+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 26 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 377

Thread: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

  1. #1
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    While this thread is particularly focused to Sooner, any and all input in relation to the topic is welcome.

    Sooner, please provide your belief in relation to a Pre-Adamic flood, with as many specifics and Biblical resources as you feel is necessary to support your position.

    My position on the topic is that I feel there is no Biblical evidence to support a Pre-Adamic flood, but I will concede that I have only been presented with the Pre-Adamic flood position once by a person who I felt was using "scientific evidence and reasoning" to support his position (namely, providing extra-Biblical sources to support what should be a Biblical theology).

    Thanks to Sooner, and to anyone else who wishes to post their thoughts!

    Daniel

  2. #2
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    In order to get the discussion started, I will start with renewing the billing. If the whole theory is spelled out, it would take too long. Also, we would have too many tangents. With some patience you should understand where we are coming from. Also, I want you to again know I don't think this is a real big deal. Very interesting, yes. Essential, no. I promise I am not trying to persuade you, just help you understand where I am coming from.

    In Genesis 1:1, it is stated that God created the heavens and "earth." In Genesis 1:10, God called the dry land "earth." Thus, one could read verse 1 to say, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the dry land." Genesis 1:2 says the earth was covered with water, and the land was not separated from the water until Genesis 1:6.

    Now, the important word in verse 2 is "was." In the Hebrew, the word translated "was" is hayah. If you go to a concordance, you will find that the word, hayah is translated "became" 67 times. For instance, in Genesis 2:7 it is translated "and man 'became' (hayah) a living soul. Genesis 19:26 - "But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became (hayah) a pillar of salt. Here is a string site for some other verses - Genesis 20:12, Genesis 24:67. There are more if these do not convince you.

    Hayah is translated "becamest" 67 times. It is translated "came" and "came to pass" 505 times.

    Verse 2 could therefore be interpreted to say, "And the earth "became" without form and void."

    Thus, the chronology would be: God created the heavens and the earth in verse 1. It became void and covered with water and darkness in verse 2. The first day's work started in verse 3 when God, who is light, brought light back to the earth.

    We are only at the tip of the iceburg here. There is better evidence in Bible for the pre-Adam flood, but I wanted to start at the most logical point, which was the beginning.

    Chew on this and if you are still interested, I will go further. Please ask questions or dispute if you wish. This is an interesting topic to me, and I could go on probably longer than you wish to listen.
    Last edited by Soonerdawg; 07-22-2006 at 08:51 AM.

  3. #3
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Please continue giving more evidence, if you wish. And no, you probably won't go longer than I wish to listen, because I love this kind of stuff.

    But, to ask some questions:
    1) What purpose is there in having a Pre-Adamic flood, Biblically speaking?
    2) How much time is inbetween Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?
    3) Is there anything else created that is not delineated in these two verses, and if so, what evidence (Biblical or otherwise) would you give to support it?

    Let's see how deep this iceburg goes.

    Daniel

  4. #4
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    This iceburg is huge.

    1) The pre-Adamic flood was judgment for Lucifer's rebellion. The pastor I studied under as a kid called this the "angelic conflict." The rebellion is revealed in Isaiah 14:12-14.

    2) Verse 1 and 2 are the dateless past. I do not believe the Bible reveals how long that time period was. The Bible concerns man. The angels are mentioned, but not much is revealed about the angels. We certainly are not given a timeline concerning the angels and creation pre-Adam.

    3) There were other things created prior to the pre-Adamic flood. There are several evidences of this. Here are but two:

    a. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth.

    "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."

    Some translations today say "fill." However, look at how the same command was given to Noah, and we know that he "replenshed" the earth:

    Genesis 9:1 - "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth."

    b. We know that Lucifer fell prior to the garden of Eden. Thus, the fall had to predate Adam. Prior to his fall, Lucifer ruled over the earth. We know this, because in Isaiah 14:12-14, where the fall of Lucifer is chronicled, we see that Lucifer had "weakened the nations." The nations indicates there were created beings. When Lucifer made his move, according to verse 14, he made his move from earth ("I will ascend above the heights of the clouds.")

    Thus, there was creation prior to the flood that pre-dated Adam.
    Last edited by Soonerdawg; 07-22-2006 at 04:12 PM.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator PawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond reputePawDawg has a reputation beyond repute PawDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    57,422

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Interesting. I've heard bits and pieces before.

    One question that gets asked quite a bit is "who did Cain have relations with when he was sent from Eden?" The answer is usually something like "The Bible doesn't say that God didn't create other humans."

    Sooner I'm assuming that your pastor didn't think these "other" creations were created in the image of God. Evolutionary creatures?

    Sorry for this tangent. You two just carry on if you wish.

  6. #6
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by maddawg
    Interesting. I've heard bits and pieces before.

    One question that gets asked quite a bit is "who did Cain have relations with when he was sent from Eden?" The answer is usually something like "The Bible doesn't say that God didn't create other humans."

    Sooner I'm assuming that your pastor didn't think these "other" creations were created in the image of God. Evolutionary creatures?

    Sorry for this tangent. You two just carry on if you wish.
    First Question: Where did Enoch get his wife?

    I have always assumed he married one of Adam's daughters mentioned in Genesis 5:4. "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters." In those days, "incest was best."

    Do note that there was a land called "Nod," not a city called Nod. "Nod" means wonderings. Cain was wondering around. There was no city until Cain built one. Genesis 4:17: "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch; and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son Enoch."

    Second Question: Did my pastor believe the pre-Adamic creatures were created in the image of God?

    I do not recall my pastor ever saying one way or the other. I have always assumed that the pre-Adamic creatures were not made in the image of God. Although I can't say this is rises to a "belief" of mine, it is close to a belief. I will get into the reasons later. Although I think this is getting ahead of the story, I'm glad you asked the question, because it gets right to the core of why I believe God made man in the first place.
    Last edited by Soonerdawg; 07-22-2006 at 08:36 AM.

  7. #7
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Post Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
    1) The pre-Adamic flood was judgment for Lucifer's rebellion. The pastor I studied under as a kid called this the "angelic conflict." The rebellion is revealed in Isaiah 14:12-14.
    Yeah, I'm familiar with the Isaiah passage, as well as the Ezekiel 28 passage usually used to describe Lucifer's fall as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
    2) Verse 1 and 2 are the dateless past. I do not believe the Bible reveals how long that time period was. The Bible concerns man. The angels are mentioned, but not much is revealed about the angels. We certainly are not given a timeline concerning the angels and creation pre-Adam.
    This is called the Gap Theory, is it not? How do you think this lines up with extra-Biblical sources, such as scientific explanation, for the age of the earth/Universe, fossil records, etc? Do you think there can be a reconciliation with the scientific evidence and there not being a Pre-Adamic flood? If not, does this influence the manner in which you perceive these passages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
    3) There were other things created prior to the pre-Adamic flood. There are several evidences of this. Here are but two:

    a. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve to "replinish" the earth.

    "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replinsh the earth."

    Some translations today say "fill." However, look at how the same command was given to Noah, and we know that he "replinshed" the earth:

    Genesis 9:1 - "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replinish the earth."
    I actually would contest this. One of the reasons you used to say that the verse in Genesis 1:2 could be "became" was because of the number of times such a translation was used (at least, that's why I felt you provided the numbers). As such, let's look at the translation of the Hebrew word male'.

    It means:
    1) to fill, be full
    a) (Qal)
    1) to be full
    a) fulness, abundance (participle)
    b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended
    2) to consecrate, fill the hand
    b) (Niphal)
    1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
    2) to be accomplished, be ended
    c) (Piel)
    1) to fill
    2) to satisfy
    3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete
    4) to confirm
    d) (Pual) to be filled
    e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against
    Number of times translated to fill - 107. Number of times translated to replenish - 7. These numbers are with the KJV translation. Two of the times it is translated to "replenish" is in Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1, which is the command to Adam and then the command to Noah that you supplied.

    The NIV, however, does translate it as "fill" in Genesis 1:28 and "replenish" in Genesis 9:1. I'm not sure what makes one translation favor over another, but there it is. However:

    Genesis 1:22, "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth." (emphasis added) (KJV)

    This is the same verb, male', as in Genesis 1:28, but the KJV translated this one as "fill" rather than "replenish" in verse 28. Like I said, I'm not sure why the translaters chose a particular English word to translate it, but there it is. However, I don't really understand where the word "replenish" comes from, as I don't see it or a similar definition of it in the provided definition from www.blueletterbible.org.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
    b. We know that Lucifer fell prior to the garden of Eden. Thus, the fall had to predate Adam. Prior to his fall, Lucifer ruled over the earth. We know this, because in Isaiah 14:12-14, where the fall of Lucifer is chronicled, we see that Lucifer had "weakened the nations." The nations indicates there were created beings. When Lucifer made his move, according to verse 14, he made his move from earth ("I will ascend above the heights of the clouds.")

    Thus, there was creation prior to the flood that pre-dated Adam.
    To what extent is this creation? Was there sin? If you say "yes," as I think you might, how would you reconcile that with a verse like Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man...." seemingly indicating that there wasn't sin prior to Adam (the thought that Satan's fall happened sometime between Adam's fall and Adam's creation, and justifying verses from Isaiah 14 to talk about angelic cities and a hierarchy of angels and such)?

    Thanks for all your thoughts and insights!

    Daniel

  8. #8
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by maddawg
    One question that gets asked quite a bit is "who did Cain have relations with when he was sent from Eden?" The answer is usually something like "The Bible doesn't say that God didn't create other humans.
    Actually, I believe you can infer from the Bible that there weren't other created humans. First, we have no reason to believe that the Bible doesn't give a relatively comprehensive account of creation. It tells us that there were many animals created, but only Adam and Eve of the "human" species. Are they special because they sinned first and therefore are the only ones recorded? Seems unlikely. Especially since God ran all the animals in front of Adam and no helper was suitable and so made Eve for him.... meaning they were at least the first created. Even more so, it says "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array," Genesis 2:1, after the 6th day, meaning that if God had created more than just Adam and Eve, it would have to have been on day 6. But we don't see any evidence of that in Scripture.

    Second, from a scientific standpoint, there would be no reason to not allow for incest, as well as from a spiritual standpoint.

    Romans 5:13, "...for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is no taken into account when there is no law."

    No law against incest, it's ok to do. From a scientific standpoint, the reason we find incest a bad thing is because of mutations that usually end up accumulating in the child. Think about it this way: Dad has mutation A, Mom has mutation B. Their children now have mutation AB. So we can see that mutations can accumulate over time. However, if their children procreate, their children will have mutation AABB which is twice as bad as if they had married someone without a mutation or with a different type of mutation. In Adam's time, there wouldn't have been mutations, and even after several generations, there wouldn't have been very many, so incest wouldn't be a problem, scientifically or spiritually.

    So where did Cain get his wife? His sister, most likely. Someone had to marry their sister. Also, this verse can be misconstrued to be something it's not:

    Genesis 4:14, "[Cain talking] Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden frmo your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

    Many people ask, "who can kill Cain if not other created people?" Well, the answer is, most likely Adam's and Eve's sons and daughters would kill him, for killing their brother! We do not know that Cain and Abel are the first sons, although some assume they were, and we don't know what other children Adam and Eve had. What we do know, however, is that Adam and Eve lived almost a millenium, were told to be fruitful and multiply, didn't have discussion forums, TVs, XBOXs, whatever.... and so I figure making babies was a common thing for them! Given their lifespan and their command to be fruitful and multiply, I imagine lots of children, and their children having lots of children, and children children children just abounding.

    Also, in addressing verses like Genesis 4:17-22, where it starts to give descriptions of men who married and the city that Cain was building, we are given no timeline or chronology of all of this happening, and so have no idea how long this stuff takes place. We know that no one will kill Cain because of the mark the Lord gave him (Genesis 4:15) and that he lay with his wife, had a son, and was building a city (Genesis 4:17). It's somewhat overstepping our bounds to say that all of this happened in a short period of time, because we are given no indication. As such, we cannot jump to conclusions. However, I do believe we can say that things probably happened in the most natural, simple, and easy to explain manner (Occam's Razor). That being, IMO, there was no other creation other than what was recorded, things happened over more time than people give it credit, and incest was the most likely reason for the development of the human race.

    Beyond that, how would you explain Romans 5:12-20, when it says that "through one man, death came to all," along with the spiritual analogies of birth and being born again.... we are born into sin nature, because the Adamic sin nature is passed along, and the only way out of it is to be born of Christ.... so if someone were born of another created couple that didn't fall, they would have the chance of being sinless, as well as their parents. Doesn't make sense with the logic of the New Testament.

    Daniel

  9. #9
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    1. How do I think this lines up with extra-Biblical sources? You told me not to use extra-Biblical sources. Do you want me to go outside the Bible now?

    2. As for your contesting the interpetation of the Hebrew word male: I found the same internet site you found as well. I went to my grandfather's library, found Strong's, and found the following definitions for male:

    a. (intrans.) to fill in the sense of to accomplish;

    b. flow, fulness, furnish, gather, presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take.

    Clearly, "replenish" is an acceptable interpretation of male.

    Male is interpreted as "replenish" or "replenished" nine times in the Bible. I'm no Hebrew scholar by any sense of the imagination, but I can tell you that there are contextual clues for the interpretations. To take one of many, many examples. Male is used in Isaiah 2:7: Their land also is full (male) of silver and gold. It would make no sense to interpret male to mean replenish there.

    There are many who criticize the King James version, sometimes rightfully so. However, they did look at context very well. Let's look at how modern interpretations sometimes miss the mark.

    In the New King James version, Isaiah 23:2 is interpreted as follows:

    "Be still, you inhabitants of the coastland, You merchants of Sidon, whom those who cross the sea have filled."

    The King James version interpretes 23:2 as follows:

    Be still, ye inhabitants of the isle, thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished."

    Which is correct? To see, you have to look at the context. We find the answer in Ezekiel 27:8-23. These passages make clear that the merchants were replenishing the coatal inhabitants with supplies. "Filled" makes no sense in the proper context. This is not a big deal, except that the interpreter of the King James took the time to see what the context was.

    Within the context, it certainly makes sense to interpret male to mean "replenish" in Genesis 9:1. Noah was given the command to replenish the earth following a flood. The earth had already been filled once before. It now needed to be "replenished." I do not believe it was a mistake that God chose to use identical words when he commanded Adam to populate the earth. He knew we would be having this debate thousands of years later, and he wanted the language to be identical to give me debate points.

    3. How would I reconcile Romans 5:12 in that sin entered the world through Adam's sin?:

    Romans 5:12 needs to be seen in its entirety: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the word, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."

    Sin entered mankind through Adam's original sin. It is passed through the male line (seed). That is why Jesus had to be born via a virgin, so he could be born sinless. Sin did not enter the human race through woman. It did not enter through Satan. It entered through man.
    Last edited by Soonerdawg; 07-22-2006 at 04:13 PM.

  10. #10
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by DRay563
    Actually, I believe you can infer from the Bible that there weren't other created humans. First, we have no reason to believe that the Bible doesn't give a relatively comprehensive account of creation. It tells us that there were many animals created, but only Adam and Eve of the "human" species. Are they special because they sinned first and therefore are the only ones recorded? Seems unlikely. Especially since God ran all the animals in front of Adam and no helper was suitable and so made Eve for him.... meaning they were at least the first created. Even more so, it says "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array," Genesis 2:1, after the 6th day, meaning that if God had created more than just Adam and Eve, it would have to have been on day 6. But we don't see any evidence of that in Scripture.

    Second, from a scientific standpoint, there would be no reason to not allow for incest, as well as from a spiritual standpoint.

    Romans 5:13, "...for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is no taken into account when there is no law."

    No law against incest, it's ok to do. From a scientific standpoint, the reason we find incest a bad thing is because of mutations that usually end up accumulating in the child. Think about it this way: Dad has mutation A, Mom has mutation B. Their children now have mutation AB. So we can see that mutations can accumulate over time. However, if their children procreate, their children will have mutation AABB which is twice as bad as if they had married someone without a mutation or with a different type of mutation. In Adam's time, there wouldn't have been mutations, and even after several generations, there wouldn't have been very many, so incest wouldn't be a problem, scientifically or spiritually.

    So where did Cain get his wife? His sister, most likely. Someone had to marry their sister. Also, this verse can be misconstrued to be something it's not:

    Genesis 4:14, "[Cain talking] Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden frmo your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

    Many people ask, "who can kill Cain if not other created people?" Well, the answer is, most likely Adam's and Eve's sons and daughters would kill him, for killing their brother! We do not know that Cain and Abel are the first sons, although some assume they were, and we don't know what other children Adam and Eve had. What we do know, however, is that Adam and Eve lived almost a millenium, were told to be fruitful and multiply, didn't have discussion forums, TVs, XBOXs, whatever.... and so I figure making babies was a common thing for them! Given their lifespan and their command to be fruitful and multiply, I imagine lots of children, and their children having lots of children, and children children children just abounding.

    Also, in addressing verses like Genesis 4:17-22, where it starts to give descriptions of men who married and the city that Cain was building, we are given no timeline or chronology of all of this happening, and so have no idea how long this stuff takes place. We know that no one will kill Cain because of the mark the Lord gave him (Genesis 4:15) and that he lay with his wife, had a son, and was building a city (Genesis 4:17). It's somewhat overstepping our bounds to say that all of this happened in a short period of time, because we are given no indication. As such, we cannot jump to conclusions. However, I do believe we can say that things probably happened in the most natural, simple, and easy to explain manner (Occam's Razor). That being, IMO, there was no other creation other than what was recorded, things happened over more time than people give it credit, and incest was the most likely reason for the development of the human race.

    Beyond that, how would you explain Romans 5:12-20, when it says that "through one man, death came to all," along with the spiritual analogies of birth and being born again.... we are born into sin nature, because the Adamic sin nature is passed along, and the only way out of it is to be born of Christ.... so if someone were born of another created couple that didn't fall, they would have the chance of being sinless, as well as their parents. Doesn't make sense with the logic of the New Testament.

    Daniel
    My answer was shorter.

  11. #11
    Varsity Bulldog DRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really niceDRay563 is just really nice DRay563's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shreveport, LA
    Posts
    254

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
    1. How do I think this lines up with extra-Biblical sources? You told me not to use extra-Biblical sources. Do you want me to go outside the Bible now?

    Yes, for the purpose of helping me understand what other sources of information you use to try to verify this belief. Understand, regardless of extra-Biblical sources, I believe the theology can be determined and verified conclusively with Scripture and that all other sources must be held accountable to that. However, I do believe that a theory that is sound and true will encompass more evidence and give a more complete picture than one that is not so sound and true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
    He knew we would be having this debate thousands of years later, and he wanted the language to be identical to give me debate points.
    Well, I'm glad I have writers like Kenneth A. Matthews that God pre-ordained to give me debate points as well. Although these debate points don't go back to the male' interpretation; rather, I'm moving back to the "became" vs. "was" passage.

    "The major obstacle to this viewpoint [the restitution theory, that you are defending] is the syntactical construction of v. 2, which does not introduce consecutive action but rather a disjunctive clause, distinguishing v. 2 as circumstantial*. While under different syntactical conditions the translation 'became' is possible (e.g., Gen 3:20), it is unlikely in 1.2. Moreover, there is no logical or philological necessity for interpreting the conditions of the earth described in v. 2 as the consequence of God's judgment."

    * The word order is typically wāw disjunctive + nonverb followed by the perfect form of the verb; thus, as the NIV, "Now the earth was..." (IBHS § 8.3b; 39.2.3).

    Matthews, Kenneth A., The New American Commentary. Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996, pgs 139-140.

    I don't claim to understand exactly what he is talking about in the least, but he provides Hebraic grammatical reasons for why the NIV has the correct translation of "was." While I didn't provide the quotation from it, prior to the quote I provided, Matthews provides a defense of the restitution view and also discusses their interpretation of "became" rather than "was." He then writes the quote I provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
    3. How would I reconcile Romans 5:12 in that sin entered the world through Adam's sin?:

    Romans 5:12 needs to be seen in its entirety: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the word, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned."

    Sin entered mankind through Adam's original sin. It is passed through the male line (seed). That is why Jesus had to be born via a virgin, so he could be born sinless. Sin did not enter the human race through woman. It did not enter through Satan. It entered through man.
    For clarification purposes, were the creatures of this other creation human? Since sin didn't enter through Satan, what would you classify Satan's fall as.... and if there is no sin, how can there be death (of the other creation) as prior to sin, there is no death?

    Oh, and I wanted to make it clear, any debating or any counter-arguments I provide--beliefs held by myself or beliefs researched and agreed with--are for the purpose of understanding this theory and belief better. I'm not just trying to be argumentative, but seeking to understand better both my belief system and opinions that differ from my own.

    Daniel

  12. #12
    Champ saltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your time saltydawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southern Nevada
    Posts
    11,262

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    It seems pretty clear that the newly formed Earth had a thin crust and that a huge flood of water burst through that thin crust and covered the entire planet with over 20,000 ft of water. This is known as the pre-Adamic Flood. Later, another smaller planet collide with our watery world and as a result most of the water was ejected into Outer Space. The small amount than remained after the collision makes up our oceans today.

    There is a good chance that the original Garden of Eve was located in what is today known as Syria.

  13. #13
    Champ duckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond reputeduckbillplatty has a reputation beyond repute duckbillplatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Franklinton, LA
    Posts
    3,766

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    I've learned a lot from this thread. Thanks guys.

  14. #14
    Champ Soonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond reputeSoonerdawg has a reputation beyond repute Soonerdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ruston, LA
    Posts
    9,584

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by DRay563
    "The major obstacle to this viewpoint [the restitution theory, that you are defending] is the syntactical construction of v. 2, which does not introduce consecutive action but rather a disjunctive clause, distinguishing v. 2 as circumstantial*. While under different syntactical conditions the translation 'became' is possible (e.g., Gen 3:20), it is unlikely in 1.2. Moreover, there is no logical or philological necessity for interpreting the conditions of the earth described in v. 2 as the consequence of God's judgment."


    Oh boy. Hebrew. I was hoping not to have to go into this much depth, but Mr. Matthews is forcing me to do so.

    First, let's see if we can simplify what Mr. Matthews is saying. He is saying that there are rules concerning the structure of sentences in the Hebrew. Under these rules, there are two types of connectors, “sequential,” meaning there is consecutive action, and disjunctive when there is not consecutive action. Thus, following Mr. Matthews logic, verse two is not sequential to verse 1. Instead verse 1 is an introduction and verse two is the beginning of the story.

    Of course, Mr. Matthews is trying to simplify the interpretation of the Hebrew for us laymen to understand. But in doing so, he may have simplified it too much.

    First, I want to tell you that I whole-heartedly agree that this is a disjunctive clause. The difference between a waw-sequential construction and a waw-disjunctive construction, is that in the sequential, the conjunction is followed by a verb, and in the disjunctive, the conjunction is followed by a noun. In Genesis 1:2, the conjunction waw is followed by a noun; viz., the earth.

    Now that we both agree that this is a disjunctive clause, we next have to see what “type” of disjunctive clause we are dealing with. My understanding is that here are two basic types of disjunctive clauses. The first deals with the situation where the scene and participants shift. In Genesis 1:1-2, the participant , God, is the same. The place, the earth, is the same. Since neither shifted, then, the first type of disjunctive clause does not apply.

    In the second situation, there is a continuity of scene and participants, but there is a change of action. Again, in Genesis 1:1-2, we have continuity of the participant, God, and of the scene, earth. So, if we can show there is a change of action, then we can interpret hayah as “became” to contrast it with how it was in Genesis 1:1.

    Let us compare and contrast the two verses. First we need to determine when we are talking about. We are talking about “in the beginning.” “In the beginning” comes from the prepositional phrase, Bereshith. Bereshith is made up of the preposition Be, meaning “in,” plus the object of the preposition, the noun, Rishah. Rishah means beginning. Now, in this sentence, there is no definite article in the Hebrew, so if translated literally, it would be “In beginning,” as opposed to “In the beginning.” This is the exact phrase in the Greek used in John 1:1. which is en arche, translated literally “in beginning.” Clearly, John in John 1:1 is talking about God in the timeless past. In Genesis 1:1, Moses is talking about creation in the timeless past.

    Now, we know in Genesis 1:2 that the earth was “without form” and “void.” The question is, then, how was the earth created “in the beginning,” meaning the timeless past. Isaiah tells us in Isaiah 45:18 that God created the earth not tohu: “… God himself that formed the earth and made it, he hath established it, he created it not in vain …” “Vain” derives from the Hebrew word “tohu,” which means desolation, chaos or ruin.

    Thus, Isaiah 45:18 tells us the condition of the earth at the time of creation. If we go back to Genesis 1:1 we see that God created the earth in eternity past, or the timeless past. Thus, in the timeless past, when the earth was “created,” the earth was not chaotic.

    In Genesis 2, we see a stark contrast in the condition of the earth. Now the earth is described as “without form, and void.” In the Hebrew it is “tohu va bohu,” which means “emptiness,” “uselessness” or “worthlessness.” The earth was in a chaotic state, which is in direct contrast to that described by Isaiah 45:18 at the point of creation.

    Thus, to go back to our disjunctive clause, we have the same participant, God, the same scene, earth with a definite change of action. It therefore would be proper to translate hayah in the Hebrew to “became” in English.

    Thus, Genesis 1:2 should read: “And the earth became void and desolate …"

    This is all I have time for tonight. It is getting late. In fact, it is early Sunday morning. Believe it or not I do go to church.

  15. #15
    Champ Dawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the roughDawgbitten is a jewel in the rough Dawgbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Mandeville, LA
    Posts
    4,289

    Re: To Prevent Hijacking: Pre-Adamic Flood

    Quote Originally Posted by saltydawg
    It seems pretty clear that the newly formed Earth had a thin crust and that a huge flood of water burst through that thin crust and covered the entire planet with over 20,000 ft of water. This is known as the pre-Adamic Flood. Later, another smaller planet collide with our watery world and as a result most of the water was ejected into Outer Space. The small amount than remained after the collision makes up our oceans today.

    There is a good chance that the original Garden of Eve was located in what is today known as Syria.
    The water that was ejected into outer space then formed a comet. I have heard that the comet formed from this water is Haley's comet.

    The Garden of Eden was really the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. It was not man made gardens.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts