January 2018
« Jul    

Recent Posts



Google Translator

    Translate to:

Get the Book That Took the Unknown Out of the Genesis Creation Account:

Buy Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?, the original work by Russell Husted that translates Genesis into modern English and modern Science.
2 - 3 Day Shipping

The focus of this blog is always Genesis 1 & 2 and my translation and how it affects, or is affected by, science. I read a lot of science journals and blogs and ezines and I’m always looking to see where science is going and whether it continues to confirm – as it most usually does, or (very rarely) contradicts the translation I have proffered here and in the book “Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?”. When I find contradictions, I go back both to the Hebrew sources and the Scriptural translation I’ve made of them and see if I should rethink my work, or if Genesis should be a basis to judge the science. Usually it doesn’t matter, though I’ve a couple of examples I wish scientists could handle, and let Genesis clue them into a possibility or probability. But, of course, most of the time there is no contradiction, just more confirmation of the Genesis record.

Let me give you an example of each. The first is about mosses. In ScienceDaily, an easily accessible ezine, out of England, that collects and reports on the latest of nearly every kind of science. In “Moss Helps Chart the Conquest of Land by Plants”, they tell us about a project reported in Science (a not-so-accessible peer-reviewed weekly put out by the AAAS).

Mosses appear in Genesis 1:11. I make quite a bit of it because no one quite recognized this until I brought it out. Until my work, everyone accepted something like the NKJ version, “Let the earth bring forth grass”, or the NAS, “Let the earth sprout vegetation” – which is better but still misses the idea that it was a category (the first) in a sequence of 3: (a) simple plants such as algae and mosses, etc, (b) grasses and other seed-bearing plants, and (c) fruit-bearing woody plants, rather than just “plants”, and then parenthetically mentioning seed-bearing and fruit-bearing sorts. Critics, like scientists and scoffers of the Bible prefer the KJV/NKY version, of course, because it actually lists “grass” as first, thus showing just how off the Bible is, because science has shown grass is a sophisticated/advanced plant type that appeared much later, after major historical and/or evolutionary progress amongst plants. You can read all that, and my refutation of it, in Chapter Three of “Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?”

If you read the ScienceDaily article, you’ll learn a few things. First, of course, confirmation that mosses are most likely the pioneers of land life. The scientists, here, are interested in identifying and understanding the genetics and biology that allow mosses to survive both very wet and very dry. They say its a pretty complex genetic system, in both DNA and RNA design/functions. It looks like, to them, that the mosses pioneered an ability to survive dessication and passed it on to flowering plants, but only their seeds. Fascinating. But as for me, I’m especially impressed to see that mosses, “simple plants”, came with such complexity and well-developed genetic software as early as 480 million years ago, and get this – in the order Genesis said. So, this is a “Science backs up Genesis”!

The next example comes from another ScienceDaily article, “Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?” (Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences) Anything to do with dinosaurs is huge. Everyone, young and old, every ethnic group, is fascinated by dinosaurs – and critics have long had a field day scornfully pointing out the Bible seems oblivious of them. Of course, I blew that out of the water – I just wish more people would read my book and blogs so they would know it!

Almost as big a deal, for anyone knowledgeable of such things, is the fact scientists have long believed, and adduced a lot of paleontological evidence, that birds came after – perhaps even evolved from – dinosaurs. So its no small matter that I show in my work that Genesis talks about birds just after it does about dinosaurs. (See Chapter Four of “Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?”) The Bible doesn’t say birds “evolved from”, of course. It doesn’t say anything about the way in which life and its myriad of forms came to be, of how God created. It simply says He was the Author of life, and supplies a historical outline – without timescales or and dates – of the most significant forms (as far as we, mankind, are concerned) of life.

As you can tell from the title of the article, some are now hypothesizing that dinosaurs came (evolved) from birds. They have some interesting evidences. And who can tell, from fossils at least 60 to 70 million years old? Who knows, if (as they say) “Small animals such as velociraptor that generally have been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds”. Remember Jurassic Park? Wouldn’t that contradict the movie! Whatever, they really have nothing conclusive. The best I can offer is to agree with them that “We’re finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with.” (Does that sound familiar?)

But what about Genesis? I would say Genesis tends to support the traditional “first dinos, then birds” but should scientists decide this reverse evolutionary history is right, there’s still no real conflict with Genesis. First, Genesis actually speaks about birds that have feathers and fly, not flightless “birds”. And the fact that only after the dinos are gone do birds (and mammals, for that matter) become well established or preeminent still leaves Genesis’ history in fine shape. Other scientists suggest that dinos and birds have a common ancestor rather than a more linear connection. Again, that too is fine with the Genesis account. So, in this case, there’s nothing here that requires any new work on my translation of Genesis 1 and 2. Its a tie (or bye?).

For some folks, belief in the Bible, and its assertion that God created everything, is solid and unshakable. Their faith is not troubled by the rest of the world’s doubts or theories of evolution questioning the Bible’s authenticity or accuracy. They just believe, untroubled even by the lesser question of whether we live on a “young earth” or old, whether God accomplished His whole work in just a few days, as our clock would tick it off, or took a few millions or billions of years, as our sciences claim.

A recent poll by Christianity Today, counting mostly Christians we can assume, tells an interesting story. The question is, “What best describes your view of the origins of creation?”

10% Young-earth Creationism

Those who subscribe to YEC can only be very “Bible-believing” Christians. They accept the traditional Genesis creation account, uncritically and uncompromisingly. That is the only place one could possibly find that description of the origins of us and our universe, and it requires a staunch and rock-solid faith to hang on to it in this day and age.

10% Old-earth creationism

These folks are compromising a bit. They’re accepting some of what our modern sciences have to say about the age of the earth and universe and, perhaps, the evolutionary outline of life’s origins. They can be pretty staunch in their belief in Biblical authority, even inerrancy, if they decide that, (1) there is probably a big gap in time between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis1, and (2) the “days” of the six days in Genesis are not 24-hour days, but another perfectly legitimate translation of the Hebrew word yowm, such as epoch, era, or long time.

10% Theistic evolution

Theists are not necessarily even Christians, or are Christians because they respect and admire Jesus and/or many Biblical teachings and values, or are Jews and other faiths, or are persuaded by modern criticism and science that the Bible (at least Genesis 1 & 2) are only fiction, but are still convinced by science, other religions, or whatever, to believe in a god, or Intelligent Design, etc.

62% Naturalistic evolution

There’s the real headline story. Most Christians have pretty much decided the creation account is not believable or reasonable, and have been well-persuaded by the plethora of modern sciences, and the plethora of Bible criticism. This group probably includes a large proportion of folks who believe the Bible is (1) good, (2) a reliable source of values, and (3) in Jesus. In other words, they’ve lost confidence in the Old Testament, but probably not the New. And a few may have reasoned or discerned that evolution and God-as-Creator are not antithetical.

But most of those, in that 62%, have lost a certain degree of confidence in the Bible as truly “God’s own word”, or an inerrant representation of it, because what they now believe is NOT to be found in the Bible as they have ever read it. It is strictly a creation of modern minds, adapting or reconciling the Genesis assertion that God is the Creator, to modern sciences (and culture, academia, etc.) beliefs and teaching. So just like theists, they can only have a much less absolute trust and belief in the Bible.

I know all of those people (as types, of course) pretty well. I have, at some time or another, been one of a similar mind with each, as I worked out my own beliefs, having begun an atheist scientist and college teacher busy trying to cleanse young Christian minds of their beliefs, to a very Bible-believing good friend of Jesus, lover of God. And as I made my way to where I am now, I’ve seen just how tough it is to believe in the God of the Bible, and get the most out of all that the Bible holds in store for us, not to mention defend my belief and testimony against detractors and critics, with what Genesis seems to say.

I finally reached a point where I couldn’t stand it any more. I had to know what (or which) to believe. I had to reconcile my evangelical leanings, and pastors’ and friends’ faith, with Genesis. I had to decide if I was going to be able to have a full faith and confidence in the Bible, or also reach some compromise, some accommodation that omitted the creation account – and by implication – a few other passages that didn’t necessarily sit well with me and my intellect.

I thought, at first, I could find some other version, some other translation that would be less “ridiculous” in my mind. Many versions later I began to realize that those two chapters never varied, at least in no substantive manner. They simply repeated the first, and most popular translation, the KJV, which was a translation by a committee of scholars and academics in 1611! 1611!

Science hardly existed. No one knew there ever was such a thing as dinosaurs. Genes. Galaxies. Atoms. Plate tectonics. Even evolution! So whatever God might really have said about those sorts of things would go right over their heads. There weren’t even words for such, let alone ideas or concepts. I knew about all those things, but they didn’t. So I decided to go back to the Hebrew and do it all again. Re-translate.

When I started I soon discovered an even more problematic fact: that scribe was in far worse shape than even the King James scholars. Hebrew was a simple language built around some very different ways of categorizing and describing things. It had a very small lexicon. It was more a mnemonic device than written language, mostly to facilitate consistent telling, verbal transmission, of His words! I spent two years doing what I did. But the help and guidance of God’s own spirit, and all I’d learned in my eclectic academic and scientific history, served me well. And the interpretation I finished liberated me. I had started it ready to become a theist, or loose and liberal follower of Christianity. The Bible was too big, too much, too daunting, anyway. But no more.

I found that the Bible is only a brief and sparse outline. More like chapter and verse titles than textbook. But, with a careful forensic approach, the clues and evidence of every word, the time line and the descriptions of difficult pictures the Lord must have given the scribe to give him the facts, reveals an incredible record. It gives an outline of creation that not only matches well what modern scientists believe is the history of creation, but – given it was written 3500 years ago – is downright prophetic. Almost ten years after my first labors, science isn’t deviating, but moving into ever better accord with the Bible’s creation account!

So. If you are among the 62%, especially, read my book, or at least check out the finished translation of Genesis 1 & 2. You can even keep your belief in evolution!