0 rating

Catholic Leadership's Thinking on Islam Challenged by Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick a Roman Catholic professor and author states in one of his three posts that Catholics could learn more about Islam from the Egyptian president al-Sisi, than from a crowd of Bishops pontificating about their positive views on this religion. Kilpatrick obviously cares very little about political correctness and peace at all costs, yet cares about the True Jesus, about liberating people from religious bondage and human rights. Can we learn from him? Can leaders learn from him? Consider the wisdom of this quote: "Muslims who are disaffected from Islam aren’t likely to convert...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
0 rating

Five approaches to the Qur'an by Christians

Work of the devil? Work of the Triune God? Work of angels? Work of humans? Touchable? Untouchable? Genius in its composition? A disordered work of fiction? These are no new questions for the Christian who would approach the sacred text which Muslims describe as "noble" "unchanged" "final" and "superseding all previous revelations." Ever since 788 AD, when the Anonymous Apology also called On The Triune Nature of the One God, the first recorded response in Arabic--the essential language of Islam--by a Christian to a Muslim, at least five different approaches can be observed. Each of them has...
Community EngagementEcumenical & InterfaithGlobal MissionMuslim Ministry
Discussion Topic
0 rating

The Basis of Mission Strategy: Theology or Social Sciences?

Not long ago, the leader of a large school of missions said, "We view all missions' practice through the lens of the social sciences." Knowing the context in which this was spoken would tell this observer that: The social sciences like anthropology and sociology are becoming the main drivers of mission theory and practice The social sciences have largely eclipsed solid theological thinking about mission theory and practice. If this sounds alarmist, then we can roll the clock back to 1993 when Professor Rommen of the Trinity School of Theology wrote an article called "The De-Theologizing of...
Ecumenical & InterfaithGlobal Mission
0 rating

Are Designer Gods and the Biblical Idea of Idolatry for Dinosaurs?

The perennial lure of idolatry--not just measured by some kind of human-fabricated actual statue made of solid materials of wood, or stone, or kryptonite,--is that they are creations of the human imagination.

Ecumenical & InterfaithPastors
Discussion Topic
0 rating

Does Salvation Belong to the LORD?

Does salvation belong to the LORD? And if so, how might that show up in your strategies in outreach to Muslims?

Ecumenical & InterfaithMuslim Ministry
0 rating

Five Christian approaches to Islam: Another look at Martin Accad's proposal.

Accad says: "....Your view of Islam will affect your attitude to Muslims. Your attitude will, in turn influence your approach to Christian-Muslim interaction, and that approach will affect the ultimate outcome of your presence as a witness among Muslims." The Lebanese scholar Martin Accad among others have surveyed Christian approaches to Islam since the visit of the delegation from Najran to Muhammad in about 631 AD. As we review this history, we can see that it is largely informed by the spirit of the times and it helps us to understand current approaches. Let us briefly examine Accad's...
Community EngagementEcumenical & InterfaithGlobal MissionMuslim Ministry
0 rating

What does Islam want? And why is da'wah so important?

Greetings scholars of Christ: The Mormon man said to me, "All I want to do is to help the children given to you from the Heavenly Father to love Jesus." Compelling at first glance, but at a second look, a great challenge. The challenge is that he used Christian words, which Mormonism had infused in his head with completely different meanings, in order to disarm me. In a fashion Islamic da'wah works the same way. Some 40 years ago the International Review of Mission (1976) featured a dialogue between two Muslim scholars and three Christian ones. Representing the Muslim point of view were...
Church PlantingEcumenical & InterfaithGlobal MissionMuslim Ministry
0 rating

Unpacking the ISIS Message to "The Nation of the Cross"

Rev. Mark Durie who is a human rights advocate, an Anglican priest, and an expert on Islam posted an explanation on Feb 21/2015 of the ISIS video that accompanied the slaughter of their Coptic victims. Earlier in the day he posted "Bearing the cross: a letter to the Islamic State". In that post he notes that the video is actually a letter or a message addressed to all Christians and that it was was signed with the blood of the victims. These are not easy posts to read, but important ones for anyone who says they are Christians and thus are part of the "Nation of the Cross." Here are the links...
Ecumenical & InterfaithMuslim Ministry
0 rating

The Metanarratives of Islam and Christianity

So what is the big story, and why does that matter? In a day and age when it is in vogue to bring "religious others" to the table to eat, talk and discuss, it is conceivable that the very big picture or the big story of each faith tradition is blurred or obscured or even sidelined in the process. Christians are in the most vulnerable spot because they follow Jesus' commands to love others who are different from themselves and even to love those who are hostile to them. However, one must always keep that injunction in mind with the injunction to be wise as serpents, who have an uncanny knack...
Ecumenical & InterfaithMuslim Ministry
0 rating

A Serious Call for Change

For all the steps back, the changes, and the instabilities, such small steps forward look to me like God acting in ways that should excite us.

Ecumenical & InterfaithPrayer
1 share
0 rating

Who is the Muslim "Jesus"? and Why that Matters at Christmas.

I watched a video in which the speaker affirmed that 'Isa of Islam, as the Muslim "Jesus" is called, is somehow the same as Jesus in the Bible. A closer look will reveal that this Muslim "Jesus" is what the Apostle Paul would say, is "another Jesus".

Ecumenical & InterfaithMuslim Ministry
0 rating
1 comment

Why only the Gospel can rise above the Islamic al-walāʾ wa-l-barāʾ

As Christians who have the orders to take the Gospel to every ethnic group on this planet, we might be well advised to understand some of the attitudes that we will encounter. As we encounter Muslim believers it would be wise to understand the Islamic doctrine of al-walāʾ wa-l-barā ʾ. In a nutshell it teaches Muslims to love and embrace what is Islamic and to give distance up to the point of hatred to whatever is not Islamic. Taken at face-value from its own texts, Islam is the stated enemy of anyone who is not Muslim. We briefly examine four scenarios in how this doctrine works out in real...
Ecumenical & InterfaithGlobal MissionHope EqualsMuslim Ministry
0 rating

Pursuing Peace Through Social Media

The Bible calls us to respect our neighbor and extend hospitality to him or her. Rather than using social media to increase anti-Muslim sentiment and fear, why not use it to promote peace?

Ecumenical & InterfaithMuslim Ministry
Discussion Topic
0 rating

"Building Bridges of Understanding": Good, bad or indifferent?

With noble intentions XYZ person or group of persons proposes to engage in friendly dialogue with a member or members of religion "Q." The stated objective is often to become "dialogue partners" in order to eliminate prejudices and to come to understand the other. It is also designed--so the idea goes---to attempt to bring the other to understand and possibly embrace their religion. As you might observe from the way that the introduction is structured, a Muslim could engage a Christian--for instance-- or a Christian could engage a Muslim, with both hoping to draw the other towards their...
Ecumenical & InterfaithGlobal MissionMuslim Ministry
Discussion Topic
0 rating
1 comment

Who is the Living God?

The gentleman and I chatted about politics, the majority religion here, self-appointed prophets, and the greatest question of all, namely 'Who is the living God?" The gentleman tried to furnish answers from the Qur'an which talk about Allah as the "ever-living, and the sustainer of all things." Yet, I pressed on for more clarity, as in reality there are two possible answers to the question as the law of non-contradiction would not allow a yes answer to both answers. a. There are persons or gods who are described as "the living god" and in reality are quite dead. b. There are persons or gods...
Ecumenical & InterfaithEvangelismGlobal MissionMuslim Ministry
Discussion Topic
0 rating
1 comment

Is creationism an area of ecumenism? Does God belong in science?

We often find people differentiated into categories of scientist or non-scientist when discussing evolution, as if evolution was science, and special creation was not science. But there are many people working in science who do not hold to evolution, and yet are scientists, some with a PhD in science, or M.Sc. or BSc. Does an ecumenical attitude allow respect for these scientists, or is our ecumenical approach limited to "churchy" practices, or theological beliefs? If we follow A. Kuyper's (and other's) beliefs that all of creation belongs to God, then is it not true that science also belongs...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

Ecumenical and interfaith approaches to the Genesis Flood story

Recently, we have heard about a new movie about "The Flood" being produced. From all accounts, it will be quite innacurate, produced by those who do not regard scripture as accurate. The production of such a movie by non-christians for general public consumption, will still have influence on the perception of unbelievers and christians alike on what the story of the flood really is. How do we as Christians get involved in discussions where literalists and "genre-ists" have different views about Genesis 1-11? How do YEC and OEC people examine these issues together? or must they simply build a...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

What does it mean to/for the CRC when WCRC adopts or declares something -- or does stuff?

In the relatively new push by the CRCNA to become a part of a much bigger organization (first WARC and REC, which folded into WCRC), I for one have a number of questions to which I lack answers. My first question is this: So if WCRC (formerly WARC) adopts, say, the Accra Confession (which is has), what does that mean for the CRC? Phrased differently, by being a member of the WCRC, what is the CRCNA saying about those things the WCRC declares to be true? Second and very related, does being a WCRC mean the CRCNA says it agrees with all the actions taken by the WCRC? If not, what? Third and also...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

The Reformed Distinctive, or the Reformed "Stink"?

<p> <p>I have a problem. Maybe you have the same problem. Maybe you don't. Maybe you should; then again, maybe not. My problem is this: I'm wrestling with what the real implications of denominationalism ought to be.<br> <p>Let me expand. The sad fact is that denominationalism is, no matter how you slice it, rooted in sin, schism and strife unbefitting for the bride of Christ. Some will make the argument that these days there is an increasing recognition that the cultural and theological distinctiveness found in a diverse denominational milieu can be a good thing...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

connecting with churches in other parts of the world

Today I am in Argentina, where a church with whom the CRC is in ecclessiastical fellowship (the Reformed Churches in Argentina) is merging with another denomination: the Evangelical Church of the River Plate. In this new beginning for the church in Argentina there is an opportunity to build a new relationship between that fellowship and ours, and to refresh a relationship that has existed for over 100 years. My question is: what do you think makes for a good relationship between churches in other parts of the world and the CRC? How is that relationship fostered? What could or should it...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

Share your Ecumenical story!

We in the Christian Reformed Church live in an ecumenical world. While we confess our faith in Christ, we know that other Christ-followers have differing liturgical traditions, and have arrived at different theological conclusions. Still, wonderfully, we remain one in Christ. I invite you to share a story of an ecumenical encounter that will be good food-for-thought, or that will generate discussion. Bruce
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

What Interfaith resources would you like to have?

Synod 2010 said that part of the responsibility of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee (EIRC) is: • Compiling resources for the Christian Reformed Church which will guide interfaith encounters. My questions for you, dear Networker, are: What kinds of resources would be helpful for you in your interfaith encounters? What situations have you or your church been in where resources such as these would have been useful? Do you have suggestions for the EIRC as it tries to fulfill this instruction from Synod? Looking forward to hearing from you, and to the conversation which it might...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

Ecumenical Relations is distinct from Interfaith Dialogue

In its report to Synod 2009, the Ecumenical Relations Committee (ERC) said that it was beginning to talk about interfaith dialogue. The impetus for the conversation was the fact that through the Canadian Council of Churches, CRC people were serving on committees dialoguing with the Jewish community and with the Muslim community, and also on a CCC committee tasked to reflect as churches on how interfaith dialogue should be conducted within denominational structures. To the surprise of the ERC, Synod said that Interfaith dialogue should be part of the Committee's mandate, and then told the...
Ecumenical & Interfaith
Discussion Topic
0 rating

World Communion of Reformed Churches

The Uniting General Council of the World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC) has come and gone. For many in the Christian Reformed Church, it was an intensely busy time. Since the Council was held on the campus of Calvin College, we were a primary host denomination and had responsibilities for all kinds of activities and services. And since our people are the kind of people they are, they showed their energy, hospitality, reliability and faith to those attending. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who displayed to the Reformed world the gracious face of the CRCNA. As one of the CRCNA’s six...
Ecumenical & Interfaith



    Greetings Greg:

       When your forefathers lived in Holland, they lived under Nazi domination. Daily, they heard stories of Jews being rounded up and sent to their death in concentration camps. It would be very convenient to say "I do not support violence and reprisal type cycles of violence" in order to stop the Nazis. Yet someone somewhere had to say, "enough is enough." This is not about a personal vendetta against a Nazi, but it is a reasoned position to declare a just war against barbaric injustice. This is not a time for "humanitarian sentimentalism" to quote the post about the refugee situation that you can find elsewhere.

      Secondly there are not two types of Islam. There is one kind, founded on the three pillars of the Sunnah [the reports of the life the Muhammad found in the Hadith], the Sira [the biography of Muhammad] and the Qur'an. All of these are subjected to the theological interpretations of the consensus of Islamic thought over its history.  Like it or not, for all of its small variations, Islam is remarkably consistent in its thought, say concerning the position of an "infidel."  All Islamic schools over time, in all its variations see the infidel as inferior, one who can be humiliated, milked of its resources, and killed if necessary.  Just how literally all of this is applied depends largely on the type of Islamic state in which the infidel is found, how much in the majority Islam happens to be in a particular country, and whether there will be any recriminations against Islam for doing so. 

    If you read my post carefully, I suggest that all of humanity [and that includes non-ISIS Muslims] to challenge ISIS.  I did not label all Muslims as extremists. Many Muslims live peaceably in spite of the precedents of their founder. It is these very Muslims that ISIS refers to as  "hypocrites."  They do so, as they feel that secular Muslims are supposed to live by the precedents of their founder, and are not doing so, and thus have caved in to the values of the non-Shariah law.

   Lastly. I have seen the word "fear factor" come up a few times in some blogs. Here are a few facts:

a. ISIS said it would flood Europe with refugees. It did it.

b. ISIS in the above document says it will look for more blood. It will.

c. ISIS has threatened malls here and there, centers of government here and there. It will attempt to hit these targets.

Is this fear mongering to say that it would be prudent to circumvent a possible attack on the West Edmonton mall, and to actually eliminate the source of the attack? I would say not at all. Actually, by telling the chickens in the hen house that the snake that killed the last three chickens in relatively harmless, engenders more fear than ever.




Salaam thank you for this "wake up call" I agree that the church does need this and that we are challenged by the rise of Islam and extremist Islam. As Calvin has reminded us in the Reformation, Islam challenges our theology and it is important that we know our Scriptures, our theology, and are able to defend out faith. I also think you are right that our young people should be challenged to engage in missions with Muslims even at significant cost and suffering. The time is right for missions to Muslims.

But I do not support violence and reprisal type cycles of violence. Security and limited war maybe necessary by states but individual Christians are called to love Muslims and our response even to violent attacks has to be forgiveness coupled with witness. While I admit that extremists have Quranic support (and also from the Hadith) many Muslims and Christians continue to see them as extremists (on the fringes) because of the type of Islam they follow. Labelling all Muslims as extremists potentially could lead to the closing of doors to Syrian refugees as we are seeing in some US states (and possibly some Canadian provinces).

Let's try to reduce the fear factor and encourage respectful engagement with our Muslim neighbours.

You did a very good job with this answer, Salaam. I'm probably still not going to refer to Muslims as my "cousins" but I don't have a better term either. Thanks for the work and care you put into writing this.

Thanks, Louis, for a perceptive article distinguishing Gotthold Lessing’s perception and the Christian perspective on God’s acceptance of people.  If I get the gist of Lessing’s thinking, he thought God would judge people based on the good they had done.  And seeing as all people have done some good, God would be gracious and accept all, at least to some degree.  When you ask, “I wonder how Lessing came to size up his religion of human goodness when he came to the last season of his life,” he probably felt good about God’s love and grace, knowing that he will spend eternity with God.  This comes close to what the Mormons believe, that all are God’s children and will spend eternity in heaven, rather than hell.

Of course Christians have a much different perspective.  Christians teach that all people have failed to reach God’s standard of moral perfection and therefor deserve eternal damnation.  The good news is that all who truly acknowledge Christ, as Savior and Lord, will experience God’s grace and forgiveness.  And those who do not acknowledge Christ will only experience God’s justice and eternal damnation.  Of course, Christianity is the only religion, that offers a substitutionary payment for sin.  But seldom, if ever, do Christians mention that God’s grace and forgiveness is only for the elect, those chosen by God.  And the rest of humanity are left to stand before a severe and just God and will spend eternity in hell.

Lessing tends to look at the goodness in people, whereas Christians look at the moral failure of people (at least when it comes to salvation).  And of course, most religions side with Lessing, rather than Christianity.  It’s kind of like looking at the glass half empty in contrast to half full.  I like the idea of seeing the good in people.  I have a lot of friends and acquaintances and family members, and seeing them as moral failures makes little sense to me, let alone any comfort.  Although, not pleased with everything I do, I like the idea that God can also see the good and say, well done.  Welcome to my eternal kingdom.

Thank you Greg for your reply:

     The bottom line of my questions is that methologies are derived from our theology. How many times have I heard with respect to Muslim outreach, "If we just package this a bit nicer, if we come across as a bit nicer, and if we see Islam as a bit nicer...." then they will come.

   No justification for abrasiveness, but behind the thinking, I believe is a repudiation of Reformed thinking that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who does the effectual calling. In Arminian thinking the whole emphasis is on changing the will of the person to accept what is being said. Thus the emphasis on packaging. An excellent article that compared the ministries of Charles Finney and Ashahel Nettleton in the 1830's is called "How Does Doctrine Affect Evangelism?"    The author, a Southern Baptist himself, called into question the altar-call methodologies of his own denomination as he compared and contrasted the two ministries. Is it possible for Reformed people to allow similar honest scrutiny?

     The questions I asked are: how does theology relate to action? More specifically who does a solidly Reformed theology relate to specific outreach attitudes and actions.

      As to the "Wind in the House" by David Garrison, I have some bad news for you. It may be more hot air in the case of Bangladesh and the insiders mentioned than actual fact. Consider these facts:

1. P.T. who I have just corresponded with, who himself is rather warm to the insider thinking states "In past years, the two groups making very large claims [i.e. of converts] were the IMB [International Mission Board--who Garrison works for] with S....and .M...C...with Timothy M...". Secondly he states: ""There are struggling small fellowships of believers that meet together infrequently.... Sadly, very few of them meet regularly together because of social pressure, lack of maturity, etc." Thirdly he states, ""the money that Western missions throws at huge statistics is so substantial that it can gradually corrupt and totally sidetrack people from their original path." Fourthly he states: ""To my knowledge, there are not 400 regularly functioning MBB fellowships in the entire country today - those meeting on a weekly basis"

2. I spoke to a Bangladeshi A.H who used to be with the Bible Society there, is an x-Muslims and was personally involved with the insider movement, and is recognized as a stable Christian leader by his countrymen. He estimates that there are between 50,000 to 70,000 x-Ms in Christ in his country.

These facts, which could be multiplied with other witnesses cast considerable doubt on Garrison's "Wind..". P.T who has been in Bangladesh for almost half a century is no casual observer.  He, like A.H. is considered a local.  Recall that it was Garrison who in 2004 stated, ""The Southern Baptist International Mission currently seeing more than half a million baptisms each year, the great majority of them resulting from CPMs"  The problem was that of this figure 380,000 fabricated statistics came from Bangladesh. David Garrison as the father of Church Planting Movements wants to see big movements, and unfortunately there are also people who will tell him what he wants to hear. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware!

        The questions that I asked do not only apply to the area of Muslim outreach, but also to attitudes in church planting in North America, international missions, and radio broadcasting. Speaking of radio broadcasting, did you know that today you can listen to the Wycliffe/SIL produced "Lives of the Prophets"--kind of a New Testament rendition, in Arabic and guess what? The Son of God is rendered as the very Muslim sounding "Caliph of God" in the Urbed/Bedouin version.

Another section in the Egyptian dialect has "This, your son, will stand in his highest place, in the presence of the King of Kings and he will judge with His authority" for Luke 1:35 which literally reads: “Son of God” (NASB, 1995). If that is not Muslim friendly, then what is?

The desire for these translations has not gone away, and the actual digital ones in existence have been simply been taken out of the public eye.

Not everything is what it appears on first glance. Caveat emptor! [Buyer beware]











Dear Salaam,

You are right that God is sovereign and he advances his kingdom. A recent book, A Wind in the House of Islam makes the point that God is bringing Muslims to Christ whether in historic or insider paradigms. I think it is also important to recognize that Calvin’s views of Muslims (whom he referred to as Turks) were in the context of the Ottoman threat to Europe. Calvin had no opportunities to live and interact with Muslims as we do today.

It is maybe good to note that hyper-Muslim friendly translations have been pretty well repudiated by the recent report of the World Evangelical Alliance. I think this issue is behind us – I hope so. Where Muslims choose to remain inside Islam I think it is often the choice of the Muslim himself or herself in his or her context to decide what is best. Often over time it becomes more possible and desirable to leave Islam (however I recognize there are more extreme views on this). Certainly there will always be “the offense of the Gospel” but where possible I don’t see a problem with reducing barriers, especially if they are cultural and not theological.

I understand your concerns in this area but worry you adding to the severe polarization of ideas that we live with in ministry among Muslims by raising these issues in this way.


Hi Salaam, 

You are actually able to make any changes yourself! If you go into your posts (found on the right-side of the page after clicking on "My Account"), you can click "New Draft" and make any changes. Thanks for reaching out! 


   There is a glaring typographic error in the above article.

Please change the all occurences of the word "metanarrative" to "mega-narrative."

Sorry for the confusion.


Greetings Harry:

   I purposely put the quote from Accad at the beginning of the article as an introduction to his thinking.

As you read through the article, I show that I actually completely disagree with this line of thinking.

  A large problem with the view of other religions is that more often than not it is anthropocentric, or having humans as the starting point.

Might I refer you to a recent book entitled "For Their Rock is Not as Our Rock" by Daniel Strange.

He shows that any and all religions are at once a quest for God due to a God-shaped vacuum, and at the same time a rejection of God due to the fall causing humans to want to be the sovereign masters of their destiny. 

    Thank you for engaging.

Blessings in Christ


"Your view of Islam will affect your attitude to Muslims. Your attitude will, in turn influence your approach to Christian-Muslim interaction, and that approach will affect the ultimate outcome of your presence as a witness among Muslims."

Let's address this to the two main factions:

Your view of Sunni Muslim will affect your attitude to Shia Muslim. Your attitude will, in turn influence your approach to Sunni-Shia interaction and that approach will affect the ultimate outcome of your presence as witness among ourselves.

Would the template of interaction between Catholics and Protestants be something that could work in the Muslim world?

They need to find a solution to the violence among themselves.

thankyou for your clear thinking and writing on this.  

What person or official body would do the ‘licensing’ and ‘ordaining’? I think that answers your question.

...not to mention the fact that they’d be accountable to God for the gospel, so there’s really no such thing as an ‘interfaith’ minister.

As much as peace is needed, I pray there are better ways of getting to the peace we desperately desire. Putting it plainly, “inter-faith services” are neither honest nor courageous – they are a spiritual lie. They deny the Lordship of Christ and only confuse those who outside of the grace of Allah in Jesus. Much of our scripture documents the failure of Israel to attain ‘peace’ and ‘unity’ at the expense of Yahweh’s sovereign glory – it didn’t work for them then, and it will not work for us now. Please pray for peace and understanding, but with God’s glory, not without.

Allah is the Arabic word for God. Muslims in the English speaking world refer to Allah as God, and Christians in the Middle East refer to God as Allah. By using the term, Naji is not equating the two, just as when we say that Jews worship God, we are not saying that they worship Jesus. We all simply refer to the one we worship as God, even though they are different.

Naji, I appreciate that Sisi may be a good man. I think you miss-spelled a word .... "a pious Muslim seeking to know and serve God" should have read.... '"a pious Muslim seeking to know and serve Allah". I think there is a difference.  As far as I understand, Muslims do not equate Jesus as being God. Until that changes you should maybe use the right word.

A quick correction: Sisi was flying back from Kuwait, not Jordan, on Eastern Christmas Eve. Also, if any of you are interested in seeing the subtitled video of Sisi addressing the religious leaders, here's a link: 

Thank you for posting another fine piece on how we can better love our Muslim neighbors, Greg. It is much needed in a culture that spends far too much time demonizing the "other." I have been particularly discouraged by how church prayer lines have been hijacked by false reports. Thank you for being persistent in calling us to be holy as our God is holy. Salaam and shalom, Brother.

Greetings Greg:

   I just read the following headline on the Clarion Project blog:

  • "Canada: Parliament Shooter Was Muslim Convert" that follows the following other headlines:
  • "ISIS Attack in Canada: Inspired by Online Al Qaeda Magazine?" and

  • "America's "Most Influential Muslim" Endorses Sharia Law"

Now you might reply that this is social media that is portraying Islam in a bad light. Is it? Just for information this is a blog that features Muslims as correspondents as well. Here is their by-line: 'CHALLENGING EXTREMISM -- PROMOTING DIALOGUE'

Greg, I think it is time to smell the roses:

a. People are using social media to talk about Islam, because in many politically correct quarters one cannot do so. As well they are expressing fear, rage, anger and frustration. Fear at the fact that many politicians seem paralyzed into inaction, rage at the fact that gross injustices are being done in the name of religion and that so called Christian clerics stand by and sing Kumbuya, anger at the fact that supposedly wiser people seem to have duped them into saying that there is nothing to worry about from Islam, and frustration that hard-fought values of free speech, freedom of expression of religion and freedom to disagree with someone are being eroded away.  Are there those who express these things in inflammatory or incendiary ways that are returning evil for evil? Absolutely. Yet to wish things away under the rubric of peace, is to be either willfully blind, multi-culturally paralyzed, or to love political correctness more than being enraged that one religion on this planet feels that it can squash anyone in its way. [Just for information,  this comes from its core texts and not from some kind of "violent aberration."]

     I do agree that the challenge to separate the "supremacist, war-mongering, ideology of Islam"--to quote a former Muslim--and the eternal destiny of one's Muslim neighbour--who is a fellow human--is no small challenge. In your post above, you frequently conflate the words "Muslim" and "Islam." This is not helpful.

 May I be so bold as to challenge you to use social media to actually speak the truth about Islam instead of coming to its rescue repeatedly? Oh yes, thank you for the challenge to pray for ISIS leaders as well. That is helpful.








Great article!

I believe one of the causes of differences between denominations or between christians who think they believe different things from other christians, is that deep down in their hearts, people want to be different.  They want to find a way to distinguish from others, or as scripture says, "...there must be differences to show which has God's approval..." I Corinthians 1:19.   This takes place in doctrine, in lifestyle, in philosophy, science, dress, language, and education, within the church.   This can be caused by anyone, whether educated or not, whether ecclesiastical or not.  How is this relevant to discussions about evolution?  The same things happen there.  Questions about peer review, scientific method, consensus of scientists become deciding factors for divisions.  

So, in the interest of providing a balance and another perspective, I suggest you check out the latest youtube video on, of Genesis Week, where Ian Juby explains mistakes made in paleontology with regard to mixing bones of Australopithecus and homoerectus.  (   This mixing was not discovered before the scientific paper went to peer review and so it was published, but of course it was later discovered to be mistaken.  He explains many examples of how scientific journals refused to publish papers from scientists who were later given the Nobel Prize for their scientific work;  ie.  Krebs cycle, Watson and Crick's double helix, etc.  Ironically, Darwin never wrote in a peer review journal.   So why the big emphasis on anti-evolutionists publishing in peer review journals?  He gives several other very interesting examples of the lack of objectivity of peer review journals, such as when the journals refused to publish previously published papers, even though they had not detected that they were already published in their own journal.  

Then, he explains that there are a number of peer review journals which do accept young earth oriented papers, or intelligent design or anti-evolution research.  And guess what, then we have some people ridiculing these other journals.   So it is not really about peer review, but about point-of-view.   And this gives us a clue about ecumenicity, or about reducing or removing barriers to Christian brotherhood.  The importance of motives (desire to be different, or not), the willingness or lack of it to  accept various ways of saying the same thing play huge roles.  Perhaps we should focus more on how christians are different from the world, rather than different from each other.  That might put the emphasis where it really should be. 

Having thought some more about this issue, I would like to disagree with the concept of core and peripheral.   I think that is the wrong way of looking at how we as christians can live with one another in spite of differences of perspective.   For example, Christ being divine as the Son of God, and dying for us, and our sinful nature needing redemption is core.  God having originally made man good is core.   God choosing us before we choose him is also a core concept.  But, other issues which may not seem to be core issues, such as what constitutes sexual immorality, or what constitutes theft, adultery, or murder, are still in many cases clearly indicated by scripture.  When differences on these things are dismissed because they are assumed not to be core issues, then we lose the guidance of scripture as our basis.  It is not legitimate to say that we simply have different interpretations of scripture.   On the basis of different interpretations of scripture, core doctrines are also sometimes neglected or perverted.  So I would suggest something different.

How about being realistic about what scripture is clear on and what scripture is not so clear on?   I know this can involve debate and discussion before a consensus is reached.  But in reality, some doctrines are extrapolated doctrines, and not directly or clearly given in scripture;  this includes the practice of infant baptism.  We say one Lord, one faith, one baptism as if it means to forbid a repeat baptism.   Yet, scripture clearly indicates that John the Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance, and Jesus would baptize with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.   Clearly different baptisms.  Why are we so adamant then? 

Also, what is the significance of the fact that Jesus was not baptizing, and the apostle Paul also did not hardly baptize anyone?  Why do we assume then that this sacrament is such that only "priests" can do it, when scripture gives no such indication?  Is it possible for us to separate worldly ideologies of power and ceremony from the real life of the people of God?   I don't know if I have an answer for this, but the question should be asked.

Scripture clearly indicates that women should not have authority over men in the church, in several passages.  Why are some of us  so adamant then that a church is regressive or ancient if it follows this injunction?   Is this not the same scripture?  Is this not the same writer that we claim supports "there is neither male nor female"?

Scripture gives no indication of a theological understanding equivalent to our requirements for participating in Lord's supper, yet we have made rules about it.  Why?  (and we have reduced these rules lately which seems to make sense.)

Scripture clearly indicates that the church was to cast out the immoral man (I Cor 5), until he repents.   Why do we look down our noses at those churches who impliment discipline?   Why are we more relaxed about those things that scripture is more clear about, and stricter about those things that scripture is less clear on?

We know that Annanias and Sapphira died for merely telling a lie in order to gain acceptance, while we also do not read in scripture anywhere that anyone died for baptizing or not baptizing an infant.  Nor did anyone die for preaching without a license.   So which practice then is more relevant to our doctrine?

If we used the criteria of things that are more clear in scripture, to reduce our reliance on those man-made rules and things which are outside of scripture, perhaps more unity and harmony would be possible.  It would not solve all issues and problems, but it would seem to help.


On November 29, Tjalle asked about a timeline for the flood.  I recently read an article by Dr. Carl Wieland which tells of Manetho, an Egyptian historian of 270 BC.  This historian has a chronology which adds centuries to the Biblical account.  However, it is now realized that some of the kings he put consecutively actually reigned simultaneously.  That aside, Manetho writes that after the flood, Ham the son of Noah begat Aegyptus or Mestraim, who established in the area of egypt.  He wrote that the dispersion of the tribes was five years after Noah's descendant Peleg was born.  This agrees with Genesis 10:25.   It seems that Manetho pretty well corroborates scripture in Genesis. (CMI, Creation magazine, vol 35, no.4, 2013.)

Joy, no, I have not had the time to look at the links you sent me. Some of the YouTube videos are an hour long!  But, if you can give me that link again that provides "nuclear evidence supporting a young earth", I'll make it a point in looking at it and then get back with a response.

Can I explain how the Red Sea was parted? I accept Exodus 14:21 that God "drove the sea back with a strong east wind.  However, I have some difficulty with the traditional visualization of Moses and the Israelites walking on a narrow path between two vertical walls of water (and sometimes showing surprised fish in the water).  Yes, Exodus 14:22 mentions "a wall of water" but we don't know if a "wall of water" meant the same to the readers of Exodus as it does to us. Still, it's no "biggy" to me and I won't lie awake at night wondering about those walls of water.  Likewise, can I explain the manna and the quail (Exodus 16)?  No, but I don't have to because there is no geological record to counter these miraculous events.  You see, Joy, it's all well and good if there is no physical evidence to conflict with Scriptures; it's when geological evidence overwhelmingly is at odds with a literal interpretation of - to me - less important events, we have a problem.  What puzzles me is that many Christians cast doubt on some of the scientific methods and conclusions and yet would accept the same scientific methods used in forensic studies that would help convict or exonerate a defendant.

As to your last paragraph, I have no doubt that Jesus is God, that He died for our sins, and that He rose from the death. I fully subscribe to the Apostles' Creed. 


One can easily determine approximately when the Global flood took place, from Scripture.  E.g. see Biblical timeline:

There are very interesting geological phenomena around the world.  Mountains with or without folds, e.g. the mount that you mentioned: 

There are amazing folds found around the world:

Almost without exception folds obviously occurred while still pliable otherwise instead of fold(s) the rock(s) would be all cracked up.  This definitely shows rapid formation, e.g. mountains etc. shortly after the flood.

Have you actually looked at the documentary that I recently included a link to?  It includes nuclear evidence supporting young earth.  Maybe it is time to put aside your prejudice against what the Word of God is plainly telling us.

Of course, the pyramids themselves are amazing.  Arrogant 'modern' man thinks that he is so smart.  However, exactly how the pyramids were built is still an engineering marvel.  Just because we don't understand something fully doesn't mean it didn't happen as described in the Bible.  Can you explain how the Red Sea was parted and they walked on dry land to the other side?

Contrary what you're suggesting, casting doubt on the Word of God gives sceptics less reason to seriously consider the Good News.  If you are claiming that we can't trust what the Word of God is telling us from the beginning how can you expect the sceptic to believe the Word of God relating to salvation.  Could you state from which point in the Bible God is telling us the truth?

John, a few comments: If you date the flood a few hundred years before the Egyptians built their pyramids, the larger mountains must have formed in a very short time and that presents problems with the deforming of the geological layers. If you look at Mount Rundle, you see that those particular geological layers resisted bending and remain roughly parallel to one side of the mountain.  On the other hand, exposed rock layers along the Juniata River in Central Pennsylvania show foliation in the form of synclines and anticlines.  As to stating that "water ends up under rock all time", yes, of course, there is groundwater and there are aquifers but the porosity of intact igneous rock is relatively low (0.3% for granite) and caves and caverns do not extend over large areas.  If I recall, Walter Brown has a whole layer of water, apparently devoid of any geological material and with sufficient permeability to be expelled at a great rate.  That layer of water served as a "lubricant" allowing the continents to move very rapidly without creation large amounts of heat due to friction.  My understanding of "water under the earth" is that the conventional wisdom was that the Earth floated on water and that there was a "firmament" above the water and the Earth along which the sun, moon, and stars traveled on a sort of track.  As to the expanding population after the Flood and the preservation of technology, minds better than mine have pondered this and have come to the conclusion that preserving technology by a family of eight is no simple matter. The common understanding is that Noah built the ark by himself, maybe with the help of his sons but he most likely had access to available technological resources.  If he felled the trees himself, he must have had an axe of some sort and that assumed that there was some type of metallurgy (Tubal-Cain). Noah used pitch to seal the ark and must have had a source of this pitch and equipment to smear the pitch on the ark.  Genesis 4 suggests a reasonably well developed society (tentmaking, enough leisure time to make and use instruments). By the time the flood waters had receded, the metallurgists would have died. If Noah did not know how to make an axe, he and his descendants would have had to reinvent metallurgy (I don't think that Noah would have used a flint axe but, if he had, he would have had to know where to find this flint).  In short, a literal reading of the Flood story raises too many questions to an increasingly sceptical generation and, as I have mentioned before, may in fact hinder our attempts to bring the Good News of salvation in Christ. I just hope I'm wrong.  Maybe I'm not relying on the Holy Spirit enough.



John, you raised an important point that I had overlooked, and that is the Heidelberg Catechism [HC]. You are quite correct (of course) that the HC is quite specific as to the origin of sin.  Whether or not those Q&As are as defendable as they were in 1563 may be debatable but, until the CRC changes them (not an easy task, considering Q&A 80!), one is bound to have to agree to them to remain within the CRC. In reality, I wonder how many CRC members wrestle with some of the HC Q&As and if this is not becoming a stumbling block for potential members or a reason for CRC members to drift away. 

As far as scientific fudging is concerned, experimentalists who "fudge" results tend to be found out when it is clear that the experimental results cannot be duplicated.  "Fudging" my be a strong word, as sometimes the materials are not as "clean" as they should be. I tried to duplicate an experiment that was reported in Science, using the same geological sample and was unable to get the same results.  I determined that the geological material was contaminated and that observation led me some interesting conclusions.  I cannot comment on the "same codons in DNA codes" because that's not my are of expertise.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments.


Re the various flood stories:

  Greetings all:

The book by Egyptologist John Currid called "Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament" along his audio series called 'Crass Plagarism' puts a lot of the other flood stories in perspective.

His bottom line?

   "In addition, and of utmost importance, is the truth that the biblical writers often employed polemical theology as an instrument to underscore the uniqueness of the Hebrew worldview in contrast to other ancient Near Eastern conceptions of the universe and how it operates. In this day and age, when a considerable number of scholars seek to diminish the originality and uniqueness of the Old Testament, this is no small thing."

   "If the biblical stories are true, one would be surprised not to find some references to these truths in extra-biblical literature. And indeed in ancient Near Eastern myth we do see some kernels of historical truth. However, pagan authors vulgarized or bastardized those truths— they distorted fact by dressing it up with polytheism, magic, violence, and paganism. Fact became myth. From this angle the common references would appear to support rather than deny the historicity of the biblical story."


Essential reading for this discussion, it seems.





Also as Scripture informs us that all the mountains were covered then one would have to believe that this is what happened if you believe it was a local flood.  See 'local' flood illustration:

This documentary provides plenty of evidence supporting the Global flood account:

The flood was definitely global.  The ark wouldn't be necessary if the flood was only local.  God could have instructed Noah to move away.  It would seem rather ridiculous to have a 'local' flood lasting 371 days. Also what about the covenant God made that involves the rainbow.  If the flood was only local, what about God's covenant as there have been many local floods since?

Genesis 9: 8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers are unlikely the originals.  They could have been simply named after original.  Just as there is a city named 'London' in Kentucky; Ontario etc.  We probably do not have the same rivers today, especially after the total reshaping of the planet that took place during the flood.  As they had long life spans especially until the flood, Noah's father was born while Adam was still alive.  Noah's family might have named the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as they reminded them of what Adam told Noah's father about the original rivers.  BTW, do the current Tigris and Euphrates rivers match the account in Scripture.

Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel(Tigris): that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

Tjalle, would the apostle's creed be an acid test?  Yes, for ecumenism perhaps.  But perhaps not sufficient for our promise to uphold the confessions, right?  So while we have a type of variety and divergence within the denomination, we also have promised a basic confessional perspective, which includes the Heidelberg.  Everyone who professed their faith and became a member, agreed to that, right?  The Heidleberg:

Q & A 5  Q. Can you live up to all this perfectly?   A. No.1  I have a natural tendency
to hate God and my neighbor.2

Q & A 6:  Q. Did God create people so wicked and perverse?   A. No.   God created them good1 and in his own image,2 that is, in true righteousness and holiness,3  so that they might truly know God their creator,4  love him with all their heart,
and live with God in eternal happiness, to praise and glorify him.5

 Q & A 7:  Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from?  A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise.1  This fall has so poisoned our nature2 that we are all conceived and born in a sinful condition.3

Q 9. But doesn’t God do us an injustice by requiring in his law what we are unable to do?

A. No, God created human beings with the ability to keep the law.1They, however, provoked by the devil, 

in willful disobedience,3 robbed themselves and all their descendants of these gifts.Are not some things in evolutionary theory outside of the boundaries of the confession of promise? 

I don't think the human sinful nature is a biological inheritance.  It is a spiritual inheritance.   But it is sure isn't it, that we do not see any perfect people without sin.  This apparently is not part of the natural variability of the human race.

As far as scientists fudging evidence, well they are not perfect either, and there is clear evidence of scientists fudging things from time to time, while we assume most do not.   However, in this case we are not talking about fudging evidence so much as interpreting evidence.   A big difference.   The bias of the interpretation looms huge.   Did you know that the same codons in DNA codes for at least two different processes simultaneously, as if it could be read in two different programs at the same time?  Fascinating, and some would say more clear evidence of an intelligent creator, rather than mere random mutations coupled with selection.  Both evolutionists and creationists see the same evidence, but the creationist says this could not have happened by the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.  It is too improbable, too absurdly unlikely.  The evolutionist says it doesn't matter how extremely unlikely, it must have happened this way.   So who is being more scientific in this case?  

John,  You're getting me "hooked" on this forum but I can't resist (well, I could, if I wanted to) commenting on your Boxing Day post.  As far as ecumenism is concerned, would an "acid test" not be the Apostles' Creed?  If a denomination or a congregation subscribes to this Creed, my guess is that we could see their members as "brothers and sisters in Christ" no matter how we feel about their interpretation of Scripture ([harrumpf], "another believer in consubstantiation. Where do they get those ideas!").  I am a member of a multidenominational congregation that is recognized by four denominations.  I don't agree with some of the tenets of some of the denominations but that does not prevent me to worship with them or work with them.  "We park our denominational differences at the door." If there were a CRC congregation within reasonably driving distance, we would probably join it.

As to the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, is not the main point of the Fall that mankind has sinned and falls short of the glory of God?  I must admit that I have had considerable discomfort with the transmitting of original sin from Adam to subsequent generations.  I suppose it is possible that, by eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam's and Eve's DNA was altered miraculously so that the "sin gene" would be propagated though the human race but it does seem a bit odd, humanly speaking, that "one slip by Eve and then Adam" led us into a predicament from which only the death of Jesus can save (some of) us. No chance for a "do over".  But, no matter how one slices it, it's obvious that mankind sins and needs redemption. (And let's not get onto the road leading to supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism!)

Finally, it's not so much as "conforming to the world" as it is to confront the evidence in the geological record (Calvin's General Revelation) faithfully. There are some Christians who believe that scientists do their utmost best to find evidence that can be used to discredit the Bible.  Unless one believes in a conspiracy cooked up by "atheistic scientists", I can't see scientists fudging their results to make a point. They would be found out sooner or later with unpleasant results as to the future of their scientific career.



Tjalle, we are getting a lot of snow here, already more so far than we normally get all winter.  Beautiful, but roads are tough to get thru sometimes.  Your question about mountain formation relative to the Tigris is a good one.  There apparently were small mountains before the flood, while the larger ones formed at the time of the flood, but I will have to research that issue further. 

Water ends up under rock all the time, regardless of bulk densities, so I don't think that is a big deal.  Porosity and volume are some of the details, but in principle it would seem to be possible.  As far as how the water got there in the first place, of course scripture says that there was water under the earth, and God created it.  It becomes circular or never ending to ask how something got there in the first place, because in our human limited understanding, it would always have to come from somewhere, regardless of where it came from, so the question would never end. 

Yes plates would have to subduct.  Creation Ministries has a different theory that the subduction we now see is simply the tail end of a very rapid subduction at the time of the flood.  Are you saying that Brown denies subduction, or simply doesn't consider it?  I would think he is well aware of subduction.  I think he also indicates that the crust stretched upward, and some of it disappeared or exploded upwards.

I believe Walt Brown talks about superheated water which is well above the normal boiling point temperature, under pressure, and considerably warmer than the 25C per km you mention.  In fact he suggests the water temp was too high to boil, since it was supercritical. 

It may be true that rock bending slowly enough can bend without fracturing, but that thought goes against common observation.  Or perhaps some rocks and not others.  Much rock fractures even without bending, simply due to contraction and expansion.  In any case, whether it fractures when it moves depends on what surface it is moving on, and whether it can move all at once.  If this surface has moderate resistance on a level surface, and if the friction causes a melting of rock then presumably the layer could move without significant fracturing.  The bending of present sedimentary rock layers in the mountains is also thought to have happened when the layers were yet soft enough not to fracture significantly, either from heat or from lack of hardening. 

The story of Babel does not seem to exactly fit into a chronology in scripture as far as I can see, but regardless, the population growth could be the same whether the tower happened later or earlier.  Noah and his descendants lived long and could have had many children, causing a quick and great increase in population.  From four couples, there could easily have been millions of people in two hundred years, especially if they were still having children when two hundred years old (and consider how long they lived).   Some rough calculations show an exponential possibility of 1.2 million people after only 80 yrs.   Perhaps not likely by our standards, but we know they began having children at 35 years old or younger and didn't even Abraham live to 175 years? 

And the same people or technology that built the ark may have found a way to build pyramids, don't you think? 

Interesting that statement, "we'll have to agree to disagree".   Do I have to agree with that?   Couldn't I also disagree on that one, hoping that we might some day agree on a few more things?  

   And I also hope you have a fruitful and enlightening 2014.   God bless.

John, now that Christmas and Boxing Day are rapidly fading into memory, it's time for me to get back into the discussion.  First, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Yes, it's possible that these rivers have been reshaped but, again, I find this argument a bit of a stretch, because they would still be in approximately the same location. As I mentioned earlier, to hold that the drifting of the various tectonic plates would have allowed that valley retain its current form (OK, the form it had during the Biblical Flood) is a bit difficult, considering that the collisions of the tectonic plates led to orogenesis (formation of mountains). 

I did look at one of the websites that deals with Walter Brown's hydroplate theory.  I must admit that his theory of the formation of the mid-Atlantic ridge is clever but there are just too many problems for me. In the first place, Brown would have to explain how a layer of water (density = 1) would end up underneath a layer of geological material (density = ~2.65).  True, an intact layer of geological material could, in principle, remain separated from the layer underneath that layer of water, but the question remains how water got there in the first place. I don't know if Water Brown has an answer for that.

Next, if a hairline crack appeared in this geological layer and caused the geological layer to split, sending all that water to the surface, why would those edges of that layer spread?  The surface of a sphere is finite and it's clever to argue that the release of water caused the astenosphere to bulge upwards and let the geological layer "slide downhill" but where would that layer slide to?  There's no room, unless one postulates that subduction occurs but subduction requires different tectonic plates. Then there is also the temperature of the water to consider (the geothermal gradient is about 25 C/km).

Then there is the question of the age of the basement rock of the Atlantic Ocean.  The rock is younger towards the mid-Atlantic ridge, consistent with a slow process of the movement of the tectonic plates away from each other, caused by magma welling up.

It should also be noted that rock is brittle and rapid deformation of most geological material wil cause fracturing. If the deformation is slow, the geological material can accommodate the stresses and can deform without fracturing.  Thus, a rapid movement of the geological layer would have created a lot of fracturing.

Finally (for now), I'm a bit surprised at your statement about time lines, that "[a]s far as the timeline for the flood or the pyramids are concerned, they differ from each other possibly by only a few hundred years, and there is debate on the timelines."  If they only differ by "a few hundred years" one has to explain how "the family Noah" was able to spread that quickly from eight people to the large number of people that managed to stick together until the Babel episode and, from which, one group moved to Egypt to set up shop, develop a technology that allowed them to build pyramids and develop a society that could marshall enough workers to get these things built. 

Summarizing my comments, then, I find arguments for a global flood weak in the face of geological and other evidence.  Maybe, in time, some scientifically defendable interpretation of the currently available information may shed more light on this topic.  In the meantime, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  There are, after all, bigger fish to fry.

Peace to you and yours in 2014


We often thing that ecumenism is just about different denominations working together, or at least getting along with each other.  I think that is partly true, but that the more fundamental issue is in which areas we can work together, and which areas prevent us.  For example, in our local ministerial, the Jehovah witnesses and Mormons are not included, while other churches (christian) are included.  There is a great deal of ecumenical attitude, but there are still limits and confessional boundaries.  

Doesn't the same thing apply when we discuss differences of belief about Genesis 1?   If our interpretation of Genesis 1 (or other passages) leads us to deny man's ultimate responsibility for sin and disobedience, or if it leads us to deny God's ability to intervene or create miraculously, then haven't we crossed the line from an "ecumenical difference" to a God denying discussion?   Given the seriousness of an evolutionary understanding of creation, and its effect on many who use it as their reason for denying a God who cares and creates, shouldn't we be incredibly cautious about "conforming to the world" in this regard? 

This was a good discussion, and difficult.   It needs to continue if we are to get at why the membership of the denomination is declining, since this is part of the issue, although not the entire cause of it.   When we make peripheral issues more important than issues which are more clear in scripture, then perhaps this is one of our problems.  For example, whether you believe in infant baptism or adult baptism, if you treat repentance and obedience cavalierly with no respect, then the issue of infant or adult baptism is not really the issue at all.  Scripture says much less about baptism (whether at youth or maturity, whether once or twice), than it does about true repentance and obedience.  Scripture says much more about adultery, idolatry, homosex, and telling falsehoods, than it does about infant baptism or about speaking in tongues.   The very fact that we have a number of churches in North America which refer to themselves as Reformed Baptists, adopting many reformed doctrines while still maintaining adult baptism, should tell us that our conclusions about the relation of election and predestination to infant baptism are not so obvious to all, and certainly not inevitable. Scripture's promise to our children is exactly the same promise to those who "are afar off", and so is somewhat of a stretch to apply to infant baptism.  So I appreciate Daniel's comments in this regard, and also Bev's comments. 

Tjalle, slowing down a conversation is sometimes a very good thing,   so a bit of a delay in answering a question is okay.  In response to your question about the Tigris and Euphrates, yes, it is possible that they are either different or reshaped.  I am aware for example that there appears to be a former river channel about five or six hundred feet underground in my area, next to the Peace River, which could have served the same function as the Peace, maybe, or maybe not, and if people had been living there, might have received the same name (although in Cree or Beaver tongue, not English).   I don't think this is an issue of vast importance. 

Your second point about evolution of groups:  I simply think the terminology is wrong, scientifically.  The people did not change into something different, no more than a cross between black labs and yellow labs might result in differentiation of offspring, which eventually could be  relatively consistent strains of black, chocolate and yellow labs.   It's just selection or differentiation, not evolution. 

Re your statements about the tree trunks.  It was quite obvious the trees did not grow exactly where they were found.  It is difficult to say where they grew, other than that they definately grew in tropical non-winter environments.  So while continental drift is a possible cause, it must have been associated with flooding and mass movement of tree trunks prior to some formation of ice and snow sheets, wouldnt you agree? 

As far as the timeline for the flood or the pyramids are concerned, they differ from each other possibly by only a few hundred years, and there is debate on the timelines.   The biblical timeline for the judges, for example, seems to indicate overlap of various judges, and apparently the same is possible for some of the egyptian monarchs.   Josephus seems also to indicate that the Israelite slaves were building pyramids, most likely out of mud bricks, rather than cut stone.   Some work with carbon dating seems to indicate up to a 400 year variability on some of the C14 tests on the older pyramids, and of course, dating the wood does not give an absolute on the pyramids, since the wood would of necessity be older.   Depending on conditions, the pyramid could potentially be hundreds of  years younger than the carbon-dated wood. 

I hope this answers your questions. 



John, I apologize for my delay in responding to your last two posts.  I've been preoccupied with a number of other projects but I have not forgotten our dialog! I will try to get back to your penultimate post but I have a few comments on your post of December 05, about a possible timeline for a Biblical Flood, be it local or global.  If we can assume that the Genesis record is sequential (i.e., at least what is recorded in Genesis 2 happened before what happened in Genesis 3, and so on), the Euphrates and Tigris are mentioned in Genesis 2. Unless one argues that these two rivers were not the same as the current rivers of those names in present-day Iraq, the events described in Genesis 2 - 6 must have occurred in that part of the world that we now call Iraq.  To then postulate that continent drifter apart after these events require that the geology of the Iraqi region has not changed even though continents drifted and mountains were created (as a result of the continental movement).  There is ample geological evidence that continental movement led to orogenesis (mountain building) but to postulate that continental drift preserved the - rather delicate - geology of the Tigris-Euphrates basin is a bit of a stretch.

But, never mind all these problems, we are still faced with putting Noah in-time-and-place.  I will grant you that it is conceivable that Noah's immediate family was "of mixed race" and that his daughters-in-law were non-Semitic or whatever Noah and his wife were.  Note that this still requires some time between Adam and Noah for the Adamites (for lack of a better word) to evolve into groups with different skin colour and facial features.

As to the tree trunks in the high arctic, this can also be explained by continental drift and old tree trunks do not have to become fossilized if they are isolated from the environment.  Some clays are very impervious to water and can seal biological material. For example, wood from tree trunks recovered from Dunnarobba in Italy retained its structure and can be carved (I've handled a piece; it looked like a piece from an old barn).

But I digress and must get back to other, more onerous, tasks. As usual, with these discussions, one topic leads to another and we can go around the mulberry bush for a long time. So, I end with rephrasing my earlier question: when did the Biblical Flood take place?  For example, xxxx BC or, if you want to put it into perspective, how long before the building of the pyramids in Egypt?

Tjalle, you earlier asked about a timeline for Noah's global flood.  An interesting youtube video by Ian Juby (Genesis Week, Episode 12, Season 3) highlighting some of the 250 flood legends around the globe, and the similarity of lineages with the biblical account would give some credibility to the fact that the flood was global, not local.   One of the accounts gives a more detailed lineage of Japheth's line  than the Bible does, and it seems some of these stories have been shown to predate missionary activity into Africa or east Asia.   In this episode, he also talks about the genetic bottleneck of mitochondrial DNA, as well as implications for other species.   His episode 13 of Season 3 describes the tropical forest debris found in the high artic, as well as the antartic.   The huge amounts of tree trunks indicate major catastrophes since the roots have been torn away, and many of these trees have not been fossilized, but merely frozen. 

The theological implications of a global flood are quite different than the theological implications of a relatively small local flood.   You can imagine what they might be.   When Israel as God's chosen people began to worship other gods, along with still offering sacrifices to Jahweh, God became angry enough to punish them, but He used other people and nations to punish them.  Then He would also punish other nations and people as well, (see Nahum on the punishment of Nineveh).  But the punishment was never indicated to be global, and did not require a 100 year boat construction project or something similar.   

Tjalle, I appreciate the tenor of your comments.   I think you are expressing your understandings in good way.   It seems that you are expressing much of the traditional understandings of sedimentation, but in a somewhat simplistic way.   For example, a global catastrophic flood would exhibit some principles similar to local floods, but given that the flood lasted a year and 17 days, it had to be much more serious and catastrophic than a mere typhoon, tsunami, or rapid glacier melt (such as Iceland has had).   Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the rapidity with which canyons can be carved and tree trunks deposited in soil in an upright position.  While you are right that various particles separate out from water at different rates, it is difficult for us to imagine what type of particles might have been in the water, and whether they were all there at the same time.   For example, some particles may have been in the water at the beginning of the flood, while others showed up a month or two later.   Particles of sand would tend to settle out within hours, while silt might take hours, and clay might take days or weeks to settle.   But limestone is likely the result of billions of shells settling and turning into calcium carbonate, and that would likely depend on when these snails and shell fish died.   Many clam fossils give evidence that they drowned (unnatural death).   The first video Joy pointed out, gives some potential clues to how these layers settled.  A book by Walt Brown "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood"  gives some possibilities as well, which are consistent with the evidence.  

In Walt Brown's model, the movement of the continents was relatively quick, and happened at the time of the flood.   The flood and continental drift were part of the same event.    This does not really solve the problem of animal movement, since during most of the drift, the continents would have been inundated.    This is also true for the Creation Ministries model of the flood.  Some of the physics and engineering principles involved in movement, energy, and flow are described.   The video that Joy highlighted, shows Walter Veith (on Amazing Discoveries program) describing the directions of water flow across the continents at different geological layers, and gives his explanation for that in relation to the elevations and uplifts of these layers at different times.  He also explains how similar geochemical conditions are across a geological profile, which indicates that hundreds of feet must have been laid down within 30 days or less, and not over eons of time. 

It seems that sandstone, shale and limestone found in the grand canyon must have been laid down by water, based on the characteristics and flatness of the layers.  Since sediment in water tends to descend relatively rapidly, it does not give evidence of long periods of time.   If long time existed, then long time would have had to exist between layers, but it is difficult to demonstrate time from an absence of something.   That would primarily be a speculation.   Polystrate fossils would indicate that there was not a long period of time between layers. 

What about people?   If we assume that all the genetics existed before the flood, so that Noah and his wife were quite different, perhaps like a Greek marrying a Kenyan native, and their sons also married varied wives, perhaps the three wives were like a Nordic type, an Asian type, and a   Fulani type, then you could see the potential variation already existed.   All that would be required would be for a type of segregation to occur, which would be natural when the languages were confused at Babel, since people would tend to associate with those who would be most like them.   We know that human nature in groups tends to isolate or shun those who are significantly different, and this likely led to the distinction of people's more than any other cause such as environmental adaptation.   Thus we have Dene, a somewhat darker skinned type in the far north in Canada, and Nordic types in the far north in Europe.   Very dark natives in central Africa and Australia, and mildly dark skinned natives in South America and Asia. 

Your hypothesis about original sin is interesting, but inconsistent with scripture since the command to obey came before their apparent knowledge of good and evil, not after.   It seems their knowledge came about because of their disobedience, so that they knew how to disobey.   Our confessions also say that even infants are part of the sinful nature, even though they do not really understand it;  that would be somewhat different than what you are suggesting. 

John, I will accept the possibility that animals could have floated some distance on "huge floating mats of trees and organic debris" but we're talking about quite some distance even considering, in the case of Australia, the string of Indonesian islands.  But invoking continental drift is a bit of a stretch because, again, of the time frames involved. Of course, if one holds to a "Young Earth", one has to explain continental drift some other way. I forget where I read this, but postulating an accelerated continental drift would call for a much higher degree of friction and a much higher global temperature. There certainly is geological evidence that South America and Africa were at one time attached but are you suggesting that the Flood preceded the splitting up of Pangaea?  I would consider this odd in that the description of the Garden of Eden mentions specific geographical features in current Iraq.

I think that your argument about African-Americans and Indo-Chinese maintaining distinctive works the wrong way.  We are talking about Noah's children (siblings) whose descendants "evolved" into groups with distinctly different characteristics.  This "evolution" (for lack of a better word) into the current groups must have taken some time unless one assumes that the siblings were alreay quite different from each other (or that their spouses were).  And you still have not given me a time frame when the Flood happened.

The Grand Canyon shows, to me, concrete evidence of stratigraphy, where layers of sedimentary material were deposited over long periods of time.  The geology of the individual layers is quite different, indicating different geochemical conditions. For example, sandstone, overlain by shale and shale in turn overlain by limestone indicate quite different conditions. To argue that the canyon was formed by a single flood event needs to be supported by experimental evidence.  A lot of information can be obtained from sedimentation studies: large, heavier particles are deposited first from flwoing water and clay particles last (look at gravel in streambeds in fast-flowing streams in the Rocky Mountains and silt in the Fraser River near Richmond, for example).  My guess is that a global flood would not have carved these steep canyon walls but that they are the result of long-term action by the scouring action of rivers. But I digress.

As to "original sin", I have often wondered if the concept of sin did not arrive when [hu]mankind "evolved" to the point that he or she would be aware of right and wrong or that God, in His wisdom, placed Adam and Eve in a world where they were the only creatures that were given the freedom to choose between obeying and not obeying.  Dick Fischer has written extensively about this.  If we make the assumption that knowledge of good and evil is necessary to be able to sin (Genesis 3:22: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.").  Animals cannot sin but we can (and do!).

Joy, I have not had a chance to look at the videos but I did note that the first one runs for an hour and I have other irons in the fire. Thanks for the links, though!


Joy, the first video was fascinating.  Tjalle, there are a number of explanations for how animals got to different places, partly because of movement of continents, and partly the likelihood of huge floating matts of trees and organic debris to carry them.   As far as time to repopulate, 4000, 6000 years was plenty of time for repopulation.   If Noah's individual descendants (each son and daughter pair) were unique to start with, ie., contained unique sets of genetics, then it would not have taken long for different group types to develop from single pairs, or even somewhat small but similar groups after the tower of Babel.   Interesting how the African Americans or Indo-Chinese remain distinctive when they have lived in USA for many generations, simply because they mate with similar types.   It is much easier for this to happen from small similar groups than from large variable groups.  None of these issues seem like big issues to me. 

It would seem much harder to explain geology, petrified trees, historic erosion, ripple effects, carbonate layers, separation of bark and tree trunks, and many other features, without an enormous global flood.  Grand Canyon is used as a reference because it is huge, exposed, available.   But features such as the Dover cliffs, the Rocky Mountains, Mount St. Helens, mammoths with camels in Artic ice,  Iceland flooding due to glacier melted by volcano, and huge coal mines around the globe help to explain the catastrophic nature of most geological features. 

Yes, sin entering the world is another topic, related but yet somewhat separate.   It is related in the sense of how an OEE might explain the difference between murder, and simple survival of the fittest.   It is related in how we distinguish between what is an animal instinct, and what is human disobedience to how God made us and wants us to be.   Tough one. 

Some great videos showing excellent evidence for a global flood:

A Universal Flood (

Global Flood: Fact or Fiction (

Raging Waters (


My aside about Bishop Ussher was intended to point out the danger of clergy (as well as other disciplines) going outside their expertise.

This is not the forum to debate the various geochronological techniques.  I am well aware of the pitfalls of various methodologies and the error bars associated with them. 

What I am still waiting for from you, is some sense of when, in time, the Biblical Flood occurred. From the Bible, it happened quite some time after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. If we assume that the Biblical record of the Flood indeed was intended to state that it was a global Flood that obliterated all land-based animals, the entire world must then had to be repopulated with people and animals.  Kangaroos must have hopped all the way to Australia.  Other than a land bridge, the only (to me) plausible way is that some descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah domesticated the kangaroos and took a pair (or more) with them on a raft to Australia where they multiplied and spread out over that continent.  You must admit that this is a bit far-fetched because these descendants must have taken some koala bears as well.  But even then, the other part of the question is the time required for the descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah to spread over the entire world and "evolve" into different groups (trying to avoid "races") with their individual characteristics (colour of skin, amounts of facial hair, etc.).  I'm no biologist or geneticist and have no "feel" of the time required for these changes to occur but it would seem to me that, if one supports a global Flood, one has to come up with some sort of explanation.

On the other hand, if we accept a regional Flood that was limited to the Tigris-Euphrates valley, and "the whole world" is intended to describe only that region, we can explain the diversity in the global distribution of animals and people but, I admit, does not square with a literal interpretation of Genesis 6. That leaves us with a non-literal interpretation.

Just because I have problems with a global Flood does not mean that I have problems with the raising of Lazarus or with the Resurrection.  I do have a problem with proponents of a global Flood continue to cite the Grand Cayon as proof of a global Flood.

As to sin entering the world, again, this is a "whole other topic".


I wonder if your comment on "bishop Usher has had his day" is one reason why discussions like this are difficult.  While I agreed that age of the earth is not the primary issue, that doesn't mean it isn't important.  It neither means that I agree or disagree with YEC on that point. 

Not to put too fine a point on it about K-Ar method, but measuring a grain of rice with a yardstick which is well marked, still ought to give a reasonable size, even while it might lack precision.  We would not expect a yardstick to indicate a grain of rice is four inches in size.  An error bar of 400,000 years in a dating method is significant.   Any new rock should measure less than 100,000 years old at max.  A better reply would have been to counter with the abilities of the Ar40-Ar39 method. 

If kangaroos started from two animals, then they could have started anywhere they could have go to presumably, and extinctions on other land areas would not have been necessary....

You are right, the term evolution for separation of people's, is misleading.  There is no new species, and selection of types is merely selection, not evolution.   People are still people.   Selected wheat varities are still wheat, no matter how they look. 

I agree the bible is not a "science" book.  But that is no reason to suppose that it is not essentially accurate.   The bible is not a book about the probable, but about the possible, or even about the impossible becoming possible.  (Thus Lazarus raised from the dead).    Evolution is also entirely improbable;  some would say impossible. 

The truth that God sent His son to die for us;  highly improbable, yet it happened.  Eternal life, highly improbable, yet God's promise for us.  Did sin enter the world through man, or did God plant it into his creation?   Did God create us to disobey, or did he make us obedient originally?   Did God ask man to reject the way he was created?  Or to return to the way he was created?    Is that the choice?  

We're getting off topic here, from the Flood to evolution but I'm glad to note that you agree that the age of the earth is not the primary issue.  I guess that Bishop Ussher has had his day (a good example why clergy should stick to their trade and, to me, a good example of sphere sovereignty!).

Concerning your comment, "inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods", you may be referring to the attempt to date new volcanic rock using the Kr/Ar dating technique. No self-respecting geochronologist would use this technique; it's like trying to measure the length of a grain of rice with a yardstick.

As to land bridges and ice bridges, the presence of either would explain the movement of indigenous people from Asia across the Bering Strait to North America and the somewhat similar appearance between Oriental and North American First Nations. And, certainly, these people could have taken livestock with them.  But it's a bit of a stretch to invoke a land bridge or an ice bridge between Asia and Australia!  To postulate a global Flood would mean that the kangaroos on the Ark would have had to migrate in sufficient number to Australia and then become extinct anywhere except Australia (kangaroos are not native to New Zealand).  

I don't want to get into an argument about the definition of "race".  I accept that we all belong to the human race but we certainly look different.  My question is then one of how long did it take for the descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah to "evolve" (if you'll accept this term) into the Caucasian, Oriental, and Black groups?  Your suggestion that "it would not take long" doesn't cut it for me; I'd like an substantiated, semi-quantitative answer.  I realize that we don't have any photographic evidence but would an indigenous African have been as "black" 1000  or 3000 years ago as she is now?  It would seem plausible to me that, in isolation, groups may "evolve" in different directions and that their features start to differentiate more and more, leading from [probably] similar siblings to the wide range in human features we see now.  These differences start to disappear when these groups come into contact with each other.

How do we talk about these things as Christians?  Tough question, John.  As a scientist, I prefer to have a self-consistent explanation and, to my regret, a literal interpretation of the Bible creates problems.  That's why people have said that "the Bible is not a science book".  To me, the question is not so much as trying to arrive at a 100% concordance between the Bible and the created world but to accept the fundamental truth of the Bible, distilled in the Apostles' Creed and conveying the truth that God sent his only begotten Son into the world to die for our sins so that we will have eternal life.  To me, everything else pales by comparison.  Does it then really matter how sin entered into the world, either by an act of disobedience by a single woman and man or because God, in His wisdom created mankind with the freedom to choose? Or is it more important to accept the fact than mankind is sinful and in need of a Saviour?  Will we be judged if we have trouble with the extent of the Flood?  Will we be judged if we cause a stumbling block to unbelievers by insisting on a global Flood?

Not having watched the PBS program, I don't know what Keith Miller said but, in his chapter "Common Descent, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record" in the book I cited, he presents a lot of evidence of transitional forms: the chapter has 55 footnotes!  As to his claim of being an "ardent evangelical Christian", I am not about to judge him!  From what I have heard him say, I doubt if he would have any difficulties in reciting the Apostles' Creed and that would make him a Christian in my book (note that this Creed is silent on the Flood!). He certainly comes across as being "ardent" so we are left with the question if he is "evangelical".  If you accept Merriam-Webster's definition that includes the "authority of the Bible" we can quibble about which parts of the Bible need to interpreted literally and which parts figuratively (and where common sense comes in). In any case, proponents of a global Flood need to address the wide variety and distribution of land-based life forms and I am still waiting for this explanation.

Tjalle, thanks for your response.  I suppose we are all prejudiced on this topic to some extent, aren't we?  I would suggest the primary issue is not age of the earth, but rather whether evolution is possible or actually happened.   However, there are some problems with polystrate fossils, inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods, lack of serious erosion between supposedly ancient layers, and that absence of fossils does not mean absence of animals. 

I understand that there are many stories of ancient land bridge or ice bridge (most likely ice) between the continents, and people crossing.  Interesting also that orientals and native americans are so similar in appearance.   You wonder how long it would take for populations to differentiate and homogenize;  I would suggest it would not take long, given the right circumstances.   In the end, as Joy said, they are still all people.    We are beginning to see many examples of people today who cannot be placed into a particular so-called "race" or ethnicity.   

I have recently read a book by JC Sanford, PhD in genetic biology, who writes about the unlikelihood an impossibility of upward evolution.   The sheer number of deleterious mutations, and the impossibility of "natural selection" to select for beneficial mutations at a genome or organism level, is explained in great detail.  The book is called, "Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome".   It is highly technical, but understandable with a bit of background understanding of DNA. 

How do we talk about these things as Christians?   Is it justifiable for evolutionists to ignore the problems with evolution just because YEC do not have an immediate answer for kangaroos in Australia?   Is it justifiable for YEC to ignore the concerns of evolutionary nuclear scientists because evolutionists ignore the problems with genetics or polystrate fossils, or lack of intermediate and transitional fossils?   We seem to be able to agree on the technology of computers, nuclear power, space ships.   On history of sociology, impact of faith, and geological and athropological history there is less agreement.   On God himself, and on scripture, there is less agreement.   What do we use as a basis for commonality on this? 

Regarding Keith Miller whose book you claim is excellent, professed on the PBS program to be an ‘ardent evangelical Christian.’ He asserted, without evidence, that there are lots of transitional forms. When questioned, he said that God chose Adam and Eve out of other humans that existed. This just shows that the word ‘evangelical,’ like ‘Christian,’ has become debased currency. At one time it meant someone who believed the Reformation (and biblical) doctrines of the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. This is not always so nowadays, and certainly doesn’t apply to Miller.

The Flood could only be a Global flood as the rainbow was given as a promise that God would never flood the whole earth again.  If it was only a local flood, then what about the promise God made as there have been many local floods since.  Also it wouldn't be necessary to have an ark if the flood was only local.

Prejudice seems to be the case regarding the scientists you list.  There are many more scientists who believe exactly what the Bible says related to origins and the flood etc. Not all scientists compromise regarding the Word of God.

In reality there is only one race, i.e. Adam's race.  As all have descended from Adam.  Science has already ascertained that actual science correlates with what the Bible says, which of course is not surprising as Almighty God is the ultimate scientist.

The Search for Adam and Eve", was a Newsweek article by John Tierney, Lynda Wright and Karen Springen. This article of January 11, 1988 stated: "Trained in molecular biology, they [scientists] looked at an international assortment of genes and picked up a trail of DNA that led to a single woman from whom we are all descended”.

Maternal mitochondria DNA is passed relatively unchanged in the female line only. Over time, mutations occur in the DNA of humans. How many mutations have occurred since Eve? How fast do mutations occur? In other words, what is the rate at which the mitochondrial DNA clock runs? If the number of mutations since Eve were known, then one could calculate how long ago mitochondrial Eve lived.

"Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock", is a ‘Science’ article by Ann Gibson. Article of 2nd January 1998 stated: “Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures..." For example, researchers have calculated that mitochondrial Eve - the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people - lived ... using the new clock she would have lived a mere 6000 years ago.


If you do not accept this history (Genesis) and prefer to believe that man's body developed as a result of an evolutionary process you are still left with the question of how to explain Eve for the Bible is very particular as to the origin of Eve. D.M. Lloyd-Jones 

“And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:21-23

Luke traces the family tree down through Heli, father of Mary, mother of Jesus, through David’s son Nathan, until we read in Luke 3:38

“... Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God.” 

Therefore Adam, the son of God is related to the Son of God (our kinsman redeemer).

As Eve is related to Adam, Eve is also related to our kinsman redeemer.

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." Genesis 3:20