We have spent 37 weeks going through the book of Genesis on Wednesday nights--verse by verse, line upon line, chapter by chapter. That was preceded, if some of you remember a couple years back, called the Bible from 30,000 Feet, where we took one book of the Bible, once every week, we took a book of the Bible or we would divide it up into two weeks. But we were able to cover the Bible in about a year. That was a flyover. This is a drive-through or as J. Vernon McGee used to call it, the Bible Bus, looking at every chapter, making stops, considering the landscape, it's taken us 37 weeks to do it. Tonight what we want to do is simple and if it works and it's successful, we'll do it in books after this, but we want to wrap it up, sum it up, and answer questions that were not answered in the 37 weeks. You would think after 37 weeks, you could cover all the territory but I guess we haven't because there are still questions. But here's what I want you to see before we take the first question. We're dealing with God's Word that talks about humanity and God's plan from eternity past to eternity future and all that God has revealed in all of the books of the Bible. God is pointing to but one Person and two events, all of the Bible points to one Person and two events. The one Person is the Lord Jesus Christ. All the historical documentation, all the genealogical documentation point to Christ. That was God's plan. And it points to two events: the first coming of Christ and the Second Coming of Christ. All the Bible points to those two events, the first coming to take away sin, Second Coming to fulfill all His promises to the world and end this world which He has created.
The first 11 chapters comprise the first part of Genesis. Chapters 12 through 50, the second part. Chapters 1 through 11 deal with no less than at least 2,000 years of history. All of that in just 11 chapters. While chapters 12 through 50 focus on not even 300 years of history. So God said little about things like the beginning of the heavens and the earth and a lot of the questions that we might have, but He said a lot about people. The first 11 chapters cover four great events; the second half of Genesis, four great people: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Where do you think most of the questions about Genesis deal with? The first 11 chapters. Where God gave us the least amount of detail, we have the most amount of questions. Don't be surprised therefore if my answers won't suit your expectations, because I can't make up what God hasn't told us. But we're gonna take a stab at it. Of all the questions that we've gotten, and we've gotten some via the internet, etcetera, etcetera, Facebook, some that have been texted in, some that will be able to be texted in tonight. The lion's share has to do with origins and beginnings. But I want to introduce you to a group of people before we start tonight and that is, behind the scenes in the bowels of the church, you might say, there's a, there are organs deep within of people functioning that are making this happen and I want to introduce you to a team of people that are in our tech room right now. Let's get a look at them. Well, there's Justin. He's backstage. Justin? Can you hear me? I sure can. Good to see you. Actually, I can't see you but I can hear you. Ok, you can hear me. Well I can hear you and it looks like you can see me but you're just looking at a camera. But you're upstairs and there's a group of people in this room every single week, is that right? Absolutely. This is a so-called pulling back the curtain and getting a view of what happens in the control room up here. This is like the Wizard of Oz, then. That's right. That's right.
Well, where's the wizard? And as you... well, as you can see, it's not just one person, it's several. And all of these, all these guys work tirelessly throughout the week preparing for each message that, that you bring and especially for tonight with the Q&A, a lot of preparation went into tonight and we have right here, Nate, just wave. Nate, Dominic's over there, Dave Dorl and Brent running the cameras and Wendy's doing the slides so, uh. Ok, great. Yeah, they're working hard. So we have a question because we have questions that have been brought in that you're gonna push up on the screen and we're gonna take a stab at answering, but also if people want to text right now, even in our congregation, they can do that. How could they do that? That's right. You could text your questions to .net, d-o-t-n-e-t, the numbers are 368638. Or you can email them from your Smartphone, if you listen on the radio to questions (plural, questions) @calvaryabq.org. And we're gonna be taking those questions as well as some from the chat room online and as you go through the evening, we'll post those questions for you Skip and you'll answer as many as you can, yeah? Well thanks a lot, Justin. Thanks for being with us. It's a pleasure. A question, a question. Let me just state that because of the amount of questions that we have gotten in and obviously will be getting in now, there's no way we'll be able to answer all of them in the time remaining. But we do have a question, we'll just start with that, one that came to us that was sent earlier on.
It says: Why is it that the serpent, Satan, did not use the divine name Yahweh, and then it says in parentheses (Elohim), but used a shortened name, Eloia. And this is a letter that comes from Frances and she actually wrote the first two questions. So that's her question. It came up on the screen at least behind me here; you in the back probably can't see it, can you? Oh is it's on the small screens. Ok, well let me just give the question again. Why is it that the serpent, Satan, did not use the divine name Yahweh (Elohim), but used the shortened name Eloia? Well let's look at the text in Genesis 3 to see what it says in English. It says, "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" Now, Frances, I don't know where you got your information to form this question but, in the Hebrew that I checked, and I checked it in the English translation of the Hebrew and in the Hebrew itself, the word that Satan used for God was indeed Elohim. Now when Moses, giving us the information, writes about what is happening, he uses two terms for God: Yahweh Elohim, the Lord God. When Satan says, "Has God said," posing the question, the term that he uses is indeed Elohim in the Hebrew. So again, I don't know where you got that from but it is Elohim. But there's something more important than what the language specifies and is there something hidden therefore because of it? What's most important that you understand is what Satan is doing in the text. He is denying a very basic doctrine that is still being denied today and that is that God will punish sin. That man can go by living his life without any consequences.
And so he's denying that there's gonna be any repercussions or that the result of sin is death. That's really the big picture. Well, we have another question that came to us and we'll throw that up on the screens: Did Eve really see Satan appear as a serpent or was it a spirit? In Revelation, the serpent of old that was cast down, I'm sure was not a snake falling to the earth. That also came from Frances. So there's a couple of questions in that, Frances. First of all, did Satan really appear as a serpent or was it a spirit? First of all, how could a spirit have appeared so a human being can apprehend or see it if it was not in some kind of physical form? There has to be some sense of physicality. A non-corporeal being, an amorphous being, would not be apprehended by human eyes because we live in the physical realm. There has to be some kind of physical appearing and the Bible says specifically that Satan showed up as a, and it's in Hebrew, nachash, or this creature, translated in English as a serpent or later on, a snake. It will be helpful to consider what Satan was like before the event of him falling to the earth. Now the Bible calls him in two different places, the Bible indicates in the Old Testament that he was a very majestic being. One is Ezekiel chapter 28 where Ezekiel calls Satan that at one time he was the anointed cherub or angel that covers and indicates that he had a very high place, perhaps even as leading of the worship of angelic beings, before he sinned against God.
Then in Isaiah chapter 14, also in the Old Testament, the question is posed: How have you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning, or light bearer, or luminous one? And the text goes on to say that this being, Satan, said in his heart, I will ascend above the throne of God. I will be like the Most High. And in that passage five times Satan said I will. I will. I will. I will. I will. And God basically said no you won't. And when He said no you won't, Satan was cast down from heaven. He was cast down from heaven as a spirit for Satan, Lucifer, was a spirit being. Now a rebellious spirit being. He fell down to the domain of the earth but he still had access to heaven. How do we know he had access to heaven? Because in Job chapter 1 and 2, we find that when the angels of God come to give their account before God, the Bible says Satan was among them. And we know that not only does he have access to the throne of God, and let me just stop right here and say this is a shocker to some people because they have the idea that Satan is in hell. Let me just say Satan is not in hell and Satan has never been in hell. He will be in hell. That will be his ultimate destiny. But until then, he has lots of roaming capacity. He has lots of power and lots of ability to even access the throne of God and he spends his time if he's there accusing us. Like he accused Job. And basically said to God as he was giving an account with the other angelic beings, when God said have you considered My servant Job? Satan said let me tell you something about Job. He serves You only as a mercenary--only for what he can get out of You. Only because of what You give him. Not because he truly loves You. Let me at him and he will curse You to Your face.
Then also in the Old Testament book of Zechariah, there is a vision of the high priest Joshua standing before the Angel of the Lord and Satan is there to accuse him. So here's what I want to point out. Satan fell from heaven as a spirit being, shows up in Genesis in the form, the physical form, of a nachash, a serpent being. Now to answer the second part of your question, Frances, which deals with the book of Revelation and you're saying I can't picture a snake dropping out of heaven, which is a good point. Let's look at the text in Revelation. Revelation chapter 12 beginning in verse 9: "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death." The book of Revelation is a book of imagery that points to reality. Satan is described a couple of different ways here. First of all, not as a serpent but as a dragon. Why would John see that? Why would God allow John to see that in the vision? Because it speaks of the terrifying nature of Satan. Then you'll notice in the text in Revelation 12, it refers back to him also being a serpent. That's that cunning nature, that beguiling or deceptive nature. So it's a very strong imagery to point to a reality of Satan as being beguiling and also being terrifying.
You may also recall that Jesus said that He saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning. He was there for that initial rebellion when the anointed cherub that covers rebelled against God and was cast down. So Satan fell from heaven. But he still has access, though his domain is on the earth, he still has access to heaven. In the future, Revelation chapter 12, in the future, the access to heaven will be forbidden and his domain will be confined to the earth alone which describes why the second half of the great tribulation is so bad because that is the theatre of war for Satan and his angels. After that, Satan gets bound for 1,000 years. Peace on earth for a millennium--a thousand years. When the millennium is completed, Revelation tells us, Satan will be released for a short period of time, captured again, reincarcerated, and forever be tormented in the lake of fire. So when Eve saw Satan it was as a nachash, this being that had fallen in rebellion against God and now is confined to the earth, being given the physical form of this creature and then will be consigned solely to the earth in the second part of the tribulation period without any access at all so he gets more and more and more and more limited as time gets on. And one of the reasons he gets so furious on the earth is because he wants to drag as people with him as possible. So I hope that sort of explains it maybe in a long roundabout way.
We have a question that just came up. It just was texted so we'll throw that up on the screen. I can see it here on the screen. It says: Who causes Lucifer to fall if there was no evil in heaven? Ben from, or on the chat room. So we, besides having text messages here we have a live chat room going on during these services, where people can converse with one another and chat and that's where this is coming from. Well, who caused Lucifer to fall? God gave the angels the freedom of choice. And Satan was number one. He was the anointed cherub that covers. It wasn't that anybody caused him, but that God allowed him to have the freedom of choice and he made a really bad choice. His expression of that freedom of choice was really bad. He said I will. It started in his heart. He said it in his heart. So his rebellion, his sin, started within his core being and was manifested outwardly. He was numero uno minus Uno. And it was the minus Uno part of the equation that really bothered him. he wanted to be number one. He wanted to ascend to the authority of being God. Of course, he couldn't because he was a created being. He wasn't like the Creator but wanted to assume the worship of that and has been trying to do that ever since. So, it was, it was self-caused. It was by the power of volition, not anybody that caused it for him.
We have another question that comes concerning Genesis 3 and I've arranged the ones that I've had in advance in chronological order for the book's sake. In Genesis chapter 3:14, this question says: Does the curse of Genesis 3:14 still apply today? And what does this all really mean? And this is a question that comes from Lawrence. Now we'll put up Genesis 3:14 on the screen so you can get the context of the question. It says: "So the Lord God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life." So the question, I guess, if I'm reading this right, was this a snake or was this another creature? Because of this judgment that is consigned here upon this being, upon Satan. Well, it could mean, let's take the literal translation, that it is referring to a snake. So that the literal snake becomes emblematic throughout history, emblematic as a reminder of the temptation and the Fall of man brought on by Satan's influence. Or number two, the word and the idea could refer to a whole different kind of being and the only way to translate it is using the Hebrew nachash, and we translate it as serpent or a snake. But it could be a whole different creation by God. Did you know that the ancient rabbis used to say that this creature, whatever it was before, whatever, whatever form that Satan occupied, that before the curse was pronounced, was able to talk and was able to walk upright because the curse was you're no longer gonna be able to do what you have done. You are now gonna crawl on your belly. So the ancient rabbis used to teach that this creature had the ability to have power of speech as well as to walk.
Some commentators favor that; others do not. I'll let you make up your mind. Let me throw in something else in the mix. Part of the judgment, you'll notice, is that you're gonna eat dust all your life. But we know that snakes don't eat dust--they eat animals, they eat plants, some of them. They don't eat dust. You don't survive on dust. And so most commentators immediately say well this is a use of language that's a figure of speech because eating dust, like it is today, it was in ancient times a way of saying you will be the lowest of the low and you will suffer and, and live in humiliation and defeat. But I'm gonna throw something into the mix just as a perhaps, just as a side thought. It could be that part of this hasn't been fulfilled yet and that the snake, the serpent, Satan assumed this form, but all of the serpents in the future, in the millennial kingdom, the thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth, that period of peace the Bible speaks about in the future, that the snake may perhaps be able to do exactly that: eat dust. Now I'm gonna give you a Scripture that you're familiar with but maybe you haven't read carefully. That's Isaiah 65 which is speaking of the kingdom age in the future. Isaiah 65 verse 25: "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together," you've read that passage. It goes on to say: "The lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain," says the Lord.
In other words, the creation at that time will be so docile that there will be no predatory instincts within these animals to kill and have the food chain that we have today and that even perhaps in this renewed earth, the dust itself will have nutrients to cause this creature to survive. Just a thought. Just thought I'd throw that out for fun. No extra charge. Here's another question, our fourth question, or actually our fifth for the night. Well actually we have something else. It says, this just came in just now so let's throw that out. Thank you, by the way, for texting. You know typically you come to church and we say turn off your cell phones. Tonight we say turn them on and get ready to text. It says: Why do you think God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden? That's a great question and it's a fundamental question. Why did God do it to begin with? I mean, if God is omniscient and He knows all things, why would He bother putting that possibility for man to make the wrong choice and why would He even put that out to man, creating a tree that they could choose the wrong tree or the wrong fruit? It's pretty simple and it's pretty basic. There could be no love, there could be no true worship, there could be no true relationship, without something called volition. You have to choose to do it. If I point a gun to a girl's head when I'm 20-years-old and say you're gonna marry me and you will say you love me every day or I'll blow your brains out, that's not really a choice. She might say to me I love you every day because she's afraid of that bullet. But for there to be a real relationship, a true love relationship, a real bond that exists, there must be the ability for the person to make a choice for or against the one that's making the initial move.
And so God put that out there with all of the accoutrements of paradise in that Garden, giving mankind the choice and mankind made the wrong choice. That actually plays into another question that we got and we'll go over in just a minute. Let me throw this one up now: In chapter 1, here's the question, in chapter 1 animals were created first later followed by the creation of humans. In chapter 2, humans were created first and animals second. Why? It seems to contradict itself. It's a fair question but it's an inaccurate question. There's a lot of false assumptions in that question. You have said that the second chapter of Genesis said that there's an order presented of which was created first. That's not so. Let's just look at the text and compare the two. We'll, for instance, start with Genesis chapter 1 in verse 24: "Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth," so all the creeps were made that day as well, "according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." Even the creeps were good. "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over the earth," over all the earth, "and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
That's the Genesis 1 account. Now let's look at Genesis 2 and see if we have a contradiction. Verse 7, Genesis 2: "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 being." Go down to verse 18 because we don't have time to read it all: "And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Verse 19: "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name." Now as I read those two different texts, I don't see any contradiction at all. Genesis 2, the second account that we read, does not say when God formed the beast of the field. He does in chapter 1. And why is that? Because in chapter 2 that's not the point. The point that the author is making, here being Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is that man was called on by God to give names to all the animals that God had made. So this is what you have in chapter 2. Chapter 2 of Genesis fills in the details left out by chapter 1, especially on the sixth day of creation. And why the sixth day? Because the sixth day is when man was created in the image of God. He's the uppermost creation. He's the special creation.
So chapter 1 is the chronology. You have six days of creation given in order. But chapter 2 is not a chronology. It's not about chronology; it's about methodology. How God used His crowning creation to exercise authority over all the creation that God had made and to give names to all the animals and to rule over them. So that's how Genesis 1 and 2 fit together. We have one that comes to us now from Facebook. It was sent to us from Facebook and here's the question: What if Adam and Eve had never given into temptation? Sort of follows on the heels of one of the questions we just had texted to us a few moments ago. What if Adam and Eve had never given into temptation? Have you ever wondered that? I think a lot of people do. It's like, you know, this is a sorry mess Adam and Eve has gotten us into. And now we're part of the Adam's Family. We share that sinful genealogy. So what's up with that? What if they never would've sinned? The question continues: Would the possibility of someone else down the line doing something that required Jesus to come to earth to die for our sins? Well I'll answer first presumably and then I'll answer certainly.
Presumably, if Adam and Eve would've never sinned, mankind would've continued in the paradise that God had made for his creation upon the earth in fellowship with God, in harmony with one another. But that's presumably. You see, it's always hard to play the "what-if" game. Well what if this? And then what if that? Because you're dealing with not certainties but presumptions. Bottom line: our first parents, whether they're called Adam or Eve or if they were given other names, if they were, I don't know, Steve and Sarah Ferkinbinder. The names don't matter. What happened is the first human beings on the earth given the first test--failed the test. And in failing the test, they brought into this creation environment the sin principle. God said in the day that you eat of that fruit, you will surely die. The cross was never an afterthought. When Adam and Eve sinned, it wasn't like God said, oh now what do I do? Revelation 13, last book in the Bible, verse 8 says Jesus Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundations of the earth. It was all a part of God's plan. He knew exactly what was gonna happen. He had to let the test run its course. He had to let mankind choose to serve Him, choose to love Him, and everyone subsequent to that. But Paul helps us. He fills in the blanks. He says by one man, Adam, sin entered the world and death through sin and death spread to all for all have sinned. So by one man, Adam, sin entered. But he goes on to say that what, what Adam did, Jesus has undid. He has undone--fixing it. And that will be realized in our future, not in our present. He came to deal with sin first of all, and He'll come to bring in the kingdom second at His second coming.
So here's something to think about. Adam was a special creation of God. He was made directly by God--a direct creation. No other human being has ever had that. Everyone after that was born naturally. And in pain of childbirth. There was only one other person introduced into the human race who was also made by special creation and that is the virgin-born Son of God where God moved by His Holy Spirit upon a woman named Mary, a young woman, and Jesus Christ was born naturally but supernaturally having the nature of man but also the nature of God. He's called, incidentally, the second Adam or the last Adam. What Adam ruined, Jesus came to unruin. So whether it was Adam or Eve, it wasn't that if Adam and Eve would've done it somebody else would've done it later on. The idea is they had a choice, they blew the choice. If they wouldn't have presumably mankind would've continued in that paradise. They did, God knew it, Jesus was planned to come from the foundation of the earth, and our future is secure because of that.
We have another question that came to us on Facebook. We have all these different outlets that come in. Some are texted, some are on cyber line, some have been Facebook, some have been put in the agape box by hand. This is about Cain's mark in chapter 4 and the question is simply: What was Cain's mark? And the text is Genesis chapter 4. Now you remember the story. I don't have to go over it all, but Cain killed Abel. Cain was banished from fellowship with God and interaction, I would say, also with his family. He was bound to be a fugitive--a wanderer--on the face of the earth and God put a mark on him. Now this is Genesis chapter 4 verse 14: "Surely," he says, he's speaking, Cain is speaking, "Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me." And the Lord said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him." So the question what was that mark? Anybody know? Well I'm glad nobody said I know because that would be the wrong answer because it's not told us what that mark was, right? We can't make something up that isn't there. We're not given that information. God didn't think it was important that we know what that mark was.
We do know it was some visible, identifiable sign. Some say it was a birthmark, some say it was a tattoo, there are, I've read ten different explanations. Don't know. We're not told. Some identifiable mark to show two things. Number one, that he was under divine protection, isn't that interesting. He's afraid that he's gonna die. God says I'll put a mark on you that'll be a warning to people--they won't kill you. Why would God do that? Because He's merciful. Because God is merciful and God was protecting Cain and dealing with his worst fear because he thinks I'm gonna go out; I'm gonna die. God says, not gonna happen. I'm gonna put a mark on you and I'm gonna protect you. And it was a sign of that mercy. But number two, wearing that sign would also announce his guilt. This lifelong shame of God's judgment of being banished forever. It could've been a physical mark. Some say it was a pledge. For your interest, whoever asked the question, do you know that this is not the only time a mark is put on people? And I'm not talking about the mark of the beast. That's a different time. There are two instances in the Bible where marks are put on people for something good in order to preserve or protect them like with this one. Number one is in Revelation chapter 7 where there are 144,000 Jews, 12,000 from each tribe, who are sealed and God says before you enact this certain kind of judgment in the tribulation period, you will seal in the forehead 144,000. They'll be protected specially by God during the tribulation period. The second case is Ezekiel, I believe, chapter 9. In Ezekiel 9, God is gonna judge the city of Jerusalem because His people have backslidden--sinned horribly against God.
Before the judgment takes place, God calls for a special messenger with a writer's inkhorn to mark the foreheads of those who, in Jerusalem, sigh and cry over all the abominations that are taking place in their city and in their country. There's evil in their country and they cry over it. They hate the evil. Not only are they not a part of it, they're so opposed to it they weep over it. God says mark them. I'm gonna spare them. So God said to mark two other places for good and preservation. Whatever the mark of Cain was, let me tell you what it's not. And I think this is important because historically, the Mormon Church has taught that the mark of Cain, that Cain's curse was preserved in the lineage that eventually went on the ark through one of the sons of Noah, Ham, and they historically had explained that that curse that found its way through the lineage of Ham on the ark was Cain's curse and the evidence of the curse was blackened skin, so that anybody that has a blackened or Negroid skin, as they called it, was cursed by God--that is not the curse. It is a blatantly racist doctrine. It has nothing to do with any tenet whatsoever biblically and that is not what it was. So whatever it was, that wasn't it.
Now we have another question and I'm just looking at the time and waiting for any other texts that might come up. We know that dinosaurs existed. This is the question: We know that dinosaurs existed but did they exist at the same time as man existed? According to the Bible, everything was made in six days but science says they existed at different times. How do you explain this? Well let me just first say that science says a lot of things about a lot of things and not all scientists agree on what scientists say. There's not a monolithic belief among scientists and the idea, and in every natural history museum, this is like the favorite thing, to say a gazillion, billion, quadrillion, famillion years ago we know, because we weren't there, that these creatures existed and then mankind was separated by so many millions of years. I would contest that on archaeological evidence. One of the places isn't far from us. Down in Texas, in the Pulaxy riverbed, about an hour south of Fort Worth, in limestone have been discovered the fossilized footprints of dinosaurs. Next to them, sometimes in them as if sandwiched on top of them, the footprints of man from the same era. Maybe a race was going on and the dinosaur caught up with the dude.
But there you have a place, fossil evidence, of man and dinosaur existing together. Now there are no dinosaurs. They didn't survive the flood, too big to put on an ark and even if he put little ones on the ark, they could've died out. There are thousands and thousands of names that we know today of different dinosaurs. But only about 50 families of dinosaurs. Now Noah was told to put two animals of every kind, every kind, not every species, every kind. And in some cases, seven, for the sake of sacrifice. So we would naturally presume by the fossil evidence, not the one I just pointed to but we have large dinosaur bones encased in several horizontal strata layer that would designate a period of time but something volatile pressed them into that place and you see dinosaur fossils vertically encased in horizontal strata, as if put there by some great cataclysmic flood. Gee, that fits the biblical scenario quite well. A biblical worldwide flood. And there's plenty of evidence for that as we've covered so far.
Here's a question that goes along with that: the text question. Do you think the flood was localized or global? I think it was global. I think it covered the mountaintops because you can go to the highest mountaintops in the world and find seashells. Somebody didn't take them up there and put them there. A flood brought them there. It also fits the description of the biblical description of the flood and of the ark resting upon Mount Ararat. There has been some discussion and possible even identification of a large ship that's up on Mount Ararat. I'm just gonna answer that quickly by saying we went into that in depth when we were going through Genesis 6, 7, and 8 account and I would just commend you to those tapes, tapes, that's a dated word. The MP3's and MP4's. Yeah we have 8-tracks available as well afterwards. Here's another question that came to us. Thanks for that text, by the way. In view of the growing interest in extraterrestrials and life on other planets, how can believers best help non-believers understand the truth? How can we best try to explain this using the book of Genesis or what Jesus said about the book of Genesis?
Well I think you can simply point out the contradictory notions that many people have about extraterrestrials. Again, it's not monolithic. Several people have several different ideas and belief systems about them. Not all of them are homogenous. Not all of them agree. And point out the blatant lack of evidence that we have for such extraterrestrial beings. Then I would suggest you take them off guard. You take them off guard by telling them that God, your God, is an extraterrestrial. Right? He's an extraterrestrial. He's not earthly. He's not of this time domain, space domain. That God revealed Himself to us from outside our time-space continuum and then eventually came to this earth from heaven in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He's the only true extraterrestrial that we have on record. He Himself said I am from above. You are of this earth. Point that out to them. They'll be fascinated. At least you'll get their attention for a few minutes. Then I would further dialogue with them about the uniqueness of the Bible and all of the speculation, pure speculation, about extraterrestrial beings. Well so-and-so saw this and if you go on YouTube and there's... there's a lot of things that can be seen. Show them the veracity of the Scripture, the uniqueness of this text. Why it can be believed. We've, we have several tapes and CDs on that very subject. But I think without that, I think you'd do a good job of just pointing out the uniqueness of the Bible, the fulfillment of prophecy, etcetera. It's a pretty solid case that you can build for what we believe when it comes to the Scripture.
Another question. It said in Genesis 9 verse 27: "May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant." This statement, says the questioner, contextually has to do with Israel, the only nation with a God. If this is true, we are not a nation under God. We can't be a nation under God until after Christ returns. Question mark: is this true? I beg to differ with you that, that that's the context. I don't think that is the context of that promise that is shared in Genesis chapter 9. The context is that spiritual blessings will come to Japhethites, or the descendants of Japheth through the God of Shem. And you may or not remember, but we pointed out that this became the theological justification for Israel to invade the land of Canaan once they were in Egypt and to make Canaan subservient to Shem, or Israel, the sons of Shem, because God gave the Canaanites years and years time to repent of their sins and they didn't. He announced that back at the beginning part of Genesis. And He gave them over 400 years to change their ways and they didn't. And so the theological justification is that God was using His people to invade Canaan, make Canaan subservient to Israel of the sons of Shem. And that's the idea; that's really the context. It has nothing to do with the exclusive rights of any one nation being the true nation of God. Yes, Israel had one true God. But all of the other nations that lived around them, or that they invaded, also had a belief system in gods. They weren't right. But, though Israel was God's chosen people, they never lived up to it. Did you know that? They never fulfilled it. God sent them prophet after prophet after prophet and remember what Stephen said in Acts chapter 7? He said which one of the prophets did not your fathers kill? All the representatives God sent throughout your history, they've killed God's representatives and now you've killed the Messiah.
Israel went into two captivities: the Assyrian and then the Babylonian. So though God called them as His nation, they never yet lived up to the ideal that God had for that nation. So... I just see a text that came in--oh, it came in through the agape box. But, well, let's throw it up and take a stab at it. The evidence of the pharaohs, Egyptian culture, and their gods are preserved for us in the biblical record as well as stone images. Are there any known images referring to Joseph since he had such a significant role in Egypt? That's from Dave. Some see in the hieroglyphics of Egypt, who've studied it, and I have a friend who's actually studied it pretty carefully, allusions to the reign of Joseph. Here's what you have to remember, though. Joseph was during that volatile period we talked about. Remember we talked about the Hyskos kings? The shepherd kings? And they took over Egypt and that some believe that even the pharaoh himself, the pharaoh that let Israel go, was part of this shepherd king dynasty, the last of that dynasty. There's a little dispute about that. But that afterwards, when the true Egyptian dynasties recaptured Egypt and those pharaohs and those rulers were banished, they wanted to erase that period of their history where they were subservient to shepherds because, after all, we read in the text of Genesis, shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians. So that's a short form, Dave. Some think that there are. There's dispute about that. There's no real solid evidence that you see Joseph but there are allusions to it in the hieroglyphic text.
Ok we have just time for one more question and I'm trying to think which one I should take. I got one. I'll do this one. It was a question that I was asked by somebody in the church when I announced we're gonna do a Q&A and he said would you, would you mind tackling this? What about the ten lost tribes of Israel? And specifically under the banner of British Israelism or Anglo-Israelism? I don't know if any of you have heard that term before, but if you have ever heard of a church called the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert W. Armstrong, he espoused this at one time very, very vehemently. So let me give you a scenario and then tell you what people think and how this doctrine came about. I'll do it quickly. Jacob had twelve sons. Yes? Each of those twelve sons had a whole bunch of people called a tribe. So they're twelve tribes of Israel. After King Solomon died, there was a still a united Israel. After he died, his son Rehoboam was heavy-handed, taxed the people, and was even more brutal than his father Solomon. This caused a split in the unity and the fabric, in the united fabric of Israel. And there was another guy named Jeroboam, the son of Nabob, and he took ten tribes of Israel up north while two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, stayed down south.
The kingdom split. Afterwards, Judah referred to the southern kingdom, those two tribes, and Israel referred to the ten tribes up north. The ten northern tribes were taken into captivity in 722 BC by the Assyrians. After that, their history becomes a little sketchy and much of their legacy is shrouded in mystery. What some believe is that these ten tribes somehow migrated westward into Western Europe and more specifically, into Britain. So that Western European descendants and specifically British descendants are the true ten lost tribes of Israel. And that those who live as Jews in Israel today are faking it. They're not the real deal. They're imposters. The real Israel is found in Western Europe and specifically in Britain and some even say that the royal house of England, the kings and queens and the royal house of England, are direct descendants to King David--the Davidic line. All of this based upon pure speculation, not a shred of biblical evidence, but there's linguistic evidence, they say. And I'll just give you one example. There's several tribes. But one example: the tribe of Dan migrates from the Middle East, from Assyria, through Israel, across the Mediterranean, into Western Europe and England and we see traces of his name all throughout. Like Lon-dan, England. London, England but the "dan" was the original derivation. The Danube River from the tribe of Dan. Swe-dan, and the Swedish people. Denmark and the Danish people or Dan-ish people. Ish is Hebrew for man, they point out. So you have Dan's man, Danish. But then you also have foolish and that's what this whole thing is. Absolutely foolishness. Not a shred of biblical evidence.
Let me tell you what really happened. Years later than 722 BC, in 586 BC the Babylonians took the two remaining tribes captive. So now you have Israelites, some remain in the land of Israel, not all of them were taken captive in the north, a lot of them stayed, the poorest of the poor. Many of them were killed, tortured by the Assyrians. But you have Israelites up north in Assyria. You have the Babylonians who take over the world, including Assyria. And then later on, you have the Medo-Persian Empire taking over Babylon and Assyria. So when the Jews come back to rebuild the temple, Ezra and Nehemiah days, there are already a group of Israelites up north in the area of Samaria who want to help the Jews down south rebuild the temple. And some of the tribes in 1 Chronicles chapter 9, or is it 25 verse 9, don't know off, but in that book that talks about some of the reconfigurement of the tribes back in the land and included, it's not just Judah, not just Benjamin, but some of the tribes like Ephraim and Manasseh and others are mentioned. So why is that? Though it became sketchy, the ten northern tribes were assumed into the other Jews because of the subsequent captivity of the bigger guns: the Babylonians took the Assyrians, the Medo-Persians took the Babylonians, and so all of those Jewish people could be together and they were assumed in the people of Judah. They came back to the land though a lot of them couldn't prove their genealogy, that's also on record. They're all assumed in the captivity that came back from Babylon. So that's British-Israelism and that's its refutation and we're out of time. I hope this was helpful. Why don't we have the worship band come up and close in a song? Let's all stand.