An Earth Before Adam and Eve?

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by WhiteLioness, Jun 17, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. An Earth Before Adam and Eve?

    Genesis 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.

    God says to replenish the earth. How can you replenish something that has not been lost? Does this mean that there was an earth here before Adam and Eve? I wonder what happened and what was here before Adam and Eve or any of the animals?
  2. Nothing existed before the creation of Adam and Eve, the animals, and the Earth.

    Whe God meant "replenish" He could have met

    Fill and populate (replenish can also mean: to make full or complete again, as by supply what is lacking, used up, etc.)

    Instead of replenish as in fixing or making something new.


    My take on it
  3. I agree, I think it is just that in the English translating of the Word, we often dont have exactly the right word to substitute, so another less accurate word is used.
    I believe that the rest of scripture supports there being nothing before creation, others may disagree.
  4. I am not so sure - another concept of there may have been more is Cain's reluctance to leave the area in case 'they' attacked him. God put a mark on Cain to avoid that ... but who were they?
  5. There are many different views on this ranging from interesting to downright strange. The bible does not tell us everything but it does tell us what we need to know.
  6. There are theories as to what God did prior to creating the Earth as we know it and populating it with man and beasts. We do not need to know the full mind of God or what He has done prior to His creation of today's Earth and His plan of redeemption of man. He is Sovereign He alone is in control. Yes, curious mankind would like to have all the answers, yet God does not give them all to us. He gives us what we need to know and what He wants us to know.

    Churchmen of old contemplated how many angels would fit on the tip of a pin. Is there any revelance to that? Is there any need to know? No. Let us comtemplate on that which He has revealed to us in His holy word.
  7. I honestly feel that if there was a "pre-earth" there would have been more mention in scripture other than the word replenish.
    As for Cain worrying about "they" attacking him. We know that that Adam and Eve had more kids than Cain Able and Seth. How would you feel going to a group of people that you hadn't seen for years, and then they find out that you're a murderer. I would be a little scared myself I think.
  8. I think da_man gave a good answer to Purposeful_Life's question.

    I was reading about photographic book by Yan Arthus-Bertrand that I purchased, and on one page he commented:

    "The Bible rarely talks about horses, but the Qu'ran is full of mentionings of horses...."

    This is a good example of how the Bible is about the Word of God. There are a few tiny scriptures in the Bible that one would look over that describe the powerful nature of a horse, as one snorts and paws the ground ready for battle. The Qu'ran, however, was written in a land where horses were a prized possession, and where the breeding of Egyptian Arabian horses went on. So naturally, you will see mentionings of horses in the Qu'ran, but the Bible not so much. I wouldn't say that these people didn't care for horses, or any animal for that matter, but the Bible is God-breathed word, not a pretty quote book about some culture's favorite animal.

    So, you will not find much detail on what Cain meant when he said "they". Like da_man said, naturally it is Adam and Eve had more than just Cain and Abel.

  9. Where's Pastor Gary today? There's a lot of good questions being brought up.:)

    I'm often intrigued by teachings of the "Old Earth Age" and the evidence of it.
  10. The following are my personal opinions which I have tried carefully to base of scripture. I do not claim to be 100% correct nor do I disrespect anyone else's ideas.
    The ideas of a pre Adamic race are generally believed to have started with Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate around 363 AD although some credit this theory to a Mr. Isaac La Peyrère 1655.

    As far as replenish it is generally considered a mistranslation. I compared (not counting any King James) 24 translations and 19 disagreed with that translation and only 5 concurred.
    When you take in account the King James translations I compared 5 used replenish but the Modern King James and King James 2000 did not so there is disagreement on this translation but the majority of bible translators disagree with replenish by about 4 to 1 over replenish which is more commonly translated "fill".

    The New Testament scripture declares that Adam was indeed the first man:

    1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
    TheG3588 firstG4413 manG444 AdamG76
    Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.

    From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.

    Of Hebrew origin [H121]; Adam, the first man; typically (of Jesus) man (as his representative): - Adam.

    Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
    Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
    Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
    Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

    There was not a man to cultivate before Adam.

    Neither was there any compatible mate for Adam:
    Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    Eve was so named because she was the mother of all living.
    Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
    It seems that Adam was 130 years old at the time of Cain's fearful departure. Adam and Eve had plenty of time to raise a multi generational family so it would not really be hard to find a suitable spouse.

    Cain lived some 900 plus years so he had plenty of time to establish a community.
  11. Good Points Bo. And good job on backing it all up with SCRIPTURAL PROOF not the guessing of man.
  12. Thanks DM.:)
    I would however like to reiterate that I am not being disrespectful of any one else's views here.

  13. Agreed.:)
  14. Amen!

    This is where you either you believe in a literal 6 days of creation and on the seventh day the Lord rest. I do!
    Geneses 1:1-2
    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    I do not believe in the Gap theory and I do not think that scripture points to this nor varify's it.

    The gap theory—an idea with holes?

    First published:
    Creation 10(1):35–37
    December 1987
    Browse this issue

    by Henry M. Morris

    ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1).
    ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ (Genesis 1:2).

    Many people assume there is a great gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Most of these do this to accommodate the geological age system of billions of years of supposed earth history in the Genesis record of creation. The idea is something like this: billions of years ago God created the spacemass-time universe. Then the geological ages took place over billions of years of earth history. The different forms of life developed that are now preserved in the fossil record. These life-forms represent those ages - the invertebrates of the Cambrian Period, the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous Period ... finally the mammals, birds and ‘ape-men’ of the Tertiary Period - just before the recent epoch.

    Then the idea is that, at the end of these geological ages, a great cataclysm took place on earth, with Satan having rebelled in heaven and many of the angels following him in that rebellion. God, therefore, cast him to the earth, and the earth underwent a great cataclysm, leaving it finally without form and void, and with darkness on the face of the deep, as described in Genesis 1:2.

    Subsequently, according to this idea—usually known as the ‘gap’ theory—God then re-created or reconstituted the earth in the six literal days of creation recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. The argument for this theory makes verse two read, ‘The earth became without form and void’ (some would render it ‘The earth became waste and desolate’), as though it had previously been a beautiful world. But now, because of the cataclysm, it was a devastated remnant of a world, so that there was a change of condition. It became without form and void.

    ‘Was’ Means ‘Was’
    A significant problem with this idea is that the Hebrew word for ‘was’ really should be translated ‘was’. It should not be translated ‘became’. It is the Hebrew verb of being, hayah, and normally it is simply translated ‘was’. In all the standard translations of the Old Testament, that is the way this verse is rendered. On some occasions, in an unusual situation if the context requires it, the word can be translated ‘became’. There are some instances like that in the Old Testament.

    By far the tremendous majority of times, however, when the verb is used, it is simply translated ‘was’. In the absence of any indication in the immediate context that it should be rendered by a change of state, where it became something which it wasn’t, one would normally assume it was simply a declarative statement describing how the situation existed at the time. The earth was, in response to God’s creative fiat, initially without form and void.

    Some people use Isaiah 45:18 as an argument for the use of ‘became’ in Genesis 1:2. In this verse, Isaiah says that God created the earth not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. The word ‘in vain’ is the same as tohu; that is, the same word translated ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2. So ‘gap’ theorists say that since God did not create it that way, it must have become that way. But again, the context is significant. In Isaiah, the context requires the use of the translation ‘in vain’. That is, God did not create the earth without a purpose; He created it to be inhabited. Genesis 1 tells us then how He brought form to the unformed earth and inhabitants to the empty earth. It was not really finished until He said so at the end of the six days of creation.

    The word tohu is actually translated 10 different ways in about 20 occurrences in the Old Testament. Isaiah 45:19 has the same word, and there it has to be translated ‘vainly’ or ‘in vain’. It is also proper to translate it that way in Isaiah 45:18. It depends on the context as to how it is to be precisely translated. In Genesis 1:2 the context simply indicates the earth had no structure as yet. It was unformed; it was not even spherical at that point, but was comprised of only the basic elements of earth material.

    Furthermore, it is important to note that the verse begins with the conjunction, ‘and’ (Hebrew waw), and this same conjunction introduces every single verse of the first chapter of Genesis, so there is a sequence of actions implied. There was this happening, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this … each following directly upon the other. When it said that God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, the implication is that this was immediately following the creation.

    Another argument of those who advocate the ‘gap’ theory is that the word ‘darkness’ suggests that something is wrong with the creation. But Isaiah 45:7 says that God created the darkness. In order for there to be day and night, which was necessary for the further activity of God and man upon the earth, there must be day and night. So God actually had to create darkness. Thus there is nothing implicitly wrong with it being dark. God created it that way. Darkness later came to represent, in some contexts, a symbol of evil—as opposed to light—since ‘God is light and in Him is no darkness at all’ (1 John 1:5). But in the context here there is no evil connotation suggested.

    On the other hand, there are many overwhelming difficulties with the ‘gap’ theory, and we really should not accept this as the interpretation of Genesis 1:2. The idea that the geological ages took place in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is precluded by the plain biblical statement in the Ten Commandments, where God said, ‘In six days, the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is’ (Exodus 20:11). That is, He was telling man that he must work six days and rest one day because God worked six days and rested one day. The context goes on to say that everything in heaven and earth and in the sea was made in six days. There could have been nothing left over that was not made during the six days.

    The ‘gap’ theory, on the other hand, would require that only the surface of the earth was reconstituted in the six days. The earth’s core, the basic structure, the great fossil beds containing the remnants of the dinosaurs, and so on, all of this would predate the six days of Creation. But God says specifically that everything in the earth and in the heavens and in the sea was made in the six days.

    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.

    Scientifically, it won’t work either, because the whole essence of the geological age system, which some people try to accommodate by the ‘gap’ theory, is based on what geologists call ‘uniformitarianism’ that is, the continuity of processes in the ancient world with those in the modern world. The very structure of the geological age system is based on the assumption that present rates and processes are the same as those that took place in the past. There is no room for a world-wide cataclysm interrupting those processes in the system of the geological ages.

    That is why no geologist would ever accept the ‘gap’ theory. In order to have a world-wide cataclysm that would destroy all the pre-cataclysm mountains and cast them into the sea, so that there was the deep everywhere, and then blow billions of tons of debris up into the sky so that there was darkness over the deep everywhere, as Genesis 1:2 describes it, it would have to be a world-wide nuclear explosion, or volcanic explosion, or something which would literally disintegrate the crust of the earth where the fossils and the sedimentary rocks are that identify the geological ages. So the ‘gap’ theory would destroy the evidence for the geological ages in order to accommodate them! It is a self-negating theory scientifically; it creates overwhelming scientific problems. No geologist would ever accept the ‘gap’ theory.

    Therefore, we have to reject the ‘gap’ theory as an interpretation of Genesis 1:2. We can be confident that a simple and straightforward, literal interpretation of the biblical record will satisfy all the real facts of geology.
  15. daniel gives you an insight.evening then morning version.:)
  16. My church believe in beings that populated the earth before the re-creation of earth... COuld be... Sounds interesting to me ...

    However, these and many other ideas, like angels or demons that sleeped with women in Noahs day,:confused: are OK as long as we do not continually loose our focus on the basics of our walk with the Lord...Distraction is one of the ploys ofthe enemy:(
  17. Pre Adamic Race?

    I hereby vote in to the belief, of the existance of a pre-Adamic race.
    Bible Verse 1: "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." I can boldly tell anybody that God never did any piece of work and it was without form, and void; -and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Enough suggestion to mean that God never made it so. Did He? Between verse one and two, alot has been omitted. Why? God did not rate that edible for us. And who wants to engage to explore on that? God has not approved it. How does He approve? He gives progressive tips to more and deeper knowledge. There's alot we will occupy ourselves with once in Heaven, to know about God. Don't you think so?
  18. Interesting point,

    But I have 2 theories... :

    Genesis 1:26
    Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    I beleve God Mad mankind in general which populated the earth... Or at least that region in Africa...or Asia

    1. Genesis 1:27
      So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
    Then in Chapter 2 is a particular man He placed in the Garden of God He named Adam...

    1. Genesis 2:7
      And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
    2. Genesis 2:8
      [ Life in God’s Garden ] The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
    3. Genesis 2:15
      Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
    The garden is a special place of God. The first chapter does not mention he breathed unto any creature including man...

    But if He had it would have been to me like oxegen, which is needed for all creatures...

    I feel the BREATH God speaks here is His Holy Spirit as when the Spirit landed on Jesus at His babtism... Adam was given I feel Gods Holy Spirit like Christ was. But didnot use Him for strength against the temptations of satan like Christ did in the wilderness.
  19. Charles, You said:

    You tell me! Is the scripture wrong?
  20. Pre Adamic Race?

    It is very correct. Nothing is wrong at all please. God sincerely cannot be so low to be wrong. But God who knows what the beginning is since He doesn't have a Beginning, called that the beginning. Let it be the beginning.
    But if you look at this carefully, the Bible doesn't say that in the beginning the Earth was without form. It doesn't. Let us not drive God to formlessness in Verse2. What only it says about the beginning is that God created the earth. And you and me knowing God the much we do. Are the things in the spirit formless? For instance He called a goat, a cow, from the spirit. You will agree He did not rectify any formlessness in them since it wasn't there. I however do not disapprove anybody at all. Expressed previously to which Remnant has reacted on is my very own feel, which is abit very private. I invite your feels, even as I would like to discuss what God has revealed for us.

    (I must however insist that the FIRST Man God created is Adam, and what could have existed previously is nothing we need to be curious about. Lets free ourselves.)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page