Where do cavemen fit in the theory of Creationism?

I think cavemen, dinosaurs, etc., were all pre-Adamic creations. When God gave Adam and Eve the command to be fruitful and multiply, he told them to replenish the earth, which to me implies that it was previously filled. When I read Genesis in the context of the New Testament, it seems to me that it is not a complete natural history, but rather one focused specifically on Adam, Eve, and the beginnings of original sin. I don't see any reason why God couldn't have made creations before us, or what reason we have to believe that there are not currently other Universes that God has made, or that He won't make more after us.

Refer to my other posts in the thread.

Anyway, I certainly don't consider my theory bulletproof, or even that interesting. Cavemen, and natural history in general, don't really hold much interest to me and it was never really a "sticking point" in my acceptance of Christianity, the way some other things were.

EDIT: Re-reading this post in context with the rest of the thread, I feel the need to clarify that I even though I believe there were pre-Adamite civilizations, I do still believe that Adam was the first man created. I don't believe that the pre-Adamite civilizations were human, and though I have no way of knowing, I doubt that they had self-consciousness beyond that of dogs or other animals. I don't believe man is descended from cavemen.
 
Last edited:
kraniac said:
I think cavemen, dinosaurs, etc., were all pre-Adamic creations. When God gave Adam and Eve the command to be fruitful and multiply, he told them to replenish the earth, which to me implies that it was previously filled. When I read Genesis in the context of the New Testament, it seems to me that it is not a complete natural history, but rather one focused specifically on Adam, Eve, and the beginnings of original sin. I don't see any reason why God couldn't have made creations before us, or what reason we have to believe that there are not currently other Universes that God has made, or that He won't make more after us.

Refer to my other posts in the thread.

Anyway, I certainly don't consider my theory bulletproof, or even that interesting. Cavemen, and natural history in general, don't really hold much interest to me and it was never really a "sticking point" in my acceptance of Christianity, the way some other things were.

EDIT: Re-reading this post in context with the rest of the thread, I feel the need to clarify that I even though I believe there were pre-Adamite civilizations, I do still believe that Adam was the first man created. I don't believe that the pre-Adamite civilizations were human, and though I have no way of knowing, I doubt that they had self-consciousness beyond that of dogs or other animals. I don't believe man is descended from cavemen.
Click to expand...

So were the species before Adam all vegetarians? There wasn't any bloodshed before the fall...on any level. The fall of man affects animals as well.
 
IceBladePOD said:
So were the species before Adam all vegetarians? There wasn't any bloodshed before the fall...on any level. The fall of man affects animals as well.
Click to expand...

From where do you draw that? I am not familiar with that bit of doctrine. And I have no idea what they ate. The design of their teeth might suggest something, but I haven't seen any cavemen teeth.
 
kraniac said:
I think cavemen, dinosaurs, etc., were all pre-Adamic creations. When God gave Adam and Eve the command to be fruitful and multiply, he told them to replenish the earth, which to me implies that it was previously filled. When I read Genesis in the context of the New Testament, it seems to me that it is not a complete natural history, but rather one focused specifically on Adam, Eve, and the beginnings of original sin. I don't see any reason why God couldn't have made creations before us, or what reason we have to believe that there are not currently other Universes that God has made, or that He won't make more after us.

Refer to my other posts in the thread.

Anyway, I certainly don't consider my theory bulletproof, or even that interesting. Cavemen, and natural history in general, don't really hold much interest to me and it was never really a "sticking point" in my acceptance of Christianity, the way some other things were.

EDIT: Re-reading this post in context with the rest of the thread, I feel the need to clarify that I even though I believe there were pre-Adamite civilizations, I do still believe that Adam was the first man created. I don't believe that the pre-Adamite civilizations were human, and though I have no way of knowing, I doubt that they had self-consciousness beyond that of dogs or other animals. I don't believe man is descended from cavemen.
Click to expand...

What you propose is called the Gap Theory it was first proposed by a Scottish theologian named Thomas Chalmers. The word 'replenish' in the KJV is what most people point to for support of this theory. The problem comes from tanslation.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:28 is translated 'replenish' in the KJV but the actual meaning of the word is 'to fill'. The word is used more than 300 times in the Bible and is only translated 'replenish' 7 times in the KJV. Newer translations have used the word fill.

The problem occured because the definition of the word replenish has changed from classical English. The KJV Bible was written around 1600. Here is the definition of replenish from Noah Websters 1828 dictionary:

“To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance."

This theory is usually used by people trying to fit the old earth theory in with the Genesis account of creation. This is done by trying to fit billions of years in between day 4 of creation and day 6.

There is absolutely no biblical support for this theory. In fact the theory if true would cause contradictions in the Bible. That alone should be enough to turn any Christian away from this theory.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read on Gap Theory, nor had I even heard of it before. Your counterargument is valid, and I will not attempt a refutation. Reading through that link that IceBlade posted, however, I don't see any valid support for exclusively vegetarian diets before the Flood. God mentioned that plants were acceptable food sources but He did not condemn meat-eating.

I am not trying to fit millions of years between days 4 and 6, I am trying to fit them in before the start of Day 1.

I also find it hard to assume that we are God's only creation, but that will vary with opinion.

Like I said, though, I don't really have a strong opinion on this subject. Cavemen and their existence or nonexistence were never a sticking point to my acceptance of Christianity and to be honest I don't care too much what theologians want to do with them. The Bible was not intended as a natural history and the origins of life should always be secondary to the Gospel.
 
Last edited:
Dark Virtue said:
Didasko, so you don't agree with Young Earth Creationism?
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? Did you read my whole post?

Didasko said:
There is absolutely no biblical support for this theory. In fact the theory if true would cause contradictions in the Bible. That alone should be enough to turn any Christian away from this theory.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kraniac said:
I haven't read on Gap Theory, nor had I even heard of it before. Your counterargument is valid, and I will not attempt a refutation. Reading through that link that IceBlade posted, however, I don't see any valid support for exclusively vegetarian diets before the Flood. God mentioned that plants were acceptable food sources but He did not condemn meat-eating.

I am not trying to fit millions of years between days 4 and 6, I am trying to fit them in before the start of Day 1.

I also find it hard to assume that we are God's only creation, but that will vary with opinion.

Like I said, though, I don't really have a strong opinion on this subject. Cavemen and their existence or nonexistence were never a sticking point to my acceptance of Christianity and to be honest I don't care too much what theologians want to do with them. The Bible was not intended as a natural history and the origins of life should always be secondary to the Gospel.
Click to expand...

The Bible was not intended as natural history? Are you talking about Genesis? That's amazing! Why didn't God tell Jesus?

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/creation.asp
 
Re-reading this post in context with the rest of the thread, I feel the need to clarify that I even though I believe there were pre-Adamite civilizations, I do still believe that Adam was the first man created. I don't believe that the pre-Adamite civilizations were human, and though I have no way of knowing, I doubt that they had self-consciousness beyond that of dogs or other animals. I don't believe man is descended from cavemen.
Click to expand...

ummm okay. I am guessing that there is a fine line between RD and SciFi, can we please try to stay on the RD side of things?

Gen
 
Genesis1315 said:
ummm okay. I am guessing that there is a fine line between RD and SciFi, can we please try to stay on the RD side of things?

Gen
Click to expand...
You know you're talking to the wrong people when the moderator calls your beliefs science fiction...

Dark Virtue said:
How do you define Human?
Click to expand...
Homo Sapien.

IceBladePOD said:
The Bible was not intended as natural history? Are you talking about Genesis? That's amazing! Why didn't God tell Jesus?
Click to expand...
No, I said the Bible wasn't intended as a COMPLETE natural history. Genesis deals with our origins not to satisfy our curiosity, but to explain original sin. If God was in the business of fulfilling our curiosity I don't think we would have very many athiests.

Regarding that Answers in Genesis site:
They have already lost my trust with their weak support for claiming that all antediluvian diets were vegeterian. That last link has little to do with my position. Please don't argue from their site any more; I won't reference them again unless they start making valid points.
 
kraniac said:
Regarding that Answers in Genesis site:
They have already lost my trust with their weak support for claiming that all antediluvian diets were vegeterian. That last link has little to do with my position. Please don't argue from their site any more; I won't reference them again unless they start making valid points.
Click to expand...

Very well, but only after you provide a refutation to their points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top