Were there any Humans on Earth before Adam/Eve?

[Van]

Good Question

or were they first humans on earth?

This question seems simple at first, no of course not. But next we ask if primates were part of God's creation, and again the answer is simple, yes.

But here is where it gets tricky, are we old earth Christians, where the days of creation are indeterminate spans of time, or are we young earth Christians, where the days of creation are twenty four hours long. We can nullify those verses that seem to say the creation period lasted long enough for fruit to set by saying God created those things with apparent age.

OTOH, if the creation days are indeterminate spans of time, then primates with abilities beyond those of a three year old human might have existed. Who knows, all this is pure speculation and not supported or proven wrong by scripture.

When God made Adam from the dust of the earth, could that not refer to replacing an animal spirit in a primate with a human spirit in the image of God? Who knows, pure speculation. If so, this might explain the human like artifacts that seem to be older than 6000 years ago, which about the time the bible suggests for the creation of Adam.

As for me, I go with Job 38, and humbly say I was not there and I do not know how God did it, only that He did.

 

[jbh28]

I've heard of that theory, but there's no biblical evidence of it. Adam brought sin and death into the world, so there was no death before him.

BINGO! Good job Amy!

It took 18 posts for someone to recognize what was being asked in the OP?

I thought that as soon as I read the OP. But I'm busy watching the UNC Duke game. Just checking in at half time.

 

[Amy.G]

When God made Adam from the dust of the earth, could that not refer to replacing an animal spirit in a primate with a human spirit in the image of God?

Whaaaat??

 

[jbh28]

When God made Adam from the dust of the earth, could that not refer to replacing an animal spirit in a primate with a human spirit in the image of God?

No, it means that God made Adam from the dust of the earth.

 

[Mark_13]

When God made Adam from the dust of the earth, could that not refer to replacing an animal spirit in a primate with a human spirit in the image of God?

No, it means that God made Adam from the dust of the earth.

I guess the only question is, what does that mean. I guess a lot of people have a picture in their mind of what they think it means, maybe of particles of dirt and dust being thrown up into the air as if by magic, and taken on anthropoid features gradually, until finally a fully formed Adam is standing in front of you - the entire process unfolding in say, under a minute or so.

I think there's a lot open for interpretation there, though I don't agree with Van's interpretation (or the above scenario).

----------
Well, something like what Van presented could be in view, I really don't know.

It says in Genesis that animals were created from the dust of the earth as well. I tend to think it means living things arose from nonliving things via natural processes.

 

[Amy.G]

When God made Adam from the dust of the earth, could that not refer to replacing an animal spirit in a primate with a human spirit in the image of God?

No, it means that God made Adam from the dust of the earth.

Sounds like a weird way to promote evolution. God replaced ape spirits with human spirits.
Animals don't even have spirits. :tonofbricks:

 

[Amy.G]

I tend to think it means living things arose from nonliving things via natural processes.

Life cannot arise from non living things. There is nothing natural about that. Life comes from life. Life comes from God.

 

[percho]

Life cannot arise from non living things. There is nothing natural about that. Life comes from life. Life comes from God.

Where did death come from?

Where did that sin come from?

Where did that lust come from?

Was death appointed before death existed?

Was the Lamb considered slain before there was such a thing as being slain?

Was Satan the Devil already in the Garden when God placed Adam in the Garden? How did he get there?

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

and cast [him] into outer darkness; (What is this darkness?)

Why was the earth without form and void and darkness covered the face of the deep?


Just food for thought. I have more questions than answers however I am looking.

 

[Iconoclast]

Whaaaat??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y::thumbs:

 

[seekingthetruth]

Actually, there is another theory out there that is not related to the gap theory that Schofield and others taught in the 1800's.

My inlaws are charismatic, and they believe that in Gen1:1 that the word 'created" should be interpreted as "restored", and that there was an Earth before ours. They say that Lucifer's job before the rebellion was to oversee the Earth for God, and since that he had already rebelled before Adam and Eve were created, there had to be a world for him to oversee prior to the world as we know it.

They believe that God destroyed that world with water.

I dont believe this theory, but as P4T says...."who really knows"?

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Personally, I believe the 6 day account of Genesis.

The Earth looks older than what it is because created it in a mature state so it could sustain life. If He had of created it all fresh and new, then everything would have been simply seeds and eggs, and nothing would have survived.

Case in point, Adam and Eve were created as adults, not babies, so they could survive.

John

 

[convicted1]

or were they first humans on earth?

I think you may have finally gotten ahold of a Dake's bible, huh?

The reason I say this is because he was a big advocate of the pre-Adamite world, which I can find no biblical basis for support. God made man on the sixth day, as my precious Sissy Amy has already posted.

 

[seekingthetruth]

When God made Adam from the dust of the earth, could that not refer to replacing an animal spirit in a primate with a human spirit in the image of God?

No, it means that God made Adam from the dust of the earth.

Well, then the first man's name would have been Taylor instead of Adam.

John

 

[Christos doulos]

If they are unable to believe in a God of miracles, then I doubt they are worshiping the proper God and they need to examine themselves closely.

My friend. Are we really applying that one must have a firm grasp of the creation account as an essential for salvation? You do realize Charles Spurgeon believed in the gap theory? Was he worshiping the wrong god too?

My friend. All Christians like Charles Spurgeon are ignorant of one thing or another.

 

[blackbird]

My friend. Are we really applying the accounts of creationism as an essential for salvation? You do realize Charles Spurgeon believed in the gap theory? Was he worshiping the wrong god?

C H Spurgeon believed in the gap theory??? Really???

Doesn't mean he was worshipping the wrong God----merely makes him wrong

See???? I can be wrong about something and still worship the right God---same as Spurgeon did-----if he believed the gap theory---that just makes him wrong--thats all---because there is no gap!!

 

[Christos doulos]

C H Spurgeon believed in the gap theory??? Really???

Doesn't mean he was worshipping the wrong God----merely makes him wrong

See???? I can be wrong about something and still worship the right God---same as Spurgeon did-----if he believed the gap theory---that just makes him wrong--thats all---because there is no gap!!

Yes he was wrong, which goes to show why we should not be idolizing men and women of God, as great they may appear. They are still flawed and sinful human beings.

I believe Charles Spurgeon didn't think things through nor could he forsee the future. He didn't realize the impact that the "gap theory" would have on scripture or the world in general.

He did later go back to the 6 days of creation, but the damage was already done.

 

[agedman]

Yes he was wrong, which goes to show why we should not be idolizing men and women of God, as great they may appear. They are still flawed and sinful human beings.

I believe Charles Spurgeon didn't think things through nor could he forsee the future. He didn't realize the impact that the "gap theory" would have on scripture or the world in general.

He did later go back to the 6 days of creation, but the damage was already done.

Actually,

There is no problem with "believing the Gap theory" (for it is merely a theory) and believing in the literal six day creation, too.

The two do not necessarily conflict.

Both the young and old earth folks may be right.

The question does come down to humankind versus kind of human.

Adam was the first humankind - that is Scriptural.

All the rest is - - - - well interesting to think about, but not worthy of determining salvation of the believer.

 

[HAMel]

All the rest is - - - - well interesting to think about, but not worthy of determining salvation of the believer.

Bravo!!! Bravo!!! :applause:

After all the smoke clears it won't make one iota of difference one way or the other.

 

[Christos doulos]

There is no problem with "believing the Gap theory" (for it is merely a theory) and believing in the literal six day creation, too.

The two do not necessarily conflict.

My friend. I am sorry. The two are worlds apart. Scripture is clear, 6 literal days. You run into all sorts of problems with the gap theory. The more you change; the more problems pop up.

There is a verse that O.E.C. like to use (2 Peter 3:8) (but only use one line of the verse) that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years

Two problems with this

1) This is referring to the coming of Christ; not the creation account. It's bad hermeneutics

2) They tend to ignore the next line of the same verse, "and a thousand years as one day." It cancels itself right out

 

[agedman]

My friend. I am sorry. The two are worlds apart. Scripture is clear, 6 literal days. You run into all sorts of problems with the gap theory.

There is a verse that O.E.C. like to use (2 Peter 3:8) (but only use one line of the verse) that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years

Two problems with this

1) This is referring to the coming of Christ; not the creation account. It's bad hermeneutics

2) They tend to ignore the next line of the same verse, "and a thousand years as one day." It cancels itself right out

I intend to only make one post on joining of the two and would state that some do not discern the two can be joined which may be unfortunate.

The problem is usually found in thinking the gap occurred during the " six days of creation." That's just not true.

Here is a short list on considering a gap.

1) One of the greatest characteristics of God is that He is The Creator, and because God could never create what is void and without form (tohuw and bohuw) it obliges that something certainly must have occurred.
2) Assuming a Gap does NOT assume acceptance of evolution.
3) The use the word, "became," for "hayah," which it most certainly can be, and which is one of the definitions of "was" - as something that has taken place. Example: The church was dark when the lights were turned out. Same use as in Isaiah 45:18 and Genesis 2:7. The purity of the poetry must be held, and to do so does oblige a change of to the state of "be" or "being" (am, is, are, was, were). This is not suggesting replacing the word "was" but the appropriate application of the word "was" must be used.
4) It is no threat to the literal six day creation, for a day is not reckoned by the stars, moon and sun (as some who hold a six day creation stumble over), but upon the rotation of the planet one complete turn. Irregardless of the rest of the universe, the day is still 24 hours, for the earth's rotation is that length. One does not hold a mars day as the same day length as earth's day.
5) There is no need to reorganize and lengthen the six days as some would in what others might consider a manipulation to fit some timeline. A day is a day the same as our day is a day. The 1000 years is then held as it should be as illustrative of God using time, not being held to time.
​

I think I will stop at this point, and let the argument(s) continue by others.