Ovedya Posted June 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Actually, I have always wondered within the biblical account when Satan turned nasty. He's already nasty by Genesis 3 when we first meet him in the form of a serpant - when did he become so is the question? As for sin entering the world with Adam, it could be that sin was entering the world again, after the re-creation event, the bible never says how many times sin has entered the world before that time, only to be suspended again. However, a word of caution - I have seen re-creation theories before, and I'm not at all certain that they fit very well with the physical evidence in fossil strata etc, or the genetic evidence (in fact, they don't fit in with this at all, from my knowledge of them). So beware, this may not be a quick fix for anything at all - it may leave you further from the biblical narrative with no commensurate gain in scientific understanding. Actually, S.A. (BTW: Hi!), if you get a chance you might want to pick up a Scofield reference edition Bible (You might be able to find one at a library - not sure you'd find one at the local Barnes & Noble), and take a look at the footnotes for Genesis 1-2. I believe that there is strong Biblical evidence for a pre-Adamic race, and that that evidence need not conflict with scientific evidence at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobTriez Posted June 1, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 84 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,478 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/23/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1972 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Actually, I have always wondered within the biblical account when Satan turned nasty. He's already nasty by Genesis 3 when we first meet him in the form of a serpant - when did he become so is the question? As for sin entering the world with Adam, it could be that sin was entering the world again, after the re-creation event, the bible never says how many times sin has entered the world before that time, only to be suspended again. However, a word of caution - I have seen re-creation theories before, and I'm not at all certain that they fit very well with the physical evidence in fossil strata etc, or the genetic evidence (in fact, they don't fit in with this at all, from my knowledge of them). So beware, this may not be a quick fix for anything at all - it may leave you further from the biblical narrative with no commensurate gain in scientific understanding. Actually, S.A. (BTW: Hi!), if you get a chance you might want to pick up a Scofield reference edition Bible (You might be able to find one at a library - not sure you'd find one at the local Barnes & Noble), and take a look at the footnotes for Genesis 1-2. I believe that there is strong Biblical evidence for a pre-Adamic race, and that that evidence need not conflict with scientific evidence at all. Hey God-man, I just looked over the Scofield notes again ( I have e-Sword BTW and if anyone does not have it, I highly recommend it - it's a Free Download & you can get a bunch of version & commentaries )... Anyway.....the problem I would have with all of this is it seems to detract from what Jesus said in Mark 10:6 - "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female" Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. If Adam was the first man, and was so since the begining of creation ( Gen 1:1 - not any "gap" jump to Gen 1:2 ) He created the first man, Adam, at the beginning of creation. I'm not sure I agree with Scofield's comments on this particular matter if it seems to contradict the Bible.... Thoughts ? In His service, Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsth Posted June 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 297 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 5,586 Content Per Day: 0.69 Reputation: 193 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/09/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 1, 2004 We consistently see arguments, which may or may not be true, that the Earth is only somewhere around 6,000 years old. If the dating methods can be trusted, and I've seen convincing evidence in both directions, we are not to assume that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I have heard the theory promoted that there was a pre-Adamic society. Let's look at this starting with Genesis. 1 First this: God created the Heavens and Earth - all you see, all you don't see. 2 Earth was a soup of nothingness, a bottomless emptiness, an inky blackness. God's Spirit brooded like a bird above the watery abyss. The Message For many, the skip on to verse 2 without ever thinking about it. However, notice this: in verse 1, everything is created, but in verse 2, it's a wasteland. For those of us who believe in God, we know that everything He creates is perfect, and even our atheistic friends Scientific Atheist and Vanilla Gorilla would admit, I think, that if God were to create something, it would be perfect. So what happened? Obviously, something occured during that time span. The most obvious answer would be the war in Heaven when Satan uprose against God in rebellion, but is there more that we don't see? What if there were a society here BEFORE Adam and God destroyed that society with a flood (even thereby giving credence to the destruction of Atlantis possibly)? God didn't spare the world that was around when Noah walked the Earth, so I think it possible that this sort of scenario happened. Let's look at another part of Genesis: I'm setting up my covenant with you that never again will everything living be destroyed by floodwaters; no, never again will a flood destroy the Earth. Genesis 9:11 The Message Never again? Sounds like it might have happened before. So, is it possible? What are the thoughts of others on this? Here's some food for thought Ronald: Gen. 7:For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made." Psalm 104:You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth. Numbers 16:30 But if the Lord creates a new thing, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the pit, then you will understand that these men have rejected the Lord." Ps. 63:9 But those who seek my life, to destroy it, Shall go into the lower parts of the earth. 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Hosea 2:22 The earth shall answer With grain, With new wine, And with oil; Isaiah 66:22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the Lord, "So shall your descendants and your name remain. I have often wondered about the use of the term "FACE of the earth" rather than the "whole" earth??? In His Love, Suzanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted June 1, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Actually, I have always wondered within the biblical account when Satan turned nasty. He's already nasty by Genesis 3 when we first meet him in the form of a serpant - when did he become so is the question? As for sin entering the world with Adam, it could be that sin was entering the world again, after the re-creation event, the bible never says how many times sin has entered the world before that time, only to be suspended again. However, a word of caution - I have seen re-creation theories before, and I'm not at all certain that they fit very well with the physical evidence in fossil strata etc, or the genetic evidence (in fact, they don't fit in with this at all, from my knowledge of them). So beware, this may not be a quick fix for anything at all - it may leave you further from the biblical narrative with no commensurate gain in scientific understanding. Actually, S.A. (BTW: Hi!), if you get a chance you might want to pick up a Scofield reference edition Bible (You might be able to find one at a library - not sure you'd find one at the local Barnes & Noble), and take a look at the footnotes for Genesis 1-2. I believe that there is strong Biblical evidence for a pre-Adamic race, and that that evidence need not conflict with scientific evidence at all. Hey God-man, I just looked over the Scofield notes again ( I have e-Sword BTW and if anyone does not have it, I highly recommend it - it's a Free Download & you can get a bunch of version & commentaries )... Anyway.....the problem I would have with all of this is it seems to detract from what Jesus said in Mark 10:6 - "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female" Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. If Adam was the first man, and was so since the begining of creation ( Gen 1:1 - not any "gap" jump to Gen 1:2 ) He created the first man, Adam, at the beginning of creation. I'm not sure I agree with Scofield's comments on this particular matter if it seems to contradict the Bible.... Thoughts ? In His service, Bob Yes, but...was the pre-Adamic race a race of men? I guess that would be the question. Creationists all agree that "Neanderthal man" was not a man at all. Scofield pointed out that the earth bringing forth every plant after its own kind indicates that the seeds of each plant were already there. That really intrigued me. The other verse references did too. I think there was one from 1 Kings that was very compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted June 8, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted June 8, 2004 God-man, someone once explained to me that the "after it's own kind" ref is simply to show the differences between the creations. In other words a cow is a cow and a bee is a bee, etc... not intending to show a history as such. Seemed smart enough. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted June 8, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Thirdly, God created good and I don't believe He used death as a means to bring life. Death was never the means to bring life, rather man brought death into life and subsequently caused death ( Rom 5:12 ). I just caught this: Didn't the death of Jesus bring life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts