Genesis #02 Ch. 1:2 Creation or Re-Creation — Chuck Missler

Genesis 1:2–3 and the Limits of Scientific Reconstruction

This is the second study in the book of Genesis conducted by Chuck Mitzel. The subject of this tape is Genesis chapter 1, verses 2 and 3. Last time we ended up in quite a, as I look through my notes and try to reconstruct what we'd covered as to what to cover tonight, I began to be sympathetic to those of you that are trying to organize some notes because we sort of touched upon a lot of different things from some biblical background to Einstein's theory of relativity.

I'm fumbling here because someone passed on to me a poem that I should have worked into last time. Apparently there once was a lady named Bright who could travel faster than light. She went in one day in a relative way and came back the previous night.

And that's kind of funny, especially if you read Psalm 94, where he points out to the Lord that a day is a thousand years and is but yesterday or as a watch in the night. So the limerick fashion is perhaps more humorous, but the same idea of time being relative underlined our discussion last time and will underline, underlie our discussion tonight.

As you may realize, this little gathering tonight is a, is a, as you may not realize, it's a very expensive gathering. There's no charge. You're just here to gather, to explore the book of Genesis. But I wanted to warn you, as I think I warned you in the book of Revelation study, is that while there's no charge, it may prove to be the most expensive program you've ever subscribed to because we're dealing in some supernatural things and if the Lord has his way, and I pray that he has a, will have indeed a way of having his way with us tonight, is that this will touch all of you.

Not necessarily tonight, maybe next Monday night or what have you, but we're an experience. We're not just going to try to grapple with the current theory of cosmology and the evolution of the dark sun and all those things which populate the technical journals recently, but rather we're really here on a supernatural experience to experience what God has for us and whether, as you may know, there are no accidents in God's kingdom, so you're here tonight by divine appointment.

I didn't know you were coming and you may not have realized you were, some of you, that you were coming, but it's my prayer and belief that this is a divine appointment, that hopefully God has some very specific purpose for you personally to join us tonight.

And since we're in that kind of a, we're going to get into a lot of technical things from time to time and it can easily become a head trip, let's start out on the right foot and try to put those kinds of things very secondary and let's petition our real teacher tonight.

Heavenly Father, we just claim the promise in Jesus Christ that where two or three are gathered together in his name, that he would be in the midst of us, and Father, we ask that the Holy Spirit just might attend us tonight to open our eyes and our hearts and our understanding to your word, and that you might bring forth to us those very specific things that you'd have us apply to our lives, those very specific things that you've hidden away for our learning, and that in all these things, Father, we would see Jesus Christ in whose authority and to whose glory we commit these things.

Amen. As I tried to indicate as we opened, it is my hope that we don't just spend a lot of time trading technical theories, because if we do a tape on Genesis this week, you can be sure that if you stick it on your shelf and keep it a year, that a year from now it will be obsolete.

Some new scientific discovery will give us a whole different light on what we're doing. Now, one of the things that is also a trap I hope we don't fall into, it's often popular to pick a discovery or two out of the archaeological journals or some technical magazine that tends to confirm the Bible.

That's backwards. The Bible will confirm sound science, and the interesting thing is that science is preparing a surprise for us. It's very interesting to go back through the commentators of the last several centuries on the book of Genesis.

I'm still boiling down a bibliography, so probably the next time or so I'll have one to pass out. So those of you that want to darken the thresholds of the bookstores can chase down those particular things that might interest you.

But I'm trying to also save you a lot of time. I'm trying to make an annotated bibliography and spare you a lot of time in the documentary hypothesis and that foolishness. But the point is, as you go through these older commentaries, you find that they spend a lot of time dealing with scientific theories, trying to either fit them in or refute them or what have you, that are long obsolete.

And it's awesome to realize the pace at which technology is moving. One fond example I've used in some other context is to compare, say, three people. Let's compare King David and his technology and George Washington and, say, our current technology.

King David traveled or could travel at the speed of horseback. He could communicate at the speed of a hand messenger. And he lived in a technology that was basically agrarian. His shelter, his clothes, whatever he did was emerged out of the soil in terms of a agricultural economy.

Two thousand years later, George Washington in his day traveled at the speed of horseback, communicated by hand-carried message, and lived in essentially an agrarian economy. In just a short span of time, we routinely travel at the speed of sound.

We communicate at the speed of light and by technologies which makes the cost independent of distance. And we live in a society in which we literally in the laboratory can create the materials that we make our things out of, in which our decisions create the resources rather than be limited by them.

But all of that's in just a recent period of time. It's been estimated that 80 to 90 percent of all the scientists that have ever lived on the face of the earth are alive today, which is a backhanded way of just pointing out the exponential growth in technological employment.

Now in all of this, as you go through and sense the evolution of scientific understanding as we have it, we discover it's a constantly moving thing, changing thing. We had some centuries ago the kinetic theory of gases, which explained a lot about energy, but was inadequate to understand some of the things the Bible talks about until the atomic age.

And now with the insight we have from atomic energy, we can begin to understand, speculatively, many of the things that Paul talks about and others. Sir Isaac Newton invented the basic laws of physics as we think of them, and yet they're clearly inadequate to describe some of the issues we're dealing with in the book of Genesis.

Einstein came along and gave us the theory of relativity, which has profound implications at understanding the time domain and many of the fundamental troublesome issues in the book of Genesis, are easier for us than it would be for a group, say, 20 or 30 years ago or longer.

Even Einstein's theory was published in 1905, not understood until 1920, and not applied to practice until 1942. And the philosophical implications of what he opened to us are still just being probed, and we touched about some of that last time.

I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that science has broadened our understanding of the dimensionality in which we live, it has totally altered our concepts of the universe with the advent of plasmas and subatomic particles, and yet all of these things are anticipated in the scripture, and one of the things to be sensitive to is our science advances.

It affects our horizon, our perspective, and as it does, it allows us, perhaps, to grasp more of what God has here for us. It's not a question of one being at variance with the other. One's a moving target, one's fixed.

The scripture is fixed, and Jesus Christ says that not one jot or one tittle shall pass until all is fulfilled. On the other hand, our insight as to what he's really saying here is incomplete because of our lack of understanding.

And one of the things we're able to do as we go through the book of Genesis is perhaps to see some of these things in a different light. No pun intended. And we're going to not, I'll try to avoid, being an engineer by background, I'll try to avoid the temptation of spending too much time on cosmology and some of those things.

I'll throw them out for those of you that are interested, and in the bibliography there'll be places you can look further. I don't want you to leave the study with the impression that there's a complete harmony between what we know as science and the book of Genesis.

Many attempts to have fit one to the other really lead to embarrassment because the fit turns out to be obsoleted a month later by some new discovery. Science is a moving target. But there's nothing in the book of Genesis that in my opinion is at variance with what we know technologically.

And that's a different kind of a statement and represents a view. Now, last time we succeeded in covering seven words, and incompletely. We discussed the first sentence, and incidentally if you understand the first sentence and have no problem with that, you have no problem with the rest of the book.

And it's very difficult to assail the sentence number one, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. That's impossible to disprove. Those of you that understand Shannon's verifiability theory of meaning will understand that that is no way assailable.

And yet, if you accept that statement, the rest follows. The rest are details. And reminds me of that Kissinger dinner, I think it was Kissinger where I heard the idea of, yes, I think he used the example in terms of anti-submarine warfare.

One proposal was to essentially boil the ocean and let all the submarines come to the surface. And somebody said, yes, but how do you do that? He says, hey, I've given you the concept, but the rest is an engineering detail.

And so if you understand sentence one, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, the rest is just engineering details. And I won't repeat all of it, but we did get into this whole business of in beginning, in the sense of the beginning of time, that this is not as early a statement as John 1, which really addresses the pre-existence of Christ.

This really is the calling into being of the heavens and the earth. Much went on before, and the Bible talks about things that went on before. For example, the first three verses of John's Gospel, the pre-existence of Jesus Christ.

But in any case, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Did that include the host of heaven? Silence. We didn't recover that. We speak of the host of heaven in Job and Deuteronomy and all through the Old Testament, which refer to whom?

Angels. Were they created? Are they expressly mentioned? No. Job 38 tells us they were there. They shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid. So did the creation of the angels precede the creation of the earth?

Sure. Where are the angels created? I mean, I'm sorry, chronologically. Pulling my tricks on me. Yes, in heaven. But the question is where are they in the chronological scheme of things? Probably included in Genesis 1 .1, but preceding to Genesis 1 .2.

The Gap Theory Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

So that leads us to something that we touched upon last time, but probably deserves a little more discussion. And I touched upon last time, and I'll review slightly and expand a little bit tonight, the so-called gap theory.

And you'll quickly discover by my presentation of it that I lean in that direction. However, the good news is, in my opinion, that you can get a lot of evidence of the existence of a gap between Genesis 1 .1 and 1 .2.

However, it's totally useless for the purpose to which most people apply it. It won't help you at all trying to get through Geology 1A. Won't help you at all trying to deal with fossils and trying to reconcile some of the notions that are merchandised in today's institutions of learning.

It will have no use there. We'll take up that issue when we get to Genesis 6. So don't try to use the gap theory if it appeals to you. Don't hide behind it in terms of the geological ages and dinosaurs and fossils and all of that.

Because that, for a lot of reasons, won't work. Does that mean there wasn't a gap? I don't think so. I think there's good, suggestive indication that there was a gap between Genesis 1 .1 and 1 .2. Genesis 1 .1, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, is a final, complete statement.

Incidentally, you'll discover in the famous six days, seven days if you will, there's no mention of the creation of the planet earth. That interesting? Because Genesis verse 2 says, and the earth, it just assumes.

The second verse of Genesis 1 takes for granted that the earth's in existence. It obviously was brought into existence in Genesis 1 .1. But from that point on, it's assumed to be there. All the days with the sun and the moon and the light and the stars and vegetation and animals and fish and whatever, we're going to get into that later, comes later.

The earth is not expressly mentioned, except as it's included in the first verse, which is provocative itself. Now, we've mentioned last time that the earth, the word and, and the earth was without form and void, as it shows in your King James, is actually handled, they're just volumes of Hebrew grammarians arguing about subtleties of that structure.

Those that view the gap theories being plausible will attempt to sell you the idea, and they can do it with a lot of scholarship behind them, that the while consecutive, which is the translated and here, should be translated, but, and the earth became Tohu Vobohu, or ruined and uninhabited.

I've described the extreme position. Let me back into this again. Let's take the last part of the sentence. The earth was without form and void. Without form and void in the Hebrew is Tohu Vobohu, which is two words that are used elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Tohu implies being waste or desolate. And here it says without form, the word Vobohu means uninhabited. It's, it's, it's desolate. One is waste and one is desolate. Excuse me. Now, the point is, is that you can go through and I'll spare you a lot of that of going through item by item by item to show you places where each of these are used.

But the net of it is, is there are no passages where these words don't suggest ruin caused by the outpouring of God's wrath. If I took you through the other occurrences of these words in the Old Testament, you'll find that in general, the suggestion in the context is that there is, it's not just that they're empty or vacuous, but they were made empty.

They were made uninhabited. Those of you that want to look these up, I'll give you a couple examples and we won't take the time tonight, but you can jot them down and dig into them at your leisure. Isaiah 34, 11 deals with the fall of Idiomaea and it speaks of confusion and it speaks of the stone of emptiness.

It means a plummet like a, you know, to make complete in a sense of emptiness. But the concept of emptiness is as judgment of Idiomaea. In Jeremiah 4 verses 23 through 27, we might look at that one because it has, it'll give you the style of some of the things you see in the Old Testament.

Jeremiah chapter 4, this deals with the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah, go to Isaiah, turn right. Verse 23, in fact we should, yeah, 23. And I beheld the earth. Bear in mind, Jeremiah is speaking prophetically in a vision, in a poetical sense, prophesying destruction.

But notice what he says. I beheld the earth and lo, it was without form and void, and the heavens, and they had no light. And I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

And I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. And I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down, the presence of the Lord by his fierce anger.

For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate, yet will I not make a full end. And for this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black, because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, I will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

And on goes Jeremiah in this prophecy. But notice those terms. The terms are used in the context of judgment. And this has caused scholars some intrigue as to just what the sense of Tohu Vobohu really means, in a communication sense.

One other thing, and the pivotal passage for your notes is Isaiah 45, 18, which we looked at last time. But let's look while we're on our way back to Genesis. Let's stop off at chapter 45 of Isaiah, and just refresh ourselves on verse 18.

Chapter 45 is a letter written to Cyrus 150 years before he was born, by which the Lord calls him by name, and in effect causes the Israel nation to be released from bondage. And the Lord opens the letter, it actually starts a few verses earlier in chapter 44, and it says to Cyrus, even though you don't know me, and I've surnamed you, you will know that I am the Lord, and so forth.

Describes how he was able to conquer Babylon. And this in fact was presented to Cyrus right after the Babylonian fall, and by an old man that was a Hebrew scholar at the port of Babylon, by the name of Daniel, dusted off a scroll of the book of Isaiah, and read him the letter.

It freaked him out, he let them loose, let them go, they were slaves. And this letter is a very interesting letter, where the Lord addresses Cyrus, but the Lord goes on to describe himself and his majesty, and in that passage, we get down to verse 18.

It's an interesting letter, it's too bad it would be distracting to read the whole letter at this point, but I commend it to you, it's a fascinating episode, and it's covered in the Isaiah tapes or the Daniel tapes, I think we explore the whole episode.

But in any case, there is a tape on the whole issue if you're interested. Isaiah 45, 18, for thus saith the Lord who created the heavens, God himself who formed the earth and made it, he hath established it, notice what it says, he created it not in vain, same word as Genesis 1, 2.

He formed it to be inhabited. And scholars point out that the grammar here contradicts Genesis 1, 2, or appears to. They say the opposite thing. Genesis 1, 2 says, but the earth became without form and void, Isaiah 45, 18 records the Lord saying I didn't originally create it in vain or void, I created it to be inhabited.

The words in Genesis 1, 2 say that it is without form and uninhabited, uninhabitable. Now to give you some feeling for how some of the translations treat this, the Septuagint version, evolved by now, those of you serious scholars know that 270 years before Christ was born, 70 scholars gathered in Alexandria and translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, because most Hebrews spoke Greek under Alexander the Great in the world empire, the only people that spoke Hebrew were rabbinical scholars.

The relationship of Hebrew to the populace that it was intended to serve was analogous to Latin in the Roman Church, Catholic Church, where unless you spoke Latin for many years, you couldn't relate to what was happening, they finally changed that.

But what I'm saying is, Hebrew was a scholar's language even three centuries before Christ. When he left the Babylonian captivity, he spoke Aramaic. Chaldean. But the point is, to remedy that, and all the Hebrew citizens around the world spoke Greek, they wanted a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, they did it, it's called the Septuagint version, started 285 BC, completed about 270 BC, and we have essentially that draft, and it translates Genesis 1, 2, but the earth became.

Now, the Aramaic, oh and also the Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate treats it the same way. The Aramaic Bible treats Genesis 1, 2, it says, but the earth was ruined and uninhabitable, and the structure implies a desolation succeeding a previous life.

Now, this leads to another word, then we'll get out of the grammar thing and try to back off and look at it broadly. The earth became, it says was without form and void, the word was, frequently that same construction is an active verb, like to become.

An example of that is in Genesis 19, 26, speaking of Lot's wife, she became a pillar of salt. The word became is the same construction as here in the Hebrew. And so, there are many good scholars, it's not free of controversy, but there are many major authorities that believe that that is translatable properly, but the earth became without form and void, or ruined and desolate, if you will.

Now, that leads us to a whole other scene, because if indeed God did not create it originally that way, and yet the narrative in Genesis picks it up in that condition, that suggests a judgment. That suggests a judgment.

And it says, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Let me just pick that up, you can make a big case that darkness represents sin and judgment. And you can, I could give you a lot of verses in which darkness and that, it's used spiritually.

Darkness was upon the face of the deep, the word deep there is the same word that's translated in the Septuagint, the Abuso. So, there may be something far more sinister in view here than we normally feel as we go through this passage.

Satan, Lucifer, and the Origin of Evil

Now, if there was a judgment of some kind, judgment in our concept, from what we understand from the rest of Scripture, follows on the heels of what? Sin. Adam hadn't been created yet. Whose sin are we talking about?

Lucifer or Satan's. Now, we have much in the Scripture dealing with the origin and career of Satan as we know him. And there are many scholars, Nonal Gray Barnhouse and others, if you're interested in this thing, he's written a book called The Invisible War.

Relatively sophisticated book, but interesting for a biblically fundamental reader, called The Invisible War, which he deals with the whole supernatural conflict that we're part of, and he does a marvelous job at dealing with the so-called gap theory idea.

And it's my personal view that if it fits, it seems to fit that all right, just don't fall into the fossil trap, if you will, and I'll come back to that issue. At this point, this is about what we covered last time, I think, in broad terms.

The whole idea that this interval that is implied here, or suggested here, is the cause for a ruin of a previous construction. And what we really have recorded here is, at least in some sense, a reconstruction.

Now, let's go ahead and take a look at a few things. I think it would be interesting to do. Those of us that were in the Isaiah study together may recall Isaiah 14. There's two chapters in the Scripture that are fundamental to your understanding of Satan or Lucifer, what have you.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. They're easy to remember because they're multiples of each other. Isaiah 14 describes Satan's sin, starting at verse 12. From 12 to 17, a very famous passage, Isaiah records how, starting at verse 12, how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of mourning?

How art thou cut down to the ground, who didst weaken the nations? Actually, prostrate the nations, is what the term really means. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will also sit upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High, the five I wills of Satan.

How did Satan fall? How did Lucifer fall? Through pride. Why does the Lord hate pride? All the way through the Scripture, that's a big deal. Because that's the way the trouble started. And Timothy's admonished not to let a novice rise too quickly, lest he fall through pride, through Satan's snare.

Okay, verse 15, yet thou shalt be brought down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit, and they that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man who made the earth to tremble, who did shake the kingdoms?

Who made the world like a wilderness, and destroyed its cities, and opened not the house of his prisoners? That's a very cryptic passage, and it's not my intent to go into this, you can get that on the Isaiah tape, but the interesting thing here is, is that Isaiah is actually addressing the Prince and the King of Babylon.

And yet at this point in his passage, he goes far beyond the local earthly reference, and that's how we get an insight that he's addressing the power behind the King of Babylon, in this case Lucifer. Ezekiel does the same thing.

Let's turn to Ezekiel 28, and this passage will serve our purposes more specifically in our interest tonight. Ezekiel 28. Now Ezekiel is actually addressing a prophecy to the Prince of Tyrus, or Tyre, and it's not my intent to go through that whole history, except the point that there was a literal King of Tyre, he lived on sort of an island that Alexander subsequently made a peninsula, and captured it.

And the whole story, if you want a fascinating story, is to read the story of Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar, I think 15 years laid siege and gave up, and Alexander the Great, in I think a matter of months, conquered the place, and made his name, doing it.

And the whole invulnerability of Tyre, the prophecies against it, and how it was to be, that was all laid out in advance, and a whole story in its own right. But I don't want, and this is, Ezekiel deals with that.

He deals with the Prince of Tyre. Josephus identifies him as Idiobolus, and you can get into that whole scene historically, it's not my intent here. In the passage, Prince of Tyrus is mentioned that he will be slain, in fact literally thrust through, and he was.

But also in the passage, Ezekiel does a strange thing linguistically. It's as if he shifts gears. He talks about the Prince of Tyre, and then he talks suddenly about the King of Tyre. And the King of Tyre isn't going to be thrust through, he's going to be devoured by fire.

And as you read the passage, you get very puzzled, because you begin to realize that there's two different people that Ezekiel's talking about. One's the Prince of Tyre, one's the King of Tyre. The Prince of Tyre is a literal, at that time, live, active, guy that historically was in power, and conquered, and fulfilled the prophecy, literally.

But Ezekiel's burden goes, sees behind him, the power that's behind the Prince of Tyre, and he calls him the King of Tyre. But as we read the passage, we get a very spooky feeling, because far more is in view than just some prominent leader, in the earthly sense.

And let's pick this up about, say, verse 11. Moreover, the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Ezekiel speaking. In other words, he's already sort of put a subhead or a paragraph note, moreover, he's going to go on now.

Son of man, now that's an expression Ezekiel uses of himself. Son of man, take up, or I should say, the Lord uses of Ezekiel. But you'll see all through Ezekiel, Ezekiel refers to himself that way, and the Lord speaks of him as son of man.

Take up a lamentation upon the King of Tyre, and say unto him. Now if you're reading this superficially, it sounds like a repeat of some earlier stuff, except you've got to be prepared for that switch.

Thus saith the Lord God. Notice what he says. Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. That's a very strong statement. Thou sealest up the sum. You're the ultimate. You're the peak of wisdom and beauty.

That's a strange thing to say to the Prince of Tyre, some guy you're going to grind to dust. Okay? Then the next sentence throws you completely. Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God. Now isn't that interesting?

I don't know a lot about Idiobalus there, the guy that ran Tyre, but I have a strong suspicion that he didn't know where Eden was, let alone having been there. But the guy that's being addressed here was in Eden, the garden of God.

Every precious stone was thy covering. The sardius, the topaz, the diamond, the barrel, the onyx, the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, the carbuncle, the gold, the workmanship of thy timbrels, and of thy flutes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

So this is not a God. This is not some eternal being. This is someone who is created, but not mortal. And he was in Eden. Now I don't know about you, but as I recall, there's about three people in Eden.

And only two of them survived. I mean, two of them clearly didn't survive for a long time, chronologically speaking, to show up when the Tyre fell. There's a third, though, that we see a glimpse of. But when we see that third person, Lucifer, Satan, call him what you will, is he clothed in light?

That's what he's saying. That's the analogy of these precious stones. No. He is already in the form of a serpent, a deceiver, and what have you. And his whole role is to mess up things a bit. So we have a glimpse here in the text of Satan in Eden.

But it isn't the Eden you and I know. You and I know the Eden, its trees and fig leaves and what have you. That's not what's described here. And that's one, I happen to be, you know, we all are victims of our own mental models.

But I often, you know, I'm very intrigued with the artistic creativity that was in the prelude part of the Superman entertainment piece, where they have Superman's parents in this crystalline, peculiar kind of existence.

And it was a, you know, a different approach to try to, you know, structure that piece of fiction. But it was interesting because how anthropomorphic or how narrow we tend to model things. And I would suggest to you, if I was doing a movie version of the book of Genesis and trying to deal with Adam before the fall, or even this before the trees and stuff in Eden or what have you, this whole business of the precious stones as a semantical way to communicate multi-colored light.

And we see this two other places at least. We see this emblazoned Levitically where? On the breastplate of the high priest. The 12 stones. And you're right, yes, some of you mentioned that you also see it in Revelation at the end in the New Jerusalem.

And as we look at the book of Acts, and we talk about the second coming of Christ as the time of restitution of all things. And as we understand the restitution of all things as they're described in the book of Revelation, it may give us a glimpse of those things which are being restituted.

That is God's creation before it was damaged. And the whole program is one of repairing, if you will, or redeeming it from the effects of sin. Now, interestingly enough, when Adam sinned, we had a curse from which death came.

We don't have that theologically, I don't believe, tied to others that sinned. And we know who else sinned besides Satan? Angels. It might be kind of fun to take a look at 2nd Peter 2 .4. 2nd Peter 2 .4, where Peter in the back of his hand mentions, for if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into the chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment, and then goes on to make some other arguments about Noah and so forth.

He mentions angels that sinned. Now, when did the angels sin? When they fell with Lucifer. When did that happen? We're not sure. There are some that feel that happened prior to Genesis 1, verse 2. Okay?

And this is full of controversy, so I'm not suggesting you buy this. I'm just showing you where some of these ideas come from. This is going to get more complicated, because there are also many that argue that demons and fallen angels are not the same thing.

But before we get into that one, just turn to Jude, the book of Jude, verse 6. Well, verse 5, Jude says, I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

He's going on to make a point, and I won't get into that. But notice what he mentions, verse 6. And the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of that great day.

Now, I happen to believe, personally, that these show up in Revelation, chapter 9, and that's a whole other scene. I also happen to believe that if these two verses have relevance to what we're dealing with, they have relevance to Genesis 6, not necessarily what we're dealing with here.

That leads to another idea. First of all, let's finish with Ezekiel 28. The king of Tyre has his throne in the midst of the seas, and I might point out that the Antichrist, in Daniel, chapter 11, has his palace between the seas, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, and some people see that as together.