Good site...

[Molly]

The correct spelling is haeck of a choice  :icon_jokercolor:

more like hack of a choice.


The exactness of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos has caused much controversy among Intelligent design proponents recently and Haeckel's intellectual opponents in the past. Although the early embryos of different species exhibit similarities, Haeckel apparently exaggerated these similarities in support of his Recapitulation theory, sometimes known as the Biogenetic Law or "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".

Let's say his pictures showed a lot of 'creative design,' in the fine tradition of Piltdown man.

[WhiteWings]

Reading this, my thoughts turned again to some sort of "prior creation", i.e., before the disruption in early Genesis and the "gap theory"... unless science (satan) is pulling our leg, some of this stuff sounds ancient.  IT'S ALSO BEAUTIFUL AND FASCINATING!

Thoughts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20110107/wl_yblog_upshot/scientists-explore-the-breathtaking-blue-holes-of-the-bahamas

Adam was not the First Man
By
Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet
Many people have become agnostics because of the supposed conflict between the Bible and science. In truth, there is no conflict at all between a correct translation of the Bible and really proven science, not just unproven theories. One of these supposed conflicts is between the fact that science knows that human beings have lived on the earth far longer than the few thousand years covered by the Bible and the common belief that the Bible says that Adam was the first man. Yes, I know that most of the preachers say that, but the Bible doesn't! It merely says that Adam was the first WHITE man. Let's look at the record.
The many mistranslations in the King James versions obscure much of the truth. For example, Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In the Hebrew it says, "Now the earth had become chaotic and empty."
(See Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) That is, some early catastrophe had wrecked the earth, which was not "without form and void" before that. This was a judgment of God on earlier civilizations, for their wickedness. Jeremiah 4:23-27 gives a vision of it. "I beheld the earth and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens and they had no light. I beheld the mountains and lo, they trembled and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld and lo, there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord and by His fierce anger. For thus hath the Lord said, 'The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.'" Therefore we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam and skeletons which can be dated by the carbon 14 process as many as thousands of years older. But, the Bible itself tells us about this.
Next the Bible tells us about the creation of men, in the plural, in Genesis 1:26-28, saying, "Male and female created He THEM" (1:27), and God told these people, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (1:28). "Plenish" is an obsolete English word meaning "to fill"; and you cannot replenish what was never plenished, or filled, before. In the next chapter, Genesis 2 we find THE ADAM (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word, "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English) is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a ruddy complexion", a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the White Race.
Bible scholars know that Genesis 3:20 - "And Adam called his wife's name 'Eve': because she was the mother of all living" - is a later interpolation, which was not in the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffatt's translation.)

The Fourth chapter of Genesis records the birth of Cain and Abel; in the Hebrew, the wording suggests that they were twins. No other child of Eve is mentioned until the birth of Seth, when Adam was 130 years old, certainly long after the birth of Cain and Abel, which most scholars say was over 100 years earlier. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment was driven out of the land, he complained to God that "any one that findeth me shall slay me." Genesis 4:14. Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for Genesis 4:17 records that Cain not only married a wife, but built a city. You don't build a city for just two people. These were the pre-Adamite races, mentioned in the latter part of Genesis 1.
The "Garden of Eden" was not a plantation of ordinary trees and shrubs. God did nothing so foolish as to make a special creation, just to have a man to wield shovel and pruning shears, when He already had millions of pre Adamites available for that type of work. We are told that the "Garden of Eden" contained "the tree of the knowledge (or experience) of good and evil". No tree of the forest has any knowledge or experience of either good or evil. Ezekiel 31, says "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and a shadowing bough and of an high stature; Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field and his boughs were multiplied and his branches became long; all the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF GOD could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; NOR ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD WAS LIKE UNTO HIM IN HIS BEAUTY. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE TREES OF EDEN THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD ENVIED HIM". Obviously, the trees in the Garden of God in Eden were "family trees" of races and nations who admired and envied the early Assyrian Empire. These made up the "garden" that Adam was to cultivate. That is, Satan had been what we might call the Super- intendant of this planet, to rule it in obedience to God's will, until he forfeited that position by rebellion against God. Adam was sent to take his place. It was Adam's job to rule the various nations and races of the earth as God's representative here, educating them in God's laws and enforcing obedience to those laws. These other races and nations had been here long before Adam.
Therefore the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that we are not all descended from Adam and Eve, for there were other races on earth, already old, already numerous, when Adam was created. Among these other races there are the several who are simply pre-Adamic and one at least, which is Satanic. If you will read the third chapter of Genesis, you will notice that, immediately after the fall of Adam, when God required them to answer what they had done, God condemned Satan. The word mistranslated "serpent" is the Hebrew word "naw-khash", which literally means "enchanter" or "magician" and, no doubt Satan still possessing angelic powers, was able to be an enchanter or magician. It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original Hebrew. Cain was the son of that seduction. The Bible uses the word "begat" with monotonous regularity but, the first time the Bible ever says that Adam ever "begat" anyone is Genesis 5:3 where it says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness,
after his image: and called his name Seth. But to get back to Genesis 3:15, God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between THY SEED and HER SEED." The same Hebrew word for "seed" is used in both cases. Satan was to have just as literal "seed", or descendants as Eve. God's own word being pledged to this, we must expect to find it actually happening and we do. Jesus Christ, Himself, tells us of it.
In Matthew 13:38-39, explaining the Parable of the Tares Among the Wheat, Jesus says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children OF THE KINGDOM: but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE: THE ENEMY THAT SOWED THEM IS THE DEVIL." Again, in John 6:70-71, Jesus had been talking with His twelve deciples and we read: "Jesus answered them, 'Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?' He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray Him being one of the twelve." And again you should read carefully the eighth chapter of John, where Jesus told those who hated Him, "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do." He was not being vulgarly abusive in either of these cases, for He never resorted to name calling so His statement was precisely accurate. He did call some of them "serpents, children of vipers" which again, was accurate. Long before this, they had adopted the serpent as a symbol of Satan. That is why their tradition had given the word naw-khash" the translation "serpent", when it really means "enchanter". Jesus therefore was telling them that they were of their father the devil (or serpent, if they preferred that word). In this He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific precision and identifying the persons of this ancestry.
Whenever someone tells you that the Bible is in conflict with what modern science has proved true, don't you believe it. The things that many preachers teach are in conflict with scientific truth, as we all know, but these preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible. Go back to the Bible, not to any man made doctrines and double check it for accuracy of translation. You will find that what the Bible really says, in its original languages, is accurate with a precision our scientist have not yet achieved.

[CHB]

WW, this sounds like a Calvinist?

CHB

[WhiteWings]

Dunno. I didn't post the article as a pro UR article but a pro gap theory article.

[jabcat]

I think that although the guy might have some otherwise nutty things to say, his thoughts on Adam and the "gap theory" are indeed very interesting. 

Similar to the spirit REturns to God who gave it (can't return to somewhere you've never been)  his thoughts on REplenish the earth (rather than 'plenish') is a  :thumbsup:.

[thinktank]

What stick out in that piece was that he said Adam/Eve was the first white man. This is not scriptural, I am not going to bother accuse him of that overused phrase, that is unskillfully used today, often against good hearted folk, that simply are looking at the truth of the matter. But Only God knows the heart and I believe that we are all biased towards our own race, or country, in some shape way or form, but politics and political correctness pretends that this bias does not exist. First by admitting that we all have this bias, will help us to see more clearly and also for us to have realistic expectations of what to expect from other races. I.e don't expect someone from a different culture to treat you with the same respect as those from the same culture. With this advice in mind, it will helps us to go around with joy, no longer going to and fro, expecting other people groups to treat one as king, but to be realistic about how one is going to be treated. But of course we should not let oursleves be treated as dogs, but to have respect for ourselves.

I'd like to discuss more about what he said, but I'll leave it at this for now.

[WhiteWings]

I think that although the guy might have some otherwise nutty things to say, his thoughts on Adam and the "gap theory" are indeed very interesting. 

Similar to the spirit REturns to God who gave it (can't return to somewhere you've never been)  his thoughts on REplenish the earth (rather than 'plenish') is a  :thumbsup:.

KJV is one of the few translations that use replenish. Probebly because it's the oldest translation. Replenish used (also) to mean fill.

Main Entry:re£plen£ish
Pronunciation:ri-*ple-nish
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English replenisshen, from Anglo-French repleniss-, stem of replenir to fill, from re- + plein full, from Latin plenus — more at  FULL
Date:14th century

transitive verb 
1 a : to fill with persons or animals  : STOCK  b archaic   : to supply fully  : PERFECT  c : to fill with inspiration or power  : NOURISH
2 a : to fill or build up again  *replenished his glass*  b : to make good  : REPLACE
intransitive verb   : to become full  : fill up again
  –re£plen£ish£able \-ni-sh*-b*l\  adjective 
  –re£plen£ish£er noun 
  –re£plen£ish£ment \-nish-m*nt\  nounMain Entry:re£plen£ish
Pronunciation:r**plenish, r**p-, esp in pres part -n*sh
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English replenisshen, replenissen, from Middle French repleniss-, stem of replenir to fill, supply abundantly, from Old French, from re- + -plenir (from plein full, from Latin plenus) * more at FULL

transitive verb 
1 a : to fill with persons or animals : people or stock *be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth— Gen 1:28 (Authorized Version)*  b archaic   : to supply fully : equip completely : PERFECT *his hive had so long been replenished with honey— William Wordsworth* *the most replenished villain in the world— Shakespeare*  c : to fill with some quality or source of inspiration or power : provide with intellectual or spiritual sustenance : NOURISH *the American mind should cease to replenish itself with the mighty wonders of Europe— Van Wyck Brooks*  d : to fill completely : occupy or pervade all parts of *their vacant heart replenished with a child— Robert Browning* *she saw the blood his cheeks replenish— Shakespeare*
2 a : to fill up again *she kept his glass replenished— Charles Dickens* *the heavy demands for his legal services that promised to replenish his exchequer— A.C.Cole* *remains below the surface until he needs to replenish his lungs with another gulp— John Tassos*  b : to build up again : RENEW, RESTORE *he replenished the fire and drew up close to it— T.B.Costain* *the plants are still growing, and replenishing their food reserves— Farm Journal* *the supply of oil will have replenished itself— American Guide Series: Pennsylvania*  c : to supply again : REFIT *finds it cheaper and faster to replenish its ships while under way— George Weller*  d : to make good : REPLACE *how fast have the shipyards T been able to replenish these losses— Fortune*
3 : to add replenisher to (as a photographic developer or fixing bath)
intransitive verb   : to become full : fill up againreplenish, v.



I.I In pa. pple., denoting a condition or state.

1.I.1 Fully or abundantly stocked with things or animals (†also sometimes extended to persons). ? Obs. (very common c 1535–1660, in a great variety of contexts.)

b.I.1.b Provided, furnished, or supplied with something. Also without const. ? Obs.

†2.I.2 Filled, fully imbued, pervaded or possessed, with some quality or condition. Obs.

3.I.3 Physically or materially filled with some thing or things, people, etc. Also (in later use) without const.

†4.I.4 Full, made full, of something. Obs.

†b.I.4.b Possessed of something. Obs. rare—1.

II.II In ordinary transitive uses.

†5.II.5 To make full of, to fill, to stock or store abundantly with, persons or animals. = fill v. 5.

†b.II.5.b To provide fully with something. Obs.

†6.II.6 To occupy (a place) as inhabitants or settlers, to inhabit; to people. Obs.

b.II.6.b To occupy the whole of (a space or thing); = fill v. 7. Now rare.

†7.II.7 To fill with food; to satisfy, satiate. Also transf. and fig. Obs.

†8.II.8 To fill (a place or space) with something. = fill v. 1. Obs.

†b.II.8.b To fill (a person, the heart, etc.) with some feeling or quality. Obs.

†c.II.8.c To fill (the mind) with some occupation.

9.II.9 To fill up again; to restore to the former amount or condition.

†b.II.9.b To fill up (a vacant office). Obs. rare.

III. 10.III.10 intr. To become filled; to attain to fullness; to increase. rare.

Hence reˈplenishing vbl. n.





28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and God said to them––Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it,––and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the bird of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth on the land.
28 And God @ blessed @ them, and God @ said @ unto them, Be fruitful @, and multiply @, and replenish @ the earth @, and subdue it @: and have dominion @ over the fish @ of the sea @, and over the fowl @ of the air @, and over every living thing @ that moveth @ upon the earth @.
28 And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves upo
28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that ​moveth upon the earth.
28 And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.
28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and he said, "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the flying creatures of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.
28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.
28 And Elohim blesses them and Elohim says unto them, Bear fruit; and abound and fill the earth and subdue: and subjugate over the fish of the sea and over the flyers of the heavens and over every live being creeping on the earth.
28 And God Elohim blessed them, and God Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful Bear fruit , and multiply abound , and replenish fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion subjugate over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl flyers of the air heavens , and over every living thing live being that moveth creepeth upon the earth.
28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
28 And I, God, said, Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every beast that moves upon the earth.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground."
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

[WhiteWings]

What stick out in that piece was that he said Adam/Eve was the first white man. This is not scriptural,

I'm not sure. It's not really about scripture but translation/interpretation of a word. Some (not only that person) think one of the meanings is to blush. I know quite a few black/brown people but never saw them blush. But neither do I think they where very pale skinned. They are born in what's now Iraq.
So quite possibly they looked like the average (wo)man that lives in that region. Living outdoors my guess is they where tanned whites  :laughing7:

and I believe that we are all biased towards our own race, or country, in some shape way or form, but politics and political correctness pretends that this bias does not exist. First by admitting that we all have this bias, will help us to see more clearly and also for us to have realistic expectations of what to expect from other races.

In this case political correct thinking is wrong.
Obviously Adam and Eve where of a certain race. They weren't black and white at the same time. Unless they were zebra's  :winkgrin:
Purely looking at the people of the region and assuming nothing drastically happened to the skin color I would say they were closer to white than black.
I very well understand that offends many. It means blacks at that time where not human. But the same problem arrises if they were black then the all other skin colors were not human. So I think we should step over the rascism thing because whatever skin color we choose it's always offending billions of other colors....

[micah7:9]

If you guys what more of this if you can find "Shepard's Chapel" Brother Murray our of Gravette, Arkansas. Its a satalite station.

This teaching..... "It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original."
That the serpent had sexual intercourse with the woman. Dont take my word for it, start looking into it. And they are not the onyl ones and most are racist and bigots. Im not judging Im just giving some FYI.

[reFORMer]

re: OP (creation.org site)

I recall arguing about todays question with some who thought I was misconstruing a "social" Darwinism...

"The Darwinian roots of the Nazi legal system"

http://creation.com/darwinian-roots-of-nazi-legal-system

[thinktank]

What stick out in that piece was that he said Adam/Eve was the first white man. This is not scriptural,

I'm not sure. It's not really about scripture but translation/interpretation of a word. Some (not only that person) think one of the meanings is to blush. I know quite a few black/brown people but never saw them blush. But neither do I think they where very pale skinned. They are born in what's now Iraq.
So quite possibly they looked like the average (wo)man that lives in that region. Living outdoors my guess is they where tanned whites  :laughing7:

and I believe that we are all biased towards our own race, or country, in some shape way or form, but politics and political correctness pretends that this bias does not exist. First by admitting that we all have this bias, will help us to see more clearly and also for us to have realistic expectations of what to expect from other races.

In this case political correct thinking is wrong.
Obviously Adam and Eve where of a certain race. They weren't black and white at the same time. Unless they were zebra's  :winkgrin:
Purely looking at the people of the region and assuming nothing drastically happened to the skin color I would say they were closer to white than black.
I very well understand that offends many. It means blacks at that time where not human. But the same problem arrises if they were black then the all other skin colors were not human. So I think we should step over the rascism thing because whatever skin color we choose it's always offending billions of other colors....

Scientists have discovered a gene that controlls skin pigment. This gene controls the skin pigment, so it is activated in hot or cold temperatures. So Adam and Eve would have had all the gene combinations neccessary to create, the various colour combinations we have today. E.g blond hair, brown eyes, black skin etc.


But let's take into account that there are many black, asian and of all colour groups that worship Jesus. So if there are humans not made in the image of God and are more similar to intelligent gorrillas, or simply evolutionists human idea according to the evolutionist scientist, then how come these other races, worship Jesus?

[thinktank]

If you guys what more of this if you can find "Shepard's Chapel" Brother Murray our of Gravette, Arkansas. Its a satalite station.

This teaching..... "It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original."
That the serpent had sexual intercourse with the woman. Dont take my word for it, start looking into it. And they are not the onyl ones and most are racist and bigots. I'm not judging Im just giving some FYI.

The problem today is that just about anybody can be called a bigot or a racist, it is very easy thing to say. It is also not fair on the people being accused. Back in the day a racist was someone who would kill other people because of their skin colour, but now it seems everyone is racist, bigot etc. As a Christian I'm sure you have been accused of being a bigot, without even opening your mouth. These words are strong words, because of their history and shouldn't be used casually. I mean flipping heck, even the word trinity here is enough to get people upset, and this is without history of blood shed and violence, so if that word cannot be used casually, then I'm sure casually accusing people of racism can be avoided to. Even though personally I wish that word wasn't used, because technically it describes someone who is in favour of their own race. In my opinion those people who killed and murdered other races, should not have been called racists, but something more technically correct, such as race murderers. Because technically according to the word we are all racists, in favour of our own race, or country, so techically Obama is a racist, because he favours Americans above other countries, but historically according to the word he is not a racist, because he has not murdered or treated other races as dogs.

[WhiteWings]

Exactly. Racist once meant something. Today it's so abused it no longer means anything. Today mentioning that Adam had a certain color is enough to be accused being a Hitler fanboy. Here the situation is this: As you might have guessed I white. Blond and bue  eyes. When I say I prefer black girls I'm cool. But if a say I prefer white girls I'm a racist. Frankly speaking linking Darwinism to Nazi idea's is insane and fighting religious/political battles of the lives of millions of butchered people.

On topic now.
Obviously Adam and Eve had a certain color. There is no way around that. If they really are the very first people no race is insulted because there was just 1 race. If there were more people then that doesn't automaitically mean there are more races because if they all live in the same region. Maybe the first man simply means the first man who learned about the true God. The Bible frequently calls people beasts. The sinners that live outside the gates are called dogs.
So the seperation between man and beast perhaps is based of knowing God instead of race?

Even more on topic. I posted the article for the gap theory bits....

[WhiteWings]

http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i1/gaptheory.asp
http://www.creationdays.dk/

Sorry but the sites are all black and white  :laughing7:

[thinktank]

Death Before Sin?

Theologically, there is also a very grave difficulty with the 'gap' theory. The Bible says there was no sin or death until man brought them into the world. According to the 'gap' theory, however, there had already been billions of years of suffering and death in the world, represented by the fossils and the sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust, which are supposed now to identify the geological ages. According to the 'gap' theory, at the end of the geological ages Satan sinned and was cast to the earth and then there was a great cataclysm, so that the geological ages with billions of years of suffering and death took place before Satan sinned and certainly before man sinned.

The Bible, on the other hand, says specifically that 'by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12), so that there was no death in the world until man brought sin into it. The 'gap' theory would require billions of years of suffering in the world before man or even Satan had sinned, and that means that God Himself would be directly responsible for sin in the world. God could not be the author of sin. So the 'gap' theory is precluded theologically.

written by Answersingnesis

--------------------------------

TT
There is a problem with this theory. This theory states that Adam's sin was that brought death into the world.

This might be true, however it deos not mean that Adam was the first to sin. Jesus said the devil sinneth for the begining and is the father of lies.

Since God is truth, then the devil walked away from that truth to embrace lies. Since Jesus said he is the father of lies, then I conclude that the devil sinned before Adam. As Jesus also states, whosoever sineth is of the devil, because the devil sinneth from the begining.


So if Adams sin brough death into the world, then I conclude that the devils sin brought darkness into the world in Genesis 1.2.

But God renewed the earth, thereafter, until the day Adam sinned and once more brought the earth into decay.

[Taffy]

which would be fine if there were an ENTITY called satan--- the first sin was MAN who through his mind SATAN did sin--- I hear all this jumping in and out of Bodies but then we read ths-- Its Not what """"""""""ENTERS"""""" a man which DEFILES him its what comes OUT --- so one could supress what goes in , so SIN isnt BIRTHED----    ?:icon_flower:

[Taffy]

oh and theres that one in James when a MAN sins HE is TEMPTED by HIS OWN lusts-- ? :icon_flower:

[thinktank]

Hopefully as far away as possible. Resist the devil and he will flee. The battle belongs to the Lord.

[Taffy]

 :2c: OR maybe resist the CARNAL pull of your carnal mindWHICH is Death   :icon_flower:

[WhiteWings]

Death Before Sin?

Didn't animals and plants die? What kind of death we are speaking of? Natural of spiritual?

Theologically, there is also a very grave difficulty with the 'gap' theory. The Bible says there was no sin or death until man brought them into the world.

What verse does state that?

[thinktank]

Death Before Sin?

Didn't animals and plants die? What kind of death we are speaking of? Natural of spiritual?

First the spiritual death, the devil himself and probably any dominon he had, which might have been earth, would be affected by his darkness. So the natural decay would follow after the spiritual decay.

However, I must be honest that I am not sure if plants, insects, and animals are something God keeps alive for eternity.
Imagine if grass never died, it would be a jungle in no time. That's why Adam's job was to tend the garden.

Now most gardeners usually cut their grass. So we can see a form of death happening even in the garden itself. Also I don't think Adam was constantly scanning the ground for any ants that he might accidentily step on.

We see resurected perfect Jesus eating fish. So some form of death I conclude is acceptable to God in the animal, insect and plant way of life.

Howver I don't think, God would allow even animals to suffer sickness and disease and ill health, but rather allows these creations to die and live again as part of a healthy eco system, but not for them to suffer pain and disease, as the bible says that creation itself groaneth for the sons of God.

Theologically, there is also a very grave difficulty with the 'gap' theory. The Bible says there was no sin or death until man brought them into the world.

What verse does state that?

I assume/know they take it from the Adam verse

[WhiteWings]

The resurected Jesus ate fish in the "old/current earth"

I know of no verse that states there was no death. There is a verse that warns Adam that he will die if he eats from the tree.
a] The verse is about Adam. So other lifeforms (outside the garden) possibly just died
b] Maybe Adam would  have died of old age anyway. The warning was just about spiritual death.

[thinktank]

The resurected Jesus ate fish in the "old/current earth"

I know of no verse that states there was no death. There is a verse that warns Adam that he will die if he eats from the tree.
a] The verse is about Adam. So other lifeforms (outside the garden) possibly just died
b] Maybe Adam would  have died of old age anyway. The warning was just about spiritual death.

Interesting wings. Because Adam could have eaten the tree of life and live forever and even after he sinned.

So without the tree of life to sustain his body Adam would have died in any case.

[micah7:9]

The resurected Jesus ate fish in the "old/current earth"

I know of no verse that states there was no death. There is a verse that warns Adam that he will die if he eats from the tree.
a] The verse is about Adam. So other lifeforms (outside the garden) possibly just died
b] Maybe Adam would  have died of old age anyway. The warning was just about spiritual death.

Interesting wings. Because Adam could have eaten the tree of life and live forever and even after he sinned.

So without the tree of life to sustain his body Adam would have died in any case.

See here is an assumption "Adam could have eaten" the Lord God was in full control, there is no "could haves pr wouild haves"

[thinktank]

I suppose life is easier if you think like that. But I see it to simple to describe the complexity of the lords ways. I beleive that there is a truth to what youu are saying, but also it misses some vital elements of the Lords ways, to make it complete.