Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Quasar93 said: When you read the article, it will tell you. In addition, with the tests run on the evidence discovered being 400,000 years old, what logic are you using that it isn't older than Adam, who could not be any older than 6,000 years? Quasar93 I did read the article. But the article assumes an old earth and interprets Scripture through that lens. It doesn't prove the age of the earth and then prove that we have evidence of life prior to the age of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar93 Posted December 23, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 651 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 236 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 8 hours ago, shiloh357 said: Here is the problem. You have God destroying the entire pre-adamic race of human beings, wiping them out completely out of existence, leaving no human beings alive whatsoever. Now in the Bible, that is not how God is portrayed. This pre-adamic theory completely ignores the fact that never judged humanity to the point of being wiped out without hope of redemption. In the Bible, God is always redemptive in nature. But in the pre-adamic theory, God is not redemptive. Why would God not provide a plan of redemption for that race of human beings? Secondly, the Bible says that sin came into the world through Adam, but the pre-adamic theory has sin's origin as being "pre-adamic." That contradicts the whole of the NT especially Rom. 5:12-21. Ah, but that goes back to the "vav disjunctive" I mentioned earlier that completely went over your head. The ONLY way "haya" in Gen. 1: 2 could be translated "became" is if the "vav" were followed by a verb. But "vav" (and) is followed by a noun, "haeretz" which completely disconnects or dis-joins v.2 from v.1. Meaning that "haya" in Gen. 1:2 can ONLY be translated as "was" and not as "became." The man you are quoting doesn't know his Hebrew syntax, or he is being deliberately dishonest, one of the two. The above is opinion that is completely meaningless in any effort you field without scriptural and scientific evidence to support your claims, proving the preponderance of evidence already posted that refute you. Qyasar93 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Quasar93 said: The above is opinion that is completely meaningless in any effort you field without scriptural and scientific evidence to support your claims, proving the preponderance of evidence already posted that refute you. No, I speak and read Hebrew and I already provided you the syntactical reasons, twice, for why the Hebrew text does not allow for the earth to be a re-creation in Gen. 1:2. You ignored it because it went over your head, evidently. So much for your alleged "degrees." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar93 Posted December 23, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 651 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 236 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 7 hours ago, missmuffet said: Quasar may I ask you if you believe by your post that their were other humans on this earth before Adam and Eve or if there is just a flood before Noah's flood? Hi sis, There is a preponderance of evidence for humankind being on earth before Adam. The following link has already been posted once before, I think, on this thread. It is a lengthy read, and you can access it in the following: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/deeperwalk/was-there-life-on-earth-before-adam-t3395164.html Quasar93 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar93 Posted December 23, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 651 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 236 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 4 hours ago, missmuffet said: Quasar, do you think this gets into the gap theory? Why or why not? Right on. sis. That is precisely what it is. Quasar93 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar93 Posted December 23, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 651 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 236 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 24 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: I did read the article. But the article assumes an old earth and interprets Scripture through that lens. It doesn't prove the age of the earth and then prove that we have evidence of life prior to the age of the earth. You are in denial of the evidence provided by trained scientists, you offer argument by opinion to. Let me see your Scriptural evidence we are living on a young earth. So far, you have no viable argument at all. Quasar93 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Quasar93 said: You are in denial of the evidence provided by trained scientists, you offer argument by opinion to. Let me see your Scriptural evidence we are living on a young earth. So far, you have no viable argument at all. Quasar93 I didn't make a case for a young earth in this thread. I made a case, from the Hebrew as to why the water in Gen. 1:2 isn't a flood of judgment on a pre-adamite earth. How about you address the argument I actually made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar93 Posted December 23, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 156 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 651 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 236 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/06/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 22 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: No, I speak and read Hebrew and I already provided you the syntactical reasons, twice, for why the Hebrew text does not allow for the earth to be a re-creation in Gen. 1:2. You ignored it because it went over your head, evidently. So much for your alleged "degrees." And I answered your claims with the Scriptures posted directly from the Torah, in both English as well as in Hebrew. There is no difference in the meaning of Gen.1:1-2 in the KJV; the NASB, or the NIV than that which is written in the Torah - or the Tanakh. Let me see you prove your case against the preponderance of articles already posted that refute you. Quasar93 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Quasar93 said: And I answered your claims with the Scriptures posted directly from the Torah, in both English as well as in Hebrew. No, you didn't. I gave you a syntatical argument and you ignored it because you can't refute it. As for the English... If my claims are wrong why does every major, mainstream English translaation (NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV) all translated "haya" as "was" instead of "became?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted December 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,994 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,692 Content Per Day: 11.74 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, Quasar93 said: Right on. sis. That is precisely what it is. Quasar93 I do not believe there were humans who existed before Adam. Possibly animals and possibly a flood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts