Created Fri. Dec. 21, 2001,   updated Fri. Sep. 11, 2009

 The Seven Days of Creation

Literal or Symbolic?


God's View of Time
Another Account
The 7th Day of Rest

Symbolism in the Bible
How Genesis Was Written


Does God Lie?
Science & Truth Suffer Still
The Liars Say . . .

Related Articles

It is the opinion of many Christians today who place faith in the Bible as the infallible word of God that the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are to be taken very literally, as six 24 hour days in which the heavens and the earth were made. The only problem is that there are accounts, particularly those dealing with prophecy or illustrations, that are obviously very figurative, symbolic, spiritual in their reference. But why would we bother to conclude that the 6 days of creation were anything but literal?

Christians today have become a very literal bunch. They call it fundamentalism. But given that our Lord and Master was said to only speak to the people in figures, illustrations, and parables; and given that most prophecy comes to us in figures and symbols, I find it remarkable that Christians seem to interpret most things literally, which would seem to be the exact opposite of the intentions of Jesus and the Father. It is as if Christians do not seem to know their Lord at all.

It is also worth noting that many things in Genesis itself indicate obvious blatant symbolism as well and yet, still, they do not consider the possibility that perhaps they are missing some things and maybe should give some more consideration to this matter. They even seem to miss the concept of entering God's rest as explained by Paul.

Then there are those "scientific" suggestions of a much older earth. And many Christians will swear conspiracy and heresy if one were to suggest that we take another look at the Bible based on science. But one need not look to science at all to question if there might not be some good sound scriptural basis for suspecting that those 6 days of creation might be figurative. The problem here is that most Christians assume or lump an old earth in with evolution, as if each depended on the other. While evolution does require an old earth, an old earth does not require evolution. I do not believe in evolution at all. I do believe the earth is much older than 6000 years. I do believe man is only 6000 years old (give a take a few years).

So I offer this article to consider some concepts and doctrines that I believe should merit a re-evaluation of the timeline.

God's View of Time
Back to Top

Moses is considered the recorder of Genesis. He is believed to be the one who recorded the first 5 books of the Bible. Moses gave us an idea of how God views time in Psalm 90. Who better to know God and what He might have meant in Genesis 1 than the man who spoke face to face with God and recorded the words we now contest.

Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

The Apostle Peter tells us much the same as Moses in his letter that God's perception of time is far different than ours. Observe!

2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Such things ought to give Christians pause when considering the following aspects of Genesis 1 & 2. It should be as no surprise to any Bible reader that there appear to be many contradictions in the first 2 chapters, beginning with the very first 2 verses.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

According to the first verse, God created the heavens and the earth in the very beginning, possibly before the first day. The first day was focusing on the transformation of the earth. On the first day, the now created earth was without form, was void, and was dark. So on that first day, after the beginning, God creates light and dark.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Now what was it that happened on the first day that was special or accomplished by God? Any answers? God created light and darkness, right? Didn't He? He did! What was the state of the earth before this day? It says in verse 2 that the earth at that point in time, the time when God began to give special attention to the earth and its purpose in God's plan, it was without form, relatively speaking, and it was covered with water and the winds, referred to as the spirit of God, were blowing and stirring over the face of the waters. And it was completely dark.

What most readers completely miss is that the earth was already in existence before day one. Verse 1 says that the first thing God did was create the heavens and the earth. But they existed in an unfinished state. God then turns His attention specifically to the earth to further form and refine it. That is what Genesis chapter 1 is all about. Of course, the scriptures leave out a lot of detail here. First, we know that at some time long before this, God gave birth to a son, but only one son directly. And through this son all other things were created so that as the Bible points out elsewhere, the fullness and completeness of God might b dwell within the son. The reasons for that would become more clear as time went on. This first born son, God's only real direct son, "only-begotten" being the most common term used, is known to us as Jesus, a Greek translation of a name in Hebrew known better as Joshua or Jehoshua. Either name (Greek or Hebrew) is fine. God does not favor one language over another.

If indeed, the heavens and earth were created in the beginning before the first day, and the first day refers to God now taking action on the earth, then we know that the heavens and earth have to be at least a day earlier, and possibly a good deal more if days are symbolic. But another problem arises in that the heavens already exist according to Genesis 1:1 and yet we do not see the heavens until the 4th day in verse 14.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Further, we were already told that on the first day God created light and darkness and now we are told that God creates the two great lights, the sun and moon, as well as the star's lights which could all be used to tell seasons, days, and years. But how did we tell the days on the first 3 days if we could not do that until now, on the 4th day? Verse 18 says they divide the light from the darkness. I thought we did that on the first day? What's going on here?

My explanation would be that we had not been dealing with literal days and nights from day 1 to day 4. What God has been describing to Moses was how it would have all appeared to a man, had he been able to be on earth to witness the refinement of the earth after its initial creation. It was initially dark but a light was created. But I suspect the atmosphere was still not clear, even though light could be discerned, just as it can be discerned shining through paper, even though we can't see clearly through it. This is what we call might call translucent but not transparent. We know that even overcast skies allow a good deal of light as compared to night time. That is likely how it was before day 4.

On day 4 the atmosphere and sky become completely clear so that one can now see the source of the light that became apparent on the first day, and one can also see the stars in the sky at night, along with the moon in its phases and cycles. These enable us to observe the seasons and we can even navigate by them. I believe this is what God is describing to us.

After having created waters in the sky and waters below with the atmosphere (heaven) in between on the 2nd day, God draws dry land out of the water and calls it earth and creates a large variety of vegetation and trees upon it. So it is not hard to see why when God seeded the earth with vegetation, He had the necessary light, even though the actual luminaries were not yet visible that created the light.

On the 5th day, God brings forth all the creatures of the sea and the birds of heaven. Then on the sixth and final day of creation, God makes land animals and then He makes man and woman and gives them dominion over the earth and the creatures in it. So the largest part of creation in many respects, takes place on the last two days. But now let's carefully note verse 27 which takes place on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

We are clearly told that both man and woman were created on the sixth day and blessed and God pronounced it very good! But then in Genesis 2:4, an additional account of the creation of the heavens and earth is given, only this time it is not expressed in days but in generations. Are we sure we are still dealing with literal days here?

Another Account
Back to Top

2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

Also significant here is that it is said that "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." Either God is lying and only took a day to make the heavens and the earth or we have absolute proof that day is used symbolically. If it is used symbolically here, why not before, too?! Now let's look at the word "generations."

Generations comes from a Hebrew word given below.

08435 towl@dah to-led-aw' or tol@dah to-led-aw'

In the KJV it appears 38 times as generations, once as birth; for a total of 39 times in the Hebrew Bible texts. Its definitions are as follows according to Strong's dictionary of Hebrew terms:

1) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies

1a) account of men and their descendants

1a1) genealogical list of one's descendants

1a2) one's contemporaries

1a3) course of history (of creation etc)

1b) begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

It would seem to me, in reviewing the meanings of generations, that it would in dictate far more than a few days or a week. The account then goes on to tell us more detail that was left out of the first account of the creation of the heavens and the earth in six days.

2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

Look very carefully! God forms man and man becomes a living soul. Then AFTER that, God plants a garden in Eden and puts the man there. We aren't done yet. God then goes on to give the man instructions and a command. God also had been bringing animals to this man, named Adam, to have him name the animals.

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

According to the scriptures, Adam named every living creature. Wow! Given that this was before the flood and the many extinctions that have taken place since the flood, this was quite a few animals and birds. Into untold thousands, even tens of thousands, perhaps several million. But even if it were just animals in the area where Adam lived, it would still take some time to observe them and name them. And oddly, every animal had a helper, a mate, a female, while there was conspicuously no such partner for Adam. But from the beginning, God no doubt had a partner planned and then announces it to His sons in heaven in attendance in Genesis 1:26. We are given another account in

2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

So now Adam, too, has a mate, like all the other creations of God. We were not told the detailed story of the creation of Adam and his wife, Eve, in the first account. But as we see, Adam had been alive long enough to name at least a few hundred, if not much more, of birds and animals as God would bring them to him before Eve was created. And we were definitely told that both were created on the 6th day as were all the land animals, too. Wow! Where did God get the time? He only had about 14 or 15 hours of daylight to accomplish it all. And though God can move fast, I doubt Adam could have kept up with Him. Are you sure this is not a symbolic day?

Plus, God made Adam fall asleep, while He made the woman from the man's rib. Now some suggest that this was literal and I will agree, even though I think the days are figurative. Let me explain. In both cases, God had planned that every day cycles and events of life have meanings woven into them. For a cycle of time, God selected 7 days. I suspect that God had the whole creation planned out long before he put it into motion. And so he chose to plan out his creation in 7 days so as to match up with the cycle of the week which people would live by. He also created the moon to go through its phases and cycles in near to 7 day periods and multiples of 7 as the moon cycle is, on average, about 28.5 days.

Likewise, when creating woman, God did it in such a way as to demonstrate His chosen order of authority. He could have created woman separately or at the same time, but He created her from Adam so as to make His point. Hence she was called woman for she was created out of the man's womb, so to speak. Yes, God could be referring to the creation of woman in a symbolic story but why not really do it? It would be just as easy and that way, no one could call Him a liar.

But as we can see, an awful lot happened on that 6th day that could cause us to wonder if it was really a 24 hour period. It could have easily taken Adam years to name all the animals and get acquainted with God in the process. And think about it - in order to give Adam the proper relationship so that he would be prepared to meet the challenge Satan was shortly to offer, wouldn't it be nice to give Adam as much chance as possible to prepare and gain trust? That way, little excuse would be left if Adam were to foolishly make the wrong choice which he did.

But most curious about all this is how the first account is wrapped up in the first 3 verses of chapter 2. I am going to propose something here. Numbering verses did not take place till long after Christ came and went from the earth. When the scriptures were first numbered, it was purely at the discretion of the copyist to pick and choose where he would being or end a portion of the scriptures into a chapter. The concept and idea of dividing the scriptures into numbered sections and verses was brilliant and has been of great use and value to us ever since in studying and referring to parts of the Bible. So integral and vital has this become that we assume the numbered and divided chapters are part and parcel of the Bible and they have become such. But the numbers are additions, though they in no way affect any meaning and are so useful.

But I would suggest that the man who first began numbering, chose the wrong place to begin the 2nd chapter. The 1st 3 verses of chapter 2 should clearly have remained with the first 31 verses of chapter 1. These last 3 verses explained what would be perhaps the single most important cycle in the whole Bible and all creation, the 7 day cycle. Many cycles were made in 7's by God. It was because of the prophetic significance of 7 that God made this the number for this weekly cycle. But I am going to go one step further.

I declare emphatically declare that the 7th day had not happened in Genesis and has not happened yet, either! Have I gone mad. Its possible, but let me explain! 

Genesis was the be the book that explained how everything came to be as it was. But it was also the very first place and book that was to declare the very first prophecies of God to men. Surely you can see the prophecy of the woman and "her" seed and a single seed that bruises the serpent in the head and how the seed of the serpent would battle struggle with the woman's seed but that the woman's seed would prevail and win in the end. This is all in Genesis 3 as we will get to. But what most do not understand is that those first 3 verses of chapter 2, which should have completed chapter 1, where intended to show God's further purpose.

Chapter 2:1 says: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." This was referring to the 6th day. Now lets look beyond!

The 7th Day of Rest
Back to Top

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

First, the 6th day ended everything as regards work and yet, it says here that the 7th day ended it, but what it really means is that the 7th day followed the end. It was a day off for God and for us, too. It was going to establish a common cycle for man but also a prophetic cycle as well as time and revelation would later prove. But also, I will suggest here that God has not yet begun the 7th day!!! NO! He is stating His intention to have a 7th day of rest but it has not begun yet. This is His first prophecy. Oh, you would never recognize it here. Listen, how many people recognize the woman and her seed and serpent's seed as being prophecies to be brought up and again and explained in the very last book of the Bible, which would be all prophecies? That book is Revelation. But the fist book was to start the riddle, the mystery, the prophecy that would be later explained and understood in the last book in the last days of the 6th day of creation.

Many thought the "woman" was Eve, since she was the only woman around at the time, but it was not that woman. It was the woman of Revelation chapter 12, which also refers to the original serpent of Genesis, of course, and of the woman's seed. This is the chapter that explains God's pronouncements in Genesis 3. Who would have ever guess it till Revelation and the last days came along!

But likewise, the 7th day is a mystery, a promise, from God, that He would have a day of rest and so would we! Paul was the one to explain and deliver the sense of this fulfillment of verses 2 and 3. Verse 3 speaks of Him as having already rested (or so it would seem) but in reality, it spoke of the further time in the future when He would rest. God blessed and sanctified the 7th day, which would indeed be a wonderful day when it finally arrived. It was, basically, a promise of hope, peace, restoration, salvation, and the final fulfillment of God's word and work, which was said to have been finished on the 6th day. Before the 6th day has ended, it will have been completed and what was said will really be true in that "God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Said another way, God expected all this mess to happen and need fixed before God would get His creation to the point He wanted. He knew some like Satan would challenge Him and challenge what He has created, namely Man. What was man, really, and was man really capable of what God had created him to be? Yes, God would prevail and His creation, too, in the end, at the end of the 6th day so that all creation may enter into that rest. Stay with me!

We could not say that right now for it is not good. Evil is everywhere. But God's declaration in Genesis 1:31 was that it was GOOD! And it will be! Then we will all rest together. God does not lie! We simply do not always understand His mysterious words when He first speaks them. But it is time to finally wake up and understand now.

Note, For starters, it does not say, "And there was evening, and there was morning, the seventh day." That is because the 7th day has not begun yet and certainly not ended yet.
So it can not be said that there was an evening and a morning or even a finish or completion. There are things left to finish! I grant, no one has carefully picked up on this, even though Paul spoke of it and Revelation finishes the mystery. But now that the last days have arrived, it is becoming clear what God really meant by these verses that have escaped our understanding for so long!

Do you see a finish or completion anywhere? It is not ended as the other 6 have. It is not ended at all but is perpetually blessed and God "rests' so to speak, from His creative labors. Paul draws our attention to this fact, knowing that it had probably escaped the notice of most followers of God in his time as well as in ours, too. Note carefully David's psalm which Paul will be referring to.

Psalm 95:
7  For He is our God; and we are the people of His pasture, and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice:

8  Do not harden your heart as in the day of strife, as in the day of testing in the wilderness; 9  When your fathers tempted Me, they tested Me and they saw My work. 10  For forty years I was disgusted with this generation; and I said, They are a people who err in heart; and, They do not know My ways, 11  to whom I swore in My anger, They shall not enter into My rest.

 Now Paul draws our attention to this account as it is very important for us to understand, as it was for those he wrote to in the 1st century.

Hebrews 3:11 As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall never enter my rest.'" (Psalm 95:11)

3:16 Who were they that heard and yet were rebellious? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses 17 And with whom was he provoked forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they should never enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Entering God's rest? Could this be the rest of 7th day mentioned in Genesis? We shall see.

Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall never enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.

We hear a lot about entering this rest but Paul is about to make it clear what that rest specifically is. Paul says God's works were finished from the foundation of the world. Yes, as far as God was concerned, it was all as good as said and done, even though a few things remained from our way of looking at things. God sees it differently. We need His view and not our own.

4:4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." 5 And again in this place he said, "They shall never enter my rest."

Paul is trying to show us what appears to be a contradiction. How about that, huh? He rested and yet, He has yet to rest and we have not entered into it with Him. But we can and we will if we remain obedient and faithful. That rest is what we all seek, isn't it? We are indeed talking about the rest God took on the 7th day and it would appear that we await His 7th day of rest, His Sabbath, and that He is still invites others to join in that rest. No wonder that the 7th day was not ended in Genesis. It hasn't really happened yet as far as Paul and God are concerned.

I have much more to offer to further show this. But surely you would not suggest that we ignore Paul, who speaks by authority of the Spirit of God and power of the Christ, would you? So continue with me as we explore this possibility.

4:6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day.

God is inviting us to also join Him in that 7th day of rest, God's sabbath. So the 6 days of creation are almost certain to be symbolic in some way or another, rather than literal. I do not understand how anyone could see it different, given this fact. But most have completely ignored Paul and God and disregarded this day of rest Paul carefully dissects for us. 

4:9 So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; 10 for whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.

It remains for us to enter God's rest. We can't enter it if it has already ended. And remember, it never said there was an evening and a morning, a full completion of that day. In fact, now we are beginning to understand that it did not even begin but that God was, in His unique way, telling us it would happen and we could take it to the bank, so to speak. But it was this intention that would complete a final 7 days that was the basis for making a 7 day week and other cycles of 7 such as the 7 year Sabbatical cycle or 7 sevens of years that amounted to a 49/50th year Jubilee cycle, as well as the 7 years cycle of the antichrist foretold in Daniel.

But the 7th day Sabbath of God continues from its beginning in Genesis and it awaits us to join in that rest if we will become obedient to God's word. That is why the 7th day was not ended as the previous 6 days were. It was left open. It now looks pretty certain that the 6 days of creation are only figurative days in which God describes the steps of creation to us. Consider one more scripture.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

That is His Sabbath day rest and not the one that man observes every week. It is the reason that God instituted the weekly Sabbath for Israel as this is from the 10 commandments.

Symbolism in the Bible
Back to Top

Genesis said that the heavens and earth were created in the beginning. What it meant, really, was a start. Then began the 6 days to finalize God's ultimate purpose. But Now here in Exodus it says 6 days. You mean it took 6 days to create the heavens? Are you sure? That is what is says, right? But, the heavens were already there before God even started fixing up the earth more. Is God confused? Or could it be that we should not be reading this too legalistically, too literally? And should we understand it more in symbolic/allegorical terms. I think wisdom would suggest that symbolic seems much more appropriate. Otherwise, we have God not being able to make up His mind, or at least having Moses confused in writing it all down. It would pretty well blow the divinely inspired idea out the window, wouldn't it?

Consider this! When we are created in God's image, do you imagine God with arms and legs, etc? Do you imagine God with a literal voice or does He manifest a voice for man so man can hear Him? Did God literally come down to earth and plant a garden in Eden or did He only figuratively plant it, using a term we understand to convey Him as the one who was responsible to its creation with His powers? Do we imagine that it was a real serpent who spoke to Eve? The tree of knowledge of good and bad; is it just a symbolic name or does it literally give you knowledge of good and bad? There are many things that all Christians have always thought to be somewhat symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical. So we would have to admit that there are symbolic things in Genesis. All we have to settle is how much we are willing to consider as symbolic.

How about this? On the 6th day, God creates all sorts of animals. And then He creates the most important animal, the one that would be in His image and be the ultimate goal and fulfillment of His plan. I speak of man, Adam. But then God brings the various animals to Adam to name. There are a lot of animals, not to mention, birds and other creatures from the previous day or so. And it would seem as if some time goes by, for 24 hours seems to be no where near enough time for Adam to observe the animals and then name them. He notes there are both male and helpers, females of these creatures. And God finally says to the rest of the heavenly host, it is not good for man to continue alone. So God has Adam fall asleep and takes a rib from Adam to make woman, Eve. According to 1:27, this is still the 6th day.

God had also, in chap. 2, planted a garden on the 6th day and put Adam there, before making Eve. He warned Adam not to eat from the special tree God called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad. Then Eve is born, so to speak. And God tells them to breed and fill the earth and blesses them and pronounces it good. That is an awful lot to happen in a day, wouldn't you say?

For all we know, Adam might have been a boy as God's first step in making him and letting him grow from there. Eve might also have been young and immature physically at the start for they did not breed till after their sin and fall. What we know for sure is that right after God's pronouncements in Genesis 3, with Adam and Eve expelled, they begin breeding in Genesis 4:1. But now very carefully take good notice that in Genesis 5:3, it is said that Adam was 130 years old when he had his 3rd son, Seth. Did it take Adam 130 years to have a 3rd son? That is what it says. Then when did Adam have the other 2 previous.

What can be said beyond the shadow of any doubt is that there was a very long time between Adam and Eve being created and Adam finally having kids, any kids. It does not take 130 years to have 3 boys and an unmentioned number of girls, too, from which Cain would get a wife. Further, given that Eve was no doubt attractive and desirable, (after all she was perfect, right?), I doubt Adam waited very long to begin trying to breed. Even if we allow time for Eve to be young and not capable of pregnancy at first, that still only puts us back a few years or likely 10 at most.

What seems most likely to me is that Adam spent quite a bit of time with God before Eve came along. Much more than just a day. Years is much more likely. Besides, I suspect God took a lot of time with Adam to establish a solid relationship with him so that he would have good reason to trust God and remain loyal if lied to. Indeed, Paul says that Eve was deceived but Adam was not. He knew better. So Adam was blamed for his poor choice, having far more advantage than Eve did. Just a hunch!

I would think that we have more than enough evidence before us to give reasonable consideration to the possibility that days could, indeed, be symbolic, even as are other symbols and events in Genesis. I think it certain that to understand the work of creation in detail would not be possible without a fair amount of time spent with that creation and God on the part of Adam. God explained it in simple terms that could be understood and appreciated by any man in any period of time. We who live at this time and in a modern country of sufficient scientific knowledge can better understand how God might have brought things into being. In another time and place, it may not have been quite so easy to understand.

I know many who say that God can do things instantly. Yes, He certainly can. But I also will point out that God has a very different view of time than we do. It has already been pointed out with use of the scriptures that one of God's days would be a thousand years to us. He has a very long time scale compared to us. We were created yesterday in His way of looking at things, even though it was 6000 years ago. That is nothing to God.

So while God did make man in a fairly short period of time, though it was in steps according to the Bible, it does not mean that everything was done in a manner of minutes or 6 days. One of God's days can be a very long time. This is the view we need to have and appreciate. We can not take for granted that God meant 6 of our days rather than His. And we have enough evidence to give us good reason to give this possibility far more consideration than we might have previously.

How Genesis Was Written
Back to Top

Keep in mind that Genesis was written from a perspective that could be used and somewhat comprehensible to a man of any time in history. But at the same time, it was written more specifically for those who would be living in the last days and ready to receive the full understanding of God's prophetic messages and symbols. And yet, it was also not written from a science perspective, even though we would be capable of such understanding. It had to be sensible to a common man of earlier times. So we are privileged to receive the prophetic fulfillment and intentions of Genesis, but we are still not given a scientific breakdown of the creation of the heavens and the earth. It was not necessary then or now.

But even as the universe continues to form and change in the present, it has always been changing and evolving. So that it might have been doing so long before man came along, and given God's view of time, it should not be a long stretch of mind to conceive of, on our part. It should be easy to comprehend. But that does not mean that man evolved. Man was created quickly, all at once. This is the case with various animals as well, I am sure. And the first man, Adam, was the father of the whole human race, even as the Bible says. And it was the fall of that one man that caused us all to be born into the condition of sin and death that we were. And it is another man given in sacrifice that ransomed us and saved us from death and sin, undoing what the first man did.

This 2nd spirit giving man, though empowered with the power and authority of God, having come from God in heaven to begin with, was still, just a man, even as Elijah and Elishah were men authorized and empowered by God. Jesus had to be a man and be capable of feeling pain and fear, of dying, of sinning, and of being tempted, so that he might be fairly put to the test by the devil to see if there really was a man, a real man, who could bear up to the temptations and threats, and tortures and death that Jesus had to endure. It was no small feat and that Jesus accomplished it was good reason to claim that it justified the whole human race and bought it from the sin of Adam.

But from a science perspective, we are given very little. Consider the example of Jacob. Jacob was in the service of his uncle, Laban, and Laban had wanted Jacob to stay on and take care of his flocks of sheep. Jacob agreed to do so under certain terms and conditions which Laban accepted in Genesis 30. Jacob did not understand science as we do and it would have been too difficult for God to have explained it at that point and it was not necessary to do so. So God left the exact precise science out of it, even as He did in Genesis.

Genesis 30:31 And he said, What shall I give you? And Jacob said, You shall not give me anything. If you will do this thing for me, I will remain. I will feed your flock and keep it. 32 I will pass among all your flock today, taking from there every speckled and spotted sheep, and every black sheep among the lambs, also the spotted and speckled goats; these shall be my wages. 33 And my righteousness shall testify for me in the day to come. When you come in about my wages, before your face everyone that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and black among the lambs, it is stolen with me. 34 And Laban said, Yes, if it be so let it be as you speak. 35 And he turned out in that day all the striped and spotted lambs, and all the speckled and spotted goats, every one which had white, and every black one among the lambs. And he gave them into the hands of his sons.

So Jacob would accept all the undesirable sheep. Pure white wool was the most desirable. The speckled and black sheep would produce colors other than white, not considered as desirable. Jacob then came up with a scheme that he thought might produce more speckled and black sheep.

Genesis 30:37 And Jacob took for himself white rods of a fresh tree, and the almond and plane tree. And he peeled white stripes in them, laying bare the white on the rods. 38 And he set the rods which he had peeled by the troughs, by the water troughs where the flocks came to drink, across from the flocks. And they were in heat when they came to drink. 39 And the flocks were in heat before the rods and bore striped, speckled and spotted offspring.

40 And Jacob separated the lambs, and he set the faces of the flock toward the striped, and every black one in the flocks of Laban. And he put his own droves by themselves, and did not put them with the flock of Laban. 41 And it happened that whenever the strong flocks conceived, Jacob placed the rods before the eyes of the flocks, before the troughs, that they might conceive by the rods. 42 And the flocks being feeble, he did not set them. And usually it happened that the weak were for Laban, and the strong for Jacob. 43 And the man increased very much, and many flocks were his, and slave-girls, and male slaves, and camels and asses.

But it was not the rods that helped produce the varieties of sheep. It was just pure genetics. But God was not about to explain the concept of DNA to Jacob. So a simple dream would give an explanation sufficient enough to satisfy the situation at that time.

Genesis 30:10 And it happened at the time the flock was in heat, I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream: And behold! The ram leaping on the flock were striped, speckled, and spotted. 11 And the Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, Jacob! And I said, Behold me. 12 And He said, Lift up your eyes and see all the rams leaping on the flock; they are striped, speckled and spotted.

The rams/males were spotted, and therefore, so were the results. Jacob and Laban both did not notice that a significant portion of the colored/spotted flock were male. They might have thought it more of a 50/50 mix. It obviously was not. That was as deep as God was going to get at that point.

This does not please those who want to find fault with God and the Bible and mislead us away from God. But it is enough for a reasonable person to understand why God did not get too technical in Genesis though He could have easily done so. In all likelihood, God will explain it all in more depth and detail and the earth will be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah. But for now, we need only be concerned with prophecy and prophetic fulfillment.

It is much the same case with the "days" of creation. In most times other than the last few hundred years, a simple, somewhat allegorical explanation, thought not without some truth to it, would be all that would be necessary to help them understand that creation came about as a process that occurred in phases until it was finished. And God chose days to describe it, I suspect, so that He could create a cyclical period for humans to work and live by that would reflect the story of creation so that people would never forget that God was the creator and rule maker/ law giver and that their week symbolized the "days" of creation and some prophetic figures and symbols as well. God's days, that is, and not ours, and God's days are much different in scale than our own 24 hour days.

There could not be a more obvious symbolic day than the one that follows.

Genesis 2:17 "but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."

Now either God is a liar or day does not mean literal day for we know that Adam lived 930 years and did not die in the day that he ate. Day was a figurative term God used. But the death process, that of aging and death, did begin the day Adam ate. But it took 930 years to complete the word of God. I would find it hard to believe that Christians could not yet see that day could be figurative in Genesis.

2 Peter 3:8 But let not this one thing be hidden from you, beloved, that one day with the Lord is "as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." [Psa. 90:4]
9 The Lord of the promise is not slow, as some deem slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not having purposed any of us to perish, but all of us to come to repentance.

Psalm 90:
1  A Prayer of Moses, the Man of God. O Lord, You have been our dwelling-place in all generations.
2  Before the mountains were born, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting You are God.
3  You turn man to dust, and say, Return, O sons of men.
4  For a thousand years in Your eyes are as yesterday when it passes, and as a watch in the night.
5  You flooded them away; they are as a sleep; in the morning they are like grass growing;
6  in the morning it sprouts and shoots up; in the evening it withers and dries up.

Justins Second Apology
Back to Top

Chap. 81
For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.


--From the writings of ANASTASIUS about Justin

And the fact that it was not said of the seventh day equally with the other days, "And there was evening, and there was morning," is a distinct indication of the consummation which is to take place in it before it is finished, as the fathers declare, especially St. Clement, and Irenaeus, and Justin the martyr and philosopher, who, commenting with exceeding wisdom on the number six of the sixth day, affirms that the intelligent soul of man and his five susceptible senses were the six works of the sixth day. Whence also, having discoursed at length on the number six, he declares that all things which have been framed by God are divided into six classes,--viz., into things intelligent and immortal, such as are the angels; into things reasonable and mortal, such as mankind; into things sensitive and irrational, such as cattle, and birds, and fishes; into things that can advance, and move, and are insensible, such as the winds, and the clouds, and the waters, and the stars; into things which increase and are immoveable, such as the trees; and into things which are insensible and immoveable, such as the mountains, the earth, and such like. For all the creatures of God, in heaven and on earth, fall under one or other of these divisions, and are circumscribed by them.

>>> Anastasius notes as I did (I copied him) that the 7th day is not mentioned as having an evening or a morning as the other 6 did. Doesn't sound like Anastasius or Justin thought the days were literal nor the others Anastasius mentioned, St. Clement and Irenaeus. <<<

Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, Book 5, Chap. 23
Back to Top

The 7th day of creation

2. Thus, then, in the day that they did eat, in the same did they die, and became death's debtors, since it was one day of the creation. For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. But according to the cycle and progress of the days, after which one is termed first, another second, and another third, if anybody seeks diligently to learn upon what day out of the seven it was that Adam died, he will find it by examining the dispensation of the Lord. For by summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end, He has also summed up its death. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Now he died on the same day in which he did eat. For God said, "In that day on which you shall eat of it, you shall die by death." The Lord, therefore, recapitulating in Himself this day, underwent His sufferings upon the day preceding the Sabbath, that is, the sixth day of the creation, on which day man was created; thus granting him a second creation by means of His passion, which is that [creation] out of death.

And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin. Whether, therefore, with respect to disobedience, which is death; whether [we consider] that, on account of that, they were delivered over to death, and made debtors to it; whether with respect to [the fact that on] one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of the creation); whether [we regard this point], that, with respect to this cycle of days, they died on the day in which they did also eat, that is, the day] of the preparation, which is termed "the pure supper," that is, the sixth day of the feast, which the Lord also exhibited when He suffered on that day; or whether [we reflect] that he (Adam) did not overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit,--it follows that, in regard to all these significations, God is indeed true. For they died who tasted of the tree; and the serpent is proved a liar and a murderer, as the Lord said of him: "For he is a murderer from the beginning, and the truth is not in him."

>>> Irenaeus is suggesting that Jesus died on the same day that Adam did. How about that! Irenaeus also notes Adam dying within the "day" that he ate the fruit. The symbolism is understood. <<<

Barnabas - The Epistle of Barnabas
Back to Top

>>> This is the most fascinating of accounts. Barnabas points out that the Sabbath must be sanctified with clean hands and pure hearts. This becomes very important. And he points out that they will truly enter and have rest if the Sabbath is kept. He will show why soon after. Barnabas' words are in BLACK text. Scripture quotes by him are in boldface. <<<


Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai ,
"And sanctify you the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart."
And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them."

The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]:
"And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it."

Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days."
This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, "for a day is with Him a thousand years."
And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, today will be as a thousand years."
Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day."

>>> We might assume that Barnabas got this from the Apostles. It would not seem likely to me that he would draw all these conclusions on his own. For all though he assumes about 1000 years per day, this would not seem to be enough to assume that man's existence would also be 6 "days," meaning 6,000 years. This would seem to me to need to come from the Apostles. But regardless, Barnabas recognizes the days of Genesis as symbolic and reflecting God's view of time, not man's. 

Did you miss something I left out here. I raised doubt about what Barnabas said. But there is no need to doubt. Go look at Hebrews 3:17 to 4:11. Paul quotes the very same verses to the very same interpretation. Will you believe someone who can bring the dead back to life? I hope so. This should settle this matter, but I give you more just in case. And Barnabas did not make it clear where he got his interpretation from, but maybe he was assuming we all knew the Bible pretty well and would recognize Hebrews. Did you? <<<

This means: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars,
then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.
Moreover, He says, "You shall sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart."
If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived.

>>> Barnabas makes it very clear here that the Sabbath rest of God does not begin till the stuff started on day 6 is actually completed, including the judgment of the ungodly. And only AFTER that does God truly rest. then Barnabas recalls that this day of rest must be sanctified with pure hand and hearts as God instructed to Moses. So in order for the true meaning of the Sabbath day of rest of God to be legitimate, those in it must be good and pure and honor the Sabbath. Barnabas further emphasizes this idea below. <<<

Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." you perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.

>>> This may appear in other accounts but I 1st discovered this stuff in 2002 and then did not get back to this till now in 2009 so I forgot or did not completely finish copying and pasting thigns dealing with this subject and may be missing some accounts I first came across. But it is clear that the earliest accounts of Genesis see lots of symbolism and not literal days, buy symbolic prophetic days.

What we also have here is a suggestion that man's length of time is going to be about 6,000 years from Adam to Armageddon. We have been just over 6,000 now so it would seem reasonable that we are very near to the end. The time would seem to be right, both in amount of time as well as the signs and circumstances of the times, too. So we do not know the exact day or time in which the antichrist may appear, but we know its very close.

I highly recommend the Epistle of Barnabas for he highlights the vast amount of symbolism throughout the law and Bible. It is not a long Epistle and very good. Anyone would profit by reading it. <<<

Back to Top


    Of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths; nay, though he were to live ten thousand years, sojourning in this life, not even so could he utter anything worthy of these things, on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated.
Many writers indeed have imitated [the narration], and essayed to give an explanation of these things; yet, though they thence derived some suggestions, both concerning the creation of the world and the nature of man, they have emitted no slightest spark of truth.
    And the utterances of the philosophers, and writers, and poets have an appearance of trustworthiness, on account of the beauty of their diction; but their discourse is proved to be foolish and idle, because the multitude of their nonsensical frivolities is very great; and not a stray morsel of truth is found in them. For even if any truth seems to have been uttered by them, it has a mixture of error. And as a deleterious drug, when mixed with honey or wine, or some other thing, makes the whole [mixture] hurtful and profitless; so also eloquence is in their case found to be labour in vain; yea, rather an injurious thing to those who credit it.

Moreover, [they spoke] concerning the seventh day, which all men acknowledge; but the most know not that what among the Hebrews is called the "Sabbath," is translated into Greek the "Seventh" (<greek>ebdomas</greek>), a name which is adopted by every nation, although they know not the reason of the appellation.
    And as for what the poet Hesiod says of Erebus being produced from chaos, as well as the earth and love which lords it over his [Hesiod's] gods and men, his dictum is shown to be idle and frigid, and quite foreign to the truth. For it is not meet that God be conquered by pleasure; since even men of temperance abstain from all base pleasure and wicked lust.

>>> Theophilus suggests that there is a huge amount of hidden treasure and meaning in Genesis 1. Where did he get an idea like that? It would seem a pretty common idea in those first 200 years of Christianity. If we can accept this very obvious attitude of those early times, and recognize that at least some of it had to come from the Apostles, then it should be no surprise that there is or should be recognized, far more symbolism that narrow minded Christianity of today will concede. <<<


Moreover, his [Hesiod's] human, and mean, and very weak conception, so far as regards God, is discovered in his beginning to relate the creation of all things from the earthly things here below. For man, being below, begins to build from the earth, and cannot in order make the roof, unless he has first laid the foundation. But the power of God is shown in this, that, first of all, He creates out of nothing, according to His will, the things that are made. "For the things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

Wherefore, also, the prophet mentioned that the creation of the heavens first of all took place, as a kind of roof, saying: "At the first God created the heavens"--that is, that by means of the "first" principle the heavens were made, as we have already shown. And by "earth" he means the ground and foundation, as by "the deep" he means the multitude of waters; and "darkness" he speaks of, on account of the heaven which God made covering the waters and the earth like a lid. And by the Spirit which is borne above the waters, he means that which God gave for animating the creation, as he gave life to man, mixing what is fine with what is fine. For the Spirit is fine, and the water is fine, that the Spirit may nourish the water, and the water penetrating everywhere along with the Spirit, may nourish creation. For the Spirit being one, and holding the place of light, was between the water and the heaven, in order that the darkness might not in any way communicate with the heaven, which was nearer God, before God said, "Let there be light."

The heaven, therefore, being like a dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod. And so another prophet, Isaiah by name, spoke in these words:
"It is God who made the heavens as a vault, and stretched them as a tent to dwell in."
The command, then, of God, that is, His Word, shining as a lamp in an enclosed chamber, lit up all that was under heaven, when He had made light apart from the world. And the light God called Day, and the darkness Night. Since man would not have been able to call the light Day, or the darkness Night, nor, indeed, to have given names to the other things, had not he received the nomenclature from God, who made the things themselves.

In the very beginning, therefore, of the history and genesis of the world, the holy Scripture spoke not concerning this firmament [which we see], but concerning another heaven, which is to us invisible, after which this heaven which we see has been called "firmament," and to which half the water was taken up that it might serve for rains, and showers, and dews to mankind. And half the water was left on earth for rivers, and fountains, and seas. The water, then, covering all the earth, and specially its hollow places, God, through His Word, next caused the waters to be collected into one collection, and the dry land to become visible, which formerly had been invisible. The earth thus becoming visible, was yet without form. God therefore formed and adorned it with all kinds of herbs, and seeds and plants.

>>> Theophilus uses Isaiah to suggest that the Heavens in Gen. 1:1 is not the heavens of Isaiah, but the heavens in which spirits dwell in the presence of God. Could be. We do not know for sure where he gets the authority to say this but it seems like all these early church leaders saw all sorts of symbolism in Genesis 1. So how or when did things begin to change? You need to answer this, who believe that everything was and is literal, for you are not supported by any of the early writers. <<<


Consider, further, their variety, and diverse beauty, and multitude, and how through them resurrection is exhibited, for a pattern of the resurrection of all men which is to be. For who that considers it will not marvel that a fig-tree is produced from a fig-seed, or that very huge trees grow from the other very little seeds? And we say that the world resembles the sea. For as the sea, if it had not had the influx and supply of the rivers and fountains to nourish it, would long since have been parched by reason of its saltness; so also the world, if it had not had the law of God and the prophets flowing and welling up sweetness, and compassion, and righteousness, and the doctrine of the holy commandments of God, would long ere now have come to ruin, by reason of the wickedness and sin which abound in it. And as in the sea there are islands, some of them habitable, and well-watered, and fruitful, with havens and harbors in which the storm-tossed may find refuge,--so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies--we mean holy churches--in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbors of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God. And as, again, there are other islands, rocky and without water, and barren, and infested by wild beasts, and uninhabitable, and serving only to injure navigators and the storm-tossed, on which ships are wrecked, and those driven among them perish,--so there are doctrines of error--I mean heresies -- which destroy those who approach them. For they are not guided by the word of truth; but as pirates, when they have filled their vessels, drive them on the fore-mentioned places, that they may spoil them: so also it happens in the case of those who err from the truth, that they are all totally ruined by their error.

>>> Hard to say how much of this is supported by being handed down and how much is personal interpretation. But it at least shows that there was lots of symbolism seen in Genesis and well as the law of Moses. Given that most writers attach a lot of symbolism to the token objects of the law such as the animals to avoid eating and those you can eat and other such items of the law, it would seem likely that this feature, to some degree, must have come from the Apostles. <<<


On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again,, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets, they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.


On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through: which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and later of regeneration,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God. But the monsters of the deep and the birds of prey are a similitude of covetous men and transgressors. For as the fish and the fowls are of one nature,--some indeed abide in their natural state, and do no harm to those weaker than themselves, but keep the law of God, and eat of the seeds of the earth; others of them, again, transgress the law of God, and eat flesh, and injure those weaker than themselves: thus, too, the righteous, keeping the law of God, bite and injure none, but live holily and righteously. But robbers, and murderers, and godless persons are like monsters of the deep, and wild beasts, and birds of prey; for they virtually devour those weaker than themselves. The race, then, of fishes and of creeping things, though partaking of God's blessing, received no very distinguishing property.


And on the sixth day, God having made the quadrupeds, and wild beasts, and the land reptiles, pronounced no blessing upon them, reserving His blessing for man, whom He was about to create on the sixth day. The quadrupeds, too, and wild beasts, were made for a type of some men, who neither know nor worship God, but mind earthly things, and repent not. For those who turn from their iniquities and live righteously, in spirit fly upwards like birds, and mind the things that are above, and are well-pleasing to the will of God. But those who do not know nor worship God, are like birds which have wings, but cannot fly nor soar to the high things of God. Thus, too, though such persons are called men, yet being pressed down with sins, they mind grovelling and earthly-things. And the animals are named wild beasts [<greek>qhria</greek>], from their being hunted [<greek>qhreuesqai</greek>], not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first--for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,--but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him. For as, if the master of the house himself acts rightly, the domestics also of necessity conduct themselves well; but if the master sins, the servants also sin with him; so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man's sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.


For God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." By this He signifies to us, that the whole earth was at that time watered by a divine fountain, and had no need that man should till it; but the earth produced all things spontaneously by the command of God, that man might not be wearied by tilling it.

>>> He says the whole earth was watered this way. I am not so sure. God put Adam in a garden called Eden and we can say for sure that Eden and around it was watered this way. Whether the whole world was attended to this way, who knows? I don't. <<<


Scripture thus relates the words of the sacred history: "And God planted Paradise, eastward, in Eden ; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of Paradise , and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And a river flows out of Eden , to water the garden; thence it is parted into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasses the whole land of Havilah , where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good, and there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasses the whole land of Ethiopia . And the third river is Tigris: this is it which goes toward Syria . And the fourth river is Euphrates . And the LORD God took the man whom He had made, and put him in the garden, to till and to keep it. And God commanded Adam, saying, Of every tree that is in the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; let Us make him an helpmeet for him. And out of the ground God formed all the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of heaven, and brought them to Adam. And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowls of the air, and to all the beasts of the field. But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him. And God caused an ecstasy to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto Adam. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed.


You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise ?" Hear what I say.

The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest;
but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam.

>>> This was an account that most impressed Sir Isaac Newton. Newton did not believe a great being like God could be reduced to appear before man. He needed a surrogate and produced a son who could stand in His place and substitute for Him. Theophilus makes this clear here. <<<

For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son?
    Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counselor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason.

>>> Theophilus declares this his view is the view that all subscribed to up to his time. If you read my Trinity article, you will see this is the case. Theophilus says Jesus was with God, created by God, and that all things took place through Jesus after God gave birth to him, so to speak, in creating him to carry on God's will. This son is able to bridge the gap between the Most High God and mere men on earth. Not just any angel would do. God wanted the only son made directly by Him and familiar with everything about him like no other angel could be. First born and only born, who made all the other angels after, becoming himself a father to them. 

I do not recall whether I got the account of Theophilus in my Trinity article but even if I did not, what he expresses here is certainly the view the others had in at least the first 150 years of Christianity. But he also expresses the vast amount of symbolism recognized by all the early Christian overseers/writers. <<<

And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

Back to Top

>>> Origen, perhaps more than any other writer, understood the symbolic nature of the Bible and God. He addresses it more than any other. He is not always flawless or perfect, but he is often right on the money.<<<


6. that in the beginning "God made the heavens and the earth." For another heaven and another earth are shown to exist besides that "firmament" which is said to have been made after the second day, or that "dry land" which was afterwards called "earth." . . .

. . . And when he says elsewhere, "Because I shall see the heavens, the works of Thy fingers," and when God said, regarding all things visible, by the mouth of His prophet, "My hand has formed all these things," He declares that that eternal house in the heavens which He promises to His saints was not made with hands, pointing out, doubtless, the difference of creation in things which are seen and in those which are not seen. For the same thing is not to be understood by the expressions, "those things which are not seen," and "those things which are invisible." For those things which are invisible are not only not seen, but do not even possess the property of visibility, being what the Greeks call <greek>aswmata</greek>, i.e., incorporeal; whereas those of which Paul says, "They are not seen," possess indeed the property of being seen, but, as he explains, are not yet beheld by those to whom they are promised.

>>> Origen, too, recognizes both a spiritual heavens and the firmament, which we might call the galaxy or universe. And he sees quite a bit of symbolism in Genesis, realizing that God does not really have fingers, a mouth or other body parts. Do we recognize all that symbolism and yet miss the "days" of God? <<<


1. And now, since there is one of the articles of the Church which is held principally in consequence of our belief in the truth of our sacred history, viz. that this world was created and took its beginning at a certain time, and, in conformity to the cycle of time decreed to all things, is to be destroyed on account of its corruption, there seems no absurdity in re-discussing a few points connected with this subject. And so far, indeed, as the credibility of Scripture is concerned, the declarations on such a matter seem easy of proof. Even the heretics, although widely opposed on many other things, yet on this appear to be at one, yielding to the authority of Scripture.
Concerning, then, the creation of the world,
[{There is missing text here due to damage to original material translation.}]
tion of Scripture can give us more information regarding it, than the account which Moses has transmitted respecting its origin?
And although it comprehends matters of profounder significance than the mere historical narrative appears to indicate,
and contains very many things that are to be spiritually understood, and employs the letter, as a kind of veil, in treating of profound and mystical subjects;

>>> Origen lets us know that there is more being related and transmitted than what is apparent on the surface that Moses relates. He begs us to look closer, look deeper, look beyond. There is often a spiritual or at least allegorical meaning. In fact, God often deliberately hides things that His enemies may not know Him or His works. We have to develop this kind of mentality and recognize in Genesis 1-3 that there is much that is figurative or allegorical and requires us to give careful though to those passages. To just carelessly write it all off as strictly literal is a lazy, as well as irresponsible, way out. <<<

nevertheless the language of the narrator shows that all visible things were created at a certain time. But with regard to the consummation of the world, Jacob is the first who gives any information, in addressing his children in the words: "Gather yourselves together unto me, you sons of Jacob, that I may tell you what shall be in the last days," or "after the last days." If, then, there be "last days," or a period "succeeding the last days," the days which had a beginning must necessarily come to an end.

David, too, declares: "The heavens shall perish, but You shall endure; yea, all of them shall wax old as does a garment: as a vesture shall You change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end." Our Lord and Savior, indeed, in the words, "He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female," Himself bears witness that the world was created; and again, when He says, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away," He points out that they are perishable, and must come to an end. The apostle, moreover, in declaring that "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God," manifestly announces the end of the world; as he does also when he again says, "The fashion of this world passes away." Now, by the expression which he employs, "that the creature was made subject to vanity," he shows that there was a beginning to this world: for if the creature were made subject to vanity on account of some hope, it was certainly made subject from a cause; and seeing it was from a cause, it must necessarily have had a beginning: for, without some beginning, the creature could not be subject to vanity, nor could that (creature) hope to be freed from the bondage of corruption, which had not begun to serve. But any one who chooses to search at his leisure, will find numerous other passages in holy Scripture in which the world is both said to have a beginning and to hope for an end.


7. Many, not understanding the Scriptures in a spiritual sense, but incorrectly, have fallen into heresies.

>>> Origen goes so far as to suggest that those who settle for a strict and mundane, even common, earthly fleshly way of interpreting things, are falling into a trap, a heresy and not walking properly with God. Strictly and solely literal fundamentalist interpretations are profane and weak. <<<

    10. But lest this difficulty perhaps should be supposed to exist only in the language of the prophets, seeing the prophetic style is allowed by all to abound in figures and enigmas, what do we find when we come to the Gospels? Is there not hidden there also an inner, namely a divine sense, which is revealed by that grace alone which he had received who said, "But we have the mind of Christ, that we might know the things freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit teaches?" And if one now were to read the revelations which were made to John, how amazed would he not be that there should be contained within them so great an amount of hidden, ineffable mysteries, in which it is clearly understood, even by those who cannot comprehend what is concealed, that something certainly is concealed.

>>> Origen says that it is just too obvious that throughout the entire Bible, there is a great wealth and depth of meaning hidden, not only in the prophets, but in the Gospels, and even Revelation. We ought to be ashamed if we do not recognize a greater meaning and significance to the scriptures than a plain literal reading. Really, if all we can muster is the literal and fundamental, than we have become as babies needing milk again. <<<

. . .  And yet are not the Epistles of the Apostles, which seem to some to be plainer, filled with meanings so profound, that by means of them, as by some small receptacle, the clearness of incalculable light appears to be poured into those who are capable of understanding the meaning of divine wisdom?

    11. But, as we had begun to observe, the way which seems to us the correct one for the understanding of the Scriptures, and for the investigation of their meaning, we consider to be of the following kind: for we are instructed by Scripture itself in regard to the ideas which we ought to form of it. In the Proverbs of Solomon we find some such rule as the following laid down, respecting the consideration of holy Scripture: "And do you," he says, "describe these things to yourself in a threefold manner, in counsel and knowledge, and that you may answer the words of truth to those who have proposed them to you."

Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters,--that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak; by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nothing; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God hath decreed before the ages unto our glory;"--all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit.

>>> We are warned of hidden things and mysteries; kept away from the world and comprehensible only to the "perfect." We need to be guided by the spirit and not the letter of the law. <<<

    16. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars--the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil?

No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how any one can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for any one who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account.

>>> Origen is being quite sarcastic and harsh. I like it. He thinks that if you take the passages he mentions literally and do not see the obvious figurative speech, then you are basically as blind as the unbelievers. Time for a change, don't you think? <<<

    19. And yet I have no doubt that an attentive reader will, in numerous instances, hesitate whether this or that history can be considered to be literally true or not; or whether this or that precept ought to be observed according to the letter or no. And therefore great pains and labour are to be employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing with divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books.

>>> Origen is basically saying that because these words are from God, you should take great care and effort to examine them ever so carefully. These are no mere words of men. Agreed? <<<    

20. The understanding, therefore, of holy Scripture which we consider ought to be deservedly and consistently maintained, is of the following kind. A certain nation is declared by holy Scripture to have been chosen by God upon the earth, which nation has received several names: for sometimes the whole of it is termed Israel, and sometimes Jacob; and it was divided by Jeroboam son of Nebat into two portions; and the ten tribes which were formed under him were called Israel, while the two remaining ones (with which were united the tribe of Levi, and that which was descended from the royal race of David) was named Judah. Now the whole of the country possessed by that nation, which it had received from God, was called Judea, in which was situated the metropolis, Jerusalem; and it is called metropolis, being as it were the mother of many cities, the names of which you will frequently find mentioned here and there in the other books of Scripture, but which are collected together into one catalogue in the book of Joshua the son of Nun.

    21. This, then, being the state of the case, the holy apostle desiring to elevate in some degree, and to raise our understanding above the earth, says in a certain place, "Behold Israel after the flesh;" by which he certainly means that there is another Israel which is not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. And again in another passage, "For they are not all Israelites who are of Israel ."

>>> Origen clearly understands the prophetic symbols but paying careful attention to words of distinction such as "Israel after the flesh." The Bible seeks to make a contrast and we are supposed to recognize it. And what we encounter in Genesis 1 should also cause us to recognize these distinctions and give them extra thought and care. <<<

Does God Lie?
Back to Top

But now consider the example of Abraham. We know that Abraham is said to be the father of all those having faith and that he is our spiritual father. God chose and blessed Abraham because of the faith and trust he displayed in God. What did he do? When God asked him to leave his homeland and sedentary lifestyle for that of a nomad, living in a strange land and being in conflict and danger with the various inhabitants he came across in his travels as a nomad, Abraham did so.

God did offer some promises to Abraham but most of those would not be fulfilled in his lifetime. So Abraham considered the promises worth obtaining for one, and certain to be obtained, for second. Abraham never doubted that God would not honor His word and that He was capable of keeping His word. This was a large act of faith and trust, all by itself. But perhaps a greater example was to follow.

God promised Abraham a seed, a son, to who the promise would be passed on to. Since Sarah, Abraham's wife, was old and incapable of getting pregnant anymore, she supplied Abraham with a slave girl. But God made it clear after this, that God intended it to be from Sarah. So God performed a miracle in enabling Sarah to conceive and give birth. They called the boy Isaac. Through Isaac, God promised the inheritance would continue. Abraham accepted that and never doubted God . . . EVER! What proof do I offer?

God speaks to Abraham on an occasion when Isaac was a young man, perhaps a teenager. It is not possible to be certain of the age. But God asks Abraham to now offer his son in sacrifice to God. Now surely we can all see that it would have been easy and even expected and natural, yes, even reasonable for Abraham to have jumped to the conclusion that God was going back on His promise. Many of us might have come to that very conclusion.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith, being tested, Abraham offered up Isaac; and he receiving the promises was offering up the only begotten, 18 as to whom it was said, "In Isaac your Seed shall be called;" (Gen. 21:12) 19 reckoning that God was able to raise even from the dead; from where indeed he obtained him in a parable.

But the faith and trust of Abraham was so great that it never even entered his mind that God could do such a thing. Abraham reasoned that God was going to bring Isaac back from the dead, afterward. How many of us would have done that without question? Might we have at least asked God about it? I think it likely. But Abraham had an unshakable confidence in God. Bad things were absolutely not possible with God. Not a shred of doubt in Abraham's mind about that!

So now I ask those who claim to be followers Jesus and of the father, do you also believe that God is not capable of bad things? I will put you to the test if you answer yes.

Do you consider God to be honest? Not capable of lying or deceiving? Pure in His motivations? Sincere in His love? I assume, like Abraham, you would answer yes to all these questions.

So what shall we say about the universe which God claims to have made? Do you believe God? Did He make it? If so, who is the maker of the rules and laws of the universe, what we call the laws of physics? Is it not God who makes them? Should not His description of the universe match His words about it? Should not His laws confirm His word rather than contradict it? The physical universe should reflect the truth of God. That is an absolute certainty. I can not imagine otherwise. If God made it, surely He can describe it accurately.

That is why it has always been the learned opinion of many theologians and Christian philosophers that the physical world is a manifestation of God and reflects, not only God's glory, but also His word and the truthfulness of that word. They, like I, can not conceive of God as a liar. Not for a minute! They, like I, conclude that if there is a conflict between the word of God and His creation, that we either understand the creation incorrectly, or the word of God incorrectly.

Science & Truth Suffer Still
Back to Top

Truth has always suffered from the beginning of time. The few who had certain knowledge or skills in a small tribal group could withhold knowledge or leverage it at a cost to people or use it to deceive or manipulate the tribe. Often, a warrior like leader would work with an intelligent sort of person, who was usually a combination priest - doctor - academic - engineering or craftsman sort to control a tribe or community. In the interest of control, the priest/scholar might not tell them about how he can predict an eclipse. Better to tell them he is going to make the sun disappear for a few minutes because he has the power of the gods or God in him. He might not tell them about the herbs he uses to cure, and instead pretends its his chants and incantations that are going the healing.

AS time went on, rulers became bigger, having more people to control and rule over. Along with this, his priest/shaman would also have a bigger role as well. They could make up stories or twist and change what they already had, if it helped them lead the people in a new or different direction. Along the way, they might reserve certain craftsmen for themselves, and maybe even conceal the techniques the craftsman might use to perform his craft, whether it was making a superior shoe or boot, or a sword or axe. So skilled craftsmen joined the power elite. Soon, they would send merchants out to do business for them with other tribes and towns and begin to try to control those, too.

In all of this, it was controlling the information available and keeping the people from knowing as little as possible, so they could be used as much as possible and ask little in return. As powers grew from tribal to national and international, the alliance between rulers, priests, scholars, manufactures, and merchants became bigger and more complicated as well. Priests, now leaders of large denominations, became very important parts of the grand alliance of power in each nation. Religious leaders needed to be able to influence and guide people to serve as soldiers for military might and enforcement. They needed their flocks to support these wars so that the sons would serve the wars willingly and not think of doing otherwise, and disappointing mom and dad.

Religious leaders learned long ago that if you wanted to control people, it helped to keep them dumb and stupid and not asking a lot of questions. Threats of punishment and rejection by the group were often enough to discourage questions and thinking. Keep sermons simple and unadventurous. Make the people feel good about themselves. Tell them how great they are. And try to instill in them a blanket mentality whereby everything is simple, direct, black and white, cut and dried, easy answers. No straining the brain or thinking hard and careful. Keep them occupied with church and social gatherings and the like.

Christianity has been controlled by politicians since the days in Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century. And since that time, churches have been cooperating with national leaders to make sure their flocks all take part in the war efforts kings wage in order to gain more control of more territory and resources, and ever more people from which labor is obtained. Those who belong to most mainstream churches need to realize they are likely being lied to and mislead, especially if they are encouraged to participate in war.

But these religions and denominations have always encouraged a certain mentality and mindset. It is a narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned, sort of way of thinking, commonly known as fundamentalism. Their favorite tactic is to take one scripture, to the exclusion of all other scriptures relating to the point trying to be justified, and use just that one scripture to back what they say. For instance, "If you call on the name of the Lord, you shall be saved." They say it is as simple as that. Well, there is a lot more to it than that. But if they make it simplistic, and you are willing to go along with it, then you will not look deeper or further. They have managed to convince most to not look very far or hard and to accept the simple easy "obvious." But often, obvious does not harmonize with a more careful comparison of other related scriptures.

But this account of Genesis 1 is one of these typical places where a simple cut and dried explanation is given and people are bullied and ridiculed and accused of believing in evolution if they do not accept 6 literal days. You will be accused of not having faith and rejecting the plain words of God. But we are doing no such thing. We see and discern a greater meaning hidden in these verses and do not fall for that simple easy thoughtless interpretation.

Further, that interpretation ignores a lot of geology that should give us yet further reason to pause and more carefully examine what we have believed or accepted up till now. But this is not the first time science has been slighted. Galileo Galilee asserted that the earth revolved around the sun and he had the math and geometry to prove it. But the Catholic Church said he was a heretic for the earth was the center of the universe. Of course, they could not show one place in the Bible that said that, but they were not about to allow a public discussion on the matter or allow their "authority" to be challenged or disputed, either.

Religion, and now more commonly, academics, medicine, and the government, in cooperation with the military-industrial complex, now persecute science even more than religion. They hold back medical technology and research, suppress the true nature of physics, hold back technology, distort and suppress many archaeological findings, and other such intellectual mischief so that we do not catch on to how much we are held down, held back, suppressed, manipulated, deceived and lied to, used and abused for the benefit of others and to the slighting to ourselves.

This is accomplished by convincing us to not think about things and question them and accept what those in power tell us. We are to trust them, even with our lives. Real science is being suppressed and denied. Good sensible religious doctrine is also being held back and denied. Who will you trust with your eternal life, man/government or God? Both God and science have been slighted and prophecy hidden because we ignore the real meaning of Genesis 1. We need to break out of our self-imposed prisons and free our minds to give as much thought as we can to the mysteries and hidden meanings of God's words so that we can be prepared for the big test coming upon the whole world.

Keep this in mind as well. The earth and the universe are both created by God and reflect God and His glory. God does not lie and neither do the laws of God/nature. Creation is another testament, another witness, another Bible that God has written for us. We need to pay attention to everything that comes from God and not just some of it. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. All creation came forth by the word of God! Are you unaware of this? What does Genesis say, Mr. black and white, cut and dried? Allow me!

God said: Let there be  . . . and there was and it was good! God, the Father, Jehovah, through means of His son, spoke the words, the commands, and they came to be. All creation came forth due to the words of God. Will you listen to His words? All creation is His word and you need to listen to it, and not to those who say they know science and creation, for they lie about those. Evolution is a lie. But so is much of physics, medicine and many other things. Ignore man and listen to God in all things. Pursue science for yourself and you will find it harmonies with God every time. Surely that would not surprise you, would it, ye of little faith?

The Liars Say . . .
Back to Top

Commonly known as Saint Augustine of Hippo (c354-430), Augustine also subscribed to the very same sorts of things brought up already, recognizing that there were plenty of symbols and allegories in Genesis 1-3. Augustine came after the Great Apostasy of Constantine, whereby this secular Roman Emperor took control of a good portion of the churches in the empire, but most dominant in the Eastern Roman Empire. Augustine wrote in Latin, bearing a Western Roman influence. Much had been changed in Christian doctrine and yet, Augustine still sounds like those I have previously quoted works of.

It should be pointed out that this was not as common or contested a doctrine as some of the more mainstream issues such as the trinity, the soul, the law, redemption and salvation, and the like. But the early writers were well aware of the allegorical character of much of the Bible. This would remain a common understanding in some areas but would also get forgotten in other areas. Literalism would become more common in some areas. I think this was the case even with pagan mythological stories as well.

In these myths of the pagans of the ancient world, they often contained allegorical meanings even as the Bible does. But as time went on, the common people lost sight of these and took everything quite literally. A chariot was no longer seen as a symbol but really as a physical chariot. In Egypt, gods had symbolic heads on them to represent certain attributes of character. These gods were often depicted with human heads and other times with animal heads. But in time, it was lost that the animal heads were symbolic and that the gods were actually human looking and were likely actual people at one time.

So it is a natural trend in humans. We forget and we take the simple easy way out and start thinking in primitive terms that are quite silly when you think about it. As Christianity drifted further from the truth, she lost her memory. To illustrate, it was common for a writer of say 150 AD to quote or refer to other writers of his time. All the writings were shared, though copies were few and usually kept by the writers, who were the heads of congregations and whose job was to care for these type of matters, much as the priesthood of Jerusalem used to do. So men came and went and their writings often were lost or retained in fragments quoted by others. In time, the old writers were long forgotten and new ones came along.

These new writers, far removed from the old, would examine and offer their own ideas, often in ignorance of what existed in earlier times. They would also quote their contemporaries as well but not the old. But really, the old was closer to the original and should have been maintained, even as the Bible was. What happened?

Well, if you read the old writers who followed the Apostles, you would find out that there were those who came along and started myths, stories, lies. They would twist scriptures to fit what they wanted to promote. And worst of all, they would sometimes even tamper with a verse of two of the Bible or they would change parts of something of another writer previous to them. This could be done easy because since so few copies existed and people did not stay educated, anyway, so no one would really remember what an older writer had written. Many complaints exist about various authors being tampered with.

Our very best example of this is Ignatius. Why there are many works of his for which 2 completely different versions exist. A Long version and a short version. The short one seems to be the changed one, where they changed some key stuff and through out the rest. After all, they didn't want to work too hard and bother to make a truly convincing forgery. Too lazy! The most common changes involved the doctrine of the trinity. But regardless of which version you want to defend, the long and short versions completely contradict each other, and so we will never be completely sure of what might or might not be from Ignatius.

Whatever Ignatius had to say at first, it did not fit in with what came later. So it was sabotaged and changed, forged. But fortunately for us, the volume of material around was just too great and the earlier teachings remained and prevailed, as most everyone forgot about these early writers anyway. There are always those who want to change and corrupt things to suit their own agenda and ways. Herein, was the brilliance of God in that He had His prophets write down words of a very hidden allegorical and symbolic nature, disguising what was intended, even wording it in such ways that would only be apparent to those living near the very end. As a consequence, no one of earlier times really understood any of it so they did not care about it enough to give it any mind and went about their way, without tampering with it at all for there was not one who really "got it" anyway.

But what I find most amusing is that in our day, since I began pointing out what had been written so very long ago, word for word quotes of an extensive nature, some have become sort of ashamed of the stupidity of their beliefs and realized they needed changed. But they did not want to admit this. So they took one of 2 approaches.

Approach 1: Completely lie and say, without any quotes or text evidence, that the early writers support the current doctrine, rather than contradict it. Who is going to check on them, right? It works in many cases. Say it with conviction and "authority" and many will believe you. But those lying will eventually get caught up with.

Approach 2: Change what you believe and go along with the early writers, but use the same terms that indicate the wrong belief. Example, I have seem some admit what the early writers say about the trinity, disagreeing with it. But then they say this is what the meaning of the trinity is. And that is a bold faced lie. For 1700 years, the trinity was careful defined by the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed (which are both often called the Apostle's Creed, which it is not) and all later church Councils and Synods. I address those in my articles on the trinity.

Now what these liars do is call the old, well published and established definition of the trinity as the "oneness" crowd, though not saying who those might be. These typically say there are not 3 but 1 or that Jesus is the Father as well as the Son. Then the revisionist liars call themselves "trinitarians" and say there are 3, not 1. Yes, that is what the early first writers said, but it was not what later was dictated by the councils and creeds declared. Trinitarians meant 3 in 1, not 3. Those who said 3 were "Arians" and were bitterly persecuted, even though they were about 50% of the churches at the time of the first creed/declaration at Nicea came in the time of Constantine.

So if you don't want to admit you were wrong and got mud on your face, simply say that this is what you said and believed all along. Governments are great for doing this, too. So now, some, not wanting to face the heat for reverting to that ancient pre-trinitarian doctrine of the Real Apostles and the Bible, which says Jesus was the son, had a birth, God's only direct creation, and the son, created all other things from there, becoming himself, a father and a God as well. But they  were separate and distinct. It is starting to get recognized and admitted. But by continuing to use the word trinity to describe this sudden change, they are lying and not confessing and repenting.

And the other crowd continues to deny the early writers ever said such things. They point to the one or 2 heretics and leave it at that or even go so far as to say the others also said the same, when they clearly did not. Show us a quote, big mouths! Produce or shut your mouths!

Now it is the same here with this battle between the days of Genesis 1 being literal 24 hour man days or earth spinning days, and not God days of a much longer nature. Their view was not the first view, and it is a silly immature, undiscerning view, typical of a blind non-believer rather than a dedicated and spirit filled enlightened believer, capable of discerning the deep hidden things of God and not just the elementary basics such as a baby might feed on.

So which sort of liar do you want to be? Or maybe its time to reconsider what your glorious evangelistic leaders of the mainstream Christianity and TV had been shoving down your throats and give better thought to what the Bible and its first successors really had to say on the matters.

Choose wisely, my friends, for there is now very little time left. The end is nearly here. Open your ears, your eyes, and your hearts to God and He will reward you!

Related Articles
How to Interpret the Bible  This is a subject most important to Gen. 1

The Trinity Page  See how the trinity was viewed in the 2nd century

Tolerance and Individual Belief  We should not be expecting everyone to belive the same thing

The Great Apostasy  You should know about it

Back to Home/Index       Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top