Pre Adamic Civilization

Brothers and Sisters,
Last Sunday at church the topic of a pre-adamic civilization came up in conversation. My pastor says that he beleives there was a civilization before Adam was created- I do not, and in my opinion, it is an affront to who God is and His word. I would like to know what some of you think becasue I am not well versed or studied in this area. :-?

If it's not in the bible (edit: and discernable through the senses or by scientific method) it's purely conjecture... that isn't to say that God couldn't have created amazing and numerous things that we cannot even comprehend -because he probably has.

Are humans the only life in the universe, we may not know, but we do know that we are the apple of His eye! There are a lot of things that if we don't base on any scripture there is no reason to speculate about them at all, except to try to fathom how amazing our God is!

Honestly, you answer me this, what real relevence does this topic have on your spiritual life today? Would an answer either way impact the way that you walk with Jesus? Would you be more urgent in reaching others with the gospel if you knew there was a civilization before Adam or aliens in outerspace?

I hope you see that these are all not worthy of our most holy calling, to be the salt and the light, to be his ambassadors. Ambassadors deal with international problems involving nations, laws and PEOPLE. When our focus is off of scripture, our focus is off of Jesus and our focus is off of others.

iansmith,
thank you for responding. Honestly, the issue here is not whether I would be more apt to go out an tell people about Christ if I knew for certain there was a pre adamic civilization, what sense would that make? The speculation has more to do with whether or not I am under the leadership of a false teacher and the potential dangers therein.

I would like to point out that God has destroyed at least two civilizations and left nothing of them standing. When he destroyed Babel he did it with fire and with confusion of language. When he destroyed Noah's generation he destroyed their world with a flood.

Now in Babel, it was said that they had built a tower to the heavens and were proud of their achievements... whats to say that the city that they build wasn't technologically advanced like our own. We will never know, God destroyed it and scattered its people. But we have myths of places like Atlantis that sound strikingly similar to Babel.

Then God destroyed an entire civilization and only spared Noah and his sons... yet Noah was technologically and industrially superior to many in our current generation. Even though his ark was made out of wood, it would have required engineering prowless that very few rival today. It's one thing to build a boat, but to build a boat that big that didn't collapse under it's own weight -you might as well be building a sky scraper. Now what strikes me is that if someone was building a sky scraper in their back yard people would notice... even if they didn't believe in Noah's God they would have been awed by the work he was doing -unless they built amazing structures as well, then they could be blissfully ignorant of it's importance.

Now this is all conjecture, and it's fun to think about but definitely not scriptural or theological and shouldn't be preached in church as fact. These are the thoughts of a young man with a big imagination =p

john1140,

CS Lewis had a great imagination and was able to intigrate his fantasy worlds with theology and teach generations of children through these analogies in his literature. There's nothing inherently wrong with speculating or having a big imagination... part of having a big imagination is realizing that anything that we can imagine: God is bigger!

Now you are afraid you're under a false teacher... I would encourage you to have him back up his theory with scripture and with other Christian teaching. If there isn't any evidence in the Scripture or in bible teaching church history, then he should at least preface his comments as speculation or personal imagination.

CS Lewis certainly didn't attempt to pass of his Narnia books as Christian Doctrine even though they contained clear elements of Christian teaching, they were novels for enjoyment and the encouragement of imagination. We need to be sure to distinguish between what we THINK about God and what we can KNOW about God through the Scripture and his son Jesus.

Thanks iansmith,
This response is much more helpful

I know all about having a big imagination...but when it comes to my spiritual development, I do not mess around. I'm sure you can understand that. It's too dangerous and you run the risk of jacking God's people up. So, while this issue may not be a big deal to you or others, it is to me- because I do not want to be in error. It is not something that I worry about because I check everything against the word. I love and serve God first.

I just thought of how your Pastor might be thinking.

Genesis 1:26-28

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Now it would be a serious mistake to assume that the men and women that God created in Genesis 1 are different than Adam in Genesis 2.

In Genesis 1, the emphasis is on God's entire creation, Genesis 2 is devoted to the creation of man. Like a textbook, the first chapter sums up all of the chapters of creation briefly, then a later chapter will explain the details of each in a more complete way.

Instead of seeing Genesis 1 as a summary and seeing Genesis 2 as a deeper description of the same event, your Pastor has fallen into the error of thinking that they are two separate events. This is error and is not in line with the orthodox understanding of scripture -or with logical literary understanding of the bible.

John, unless he is referring to angels in heaven the bible gives no indication that there was a Pre-Adamic civilization. Your pastor taking much liberty and reading past scripture.

I've heard that devils are actually the spirits of the men and women of this "pre-adamic" destroyed civilization. I read it in a Derek Prince book. Prince was not saying that he believed this theory; it's just one of the many extrabiblical conjectures that try to make heads or tails of who or what demons are.

The Mormons believe in a pre-existance, maybe it came from them.

might want to check out Ken Hams web site answers in genesis.org or Dr.Dino.org ,great info on both web sites. pass them along to your pastor it seems that he good use a good foundation-in Genesis 1-11 :-)
jeff

There is a study bible that has notes in it that are very extensive. Much of the notes are very good and a person can learn a lot of interesting things from reading them. The bible is called a Dake bible. Some call it Dakes mistakes.

Mr Dake apparently believed in a pre-Adamic civilization and gives bible verses to try and prove it. I never accepted this theory and find this idea to be a streach of the scripture. If you find a Dake bible you can check the verses out that a person who believes this idea accepts. I don't remember the verses so I won't comment on that.

Just to add a little and I'm hoping that this won't change the threads discussion on a pre-Adamic civilization. Another theory that is in Dake and is very common is that Enock and Elijah are the two prophets of Revelation and not Moses and Elijah. Remember it was Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. The miracles that are done are similar to what God used Moses to do. The whole theory is in Dake's bible and the only verse that could have any bearing that he used was where the Word says that it is appointed for man once to die. But, by using this verse you have to think that Lazarus, the child Jesus rose from the dead, the child Elijah rose from the dead didn't die again. These oppinions are a stretch of the Word.

In his hands,
GaryE

Hi John1140, how are you?

Something which has helped me get this all sorted out in my mind is a passage in Mark's Gospel account(chapter 10), where it appears as though the Lord Jesus combines Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 into one event, where He says

[b][color=660033]But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife [/color][/b]

This speaks strongly to me that the [b]creation[/b] which is described in both chapters one and two of Genesis, is the same. It also speaks strongly to me against the notion that there could have been [b]deep time[/b], or vast lengths of time, prior to the appearance of man, as He he puts this all[i]from the beginning of the creation [/i]. Put another way, it is to say that, beginning with Adam and Eve, man has been here from the beginning of the creation.

Is this helpfull? Do you have any other questions or concerns?

Grace and peace to you in Messiah Jesus,

Chris

hi, the theory is that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, and the earth became without form and void because God does not create something that is without form and void.man was told to replentish the earth,or refill it. the result of rebelion from angels who were cast out of heaven(satan: the prince of the earth amongst them) the rest of the story remains completely the same... a non issue jimp

HI everyone.

Jimp, before I reply to this I want to make sure you know I'm not replying to you. I only want to write about something you mentioned from the theory.

"God does not create something that is without form and void"

How do we know this? How do we know what God would or would not create? What would be inconsistent with His attributes should He decide to make something such as this? And how would we know that without knowing His secret counsel and will in making it?

That said, I am fond of a description I heard once of the creation which [i]likened[/i] the Heavens and the Earth to blank canvases which God proceeded to fill in, as in the way of an artist upon his canvas, during the days of creation.

Chris

I would agree with a previous post-er, check out the Answers in Genesis website, they have numerous articles that deal with the problems and inconsistencies of gap theory. Here is one of them...

[url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/gaptheory.asp]Gap Theory[/url]

You might ask your pastor to review these articles and offer his rebuttal.

In Christ,

Ron

.john1140, I looked into this a few years ago. It is error.Absolutely! They debated this on the john ankerberg show. Dr, Ken Hovine debated against the pre-adam theory.He kept calling them heretics over and over.One of them got mad and told john ankerberg he would leave the debate if dr hovine would not stop callimg him a heretic.Dr hovine turned to him and said"I dont call you a heretic the word calls you a heretic". They asked dr hovine "what do you mean?" He replied"If you can show me sin before adam then you are a heretic! Get it?.........THIS IS WHERE SUPPOSITION LEADS!Your pastor got DUPED! Weve all been there! Time for pastor to eat humble Pre-Adamic pie.It is definately a LIE! What do you think? was there sin berore Adam?........God bless David

hi, seems to me satan and his angels rebeled in pride. this is the theory that brought chaos. it is not my theory and i could care less. brother hovland calling someone a name does not prove anything for the irs calls him a tax evader. he may or may not be, the other person may or may not be a heretic. it is a non issue. prophesy to the bones and tell them to live... do not curse their dryness.jimp

[u]ChrisJD on 2007/3/28 2:07:01[/u]
"God does not create something that is without form and void"

How do we know this? How do we know what God would or would not create?

Here are some notes I did a while ago. The Gap Theory is not a theory I would die for but at my present understanding it is still the 'best fit hypothesis'. It also explains why some would say 'God did not create something that is "without form and void".

Hope you can make something of these scattered notes. The issue for me has to do with the Hebrew words 'tohu and bohu'. ie without form and void. The words are used elsewhere in the scripture and so we are not restricted to Gen 1:2 for our understanding of what the phrase might mean. These notes record the fact that Isaiah claims that God did NOT create the world 'tohu'. (Isaiah 45:18) If Isaiah is right how can Gen 1:2 refer to the original moment of creation?

Gen 01:01 Gen 01:02 Isaiah 34:11 Isaiah 45:18 Jer 04:23 1Pet 3:20-21 2Pet 3:06
So called because it suggests a "time gap" between the first two verses of the Bible.

Gen 1:1 is all that we are told of the "original" creation.
It is the first creative act of God recorded in scripture

"bara" (Hebrew) is used, in Genesis,
only of 3 specific acts of creation.
a) the creation of the heaven(s) and the earth \tGe 1:1
b) the creation of animal life \t\tGe 1:21
c) the creation of human life \t\tGe 1:26,27

Strongs 01254
Ge 1:1,21,27,2:3-4,5:1-2,6:7
many bible teachers say it means "to create from nothing"
it is never used to describe the works of man

"asah" (Hebrew), also translated "made" is used often
throughout Genesis, and has a different meaning.

Strongs 06213
Ge 1:7,11-12,16,25-26,31,2:2-4,18,3:1,7,13-14,21,4:10,
Ge 5:1,6:6-7,14-16,22,7:4-5,8:6,21,9:6,24,11:4,6,
Ge 12:2,5,18,14:2,23,16:6,18:5-8,17,19,21,25,29-30,
Ge 19:3,8,19,22,20:5-6,9-10,13,21:1,8,22-23,26,
Ge 22:12,16,24:12,14,49,66,26:10,29-30,27:4,7,9,14,17,
Ge 27:19,31,37,45,28:15,29:22,25-26,28,30:30-31,
Ge 31:12,16,26,28-29,43,46,32:10,33:17,34:7,14,19,
Ge 34:31-35:1,3,37:3,38:10,39:3,9,11,19,22-23
Ge 40:14-15,20,41:25,28,32,34,47,55,42:18,20,25,28,
Ge 43:11,17,44:2,44:5,7,15,17,45:17,19,21,46:3,47:29-30,
Ge 48:20,50:10,12,20
it means to fashion, or produce, to prepare out of existing material e.g. to build a ship, or a house or to prepare a meal.

Ge 1:2 states that the earth "was" (it could be translated "became") without form and void.

"was" is occasionally used with a simple accusative in the sense of "to be \tmade" or "to become". e.g. Lot's wife "became a pillar a salt". see especially Gen 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

also
* became Strongs 01961
Ge 2:7,10,19:26,20:12,21:20,24:67,47:20,26,49:15

"without_form" is "tohu" (Hebrew)
Strongs 08414
Ge 1:2 De 32:10 1Sa 12:21 Job 6:18,12:24,26:7 Ps 107:40
Isa 24:10,29:21,34:11,40:17,23,41:29,44:9,45:18-19,
Isa 49:4,59:4 Jer 4:23
Isaiah 34:11 refers to a ruined city
Gesenius defines it as "that which is wasted, laid waste"

"void" is "bohu" (Hebrew)
Strongs 0922
Ge 1:2 Isa 34:11 Jer 4:23

Bishop Wordsworth
the word "bohu" joined with "tohu" as here, confirms the opinion that the Earth is here represented as having been brought into a "ruined, desolate condition; see Jer 4:20-30,
which is one of the best comments on this text. There Jeremiah is describing a ruin; he says, "I beheld the earth, and lo it was without form and void (tohu va bohu). I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down...."

[b]The only places where tohu and bohu are used together are
\t Ge 1:2 Isa 34:11 Jer 4:23
the last two instances both refer to "ruins" caused by an outpouring of God's wrath.[/b]

Isa 45:18
says quite specifically that God did NOT create the earth "tohu".
\tIf Ge 1:2 describes the condition of the created earth at its very beginning, then Isaiah contradicts Genesis. The most honest biblical exposition must be that some tragedy or judgment intervened between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1:2.

\tOur first "view" of the earth in Ge 1:2 is that it is baptised, totally immersed. Baptism is always a picture of judgment to death. Of another "baptism" Peter says "being overflowed with water (it) perished"
2Pe 3:6 1Pe 3:20-21

\ta further distinction may be observed in that Ge 1:1 speaks of the creation of "heaven and earth", but Ge 1:2 speaks only of a ruined earth. This accords with Psalm 19 where it is the heavens particularly which declare God's glory, rather \tthan the whole of creation as we find it. The glory of God is in all creation, but it is the heavens particularly which "speak" it clearly. Ps 19:1-6

\tthe "gap" between Ge 1:1 and Ge 1:2 gives room for any amount of time \tbetween these events.

In supporting the possibility of a gap between these verses I am not necessarily 'buying in' to the whole G H Pember/Scofied scenario.

The view was helf in various forms by Oswald Chambers, Graham Scroggie, Campbell Morgan and many others...

Hi Ron, thank you for sharing your notes here. I don't think I am knowledgable enough to make any comments about the words that are used. I used to make refrence to Strong's quite a bit, but since I don't have any sort of understanding of the Biblical languages I try to be carefull about how much I take, or suppose, from that.

I would like to look at Isaiah 45:18 and share also some impressions I have regarding this, if tht would be alright. I'll put the verse up to have it in view:

"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else."

As I was meditating upon this I thought about how sometimes the language of the prophets is hyperbolic and intense.

About this passage in particular...

I have some impressions that I would like to share:

It appears to me that when he says [i]he created it not in vain[/i], that this is explained by what follows, that is, he says [i]he formed it to be inhabited[/i]. In other words that God did not make it, or perhaps in a more fuller sense, that He did not [b]leave[/b] it [i]a waste, or desolate, or without any distinct form[/i], but that He [b]...formed it to be inhabited[/b], that is, going on, that He made this world suitable for life(I'd like to come back to that briefly). And all of that was preceeded in saying [i] he hath established it[/i], which I think is all in view of Genesis chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2.

Going back to the notion of the earth being made suitable for life, I think this is the same thing that is communicated in verse 12 where He says

"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."

I see here another connection that I think is worth drawing attention to, and that is this putting together of the creation of both the Heavens and the Earth, that these are taken up here, together, and my mind goes then to Genesis 2:1 where it says

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them"

So then it appears that they being taken together, consititute a whole thing, a complete work, and that they were finished, together. Now I can imagine that, that is these being put together as one thing and also their being completed, as one thing, I can imagine this in the span of six days. But it gives me difficulty to think of it over a much longer period of time.

Going back to Isaiah, another thing that stood out to me in looking at this, is that it appears as though the prophet's intention in calling thier mind to the creation was to confirm to Israel the Lord's intention of preserving them. I see this, in that before he says to them

"But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end."

And then, after this, we have our text, which seems to have the same force as if to say and to confirm to them that God has and will continue to establish them, that just as He had done with the Heavens and the Earth, He would do with them, that just as He did not form the Heavens and the Earth to be a waste, to be desolate, neither did He create Israel to be desolate, or to be a waste, or to come to nothing.

Well, those are some of my impressions from the text.

Chris

[u]ChrisJD on 2007/3/28 14:16:56[/u]
It appears to me that when he says he created it not in vain, that this is explained by what follows, that is, he says he formed it to be inhabited. In other words that God did not make it, or perhaps in a more fuller sense, that He did not leave it a waste, or desolate, or without any distinct form, but that He ...formed it to be inhabited, that is, going on, that He made this world suitable for life(I'd like to come back to that briefly). And all of that was preceeded in saying he hath established it, which I think is all in view of Genesis chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2.

When things can be interpreted in more than one way I like to keep an open mind.

I posted these comments elsewhere and I can't remember whether it was on SI, so this may be a repetition. Personally I am not trying to create space for evolutionary process or even geological ones, I'm just trying to do justice to the text.

Hebrew and Greek have another option other than singular and plural!! They have ‘dual’. The dual is never used in the NT but it frequently used in the OT. The effect of this would enable us to translate the first verse as “In the beginning God created the two heavens and the earth.” The Bible uses a three stage model of ‘the heavens’; in the first… the sparrows, in the second… the stars, in the third… the saints.

In may also be significant that there is no mention of the ‘heaven’s in verse 2. That verse concentrates its focus on the ‘ruined earth’ (Gap theory jargon). It is also significant perhaps to repeat that the Hebrew verb form here is exactly the same as found in “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen 2:7 KJVS) This would seem to indicate a definite time event. Before this ‘man’ was not a living soul but afterwards he was. This construction justifies a translation of Gen 1:2 as “and the earth became without form and void”.

If this is a true interpretation it still leaves us with your question. It would seem to me that if Gen 1:1 is part of Day 1 then we really have a problem with Gen 1:16 which relates to the making of the stars. The ‘second’ heaven of Gen 1:1 includes the stars. This makes a second making of the stars in Gen 1:16 very confusing.

Another relevant theme is the thrifty use of ‘bara’ meaning to ‘create’. Gen. 1:1 (KJVS) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen. 1:21 (KJVS) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen. 1:27 (KJVS) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. It is often claimed that ‘bara’ signifies to create ‘out of nothing’. You can follow up the other uses of the word and see if you think that holds up; Gen 1:1,21,27; 2:3-4; 5:1-2; 6:7; Ex 34:10; Num 16:30; Deut 4:32; Josh 17:15,18; 1Sam 2:29; Psa 51:10; 89:12,47; 102:18; 104:30; 148:5; Eccl 12:1; Is 4:5; 40:26,28; 41:20; 42:5; 43:1,7,15; 45:7-8,12,18; 48:7; 54:16; 57:19; 65:17-18; Jer 31:22; Ezek 21:19,30; 23:47; 28:13,15; Amos 4:13; Mal 2:10.

The other word, translated ‘made’ in the KJV is ‘asah’ which it is claimed is often used in the sense of ‘making one thing out of another’. This is also used in Gen 1Gen. 1:7 (KJVS) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen. 1:16 (KJVS) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Gen. 1:25 (KJVS) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen. 1:31 (KJVS) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Again tracing the use of the word ‘asah’ in the OT can be illuminating, although a bit time consuming! It is used as a very general word and found over 1300 times in the OT. It may be significant that this is the word used when we are told that God ‘made’ rather than ‘created’ the sun, moon and stars; Gen 1:16

Brothers and Sisters,
Thank you for so many great responses! You have given me a lot to consider. When I was watching the Believer's Voice of Victory, a woman named Billye Brim was quite adamant that Satan had a kingdom and because of the five "i will" statements in Isa. 14, he was thrown down from heaven. Was his kingdom a legitimate one in heaven or was it (as one definition states) anything conceived (emphasis on conceived) as constituting a realm or sphere of independent action or control.

I have studied the transition between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, and if I remember correctly, the earth became (hayeth?) without form and void. Thus, it does appear that something happened between the time God created the heavens and earth and its latter condition. However, does that mean there was a group of actual people created in God's image before Adam and Eve or is it more plausible that satan's eviction is what caused the earth to become desolate?

Sonya

john1140 on 2007/3/28 15:55:47
However, does that mean there was a group of actual people created in God's image before Adam and Eve or is it more plausible that satan's eviction is what caused the earth to become desolate?

It is interesting that in both Isaiah and Ezekiel it is because of what happened 'in his heart' than he was judged.“For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:” (Is 14:13 KJVS)

Ezek 28:2,5-6,17However the Lord did not contest Satan's claim“And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.”(Luke 4:5-6 KJVS)

There is a sense in which when we deny God access to his kingdom we are effectively setting up a kingdom against him.

The scripture also refers to 'the devil and his angels' which implies some kind of authority structure. Matt 25:41; Rev 12:9

Here is what the NET Bible translators had to say about the transition from verse 1 to verse 2 of Genesis chapter 1:
"The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) at the beginning of v. 2 gives background information for the following narrative, explaining the state of things when “God said…” (v. 3). Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [ו] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form). (This literary structure is paralleled in the second portion of the book: Gen 2:4 provides the title or summary of what follows, 2:5-6 use disjunctive clause structures to give background information for the following narrative, and 2:7 begins the narrative with the vav consecutive attached to a prefixed verbal form.) Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject."

And now I know why I was too intimidated to take Hebrew. :-)

pre adamic civilization[people] would have been imposible due to the fact that sin would preceed adam. This could never have happened.It would nullify the Word.......David

i12go4god on 2007/3/28 19:23:01
Verse one is a title to the chapter, v. 2 provides information about the state of things when God spoke, and v. 3 begins the narrative per se with the typical narrative construction (vav [ו] consecutive followed by the prefixed verbal form

verse 2.
“The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen 1:2 NKJV)

verse 3
“Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.” (Gen 1:3 NKJV)

In this scenario the 'two heavens and the earth' were already in being when God began his creative speaking in verse 3??

psalm1 wrote:
pre adamic civilization[people] would have been imposible due to the fact that sin would preceed adam. This could never have happened.It would nullify the Word.......David

Right!

Here's a quote from Henry Morris:

" If the world existed prior to the pre-Adamic cataclysm, then it existed before the sin of Satan which brought on the cataclysm. that is, suffering and death existed for a billion years before the sin of Satan and the subsequent sin of Adam.

The Bible says, however, that death came into the world only when Adam brought sin into the world ( Romans 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:21).

This fact directly contradicts the assumption in the gap theory that death prevailed for ages before Adam. Furthermore, this primeval prevalence of suffering and death even before Satan's rebellion leaves only God Himself as responsible for such a state. But the very idea that the God of order and love would directly create and use a universal system based on randomness and cruelty seems almost blasphemous. These, however, are the implications of the gap theory."

Jordan

Ron,
When I was taught this theory back in 1965, our Genesis instructor taught the 'gap' theory. He suggested that it was between the the 'creations'- or v. 1 and 2 - when Satan was cast out of heaven, thrown onto the earth and he destroyed it, hence the term "the earth was without form..." He suggested the Hebrew word translated 'was' meant "became".

Now this is what the Genesis instructor taught. What was interesting as well, it appeared to me the motivation that propelled this belief was to explain the existance of the fossils. Back then the scientists taught - and still do - they came about because of millions of years. Since then it has been proven you can have fossilization without millions of years.

Would this 'theory' have gotten any milage without the existance of the fossils? or the need to explain their existance?

ginnyrose

Hi again Ron and thank you for the reply.

"When things can be interpreted in more than one way I like to keep an open mind."

I appreciate that. Taking that thought a bit further if I may, I think of the passage which says [i]...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.[/i] And also, how the prophet says

[i] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little[/i]

Taking these things together, and [u]I do not mean to say that you have any sort of private interpretation here[/u], but taking these things together and knowing that in many things which appear in the Bible and especially in the words of the prophets there are passages which can appear uncertain to us in their meaning, I think it is helpfull if we may in any case look to the scripture itself for interpretation, that is, comparing scripture with scripture to give us a more clearer meaning.

So in this case, I have found the words of the Lord Jesus very definitive on the subject, where He says [b][color=660033]...from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female[/color][/b]. The reason here is that I do not see how we can take this other than to say that the creation of man goes back to the very beginning of creation itself, which also appears to me to be straigthforward in the text of Genesis, and so I think if there appears to be some difficulty in a particular passage, becuase of the words of the Lord Jesus here I think we must reconcile those difficulties to what He has told us more plainly.

And too, I do think that the idea of the gap is not something which would appear to us from the text itself, even if there may be some hint to it otherwise, yet I think the whole tenor of the account of creation speaks of a complete and uniterrupted sequence of events all being in close relation to each other, as it says, for instance

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."

Again, these are my impressions.

Chris

hi, how did you date the sin of satan? who were the sons of god in chap. 6? jimp this is why paul said "i know nothing among you save for Jesus and Him crucified"

ChrisJD on 2007/3/29 0:42:01

So in this case, I have found the words of the Lord Jesus very definitive on the subject, where He says ...from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. The reason here is that I do not see how we can take this other than to say that the creation of man goes back to the very beginning of creation itself, which also appears to me to be straigthforward in the text of Genesis, and so I think if there appears to be some difficulty in a particular passage, becuase of the words of the Lord Jesus here I think we must reconcile those difficulties to what He has told us more plainly.

If you took the words of Jesus in strict chronological sequence 'the beginning of the creation' would be Gen 1:1 or Gen 1:3

This was brilliant.

It said all I would have liked to say, and then offers proofs I don't have the knowledge of.

For most people, I think that the 'replenishing' of the earth is the critical phrase. Otherwise, God would have ordered mankind to plenish the earth.

Not speculation, not idle thoughts, but the type of thing I talk to God about and ask questions.
That I won't know the answer for a smidgeon of time is irrelevant, nor do I think that a Pastor must spend all his time speaking only of Christ, for without the Old Testament, we have no basis for all that Christ said.

Blessings,

UniqueWebRev on 2007/3/29 10:32:04
For most people, I think that the 'replenishing' of the earth is the critical phrase. Otherwise, God would have ordered mankind to plenish the earth.

Gen. 1:28 (KJVS) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and [b]replenish[/b] the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

philologos wrote:

UniqueWebRev on 2007/3/29 10:32:04
For most people, I think that the 'replenishing' of the earth is the critical phrase. Otherwise, God would have ordered mankind to plenish the earth.

Ah, this is a 'red herring' (do you have that phrase over there?)

Gen. 1:28 (KJVS) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and [b]replenish[/b] the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

When a Hebrew of the Hebrews is arguing the jots and tittles of the Torah, you do not find them going to the root of the word as much as you find them going to the differing meanings that are more appropriate, seeking the best interpretation, not the easiest.

In this case, filling the seas is very appropriate, but one generally doesn't fill the earth, literally, which is how I read the bible.

One then moves to the next most appropriate meaning of the same word in Hebrew that applies, in this case, to man and woman breeding. In that case, you might want to take replenish, rather than fill, or any of the other variants that cover the nuances of the word 'mala'.

Once having said, be fruitful, and multiply, using the word replenish seems to have a secondary use, such as hinting at the need to re-populate the earth, not populate it.

Definately not a red herring to throw one off by, but at the most, poor Hebrew skills on my part.

Blessings,

Forrest

Edit: Most people in America don't know what a 'Red Herring' is, unless they read Dorothy Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, or Agatha Christie. For that matter, I don't know if most American's read anymore, present company excluded.

been following this somewhat and was wondering if "without form and void" is a rabbit trail.Could it be that God And Jesus ,made the earth like a big ball and then added mountains valleys,plateaus, etc.? Similar to a lump of clay on a potters wheel? what do you think?...just a thought,David

Most people in America don't know what a 'Red Herring' is, unless they read Dorothy Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, or Agatha Christie. For that matter, I don't know if most American's read anymore, present company excluded.

been following this somewhat and was wondering if "without form and void" is a rabbit trail.Could it be that God And Jesus ,made the earth like a big ball and then added mountains valleys,plateaus, etc.? Similar to a lump of clay on a potters wheel? what do you think?...just a thought,David

The word 'replenish' is problematic, only in the sense of aiding my understanding- so I guess the best approach for me would be to quasi-research the etymology of the word. What i discovered was that in very old Latin, the prefix 're' did mean again, but by the time the 1611 KJV was translated into Elizabethan English, the meaning of replensihed had come to reflect "fill". The Old Oxford Dictionary shows that from the 13th through 17th centuries, the word meant fill, filled, fufilled. The transliterated word for replenish is male'(maw-lay)and it means the following:

to fill, be full
fulness, abundance (participle) 1a
to be full, be accomplished, be ended
to consecrate, fill the hand
(Niphal)
to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
to be accomplished, be ended
(Piel)
to fill
to satisfy
to fulfil, accomplish, complete
to confirm
(Pual)
to be filled
(Hithpael)
to mass themselves against

okay, now I have a headache... :-)

Thanks again for the great posts.
Sonya

Hi again Ron.

"I think I am missing something here. The creation of the human race is plainly on Day 6. How does this affect the Gap Theory?

If you took the words of Jesus in strict chronological sequence 'the beginning of the creation' would be Gen 1:1 or Gen 1:3"

Maybe the easiest way to explain this would be to pose it in a question. I'll give it a try.

Which would be closer to the beginning:

the sixth day out of seven, which were then followed by thousands and thousands of days by the [b]time[/b] the Lord Jesus said this?

or the six billionth day out of six billion, followed only by thousands and thousands of days by the [b]time[/b] the Lord Jesus had spoken this on Earth?

I think if there were untold ages of days, or any other marker of time as it pertains to Creation, prior to the day in which man was formed, than I think the Lord's statement in Mark's Gospel would not make any sense, at least to me.

Again the Lord Jesus indicated that man has been here, [b] from the beginning of the creation.[/b].

Just how does that make sense if that beginning of the creation was was billions of years ago and man has just now appeared in recent history?

I hope this is more expressive of what I meant before.

In case it may not be, I just thought of another illustration by way of a question. Which is closer to the letter A, which is the beginning of the Aphabet:

the sixth letter, the letter [b]F[/b]?

or the 24th letter, the letter [b]X[/b]?

The letter [b]F[/b] can be said to be at the beginning of the Alphabet.

The letter [b]X[/b] can not.

Again, I hope this is clearer as to what I meant, Thanks,

Chris

As to the word which is translated replenish, comparing scripture with scripture, Adam is called [i]the First man Adam[/i]

[i]And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.[/i]

If he was first, what then did he replenish? I suppose you could speculate. Specualtion though, by itself, is poor ground upon which to build doctrine to feed souls.

Chris

john,

I would not leave your church because the pastor is wrong on this one area. Although, there are some conclusions that could be taken assuming the pre-Adamic civilization that would be worth leaving over. As long as he is correct on the Bible being the Word of God, Jesus being the Son of God, and the fundamentals of the faith, I would hang around. I sit under a tremendous teacher who is not a young earth guy. I am, but I still respect the man emensely.

But pray and let God guide you. If I tried to find a pastor that agreed with me across the board it might take a couple years.

I would agree with Ian in that your pastor should be able to back up all his statements with Scripture. I have heard there are many faithful believers that are in error over this one doctrine. But remember that Luther said that Esther and James shouldn't be in the Canon, Wesley said that instruments don't belong in church, CS Lewis wrote about God using Darwinian evolution. Study hard enough and you will usually find at least one strange belief of every giant of the faith. And each of us is certainly off somewhere (oh, no. not me!). We can't label someone Marantha Anathema (cursed of God) over one error. However, when people start to touch the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ; it is time to run.

For all who believe in the pre-Adamic race:

1 Cor 15:45b The first man Adam was made a living soul

Dear letsgetbusy,
thanks for the encouragement. I don't plan to leave my church- I respect and love my pastors. I was just kinda thrown for a loop when he made the pre-adamic comment. I'm all better now... :-)

Sonya

letsgetbusy on 2007/3/30 1:38:36
For all who believe in the pre-Adamic race:

1 Cor 15:45b The first man Adam was made a living soul

I am not arguing for a pre-Adamic race but only to encourage caution in making statements about things which have not been revealed.

philologos wrote:

letsgetbusy on 2007/3/30 1:38:36
For all who believe in the pre-Adamic race:

1 Cor 15:45b The first man Adam was made a living soul

Indeed he was. I too believe in a young human race, but I have no idea of what may have happened in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

I am not arguing for a pre-Adamic race but only to encourage caution in making statements about things which have not been revealed.

I'm not arguing for a pre-Adamic race either, but I do think that keeping an open mind on those parts of scripture that not yet revealed is wise, for if something, however obscure, is in the Bible, it must be important in some way.

I do look forward to finding out these mysteries when Jesus can explain them to us directly.

Blessings,

Forrest

john,

I was at some missionary training that I was sponsored to attend, and the subject of yoga was brought up. The instructor told one of the girls present that if you are stretching and building muscle that is fine, but one needs to be careful what they are chanting. She explained how many people chant to false gods without realizing they are doing so.

So I thought, yay, we got a good instructor here. Right after that thought, the instructor suggested saying Hail, Mary, since that is what she did, and I thought, 'oh no.'

Like I said, if we dig deep enough, we will find some error in everyone.

I imagine that the pre-Adamic race was probably introduced to them in a Bible college or seminary textbook. It is true that in the average seminary today, there are many doctrines that have been standard to many giants of the faith that are not even mentioned to upcoming preachers-to-be. I just dig deeper into God's Word in hope that he will show me where I am wrong, and pray that when I show someone truth that they acknowledge it.

That's all we can do, stand on truth, pray that others do, as well. The rest is God's.

Brothers,

As far as Gen 1:1 and 2 I stand on this:

Exodus 20:11b For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is