top of page
Home page.jpg

 How Did He Do That? 



How Did He Do That?

By Les Sherlock, March 2021 but originally posted c2016?



The first thing to be settled is that what is written here (and indeed throughout this site) will almost certainly be incorrect! This is because when it comes to the subject of God, if He exists (and obviously I believe He does) then to have been able to accomplish everything claimed by the creationist He must be so much bigger than us in every way that our intellect, wonderful though it may be, will be totally inadequate to comprehend Him. So if your definition of God, whatever or whomever you believe Him to be (including the belief that He does not exist) is perfectly understandable to you, then almost certainly it is wrong!

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

​Isaiah 55:8-9  

In addition, scientific understanding and theory has changed significantly over the centuries. Throughout this time scientists have confidently asserted that their theories are correct and produced ‘evidence’ to prove it. The one consistent fact is that later generations of scientists, with the advantage of accumulated knowledge and further experimentation, have produced conflicting theories, sometimes diametrically opposed to those previously held, also with ‘evidence’, demonstrating that the earlier theories were incorrect. Therefore it is perfectly logical to assume that today’s understanding will also be superseded in the future with better, and possibly very different, explanations.

Finally, I am neither a professional theologian nor a professional scientist. It would be ludicrous for scientists and theologians to claim only they are capable of understanding the issues. Any person of average intelligence is able to read the works of these people and come to a reasonable conclusion; and there are scientists and theologians on both sides of the debate, so there is plenty of material to work with! So I simply read their work and use such logical processes that are available to me to make a decision regarding my own understanding of issues that are of eternal consequence. After over seven decades of experience as a Christian studying these matters, and with (probably) average intelligence, I dare to go public on the assumption that at least it qualifies me to be given a hearing.

Any errors will be due to the fact that I am human; but I speak confidently on these matters because I rely on a source of wisdom and knowledge far greater than either mine or that of anyone able to read this: the revelation of our Creator-God as found in the book we know as The Bible. While it is certainly possible that some minor mistakes may have crept into the version we now have due to copying and translation errors, it is inconceivable that such a God would be unable to transmit accurately His word to his creation, or be unable to protect it from serious error that would take us in the wrong direction.

However, in 'The Truth Behind the Bible Code', Dr Jeffrey Satinover points out there are 20 strict conditions Jewish scribes had to follow in copying the scriptures (page 46) and they believe the five books of Moses (the Torah: the first five books of the Bible) were spelled out to him by God, letter by letter (page 47). Therefore they considered it essential that not one single letter be changed, either by mistake or design.

 Additionally, Dr Satinover says there were three different groups of Jews scattered across the world and out of contact with each other, each with their own copy of the Torah. These have been copied over and over again over a period of more than two thousand years. In comparing these three different versions today, we find there are just 9 letter-level variations between the three in a 300,000-letter text! We can be sure that the Bibles we have today contain no error that is of any significance.



Who is He


The most prominent theme in the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is that God is LOVE. It’s not so much that He has love, or is loving. He is love! Love is the essence of His being: it is His nature. This being the case, our human experience of love can at best be a mere shadow of the real thing. We see people going to extraordinary lengths and making enormous personal sacrifices because of their love for someone; and yet this is nothing in comparison to the kind of love that makes up God’s nature. We’ll come back to this later.

And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

1 John 4:16  

We are also told that God is LIGHT. Once again, the quality of light we experience as a result of the sun, stars and artificially generated sources, is nothing in comparison to that of God’s being. Therefore there was no shortage of light for the early universe in its first few days before the sun and stars were created.

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

1 John 1:5

While we are made in His image, which means by looking at ourselves we can have an idea about His nature, this can only give a hint regarding who He is and what He is like. Apart from the fact that we are ‘damaged goods’ and far short of what humans were when originally created, the primary sphere of His existence is a completely different dimension to our own. He does not have a physical body as we do (leaving aside the fact of the deity of Jesus Christ, of course), and therefore physical senses alone - sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell - cannot detect Him. Nevertheless, because we have a spirit, which does exist in His dimension, communication is possible.

In terms of size He is very large indeed: no matter where in the universe you look He is there, because His dimension and ours overlap and He fills every part of both dimensions. As a result He is equally aware of every particle that makes up every atom in every part of our universe.

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me.

Psalm 139:7–10

"Am I a God near at hand," says the LORD, "And not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?" says the LORD; "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the LORD.

Jeremiah 23:23–24


for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

Acts 17:28

One reason for the difficulty evolutionists have in accepting the concept of God is that their understanding of Him is so small. The usual idea is of some kind of superman type of figure, or an old man with a long beard, seated on a throne somewhere. This is not the full picture given in the Bible, although its accounts of God revealing Himself to mankind are in human terms we can understand. While we do read of Him being seated on a throne, the reference to heaven being His throne and Earth His footstool puts this into context.


...Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool.

Isaiah 66:1

He is way beyond the kind of figure, for example, as seen in Michael Angelo’s famous painting of the creation of Adam in the Sistine chapel, parodied in my ‘doctored’ picture at the top of the page. I changed it in order to get away from the idea God is a similar size to humans: but even with His hand on the earth as in my changed picture, it is a very long way from who He really is. A  technical description of God is that He is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient: always present in all places, all-powerful and all-knowing.



As a tiny example consider the multi-tasking ability of humans. A competent singer/pianist, while sight reading can simultaneously be moving all ten fingers and thumbs independently to play the piano, be operating two foot pedals, be singing along with a choir, be listening to the choir to ensure they are together, be reading the music to play the correct notes, be reading the words to sing them, be aware of the correct expression and sing/play loudly, softly, slowly, quickly, etc., be breathing at the correct moment and perhaps nod the head at the right moments to direct the choir.


Now imagine how much more could be done simultaneously if one had a brain double the size. What if it were the size of a house? The size of a planet? The size of a galaxy? The size of the universe? One perhaps would be getting a little closer to the reality of what God is like if we used the terms of science fiction and called Him an entity from another dimension, with a brain the size of our universe. There is no lack of brain power or memory to prevent Him from observing and remembering every event in every atom of the universe throughout its history. Fanciful maybe, but it was with wisdom and knowledge He created all things and still holds them together.

The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens;

Proverbs 3:19


God is all-knowing, and while my description in the previous paragraph may be far from the truth, it is a convenient way of understanding His mind. Everything in the universe shows clear signs of design.

  • The balance of the galaxies and the positioning of their stars and planets -  there are many features about the planet Earth that makes it unique: its perfect position from the sun (far enough away not to be too hot, but close enough not to be too cold); its magnetic field, which protects us from lethal radiation from the rays of the sun; it's angle of rotation so every part of the planet receives sunshine; and much more beside.

  • The balance of living things on planet Earth - E.g. Some life forms produce oxygen from carbon dioxide, while others produce carbon dioxide from oxygen; bees collect nectar from flowers for their survival and pollinate them in the process; etc.

  • The incredible variety of design of each of those living things right down to their molecular structure.


The entire ‘project’ was designed in God’s mind before He began its construction and He got it right first time!

He is so far and away beyond our understanding that no words could possibly come close to describing Him accurately. This is one reason why, in the fullness of time, He took the form of a human being in the person of Jesus Christ in order to make Himself understandable to us. More on this topic later.


This needs some explaining as strawman arguments (distorting an argument in order easily to defeat it) abound through misunderstanding it. Many years ago I took part in a Christian event at Cambridge University, sharing with some of the students there about our faith. There was a little consternation amongst some of those taking part, when they reported that they had been challenged by a student who said he could prove an omnipotent God did not exist. I have to admit I was surprised: partly because the answer seemed very obvious, and partly that such an infantile argument could have been produced by someone who was supposed to be one of the cream of the UK’s intellects. The argument went like this:

It would be impossible for God to create an immoveable object and then move it: He would either fail to create the object, or fail to move it. Therefore an omnipotent God does not exist.


First of all, the student was obviously simply playing with words: a childish game that bears no resemblance to the real world. Secondly, since God is omniscient, He would know if an object was ever going to need to be moved or not. If it did not, then He could make it immovable. If it did, then He would not make it immovable.


However the main fault lies in the misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about God’s omnipotence. It certainly says He is all-powerful and there is nothing too difficult for Him to do. On the other hand there are a number of things that are impossible for God to do. Is this a contradiction? Possibly; but as I said previously, if your idea of God fits easily into your understanding, then by definition it will be incorrect.


What can’t God do?

  • It is impossible for Him to lie.

 ... in which it is impossible for God to lie...

Hebrews 6:18 

  • It is impossible for God to change.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

James 1:17

  • It is impossible for Him to be tempted to do evil.

...God cannot be tempted with evil...

James 1:13

In other words, unlike us, He is absolutely consistent and always acts in accordance with His own nature.

What is that nature? We’ve already seen that it is fundamentally love and light, but there is much more. One important element is justice and hatred of evil. This, of course, was the dilemma described in the early chapters of Genesis. The first man and woman, whom He loved, deliberately disobeyed Him (albeit through a deception), and because the physical realm had been placed under their jurisdiction, that too became tainted with their rebellion. His own nature of justice required that this must be punished, but His nature of love required that He preserve and rescue them from the consequences of their action.


This was a dilemma He had already resolved before He created the universe. The death penalty for their wrong-doing (and ours) was exacted, satisfying His need for justice; but the way He did it was to take the form of man in order to receive the penalty Himself. In that one act He satisfied His requirement for justice and satisfied His love for mankind, making the way open for the relationship between Him and the objects of His passionate love, men and women, to be restored.

...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

Ephesians 1:4 

...knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things... but with the precious blood of Christ... He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you…

1 Peter 1:18–20

There is an additional dilemma, though. What kind of a love-relationship would it be if one party had no choice in the matter? God gave us a free will, so we should have the ability to choose. Therefore His great sacrifice for us in taking the punishment we should receive is offered freely, but is not automatic: it has to be accepted by us.

The choice is a ‘no-brainer’! Accept His offer of salvation from the penalty we deserve for our disobedience of His requirements and enjoy an eternity of delights, enveloped in His love; or reject His love and suffer the consequences of our disobedience ourselves. The former is called ‘Heaven’ and the latter ‘Hell’. They can both be experienced in a small measure in this life, but the fullness will only be known when life in this environment is at an end.


You may complain, “That is no choice: if you refuse him you are sent to Hell for eternity!” The fact is you can’t have it both ways. If you want to reject the purpose for your existence and live with Him completely out of your life, then that is your choice, but there are obvious consequences. Hell was never designed for mankind but if you want to live away from God, that will be the only place from which His presence will be withdrawn. I do not know what Hell will be like: but I would not wish to live in a place inhabited only by those determined to do their own thing regardless of the consequences for others.


Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels...

Matthew 25:41

There is one other aspect of God we must consider: that of the Trinity. This is a topic many stumble over, but it is an important one. Without this, God sent someone else to pay the penalty for our rebellion against Him instead of doing it Himself.


Opponents of the idea point out the word ‘trinity’ does not appear in the Bible. This is perfectly true, and at the end of the day perhaps our understanding of ‘trinity’ will prove to be wrong. However, bearing in mind the limitations of our intellect, it is the best we can do with the information we find in the Bible.


There is one God. Not two Gods; not three Gods; one God. So in Isaiah we read that He alone created the universe and there is no other god with Him or like Him.


I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me.... For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it,.. “I am the Lord, and there is no other... For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,

Isaiah 45:5, 18; 46:9


However, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is plural (in Hebrew words can be singular, dual, or plural: i.e. more than two); and while Jewish scholars would say this is necessary to describe such an awesome being, Christians would point out that it could also be a hint toward the doctrine of the trinity.

John 1:1–3 says of Jesus,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Emphasis mine)

This is in direct conflict with what we just read in Isaiah, unless Jesus is included in the term Elohim. In Isaiah 46, God says there is none like Him: in Hebrews 1 we are told that Jesus is the express image of His essence.


who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power...

Hebrews 1:3

Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, say that John 1:1 should be translated...


“the Word was a God,”


...but this contradicts Isaiah 45 which tells us there is no God beside the Lord God. Only the teaching of the Trinity can harmonise these scriptures.

In the beginning of Revelation we are told that God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending.

I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:8

In the end of Revelation Jesus (identified in verse 16) says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending.


I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last... I Jesus, have sent my angel...

Revelation 22:1316


Since there can’t be two Alphas, two Omegas, two beginnings or two endings, Jesus must be God.

At the same time, when Jesus was on Earth as a man, He clearly related to God the Father in His prayers, demonstrating a separate being from Himself. Furthermore, He gave up everything that He was prior to His Earthly existence, in order to become a man. Note this verse says that Jesus’ form was that of God prior to coming to Earth.

who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men...

Philippians 2:6–7 (RV)

Likewise the Holy Spirit is seen directly involved in the creation of the Earth, but is clearly a different 'being' to God the Father, who later was to guide and direct the members of the Church and is referred to as ‘He’.

...And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:2

When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Matthew 3:16–17 

But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 15:26 

The only way these verses can be complimentary, rather than contradictory, is by the teaching of the Trinity. One God, who is able to express Himself simultaneously in three different ways. It may be mind-blowing to us, but then, as we have already seen, He is so much greater than us it is hardly surprising that He is difficult to understand.

However, it is interesting that in the same way an artist can be identified by the style of his painting, and a composer by the style of his music, God too seems to have left His fingerprints in His creation. So we see the ‘trinity’ all around us:

  • There are three types of time: past, present and future. Time cannot exist without all three: all are time, but all are different.

  • All physical objects require three dimensions in order to exist: left and right (width), backwards and forwards (depth), up and down (height). It could be argued that other dimensions like time and speed, for example, are necessary, but they are clearly of a different order.

  • Physical objects can exist in three forms: solid, liquid and gas.

  • The Bible teaches that man is made up of spirit, soul and body: and since we are in His image, this is another hint to the Trinity.

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless...

1 Thessalonians 5:23

  • There are three ‘electrical’ states: positive, negative and neutral.

So far we have barely scratched the surface, but let us turn to the main point of this article.


How Did He Do That

So How Did He Do That?


Having established a little of the nature of the Creator, how did He create everything? This is pure speculation; but then, so is the ‘big bang theory’, so what’s the difference? The big bang theory is unobservable, untestable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. It must be believed by faith as there is no physical observation that can prove it. In the publication New Scientist, 30 June 2012, the cover article by New Scientist consultant Amanda Gefter, “What Kind of Bang was the Big Bang?” describes some serious problems with the present theories of the origin of the universe on page 35:

“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princetown University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor. “Instead it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.”

(It can be seen here, although a subscription is required in order to read it. Max Tegmark, cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)


In The New Scientist, May 22, 2004, was published a ‘Cosmology Statement’ complaining that virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies, when the theory only survives through a number of ‘fudge factors’. It then appeared on the Internet and was signed by a large number of scientists across the world. The original page has now disappeared, but at the time of writing this page, the statement can be seen here, and begins:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

In a lecture I attended in 2016, given by Valerie Calderbank FRAS, she began, after telling us that the Big Bang Theory was the best explanation of the universe’s origin there is, by saying with reference to what she was about to tell us,

"If we get a better theory, then all this will be thrown away,"

…which proves that at best it is an unproven hypothesis, based on the belief that no kind of Intelligent Designer exists and therefore there can only be a naturalistic explanation for origins. So it’s foundation is not scientific observation, but the religious belief that God does not exist.

Some years ago a Christian creationist was on a radio discussion programme with an atheist. The atheist scornfully said,

“He’s a creationist: he believes God made everything in the universe from nothing.”

The Christian replied,

“He’s an atheist: he believes nothing made everything in the universe from nothing!”

The fact is both creation and evolution have very similar requirements. Both need the universe appearing where nothing existed before. Both need inanimate matter turning into living things. The difference is that creationists believe God did it, where the evolutionist believes it happened randomly, and in the case of the big bang, without a prior cause.

If a creationist had said that God produced a single atom and from that created the entire universe, evolutionists would say it is ridiculous. Yet some are quite happy to accept the big bang, in which everything that makes up the entire universe suddenly appeared, compressed into the space smaller than a single atom, with nothing to initiate the event.

The Bible says

‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth’

Genesis 1:1

Before that moment nothing existed: no physical dimension, no matter, no space, no time, no vacuum, nothing. In that moment of creation He brought the physical realm into being, along with a huge mass of water, perhaps thousands, millions or even billions of miles in depth. If He is able to create one single atom of hydrogen He is just as capable of creating two and an atom of oxygen at the same time, and is therefore able to create H^2 O: water. If He could create one water molecule, He could just as easily create simultaneously enough molecules for this amount of water.


The water was the building block of everything else, and perhaps the central core of it was to become the Earth. If carbon can take the form of graphite - a very soft material, but when under pressure become a diamond, one of the hardest elements known - then under the immense pressure from this mass of water God would have been able to produce all the elements required for the Earth.


He then separated the majority of the water away,  leaving the Earth, with its land and seas, floating in space, revolving approximately once every twenty four hours.

Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.

Genesis 1:6–7

If God could create the Earth like this, then He was equally able to create all planets, sun, moon and stars in the same way. As the vast amount of water was changed into these heavenly bodies, God began to move them away from the Earth at incredible speeds. The Bible indicates this in several verses, in which it says He stretched out the heavens.

who alone stretched out the heavens… (RSV)

Job 9:8 

He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

Job 26:7 

...Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.

Psalm 104:2 

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Isaiah 40:22 

Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,...

Isaiah 42:5 

...I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.

Isaiah 44:24 

I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded.

Isaiah 45:12 

Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together.

Isaiah 48:13 

And you forget the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth;

Isaiah 51:13

He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

Jeremiah 10:12 

He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, and stretched out the heaven by His understanding.

Jeremiah 51:15 

Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him

Zechariah 12:1 

There are serious problems with the Big Bang Theory, as can be seen from the objections of evolutionists here and a summary of the difficulties here. Equally there are problems with alternative ideas, such as the steady state of the universe. One counter the creationist is presented with when pointing this out, is the problem of light reaching the Earth from billions of light years away, when the universe is only a few thousand years old. However in recent years physicists have produced some interesting theories regarding how this could have been achieved. Dr Russell Humphreys in various studies (see here), and Dr John Hartnett in his book Starlight, Time and the New Physics, (here is a 2.25 hours YouTube presentation by him) have both presented possible solutions to the conundrum.

We know from Einstein’s work that time is not fixed, but relative and variable, dependant on such elements as gravity and speed. Put simply, both Humphreys and Hartnett take this into account, pointing out that the result of the expansion of the universe, as indicated by the Bible verses quoted above, would be an enormous difference in time on the Earth compared to that in the rest of the universe. Billions of years could have passed in the expanding universe in the time of one twenty-four hour day on the Earth. So by the time Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, the stars we can see today by the naked eye would have been visible to them.

Indeed, Hartnett points out that the universe may not be expanding today as is usually thought. We could still be seeing light from the stars that was emitted during the stretching of the universe in the creation week, which would therefore be altered by the Doppler effect. However, the point must be made that if an Intelligent Designer - God - was responsible for creating the universe, then it is bound to be the case that the processes we can observe today are not the ones He used in the act of creation. So it would be ludicrous to use what we can see now (the speed of light, for example) and expect to be able to shoehorn the act of creation into the limitations of such observations.

Evolutionists are very keen to point out that the Earth is probably one of billions of such planets, is not at the centre of our galaxy and is certainly not at the centre of the universe. However, observations from satellite telescopes show we can see stars about 13 billion light years away in every direction. We may not be at the centre of our galaxy - and I would suggest we would not expect to be: the physical domain referred to in the Bible as Heaven would probably take that position - but observation indicates our galaxy is probably at the centre of the universe!

There is one badly misused passage of scripture often quoted in support of the creation week being made up of ‘long’ days, each lasting thousands or millions of years. 2 Peter 3:8 says,

“But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Therefore it is claimed that the days of creation could actually be many years, based on this scripture. However, there are serious problems with this.

Firstly, the obvious problem is that only half of the verse is quoted: one day is as a thousand years. Let us assume we are supposed to apply this verse to Genesis chapter one. Now we have six periods of one thousand years. But it would be highly inconsistent to apply the first half of the verse and not apply the second half. That tells us that a thousand years is as a day. So each of those six periods of one thousand years actually lasts one day. So we are back where we started from! Each of the creation days lasted for one rotation of the Earth.

It could be argued that the second half of the verse does not apply to Genesis chapter one. So where does it apply then? There is nowhere else in the Bible where one could find a period of one thousand years that logically needs to be referring to a period of one day - one rotation of the Earth. So if the second half of the verse does not relate to anything in the Bible, then neither does the first part.

In fact it is obvious what 2 Peter 3:8 means: God sits outside of time as we observe it, and to Him the passing of one day or one thousand years is the same. However, there is another way of interpreting this verse, which is consistent within itself as well as with Bible teaching and scientific observation. Before looking at it we need to remember that:

  • God is everywhere, both in the physical realm and in the spiritual one.

  • The numerical unit ‘thousand’ is the largest found in the Bible (i.e. We don’t find ‘million’, ‘billion’, etc.), so this is the greatest measurement of time available to the writers.

With this in mind, we could say therefore, that in some places where God is present (and of course, there is nowhere where God is not present!) a large amount of time passes, while in other places, a small amount of time passes. In other words, it is a description of relativity and an explanation of how light from distant stars could reach the earth, when the latter is only a few thousand years old. So during creation week billions of years were passing in the universe as it expanded at a massive rate, while on the earth only six days came and went.

Secondly, the obvious use of grammar, whether of the original Hebrew or the languages into which it has been translated, proves that the creation week is made up of twenty-four hour days. Phrases such as ‘evening and morning’, and second, third, fourth, etc., clearly demonstrate this fact: these words are never linked with the word ‘day’ anywhere else in the Bible without them meaning a twenty-four hour period.


Obviously the rotation of the Earth is not exactly 24 hours, so calling it that is simply a ‘short-cut’ to mean ‘the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation’.

Thirdly, Genesis 1:5 defines what is meant by the word ‘day’: evening and morning = one day. Note: in the RSV translation this first day is not called ‘first day’ but ‘one day’, which is a legitimate way of translating the Hebrew in this passage. In other words we are given the definition: one period of darkness followed by one period of light = one day. It could not be clearer.

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:5  (RSV)

Fourthly, Jonathan Sarfati, in his excellent book ‘Refuting Compromise’ proves with many quotes from Hebrew scholars and key Christian figures throughout the history of the Church, that it is only in the last two centuries or so when the idea of millions of years, to accommodate the time required by evolution, began to be popularised that the idea of creation taking millions of years rather than six days has been taken seriously. Indeed, to prove the point Sarfati gives quotes from the writings of Flavius Josephus, Ambrose of Milan, Lactantius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Haak Bible with commentary from Netherland theologians of the 17th century, The Westminster Confession of Faith, James Ussher, John Wesley, Young’s Concordance, George Young, George Fairholme, ‘New and Conclusive Physical Demonstration of the Mosaic Deluge (1837)’, John Murray, William Rhind, Leupoid, Nigel Cameron, Doug Kelly, Marcus Dods, James Barr, and the Interpreters Bible (pages 110-138).

Sarfati also points out that the gap theory (the idea that millions or billions of years come between verses one and two of Genesis chapter one) only made its appearance when Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), founder of the Free Church of Scotland, started promoting it. See here for a free 60 minute on-line video presentation by Jonathan Sarfati.

The only reason for the existence of the theories that Genesis chapter one must be interpreted to accommodate millions, or billions of years, is to try to harmonise it with the theories of evolutionary scientists. But as we have shown throughout this site, it is completely unnecessary, since the science they promote is faulty at all the key points: it is not science ‘fact’, but an atheistic interpretation of scientific facts that has hijacked the scientific world, and there is no point in twisting the Bible to agree with such ungodly and unscientific ideas.


There is one other aspect we should consider at this point. In creationist circles, there has been some discussion regarding the laws of thermodynamics, particularly in relation to the conservation of energy (COE) and entropy. By observation we know that the law of COE means nothing is ever gained or lost: it is simply changed. So the sun, every day, loses tons of material through nuclear reaction changing it into various forms of radiation including heat, light, x-rays, etc. This is called entropy: the deterioration of everything that takes place over time. The matter lost to the sun still exists, but is radiated into space in a different form. So eventually the sun will no longer be able to exist in its present form once the loss of matter reaches the critical point.


Some creationists have discussed this point, wondering if in fact before the fall of Adam the laws of thermodynamics worked differently from the way we see today, so the sun would never die: after all, had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have lived forever, and if the sun has a finite life, then they would be left with no source of heat necessary for life.


On the other hand it has been pointed out that without the laws of thermodynamics working as we presently see them, then other aspects of life would be impossible; and in any case it is difficult to see how such fundamental laws could be changed in this way. I suggest something rather different, with the laws of thermodynamics remaining as they are at present, and yet an absence of entropy.


In the Bible we see several occasions where this took place. The classic one is when the Israelites, under Moses’s leadership, were travelling for 40 years in the wilderness. Neither their shoes nor their clothes wore out during this time.

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet.

Deuteronomy 29:5

Another example is in Moses himself, who, even at the advanced age of 120 years, still had his full strength and eyesight: there was no deterioration in his body through aging.

Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigour diminished.

Deuteronomy 34:7

The third example I shall give again involves Moses: the burning bush he saw, which burned with fire and yet was not consumed.

And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.

Exodus 3:2

What was taking place here? How could a bush burn and yet not be consumed? For fire to exist it must be getting its heat and light source from somewhere, and in this case one would expect it to be material from the bush. How could shoes not wear out? One way would be for them to have no friction: but then the person wearing them would be unable to stand up or walk.

There was one key factor in all of these events: God’s presence was there in a way not usually seen on Earth. The fire denoted His presence in the bush, during the 40 years in the wilderness His special presence was made evident by the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, and Moses face shone through being in God’s presence. Therefore I would suggest that although the laws of thermodynamics were still operating, God was replacing the atoms of matter at the same rate as they were being depleted. So, for example, as atoms were transferred from the shoes to the surroundings, He was creating new ones to replace them.

We see this process taking place in other Old Testament events:

The miraculous provision of meal and oil for a widow in the ministry of Elijah.

For thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'The bin of flour shall not be used up, nor shall the jar of oil run dry, until the day the LORD sends rain on the earth.' " So she went away and did according to the word of Elijah; and she and he and her household ate for many days. The bin of flour was not used up, nor did the jar of oil run dry, according to the word of the LORD which He spoke by Elijah.

1 Kings 17:14–16

Oil for another widow in the ministry of Elisha.

So Elisha said to her, "What shall I do for you? Tell me, what do you have in the house?" And she said, "Your maidservant has nothing in the house but a jar of oil." Then he said, "Go, borrow vessels from everywhere, from all your neighbours—empty vessels; do not gather just a few. And when you have come in, you shall shut the door behind you and your sons; then pour it into all those vessels, and set aside the full ones." So she went from him and shut the door behind her and her sons, who brought the vessels to her; and she poured it out. Now it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said to her son, "Bring me another vessel." And he said to her, "There is not another vessel." So the oil ceased.

2 Kings 4:2–6

In the feeding of more than five thousand by Jesus (plus another occasion when He fed four thousand!).

And they said to Him, "We have here only five loaves and two fish." He said, "Bring them here to Me."  Then He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass. And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitudes. So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments that remained.  Now those who had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Matthew 14:17–21

In order for these events to take place the matter that was being ‘lost’ in using meal, pouring out oil and distributing loaves and fishes, was instantly being replaced.

This is perhaps a good moment to mention miracles, since opponents of Christianity would claim a God producing them would be contradicting His own laws. I would suggest this is a misunderstanding. If at the time of Stevenson’s Rocket someone suggested that a machine of equal or greater weight, carrying as many passengers could float in the air at much greater speeds, they would have said it was impossible: it would be a miracle. In fact in 1899 scientist Lord Kelvin said,

“Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.”

Today, 1,000's of planes perform this miracle around the world, every day. The laws of aerodynamics were not understood in Stevenson’s day; but they operate under a law that is ‘greater’ than the law of gravity. In other words, when they are operating, the law of gravity is overcome. Likewise, there could easily be laws of physics of which we are totally unaware. God, on the other hand, having created the universe, knows every function possible, and it may well be that when He multiplies oil, meal and fish, prevents entropy, enables a man to walk on water, etc., He is simply invoking these laws that, like aerodynamics bypassing the law of gravity, bypass the laws we do know about.

On the other hand it could simply be that, just as He produced the universe and everything in it by the creative power of His word, He simply has to speak in order to bring about an object or event that otherwise would not be there. After all, if man can collect materials from elsewhere, bring them together, and by knowledge and skill produce a skyscraper, for example, which otherwise would not exist, why cannot God, who is infinity greater in power and knowledge, do the same and more beside?

To return to the point being made. Before the moment Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He was maintaining every aspect of the universe and all things on the Earth. The sun, therefore, could have continued for ever, since the matter being used up was being replaced at the same rate. However, after the fall, because of the presence of sin, He partially withdrew His presence and the process of replenishment ended. (Had He withdrawn totally, then the universe would have ceased to exist.) Thereafter, everything began to run down in the way we presently see.

This would also explain the detrimental effect of mutation, seen in all living things. Contrary to the requirements of the theory of evolution, mutation does not produce greater specified complexity in the genome, but damage to the sophisticated DNA coding, sometimes resulting in disease and/or disability. This is because we were not designed to be independent of God, who before the fall would have been controlling all cell duplication in every living thing, ensuring mistakes would not take place. That He was able to do this demonstrates just how big He is!

His plan for the future is for a universe designed and functioning after His original intention, and when the way of this world has run its course we will see once again a world without mutation or deterioration.


The Original World

The Original World


You may have noticed that the Earth is nothing like the appearance in my doctored picture at the top of this page. It would have been very different at its creation from how it is today. Almost certainly there would have been one single land-mass, surrounded by water. However, it is interesting that God’s intention for the future world is that there will be no sea. Why would that be? Is there going to be no water in the new Earth? Surely not!

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

Revelation 21:1 

Lake Victoria

Lake Victoria.JPG
Lake Victoria (2).jpg
Lake Victoria (3).jpg

Lake Victoria is the largest lake in Africa. It has a small tide, with sandy beaches, and looking out to the horizon you could be fooled into thinking that you were actually standing by the seaside. The Dead Sea, on the other hand, is much smaller and yet is called a ‘sea’. What is the difference between the two? The difference is that Lake Victoria is fresh water, while the Dead Sea is not.

So perhaps the new Earth will have huge, fresh-water lakes. If this is God’s purpose for the future, then perhaps it would have been His purpose originally and all the water on Earth would have been drinkable. The catastrophic event of the flood would have changed all that of course, contaminating the water with all the minerals that swirled around in it for about a year. 

Additionally there may have been a greater proportion of land to water than we presently see: perhaps two-thirds, or three-quarters of the Earth’s surface would have been land. So instead of areas of land surrounded by water, one possibility is that the Earth was areas of water surrounded by land! In this case the cause of the flood - possibly bodies crashing into the Earth from space - would have destroyed much of it, additionally breaking through to the vast underground water caverns and sending billions of gallons of water into the atmosphere. The land would collapse into the caverns and the water would fall to Earth over the next few weeks as torrential rain. See here for a technical description of the role plate tectonics would have played in this event.

On the other hand the Bible does refer to the sea several times in the early chapters of Genesis, so maybe it has always been ‘salty’!

A much greater land mass would have allowed for many times more forests containing far more trees than presently possible. This would have been the source of the vast coal fields around the Earth: another result of Noah’s flood.

Furthermore, we know that floating forests can exist: even today in parts of the world we can see vegetation extending beyond the land over water in such thick amounts that trees could root and grow amongst them. So it is quite likely that around much of the edge of the land mass, floating forests would have extended, perhaps many miles out across the water. Although not essential to the argument, this would considerably increase the possible number of trees.

The disaster of Noah’s flood would have destroyed the floating forests, and uprooted the trees on land, resulting in a great mass of vegetation, very quickly buried by sediment swirling around the Earth in the flood. Of course the Earth would not have been completely covered in water all of the time. There must have been a significant period at the beginning and end of the flood when the waters surged and subsided, allowing massive numbers of the trees to be washed up together, sink into sediment, and be covered together. This would account for the great thickness of coal seams that mankind has been mining over the centuries. The thickest coal seam in the world is 80 feet thick (see here) and there are many tonnes of coal in the largest mines (see here). One coal seam has been found in Kent, UK, over 3,000 feet deep (see here) so with this amount of material covering these layers, the landscape would have been changed out of all recognition after the flood.

Jonathan Sarfati, in ‘Refuting Compromise’ (pages 257-258), points out that at the Grand Canyon there are unbroken sedimentary rock layers 315 feet thick, covering an area of 200,000 square miles. Also the Hawksbury Sandstone at Sydney, Australia is 330-660 feet thick, 160 miles wide, 1,200 miles long (therefore 192,000 square miles). A massive amount of water would be required to create these formations, which, because they are unbroken, must have formed in a single event: further evidence for a world-wide flood.

It is believed that there has been a time in the past (millions of years ago according to evolutionists) when the oxygen content of the atmosphere was higher than it is now. This, along with perhaps a higher average temperature, resulted in giantism in a number of species, with spiders, insects, butterflies, birds, reptiles, etc., growing much larger than is seen today. A far higher proportion of the planet’s surface covered by vegetation, as previously described, would certainly have been a significant factor in this. Additionally, it is likely the land was more fertile, resulting in crops providing nourishment superior to what is seen today, enabling creatures to maximise their potential and grow to proportions not possible in today’s damaged conditions.

On the other hand, in an excellent article Dr Russell Humphreys points out that the early atmosphere would have had a much higher carbon dioxide content, resulting in a warmer climate and much more luxuriant vegetation. Far from producing the global warming disaster we are constantly being told we can avoid by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, he shows the early Earth would have been teeming with life through this more favourable atmosphere and climate. It was destroyed by the world-wide flood, which would have triggered centuries of volcanoes, snow and glaciers, thus lowering the overall temperature of the Earth.


Genesis tells us that the ground was watered by mist: it did not rain at that time.


...For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Genesis 2:5-6 


The first mention of rain is chapter seven: the event of Noah’s flood. Does this mean no rain ever fell until that time, though? Or does this simply refer to the creation week? Where the Bible is silent, it is dangerous to be dogmatic; so I would not be adamant. A few thoughts, though.


The Garden of Eden was watered not only by the mist, but by a river.


Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads.

Genesis 2:10


For a river to be flowing there must have been a source to feed it. The presence of water would mean evaporation would be taking place, and rain clouds are the result of this process.


If indeed there was no rain in the Garden of Eden, perhaps it was the case that the rain fall would be confined to the rain forests and the lakes, and not be seen in that immediate area. After all, we have no idea what the effect would be on the climate with such a different Earth from what we see today.

There would have been vast underground water reserves, almost certainly on a much greater scale than we see today. Since the Bible says the river went out from Eden, perhaps this would have been its source. We can only speculate; but irrigation from the morning mist, the rivers, and water possibly percolating to the surface of the land from these underground lakes, could have been enough for the requirements of life on Earth.


Birds and animals were formed from earth by God in the same way that Adam was created. Both creationists and evolutionists require inanimate matter turning into a living organism: the major difference being that one side claims it happened by random, unintelligent means, thereafter developing into all the different forms of life over a long period, while the other says it could only have happened as a result of intelligent design and would have been completed comparatively quickly. Using the same argument as mentioned earlier, if God could create one single cell from inanimate matter, then He could simultaneously create trillions of them and form adult animals, birds and man.

All birds and animals were created to be vegetarian, as was man and woman.


And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.  Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:29–30


We know His plan for the future is an animal kingdom that is tame and vegetarian, because there will be no more death.


"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, The leopard shall lie down with the young goat, The calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; Their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den.

Isaiah 11:6–8


And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.

Revelation 21:4

If that is His ideal, then it is what He would have created originally. We do not see it at the present time because the world in which we live is damaged, and has been since the time of man’s rebellion against God, as we see in Revelation 21:4 quoted above.

The point about there being no death is one that must be addressed, since there is much misunderstanding about it. The argument has been presented that since leaves fall off trees, and seeds are planted in the ground, which then die, there must have been death before Adam’s sin. Another silly argument is that Adam could easily have stepped on an ant and killed it.

Firstly, one must understand that the word ‘death’ is used to mean several different things. One memory I have as a very young boy was the occasion when, lying alone in bed, I pushed my right hand under the pillow and felt someone’s hand there. I froze in terror for a few seconds, and pulled myself away. As I did so, the hand moved. It was my left hand! Because I had been lying on it and stopped the circulation of blood, it had gone dead and there was no feeling in it at all. So when my right hand touched it, it created no sensation and my brain told me it must therefore be someone else’s hand!
My hand was dead, but it still existed. It still had life in it, and once the blood began circulating again, all feeling and function was restored. That is one meaning of the word ‘dead’.

A second meaning goes one stage further. When you have your hair cut, and file or cut your nails, the discarded hair and nail is dead, which is why you feel nothing when it is cut. Since Adam and Eve must have had both hair and nails before they sinned, this form of ‘death’ must have been operating at that time. Furthermore, unless we have no hair or nails in the resurrection (most unlikely), then even after death has been destroyed, they will continue to grow and ‘die’.

Clearly then, this form of ‘death’ is not what is meant when the Bible says there was no death before Adam sinned.

Another form of death can be seen in vegetation. Leaves die when they fall from the trees. Fruit dies when it is plucked. Seeds die when they fall into the ground, springing back to life again in the form of a new plant. Once again, this is clearly not the type of death that appeared for the first time following Adam’s sin, because we know that there will be vegetation in the ‘new Earth’, at a time when there will be no death.


In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month.

Revelation 22:2


If this is God’s intention for the future, it must have been His will for the original, perfect creation.

The most obvious meaning of the word ‘death’ is when a person ‘dies’ and is buried. However, it does not mean ‘cease to exist’ because the body is still there, for a time at least! Furthermore, in Christian teaching, the spiritual part of a person has been separated from the physical body and continues to exist in the spiritual dimension: this results in the cessation of all senses and activity in the body because the life-force has gone. 


For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James 2:26


So death in this sense means that life on Earth has ended and the body immediately begins to deteriorate and decompose.


However, in the Bible there is another aspect to the word ‘death’. Paul tells us we were dead in our sins, but through the work of Jesus Christ we have been made alive. 


And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins...  But God... made us alive together with Christ...

Ephesians 2:1–5


When God told Adam and Eve they would die the day they sinned, this did indeed happen by this definition. This type of death, in the Bible, is separation from God. So just as my left hand could not feel contact from my right hand, in the same way humans are insensitive to God’s presence. Although God was still able to approach Adam and Eve and communicate with them, this death began to permeate their physical bodies because they were now cut off from the vital link with God that had been preserving them perfectly, ultimately resulting in the end of their lives on this planet.


However, even in the physical sense they were now dead. When a flower is cut from the plant it has all the appearance of life and can continue to flourish for days or even weeks: but it is dead in the sense that it has been cut off from its source of life and therefore can live no longer. In the same way, Adam and Eve had been cut off from the source of life that kept them perfect physical specimens and prevented mutation (for example), and death began to work in their bodies culminating in the end of their lives a few hundred years later. One clue that this is the case can be found in this verse…


But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans 8:11


The Holy Spirit lives in every born-again Christian, and one of His reasons for that is to give life to their bodies.


For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Romans 8:13


In choosing to eat the forbidden fruit that was pleasing to their eyes (the flesh), Adam and Eve turned away from the Holy Spirit within them and so died because He was no longer living within them, giving them life and protecting them from mutation, disease and anything else that could have brought harm to their bodies.


Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Romans 8:23

While the Holy Spirit can and does now live within us because of the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from sin, it will only be when our bodies are redeemed that we can experience the freedom from mutation etc that Adam and Eve experienced before they sinned. He certainly does bring the healing to us that Christ won in His sufferings – see here for our right for healing – but because our bodies have been tainted by sin, this quality of life can only come in its fullness at the redemption of the body, or at the resurrection in other words.

However, there are other aspects of ‘death’ seen in the human body, without which life would be impossible. The very cells of which our bodies are made are constantly being renewed. ‘Dead’ skin wears away and is replaced. Almost certainly this will continue after death has been abolished, and would have been the case before Adam sinned.

‘Friendly’ bacteria is essential to life, but it has a very short life cycle. This too will almost certainly continue. In fact it is interesting that Genesis 1:30, quoted earlier, refers to animals that breathe being those that will be vegetarian. Some versions translate the Hebrew word ‘nephesh’ as ‘ soul’.


And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which has in it a living soul (nephesh) every green plant is for food...

Genesis 1:30 (MKJV)


Clearly It is not for me to determine the dividing line between living things without ‘soul’ and those with; but it is clear that the death of those without comes into a different category than those with a soul. (It would surely be uncontroversial, however, to conclude, on the basis of Genesis 1:30 that mammals do have a soul (nephesh) while vegetation does not.) Their demise would not constitute death in the Bible sense of the word: i.e. the death that appeared for the first time after Adam’s sin is not the same thing as the coming and going of bacteria, vegetation, etc.

The creation of Eve has been surrounded with misunderstanding, leading to the false idea of the inferiority of women. Certainly, over the centuries, men have abused Bible teaching to justify their dominance, and women have been subjected to unfair treatment in every aspect of society as a result.
The way God went about the task of creation was not random. I would suggest He was creating an object lesson in the process: producing a ‘type’. Many of the events in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, are used as ‘types’, which means object lessons, or a mirroring of events yet to come. He didn’t need to take seven days: but six days of work and one of rest was the pattern He determined for humans, and so set the example Himself when undertaking His work of creation.

Likewise, the creation of Adam and Eve had a point to it. Adam was of the Earth: while he had a spiritual nature, imparted at the moment God breathed into his physical body, his dominant characteristic (his glory) was his body: a living being unlike any other in existence, in the new physical dimension created by God just five days previously.


And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 2:7


Most Bible translations have Eve created from Adam’s rib, but the Hebrew word can equally be translated as ‘side’.


Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Genesis 2:22


Not that it makes a huge difference: if God could create Adam from a bit of dust, He could certainly create Eve from a single rib. Whatever He took, as has been pointed out many times, He didn’t take something from Adam’s head so Eve would rule over him; nor from his feet so he would dominate her; but from his side so that side by side they would love and support each other.


It is interesting that God said Eve would be Adam’s helper, which some have assumed to prove her servility to him.


And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

Genesis 2:18


In some translations of the New Testament the Holy Spirit is given the same description.


But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 15:26


Does this mean we are in some way superior to the Holy Spirit? Of course not! The use of the word ‘helper’ does not automatically infer inferiority. In the same way that parents might help their children with a jigsaw puzzle or homework, and are able to do so on the basis of their superior intelligence and abilities, so the Holy Spirit helps us. Man and woman were originally designed to fulfil different roles, but walk side by side, equally important and valued, in a relationship of love and respect for each other.

Therefore, in terms of order within the marriage, man is the head; but in terms of importance both are equal.


For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her...

Ephesians 5:23–25


It is true that the wife is told to obey her husband; but the husband is told both to love his wife and to give himself for her in the same way the Jesus gave Himself for the Church. How did He do that?


who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Philippians 2:6-8

It is impossible for a man to be fulfilling Ephesians 5:25 while forcing his own wishes and desires on his wife, ‘lording it’ over her, treating her as a servant, ignoring her viewpoint and always doing what he wants regardless of what she wants. The wife can only be empowered to obey her husband when he is loving and sacrificing himself for her. Indeed, the Bible makes it clear we should all be subject to one another, and this applies as much to the marriage relationship as any other.


Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another.

1 Peter 5:5


...let each esteem others better than himself.

Philippians 2:3


A silly illustration will make the application of this clear.


Paul: “I’d like a holiday visiting the theme parks in Florida this year. What would you like to do?

Sarah: “I’d really like to sun myself on a beach in Cyprus.”

Paul: “OK, then. Cyprus it is!”

Sarah: “No, we must book for Florida.”

Paul: “No, if you prefer Cyprus, we’re going there.”

Sarah: “No: you’d sooner be in Florida, so that’s where we should go.”

Paul: “The Bible says you have to obey me, and I say we go to Cyprus. So that’s the end of it.”


When the teaching of the Bible is properly applied, it certainly does not make the woman a second-class citizen.






The entire universe and everything in it only exists because God put it there. The mess we presently see all around us is entirely due to the human choice to ignore our Creator and do things our own way. In effect, this has resulted in the spirit beings identified in the Bible as Satan and his followers largely having their way in the world. They have blinded the eyes of humanity in order to maintain their hold. Amongst their deceptions is the theory of evolution, which perhaps more than any other idea has turned people away from a belief in God.

We must return to the truth of God's revealed word, fulfil the purpose for our existence through the power of the Holy Spirit who comes to dwell within us when we give ourselves to Him, and so attaint the greatest fulfilment it is possible for us to experience. For more on this, see here.


Unless otherwise stated, scripture taken from the New King James Version.

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

NLT: from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004.

Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream,, Illinois 60188.  All rights reserved.

RV: The Revised Version of the Bible, Copyright status: Public domain.

RSV: Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 [2nd edition,

1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the

Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

bottom of page