data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77ca4/77ca413d882fb6c73ab3f84c4427ecc463cc1116" alt="by Charlie Wolcott"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b60f9/b60f9f42a72e58f535ab8ae91ff02ccee5c456be" alt="by Steve Risner"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad97b/ad97bf44e2df3c81c05e0215001826f7aa736243" alt="by Logan Ames"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/666b9/666b935ef2805710b55fedf5f2ec9893a629b7d3" alt="by Bill Seng"
by Bill Seng In 1971, a man by the name of Saul Alinsky wrote a book titled Rules for Radicals. His book outlined a strategy by which the so-called anti-establishment movement could rebuild society with a new order in hopes that a utopian society could be achieved. Within his book is a dedication written as follows: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer” (Rules for Radicals). Do you believe this? Do you believe that Satan truly obtained a kingdom outside of God’s authority? Popular folklore, media, and traditions promote the idea that while God is the King of Heaven, Satan is the king of hell. Along with the notion that Satan is the king of hell comes the idea that he rules over legions of demons who torment those who rejected Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. While a large portion of mankind suffers in hell, Satan and his demons have their fun torturing them for all eternity. Is this idea Scriptural? There is truth to the idea that Satan is the lord of darkness. He rules over the forces of evil and is even referred to in the Bible as the Ruler of the Kingdom of the Air (Ephesians 2:2). He prowls around earth like a roaring lion seeking out whomever he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). He parades around like an angel of light so that he may deceive those who are not following after God (2 Corinthians 11:14). But his eternal destiny does not include a glorious kingdom that he stole for himself. No, his fate is perhaps the worst of all. Please read the following passage: “When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:7-10) In this case, “the beast” refers to Satan incarnate (also known as the antichrist). At the conclusion of all time and at the entrance of eternity, he and his band of rebels will be cast into the Lake of Fire (what we would call hell). The final verse in this passage specifies that, “They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). Even Satan himself will be tormented in hell. If he will be tormented by his eternal damnation, how can we claim that he won a kingdom for himself? Can I conclude by saying that Mr. Alinsky was a fool? He was not a fool in that he wanted to rebel against the establishment; sometimes it is necessary to stand up against an oppressive system. He was a fool in that he believed he could establish a utopian society through adopting the tactics of Satan. In trying to usurp the kingdom of God, Satan was cast out of heaven and will be doomed to hell’s torments.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88108/8810895a9a2f58135d17706d37c81b446030025c" alt="by Katie Erickson"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77ca4/77ca413d882fb6c73ab3f84c4427ecc463cc1116" alt="by Charlie Wolcott"
~Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Families and the Question for Human Beginnings” by V. Morrel (1995). It is very simple, there are apes and there are humans. There are no ape-humans. There never was. This is exactly what the Bible suggests in how God created the land animals according to their kinds and how he created man specifically in His image. Johanson also reveals the mindset he had when he found Lucy and what is commonly found among Evolutionary scientists. "I was trying to jam evidence of data into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which on closer inspection the fossils themselves would not sustain…It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was, but the thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence."
~Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind, 1981 p 357 Where else do we see this mindset? In the textbooks, in the museum displays, in the science magazines? I see it there. There are no links between the apes and humans. And I did not even get into the issues that even if all these proposed links panned out, there are no links to the proposed links. There is no connection between Lucy and H. Habilis or anything else. The scientists will try to lord their knowledge and experience over you with fancy terminology and phraseology, but you keep thinking. Learn the difference between the actual facts and the fancy story telling that surrounds it. When you keep thinking, you will find that the Bible has always been right.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b60f9/b60f9f42a72e58f535ab8ae91ff02ccee5c456be" alt="by Steve Risner"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad97b/ad97bf44e2df3c81c05e0215001826f7aa736243" alt="by Logan Ames"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/666b9/666b935ef2805710b55fedf5f2ec9893a629b7d3" alt="by Bill Seng"
by Bill Seng “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony… But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” ~Revelation 12:10-12 When did Satan fall? Was it before creation, during creation, or was it sometime afterwards? Most people choose to believe that the fall of Satan happened really early on because that prompted him to tempt Adam and Eve to sin. Let me put a new spin on what is commonly misunderstood about Satan’s fall. Satan did not fall toward the beginning of time. Now, I might have just ruffled some feathers with that statement and I may continue to do so. Before I get labeled a heretic, let me define what I mean by Satan’s fall. I do not define Satan’s fall by the corruption of his heart. He fell when he was cast out of heaven by God and his army of angels. Some people at this point might think that the two events go hand-in-hand. I, for one, would encourage you to keep on reading this post but also to read the above Scripture, Revelation 12:10-12, very closely. I would also ask that you lay aside many of your preconceived notions about the “mystery” of Satan’s fall. I do not think there is a mystery behind it because God clearly tells us when it happened in Revelation 12. Satan fell at a definite point in history. Last week, we discussed how Satan is the accuser and how he rightly accused mankind of sins. Many people believe that the serpent in Eden was actually Satan in disguise. For people who believe that I would encourage you to pick up a copy of my book The World That Then Was, in which I give a fairly thorough explanation concerning why the serpent and Satan were not the same entities. The reason that is significant is because Satan received no punishment for tempting the serpent, Eve, and Adam to sin. At the same time Adam, Eve, and all of nature were placed under a curse for the sake of their sin. Indeed, Satan’s heart was corrupt, but he was merely the accuser after the sin had taken place. If you pay close attention to what the Bible says, all of Satan’s accusations against mankind occur in the Old Testament or are Old Testament references. He accused Job of being overrated, he pointed out the filthiness of Joshua the High Priest, and he tried to lay claim to the body of Moses. Each one of these accusations occurred in the presence of God in his heavenly realm. Revelation tells us that the accuser, Satan, was later cast out of heaven. What changed between the Old Testament and the New Testament? The question I just asked answers itself. The Old Testament is the Old Covenant and the New Testament is the New Covenant, and the New Covenant was sealed by the shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross. Throughout all of history up to that point, Satan was rightfully accusing mankind of all sorts of wickedness. Granted, he was tempting them to sin, but who was Satan aside from being a ministering spirit who was to report mankind’s condition to God? God had to provide mankind a system of sacrifices in order to cover over the wickedness that Satan was accusing them of and thus take away their sins. Then, on that fateful day, Jesus Christ took sin upon himself and died to wipe out the world’s sin debt. Satan’s accusations were worse than meaningless after Jesus’ death, they were blasphemous. They were blasphemous because Adam and Eve’s sin became Jesus’ sin. Cain’s sin became Jesus’ sin. Abraham’s sin became Jesus’ sin. Moses’ sin became Jesus’ sin. David’s sin became Jesus’ sin. The one who knew no sin became sin for the world and died. From that point on if Satan were to accuse anyone of sin he was accusing the Son of God of sin. War ensued in heaven. Satan and his forces attempted to overthrow God’s kingdom and establish his own reign. But he was cast out of heaven because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the testimony that would follow. Remember, in Eden he was able to avoid condemnation because he pointed out the sin of others. But at Calvary he attempted to point out the sin of Jesus and God’s Son was found blameless in the sight of his Father. Revelation 12 subtly points out the curse that was put upon Satan and it is not much different from the curse that was announced in Eden against creation: “He is filled with fury, because he knows his time is short” (12:12). Did you catch that? Before he was cast out of heaven Satan enjoyed immortality. After he was cast down to the earth, he became subject to the same fate of the rest of creation: death. He knew from that point on that his days were numbered, and he became furious. Satan has been defeated but his meddling against God’s plans has not been eradicated quite yet. The fate that he fears has not yet come to pass, but that day is rapidly approaching. Let’s make that next week’s topic.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88108/8810895a9a2f58135d17706d37c81b446030025c" alt="by Katie Erickson"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a04e7/a04e74576feca7b09878176372b00c2be9a88875" alt="by Nathan Buck"
by Nathan Buck Make sure to read my previous blog post here to understand the context for today’s post. In order to unpack the situation with Adam and Eve, we need to realize their choice was about relationship. You cannot have relationship without the choice not to. And the choice to break relationship always has consequences. I believe there was a real Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but I also believe the tree was a metaphor for relationship with God. To choose to eat from the tree was to break relationship with God, and to embark on a life journey apart from His presence. The journey apart from God would experience the limitations and brokenness of what it is to live separated from God’s life sustaining and preserving presence and power – natural life, and natural decay. We even learn through Eve in Genesis 3:1-5 that this tree is at the center of the garden – the center of their “world” and relationship with God. Let me answer last week’s questions with more questions:
Do children have the same choice in regard to relationship with their parents? Is the choice to obey a parent based on a child’s understanding of consequences, or on trust? Does a child’s lack of knowledge about something harmful make it any less dangerous or deadly? Does the child’s lack of experience make it “right” to disobey their parents? When we bring this closer to home in our experiences as parents, or our own experiences as children growing up, we can begin to realize that lack of knowledge or lack of “perspective” doesn’t change the nature or consequences of a choice. Even in the U.S. justice system it is held firmly that ignorance of the law is not a defense for breaking it. For Adam and Eve, their lack of knowledge should have provoked questions – what is evil? What is death? Why is this tree in the middle of the garden if we are not supposed to eat from it? We don’t know if they did. The point is, regardless of what they understood, they chose to step out on their own, based on believing a lie offered by a creature they had no relationship with. Instead of testing the serpent’s words or asking God to explain, the desire for the experience overwhelmed their trust of their Father/Creator. They not only took the counsel of a stranger, but they decided for themselves to go against God’s caution and used their freedom to choose their own path. That moment is repeated again and again and again in human history – right up to this very moment, and probably for yourself already today. We are constantly tempted to rely on our reason, experience, and wisdom to make choices, and to discern what is true. Individual perspectives and experiences have so fractured or damaged our sense of what is true, that we now consciously and subconsciously believe that truth is relative and each person gets to define what is “true for them.” It is in this altered state of hallucinogenic self-absorbed reality that we need an earth shattering dose of perspective. Why? Because there are still things that by definition are good and bad. There are things that by context are good or bad. And there are things that by intent are good or bad. Without perspective we cannot always see what is truly good or truly bad. For example, a young man tells a young woman that she looks pretty in a dress, even when he didn’t think it looked good on her. It was a lie, but it made her feel good. So was it evil or good? Then that young woman decides she is going to wear that dress to prom, and she enters with tremendous confidence, only to be deflated instantly by laughs and sour faces. She sees the same young man turn and hide his face. She is so depressed she runs out in to traffic and commits suicide. Again, was his lie good or bad? It made her feel good, but set up the circumstances for her suicide. What if he had told the truth from the beginning? What if she lived? What if she still committed suicide? How do we sort out what is right and wrong, good and evil, righteous or sinful? Now apart from being overly simplified and exaggerated, the example should make clear that no matter how much experience we have, no matter how much knowledge or insight we have, we do NOT have a perspective like God’s. We cannot see eternity, and we cannot see the ultimate result of our actions. We can only trust that God does, and trust that His way of living takes into account every situation from eternity past, to eternity future. Only God can see it all and only God can know good and evil from a perspective that He can always lead to what is good. We can only know good and evil from inside the experience of good times that make us dance, and bad times that unravel our soul. Unless we choose to trust that God has already seen what is yet unknown to us, and has given us a moral bearing, an absolute truth that will take us always into what is good. This is not always what feels good, but always what IS good for us and for others. In the movie Ratatouille, Anton Ego comes to give his perspective and ends up having his perspective rocked to the core. He is forced to realize his assumptions were not only wrong, but prejudiced and imprisoned him from enjoying what he loved most – creatively delicious food. Adam and Eve broke relationship and chose not to trust God, because they chose to accept a perspective that did not trust the One who sees everything clearly. They lost perspective even further and fell into the chaos of limited human understanding. Today, we continue to choose our own way, from our limited perspectives, and we constantly see the fallout of the consequences in our society and culture. It’s your turn to decide. Is there absolute truth? Does God have a perspective that is trustworthy to follow and will bring us constantly into what is good? Can you trust Him to show you the best way forward, even when you may not understand anything about where you are or what’s going to happen? If even one principle that God taught or commanded holds true for all people, at all times, in all places – then is that an absolute truth? Are you willing to test His Word and find out? After all, if there is no absolute truth, then no one can absolutely deny its existence. The very denial itself fails because of limited perspective.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77ca4/77ca413d882fb6c73ab3f84c4427ecc463cc1116" alt="by Charlie Wolcott"
“Who say to a tree, ‘You are my father,’
and to a stone, ‘You gave me birth.’
For they have turned their back to me,
and not their face.” I had the great privilege of returning to the Creation Truth Foundation for the 2nd of four parts of the Cadre, a Biblical Foundations and Worldview Seminar. In the next few posts, I will be discussing several of the topics we covered. And to start off, one of the big questions that have been plaguing science for hundreds of years is: “How did life begin?” When you really boil it down, the origins of life question has only two possible answers: it came about on its own or it was designed and created by a supernatural being that exists outside space/matter. Ultimately, while people believe in many deities, there is only one that actually fits the description of one capable of creating the universe: the Biblical God. And the big debate about origins has ultimately been about this: the Biblical God or no God at all. Many on the Evolution side will say two things: (1) that Evolution does not remove God from the picture, and (2) that abiogenesis, the origin of life from non-life is not part of Evolution. Both of these claims have major issues. (1) Evolution does not make an official statement regarding the existence of God, but if God does indeed exist, and if he indeed did create the universe, would it not be best to consult him on how he did it? Evolution does not do that. More on this in a bit. (2) The idea that Evolution is only about genetic diversity may have been what Darwin had in mind, but one must consider the logical conclusions. If all life came from a single common ancestor or a set of common ancestors, one must ask the question: “Where did that common ancestor(s) come from?” And if it did not come from a Creator, it has to come about on its own. We have to watch our definitions here, so for clarity’s sake, when I reference Evolution, I am talking about the overall, big picture, origins of life/universe, which includes biological evolution, but also how it got started. And to also be clear, one definition of Evolution is “change in allele frequencies”, but I have yet to meet an Evolution supporter that actually sticks with this definition. I will again emphasize that the two are inseparable. You cannot have Evolution and abiogenesis separate in the whole scheme of things. You can zoom in on biological evolution and not look at abiogenesis, in the same way you can look at the orbit of a shuttle without looking at the launch. But in the whole scheme, you must have them together. Here is why it is inseparable. I have yet to see a museum display on Evolution that does not mention it. I’ve been to the Natural History Museum in Denver with my sister and nephew. And I recall in three different exhibits, this aspect of the overall theory of Evolution was mentioned, including biological and non-biological evolution aspects. I also wonder if it is so unimportant to the diversification of life, why are scientists constantly looking for the answer to this question: “How did life begin?” The book Biology by Miller and Levine is used in over 50% of high school and college textbooks. Many of you may recognize this book. One of the speakers at the Cadre has debated Miller and apparently it did not go well for Miller. Miller is a very angry person and this is the guy that is educating many of our students on this subject. But Miller has some outright contradictions in his book. Subtle, but outright. On page 13, Miller states that Louis Pasteur disproved the idea of abiogenesis. Later on page 170, Miller describes cell theory, which includes that new cells must come from existing cells. Yet later on page 425 in his chapter on Evolution, he states that life MUST have come from non-life at some point. Right there in the most popular textbook in America is the inseparable bond between abiogenesis and Evolution. And without a Creator in the center of the picture, the only alternative is abiogensis. You may come to the same conclusion I have. In order to keep a Creator out of the picture, they must go against the very foundation upon which they claim to stand. But it gets more interesting. The very popular Miller-Urey experiment is often cited as evidence that life could form on its own. Yet this concept is completely full of holes. First off, the experiment purposefully removed any oxygen from the equation. Why? Because oxygen destroys unprotected amino acids. There is another major problem. If there was no oxygen, these unprotected amino acids would be wiped out by cosmic radiation. How do I know? Because we are protected by a layer of oxygen called the ozone layer. You can’t have O3 without at some point getting a decent amount of O2. Miller-Urey also provided a major issue to the idea of abiogensis. Yes, they were able to produce amino acids but that alone can’t produce proteins. Not by themselves. Here is why. First, amino acids are water-soluble. Water is the worst place for amino acids to be able to form on their own, unprotected. Even if they were to combine, the water would break them apart. Second, they formed two types of amino acids that have completely identical chemical formulas. The difference is their orientation. Life MUST have completely 100% left-handed oriented amino acids. Just one right-handed oriented amino acid could kill the creature because of how the proteins fold to do what they do. Yet this solution is racemic: that is 50-50. And a batch of 100% of one kind, left unprotected and on their own will very quickly settle to 50-50. Third, there are 20 types of amino acids. The simplest protein contains 51 amino acids. Let’s run the numbers. That’s a 1 in a 2051 chance of getting the simplest one right (remember that amino acids can repeat). This is about 2.25 x 1066. The chances of the sequence of events in this Calvin and Hobbes take are much better. One may ask: “Do scientists actually buy this and believe this?” Others are even more audacious to ask, “Why don’t we buy this and believe it?” But here is the truth. Science has long proven that abiogenesis is completely impossible. And most scientists are well aware of that. This is a good reason why there is the push to try to keep abiogenesis and Evolution separate. Today, most just accept it, even though they know all their experiments to try to demonstrate it be possible have all ended in failure. But there are a few honest ones that state flat out that they just don’t have a clue how it happened. And some even go as far as to why they accept Evolution and reject the idea of a Creation. George Wald, a Harvard Biology Professor, Nobel Laureate, and the mentor to the late Evolutionary leading professor, Stephen Gould said this. “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God… I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”
~ George Wald, “The Origin of Life” Scientific American (August 1954, pg 46) I’m not sure there is much more to say than this: at least he is honest. There are many others out there who have said similar things. It boils down to this: Evolution (and abiogenesis with it) is accepted in the scientific community because believe in a Creator God is anathema to them. When your worldview only allows for the natural to be considered, you will be forced to accept things that even naturalism itself disproves in order to keep God out of the equation. And this proves that this debate never was scientific to begin with.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad97b/ad97bf44e2df3c81c05e0215001826f7aa736243" alt="by Logan Ames"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/666b9/666b935ef2805710b55fedf5f2ec9893a629b7d3" alt="by Bill Seng"
by Bill Seng “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.” Zechariah 3:1 Last week I discussed the origin of evil. God was good, his creation was good, and even mankind was good. Despite the purity of the original creation, the knowledge of good and evil in the spiritual realm opened up the possibility that sin could enter the world. I am referring, of course, to the angels. A rogue angel, Satan, became obsessed with his own splendor and sought to over throw God. Satan has always known that he does not have the power to overcome God, so he has instead opted to steal away the pinnacle of God’s creation, mankind, for himself; thus the infamous words of the serpent, “You will be like God” (Genesis 3:5). Nonetheless, this kingdom of Satan would not be like God’s creation. This kingdom would need to be stolen. In order to steal God’s creation, Satan had to create a divide between God and creation. This divide is known as sin, which is defined as lawlessness. And yet, in order for Satan to establish a kingdom that would last he had to maintain his position as an angel (which is a ministering spirit according to Hebrews 1:14). This meant that he himself could not fall under condemnation if he wished to rule over a kingdom apart from God. Henceforth he became the divine tattletale. In the book of Job, we are presented a situation that shows what Satan does. God asks Satan to consider Job, who is blameless and hates evil (Job 1:8). Because Satan could not find fault in Job, he first tells God that Job has been protected and that if God would allow him to suffer then, “he will surely curse you to your face” (Job 1:11). He is the accuser. He is our enemy. Because he was a ministering spirit, he had to know the difference between good and evil in order to minister effectively and then (apparently) report to God. The sad part is that Satan’s accusations had historically been correct. The scripture at the top of this article exemplifies Satan accusing the High Priest Joshua of sin and rightly so! Zechariah 3:3 says that Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes. Joshua was not only being accused of sin, he was guilty of sin. But the angel of the LORD called Joshua a “burning stick snatched from fire” (3:2). After causing Joshua to take off his filthy clothes, the Lord then declared that, “I have taken away your sin” (3:4). Furthermore, he puts clean garments on Joshua. It is only through the LORD our God that we can be made clean and be declared clean despite Satan’s accusations. Are you a sinner? Do you feel condemned by the evil of your past? All of us could, if we put our faith in our own righteousness. Although Satan was correct about mankind’s wickedness, God did something that he could not comprehend. God forgave the sins of the world and extended grace.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/88108/8810895a9a2f58135d17706d37c81b446030025c" alt="by Katie Erickson"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a04e7/a04e74576feca7b09878176372b00c2be9a88875" alt="by Nathan Buck"
by Nathan Buck Kids’ movies sometimes have the most profound moments, and often they are unintentional or accidental in their unmasking of principles and values we really do believe are true, even if we spend a tremendous amount of effort trying to deny them. In the Disney movie Ratatouille, an actual rat named Remy becomes a chef in a human restaurant. He is compelled to cook because of his unique sense of smell and taste, alongside a belief in the slogan spoken by his human idol, Chef Gusteau. Chef Gusteau always said, “Anyone can cook.” Through a bizarre set of circumstances Remy ends up controlling a human being by using his hair like a set of puppet strings, and no one knows the food they find so amazing is actually being designed and prepared by a rat. When the nemesis of the movie – food critic Anton Ego – hears about the food, he makes a visit to critique the food with the intention of writing off the restaurant and deflating the reputation that has begun to build. When Ego arrives there is a brief moment in the movie that is actually quite epic. I am sure it was carefully written and designed for the movie because it is a pivotal moment in the story. But it also reveals a truth we often ignore when it comes to discussing the Bible and truth. When Ego is asked what he would like to order, he says to the waiter, “I am craving, perspective… that is what I think I will have, bring me a plate of well-seasoned… perspective…” (pause) “Fresh out I take it? Then how about this, you provide the food, and I will provide the PERSPECTIVE.” You can watch a clip of this scene here. When we ask questions about morality or truth, we typically ask them and try to resolve them from our perspective. Occasionally, if we are teachable, we may try to see a moral issue from someone else’s perspective. We may even consider that there is truth in any perspective. However, when it comes to absolute truth – we may struggle. Absolute truth by definition is a transcendent truth, that holds true for all people, at all times, in all places. It is immutable, meaning it cannot be undone or disproven – it is absolute, and by its nature it supersedes any other assumptions or opinions. The reason we struggle with absolute truth is because of perspective. Look at Genesis 2:16-17 and 3:1-5. Was God being deceptive and trying to trick Adam and Eve? When God tells them to avoid the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it is actually from a position of freedom to eat from ANY other tree in the garden. They also can freely choose to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That tree simply had consequence attached to it. The Hebrew words God used there to describe “the knowledge of good and evil” can be translated as, “the experience of wholeness/wellness, and brokenness/dismantling.” Adam and Eve are given a choice of the fullness of life with God, or to experience the rollercoaster of life apart from God. The situation was clearly defined and explained, but how could Adam understand what “brokenness” was at that point? He had never experienced it. Perhaps that is why God added, “and you will surely die.” But did Adam know what death was? Maybe his experiential gap in understanding is what lead him to explain it so poorly to Eve. When she repeats what God told Adam to the serpent in chapter 3, it sounds very different than what God actually said. Does it seem odd that God would put that choice in front of them? They are only days old and are faced with choices and consequences they have no experience with. How could God expect them to know the “right” thing to do? How could their choice be wrong if they didn’t know what evil and death were? Check back during the week to explore these questions and whether there is absolute truth, and next Saturday for Part II of this post.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad97b/ad97bf44e2df3c81c05e0215001826f7aa736243" alt="by Logan Ames"