In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
The Holy Quran
1 Has there come to thee the news of
the Overwhelming Event?
1a. The Overwhelming Event is no doubt the
Resurrection, but the overwhelming event of this
life is the doom of the opponents of Truth.
Our Saviour Has Arrived
The Great Day
We are living in a Great Day of God and Man. Allah
(God) now desires to take for Himself to reign over
the nations of the earth.
There are two Gods. One god is the god of evil and
the other is the God of Righteousness and Justice.
The nature of the two Gods is so much different
from the other that it makes it impossible for one
God to yield to the other God because of their
Two Accounts of Creation
Philosophically higher criticism developed out of
the Rationalism of Spinoza (1670).
1. All truth must stand before the bar of reason
since only reason is universal in time and common
to all humanity.
2. Therefore the Bible’s claim of special
revelation and inspiration is repudiated.
3. Therefore, not all of the Bible can measure up
to the demands of reason.
This was an attempt to identify the main documents
which were sources behind the Pentateuch (assuming
that Moses was not the author [under reason]).
In 1875 Wellhausen (building upon earlier scholars
such as Graf) identified four sources behind
Genesis which were called J, E, D, P. This became
known as the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis:
1. The Yahwist’s narrative (“J” from the German
2. The Elohist’s narrative (“E”) 9
3. The Deuteronomist’s document (“D”) 10
4. The priestly document (“P”) dealings with
priestly issues (portions of narrative,
genealogies, ritual, cult) in Genesis through
Numbers (supposedly this comes from 586-516 BC)
Moses was obviously not an eyewitness to the
Genesis events. No doubt these were preserved
through oral tradition until the time of the Exodus
when finally Moses put them down in writing.
If one man authored the Pentateuch, why did he
present two accounts of creation, both seemingly
contradictory and at odds with one another? There
are various explanations for repetition among
One is that there were two creations, a sixth day
creation of man: (Genesis 1:27 God created man in
his own image, in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them) and an eighth day
creation: (Genesis 2:7 The Lord God formed the man
from the soil of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a
The first being a multiple creation of both males
and females. The second being in the singular
creation of one individual male, and then later,
In both accounts the word “man” (Strong’s #119) is
translated from the Hebrew word “Adam”, meaning “to
flush, turn rosy, ruddy complexion”. A
characteristic of the White race. One question that
arises out of this interpretation is: Why would the
omniscient creator create man and then re-create
(Adam kind) the same creation again? Was the first
creation, not good enough the first time around?
Did the Creator forget something the first time?
According to Genesis 1:31 everything was “very
What could be the reason for the two creations of
the same type of man? This theory is at odds with
other verses of scripture and infers that the
omniscient creator erred. It creates conflict of
scripture instead of harmony. For insistence, which
of these two creations has the authority of the
Does the first creation have authority over the
second creation and its mandate to “dress and keep”
the garden of Eden? Were both creations given the
very same mandates? If one were to examine the
words “dress and keep” in their Hebrew definitions
one would note that the meaning is not unlike the
dominion mandate of Genesis 1:28.
So, if this theory were correct, there are two
creations of the same kind, both with the same
duties. This theory simply has no reason and makes
no sense. What does make sense is that both of
these accounts of the creation are about one and
another the same creation of man, as described by
two different writers! Or plainly another God who
made them “Adam kind” a different kind of man).
And these accounts do not conflict provided they
are interpreted in their proper context. Before
these two accounts can be put in their proper
perspective, it is necessary to show that the
author of Genesis chapter one is not the author of
Genesis chapter two.
If one were to take the first two chapters of
Genesis, set them side by side and compare them,
one would note some stark contrasts. The most
prominent being that the Deity in Genesis one is
called “God” translated from the Hebrew word
“Elohiym”, meaning: “Almighty God”. Whereas the
Deity in Genesis two is called “Lord God” from the
Hebrew word “Yahweh”, meaning: “eternal, or ever-
living God”. Question if Genesis chapter one and
two were written by one writer, why the sudden
change in titles for the deity?
It should be noted that the divisions and
numeration’s of chapters and verses in the
Pentateuch were not employed until 1528 AD, and not
without errors. Genesis chapter one should have
thirty-four verses instead of just thirty-one.
Genesis chapter two should begin at verse four of
Genesis two where the deity is called “Lord God”
for the first time. Biblical scholars have
speculated that the deity titles differ because
Jewish scribes changed the titles so as to prevent
repetition of the holy name. Repetition was
construed as impudent.
One might ask, how many times can the name be
repeated before it is considered impudent? The tide
“Elohiym” is repeated thirty-one times in Genesis
chapter one! It is a fact that cultures and
languages evolve and change over periods of time,
this is true of religions also.
The titles for the deity differ because two
different men wrote Genesis chapters one and two,
and they probably wrote in two different periods in
time, wherein their perspective religious
traditions had evolved or there were two different
Gods. Another stark contrast between Genesis
chapters one and two is the different style and
tone of the texts themselves. All writers have
their own unique style of writing. In our side by
side comparison of Genesis chapters one and two,
one would note that the literary form and style of
the texts are quite different.
The writer of Genesis one is more properly
concerned with the “creation” itself. His
characters are less realistic, his style less
vivid. Whereas the writer of Genesis two is not
properly concerned with the creation, the origin of
the world is not even mentioned.
The world is described as a desert instead of as
“without form” or as a deep abyss as described in
Genesis one. The style of the writer of Genesis two
is more creative and flowery in his descriptions.
He utilizes myth, metaphor, tricknology, and
allegorical speech in his discourse, and where as
the writer of Genesis one is more direct and
Modern identification of literary discourse has
been a valuable contribution to biblical exegesis.
Utilizing the identification of literary form in
our side-by-side comparison of Genesis chapters one
and two, we can conclude that these two chapters
were probably authored by two different writers
about two different creations and a different kind
of man is the subject.
We know that Genesis two is allegorical by virtue
of its contents. At times, truths are expressed in
parables and allegories, in metaphorical speech,
and sometimes in myths and legends that in
themselves are fictitious. That Genesis two is in
fact allegory is evidenced by verses that are
impossible to interpret in a literal sense.
Example; “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, the
term “tree” is obviously allegorical because common
sense dictates that plants have no knowledge; but
truth can be conveyed by allegory providing the
interpretation is proper. The whole of scripture
provides the key to proper interpretation. Ezekiel
31:9 indicates that “tree” is an allegorical term
utilized to designate “people”.
The Holy Quran, 3:6 States, “He it is Who has
revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are
decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and
others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts
is perversity follow the part of it which is
allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to
give it (their own) interpretation”…
Let us examine another example of allegory in
Genesis two. The man (singular) is placed in the
garden to “dress it and to keep it”. Bear in mind
that God planted this garden, it was a paradise.
Was it not perfect in its creation? What did it
require man to do, that nature and its Creator did
not? This question is answered in the definition of
the terms “dress” and “keep” in their Hebrew
The word “dress” in this verse is from the Hebrew
“Abad”, meaning to work, labor, serve (Strong’s
#5647). The word “keep” in its Hebrew form is
“Shamar”, meaning: to hedge about (as with thorns),
i.e. to guard, to protect (Strong’s #8104). So,
mans duty is to dress the garden, to work in, labor
in, and to serve. Man’s duty is to guard and
protect the garden.
What is the threat to the garden? There exists some
form of danger, and there is a purpose for the
creation of man to “till” the ground, i.e. to guard
and protect. But what is the threat? Surely not
nature, everything in this respect is perfect and
“very good”. So there exists some form of unnatural
and evil presence.
Also, notice that this reference indicates that
Eden was inhabited by a multitude of envious
people. (See also Matthew 7:15-20)
The unnatural danger and threat to the garden is
manifest in Genesis 3:1 in the form of a serpent.
This is another allegorical term utilized by the
author to designate Satan, or more accurately, the
“adversary”. A literal serpent cannot speak,
therefore we must conclude the “serpent” in this
verse is allegorical. Also, just as we utilized the
whole of scripture as a key to define the literal
meaning of the allegorical “tree”, we must likewise
utilize scripture to define “serpent’.
According to Revelation 20:2, the serpent is the
Devil (adversary), and Satan. We also note that,
according to both John the Baptist and Jesus, there
exists a generation (race of mankind) of serpents
or adversaries (Matthew 3:7, 23:33).
Question: could this “generation of serpents and
vipers” be the descendants of the envious “trees”
that the prophet Ezekiel said were in the garden of
Eden (Ezekiel 31:9)? This would certainly explain
why the garden would require protection. Genesis
The adherents of the seedline doctrine claim that
there is a literal adversarial seedline inhabiting
the earth, an opposition to the will of God and the
seedline of the woman Eve. Those who oppose this
doctrine claim that Genesis 3:15 cannot be
Seth had a son, Enos, at age 105 (Genesis 5:6).
If it were only his Mother Eve, Father Adam, and
Brother Cain in the world who did Seth have a son
by? According to Genesis 4:25, Seth was born after
the slaying of Abel by Cain, and Eve believed God
had appointed him as replacement for Abel because
Cain had killed him.
A duel creation provides a wife for both Seth and
Cain. A duel creation provides a mother and father
for Adam (Gen. 2:24). It provides people for Cain
to fear judgment from (Gen. 4:14). It provides
people to dwell in the city Cain built in the land
of nod east of Eden (Gen. 4:17). Some identity
sects that propose the singular creation theory
claim that Cain’s wife was a non-White, even though
there is not a shred of evidence to support this
As-Salaam AlaikumClick here for reuse options!