Results 1 - 16 of 16
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: magellan2019 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174851 | ||
I fear I have probably created too many waves here, I certainly have continued this thread beyond what I intended, but I simply couldn't leave these posts unanswered. I'm afraid I have broken several of the guidelines here. I'm just not able to keep from discussion and debate. My short stay has been of inestimable value. Thank you to all who have responded to my questions and ideas. I do appreciate this site, I was glad to have found it. I pray that all who come to seek out God's Truth are able to find it through God-given discernment and wisdom. Magellan |
||||||
2 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174850 | ||
Except that the wording of this verse in the Hebrew included the word "hayah", which refers to a future event, not a past or current event. That would cause the text to read that Eve "_would become_ the mother of all the living", which happened in Genesis 7:21-23 when all mankind perished except Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their three wives. Noah was descended from Adam and Eve. God does not lie. Please continue taking God’s Word over mine. But make sure it is actually God’s Word and not simply Traditional Interpretation to which you are clinging. "That another "people" existed before Adam is not supported biblically. The fact that there were none IS." I have yet to see you or anyone else here provide anything that suggests this statement is true, though eklektos has come close. I have just shown how your misinterpretation of Genesis 3:20 is based on the English usage of the word "was" rather than the Hebrew word "hayah" that can be transliterated into the English "was". So please try again? I really would love to find something in the Word that disproves my theory, as that would make things much easier for me. So far, however, I have yet to find anything, nor has anyone else with whom I have spoken or written to about this. You suggest that I "take the logical explanation and fantasize it into something that isn't real", yet I have been able to back up every single point I've made with Biblical evidence and support. I have cross-referenced both Old Testament and New Testament. I have gone to the original Hebrew, demonstrating how the original words were used. So I ask you the same as I asked Mark...how is this fantasizing? How is this not real? How is this not supported Biblically? How is this compromising the Word of God? Rather than simply stating that I am doing these things, please show me how your assertions are true! Show me what in the Word am I compromising? Show how what I’m saying and presenting is rationalizing? Don't just say the words! What I’m doing is looking at all implications of this. I’m looking at how this piece fits in, not just with what is written in the Bible, but also the sciences, history, and sociology. It is supported by physical evidence, and has the virtue of not being antagonistic with scientists. It is the only theory I have ever heard that meshes with everything, and in fact provides Christians with ammunition against Evolution beyond "God said so," which is not convincing when dealing with someone who doesn't believe in God as most Evolutionists don't. Your “Cain’s sister” theory falls short on all counts except that it is not contradicted directly (though certainly not supported) in the Word. Which brings us to one thing I have only briefly touched on so far – the scientific implications of this. Do you know that every physical science can be reconciled with the Bible except two? Those two are anthropology and paleontology. Do you know why? Because once upon a time, someone in the church said that the Hebrew word “adam” used in Genesis 1:26-27 meaning man in a plural sense really meant the Adam in Genesis 2, thus suggesting that Adam in Genesis 2 was the first man. When this was accepted, it limited the age of the world to approximately 12,000 years. This had, quite literally, no impact until the theory of evolution was fully developed and took precedence as the standard view of the origins of man. Unfortunately, anthropology and paleontology have too much physical evidence that supports the earth being older than 12,000 years old, and thus are contradictory to the misinterpretation of Genesis 1:26-27. This led to an impossible battle, with the church saying one thing, and science contradicting. Because science is observable, it becomes easier to understand, and easier to accept. And now we have problems in our schools because of it. The truth of Creationism is becoming illegal to teach in favor of the falsehood brought about (Evolution) by observable evidence. The physical sciences are, simply put, the study of the observation of God’s creation. If so, there *must* be a reconciliation between the two. Science cannot observe something that isn’t part of God’s creation. The *interpretation* of the observation certainly can be mistaken (note: evolution – BIG mistake!), but the actual observations *must* be part of what God created! He created everything! Because of the far-reaching impacts to the scientific community, and the waterfall effect into our schools, I submit that this really is far more important than I initially said. As a Christian, it becomes a moot point. However, to those who are not saved and put more trust in the observable, this becomes a much greater issue. |
||||||
3 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174845 | ||
You said, “…the truth is, the Bible makes no mention of any humans being in the world except Adam, Eve, and their descendants”. Your statement here is not quite accurate in that there are people mentioned that are not called their descendents, one of whom is the topic of discussion here – Cain’s wife. You are assuming descendents because that is what has always been accepted, and what has always been taught. However, the Bible is The Truth, not traditional teachings. It will stand to scrutiny when tradition falls by the wayside. The bottom line here is that even calling Cain’s wife his sister is as much, if not more, speculation than what I am stating, because what I am stating is not only not contradictory to anything in the Word that any of us have yet found, as I will demonstrate below and in a response to WOS, but it is also supported by external sources, something the “sister” theory just doesn’t do. Archaeology has proven the events, people, and timeline of the Bible. Yet, for some reason, it can’t prove the traditional theory that Adam and Eve were actually the first two people. Rather, it proves the contrary; that there is no way Adam and Eve could have been literally the first two humans. Since the sciences are, quite simply, the study of the observation of God’s creation, those observations must be reconcilable with the Word! Why are we afraid to do that? Note, I am saying “reconcilable”, not supercede. “What Hebrew text or translation can you cite that actually and explicitly states there were no other children born to Adam and Eve prior to Seth?” You are correct in one thing – that there are times when events are reported according to their significance rather than their chronology. However, when that is done, words of relative chronology are not used; that is, it will not say, “Event A happened (most significant event), *then* Event B happened (less significant event) unless it is chronologically correct also. In Genesis 5:4, as I stated previously, it is written very clearly that *AFTER* Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and fathered additional children. This is where I cite that it specifically states there were no other children born to Adam and Eve prior to Seth. Can you provide anything that actually and explicitly states that my statement here is wrong? “…it goes against the idea that mankind was corrupted by one man's, Adam's, sin. How did Adam pass his sin to all men if there were others who were not his descendants?” How does this go against that idea? Romans 5 says sin entered the world through one man. It also says, “…for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” Adam sinned, and his sin is accountable because God gave him a command, the first law. God making other men before Adam and Eve does not change the other events in Genesis. It does not go against Adam’s accountability for the sin of all mankind, because no law had been given to man by God until He created Adam. Prior to the law being given, sin was apparently present, but it was not accountable because there was no law, according to Romans 5. As far as how he passed his sin down to us? Even if there were millions of other people prior to Adam, sin was passed to all people today and at the time Jesus because we all are descendents of Adam. How is that possible if there people prior to Adam? Because of Genesis 7:21-23. Which brings us to your last statement: “But I think Acts 17:26 is the most clear in saying that all of mankind came from a common physical source, from Adam.” Actually, Acts 17 does not mention Adam’s name at all. Verse 26 says, “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth.” All men did come from a common physical source, and yes, the source was Adam, but through Noah, according to Genesis 7:23, which says, “…men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” All of mankind that God made in Genesis 1:26-27 were killed in the flood; only Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives survived. Therefore, all those that existed prior that had not been given the law, those that were not accountable for Adam’s sin, they all perished, leaving behind only those God would hold accountable for sin, only those who were physically descended from Adam. In this way also, Jesus’ sacrifice could be for all men, no man would be exempt from needing His Grace. So how is all of this mere speculation again? Can you provide as much Biblical evidence for Adam and Eve having additional children? Can you provide any further evidence that Adam and Eve were actually the first two humans, rather than the first two of God’s Chosen people, those who would beget His Only Son, those who would need His Redemption? I'd love to hear it if you can. |
||||||
4 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174795 | ||
Thank you, Doc. I just took your recommendation. Hopefully that will provide you some insight into where I'm coming from. :) Magellan |
||||||
5 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174769 | ||
Very well stated, eklektos! Thank you so much for your response here. You raise some very valid points here, specifically, the potential population that does indeed give people for Cain to fear, as well as the difference in wording when Cain is born as opposed to when Seth is born. The "man" versus "seed" was something I had missed, and is definitely worthy of note. I think the one point that may not support your position as strongly is the point about Abel's flocks. We truly don't know how much time passed between the creation and Adam and Eve's departure from Eden, but we do know that during this time, all the beasts were reproducing according to their kind, as was laid out in God's creation in Genesis 1. The numbers of sheep would have increased annually, so that by the time Abel was old enough to tend flocks, there would have been enough sheep for there to be flocks to tend. Even so, it truly is an interesting point to raise. :) Fantastic response! I will pray on this. Thank you. Magellan |
||||||
6 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174746 | ||
Mark, Please let me be quick to point out that I was *not* pointing any fingers when I wrote that. I was not trying to suggest that you were parroting, just that in my experience (which is rather extensive), it does tend to be a common issue in many churches. I have read many of your posts since my first visit to this forum, you have obviously done a significant amount of study! :) If I gave the impression that I was directing it toward you, I do apologize, as that was not my intent. And hopefully WOS will read this part as well, I hope I made it clear that the only reason I posted that follow up was that I felt the need to come full circle with my point. I am most definitely *not* trying to mislead anyone, as above and beyond anything I wrote, the point that it truly is not an important debate should have been the strongest. I'm not sure I was successful in that. Had this issue been important, God would have been more clear about the origin of those people to the east of Eden. I pray the best for you and all else in the study of His Word, -Magellan |
||||||
7 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174732 | ||
First, the idea that Adam and Eve had additional children prior to Seth is simply not Biblical. Read what is written. I have reviewed the text in many different translations of Genesis 5:4, and *every single one of them* is consistent in saying that AFTER Seth was born, Adam lived for 800 years and fathered many children. Not a single translation that I have read puts Adam fathering additional children prior to the birth of Seth. Even though the specific dates are not mentioned, the order of events is as significant in Biblical writings as specifying dates. As such, the order of reporting of events is, in fact, providing us with the order of events. So the question does remain, where did those other people come from? Since, as described above, they were not from Adam and Eve (and if anyone can identify SCRIPTURALLY how they were actual descendents of Adam and Eve, I will happily concede this whole idea), it really leaves only one option: They were created by God. In fact, the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:26-27 does not mean a specific man, but rather mankind or humankind, according to the Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius’ "The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon". If we look at the Bible as directions for living for Him and ending up in eternity with Him, it stands to reason that everything we need to reach Him is written in the Word. The corollary to this is that there are facts and ideas that are true but are not included because they are not germane to our goal of reaching Him and ultimately serving Him in eternity, just as a road map showing the route from Los Angeles to New York would give us the pertinent information for our journey, but wouldn’t mention anything about Japan. Even so, we may be able to infer that Japan exists, perhaps by the mention of a Japanese Embassy, or perhaps an advertisement on the map for a Toyota. By the same token, we can infer things that are not mentioned specifically in the Word by some key phrases in other parts of the Word. The specific example here is that Cain did marry someone and he did build cities for someone. Other people *did* exist. So using this logic, doesn’t the possibility exist that God did in fact create the other people that are mentioned in the Bible, but because their creation is not germane to us seeking, finding, and following Him, they are not clearly identified? Mark, you said, “Since your argument is from the silence of Scriptures, one could assert with Equal Validity that Cain was concerned about the Little People, who had travelled back in time from Middle Earth, or whatever else you want.” I submit that my assertion and yours are not of equal validity as you claim. As you can see from what is written above, I am basing my assertion on logic using what *is* written in The Word as well as acknowledging what is being excluded. I doubt you could say the same for your suggestion of the Little People. Your tone, quite frankly, is one of disrespect and ridicule. I would appreciate a tone that is more suited for discussion and learning rather than derision. WOS, you asked, “So you imply that adding to the Word is wrong but still do it? Where does God tell us there were others before Adam and Eve?” I am not taking away from, nor adding to, God’s Word here. Other people did exist, a Biblical fact, with no explanation directly provided for their origin. The explanation I’m providing is in line with the Hebrew word used in Gen 1:26-27 (see above). Again, the lack of specificity means that in the grand scheme of things, whether He created other people in addition to Adam and Eve is truly not important to becoming a follower of Him. You also asked, “Does it say ‘created man’ or ‘re-created man’?” If God *did* create mankind, then created Adam as I’m suggesting, is that a “re-creation” or “creating a new being”? If God created man in Genesis 1:26-27, is it not possible that He created mankind, then created a separate people starting with Adam and Eve to be the ancestors of His Son and His Chosen People? Between much prayer and study and discussion, this is what I came up with. Seeing that Cain could not have married a sister that had not yet been born. Seeing that there were enough people for Cain to build a city. Seeing that the Hebrew wording is one of mankind, not just one man. And recognizing that in other places in the Scriptures, Adam is identified as first man *relative to Eve’s creation* in 1 Timothy 2:13, and as the bringer of sin in Romans 5:12 – “just as sin entered the world through one man”, which simply defines Adam as the man through whom sin entered the world, as he was the first to be given a command, then subsequently break that command. Adam was made especially by God as the first of the line that would become His Chosen People, the Jews, and the ones who would beget His only Son. |
||||||
8 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174729 | ||
I started my previous post off with a note stating I knew this idea would not be well accepted. Please bear in mind that in my opinion, the significance of this whole issue does not center around the identify of Cain’s wife so much as truly identifying what is written in the Word and the meaning of that which is written. It has been my experience in visiting many churches in many parts of the country that quite often, members of churches simply parrot what they are taught and never really question, never really dig in to the Word to find out what the Bible actually says. I have also reviewed the policies for posting on this forum, and I do owe an apology to people here. This whole point we’re discussing is really not part of the purpose of this forum. I had not initially realized that the purpose of this forum is simply for question and answer. I am one who likes to debate and discuss, to explore new ideas. I chose this particular name because of my love of exploration, both in the physical sense, but also in the intellectual and spiritual senses as well. I feel it is important to explore new ideas, comparing them with the Word, and to challenge what we have always been taught, not necessarily to find fault with our teachers, but to ensure that we fully understand what we are being taught and why it’s important in accordance with 1 Peter 3:15. Occasionally, in our study, we will find that Tradition has overruled what God has actually said in His Word. I believe this topic to be one of those cases. Since this site is not intended to be for debate and discussion, this will be the last of this type of post from me on this site. I am going to post this with apologies to the members, in part just to “drop the other shoe”, so to speak, and in part because I’m not sure where else I *can* post this; but I will be refraining from future exposition, and stick with simple question and answers as much as possible. Repentantly, -Magellan Also: if anyone knows of a similar site to this one that *does* encourage debate and discussion, please let me know? Thanks, |
||||||
9 | Raising Godly Children | Eph 5:22 | magellan2019 | 174695 | ||
Brad, I appreciate your input here. Thank you! This is a passage I am familiar with, and it does help to re-read it. However, it does not, I feel, answer my question satisfactorily. I guess I'm looking for something that will help me determine whether I should be pushing to keep my children with me, regardless of being overseas, or whether they should be staying with their mother, in which case, how do I live up to my responsibility to ensure they are raised up in the way of God? Does my being called away from my children (in the manner of Luke 18:29) relinquish me of that responsibility, or is there some middle ground somewhere? |
||||||
10 | Did Cain marry one of his sisters? | Eph 5:25 | magellan2019 | 174645 | ||
Well, Bibleman, I have a different answer, and one which will likely not be well-accepted here because it runs counter to traditional interpretations of Genesis. I also deal with non-believers on a frequent basis, as well as previous believers who have turned to paganism, wiccan, and other "old-time" religions because of questions such as these - the "unanswerable" questions. This is one that I have dealt with before. The answer can be found in Genesis 4:1-2 where the birth of Cain and Abel is described. Because no other mention of childbirth is mentioned, and this reads as though it were a "first time occurance" we agree that these two were their first children, though it is not specifically stated. There is no further mention of any additional childbirthing until v. 25, which we will come to in a moment. Fast forward to after Cain has killed Abel. In v. 14, Cain says, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth; and whoever finds me will kill me." Who? There is no mention of any other births by Adam and Eve. Who would Cain have to worry about? It is adding to the written word of the Bible to presume that Adam and Eve had other children not mentioned here, especially in light of Gen 5:4, which will also be addressed in a moment. Cain went east to the land of Nod where he married his wife. If Cain leaving the place of his birth were noteworthy enough to mention in the Bible, why would his sisters and brothers leaving the place of their birth not be, if in fact Cain married his sister? It is my understanding that anytime a significant division of God's people happens, He tells us about it in His Word. This type of division would definitely have been significant! Finally, in v. 25, we return to Adam and Eve, who have another son to replace Abel. This clearly happened after Abel was killed. Again, no other children have been mentioned here, however in Gen 5:4, it specifically states "After Seth was born [which happened after the Cain and Abel incident], Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." Childbirth is significant, and is mentioned when it happens. Here it seems very clear to me that Seth was the third child born to Adam and Eve, and that if no others existed on the earth but Adam and Eve's offspring, there simply would have been no one on earth for Cain to be fearful of, or to marry. It is my belief, based on my own careful reading and studying of Genesis, that God did in fact create other people, likely before he created Adam and Eve, and that these others are the ones Cain feared and married. I believe Genesis 1 and 2 support this idea, and will happily discuss with those who wish to debate the point. I recognize that since none of us were present, none of us can truly know anything outside of what we read or are given by the Spirit. No offense will be taken by anyone who disagrees with my position stated here. -Magellan |
||||||
11 | Jesus drinks of drinks not | Mark 15:36 | magellan2019 | 174642 | ||
Mark 15:23 is referring to a different occurance than the other references you gave. There were two occasions where Jesus was offered drink; the first, mentioned in Mark 15:23 and Matthew 27:34 is where He is offered wine mixed with myrrh (or "gall") prior to being hung on the cross and He declines, though Matthew states He tasted it first. The second is after He has been crucified, He is offered a vinegar soaked sponge, mentioned in Matthew 27:48, Mark 15:36, Luke 23:36, and John 19:29-30. Neither Luke nor John mentions the first occurance in their writings. It's also interesting to note that John is the only one that tells of Jesus stating, "I thirst," and actually drinking the vinegar. The other three gospels only say that a vinegar soaked sponge was offered, but give no mention of Him saying He was thirsty, or even whether He drank. Just interesting to me to compare which events and statements were included or excluded in each gospel. -Magellan |
||||||
12 | Accountability for raising Godly kids | Not Specified | magellan2019 | 174599 | ||
Which parent has the primary responsibility for raising a child? Background: I am currently in the middle of a divorce (Biblically supported after much prayer, study, and counsel), and I believe I am being called overseas to serve God in Indonesia. I have studied and prayed and counseled and studied and prayed and counseled and studied and pra....you get the idea. This question is not about my divorce, my calling, or to where I'm being called. It is about my children. Someone suggested to me that it could be better for my children to bring them with me rather than staying here in the States with their mother. This would be a solution to the one issue that I have yet to resolve in my heart - that is, what about my responsibility to raise Godly children? If I follow my calling and go overseas, am I abandoning my responsibility to my children? Is there anything in the Bible about which parent bears the primary burden of child-rearing? How can I respond to the call of God without abandoning my responsibility to my children? Please note, I am not asking "which parent should raise the kids?" I am fully aware that both parents have an equal contribution to the rearing of a child, however, when all is said and done, I believe the *accountability* of the child-rearing falls on the father. I just don't know the Biblical references, and I don't know how much, if any, accountability lies with the mother, Biblically speaking. I would appreciate any responses (especially Biblical references) to my primary question anyone can provide. Thanks! |
||||||
13 | Accountability for raising Godly kids | Eph 5:22 | magellan2019 | 174609 | ||
Which parent has the primary responsibility for raising a child? Background: I am currently in the middle of a divorce (Biblically supported after much prayer, study, and counsel), and I believe I am being called overseas to serve God in Indonesia. I have studied and prayed and counseled and studied and prayed and counseled and studied and pra....you get the idea. This question is not about my divorce, my calling, or to where I'm being called. It is about my children. Someone suggested to me that it could be better for my children to bring them with me rather than staying here in the States with their mother. This would be a solution to the one issue that I have yet to resolve in my heart - that is, what about my responsibility to raise Godly children? If I follow my calling and go overseas, am I abandoning my responsibility to my children? Is there anything in the Bible about which parent bears the primary burden of child-rearing? How can I respond to the call of God without abandoning my responsibility to my children? Please note, I am not asking "which parent should raise the kids?" I am fully aware that both parents have an equal contribution to the rearing of a child, however, when all is said and done, I believe the *accountability* of the child-rearing falls on the father. I just don't know the Biblical references, and I don't know how much, if any, accountability lies with the mother, Biblically speaking. I would appreciate any responses (especially Biblical references) to my primary question anyone can provide. Thanks! |
||||||
14 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | magellan2019 | 174547 | ||
Thank you for responding, Justme. I honestly hadn't even looked at the date, just saw the subject. I appreciate your words, and your willingness to share your insights and experiences. As a pastor, I can imagine the blow it must be to have couples you marry end up divorced. In reading through this thread, regardless of its age, several notes and comments have helped to clear up several concerns I had about my interpretation of these verses. Thank you again. |
||||||
15 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | magellan2019 | 174542 | ||
Hi everyone. I'm new here, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents, as this particular subject is especially near and dear to my heart and is currently very relevant in my life. God called me into his service many years ago, though I have only recently answered that call. I have been married for 15 years, and am now in the process of getting divorced. Prior to initiating this, I prayed, studied the Word, sought counsel from reliable Christian friends and family, and finally decided that it was the right and Biblical course of action to take (marital infidelity was involved). Now, with that being said, my first assumption in answering God's call (shortly before divorce proceedings commenced) was that He wanted me to be a pastor. However, in my studies, I did happen upon this passage in question. It concerned me that I would not be allowed to fulfill my calling. I went through a period of extreme confusion and frustration. After much more study, prayer, and counsel, I came to realize that it was *me* who thought I was being called to the pulpit. God revealed to me that he was leading me into other ministries. The truth is that with being divorced, regardless of whether it can be Biblically supported, the effectiveness of a pulpit ministry would be greatly diminished. The effects of a perceived sin can be far more reaching than a technical non-sin. Many Christians with whom I have spoken believe that divorce is wrong, period, despite Christ's one allowance (Matt 19:8,9) that is additionally supported in Jeremiah 3:8. If I were to become a pastor now, what example does that set? Even though I can claim "I have the right to, because the Bible says divorce is allowable under my circumstances," what standard does that set for believers who are not as well versed in the Word? There is a reason why many quality seminaries will not accept students who have been divorced except in rare circumstances. As one other person suggested in this thread, rather than focusing on "what are my rights", the focus truly needs to be on "where is God calling me?" I always thought that I was going to become a pastor, but I know now that I am not. Rather, I am being called into other areas, which include teaching, and perhaps overseas missionary work. I'm good with that, because I know that God will lead me and use me where I can be most effective for Him. Bottom line, if someone has been divorced, they will be less effective as a pastor. It's unfortunate that the limiting factor has nothing to do with the individual, but rather perception of the congregation. It is my belief that this is why this stipulation was placed here. Anything that can be perceived as sin can be a stumbling block for other believers. Pastors must be above reproach, or even the perception of sin. |
||||||
16 | Were there flaws built in Adam and Eve? | Deut 32:4 | magellan2019 | 174540 | ||
Nowhere in Genesis does it say that Adam and Eve were perfect in the manner that God is perfect, that is, without sin or the capability of sinning. In fact, the creation of man - male and female - is the only piece of His creation where Genesis does not specifically state after its creation "...and God saw that it was good." Good, in this context, suggests "good for the purposes it was intended to serve." In v.31, it does say "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (NASB) In other words, what had been pronounced good individually (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) was now called "very good" collectively. Bear in mind, however, that the creation of man was not pronounced "good" individually. To presume that God made Adam and Eve perfect as He is does not accurately reflect the Bible's description of their creation. | ||||||