A Closer Look at Genesis 1

Two groups of people insist that Genesis and modern science are incompatible: Secularists and Young Earth Creationists. Both camps have damaged the credibility of the Jewish creation story. But today I would like to suggest to you that there’s a 3rd way. A modern literal interpretation of Genesis 1 matches modern cosmology, geology and the fossil record… exactly. As we read this chapter together, I would like to make three simple assumptions:

1) The events are described as they appear from the surface of the earth beginning with verse 2.

2) We’re going to assume “day” is a period of time, not 24 hours. The Hebrew word for day (“yom”) has a variety of meanings in Genesis. A “day” can be a million or even a billion years.

3) Living creatures in verse 24 are “livestock” – not all land animals, but advanced mammals.

Genesis Science
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The text literally means “At the beginning of time God (who already existed) created everything out of nothing.” Today we understand that the Big Bang was the beginning of matter, energy, space and even time itself, all expanding from a single point in a very precise manner. The Big Bang theory was resisted for decades in part because of its resemblance to Genesis 1 and its metaphysical implications.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. This verse establishes the physical vantage point that is used from here forward. 4 billion years ago, following the “Hadean” period, the earth was a hostile, stormy, turbulent, water-covered ball. The Hebrew word for “hovering” is also used elsewhere in Genesis to describe an eagle protecting her young in the nest. Science tells us that the earliest life forms began in the ocean ~3.5 billion years ago and I believe this verse hints at this.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4  God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. The atmosphere changes from dark to opaque. Light can now shine through earth’s thick clouds. Now there is day and night on the surface of the earth. The phrase “There was evening and there was morning” is an ancient Jewish expression of completion.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. The water cycle begins. Clouds condense and form the ocean. Water evaporates from the ocean and forms clouds.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. The continents (“Pangea”) rise above the surface of the ocean, forming land and sea.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. Plants appear before animals. Notice that the wording in the Bible says the land produced vegetation. It does not rule out an evolutionary process.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17  God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day. Up to this point the atmosphere has been thick and opaque. It is not possible to see the sun and moon as distinct objects in the sky. The atmosphere clears. Now sun and moon are visible. When it says “God made two great lights, the Hebrew word for “made” is a different word than “create.” Create means from scratch, made means “made evident.” The moon and stars were already casting their light on day 1 (see verse 3), but were not visible as distinct objects until day 4. Notice that 24 hour days are not even mentioned before day 4.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21  So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23  And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day. Day 5 spans from 500 million years ago (after the Cambrian explosion) to 50 million years ago. The earth is dominated by birds and fish. Insects and dinosaurs are also present on the earth during this time but are not mentioned in Genesis 1.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25  God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Day 6 is the busiest day (50 million years ago to less than 100,000 years ago). The earth is dominated by large mammals. Jewish people would have thought in terms of livestock.
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” God refers to Himself as “our” – God is plural. The first reference to the Trinity.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Man is a spiritual being, the first creature made in God’s image. Unlike the animals, man is both body and spirit.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Man is given responsibility to take care of the earth.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.  
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day. The text says all was very good. It doesn’t say it was paradise or perfection.
Chapter 2 verse 1: Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. God ceases from his creative work on the 7th day. There is no statement “And there was evening and there was morning, a 7th day.” We are living in the 7th day now.


If we had to make obtuse, complex assumptions in order to make this fit, we would have a serious problem. But our assumptions are simple, even elegant. This poetic 3500 year old text matches modern science exactly.

As little as 100 years ago, the prevailing scientific view disagreed with Genesis 1 (the “steady state” theory of the universe was in vogue). Genesis produced a testable hypothesis. Since then, astronomy, geology and biology have shown Genesis was right and the science of the time was wrong.

No other ancient text, scripture or religious tradition has a creation story that even comes close to Genesis in its accuracy. The Jewish scriptures compete admirably in the marketplace of ideas in the 21st century.

How did a bunch of nomads roaming around in the desert in 1500 BC get this sequence of events exactly right? I submit to you it’s because God told his prophets what He did.

Elsewhere on this site I make an bold case that living things have a Designer. I argue that evolution is not random or accidental, but an engineered process. But it’s the remarkable accuracy of Genesis that persuades me to be a Christian and not an agnostic or deist.

Augustine said, “God wrote two books: The Bible and the book of Nature.” It’s important to acknowledge that modern science also informs our interpretation of Genesis. Each tells us about the other.

In an upcoming post I’ll look into Genesis 2 and the origin of man and woman.

I invite you to listen to Hugh Ross’s lecture “New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God” where he explores the history of Big Bang science and its relation to Genesis in much greater detail.

Perry Marshall

265 Responses

  1. mikitta says:

    Very nice presentation, Perry 🙂 !

    I’ve been spending some reading time at Glen R. Morton’s site the last day or two and he has some articles along this line (Genesis 1 proclamations with commentary – God proclaims/commentator expounds), amongst his other very compelling work there. He’s a little rough on the work Dr. Ross does, but he also has some different interpretations of the data that are worth exploring.

    As I’ve been digging in to this issue over the last 6 weeks, two things have occurred to me.

    1. All of us engaged in this discussion – weather we be YEC, OEC, ID, TE or Atheists – we are much like the 5 blind men who tried to describe an elephant. We are all stationed at a point on that elephant and we say “An elephant is a snake” holding on to the trunk … or “an elephant is a wall” positioned at it’s flank … or “an elephant is a tree” those at a leg … or “an elephant is a plant” holding on to the tail. An elephant is none of those things, but each observer receives input they are positioned to process and refuses to allow the information from the other points of view influence their conclusions. That is bad apologetics and it is bad science. In short, we need to take the blinders off and really look at the animal in question 🙂

    2. The lions share of this debate got it’s teeth about 200 years ago (while the debate has been going on for as long as Judaism has existed, it hasn’t been to the point of nastiness we have seen in the last 2 centuries from what I can tell).

    It seems to me, if I were Satan, it would be so much easier to keep people OUT of the Kingdom of God by convincing the religious and the irreligious alike that the authenticity, authority and validity of God’s Word was utterly dependent upon a rigidly literal, short sighted and frankly uninformed interpretation of Genesis.

    You see, for anyone insisting on adhering to this tradition of YEC, they would have no reasonable common ground with educated people who actually work with the systems that come under direct attack from this world view, by insisting on 6 literal days and 6000 years and a planetary flood as the ONLY way to take Genesis. The educated, especially the scientifically educated, could by no means accept that interpretation and would abandon the faith if indeed they had previously been a believer, or abandon the idea of faith had they not.

    Had the theologians and lay people of 200 years ago been willing to accept the ideas that science was putting forward and delve deeper into their Bibles and the history of their faith more fully, we would not now be at this pass. Christianity would have long ago accepted the natural testament of God along side the written testament, integrated it, and taught it gladly. As it is now, we have strife and discord even within the Church over this issue, and as such Christ is not glorified and the unbelievers scorn us as provincial and weak minded fools.

    It’s a neat little trick, really. One that allowed Old Nick to sit back and watch the ‘fun” without really having to do very much work.

    If the Church is to reclaim its relevancy to this culture in order to proclaim Christ to a lost and dying world with the best hopes of being heard AND listened to, we MUST rightly divide the Word of Truth in such a way to preserve it’s inerrancy AND inerrantly harmonize with the observable universe.

    Sure there will always be unbelievers and atheists – but they will have no excuse for the rejection of Christ but the hardness of their own hearts if we can reclaim Christianity into a reasonable and rational interpretation of the cosmos.

    God Bless,

  2. djf4x4 says:

    I’m in the Jungles of Panama at this time and came across this blog and noticed many comments on the water above and the water below (surface of earth). Sorry I do not have the time to read this entire blog but would like to just post a comment and not a question. I do not have a bible with me so can not quote actual scriptures. I do remember looking into this a little over thirty five years ago. I’m talking about the second flood (Noah). I recall the bible talking about a fermanent in the heavens. To me a fermanent is like a thick heavy fog (water) that we often see in tropical rain forests. Men were said to have lived to be over 500 years old. I believe this may have been due to the fermanent blocking out dangerous life threating radiation. At the time of Noah no one had ever seen rain, only mist watering the earth. Of course the sun penitrated the fermanent somewhat. I remember in sunday school and in church services, which I rarely attended, when they talked or taught about Noah and the flood, they described the many animals being led into the arc. I also remember the people ridicueling Noah for building an arc in the middle of the desert. The people of earth at that time had never heard of or seen rain at that time. I don’t ever remember being told of the horror and panic and fear of total devistation the people must have gone through when it finally began to rain (something they had never seen before and would probably make a good movie) and the doors of the arc were closed and bolted. These 1,000,s of people had no where to go as the water kept rising and rising and rising and they were hanging on to the highest tree branches or what ever they could get a hold of to keep from drowning. It is totally unimaginable to me all the crying and screaming going on for I don’t know how long. This could be the worst terror movie that ever hit the screen. People had never seen a rainbow before the flood. I would love to go on but haven’t the time. Oh also please excuse the spelling. My education is only to the 8th.

  3. Mr Ntombela says:

    It is really sad that many ‘christians’ say God is tinity,A Jehovah’s Witness brochure entitled “Beliefs and Customs that God Hates” includes the Trinity, saying:

    Is Jehovah a Trinity-three persons in one God? No! Jehovah, the Father, is “the only true God.” (John 17:3; Mark 12:29) Jesus is His firstborn Son, and he is subject to God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) The Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28) The holy spirit is not a person; it is God’s active force.-Genesis 1:2; Acts 2:18.

  4. Mr Ntombela says:

    In that verse “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness”, God is talking to jesus, his first creation before anything else was created, including the universe(John 1:3)

    In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was god(a devine being/a perfect being when it is translated well from the original scriptures). He existed in the beginning with God. God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him. The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it. John 1:1-5

  5. Mr Ntombela says:

    Should You Believe in the Trinity?

    The Holy Spirit—God’s Active Force

    ACCORDING to the Trinity doctrine, the holy spirit is the third person of a Godhead, equal to the Father and to the Son. As the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith says: “The Holy Spirit is totally God.”

    In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word most frequently used for “spirit” is ru’ach, meaning “breath; wind; spirit.” In the Greek Scriptures, the word is pneu’ma, having a similar meaning. Do these words indicate that the holy spirit is part of a Trinity?

    An Active Force

    THE Bible’s use of “holy spirit” indicates that it is a controlled force that Jehovah God uses to accomplish a variety of his purposes. To a certain extent, it can be likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations.

    At Genesis 1:2 the Bible states that “God’s active force [“spirit” (Hebrew, ru’ach)] was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” Here, God’s spirit was his active force working to shape the earth.

    God uses his spirit to enlighten those who serve him. David prayed: “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God. Your spirit [ru’ach] is good; may it lead me in the land of uprightness.” (Psalm 143:10) When 70 capable men were appointed to help Moses, God said to him: “I shall have to take away some of the spirit [ru’ach] that is upon you and place it upon them.”—Numbers 11:17.

    Bible prophecy was recorded when men of God were “borne along by holy spirit [Greek, from pneu’ma].” (2 Peter 1:20, 21) In this way the Bible was “inspired of God,” the Greek word for which is The·o’pneu·stos, meaning “God-breathed.” (2 Timothy 3:16) And holy spirit guided certain people to see visions or to have prophetic dreams.—2 Samuel 23:2; Joel 2:28, 29; Luke 1:67; Acts 1:16; 2:32, 33.

    The holy spirit impelled Jesus to go into the wilderness after his baptism. (Mark 1:12) The spirit was like a fire within God’s servants, causing them to be energized by that force. And it enabled them to speak out boldly and courageously.—Micah 3:8; Acts 7:55-60; 18:25; Romans 12:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:19.

    By his spirit, God carries out his judgments on men and nations. (Isaiah 30:27, 28; 59:18, 19) And God’s spirit can reach everywhere, acting for people or against them.—Psalm 139:7-12.

    ‘Power Beyond Normal’

    GOD’S spirit can also supply “power beyond what is normal” to those who serve him. (2 Corinthians 4:7) This enables them to endure trials of faith or to do things they could not otherwise do.

    For example, regarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: “The spirit of Yahweh seized on him, and though he had no weapon in his hand he tore the lion in pieces.” (JB) Did a divine person actually enter or seize Samson, manipulating his body to do what he did? No, it was really “the power of the LORD [that] made Samson strong.”—TEV.

    “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power.” —A Catholic Dictionary

    The Bible says that when Jesus was baptized, holy spirit came down upon him appearing like a dove, not like a human form. (Mark 1:10) This active force of God enabled Jesus to heal the sick and raise the dead. As Luke 5:17 says: “The Power of the Lord [God] was behind his [Jesus’] works of healing.”—JB.

    God’s spirit also empowered the disciples of Jesus to do miraculous things. Acts 2:1-4 relates that the disciples were assembled together at Pentecost when “suddenly there occurred from heaven a noise just like that of a rushing stiff breeze, . . . and they all became filled with holy spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.”

    So the holy spirit gave Jesus and other servants of God the power to do what humans ordinarily could not do.

    Not a Person

    ARE there not, however, Bible verses that speak of the holy spirit in personal terms? Yes, but note what Catholic theologian Edmund Fortman says about this in The Triune God: “Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person.”

    On one occasion the holy spirit appeared as a dove. On another occasion it appeared as tongues of fire—never as a person

    In the Scriptures it is not unusual for something to be personified. Wisdom is said to have children. (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are called kings. (Romans 5:14, 21) At Genesis 4:7 The New English Bible (NE) says: “Sin is a demon crouching at the door,” personifying sin as a wicked spirit crouching at Cain’s door. But, of course, sin is not a spirit person; nor does personifying the holy spirit make it a spirit person.

    Similarly, at 1 John 5:6-8 (NE) not only the spirit but also “the water, and the blood” are said to be “witnesses.” But water and blood are obviously not persons, and neither is the holy spirit a person.

    In harmony with this is the Bible’s general usage of “holy spirit” in an impersonal way, such as paralleling it with water and fire. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8) People are urged to become filled with holy spirit instead of with wine. (Ephesians 5:18) They are spoken of as being filled with holy spirit in the same way they are filled with such qualities as wisdom, faith, and joy. (Acts 6:3; 11:24; 13:52) And at 2 Corinthians 6:6 holy spirit is included among a number of qualities. Such expressions would not be so common if the holy spirit were actually a person.

    Then, too, while some Bible texts say that the spirit speaks, other texts show that this was actually done through humans or angels. (Matthew 10:19, 20; Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Hebrews 2:2) The action of the spirit in such instances is like that of radio waves transmitting messages from one person to another far away.

    At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name . . . of the holy spirit.” But the word “name” does not always mean a personal name, either in Greek or in English. When we say “in the name of the law,” we are not referring to a person. We mean that which the law stands for, its authority. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament says: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” So baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will.

    The “Helper”

    JESUS spoke of the holy spirit as a “helper,” and he said it would teach, guide, and speak. (John 14:16, 26; 16:13) The Greek word he used for helper (pa·ra’kle·tos) is in the masculine gender. So when Jesus referred to what the helper would do, he used masculine personal pronouns. (John 16:7, 8) On the other hand, when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu’ma) is used, the neuter pronoun “it” is properly employed.

    Most Trinitarian translators hide this fact, as the Catholic New American Bible admits regarding John 14:17: “The Greek word for ‘Spirit’ is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ ‘it.'”

    So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa·ra’kle·tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine.

    No Part of a Trinity

    VARIOUS sources acknowledge that the Bible does not support the idea that the holy spirit is the third person of a Trinity. For example:

    The Catholic Encyclopedia: “Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person.”

    Catholic theologian Fortman: “The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . . The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power.”

    The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person . . . God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly.” It also says: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.”—Italics ours.

    A Catholic Dictionary: “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power.”

    Hence, neither the Jews nor the early Christians viewed the holy spirit as part of a Trinity. That teaching came centuries later. As A Catholic Dictionary notes: “The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362 . . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381″—some three and a half centuries after holy spirit filled the disciples at Pentecost!

    No, the holy spirit is not a person and it is not part of a Trinity. The holy spirit is God’s active force that he uses to accomplish his will. It is not equal to God but is always at his disposition and subordinate to him.

  6. Mr Ntombela says:

    Should You Believe in the Trinity?

    How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

    AT THIS point you might ask: ‘If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?’ Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

    That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

    Constantine’s Role at Nicaea

    FOR many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

    Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians.”

    What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”

    ‘Fourth century Trinitarianism was a deviation from early Christian teaching.’ —The Encyclopedia Americana

    Hence, Constantine’s role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. “Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology,” says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.

    None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

    Further Development

    AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

    That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to come into focus.

    Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: “The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology.”

    The Athanasian Creed

    Norway. Trinity (Father, Son, holy spirit), c. 13th century C.E.

    THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.”

    Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed’s influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome.”

    So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.”

    Apostasy Foretold

    THIS disreputable history of the Trinity fits in with what Jesus and his apostles foretold would follow their time. They said that there would be an apostasy, a deviation, a falling away from true worship until Christ’s return, when true worship would be restored before God’s day of destruction of this system of things.

    “The Triad of the Great Gods” Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylonia and Assyria. The French “Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology” notes one such triad in that Mesopotamian area: “The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods.”

    Regarding that “day,” the apostle Paul said: “It will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7) Later, he foretold: “When I have gone fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them.” (Acts 20:29, 30, JB) Other disciples of Jesus also wrote of this apostasy with its ‘lawless’ clergy class.—See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.

    Paul also wrote: “The time is sure to come when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.”—2 Timothy 4:3, 4, JB.

    Jesus himself explained what was behind this falling away from true worship. He said that he had sowed good seeds but that the enemy, Satan, would oversow the field with weeds. So along with the first blades of wheat, the weeds appeared also. Thus, a deviation from pure Christianity was to be expected until the harvest, when Christ would set matters right. (Matthew 13:24-43) The Encyclopedia Americana comments: “Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.” Where, then, did this deviation originate?—1 Timothy 1:6.

    What Influenced It

    India. Triune Hindu godhead, c. 7th century C.E.

    THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

    Historian Will Durant observed: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.” And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: “The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.”

    France. Trinity, c. 14th century C.E. (1)

    Thus, in Alexandria, Egypt, churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. Their own influence spread, so that Morenz considers “Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity.”

    In the preface to Edward Gibbon’s History of Christianity, we read: “If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.”

    Italy. Trinity, c. 15th century C.E. (2)

    A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”

    That is why, in the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings wrote: “In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus . . . Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality,” which is “triadically represented.” What does the Greek philosopher Plato have to do with the Trinity?


    PLATO, it is thought, lived from 428 to 347 before Christ. While he did not teach the Trinity in its present form, his philosophies paved the way for it. Later, philosophical movements that included triadic beliefs sprang up, and these were influenced by Plato’s ideas of God and nature.

    Germany. Trinity, 20th century C.E.

    The French Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (New Universal Dictionary) says of Plato’s influence: “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”

    The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.”

    The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”

    By the end of the third century C.E., “Christianity” and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united. As Adolf Harnack states in Outlines of the History of Dogma, church doctrine became “firmly rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians.”

    The church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Bible. But Harnack says: “In reality it legitimized in its midst the Hellenic speculation, the superstitious views and customs of pagan mystery-worship.”

    In the book A Statement of Reasons, Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: “We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its source, not in the Christian revelation, but in the Platonic philosophy . . . The Trinity is not a doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction of the school of the later Platonists.”

    Thus, in the fourth century C.E., the apostasy foretold by Jesus and the apostles came into full bloom. Development of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Spiritually speaking, Christendom had entered its foretold dark ages, dominated by a growing “man of lawlessness” clergy class.—2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.

    Hindu Trinity The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.”—Published by A. Parthasarathy, Bombay.

    Why Did God’s Prophets Not Teach It?

    WHY, for thousands of years, did none of God’s prophets teach his people about the Trinity? At the latest, would Jesus not use his ability as the Great Teacher to make the Trinity clear to his followers? Would God inspire hundreds of pages of Scripture and yet not use any of this instruction to teach the Trinity if it were the “central doctrine” of faith?

    Are Christians to believe that centuries after Christ and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God would back the formulation of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for thousands of years, one that is an “inscrutable mystery” “beyond the grasp of human reason,” one that admittedly had a pagan background and was “largely a matter of church politics”?

    The testimony of history is clear: The Trinity teaching is a deviation from the truth, an apostatizing from it.

    • billj says:

      Mr Ntombela,

      Your lengthy copy-paste from Watchtower magazine is a testament to the liberal policy the moderator uses in overseeing this blog. A series of hyperlinks would have been more concise. Still, could you offer your own words explaining how this is relevant to the topic? I am willing to read and try to understand your position if it relates.

      Bill J

  7. David of Hawaii says:

    IMHO for what it is worth, the Young Earth versus the Old Earth discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Does it matter if you drive a new BMW and I drive a 1980 Dodge as long as we both enjoy the trip and get to our destinations safely. God the Spirit created the Sentient Universe so that he could enjoy the ride and made us, either directly or indirectly so that we could enjoy it with him.

    Why is it that we are expected to choose between the Bible and Science (Astronomy, Biology, Geology, Archeology, etc.,) given that the Genesis 1 is a true condensed history of the creation of the Universe, and that Science is also attempting to describe, as far as they know, a true history of the universe, when all we have to do is correct the meaning of one mistranslated word in Gen 1 as Perry points out.

    The real problem is that many humans often misinterpret science with their own preconceived ideas and others misunderstand the Bible.

    Science is still very young and unfortunately some scientists have a vested interest in maintaining their theories even when a better one comes along.

    The Church long claimed that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, etc., and put people to death for disagreeing.
    Some scientists claimed that if humans exceeded 21 mph they would die for lack of breath. Later others claimed that heavier than air flight was impossible even after the Wright Brothers were doing it. Meteor Crater in Arizona was long believed to be caused by lava. The plate tectonic theory is only about 50 years old.

    Many scientists today only accept new items/evidence when they fit their preexisting ideas and totally ignore others such as the accounts of ancient aircraft in India.
    They as well as many Bible scholars also ignore the archeological and written evidence in China, India, the MidEast, the Americas and also in the Bible of Extraterrestrial intervention in the lives of mankind.

    As Archeology and Astronomy have progressed they have proved the history of the Bible however at the same time many of our new understandings of Science have brought to us new understanding of the Bible itself showing that some of our old concepts and beliefs were in error.

    IMHO we spend far too much time nitpicking the Bible, even creating new religions over insignificant details. While all the things we have discussed are interesting, they are not worth fighting over. I have learned much from these discussions and I pray that some of the things that I have written may have opened some new insights.

    The real reason that we are here is to experience, to learn, and also to teach. Mainly, we have to learn the two precepts of Jesus, “Love God, and thy neighbor as thyself.”
    Too many, including our leaders, worship at the feet of the Gods of War, Greed, Hate, and Arrogance.

    James says it all.
    James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
     18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
     19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
     20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

  8. Mr Ntombela says:

    ok mr billj, please forgive me mr Marshall for copy pasting from the watchower website but i really admire your work sir, I am a 19 year old christian, and I enjoy your teachings, I want to study cosmology and your work has a positive influence in the path I want to follow.

    thanks sir.

    • billj says:

      Mr Ntombela,

      I want to clarify that Perry and I are different people. I’m sure Perry welcomes your participation on his blog.

      So, based on your posts, are you saying you are a young christian that is in disagreement with the doctrine of the trinity?

      Bill J

  9. battleblazer says:

    Hi Perry

    I have been reading these comments, after reading your article. I am finding that most people do not take into account the relativeness of what is being said.

    I will give you an example, when Moses wrote the book of Genesis, he had to describe things using the language that was available to him. He and all the people around knew exactly what they were saying and in what tense it was being said. So a word that is used for an age is also used for a day – a day is an age in a specific point of view and everybody understood that an age of 24 hours (or to be more appropriate, the age of the sun rising to the next time the sun rises) was that specific age. I sincerely doubt that the people in those days ( pardon the pun), could give an account of exactly what time it was down to a millisecond in the way we can do today. So relatively speaking, should we not take this into account when we translate, or try to understand what the writer is saying? If not then our “translation” will have some pretty serious gramatical if not translational errors.

    Now given that, how would Moses (who would never have seen an airoplane) describe an airoplane in the language he uses to someone else who has not seen an airoplane in that time?

    I would also like to point out this – if a day is a period from one sunrise (or sunset as the case may be) to the next sunrise (or sunset), what term of reference does he use when referencing a “day” in Genesis especially on “days” 1 to 3? And how could Moses know that a “day” had passed during that period?

    This is just something that occured to me while reading most of the comments.

    God Bless

  10. azharc says:

    Hi Perry,

    First off: I discovered your site a few days back. Its simply awesome. I’m an IT guy and I can see where your coming from. Keep up the fantastic work. How on earth do you get time to respond to all these questions?

    I’m intrigued to see terms like ‘Judeo-Christian’ a lot in your articles, a sort of brushing Islam aside. Actually Islam has been backing up your claims for centuries. You’d be surprised. There’s a good book: The Quran, Bible and Science by Maurice Bucaille. I suggest a read. Actually a colleague of mine, a very bright maths/computing graduate from Oxford University read that book and claimed he only had one option – to become a muslim!

    One of key parts of the Qur’an is the about the absoluteness of God. Its only 4 verses in total. Pls allow me to repeat those:
    1. Say: He is God, the One and Only;
    2. God, the Eternal, Absolute;
    3. He does not beget, nor is He begotten;
    4. And there is none comparable to Him.

    As far as I can see, this is saying all that you have said: God falls outside ‘any system’.

    One of the reasons why Islam flourished was that it made it incumbent on every muslim to educate themselves, to question, to ponder on creation, challenge beliefs and investigate signs of His majesty. Actually most of European knowledge came via the Islamic world in those years.

    For instance, the Qur’an asks us to ponder on something very simple like a seed. How does it grow and become a plant, flower or tree? How does that bear fruit? Or how a camel is made up? People are suprised to read about God mentioning something like the universe one minute and as small as an atom the next! Small or big, its all one thing right? I’m reminded of Francis Bacon’s quote: “To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands,
    and eternity in an hour.”

    The reason for illiteracy in Islamic world is mentioned in some of your posts: this is due to political situations and greed of despotic rulers who don’t honour the freedoms and rights Islam gives to an individual, although they claim to be Islamic rulers.

    So, just a small request, please add Islam to your blogs. You’ll be amazed how supportive it is.


  11. azharc says:

    Apologies about the above ‘Grain of sand’ quote – it was William Blake’s!


  12. dave12350 says:

    Right on, Perry!! We obviously don’t know all the details and probably never will, but this is a great start!!!! Thank you so much for this blog.

  13. terrence says:

    This sounds very interesting, and makes logical sense to The scripture.
    I however disagree at some points.
    When God states let us make men in our own image he called out to his son to go down and make men in their own image. which puts the Godhead into the picture rather than the Trinity.
    Trinity: The Gods are equal in power and authority, God the father , the Son and the Holy-Spirit
    The GodHead: They are all Gods, one being supreme above the others in power and Authority.

    I also state that before The Gods put life on the lifeles planet their work had to be completed meaning they had to create favorable conditions for all, that is why only on day 5 he created all the animals dinassours included and fishes of all kinds, birds, as well as creeping things. so dinasours must have lived 1000-1000000 years before humans were created and they were removed to make way for leadership of the Humans who were charged with being”a ruler over all the living”

    What you have given throws more light to the little knowledge i think i possess
    Thank you very much.

    • David of Hawaii says:

      Hi Terrence,

      Yes, I can agree with your statement: “When God states let us make men in our own image he called out to his son to go down and make men in their own image. which puts the Godhead into the picture rather than the Trinity.
      Trinity: The Gods are equal in power and authority, God the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” to a point.

      IMHO, my thought on that is that the “Holy Spirit of God” created and indwells the Sentient Universe, which would be “the Father”
      That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: Jn:21
      God worketh all in all. ICor 12:26
      …that God may be all in all. ICor 15:28
      Christ is all and in all. Col 3:11
      One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all and in you all. Eph 4:6

      However if “The Son, ie Jesus” was the one who made man in the “image of God” as it says three times in Gen:
      Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
      1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
      5:1 …God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them.

      Matt 18:16 says:
      … that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

      So now where do we get the female from?
      And how do we reconcile that the DNA of human beings is similar to that of other mammals?
      And that the sons of God were so similar to humans that they could have children by them? Gen 6:2,4

      It seems more probable to me that the gods that created men and women in their own image were themselves created beings (ETs) of long ago.

      Perry, may not agree with me but IMHO, this interpretation is more in keeping with anthropology biology and archeology as well as other creation stories that preceded Genesis.

  14. battleblazer says:

    Hi Perry

    I found this article from Popular Mechanics which I think says a great deal regarding the day / age debate. Please see www.popularmechanics.co.za/content/news/singlepage.asp?key=1003

    Best Regards,

    • jrunyon says:


      This Popular Mechanics article only states that bipedal primates have existed for a long period of time (hundreds of thousands of years). It does not address the age of the earth other than to imply that it is older that primates. If you read Perry’s Blog, you’ll realize that he agrees that the age of the earth/universe are consistent with this article.

      Jim Runyon

  15. Eagle777 says:

    Hi Mr Ntombela
    You hit the nail on it’s head with your statement “It is really sad that many ‘christians’ say God is tinity”. In Revelation God calls His people to come out of the system of man made religions.

    Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

    God refers to His church as ” her” His bride. Organized religions have man’s word and God’s Word mixed together and is spiritual fornication that is why they are called harlots , living untrue to their vows.

    The first organized church is the Roman Catholic Church and she is called the whore and she has many daughters. All other denominations came out of her but still have some of the same believes as her. The biggest lie they all have is the trinity believe. Just have a close look at the following two verses and see were the trinity came from and why it is a lie.

    Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    Note what Jesus said here. Baptize them in the NAME (singular) of God. Then Peter who had the revelation of who Jesus was said.

    Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    He had the revelation that Jesus was God and that was God’s NAME in that dispensation.

    If you want to know more about God’s names for His name chance again.

    Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
    Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

    Reply the this post and I will explain more about it.


    • Eocene says:

      I was actually surprised and disappointed to see the reference to the Dogma of the Trinity in Perry’s Genesis explanation, but it’s his blog and website, so he has the right. It would have been better to just leave it as a general physical description of events in order of appearance of each creative epoch or period of time. I appreciate that Trinitarians try and use this as a means of promoting the Trinity, but the actual Hebrew plural wording there denotes more of a title like “Your Majesty” or Your Highness”.

      Interestingly in this blog, Perry has brought up the names of Galaleo and one other scientist who he said never gave up their belief in God, but rather disagreed with the Church on it’s interpretation of the Bible. He was correct. However, if one does a scholarly research of Sir Isaac Newton , William Whiston (translator of the works of jewish historian Josepus), Thomas Aikenhead and others, you’ll find they also disagreeed with the Church’s interpretation of the Bible. Because they disagreed, Thomas Aikenhead was murdered by the Church for his research exposing the Trinity as a fraud. William Whiston who translated the works of the Jewish historian Josepus (a work so accurately well done that another has not rivaled it today) exposed the spuriousness of the corrupted scriptural texts at 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 , the both of which were diliberately changed to directly support the Trinity.

      Anyone ever see the movie “Expelled” ??????? It’s where modern day Atheism which runs scholastic academia today expels anyone who denies their holy “Theory of Evolution” doctrine. The churches back in history (“Dark Ages”)used the same tactics against anyone who denied their version of holy dogma. William Whiston lost his academic position at Cambridge for his work on researching what the Bible actually says with regard these verses which had always been used in support of the Trinity belief. You see the Churches back then ran academia until atheism came along later and usurpt them of this authority. You’ll find very little difference in what atheism does today and the churches did back then.

      Sir Isaac Newton also came to the same EXACT conclusions as William Whiston who pleaded to Newton to come to his defense. Newton refused because he was afraid of losing his academic position. Sadly Newton fell victim to a common imperfect quality of man, that is “Fear of what your Peers will say”. Newton had his work on the Trinity published some time after his death and in French, which was later translated into English. So were these men denying God ?????????? No but like Perry pointed out about Galileo, they simply disagreed with corrupted Churches false interpretation and corruption of the bible’s texts.

      Interestingly I find this “Shannon’s Information Theory” a perfect explanation of refuting the dogma of the Trinity according to John 1:1. In fact George Gilder who it seems is never refered to here Perry’s website, explained this beautifully in his article on this very subject back in 2006 where he wrote an article entitled, “Evolution and Me” , where he points out that , “The Word” of John 1:1 is himself subject to God, not equal.. If I get more time I’ll explain why in another post, but here’s a link from the Discovery Institute’s website on George Gilder’s article.


  16. sara says:

    Hi Mr Perry
    your work is indeed marvelous and i somehow agrees from you
    here em making a request to you ,can you please read QURAN the holy book of Islam i know it’s difficult for people to accept it these days but believe me it is really helpful i m not forcing you at all and once you will read it you will understand what i mean hopefully

  17. flowerific says:

    How do you explain the lack of insect life, yet flowering/fruiting trees and vegetation for millions of years? They are codepedent on each other and couldn’t survive without each other.

    In addition, if God says something is good-it is perfection!

    • jrunyon says:

      In a 1.5 page summary of the history of the universe & earth, there are many things that are not mentioned: insects, dinosaurs, etc.

      ‘Good’ cannot mean perfect. Even ‘very good’ does not mean perfect. The only other time that ‘very good’ is used in the Bible is when Moses sent spies into the ‘promised land’ and they came back and said that the land was ‘very good.’ I’m not sure what they were seeing, but the land of Israel is not perfect. In baseball, you can be a very good player but if you strike out one time or make one error, you are no longer perfect. Perfection will onnot be realized in this creation.

      Jim Runyon

  18. jeromehoover says:


    I like your logic. I have no argument with your reasoning on a scientific basis. My struggle with a belief in the God of judea is a philosophical dilemma.

    First, is it possible that God is too infinite to fit inside finite sets of beliefs? If we are to take on good faith that this world and universe is a direct result of spiritual action, who’s to say that the jews, or any other religion, has God’s character pegged? is it not more likely, that ALL religions are simply different slices of the same pie? Different reactions to the same numinous awe. A fraction of the big picture that cannot be fully grasped…after all, the judea-christion religion isn’t the only belief that can be supported by science.

    “Recently, some physicists have come to see a relationship between their work and the ideas behind Eastern mysticism. They believe that the paradoxes, odds, and probabilities, as well as the observer-dependance of quantum mechanics have been anticipated in the writings of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Some are fond of pointing out that quantum mechanics, is really only a rediscovery of Shiva or Mahadeva, the Hindu horned god of destruction and cosmic dissolution. Shiva, mentioned as early as the third or four century B.C., takes several forms. One is them is the Nataraja, the four-armed lord of the Cosmic Dance, pictured dancing on a prostrate demon. The God’s dance symbolizes the perpetual process of universal creation and destruction. Matter has no substance at all, merely the dynamic, rhythmic gyration of energy coming and going.” -John Boslough, on Stephen Hawking’s Universe

    Or is it possible that God really doesn’t care about humans like we think he does? perhaps he’s lonely and wanted other sentient beings to participate in sort of a cosmic lab-rat experience…or did he just check out after the 7th day to leave our desperate human spirits to wander in the dark….

    Don’t get me wrong, I would love to believe in the God of the Bible. It would be quite comforting to have the king of the universe as my best friend, haha. It just seems a little too good to be true. No amount of reasoning can elude the fact that the universe is unjust. The strong prey upon the week and innocent.

    If an omnipotent God is up there, he’s not resting, man. He’s asleep.

    • Perry Marshall says:

      CS Lewis said something sort of like this, in his book Mere Christianity: “If there is anything the universe teaches about God, it’s that (1) God is an artist of enormous talent, and (2) he is no friend to man.”

      Yes, we live in a beautiful yet hostile world, one where everything eventually becomes food for something else. We are constantly faced with questions about pain and suffering.

      Christian theology does not flinch in the face of this. Read the book of Job. Job asks why he suffers. God says, “I’ll be happy to answer that. First answer me this. Where were you when I formed the mountains…..?”

      We would be perfectly justified in assuming that God does not care about humans if God was content to let a deistic universe take its course.

      But the God I know did not check out on the 7th day. (BTW we are living in the 7th day now – there is no statement “and there was evening and morning, a 7th day” in Genesis 1.) God became man and lived and suffered with us. The answer to your question is found in the cross.

      There’s a lot of things in the world that SUCK. I totally get that. In Luke 7, John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin and the greatest prophet of his age, was in prison, in line to get beheaded. John has serious doubts about Jesus, based on all that’s happened. He sends a messenger to ask Jesus a question:

      18John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of them, 19he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?”

      20When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?’ ”

      21At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[b] are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 23Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.”

      24After John’s messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 25If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces. 26But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27This is the one about whom it is written:
      ” ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
      who will prepare your way before you.'[c] 28I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

      Jerome, you rightly said:

      No amount of reasoning can elude the fact that the universe is unjust. The strong prey upon the week and innocent.


      The fact that you KNOW in your heart that this is wrong, is proof that you are a spiritual being. That this world is not truly your home, any more than it was John’s home. That you long for the kingdom of God. This longing you feel will never go away.

      And you know what? If you’re thirsty, it doesn’t PROVE that water exists. But it certainly suggests that it might be available…. somewhere.

      I salute you and encourage you in your quest for the truth.

    • David of Hawaii says:

      God is not asleep, we are!!! We are God’s eyes, ears, hands, and feet in this 3D world of God’s Sentient Universe. It is time that we start acting like it instead of obeying the capricious God of War and Hatred, ie Satan.

      You say: “I would love to believe in the God of the Bible.”
      You already do. As mentioned in post #19 below, there are many Gods lumped under the term “God” in the Bible. Which God you follow is up to you. Your faith will be shown by your deeds. James 2

  19. David of Hawaii says:


    The reason that many people have difficultly believing in the God of the Bible is because there are several “gods” lumped under the term “God”.  I will seek to identify them only by their actions. Jesus said, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:20

    1. The Creator God that created and inhabits the Sentient Universe. Gen 1:1,25 Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

    2. The God of Laws who told Moses; Thou shalt not kill, steal, bear false witness, covet anything that is thy neighbors. Ex 20:13

    3. The God of War of Joshua who proscribed genocide, murder, covetousness and theft against the remainder of Abraham’s seed. 

    Many people of many religions think that they are worshiping the Creator God, but instead become seduced into worshiping the God of War, Hatred, Greed, Money, and Lust.

    A, Well then, who is the Creator God?
    GOD is the Spirit that created and dwells in the Sentient Universe/Multiverse.

    Describe him.
    IT/ Him/Her/Sentient Universe = Galaxies, Stars, Planets, Worlds, Atoms, You, Me.

    Define him?
    Everything, all alive and intelligent. Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient.

    Do you have pictures of God?
    Yes and so do you. Look in the Mirror. Every picture you take is of God.

    Where is he?
    Above you, under you, around you, in you.
    That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: Jn:21
    God worketh all in all.  I Cor 12:26
    …that God may be all in all. I Cor 15:28
    Christ is all and in all.  Col 3:11
    One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all and in you all. Eph 4:6

    What is he doing?
    Holding the universe together, making it possible for life to evolve and for ITself to experience through you.

    Why does IT never do anything VERIFIABLE?
    You are here verifying that IT is.

    Why doesn’t IT ever show up….. in person in public?

    There is a story told of an ex Marine who has taking a adult education class and the professor started expounding on how there was no God and finally said, “If there is a God, let him knock me off this podium.”
    The Marine walked up to the professor and cold cocked him.
    When the professor came to, he picked himself up and asked the Marine, “What did you do that for?”
    The Marine replied, “God is busy, so he sent me.”

    B. Who is this God of War?

    Deut 20:16 “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you,..”

    John 8:44 Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, “…Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it…”

    Again I ask, who is this “LORD your God”? An impotent pretender who was unable to sterilize the Land of Canaan by plague and famine before the Israelis arrived. An impotent God of War who if he were the Supreme God of the Universe could have made the desert blossom like it did ten of thousands of years ago when rivers ran in the Arabian Desert as observed by satellite. Had this happened, the Jewish people would now be sitting on a sea of oil instead of living in the narrow path of marauding armies of the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans and others for 3500 years.

    No, this God of War turned the children of Israel into nothing more than murderers and thieves who killed their own brothers and sisters, the descendants of the other 7 sons of Abraham, first born Ishmael by Hagar, and 6 sons by Keturah, Zimran,, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Gen 25:1. as well as the children of Isaac’s firstborn son Esau.

    These same atrocities by both Jews and Arabs continue to this day under the tutelage of this same God of War who appears to enjoy human suffering of every kind.

    In my humble opinion, this War God of the Jews, Christianity, and the Muslims is something other than what they claim him to be.

  20. David of Hawaii says:

    JOHN says:
    “Its either you believed that God created everything or you an evolutionist.”

    Why? Why do you have to be either a Creationist or an Evolutionist?
    Why not BOTH? God both creates and He evolves according to his pleasure.

    Does a tadpole understand the world of the frog sitting on the lily pad above it? Does the frog understand the world of the eagle in the sky?

    Who are we to tell the Creator God how to run His Universe?

    Just because 16th century translators misunderstood the true meaning of the word that they translated into “day” does not mean that present day Christians should remain in the dark ages.

    Realizing that the Universe is Sentient would help both Scientists and Christians to understand more about the universe and to realize how insignificant and unlearned we are compared to the knowledge of the billions of angelic beings (or ETs) which inhabit the universe.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *