fell, Genesis 3:24 tells us that God stationed cherubim in the garden “to guard the way of the tree of life,” which seems to imply that they were not present beforehand.

A second issue that arises with the idea that the devil fell in the garden is the fact that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 do not appear to parallel the Genesis 3 narrative. They do not describe Satan as trying to lead man astray. Rather, they describe him as trying to elevate his throne “above the stars of God”—stars being a biblical metaphor for angels (see Job 38:7).[12] For this reason, it seems that Satan’s fall came when he attempted to elevate himself to rulership over the angelic host in the place of God. This does not fit well with Genesis 3, leading me to believe that the fall Isaiah and Ezekiel describe took place before the Fall of Man.

But if this is so, then what about Ezekiel 28:17, which reads:

 

“Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;

You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.

I cast you to the ground.

I put you before kings,

That they may see you.”

This seems like a natural counterpart to the curse on the nachash (“serpent”) of Genesis 3:14:

 

“Because you have done this,

Cursed are you more than all cattle,

And more than every beast of the field;

On your belly you will go,

And dust you will eat

All the days of your life.”

But note the following in verse 18:

 

By the multitude of your iniquities,

In the unrighteousness of your trade

You profaned your sanctuaries.

The Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 28:17-18 reads:

 

Thy heart has been lifted up because of thy beauty; thy knowledge has been corrupted with thy beauty: because of the multitude of thy sins, I have cast thee to the ground, I have caused thee to be put to open shame before kings. Because of the multitude of thy sins and the iniquities of thy merchandise, I have profaned thy sacred things…

The key phrases I focus on here are “multitude of your iniquities” and “multitude of thy sins.” The Hebrew word translated “multitude” here (rob) can reference a number, as in a great number of people, or a thing of great significance, as in “a great battle.” In light of this, the text seems to be telling us here that Satan is either guilty of numerous transgressions or of a particularly significant transgression. Most Bibles translate rob in this passage as either “multitude” or “abundance.” Again, the issue seems a bit vague. It could be that God viewed Satan’s temptation of Eve in the garden as particularly egregious, or else that it was the last straw in a series of events, whereupon God pronounced final judgment and made an example of him.

Either way, the one who longed to rise to the heights of glory was cursed to sink to the lowest depths, even beneath the beasts of the earth. It may be that Satan had previously lost his position of rulership in the garden due to his ambitions, and later tried to reassert himself after God handed the earth over to new management. Really, either interpretation seems plausible.

While I would like to offer something more concrete here, the biblical text seems prohibitively vague. As already stated, I believe that Satan’s fall occurred sometime between Days Three and Six of the creation timeline, but it may have been a slow decline rather than one momentous event. Indeed, a slow decline seems more likely, as Satan would not have acted without first gathering support. In the process, a degree of deviance and contention would have arisen within the angelic ranks. How this might have affected the creation is difficult to say, but if angels were managing the earth and its creatures, the influence of their decline may have been reflected in the earth as well. Either way, I imagine Satan’s fall occurred between Days 5 and 6 of the creation week, but that is speculation on my part and not worth delving into here in any detail.

Conclusion

This foray into the spiritual realm may have generated more questions than answers, but I hope that, at the very least, it has served to deepen the reader’s appreciation for the complexity of the creation issue. We actually know very little about what goes on behind the scenes of our world, and even less about what may have gone on there in the past.

Throughout the ages, angels have been the intimate servants of the Most High, carrying out his will and acting in his stead amongst the things and creatures that he has made. We may not know the extent of their involvement, but we cannot afford to ignore the veil simply because we cannot see everything behind it. There is no exegetical reason why angels could not have played a role in creation. In fact, there is much to suggest that they could have. They may have been the superintendents of the earth for ages before man came on the scene, helping to create the just-right conditions the human race required in order to flourish. Let us therefore be humble in our assessment of ourselves; for although we are favored, we are not the sole recipients of our Lord’s attentions. We are not the first children he has raised.

 

Next in this Series: Tracing the Advent of Man, I

[1] Angel – From the Greek angelos, meaning ‘messenger.’ The reader should understand that I use the term generically here to refer to the heavenly host—celestial beings, those who dwell in heaven. There are at least three types of heavenly being: cherubim, seraphim, and the messenger class. Strictly speaking, cherubim and seraphim are not “angels” because we have no record of them serving in the capacity of messengers. Referring to them as “angelic beings” is more a matter of linguistic convenience than exegetical accuracy. Most of what I say about angels in this chapter applies to the messenger class.

[2] “When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of His inheritance.” The Translation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures, Including the Apocrypha. Compiled by Sr. Lancelot C. L. Brenton, 1851.

[3] The word angelic is added by the translators in these instances in order to clarify what is meant by the term watcher.

[4] For a detailed explanation, see the following article by the author: “The Rapture and the Church in Revelation, Part Three: Who are the Twenty-Four Elders?” at:

https://takeupyourcross73.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-rapture-and-church-in-book-of.html

[5] Dr. Michael Heiser is probably the foremost expositor of the divine council worldview amongst evangelicals. For more information on the subject, see the following introductory presentation by Heiser: “The Divine Council 101”: https://youtu.be/CGU9v7Ik20g, and/or his book The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible.

[6] If you believe that the “sons of God” who sired the Nephilim with the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6 were angels, then scripture appears to describe three different angelic falls: Genesis 6, Psalm 82, and Isaiah 14/Ezekiel 28.

[7] God’s habit of using his servants to do his will and manage his affairs rather than intervening himself is probably why the devil and his fellow fallen angels initially rebelled. Certainly, they would have understood that they could not defeat God himself; these entities are evil but they are far from stupid. No, it seems more likely that they imagined they could defeat opposing angelic forces—either outright or else by persuading more to join them in the uprising—and thereby gain control of creation.

 

[8] I am aware that the term “Satan” merely means “opposer” or “adversary,” and may not necessarily refer to the entity the New Testament calls “the devil” and “the ruler of this age.” The supernatural entities referenced here may be fallen divine council members that had power over the nations and kings mentioned in these passages. That said, the similarities in these passages make it appear that they are talking about one being in particular, most likely the devil himself.

[9] The word “anointed” used here is translated from the Hebrew word mimshach, which appears only once in the Old Testament and has the sense of “expansion.” Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon relates the function of the word with the cherubim covering the Ark of the Covenant with their wings in Exodus 25:20. The word “cover” is translated from the Hebrew word cakak. It refers to something that is placed either with or over another thing in order to shade it, contain it, shelter it, defend it, or mesh it together. Examples of its use in scripture include the reference to cherubim that were carved to cover the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:20 again), the barrier the Lord set upon the sea in order to hold it back from the land (Job 38:8), and how God protects those who trust in him by covering them “with his feathers” (Psalm 91:4). The picture Ezekiel paints here is of a cherub protecting the garden with its outstretched wings.

 

[10] The Septuagint is vague here. It may be saying that Satan was cast out by the guardian cherub of Eden or along with him.

[11] At present, I think this is the most likely location. Genesis 2 tells us that a river flowed through Eden to water the garden, and from that point divided into four rivers. Thus, we have one river going into the garden and dividing into four rivers sometime after leaving it. This necessitates that the four rivers (including the Tigris and Euphrates) flowed away from the garden. Models that place the garden in the Persian Gulf, where the Tigris and Euphrates meet, reverse the biblical description by having four rivers meet and flow into the garden. The southern Turkey location seems more consistent with the geography of the region as described in Genesis. Further, the archaeological find at Gobekli Tepe, which is currently the oldest temple complex ever discovered, may support civilization beginning in this region roughly 11,500 years ago. By contrast, nothing in the proposed Persian Gulf location remotely approaches this date. For more information, see:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/afot-ggc051220.php.

[12] It was also commonly believed in the ancient world that stars were divine beings.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)