Looks like there was a Pre-Earth Life

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
The way I understand what is being conveyed to us here in Genesis 1 & 2 is that:
  • There is only one creator God
  • Genesis 1 - 2:3 is a big picture story of the creation account - God creating the universe
  • Genesis 2:4 - is a retelling of the creation account in the framework of God's special relationship with man
  • God is revealed as a personal God though his name YHWH. It's not a different Elohim.
  • The special way that YHWH created man
  • The special characteristic of man as YHWH's imager
etc
But YHWH is not mentioned until the second chapter. Only Elohim is mentioned in the first chapter. Is God of the first chapter, also known as the Lord God of the second chapter? Strange way to introduce God to us, by immediately giving him 2 names, one with an equal but secondary connotation than the other one.

Being a king is one thing, being a Lord of the King is another. The Lord of the king may be given the whole power and authority of the king, and function as if he was the king, but is secondary to the king. King = Elohim, Genesis chapter 1, Lord of King = YHWH, Genesis second chapter.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Where is the textual evidence for the claim, "Form in heaven created I them?"
There is not a straight forward scripture like the statement that I quoted you. You have to find and realize that a certain textual evidence is talking about the pre-earth life.

For instance, what we are talking about here. Genesis chapter 2:5 says there is not man to till the earth, IOW man is not on the earth. But this statement is made after man, male and female were created in Chapter 1. So where were they created in chapter 1. It is obvious they were not created on the earth. So the next place that you would think of is heaven. Bingo, for in heaven created I them, before they were naturally created on the earth.

You also have many scriptures that refer to beings in heaven, pre-earth. That is why I told you to read Revelation 12. This describes the war in heaven where lucifer took 1/3 the stars of heaven (stars = men, male and females created in chapter 1) and they became his angels, and he fought with Michael and his angels and was defeated and kicked out of heaven, to the earth.
lucifer and Michael and their angels are those men and women that were created in chapter 1 of Genesis. Later Adam was naturally created on the earth as the first man, and Eve was the first female, and place in the garden of Eden.
It is because of the war in heaven and lucifer's defeat and exile to the earth, that he shows up in the garden to temp Adam and Eve.

In Job 38 God is asking Job certain questions. One of them is: where were you when I was creating the earth. The scripture never answers the question, but vs 7 is an interesting verse where the morning stars = men and women created in chapter 1 and the sons of God (men created in chapter 1) sand for joy and shouted for joy because Jesus was creating the world for them to enjoy.

There are others but you have to be knowledgeable about the pre-earth life in heaven to recognize them. We can explore others later, if these make sense to you.

How do you relate to these scriptures, as Christianity as a whole does not recognize a pre-earth, heavenly life?
 
Upvote 0

SinoBen

Active Member
May 23, 2018
249
103
Brisbane
✟21,698.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But YHWH is not mentioned until the second chapter. Only Elohim is mentioned in the first chapter. Is God of the first chapter, also known as the Lord God of the second chapter? Strange way to introduce God to us, by immediately giving him 2 names, one with an equal but secondary connotation than the other one.

Being a king is one thing, being a Lord of the King is another. The Lord of the king may be given the whole power and authority of the king, and function as if he was the king, but is secondary to the king. King = Elohim, Genesis chapter 1, Lord of King = YHWH, Genesis second chapter.

adam (generic name for man) didn't become Adam (the personal name of a man) until the second chapter either.

Elohim = spirit being/s (not including humans) "God" "god" or "gods"
YHWH = personal name of the creator God, in some English bibles it is translated as "LORD" (all caps).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
For instance, what we are talking about here. Genesis chapter 2:5 says there is not man to till the earth, IOW man is not on the earth. But this statement is made after man, mal

This is why scholars don't hold your view. It assumes that instead of drilling down of the creation and life of Adam that we have a continuing story from a chronological standpoint THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT.

"An Ad Hoc fallacy is when a person gives an explanation for an event and the explanation is written or said as an argument for the event. When a person poses an explanation that is disputed by evidence the person has to resort to untestable answers to salvage their claim."

This is not how we draw out original meaning from a 3000+ year old document.

The features of the text don't support you conclusion. It sounds like mormonism. But in either case whether if we decide to use your approach of reading in explanations based on our assumptions we will be able to produce a near-infinite number of interpretations across scripture. The method is flawed.
View attachment 252005
View attachment 252006
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
This is why scholars don't hold your view. It assumes that instead of drilling down of the creation and life of Adam that we have a continuing story from a chronological standpoint THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT.

The only reason that you think that the evidence is not in the text, is because you have never heard or thought of the spirit creation before the natural creation. If you had, the text makes perfect sense.

Genesis 1 is the spirit creation, with a confirmation in Genesis 2:5 that Genesis 1 was done in heaven and not on the earth. And then Genesis 2:6 starts the natural creation.

It fits like a glove. A perfect explanation of why there are 2 creative motifs in Genesis 1 & 2. So the chronology of the bible moves from the first word to the last word in quite a perfect order.

Both our explanations are good ones, but this may be the first time you have heard of a spirit creation and you may have to think about that for a time.

See my post #20 and answer that for me. My response is from your post #18. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
This is why scholars don't hold your view. It assumes that instead of drilling down of the creation and life of Adam that we have a continuing story from a chronological standpoint THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT.

"An Ad Hoc fallacy is when a person gives an explanation for an event and the explanation is written or said as an argument for the event. When a person poses an explanation that is disputed by evidence the person has to resort to untestable answers to salvage their claim."

This is not how we draw out original meaning from a 3000+ year old document.

The features of the text don't support you conclusion. It sounds like mormonism. But in either case whether if we decide to use your approach of reading in explanations based on our assumptions we will be able to produce a near-infinite number of interpretations across scripture. The method is flawed.
View attachment 252005
View attachment 252006

The reason the scholars don't hold to my views, is because they have never heard my views before. They have never been shown what I have shown you. So they stay with what has been said for centuries.

I showed it to you and you immediately went to your default interpretation without even a thought. So give it some thought and ponder on the idea that the bible may very well be in perfect chronological order. Spirit creation in heaven, natural creation on earth.

This view also answers a ton of questions about my soul and what happens to me when I die, etc., etc., etc. Lots of questions come into focus when you view the creation this way.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
This is why scholars don't hold your view. It assumes that instead of drilling down of the creation and life of Adam that we have a continuing story from a chronological standpoint THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE IN THE TEXT.

"An Ad Hoc fallacy is when a person gives an explanation for an event and the explanation is written or said as an argument for the event. When a person poses an explanation that is disputed by evidence the person has to resort to untestable answers to salvage their claim."

This is not how we draw out original meaning from a 3000+ year old document.

The features of the text don't support you conclusion. It sounds like mormonism. But in either case whether if we decide to use your approach of reading in explanations based on our assumptions we will be able to produce a near-infinite number of interpretations across scripture. The method is flawed.
View attachment 252005


View attachment 252006

What evidence have you disputed my view with, your opinion? OR are you disputing my view with the opinion of a man that said this is the way it is, 1000 years ago? What evidence do you have?
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The reason the scholars don't hold to my views, is because they have never heard my views before.
This is not a good assumption. This is an area that has been examined for 3000 years. To assume that scholars don't adopt it due to the fact that it is original is to assume two things: The text of the Bible origin story, one that has the ramifications you point out (which I take to be significant) has been misrepresented to every human culture by every Biblical expert for 3000 years!

What does that say about God's revelatory intent?

If your inference above holds and someone untrained in OT languages, ANE culture, basic Biblical Exegesis, other historical inferences, somehow managed to be the first individual in history to discover the true meaning of the differing accounts of Gen 1 and 2.

It is time for you to write your book and reveal the true meaning of the passage sans arguments from the text, culture, language, historical understanding. Good luck.
 
Upvote 0

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
This is not a good assumption. This is an area that has been examined for 3000 years. To assume that scholars don't adopt it due to the fact that it is original is to assume two things: The text of the Bible origin story, one that has the ramifications you point out (which I take to be significant) has been misrepresented to every human culture by every Biblical expert for 3000 years!

What does that say about God's revelatory intent?

If your inference above holds and someone untrained in OT languages, ANE culture, basic Biblical Exegesis, other historical inferences, somehow managed to be the first individual in history to discover the true meaning of the differing accounts of Gen 1 and 2.

It is time for you to write your book and reveal the true meaning of the passage sans arguments from the text, culture, language, historical understanding. Good luck.
I answered your post #24 with 3 different posts. You only answered the last post. I would like to hear from you about the others. You do a good job in your response.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
THE BIG QUESTION: WHERE WAS MAN, MALE AND FEMALE CREATED IN GENESIS 1:26-27?
They were obviously not created on the earth, because Genesis 2:5 says they were not.

All that verse says is that there were no farmers. The people of Gen 1 are hunter gatherers but not farmers and they are created on the Earth and were given dominion over the Earth.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish 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.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 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.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Everything created on the 6th day on the Earth. That's clear from the context. Never does the context suddenly jump to heaven creating humans then transporting them to Earth where they are to live, multiple and have dominion over everything.

You created this entire false teaching based on misunderstanding one single scripture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
But YHWH is not mentioned until the second chapter. Only Elohim is mentioned in the first chapter. Is God of the first chapter, also known as the Lord God of the second chapter?


The chapters are man made. The manuscripts do not contain chapters or verse numbers so trying to claim God is different in one chapter to the next has no actual foundation.
 
Upvote 0