An Old Earth History of Satan

Originally posted by sonship

But in our past discussion on this subject, you said that this first verse could have taken place billions of years ago?

That's right. It could have because in the Bible the length of time is unknown.

My main concern is not the length of time but to expose the arch enemy of God and His saints. That is the stripping of Satan ...[text shortened]... new creation in Genesis 1:26,27. Previous beings on earth are a mystery to us.

Cont. below

I am using the word "people" as just the plural for "person" and not meaning that they have to be humans like us. Perhaps, you would accept the word "persons" as a better description, since we refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the three persons of the Triune God? Anyway, we shall go with intelligent beings then. However, they did have physical bodies at one time and inhabited the earth making up a pre-Adamic civilization according to your view, right?

The demons are the fallen angels that followed Satan the devil and are also called devils. But they never possessed physical bodies until after man was created and made.

I also think the length of time is known and is clearly stated in Genesis.

I never said God used some temporary light source until the sun was created on the fourth day. We know God is Light. All I said was that God caused light to appear on the first day before the sun and stars were made on day four. That is exactly what Genesis said. So there is no ad-libbing there. It clearly says that on day four God made the Sun and moon as a kind of clock so we could tell the times and seasons. I am sure God could tell time without them.

The instructor

What you are referring to here may be the sons of God of Genesis 6. They are also called the dead instead of raphaim or nephalim, not sure of spelling. I am at work and do not have the resources I need here.

But I believe in Jude it speaks of these beings in chains until a certain time.
Perhaps these are the ones Satan releases in the book of Rev....

checkbaiter,
I will have to get back to you latter to comment on this.

Anyway, we shall go with intelligent beings then. However, they did have physical bodies at one time and inhabited the earth making up a pre-Adamic civilization according to your view, right?

The demons are distinct from the fallen angels. One are in the air the other are roaming upon the earth. This they do in rebellion somehow leaving the place of their intended confinement.

In the past I gave scriptural reasons for comprehending them as distinct categories of beings - bad angels and demonic spirits.

Clearly both are bad. But some of us do not use both being bad as a rational to say they are the same. I don't want to be unfair but it seems the logic I get from those who consider bad angels as demons and demons as bad angels is that ... well they are both bad so they must be the same.

The demons are the fallen angels that followed Satan the devil and are also called devils. But they never possessed physical bodies until after man was created and made.

So let's talk about the word devils [plural] then in the King James Bible. Plural "devils" is a mistranslation. And I will quote J.H. Pember here. But I cannot print the Greek fonts just yet.

"But another class of Satan's subjects is much more frequently brought before us, ... or demons; and great confusion is introduced into our version by the erroneous translation "devils." We may, however, in some measure avoid this confusion by remembering that the proper word for Devil, has, as we just said, no plural, and is only applied to Satan himself. Whenever, therefore, we meet the plural in the English Testament, we may be sure that the Greek is ... [daimonia], which ought to be rendered "demons."

[Earth's Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, Kregel, pg. 56 [my bolding] ]

The word translated Devil is only found in the SINGULAR.
Therefor "ho diabolos" means the Devil. The word DAIMONIA is mistranslated "devils" in KJV.

" This mistake has been most unaccountably confirmed in the Revised Version, nothwithstanding the protest of the American Committee. "

I suggest first that readers DROP the usage of the word "devils" (plural) in reading the English New Testament. There is no plural occurrence of DIABOLOS and DIAMONIA should be read "demons".

That much tells us that fallen angels should not be called "devils".
And demons should neither be called "devils".

That demons are different from bad angels I have pointed out in Acts 23:9 where the spirits who are OTHER THAN angels are referred to

"And there was a great outcry; and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party rose up and contended, saying, And what if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?

A spirit OR an angel - indicates a distinction at least in the minds of Pharisees. The previous verse 8 read - "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." (v.8)

Fallen angels are bad and are spirits.
Demons are bad are unclean spirits.
But "angel or spirit" and "neither angel nor spirit" indicate a distinction.

The demons are the unclean spirits -

" ... they brought to Him many that were possessed with DEMONS; and He cast out the spirits with His word" (Matt. 8:16)

"And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the DEMONS are subject unto us through Your name." And the reply of Jesus was - " ... rejoice not in this, that the SPIRITS are subject unto you." (Luke 10:17,20)

In Matthew's account of he lunatic boy, the DEMON is said to come forth from him (Matt.17:18). But in Mark's Gospel this same demon is called a "foul spirit" and also a "deaf and dumb spirit" (Mark 9:25)

And Luke speaks of " certain women which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities," of whom the first mentioned is "Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven DEMONS (Luke 8:2,3). Demons and evil spirits are therefore synonymous terms.

Bad angels and demons I don't think can be demonstrated to be synonymous.

Cont. below.

"The Gap Theory" "Theistic Evolution" & "The Day Age Theory" DEBUNKED

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
"The Gap Theory" "Theistic Evolution" & "The Day Age Theory" DEBUNKED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWWIJmCJpN4

The Instructor

The first point is that I would only be interested in the video as it relates to what I have written here.

The first problem is that at about 1:10 where it is asked -

"How did the earth exist and evolved for billions of years without the sun ..."

Nothing I wrote in this discussion stated or insists that one has to believe that the earth existed and "evolved" for billions of years without the sun. I never even used the word "evolved". So this is RJHind's strawman argument.

The Bible does say that darkness was upon the earth in a state of toho-wa-vohu. Where did I say it "evolved" during this time?

On the contrary - the Spirit of God brooding upon the face of the waters, I think, is a picture not of life but of abject death. God wants to bring forth life and is therefore brooding as a hen or bird concerned about the birth of new life.

So much for the first strawman argument. The speaker goes on to speak of pure speculation without scriptural justification. But RJHinds didn't specifically disprove justifications from the Bible I gave towards arguing of a pre-adamic judgment on a realm over which Satan was king and priest.

G.H. Pember, I recall, spoke of the [i]possibility[/b] that the earth lay a long period of time in darkness because of the sun's light being darkened. I don't recall him saying anything about evolution taking part with life during that time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"The Gap Theory" "Theistic Evolution" & "The Day Age Theory" DEBUNKED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWWIJmCJpN4

The Instructor

The next statement of interest is when the speaker says that 20 Hebrew scholars were contacted and all said no Gap was understood by them between Genesis 1 and 2.

This is not impressive because as far back as the end of the first century AD and beginning of second century AD some Hebrew scholars believed in ancient worlds which God judged based on Genesis.

Akiba ben Joseph was an influential Jewish rabbi who was president of the School Bene Barek near Saffa. He laid the basis for the Mishna. When Barcochebas rebelled against the Romans, Akiba joined him and was captured. He was executed in 135 A.D. The ancient work known as The Book of Light or Sefer Hazzohar, sometimes simply Zohar, was traditionally ascribed to one of Akiba's disciples, a certain Simon ben Jochai. In this work, which thus represents an opinion held towards the end of the first century, there is a comment on Gen. 2.4-6 which, though difficult to follow reads thus

"These are the generations (ie., this is the history of ...) heaven and earth .... Now whenever there is written the word 'these' .... the previous words are put aside. And these are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds wof which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account the earth was desolate and empty."

Here, then, we have a comment which is in the time of our Lord was held widely enough that Paul might very well have known about it. In which case we may better understand the backround of his words in writing to the Corinthians (II Cor. 4:6) where he said, "God Who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus."

[Without Form and Void, Arthur Custance, Doorway Papers, pgs. 15,16, (my bolding) ]

So the critic and in the video and RJHinds are just under informed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"The Gap Theory" "Theistic Evolution" & "The Day Age Theory" DEBUNKED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWWIJmCJpN4

The Instructor

The next point of interest is around 2.11 where the speaker says in essence - Yes there Satan was thrown down from heaven but there was no judgment upon God's creation as a result.

But the words without form and void used together in two other places only in the Bible indicate God's judgment. So Dr. Rotherham, translator of the Emphasized Bible would disagree with the speaker as would others like Dr. Donald Barnhouse (the teacher of the late Walter Martin - the Bible Answer Man of the 1970s).

" ... the two words occur together only in Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23; examples which favor the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow. "

[The Emphasized Bible, Kregel Publications a translation by Joseph Bryant Rotherham, pg. 33, note for Genesis 1:2) (some my editing ) ]

This assumption that there was no judgment upon creation assumes a few dubious things to me:

1.) Nothing of creation was under the jurisdiction of the ancient Daystar, the anointed cherub. Everything pertaining to his rulership was only heavenly. I don't see why this should be true. I think it is more likely that being so close to God he had deputy authority over aspects of that creation of God from the "dawn" of the universe.

2.) The other assumption is that a righteous God would not judge the things UNDER the jurisdiction of a rebellious Daystar. God's nature must call for some act of judgment IF this being WAS over matters of creation.

3.) The prophet Isaiah says that he was cast to the earth. If the earth was only created to be a trash can to discard of Satan that doesn't seem rght. Then we have God creating man in the same instrument that serves as the place of discarding a rebellious archangel.

It is more believable to me that this being ruled over perhaps more significant realms of the creation than we realize. When he was cast out of heaven from going up and down in the midst of the "stones of fire" his realm was judged as well.

Today Satan travels back and forth to appear both to roam upon the earth and to appear before the throne of God to accuse men. We can consider this like a fired employee who being disgruntle still sometimes goes to the place of his former employment to hang around and complain.

Contrary to the critic I believe the biblical evidence points to the earth being made without form and void and darkened and deadened because of not only what happened in heaven. What followed Satan in creation was also the cause of this.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"The Gap Theory" "Theistic Evolution" & "The Day Age Theory" DEBUNKED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWWIJmCJpN4

The Instructor

Next the speaker indicates that darkness does not have to mean judgment. He says night is good as day is good.

I agree that both night and day have their useful and good usages. And I like his reference to the Psalm indicating God made day and night.

However, in the perfect climax of God's will in the New Jerusalem - there is no night. Though night and day continue in the new heaven and new earth - within the holy city New Jerusalem there is no night.

"And night will be no more, and they have no need of the light of a lamp and the light of the sun, for the Lord God will shine upon them; and they will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 22:5)

Sure - no doubt night in God's creation does have its positive purposes. But in the holy city "there will be no night there" (Rev.21:25)

Darkness and night have some reminder to the Creator which for His own purposes He wants to show are no longer needed in the consummation of His will.

God can see that night is very good and day is very good (Genesis 1:31) YET darkness and night be a reminder of something He wants to show has been totally eradicated.

Seasons in the eternal new heaven and earth certainly call for the continued existence of the sun, moon, stars probably. But in the full and perfect consummation of His will - New Jerusalem there is no night and no darkness. Something about the darkness must be reminiscent to God and man of something overcome by God's salvation forever.

Furthermore - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the garden. To eat of it was to DIE. The warning NOT to eat of it was before God could pronounce that He has made man male and female (Gen. 1:27).

The warning not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in Genesis 2:16,17 right after He had made Adam (vs.7) yet before He had builded a woman from Adam in verses 21-25.

This means that on the sixth day when God created man - "male and female" (1:27) a tree which could cause man to die was also in the paradise Eden. Now if God said at the end of the sixth day that everything which He had made was "very good" (Gen. 1:31) that must include also a forbidden fruit which could cause Adam to DIE.

The significance of this is that just because God saw that everything that He had made was very good does not mean there was no danger or nothing to be weary against or vigilant because of.

Satan, an ancient conquered foe, his defeated and jobless angels, and judged demons, ALL of which were to be guarded against by Adam and had dominion over by Adam could, with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, be in that world on day #6.

This disproves the complaint that nothing negative at all could exist in a creation in which God saw everything was very good.

What was very good was that it was ALL under the deputy authority of a new being - man. And it would have remained "very good" as long as Adam and Eve obeyed God and did not eat of the forbidden fruit. Instead they were to be attracted to "the tree of life" for the full carrying out of God's plan.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]How could Lucifer go from being good to evil without free will?


i think you are misunderstanding my point. im not questioning if free will exists or not. im happy for the purposes of the thread to accept freewill. what im attempting to find out is - why does satan make evil decisions? where are his evil decisions coming from? his brain? his ...[text shortened]... onduit to apply our own decisions, but how do we reach those decisions, where do they come from?[/b]

Where do your choices come from? You are the one making them so you
would think you could tell us.
Kelly

A lot of this I have seen before, by friends who believe the earth is very
old and a lot of things happened on it then it was flooded. I guess the
name for that is the gap theory where there was a lot of time between
Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

Its one of the reasons I don't really care how old people think the earth
people think the earth or universe are. I believe it to be young, but it
could be very old. The truth whatever it is, does not need me to agree
with it, it is what it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
"The Gap Theory" "Theistic Evolution" & "The Day Age Theory" DEBUNKED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWWIJmCJpN4

The Instructor

Around 3:21 the video complains in essence - If all these terrible things happened and Satan was ruler HOW COULD THE EARTH BE CALLED - very good in Genesis 1:31 ?

Satan was no longer ruler. That was very good.
Man was not assigned to have the dominion instead. That was very good.

Satan and fallen angels were POWERLESS as long as man was under God's government. THAT was very good.

Man could eat of the tree of life and be imparted into by God Himself.
That was very good.

God said " Let THEM have dominion" meaning human beings. THAT was very good.

Man was to guard the garden and keep it, certainly from any creatures even subtle or more crafty whom God had made. THAT was very good.

This objection is typical of Young Earth theorists that do not seem to understand that the creation UNDER the jurisdiction of man was the main factor of it all being "very good" .

Psalm 8 is a Psalm about the meaning of the creation of man. In that Psalm it says that man was created to still the avenger and the adversary -

"O Jehovah our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth, You who have set Your glory over the heavens!

Out of the mouths of babes abd sucklings You have established strength because of Your adversaries, to stop the enemy and the avenger." (Psalm 8:1,2)

Now consider this. If the mouths of babies and sucklings are designed to stop the avenger and the adversary this means that IN PRINCIPLE - humanity is created to be a conqueror over the enemies of God. Just in view of man being a BABY human being, he is in principle mandated to be God's instrument to defeat the spiritual enemies of God.

I submit that the avenger is Satan. He wanted to avenge the loss of his ancient kingdom which God deprived him of and judged.

I submit that the adversaries are all the evil hosts that follow Satan. This would not exclude men too who have joined the Satanic opposition party.

In principle even baby human beings were created to be aligned with God.

The book of Hebrews quotes this passage and says that today we do not see this in man. BUT we see Jesus. And that means that what Adam failed to be Jesus the Son of God came to successfully accomplish. He is the last Adam and the second man. And He is what God meant by man - a man so utterly united with God. And that to still the enemy and the avenger Satan and his hosts.

Originally posted by sonship
Around 3:21 the video complains in essence - If all these terrible things happened and Satan was ruler HOW COULD THE EARTH BE CALLED - [b]very good in Genesis 1:31 ?

Satan was no longer ruler. That was very good.
Man was not assigned to have the dominion instead. That was very good.

Satan and fallen angels were POWERLESS as long as man was un ...[text shortened]... man so utterly united with God. And that to still the enemy and the avenger Satan and his hosts.[/b]

It is a worthless argument in my opinion, I don't care if the universe
is billions or thousands of years old, neither changes that God created
it all and rules it, and that Jesus died for my sins, and rose from the
dead. It is like debating when the rapture is going to occur, or will occur,
or if it already happened, if you are not ready when you die, or when it
occurs it does not matters.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a worthless argument in my opinion, I don't care if the universe
is billions or thousands of years old, neither changes that God created
it all and rules it, and that Jesus died for my sins, and rose from the
dead. It is like debating when the rapture is going to occur, or will occur,
or if it already happened, if you are not ready when you die, or when it
occurs it does not matters.
Kelly

If we can eliminate the possibility that the earth is billions or millions of years old, doesn't that put a stop to the evilution idea?

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonship
Around 3:21 the video complains in essence - If all these terrible things happened and Satan was ruler HOW COULD THE EARTH BE CALLED - [b]very good in Genesis 1:31 ?

Satan was no longer ruler. That was very good.
Man was not assigned to have the dominion instead. That was very good.

Satan and fallen angels were POWERLESS as long as man was un ...[text shortened]... man so utterly united with God. And that to still the enemy and the avenger Satan and his hosts.[/b]

To me this requires too much ad-libbing and I see no need to try to make this so complicated in order to account for an old earth that is not needed.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
If we can eliminate the possibility that the earth is billions or millions of years old, doesn't that put a stop to the evilution idea?

The Instructor

I'll leave that topic out of this thread least we change it, it has been
a very good thread so far in my opinion. I'd hate to see it run down
a rat hole and go off topic.
Kelly