In the beginning ...

[joshua 1 9]

I was specifically asking for church fathers who taught that.

Do you mean Philo?

Philo identifies the Word of God as God's "first-born son!":

...For God, like a shepherd and king, governs (as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water, and the fire, and the air and all the plants, and living creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine; and he regulates the nature of the heaven, and the periodical revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them according to law and justice; appointing as their immediate superintendent, his own right Word [Logos], his first-born son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the great king;...
(Philo; On Husbandry XII (45))

 

[ChetSinger]

Do you mean Philo?

No, Philo isn't an early church father. And even if he were I don't see how that quote of his relates to pre-Adamic hominids.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, Philo isn't an early church father. And even if he were I don't see how that quote of his relates to pre-Adamic hominids.

Wiki has an article on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite

 

[Aman777]

Wiki has an article on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite

Pre-Adamites are UnScriptural. Adam was made the 3rd Day BEFORE any other living creature, before the plants, herbs and rain. Gen 2:4-7 Every other "living creature that moveth" was made from the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 What the Pre-Adamites call the prehistoric people who left their bones all over our world for Millions of years, were made TWO of God's Days AFTER Adam, the first Human, was made. Amen?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Pre-Adamites are UnScriptural. Adam was made the 3rd Day BEFORE any other living creature, before the plants, herbs and rain. Gen 2:4-7 Every other "living creature that moveth" was made from the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 What the Pre-Adamites call the prehistoric people who left their bones all over our world for Millions of years, were made TWO of God's Days AFTER Adam, the first Human, was made. Amen?

We have the Bible but we also have what we call artifacts. For example the first real artifacts go back about 40,000 years when we find needles for sowing, fishing hooks and fishing nets. This is when mankind began to move up out of Africa into what is now the Middle east. At the time Neanderthals were living in this area. Clearly something happened with Adam 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden. The Bible says that this is when Adam received the breath of life. Neanderthals were around for a long time but what clothing they wore is not knows because none of their clothing if they had any, has survived.

 

[Aman777]

We have the Bible but we also have what we call artifacts. For example the first real artifacts go back about 40,000 years when we find needles for sowing, fishing hooks and fishing nets. This is when mankind began to move up out of Africa into what is now the Middle east. At the time Neanderthals were living in this area. Clearly something happened with Adam 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden. The Bible says that this is when Adam received the breath of life. Neanderthals were around for a long time but what clothing they wore is not knows because none of their clothing if they had any, has survived.

History records what happened 10k years ago. It's when the Ark arrived bringing the first Humans (descendants of Adam) to this planet of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who came out of Africa. God brought the Ark to our world as Adam's Heaven/Universe sank in Lake Van, Turkey. Lake Van is 75 miles wide and 1500 feet deep and a perfect place to dock the 450 ft Ark, which came from the world where the First Humans were made. The Millions of prehistoric people who were here when the Ark arrived were NOT Humans (descendants of Adam) but they could have children with Humans. Gen 6:4

That is WHY today's humans have Adam's superior intelligence which is like God's Gen 3:22 AND we also have the DNA and ERVs of the prehistoric people who were already here when the Ark arrived. Human civilization can be traced all the way back to the mountains of Ararat, exactly as God told us in Gen 8:4. Amen?

 

[joshua 1 9]

History records what happened 10k years ago. It's when the Ark arrived bringing the first Humans (descendants of Adam) to this planet of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who came out of Africa. God brought the Ark to our world as Adam's Heaven/Universe sank in Lake Van, Turkey. Lake Van is 75 miles wide and 1500 feet deep and a perfect place to dock the 450 ft Ark, which came from the world where the First Humans were made. The Millions of prehistoric people who were here when the Ark arrived were NOT Humans (descendants of Adam) but they could have children with Humans. Gen 6:4

That is WHY today's humans have Adam's superior intelligence which is like God's Gen 3:22 AND we also have the DNA and ERVs of the prehistoric people who were already here when the Ark arrived. Human civilization can be traced all the way back to the mountains of Ararat, exactly as God told us in Gen 8:4. Amen?

That is a pretty good theory. The problem is that we are told in Rev that there will be 144,000 sealed, 12,000 from each tribe that are pure and not defiled with women. God preserved them onto Himself. When the church is no longer in the world then they will be here during the tribulation to give witness and testimony for God. Of course there will be people in the harlot church that will get saved during that period but they will be martyred for their faith. The age of Grace will have come to an end with the Church Age.

 

[Aman777]

That is a pretty good theory. The problem is that we are told in Rev that there will be 144,000 sealed, 12,000 from each tribe that are pure and not defiled with women. God preserved them onto Himself. When the church is no longer in the world then they will be here during the tribulation to give witness and testimony for God. Of course there will be people in the harlot church that will get saved during that period but they will be martyred for their faith. The age of Grace will have come to an end with the Church Age.

Amen, but that is AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign with His Jewish brethren for a thousand years. Amen?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Amen, but that is AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign with His Jewish brethren for a thousand years. Amen?

Jesus will rule and reign for 1,000 years with the Bride or the Church. God is married to Israel. Even though Israel and Judea has been unfaithful to Him. This is the whole message of Hosea.

 

[Aman777]

Jesus will rule and reign for 1,000 years with the Bride or the Church. God is married to Israel. Even though Israel and Judea has been unfaithful to Him. This is the whole message of Hosea.

The 144,000 are from the 12 tribes of Israel. Rev 7:4

 

[Foghorn]

In the beginning …

Let us be clear, the Bible does not assert that the Earth or life on this planet was created 6,000 years ago (as many have presumed).

I agree.

It does not even teach against evolution.

Well it may not directly teach against it, but we do find (macro) evolution is wrong.

For, although ‘creation’ is certainly taught, how God created is not explained. Creation through evolutionary processes, as one method, cannot be ruled out.

Again, macro evolution can be ruled out.

 

[Foghorn]

Hello! I think it does. Even if one holds to an old-earth or day-age theory regarding Genesis 1, the events in Genesis 2 take place 6,000 years ago. There's a good reason the church has taught this: that's as far back as the genealogies go.

Actually, I think your timeline is a bit off.

 

[Foghorn]

Oh, and BTW, I'm fairly confident that we can understand that the seventh day was closed out just like the rest. God wrote about that day that He rested, yet Jesus claimed that since the creation God has been working. So it would seem that at some point that seventh day of rest did close and God went back to work.

Again, God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

Sounds like an assumption actually.

 

[Foghorn]

Has it ever occured to anyone that, the seven days of Gen. 1 is not about the Creation of the earth that we live on, but The Redemption of mankind? 7,000 yrs.

Has it ever occurred to you that genesis is not concerned about time? It is concerned however with the Triune God and His creation, then the redemption of man. Whether one believes a literal 6 day, 24 hour periods or an old earth has no effect on God and redemption.

 

[Foghorn]

Evolution is a collection of theories. Some are true and some are not. That is pretty much true of Science in general. Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head and sometimes they miss it by a mile or more.

Well they haven't hit the nail on the head as far as macro evolution is concerned.

 

[Foghorn]

1. As I have said before, and will say again, I do not think Genesis can be taken as literal, scientific, or historical.

Well what you and I think has nothing to do with the facts, we can either agree or disagree with them.

The description in Genesis is quite easy to see and understand Adam was an actual person, read the description when God created him. therefore it is historical.

 

[Foghorn]

Double post

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem with Genesis, Foghorn, is that we are dealing here with two contradictory accounts of creation written by two different and two different times. This is consistent with contemporary biblical scholarship. You are speaking as a lay person, and that is OK. However, I am working from the academic world, which is a completely different ball game.
Also, I think you are overlooking a few points on evolution. "Macro-evolution" has been created and observed in the lab with bacteria. Furthermore, the distinction drawn between micro- and macro- is a major fallacy. If you observe micro-evolution, the logical conclusion is that there is also macro0. The laws of physics do not stop at your stove. By the same token, evolution does not stop at the space between the different species. If you rule out macro-, all you have done is arbitrarily put up a stop sign for which there is absolutely no reason, especially when the law of nature apply everywhere.

 

[Riberra]

The problem with Genesis, -- is that we are dealing here with two contradictory accounts of creation written by two different (?)

Your sentence seem incomplete ,do you mean that you have the feeling that the account in Genesis 1and Genesis 2 was written by 2 different autors?

and two different times. ...

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 covers 2 different aspect of the account.
Do you notice that the 7th Day of Rest is not defined as a morning and an evening .
Maybe the 7 Th Day of Rest lasted 1,000 years....-for one day for the Lord is like 1,000 years for man.-IF i am correct,that mean that Adam (first farmer to till the ground) and the Garden of Eden,and the animals in the Garden (farm animals) and Eve were created 1,000 years after the humans (nomads) created by God on the 6Th day.

 

[Hoghead1]

I see I have confused you, Riberra. So let me clarify matters. Below is my account of the situation.

1. \
   
   
   
   
   As I have said before, and will say again, I do not think Genesis can be taken as literal, scientific, or historical.
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scence, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.