The Bible Teaches a pre-Adamic Creation

"Why would the LORD bless the 7th day for the Israelites if there was a pre-Adamic creation? " By the seventh day God's work was complete; the seventh day was sanctified in memorial of that creation. Does this mean God couldn't create other things afterward? Clearly not, for each soul that is born into the world receives his spirit from God. It's a fresh creation. God created manna for Israelites in the wilderness, and Jesus created bread to feed five thousand. The universe is expanding, for all we know new stars are forming. The Bible doesn't say after God rested he must stay inactive. "It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture. " It's very possible the pre-Adamic race had not yet fallen into sin by the time of Adam's creation, so this isn't problematic. Adam could have spread sin to them by taking the lead in its spread. But its not necessary for me to assume this, for the Bible doesn't teach Adam was the first sinner. Eve ate of the fruit and sinned in so doing "before" Adam. (Gen 3:1-6) Also, Romans 5:12 doesn't mention Adam, just one man; who is to say Adam was that one man? Even if he is given credit, doesn't mean he was the first sinner. Jesus is also called the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45), yet, he wasn't the last "man" to be born, nor was he last man named "Adam" in history. These are theological terms, not facts of history regarding who came first. One could also say based on Genesis that sin entered the world by a serpent, not by a man. So symbolic theological terms do not always conform to history. I don't believe in "Lucifer's flood," in fact, see my debate on DDO, "Lucifer is not Satan. " The pre-Adamic race was made on the sixth day, not between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Since I never argued for pre-Adamic flood, Con is knocking down a strawman. In that same chapter in 1 Corinthians 15 Con sites for Adam being the first man, it also called Jesus the "second man" just as Adam was the "first. " (1 Cor 15:47) Now, is Con seriously going to tell me Jesus was the second human to be born on earth? Was he Adam's son? No, these are not literal terms, but theological ones, they have symbolic significance. Adam was no more the literal "first" human that Jesus was the "second" or the "last. ' "The Jewish Understanding" They misunderstood the Scriptures just as they did when they rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The prophets and other holy men who wrote these things were usually a persecuted folk, greatly misunderstood. Since Con argues that ancient Jews didn't know of a pre-Adamic race as proof that it was't so, then he must also agree with the same Jews who claimed that Moses was the author, when we know that he was not. Even his own erroneous JDEP theory rejects Jewish tradition, so even he should admit that Jewish tradition on the OT could be wrong. "My opponent's entire case rests on the fact that Genesis 1 & 2 are contradictory if they are talking about the same events" Con fails to mention I also argued that Genesis 2 makes no quotes from chapter 1, or any reference to the listing of days, mornings and evenings, pronouncements by God to create, or anything such thing to show it was attempting to explain Genesis 1. Nor does it seek to explain the curious parts like birds being made from water when chapter 2 says they were made from the ground. Genesis 2 isn't written in the form of an explanation. I also showed other passages in the Bible that confirm that other people apart from Adam's family were on earth by the time he had his first 2 sons. From Adam, to Cain, to Enoch, we already have a city. Where did all these people come from? When Cain killed Abel and left his parents behind, where did he get a wife? (Gen 4:17) And who was Cain afraid of that would find him and kill him outside his parents home? (Gen 4:14-16) Clearly, the pre-Adamic race has others on earth, otherwise, God, who is totally against incest, used incest to populate the earth. This is plain ridiculous. Nor did Con answer how is it that someone trying to explain Genesis 1 would get the "method," "chronology" and "geography" of that creation wrong? Why would this person create such "obvious" and unnecessary contradictions, and give no attempt at reconciling them? One would have expected the contradictions to be vague, hidden, and we need to look beneath the surface to find them, but this is not so. It's more obvious these are two separate events. As for the documentary hypothesis, this argument fails to note that the same writer can and usually does have different writing styles, and these styles and language used changes according to the different subjects upon which he treats. Con gives no rational reason why one writer could not know God as both Elohim and Yahweh Elohim. (By the way, YHWH Elohim means Yahweh God) Christians and Jews today know God by many names and titles, so why should each title imply a different author in Genesis? God holds many offices. Today, when a newspaper article refers to the same person as "the owner," "CEO," "manager," etc, we don't assume that three different journalists contributed to the article. Modern-language writers often write in different styles at different stages in their careers, or when they are dealing with different subject matter. No one has explained why the author of Genesis could not refer to the Creator both as God and as Jehovah. No one has proved that he could not write in different styles if he was treating different subjects, writing at different times in his life, or using earlier sources. K. A. Kitchen notes in his book Ancient Orient and Old Testament: "Stylistic differences are meaningless, and reflect the differences in detailed subject-matter. " Similar style variations can also be found "in ancient texts whose literary unity is beyond all doubt. " The argument that the use of different names and titles for God is evidence of multiple authorship is particularly weak. In just one small verse, Genesis 28:13, the terms "Elohim" (God) and "Jehovah" are used together? Did two authors collaborate to write that one verse? John Romer said in his book Testament—The Bible and History: "A fundamental objection to this whole method of analysis is that to this day not one scrap of ancient text has been found to prove the existence of the theoretical strands of different texts so beloved of modern scholarship. " Why humans are created twice? They aren't, these are separate events. As for Noah, Genesis 6:13-21 is instruction given before Noah even built the ark, while Genesis 7:2 was only for the final 7 days before the flood. So in the last 7 days the paring changed; it's a second event, not an explanation of the first. "Why the seams between the two creation accounts and the two flood accounts also divide perfectly the similar language that is used in the creation and flood accounts. " They don't. Genesis 6 calls God by "Elohim" and "Yahweh" (Gen 6:4-5), it doesn't use Elohim in one chapter and leave Yahweh for the next. The same is true of Genesis 7:16 where both Elohim and Yahweh are used in the same verse. If Con wants, I could go on to refute the documentary hypothesis in detail but that's not what the debate is about. I've illustrated the error of it already. I want Con to tell me first why an ancient writer could not have known God as both Yahweh and Elohim. .