10 Things in the BIBLE that cannot be explained without the PRE-ADAMIC RACE GAP THEORY

Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

1. Where lost souls come from?

2. Where the demons come from?

3. When did Satan fall from the Heavens?

4. How did 1/3 of the angels fall with Satan?

5. Why do the Bible tells us TWO creation stories?

6. Why was earth created staples and void (this brings to perspective flat earth vs a globe as well)?

7. Why do the Bible tells us TWO flood narratives?

8. Age of earth?

9. The disappearing of the dinosaucers and why where no dinosaucers in Noah’s ark?

10. The whole doctrine of Original sin and its coming into man’s flesh?

Just try to explain the above without pre-Adamic race GAP theory and you will see for yourself…


Ricky Grimsley I would disagree with 1,2 and 4.
Peter Fiske I can’t find any common ground with what you’re proposing.
Troy Day Ricky Grimsley they are all connected
Gerardo de Dominicis Dinosaurs = 🦕 🦖 Dinosaucers = was a tv show for kids in the 80’s.
Peter Fiske When someone thinks about dinosaurs, millions of years ultimately comes to mind because our culture has been so brainwashed by evolutionary thinking, which supposed deep-time is, and why people erroneously think dinosaurs died out 60 million years ago before our supposed ape-like ancestors evolved some 5 million supposed years ago. And that’s why some well-meaning (and some not so well-meaning but malicious false teachers like the late Finis Dake) but theologically stunted apologists , have tried to compromise the Bible with millions of years false teaching. Dinosaurs Aren’t a problem for scripture, when one considers that Job 40 talks about a large sauropod dinosaur [https://answersingenesis.org/…/could-behemoth-have…/] that dragon legends from aronund the world correspond with what we would call dinosaurs.
Tim Law I always tell the Theistic evolution group if you believe in death before Adam then who sinned before Adam. Death, sickness, and disease are all a result of the fall of Adam.
Peter Fiske Romans 5:12 , and it also contradicts a supposed Gap in Genesis 1:2 because if there were millions of years before Adam , some pre adamic race falling because of sin, that would put sin before Adam and Eve as well and would contradict the scriptures.
Ricky Grimsley So Lucifer’s fall did nothing?
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, Lucifer fell in the Garden of Eden , wickedness was found in him (in Eden, Ezekiel 28:13-15) and in turn he tempted Adam and Eve to rebel against God’s command.
Ricky Grimsley Wickedness from where?
Ricky Grimsley Ezekiel gives a list of sins.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Nowhere does it say that Lucifer fell in the Garden of Eden, but from the mount of God.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, yes it does, read Ezekiel 28:13-15.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, wickedness was found in the heart of Lucifer , so tell me, Ezekiel 28:13-15 tells us that Lucifer was in Eden when sin/iniquity was found in him. How then could Lucifer fall before the Garden of Eden was created if he was still a good angel in the Garden of Eden as Ezekiel 28:13 tells us?
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, the *mount of God* is a reference to heaven, and the event of Lucifer’s fall is also told in Isaiah 14 in more detail. Need to get your nose out of the Dake Bible!
Ricky Grimsley It doesn’t say where Lucifer was when he sinned.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske No it doesn’t say he fell while in the garden of Eden, but fell while in heaven.  Get it straight.
Gary Micheal Epping Jesus tells his disciples in Luke 10:18, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”
Ricky Grimsley Again. He still has access to heaven.
Gary Micheal Epping Ricky Grimsley Yes he did as satan. I was just trying to establish when Lucifer sinned and was thrown out of heaven and was transformed into satan.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, and of course Jesus would have seen Lucifer fall, since Jesus is God the Son, it is he who banished Lucifer and his demons from heaven, to take temporary control over the Earth.
Gary Micheal Epping Thomas henry Jr if nothing caused the world to be void then why is verse two there? Why did moses not leave it out?
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  it shows a God started with a lump of clay and molded it to fit mankind. We weren’t a part 2 to a failed creation sandwich between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
Peter Fiske Thomas, Gappists are blinded by Satanic false doctrine, I had no idea that this unscriptural Genesis compromise held such Sway in the minds of it’s deluded adherence like Gary Micheal Epping.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, not a blessed thing caused the world to become void, because there was no pre-adamic world where Lucifer was judged and the dinosaurs and soulless cavemen were allegedly  destroyed by some mythical event called Lucifer’s flood. That’s extraneous rubbish added to scripture by Genesis compromising false teachers, of which Dake is perhaps the most famous.
Thomas Henry Jr. Peter Fiske  i am more shocked that “spirit-filled” Christians believe this heresy
Peter Fiske Thomas, read 2 Timothy 4:3-4.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/…
Ricky Grimsley Thomas Henry Jr. I’m shocked that people want to you words like heresy and isolate most of the world because they want to believe science lies.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, as a science instructor, I’m shocked that you are so gullible as to conflate real science with evolutionary thinking, which is just a philosophical interpretation. Science has nothing to do with millions of years, and our starting place should be solid foundation of scripture, not the cracked foundation of materialistic evolutionary thinking.
Ricky Grimsley Look. I have my opinion and you have yours. Do you think the earth has corners?
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, opinions are like rear ends, everyone has one. Opinions backed up by objective facts are what matters, and there are no objective facts that prove the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that life evolved from nonliving chemicals by any naturalistic or supposed theistic guided process. You need to wrap your head around that objective truth before we can have an intelligent conversation.
Ricky Grimsley My objective truth is the Bible is true but the stars are really far away. Adam wouldn’t even have seen any stars.
Ricky Grimsley Anyway. You can’t change my mind on this.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, you can’t tell me that you don’t cling to Dake, that he hasn’t been a significant influence on your erroneous view of Genesis!?
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley,((My objective truth is the Bible))While on the surface that sounds quite agreeable and reasonable, it’s actually doesn’t mean the same thing when I say that. The Bible doesn’t teach that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. There’s no need for that much time unless one wants to corkscrew evolutionary thinking into Genesis for the nefarious purpose of altering! the context of the first 11 chapters. That’s what false prophets do
Ricky Grimsley No one is altering any texts. I believe that in genesis 1:1 God created the earth and by 1:2 it had been destroyed and God is remaking the earth 6000 thousand years ago.
Thomas Henry Jr. All of those can be proven without the gap theory
Peter Fiske Well, I’m a science instructor graduate in physics education with an undergraduate in mechanical engineering, and in my ears of studying science in college and just for fun, there isn’t a substantial and foolproof line of evidence to prove that the Earth is supposedly 4.6 billion years old. The only reason we need deep time is too find room for millions of years and evolution to have occurred period without deep time, no evolution, and without evolution, we must have been intelligently and purposefully created by a Creator God. So it is a profound mystery to me why some self-professed Christians have to try to use such ridiculous false ideas as a non-existent “gap” in Genesis to try to appease secular scientists.
Thomas Henry Jr. Peter Fiske  i am shocked any Christian believe in it when Scripture says there is no DEATH until Adam
Ricky Grimsley No death of humans. But death was planned for otherwise there wouldn’t have been a free of life that Adam and ever were banished from?  Didn’t God do the first killing?
Troy Day Peter Fiske PE is not PT 🙂 Thomas Henry Jr. you must be reading NLT Romans 5:12 through one man not through Adam
Thomas Henry Jr. Adam is the man
Peter Fiske Troy Day, the Greek word for man in Romans 5:12 is “anthropos” (where we get the term anthropomorphic).https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm…The Hebrew word for men in Genesis 1:26 is “A’dam” ( where we get the name of Adam, the first man from). https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm…The representative man that Romans 5:12 talks about is the first man, Adam, not some soulless pre-Adamite caveman that Dake dreamt up out of nowhere.
Troy Day Thomas Henry Jr. Come on Prove them When did Satan fall on earth?
Thomas Henry Jr. After 6 day
Troy Day Says where in the BIBLE?
Thomas Henry Jr. He is called Lucifer and walked in the garden on the 6th day the fact God says there is no sin in the world
Troy Day Says where in the BIBLE?
Gary Micheal Epping Clearly Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, “And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years  (REV20:2).”Satan was already a liar and sinner when he came to Eve. “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (GEN 2:16-17).’” “But the serpent said to the woman, “You will NOT surely die.” So, Satan was a liar, and already a fallen being with sin existing before the fall of Adam and Eve. But, that was not his first sin.
Troy Day Not just being a being of a fallen kind but he was there with the purposes to make other creations fall like he did – meaning a well established plan to undermine the authority of God
Peter Fiske Troy Day,  Ezekiel 28:13-15,  Lucifer was in the Garden of Eden until inquity was found in him.  Eden was created during Creation Week (Genesis 1:1-31),  so sometime between then and Genesis 3, when the events of the fall of Adam occurred. Genesis 4:25 tells us that Adam was 130 and Seth was born as a replacement for Abel. So one can infer that Adam and Eve were in the Garden for approximately 100 years.
Thomas Henry Jr. Peter Fiske  right!!!!!!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Seth was not born in the garden of Eden.  Scripture says that only Adam and Eve were  thrown out of the garden after they sinned.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  he never said Seth was
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, reread what I said, and then reread Genesis 4:25. I didn’t say if they were in the Garden when Seth was born, I said that Adam was 130 and Seth was born, and it’s very likely that some of the events told about in Genesis 3 occurred within a 10 to 20-year time frame before the birth of Seth and after the Fall from Grace.
Thomas Henry Jr. Peter Fiske  right and even Jewish scholars and Rabbis teach the same.
Peter Fiske Thomas Henry Jr. Yep👌👍.
Troy Day hey Thomas and Peter Fiske  enough with the folklore stories Here is what the BIBLE says  Ezekiel 28  You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. …. So I threw you to the earthThere was plenty of time from the day lucifer was created and the point when he was degraded from heaven to earth
Thomas Henry Jr. I didn’t give folklore
Ricky Grimsley Except for his sin required people. Ezekiel 28:16 KJVS[16] By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Peter Fiske Troy, Ezekiel 28:13-15 (NIV)”13.  YOU WERE IN EDEN, THE GARDEN OF GOD:every precious stone adorned you:carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,topaz, onyx and jasper,lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.bYour settings and mountingscwere made of gold;on the day you were created they were prepared.14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,for so I ordained you.You were on the holy mount of God;you walked among the fiery stones.15 You were blameless in your waysfrom the day you were createdtill wickedness was found in you.”http://biblehub.com/niv/ezekiel/28.htm
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, the KJV has confusing verbiage because it is 400 years old and the English language has changed considerably 400 years.https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/kjvwords.htmlYou’re not any less holy for using a modern translation!
Ricky Grimsley Peter Fiske I read the esv now.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, good for you, as long as you do it without any of the Dake commentaries, you’ll be fine.
Ricky Grimsley I have moved on from most of Dake’s teachings.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Love it or not, “The King James Bible—the bestselling book of all time, the most quoted book in the English language—is celebrating its 400th anniversary this year.” Hard to argue with success.   (https://www.wsj.com/…/SB1000142405311190391810457650278…)
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping , it isn’t about the KJV being the most prolific and best selling Bible in 400 years, in fact the 400-year age of the KJV illustrates my point. The fact that Dake, and other false prophets use KJV, and the biblical illiterates that follow them, indicates a pathetic lack of in context truthful knowledge of biblical doctrine among too many who called themselves ‘Christian.’First of all, which KJV are you referring to? The KJV 1, the 1611 manuscript, had to be significantly revised in 1769 at both Cambridge and Oxford Universities. The reason? The English language has significantly changed in the 158  years between 1611 and 1769! https://rickbeckman.org/log/kjv-1611-vs-1769/Therefore, the Bible that we call the AV (Authorized Version) KJV is either the Cambridge or the Oxford revision of the 1611 original manuscript.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske You don’t need to use the KJV to make a case for a time before Gen 1:2.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, ((You don’t need to use the KJV to make a case for a time before Gen 1:2))Using the KJV makes it a lot easier to make mistakes since the language used is 400 year old English prose, which most people nowadays short of Shakespearean literature professors, aren’t proficient in.https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/kjvwords.html
Ricky Grimsley Demons can come from genesis 6. You don’t need oldEarth for that.
Gary Micheal Epping I am assuming you are referring to demons as fallen angels. if so, then they fell when Lucifer fell.
Ricky Grimsley Demons are not fallen angels
Gary Micheal Epping Ricky Grimsley What are they then?
Ricky Grimsley They are the spirits of the  offspring of the fallen angels and people   Perhaps some are the souls of people that lived before adam. If they existed
Gary Micheal Epping Ricky Grimsley Some believe that Rev. 12:4 is a reference to a third of the angels falling and becoming demons.
Ricky Grimsley I don’t think rev 12:4 has happened yet. Satan and his angels have still had access to the heavenlies this whole time. He accuses the brethren and also the passages in Job.
Gary Micheal Epping Ricky Grimsley Jesus tells his disciples in Luke 10:18, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” So, it could not be later in the Tribulation period.  It had to be before the time of Christ, and there is no reference the event happening between Genesis and the time of Christ. So, it had to happen prior to the tempting of Adam and Eve.
Ricky Grimsley Well he was back in heaven by the time of job. Also it says he accuses the brethren day and night.
Gary Micheal Epping Ricky Grimsley Yes that is true. I was trying to make reference to the time when Lucifer was thrown out of heaven to the ground as satan.
Troy Day except Ricky Grimsley demons were already present in Gen 6 so  they cant come from Gen 6 if they were already there
Ricky Grimsley Where does it say there were demons already?
Troy Day Are you saying there were no demons before Gen 6?
Ricky Grimsley Sure it’s possible but I don’t know that’s it possible to prove. You have to presuppose a pre-Adamou world and assume that whoever followed Satan became demons. There isn’t really proof of that is there?
Peter Fiske Troy Day, Genesis 6 doesn’t prove a pre-adamite world, in fact in Ezekiel  28:13-15 tells us that Lucifer was a good angel in the Garden of Eden until wickedness was found in him. You have to stick to God’s word minus Dake’s heretical commentaries.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, which was after Creation Week, while Lucifer was still a good angel (Ezekiel 28:13) in the Garden of Eden.
Peter Fiske You don’t need an old Earth for anything, other than to compromise the literal canon of Genesis 1 with fallacious and heretical evolutionary ideas of millions of years in a mythical gap.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske But science overwhelmingly says old, even though you disagree.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, you provide no evidence, all you do is spew out naked assertions and subjective talking points. That’s hardly the practice of a scholar who’s trying to make a case for particular point of view. I used to be an evolutionist, and it was hearing the damn the damnable Gap Theory, taught out of the heretical Dake Bible, that literally destroyed whatever confidence I had as a young spiritual truth-seeker in investigating biblical Christianity. So it doesn’t matter what the consensus opinion of the academic establishment, which is left-leaning and its politics and Godless and their worldview says, the science as I have shown doesn’t support suppose deep-time. I can see that you have no idea as to how to defend against what I’m saying from a scientific perspective, that’s okay, not everyone has to be a scientist. But let’s see you at least try to post a scientific case for millions of years from a non Darwinian, christian-based source. Hugh Ross would even do! I love dismantling Hugh Ross’s arguments.
Ricky Grimsley Don’t worry Peter Fiske, Dake will hug you when you get to heaven and say “I told you so”.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, unless he repented of misleading hundreds if not thousands of unsuspecting folks with Satanic false doctrine before he died in 1986, Finis Dake is in hell!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Your scientific perspective doesn’t match up with what most scientists say. Overwhelmingly, scientists say, the earth is very very old, with Stephen Hawking stating, “Any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God.” (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html). He added, ‘The human race has existed as a separate species for about two million years. Civilisation began about ten thousand years ago, and the rate of development has been steadily increasing,” with the universe dated at 14.B years old.
Ricky Grimsley I would take you more seriously if you could refrain from calling us satanic because we believe in science. Or like we believe in normal things like the adam wouldn’t even see any stars when was created cause the light wasn’t visible.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (NIV) states as follows:”For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”Remember that signature verse as I go down the line! You seem to want to defer to non-Christian evolutionist (like the late Stephen Hawking) sources to try to prove the unbiblical idea of supposed deep-time or billions of years. How beautiful you are! Going to an anti-christian source Who doesn’t even think that there is a Creator, let alone the God of the Bible! You have resorted to Desperate Measures to try to maintain an air of credibility for your late Gap-Myth false teacher guru, Finis Dake. He’s on the same level as Hawking, in that he also, perhaps unwittingly as well, worked for Satan to spread false doctrine among the low information members  of the Body of Christ.Stephen Hawking worked on black holes, and he wrote a book called ‘The Grand Design’, in which he sprinkled his atheistic philosophy based on Evolution and millions of years into some of it his physics work on the quantum mechanical workings of the inside of of black holes.”Atheistic faith masquerading as science:As usual with atheistic scientists, Hawking’s atheopathy long predated his science. His influential mother Isabel was a Communist, and in his teen years he admired the strongly anti-Christian mathematical philosopher Bertrand Russell.”https://creation.com/stephen-hawking-god
Ricky Grimsley The old “ your gonna burn in hell if you don’t agree with me” argument……it used to work.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, ((if you could refrain from calling us satanic because we believe in science))Funny you should say that to a science instructor who used to being evolutionist. That what you call science isn’t science, but a theistic philosophy masquerading as science. There is no scientific evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, no objective foolproof scientific method exists for making that claim! Radiometric dating techniques start with flawed assumptions and have problems attached to them.What’s worse is that your putting your face in the unbiblical, and non scientific idea of billions of supposed years of deep time instead of listening to the Word of God, when it clearly implies that the Earth is less than 10,000 calendar years old.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, IDK what you’re talking about. I can’t determine anyone’s salvation any more than you or any other human being can. The blood of Jesus Christ, and our surrender in terms of repentance of our sins to that sacrifice determines our salvation, nothing else. Having said that though, for self-professed believers to cling to materialistic ideas about the age of the Earth in order to try to save the reputation of a single false teacher, Finis Jennings Dake, pretty pathetic.
Ricky Grimsley When you use words like heresy and saying people are having itching ears and all that……I know what you mean.
Peter Fiske Ricky, you should read 2 Timothy 4:3-4, those folks that fanatically cling to date and the unbiblical Gap myth are those type of folks, willing to surround themselves with false teachers that will tell them anything they want to hear.
Troy Day Ricky Grimsley seems like Peter Fiske has a much larger fish to fry. He still cant point in the Bible where satan was fallen. The only option is flood of lucifer and the tohu-va-bohu destruction in Gen 1:2
Peter Fiske Ezekiel 28:13-15, Satan fell in the garden of Eden, after Creation Week…https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/…”Unformed and Void” (tohu vav bohu in Hebrew) is in the disjunctive form, and doesn’t describe a state of becoming from a previous state of fullness, but as part of a creative process from nothing (ex nihilo)…  https://creation.com/an-atypical-atheist-plus-just-how…
Link Hudson I don’t see a problem with a gap theory.  And if you aren’t talking about life on earth before the earth was without form and void, I don’t see why a gap is a big issue.  But the title is not true.  There is a historical non-gap explanation for where demons came from, along the lines of the book fo Enoch.  Tertullian said demons were fallen angels and their children.I am not sure what the lost souls issue.  If the gap theory is not true, that doesn’t mean no souls are lost.  Why would two creation stories point to the gap theory?  Are we talking about the two accounts of the creation of man?  What does that have to do with the gap theory?  Again, there is an alternative theory, that God made lots of men and women, but He made one named Adam who had the breath of life in him, that Eve, created from her, had the breath of life in her, which would explain why Adam called her the mother of all living.  But they did die.  Maybe Adam did not realize he was dead when he named Eve, or maybe he was thinking of the seed promise.
Peter Fiske But you should see a problem with The Gap Theory because it isn’t found in Genesis 1, nor in Jeremiah 4, or any other place in the 39 books of the Old Testament and  27 books of the New Testament that Genesis compromisers, like the late Finis Dake, try to insert one.The Gap myth was invented by compromising Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers in the early 19th century in order to try to make the Bible fit with emerging evolutionary ideas of supposed millions of years.https://answersingenesis.org/…/exposing-a-fundamental…/There is a personal side note to this for me, since I heard the Gap Theory as a teenager and immediately recognized that it was an attempt to make Genesis and the Bible fit with evolutionary ideas of millions of supposed years. I left any possibility of winning me to Christ, and for 15 years I wandered in the wilderness of the world, making destructive decisions until I got saved and 30. During that whole time frame, I believed that I was nothing but a highly evolved animal and that there was no Heaven or Hell or any biblical truth whatsoever. The Gap theory is what led me into that destructive path way, and that’s why the Gap Theory must be opposed and destroyed from any vestige of biblical thinking.
Troy Day Well Link Hudson there is no other way to explain the fall of Lucifer in the whole Bible except with a gap in the story
Peter Fiske That’s not true Troy, we can explain the fall of Lucifer just fine if one just reads Ezekiel 28:13-15 in context. Not the out of context, false teachings of the Dake Bible, which pushes the unbiblical Gap Theory!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske  The thing is ez 28:17 says, ” I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you.” There is no reference in Genesis of any kings gazing at the fallen angel. This is in reference to to a time before Gen 1:2.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping,  why the king of Tyre is cross referenced in Ezekiel 28 with Lucifer.”However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12–13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).”https://www.gotquestions.org/King-of-Tyre.html
Link Hudson Why not?  You could say Lucifer fell the day Adam was created.  The Muslims may have got their theory from somewhere else after all.  I don’t know the day they think Satan rebelled, but in their story, he refused to worship (or bow down to?) Adam because he only wanted to do so toward God.  Their story paints Satan in a sympathetic light, which sip retty interesting considering.  But it does show that people can invent altnerate theories quite easily.  When you say that there is no other way to explain, people can easily come up with alternate theories, and in many cases there are old established theories to the contrary.
Peter Fiske Except that Adam was created perfect, and if one reads Genesis 1 and 2, God proclaims his creation is good. It wasn’t until sometime after Creation Week that Lucifer was so enamored by his own power and beauty, that wickedness was found in him. If one reads Ezekiel 28:13-15, and then the parallel chapter and Isaiah 14, you get a clear picture of how Lucifer fell, how we get demons, and the origin of evil.
Peter Fiske We don’t care what the Qu’ran teaches about Satan, since it’s a false religious text of a false and pagan religion. There is no specific time given for when Lucifer fell during the time Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. Like so much of that genre of biblical literature, a lot is left out in terms of details, and therefore theologians and historians have had to do a lot of inferring based on in context exegesis of given scripture. Since Adam was 130 when Seth was born (Genesis 4:25) and that Seth was given as a replacement for Abel (Genesis 5:2-3). So we know that the first murder recorded in scripture happened before Adam turned 130. We also know that in accordance with Genesis 3, the fall of Adam and Eve happened after iniquity or evil was found in the heart of Lucifer Ezekiel 28:15. We also know that this happened after the fact of Lucifer being the anointed cherub in the Garden of Eden as recorded in Ezekiel 28:13. So what we see here is a timeline of events that happened between the 6th day of Creation in Creation Week (Genesis 1:1-31) until the fall of Adam and Eve, or tempted by Satan who either took the form of a serpent, or possessed a serpent to speak through it. Those events happened in Genesis 3. The inference that we take away from Genesis 425 is that all of these events occurred before Adam was 130! Therefore it’s logical to conclude that this sequence of events occurred within a hundred years of Creation Week. This has profound theological ramifications since Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 describe a time before Genesis 3 but after Genesis 1!
Troy Day Because as Ezek. says posted above he was already there in the garden when Adam was created. Read above first
Peter Fiske Of course Lucifer was in the Garden of Eden, and as verse 13 of chapter 28  tells us in the Book of Ezekiel, Lucifer was still a good angel before in verse 15 iniquity or wickedness was found in him. Either you have a fundamental misunderstanding of scripture here, or you’re deliberately bending the word of God, I don’t know which!
Link Hudson Troy Day That leaves 5 days beforehand to fall.  I am not saying that is a great explanation, but if your position is NO alternative explanation, it’s hardly defensible.Could there be a heavenly Eden like the heavenly temple in Hebrews?Btw, equating Lucifer with Satan is also tradition, very strongly established in Christianity.  Is the Biblical connection really clear?Btw, the first reference I have found to the Hebrew word for Satan is in the passage where the angel opposes Balaam.  And I mean first in terms of order of Protestant Bibles, not that the Balaam account necessarily was written before Job.
Peter Fiske ((equating Lucifer with Satan is also tradition))No it sound theology, as Ezekiel 28 describes that Lucifer was a good angel in the Garden of Eden until iniquity or wickedness was found in him. This was the basis for him tempting Adam and Eve, and causing send to be brought into the world through the disobedience of Adam. (Romans 5:12).
Link Hudson Peter Fiske how many angels fell?
Peter Fiske Link Hudson, Hebrews 12:22 tells us that 1/3 of the angels fell with Lucifer.https://www.gotquestions.org/one-third-angels.html
Link Hudson Peter Fiske Okay, so out of all the angels that fell, why would Lucifer have to be Satan?
Link Hudson Also, this passage is against the king of Tyre.  The passage says he is a man.  What do you think of taking the part about Eden, the pipes, etc. as spiritual, metaphorical language about a real human king, instead of taking the part about a human king as somehow allegorical for Satan?  Do you see the issue with taking a passage about a king and saying it is about Satan when it isn’t explicit and other passages do not do it?Taking this passage about Lucifer as being about Satan rests largely on Jewish and Christian tradition.  I am not saying the tradition is wrong, but how can you prove the assumption exegetically?
Peter Fiske Link Hudson, it is commonly understood by biblical Scholars and laypersons alike that Lucifer and Satan are the same being. Lucifer simply means ”lightbearer” [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lucifer], while Satan means ” adversary”. https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/satan/Hebrew Scholar Dr Doug Hamp: “When Did Satan Fall? The Angelic Domain – Before Genesis 1:1 or After? Gap Theory Refuted”…https://youtu.be/f1p0so5jVw4
Link Hudson Peter Fiske commonly understood…but is it taught in scripture?
Peter Fiske Yes it is Link Hudson, why don’t you read the links that I posted and listen to the video as well.
Peter Fiske Link Hudson: (( of all the angels that fell, why would Lucifer have to be Satan))Well, if you read Ezekiel 28:13-15 you will see that Lucifer was indeed in the Garden of Eden, that he was the anointed cherub of the Garden of Eden, which means he was very likely an archangel like the archangel Michael. The idea that Lucifer isn’t Satan is a relatively recent phenomenon in compromise theology, and it’s easily refuted with an in-depth, and in context comparative Bible study.
Gary Micheal Epping According to many scientific dating methods, this planet earth is many millions of years old. However, from biblical chronology we can calculate that the span of time from the creation of Adam and Eve to the present is about 6,000 years.  As a result, most people who believe the Bible is divinely inspired are divided into two main groups based on their explanation for the apparent contradiction.               The “young earth creationist” group generally believes that all of God’s creation took place only 6,000 years ago. Many of them believe that God made things to appear to be older but that one must believe in a 6,000-year-old earth if he or she believes that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.The  “old earth creationist” group believes the Bible allows for a long time interval between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1, “The earth was without form, and void.”                                                                               Both groups have a large group of followers, and their positions are credible and different views on the creation story.  A recent gallup poll (http://news.gallup.com/…/belief-creationist-view-humans…) shows  young earth creationism ties for the leading view, along with the old earth view that an ancient process was guided by a divine hand.   In addition, the AOG (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/…/ejonline_201002…) finds that Young Earth Creationism has approximately 35 percent of faculty and students at Assemblies of God institutions of higher learning embrace this view.  Old Earth Creationist has approximately 31 percent of students and faculty at Assemblies of God colleges and universities Assemblies of God hold this view. Evolutionary Creationist has about 16 percent of faculty and students at Assemblies of God schools hold this view.  These results show that a OEC for pentecostals is a valid and highly held option about creation,   which follows the guidelines of the Scofield Bible, Dake Bible, and other guidelines.  Just because YEC proponents on this thread do not like OEC stance does not alter the fact it is a position that aligns with the belief that the heavens and earth are billions of years old.
Peter Fiske Gary,  I teach a course on geophysics, and we include the radiometric dating processes in that particular chapter. There are approximately 19 techniques, including radiocarbon dating, which are all similar in the way they work. The problem is that your assumptions must be altered in order to assume that the results always worked correctly. Radiometric dating is based on ratios between parent and daughter elements. Certain ratio rates are known, and are measured in what we call the half life of a substance. For example the half life of carbon 14 is 5,750 years. This means that it takes that long for a particular parent substance like carbon 14 to deteriorate into 50% of its daughter substance, in this case carbon 12. The problem with this line of thinking is simple, one is assuming and isolated system and where these decay ratios can perfectly manifest them self. Nature doesn’t work in a picture perfect way like that, since everything in nature is an open thermodynamic system, which literally means that energy and matter can flow through a control volume, in this case a mineralized specimen that is dated buy a particular radiometric dating technique. With the flow of water and or heat, parent elements can be washed out of a particular specimen that makes the entire ratio look older than it is. These skewed results are why radiometric dating isn’t a exact science, and is only taught to undergraduate science students as gospel truth in order to push the evolutionary idea of deep time or millions of years.http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.htmlConsidering the rest of your post, it isn’t a stretch to say that you really have little to no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to radiometric dating, and even worse, your bending the scriptural age of the Earth, which is the literal teaching of God’s Word that the Earth is only thousands of years old, to the unproven and questionable ideas of secular fundamentalists who don’t even share any scriptural biblical beliefs or understanding.
Gary Micheal Epping All of the main tests, including radiometric dating, are well known to be accurate to +- 1%,
Link Hudson There are also old earth creationists who believe the creation days represent epochs.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, (( all of the main tests including radiometric dating accurate to + – 1%))Okay, well the only real objective dating methodology that is used by evolutionist geo scientists is radiometric, of which there are approximately 20 differing techniques using theoretically at least, the same methodology. I think you’re confusing radiocarbon with other radiometric dating techniques like, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar). Nevertheless, you don’t backup your claim with any citation. Assertions don’t work in a semi scholarly debate, as we’re supposed to be having as you need to provide evidence for your claim. Secondly, your claim is the baseless especially when you consider a particular incident in the dating of the lava dome that developed after the last Mount St. Helens eruption. Using K-Ar dating methods on basaltic dacite rock collected from the St. Helens lava dome in 1996, geologists Dr. Andrew Snelling and Dr. Steve Austin, dated the dacite specimens for a radiometric age. Since the lava dome was less than 20 years old, the, the K-Ar radiometric ratio should have reflected that fact has almost no Argon (Ar) should’ve  been found.  However, lots of excessive argon (Ar) was found in the samples dated indicating a extremely skewed and erroneous age of supposedly thousands to millions of years when the date should have come back virtually nil considering that the dacite specimen was less than 20 years old.(Austin, S.A., “Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Volcano,” CEN Tech. J. 10(3):335–343, 1996)
Peter Fiske Link Hudson, yeah that’s right, and old Earth creationism, of which the Gap theory is part of, is the heretical compromise of Genesis with evolutionary ideas of millions of supposed years.
Gary Micheal Epping The primary basis of the Old Earth Creationist view comes from Genesis 1:1-2, which states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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 1:1 refers to God’s initial perfect creation. Everything that God made was beautiful, there was no sin anywhere. Verse two, on the other hand, shows that a great catastrophe occurred that caused the earth to become in a chaotic state through the judgment of God.  According to the Gap Theory, the formless and void state, as recorded in Genesis 1:2, is in direct contrast to the perfect initial creation. Something happened between the first two verses of Genesis to cause the earth to become desolate and uninhabitable after having been made perfect.             “FORM” has a strong # H1414, to-hoo, which means to lie waste; a desolation(of surface) that is desert; a worthless thing; in vain; empty. (See attachment for details).        “VOID” has a strong # H922, bôhû, which means From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a {vacuity} that {is} (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: – {emptiness} void. (see attachment for details)           These two words, without form and void, are only used in one other place, Jer 4:23, “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.”        “DARKNESS,” has a strong # H2822, chôshek, which means From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively {misery} destruction, {death} ignorance {sorrow} wickedness: – dark ({-ness}) {night} obscurity.          Gen 1:2 indicates that judgement had been rendered on the earth before the 6 days of creation. Darkness as H2822, in the Bible is often associated with death and sin. So, where did the sin come from if not from Adam.  Before the destruction in this verse, God had made the earth in perfection as described in verse 1. The garden of Eden was present in the first creation and was under the stewardship of Lucifer.  It was recreated again in the six days with Adam replacing Lucifer as steward.          Lucifer as an angel of God, however commited the 1st sin in God’s universe, Ez 28:12-15, “On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you. By the abundance of your trade you were internally filled with violence, and you SINNED; Therefore I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I put you before kings, that they may see you. By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade you profaned your sanctuaries.”  One verse here clearly shows that Lucifer SINNED, and was casted down to the ground. The Bible tells us, Death is the result of sin. “For the wages of sin is death,” Romans 6:23. God placed judgment not only on Lucifer, but also on the earth which resulted in the destruction of the earth that is shown in Gen 1:2.             Old Earth Creationist view is therefore fully substantiated. It conforms to the original heavens and earth being created in verse 1, with the earth being laid waste in verse 2, only to be created again starting in verse 3.  Even though YEC proponents don’t like this stance, and try to damn it as heresy, it is a position that is substantiated in the Bible.  It is much more realistic that saying that God created the earth with fossils, skeletons, oil, bones in the earth, with Him changing the speed of light to make a young earth look old.  God is not a deceiver, and had no reason to try and make a young earth look old. Old Earth Creationism tells a better story about Creation.
Thomas Henry Jr. You really read into Genesis 1:2
Gary Micheal Epping Thomas Henry Jr.  Basically I did not refer to Scofield or Dake’s bible but used the Strong concordance to look up the meaning of the words in that verse, which indicate judgment for sin in the earlier era.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  those verse don’t imply what you stated. A child taking playdoe out of a container has clay that is without form and void.  There were nothing that cause the world to become void.  The error is thinking God created the world fully form and that’s not what Genesis 1:1 implies
Gary Micheal Epping Strong words for form, void, and darkness mean destruction, wickedness, ruin, and death. Darkness in the Bible is associated with sin. Not my words but from strongs.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, simply quoting without any citations isn’t much of a case Gary. First of all, taking scripture in this case Genesis 1, out of context in order to try to make it fit with evolutionary thinking of millions of supposed years, is in of itself a sin. You don’t believe me? Read Deuteronomy 4:2 on how God feels about altering the true context of his holy Word!
Peter Fiske Thomas Henry Jr., I know, right?! The ends that some who believe in erroneous and false doctrine will go to in order to just try to be right!
Gary Micheal Epping I never mentioned any doctrine, but used Strong’s to define the meaning of those words like a student of the bible should. If you don’t Like it look the words up yourself.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, your entire understanding and view of scripture is wrong, as your foundation, which is in the Book of Genesis, is wrong. The Bible teaches in Genesis, and in Luke and Matthew, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. The age of the Earth is important because this is what the true Biblical context teaches, and that if one altars the implied doctrine open Earth that is less than 10,000 years old, then one opens up the possibility of reinterpreting scripture in the light of modern evolutionary thinking which needs millions of years in order to survive. It isn’t necessary to compromise Genesis to appease evolutionists!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske the citations are from strongs and the bible.  Can’t you read. Mule headed as ever.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, you take scripture and citations out of context in order to maintain a false doctrine of millions of supposed years and an equally false and mythical Gap.
Gary Micheal Epping Can you not look the words up in strong s for gen 1:2 like a good theologian should. The meanings indicate judgment from God.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  there were no judgement in Genesis 1:2
Gary Micheal Epping Thomas henry Jr then what do you make of the meanings from Strong’s for passage?  Maybe you should complain to strong s rather than me, since that is where the information came from.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  you are reading into Strong’s but here is the screenshots
Thomas Henry Jr.
Thomas Henry Jr.
Thomas Henry Jr. Strong’s doesn’t mention sin as the source of the chaos
Thomas Henry Jr. Void
Thomas Henry Jr. Darkness
Thomas Henry Jr. Looks like you are reading into the text
Thomas Henry Jr. Was H1961 hayah. Has several meaning and In Genesis 1:2 it does not have the meaning of becoming void because of sin
Thomas Henry Jr.
Thomas Henry Jr.
Thomas Henry Jr. Again you are reading your eisegesis into the text
Gary Micheal Epping Thomas henry Jr  darkness is associated with sin throughout the bible.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  actually no and I didn’t say it was. I’m black and conservative so am I associated with sin?  Since darkness is always associated with sin according to your baseless opinion?
Thomas Henry Jr. Darkness is simply the absence of light
Gary Micheal Epping I said darkness or the absence of light as used in the Bible.
Thomas Henry Jr. All because light is missing does not there is sin. One can lack illumination and be in darkness and yet not be in Sin
Thomas Henry Jr. We look through a glass darkly I believe Paul says in Corinthian yet we aren’t in sin because of that
Gary Micheal Epping Thomas henry Jr  I am not reading into the meanings. The information I posted earlier are directly from the complete meanings from strings. I am on a cell and don’t have access to the screen shots. Will post later.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  just posted from Strong’s from the app on my iPhone no need for further posting. I read very well thanks.
Thomas Henry Jr. 1 Cor 13:12  For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am knownDark here doesn’t mean sin
Thomas Henry Jr. Any honest student of the Word knows that in all the many times darkness is mentioned in scripture it is not synonymous with sin.
Thomas Henry Jr. The word darkness is found 142 times in the KJV. Majority of those times it isn’t a reference to sin. Leave the racist Dakes Bible alone please
Gary Micheal Epping It is often referred is as sin. I will post later from my computer. I have purposely not referred to dake or Scofield to avoid comments like yours.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  again darkness is not synonymous with sin in all of its 142 mentions
Gary Micheal Epping Darkness as used in gen 1:2 is h2822 and is only used 70 times, often referring to sin.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping   It does not refer mostly to SIN
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  i can post all 77 verses to show that you are in error
Peter Fiske Yes it is Gary, and from the beginning, and Genesis 3 we see how Adam the first man, brought sending to the World by succumbing to Satan’s temptation. Remember in Ezekiel 28:13-15, while he was in the Garden of Eden as the anointed cherub, iniquity and evil were found inside Lucifer, and he became Satan after that. So sin entered creation through the initial act of disobedience by Adam and Eve as told in Genesis 3, as a result as Romans 5:12 tells us, our world is soaked with sin. Nowhere in any of the scriptures does it say there was a pre-Adamite world where Lucifer and the Fallen Angels who became demons fell.
Gary Micheal Epping Thomas Henry Jr. I found the problem. In my original post I accidently posted the strong definition for darkness twice, with the first instance placing it where the definition for FORM should be. I have corrected it above, and also placed an attachment for the three words, form, void, and darkness. The statement stands that Gen 1:2 shows judgment for the original sin of Lucifer in the previous era.
Thomas Henry Jr. That is eisegesis
Gary Micheal Epping In  regard to darkness (or the absent of light) , the following verses relate it to SIN.                                                        Romans 1:21 Verse ConceptsFor even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Matthew 6:23Verse Concepts”But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!Luke 22:53Verse Concepts”While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”John 3:19-20″This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.Romans 13:12Verse ConceptsThe night is almost gone, and the day is near Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.2 Corinthians 6:14Verse ConceptsDo not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?Ephesians 5:11Verse ConceptsDo not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;1 John 1:5-6This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;2 Corinthians 4:4Verse Conceptsin whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.Ephesians 4:18Verse Conceptsbeing darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;Psalm 82:5Verse ConceptsThey do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken.John 12:35Verse ConceptsSo Jesus said to them, “For a little while longer the Light is among you Walk while you have the Light, so that darkness will not overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does not know where he goes.1 John 2:9Verse ConceptsThe one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.1 John 2:11Verse ConceptsBut the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.Job 3:3-6″Let the day perish on which I was to be born, And the night which said, ‘A boy is conceived.’ “May that day be darkness; Let not God above care for it, Nor light shine on it. “Let darkness and black gloom claim it; Let a cloud settle on it; Let the blackness of the day terrify it. read more.2 Samuel 22:29Verse Concepts”For You are my lamp, O LORD; And the LORD illumines my darkness.
Thomas Henry Jr. Gary Micheal Epping  you do understand that it doesn’t mean sin in all places
Troy Day SIN is SIN
Gary Micheal Epping Troy Day Yes, and ‘the wages of sin is death,’ as well as judgment which was already rendered for Lucifer and his angel when Satan was in Eden.
Peter Fiske Gary, God judged Lucifer and the angels that he tempted in Isaiah 14, and as Ezekiel 28 tells us, the initial discovery of wickedness and send it Lucifer was made in the one and only Garden of Eden that was created during Creation Week (Genesis 1:1-31). This brings to mind the question I’ve been trying to get you to answer now for more than a day. Where in scripture does it even imply let alone mention there was another Garden of Eden and a supposed and equally unbiblical pre-Adamite world?
John Duncan Amen the GAP theory is the most plausible explanation.
Peter Fiske No it’s not John Duncan, there’s no scriptural basis for a supposed *gap* in Genesis 1 at all.
Troy Day So Gary Micheal Epping  Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley how would this work in such a false theory? Thomas Henry Jr.Satan created on day 5 (before day 6) and boom in one short instance he sins, falls, becomes God’s enemy and by day 6 is ready to tempt Adam – yeah right BTW forget satan – when were all other ANGELS created?
Thomas Henry Jr. There is no reason for Satan to sin until he sees man interact with God. 100 years after eden Satan falls and deceives Eve and mankind falls.
Troy Day But the BIBLE specifically says angels were crated before Day 1 of the new creation “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).
Thomas Henry Jr. Troy Day  that doesn’t say day one. You read into that text really good there
Troy Day as I said above –  BIBLE specifically says angels were crated before Day 1
Thomas Henry Jr. Troy Day  i don’t see day one in that text
Thomas Henry Jr. 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?No where does it say day one. It took God 6 days to lay the foundations and prepare it for mankind by the close of the 6 day.
Thomas Henry Jr. Saying Day One — you are reading into the text
Thomas Henry Jr. Eisegesis at its best!!!!
Thomas Henry Jr. Hebrews 1:14 saysEnglish Standard VersionAre they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvationSo if Angels were created for us then there is no need for them before creation. Do with Lucifer walking in Eden on the 6 day makes sense. Angels were created just before the creation of Adam (mankind).
Thomas Henry Jr. Hebrews 1:13 tells us the THEY are angels.
Troy Day as I said above – BIBLE specifically says angels were crated before Day 1 right here “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).
Peter Fiske Troy Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 tells us about Satan and the angels he tempted , how they fell. Ezekiel 28:13 reminds us that Lucifer was in the Garden of Eden as the anointed cherub, until in verse 15 when wickedness was found in him. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/…
Thomas Henry Jr. Troy Day  that doesn’t say that. Why are you read into the text.
Thomas Henry Jr. Troy Day  i posted the entire text and that text doesn’t say that.
Gary Micheal Epping Yes. In such a short period of time, Lucifer would not have got to use “thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.” (EX 28:13-14). Why give him musical talent so he could worship God, if he were cast out before he could use them? Lucifer was also the “anointed cherub that covereth” in that same passage, which is was one the highest ranking angels. They were used for protection , and another one guarded the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve were expelled (Gen 3:24). Lucifer was used to guard the throne of God in an earlier time, and later  to protect and oversee Eden before the earth was laid waste.  In the short period that Peter describes, Lucifer would not have gotten to use these talent either.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, since you love to quote the heavy KJV English prose, do you think that God speaks KJV English in heaven? Is that the holy language?
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, I see you made another brief reference to a supposed *Eden before Eden*. Please tell us where this mythical Eden before Eden is found in Scripture, let alone the physical evidence of its remains!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske  I guess you prefer the Queen James Bible instead?
Peter Fiske Gary, are you really trying to be funny or insulting or both? You know that the QJB is a *gay*-friendly, revised version of the Bible, don’t you?https://creation.com/wicked-bibleSomeone who depends upon the antiquated English King James Version for their Bible knowledge is at best, at a huge disadvantage when it comes to properly interpreting the word of God. Whether you know it or not there are modern translations that are every bit as good as the KJV available! I personally prefer the NIV, but the NKJV and the ESV are two good translations as well. What is astonishing to me is that false teachers seem to have a preference for the KJV, like Dake, like Flat-Earth false prophets Rob Skiba, and cultic KJV-Onlyists.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske I thought you liked other translations? How about this one?
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, other translations that are valid and credible, not crackpot heretical mistranslations (like the New World Translation [Jehovah’s Witnesses], or the homosexual-friendly QJB)that teach false doctrine disguised as scripture.One might ask what your sexual orientation is since you brought this topic up?!
Gary Micheal Epping Is that the NIVI edition you like?
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, false teacher Finis Dake used the KJV because being a false prophet, he would have been acceptable to the Bible version that, Lucifer better known as Satan,  seems to prefer since it’s so easy to misquote and misrepresent due to the antiquated and out-of-date English prose. https://bible.org/…/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible…Flat-earthism false teachers like Rob Skiba also prefer the KJV due to its easily misunderstood English that allows them to mistranslate and take out of context verses that seem to indicate a flat stationary Earth, according to hyper-literal out of context interpretations of scripture.http://robschannel.com/spherical-or-circular-flat-earthApparently false doctrines can arise easily from the use of out of context  and outdated words and phrases, which 400 year old English unfortunately is.
Thomas Henry Jr. If you insist Angels were created before creation itself, then according to Pastor David Guzik and other commentators he didn’t fall until AFTER CREATION WAS FINISHED.I still maintain Angels were needed until day 6. And the fall happened almost 100 years after creation
Troy Day Now how is Pastor David Guzil and why should we listen to him? It was not so according to pastor Dake and many other pastors
Thomas Henry Jr. Why should I listen to you my friend? He is a Pastor who wrote commentary on scripture.
Troy Day You should not You should search and study Scriptures for your self. I am simply pointing to the resource We should also NOT listen to Pastor David Guzik because he states NOT to have any formal Bible College or seminary training https://enduringword.com/about/david-guzik/
Thomas Henry Jr. Troy Day  1. Kenneth Hagan had students sign up for an uncredited program.2. Lack of a formal Bible college or seminary degree is not a reason to not listen to anyone. The first scholar in any field was never trained in that field of study formally 3. You make to many assumptions here. I study for myself but there is still according to scripture wisdom among many counselors.4. The resource here isn’t flawed.  Even God uses a rooster and a donkey. I think he can use a preacher without a formal education.5. Judging by the eisegesis I seen in here lately. There is a major need for a study of the biblical Languages and how to properly interpret scripture— biblical hermeneutics.6. Lastly Pastor Guzik is a student of the Calvary Chapel movement founded by Chuck Smith which has produce some very fine expository preachers.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Peter you are worse than a knat in the summer time. No one commented about the KJV above. Out of the blue, you saw I used that version in a single post and it gave you a chance to start polluting the tread with your anti-KJV propaganda. Evidently, you have not noticed that I use a variety of Bible versions when I post.  Troy has already warned you to stop spamming people. Why don’t you listen and stop.
Gary Micheal Epping Why not listen to someone like Billy Graham who said, “Yes, the Bible tells us that the angels were witnesses to the creation of the world, which indicates they were created long before that great event. God asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7). https://billygraham.org/…/when-were-the-angels-created-3/
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske In regard to your ‘Eden before Eden’ remark, the Garden in Genesis would be in the same place as before the chaos of Gen 1:2, since God’s perfection would be present in both.  Also, when the ‘new heaven and a new earth’ (Rev 21:1) are created again after the Tribulation, there will also be a Garden of Eden.  Why? Because it is “the garden of the Lord” (Gen 13:10).    In any creation of God, there is going to be a garden of the Lord.   As to location, most Bible commentaries state that the site of the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East, situated somewhere near where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are today (Genesis 2:8–14).  However, the worldwide, catastrophic Flood of Noah’s day would have left sediment deposits covering the earth.  So no one can know for certain today where the Garden of Eden was originally located. The same would be true of Eden before Gen 1:2.  There are simply no remains to be found for Eden.  Even if the location could be found, no one could enter as an angel stands guard to keep people out.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, if the entire Earth was covered by water from Lucifer’s flood, it would have completely rearranged any of that supposed pre-Lucifer’s flood world geography, including your ridiculous and mythical *Eden before Eden.* There is no scriptural mention of an *Eden before Eden*, you’re just making crap up out of thin air in a fanatical yet feeble attempt to hang-on to the Gap Myth.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, ((Why not listen to someone Like Billy Graham))Because ultimately it isn’t what Billy Graham thinks or says that determines biblical truth, but what God himself says in Genesis 1 – 11 about how and when he created, which nowhere includes a make-believe gap of millions of years designed to make the Bible fit with modern evolutionary ideas of deep-time.”Let God be true and every man a liar.”  – Romans 3:4
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Nobody knows anything but you. Maybe the ‘make believe’ story is of your making.  Yappers say the the flood covered evidence of where the Eden in Genesis actually is located.  If that is true, then the Eden before Gen 1:2 could not be located either.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske By the way, when was water created in Genesis?
Peter Fiske Thomas Henry Jr. , Kenneth Hagin, Jimmy Swaggart, and Benny Hinn are just three of the theologically ignorant proteges of Finis Jennings Dake and his heretical Dake Bible. It shouldn’t  be a surprise  when we find out that they vigorously taught false doctrine of the Gap myth right from the Dake Bible.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, can’t you read Genesis 1:1 – 5 for yourself? Day One included the creation of water. What’s so hard about that to understand?
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Where does it say, “And God said let” there be water? The “And God said Let” statement for day 1  begins in Verse 3.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, Genesis 1:1 tells us the general thesis statement in the form of a  subject-verb clause, which is that God created the heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:2 is the adjoining circumstatial clause, or the waw disjunctive, which tells us what was created on the first day of Creation Week.https://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, ((Nobody knows anything but you))Another ad hominem, ridiculing my knowledge base in an attempt to discredit my position. I never said I knew all that all, but I know something, and I always tend to back that something up with objective evidence in order to make a sound, logical case. That’s more than Dake does with his wild, irrational and counterintuitive commentaries, and more than you do just rubber stamping them.((The make believe story is if you’re making))Now you’re insulting fact, and of course God’s word which contains factual information about how and when he created. I qualify what I say with evidence from other scripture or science, you on the other hand do neither. If anyone is guilty of making things up out of thin air it’s got to be you and Dake.
Peter Fiske Troy Day ((the BIBLE specifically says angels were created before Day 1))No the BIBLE doesn’t make that claim! Job 38 tells us that the Angels were present during creation week as God created the Earth! You’re twisting scripture in order to prove a toxic and deceptive false doctrine, namely the Gap Theory. Compromising Genesis is a serious thing, because Deuteronomy 4:2-3 and Revelation 22:18-19 specifically forbid adding to God’s word, which your misguided reinterpretation of  in-context solid exegesis is doing!
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, water was created on Day 1, as the foundational and primordial substance from which all matter in the universe, including the Earth was made.
Gary Micheal Epping Pete Fiske Yeah, right? A statement that says when, In the beginning, subject-verb, God created, what?, the heavens and the earth. The first verse is a done deal. God is a God of perfection and peace, and did not create what is indicated in Gen 1:2. It was the result of actions that took place on the already created earth from verse 1.
Gary Micheal Epping Pete Fiske No discrediting your knowledge base, which is nothing more than cut and paste from your young earth creation site.  Same stuff posted over and over again, to the point that it sounds like a broken record, and makes one what to puke. No one can carry out a decent discussion on any thread related to creation because you will spam them with a barrage of posts.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, all creative events between Genesis 1:1 and 1:5 occurred on day one of Creation Week.Verse 5 (ESV)…” called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-5.htmThe clear context of scripture is that everything between verses 1 & 5 of Genesis 1 were created on the first calendar of Creation Week (Genesis 1:1-31) which was 24 hours long! No amount of Gappist sophistry on your part will change that fact.((your knowledge base which is nothing more than cut and paste from young earth creation site))1. My knowledge base exist independently of any website as it is the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of 25 + years of objective study.2. Copying and pasting scholarly articles and/or their links is an accepted part of scholarly or layperson level dialogue. It’s not my fault if you can’t match this level of discourse. My suggestion to you at this point is to get your nose out of the heretical commentaries  in the Dake Bible, and do some objective research from Biblical Christian sources that aren’t polluted with false doctrine, of which the mythical Gap theory is perhaps the most insidious.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, as I’ve pointed out and as you refuse to accept simply because you’ve been brainwashed and blinded by Dake’s false doctrines, “unformed and unfilled” (tohu vav bohu in Hebrew) in Genesis 1:2 is a subordinate clause to Genesis 1:1 that describes what was created and the state of the created mass, in this case the Earth. The fact that you don’t even examine and discuss the finer points of the grammatical structure of Genesis 1:1 and 2 indicates that your mind is not only made up, but that it has been seared with an emotional glue forged by your blind allegiance to the late false prophet/teacher, Finis Dake.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Get it through your thick skull, I am not talking  about Dake; haven’t referred to him once.   You are the only one on here that is constantly talking against Dake with your constant anti spamming.  Gen 1:1 is pretty straight forward, and needs none of your finer point. Just read it: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Verse 2 DOES NOT describe what God created or caused, but is a result or effect of chaos. God only creates what is perfection.  By your logic, when He created Adam, it would have been needed to first create a sinful chaotic mess before God made Adam in perfection.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, ((Get it through your thick skull))Your logical fallacy is:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem(( I’m not talking about Dake))The source of your blind allegiance to this false doctrine of the Gap myth is directly proportional to your allegiance to Dake.((Gen 1:1 is pretty straightforward and needs none of your finer point))Yeah and it doesn’t need your extra-biblical eisegesis attached to it either, trying to find a supposed Gap when there is none! The beginning of creation was day 1 of Creation Week, no gap of millions of years is either directly mentioned or indirectly inferred. The fact that you don’t concede to reality of what scripture actually says shows me that you’re committed to this false doctrine as if it were gospel truth. That is delusional zealotry at its most blatant.((Verse 2 DOES NOT describe what God created or caused))Oh YES IT IS! All the events of verse 2 – 5 are the creative events of Day One of Creation Week. The Hebrew ‘tohu vav bohu’ describes the initial state of the Earth on day one, not how Earth was on day one from some bygone, purely fictional primordial pre -Adamic era supposedly millions of years in the past.https://answersingenesis.org/…/can-evolutions-long…/ That’s outright heresy that you are reading into that verse! You ought to be ashamed of yourself repent for dismantling God’s word in such a shameful way just to try to make Genesis look more palatable to evolutionists.((God creates what is perfection))
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske You are the one that predominantly does the name calling for most everyone on here.  So, watch your own video.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping , sorry but your the one who started name-calling, I was trying to be civil to you yet you were becoming flagrantly insulting towards me. What goes around comes around!
Troy Day The BIBLE specifically says angels were crated before Day 1 right here “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4,7).How could have they been there and shouting IF not already created
Link Hudson It says He created the heavens and the earth, so maybe He created the heavens first, along with it’s contents.
Troy Day Exactly what GAP theory takes under consideration. Still makes it plausible that there was a fall between v1-2 to cause the tohu-va-bohu destruction of earth
Scotty Searan Troy Day I am with you on the Gap theory.Can i do a little Speculating?I believe there was a world witb inhabitants and possibly angels or could be humansHebrew1:2 and Hebrews 11:3 makes mention that God created (framed) the worlds.I believe whatever inhabited this earth was destroyed because of a battle where possibility Lucifer in his rebellion destroyed or made havoc of the previous inhabitants Could it possibly be that God outright destroyed the inhabitants of the previous world with a flood because of sin and no one have knowledge of them by a written history, Only God allowing us to maybe catch a glimpse because of the Fossils
Peter Fiske Scotty Searan, you’re casting your lot in with false teachers when you support the Gap myth. There is no biblical mention of a gap of millions or billions of supposed years in Genesis 1. All the speculation in the world is just that, we must go by the sound exegesis, in context interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to get an accurate picture of Earth history during its first week. God supernaturally created the Earth in 6 – 24 hour days, and he didn’t need any retarded Gap to fit millions of years and in order to try to make Genesis more palatable to evolutionary thinking, which requires millions to billions of years of supposed  deep time in order for it to be plausible.
Peter Fiske Scotty Searan (( could it possibly be that God destroyed the inhabitants of the previous world with a flood because of sin))2 Peter 3 reminds us that God destroyed the pre-flood, that is the antediluvian world that existed between Creation Week of Genesis 1 and the coming of the flood of Noah in Genesis 6 some 1,656 years later. There is no other worldwide flood in world history that explains anything scientifically or biblically.((God allowing us a glimpse because of the Fossils))Now that’s not true, most of the fossils or laid down by Noah’s flood, the only worldwide flood in the history of our planet.https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/If there was a supposed Lucifer’s flood before Creation Week, that supposedly laid down all of the fossils, then the so-called second worldwide flood of Genesis 6, where Noah was commanded by God to build an ark and take two of each kind of living creature upon it, would have literally destroyed all of the fossils in the fossil record as another gigantic catastrophic movement of water over the surface of the Earth for the second time would have pulverized the layers and fossils supposedly left in the first. The fact that we have a fossil record is evidence of only one huge catastrophic Flood event, not too!
Peter Fiske Troy Day, you’re interpreting ‘tohu waw bohu’ backwards. The phrase is a disjunctive that describes the state of the primordial Earth initially revealed in the first part of Genesis 1:1 and 2.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske You are the one interpreting backwards.  The first statement is that God created the heavens and the earth in verse 1. Then, the 2nd verse shows there is chaos which God did not create, because He is a creator of  perfection and peace. In regard to your call for ‘sound exegesis,’ it needs to be determined why there is chaos in verse 2 before any theory on creation can be developed.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske  You reference 2 Pe 3:5-6, “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,  by which the world that then existed perished.”  The word used her is OLD. If Peter was referring to the creation in days 1-6 of Genesis, he would have used the term NEW or recently created. This is not the case, as he clearly says the world of OLD perished.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, no that’s not right, you’re clinging to and perpetuating false doctrine by continuing to defend a fake Satanic knock off of the Genesis creation narrative. Unformed and unfilled , “Tohu vav bohu” in Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew, is a literary disjunctive, a subjective-verb clause to God creating the heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1:1https://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creationApparently you don’t know Hebrew grammatical structure very well, as this is the accepted and understood form of Genesis 1:1-5, describing the creative events in sequence on Day 1 of Creation Week.You’re not seeking to use the word of God as your foundation (Psalm 11:3), but like your pseudo-theological icon Dake, you’re seeking the approval of modern evolutionary thinking on the age of the Earth in order to make your scriptural understanding fit with reality, not trying to make reality fit with scripture. Reality fits with scripture, as there’s no independent and objective and foolproof scientific method to determine a supposed 4.6 billion year old age of the Earth. And even if Earth was that age, the need for a God evaporates with long ages of supposed naturalistic processes. Dake, Scofield, and modern day Gappist false teachers are too ignorant to see this point. And their (and your) ignorance is causing division and is harming  the cause of Christ!
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, the word *old* in 2 Peter 3:5 is better defined in the NIV…”But they deliberately forget that LONG AGO by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water”.Either way, whether you use the archaic KJV phrase “of old”, or more modern and in-style English reference of “long ago”, neither reference is automatically by default referring to a supposed pre-Adamite world of millions of years ago. You do see that don’t you?The Apostle Peter gave us this epistle in the 1st century AD, while the worldwide  Flood of Noah was approximately 3,000 to 3,500 years earlier. You can’t be this ignorant to see that from Peter’s perspective in the first century, 3,000 – 3,500 years previous would be considered “of old” or “long ago!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Now the young earth creationist wants argue that that a young earth is now old? Can’t have it both ways.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, you have no powers of perception do you? Didn’t you read my response? I said that the term “long ago” or “of old” doesn’t automatically by default imply millions of years! What part of that don’t you understand?
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske It says, “by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished.” It says the old world perished right?  Then in verse 7, “But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment..” This is the earth that was created again, which will also be destroyed and re-created in the end times.
Peter Fiske Correcting Gary Micheal Epping on his unbiblical reinterpretation of 2 Peter 3:5-6 (NIV)…”But they deliberately forget that LONG AGO by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.”Where are you reading a supposed pre-Adamite world and or and equally mythical *Lucifer’s flood* in that passage?”The scope (of the Genesis Flood) was global, and so severe that the earth was, in effect, reversed to its state on Day 2, before God created dry land—the whole earth was covered with water. This is strongly stated by 2 Peter 3:6, which says that the kosmos was destroyed in the Flood, pointing to its global extent:”https://creation.com/nt-global-flood”2 Peter 3:5–6. Peter is criticizing uniformitarianism—the concept that the rate of geological change today has always been the same: ‘All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.'”In opposing this view, Peter reminds his readers that scoffers deliberately ignore two events—the Creation and the Flood—which were unique in earth history.”Peter refers to this same Flood of Noah’s day in 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:4–5. In fact, there is no reference to a Luciferian Flood anywhere in Scripture.”https://answersingenesis.org/…/gap-theory/closing-the-gap/ The term “long-ago”/ “of old” [KJV], doesn’t automatically imply a supposed pre-Adamite world! Nowhere outside of Satan’s twisted mind, or his false prophets and pawns, like Finis Dake, does such unbiblical eisegesis exist!
Link Hudson One can believe there was or may have been a gap between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the creation without believing the world was populated before God said, “Let there be light”.
Troy Day Gary John Ricky One thing non-gappers (we will just call them plainly yappers) cannot explain is the tohu-va-bohu earth without form and void What caused that? Certainly NOT God’s beautiful act of creation
Thomas Henry Jr. That is easily explained and has been
Troy Day YET With all the attempts here it still has not been explaining  for over a week now
Thomas Henry Jr. Actually it was. The problem is we are quoting scripture while you keep forcing a day one on Job that’s not even there my friend
Link Hudson Do you have another creation God made to compare it to to demonstrate that God doesn’t create things in stages, or start out with someone that is without form and void?
Link Hudson Why would tge earthbeing without form and void at creation have to be seen as a problem to be answered?
Ricky Grimsley Link Hudson because Isaiah says that created the world “not to be void”
Thomas Henry Jr. Without form and void does not equal destruction because of sin. That was God starting with a lump of clay and forming it into the Earth 🌏 so that it could be Eden/paradise for Adam and Eve.
Link Hudson Ricky Grimsley and if He hada plan tofill it?
Ricky Grimsley Of course he had plans to fill it. But it was already filled with other things. but man. Man he had to create from dirt but a other things were said to “come forth”. It also depends on if make a distinction between “made” or “ create.
Peter Fiske Absolutely Thomas! There never was a pre-Adamic world  destroyed by a mythical Lucifer’s flood.https://creation.com/pre-adamic-man-were-there-human…
Peter Fiske Of course Ricky Grimsley, He didn’t create the world to be void, or un-populated. But all that Isaiah affirms is that God created a planet teeming with life. Where do you read in a supposed pre-Adamic earth??
Ricky Grimsley Then why is it void in genesis 1:2?
Troy Day Would God crate something void and imperfect?
Link Hudson Troy Day He made man.
Peter Fiske Troy Day, *yappers*, your logical fallacy is: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominemTohu waw bohu (unformed and unfilled) is a disjunctive, in that it is a circumstantial clause that follows the subject and verb clause or thesis of Genesis 1 in verse 1. It seems that you don’t  know what you’re talking about.((What caused that?))Why God did of course, but not in the way that you think. He created the Earth out of a unorganized mess of water, that would be liquid hydrogen and oxygen. In fact he created all the universe out of that primordial mass. That was the first creative act of Day 1 of Creation as Week.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, the “void” in Genesis 1:2, the Hebrew word “bohu”, means the Earth was empty, unfilled not solid yet and purely made of liquid water. This happened on Day One of Creation Week. You don’t have to suck up to evolutionists who don’t believe in the Bible anyway by trying to make Genesis fit with evolutionary thinking. Genesis stands on its own without any aid from a supposed gap of millions of years to try to make scripture sound more sophisticated. The actual opposite effect happens as you destroy the foundations by which all biblical Doctrine is built upon, including the reason why Jesus had to come in the first place. Deep-time/ billions of years interpretation for the age of the Earth makes God out to be a liar, and as Romans 3:4 tells us, it’s men not to God that lies!
Ricky Grimsley The earth was covered by water but the whole earth wasn’t composed of water. That’s silly. He moved the waters to let the land that was cover appear. It was already there under Lucifer’s flood.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, Genesis 1:2 is a subordinate clause to Genesis 1:1, which says God created everything in the beginning. Genesis 1:2 specifies the Earth as it was for the land appeared, which was a primordial mass of water. Genesis 1:5 clearly tells us that at the end of the first Day of Creation (bounded by in the evening and morning) during Creation Week (Genesis 1:1-31), that these were the creative events of the first calendar day!http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-5.htmThere is no literary structure in Genesis 1 indicating a previous chaotic state of punishment, and then God supposedly *re-creating.* That’s heretical false doctrine read into the text of Genesis 1!
Troy Day Job states clearly WHEN God was creating earth, the angels were already there rejoicing. Meaning they were created prior before earth. It doesnt matter if its day 1 5 6 What matters is that in Gen 1:1 the angels were already created
Peter Fiske No that’s not true, you’re misreading Job 38. The angels, when God had created very early in Creation Week, were rejoicing during the week of Creation. Remember, there are 168 hours is in 7 literal days. The angels had plenty of time to rejoice within 168 hours!
Troy Day No I am not misreading It is pretty clear Gen 1:1 says God created earth Job says the angels were there when earth was createdThis means the angles were there when earth was created in Gen 1:1 and it is very plausible that lucifer and 1/3 angels were fallen before Gen 1:2
Peter Fiske Troy Day, Job 38:4-7 clearly says that the angels were present during most of Creation Week to see the creation being carried out on a daily basis. There’s no need to try to insert their creation before Genesis 1:1, just so you can gratify yourself as a follower Finis Jennings Dake, who was a false teacher!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Stop acting like you are stupid, because you are very cunning and clever. A foundation by its very definition (underlying basis, starting point, beginning) goes in before anything else. Certainly, none of the events of the 6 days could take place until after the foundation was laid.  Even the formation of the waters and earth in gen 1:1 could not be started until the very foundation on which it all stands was completed. An unbiased reading of Job 38:6-7 (“Who laid its cornerstone,  when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”) reveals that God  was the one that sank the cornerstone as part of the foundation prior to the creation of the earth.  This was definitely before Gen 1:1.  And who was watching Him? Yes, all of his angels.  Pure and simple, the angels had to be created before the creation of the earth in order to watch God lay the cornerstone.  Don’t try to twist and alter scripture Peter.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, like I’ve said before I don’t have a problem with individuals wanting to read the KJV because it’s poetic and flowery in its presentation of scripture, however it’s Satan’s favorite translation in the modern era. You see, most ordinary people who don’t understand proper grammar and in-context biblical exegesis, don’t realize that history shows that languages, most notably English, has changed considerably since both 1611 and 1769 (when the KJV 1 and KJV 2 were published respectively). This has created somewhat of a problem for modern-day students of the Bible who prefer the KJV and their attempt to understand deep truths embedded in Scripture. This is why KJV English is confusing to say the least: https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/kjvwords.htmlI watched the Dake interview on old PTL Club from the early 70s  when he claimed that God gave him the entire Bible in King James English. Really? Why would God want us to understand deep truth in scripture using 400 year old outdated English? He wouldn’t! This proves conclusively to me that the spirit that entered Dake was from Satan not God! God is not the author of chaos and confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33 ESV [http://biblehub.com/esv/1_corinthians/14.htm]) but Satan is!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske Use whatever bible version you want, but a foundation must be laid before work starts on the structure, in this case the earth. The angels were watching as the cornerstone was laid in preparation for the creation of the earth.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, stop trying to dance around my refutation of your previous poorly thought-out point. There is no direct default implication that long ago in 2 Peter 3 means and a pre-Adamite world. That’s crap that you (and other misguided Gappists) reading into the text that isn’t there, and never was there!
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske You did not refute anything.  Maybe the yappers ought to change their name to old earth creationists. oops! Sorry that name has already been taken.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping ((yappers))A canned hillbilly come back? Those of us who don’t invent imaginary *gaps* that don’t exist in scripture (or time)  just to please evolutionists are called Biblical Christians, who adhere to the true and in context interpretation of the Word of God, minus Satanic insertion like the Gap myth.
Gary Micheal Epping Peter Fiske No you make up stories about fossils, bones, skeletons, oil all being part of the creation. Talk about a pixy dust story.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping, I’m not making stories up about anything, as fossils ( which are mineralized remains, including bones, of dead organisms), and oil, are indeed all part of the Saga of Creation in that during the Noah’s worldwide Flood, all these things were catastrophically deposited all over the Earth. As far as magic pixie dust goes, sprinkle billions of years into the equation, and you do away with the need for any worldwide flood, the mythical one that Finis Dake  incoherently babbles about, or the real one that occurred in Genesis 6-9.
Ricky Grimsley Cmon Pete Peter Fiske it says they sang when he laid the cornerstone. The corner is first isn’t it?  Job 38:6-7 KJVS[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; [7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, Job 38 doesn’t say that the angels were created before Genesis 1, it says that the angels were present during Creation Week to watch God do his creative acts and to give him glory.
Ricky Grimsley Peter Fiske no it says they were there when laid the foundations and the cornerstone. That means they were already there when he started. The cornerstone is first.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, Job 38 says that the angels were present during the creation of the Earth. That reference is the same as “when the foundations were laid”. So when were the foundations laid? During the 168 hours  of Creation Week! That means the angels were created sometime in that 168 hour span, and that would give them plenty of time to sing and rejoice at what they were seeing.
Ricky Grimsley It says they saw the cornerstone laid. Cornerstone is first. They were there before 1:2
Ricky Grimsley Look Peter Fiske. Jesus himself would have to tell me the earth is 6000 years old. I’ve been reading the Bible I’m fully convinced in some version of the gap theory.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, John 1:1 tells us that Jesus is God, and scripture tells us that it is. breathed and inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17). That means that all Doctrine in Genesis, which never mentions a gap of millions of supposed years, but doesn’t eat indicate that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, is actually Jesus talking to you about the age of the Earth being less than 10,000 yours! Why is that so hard to understand?
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, Job 38 doesn’t talk about an imaginary time before Genesis 1:1-2. Where does it say that in Scripture? Where is it specifically mentioned, let alone implied?
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, you really should read something beside the KJV.https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration
Ricky Grimsley I read the esv
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, the ESV doesn’t improve the chances for there being a gap in Genesis 1, in fact it just makes it even more remote since we’re reading Modern English and can clearly see a series of creative processes beginning in Genesis 1:1-5 the first day of Creation Week.
Ricky Grimsley Save your breath. We both see each other as blind here.
Peter Fiske Ricky, remember you told me that you listen to people who have college degrees? Well, now’s your big chance to prove your words true! There is no Gap in Genesis 1, there doesn’t need to be because we don’t have to try to fit evolutionary based deep time into scripture. Dinosaurs, fossils, all the geologic layers found on Earth fit nicely into the model of a giant catastrophic worldwide flood event in which God told Noah that he would destroy a sin – saturated world as told in Genesis 6-9.
Ricky Grimsley I listened to you. I’ve heard it all when I was a kid. I reject your claims.
Peter Fiske What claims did you hear when you work a kid Ricky? So are you saying that you believe in evolution and millions of years instead of God creating the heavens and the Earth as he says he did in less than 10,000 years ago?
Ricky Grimsley No I don’t believe in evolution.
Troy Day pretty clear Ricky Grimsley Peter Fiske just dont see it
Rico Hero 2 Peter 3:5 New King James Version (NKJV)5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old,
Peter Fiske Rico Hero, of course the Earth is old in relation to us. The pyramids in Egypt were built almost 5,000 years ago, and we consider them ancient. The creation of the Earth was only about 1,500 to 2,000 years earlier, and that’s not supposed to be ancient? There’s no need to compromise Genesis with evolutionists who want to do away with God by inserting the magic pixie dust of deep- time/millions of years, by which they think all things can happen naturalistically. Christians only make themselves foolish by compromising the word of God with such people!
Rico Hero Peter Fiske, Christians who accept the literal word of God which reveals to us ” the heavens were  of old” do not as you say “compromise..with evolutionist”. This compromise with evolution is an excuse used by Young Earthers and only exists in the minds of those who willfully forget that the heavens were of old.
Peter Fiske Rico Hero, Christians who accept the literal word of God and read Genesis 1 in context can’t find any reference to a gap of supposed billions of years. That’s nothing more or less than compromising with evolutionary ideas of supposed long ages, which make the idea of a Creator unnecessary since deep time supposedly can guide naturalistic processes to not only create life from nonliving chemicals, but evolved that life from a single celled organism to something as complex as a human. The magic pixie dust is supposed deep-time, and the theologically illiterate neophytes that support the Gap myth unwittingly perpetuate this false idea.
Rico Hero Peter Fiske, Just about everyone in this group reads Genesis literally and in context and can see a gap. Because it is there. Why you cant is troubling to me so I will leave you alone as commanded Matthew 15:14 King James Version (KJV)14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Peter Fiske Rico Hero, reading Genesis literally means reading no Gap because there is none to be found other than in the fertile imaginations of those false teachers like Finis Dake, and those Biblically  unsophisticated (dense) enough to believe that something that isn’t specifically or passively mentioned in the text of Genesis 1, is somehow there, when it clearly isn’t! You need to demonstrate fidelity to God’s word, not a cultic allegiance to a pseudo Christian false prophet (Dake) and his false and incoherent ramblings.
Troy Day Thanks Rico and Gary There is another VERY important issue here that has been ignored. In ANY instance in the NT where it says FROM THE foundation of the world(s) – the word foundation is Grk. katalambano – means to throw away or fall; many orthodox translations render it from “the falling away of the worlds” literally referring to an earlier creation that was fallen before the foundations of this creation were established
Link Hudson That’s not what I am seeing for definition or usages.  That sounds like a folk etymology anyway, kind of what some people do with Nicolaitan.  Do you have reason to think that the origin of this Greek word had anything to do with the idea that the word was fallen before Genesis 1.
Ricky Grimsley Young earth should be treated like flat earth.
Peter Fiske Ricky Grimsley, ((Young earth should be treated like flat earth))Not a good way to start considering that this is just a fallacy of equivocation.http://www.txstate.edu/…/fallacy…/Equivocation.htmlWhy? Because so-called “young earth” (Biblical Creation) is biblically-based, while a flat earth isn’t! These kinds of careless statements clearly demonstrate  that you don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of sound theology or science. You admitted to me you have no college training or degree to speak of, as the content of your messages indeed show this. This is a bad witness for the cause of Christ, as ignorance makes Christian evangelism weak and ineffective.
Ricky Grimsley I mean don’t you take the Bible literally…..doesn’t this prove the earth is flat?Revelation 7:1 KJVS[1] And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Troy Day Ricky Grimsley Which one is young earth? I thought there are one and the same
Ricky Grimsley Apparently I put this in the wrong place
Troy Day most famous last words 🙂 Alan Smith
Peter Fiske Troy Day, the so-called young Earth is actually biblical creation, because God created the heavens and the Earth in 6 literal 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago. That is what scripture teaches, not some ridiculous and false *Gap* (pigeon-holed into scripture by Genesis compromisers) that  can’t be found in Genesis 1 whatsoever.
Gary Micheal Epping This argument can only be settled, if we look at the situation that precedes all theories and explanations.  Determine where the chaos in Gen 1:2 came from and you will have a valid answer.
Peter Fiske Gary Micheal Epping…
Gary Micheal Epping Pete Fiske Posting pictures of yourself doesn’t add anything to what we already didn’t know about you.
Peter Fiske No Gary, that’s you! Sticking your head in the sand so you can avoid dealing with the truth, which is that we live on an earth less 10,000 years old, and we read a Bible that we don’t have to extrapolate supposedly covers millions of years, when no such story is found in any of its 66 books.
Gary Micheal Epping Pete Fiske Too thin for me. It has got to be you.
Peter Fiske Gary, I’m not that thin either.
Troy Day Gary Micheal Epping 315 comments later in this discussion, the only thing that has become clear that Peter Fiske is back into his old habits of Pete Fiske to pollute good discussions with random links, sites and comments. This topic will be temporarily closed to maintenance. It will be re-opened shortly with close monitoring of the discussions focusing on the 10 questions of OP only.



  • Troy Day
    Reply May 21, 2018

    Troy Day

    Peter Fiske Pls dont spam the discussion with fast multiple copy paste comments and extra links. Give time to others to respond. Stick to the points 1 by 1 so we can get to the bottom of if it all I prefer each comment as a new paragraph and no folded tree comments that then have to be reloaded to read, but this is just my personal preference! And GO – how would you explain:

    1. Where lost souls come from?


    • Peter Fiske
      Reply May 21, 2018

      Peter Fiske

      Troy, you apparently view debate on this topic as spamming, especially my vigorous and content filled responses that really challenges the validity of the Gap Theory. Please correct me if I’m wrong but it seems as when the thread doesn’t agree with your perspective and point of view, that you use your weight as admin to shut down conversation. That’s how I conduct debates on the sites that I manage, and not a way to conduct an open forum. If you don’t want debate and just want to advocate this unbiblical idea then close the message board up for discussion, or let me know that you don’t want me to post here.

      I’ve said before that I won’t post if you have a problem with it because when I do my aim is to prove my point as vigorously as I can.

      I’ve tried to stay on topic but your friend, Gary Michael Epping, chose to deviate and spam by your own definition) this message board with his off-topic ad hominem attacks on me.

    • Troy Day
      Reply May 21, 2018

      Troy Day

      Well brother, after your posts got reported 7-8 times for spam links a standard has to be establish and set clearly for the future. Lots of other groups have banned you for spamming too where other admin have found your spamming destructive. Now, please take the opportunity to actually discuss the OP.

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply May 21, 2018

      Gary Micheal Epping

      A definition of spamming is “the use of electronic messaging systems like e-mails and other digital delivery systems and broadcast media to send unwanted bulk messages indiscriminately.(https://www.techopedia.com/definition/23763/spamming). I never spam. If a message is my own then I put no footnote in a post. If I paraphrase or have a direct quote from others, I include a footnote. Normally, that is all I include in a post. But, because Peter kept complaining, I started putting the reference note as a a link. It is fine with me to cut out the unnecessary reference links and just put the footnote in the context of the post. This might help any large scale spamming reference links when little or no actual information is included in a post.

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply May 23, 2018

      Gary Micheal Epping

      In regard to ‘Where lost souls come from,’ Hugh Ross thinks the ancient world was peopled with pre-Adamic intelligent but soulless human-like bipedal beings. Not being made in the image of God, however, they had no possible place in the next world. Derek Prince states that the disembodied spirits of a pre-Adamic race probably constitute “evil spirits” (demons) of the present age.

  • Troy Day
    Reply May 23, 2018

    Troy Day

    Gary Micheal Epping good explanation of point (1) but as you see when opponents of the theory are asked to refute the actual theory and not some other straw man fallacy they vanish

Leave a Reply