Timeline: animal domestication before the Flood?

[Mike Reynolds]

I believe the Flood corresponds to Socrates' account of the destruction of all advanced civilizations which exactly matches the date 11.5k years ago of the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. But besides dogs, we didn't domesticate livestock animals or cats until after the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. So the story of Cain and Able must refer to a time *after* the Flood.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I believe the Flood corresponds to Socrates' account of the destruction of all advanced civilizations which exactly matches the date 11.5k years ago of the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. But besides dogs, we didn't domesticate livestock animals or cats until after the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. So the story of Cain and Able must refer to a time *after* the Flood.

So how does the timeline work then?

 

[Aussie Pete]

I believe the Flood corresponds to Socrates' account of the destruction of all advanced civilizations which exactly matches the date 11.5k years ago of the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. But besides dogs, we didn't domesticate livestock animals or cats until after the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. So the story of Cain and Able must refer to a time *after* the Flood.

Not necessarily. My understanding is that there was a flood prior to Adam and Eve's creation. How long before that flood and the restoration of life on earth is not stated in the Bible.

 

[Mike Reynolds]

Not necessarily. My understanding is that there was a flood prior to Adam and Eve's creation. How long before that flood and the restoration of life on earth is not stated in the Bible.

That makes sense but I've never heard that anywhere. Who teaches this?

 

[Strong in Him]

Not necessarily. My understanding is that there was a flood prior to Adam and Eve's creation.

How could there have been a flood to destroy the sinful on the earth before humans had even been created and there was therefore no sin?

 

[Aussie Pete]

How could there have been a flood to destroy the sinful on the earth before humans had even been created and there was therefore no sin?

What makes you think that there were no human like creatures prior to Adam? Geologists think they've found some. Satan had already been kicked out of heaven. Some (me) believe that he was the light of the pre-Adam creation, hence his original name Lucifer. Only God knows for sure. All I'm saying is that there is a plausible way to reconcile the fossil record and the Genesis account. No one's salvation depends on it. It may answer some questions that believers have.
I was spared the incessant bombardment of evolutionary theory turned "fact". I was taught both creation and evolution at the secular school I attended. Evolution made no more sense to me then than it does now, and I was not born again at that time. A lot of Christians struggle with Genesis. It is not necessary.

 

[Jesus is my Superhero]

Rev. 9:14 "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.”

Luke 10:18 “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven...

Gen. 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

There is potential for something prior to mankind as we understand. Always has interested me and salvation doesn't hinge on any of this.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That makes sense but I've never heard that anywhere. Who teaches this?

It goes back a long way. Possibly the most recent is Watchman Nee, "the Mystery of Creation". It's better known as Pre-Adamite theory. The first recorded discussion was in AD 170. You can the book on line or download it if you like.http://www.watchman-nee.nl/creation.pdf

 

[Strong in Him]

What makes you think that there were no human like creatures prior to Adam?

Genesis 1.

Geologists think they've found some.

They believe man existed before man existed? That's clever.
God created animals and then created humans.

Satan had already been kicked out of heaven.

Agreed.

Some (me) believe that he was the light of the pre-Adam creation, hence his original name Lucifer.

Lucifer was an angel and his name means "light" or maybe "light-bearer".
But he wanted to be greater than God, tried to overthrow him and got thrown out of heaven. All the angels who had joined in the rebellion were thrown out too.

All I'm saying is that there is a plausible way to reconcile the fossil record and the Genesis account.

I didn't even mention the fossil record.
Genesis 6 tells us that God sent the flood because the wickedness of the world had become too great - there were people already in the world, who had forgotten God and were sinning.
Jesus said that his return would be as it was in the days of Noah; people eating, drinking and practising wickedness and then judgement would come.

Before Adam and Eve fell, there was no sin in the world, therefore no need for a flood.

I was spared the incessant bombardment of evolutionary theory turned "fact". I was taught both creation and evolution at the secular school I attended. Evolution made no more sense to me then than it does now, and I was not born again at that time. A lot of Christians struggle with Genesis. It is not necessary.

I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about Genesis.
Genesis 1 says that God created the universe, making animals and humans on the 6th day.
Genesis 3 says that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and then sin came into the world - Cain killed Abel, and the more people increased in numbers, the more sin grew, Genesis 6:5-6. God sent the flood because of all the sin on the earth.
This is the order of things in Genesis; creation, fall, flood. The flood was not before the fall because there was no sin to wipe out.

 

[The Liturgist]

What makes you think that there were no human like creatures prior to Adam? Geologists think they've found some. Satan had already been kicked out of heaven. Some (me) believe that he was the light of the pre-Adam creation, hence his original name Lucifer. Only God knows for sure. All I'm saying is that there is a plausible way to reconcile the fossil record and the Genesis account. No one's salvation depends on it. It may answer some questions that believers have.
I was spared the incessant bombardment of evolutionary theory turned "fact". I was taught both creation and evolution at the secular school I attended. Evolution made no more sense to me then than it does now, and I was not born again at that time. A lot of Christians struggle with Genesis. It is not necessary.

Lucifer is a Latin translation of Hebrew words meaning “Son of the morning.” As I have said in many threads, it is anachronistic to use it as a proper name for the devil, and also inappropriate because there were martyrs in the early church named Lucifer, there is a St. Lucifer, the bishop of Cagliari in the mid 4th century (who perhaps not without coincidence was greatly disliked by St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, and Lucifer is not the most literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, although it does directly correspond with the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew in the Septuagint), and several early hymns, including a fourth century hymn attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan use the word Lucifer, which literally means “light bearer” (compare Christopher, “Christ bearer”) to refer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and St. John the Baptist, the commemoration of whose beheading was for most of us on Sunday.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Lucifer is a Latin translation of Hebrew words meaning “Son of the morning.” As I have said in many threads, it is anachronistic to use it as a proper name for the devil, and also inappropriate because there were martyrs in the early church named Lucifer, there is a St. Lucifer, the bishop of Cagliari in the mid 4th century (who perhaps not without coincidence was greatly disliked by St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, and Lucifer is not the most literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, although it does directly correspond with the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew in the Septuagint), and several early hymns, including a fourth century hymn attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan use the word Lucifer, which literally means “light bearer” (compare Christopher, “Christ bearer”) to refer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and St. John the Baptist, the commemoration of whose beheading was for most of us on Sunday.

Many people including me would disagree with you. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are talking about both earthly rulers and the mind behind them, Satan. Lucifer is NOT the proper name for the devil. He was the covering cherub and fell from that position. He lost the title Lucifer and became Satan, God's adversary. You don't have to agree, but it's far from an uncommon point of view. I arrived at that conclusion just by reading those passages. I'd not heard it preached or taught by others.

 

[TheWhat?]

- wrong thread -

 

[Aussie Pete]

Genesis 1.



They believe man existed before man existed? That's clever.
God created animals and then created humans.



Agreed.



Lucifer was an angel and his name means "light" or maybe "light-bearer".
But he wanted to be greater than God, tried to overthrow him and got thrown out of heaven. All the angels who had joined in the rebellion were thrown out too.



I didn't even mention the fossil record.
Genesis 6 tells us that God sent the flood because the wickedness of the world had become too great - there were people already in the world, who had forgotten God and were sinning.
Jesus said that his return would be as it was in the days of Noah; people eating, drinking and practising wickedness and then judgement would come.

Before Adam and Eve fell, there was no sin in the world, therefore no need for a flood.



I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about Genesis.
Genesis 1 says that God created the universe, making animals and humans on the 6th day.
Genesis 3 says that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and then sin came into the world - Cain killed Abel, and the more people increased in numbers, the more sin grew, Genesis 6:5-6. God sent the flood because of all the sin on the earth.
This is the order of things in Genesis; creation, fall, flood. The flood was not before the fall because there was no sin to wipe out.

You miss my point. There is a time space between "in the beginning" and "formless and void". The original creation was wiped out. That is what the theory states. It is no less an acceptable interpretation than yours. You don't have to agree. All I'm saying is that it answers a lot of objections raised by those who have only heard the evolutionary tale

 

[Strong in Him]

You miss my point. There is a time space between "in the beginning" and "formless and void". The original creation was wiped out. That is what the theory states. It is no less an acceptable interpretation than yours. You don't have to agree. All I'm saying is that it answers a lot of objections raised by those who have only heard the evolutionary tale

The Bible doesn't talk of an original creation; that's what I'm saying.
According to Scripture, God created, man fell and humans, largely, continued in sinful, godless ways, God sent the flood to wipe out wickedness and start again with Noah and family.
If you think there is another interpretation that is more acceptable than Scripture; so be it.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Bible doesn't talk of an original creation; that's what I'm saying.
According to Scripture, God created, man fell and humans, largely, continued in sinful, godless ways, God sent the flood to wipe out wickedness and start again with Noah and family.
If you think there is another interpretation that is more acceptable than Scripture; so be it.

Scripture allows the interpretation of a pre-Adamic creation.

Isaiah 45:18
thus says the LORD,
who created the heavens—He is God;
He formed the earth and fashioned it;
He established it;
He did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited:

Yet the earth was formless and empty. Unless it was not that way in the beginning. "Was" can just as accurately be translated "became".

 

[The Liturgist]

Many people including me would disagree with you. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are talking about both earthly rulers and the mind behind them, Satan. Lucifer is NOT the proper name for the devil. He was the covering cherub and fell from that position. He lost the title Lucifer and became Satan, God's adversary. You don't have to agree, but it's far from an uncommon point of view. I arrived at that conclusion just by reading those passages. I'd not heard it preached or taught by others.

Yes, I am aware of that concept, and it has merit. I am only objecting to the use of the Latin word Lucifer, because Greek and Hebrew Bibles use different words, but the meaning is the same, “the morning star” or “son of the morning” or “bringer of dawn.” So using the Latin name is anachronistic, which is why recent translations of Scripture have stopped doing it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe the Flood corresponds to Socrates' account of the destruction of all advanced civilizations which exactly matches the date 11.5k years ago of the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. But besides dogs, we didn't domesticate livestock animals or cats until after the Younger-Dryas mass extinction. So the story of Cain and Able must refer to a time *after* the Flood.

11.5 thousand years ago there were no "advanced civilizations". The first human structures were only starting to be built at this time. And it would take thousands of years before the emergence of "civilization" among cultures who began living in cities clustered around major rivers. The earliest of these, that we know of, are the Sumerians whose civilization emerged about 6,000 years ago from the neolithic cultures that began to urbanize in Mesopotamia.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

Scripture allows the interpretation of a pre-Adamic creation.

Isaiah 45:18
thus says the LORD,
who created the heavens—He is God;
He formed the earth and fashioned it;
He established it;
He did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited:

Yet the earth was formless and empty. Unless it was not that way in the beginning. "Was" can just as accurately be translated "became".

Well we obviously see that Scripture differently because, to me, it suggests nothing of the kind.

God did not create the earth to be empty, no; Genesis 1 tells us that on the 6th day he made animals and humans.
He made the earth to be inhabited, means that he did not just make a planet of flowers and trees; he intended it to be filled with animal and human life. And it was - Genesis 1 tells us this.
In the beginning it had no life on it, not until God created. Man was created on the 6th day, so almost everything existed before we came along.

But that's not the same as saying that there was a flood before creation. Scripture says that the reason for the flood was sin; before mankind fell, there was no sin.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well we obviously see that Scripture differently because, to me, it suggests nothing of the kind.

God did not create the earth to be empty, no; Genesis 1 tells us that on the 6th day he made animals and humans.
He made the earth to be inhabited, means that he did not just make a planet of flowers and trees; he intended it to be filled with animal and human life. And it was - Genesis 1 tells us this.
In the beginning it had no life on it, not until God created. Man was created on the 6th day, so almost everything existed before we came along.

But that's not the same as saying that there was a flood before creation. Scripture says that the reason for the flood was sin; before mankind fell, there was no sin.

Of course. The idea this planet existed in any state not ultimately conducive its present human life-bearing condition for an unnecessarily protracted period of time is unbiblical and, to my, knowledge unscientific.

That said I do hope he gave us some planets of flowers and trees in accessible proximity to us with Project Orion-type propulsion systems (and when I say flowers, I mean pretty flowers that smell nice, are non-toxic and not causes of horrible allergies; I do not mean the poison-dart shooting flowers of doom from the original series of Star Trek, and likewise by trees, delicious edible fruit bearing Earth-like trees, not the carniverous arachnid-bearing nightmares of Dagobah, which were not fully realized as George Lucas realizes they were too frightening, but they are in the original pre-production artwork from The Empire Strikes Back) for purposes of easy space colonization. Because if we stop drinking the Elon Musk Kool-Aid for a moment, Mars is a lousy place to try and settle, objectively, and Venus is a burning, firery nightmare whose surface conditions are like those of a pressure cooker filled with sulphur dioxide, and which rotates on its axis at an intolerably slow speed.

 

[Mike Reynolds]

11.5 thousand years ago there were no "advanced civilizations". The first human structures were only starting to be built at this time. And it would take thousands of years before the emergence of "civilization" among cultures who began living in cities clustered around major rivers. The earliest of these, that we know of, are the Sumerians whose civilization emerged about 6,000 years ago from the neolithic cultures that began to urbanize in Mesopotamia.

-CryptoLutheran

Then why is older repair work on the Sphynx and Incan megalithic structures so much more sophisticated than the stonework of more recent repairs? Why are the 10K year old embossed images at Gobelki Tepe so much more advanced than the common rough-hewn standing stones so common 6,000 years ago? Stonehenge is artistic garbage compare to the far older Gobelki Tepe. Why are the pyramids of Giza on a giant stone platform that is clearly much older?

There are many thousands of completely unexplained and clearly more ancient megalithic architecture virtually all over the planet but especially in eastern Europe and the Middle East. Much more is certain to be lost under the ocean as sea levels rose 200 ft between 12K and 7K years ago.