The Christmas Story Clarified

Christmas has from long ago been "taken over" by non-Christians as their own with the santa claus, decorative trees, reindeers, presents, good food and wine.  Even in Singapore, Christmas has been adopted by many as their own with an intensity not shared by other public religious holidays like Hari Raya Puasa/Haji, Deepavali and Vesak Day.  One miffed Singaporean Christian (I imagined) actually wrote to the Straits Times Forum to complain about SMRT's lack of sensitivity by actually censoring Christmas and putting up a banner with the more generic and I guessed more politically correct, "Happy Holidays". 

Perhaps Christians should be "honoured" that non-Christians choose to adopt the Christmas and Easter (I guess even non-Christians find it too morbid to adopt Good Friday since it is essentially remembering Jesus' death on the Cross) but then again, it could be just a case of of "anglophile" since Halloween seems to be catching on in Singapore as well with NTUC jumping onto the bandwagon by selling pumpkins and costumes in their stores.

What's interesting to me is that Christians themselves are sometimes none the wiser about their Biblical heritage and the traditional Nativity scene probably says it best.

(1) The shepherds were probably to only one that got to baby Jesus when he was born in the manger (Luke 2:15-20). 

(2) There were no "Three Kings".  They were the wise men from the east (magi) and there was no mention that there were three of them.  People assumed that there were three of them given the 3 gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh presented to Jesus. 

(3) The magi did not get to meet the sherpherds.  The Bible recorded that they visited Joseph, Mary and Jesus in a "house", not a "manger" (Matthew 2:9-11). 

(4) There wasn't a physical star that guided the magi to the house.  If it was a physical star, the people there would not have lived to tell the tale based on the descriptions in Matthew Chapter 2.  First the magi said they saw "His [Jesus] star in the east and have come to worship Him" and then this star "which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was".  I majored in physics in my undergraduate days.  Anyone in my class would have told you that no physical star can do such things.  Even as a lay person, I cannot imagine how a star can go before you to bring you to a specific place and stand over a particular house to mark it for you.  A more plausible explanation is that the star is probably a reference to an angel that guided the magi to the house where Jesus was staying then.  The Bible is littered with references of stars being symbols for angels (see Job 38:7, Isaiah 14:12).  There is even a specific description of stars being a symbol of angels in Revelation 1:20. 

(5) Jesus would probably be 2 years-old or younger when the magi came since Herod ordered the massacre of children "who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi".

(6) The gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh was God's provision for Joseph and Mary to seek refuge in Egypt during the reign of Herod till he passed away as a result of the persecution.

(7) And, by the way, contrary to popular belief and the many Christmas carols (like "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing", "Angels We Have Heard On High"), the angels that appeared on the first Christmas did not do any singing.

And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." (Luke 2:13-14)

Blessed Christmas to all!

Genesis 5 - The Genealogy (and the Records of the Generations)

I thought that I would like to explain the long hiatus between the entry between Genesis Chapter 3 and 4.

First, I was busy with work. During this period, I bought a Genesis commentary penned by Arnold Fruchtenbaum and I took some time to finish reading it.

Anyway, it was a good thing as I have picked up an interesting insight on how Genesis was compiled by Moses. Moses authorship of the Tanach was already authenticated by Jesus in the New Testament. I think that is sufficient. Fruchtenbaum mentioned in his commentary that Genesis was a compilation of 11 books or records of Toldah ("genealogies" or "generations") as follows:

Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 - Prologue

Genesis 2:4 to 4:26 - Records of Generations of the Heavens and the Earth

Genesis 5:1 to 6:8 - Records of Generations of Adam

Genesis 6:9 to 9:29 - Records of Generations of Noah

Genesis 10:1 to 11:9 - Records of the Generations of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons born to them after the flood

Genesis 11:10 to 11:26 - Records of the Generations of Shem

Genesis 11:27 to 25:11 - Records of the Generations of Terah

Genesis 25:12 to 25:18 - Records of the Generations of Ishmael

Genesis 25:19 to 35:29 - Records of the Generations of Isaac

Genesis 36:1 to 36:8 - Records of the Generations of Esau

Genesis 36:9 to 37:1 - Records of the Generations of Esau (Edom)

Genesis 37:2 to 50:26 - Records of the Generations of Jacob

Reading Genesis based on this structure will help clarify many issues, one which I had discussed earlier was on the supposed two creation accounts and the other, we will discuss in Chapter 6 about Noah.

Chapter 5 began the 2nd Toldah of Genesis - that of Adam. Here the chapter traces the genealogy of Adam all the way to Noah.

Many people have used this genealogy to make the case that there are missing links to justify an older Earth but the important thing to note here is that specifically for this genealogy in Chapter 5, there is no room to make the case (there will of course be other genealogies with "gaps" in them). The reason being that for each of the "father", this chapter listed the age of the father before the "son" was born. Hence this chapter listed a strictly direct lineage.

The 10 generations are as follows:

Adam (930 years old) - Man

Seth (912 years old) - Appointed

Enosh (905 years old) - Man frail and miserable or Mortal

Kenan (910 years old) - Propagate, Increase

Mahalalel (895 years old) - Praise of God

Jared (962 years old) - Descent, Come down

Enoch (365 years old*) - Initiated, Dedicated or Instruct, Make Wise

Methuselah (969 years old) - [His] Death, shall bring

Lamech (777 years old) - Strong Youth or To Make Low

Noah (950 years old) - Rest, Comfort


Putting them in a chart (from www.creationscience.com), we have the following:

Chuck Missler claimed that there is a redemption message hidden in this genealogy but it seems to be a stretch based on the commonly accepted interpretations which I have listed above. Two names are particularly problematic for Missler - Kenan and Lamech. Hence I will not make too much out of Missler's interpretation.

Having said that, even with the "conventional" interpretations listed above, we can still derive a form of the redemptive message. Again, we should not be dogmatic about this other than to note that it is just a possibility given that the meaning of some of the proper names cannot be determined with a high degree of certainty.

Nevertheless, we can make the following key observations on the supposedly "boring" genealogy in Chapter 5:

(a) First thing we can note is that all the people of the pre-flood era lived very long lives, up to 800-900 years. This was reduced dramatically post-flood by 50% for Noah's immediate children (400-500 years) and another 50% within the 2nd generation (200-250 years). The general consensus is that the pre-flood environment seems to be conducive for greater longevity. While some have also speculated that sin and the inter-breeding at this stage contributed to the decreasing ages, the genealogy in Chapter 5 of the first 10 generations does not bear this out, with Lamech as the sole exception.

(b) Two persons stand out in this geneology. The first is Enoch for several reasons: (1) He was the only one mentioned in the geneology to have "walked with God"; (2) His death was not recorded but the Bible said that "God took him", introducing the concept of translation which was to be repeated for Elijah and the believers before the Tribulation; (3) Enoch was the first recognised prophet in the Bible according to Jude (v14-15); (4) The prophetic message was imbued in Enoch's son, Methuselah, whose name meant "[his] death, shall bring". In fact, his death triggered the flood (see chart above); (5) The book of Hebrews also listed Enoch as a man of faith: By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.  And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. [Hebrews 11:5-6]

(c) It is of interest to note that Methuselah has the longest recorded life (969 years) in the Bible, showing God's patience with his creation.

(d) Similar to the observations of word plays in the earlier chapters, while the meanings of the names are not altogether certain, what is certain is that they are Hebrew names, indicating that the first language was the Hebrew in orign.

(e) Adam lived till the time that Lamech was 56 years old. This meant that the accounts of creation and early lives were able to be transmitted faithfully all the way up to Noah's time.

(f) The genealogy is a historical fact attested to by later biblical writers (1 Chronicles 1:1-4, Luke 3:36-38) and there is no need to allegorise the list or speculate about the particular numbers with regards to the ages of the people listed.

Chapter 5 ends with the introduction of the main character who will dominate the next 4 chapters, Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Genesis 4 - Things Fall Apart

Things certainly went on a freefall after the original sin of Adam and Eve. In Chapter 4 alone, we have the world's first murder and first recorded bigamy.

Cain and Abel

Eve made an interesting comment when Cain was born. She probably assumed that Cain was the promised seed that God had mentioned in Chapter 3. Hence the naming of Cain ("possession" or "acquire"). Perhaps Cain did not match up to Eve's expectation in his life and when the 2nd child was born, Eve gave him the name Abel which meant breathe or vapour and probably alluded to the vanity of her hopes that Cain was the seed child.

The Sacrifice

There seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the occupation of Cain (tiller of the ground) and Abel (keeper of flocks), and the meaning of the sacrifices that they had made. Some tried to make the case that blood sacrifices were required from the beginning while others, who were keen to divorce themselves from Israel and Mosaic Laws, made the case that it was the either the value of the gift (firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions [Abel] versus fruit of the ground [Cain]) or the attitude of the giver (Heb 11:4) that was the key point here.

I would lean towards the view that God had already set the basic fundamentals of the sacrificial system which was to become the Mosaic Law in the future. Why? I take my reference from the point that Noah knew about which animals are clean and which are unclean before the advent of the Flood (Gen 7:2-3).

Whatever your point of view, the bottomline was that Cain and Abel knew exactly what God's requirements of the sacrifice were. While Abel's sacrifice met with God's approval, Cain's did not. How did the two of them know which sacrifice did God accept? One speculation was that God consumed the sacrifice that was deemed acceptable (see 1 Kings 18:38 and 2 Chron 7:1)

Given God's omniscience and foreknowledge, He nonetheless held out hope that Cain would not do what he eventually did. God first asked Cain to reflect on his anger (If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted?), warned him not to escalate his anger into sinful actions (sin is crouching at the door, and its desire is for you) and urged him not to succumb (but you must master it).

The First Murder

Unfortunately, Cain chose otherwise. Verse 8 started abruptly and you wonder what exactly did Cain told Abel. The Septuagint and some translations (NRSV and NET) cleared up the "mystery" and reflected Cain telling Abel to go out to the field. The purpose? To rise against his brother Abel and kill him.

Even after Cain had crossed the line, I believed God still held out hope that Cain would come clean with what he had done. God could have directly indicted Cain for what he had done but chose to ask Cain to come clean by asking him where Abel was (verse 9) [and not as some has suggested - that God did not know what Cain had done]. Unfortunately, Cain again chose otherwise and denied any knowledge of what he had done. God's indictment of Cain was immediate and since capital punishment was not mandated till Chapter 9:6 after the flood, Cain's punishment is ironically that the ground in which he tilled would no longer bear fruits for him and that Cain would be a vagrant and wanderer on the earth.

Cain's reaction baffles me. Instead of being contrite, he complained to God that it was too great a punishment and rightly feared for his life against those who would want to seek revenge for Abel's murder. God, in his lovingkindness, gave His personal assurance to Cain that he would not be harmed and appointed a sign for Cain to ensure his safety. There has been much speculations on what this sign was but I personally think that there is no point trying to figure this out since we will have no way to determine one way or the other. More importantly, I don't think this is what God wants us to focus our mental efforts on.

Why did God not demand for the capital punishment to be imposed on Cain? At this point of human history, there was only Adam, Eve and Cain. In order to impose capital punishment, either God Himself or the parents would have to do the deed. God not doing it and Him not imposing Adam and Eve to kill their only surviving son then both demonstrated His lovingkindness.  

Abel seems to be a footnote of the the Biblical characters but God ensured that Abel's name was mentioned:

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. [Hebrews 11:4]

Cain's Descendants

Verse 16 mentioned that Cain went out from God's presence and this could possibly mean that Cain's lineage was no longer under God's personal protection and care. From here, Cain moved east of Eden, settled in the land of Nod, found a wife, had a son Enoch (meaning consecrated or dedicated), built a city and named it after his son. This presented a strange situation since Cain was destined to lead a wandering lifestyle. In Hebrew, the word built is translated from בּנה (banah). The word allows for the expression to mean "to begin to build". This is further strengthened by the word היה (hayah), which on most occasions translate to the word "it came to pass". In summary, Cain probably begin to build the city in defiance of God's decree and had to leave it to Enoch to finish building the city named after him, perhaps as a result of Cain having to continue his vagrant life.

7 generations of Cain's line was mentioned:

Cain (possession)

Enoch (consecrated)

Irad (city dweller or fugitive)

Mehujael (blotted out by God)

Methushael (traditionally, man of God)

Lamech (warrior or strong youth)

Jabal (flowing stream or to bring forth), Jubal (flowing stream or to bring forth), Tubal-Cain (bring forth a possession) and Naamah (pleasant or sweet).

[If you still haven't know where Cain got his wife, you can check out here.]

Several observations can be derived from the geneology:

(1) Despite God's decree regarding Cain, 2 names (Enoch and Methushael) seem to indicate that there were descendants from the Cain line that believed in God. This will also help us better understand verse 26 later.

(2) Of interest are the 3 sons of Lamech. Contrary to anthropologists, within seven generations, human beings have discovered bronze/iron work, wide-scale animal rearing and music.

(3) Lamech was the Bible's first recorded bigamist. His wives were Adah (ornament) and Zillah (shade or shadow).

Lamech's poem in verse 23-24 reflects also the rapid degeneration of the human beings in its morals and statement of arrogance and rebellion. Hebrew poetry is not constructed based on rhymes but on similar meaning couplets. Here, there are 3 couplets:

Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech,

For I have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;

If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.

Starting Again

After the death of Abel, Adam and Eve conceived Seth (meaning appointed) and Eve herself named him, saying that God had appointed him to be Abel's replacement. Seth then produced a son, Enosh (meaning man frail and miserable or mortal). Even within the 3rd generation from Adam, the effects of the Fall seemed to have been fully felt by the people.

A Strange Epilogue

Many commentaries seemed to stumble over the meaning of verse 26:

To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Given that Cain and Abel were already bring sacrifices to God, it seemed strange that it was only during Enosh's generation that men began to call upon God's name. Many tried to harmonise this by speculating that it was during Enosh's time that formal or corporate worship took root.

I personally think this is unnecessary. If you take a look at the Strong's Concordance or Brown-Driver-Briggs' (BDB) Hebrew definition, the Hebrew word for call (qara, קרא, H7121) has the meaning of "to call, call out, recite, read, cry out, proclaim". What is interesting is that both references pointed to a primitive root from which this word comes - (qara, קרא, H7122):Strong: A primitive root; to encounter, whether accidentally or in a hostile manner: - befall, (by) chance, (cause to) come (upon), fall out, happen, meet.
BDB: to encounter, befall, meet

Both alluded to a negative connotation to the word translated as "call". Hence, I will go out on a limb here to suggest that instead of translating verse 26 as "Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD", this should be translated as "Then men began to profane the name of the LORD".

This makes for a more logical flow that by Enosh's time, people began to turn away from God, the beginning of apostasy.

As we shall see in Chapter 6 later, this will culminate in God's judgment of the world.

AWARE Saga (Part 2)

The second of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum

I refer to the ST Editorial on the recent MOE's suspension of the Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme conducted by external vendors, particularly that by AWARE, and wish to highlight some of the misconceptions perpetuated by both AWARE and ST.

Firstly, post-65er parents like myself are not rubbishing the entire CSE syllabus as it currently stands nor are we advocating an abstinence-only syllabus for sexuality education. If this was the case, we would have objected to the teaching of condom use and the role playing training in teaching a teenage girl how to persuade her partner to put on a condom before sex. This is also to assure current AWARE president Dana Lam that we are “not going to bring sexual education back a couple of centuries”.

We recognised the importance of such teachings since, despite our best intentions and advice, our children faced real internal and peer pressures to keep up with current trends and fads. Our issue with the CSE syllabus, as advocated by AWARE, is their insistence on introducing value-loaded statements contrary to existing societal and moral norms such as “anal sex can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom”, “pain ... becomes positive when there is mutual consent and pleasure” and “homosexuality is perfectly normal ... it's simply the way you are”.

Secondly, contrary to what AWARE and ST would want Singaporeans to take away, these statements are not merely references in the AWARE CSE trainer guide that are not communicated to the students. The quoted statements above came from the ice-breaking activity module where trainers are instructed to ask the students to categorise 20 sexuality terms as positive, neutral or negative. In fact, if the students are 12-13 years-old, the trainers “must take the lead in explaining the meaning of the terms used”. The level of flexibility the trainers have is best inferred from one of the interview questions posed to these trainers - “Do you feel comfortable presenting on material you don’t necessarily agree with?”.

As MOE reviews its internal vetting processes, it should also look into the track record of the external vendors providing such services to see if it conforms to existing societal norms. Beyond the actual CSE syllabus, AWARE's, as well as other external vendor's, continued participation in the schools' CSE programme would need to be scrutinised based on their espoused values, background and wider advocacy focus.

AWARE Saga (Part 1)

This is the first of my 2 unselected letter to the Straits Times Forum

I would like to share my perspective surrounding the recent AWARE saga.

It seems to me that AWARE has been caught up, “blissfully” unaware, in the battle between conservatives and liberals till now. Whatever good works AWARE had done for gender equality in the past 25 years have been hijacked by 2 fringe issues – homosexuality and the approach to sex education.

Whether because of its inclusivity, liberalism or camaraderie, AWARE has thrown its weight, back in 2006/2007, with local NGOs such as Action for Aids, Free Community Church and People Like Us (PLU) to campaign actively for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Former AWARE President, Tan Joo Hymn, said then, “how consenting adults choose to express their sexuality in private should not be a concern of the state… we should be mature enough not to pry into the intimate behaviours of consenting adults”.

Similarly, in the area of sex education, AWARE’s position has been to adopt a “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” (CSE) rather than a pure abstinence approach for teens. Former AWARE President, Constance Singam, said that CSE was to “equip young women aged 12-19 with the knowledge and skills to make healthy decisions about their lives”.

Mr Ho Chi Sam summarised this most succinctly in his online ST Forum letter (14 Apr 09) when he reduced the AWARE saga to these 2 fringe issues.

The new AWARE EXCO, whatever their motives and methods, probably felt that AWARE should not allow itself to be hijacked by these fringe issues and sought, through existing AWARE constitutional processes, to campaign for the society’s leadership and re-focus the organisation back to its original vision of “gender equality for all”.

While former AWARE President, Dana Lim, could state that “ AWARE is not about whether we are for or against Christianity; AWARE is not about whether we are for or against homosexuality”, its public stand has stated unequivocally that AWARE is for homosexuality and AWARE is against what Christianity stands for.

However the AWARE saga pans out, the damage to the society has been done. The Old Guard could wrestle AWARE back from the Young Turks but the Old Guard would need to convince Singaporeans that AWARE have the wider interests of women at the heart of their mission and not just on these fringe issues.

Right to die: The poverty of secularism

25 Dec 2008 - The Straits Times Online Forum

I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.

I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.

Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.

Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".

This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.

If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.

Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.

Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.

Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril

17 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').

The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.

The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.

I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.

Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.

Double standards: In sedition case and DBS charity tie-up

9 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.

In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.

We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.

As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.

In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.

It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.

The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.

The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.

Bible Literalism (Part 1)

Recently picked up a book entitled "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs from the local library about a person's one-year journey to take the Bible literally and do exactly as it is presented, at face value. Rather than feeling peeved and upset over the author's at times cheap shots at Christianity, I found it an eye-opening experience and realised how much I know (or not know) about my Bible. It was also interesting to see how opponents of Christianity can find any platform available to them to denounce the faith. Hence we have John Shelby Spong being quoted by the book publisher:

"[The author] has perceived the distinction between the wisdom of the Bible and is absurdities. It is a shame that so many of both our clergy and our politicians seem incapable of making that distinction."

To begin, Jacobs humble quest to follow the Bible as literal as possible is a misnomer. While claiming literalness, Jacobs obviously caveat it by stating that his plan was to "try to find the original intention of the biblical rule or teaching and follow that to the letter. If the passage is unquestionably figurative, then I won't obey it literally." Then he went on to impose his own mental model on the various laws. Not surprisingly, the first one that he waffled through is the 10% tithes.

Where better to start than to pick on the two extremities.

Do not Mix Wool and Linen

The first was his hilarious journey in tackling his Top Five Most Perplexing Rules in the Bible - The ban on wearing clothes made of mixed fibres", specifically the rule not to mix wool and linen (Deut 22:11). In the midst of engaging an expert to rummage through his wardrobe to ensure that he abides by the rule, he put forth the point that obeying rules with no rational explanation is a jarring one.

Obviously, without starting from the right footing, plunging into the Mosaic Laws would not make much of a sense. What Jacobs failed to realise (at least he did not reflect it in the book) is that the Laws were given to the nation of Israel to set them apart from the wide-spread paganistic culture during their time. While we can postulate the rationale for the bulk of the rules, some are just rules to differentiate them from the pagans. If you dress differently from the crowd, you are obviously more likely not to succumb to the culture of the masses. It is a simple and straightforward principle.

Sabbath - Made for Men, Not The Other Way Round

Of course being a Jew, his treatment of the Sabbath ordnance was heavily leaned toward the Orthodox Judaism interpretation. Given my familiarity with Jewish interpretation of work, the part about tearing up toilet paper in advance so as not to be "working" while toileting during Sabbath was absolutely hilarious. It is sad to see how a compassionate rule to encourage humans and the land to rest has become one that enslaves us. Being literally in the Sabbath observance means just to rest when it is mandated. Going beyond what it is written is embellishment, not literalism. Jesus, during His time on earth, addressed this issue and said that Sabbath was made for men and not men for Sabbath. When the rabbis went to the extreme to label healing and helping others as work during Sabbath, we have obviously crossed the line.

(To be continued...)

Abortion and euthanasia deserve equal debate

25 Oct 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

IT IS curious to note the contrasting approaches taken by the Ministry of Health on the issues of euthanasia and abortion. The euthanasia issue elicited extensive on-going discussions initiated by Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan who viewed it as a moral dilemma. On the other hand, the abortion issue was definitively concluded, with Mr Khaw saying we should base the decision purely on science and take emotion out.

I suggest the two issues are merely two sides of the same coin, depending on which side one chooses. Euthanasia and abortion are discussions of the relative importance of sanctity (or viability in the case of abortion) of life versus the rights of the individual.

I find it mistaken for the authorities to frame the two issues in such contrasting manner. If viability of life is the dominating principle, we should restrict access to euthanasia and have the same level of safeguards we have for those seeking abortion, that is, simply mandatory counselling. If, however, the individual's rights are paramount, then we should embrace euthanasia and simply allow individuals to decide.

The only difference is that abortion, unlike euthanasia, had been debated at length and decided. To be consistent, we should approach the euthanasia issue as we did with abortion in the 1970s. Convene a Select Committee and determine the viability of people who are suffering from terminal illness.

Recalling then health minister Chua Sian Chin's response regarding the slippery slope of allowing abortion that 'no community anywhere in the present world has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit', the previously unimaginable could become a reality in the foreseeable future.

Recalling also Ms Lynn Lee's column against those calling for a review of the abortion law ('Banning abortion won't mean more babies', July 31), I would like to quote portions with allusion to the present euthanasia debate:

'How many babies suffering from birth defects (elderly suffering from terminal illnesses) should society be prepared to look after?

'Every child (person) deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life... Allowing women (them) the option of abortion (euthanasia) helps ensure that as many babies (people) as possible are wanted and healthy (living quality life).

'In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion (disallow euthanasia).'

On Abortion

My latest foray into ST Forum writing that didn't get published, probably because there were many similar letters castigating the writer for her "emotive" outburst. Looking forward to see her next piece on this issue, if ever.

I refer to Ms Lynn Lee (ST, 31 Jul 08) response to Ms Tan Seow Hon (ST, 24 Jul 08) on the subject of abortion legislation.

Taking Ms Tan’s commentary at face value, Ms Lee’s response seemed almost as emotive as what she had charged A/P Tan’s article for.

Nowhere did Ms Tan allude to banning abortion as her desired end-state for Singapore. In fact, beyond the first paragraph which mentioned rendering access to abortion harder as one avenue of boosting birth rates in Singapore, it was a concise piece revisiting the original basis for legalising abortions and putting forth arguments why a review is timely.

Upfront, I agree with Ms Lee that limiting access to or banning abortion to boost birth rates is a non-starter. However, Ms Lee failed to address A/P Tan’s counter-arguments to the three social goods originally advocated by the government then to support the legalisation of abortion. Saying that abortion option helps ensure that as many babies as possible are wanted and healthy is a personal affront both to the many Singaporeans who respect the sanctity of life enough to commit to bringing up less “healthy” children, and to these children, that their quality of life is somewhat less fulfilling than healthy ones.

There is no need for Ms Lee to steer the debate into one of religion and secularism. Rather than pointing the finger at Ms Tan’s views as religiously motivated, we should ask what secularism’s dogmas on abortion and the beginning of life are. If secularism’s stand is that the woman alone is the final arbitrator on this issue, then we should allow for abortion beyond the current 24-weeks window since medical advances can ensure the physiological well-being of the woman beyond this current limit.

The 24-weeks window was originally articulated based on the medical community’s ability to sustain life outside the womb. Given the medical advances in the last 40 years, it is plausible for us to refresh the legislation based on this medical “definition” from which life “begins”.

Secularism does not have all the answers. If it was the sole basis from which the society makes all decisions, then we would not need to have this debate on the ethicality of stem-cell research. We could, in good conscience, grow petri-dish foetuses for up to 24-weeks for the good of the rest of the living Singaporeans who were fortunate enough to be given the right to life.

God According to Dawkins

I had decided to pick up Dawkins' The God Delusion from the public library to find out what was the big fuss that surrounded this book that spun the various "copycats" by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and many others to jump on the atheist bandwagon.

After one-third way into the book and reading quotes upon quotes and examples upon examples of "incompetent" Christian writers, I decided to flip to the index section and it was obvious that Dawkins had cherry-picked those that would explain his world view. There were no quotations or examples from competent Christian apologists like Josh Mcdowell, Norman Geisler, Criag Blomberg, or Peter Kreeft to just name a few. The single mention of Billy Graham was about his alma mater. When you decided to load the dice at the beginning to pick the wrong examples, you will inadvertently end up able to justify and "prove" anything and in this case, Dawkins "succeeded" in showing up the "inadequacy" of Christianity. But is that the case?

Dawkins mentioned a few "favourite" examples of bible detractors, namely the "misquotation" of virgin birth by Isaiah and the conflicting geneologies of the Gospel according to Matthew and Luke. These examples of inaccuracies were competently answered by Christian apologists whom Dawkins chose not to quote from. Take the example of the Hebrew word "almah", translated into Greek by the New Testament as "parthenos". Dawkins, like many others, made a meal about how Christians have mischievously translated this word from its original meaning of young maiden to virgin to fit their theology. However, we don't have to be a Hebrew or Greek expert to understand that context of Isaiah's prophesy demands that we make this inference.

Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.". But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!" Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.". (Isaiah 7:10-14)

The context here is God giving Ahaz a SIGN. It is baffling to see how a young maiden being with a child and bearing a son be a SIGN from God unless it is something supernatural, in this case the young maiden being a virgin. The passage speaks volumes for itself.

Throughout the book, Dawkins threw cheap shots regarding how the God Hypothesis is beyond proof by mentioning in the same vein the plausibility of Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot and Dawkins' very own Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is interesting that Dawkins failed to mention that while no recorded account of people who suffered and lost their life for believing in the teapot and monster, many have laid down their lives for their belief in the Almighty God of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Dawkins also pointed out logically that if there was really a God, He could have settled this discussion once and for all and put all the atheists in their place by appearing to the world as we know today. This is a seductive argument but flawed nonetheless. If Dawkins had taken the trouble to read the Scriptures (which he had decided not to because reputed biblical scholars that he consults do not in general regard the New or Old Testaments as a reliable record of what had actually happened in history), he would have discovered that God had actually manifested on earth exactly to do just that twice in human history. Once to the people of Israel during the time of Moses and once to the nation of Israel with the birth of Jesus. Both times, God demonstrated His glory and power and implored the people to draw near to Him. On both occasions, He was sorely let down.

Almost immediately after the Israelites were miraculously and spectacularly delivered from the Egyptians, they grumbled that God should have left them in Egypt rather than let them die of thirst and hunger in the wilderness. Even after Jesus demonstrated His God-given credentials to be the Messiah and offered the Kingdom to the Israelites of His time, the Israelites meekly deferred to their Pharisaic leadership and rejected Jesus' offer by demanding Jesus be crucified for blasphemy and would preferred to have a criminal accused of treason pardoned rather than Jesus. If God was to appear to us today, I suspect that our reactions will not be much better and certainly after a generation or two, we would have raised up new Dawkins and Hitchens to clamour for God to show Himself AGAIN.

God has revealed His Son Jesus to us in this last days. It is true that many people have exploited and misused Christianity for their own political and selfish agenda. It is something that we are ashamed of. This cannot detract us from the saving grace that God has offered to us through Jesus death on the cross and His resurrection. Throughout history, God has been shown to be patient and long-suffering, not wishing anyone of us will perish (see my other post). Let us give ourselves this one opportunity to be open to the message that He has preserved for us in the Bible. Study and explore, and make the decision for yourself.

Genesis 3 - The Fall of Man

It is extremely depressing that the first man spend a grand total of 3 chapters before he fell from grace. Satan, after he has taken over control over the serpent, approached Eve to reclaim his dominion over the earth, after having lost it when he decided that he wanted to be like God.

Satan's Strategy

See how he twisted God's word:

What God said: From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat (Gen 2:16-17)

What Satan said: has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?

What Eve said: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'

Satan's Response: You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

There are a few points to note here. First, Eve was not present when God gave Adam this command so it was left to him to explain the Adamic covenant to Eve. Some have wondered whether Adam actually passed on the message correctly and whether Eve added on to God's instructions. It is sufficient to deduce from Eve's reply to Satan that she knew the basics.

Secondly, it is instructive to understand how Satan attacks us by always stressing the negatives, just like our human nature always focus on the things that we do not have rather than those things that God has already richly blessed us with. God gave only ONE single restrictive instruction to Adam and Eve regarding the issue of food in the garden and yet the two of them decided that this single instruction was too difficult to follow.

Thirdly, there is this huge protracted debate about God's purpose in setting up this test if, in His omniscience, He knew that the 2 of them would have failed. They asked whether God has set them up for failure. Of course, those who subscribed to open theism will circumvent this "problem" by pointing out that God did not at that point know that Adam and Eve would choose the contrary path (Personally this sounds like a cop-out and does not gel with the Bible says about God). I do not claimed to have an elegant answer between God's foreknowledge and His intent to proceed with this test. I can only say that (1) it was not an unreasonable instruction and (2) in his infinite wisdom, He already knew what He had to do to redeem His creation. This will be revealed a few verses later.

The Fall of Man (and Woman)

The woman fell "hook-line-and-sinker" to Satan's strategy and she fell for the lusts of the flesh (the tree was good for food), the eye (a delight to the eyes) and the pride (the tree was desirable to make one wise). It was here that the Bible revealed to us that Adam was all along together with Eve during this entire exchange. The fact that Bible did not record Adam making any effort to counter Satan or stop Eve from breaking God's instruction demonstrated that Adam was as culpable as Eve. Collectively, both Adam and Eve were equally guilty of being disobedient to God.

In any case, the result was that the Bible described that "the eyes of both of them were opened" and they realised that they were naked. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word for naked here (עירם) and the one used at the end of chapter 2 (ערום) are spelled differently, possibly signifying the loss of innocence.

God's Judgment

Verses 8 and 9 have been used by some as evidence that the concept of the omnipresence and omniscience of Yahweh was developed only in the later part of the Bible. Here, God is described as having a physical presence and was not even aware of the location of Adam and Eve. There is, of course, a simpler explanation in that the Bible here is describing a physical manifestation of God's presence and God's question of "where are you?" was not evidence of lack of knowledge but an indictment of Adam's sin.

The temptation to "pass the buck" seems to have a very early origin as Adam was quick to point the finger at both God and Eve for causing him to sin (The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.). Eve fared a little better, admitting that she was deceived by Satan.

On the Serpent

Some people have wondered why did God punished the serpent when it was Satan that used it as a vehicle to cause Adam to sin. This however has been God's principle that He viewed the life of human being more than that of animals (Leviticus 24:21). While it was not clear whether the serpent had any choice to be used, it was clear that the punishment came as a result of causing man's physical and spiritual death.

On Satan

From this point onwards, Satan has waged a constant war of attrition with woman. Because Satan knew that God's redemptive plan will come through the woman, he has attempted to corrupt it through inter-marriage described in Genesis 6:1-4. While it was not apparent here why the Messiah would come from a seed of a woman given that the Biblical norm was to trace the seed through the male line, Isaiah 7:14 shed the light when it proclaimed that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Satan's future was also revealed in this pronouncement that while the Messiah would be bruised in the heel (crucifixion), Satan would ultimately be dealt the final judgment and be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).

On the Woman

There are 2 slightly differing interpretation of Genesis 3:16 (NKJV and NASB). NKJV seems to suggest that besides multiplying the labour pains, God has also multiplied menstrual pains and the ability to conceive. NASB has assumed that this verse is a hendiadys (a figure of speech used for emphasis) and thus interpreted as a single idea of labour pains.

The woman's relationship with her husband would also undergo a radical change as a result of the fall. Although God has ordained that the man will be the head of the partnership (and he will rule over you), the woman will attempt to overturn this (your desire will be for your husband). The word "desire" is not sexual but rather to control or dominate. This same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 4:7 in reference to sin's desire for Cain.

On the Man

God's judgment comprises (a) cursing of the earth [Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you], (b) human diet [you will eat the plants of the field], (c) hard labour [By the sweat of your face you will eat bread] and (d) physical death [Till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return].


Garment of Skin

The first record of physical death probably occurred at this point when God in His providence and care provided clothing made out of animal skin to replace the flimsy-made garment of fig leaves . Theologians also pointed to this passage as the first demonstration of God's demand for blood as a covering for sin. This theme would be further elaborated in the course of Biblical history.


Driven from the Garden of Eden

Even God's action to banish (literally driving out) Adam and Eve from the garden and the setting up of the cherubim to guard the tree of life can be seen as God's loving-kindness towards us. How? As sinners, the ability to live forever in a future that is bleak will certainly be a frightening thought. Think about someone like Hitler, Pol Pot or Mao Zedong living forever and you get the point.

The other point to note is the need to set up cherubim (meaning more than one cherub) and the flaming sword to guard the tree of life. Why was there a need to put the highest order of the angelic beings to guard it against man when one normal angel will do? Especially when one normal angel was able to send pestilence to destroy 70,000 people (2 Sam 24:10-17). The Bible doesn't say but God could be guarding it against Satan whom, before his own fall, was himself a cherub (Eze 28:12-19).

It was definitely a sad ending to what could have been a blessing for Adam and Eve but unconscious to them, God has already put in place the grand plan of salvation.

Genesis 2 - The Garden of Eden

Chapter Two of Genesis has been used by critics as the very first occurrence of inconsistency in the Bible. Some have gone on to conclude that the author must have collated 2 different account and clobbered them into one book in Genesis because they saw a different way that God was addressed in chapter 2 as compared with chapter 1 (See following section on this issue). Rather than jumping to conclusions, what we have here is a demonstration of what David Cooper termed as "the law of recurrence".

Before we go into this law of recurrence in Genesis, 2 prophetic examples can be found in the Bible (From Fruchtenbaum's "The Footsteps of the Messiah").

The first pair is found in Ezekiel 38 and Ezekiel 39. Chapter 39 gives a complete account of the invasion of Israel from the north and the subsequent destruction of the invading army. This is followed by Chapter 39 which repeats some of the account given in Chapter 38 and gives some added details regarding the description of the invading army.

The second pair is found in Isaiah 30 and Isaiah 31. Chapter 30 gives a complete account of the fall of Judah's alliance with Egypt. Chapter 31 simply repeats the prophesy, adding more details.

Turning back to Genesis 2, this chapter elaborates on Day 6 of God's creation and not, as some have tried to insinuate, a different version of the creation account. Other well-meaning Christians have "fall into" this trap hook-line-and-sinker and invested creative energy to try and explain away the apparent contradictions.

The Elaboration of the Creation of Man and Woman in Day 6

From Genesis Chapter 2 verse 4 (the beginning of the 2nd chapter should have logically started from here), the author took on a different way of addressing God by calling him Yahweh Elohim (or LORD God in NASB) instead of just Elohim (God) in Chapter 1. The purpose, I believed, is to introduce a personal reference of God to narrate the creation of Adam and Eve in this section. because God took a personal interest in Day 6 of creation.

What we have from verses 4-6 is a description of how a piece of land looked like before it was transformed by God to become the Garden of Eden. At this point in time, there was no rain yet and the earth was watered by a mist that rise from the earth itself.

Some may ask why Christians are so sure that Chapter 2 is purely elaborating on Day 6 of creation and describing on a particular place called Eden rather than a different creation account. The clue can be derived from verse 5 where it explained why no shrub and plant of the field had appeared in the earth. The 2 reasons were that (a) "God had not sent rain upon the earth" and (b) "there was no man to cultivate the ground".

If the appearance of shrubs and plants is dependent on the appearance of man, then we must conclude that the only place where God can cause them to appear is in the garden of Eden since we would not expect the first man to be able to cultivate the whole earth. This obviously cannot be true since God can cause life to appear without the help of man. The need for water was answered in verse 6 when it explained that "a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground" (the highlighted words suggest that the author who wrote the book of Genesis did not experienced this phenomena anymore and it was so after the rain made its appearance from the time of the Noahic Flood).

Hence what verse 5 described would fit the context of a particular part of the earth and in this case, the land that God eventually plant the garden of Eden. The other clue came from verses 19-20 where though God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky out of the ground after forming Adam for him to name in verse 19, the cattle were already there in the garden for Adam to name in verse 20. Hence we can see that there is no contradiction that God indeed created the animals before man and that Chapter 2 was indeed an elaboration of Day 6 of creation.

Some will also attempt to cast doubt on this account as an elaboration of Day 6 of creation by asserting that it is impossible for so many things to happen in a single day especially for Adam to name all the animals. To me, this "problem" is not insurmountable. Firstly, God can definitely effect the creation works instantaneously. Second, Adam could be giving names to animal classes and not variants. He could be naming them ants, dogs or cats but not necessarily fire ants, termites etc. Furthermore, given his pre-fall status, his capacity to do all these in one day may not seem impossible.

In verse 7, the Bible elaborated how God created the first man. Though an elaboration, it was in keeping with the spirit of simplicity that it still took a mere verse to describe how God formed man from the dust of the earth and made the man into a living being by breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.

God then proceeded to plant the garden in Eden with "every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food" (v 9). It is also at this point that we are introduced to the 2 special trees: the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Bible made it clear that the garden of Eden was not some mythical place when the author took a total of 5 verses (v 10-14) to describe the river which flows out of Eden to water the garden and how it is subsequently divided into 4 rivers which were described in some amount of details. We know that this garden was in the region of Mesopotamia since 2 of the rivers are known to us till this day (The Tigris and Euphrates).

The Edenic Covenant (Part 2)

In Chapter 2, we also have the 2nd part of the Edenic Covenant in verses 15-17 with the remaining 3 of the 7 provisions (we mentioned the first 4 in the previous post).

(5) Physical labour in the garden (to cultivate it and keep it).

(6) Permitted food (From any tree of the garden you may eat freely) and forbidden food (from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat) in the garden.

(7) Penalty of disobedience (for in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die)

We will revisit the details of the Edenic Covenant later on in Chapter 3 of the Genesis study.

Helper for Adam

While in the garden of Eden, God was the initiator when He noted that it was not good for man to be alone. While God in his infinite wisdom knew what Adam (man) needed was the woman, yet He did not "force" it onto Adam. As a living being with free will, Adam needs to discover for himself this inner need. Hence God set up this interesting exercise for Adam to select a helper from amongst the animals.

God did this by raising from the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky and brought them to Adam for him to name them. In the biblical context, naming is an exercise of authority and it validated man's authority over the animal kingdom. So, Adam gave names to 3 categories of animals: (a) the cattle (or domesticated animals) who were already in the garden and hence there was no need for God to bring them to Adam, (b) the beasts of the field (or wild animals) and (c) the birds of the sky. It was also in verse 20 where the man's name was first revealed as Adam.

This naming exercise obviously did the trick and after naming all the animals, Adam did not find a helper suitable for him in the animal kingdom and was still alone. Once Adam came to this personal realisation, God took over control, causing a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and formed a woman using portion of flesh and bone from Adam's side (NASB translated tsalah as rib but the Hebrew literally means side. It also fits verse 23 better where Adam described the woman as the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh).

When the woman was brought to Adam, he finally encountered the helper that was suitable for him and broke into a song in verse 23 and named God's special creation as "woman".

The First Spoken Language

It is interesting to take a slight digression here to discuss what was the first spoken language before God confused the language in Chapter 11 at Babel.

Fruchtenbaum made an interesting case that Adam was created with the ability to speak the Hebrew language. He made the argument on 2 points:

(a) All names before the Tower of Babel are Hebrew names and have meanings only in Hebrew even though the Jewish people did not exist as yet. That is not true of all names after the Tower of Babel when you have non Hebrew names.

(b) Prior to Babel all the wordplays in the Bible make sense only in Hebrew. Genesis 2:23; 3:20; 4:1 and 4:25 are all examples of Adam and Eve's use of wordplays that make sense only in Hebrew, proving that Adam's language was Hebrew.

Genesis 2:23 - She shall be called Woman (ishshah), Because she was taken out of Man (iysh).

Genesis 3:20 - Now the man called his wife's name Eve (chavvah), because she was the mother of all the living (chay).

Genesis 4:1 - Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain (qayin), and she said, "I have gotten (qanah) a manchild with the help of the LORD."

Genesis 4:25 - Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth (sheth), for, she said, "God has appointed (shiyth) me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."

While I do not know much about all the ancient languages, this postulation does have its merits and we can suggest that the original language at least bears resemblance to the Hebrew language.

The Meaning of Helper

Turning back to the study, feminists had a field day accusing the Bible for being patriarchal here by degrading woman to be a mere helper for the man.

This demeaning view of the word helper is unfortunate and I feel three points here are in order to refute this:

(1) The Hebrew word for helper is ezer. This same term is used to describe God in passages such as Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; I Samuel 7:12; Psalm 20:2; 33:20; 46:1; 70:5; 115:9-11; 124:8; and 146:5. Surely a term used to describe God should not be seen as demeaning.

(2) In Genesis 1:28, both man and woman were both recipients of God's mandate to exercise authority and dominion over the earth. Again, this would hardly be a degrading proposition for the first woman.

(3) The Hebrew word for suitable is neged which literally means "what is conspicuous, what is in front of". Taken in its entire context, the helper suitable for Adam implied a helper of his equal.

Fruchtenbaum concluded that the woman will be"one who will perfectly complete him, one who will provide what is lacking in the male, one who can do what the male cannot do alone. Man was created in such a way that he needs the help of a partner, and she corresponds physically, socially, and spiritually. There was headship before the fall, but it was complementary, not competitive.".

This symbiotic relationship between man and woman was reflected in verse 24 in which the final union between them will be the act of marriage to become one flesh.

An Ominous Statement

The final verse in Chapter 2 describing Adam and Eve's innocence (naked and not ashamed) was to become the preamble of the account of the Fall in Chapter 3.

Genesis 1 - In the Beginning

Other than the Gospels, Genesis chapter one is probably the most dissected chapter of the Bible. It is also one chapter that has been ridiculed and poured scorn upon by non Christians and many have tried to link the Biblical creation account to other mythical accounts.

However, reading through chapter one, one does not find in the account many of the embellishments that you find in other mythical accounts. There was no epic battle of good-versus-evil, teardrops becoming the ocean etc. The Biblical account is a simple matter-of-fact narration of how God brought the heavens and earth into being. It introduced God as having existed before time and space, and in the same way, there was no embellishment of what God looked like. God is Spirit and that was it.

Leaving the “gap theory” which I described in a previous post, the earth started out as a planet which is covered entirely by water and darkness was over the surface of the deep (v 2).

The Creation Account and Sequence

The sequence of creation was then narrated:

(1) Light (Day and Night) - Some have identified this light as the Shechinah or the Glory of God's Presence.

(2) Expanse / Firmament (heaven)

(3) Dry Land (earth) and Gathering of the Waters (seas)

(4) Vegetation: Plants Yielding Seed and Fruit Trees on the Earth bearing fruits with seed in them, after their kind

(5) Lights in the expanse: Sun, Moon and Stars

(6) Swarms of living creatures in the waters and Winged Birds, after their kind

(7) Beasts of the earth (wild animals), Cattle (domesticated animals) and Everything that creeps on the ground (reptiles and amphibians), after their kind

(8) Man and Woman

It is not my intention to debate on the sequence of God’s creation. There will be questions on what was the light that God created if the sun, moon and stars were created on the 3rd day, how the plants survived without the sun, how the solar system be sustained with the Earth created before the sun, moon and stars etc. To me, these questions are rather superfluous. To those who do not believe in the supernatural, the first action would be a denial of God’s existence from the beginning. To those who can entertain the concept of supernatural, it would not be too difficult to believe a God who can create out of nothing could temporarily create the necessary conditions to answer these questions.

No Room for Theistic Evolution

God seemed to have the evolution advocates in mind in the very first chapter of the Bible by making 2 clear statements repeatedly:

(a) Each of the days of creation was a 24-hours day. Genesis Chapter One was deliberate to a fault by repeating the constant refrain - “and there was evening and there was morning, one (and a second, and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth and the sixth) day”. Even without the sun, moon and stars on the first three days, the refrain was constant - they were all 24-hours day.  Some have, interestingly, decided that since the sun, moon and stars were created on the third day, that Day 1, 2 and 3 need not be 24-hour days.  Most of them subscribe to this view because of their need to entertain what they felt are irrefutable "proofs" that the earth and the universe are billions of years old.  They pointed that Moses had no choice but to use the same term "day" to describe Day 1-3 or that he wanted to maintain the consistent literary structure of the creation account.  I feel that we should let the plain text speak for itself and there is no need to artificially differentiate the term "day" within the same passage.  If you are not convinced, then I suggest you consider what the same Moses said further down in Exodus 20:11

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

(b) The strict biological taxonomy was deliberately emphasized. The plants yielding seed, fruit trees bearing fruits with seed in them, swarms of living creatures in the waters, birds, beasts of the earth, cattle and everything that creeps on the ground were all created after their kinds (species).

These 2 statements set up the case against the theory (I rather call it a hypothesis since it cannot be experimentally tested to become a theory) of evolution in that the Bible does not give it the time or the space to stand.

Interesting Trivia

Some interesting trivia in the creation account can be noted here:

(a) God declared the work done by Him as good with the exception of Day 2 when He created the expanse (firmament) which was called heaven. Some have expounded on the reasons why this was so but a simple explanation would be that God did not "finish" what he started on the second day. The making of the expanse, the gathering of the waters below the expanse and the appearing of the dry land was deemed as one "complete" activity. Which also explained why God "saw that it was good" twice in Day 3.

(b) The uniqueness of Day 6 of creation was noted in the way the writer of Genesis described the end of that particular day. Unlike the first 5 days, the end of the 6th day was mentioned with the definite article the, pointing to the uniqueness of this day when man was created. It was also Day 6 that not only God declared what He as created as not just good but very good.
 
The Plurality of the Godhead

The concept of the ONE Godhead and the PLURALITY of the Godhead is introduced at the very first chapter of the Bible.

- The Hebrew word translated as God in English is “elohim”, which is plural form of “El” or “Eloah” - God. While it is true that “elohim” can also be used in the form of plurality in majesty, this term does introduce the possibility of the plurality of the Godhead.

- The Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit?) was described as moving over (or hovering) over the surface of the waters.

- In the creation of man, God is quoted as saying: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (v 26). At the same time, in the very next verse, Genesis recorded that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them”.

God’s Mandate for Mankind

The uniqueness of man (and woman) in comparison with other living things that God has created can be seen in 2 aspects: (1) that man was the only living organism that God was said to have created in His image and (2) man was given dominion over the rest of God’s creation.

It was here that the Edenic Covenant was made between God and Adam (part 2 of the covenant is given in Gen 2:15-17) in which Adam stood as the representative head of the human race.

The covenant consisted of seven provisions of which 4 are mentioned in Chapter One:

(1) Man was told to populate the earth (Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth).

(2) Man was given authority over the earth (Subdue it [the earth]).

(3) Exercise dominion over all living things (Rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth).

(4) Vegetarian diet for mankind and animals (v 29-30).

Completion of God's Creation (Chapter 2 Verses 1-3)

With the creation of man and woman, the heavens and earth were declared as "completed" and God rested on the 7th day. He also blessed and sanctified the 7th Day because in that day, God rested from all His work.

2 points should be noted here:

(1) Some commentators go into a deep theological discussion on whether we are still in the 7th Day given that the Bible did not do its previous refrain of "and there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day". I think this is unnecessary since God did not do any more creating on the 7th day and hence there was no reason to reiterate the 24-hour day again. Furthermore, Chapter 1 should have logically been extended to Chapter 2 verse 3. Hence at the end point, there was no need to say anymore.  (See my blog in Chapter 5 for the divisions of Genesis).

(2) Some have also wondered whether God indeed was omnipotent since He was described as having a need to rest from His works. Again, this is unnecessary since what we have here is a case of anthropomorphism, in this case, applying human characteristics to God. If we need the Bible to convince us that God is not resting in the sense of being made tired by all the creation work, Isaiah 40:28a tells us:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired.

Thus ends the creation of the heavens and the earth.

The Bible Gap Theory

The Bible can be an extremely fascinating treasure of insights if one spends time to study it.

In Ezekiel 28:11-19, God spoke about Satan's state before he fell from grace. We know that this king of Tyre wasn't human because Ezekiel has already spoken about the human king of Tyre in verses 1-10 whom God called the leader (or prince) of Tyre. There, all the descriptions was decidedly human in nature. When we moved to verses 11-19, the king of Tyre was described in decidedly angelic form.

Here, God described Satan's dwelling place before his fall as being in the garden of Eden. However, this garden is totally different from the one that Adam and Eve were given by God. In Satan's case, he was in a garden filled with many different types of precious stones. It was also in this garden that Satan's pride got the better of him (see Isaiah 14:12-14) and he declared war against God . Verse 18 in Ezekiel went on to say that the earth became waste and void.

This was probably the context that Genesis began with.

[1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2] The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

In this 2 short verses, we can deduce that there there was possibly a gap of time between verse 1 and 2. The evidence can be found in Isaiah 45:18 which says:

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),

If God did not create the earth as a waste place, then it is strange indeed that Genesis described the earth as formless and void (or in an alternative NASB translation, waste and emptiness). The question to ask is whether God created the earth in a state of chaos (which Isaiah 45:18 disproved) or did it became a state of chaos (which Ezekiel 28:18 provided for such a possibility).

Furthermore, the Hebrew word describing formless/waste (tohu) and void/emptiness (bohu) were used together only in two other Old Testament passages and both pointed to the concept of divine judgment (Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23).

But pelican and hedgehog will possess it, And owl and raven will dwell in it; And He will stretch over it the line of desolation [tohu] And the plumb line of emptiness [bohu]. (Isa 34:11)

I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless [tohu] and void [bohu]; And to the heavens, and they had no light. (Jer 4:23)

Finally, the Hebrew word that was translated as "was" in Genesis 1:2 (The earth was formless and void) is hayah which can be translated as "to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out". Hence the verse can be translated as "The earth became formless and void".

Hence, we can deduce that the fall of Satan occurred between Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 and 2. This is the Bible Gap Theory to account for the fall of Satan and the description of the earth in a state of waste and emptiness. However, this gap is not to be confused with the one which some used to accommodate supposedly long geological age of the earth. In Romans 5:12, death only came about with Adam's sin so it is biblically not possible for death to occur before Adam's sin to account for the fossil records of the billions of years.