Why might someone doubt climate change is man-caused?

Is the science settled?  Or are there real reasons one might doubt the settledness of the Green™ movement?

It’s also rather suspect when EVERYTHING is blamed on global warming.

UPDATE: Global warming fanatic James Hansen admits the existence of a standstill in global temperature lasting a decade.


  1. Because they’re a knee-jerk conservative blindly accepting all things “conservative” and rejecting all things “liberal”.
    From the Wiki: As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.”
    That’s right, Petroleum Geologists accept climate change. You have to feel a bit out of touch when you disagree collected panels of experts and various related fields.
    If you hold to your no-change hypothesis, what’s your conclusion? Should we just trash the environment and waste as much as possible? The change has not been debated for years, only whether humans are the cause, and even that is no longer under dispute, at least outside partisan ideological circles.

    I’m not saying there’s not dispute. Without action to start repairing the damage, will the global ecology collapse in 20 years, 50 years, or as long as 70 years? Is it already too late for us? That’s an area to enter the dispute.

  2. The majority of “expert scientists” also say evolution really happened. Majority doesn’t equal truth.

  3. You and your adoring automatons think that the science is settled….always yacking away about the truth…glenn’s responses would be humorous if they weren’t so predictable.

  4. Jason T. you’re conveniently forgetting that when the AAPG put out their statement, they did it without actually representing their members. There were a number of public statements made by members, expressing their anger that this official statement would be made, as though representing all members, when so few geologists agree with it. Quite a few dropped their membership in protest. Of all the specialties out there, geologists now better then any just how much fluctuation there is, how extreme those fluctuations can be, and how little we humans can affect any of it.

    One of the things I noticed over my years researching the topic is a tendency for people to assume that what things were like when they first started studying something, or when they became aware of it, is “the norm,” and that when it changes, this is a bad thing, because it’s no longer the way it was when they learned about it. An example of this is when we started getting satellite based climate data, in the 70’s. When temperatures seemed to soar in the 80’s, people made the usual assumptions: change is bad, people are at fault. Yet the 70’s were an unusually cold decade (and growing up on a farm, we knew full well how bad that was!). There was no logical reason to use the first decade of satellite data as any sort of baseline for “normal”. So often, I hear people using memories of what things were like when they were growing up as anecdotal evidence to prove their point. Meanwhile, the previous generation was saying the same thing as anecdotal evidence for the opposite! It’s fascinating to read articles written just 100 – 200 years ago, with the same alarmist language as today, talking about the threat of warming, cooling, warming, cooling, back and forth over the years – and *always* blamed on human activity!

    As an aside, it should be noted just what “climate” really is in meteorology. It is weather, over a specified region, averaged over 30 years, +/- 5-10 years. Which means that every 20-40 years, the “climate” for any specific region is supposed to be recalculated to reflect reality. The mean average is then termed “normal.” An “anomoly” is any deviation from the mean average. When you see a weather report and the meteorologist says the temperature/precipitation/etc. is such-and-such above or below “normal,” they are describing the anomoly from the average.

  5. John,

    You posted close to 20 articles that went entirely unaddressed by Torpy and Nash. I wonder if, included within their Pagan scripture, there is a diagram that shows them how to properly insert the pointer fingers into their ears and hum, “la-la-la…I don’t hearrrr youuuu.”

    They don’t care about evidence. They don’t care about science because they’re zealots.

    • And what makes Johns “links” to news stories “proof” or factually unquestionable truth with regards to zero human impact as it relates to global warming? Most of this material is easily matched by me posting links saying the opposite. To what end? We could call it link wars….

      • So then, Nash, you are saying the science isn’t settled?

        • Absolutely. There are those in the environmental movement that think that any and specifically all climate change that occurs is the result of negative net human impact. Just as those on the other side think that there is no such thing as any anthropogenic impact. It would be irresponsible to let one’s political or social/cultural cognitive dissonance dictate how we view the world. For me so far, I believe that the data suggests that we do have negative affects with specific regards to climate change/global warming, regional or otherwise. But as has been beaten like a droning drum, our own planet is capable of dispensing all sorts of crap that leaves a negative net affect as well. But alas “negative” is a subjective term as there are plenty of organisms that flourish when certain elements, which a are detrimental to humans, allow them to expand their environmental footprint.

  6. “The majority of “expert scientists” also say evolution really happened. Majority doesn’t equal truth.” – actually it represents our best understanding of the truth in evolution and in climate science. In evolution and climate science, you might really question your handle on reality if you disagree with concepts so broadly accepted by experts in the field.
    TRAH – since you don’t even understand the difference between pagan and humanist, I’ll just let your ignorance speak for itself.
    As for your list of ‘evidence’, don’t tell me. Tell the broad consensus of experts, and when you convince them, you can collect your Nobel prize and use it as a hood ornament on your Hummer. But you shouldn’t hold your breath.

    Here you go:
    0/1 a survey about polar bears: The debate has not intensified over one survey when so many others tip the scales toward dwindling populations.
    0/2 increasing polar bears can be tracked to restricted hunting and would be greater were it not for climate change.
    0/3 increasing temperatures: that’s why it’s called climate change, not global warming.
    0/4 ozone and cold weather: again, climate change. And there’s a difference between ‘aggravated’ by cold weather and caused by cold weather.
    0/5 Himalayan ice – the publisher of the study says “People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before”
    0/6 Gore Lied.com is not a reputable source.
    0/7 “Farmers started climate change.” Sounds like evidence for climate change.
    0/8 “Dinosaurs started climate change.” Sound like evidence for climate change.
    0/9 Greenland photo – controversial at best and tracked to sulfur emissions which were worse in the industrial revolution and have since, locally, been reversed, global climate change notwithstanding.
    1/10 Fimbul Ice Shelf – interesting finding. Put that one on the pile for steady-state climate.
    1/11 Europe climate cooling. Again, it’s called ‘climate change’
    1/12 1974 Time Magazine – not scientific in any way..
    1/13 Yangtze River – concludes strong evidence for a warming trend in the region.
    2/14 Glacier accumulation in greenland – We’ll put that one in your side as well. But you might check out the NOAA State of the Climate report – http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2012/state-of-the-climate-in-2011-highlights/5
    The link is the arctic focus, a primary portion of which is Greenland. The Greenland authority is Jason Box, the lead researcher on your single Greenland ice cover survey who, I’m certain, would laugh in your face if he knew you were denying climate change with his research. Your list of 14 seems impressive, but you let me know when you get through refuting the reams of peer-reviewed scientific evidence in the Climate report.

    • Jason,
      There are multitudes of scientists, who are NOT creationists, who vehemently disagree with the evolution dogma. There has never been any factual evidence for evolution – just speculations and assumptions. It is people like you and all other Darwin worshipers who need the reality check. And as with Darwinism, there are multitudes of scientists who disagree with the man-caused climate change dogma. In both cases, only those who promote the dogma get media promotion. And only the dogma is allowed in government indoctrination centers.

      • Wow, glenn, did glenn beck make your custom tin foil hat? Please send us a list of the two demographics with subsequent proof of their denying evolution or climate change that you mentioned in your previous post.

        • R.Nash,
          First, just because you want to act like a jerk, that doesn’t mean I have to play your game. I don’t follow Glenn Beck or any other personality. Believe it or not, I actually think for myself after doing my own research.

          If I wanted to spend my time providing you the information you requested, I would do so. But you will not be convinced because you have bought into the propaganda. So I would be throwing my pearls before swine, and I have better things to do. If you were truly interested you could easily find the information. Suffice it to say, I have studied the both sides of the evolution debate for three decades and I have never found proof of evolution. All I have ever seen is speculations, assumptions and assertions.

  7. Torpy,

    Say what you want, but extreme environmentalism is quasi-paganism. You people seem to worship trees, flowers, glaciers, dirt, estuaries, insects, polar bears, and sunshine as though each were a tiny deity.

    You also worship at the altar of science, but, ironically, science, as John has proven, is your worst enemy. If by all the conflicting data you haven’t figured out that science really hasn’t even begun to grasp the complexities of our climate, then you’re far more ignorant than I ever imagined.

    1). Since there are “so many others,” you won’t mind providing them.
    2). And, of course, you have proof of that, right?
    3). That’s precisely the problem. In the 70s, the catastrophe was “global cooling,” an impending ice age. In the 90s, it was “global warming,” an inferno. And now it’s the all-encompassing “climate change.” Yet more evidence that our understanding of the climate is in its infancy.

    4). Etc….

    5). Etc…


    You have nothing to back-up your nonsense, Torpy. Can’t say I’m surprised though. I am, however, a bit taken aback by your willingness to respond after your initial humdrum. Usually, you hit and run.

  8. Regarding evolution….

    Show me a single transitional fossil.

  9. And I know which ones you think are transitional. Let me guess: Archaeopteryx, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Bohlinia, Pezosiren portelli, et cetera…

    Should I explain why those aren’t transitional fossils?

  10. There is a clear rational proof of evolution: the transient fossil record.
    Surely, creationism dogmatic ones will blindy dismiss this proof.

    • ISU,
      There is absolutely NO proof of evolution. The fossils don’t say anything – one’s bias determines how one interprets what the fossil demonstrate. Fossils only factually show that animals lived at some time in the past and were rapidly buried through some sort of cataclysm. “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” Sounds like on heck of a flood.

      They come with no age tags, they don’t say “Hey, I used to be a lizard but now I’m a bird.” All this must come from assumptions and speculations based on the bias of the observer, who then makes unwarranted assertions.

      Those who claim the fossils are such-and-such age have to use dating methods based on assumptions, any of which can be wrong. It has been proven time and again that, given the right conditions, fossils can form in only a few decades.

      Evolutionism is nothing but a religion.

      Now, you’ve made your statement, and I’ve made mine. Now return to the topic of the blog post.

      • Every time you spout off about bias in an accusatory tone the world is collectively dumber for it. Do you not bring your own bias Glenn? I mean even the lowly catholic church has come to terms with all of those inconvenient fossils and evolution. Or is it just that your non stop self righteousness and pseudo intellectual rightness is a means to perfection and a world of non bias?

  11. Glenn,

    You have blindly dismissed the proof on the “assumptions that can be wrong” basis.
    Of course, it’s a bindly dismissal because creationism is based on an assumptions that can be wrong.

    The fact is that you are against fossil datation methods because they debunk your dogma. You are dogmatic and there is no sense in showing you proofs since you will not accept anything reasonable as proof.

    • Isu,
      And you get to determine what is or is not reasonable, don’t you?

      R. Nash,
      The point is that everyone comes to such things with a personal bias. The real question becomes, “Which bias is the best bias to be biased by?” I’d rather be biased by that which conforms more closely to reality.

      The Roman Catholic Church does not represent true Christianity, by the way. That’s why there was a Reformation – the Papist church is apostate and heretical.

      Jason, there are plenty of non-creationists who don’t accept evolution. They have noted that everything seems to have been designed, and therefore they say there has to have been an intelligent designer. The ID movement is often at odds with Creationists, but ignorant people lump them all together because they both expose evolutionism for the fraud that it is. And those “evidences” you just gave are the best you’ve got, then I pity you. All you’ve proven is another assumption based on a biased idea. There is no factual evidence to support such claims.

  12. Transitional fossils:
    pinky finger and toe
    tail bone (get it?)

    If you mean other than on your own body:

    And there are no non-creationists who reject evolution.
    But it’s not really an evolution debate… not that such a thing exists.

    And I do apologize for the hit-and-run, but I’m actually just busy. Way to busy to spend as much time as I do, but I guess I like slapping my forehead with my palm, hard, a lot.

  13. Glenn,

    “And you get to determine what is or is not reasonable, don’t you?”

    Of course, God didn’t gave me reason for nothing.

    • Isu,
      But what if I say it is YOU who are the one who refuses to accept reasonable claims? In my worldview, it is people like you who are unreasonable, while in your worldview I am the unreasonable one. So who gets to decide who is right? I’ll go with God as the one who makes the determination, and anyone who disagrees with God is the unreasonable one.

      • Is it your god who determines hom many ppm of MBTE are reasonable in drinking water? Or the fact that the catholic church thinks you are wrong and going to hell and not them? So much for your “conformity” bias. Your god’s plan really is masterful.

  14. Glenn

    “But what if I say it is YOU who are the one who refuses to accept reasonable claims?”

    Saying that without reasoning and based on dogma is not reasonable.

    “In my worldview, it is people like you who are unreasonable, while in your worldview I am the unreasonable one.”

    Your worldview is not reasonable since it is not based on reasoning but on dogma.

    “So who gets to decide who is right?”

    The question is what decides who is right: proof does.

    “I’ll go with God as the one who makes the determination, and anyone who disagrees with God is the unreasonable one.”

    I disagree with inconsistent stories. It is not reasonable to take them as truth.

    • Isu,
      Everything you have said is without reasoning and is merely liberal dogma. Your whole worldview is based on dogma of liberals, atheists, skeptics, etc. No reasoning with any of this dogma.

      “Proof” is often non-existent and only asserted from your side.

      “Inconsistent stories” – try demonstrating your claim with some actual proof.

  15. Glenn,

    “try demonstrating”

    You are the dogmatic one and your own words betray you.
    You don’t ask for a demonstration but you ask for a “try” because you won’t accept any actual demostration.

  16. Gleen,

    “Don’t play word games. You know what I mean – PROVE YOUR CHARGE!”

    Yes, I know what you mean: you mean that you won’t accept proof.

  17. Gleen,

    I have proof but you will blindy deny it due to your dogma brainwash.

    The Genesis is an inconsistent story.
    For example, God’s taking into account human fault when he visits them is inconsistent with his omnipresence and omniscience. (By the way, should someone be embarrassed of being naked in front of one’s partner?) .
    Another inconsistency: Cain’s great fear of been killed by someone (Genesis 4:14). It is inconsistent with the fact that only his parents existed. Another curious questions: Why did he go to the land of Nod instead of to the land of Cain (Genesis 4:16)? How did he get a wife (Genesis 4:17)?

    • Isu,

      I see you likely visited an atheist site with typical talking points which have been responded to so many times and yet you all pretend no one has ever answered such nonsense. You demonstrate with these claims that you either haven’t read the Scripture for yourself or, if you have, you show no understanding or comprehension of what you read. I’m going to respond to just this one, and no more because this is far from what the topic of this blog is about. If you truly have questions you want serious answers for, e-mail me.

      God knew Adam and Eve would sin, which is why from the foundation of creation He already had a way of salvation determined. That is written throughout the N.T.

      His questioning of Adam and Eve was not because He didn’t know what happened, rather He was giving them a chance to confess and repent so as to receive forgiveness. But they both passed the buck instead.

      The result of their sin of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was that they now realized they were naked – previous to that they just accepted nakedness as normal. The “knowledge” the tree gave, by definition of the Hebrew text, as understood and taught by scholars, is the power to decide what is or is not in one’s best interest. God alone has the right to decide what is best for our interests, yet by taking of that tree the sin was deciding for oneself over what God decides. The first result of sin is always shame and fear. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum explains their new dilemma this way: They now had the knowledge of evil, experiential knowledge of evil; suddenly, there was a recognition of a new relationship to each other. Suddenly their being naked before each other created self-consciousness. Instead of knowing good and evil in a positive sense, they now knew that they were naked. What was a sign of a healthy relationship in 2:25 now became a sign of shame. In fact, in the Hebrew text, the word is written differently. In Genesis 2:25 it is arumim; in Genesis 3:7, it is eirumim. It means the same thing, but it is written differently, giving the implication of a different relationship. There is now the loss of innocence and the birth of lust. … They attempted to cover their nakedness; they covered their genitals. There was a recognition that the very source of human life had been contaminated by sin.
      Since Adam realized he was naked, that was evidence that he disobeyed God and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So Adam was ashamed to be naked in front of God.

      Cain was not the only one in existence besides Adam and Eve. We know from 5:4 that Adam lived 930 years, and had many sons and daughters. Genesis does not tell us about any of the children except Cain, Abel, and Seth, because these three all play pivotal parts in history. Cain was the first murderer, Abel was the first murdered, and Seth was the ancestor of Noah, and hence the rest of the world after the Flood. There is much scholarly discussion as to whether Cain was the first child or just the first male child. Because of the promise of God in 3:15, Eve was looking forward to the Messiah. That is why she was happy about the male child. And the Hebrew literally reads, “I have gotten a man: YHVH.” Eve understood the idea of the Messiah being the God-man, and that is who she thought she bore (when it really didn’t happen until Mary in the N.T.). Jewish Targums also translate this as “I have gotten a man, the angel of Jehovah, “ or “…the angel of the Lord.” (The son of God was often called “the angel of the Lord” or “the angel of Jehovah” in the O.T.)

      Other Hebrew in this passage implies that Cain had a twin sister. The language used about Abel’s birth implies two twin sisters – triplets! Also, the Bible doesn’t say how many children were born between Cain and Abel, nor does it say how many children were born between Abel and Seth (who Eve saw as a replacement for Abel) – let alone after Seth. There had to be quite a large number since Adam and Eve were to be busy “multiplying” and Cain and Abel were full adults at the time of their altercation. The fact that Cain had many brothers and sisters by now, as well as nieces and nephews, would make him fearful of being punished by his close relatives.

      Cain didn’t have a city, so he went to the city of Nod. That name means “wandering.” The text isn’t so much pointing out the location of the city as it is in emphasizing the fact that Cain was now a wanderer. And his wife was either a sister or niece. At the beginning all of Adam’s & Eve’s children had to marry siblings, or as time went by, they could also marry nieces/nephews.

      Now, where is the supposed “inconsistency”?

      • christian apologetics…….my favorite! Notice that there is no such thing as physics apologetics?

        • Nash,

          That’s because people do not unjustly attack physics.

          I can’t teach ya that common sense thing, buddy.

        • R.Nash,

          Actually, EVERY discipline has its apologetics. It doesn’t have to be an established field in that particular discipline. Anytime you have someone defending a particular teaching, then you have apologetics. And I indeed have read many defending claims made about physics, especially theoretical stuff.

  18. Glenn.

    I came to those thoughts by myself. I don’t visit atheism apologetic sites nor christian apologetic sites, so I’m unaware of your discussions.

    “He was giving them a chance to confess and repent so as to receive forgiveness”

    God statement was clear: Genesis 2:17.
    The God’s curse upon Adam has nothing to do with confession and repention, but with having disobeyed: Genesis 3:17.
    There was no chance for forgiveness, so your theory is false.

    “What was a sign of a healthy relationship in 2:25 now became a sign of shame.”

    It’s unhealthy for relationship to be naked in front of your husband or wife?

    “There is now the loss of innocence and the birth of lust. … They attempted to cover their nakedness; they covered their genitals.”

    It has nothing to do with lust. Adam also hides when God appears because of being naked: Genesis 3:10.

    “Since Adam realized he was naked, that was evidence that he disobeyed God and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So Adam was ashamed to be naked in front of God.”

    Adan was not ashamed because of sin (that’s your invention), but because of being naked. Genesis 3:7 is very clear about that.

    “We know from 5:4 that Adam lived 930 years, and had many sons and daughters.”

    But that was after Seth birth.

    “Because of the promise of God in 3:15”

    There is no promise in 3:15.

    “The fact that Cain had many brothers and sisters by now, as well as nieces and nephews, would make him fearful of being punished by his close relatives.”

    It is not so.
    Cain feared to be killed as a consecuence of the exile imposed by God, not because of killing his brother. On the other hand, it is not likely that there would be an established punisment for an unprecendent case.

    “Cain didn’t have a city, so he went to the city of Nod. That name means “wandering.” The text isn’t so much pointing out the location of the city as it is in emphasizing the fact that Cain was now a wanderer.”

    That could be right (although not a city). Point for you, but this is a detail not an inconsistency.

    “And his wife was either a sister or niece. At the beginning all of Adam’s & Eve’s children had to marry siblings, or as time went by, they could also marry nieces/nephews.”

    Yes, I already thought about a sister or a nephew.
    But how a wanderer got access to one of the settled?

    “Now, where is the supposed “inconsistency”?”

    The two pointed inconsistencies remain: God’s unknowlegde and Cain’s fear.

    • Isu,
      You refused to respond to my request to take this off this blog. Typical for your ilk.
      Your response demonstrates your lack of comprehension even to what I wrote, let alone what the Scripture says.

      What you don’t understand is that we ALL have a curse upon us for EVERY sin we commit. However, God clearly teaches that if we confess our sins and repent of them we will be forgiven them and the curse not applied. If you would read just a wee bit of the Bible you would see this operating throughout. So, yes there was a promise of a punishment in 2:17, but God always gives a chance to confess and repent. That is the whole foundation of both the Jewish and Christian faiths.

      There were two parts to the shame of nakedness; one being the shame between man and woman, and the other being the shame between man and God.

      The “unhealthy” part between male and female is why we wear clothing today to cover our nakedness. If you don’t realize the reality of that, then you aren’t paying attention. Seeing members of the opposite sex naked drives lust. That is what pornography is all about.

      The nakedness of Adam, the fact that he realized it, was PROOF of his sin, and that was why he was ashamed to be naked in front of God.

      No, Adam lived a TOTAL of 930 years; Gen. 5:4. He lived only 130 years before Seth (5:3) and lived 800 years after Seth (5:4). The statement in 5:4 about having other sons and daughter is a statement about Adam’s total lifetime. Not all English versions make this totally clear, but the Hebrew does. The fact that Adam & Eve were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” would be violated if they had only three children in 130 years!!! It would also be totally illogical believe people had sex for 130 years and only had three children out of it.

      No promise in 3:15?!!? Read it again. It is known as the protoevangelium/protoevangelion (depending on spelling) – otherwise known as the proto -Gospel. The promise is that there will be an enmity between Eve and Satan, and between their offspring, but that Eve’s offspring will crush Satan’s offspring. The Messiah (the anointed one) who would be the savior would be Eve’s offspring. Evil people are considered Satan’s offspring (John 8:44), and it was through them that Christ (Greek for anointed one – same word as Hebrew Messiah) was crucified (bruised his heel), while Christ conquered Satan at the Cross. Eve believed the first boy would be the one who would crush satan.

      Your claims about Cain’s fear not being by a brother is nonsense. (And not I did NOT say “brother,” but rather “close relative,” i.e. it could be a brother, or nephew, etc). EVERYONE was related. It wasn’t about an established punishment – it was Cain’s fear of revenge being taken against him.

      So how is there an inconsistency in “God’s knowledge”?

  19. Glenn,

    You keep stuck to your brainwashing and ignoring what I said, as I predicted.

    For Adam and Eva there was only one sin stated, that doesn’t mean a curse for every sin.
    God didn’t teach Adam and Eva that if they confess their sins and repent for them they are forgiven, moreover their children were cursed by sins they didn’t commit.
    There is a punisment in 2:17 and no forgiveness mention, and nor Jewish nor Christian faith existed so far.

    There is no shame in been naked in front of your husband or wife, nor being naked in front of God (¡¿Drawing God’s lust?!). This is quite diferent fron being naked if front of another one.
    Adam was ashamed of being naked. The Genesis is clear and you are lying altering the text.

    The lifespan and parentship are not linked. These information are mentioned since that were the record.
    Adam had 130 years when he had Seth (3rd recorded child) and though he was a replacement for Abel (4:25). He surely had lost all his heirs, one repudiated and one killed and was relieved to have another one in replacement.
    There is no sense in talking on “logical” offspring in humans who lived hundreds of years. We and they are not comparable.
    And, anyway, they didn’t violate God’s command, they DID multiply, and God didn’t established any quantity.

    There is no promise in 3:15. It established the relatioship between humans and serpents, and aplies to humans and serpents as a whole (the serpent and Eva and ther whole offspring). It has nothing to do with your invention about mere particulars (Christ and Satan).

    Cain fears to be killed because of his exile. “Wanderers are killed by others” is clearly related in Cain’s saying (4:14). He was plenty sure of being killed if caught wandering throught others’ lands, it wasn’t a mere assumption.
    If he were to be exiled he would be relieved instead of being afraid to be killed: a wanderer would be less likely to be killed by close relatives, moreover, he surely would exile himself if he feared close relatives’ revenge.

    There is God knowledge inconsistency between omnipresence/omniscience and only knowing by being informed in Adam/Eva and Cain/Abel stories.

    • Isu,
      You have decided that you don’t want to accept what has been taught by Jews and Christians for over a 1000 years. You have decided that YOU are the authority of what the Bible teaches without ever reading what the Bible says.

      Read the entire Bible in context. The definition of sin is a rebellion against God. Actually, both the Greek and Hebrew words for sin mean “missing the mark,” i.e., not doing what God has commanded. Throughout Scripture God always, always gives the chance to confess and repent of sin. Just because that is not explicitly stated in Genesis, that does not mean it is not implied – God is consistent in his character and would not have one sin which is not able to be repented of. The wages of all sin is the curse of death – that is the teaching throughout the Bible. Therefore, the wages of the first sin is death, death being the curse for all sin. That is the teaching throughout the Bible. That is the reason for the sacrificial system of shedding the blood of an animal – the death of an animal – to atone for the sin. That is the gospel of Christianity, that Jesus’ death was the payment for sin – he took the curse upon himself.

      Adam’s and Eve’s children inherited the sin nature of their parents, which was part of the curse of death (spiritual death as well as physical death).

      God is omniscient and knew Adam and Eve sinned. Therefore his question was rhetorical. It gave Adam a chance to confess and repent and then be at the mercy of God.

      The shame of being naked in front of one’s spouse is the shame of knowing what man has turned sexual intercourse into – something to be abused and turned into filth and degradation. As Dr. Fruchtenbaum pointed out, it is also the shame of knowing that your sexual organs, through reproduction, will now pass on your sin nature.

      The shame of being naked in front of God had nothing to do with lust – did you even read everything I wrote or did you just skim? Or perhaps you can’t comprehend what you read? Let me say it again. Adam’s knowledge that he was naked was the evidence that he violated God’s command. Knowing that he violated God’s command, he is now shamed about his behavior. That is the shame he has before God. He was ashamed not of being naked before God (since he was naked from the time he was created), rather his KNOWLEDGE of his nakedness was a NEW knowledge from sinning. It was the sin which gave him shame to be naked before God, because his sin was known. There is no altering the text, it is understanding the meaning behind what is going on.

      Seth is the third recorded child, not the third child. Nowhere in the Bible does it say he was the third child. There is no time frame given from the time Adam and Eve were evicted until the time Cain was born. There could well have been female children born prior to Cain, and, as noted before, the Hebrew construction, as well as Jewish tradition, says that Cain was a twin with a girl. The importance of the mentioning of Cain specifically has already been explained. If you can’t comprehend that, then I can’t help you.
      Even if you take the passage in 5:4 to mean that Adam had sons and daughters after Seth, it does not negate the fact that he had sons and daughters prior to Seth. The fact that Cain married and moved to a city of people is proof that Adam and Eve had other children, and did not need to be restated; the comment about children after Seth is just saying Seth wasn‘t the end of the line. Or did these people all come from outer space on a rocket-ship? Adam & Eve were the first two people and all other population came from them. That is the consistent teaching of the Bible.

      Eve looked at Seth as a replacement for Abel, not because all heirs were gone (because she had many other children), but because it was the first child she lost and Seth was a boy to replace the boy.

      It is indeed common sense to suggest they had children in those 130 years prior to Seth because we are the same as they are. They were normal human beings. Humans were designed to live eternally, but the punishment for sin was death. All the pre-Flood people lived long lives so as to be able to populate the world. Even after the Flood the people live very long lives and slowly lifespan of humans began to decrease, due to many factors including new environmental problems brought about by the Flood and the cataclysms associated with it, as well as the continued build up of genetic defects caused by bodies affected by the curse of sin.

      God may not have “established” any “quantity,” but He did say to FILL the earth. You’ve got to have lots of kids to try to fill the earth!

      Genesis 3:15 is the relationship between people and Satan. The serpent was what Satan used to tempt Eve. Again, if you would read the entire Bible you would see this over and over again, and Satan is called “the serpent of old.” It has everything to do with what I told you about the “protoevanglion.” You will see that taught throughout the N.T. It is not MY invention. The Jews understood the serpent as referring to Satan long before Jesus appeared on the scene. In fact if you want to continue this discussion, e-mail me and I will provide you more theology behind this, including the meaning of the Hebrew word for the serpent.

      It is YOU who have decided why Cain is afraid of being killed. It is clear that everyone else is his close relative, and the motive would therefore HAVE TO BE revenge.

      I refuse to continue this conversation on this blog. It does not belong here and is unfair to John and other commenters. If you want to discuss this, e-mail me at the e-mail found on my blog.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: