Overwhelming evidence of life on earth before Adam

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And God doesn't judge non-humans for sin, as non-humans are not made in the image of God.

That’s exactly what I’m saying.

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

You can't go back and revise the theory in order to avoid the problem it presents, theology.

If you are talking about Gap theory, why not? You reject it outright, why can I not reject part of it?

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The other problem is that the Hebrew grammar of Gen. 1:2, a vav-disjunctive, makes it impossible for the Gap theory to be true.

Could you explain the vav-disjunctive? I don’t know this term.

[Guest shiloh357]

13 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

That’s exactly what I’m saying.

 

The point is that you are not either understanding the theory, or are misrepresenting the theory.   The theory makes no sense if the pre-adamites were not humans, as God does not judge non-human animals.  God doesn't judge apes, dogs, cats or pigs, etc. Thus, there would be no reason to destroy the pre-adamite earth in judgment if there were no sinful humans to judge. 

Quote

If you are talking about Gap theory, why not? You reject it outright, why can I not reject part of it?

It doesn't work that way. The theory is what it is.  Either it's true or it's not true.  It's just like with the Bible.  You don't get to pick and choose which parts you accept or reject.   You don't get to have it on your terms. It's either true, or it's not.  

 

Quote

Could you explain the vav-disjunctive? I don’t know this term.

The letter "vav"  is the 6th letter in the Hebrew alphabet and is also used as a word, namely the word "and."   In transliteration Gen. 1:2 reads in part, "v'haeretz haya tohu v'bohu..."   "And the earth was with out form and was void..."    

The vav can either be a conjunctive meaning that it can join the pervious verse to the one that follows, which means both verses are part of the same line of thought.   Or the "vav" can be a disjunctive and that means it separates the previous verse from the current verse, which means they are not part of the same line of thought. 

The reason the "vav" of verse  2 is a disjunctive is because it is followed by the noun, "eretz."   Had it been followed by a verb, then it would be a conjunctive.   

If it were a vav conjunctive, the word "was" (haya, in v. 2) would be rendered "became" and that would mean that God created the Heavens and the earth (v.1), but something happened to make it "become" void and formless and covered in darkness.   

But since it is a disjunctive, Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 are separate lines of thought.   Verse one is a synopsis that is explained and expanded upon by verses 2 to the end of the creation account.   Meaning, Gen. 1:1 is not talking about a previous earth, and the earth did not become formless and void.   That was the initial state of the earth until God began the creative event. 

It completely precludes a previous earth or a previous race of humans prior to our earth or prior to Adam and Eve. 

[one.opinion]

26 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The theory is what it is.  Either it's true or it's not true

Honestly, the “gap theory” is more like the “gap conjecture”. There is nothing to test scientifically. There is absolutely no reason the gap conjecture couldn’t be tweaked.

Thanks for the info on “vav”. I’ll have to read and ponder more later. Busy day today!

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

Honestly, the “gap theory” is more like the “gap conjecture”. There is nothing to test scientifically. There is absolutely no reason the gap conjecture couldn’t be tweaked.

Thanks for the info on “vav”. I’ll have to read and ponder more later. Busy day today!

It is conjecture and what is the point of tweaking a conjecture?   I mean, it simply cannot be true, because the objective biblical data simply doesn't allow for it to be true.   

The Gap theory is what it is in terms of its claims. So, it has to be argued on its merits, as opposed to tweaking it to make it more palatable and then trying to make it true based on claims that it doesn't make.  Its either true or not. 

[Still Alive]

31 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Meaning, Gen. 1:1 is not talking about a previous earth, and the earth did not become formless and void.   That was the initial state of the earth until God began the creative event. 

It completely precludes a previous earth or a previous race of humans prior to our earth or prior to Adam and Eve. 

Though that may be true, we don't know. We could also make the claim that it is talking about a particular point in time. i.e. "our story begins here". As with most stories, they don't begin at the beginning of time, but at the beginning of the story. That is why very few novels start with the main characters being born. They start at a particular moment - and state.

The bible starts with the surface of the earth at a particular state. It doesn't say how it got to that state. It doesn't say what happened before that. "In the beginning" can easily be interpreted as "At the beginning of this age".  Who knows how many ages came before, though we are digging up a lot of stuff that suggests quite a few, not that they had anything to do with human beings and the covenants, though.

When the bible is silent on a thing, I believe we are free to discover what we can. And as long as it doesn't contradict what the bible actually says, we are free to speculate. Often, however, it does contradict some people's interpretations of what the bible says.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Though that may be true, we don't know. 

Yes we do know.  The grammatical data is objective and unassailable.

Quote

We could also make the claim that it is talking about a particular point in time. i.e. "our story begins here". As with most stories, they don't begin at the beginning of time, but at the beginning of the story. That is why very few novels start with the main characters being born. They start at a particular moment - and state.

No, the Bible is clear that it starts at the beginning of everything.   The Bible doesn't leave us guessing about that.  

 

Quote

The bible starts with the surface of the earth at a particular state. It doesn't say how it got to that state. It doesn't say what happened before that. "In the beginning" can easily be interpreted as "At the beginning of this age".  

But it doesn't' mean that and the available data doesn't support that meaning.  God is an expert at saying precisely what He means and if that is what He meant, there are words in Hebrew sufficient to communicate that meaning.

Quote

Who knows how many ages came before, though we are digging up a lot of stuff that suggests quite a few, not that they had anything to do with human beings and the covenants, though.

No, what we are digging up is a lot of stuff from the antediluvian period prior to the flood.  It's why we uncover pictures of animals for which we have no record of.  It's why we find mega structures still under water.  It's why we have places like Stonehenge and we can't figure out who built it.  It's because those civilizations were destroyed in the global flood in Noah's day.   We are not uncovering anything from a previous earth, but we are uncovering lost communities that were destroyed in the flood and thus confirm the biblical flood narrative.

 

Quote

When the bible is silent on a thing, I believe we are free to discover what we can. And as long as it doesn't contradict what the bible actually says, we are free to speculate. Often, however, it does contradict some people's interpretations of what the bible says.

But the Bible isn't silent about this.  It tells us where we came from and where sin started.  If we follow the pre-adamite theory, it ends up with sin and death  coming to earth, at a much earlier time than when the Bible says.  It contradicts Rom. 5:12-21 that tells us that sin and death came by Adam, not through a pre-adamite civilization.

God called the earth He created very good, but that would not be the case if under the surface there were layers and layers of the remnants of dead animals, dead people whom God destroyed into extinction.

That, on its own contradicts the very redemptive nature of God.

 

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes we do know.  The grammatical data is objective and unassailable.

No, the Bible is clear that it starts at the beginning of everything.   The Bible doesn't leave us guessing about that.  

 

But it doesn't' mean that and the available data doesn't support that meaning.  God is an expert at saying precisely what He means and if that is what He meant, there are words in Hebrew sufficient to communicate that meaning.

No, what we are digging up is a lot of stuff from the antediluvian period prior to the flood.  It's why we uncover pictures of animals for which we have no record of.  It's why we find mega structures still under water.  It's why we have places like Stonehenge and we can't figure out who built it.  It's because those civilizations were destroyed in the global flood in Noah's day.   We are not uncovering anything from a previous earth, but we are uncovering lost communities that were destroyed in the flood and thus confirm the biblical flood narrative.

 

But the Bible isn't silent about this.  It tells us where we came from and where sin started.  If we follow the pre-adamite theory, it ends up with sin and death  coming to earth, at a much earlier time than when the Bible says.  It contradicts Rom. 5:12-21 that tells us that sin and death came by Adam, not through a pre-adamite civilization.

God called the earth He created very good, but that would not be the case if under the surface there were layers and layers of the remnants of dead animals, dead people whom God destroyed into extinction.

That, on its own contradicts the very redemptive nature of God.

 

We disagree pretty strongly about this. And I don't mean this particular topic. Rather, I'm talking about how I interpret scripture vs how you do. It's a core methodology difference. 

BTW, 8 years ago I had my opinion on hell completely turned on its ear. And this explains it: http://jewishnotgreek.com

Edited March 24, 2018 by Still Alive

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

We disagree pretty strongly about this. And I don't mean this particular topic. Rather, I'm talking about how I interpret scripture vs how you do. It's a core methodology difference. 

I interpret the Bible literally, the only rational intelligent means of interpretation.  

[Still Alive]

10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I interpret the Bible literally, the only rational intelligent means of interpretation.  

So, did the rooster crow one time or two before Peter denied Christ three times? Pick one, then we'll see what the literal bible sez about it.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

So, did the rooster crow one time or two before Peter denied Christ three times? Pick one, then we'll see what the literal bible sez about it.

The rooster crowed.  Secondary details don't change the story or its historical core.  In the same way, the fact that each Gospel also  mentions different women visiting the tomb doesn't change the facts of the events recorded therein. 

Each writer writes from his perspective and that is not circumvented by the Holy Spirit.

The fact that each writer contains different secondary details supports the authenticity of the events they record.  

But that is really more of inerrancy issue than a literal interpretation issue.