Most myths have some basis in fact.

It is false journalism and error in logic to conclude without proof that a particular account of events is mythological because of the existence of actual myths which have the same or similar elements.

An historical account is not proven to be a myth just because an actual myth has similar elements and/or predates it. There are all kinds of false stories which predate true accounts.

This would be similar to a scenario in which an officer of the law takes a statement about the occurrence of a crime. This story then proves by examination of the evidence to have some false elements in it. It is therefore wrongly concluded that a statement which is taken LATER about the same crime is false only on the basis that the account of this second story was received later.

It is also wrong to conclude that the second story is false because it contains similar or identical elements to the first - provided that none of those elements prove to be false.

Police files and journals of investigative crime reporting are filled with this type of scenario proving that the details of each story must be thoroughly checked out in order that the truth of each story be correctly determined.

There is not a single element in the creation account in Scripture(the"bible") which is disproved on the basis of proper analysis. False presuppositions must be disallowed such as the ones already mentioned (similar elements & predating) and such as Mr Doane's own words in the introduction to his book "BIBLE MYTHS":

"Many able writers have shown our so-called Sacred Scriptures to be unhistorical, and have pronounced them largely legendary..."

"'How these narratives ...unhistorical as they have been shown to be, came into existence, it is not our business to explain...'"

"The work naturally begins with the Eden myth...showing ...universality, origin and meaning." [Note: universality is not proof that a particular account is mythological; origin cannot be established on the basis that other accounts predate and contain

similar elements; and meaning cannot be determined by assuming that the account is a myth and then proceeding to piece together one's own scenario based on mythologies which are similar.



Mr Doane continues to make prejudicial statements in his introduction as follows:

"Before showing the origin and meaning of the myth......"

"..because I would not and could not allow myself to surrender ... what I hold to be the truth.." [Shows lack of openmindedness and an unwillingness to have his own belief system questioned].

But little beyond the arrangement of this work is claimed as original"

The above statements show a decided mentality to accept the work of those writers he personally selected who maintain that the Bible is a book of myths without referring to other studies which properly analyze Scripture as it is: namely 66 ancient manuscripts written in one of several ancient languages by 40 authors over a period of hundreds of years to a readership of antiquity. There is no indication that the author recognizes that translations are not always precise in relaying the true meaning of Scripture because they are translations......

another presumption which leads to false conclusions.

The author does not make a legitimate effort to properly analyze the particular Scriptural passages himself to verify that the presuppposition of mythology is true.

The author also repeatedly assumes true many false and improper interpretations of Scripture and he utilizes pagan myths about Scripture such as the birth of Christ on December 25 , (Where is this date to be found in the Bible???). He is in these cases not critiquing actual accounts in Scripture but false accounts of Scripture as if they were Scripture!

Therefore the author's approach eliminates the possibility of showing that the accounts are real life.


[* = Mr Doane's commentary]

*"After this information, which concludes at the third verse of Genesis ii., strange though it may appear, another account of the Creation commences which is altogether different from the one we have just related."

[# = rebuttal]

#strange? altogether different?

Repetition is a characteristic of the Hebrew style of writing, which often makes a general statement by way of introduction and then enlarges upon it.

The supposed contradictory details if analyzed properly are in fact supplementary details and are seen as being contradictory only when the stories are misinterpreted.

The style differences between the two accounts have no weight as an argument and simply reflect changes in subject matter; and the understanding of a transcendent God in Genesis one as opposed to an anthropomorphic God in Genesis two is 'vastly overdrawn and frankly illusory'

E.J.Young illustrates this: 'The anthropomorphic God of Genesis 2 'fashions,' 'breathes,' 'plants,' 'places,' 'takes,' 'sets,' 'brings,' 'closes up,' 'builds,' 'walks,.' But the critics have quite a superficial argument. Man in his finite mind cannot express ideas about God in anything but anthropomorphisms. Chapter one of Genesis expresses God in such equally anthropomorphic terms as, 'called,' 'saw,' 'blessed,' 'deliberated,' (verse 26 'let us make'), God 'worked' for six days then He 'rested.'

The same may be said of the order of events. In Genesis 2:19 there is no explicit warrant in the text for assuming that the creation of animals here happened immediately before their naming (i.e. after man's creation); this is eisegesis not exegesis. The proper equivalent in English for the first verb in Genesis 2:19 is the pluperfect ('...had formed...'). Thus the artificial difficulty over the order of events disappears.

["Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." (Gen 2:19)]

There is an essential difference in the two accounts which must be appreciated: Genesis one describes the creation of the world, while Genesis two details and further describes the specific creation of Adam and of his immediate environment in the garden of Eden................It must be emphasized that we do not have here an example of incompatible repetition. We have an example of a skeletal outline of creation as a whole, followed by a detailed focus on the final point of the outline - man. Lack of recognition of this common Hebrew literary device...'borders on obscurantism.

Such a literary pattern is commonplace in other texts of the ancient Near East.

On the Karnak Poetical Stela from Egypt, the address of Amun to King Tutmosis III breaks down thus:

Paragraph one-expressing his general supremacy(...diversified style..)

Paragraph two-more precise poetical expression of supremacy(rigid [style]...)

The Gebel Barker Stela is similar:

Paragraph one-general royal supremacy

Paragraph two-specific triumphs in Syria-Palestine

Several of the royal inscriptions of Urartu are likewise enlightening:

Paragraph one-victory over specified lands ascribed to the chariot of the god Haldi (...brief, rigid style.).

Paragraph two-detailed repetition of description of these victories, this time as achieved by the king(..detailed, varied style...).

Just as assignment of the various portions of the Egyptian texts to different documents is unheard of in scholarly circles, so is it absurd to practice a dissection of sources in ....Genesis one and two.

Orr explains it this way: the beginning of things, how constantly is it alleged that "we have two contradictory accounts of the creation." It is certain that the narratives in [Gen. 1:1-2:4 and Gen 2:4-2:25] are quite different in character and style, and view the work of creation from different standpoints.

But they are not "contradictory"; they are, in fact, bound together in the closest manner as complementary. The second narrative, taken by itself, begins abruptly, with manifest reference to the first: "In the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heaven"(ver4). It is in truth, a misnomer to speak of chapter [two] as an account of the "creation" at all, in the same [complete] sense as chapter [one]. It contains no account of the creation of either earth or heaven, or of the general world of vegetation; its interest centers in the making of man and woman, and everything in the narrative is regarded from that point of view. [pp 137-139]

[NOTE: Statements in this print font are from "Evidence That Demands A Verdict Volume II" By Josh McDowell]

Scoffield says in the OXFORD NIV SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE: "It is often said that Gen 2:4-25 is a second account of creation differing from that in Gen 1:1-2:3. In point of fact, however, Gen 1 tells us of the creation of the whole universe, including man and woman without repeating the story of the creation recorded in Genesis 1. Thus Gen 2 says nothing of the creation of light, of the separation of the waters, or of the formation of sun, moon and stars. Nor does it actually describe the creation of vegetation or of animals.

Genesis 2:8 is sometimes erroneously interpreted as describing the creation of vegetation, but it only mentions the planting of a particular garden. Verse 19, often misinterpreted as another description of the creation of animals coming after rather than

before the creation of man, actually refers back to the creation of the animals that were brought before Adam. To think that the planting of the garden in verse 8 [which is an anthropomorphistic way of describing God's creation of the garden in Eden and certainly not an absurdity as St Augustine and author Doane maintain] was not done until after man had been formed, as stated in v.7, is absurd. In both cases (the "planting" of the garden and the "forming" of the animals) the Hebrew verb could be more correctly translated by the English "had planted" and "had formed."

John D. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research makes the following statements in his article #223 (Jan 1992) entitled "'Natural' Selection versus 'Supernatural' Design" [Morris' statements in this font]

Christianity and evolution cannot both be true. Evolution is, at its very essence, an atheistic explanation of the world around us.

Consider the following oft-repeated quote from Sir Julian Huxley, who, until his recent death, was perhaps the world's leading spokesman for evolution:

"Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution...we can dismiss entirely all ideas of a supernatural overriding

mind being responsible for the evolutionary process."

On the other hand, Scripture, in many places and in many ways, identifies God as Creator, and claims that His creation was an act of forethought, of planning, of design. Supernatural processes were used to accomplish this design, not just natural processes. [Ps 19:1; Rev 4:11].

These two concepts, supernatural design versus natural processes operating by chance, represent the two views of origins, and are opposite. They cannot both be true. Nobel Prize-winning zoologist Jacques Monod said it this way: " necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation...Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution."

The recent edition of the authoritative Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us that:

"Darwin did two things: He showed that evolution was a fact contradicting literal interpretations of Scriptural legends of creation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design."

Many Christians believe in evolution, but they must come to realize that the evolutionary way of thinking, [INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONFLICTS] WITH THE FACTS OF SCIENCE], is a logical necessity [to believe], if, and only if, there has been no supernatural input in nature.

Furthermore, if evolution is true, the entire Christian faith is a sham. Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology at Cornell University and author of many anti-creation articles wrote recently that Darwin recognized:

"...if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely:

1) the existence of a personal God,

2) free will,

3) life after death

4) immutable [unchangeable]moral laws, and

5) ultimate meaning in life.

BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT! Evolution is not even in a category of things that could ever be a scientific fact! It [SIMPLY] is a world view about the past - an historical reconstruction. It is a way to interpret scientific data, such as rocks , fossils,

and complex living systems which exist in the present. It is a potential answer to the question, "What happened in the unobserved past to make the present get to be this way?"

As we have seen, this answer encompasses far more than merely a scientific proposal. As currently understood by leading evolutionists, it embraces strict naturalism, an anti-God philosophy, and results in a denial of the major doctrines of Scripture.

Darwin, in his writings, letters, and memoirs, promoted natural selection as a means by which the incredible design obvious in every living system could be derived through purely mechanistic, naturalistic processes. He devoted great energy to refuting the writings of William Paley, in which Paley reasoned that one can infer from the functional complexity of a system that intelligence was necessary in its formation. Just as a complex watch necessarily implies a watchmaker, so living systems, much more complex than a watch, demand that a Creator was involved in their origin. His position was eminently logical, but necessarily implied a Creator-God.

And this helps explain why Darwin and his modern disciples combat the concept of design with such vigor. If such a Creator exists, He has the authority to set the rules for His creation, and the authority to set the rules for breaking His rules. Accountability for our actions to a holy, Creator-God is not easily accepted by the natural man.

Jesus told Nicodemus, "And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19).

If no supernatural agency has been at work throughout history, then creation is dead. But if evolutionists even allow a spark of supernatural design in history, then evolution is dead, for evolution necessarily relies on solely natural processes.

But design in living things is obvious. Even the single celled-organism is complex beyond the ability of scientists to understand, let alone duplicate. All of life is governed by the marvelously complex genetic code, which contains not only design and order, but what is equivalent to written information. This DNA code must not only be written correctly, [but]the rest of the cell must be able to read it and follow its instructions, if the cell is to metabolize its food, carry out the myriad of enzyme reactions, and, especially to reproduce. This code had to be present at the origin of life. How could it have written itself? And how could the various organelles [parts of the cell] learn how to read and obey it?

Carl Sagan, the modern-day evolutionary spokesman has admitted:

"The information content of a simple cell has been established at around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

And yet he believes the code wrote itself, by purely random natural processes, as non-living chemicals sprang to life!

Is this view really credible? Is it really scientific to ascribe to natural processes functions and products which clearly are the result of intelligent design? The Bible tells us that even "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are

clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

A favorite example of obvious design has always been the human eye.

with its functioning parts - the lens, cornea, iris, etc., the controlling muscles, the sensitive rods and cones which translate light energy into chemical signals, the optic nerve which speeds these signals to a decoding center in the brain - and on and


The eye was unquestionably designed by an incredibly intelligent Designer Who had a complete grasp of optical physics.

Darwin was frustrated by the eye's complexity, even though he knew only a fraction of what scientists have now discovered about the eye. In his book

"Origin of Species" [p.133]. he included a section entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication", in which he declared: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree".

Yet in the next several pages, he discussed how he thought it might have happened.

One may wonder why Darwin was forced to adopt and defend what he admitted was an absurd conclusion. His reasoning is made plain in the following quote. Keep in mind that Darwin was raised in a nominally religious home, but whose extended family had a well established anti-Christian perspective. Darwin, himself, studied for the ministry, as was common in those days for individuals of a scholarly bent, but eventually rejected the Christian faith.

In a May 22, 1860 letter to Professor Asa Gray of Harvard, propagator of evolution on the American continent, Darwin wrote, evidently to answer Gray's advocacy of "theistic" evolution

[Theistic Evolution ? God created the universe and sat back and let it evolve]:

[Darwin wrote]:

"I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence (or goodness) on all sides of us. There seems to me to be too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the ichneumonidae (parasites) with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed(parenthesis added)."

Notice that Darwin was not looking at the eye and concluding an evolutionary origin. He looked at the pain, suffering, misery, and death in the world, and concluded that there must not be a God as revealed in the Bible. [Darwin further concluded that] if

there was such a God, He wouldn't have created the world as we encounter it.

[What Darwin missed is that GOD DID CREATE A PERFECT WORLD WITHOUT SUFFERING MISERY AND DEATH EVERYWHERE...(Gen 1:1-2:25 and God saw that it was good Gen 1:18,21,25 and very good 1:31 until )! But what did the representative man Adam do? (Gen 3:1-7). Adam's disobedience caused the world to deteriorate into what it is today - all creation reflects this disobedience.

Cp Gen 3:17-20;Ro 5:15-19).

And this perfect creation will be restored in everyone who trusted in Christ as Savior and in the whole universe of His creation by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Compare Isa 11:6-9; Romans 8:18-24].

[Dr Morris' article goes on to say - repeating his last comment]:

Notice that Darwin was not looking at the eye and concluding an evolutionary origin. He looked at the pain, suffering, misery, and death in the world, and concluded that there must not be a God

as revealed in the Bible. If there was such a God, He wouldn't have created the world as we encounter it. [Remember, God didn't create the world the way it is today but rather decreed that it would decay and devolve as a result of man's sin, (Adam's sin as the federal representative of man (Ro 5:15-19 - you or I would have disobeyed as well)].

You see, Darwin had a theological problem. He had rejected the Biblical doctrine of the entrance of death into the world as a result of sin. Adam and Eve had rebelled against the Creator's authority, resulting in the distortion of God's original,

deathless, "very good" [Gen 1:31] creation. Darwin rejected the doctrine that the Creator had, Himself, died to pay sin's penalty,and had conquered death by rising from the dead, one day to abolish pain and suffering and misery and death forever.

[Cp John 3all; Ro 3:21-26. This will happen in His sovereign time when all men have been given a chance to partake of this salvation. Cp Ro 8:18-25; 2 Pet 3:9-13].

[Dr. Morris goes on to write]:

Having rejected the God of the Bible and the possibility of supernatural input into the universe, all Darwin had to work with were natural processes. These led to [what Darwin admitted himself were]..absurd conclusions, but if there is no God, there remains no other choice. [only absurdity remains after God has been ruled out].

The existence of suffering and death has led many to abandon the concept of God. But to one who accepts the Bible's teachings on these foundational issues, there is no need to embrace solely natural processes as creator.

The following question and answer article appeared in The New American June 20,1988p.53-4:

[Article excerpts appear in this font]

Q. The gradualism of Darwinian evolution has come under fire recently. Punctuated equilibria, a more recent attempt to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, is presently being offered by such notables as Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge. This theory postulates that evolution occurred rapidly, in small, isolated populations. No record was left of the evolutionary process in the fossil record because the changes were so rapid. How do the most recent theories square with known scientific fact?

A. [Dr John Morris] One of the biggest problems that evolutionists have always faced is that there are no transitional forms. There is no recorded change from one basic type of an animal into another. This was a major problem to Darwin. In his book, "The

Origin of Species", he dedicated a good bit of space to the lack of transitional forms. He said that it was the most obvious and serious argument that could be martialed against his theory. Darwin assumed that all living things today had come from a common ancestor and proposed a possible scenario whereby that might happen.

Q. The failure to discover transitional fossils since Darwin's time has proved to be an embarassment to evolutionists, hasn't it?

A. The fossil record does not record any transitions from one basic type of animal into another basic type.[REPEAT: FROM ONE BASIC TYPE ANIMAL INTO ANOTHER BASIC TYPE ANIMAL] . But, inspite of the lack of evidence from the fossil record, evolutionists insist that such transitions have taken place. It is their presupposition. They

[THINK THEY] "know" that evolution has taken place. To these scientists who accept the theory of punctuated equilibria, [and it truly is not even a theory because theories by definition have to be repeatable in order to be observable in order to be

provable - creation is not in man's capacity to be repeatable at this time, (or any time). So, evolution is merely an hypothesis - a model of what happened (and so is creationism)],

the lack of transitional forms proves [so the evolutionists of today say], then, that evolution took place rapidly, and left no transitional forms.

Q. Isn't that a rather broad assumption for some evolutionists to have made?

A. Their frustration comes from the fact that they have already assumed evolution to be true. It seems to me that the fossil record is much more in favor of the creation model. A creationist would predict that there would be no transitional forms in the

fossil record because the Bible says clearly that God created the basic kinds of animals. They did not evolve from other types of animals. Since basic animal types did not come from other animals, no in-between animals ever existed to leave fossils, and

the fossil record would contain these huge gaps. The creation model demands that the fossil record looks like it does.

But the evolutionists have assumed that creation is not to be considered, and so they are limiting their scope of investigation to these mechanisms within their own world view. In doing so , in my opinion, they have denied truth and are doomed to languish in empty speculations such as punctuated equilibria.

Q. So the lack of transitional forms is behind the need for "new" theories [models] to explain evolution?

A. If it is true that evolution has happened, then you must propose some kind of mechanism that allows evolution to take place without leaving transitional forms, for there are no transitional forms! The world's leading paleontologists [fossil scientists] all admit this! Punctuationalists presuppositionally hold that we all descended from a common ancestor and prove their brand of evolution from lack of data.The fact that we have no data proves punctuated equilibria in their minds. Their logic?

[PRESUPPOSED]Fact #1: Evolution has occurred.

[PRESUPPOSED]Fact #2: We have no transitional forms.

Therefore evolution occurred rapidly in isolated populations and left no transitional forms. Obviously, this is an argument from lack of data.

Q. Doesn't the "scientific method" demand that theories fit observable facts and evidence, and not the other way around?

A. Science deals with the present. We study chemical processes, biological life, fossils and so on, in the present. The only thing we have access to is the present. Scientists make measurements and observations in the present.

Now, when scientists want to talk about the past, they may study the present and make inferences about the past based on what they see. But, they cannot study the past. Every piece of data in the modern world has to be interpreted. But you cannot interpret it completely free of any bias. Scientists are all biased and prejudiced people, just like anyone else.

When scientists attempt to interpret the past, the scientific method doesn't apply. Who can observe or repeat the "Big Bang"? Who can repeat the origin of life? It just doesn't happen.

You can't do it. So it is outside the realm of empirical science. Scientists can believe, by faith, one way or the other; once you set up your world view, then you can study the present world and see if the present world fits the way your world view says that it ought to be.

Q. Why isn't creationism considered the stronger model since it fits the facts so well?

A. Creationism isn't even considered by many scientists. Scientists ought to be willing to investigate all possible solutions to a particular problem. Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists today have decided that anything that is of a supernatural nature is to be excluded from the realm of possibility. The definition of science used to be the search for truth, but these days it is the search for naturalistic explanations. In other words, the supernatural is presuppositionally excluded. Of course, a supernatural Creator implies a personal, thinking, transcendent God, a concept many refuse to accept. Many scientists, now faced with the overwhelming scientific objections to a completely naturalistic evolution, are turning to an "extra-natural," as opposed to a supernatural, explanation.

Consider Dr. Francis Crick, who won the Nobel prize for the discovery of DNA, who now claims it is impossible for life to have evolved here on earth given the natural laws that we observe. It couldn't have happened

[the way evolutionists say].

So Crick, a brilliant, world-class geneticist, now claims that life came here on a meteorite.

It came from outer space [he says].

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer in Brittain, is now saying the same thing, as are many scientists. They call it "transpermia" - that life rode here on a meteorite or was brought here or that something "out there" has done it, but not God!

[My question is Who created the life on the meteorite?].

Q. In a recent ICR [Institute for Creation Research] newsletter, Henry Morris stated: "The neo-Darwinian religionists (Huxley, Dobzhansky, Dewey, etc.) thought that evolutionary gradualism would become the basis for the coming world humanistic religion. Evolutionists of the new generation, on the other hand, have increasingly turned to punctuationism - or revolutionary evolutionism - as the favored rationale, largely because of the scientific fallacies in gradualism increasingly exposed by creationists. This development has facilitated the amalgamation of Western scientism with Eastern mysticism." Do you also see this happening?

A. Naturalistic evolution just doesn't work. Evolutionists everywhere are beginning to recognize that and are beginning to look for other answers. Many are turning to the paranormal and to the cosmic and to other sources to salvage their theory of development, still without recourse to a personal Creator.

Finally, evolutionists fail to answer a number of critical questions:

1) If the moon is billions of years old like the earth, how come the astronauts only discovered a few thousands of years of dust everywhere on its surface?

2) The first law of thermodynamics is one of energy conservation: "Energy is neither created nor destroyed"

The second law of thermodynamics can basically be stated that inspite of this conservation (First Law), the energy available for useful work does decrease so that the universe can be said to be "running down". Example: The sun's energy is dissipating via


3) If the earth is billions of years old and revolved around the sun for those billions of years; then how could life have existed even in its most primitive form because the sun would have been too hot as a young star billions of years ago and would have made any form of life on earth impossible?

4) If everything in the universe is DEVOLVING (winding down) and not evolving according to Newton's second law of thermodynamics then how is it that evolutionists claim that man and animals have always been evolving into something higher? Thousands of species go to extinction each year and NO NEW SPECIES has been observed to have been forming since the days of recorded observation.

It appears that man and the animals are also DE-EVOLVING.

We are not going through a process of evolution but devolution.

5) Why couldn't a Creator God have created such things as the light already arriving on earth from far distant stars, substances with a certain amount of original radiation etc etc, so that life on earth today is as it is without having to go through billions of years of time.

6) Where did the first matter come from? (It could not have caused itself).

7) Fossil evidence in rock strata shows sudden appearance of major groups of species and not a finely graded and continuous development of species. Often rock strata show different species right next to one another when evolutionists say that one of the

species was to have evolved into the other millions of years later. Please explain. Often upper (later) rock strata show a supposedly much "earlier" lifeform than a lower strata. Could not a world-wide flood better explain how lighter, simpler, more floatable animals would appear in upper strata?

8) In Gen 1 the days are said to have an evening and a morning, i.e. creation took place in a literal six twenty-four hour days. Scripture supports a literal 24 hour day in the Genesis One passage on creation. Compare Gen 1:5,8,13-14,19,23,31; Ex 20:8-11.

The Hebrew word y?m with an ordinal adjective (first, second, etc.) means 24-hr days wherever this construction occurs in the Old Testament. Also the normal understanding of the fourth commandment - (resting on the 7th day - Ex 20:11) would require this interpretation if one is to rest for one day and not for a billion years.

9)Where did the soul of man come from? The lowest type of man is far higher than the highest of animals in so many ways, especially because man has the capacity to worship God.

10) Even hydrogen, a basic building block of matter, is not simple. It is composed of particles including proton, neutron and electron all obeying and operating flawlessly according to fixed laws. Where did these laws come from? How could they have evolved? Wouldn't they have to have been in matter to start with by design?

11) The magnetic force of the earth has been observed as diminishing at a predictable rate every year. If the earth is billions of years old, even millions, this magnetic force

would THEN - MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO - have been so huge as to be strong enough to pull in a whole galaxy like a black hole would. Therefore life on earth millions of years ago would have been impossible.

12) Based on predictable rates of erosion, mountain ranges such as the Rocky Mountains should not exist today if you go back millions of years.

13) If carbon dating is so accurate how come it has been reported that some LIVING snails and LIVING trees were recorded as being 2500 & 10,000 years old?

How is it that very young lava flows in Uinkaret Plateau in western Grand Canyon are recorded as being millions of years older than the Cardenas Basalt which is the oldest & most deeply buried strata?

Is the carbon dating system reliable at all?

Could not God have created various forms of matter and life with various starting points of radiation?

Could not additional radiation been added to the world after the flood when the canopy of ice was remove from the earth's atmosphere thus allowing in radiation from the sun & thus throwing off estimates of age using such a dating system?



by Ken Ham,(March 1992) another article from the Institute for Creation Research answers several key questions about creation (in this font):

"There is no way the six days of creation are meant to be taken as six literal, twenty-four hour days...because Adam could not have accomplished all that is attributed to him on Day Six...." does one answer the above criticism? We need first to list the major events of Day Six of the creation week...

  1. ) God created all of the land animals;
  2. ) God formed Adam's body from dust;
  3. ) God [had already] planted the garden of Eden [before - 3rd day vv 1:9-13 see comments p.4 column 1]
  4. ) God brought groups of animals [but limited to the beasts of the field and birds of the air v.2:19]to Adam and asked him to give them names.
  5. ) Adam gave names to the animals

[& the birds];

6.) Adam found no mate and was lonely;

7.) God put Adam to sleep and made a woman out of his side;

8.) Adam responded to the woman made for him.

...let us examine the events carefully:

1.) [2and 7]...God, Who is infinite in power, could create in an instant of time. [Ps 33:9].

3.) [and bring the animals to Adam in an instant].

Note that Adam did not have to go after the animals.

4.) Adam could have had time to name all of the animals God brought to him...[then discovered he was lonely, then responded to Eve is a key question for

many ].

The Number of Animals

How many animals did Adam have to name? Actually, we don't know, but we suspect there were not that many.

  1. He had to name only three groups of animals - [actually only two - the first group to be broken up into two subgroups: livestock & beasts of the field - v2:20]-the fowl of the air, all cattle and every beast of the field...The phrase "beast of the field" (Genesis 2:19) seems to refer to a more limited group than "the beast of the earth"(Genesis 1:24). The word field implies a significant limitation, probably referring mainly to the animals that would be allied more closely to man, dwelling in the nearby fields.
  2. He would have had to give names only to the groups or kinds of creatures God brought to him, not all the varieties, or even species. The many different varieties of animals (such as dingoes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, etc.- all a part of the created "dog kind") would only develop later.

Adam's Memory and Time to Name the Animals

One of our problems is that we try to compare Adam to ourselves in this present world, then quickly conclude that since we could not have named all these animals and remembered the names, then neither could Adam.

We forget that we are very different from Adam. He was perfect! We have suffered from six thousand years of the effects of the primeval curse on the creation because of sin. Our brains undoubtedly have deteriorated seriously, compared to that of Adam. We have no idea what a perfect world with perfect people would be like [I Cor 13:12].

[With respect to Adam's wife:] ...It would not have taken [Adam] long to understand and exclaim that "this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh"(Genesis 2:23).

Perhaps, though, we can get a fleeting glimpse of what that first Adam might have been able to accomplish. We have all heard of people who, at very young ages, could play Beethoven's symphonies on the piano without having learned to play, or of people who can do great mathematical computations in their heads, or of people who are brilliant artists, or of those with photographic memories. If we put all of these talents together, we may be getting a little closer to what Adam was like in his perfect state.

It is very likely that such a perfect man could have decided on the names of these animals and remembered them all in a very short period of time.

we must not use our limitations in this present evil world as a measure of Adam's abilities.

[The technology we have today is not exclusively reflective of "modern" man's superior intellectual capacity simply because today's technology is made up of all of the technological contributions throughout the ages - we would not have been able to utilize nuclear energy without first being able to utilize other energy sources such as electricity first. Only God knows the progress we would have made had mankind remained perfect and not caused such darkened and regressive periods of time such as the Dark Ages. Even now mankind approaches self-destruction which would leave this world with nothing but void and devastation. It is still a mystery and a technological impossibility today how the ancient pyramids were actually constructed!].

In Genesis, we find that Adam's and Eve's immediate descendants built cities, worked metals, made musical instruments, and eventually developed civilizations. They were very intelligent people.

*Footnote #1 p.2:"Origen, a Christian Father who flourished about A.D 230, says: 'What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second, and third days, in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars?'

#What man of sense would impose upon God Who is Light (I Jn 1:5) the incapability of creating morning and evening without having to first create the sun, moon and stars? Did He not create the light of the distant stars to arrive on the earth immediately after He created them rather that to have the earth wait billions of years for that light to get there?

Origen attempted to marry pagan greek philosophy with Scripture and therefore tended to allegorize Scripture in many places without properly interpreting

God's word. His work is untrustworthy because of his basic presupposition that there is more than one interpretation of each passage in Scripture and one of those hidden meanings aligns itself with the greek philosophy that he became so involved with. He never offered credible proof for his "hidden" meanings and often missed the mark interpreting Scripture correctly because of his prejudice.

*Footnote #1 p.4:"Inasmuch as the physical construction of the serpent never could admit of its moving in any other way, and inasmuch as it does not eat dust, does not the narrator of this myth reflect unpleasantly upon the wisdom of such a God as Jehovah

is claimed to be, as well as upon the ineffectualness of His first curse?"

#Mr Doane presupposes that the serpent did not have a different physical form when it was originally created.

Was it not perhaps upright and intelligent when Satan used it to deceive Eve with its intellect. Genesis 3:1 says "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Did not the serpent change by God's decree after the Fall as did all creatures of the earth? God speaks to the serpent creature, and by application all serpents, telling it that its condition will change IN THE FUTURE: (Gen 3:14)

"So the Lord God said to the serpent,

'Because you have done this, [deceived Eve], cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! [Apparently the serpent had a superior position before].


crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

The term "eat dust" does not simply mean that the serpent will ingest dust as its diet, but that the serpent has such a lowly position in God's creation now because of its treachery (via Satan's indwelling Gen 3:15; Rev 12:9,14,15;20:2), that it will virtually get dust into its mouth because it will now crawl on its belly. This is a typical example of determining the meaning via a figure of speech which itself has a literal meaning as determined by the usage of this figure of speech in the ancient times when this portion of Scripture was written..

It is interesting to note here that author Doane refuses to consider the literal interpretation of an Almighty God creating the heavens and the earth as He did and as is literally described in Genesis One and Two; yet here in this passage about the serpent Mr Doane is determined to force literalness on an obvious figure of speech about the serpent! Has Mr Doane never heard the common modern expression

"Eat my dust!" as a passing motorist or horseman goes by. Is that speedy "offender" suggesting that the occupants of the slower means of transportation has dust as his main diet staple? Or is Mr Doane being dishonest in his interpretive tactics again?

Scoffield comments on Gen 3:1 about the serpent:

"The serpent, in his Edenic [Garden] form, is not to thought of as a writhing reptile. This is the effect of the curse (Gen 3:14). The creature which lent itself to Satan may well have been the most beautiful as it was the most "crafty" of creatures less than man. [It would be logical to see why Satan, formerly Lucifer, the most beautiful and most intelligent of all of God's creations

(Isa 14:12-14; Ez 28:12-19) chose to use the serpent]. Traces of that [serpent's] beauty remain despite the curse. Every movement of the serpent is graceful, and many species are beautifully colored. In the serpent, Satan appeared "as an angel of light" (2Cor 11:14). Satan is called "serpent" in Rev 12:9,14,15; 20:2.

*Footnote #1 p.5:Our writer [of Genesis] unmistakably recognizes the existence of many gods; for he [Moses] makes Yahweh [God] say: "See, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil; [Gen 3:22]" and so he [Moses] evidently implies the existence

of other similar beings, to whom he attributes immortality and insight into the difference between good and evil. Yahweh, then, was in his [Moses'] eyes, the god of gods, indeed not the only god."

# Gen 3:22 begins:

"And the Lord God[Elohim?God,PLURAL] said [SINGULAR VERB - ONE GOD, THREE PERSONALITIES ], 'The man is now become as one of Us [PLURAL - FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT],

to know how to distinguish between good and evil..."

Notice, plural subject representing the plurality of the Godhead and singular verb (in the Hebrew) representing the one true God with three personalities!

Mr Doane did not do his homework and comment on why a plural subject would have a singular verb!

Scripture is filled from Genesis through Revelation with references to the plurality of the Godhead: Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

The famous saying of Israel about their one God is found in Dt 6:4: "Hear O Israel:

The Lord our God (the Lord ) is one."

Let's examine this verse from the Hebrew -the words that God inspired Moses to use: "Hear O Israel, The Lord our God [ELOHIM ? PLURAL, NOT ELOAH,SING].

(the Lord) is [SINGULAR VERB]


Gods is one??? Strange sounding verse!

The writer, Moses, chose to use the Hebrew word "echad" meaning "ONE WHICH IS MADE UP OF SEVERAL PARTS" rather than the Hebrew word "yachid" which means "ONE, NO PARTS, A SINGLE ENTITY".

Compare Gen 2:24 - "echad" - one flesh made up of husband and wife.

Compare Gen 22:2 - "yachid" - one and only son, an absolute entity, no parts.

Moses also chose to use the Hebrew word "ELOHIM" which means "God, plural" rather than "ELOAH" which means "God, singular."

Why didn't Moses write "GOD IS" or "GODS ARE" instead of "GODS IS".

Did Moses make a mistake?

Not hardly. This construction apears in Scripture dozens of times by numerous authors.



Compare the following Scripture passages:

Gen 1:1 (author - Moses)

"In the beginning God [Elohim] created [bara ? singular]..................."

Gen 1:26 (author - Moses)

"Then God [Elohim] said [sing.]

'Let us [plural] make [singular] man in our image.'"

Walter Martin commented on this verse in his book "Kingdom of the Cults" p.54, which defends the Bible against accusations that Scripture teaches polytheism:

"Now it is obvious that God would not [have to] create man or any created being in His image if He were [already] talking to them, so He must have been addressing someone else. And Who but His Son and the Holy Spirit, Who are equal in substance, could He

address in such familiar terms..."['Let us create man in OUR image after OUR likeness'].

Since there is no other God but Jehovah (Isa 43:10,11), not even a lesser mighty god can exist, then there must be a unity in plurality and substance in the Godhead, otherwise Gen 1:26 doesn't make any sense.

Ex 3:14 (author Moses)

"God [Elohim] said [singular],

'I AM WHO I AM' [singular]."

Eccl 12:1 (author - Solomon)

"Remember your Creator

["Ones-Who have Created you ? plural]."

Ps 149:2 (author - David)

"Let Israel rejoice in its Maker

[in-Ones-making-him ? plural]."

Isa 54:5 (author - Isaiah)

"For your[Israel's] Maker is your husband"

[Ones-making-you ? plural]."

Isa 6:8 (author - Isaiah)

"Then I [Isaiah] heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send? And who will go for us [to be God's prophet to the nation Israel]."

"And who will go for Us [PLURAL -


Scripture also refers directly to the personalities of the Godhead

Pr 30:4 (author - Solomon)

"Who has gone up to heaven and come down?

Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of His hands?

Who has wrapped up the waters in His cloak?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name [God the Father] and the name of His Son [God the Son]?"

[In the Hebrew this passage asks "Who are the Holy-Ones Who ..." PLURAL. So God the Father and God the Son have gone up to heaven and come down, gathered up the wind, wrapped up the waters and established the ends of the earth. Here right in the Old Testament we find the personalities of the Godhead!!].

Gen 19:24 (author - Moses)

"Then the Lord [Yaweh] rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the Lord [Yahweh] out of the heavens."

Notice that Yahweh is referred to as two personalities, yet Scripture maintains throughout that there is only One Jehovah God, and no other God. (All other gods that Scripture refers to are false, not real gods which men are guilty of worshipping Cp Isa chapters 45 & 46. Often these false gods have demonic influence behind them

I Cor 10:20;Ps 106:36-38; Lev 17:7 (goat ? demons); De 32:17;Mt 4:9).

Scripture refers to the one and only God:

Isa 48:12

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am He;

I am the First [God] and I Am the Last [only God,Cp Isa 45:5]."

And that same passage of Scripture in which is God speaking to the nation Israel through Isaiah goes on to say: [v13]"My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,

and My right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together [to execute My decrees].

[v14]Come together, all of you and listen:

Which of the idols has foretold these things?

The Lord's [Yahweh's] chosen ally [Cyrus of Persia, Cp Isa 44:48-45:4,13] will carry out His purpose against Babylon [Chaldeans]; his [Cyrus'] arm will be against the Babylonians.

[v15] I [God], even I have spoken; yes I have called him [Cyrus].

I will bring him, and he will succeed in his mission [conquer Babylon].

[v16]Come near Me [Jesus Christ, the Son of God Who has been speaking]

and listen to this:

From the first announcement, I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens I am there.

And now [God the Son is still speaking]

the Sovereign Lord

["Yahweh Sovereign" ? God the Father] has sent Me [God the Son],

with His Spirit [God the Holy Spirit].

[v17]This is what the Lord says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel

[our Lord God the Son, our Redeemer and the Redeemer of Israel says]:

I am the Lord your God,

Who teaches you what is best for you, Who directs you in the way you should go."

Isa 42:1

"Here is My [God the Father's] Servant

[Christ the Messiah, God the Son]

Whom I uphold, My Chosen One in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him

[God the Holy Spirit]

and He will bring justice to the nations.

[etc etc]."

The contexts in both chapters 42 & 48 of Isaiah show that it is God the Son, the Messiah-Redeemer Jesus Christ Whom is referred to as the One Who is sent; and that He was sent by God the Father with God the Holy Spirit.

Finally, below is a list of Old Testament verses which refer to God as JEHOVAH, the most sacred and powerful name for God Almighty. These verses ascribe EXCLUSIVE qualities to God, no one else has these qualities, they are unique to the One God Jehovah. Beside each Jehovah verse is a New Testament verse which lays claim that our Lord Jesus Christ is Jehovah God Himself, (along with

God the Father & God the Holy Spirit).


Ps 27:1 with Jn 8:12 & I Jn 1:5

(Jehovah is Light) (God & Christ is Light)

Ps 27:1 with Jn14:6

(Jehovah is salvation) (Christ is salvation)

Jer 23:5-6 with I Cor 1:30

(Jehovah is (Christ is perfect

perfect righteousness) righteousness)

Isa 7:14 with Mt 1:21-23

(A Son born of a (Christ is that

virgin called Immanuel, which

Immanuel which is to say that He

means is "Jehovah God

"Jehovah God with with us")


Joel 2:32 w/ Acts 2:21-39,16:30-31

& I Cor 1:2 & Ro 10:13

(Whoever calls (Whoever calls on the

on the name of name of Christ will be

Jehovah God will be saved).

be saved).

Isa 48:12-16 with Rev 22:13

(Jehovah God is (Christ is the First &

the First & the the Last).


Isa 40:3 & with Jn 1:22-30 Mal 3:1

(Clear the way for (Clear the way for

Jehovah God...). Jesus Christ).

Isa 6:1-5 with Jn 12:34-31

(Isaiah sees the Glory (Isaiah had seen the

of Jehovah God). Glory of Christ Who is Jehovah God).

*(p.4)"The woman then looked upon the tree, and as the fruit was tempting, 'she took of the fruit, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband, and he did eat.'" "The result was not death (as the Lord God had told them), but as the serpent had said,

'The eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.'"

#As a matter of fact the result was TWO deaths that Adam and Eve would experience: first spiritual then physical; as Scripture reports that God said:

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.:"

[Hebrew ? "die dying"].

The first death was obviously physical as evidenced by Adam and Eve's strange behavior in the garden immediately after they both ate the forbidden fruit:

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God [God appearing in a finite form for Adam to be able to communicate with Him] as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid [from the omniscient, all knowing God Who would know wherever they were] from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man