Was there a Pre-Adamic Race

[Kay]

I'm going to believe the Bible, I'm just curious why the question sprung up.

I am a new Christian and I have about a zillion questions. Like is the earth old or young ? Searching like a hungry child lol

 

[BobRyan]

Life on earth is no more than about 6000 years old.

The Geology of earth is another question.

But the Sun and Moon are also only in a functioning state for 6000 years according to Gen 1 on day 4 so the "geology" on earth must have been affected in some way by not having those normal influences affecting conditions on this planet.

 

[BobRyan]

Not wishing to put words in Kay's mouth, but I think people get it from Genesis 1:26-27 ending with God's creation of man. Then in Genesis 2:7 the Bible mentions God creating man again. I think some assume the man, Adam, in Genesis 2 was after the creation of the man in Genesis 1:26-27.

I do not believe this, but I think some do.

Exodus 20:8-11 summarizes the creation week very clearly leaving no possibility of edit or doubt.

Gen 1-2:4 provides a "chronological squence" of 7 days. "And God said let there be ...
and God saw that it was good...
And evening and morning were the nth day"

This is in the form of "An Account" as we are told in Gen 2:4

Gen 2:5 through the rest of chapter 2 provides the basis for relationships in marriage the occupation of man and the obligation for obedience as well as the force-of-law for disobedience.

It is not a chronological sequence - rather it is expanded detail not available in Gen 1-2:3 that has to be insered into the correctp point in the Gen 1-2:3 chronology.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[reformedbeliever]

This is very interesting by Dr. Pete Pettingill. We have been studying the use of numbers in the ancient near east. It would help you to go to part one first.... but you have to be ready to study. I think we should give consideration to the science of anthropology and archaeology in our studies. Unless of course you think we should not read anything but the bible Don't get me wrong... I think the bible is our authority. Here is the link that will probably most relate to this thread. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/numbers2a.html

Here is the link to the firt part of the ancient use of numbers. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/numbers1.html

Hope you enjoy it!

 

[convicted1]

RE: Pre-Adamite world?

Well, that's just bizarre and it does make you wonder about other theological issues.

BUT I don't think it's splitting hairs. BECAUSE if you add, subtract, don't take the Bible for what it says, take part of it as parable when it's not, how do you know the rest is true? How do you know what part is true?

I was saying splitting hairs in regards to the fact that none of this "bolognie" has anything to do with the salvation of mankind. I don't like the fact that it does add to God's word, but we all know what happens to those who do.

We can argue both sides of this argument, but what would it profit? So to me, this is why I believe we would be "splitting hairs" if we argue/discuss this topic. If there was a race before Adam, fine....even though the bible will not back this stance. If there wasn't fine. I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of God. He will lead me to heaven!

MCD, I hope all is well in your neck of the woods!! May God bless.

I like to discuss things like this, but I don't think it's "pertinent" to salvation.

 

[mcdirector]

I was saying splitting hairs in regards to the fact that none of this "bolognie" has anything to do with the salvation of mankind. I don't like the fact that it does add to God's word, but we all know what happens to those who do.

We can argue both sides of this argument, but what would it profit? So to me, this is why I believe we would be "splitting hairs" if we argue/discuss this topic. If there was a race before Adam, fine....even though the bible will not back this stance. If there wasn't fine. I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of God. He will lead me to heaven!

MCD, I hope all is well in your neck of the woods!! May God bless.

I like to discuss things like this, but I don't think it's "pertinent" to salvation.

:wavey:

 

[David Lamb]

I was saying splitting hairs in regards to the fact that none of this "bolognie" has anything to do with the salvation of mankind. I don't like the fact that it does add to God's word, but we all know what happens to those who do.

We can argue both sides of this argument, but what would it profit? So to me, this is why I believe we would be "splitting hairs" if we argue/discuss this topic. If there was a race before Adam, fine....even though the bible will not back this stance. If there wasn't fine. I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of God. He will lead me to heaven!

MCD, I hope all is well in your neck of the woods!! May God bless.

I like to discuss things like this, but I don't think it's "pertinent" to salvation.

Certainly a person can be saved without knowing or believing what the bible says about the origin of mankind. But it does have a lot to do with salvation. Salvation is being saved. What are we saved from? Some would say death and hell, and that is true, but why would we need saving from death and hell if it were not for sin? On this, the bible is (at least in my opinion) clear: Death came about as a result of sin. If we say that there was a pre-Adamic race, then (unless we also say that they did not know death until Adam and Eve came along) they died before the first sin. So it is not "baloney", and it is the whole reason for salvation beinmg necessary.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Certainly a person can be saved without knowing or believing what the bible says about the origin of mankind. But it does have a lot to do with salvation. Salvation is being saved. What are we saved from? Some would say death and hell, and that is true, but why would we need saving from death and hell if it were not for sin? On this, the bible is (at least in my opinion) clear: Death came about as a result of sin. If we say that there was a pre-Adamic race, then (unless we also say that they did not know death until Adam and Eve came along) they died before the first sin. So it is not "baloney", and it is the whole reason for salvation beinmg necessary.

Do you know Dr. Pettingill? He taught at a Christian College or University in the UK. He now lives in the south.......... can't remember where. My wife is the one with a memory She could tell you where he taught. Anyway.... just wondering if you know him. God bless.

edited to add. You can PM me if you would rather talk in private. Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

I was saying splitting hairs in regards to the fact that none of this "bolognie" has anything to do with the salvation of mankind.

The BIBLE starts off with this Creation fact about our Creator -- he is not only Savior -- He is also Lord and our Creator God

The GOSPELS of John starts off with this "Bible fact" in John 1-6

This "Bible fact" is embedded in the Moral Law of God Ex 20:8-11.

This "Bible fact" is in Rev 14 as God says in his "Everlasting Gospel" -- "FEAR God and Give glory for the hour of His Judgment as come WORSHIP Him who MADE the heavens and the earth".

The "Bible fact" is reference in Titus 1 where we learn that "God who can not lie promised long ages ago"

As soon as we determine that the "Bible is wrong"

We have a huge problem.

In Romans 5 we are told that "THROUGH ONE MAN sin came into the World".

I don't like the fact that it does add to God's word, but we all know what happens to those who do.

Good point. The Bible does not

We can argue both sides of this argument, but what would it profit? So to me, this is why I believe we would be "splitting hairs" if we argue/discuss this topic. If there was a race before Adam, fine....even though the bible will not back this stance.

Why is it "fine" to take man-made tradition and CHANGE the fall of man, the introduction of sin into the world and the creation account ??

Why is toying with what God's Word tells us "ok"??

Scripture is a "house of cards" you start removing some of the foundation cards - it all collapses.

The "pick and choose" model does not work with Scripture. Christ said that those who take the least part of the Word of God and twist it -- and so teach others will be called "least" in the kingdom of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Certainly a person can be saved without knowing or believing what the bible says about the origin of mankind. But it does have a lot to do with salvation. Salvation is being saved. What are we saved from? Some would say death and hell, and that is true, but why would we need saving from death and hell if it were not for sin? On this, the bible is (at least in my opinion) clear: Death came about as a result of sin. If we say that there was a pre-Adamic race, then (unless we also say that they did not know death until Adam and Eve came along) they died before the first sin. So it is not "baloney", and it is the whole reason for salvation beinmg necessary.

This is one of those cases where I must agree with David Lamb friends.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tinytim]

Now you would think anybody could understand that.

What??? HUH???? whacha mean???

(Just feeling like a smart alec today!):wavey:

 

[ccdnt]

Pre-Adamic Race before Adam?

(Answering before reading all the posts...)

No, there was no "pre-Adamic race" before Adam. Adam was the very first human God created. Only old earth compromises force one to have to consider that there may have been a "pre-Adamic race".