Do you believe Adam was the "first man" on earth? What are your thoughts on the "Gap Theory"? What are your thoughts on the "Serpent" of Genesis 3? Do you still use a Companion Bible when studying scripture?

Hi Paul. I studied with the Shepherds Chapel in the past, but have discontinued my study a couple months ago prior to coming to your website. However, I still have some questions on certain interesting ideas I picked up from the Shepherds Chapel, and I would appreciate some insight.

Do you believe Adam was the "first man", as in, "first kingdom founder" (not first human being, you get what I mean) on earth?

What are your thoughts on the "Gap Theory"?

What are your thoughts on the "Serpent" of Genesis 3? Do you think Satan was in the form of a snake, or in his natural form (an angel)?

And also, do you still use a Companion Bible (as recommended by Arnold Murray), when studying scripture? I know the Companion Bible often contradicts much of what Murray says, and I will probably always use it. However, I am curious what you think about this work.

Thanks Paul.

My First Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

I don't have any beliefs about that whatsoever. The whole story of Adam could be a parable, that would not effect my faith.

(Editorial Note: When I said that it "could be a parable" I was actually referring to the teachings like Arnold Murray, who treats the story of Eden "like a parable" in that he sees the language as symbolic. I was not saying that I believed that the story of Adam and Eve was a parable, I was saying that IF it was a parable, my faith would not be effected, because I do not place my faith in the literal truth of the Garden of Eden story, but in the work of Jesus Christ.

The funny part is that Shepherd's Chapel Students have been linking to this page in order to discredit me based on the above statement. This is funny because, in that statement, I was being generous to people who have alternate views of the story of Eden, like students of the Shepherd's Chapel. Arnold Murray does not teach that Eden was a parable, he teaches that Eden is less than a parable, to him it is a story not to be taken at face value, it is a series of figures of speech, a sexual allegory, a scandalous riddle. I do not know how many Chapel students have mocked me for believing that the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil actually bare edible fruit and that Adam and Eve actually consumed fruit from an actual tree. They often speak contemptuously of the words of Genesis and if anyone should be on the defensive about what they believe about Eden it should be them. (Example Links Will Go Here)

For the record, I do not believe the story of the garden of Eden is a parable and neither do I believe it could be a parable. I take the account of Genesis 2 and 3 to be an historical narrative. That is what it is, it couldn't be anything else. But as far as my faith goes, the narrative of Eden could be an allegory about the Easter Bunny and my faith would be the same. Get it?) And now back to the original writing)

( I do think I understand the question though. I don't know exactly why you ask it, but I suppose it could be due to objections from archaeology and anthropology. If it is due to such objections then the idea of 1st kingdom founder should be rejected with the idea of first human being because there is as much evidence of advanced civilizations prior to 4004 B.C. as there is evidence of human beings prior to that date.

If we assume that the genealogies are accurate timelines then archaeology is wrong. If we assume that the truth is in archaeology then the genealogies must be wrong...or there must be some other explanation, I'm thinking that is where you are coming from, i.e. the "other explanation," which attempts a synthesis. Trying to keep the belief that every word of the bible is true, while making concessions to science.

I have basically discarded such questions. What is in the ground may not be the truth, and what is written may not always be true either. I look to the spirit of God to guide me to a particular kind of knowledge. I want to live forever and partake of the divine nature, and only knowledge that brings me closer to that goal is important to me.

I like the gap theory, I always have, and I still do, but as according to my statement above, such knowledge is useless.

"Meat (knowledge) commendeth us not to God." 1Cor 8

God is not impressed with my ability to figure out how to make the Bible jive with science. I am, by nature, a very curious individual and so "working it all out" has a certain amount of attraction for me. But, ultimately, I think that the quest this kind of knowledge, and focusing on this kind of knowledge, distracts us from the ultimate goals, from the things truly worth pursuing.

If I have not obtained righteousness, how dare I strive after knowledge that will not profit?

I like the companion bible, it is ok, it has some good stuff in it, and some garbage. I gave one to a friend a few years ago, I don't think he ever uses it.

Over a period of about ten years I studied my way through the bible using the Companion bible, a Green's interlinear, and a Strong's dictionary making notes in the margin of my companion bible. But that was a long time ago, and not that profitable, I learned things, and knew nothing.

Now, I mostly use the bible in my head to meditate, and I like to use the searchable bible on my PC.

I don't study anymore, but I do teach. http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/studies.html