The Margaret Street Church of Christ
Joliet IL

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Welcome! This page is dedicated to answering some of the most commonly asked questions about the Bible, about God, creation, salvation, religion, denominations, the church Jesus established, moral issues, etc. Perhaps you have a question in mind that has been asked frequently before, and if so, maybe it is answered here. If it is not, we invite you to send in your question to our preacher, Matt Bassford. He will do his best to answer it promptly and in the light of God's word, the Holy Bible. His e-mail address is: mandlbassford@gmail.com

Questions and Answers

Note: Some links take you to other websites. To come back here, click
REFRESH, use BACK button or re-enter: http://www.jolietchurch.org





The following questions and their answers are found on the website "Answers In Genesis" and are answered by scientist and writer Ken Ham and his associates. We do not endorse all that they teach on the website and elsewhere pertaining to salvation, religious organization, and other doctrines. They do seem to have knowledgeable scientific and biblical answers to the following questions.

Q. How can we know there is a God?    A:

Q. Where did Cain get his wife?   A:

Q. Why couldn't God have used evolution to create everything?  A:

Q. Was Noah's flood local or global? A:

Q. What's the best proof of creation? A:

Q. How long were the "days" of Genesis chapter one? A:

Q. How can we see distant stars in a young universe? A:

Q. What about the big bang? A:

Q. Are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? A:

WERE ADAM AND EVE VEGETARIANS?
Answered by Heath Rogers

Question:

        Heath, after your interesting lesson on dinosaurs I have done some further studying. I have come across a statement that I have a question about. Many creationists believe that when God created man and animals they were vegetarians and it wasn’t until after man was banished from the garden (and the world became evil) that we began to eat meat. They base this belief on Gen. 1:30. Is that a correct interpretation?

Answer:

        Like you, I had never heard of this idea until I studied about dinosaurs. It is an interesting question. Let’s take a look at this text, and then consider some points.

        "And God said, ‘See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food’; and it was so" (Gen. 1:29-30).

        God has made His creation, now His creation must be sustained. This passage is the record of His provision for both man and the animal kingdom. They are told to eat vegetation. Is this the extent of their diet or could they also eat meat? Scholars disagree. Albert Barnes goes so far as to state that we cannot positively affirm that animals were not eaten. One has suggested that since vegetation is ultimately the basis for the sustenance for all animal life (including carnivores), that vegetation stands in place of the whole. Others hold that the passage is restrictive and allowed man and animal to only eat vegetation. I believe the latter interpretation is correct and is supported by other Scriptures.

        As we know, sin changed everything. Death became a reality when sin entered the world (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12), which allowed for the consumption of animals. Keil and Delitzsch state that the consumption of animals through death "became a necessity of nature through the curse of sin."

        However, the above question asks when man began to eat meat. I don’t think it was immediately after he was banished from the garden. Notice that when Adam is expelled from the garden he is not given freedom to eat flesh. His diet is still vegetation. "Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat of it": Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return’" (Gen. 3:17-19). Man is not given authority to eat flesh until after the flood. "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen. 9:3-4). This change in dietary law came with only one prohibition - man couldn’t eat blood.

        We know that the Israelites were given strict dietary laws. The Law of Moses classified some animals as "unclean" and the Israelites were banned from eating those animals (Lev. 11). These laws served a twofold purpose. One, they kept the Israelites separate from the Gentiles and, two, they kept them healthy. Most of these unclean animals are scavengers who, by nature of their diet, carry bacteria. We know today that the consumption of these kinds of animals, if undercooked, could cause sickness or even death.

        How about Christians? The New Testament lets us know that this ban on unclean animals has been lifted. Acts ten records a vision that the apostle Peter saw. A great sheet full of animals was lowered to the earth. "And a voice came to him, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.’ And a voice spoke to him again the second time, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common’" (Acts 10:13-15). Of course, the message of this vision had to do primarily with the reception of the Gentiles, but it showed that the ban on unclean animals had been lifted. Paul would later write, "So let no one judge you in food or in drink…" (Col. 2:16). These Christians were not under the Law of Moses and were free to eat whatever they wanted.

        Further on in Acts we find that the only dietary restriction placed upon Christians is similar to the one given to Noah - we are not to eat blood or anything strangled. "But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood" (Acts 15:20, see also v. 29; 21:25). This doesn’t pose a problem for many Christians in the United States. But, believe it or not, the eating of blood is a serious issue for Christians in different parts of the world where blood is consumed. I have had a couple of exchanges with Christians from the Philippines wanting to discuss this issue. - Heath

Question: - Why is there a difference between the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

First, besides one descending and the other ascending in order, you will notice that Matthew's list only goes back to Abraham; Luke to Adam. Likely, since Matthew's overall thrust seems to show Jesus as the Messiah of Old Testament prediction. He only had to trace Jesus' lineage as far as the Jewish nation was concerned -- to Abraham. Thus, Matthew shows Jesus is a descendant of David and Abraham, and by virtue of this has the "credentials" to be the "seed" promise to Abraham, and the fulfillment of the eternal King promise to David (2 Sam. 7:11-16). Luke emphasizes Jesus' humanity, and by going all the way back to Adam, shows that Jesus is, in a sense, the brother of us all.

Second, the difference in names comes after David. Matthew shows Jesus to descend through David's son, Solomon, then through the kings of Judah (1:6ff). On the other hand, Luke traces Jesus' lineage from David through his son, Nathan (Lk. 3:31). Luke's statement of Jesus, "being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph..." seems to indicate that Luke's lineage was intended
to supply the real parentage of Jesus (since Joseph was not Jesus' real father).

Simply put, it would seem that Luke traced Jesus' lineage to David, Abraham, and Adam through Mary's family, making Him a real, human, physical descendant of those men, able to fulfill all prophecies concerning Him.

On the other hand, Matthew must have followed Joseph's family lineage, showing that Jesus had a "legal" right to the throne of David.

A practical side of this is that both accounts show Jesus descended from people (David, Abraham, Adam, etc.), therefore Jesus is all human -- man. But on the other hand, He had no earthly biological father; the Holy Spirit caused Mary to have Him (Lk. 1:34,35). Therefore, God is His Father. Both accounts show His Deity and humanity even from birth!!! And some people think this was just made up! No way! Who would ever have thought up such a wonderful awesome story? No, the record of the story is just like the object of the story -- both are from God! --- Philip A. Owens in The Jackson Drive News and Notes, No. 3, Jan. 16, 2005. TOP