When we see pyramid technology all around the world is it a form of shared knowledge. We see places like Stonehenge, or Easter Island and wonder, "how did they do that?"We find human remains that carbon date up to 200,000-300000 years ago; long before Adam. One explanation that pops up is that there was civilization before Adam Is there a clue is in Gene’s 1:2 where it says, " . . . darkness eas upon the face of the deep . . . "
Had the earth been destroyed by water once before?
And this leads to the title question.
Please discuss.
2 Likes
It’s a perfectly reasonable theory and a much better explanation offered for the many archeological finds that seem to counter the simple narrative that most Christians have bought into.
As one example, the find at Göbekli Tepe establishes a timeline for an advanced civilization that precedes the biblical genealogy, if one thinks it complete.
Hindu predates Judaism by 4000 years. Cultures were established long before the story of Adam that literalists embrace. The Earth is much older than evangelicals and fundies will acknowledge. Humans evolved and traveled long before the time Adam supposedly appeared on the seen.
So many take a literal view of scripture. Two of every animal (or seven) on a boat, yet reject science.
1 Like
How is a believe in a global flood a rejection of science?
If the biblical account is correct, even down to a 6 day creation, then how incorrect is a lot of scientific attitudes?
Science is based upon repeatable observation, not emotional interpretation
Correction, it is the observations, measurements, repeated experiments that are interpreted according to the bias of the conductor.
There are excelent observations of the geology of the world that can only be explained by a global flood, things like folded sedimentaryrock, cross sedimentary rock layers of tree tunks, multiple thick layers of sedimentary rock with no evidence of erosion on the layers.
Yet it is an adherence to a preferred bizs that rejects considering this evidence.
I have no problem with a pre-Adamic race. Scripture traces genealogical history not genetic history. There’s been more than enough time for all of the human race to be the genealogical descendents of Adam and Eve; in fact, that could be accomplised in just a few thousand years, so that when Paul says all are descended from Adam, genetically and genealogically, he’s correct.
For more, see S Joshua Swamidass’ book ‘The Genealogical Adam and Eve’.
1 Like
The problem with man living prior to adam is that makes death good.
God declared that his creation was good and Adam was the pinicle of creation.
Death is a consquence of Adams sin. But a pre adam civilization means people would be dying before Adam fell.
For more, see S Joshua Swamidass’ book ‘The Genealogical Adam and Eve’.
It’s an interesting book.
There are terrific recorded interviews between Swamidass and Mike Heiser that focus on the possibility of a pre-Adamic race and how that can be accomodated in the biblical narrative.
1 Like
Here is part of the conversation…
Heiser-
“If we concede that at least pre-adamic humans are possible, I mean, scripture doesn’t affirm that, but it leaves the door open that could be a key to reconciling all the genetic talk, all the evolutionary talk about humans and what we read in scripture.”
1 Like
Some death is good; the creation wouldn’t work without the death of some things. Lots of creation depends on death to live itself. The creation was created ‘good’ not ‘perfect’. Adam’s sin brought death to his progeny not the creation in total. The context of Rom 5 is speaking of those related to Adam, not everything in existence.
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men…”
It was Adam’s progeny that was intended to live forever through access to the tree of life, not all of creation.
So God calling something very good does not imply perfection?
If Adams sin resulting in death for Adam and his progeny, where did death come from for the mythical pre adam civilisation?
Correct, ‘good’ doesn’t imply ‘perfect’ in Hebrew any more than it does in English. Hebrew has a word for ‘perfect’ and it isn’t used to describe the creation. Death was part of the original creation in order to make it function.
Please provide your biblical evidence to show this belief.
The context of Rom 5 is speaking of those related to Adam, not everything in existence.
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men…”
There is no Biblical evidence that death spread to the entire creation only to those who came from Adam. The burden of proof is on those who would claim the above applies to everything in creation.
[quote=“Who-me, post:6, topic:4132”]
interpreted according to the bias of the conductor.
[/quote
As far as a bias causing scientists from considering a global flood, you are absolutely incorrect. inquiries into a global flood have been investigated numerious times. Where I live was once under water. Sharks teeth and fossil remains are found frequently in kaolin pits. But it was sea levels, not a flood that caused this. A flood wiping out all life and restarting the process just does not have the evidence to back it up. Localized flooding (which may have seemed to be the entire world) is much more likely, and is recorded by ancient people outside of Judaism.
Confirmation bias exists on all sides. Scientists and Theologians alike.
In general, neither side will fully consider the alternative perspective with an unbiased eye. It’s a rare thing to find someone willing to set aside their personal biases and consider evidence objectively.
Bias is admitted and removed as much as possible. That is part of the process.
I’ll give you an example or two that demonstrate the opposite.
The Answers in Genesis crowd refuse to consider any and all evidence of an earth that is older than around 6000 years. It’s a foundational belief for them so that anything presented MUST be conformed to fit within the narrative as they believe it to be. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed or manipulated to fit the premise. This is pure bias.
The same thing happens with “scientists” who forced vaccines on ‘the world’ without evidence of efficacy or knowing what potential harm they would cause. “You must follow the science!” -they shrieked, while refusing to allow that to happen. Again, with global warming caused by the activities of men. hogwash-- yet “Science!” This too is pure bias.
A real truthseeker will follow the evidence wherever it leads them, despite their personal bias. Like I said, a rare thing among scientists and historians-- almost unheard of among theologians.
Tell it to my antivaxxer brother who DIED from Covid or his wife who was on a ventilator for a month and will never recover her health. The church a few towns over that refused vaccinations or suspending church services and 40 people died at a funeral. The vaccine works. In fact, if you don’t get your kids vaccinated and they die from measles you should be jailed for murder. That isn’t bias. That is fact.
Biases are admitted before research begins. Constantly self checking to make sure biases are not contaminating research is ongoing. I agree with you about Answers in Genesis. What they do isn’t science.