PDA

View Full Version : Pre Adamic Race?



Rookie78
Oct 29th 2008, 11:26 PM
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

and

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

What law are these verses referring to? If it is the Mosaic law, then why would God judge the people of Noah's time and Sodom and Gomorrah? If it is the Adamic law, this would seem to indicate that there was a pre-adamic race. Thoughts?

Éσяєяυииєя
Oct 30th 2008, 04:28 AM
Hello Rookie78;

Only a question, what do you mean by :"Adamic law"


Fareyewell

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 11:16 AM
What "laws" was the Lord talking to Abraham about here, several generations before Moses was born?

Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Rookie78
Oct 30th 2008, 01:26 PM
Hello Rookie78;

Only a question, what do you mean by :"Adamic law"


Fareyewell

Hey forerunner,

By adamic law, I mean the moral law that was revealed to Adam. These verses seem to be saying that there was sin in the world before the law was given. I'm just trying to understand them.

Firefighter
Oct 30th 2008, 01:36 PM
You are reading way too deeply into Romans 5. It is speaking of imputation of sin and there was no imputation of sin until the law, even though there was sin. The law he is referring to is the mosaic law, whereby there was a temporary way of imputing ones sins by means of sacrifice. Paul goes on in Romans to speak of another sacrifice, Jesus.

Reynolds357
Oct 30th 2008, 01:42 PM
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

and

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

What law are these verses referring to? If it is the Mosaic law, then why would God judge the people of Noah's time and Sodom and Gomorrah? If it is the Adamic law, this would seem to indicate that there was a pre-adamic race. Thoughts?

How do these scriptures tie into the discussion of the Pre Adamic race?

Dragonfighter1
Oct 30th 2008, 01:55 PM
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

and

Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

What law are these verses referring to? If it is the Mosaic law, then why would God judge the people of Noah's time and Sodom and Gomorrah? If it is the Adamic law, this would seem to indicate that there was a pre-adamic race. Thoughts?

Think of the Greek words for these two words and see a slightly different
focus

LAW= standards
Sin=ERROR

Romans 5:13
For until there were STANDARDS, ERROR was in the world: but ERROR is not imputed when there are no STANDARDS .

and

Romans 4:15
Because the STANDARDS worketh wrath: for where no STANDARDS are, there is no ERROR.

What Paul speaks of is not Pre Adamic peoples at all. HE is talking about is the validity of condemnation. And the consequences of it.

Adams first law was "dont eat of the tree....etc" ... there was a consequence for violation. Before the giving or that first rule, what could ADAM have done that would break that non existent law.
Now we can also point to unspoken laws...like thou shalt not kill.... Take Cain and Able as a prime example....it was obvious that killing his brother was wrong...BUT, BIGGGGG BUT...God did not do what we might expect to Cain since no hard law had been given... Instead of killing Cain he was exiled etc.... NO law, no consequence because no failure...

Just my read on it. Please respond if I erred.

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 02:00 PM
this would seem to indicate that there was a pre-adamic race.

The notion of a pre-adamic race is unbiblical.

Adam was the first human created. Eve the second.
Eve was the first human sinner, Adam the second.

Prior to Eve sinning, sin had not entered into creation yet.

Prior to Adam's creation, there were only fish, birds, and animals....no human races.

Firefighter
Oct 30th 2008, 02:00 PM
Great post Dragon...

Dragonfighter1
Oct 30th 2008, 02:05 PM
Great post Dragon...
Thanks Urban Missionary, I try to help...don't always succeed though:rolleyes:.
If you want to rep me click on the little scales of justice in the upper right corner of the post...This gives the poster POINTS.... I am 2 points away from 200 :pray:

Maybe today I'll hit 200:lol:

Veretax
Oct 30th 2008, 02:18 PM
before the law was given, man was guided by his own conscience. In the days of noah, you see that man had come to basically ignore it. It is my belief that the unbeliever still has a conscience about what is right and wrong, yet we sin because we ignore the conscience.

Rookie78
Oct 30th 2008, 06:11 PM
I don't think it could be applying to mosaic law because people were punished for sins before that time. The verse is saying that before the law, there was no fault found in sin.

I realize it is a big jump to go on to say that there was a race before adam based on these verses, but the only thing other than that would seem to be that Paul was talking about the tiny time frame between when adam was created and when he was told not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 06:25 PM
I don't think it could be applying to mosaic law because people were punished for sins before that time. The verse is saying that before the law, there was no fault found in sin.

I realize it is a big jump to go on to say that there was a race before adam based on these verses, but the only thing other than that would seem to be that Paul was talking about the tiny time frame between when adam was created and when he was told not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Perhaps try an easier version to get the jist of what is being said; and expand the verse to pickup more context from the surrounding verses:

New Living Translation
Romans 5:12-16 When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adamís sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. 13 Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break. 14 Still, everyone diedófrom the time of Adam to the time of Mosesóeven those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come. 15 But there is a great difference between Adamís sin and Godís gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is Godís wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ. 16 And the result of Godís gracious gift is very different from the result of that one manís sin. For Adamís sin led to condemnation, but Godís free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins."


Because of Adam and Eve's sin, the creation was cursed. The curse brought death and condemnation to all.

God through Moses, brought the Law as a guide to show people how far from being righteous before God they were...and that they by themselves, could not please God.

None was righteous, no not one.

Think of it this way.

Think of sin as a railroad train.
When Adam fell, the railroad train (curse of sin) began to run.
Whenever someone stepped on the tracks, and tangled with the train; they got stung by the sin, right?
There were no excuses; it was a given that it would happen.

Moses came along, and put up a signal-light ("the Law") at the traintrack.
Nothing changed regarding the sting of sin; however, the signal-light now helped remind men of their sins.

OK, maybe not a great analogy; but the point is; all men have sinned; and the Law shows us with great clarity that we are sinners.

We must rely on the Lord; and not ourselves; by faith through Him.

Has nothing to do with a non-existent adamic race at all.

Adam was the first man, and Eve the first woman.

Everyone else came thereafter.

Reynolds357
Oct 30th 2008, 07:09 PM
The notion of a pre-adamic race is unbiblical.

Adam was the first human created. Eve the second.
Eve was the first human sinner, Adam the second.

Prior to Eve sinning, sin had not entered into creation yet.

Prior to Adam's creation, there were only fish, birds, and animals....no human races.

There most definitely was a pre-Adamic race. The pre-Adamic race populated the earth before the first flood. The Genesis account of creation is actually an account of re-creation.

Here is a decent link that does a pretty fair job in dealing with it.
http://www.cog-ff.com/site/cog_archives/booklets/TWO%20CREATIONS%20TWO%20World%20Wide%20FLOODS.htm

markedward
Oct 30th 2008, 07:20 PM
If you want to rep me click on the little scales of justice in the upper right corner of the post...This gives the poster POINTS.... I am 2 points away from 200You're actually asking for rep points?

Rookie78
Oct 30th 2008, 07:20 PM
Perhaps adam was the first man who was also a living soul.

I guess what I'm doing is trying to reconcile OEC and YEC. Is it so far fetched to suggest that there was a race before adam who was a living soul? The race before adam would not have souls. They lived, sinned, and died and that was the end, no heaven or hell.

markedward
Oct 30th 2008, 07:21 PM
There most definitely was a pre-Adamic race. The pre-Adamic race populated the earth before the first flood. The Genesis account of creation is actually an account of re-creation.Do you have any Biblical proof other than misinterpreting the Old English definition and usage of the word "replenish"?


Perhaps adam was the first man who was also a living soul.

I guess what I'm doing is trying to reconcile OEC and YEC. Is it so far fetched to suggest that there was a race before adam who was a living soul? The race before adam would not have souls. They lived, sinned, and died and that was the end, no heaven or hell.Again, do you have any Biblical evidence that doesn't require being misinterpreted? I'm not say you are intentionally misinterpreting things, but quite often the things people think means one thing really doesn't... they're just reading between the lines, or they're reading ideas into the text that aren't there, or they're taking verses out of context.

Simply, if you can't find any Biblical evidence or proof for such an idea... chances are you're grasping for an idea that isn't there.

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 07:23 PM
Perhaps adam was the first man who was also a living soul.

I guess what I'm doing is trying to reconcile OEC and YEC. Is it so far fetched to suggest that there was a race before adam who was a living soul? The race before adam would not have souls. They lived, sinned, and died and that was the end, no heaven or hell.

Yes it is.

Instead of trying to reconcile earth-dating views; why not accept the scriptures which tell us Adam was the first man?

Then build your understanding forward from that solid rock foundation; instead of a sinking sand foundation (pre-adamic races).

Your analogy is describing an animal; which do not sin; because they are not made in the image of God as humans are.

Dani H
Oct 30th 2008, 07:31 PM
You're actually asking for rep points?

It's his OCD talking. ;)

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 07:32 PM
There most definitely was a pre-Adamic race. The pre-Adamic race populated the earth before the first flood. The Genesis account of creation is actually an account of re-creation.

Adam was the first human.

I Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam"

Eve, his wife, was the first woman, the mother of all humankind.

I Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. "

Genesis 3:20 " Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."


The first flood occurred during the generations of Noah; over a thousand years after Adam died.

6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

You seem to be basing your entire premise on a misunderstanding of the KJV useage of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28...which is better and more accurately rendered:

YLT Gen 1:28 "And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'

The context nowhere mentions a flood; nowhere mentions people dying from a flood; and nowhere mentions a pre-Adamic race.

That theory is not found in the Bible; but is a cultic myth you should abandon and turn away from.

Reynolds357
Oct 30th 2008, 07:33 PM
[quote=markedward;1846995]Do you have any Biblical proof other than misinterpreting the Old English definition and usage of the word "replenish"?

Since this link does a decent job in dealing with the topic, I will post it instead of typing and explaining every verse on my own. http://www.cog-ff.com/site/cog_archives/booklets/TWO%20CREATIONS%20TWO%20World%20Wide%20FLOODS.htm

The complete doctrine for the pre-Adamic flood is also laid out in Dakes Reference bible If you are interested. I do not consider myself a Hebrew scholar by any means. However, I do study works of Hebrew Scholars. "Replenish" is an accurate rendering in both of its major uses in Genesis.

Dragonfighter1
Oct 30th 2008, 07:39 PM
You're actually asking for rep points?
Dude, you missed the whole point.
Please, in context, try again....
See if you see the hummour... if you dont just move on...
It takes all types, if I'm not your type just ignore me:P

Dragonfighter1
Oct 30th 2008, 07:40 PM
It's his OCD talking. ;)
NOW YA TALKIN':monkeyd:

Reynolds357
Oct 30th 2008, 07:40 PM
Adam was the first human.

I Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam"

Eve, his wife, was the first woman, the mother of all humankind.

I Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. "

Genesis 3:20 " Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." The Pre-Adamic race was not a truly human race. It was a highly advanced, yet sub-human race.




The first flood occurred during the generations of Noah; over a thousand years after Adam died.

6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

You seem to be basing your entire premise on a misunderstanding of the KJV useage of 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28...which is better and more accurately rendered:

YLT Gen 1:28 "And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'

The context nowhere mentions a flood; nowhere mentions people dying from a flood; and nowhere mentions a pre-Adamic race.

That theory is not found in the Bible; but is a cultic myth you should abandon and turn away from.

Fill the earth is not the literal translation. Replenish is the literal translation. This is not the only instance in scripture that "Youngs Literal" translation is actuall Youngs opinion translation.

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 07:45 PM
Nice side-step.

It really is much simpler than that however.



List the verses prior to Adam's creation in Genesis 1:26 that mention Pre-Adamic races of Humans.
(Hint: The Bible doesn't mention any)
.
List the verses prior to Genesis 1:28 which provide the context for your interpretation of 'replenish' to mean other races of man existed prior to Adam.
(Hint: The Bible doesn't mention any)
.
List the verses prior to Genesis chapter 6 that mention a flood destroying human life on the planet.
(Hint: The Bible doesn't mention any)

You're advancing science fiction mythology.
If the Bible taught what you say it teaches; you could simply list the verses that teach it, without any external website links or additional personal commentary.

You can't do that to argue your point, however, because you know the scriptures don't teach the view you are attempting to substantiate. It is an extra-biblical myth you are attempting for whaever reason, to force into the scriptures.

markedward
Oct 30th 2008, 07:46 PM
Since this link does a decent job in dealing with the topic, I will post it instead of typing and explaining every verse on my own. http://www.cog-ff.com/site/cog_archives/booklets/TWO%20CREATIONS%20TWO%20World%20Wide%20FLOODS.htm
That website holds a number of questionable and distorted doctrines (many of which are very legalistic, fabricating rules, claiming that God commanded them). Other doctrines of that website:

1. Make-up (i.e., lipstick, etc.) is forbidden by God.
2. Interracial (i.e., blacks and whites, Europeans with Asians, etc.) is forbidden by God.
3. The Holy Spirit is an "it", and the trinity is false.
4. Herbert Armstrong was the "Elijah to come", ignoring that Jesus plainly stated that John the Baptist was.

So please excuse me if I don't consider that link a worthwhile explanation for a pre-Adamic race...


However, I do study works of Hebrew Scholars. "Replenish" is an accurate rendering in both of its major uses in Genesis.I wasn't calling the usage of the word "replenish" into question. I was pointing out that proponents of a pre-Adamic world love to ignore that "replenish" doesn't mean what they think it means.

Dragonfighter1
Oct 30th 2008, 07:47 PM
The only place in scripture where 'commonly' a pre adamic race can be PUSHED into the text is Gen 1:1 The text is translated with enough room to say that the text says: "and the earth became without for and void" that is they claim the world was already formed and God Got upset with a pre adamic race, smooshed the globe into a voided form and then resmooshed it into the current one. From this they then claim the archealogical finds are preadamic and are millions of years old becasue the smooshing could have taken a billion yrs etc..

Its just such a stretch to get all that out of one word.

Now please obey my OCD:lol:

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 07:49 PM
The Pre-Adamic race was not a truly human race. It was a highly advanced, yet sub-human race.

You've got alot of opinions.....but what you don't have, are any Biblical verses.




Fill the earth is not the literal translation. Replenish is the literal translation. This is not the only instance in scripture that "Youngs Literal" translation is actuall Youngs opinion translation.

Only because it causes your mythical entry point to fall apart.
"Fill the Earth" doesn't leave you any room to imbed your mythical story into the scriptures.

But hey, just list the scriptures what show these pre-adamic races living on the Earth prior to Adam. Then show your scriptures that a flood destroyed them all prior to Noah's great flood.

People here at this forum are interested in the Scriptures; and what they clearly teach; not what extra-biblical myths can be thrown out and pushed into the Bible. The weight of evidence is missing from your arguement; because you avoid clear scriptures; (which don't exist); and pin you arguement on translational issues of single word variations like 'filled' verses 'replenished'.

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 07:53 PM
The only place in scripture where 'commonly' a pre adamic race can be PUSHED into the text is Gen 1:1 The text is translated with enough room to say that the text says: "and the earth became without for and void" that is they claim the world was already formed and God Got upset with a pre adamic race, smooshed the globe into a voided form and then resmooshed it into the current one. From this they then claim the archealogical finds are preadamic and are millions of years old becasue the smooshing could have taken a billion yrs etc..

Its just such a stretch to get all that out of one word.

Now please obey my OCD:lol:


So what you're telling us, is the the Pre-Adamite students are wanting us to believe; is that the scriptural proof for their theory is based on:

1) the word "became" in Genesis 1:1
and
2) the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28

"became & replenish" EQUALS Pre-Adamic race of people who were soul-less subhumans who were destroyed in a pre-Noah flood before Adam was created.

Sorry, but the Lord made almost all of his children better Bereans that that. What a load of malarchy. Why would someone purposefully want to teach deceptive and untruthful junk like this? Why would someone argue stuff that might cause other peopel to stumble?

:(

Dragonfighter1
Oct 30th 2008, 07:55 PM
So what you're telling us, is the the Pre-Adamite students are wanting us to believe; is that the scriptural proof for their theory is based on:

1) the word "became" in Genesis 1:1
and
2) the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28

"became & replenish" EQUALS Pre-Adamic race of people who were soul-less subhumans who were destroyed in a pre-Noah flood before Adam was created.

Sorry, but the Lord made almost all of his children better Bereans that that. What a load of malarchy. Why would someone purposefully want to teach deceptive and untruthful junk like this? Why would someone argue stuff that might cause other peopel to stumble?

:(
Wait! Are you telling me off for exposing the stupidity of the argument?
I dont believe their muck, I expose it for what it is. That is not wrong.
How can exposing error cause stumbling?

David Taylor
Oct 30th 2008, 07:58 PM
Maybe me and you are playing twister and stumbling over one another? :kiss:


No I wasn't talking about you for exposing it; I was talking about the view itself and how it causes folks to stumble....and how amazed I am in that people actually believe this baloney and then try and teach it to others to get them to follow it.

What a world we live in.

Rookie78
Oct 30th 2008, 08:15 PM
Maybe me and you are playing twister and stumbling over one another? :kiss:


No I wasn't talking about you for exposing it; I was talking about the view itself and how it causes folks to stumble....and how amazed I am in that people actually believe this baloney and then try and teach it to others to get them to follow it.

What a world we live in.

How does this view cause anyone to stumble?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 30th 2008, 11:52 PM
That website holds a number of questionable and distorted doctrines (many of which are very legalistic, fabricating rules, claiming that God commanded them). Other doctrines of that website:

1. Make-up (i.e., lipstick, etc.) is forbidden by God.
2. Interracial (i.e., blacks and whites, Europeans with Asians, etc.) is forbidden by God.
3. The Holy Spirit is an "it", and the trinity is false.
4. Herbert Armstrong was the "Elijah to come", ignoring that Jesus plainly stated that John the Baptist was.

So please excuse me if I don't consider that link a worthwhile explanation for a pre-Adamic race...Yeah, that site is for Herbert Armstrong followers. He was a 'prophet' :rolleyes: who couldn't really get any predictions right. :hmm: You know what scripture says about prophets who are not 100% right...they're not hearing it from Him! I think that does more to strike a blow against the whole pre-adamic thing.

God Bless!

Lamplighter
Oct 31st 2008, 02:00 AM
There most definitely was a pre-Adamic race. The pre-Adamic race populated the earth before the first flood. The Genesis account of creation is actually an account of re-creation.


Genesis 1:2 - The earth was without form, and void.

Pre-Ademic race theorists say it should read The Earth became without form, instead of was without form. The Hebrew word for used for (was) is (hayah) which can mean, to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out, arise, appear.

So as you can see, (was) in the Hebrew can mean to become without form or void or it can mean already exists without form or void. Pre-Ademic races is an intertesting theory, but there is not enough scriptural evidence to make it anything more then a wild theory.

Dragonfighter1
Oct 31st 2008, 03:02 AM
There most definitely was a pre-Adamic race. The pre-Adamic race populated the earth before the first flood.

Not possible..
First it would have to be called the "pre-NOAHIC" race since Noah was the guy that managed/led through the flood not Adam,
and second if you're really still meaning "pre-noahic", then its not "pre-adamic" it would have to be "concurrent-adamic".

This is therefore a really stupid thing we are debating because even the argument is mis-worded:crazy:

Rookie78
Oct 31st 2008, 03:53 AM
Ok, So back to my original question..... what is the Romans verses (5:13 and 4:15)trying to say/imply? Sin was in the world before the law was given and there was no fault attributed to such sin. Do most of you agree that this is talking about the short time frame between when adam was created and when he was told not to eat of the forbidden tree?

Dragonfighter1
Oct 31st 2008, 04:08 AM
Ok, So back to my original question..... what is the Romans verses (5:13 and 4:15)trying to say/imply? Sin was in the world before the law was given and there was no fault attributed to such sin. Do most of you agree that this is talking about the short time frame between when adam was created and when he was told not to eat of the forbidden tree?
No more laws were given until Noah got off the boat,.. then human government was established and laws were created (initially by God. Dietary rules changed too.) But between the apple and the ark there was no written law code, only conscience.

P.s. those verses make a lot more sense of you read the entire chapter for each verse. Contextually its more sensible.

Richard H
Oct 31st 2008, 12:19 PM
...
But between the apple and the ark there was no written law code, only conscience.
'Interesting point!
Apparently it didn't yield satisfactory results. :rolleyes:

Dragonfighter1
Oct 31st 2008, 12:25 PM
'Interesting point!
Apparently it didn't yield satisfactory results. :rolleyes:
:lol: Which is why the flood occurred.

Clean the plate, start again, this time give Noah some rules!

"....OK, Noah, lets see if you can do better than ADAM, you make up some rules and try to get things to run smoothly...."

I am glad with each succeeding dispensation there wasn't another flood!:spin:

Dragonfighter1
Oct 31st 2008, 12:26 PM
'Interesting point!
Apparently it didn't yield satisfactory results. :rolleyes:

Oh By the way.. Good morning Richard!:)

Reynolds357
Nov 3rd 2008, 12:55 AM
You've got alot of opinions.....but what you don't have, are any Biblical verses.




Only because it causes your mythical entry point to fall apart.
"Fill the Earth" doesn't leave you any room to imbed your mythical story into the scriptures.

But hey, just list the scriptures what show these pre-adamic races living on the Earth prior to Adam. Then show your scriptures that a flood destroyed them all prior to Noah's great flood.

People here at this forum are interested in the Scriptures; and what they clearly teach; not what extra-biblical myths can be thrown out and pushed into the Bible. The weight of evidence is missing from your arguement; because you avoid clear scriptures; (which don't exist); and pin you arguement on translational issues of single word variations like 'filled' verses 'replenished'.


Do you remember me telling you that all the verses are laid out in concise form in Dake's annotated Reference Bible? I am not at all short on scripture. You simply choose to not look at the reference to the scripture I have already provided. I guess I could type them out with their explanation if you like, but that would somewhat a waste of time in my opinion.

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:25 AM
Ok, So back to my original question..... what is the Romans verses (5:13 and 4:15)trying to say/imply? Sin was in the world before the law was given and there was no fault attributed to such sin. Do most of you agree that this is talking about the short time frame between when adam was created and when he was told not to eat of the forbidden tree?

Nope, not I. Don't see anything suggesting that in either of those chapters.

David Taylor
Nov 3rd 2008, 01:42 PM
Do you remember me telling you that all the verses are laid out in concise form in Dake's annotated Reference Bible? I am not at all short on scripture. You simply choose to not look at the reference to the scripture I have already provided. I guess I could type them out with their explanation if you like, but that would somewhat a waste of time in my opinion.

Commentaries and personal interpretations of scriptures aren't scripture.

If the pre-Adamic myth is true as you claim, you should be able to list only scriptures, without commentary or external opinions or pre-manufactured leadings...and the scriptures should speak for themselves without yours or Dakes injected opinion.

List the scriptures alone, without personal commentary, and let the reader decide if your claims are soundly derived from the scriptures or not.

Pretty simple...if it is a true biblical teaching.

Firefighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:45 PM
The complete doctrine for the pre-Adamic flood is also laid out in Dakes Reference bible If you are interested. I do not consider myself a Hebrew scholar by any means. However, I do study works of Hebrew Scholars. "Replenish" is an accurate rendering in both of its major uses in Genesis.

Keep in mind that Finis Dake was far from a Hebrew Scholar. I love my Dake Bible, but we need to keep things in perspective. Dake wrote his bible while in prison for transporting a minor across state lines and doing inappropriate things with her in a hotel while he was preaching for the AoG. He was then banned from the AoG and the Church of God (Cleveland) (my old denomination) ordained him after he got out of prison. Great Bible, eat the meat, throw out the bones.

The Bible says that the earth and everything in it was made in six days. How do you think the original audience understood that? Do you really suppose that they understood it to mean that God created the earth, destroyed it and then recreated it? That is not plausible. You have to violate the rules of biblical translation to get to that conclusion.

Reynolds357
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:49 PM
Not possible..
First it would have to be called the "pre-NOAHIC" race since Noah was the guy that managed/led through the flood not Adam,
and second if you're really still meaning "pre-noahic", then its not "pre-adamic" it would have to be "concurrent-adamic".

This is therefore a really stupid thing we are debating because even the argument is mis-worded:crazy:

I said "First flood." The Noaic Flood is the "Second Flood."

Reynolds357
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:53 PM
Keep in mind that Finis Dake was far from a Hebrew Scholar. I love my Dake Bible, but we need to keep things in perspective. Dake wrote his bible while in prison for transporting a minor across state lines and doing inappropriate things with her in a hotel while he was preaching for the AoG. He was then banned from the AoG and the Church of God (Cleveland) (my old denomination) ordained him after he got out of prison. Great Bible, eat the meat, throw out the bones.

The Bible says that the earth and everything in it was made in six days. How do you think the original audience understood that? Do you really suppose that they understood it to mean that God created the earth, destroyed it and then recreated it? That is not plausible. You have to violate the rules of biblical translation to get to that conclusion.

Even though my wording might have been confusing, I never said Dake was a Hebrew Scholar. When I refer to Hebrew Scholars, I am in General Speaking of true Hebrews. How did the Orig. audience take the 6 day creation? Friends I have who spend much time in Israel in discussion with Rabis assure me that it is almost universally held among Jewish scholars that the Genesis account of creation is in fact an account of a recreation.

Firefighter
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:02 PM
Keep in ind that there is ZERO mention of the "Gap Theory" prior to the late 1800s. It was only when science "proved" that the earth was much older than the scriptures allowed for, that this doctrine ever saw the light of day. It is a compromise, period. It is a feeble attempt to reconcile Bible with "science." Why is there no mention of this supposed "gap" in the 4,000 years that people studied the Bible prior to "science" discovering that the earth is supposedly old?

Exo 20:9-11 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This clearly shows what is intended in verse eleven. "Six days you shall labor" is obviously speaking of six, literal, consecutive days as the Children of Israel were to rest on the seventh. The author then uses God as the supreme example for them to follow because he made the earth and everything in it in six days. Since they were to follow God's example, it becomes obvious that the earth and everything in it was also done in six, literal, consecutive days, not work one day, wait several million years, destroy what you did on the fist day and then work five more consecutive days. You just can't there from here.

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:48 PM
Even though my wording might have been confusing, I never said Dake was a Hebrew Scholar. When I refer to Hebrew Scholars, I am in General Speaking of true Hebrews. How did the Orig. audience take the 6 day creation? Friends I have who spend much time in Israel in discussion with Rabis assure me that it is almost universally held among Jewish scholars that the Genesis account of creation is in fact an account of a recreation.

Okay, that's step one, let me ask the next logical question: which Rabbi's and where can I reference their theology?

Richard H
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:53 PM
I said "First flood." The Noaic Flood is the "Second Flood." Wow! Two great floods? :o
I know where the Scriptures speak of Noah, but where is the Scripture which indicates a great flood previous to that?

Dragonfighter1
Nov 3rd 2008, 03:56 PM
Wow! Two great floods? :o
I know where the Scriptures speak of Noah, but where is the Scripture which indicates a great flood previous to that?
There you go again Richard, causing trouble:lol: asking for proof.

Dont you know there was a big canopy of water that broke over the planet twice... I saw it in the book of Dragon fighter..somewhere???

Richard H
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:49 PM
There you go again Richard, causing trouble:lol: asking for proof.:D

Well, at least a story.
But not the dreamtime sort. <aussies will understand J >

Reynolds357
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:16 PM
Commentaries and personal interpretations of scriptures aren't scripture.

If the pre-Adamic myth is true as you claim, you should be able to list only scriptures, without commentary or external opinions or pre-manufactured leadings...and the scriptures should speak for themselves without yours or Dakes injected opinion.

List the scriptures alone, without personal commentary, and let the reader decide if your claims are soundly derived from the scriptures or not.

Pretty simple...if it is a true biblical teaching.

Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:2
Genesis 1:28
Genesis 9:1
Ezekiel 28:11-19
Isaiah 14:12-15
Deut 32:4
Isaiah 45:18
I John 1:5
Psalm 104:30
Job 38:4-7
John 8:44

There you are, scripture with no added commentary by me or anyone else.

Reynolds357
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:22 PM
Wow! Two great floods? :o
I know where the Scriptures speak of Noah, but where is the Scripture which indicates a great flood previous to that?

The idea of two great floods Is found in the same scriptures that are also used to support the gap theory. Genesis 1:2 shows us that the face of the Earth was covered with water. This is a flood by any definition of the word "flood." The wording of Genesis 9:15 also is highly suggestive that the flood of Noah was not the first time that the Earth had been destroyed by water. Any way you look at it, the flood of Noah was the second, not the first time the face of the Earth was covered by water.

Athanasius
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:33 PM
Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:2
Genesis 1:28
Genesis 9:1
Ezekiel 28:15
Isaiah 14:12-13

None of those within a proper exegetical framework support the Gap Theory. Only with an eisegetical method can one come to such a conclusion as is not supported in the text.

Richard H
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:40 PM
The idea of two great floods Is found in the same scriptures that are also used to support the gap theory. Genesis 1:2 shows us that the face of the Earth was covered with water. This is a flood by any definition of the word "flood." The wording of Genesis 9:15 also is highly suggestive that the flood of Noah was not the first time that the Earth had been destroyed by water. Any way you look at it, the flood of Noah was the second, not the first time the face of the Earth was covered by water.
Genesis 1:2 also says: The earth was formless and void… - indicating no previous life on this “bit of goo in space” (even before the existence of light).

Genesis 9:15 does not presuppose that God had done this all before; merely that He will not use water to destroy sinful man in the future.

As for the “gap”, (in my own theology) angels were created and even rebelled before the creation of the physical world, but there were no beings on Earth while it was formless and void.
“Void” is void.

The “gap” seems to be an attempt to reconcile an old earth with fossils and remains.
I have no problem with these things existing, because I believe God’s account of seven days represents an outline for His total plan for mankind.

The seventh day Sabbath - being the 7th millennium and the “making” of man and woman in the image and likeness of God on the 6th day representing the work of the Holy Spirit in regenerating man which is made from the dust of the earth in Genesis 2.

The creation of Adam and then Eve in Genesis 2 would have to be placed on the third day of Gen 1 - between the dry dusty earth and creation of plants.
I regard the beginning of literal history as Genesis 2 and all the accountings of the generations.

This certainly is not a traditional interpretation, but I feel it has more Scriptural merit than the gap.
I don’t offer this to convince you that my personal conclusion is correct, but rather… to show that there are other ways to reconcile an old earth than believing that man walked the earth when it was void.

Those who go with a literal interpretation of Genesis one, will get no argument from me.
Some would disagree, but these issues are secondary to faith in Christ, so I suppose you can believe in the gap, but it's even more suspect than my wacky theory. :)

Rookie78
Nov 4th 2008, 03:06 AM
Nope, not I. Don't see anything suggesting that in either of those chapters.

Then who/what was sinning before the adamic law was given?

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 03:14 AM
Then who/what was sinning before the adamic law was given?

What is the Adamic law? Never heard of it?

Not eating from the tree in the midst of the garden? Is this the Adamic law? Thanks.

Rookie78
Nov 4th 2008, 03:31 AM
What is the Adamic law? Never heard of it?

Not eating from the tree in the midst of the garden? Is this the Adamic law? Thanks.

Yes, that was the initial law God gave to adam. The rest of the law at that time is not explicit but there was some type of conscience that came with the knowledge of good and evil from eating the fruit.

This law seems to be the only logical one to make the Romans 5:13 verse make sense.

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 03:46 AM
Yes, that was the initial law God gave to adam. The rest of the law at that time is not explicit but there was some type of conscience that came with the knowledge of good and evil from eating the fruit.

This law seems to be the only logical one to make the Romans 5:13 verse make sense.

Sin in Romans 5:13 is singular, not plural. There were no men or anything else sinning before Adam sinned. Romans 5:12- by one man sin entered into the world. Singular, not plural.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Athanasius
Nov 4th 2008, 02:05 PM
Then who/what was sinning before the adamic law was given?

Satan and angels? There were no humans around to sin:rolleyes: (nor was there any pre-adamic race running around a garden made of minerals with Satan as its king).

watchinginawe
Nov 4th 2008, 02:39 PM
As for the “gap”, (in my own theology) angels were created and even rebelled before the creation of the physical world, but there were no beings on Earth while it was formless and void.
“Void” is void.The angelic host would be the only pre-Adamic race that I believe one could suggest Biblically.

What I take away from the creation and existence of angels is that we aren't told when in creation they were made. Therefore, we aren't told of every creation event either. The Genesis account concentrates and has as the focus the Earth and ultimately man.

It is possible that angels can exist outside of our universe and thus pre-date the Genesis account entirely and beyond time measured in our universe's time in existence.

Really, angels are a mystery. I'm thinking of that old song "I want to know more about my Lord" and how "I want to know more than I know now" when we go on after this life.

So did the angels ruin our early universe? If so, I don't believe God has revealed that in the scriptures. But clearly, regarding angels, God has not revealed everything about everything or we would know a whole lot more about them.

God Bless!

David Taylor
Nov 4th 2008, 03:15 PM
Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:2
Genesis 1:28
Genesis 9:1
Ezekiel 28:11-19
Isaiah 14:12-15
Deut 32:4
Isaiah 45:18
I John 1:5
Psalm 104:30
Job 38:4-7
John 8:44

There you are, scripture with no added commentary by me or anyone else.

Great, Appreciate finally giving us some scriptures to look at...(well at least references)...but let's be faithful Bereans though, and not just take your word for it that these references teach Pre-Adamic races; rather let's search these scriptures to see if it is so.

Genesis 1:1-2, 28
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: God created the heavens and the Earth, God telling Adam and Eve to fill the earth and to have dominion over the fish, birds, and all creatures.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.





Genesis 9:1
"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth."

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: God telling Noah and Shem, Ham, and Japeth after Noah's flood, to fill the Earth.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.




Ezekiel 28:11-19
"The word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: " 'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. 18 By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. 19 All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.' "

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: God describing the wicked King of Tyre as a personfication of the fall of Satan from his prior lofty position as one of the Lord's cheribum; and the rampaging effect Satan's fall has had on both Adam and Eve in the garden, as well as all the nations and kingdoms of men since then.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.





Isaiah 14:12-15
"How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 1314 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." 15 But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: God describing the wicked King of Babylon (this time) as a personfication of the fall of Satan because of his sinful pride; and the rampaging effect Satan's fall has had all the nations and kingdoms of men since then, and his woeful downfall.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.




Deut 32:4
"He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he."

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: Moses glorififying the Lord God.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.



Isaiah 45:18
"For this is what the LORD saysó he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabitedó he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: Isaiah exalting the Lord for creating the Earth, and for making it to be a place intended not as dead desolate planet, but one to be habitable.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.



I John 1:5
"This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: John exalting the purity and light of God, as told John by Jesus Himself.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.



Psalm 104:30
"When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth."


Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: The Psalmist glorifying God for created men and perpetually populating the Earth with us.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.




Job 38:4-7
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: God questioning Job about his absence from the creation of the Earth, stating that all who were present then were His angels; not Job or his associates.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.




John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Mentions of Pre-Adamic races: 0
Mentions of Pre-Noah Floods: 0
What is mentioned: Jesus talking the the Jewish Rules who didn't believe and accept Him; therefore, showing them that their allegience was with Satan not God.

Nothing in these Scriptures teaching Pre-Adamic races or Pre-Noah Floods.





So you cited 26 verses in your references list; however when we look at the context of those 26 verses we find:


ZERO mention of a Pre-Adamic race, and
ZERO mention of a Pre-Noah flood.

Looks like whomever you copied and pasted that list from had no idea what they were talking about....did you take the time to read the actual verses before copying and pasting their reference list? :hmm:

Care to share any other verses you've been taught that supposedly contain mention of Pre-Adamic and Pre-Noah flood examples? We can examine them also for their proper, biblical context.

Richard H
Nov 4th 2008, 03:30 PM
The angelic host would be the only pre-Adamic race that I believe one could suggest Biblically.

What I take away from the creation and existence of angels is that we aren't told when in creation they were made. Therefore, we aren't told of every creation event either. The Genesis account concentrates and has as the focus the Earth and ultimately man.

It is possible that angels can exist outside of our universe and thus pre-date the Genesis account entirely and beyond time measured in our universe's time in existence.

Really, angels are a mystery. I'm thinking of that old song "I want to know more about my Lord" and how "I want to know more than I know now" when we go on after this life.

So did the angels ruin our early universe? If so, I don't believe God has revealed that in the scriptures. But clearly, regarding angels, God has not revealed everything about everything or we would know a whole lot more about them.

God Bless!
Yes. The Bible – unfortunately – doesn’t spell everything out, and there isn’t much about what was before.

Still we have some clues…

(speaking of those whose names are NOT writen in the book)
In the KJV
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

In the NASB
Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

In either case, even our redemption from sin was planned before the world began.
Additionally, Lucifer would had to have fallen before he tempted Eve.

So… I go with the pre-earth corruption of (some of) the angels.
Like you - I still don’t think there were people - before there were people. J

David Taylor
Nov 4th 2008, 04:20 PM
Additionally, Lucifer would had to have fallen before he tempted Eve.

So… I go with the pre-earth corruption of (some of) the angels.
Like you - I still don’t think there were people - before there were people. J

Richard,
I appreciate alot of what you write. However, I think the idea of pre-earth corruption of Angels isn't taught anywhere in Scripture.

We do know that Satan himself had fallen by the time he tempted Eve. (so we can probably safely assume some of the other fallen angels had also fallen by that time).

However, I think the Scriptures give us a pretty good window of "when" Satan fell....and it isn't 'before-creation"....but it is between the time of creation of humanity(Day 6) and the time Eve was deceived by Satan in the garden.

Notice the scriptures about creation....

Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

God talking to Job about the creation of the Earth, implies at the time the foundation of the Earth was being laid out, the angels (morning stars/sons of God) all shouted for joy.

That tells me that when the measurements of the Earth were being laid out, the angels had not yet fallen...for it says they all sang for joy.

We also know from the Psalmist, that the angels were apart of Creation as well; and they were created around the initial time of the entire creation week. (most likely during the creation of the heavens)

Psalms 148:1 "Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created."

Again, during the creation week, the angels all praised Him.
So if we just accept these verses that Angels were created; and that they were created during the creation week with everything else (since no passage in scripture tell us specifically angel pre-existed before the Creation Week); we can also look to this verse to show us the window of when Satan and the angels fell.


Genesis 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made[which would include angels], and, behold, it was very good[meaning they hadn't fallen yet]. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day[this gives us the time]. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.[again including all the created angels as well]"

So Genesis tells us that on the 6th day, God tells us that everything He had created was finished; and everything was very good!

Satan and the angels, the host of heaven, had not yet sinned by the time of the 6th day.

So sometime betweeen the conclusion of the 6th day, and the time when Satan later tempted Eve in the garden; did the fall of Satan and the angels occur.

We don't know that exact time, but we can know from the scriptures, the window.

Richard H
Nov 4th 2008, 05:59 PM
...
Notice the scriptures about creation....

Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

God talking to Job about the creation of the Earth, implies at the time the foundation of the Earth was being laid out, the angels (morning stars/sons of God) all shouted for joy.

That tells me that when the measurements of the Earth were being laid out, the angels had not yet fallen...for it says they all sang for joy.

...
<snip to save virtual paper> Good points, David!
Thanks for adding some perspective. :idea:

Perhaps there was a little jealousy over the ďnew babyĒ, when it came to Luciferís pride. :hmm:

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 06:52 PM
Perhaps there was a little jealousy over the “new baby”, when it came to Lucifer’s pride. :hmm:That's an interesting concept. I'm not calling angels dogs but if you've ever seen a loyal dog reacting to a first child, you'd have noticed that some will pick up on their master's love for the new baby and become loyal to love that child also. While some will become adversarial to the new baby as if it is infringing on their territory. Many new parents have to make the choice to get rid of their dog if the dog doesn't react well to the baby. Maybe that could be why most angels stayed loyal to their Master's children while some (one third) rebelled and became adversarial. :hmm:

God Bless!

Richard H
Nov 4th 2008, 07:11 PM
That's an interesting concept. I'm not calling angels dogs but if you've ever seen a loyal dog reacting to a first child, you'd have noticed that some will pick up on their master's love for the new baby and become loyal to love that child also. While some will become adversarial to the new baby as if it is infringing on their territory. Many new parents have to make the choice to get rid of their dog if the dog doesn't react well to the baby. Maybe that could be why most angels stayed loyal to their Master's children while some (one third) rebelled and became adversarial. :hmm:

God Bless!Previous children can also be jealous.
Especially when the parents are all tired out from taking care of the little monster! :rolleyes:

BTW: I was 3rd & last. ;)

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 07:28 PM
Previous children can also be jealous.
Especially when the parents are all tired out from taking care of the little monster! :rolleyes:

BTW: I was 3rd & last. ;)I was first of two and 11 years older than my brother. I absolutely know how frustrating it is to go from being an only child to just another one. :D My mom says I used to pinch my brother but I won't confirm that. :lol:

Lamplighter
Nov 4th 2008, 10:18 PM
The angelic host would be the only pre-Adamic race that I believe one could suggest Biblically.

What I take away from the creation and existence of angels is that we aren't told when in creation they were made. Therefore, we aren't told of every creation event either. The Genesis account concentrates and has as the focus the Earth and ultimately man.

It is possible that angels can exist outside of our universe and thus pre-date the Genesis account entirely and beyond time measured in our universe's time in existence.

Really, angels are a mystery. I'm thinking of that old song "I want to know more about my Lord" and how "I want to know more than I know now" when we go on after this life.

So did the angels ruin our early universe? If so, I don't believe God has revealed that in the scriptures. But clearly, regarding angels, God has not revealed everything about everything or we would know a whole lot more about them.

God Bless!

Genesis tells us that some of them left their natural abode, and married human women, and had children with them also. So it appears that disobedient angels can, and have walked the earth, many times other then when God has sent the obedient angels as messengers to mankind.

Firefighter
Nov 5th 2008, 12:50 PM
Let us not forget that Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, not a flood. If God destroyed them in a pre-noahic flood, then why the need for Hell, and why do we still have demons roaming around?

David Taylor
Nov 5th 2008, 01:49 PM
Genesis tells us that some of them left their natural abode, and married human women, and had children with them also. So it appears that disobedient angels can, and have walked the earth, many times other then when God has sent the obedient angels as messengers to mankind.
The passage you are referring to is about disobedient men marrying women and perpetrating evil to the generations following Noah's flood.

It has nothing to do With the angel mating and offspring which is an unbiblical pagan myth. Angels and humans don't mate and don't produce offspring.

The context throughout Genesis 6 is of men not angels; which tells the proper context of the phrase "sons of god" in that context is men not angels.

of the 10 times the phrase "sons of god" is used in the bible, it is only used to denote angels in the book of Job: all other uses the context is of men not angels.

Firefighter
Nov 5th 2008, 03:09 PM
The passage you are referring to is about disobedient men marrying women and perpetrating evil to the generations following Noah's flood.

It has nothing to do With the angel mating and offspring which is an unbiblical pagan myth. Angels and humans don't mate and don't produce offspring.

The context throughout Genesis 6 is of men not angels; which tells the proper context of the phrase "sons of god" in that context is men not angels.

of the 10 times the phrase "sons of god" is used in the bible, it is only used to denote angels in the book of Job: all other uses the context is of men not angels.

Correct, and let's not forget that the earthly fallen angels would have already been destroyed in the Luciferian flood according to the gap theory...

It amazes me that people believe both when they are mutually exclusive events.

If you believe both, then you are left to choose between two options...

1. You are wrong

-OR-

2. God really stinks at wiping out fallen angels.

Lamplighter
Nov 5th 2008, 07:10 PM
The passage you are referring to is about disobedient men marrying women and perpetrating evil to the generations following Noah's flood.

It has nothing to do With the angel mating and offspring which is an unbiblical pagan myth. Angels and humans don't mate and don't produce offspring.

The context throughout Genesis 6 is of men not angels; which tells the proper context of the phrase "sons of god" in that context is men not angels.

of the 10 times the phrase "sons of god" is used in the bible, it is only used to denote angels in the book of Job: all other uses the context is of men not angels.

Are you saying that sons of God means evil men, and men means good men? Am I understanding you right?

Genesis chapter 6 says that the sons of God mated with the daughters of men. Why would the scriptures not say the sons of evil men('adam) mated with the daughters of good men('adam) instead?

The Hebrew word used for men in Genesis chapter 6 is ('adam)-man, mankind, human being.

The Hebrew words used for sons of God are (ben)-offspring, and ('elohyim)-divine ones, angels, gods.

These are two separate male beings being talked about in Genesis chapter 6. The daughters of men are from the Ademic race of men, and the Sons of God are angelic beings. The Hebrew language tells us this clearly.

Rookie78
Nov 5th 2008, 09:06 PM
http://forums.gottadeal.com/images/smilies/threadjacked.gif

Ohhh boy, I can see where this is gonna lead... Maybe start a new thread?

jeffweeder
Nov 5th 2008, 10:19 PM
These are two separate male beings being talked about in Genesis chapter 6. The daughters of men are from the Ademic race of men, and the Sons of God are angelic beings.

Why would fallen Angels be refered to as the sons of God?

The Daughters of men are from the fallen and expelled line of Cain, while the sons of God are from seths line.
From Seths first born -Enosh, men began to call on the name of the Lord.
Somewhere down the line they started taking wifes from Cains side till only Noah was left righteous.

When Isaac was born, he was commanded not to take a wife from amongst the canaanites--the cursed or fallen ones.
God was protecting the bloodline in both cases, so Messiah could be born.


As far as there being a race of humans before the fall----not true.
They were expelled from the garden, and kept away from the tree of life.
Were some left in garden and didnt die, and didnt need redemption?.

All in Adam have sinned and fall short. All people ever born need the blood of Christ .

David Taylor
Nov 5th 2008, 10:37 PM
The Bible doesn't teach intra-special mating between Humans and Angels; nor does it teach the existence or possibility of hybrid angel/human offspring.

Here is Genesis 6, in its entirety; and with the context color-coded, so all can see the context.

Red = Angels
Blue = Humans

Genesis Chapter 6
"And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. "


53 examples of humans found throughtout Genesis chapter 6;
00 examples of Angels found anywhere within Genesis chapter 6.

The entire context of Chapter 6 is the wickedness that befell humanity, and God's bringing of the Flood to destroy all mankind except Noah and his family who alone remained faithful.

To take the phrase 'Sons of God' out of context, and then re-interpret it to mean 'angels' when the entire context of Genesis 6 is specifically dealing with mankind; and doesn't mention angels at all....and knowing that in all 10 examples in the Scriptures where the phrase 'Sons of God' is used, it is always used to refer to humans (with the exception of Job's useage)....the Bible speaks clearly in context, that there is no such thing as the occultic Demon-Seed myth of Angel/Human Hybrids.

Really bad teaching, and one you should seriously consider turning away from.

Rookie78
Nov 5th 2008, 11:54 PM
Something I've always wondered is why would the offspring of regular men and women produce a race of giants? Or is that a mis-translation?

David Taylor
Nov 6th 2008, 01:08 AM
Something I've always wondered is why would the offspring of regular men and women produce a race of giants? Or is that a mis-translation?

Humans come in many sizes, and often vary based on location and other factors.
While the Philistine Goliath was a giant, many Philistines were normal sized.

When Joshua and Caleb scouted out the promised land, they saw many large humans whom made them feel small like grasshoppers. Not all Canaanites were giants though.
Giants are common in all cultures as is dwarfs.

No reason however, to read something into the text that isn't remotely mentioned as an explanation for giants...just large humans; nothing more.

GitRDunn
Nov 6th 2008, 02:20 AM
Humans come in many sizes, and often vary based on location and other factors.
While the Philistine Goliath was a giant, many Philistines were normal sized.

When Joshua and Caleb scouted out the promised land, they saw many large humans whom made them feel small like grasshoppers. Not all Canaanites were giants though.
Giants are common in all cultures as is dwarfs.

No reason however, to read something into the text that isn't remotely mentioned as an explanation for giants...just large humans; nothing more.
I agree. The tallest man in the world right now is in Asia somewhere and is something like 7'11" and still growing I think. Think about it, this is a foot taller than Shaq, I have a feeling that many people would call this man a "giant" and if there were even just a few cases like this and they had kids together then there would be a high chance of the kids being extra tall too, so this could result in the "giants" of the Bible.

markedward
Nov 6th 2008, 02:23 AM
The word translated as "giants" here in Genesis 6 doesn't really mean "giants" in the original Hebrew. In the Hebrew, the word is nephilim, meaning "fallen ones". (This is applied to violent warrior-men. Not angels.)

Now, the spies did see nephilim in Canaan, and they said they were large in stature. But they weren't literal giants. If anything, since we can see that the word nephilim is being applied to violent warriors in Genesis 6, it is likely be applied in the same way to the people Joshua and Caleb saw, and their largeness was unique to that event. Notice how nothing in Genesis 6 actually says the nephilim were giants (other than the poor translational choice of translating nephilim as "giants" rather than "fallen ones").


I agree. The tallest man in the world right now is in Asia somewhere and is something like 7'11" and still growing I think. Think about it, this is a foot taller than Shaq, I have a feeling that many people would call this man a "giant" and if there were even just a few cases like this and they had kids together then there would be a high chance of the kids being extra tall too, so this could result in the "giants" of the Bible.The "official" tallest man was 8'11" (but he's dead now).

Rookie78
Nov 6th 2008, 02:19 PM
Hmmm, It makes you wonder how they could have ever made the mistake of mistranslation of nephilim, since "fallen ones" and "giants" have nothing to do with one another.

Are there other instances in the bible where a word or phrase of words mean two different things in different books? ie. "sons of god" meaning of the line of seth in genesis and meaning angels in job.

David Taylor
Nov 6th 2008, 05:05 PM
Hmmm, It makes you wonder how they could have ever made the mistake of mistranslation of nephilim, since "fallen ones" and "giants" have nothing to do with one another.


Nu 13:33 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=nu+13:33&version=kjv&showtools=yes) And there we saw the giants(Nephilim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giants(Nephilim): and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Notice what Moses says of the giants/(Nephilim)/Sons of Anak in this other passage:

Deuteronomy 1:28 "Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there. "

Deuteronomy 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;

Deoteronomy 2:20 "(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims"

So the descendents of Anak were somewhat famous for being large, tall, and of great stature.

So the descendents of Anak, the Anakim (also called Giants/Nephilim), were tall, giant people.

Deuteronomy 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

OG, a Bashanite, as well as Goliath, a Philistine, were also giants; along with the descendents from Anak.

Notice that after Joshua took the promised land, but left the few Philistine cities unqonquered, that some of Anak descendents who were Giants even remained in the area of Gath...

Deuteronomy 11:22 "There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. "

Where the most famous human giant of all time was from:

I Samuel 17:4 "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span."

Makes perfect sense that nephilim was translated 'giant' because that is the context of the word used elsewhere in the scripture.

Nephilim is never translated as angel, demon, or hybrid.

Notice they even specifically said Goliath was a man, not an angel, nor a angel-hybrid whatsoever.

I Samuel 17:23 "And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them. And all the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid. And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up? "

17:33 "And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth. "

Later, Goliath's brother was also slain....again, the Scripture telling us he was a man, not an angel, or a hybrid.

Genesis 21:19 "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimeah the brother of David slew him. "


Giants are men, really big-uns; nothing mythical or occultic whatsoever.








Are there other instances in the bible where a word or phrase of words mean two different things in different books? ie. "sons of god" meaning of the line of seth in genesis and meaning angels in job.

Sure.



Morning Star 1) Job refers to it as angels, 2) Isaiah refers to it as the King of Babylon, a personification of Satan; 3) Revelation refers to it as Jesus Christ
King of Kings 1) Ezekiel and Daniel refer to it as Nebechadnezzar, 2) I Timothy and Revelation refer to it as Jesus Christ
Son of Man 1) Ezekiel refers to it as himself, 2) The NT Gospels refer to it as Jesus Christ
Elect 1) Isaiah refers to it as Israel in one place, 2) Isaiah refers to it as Jesus Christ in another place 3) Jesus refers to it as faithful believers in Mark 13, 4) I Timothy refers to it as the angels

Just one of probably dozens of phrases or words used in the Bible to denote different things; in different contexts and intents.

Lamplighter
Nov 6th 2008, 10:25 PM
Here is an interesting take on the nephiyl.

When Adam sinned and allow death to enter mankind, God knew Adam's descendants would eventually descend into total mortality. Since a man gave sin a foothold in the world, God's plan calls for a man, Jesus Christ, to redeem and deliver fallen man from sin and death restoring him to eternal life. This is the total objective of the Old Testament Word of God and New Testament gospel. It is therefore prudent to use this perspective to form a framework for interpreting scriptures. For example, theories such as the Gap Theory (Re: Volume I of this series) and the theory of Fallen Angels marrying the daughters of men prior the flood, should edify the work of God by opening the eyes of man to truth and turn him towards God. In other words, the proper interpretation of scriptures from which these theories are formed should edify the Holy Spirit's "pressing in" to save man from his total descent into mortality.
The author of this study thinks it is prudent at this time to briefly review the fallen angels theory concerning God's decision to judge mankind and bring the flood. The "fallen angels marrying the daughters of men" theory is believed by some to be the reason God decided to destroy mankind and the world with the flood and begin anew with Noah and his family. So, a quick study of this theory is needed for clarification of post flood times.
The scriptures surrounding God's decision to wipe unrepentant mankind from the face of the earth is centered on mankind, not fallen angels! How does interpreting the phrase "The sons of God" as "fallen angels" relate to man's descent into total mortality in the following scripture? Genesis 6:1-2 (NIV) - When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, (2) the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
Proper exegesis of these scriptural verses must include the next verse 3 - The "sons of God" is more correctly interpreted as those men with whom the Holy Spirit was striving to prevent their descent into mortality. Genesis 6:3 (KJV) - And the Lord said, `My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh... It is not possible that the Holy Spirit was striving with fallen angels to prevent their descent into mortality.
God decided to end pre-flood times because the inclination of the thoughts of mankind's heart was only evil all the time. Genesis 6: 5-6 (NIV) - The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
Therefore, the sons of God in this scenario would then be the righteous descendants of Seth, the son of Adam. The daughters of men should be seen as women born outside the righteous line of Seth's family tree. This interpretation and precept of family marrying outside the line of righteous descendants is one that is parallels Bible scriptures of later times, as God forbid the marriage of Israelite men to women outside of the nation of Israel.
The men of Seth's family saw the beauty of unrighteous women and decided to marry them. They then fell into apostasy and God saw they would never recover.
"Apostasy" (Miriam Webster Dictionary) - (1) Renunciation of a religious faith (2) abandonment of a previous loyalty (3) defection.
So, God saw man's descent into total mortality and initiated judgment against sin through the flood. This is the correct perception and interpretation because God is revealed as a God of justice against sinful man. When this revelation is received by man, then a standard of accountability to God is established. Without a standard of accountability to God man will believe he is only accountable to himself and there is no restraint to sin apart from his self determined values of right and wrong.
Therefore, it does not profit the student of the Bible to follow the teachings of scholars who believe the "sons of God" were fallen angels who married the "daughters of men" and perceive this as the basis of God's grief which resulted in God's judgment. But, it does profit man to see God as a God of justice and man is held accountable for the way he chooses to live. Fallen angels had nothing to do with His judgment against fallen man.
"Fallen angels" an incorrect interpretation of the word "Giants"
Genesis 6:4 (KJV) - There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
"Giants" (Strong's Concordance / Hebrew) #5303 nephiyl (nef-eel'); or nephil (nef-eel'); from #5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.
#5307 naphal (naw-fal'); a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative).
The root word naphal reveals the giants to be bullies and tyrants of the times. The giants dominated men through violence and tyranny. "Nephiyl" is a feller. Meaning, they were bullies and tyrants that "fell upon" (invaded) communities and dominated them through violence.
Other scriptures where #5307 root word naphal interprets as "fell upon", which means invasion
Hebrew #5307 - Job 1:15 (KJV) - And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Hebrew #5307 - Joshua 11:5-7 (KJV) - And when all these kings were met together, they came and pitched together at the waters of Merom, to fight against Israel. (6) And the LORD said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them: for to morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire. (7) So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly; and they fell upon them.
The correct meaning: "tyrants" were called Nephilim because they were men much larger than the average man who "fell upon" (invaded) the people and oppressed them. It is presumption to associated the word "giants" / #5303 nephiyl (nef-eel') with any meaning than "feller, "bully" and "tyrant".



My only question to this is why does Genesis chapter 6 not use the Hebrew word ('adam)-mankind, for these men, and instead use the Hebrew words (ben)-son, offspring, and ('elohiym)-divine ones, angels, gods?


Were these nephiyl not of the Ademic race? Were there men living on the Earth who were of some other origin besides Adam?