Rules and Assumptions

I broke the rules. I made different assumptions. Even I am surprised at how much this has impacted Genesis. So much is based on a change in assumptions that I found it important to review it in this way.


Created: 2009/09/26. Updated 2012/01/10.

Game Start, Home


What I did and what I found

So what donít you like?

Seriously folks, Iíve found Jesus in new ways and new technically verifiable confirmations. I never set out to find scientific support but just to see what the Word of God showed me. I believe it gives glory to God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I believe it could help turn people from an evolutionary God-less background to God. In fact the overall image of God has been correctly presented by removing many places where we have accused God of cursing man.

Well, maybe you count all that as fruit or maybe you dismiss it as just good intentions. We make assumptions and rules and build it into a framework to filter our understanding. It seems popular to call this a paradigm. These paradigms are powerful things. Equally powerful to keep you focussed on God as to keep you blind to God. The evolutionary paradigm seems to blind people to God. The Pharisees of Jesus day were blinded by their self-righteousness. Technical proof today and miraculous proof then could not break the paradigm. Even scriptural support cannot break a paradigm because there are always other scriptures and interpretations.

I have come to feel that no level of technical or scriptural support can break a paradigm. But if you discover that you want the God that I reveal, then you can accept what I have revealed. Do want...

If you want this God then perhaps you can see the new paradigm. But this is not about reading whatever you want into scripture. You must still test this against the whole of scripture and that is what this site does.

What rules are broken?

I didnít break any rule set down by God. But Genesis 1 is no longer just historical narrative. Though it is not a parable it contains a most beautiful mystery of Godís plan for all mankind. That by itself is not against the rules, except the rule that we never get too excited about what God declared in the future lest we are seen to be mistaken. Wow, is that manís rule or is that manís rule?

The big rule broken is to suggest that insight can overturn the mechanics and timetable implied by the plain reading. But that is explained in the chapters on ďGodís WayĒ .

There is an implicit rule that you cannot change anything that has been tested, understood, and taught by recognised teachers in the past. So the long held assumption of Adam as more detail of day 6 is a real challenge. The strangest thing is that Adam on day 8 is the natural reading and it produces less downstream workarounds. This is a big deal because some will infer from this that I am declaring saints and mighty men of God to be wrong. The implication of right and wrong is a major tactic of Satan to activate our pride. The trick here is not to ask so much why we got it wrong, although I do say that provocatively in places, but to ask why God is revealing it now. That is the biggest question you need to think about.

But Oh dear, there I go again breaking another rule, suggestion this is a revelation. There seems to be a rule where you cannot bring revelation into historical narrative. Well, I call it a revelation because I didnít see it for decades and then I did and suddenly it all made more sense. Actually, if we donít call it a revelation then we do not honour God and we imply that all who have held the classic view were wrong and should have figured this out long ago.

Is the real problem fear?

Acknowledging day-6 man seems close to acknowledging some evolutionary predecessor to Adam. That is a long fought battle and I imagine that would make most creationists wary to say the least. So take your time but donít let fear influence you. Look at the word of God. In the end, day-6 man actually denies an evolutionary predecessor because we see both created by God in the Bible.

Similarly, the no-god-needed big-band version of Genesis 1 suggests that verses 1 and 2 are an introduction and it all starts in the declaration of light. I have discussed this in Page-1-God and although it seems to give ground, it really totally undermines the big-bang mapping because, with the whole universe created in day 1, the big-bang mapping of days 1 to 4 is seen to be totally wrong. That leaves us with a pride point. Were we a little over-zealous insisting that verses 1&2 had to be a declaration of creation rather than an introduction? Well, we couldnít work it out any other way but now we can. Just admit you didnít see it and move on.

Next fear point is the day/millennia scaling. Seems like we are conceding defeat on the day= 24 hours front, but not really. I have shown that God intended both and we were correct to fight against billions of years.

Now for the big one. We have declared that Godís word is trustworthy and meant to be understood as written. Now we fear that it will be seen to be untrustworthy and subject to the whim of interpretation. This is very serious. But look at my major points again:

So, the word of God is trustworthy. In fact it held way more than we thought but we can never understand it without a revelation from His Holy Spirit. And He is all about pointing us to Jesus and to the Father. I am convinced that is why these things are being revealed ... to draw us back to Jesus and the Father. I do not believe it possible that I could dream up all these insights that point us to the Father and to Jesus and His timetable, without it being revealed by the Holy Spirit. And it is revealed in accordance with the Fatherís heart and will so that none may be caught asleep; so that none may be lost!

Same story but a new rule is needed!

The story has not actually changed. The creation events and human history are unchanged, namely: step 1 is light; then the atmosphere; then dry land and vegetation; then the light sources; then creatures of the sea and air; then creatures of the land; then rest; then Adam, Cain, Abel, Seth,...,Noah,...,Abraham.

How could such seemingly radical and different assumptions preserve the story so well, even explaining quirky little details better? And on top of that we get a more consistent image of God with the rest of the Bible.

So, can we relax the rules a little? No! But we do need to clarify the rules. Godís rule requires us to test it. But what do we test it against? The answer is to test it against His word; against His ways; and His image as revealed in His Word and in Jesus. I detail this a little more in Rules of Rebuke. I am sick of various experts accusing God of doing bad things and cursing His children and even worse, of glorifying demons and calling them sons of God. (Created Mortal, Appendix B3, ďAbsence of goodĒ in Page-1-God) If that is what the current rules tolerate, we sure need some better rules to test against.

I would like to think that my suggestions do not corrupt the plain reading but provide an additional layer of revelation. Of course that will be debated. It must be debated and it MUST be verified against the full revelation of God in the Bible. If not, then others will follow and try and use what I have disclosed as some precedent to re-open the flood-gate of rubbish that has been read into creation in the past! But if this does pass the test, then we canít hide from the implications in Godís timing in releasing this revelation.

Conclusion

OK, there have been a lot of challenges. Will they offend you, or will they reveal a better image of God?

I still see the simple classic view of Biblical creation as providing a lot of understanding. I still use it in many places. God has been happy for that view to exist for thousands of years. It should not be viewed as wrong, but that God is revealing something new. Well, that is what it has been for me, and I have fully justified my interpretation. Keep in mind that I donít care if you want to stay with the classic views of Genesis; the 6x24 with Adam on day 6. But I would ask this:

ďGodís WayĒ also wrestles with the issues raised here.

Iíd like to finish by breaking just one more rule. Itís allowing my hope for the future and my expectation of end-times to influence Genesis:

To me, itís great to know that God rested before He created Adam, so that He could be there for Adam and his descendants for a full 6,000 years, and even in the 7th millennium when He will again rest, He has planned that Jesus be here to rule and reign. Then God will again be rested to receive His sons and daughters into the New Heaven and the New Earth, just as He was rested before He created Adam.


back to top