In honor of Earth Day, I wanted to start an environmental thread. Is “environmental armageddon” inevitable, or imagination? More imporatntly, what should (can) we do about it?
In honor of Earth Day, I wanted to start an environmental thread. Is “environmental armageddon” inevitable, or imagination? More imporatntly, what should (can) we do about it?
Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.
Copyright 2012. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of American Atheists.
mamas78:
Hey, thanks. Your question about the 6-6-06 billboards helped me find a wild website, which prompted a post-spawn.
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/04/allegories-gone-wild-of-rapture.html
Utterly funny.
Keynote speaker at 1st Earth Day event –1970 — Ohio.
Yep I did it! What’s changed? Instead of importing 1 out of three barrels of crude oil we now import 2 out of three. Carter’s call for energy independence has resulted in zero. Global warming is labelled as junk science. A goofy historically-challenged presideint has noted that we are addicted to petroleum. And the USA (officially) is the only industrial country which is unconvinced that man’s activities since the industrial revolution are not detrimentally affecting global climate. …but there’s always hope, faith, blah, blah, blah.
tomwright,
I assume you know that the Earth’s supplies of fossil fuels aren’t endless, what are we going to do when the oil runs out?
RFD brought up a good point about the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest. Why is there such a confrontation there? Because it’s the only place left in the country loggers haven’t cut all the old trees down. They’ve left a trail of boom and bust towns behind them, and forests quite different from when the Mayflower landed. Where I live in East Texas it’s doubtfull anyone alive will ever live to see a southern yellow pine the likes of we had 150 years ago.
Or take for instance the birth of the petroleum industry. Did it develop because of a need for fuel for IC engines? No it was a needed replacement for whale oil that had priced itself too high( the whales had the gaul to go nearly extinct on us just to deprive us of lamp oil).
Gasoline was an unwanted hazardous byproduct of kerosene production at the time,and often just dumped in the creeks.
You have said in the past that the climate we are experiencing is well within past parameters. I agree with you here but its the derivative information that worries me. The rate of change of our climate is only matched in the past by catastrophic events.Interpolation of these trends into the near future is a reason for concern and intense research I think.
Seriously folks, when my old man, who was born in 1908 was young and living in Los Angeles, he recalled the first advent of smog. He remembered that the people at first didn?t know what it was, all that brown haze in the sky.
Imagine polluting something as huge as the entire sky; it?s almost unthinkable. Now we know better.
I find it quite credible that we are altering/have altered the planet?s gas blanket to the extent that the heat exchange with our star has been modified. Aka, greenhouse effect. Not far-fetched; plausible, even if still not completely conclusive, you freakin? moron Bush!!!
Well, you are either incredibly brilliant, in that you’re better at analyzing climate data than these climatologists, or just incredibly stubborn. My guess is that these guys have taken volcanic effects into account – of course they would. In fact, if you were to dig just a little deeper, they explain the reasoning behind that particular location:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
And from the rest of footnote 7:
Okay, lets take a look at the last one from Mr. Barnola et. al.:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
Hmmm. You know Tom, you’re a pretty smart guy and honestly I respect you, but I think I’m just going to take these guys at their word for now.
I’ve never heard that. My understanding is that most of the larger Pleistocene mammals died off between 12,000 – 10,000 years ago, coinciding with the big glacial thaw that marked the end of the last ice age.
They’ve been blamed in part – perhaps our ancestors delivered the knock out punch, but climate change is still thought to be the main culprit.
r4d is on the right track; humans have been partially blamed for the extinction of the greater Pleistocene mammals, but only to a small extent.
Think about it: Early humans would seek refuge in the same locations as the remaining large mammals, and, being dominant, we would destroy them as we found them. It wasn’t a question of hunting to extinction, it was more a matter of finding yourself sleeping on a mastodon and jabbing it with a pointy stick.
re – euro-lions,
they were also outcompeted by feral dogs.
Esperdome
They will not run out in our lifetime. Demand however, will likely grow faster than the oil companies can increase supply, due to the growth of asian economies, notably China and India.
In adition, fossil fuel alarmists have been presenting thei Malthusian prediction for decades, and have been 100%, consistently, wrong. As technology improves, we find more, we can extract more from what we do find, extract from places we could not extract before, and use what we do extract more efficiently.
There are also a minority of scientists now claiming the petroleum is produced by a geological process deep in the earths crust, and not as a reult of a biological process, as is beleived now. They have produced petroleum in laboratories by reproducing the pressures and other conditions that exists at the proposed depths. But doing something in the lab does not mean it occurs in nature. This is such a radical change in theory that it should be looked at skeptically, and a lot more evidence needs to be presented before it is accepted.
Any increase in cost will drive the search for new supplies and for alternative technologies. We see that now. The problem is that govt subsidy distorts the market, such that we could very well end up with a less efficient technology than we may otherwise find. When Buch announced his hydrogen initiative, I wrote off that technology for the near future. There was a lot of research before that, with products planned to enter the market soon. Some still may. But govt funding changes the incentives for research from producing useful products to producing convincing grant proposals.
All subsidies should be removed from the energy business, including oil, so that the real costs are known in the market, so that people can make rational decisions not distorted by the political fad of the moment. This way the most efficient technologies will have the best chance of succeeding.
Which only occurred due to the forests being publicly owned. That means they are governed by politics and those in power rule the politics. There are many examples of places where private ownership protected land from logging and over-exploitation. My mothers family has lived in the Catskill area of NY since the 1600′s. Old Dutch settlers and French Huegenot refugees. We have photos, tintypes, etc from the advent of photography around the time of the Civil War. Much of the area was logged, but much was not. There is old growth left that was never logged There are actually more trees now in the east than there were then. Look up Mohonk Mountain House, started in 1869. One thing not mentioned on the site is that the owner, Smiley was also a naturalist, and left the land mostly undeveloped. His records of wildlife, lakes and plants are still used. There are other examples out there. His brother ended up starting a neighboring place, Minnewaska, that ended up failing and being sold off to the state in the 1990′s to prevent it being taken over by a large hotel chain. They could not afford the taxes and for all their talk, the greenie types would not patrinize the place enough to keep it afloat, in addition to mismanaging the business that allowed the original hotel to fail and eventually burn down. I used to do a lot XC skiing there.
I do not know about the area you are in, but human lifespans are minute compared to nature. I’ll bet there are pines old enough to be 150 years old during your chldrens lifetimes. Maybe even small forests.
But if we just leave nature alone, it will recover by itself. We can help it if we want to, but we need to be careful not to impose our ideas of what it should be in areas we do not need to live.
Absolutely true. But notice that people were clever enough to take what was considered a waste product, and put it to use. Who knows what we will come up with next. Again. if we take the distortions out of the market from govt subsidies and restrictions, we will see a big increase in practical research rather than political research and products brought to market.
Not if you look at the record. There have not been catastrophic climate events outside of the large extinctions like Permian and K/T, the causes of which are not fully understood, though theories abound about K/T. So far as the variations outside of those, the worst that happens is some species need to migrate, and some that are not able to adapt go extinct, which has happened for the entire multi-billion year history of the planet. A couple hundred years in the face of that is not even an eye blink.
rainbows4dinosaurs
But it is a guess, it is not stated. I did not say the data was invalid, I said comparing it to data from other sites in order to somehow discredit it was wrong. Both sets are perfectly valid, but oly for the location it is taken from.
Only similarities that show up in all datasets can be used for global comparison.
It does say regional, not global concentrations. I stand by what I said.
Note that they are referring to other sources for different datasets, they are not saying they should be compared directly. Again, only effects that are similar accross datasets are useful for global data.
I see changes in concentration all through the record greater than what we see today. M.L. in Hawaii shows over 300 ppm today, but that needs to be compared to M.L. history, not Vostok history. Vostok current data needs to be compared to Vostok history. It is the rates and amouts of change that need to be compared within each locality, to find similar trends. Comparing M.L. to V. is like using Mexico City as useful for Montreal. Both get warmer in summer, but Mexico city data is not valid for Montreal. You can find that both increas in temperature in summer, but not what each will actually be.
Fine, but my arguments are that the conclusions are politically based. This is due to funding bias in the same way other studies are affected by funding bias. This is true with govet funding and private funding. Whenever you see a study that has bearing on a political question, look at the funding source and add the appropriate shading of skepticism. This is even more important if it props up your own beliefs. I constantly critisize folks on my side of many arguments that use dubious facts, since they can, and do, turn around, bite you, and just make your side look bad. This is especially true of the pro-legalization side of drug-reform and the pro-rights side of the gun debate.
Many survived well past that. Mammoths were known to have survived to at least 4000 years ago, in isolated populations, well past the end of the last ice age.
The European lion was known as recently as around 100 CE.
I often liken it to blaming the fish for the flood that kills your pets.
There is no way to save our planet but two good ways to extend it’s life. One way is to get ride of all humans. That way the source of the earth’s #1 problem will be terminated. The second way is to focus on using technology to help save the earth but that is not going to happen anytime soon. Our planet will be a wasteland before anything can be done and then will be burned to nothing by the sun. Simple really.
It is so stated, and I posted the statement.
Well I should hope so, seeing as how it was originally your source.
and..
What, CO2 just stays within a given region? Is there supposed to be some kind of invisible barrier that keeps the CO2 over Mauna Loa from mixing with the CO2 from the rest of the world? Have you ever heard of something called weather? And did you fail to notice that there are a number of sources for these readings and that global estimates are based on an average of these readings?
The effects are similar, and all data ranges are taken into account together.
One of the greatest strengths of science is that it transcends borders and the politics within those borders. Vostok is in Russia, after all. Plus, it seems to me that any political pressure these days would be directed more towards suppressing these conclusions. In fact, such efforts have been documented.
I do, and I also look for a general consensus. I also realize that all conclusions are provisional per new evidence. I’m not perfect, but I try to stick as close to the tenets of skeptical inquiry as I can.
As do I. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where I’m not even sure what ‘side’ I’m on or if there is even a ‘side’ for me.
Man, I knew you were going to say that. You neglected to mention that those particular mammoths were an isolated pygmy species on Wrangel Island, off the cost of Siberia – an isolated species, Tom – in the Arctic, no less.
How is that even a point? They were lions – not a cold-climate dependent species. Oh, and why did they die off in the first century? Lets see – during that period, which major empire had an insatiable appetite for publicly destroying ferocious beasts on a daily basis for sport?
I’m certainly not a blame-the-humans first type, but to say that humanity is totally blameless strikes me as woefully naive.
rainbows4dinosaurs [Member]
Measurements are of forensic evidence, (for lack of a better term), created at the time in the local vicinity. If the CO2 spread aas rapidly as you imply, the ppm readings would be the same across the entire planet. They are not. Nor is the measurement of any gas. Oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, all vary regionally. Some more so than others. CO2 is aproduct of biological processees, as well as being emitted by localized geological source, such as volcanoes, geothermal vents, and eruptions from stores under water. I think my comparison to weather/temerature changes is valid and in no way implies that I think the data are spurious.
So is that why the overwhelming majority of funding is for PRO-warming studies, groups and researchers? I think the empirical evidence of where the political funding is actually going goes against your statement. Try to find any studies that are funded by a govt agency that do not have a pre-determined statement in favor of finding a pro-warming result. Then compare that number with those that claim neutrality or that are stated to be targeted to questioning warming. I’ll bet the total, if you can find them all, would be better than 10 to 1, with 10 being pro-warming at the outset, before any data are gathered or considered.
Dude, I stated that they were isolated populations right in the sentence you quoted. And those were just the latest living specimens. THere are still corpses thawing out in the russian north that are fresh enough that scavengers and predetors eat the meat as it appears, though it would not be fir for humans. It is good enough that there is an ethical argument going on about whether to try to use genetic material extracted from a mammoth corpse to try to create a living specimen rom Indian elephants. Check wikipedia, not the best source but it give an overview, including some of the fables about modern sightings that seem more like UFO stuff than reality.
The point was that there have been many large animals that lived with humans during and after the ice age that are not around now. The euro-lion as well as Saber tooth cats are among them.
Didn’t mean to imply that, but there is a parallel to the reasoning of blaiming what you see in front of your face, and not looking for a more basic cause behind it. A failure of humanity in general.
Anthony
Assuming you are serious: You first!
We’ll watch.
But if your first suggestion is implemented, (which I heartily encourage for those that advocate it), the second becomes not possible.
tomwright rather amuses me. He sounds like he just found Ayn Rand and then was led to “libertarianism”. Maybe he has also found Ludwig Von Mises and Freddy Hayek.
If he really wants to impress his libertarian colleagues, he should look up Lysander Spooner and argue that point of view in his meetings.
He seems to have some smarts, so he may outgrow it.
He may even finally discover Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who wrote the text “What is Property?”. The answer, “Property is theft.” But it will take him a while to get there.
I’ve never understood that statement. And then on the other side of the spectrum you have “all taxes are theft.”
How about this:
Property is property
Taxes are taxes
And theft is theft
Now pardon me while I rejoin the real world – I need to try and get some friggin work done.
rainbows4dinosaurs
Very good, I missed that one, and the spread is good too. Was there one for land based readings?
I was showing what can be sources other than human activity, sorry I was not specific.
It has nothing to do with any planned or deliberate conspiracy.
It has to do with the way things work in human society. Just like so many people look for anything that will reinforce their religous beliefs, regardless of fact. Everything they do is with the assumption that it will prove them right, and it is structured to do so.
Look at how govt. funded studies on marijuana are always touted to prove how dangerous it is, even when they do not. They get spun in such a way as to say they do. If they can not be spun, they are buried.
Funding bias. If you state you are quetioning the status quo or the majority view, you do not get funded. It is not conspiracy, it is beureaucratic cover-you-ass-ism and carreerism. No one will go up against the boss.
See above, it is not deliberate, it is an unfortunate part of the way humans behave towards authority.
There are problems with that. How do we know the prehistoric extinction rate when we can only go on th efossils we find? Considering how difficult it is for a fossil to be created, it is very likely we do not have anywhere near a complete tally of prehistoric species. Hell, we do not even have a tally of the ones alive now.
I do not disagree with this. I just object to enforced means that push alternatives aside, which is what greens and others advocate. Let the market find the most efficient solution, it will if left alone.
Example: most liberals and greens, and many neo-cons advocate rationing gas along some sort of scheme, or raising CAFE standards to absurdly high levels, or raising gas taxes to european levels as a means to force economy on people, with little regard to how this would afect the poor.
yet at the same time they cry conspiracy when the market causes prices to rise, and demand investigations into corporate profiteering, ignoring the fact that these price rises are encouraging the very same economy that they would impose through taxation and regulation.
Check this out:
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24
select the ‘show crude oil price’ box, and then comare the rise in gas prices to the rise in crude prices. They folow more closely even than the CO2-temperature charts do.
The one common denominator in all environmental problems is this: overpopulation.
If there was 1/10 the current population and we put more money into automation then we could all live unimagined lifestyles that were sustainable. Check this out:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
Alex.
“They will not run out in our lifetime”
Oh, that’s just grand. So my kids (if I ever have any) can be born into a doomed world which I will be responsible for. Yeah, sounds like a great reason for me to go about burning all the fossil fuels I can find.
tomwright “I’ve never understood that statement. And then on the other side of the spectrum you have “all taxes are theft.”
How about this:
Property is property
Taxes are taxes
And theft is theft
Now pardon me while I rejoin the real world – I need to try and get some friggin work done.”
You don’t seem to understand much about anything. Maybe you read Proudhon instead of wallowing in your “libertarian” bs.
As to tomwrights “science”, maybe he should check out science organizations rather than a political organization like the Cato nutcases.
“The reasons behind this faster increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide are two-fold. Firstly, the model predicts that as temperatures rise, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the soils will increase rapidly; much more rapidly than can be counteracted by the increased growth of vegetation. This is because this “soil respiration” is governed by the breaking down of carbon in the soil by microbes whose activity is observed to increase exponentially with temperature. Hence, soil carbon levels all over the world start to decline rapidly from about 2050 as this carbon is released back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. (See figure, right).
Secondly, the model predicts that, in the second half of this century, vegetation carbon storage in South America will begin to decline as a result of the die back of the Amazon forest, which is caused by regional warming and drying (direct anthropogenic deforestation is not included). Around the middle of the century, the land biosphere as a whole switches from being a weak sink for carbon to a strong source, mainly due to the rapid loss in soil carbon beyond 2050. In total, between the middle of the 19th century and the end of the 21st century, the combined effects of climate change and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are predicted to reduce global soil and vegetation carbon storage by around 100 Gt C. The total global changes in soil and vegetation carbon are shown in the previous figure (above). This figure (left) shows maps of the change in terrestrial carbon content between 2000 and 2100.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/results_trans.html
“The model predicts that the carbon sink on land increased in recent decades, as also predicted by atmosphere/ocean models of the global carbon budget. There is agreement that the current terrestrial carbon sink is 12 Gt C per year taking up about 20-30% of the carbon emitted by human activities. Results suggest that this sink will increase to about 3 Gt C per year or more by 2050, continuing to absorb at least 20% of the carbon emitted by humankind. But after about 2050, the terrestrial sink dramatically decreases and disappears by about 2080. Consequently, more of the CO2 emitted by human activities will then remain in the atmosphere.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/B1997/vegetat.html
“Conclusions
* By the 2080s, many tropical grasslands and tropical forests will be at risk of decline and loss in biomass and areal extent, whereas many temperate and boreal forests may continue to grow faster and increase in areal extent in response to climate change.
* The terrestrial carbon sink may continue to provide a substantial brake on the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 until about 2070, but hereafter it is likely that this sink will disappear as tropical forests are adversely affected by climate change.
The Met Office Hadley Centre has a wealth of information on the other aspects of global warming and climate change as well.
Climate models predict that, as future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase, due to fossil fuel emissions and deforestation, the temperature of the planet will also increase. This temperature increase is currently estimated in two stages. Firstly, a model of the carbon cycle is used to calculate the future atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Secondly, the climate change is calculated using a separate global climate model. However, in reality, climate change will alter the, much larger, natural carbon cycle (see box opposite) and this can feed back on the climate change itself. Warming soils may emit more carbon, and die back of vegetation may return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. A warmer ocean will take up less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Furthermore, vegetation patterns move in response to climate change. For instance, the tree line is predicted to move poleward in the northern hemisphere. For the first time, the Hadley Centre has coupled a representation of the carbon cycle to a full climate model and made predictions of climate change that incorporate climate-induced changes in the carbon cycle. This has led to some radical new insight into the climate system.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/B2000/climate.html
These posts have just been about the carbon cycle. There are many other aspects to consider.
From the above, one might think it is good that boreal forests will move up. Not necessarily. That increased forestation will reduce the albedo, in other words, the loss of snow cover in the north will cause a reduction in the reflection of radiation coming from the sun and thus increasing global warming.
Do a search on albedo for more.
Re-check the post. THat was me – I said that, and I am certainly not a libertarian, thank you.
Sorry about that.
They say a picture’s worth a thousand words (courtesy of Buridan’s Ass):
(via Daily Kos) Here are two pictures of Argentina?s Upsala Glacier in 1928 compared to 2004.
“You can find more pictures of this type over at BBC ?In Pictures”. Several are quite dramatic, including one of Mount Hood. Not surprisingly, the U.S. and China are the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. I?m curious. Is this an issue that really concerns anyone or is it one of those things we all pay lip service to because that?s what good liberals do? Such examples, among a mass of other evidence, makes it difficult not to be in despair. There doesn?t seem to be any good news on the environmental horizon. “
Go easy on the ethanol. Burning that stuff puts carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air — greenhouse gases, both.
Did you see the recent Nova show on dimming sunlight? Seems we have to be careful what pollution we remove from the atmosphere first; If we get rid of smog before gh gases, we could make global warming even worse!
We believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and every word of it is inspired. A very grievous thought in the mind of godly ones is that men have despised and opposed His Word. God?s children are grieved because men do not respect God?s statutes. Among the sixty-six books of the Bible, Genesis has been subjected to the most doubt. Those who oppose the Bible often try to overturn God?s clear revelation with geological ages and prehistoric discoveries. The evidences in geology prove to them that the earth has been in existence for tens of thousands of years, and that the record of six thousand years of history in the Bible is untrustworthy. In the name of science, the world hurls its attacks on the book of Genesis. Many dear brothers in the Lord are not that scholarly (the author being one of them) and become lost in this storm. Although geology does not form part of our meditation, for the benefit of all, we will study the Word of God by the Lord?s grace at the commencement of our meditation and will consider how perfect is His Word, so that we can silently behold His beauty in His presence. Genesis is God?s revelation, while geology is man?s invention. God knows the whole truth. As such, His revelation can never be wrong. Man only sees in part. As such, his conjectures are not accurate. When we place Genesis side by side with geology, we should follow Genesis and not geology, because it is God who stands behind Genesis. If there are any basic differences between Genesis and geology, the error must be on the side of geology. The authority of the Bible is undisputed. Everything that is contrary to the Bible is wrong. Thank God our Father that He has given us such a complete revelation. If there are any incompatibilities between God and man, we would rather give up man and accept God. If there is no incompatibility, should not feeble human beings all the more believe in the revelation from heaven? Men often laugh at the ridiculous stories of creation circulated among the Chinese, the Babylonians, and other countries. No scientist has to spend much effort to refute these myths. The reason is that there is not much weight to these traditions. This is why they have not attracted much attention. But men?s attitudes towards the Bible are very different. The very fact that they have tried their best to resist the Bible proves the power of the Bible. They cannot treat the Bible the same as the traditions of the nations because they have recognized the extraordinary nature of the Bible. All those who have read Genesis 1 cannot fail to marvel at the beauty of its record. How ordinary it is, yet how marvelous! It is a plain record and contains no theory or arguments to prove its authenticity. The writer of the book was not bound by the book, but was transcendent above its record. The true author of the book is the One who is far above the universe it describes?God. Had the recorder of the book, Moses, written this book according to his own learning and ideas, his thoroughly Egyptian-trained intellect would surely have been influenced by the Egyptian theory of creation. Yet who can detect a trace of Egyptian philosophy in Genesis 1? Why is this? It is because God was the One who inspired Moses to do the writing. Otherwise, how could Moses know that the land came out of the water? This is, of course, a fact established by geology and is a modern discovery. Had Moses not been inspired, it would be difficult to explain this fact. As to the development of life on earth, although the Bible does not support the theory of evolution, it does not altogether reject the fact that there was a progression. First, there were aquatic organisms, and then there was man. Would not a scientist marvel at the record of Moses? The omniscient God must surely have given inspiration according to facts; those who were inspired by such an omniscient God cannot be in error. Yet the Bible is not a textbook of science. Its goal is to guide sinners ?unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Jesus? (2 Tim. 3:15). Nevertheless, the Bible does not contain any scientific errors. If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a misjudgment of science. Many of the definitive statements by geologists in the past have been overturned! Many of their assertions have been proven wrong. Cummings said, ?Geology has made mistakes in the past. It is possible that it will be wrong again. The hasty and loud assertions by those who are not too familiar with its theories may be proved inaccurate again.?Since the Bible is not a science textbook, it only mentions the ?what?s? of creation without mentioning the ?whys.? Science is interested in the ?whys.? Of course, in many cases it is successful in doing this. But one must not overturn the ?what?s? with theoretical ?whys? just because man?s finite mental research has come into conflict with God?s record. What God said are the facts because He knows everything. If the world wants to study what God has said and why He has said it, it must not hold on to its own ideas while rejecting God?s authority. It is a good thing to have wisdom, but there is one kind of foolishness which is more blessed. Among Christians, there is a popular theory that Genesis 1:1 is a kind of general introduction, and that the work of the six days is actually an expansion of the record of verse 1. In other words, they consider the words ?In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth? as merely a subject of Genesis 1. They say that in the first sentence the writer wrote down a summary of what he was about to say, after which he went at length into an explanation of this sentence. After telling us that God created the heaven and the earth, Genesis goes on to tell us the condition of the earth after creation, and how He created light, air, the land, the plants, and the animals day by day. This popular theory considers Genesis 1 as a record of the creation of the universe, and that the universe was created out of desolation. If we study the first chapter of the Bible carefully, we will see the error in this supposition! This erroneous supposition, not the Bible itself, has put the church into a great debate with the world. This supposition gives men the excuse to say that Genesis is incompatible with geology and casts doubts in the minds of many young people concerning the accuracy of the Bible. In Hebrew, the original language, there are altogether seven words in Genesis 1:1. Each of these seven words has independent meanings. God?s inspired record does not say that at the beginning of time, God molded the heavens and the earth into being, or that He made them out of some elements. It says that the heavens and the earth were created. How clear is the word created! To create is to make something out of nothing; it is to create something out of void. It is not to make something out of some existing elements. The word create is Bara in the original language. ?In the beginning , God Bara the heaven and the earth? (Gen. 1:1). The word Bara is used three other times in Genesis 1 and 2: (1) ?And God created (Bara) great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good? (v. 21). (2) ?So God created (Bara) man in his own image? (v. 27a). (3) ?In it he had rested from all his work which God created (Bara) and made? (2:3b).To create is to make something out of nothing. The great whales and every living creature do not have an outward body only, but a life-element within them. The only way that this can be done is through God?s direct work of creation. This is why it says that God created the great whales and every living creature (1:21). There is a very good reason for the Bible to say ?created? instead of ?made.? In the same way, although man?s body was made from the dust, 2:7 tells us that man has a spirit and a soul which cannot be made from any physical material. This is why the Bible says that God created man according to His own image. In Genesis 2 there are three words for the act of creation: (1) Bara, which means to make something out of nothing. We have covered this briefly. (2) Asah, which means to make. This word is very different from the first. Bara is to make something out of nothing, while asah means that there is some raw material first, and then something is made out of the raw material. A carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create a chair. In describing most of the work during the six days, this word is used. (3) Yatsar, which means to complete, has the sense of a potter molding a piece of clay into shape. This is the word used for formed in 2:7. Isaiah 43:7 shows the relationship between these three words: ?Everyone who is called by my name, / whom I have created, formed, and even made for my glory.? To create is to make something out of nothing, to form is to mold into shape, and to make is to work from some material. Genesis 1:1 uses the word Bara. The phrase in the beginning is a further proof that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is no need of any hypothesis. Since God has said this, man should believe. If man wants to fathom God?s work in the beginning with his finite mind, he will only expose his own presumptuousness! ?By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God? (Heb. 11:3). Furthermore, who can answer God?s challenge to Job concerning the creation? God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. The heaven does not refer to the heaven that surrounds our earth but rather to the heaven of the stars. This ?heaven? has not changed since the creation of the universe. Although the heaven has never changed, the condition on earth has changed! If we want to understand Genesis 1, it is very important to differentiate between the earth in verse 1 and the earth in verse 2. The condition of the earth in verse 2 was not the condition at the beginning of God?s creation. In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth, His creation was perfect. God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, the condition of void and confusion in verse 2 was not the original condition at the time of God?s creation. How could God possibly have created an earth that was void and without form? We can answer this question by reading one verse alone. ?For thus says Jehovah, / Who created the heavens? / He is the God / Who formed the earth and made it; / He established it; / He did not create it waste, / But He formed it to be inhabited: / I am Jehovah and there is no one else? (Isa. 45:18). How clear this is! The word waste in this verse is the same as the word without form in Genesis 1:2, which thou are in Hebrew. Unfortunately, translators of the Bible have not used the same word in both places. ?He did not create it [the earth] without form.? Why then does Genesis 1:2 say that ?the earth was without form?? It is easy to find the solution. In Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth that God created then was not void and without form. Later there was a cataclysm, and the earth became without form and void. Verse 3 does not refer to the original creation, but to a restored earth. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then during the six days, He re-created the world. The world in Genesis 1:1 was the original world, while the world in 1:3 is our present world. Genesis 1:2 describes the transitional condition of desolation after the initial world and prior to our present world. We do not base our explanation on Isaiah 45:18 alone (even though Isaiah 45:18 alone is sufficient as a proof). We have other evidences. According to Bible scholars, in Hebrew the first word in verse 2 is a conjunction, which should be translated as and. ?In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void.?The ?and,? according to Hebrew usage?as well as that of most other languages?proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record.
For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5:1). There the opening words, ?This is the book of the generations of Adam,? are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. ? G.H. Pember, Earth?s Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, p. 31.
?Therefore, what follows in Genesis 1:2 is not a detailed explanation of the record in 1:1, but an independent, distinct, and later event?. The creation of the heavens and the earth is one thing, and the earth becoming without form and void is another. Later we will explain why the earth became void and without form. About a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the word was in ?the earth was without form? should be translated became. Dr. I.M. Haldeman, G.H. Pember, and others also pointed out that this word is the same as the word became used in Genesis 19:26. ?And she became a pillar of salt.? If the same word is translated became in 19:26, why should it not be translated the same way here? Even the word became in 2:7 is the same word as in 1:2. Therefore, it is not hypothetical to translate 1:2 the following way: ?And the earth became without form.? When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was not without form and void. Later it became such. Let us read a few more verses:?In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth? (Gen. 1:1). ?For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is? (Exo. 20:11). Comparing these two verses, we can see that the world in Genesis 1:1 was very different from the world in 1:3. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, but in the six days, God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them. There is a vast difference between create and make. One is to have something from nothing, while the other is to improve the things that are in existence. The world can make, but it cannot create, while God can both create and make. This is why Genesis says that ?in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.? Later because of the cataclysm, the earth became desolate, and ?in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is? (Exo. 20:11).Second Peter 3:5 through 7 says the same thing. The heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. Verse 6 speaks of the world flooded with water, which is the earth that was without form and void and that was under the water in Genesis 1:2. ?The heavens and earth now? in verse 7 is the restored world after Genesis 1:3. There is a clear difference between God?s work in the six days and His work of creation at the beginning. The more we read Genesis 1, the more we will see that our explanation above is the proper one. In the first day light was called into being. Before the first day there was already land, but it was ?without form and void? and was buried in the deep under the water. On the third day God did not create the land; He merely caused it to appear. F.W. Grant said that the work of the six days merely put a new order to the earth; it did not create something out of nothing. The earth was there already. The Bible never says that the earth was created during the six days. Grant also said, ?At which point did the first day begin? Some may think that it began from desolation. Yet this is not true. The `evening? on the first day indicates light had been there since the beginning. `The darkness he called Night,? yet the `evening? is a darkness that is already under the control of light.?In the first day God did not create the light; He merely caused the light to appear on the darkened earth. In the same way in the second day, He did not create the heaven. The heaven there was not the heavens, but the atmospheric ?heaven? which surrounds the earth. This was not created then. Where then did the atmosphere come from? Our answer is that it was created in verse 1. Therefore, there was no need now to create; there was only the need to restore.?In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.? There is no detailed discussion here. We do not know if the primordial world was created in an instant or became what it was through an endless period of time. We do not know if it was completed in a few thousand years or millions of years. We do not know the shape and the size of it. All that we know is that ?in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.? We do not know how many years there were between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. We do not know how long ago God created the heaven and the earth, and we do not know how many years after the creation of the primordial world did the desolation of verse 2 occur. But we believe that there was a long period of time between the perfect creation at the beginning and the later change into something that was without form and void.?In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.? How much later was it that ?the earth became without form and void?? We cannot tell. But we know one thing: there was a long gap between the two expressions. This long gap between the first two verses of Genesis covers the whole prehistoric period. But from verse 3 until now there are less than six thousand years. Since we have proved that there is a big gap between the first two verses of the Bible, all the years which geology demands to exist and all the geological periods associated with these years can fall within this period. We do not know how much time passed on the earth and how many changes occurred on the earth?s surfaces and in the atmosphere before there was the condition of void and formlessness; the Bible does not say anything about it. But we can say for sure that the Bible never says that our earth is only six thousand years old. The Bible only testifies that there are six thousand years of human history. If the Bible has not said something, science can conjecture all it wants. But science cannot form conjectures on what the Bible has already said. After we understand the first two verses of the Bible, we can be assured that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. All the attacks by geology on the Bible are beating the air. How wonderful is the Word God has written! We are not saying this to please science. God?s revelation never wavers before man. We do not give up the Bible?s authority in order to accommodate man?s inventions. If there are any contradictions between the Bible and science, (and we would expect there to be some, because fleshly man is always at enmity with God), we have no intention to reconcile and annul these differences. The above assertion was not proposed after some geological discoveries, in an effort to reconcile the Bible with science. There were men in the ancient church who spoke about this. At that time, geology was not yet in existence! When men like St. Augustus interpreted Genesis, the world did not yet have the term geology! A Christian does not trust in human wisdom, but in God?s Word. We need nothing other than the sure rock of the Bible. As long as we have the ?it is written? (Matt. 4:6) in the Scripture, everything is solved. Unfortunately, many apologetics have forgotten their ground; they change the words of the Scripture to accommodate man?s teaching. An example is given by A.W. Pink, who noted that after the translation of a certain Assyrian tablet, the apologetics enthusiastically reported that much of the Old Testament history was verified! This turns things upside down! Does the Word of God need verification? If the record on the Assyrian tablet coincides with that of the Bible, it only shows that the Assyrian tablets have no historical error. If they do not agree, it merely proves that the tablets are in error. Worldly men and vain scientists will of course scorn at our logic. But this only goes to demonstrate God?s Word which says, ?But a soul?s man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerned spiritually? (1 Cor. 2:14). We must never lower ourselves to appease men. It seems like a good idea to change the Bible to suit man?s taste, but doing so changes the true nature of the Bible. How wonderful is Genesis 1! It devotes only one verse to the description of the first creation! It uses only one verse to describe the desolation of the world! This is far less than the thirty or so verses that describe the restoration of the world! Who can come up with a composition that matches the record of Genesis 1? The subject is difficult, yet the explanation is clear; the facts span a long time, yet the description is simple. It does not talk about science, yet it is scientifically accurate. Who except God can compose such writing? The reason God did not say more than this is that He only intended to show man His own relationship with man. J.N. Darby said: This revelation from God is not a history by Him of all that He has done, but what has been given to man for his profit, the truth as to what he has to say to. Its object is to communicate to man all that regards his own relationship with God?But historically the revelation is partial. It communicates what is for the conscience and spiritual affections of man?Thus no mention is made of any heavenly beings?Thus also, regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it. ? The Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, reprinted 1970, p. 9.Indeed, God?s revelation is not given to satisfy human curiosity, but to manifest His Godhead, the world?s sinfulness, the way of salvation, and the coming glory and judgments. The present worldly knowledge is indeed dangerous. Unless God bestows grace on man, man would boast in himself and use the knowledge he acquires as a basis to oppose God. How difficult it is for an intellectual person to humble himself! Man can search for knowledge as much as he wants. But God will not supplement this with His revelation. This is why He does not say much in Genesis 1. Our present need is not more science, but deeper spiritual fellowship. Only this will reap real fruit in eternity. We have to praise God the Father because He is full of love! He not only created us, but re-created us, and made us a new creation in the Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus! How sweet is this name! God has given us His Son. What a marvelous grace this is!
THE ORIGINAL WORLD AND AFTERWORDS DESOLATION
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth perfect. Later, after an unknown period of time, the earth which was originally good became waste and empty, without any life whatsoever. God then rose up to recreate the world; He restored the desolate world in six days. In the next chapter we will study the work of the six days. Now we will consider why the world became desolate. How could God allow the work of His hands to be destroyed? Why did such a catastrophe come upon the once beautiful earth? There is probably no other reason besides sin. The question we are considering has no perfectly clear explanation in the Bible. Nevertheless, we can find many shimmering lights in the Word of God which will enlighten us concerning this question and which will enable us to have a little more understanding concerning the former world and the cause of its desolation. Only the Word of God can guide us and our thoughts. The understanding of His Word, regardless of the question being discussed, always brings us edification. The greatest vanity is the reasoning?s in man?s mind which do not rest on the foundation of God?s Word. Although in reading Genesis 3 we cannot find Satan?s name, we all know that the serpent was Satan?s vessel and perhaps was even the embodiment of the devil. Revelation 12:9 say, ?And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth.? Genesis 1 gives no record of the creation of Satan. Where did he come from? This is a problem. Furthermore, we can see many evil spirits in both the Old and New Testaments; we meet them even more frequently in the Gospels. Where did they come from? We also do not see the creation of angels in the six days of work in Genesis 1. Where, then, did the angels who are frequently mentioned in the Bible come from? These questions are all related to our subject. Since the creation of the angels and the other supernatural beings is not recorded in Genesis 1, which covers the work of God during six days, we know that they were not created during that time. Since they were not created within these six days, when were they created? The only explanation is that they were creatures of the former world?the original, perfect world. As the fossil remains clearly show, not only were disease and death?inseparable companions of sin?then prevalent among the living creatures of the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter. And the fact proves that these remains have nothing to do with our world; since the Bible declares that all things made by God during the Six Days were very good, and that no evil was in them till Adam sinned?Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world and have a sin-stained history of their own, a history which ended in the ruin of themselves and their habitation. ? G. H. Pember, Earth?s Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, pp. 34-35.By reading Jeremiah 4:23-26, we see the reason why the earth became waste and emptiness. Verse 26 says that it was due to ?His [Jehovah?s] burning anger.? Why was the Lord so angry? It was probably because of the sin of the creatures at that time. Isaiah 24:1 says that ?Jehovah now makes the earth desolate.? Why would the Lord destroy the earth of His original creation? Judging from the history of our own world, we can answer that it was probably because of the sin of the earth?s inhabitants which forced God to judge them. We have said before that when we read Genesis, we do not see the origin of Satan. As we look into the cause of earth?s desolation in the beginning, our mind will naturally think ?an enemy has done this? (Matt. 13:28). Other than attributing the cause to Satan, it seems that we cannot find any other clues in the Bible. We will study a portion of the Bible which seems to tell us the origin of God?s enemy and thereby we may know the condition of the former world and the cause of its becoming desolate. Let us now read Ezekiel 28:1-19. These nineteen verses are divided into two sections: (1) verses 1-10 concern the prophet?s warning to the prince of Tyrus, and (2) verses 11-19 concern the prophet?s lamentations upon the king of Tyrus. The first section, a word to the prince of Tyrus, is easy to understand. He was exalted with pride, considered himself God, and thought that he was wiser than Daniel. Due to his progress in commerce, he became puffed up. Therefore God punished him, causing him to be slain and destroyed by the terrible of the nations. Soon after this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar of the Chaldeans came and destroyed Tyre. Josephus believed that the prince of Tyrus was Ithobalus, who was called Ithobaal II in the history of the Phoenicians. Since we know that this prophecy has already been fulfilled, it is not difficult for us to interpret verses 1 through 10. But when we read on from verses 11 through 19, we find many places that we do not understand. Since this portion of the Word is very much related to the subject which we are studying now, we quote the text in full: Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou seals up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou was created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covered; and I have set thee so: thou was upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more (Ezek. 28:11-19).This section is indeed hard to understand, for it contains many expressions which cannot be applied to any mortal man. If the ?king of Tyrus? were only a mortal man, how could we explain the things in verses 11 through 15? How could the king of Tyrus have been in the Garden of Eden or upon the holy mountain of God? How could he have been the anointed cherub that covered the ark? None of the things mentioned here had been the experience of the king of Tyros?. We cannot explain this section simply by spiritualizing it. It is unfair if we spiritualize the interpretation of a section when we encounter difficulties in it. I believe that the first section (vv. 1-10) addressed to the prince of Tyros? was a word spoken to King Ithobalus II, and the second section (vv. 11-19), the lamentation upon the king of Tyros?, denotes the coming Antichrist. Verse 2 of this chapter speaks of Tyro ?in the midst of the seas.? By reading Daniel 11:41-45, we know that when the coming Antichrist will be in Palestine, perhaps he will dwell at Tyro. That is why he was called the king of Tyro here. Moreover, Antichrist is Satan incarnate; therefore, numerous expressions in this section refer to Satan himself. Mr. Darby said, ?Verses 11-19, while continuing to speak of Tyro, go, I think, much farther, and disclose, though darkly, the fall and the ways of Satan, become through our sin the prince and god of this world.? Dr. A. C. Gaebelein also said that the king of Tyro is a type of the last great sinner (Antichrist), that behind this evil king, we see another power that is Satan; Satan was the power behind the king of Tyros? then, and he still is the god of this age now, who rules the nations of this world. If we have studied the Scriptures carefully, we will realize that the justification for merging Satan and Antichrist in this passage into one being is not contrary to the general teachings of the Scriptures. We know that, although human beings have their own will, their walk is either directed by God?s operating (Phil. 2:13) or by the operating of the evil spirits (Eph. 2:2). Human beings are never totally free. Ordinarily, human beings are under the control of the evil spirits. Sometimes, in important matters, Satan himself, in addition to the working of evil spirits, will also participate in the work. Hence, we see him personally coming to tempt Christ in the wilderness. Later, in trying to hinder Christ from going to the cross, he personally used Peter. After that, in attempting to destroy Christ, he entered into Judas. Eventually, on the world stage he will be united to Antichrist. Scripture says that the works of Antichrist are ?according to Satan?s operation? (2 Thess. 2:9); it is Satan who ?gave him his power and his throne and great authority? (Rev. 13:2). Since Antichrist is the incarnated devil, the Holy Spirit speaks of him together with Satan in this passage. In these few verses, the superhuman aspects all refer to Satan himself, and the remainder to Antichrist. Since our purpose is not to study the question of Antichrist, but to know the creatures of the former world and the cause of its desolation, we shall put aside the verses in this portion concerning the Antichrist and concentrate on Satan, who is related to our subject. Now let us consider the words that refer to Satan. Ezekiel 28:12 says that Satan (Note: ?Satan? is the name used after he had sinned; he was called the ?son of the dawn? and also ?Daystar? or ?Lucifer? (Isa. 14:12) before his fall. ?Satan,? which means ?adversary,? is his name after the fall. For the sake of convenience, we shall call him Satan in the following paragraphs.) ?Sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.? This depicts his condition before he had sinned. He was superior to all the other angels. Phrases like ?sealest up the sum,? ?full of,? and ?perfect? reveal that he was the greatest of all the creation. God had put him above all the creation. Being ?full of wisdom? probably refers to his understanding of God?s will; if this is true, he might have had the office of a prophet already. The first part of Ezekiel 28:13 says, ?Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering.? When we read Genesis 3, we indeed see Satan there. However, he was not being covered by ?every precious stone?; he was tempting Adam and Eve. Hence, the two gardens of Eden are not of the same time. In Adam?s Garden of Eden, Satan had fallen, whereas here, it clearly depicts the situation before his fall. Hence, the garden of Eden here must be earlier than the one at Adam?s time. If so, then it must not have belonged to the present world but to the previous one. This Garden of Eden, like the coming New Jerusalem, had many precious stones, such as sardius, beryl, etc. The Garden of Eden where Adam lived was not like this. The Bible focuses only on the trees and does not say anything concerning their being covered with precious stones. Hence, the Garden of Eden here must be different from that of Adam and is much earlier. His being covered with the precious stones reminds us of the precious stones on the priest in Exodus. He probably had been appointed by God to be a priest. The latter half of the verse says, ?The workmanship of thy tablets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee.? In the Bible musical instruments are used by kings. We see how David played the harp for king Saul. When the king of Babylon was destroyed, the sound of his lutes were said to be brought down to Sheol (Isa. 14:11). And when the king of Babylon was pleased, various musical instruments were played (Dan. 3). Satan was a king at that time and these musical instruments were given to him by God. The first half of Ezekiel 28:14 says that he is ?the anointed cherub that covered.? Anointed indicates that he is consecrated. The work of the cherubim is to lead men to worship the Lord (Rev. 4:9-10; 5:11-14). Therefore, his work in the beginning was also to lead the creatures at that time in the worship of God. This also refers to his priesthood. The latter part of verse 14 says that he was ?upon the holy mountain of God? and had ?walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.? The holy mountain of God probably is the place where God?s glory is manifested. As the priest of God, he would, of course, stand before Him to minister. What does it mean to walk ?up and down in the midst of the stones of fire?? Ezekiel 1:26 reveals that the position of the cherubim is below the throne. Now when Moses took seventy of the elders of Israel up the mountain of Sinai, ?they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness?And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount? (Exo. 24:10, 17). The paved work of sapphire stone in the appearance of devouring fire probably was ?the stones of fire.? This indicates that Satan enjoyed a very high place, right below the throne of God, and was very intimate with God. Verse 15 says that he was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, but that later God found iniquity in him. All of God?s creation was perfect; God is not the author of sin. Iniquity was initiated by the archangel who sinned. He was created and given a free will by God just as we were. Unfortunately God?s created angel abused his freedom! And how many people are still following his footsteps! The first part of verse 16 says that by the multitude of his merchandise they have filled his midst with violence, and he has sinned. We may refer this word solely to Antichrist. During the end time commerce will be very prosperous (Rev. 18). Many sinful things will be brought in because of this. This can be proven by history.Nevertheless; the same clause may be applied to Satan. Mr. Pember points out that ?the word translated `merchandise? may also?signify `detraction? or `slander?; and we know that the very name `Devil? means `the slanderer,? or `malignant accuser?? (Earth?s Earliest Ages, p. 52). Thus, we can find out the meaning here. We see how Satan accused Job and tried to destroy him with insidious acts. Also in Revelation 12:10 we read, ?Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night.? The casting down here probably corresponds to the casting of Satan out of the mountain of God in Ezekiel. The reason for the casting out in Ezekiel and in Revelation is one and the same, that is, accusation (or slander). Perhaps what was recorded in Ezekiel was the conviction of Satan by God and what was written in Revelation was the sending of Michael by God for the execution of that conviction. Then why would God still allow Satan to remain in the heavens? The reasons seem to be: (1) the time of God has not yet come, and (2) His own children need the furnace to purge away the dross still in them. Ezekiel 28:17 reveals the cause of Satan?s fall. His heart was lifted up because of his beauty, and his wisdom was corrupted by reason of his brightness. The king of Babylon as described in Isaiah 14:12-14 bears much resemblance to this verse. Many servants of God believe that the Holy Spirit is not only pointing out the king of Babylon, but in a deeper sense, the cause of the fall of Satan who was behind the king of Babylon. In my view, the record in Ezekiel reveals the cause of his pride, while in Isaiah it shows the manner in which he exhibited his pride. It is probable that after comparing himself with God?s other creatures, his heart was lifted up. In the end he tried to exalt himself to be equal with God and thus suffered God?s judgment. ?How you have fallen from heaven, / O Daystar, son of the dawn! /?But you, you said in your heart: / I will ascend to heaven; / above the stars of God / I will exalt my throne. / And I will sit upon the mount of assembly / On the sides of the north. / I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; / I will be like the Most High? (Isa. 14:12-14). Since he was so proud, God punished him. His authority in the heavens was removed and abolished by God. The remaining part of the prophecy in Ezekiel is not relevant to our subject, and we shall stop here. From the prophecy contained in this passage in Ezekiel, if our interpretation is correct, we can see how God created Satan the fairest and wisest of all His creatures in the former world and made him their leader. God placed him in the garden of Eden, which was long before the Eden of Adam. The things in the former garden, if not altogether different from those of the latter garden, were at least more numerous than the latter. They resemble the future New Jerusalem. He was a prophet there, teaching all the inhabitants of the earth with his wisdom to know how to serve God. He was also there as the priest of God, directing them in the worship and praises of God. He was also the king among the creatures, having been placed in a position that was above all the creation. He must have been in such a condition for a lengthy period of time (v. 15), but because of his sin, he became the greatest enemy of God. So far we have covered the origin of Satan. We shall now proceed to cover Satan?s angels and demons, which are under him, and to investigate how they fell and how this affected the earth, causing it to become waste and void. From the New Testament we see that under the hand of Satan there are two living beings: (1) angels and (2) demons. Let us first look at the angels. Matthew 25:41 speaks of ?the devil and his angels.? Revelation 12:4 says that the dragon?s ?tail drags away the third part of the stars of heaven, and he cast them to the earth.? The stars denote the angels (Rev. 1:20). Therefore 12:9 says, ?And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan,?he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.? These angels were probably the ones established by God in the beginning to assist Satan to rule the world. They were ?the congregation of the mighty? and ?the gods? in Psalm 82 (cf. John 10:35). When Satan fell, they either conspired or sympathized with him. Therefore, they fell together with him and became today?s ?rulers,? ?authorities,? ?world-rulers of this darkness,? ?the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenliest? (Eph. 6:12). Note that the numbers are plural. These angels are not disembodied demons; they have ethereal bodies. This is why the Lord promises that the children of resurrection will be like the angels in the heaven. Satan has another class of subjects, the evil spirits. Demons and the evil spirits (or filthy spirits) are the same. We can tell this by checking with the translation of the Mandarin Bible. In Matthew 8:16, it firstly mentions the demons, then the spirits. But the Bible translators, seeing that the Holy Spirit used the words ?demon? and ?spirit? interchangeably, translated both into ?demons.? In Luke 10:17 the word ?demons? is in the original language, but in verse 20 the word ?demons? should be ?spirits.? In these two verses of the Bible we see the Lord Jesus acknowledged the ?demons? and the ?spirits? to be the same and thus the Chinese Bible translator again translated both as ?demons.? Matthew 17:18 speaks of the Lord casting out a demon, yet Mark calls this demon an unclean spirit and dumb spirit (Mark 9:25). Demons and spirits are the same. These demons, or spirits, probably were the race who lived in the former world. They helped Satan in his sinning; or, perhaps after Satan sinned, they followed him rather than forsaking him and obeying God. Therefore, they were cut off by God and their bodies were removed from them. Hence, they became disembodied spirits. Although we cannot find any clear evidence in the Bible to confirm this theory, we can find some clues. In Matthew 12 we see the situation of a demon when he left the human body. He became helpless and wandered about. Besides the human body, he could not find another resting place. Therefore, he eventually returned to his original place, the human body. If they were not disembodied spirits, why did they have to enter into man?s body? As we read Luke 8, we see how the legion of demons was unwilling to leave the human body. When they had no way to remain in the human body, they even entered the bodies of the swine. Presently in the world they still cling to human bodies. Even some believers are unconsciously possessed by them. They are different from Satan and his angels who do not like to enter human bodies. Satan and his angels still have a spiritual body, but the demons do not. Their character and liking seem to prove that they are the disembodied spirits. Since they are disembodied spirits, where were they when they were disembodied? We know that the spirits of all the dead are in Hades. So, where do these spirits come from? They must have come from the former world. While they were alive, their habitation was probably the former world where Satan exercised his rule. In the Bible we can find another clue that tells us that there were inhabitants in the pre-Adamic world. Isaiah 45:18 shows that the world created by God in the beginning was not waste and empty. Since this verse speaks of the original world, one expression suggests to us the existence of mankind in the previous world. It says, ?He is the God / who formed the earth? / He did not create it waste.? This clearly refers to the original creation. Following this it says, ?He formed it to be inhabited.? This seems to clearly tell that the earth then was inhabited by some race. As we read the Bible further, we find clues which indicate that there is a detention place for the demons now. The legion of demons in Gadara must have known this. They were in great fear and begged the Lord that He would not ?order them to depart into the abyss,? (Luke 8:31) because they would be tormented there (Matt. 8:29). Mr. Pember says that this ?abyss? in the original language is abussos; and that ?in some passages, such as the ninth chapter of the Apocalypse, this term is evidently applied to a fiery hollow in the centre of the earth: but it is also used for the depths of the sea, a meaning which accords well with its derivation? (Earth?s Earliest Ages, p. 60). In the future Satan will be detained in a bottomless pit in the center of the earth. This is revealed in the book of Revelation. The demons are also detained in an abyss now, yet some of them still have freedom. We must wait until God?s appointed time comes for them to be completely shut inside. This abyss is probably different from the one in the heart of the earth; it is in the sea. Furthermore, at the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) when all the prisoners will have been thrown into the lake of fire, there will be no more sea in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1). However, there may be only one abyss that is divided into two parts. There are other clues concerning the sea being the place of detention for demons. In the Septuagint Bible, the word ?deep? in Genesis 1:2 is the same as ?abyss? here. We have said that these demons are probably created races that lived in the first world. This corresponds to what we read in Genesis 1:2 because they originally lived on the earth. After sinning, their bodies were destroyed by God; their habitation was judged by God and became without form and void. The whole earth was covered by water and was characterized as ?the deep.? It follows then that the spirits of the races at that time were in this ?deep?! Finally, on the third day when God restored the earth, He commanded the earth to come out from the water and called the gathering of the waters the sea. This earth was prepared for mankind in the new world. Where then have the former demons gone? We can spontaneously answer that they went into the sea. As we read Revelation 20:13, we often do not understand why the sea will give up the dead which are in it. It is understandable to say that death and Hades will deliver up the dead which are in them, but why will the sea give up the dead who are in it? The common interpretation is that the sea surrenders the bodies of those who are drowned. If so, then the earth should also give up its dead because there are more bodies buried in the earth than in the sea. Yet the earth does not give up its dead. Therefore, the sea will give up the spirits of the imprisoned ones and not the bodies of the dead. Men?s spirits are in death and Hades; the Bible does not say that the spirits of man are kept in the sea. Then whose spirits will the sea give up? It will give up those who are from the other world, that is, the former world. The sequence here indicates this. ?The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them.? Those who lived in the former world died first. Therefore, they will be the first beings to be given up; then, we who are of this world will follow after because every man will be judged in his own order. Thus far we have seen the probable origin of Satan, his angels, and the demons. As to how man lived on the former earth, this is something beyond our knowledge. However, we can see some hints in the Bible. Many Bible scholars, Dr. Scofield being one of them, believe that Jeremiah 4:23-26 refers to the condition of Genesis 1:2, in which the earth was without form and void. Although the context of this passage is the desolation of Judah, these few verses of the Scripture have a notably broader view, as if God caused the prophet to view the desolation of the earth in the beginning. If our belief is accurate, then we know that in the former world there was ?the fruitful land? and ?its cities? (v. 26). The inhabitants then dwelt in cities and some took up farming as an occupation. When they were deceived by Satan, the burning anger of Jehovah came upon them (v. 26) and the earth became ?waste and emptiness? (v. 23).From these biblical clues we see the original situation of the earth, the races who dwelt on the earth, the paradise, and the princes, etc. If we are not mistaken in our meditation, we can draw a conclusion concerning the first world and the cause of its desolation as follows: In the beginning of ?time? (as opposed to eternity) God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was not waste (Isa. 45:18) but very beautiful and perfect. On this earth there were inhabitants and the number of the inhabitants was great. Before God created the earth and human beings, He had created the angels (Job 38:6-7). He assigned Satan, whom He created, as the leader to be above all the angels. Satan, the most beautiful and wisest of all, the prime of all God?s creation, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. God made him the ruler of the world; therefore, he was called ?the ruler of the world? (John 14:30). Many angels were under his rule, and these angels shared in ruling with him. Then, because of his position and honor, he became proud. Due to pride, he rebelled and lifted himself up to be equal with God. He was not satisfied with being a creature, but desired to be the Creator. Therefore, he slandered God before the people and accused the people before God. God found out his iniquity and condemned him. When the time comes, he will be cast to the earth. One third of the angels (Rev. 12) followed him in rebellion and, therefore, became the angels of the devil. God has prepared hell for them (Matt. 25:41), and when the time comes, Satan will be cast into it. In the former world, the inhabitants of the earth, being under Satan and his angels? rule, were also deceived and filled up with sins. (We can readily understand this when we consider our world situation today.) Therefore, God?s anger was fierce, and He completely destroyed the earth and all the races therein and locked up many spirits in the abyss in the sea. These evil spirits, angels, and Satan himself formed the kingdom of darkness. We do not know how long this period lasted. Later, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters again, and the Triune God began His restoration work on the world. After His restoration of the world, He created Adam and his wife and asked them to guard it, so that there would be man on the earth to cooperate with Him in heaven to stop Satan?s power. Perhaps God used Adam to test Satan to see whether he would repent. However, he came to tempt Adam; therefore, God cursed Satan. Because Adam fell, he could not bring the world which was under Satan?s rule back to God. On the contrary, the world Adam received from God?s hand was given anew to Satan. Since angels and mankind had failed, God came in the person of the Son to be a man, the last Adam. The Lord Jesus became God?s prophet, priest, and king. When He was on this earth, He was God?s prophet without blemish. When He was about to die, He was able to say, ?The ruler of the world is coming, and in me he has nothing? (John 14:30). At His death all who are in Adam were crucified in Him. He was able to include all of the old Adamic creation in His crucifixion because He is God, and He is able to continue on as the new man. His human living had nothing to do with Satan. Through His death and resurrection, He regained the world lost by the first Adam. Every sinner, who is destined to die in the old Adam, can return to God and be saved if he rejects the first Adam through the death of the last Adam and joins himself to Christ in life. This is the meaning of believing in the death of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, whoever believes in the Lord Jesus becomes an enemy of the devil. In everything he attacks us, and in everything we resist him, his angels, and the demons. This is God?s purpose in saving man, and this is a real spiritual warfare. Satan was judged once on the ?holy mountain of God,? and he was judged again on the hill of Golgotha. He has been convicted, yet his judgment has not yet been executed. When the time comes he will be cast down from heaven and when the Son of God returns to this earth, he will be cast into the abyss. After one thousand years he will forever suffer in the lake of fire. Now the Lord Jesus holds the authority which Satan had abused, and He will hold it until all traces of rebellion disappear. He has brought His own blood into the Holy of Holies and has cleansed the heavens; He is now a Priest of God. When He returns, it will be the time of the restoration of all things. He will be a King, ruling this world from heaven with all the overcoming saints, in the same way that Satan ruled with his angels in the former time. At that time He will teach the inhabitants of this earth to know God?s will and to worship God, in the same way that Satan did in the former days. The situation in the millennium will be like the situation in the world before Satan sinned. Christ will restore all things to the condition in the ?beginning? in order to accomplish God?s original purpose. After this He will burn up the whole world, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth in which the righteous will dwell. Therefore, as God?s children we ought to have a deeper enmity for the devil. For thousands of years God?s only purpose has been for man to be joined with Him to destroy Satan?s authority. Our God is a law-abiding God. He will not take back by force the world which was lost through man. Therefore, He sent His Son to become a man in order to regain what man had lost. We, men who have been saved, ought to cooperate with the unique ?Man,? the Lord Jesus. In our life, in our work, in our environment, in our dwelling, and in the world, we should resist the works of the devil. Our resistance is in firmness of faith (1 Pet. 5:9), and not by means of fleshly weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), which is the way of social reformers who are being utilized by the demons. Satan was wise and beautiful! But because of his pride, he ended up in complete ruin. It is dangerous for frail mortals to esteem themselves wise and beautiful! Beware, lest being lifted up with pride, you fall into the judgment of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). Being self-exalted with pride is not a blessing to man; wisdom rests only with those who fear the most high God Jehovah.
THE EARTH RESTORED THE RECOVERY OF THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS
We have seen that in the beginning God created a perfect world. Later, because of the sins committed by Satan and those who dwelt on the earth, they and the earth were judged by God, and the earth became without form and void. Now we will see God?s work of restoring the earth. In the book of Job, Job mentions the failure of Satan?s rebellion in order to show that it is foolish to dispute with God. ?He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? which removed the mountains, and they know not; which overturned them in his anger; which shakes? the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; which commanded the sun, and it rises not; and sealed up the stars? (Job 9:4-7). When did God do this? When did He shake the mountains and the earth, and alter the position of the celestial bodies due to man?s stubbornness towards Him? Since the time of Adam, such an act of God in the world has not been seen. This passage must be a description of God?s judgment on Satan and on the earth under his dominion when he rebelled. At that time God shook the earth and overturned the mountains. The calamity came so swiftly that the mountains were overturned unnoticed. In addition to the earth, the positions of the celestial bodies were also affected. Because of God?s judgment, the sun disappeared completely and the stars did not shine. The world was plunged into darkness. There was no sun and no heat was produced. Consequently, this led to the glaci
It’s too bad your god didn’t teach you how to format.
Why?
Law professional in Star Tannery offering legal service to those suffering from asbestos cancer…
Star Tannery Mesothelioma Lawyers – Star Tannery mesothelioma law firm with offices in Maryland. Our Star Tannery mesothelioma Attorney represent individuals and families affected by asbestos cancer in Star Tannery….