The Pre-adamic origin of demons

Gap Theory debate of 2013.
Further crediting sources by me:

Jameisom, R. , Commentary: Critical and Expository: Genesis - Deuteronomy, (Nisbet, London, 1871, p. 3): the author notes that in many Hebrew manuscripts a mark indicating a pause occurs after Genesis.1,1. "This break between Gen.1.1 and 1.2 is observed even where no verse division exists"

Gap Theory debate with RJHinds of 2013.

More giving credit to other authors

It is important and interesting to observe how the early fathers of the Christian church should seem to have entertained precisely similar views: for St. Gregory Nazianzen, after St. Justin Martyr, supposes an indefinite period between the creation and the first ordering of all things. St. Basil, St. Caesarius, and Origen, are much more explicit. To these might be added Augustine, Theodoeret, Episcopius, and others, whose remarks imply that existence of a considerable interval 'between the creation related in the first verse of genesis, and that of which an account is given in the third and following verses'. Independent character of the opening sentence of Genesis was affirmed by such judicious and learned men as Calvin, Bishop Patrick, and Dr. David Jennings. And 'in some old editions of the English Bible, where there is no division into verses, and in Luther's Bible (Wittenburg, 1557), you have in addition the figure 1 placed against the third verse, as being the beginning of the account of the creation of the first day'. Now these views were formed independently of all geological considerations.


[ Arthur Custance, Without Form and Void, Doorway Papers, pg.121 ]


Gray, Rev. James, in his book, The Earth's Antiquity in Harmony With the Mosaic Record of Creation (referred to by William Hoare in a footnote on p. 145 of his book Veracity of the Book of Genesis) takes the view (Chapter IV, p,211, 2nd edition) "that the first verse in Genesis is not to be understood according to the currently entertained notion, as merely giving a summary account of the after-recorded work of the six days, but is an independent proposition enunciating THE CREATION, primordial as to time, - the reference being retrospective rather than prospective". In a subsequent footnote on p. 151, Gray is again quoted (p. 120 and 144 of his work) on Gen. 1.2 as follows: "Such a disturbed condition of terrestrial things is here narrated, as we should naturally conclude would be found after the violent action of one or another of those grand disturbing agents, either of fire, by earthquakes, or of water by deluges, which we know to be Nature's ordinary mighty destroyers and renovators on the earth .... a state following upon the last catastrophe anterior to the period of its divinely recorded re-organization as the abode of man."


Hoare, who did not speculate what part fallen angels or Satan had to do with this, did note in a footnote -
"Episcopius and others thought that the creation and fall of the bad angels took place in the interval he has spoken of: and misplaced as such speculations are, still they seem to show that it is natural to suppose that a considerable interval may have taken place between the creation related in the first verse of Genesis and that of which an account is given in the third and following verses."


[ see Arthur Custance's book above, pg. 122 ]

More credited citations in 2013 in thread Gap Theory

"The ancients used to call me Chaos: for a primeval being am I. See how remote an age I shall recount the events! This air, full of light, and the three reemaining elements, fire, water, and earth, were a confused heap. As soon as this mass was separated through the discord of its component parts, and had dissolved and passed away into new positions, the flame ascended upwards; a nearer place - that is, nearer to earth - received the air; the earth and the sea settled down to the bottom. Then I, who had been a mass and shapeless bulk, passed into a form and limbs worthuy of a god" (Fasti i. 1030112)



[Quoted from Earth's Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, Regel, pg. 27) ]

Originally posted by @divegeester
I have no doubt that you pull your ideas from other authors, we have discussed is before, but at least you are citing them here, now, finally.

I have never met anyone who is as well read as you and yet who absorbs so much blatant falsehood and fictional notions.

we have discussed is before, but at least you are citing them here, now, finally.

You are full of lies and false accusations Divegeester.

I cited authors on this subject five years ago in 2013.

Stop dodging and answer the question please.

Originally posted by @sonship
Demons would prefer the bodies they had in another age.

Originally posted by @divegeester
How do you know this?

Originally posted by @sonship

The demons are the fallen angels.

Can you then point out where it says angels possessed the bodies of sinners?

Can you locate a verse that a legion of angels inhabited a poor sinner's body?

The Bible shows possession of evil spirits. And for certain the bad angels are evil spirits. But we do not have an interchangeable use of ang ...[text shortened]...

They complained that the Son of God might be coming to torment them [b]"before the time".[/b]

What would you say about this, then, Sonship?

Question: "Was Satan an angel?"

Answer: The Bible nowhere explicitly describes Satan as an angel before he rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. Assuming Ezekiel 28:12–18 is symbolic of Satan’s fall, Satan is described as a “guardian cherub.” Cherubs are angelic creatures, possibly the highest order of angels. So, in that sense, yes, Satan was an angel.

Job 1:6–7 describes Satan appearing before God with the other “sons of God,” very likely a reference to the angels. Matthew 25:41 mentions “the devil and his angels.” Revelation 12:7, describing the end-times war in heaven, says, “Michael [the archangel] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan] and his angels.” Whether or not Satan is technically an angel is beside the point. Satan is an angelic-type creature with a close connection to the angels.

https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Satan-an-angel.html

That is a Protestant website and it seems to generally acknowledge that Satan was an angel or an 'angeltic type creature.'

Of course, there is a distinction between demons and angels, but they are of the same metaphysical essence in most concepts.

Just as such, Gandhi & Hitler are the same species and same type of existence.

What about monsters from the id?

Originally posted by @philokalia

I would say that it is not too conclusive.
In other words in just the portion of the article you quoted, I see not too much to make an issue about.

Whether or not Satan is technically an angel is beside the point. Satan is an angelic-type creature with a close connection to the angels.

What's really important?
That an very ancient being was described as "perfect in [his] ways" from the time of his creation, and subsequently became evil, that is significant.

"You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ezek. 28:15)

That would not be appropriate of any human being existing since the sin of Adam. Possibly excluding the man Jesus the Son of God to whom the passage couldn't refer.

"But he's not called an angel!" is not something I feel needs to be fought over. Do you?

A class of very ancient beings were involved in the government of the creation. And one of them went from perfection to the arch-enemy of God and man.

In this verse John sees twenty four "elders" around the throne of God praising God for His creation. They have crowns. I follow the interpretation that they are not "elders" of Israel. Nor are they "elders" of the Christian church. But they are "elders" of the creation, being the oldest being created by God, with thrones and crowns of divinely ordained authority.

"Immediately I was in spirit, and behold, there was a throne set in heaven, and upon the throne there was One sitting. And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance, and there was a rainbow around the throne like an emerald in appearance.

And around the throne there were twenty-four thrones, and upon the thrones twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and upon their heads golden crowns." (Rev. 4:3,4)

The symbol points to the most ancient creations of God, the "elders" of the universe endowed with deputy authority. Among this class of beings Satan came.

They should not mean elders of the Christian church because John himself is not among them. And surely John was one of the original disciples of Christ.

The point here is not that Satan was one of the twenty four. But the vision conveys that the most elderly beings in God's creation had thrones and kingly authority. They are seen here praising God mainly for His creation and His eternal purpose.

"The twenty-four elders will fall before Him who sits upon the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and they will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

You are worthy, out Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created." (vs. 10,11)

From this oldest created authorities pre-dating human beings, Satan arose. Calling him an ancient arch-angel seems legitimate to me.

Stop dodging and answer the question please.

Fifth time of asking...

Originally posted by @sonship
Demons would prefer the bodies they had in another age.

Originally posted by @divegeester
How do you know this?

Originally posted by @velns
What about monsters from the id?

i think the Id was Sigmond's Freud's way of analyzing something in man beastly, primal, ruthlessly selfish.

I would say he was talking about what Paul called the law of sin and death in man's fallen body.

In the movie Fordden Planet there was an imaginative Science Fiction story of how this subconscious uncontrollable evil got out of hand with the aid of some advance race's technology.

I think reality is more fascinating then Science Fiction though.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Stop dodging and answer the question please.

Fifth time of asking...

Originally posted by @sonship
Demons would prefer the bodies they had in another age.

Originally posted by @divegeester
How do you know this?

I've decided to graduate from arguing with you.
"Dodge" ... "side step" ... "Ignore" ... any of these descriptions is Ok with me.

Originally posted by @sonship
i think the Id was Sigmond's Freud's way of analyzing something in man beastly, primal, ruthlessly selfish.

I would say he was talking about what Paul called the law of sin and death in man's fallen body.

In the movie Fordden Planet there was an imaginative Science Fiction story of how this subconscious uncontrollable evil got out of hand with the ai ...[text shortened]... e advance race's technology.

I think reality is more fascinating then Science Fiction though.

How do think it makes you appear when you deliberately avoid responding to simple on topic questions about claims you make?

Originally posted by @sonship
I've decide to graduate from arguing with you.
"Dodge" ... "side step" ... "Ignore" ... any of these descriptions is Ok with me.

I’ll tell you at you are doing sonship. Lying.

What is occurring here is you once again being caught making stuff up, copying erroneous spiritual ideas form other writers and being found out.

Now your vanity is preventing you from putting your hands up and saying you were wrong and your dishonesty is providing you with the alternative.

Originally posted by @divegeester
How do think it makes you appear when you deliberately avoid responding to simple on topic questions about claims you make?

I've decided to graduate from arguing with you.
"Dodge" ... "side step" ... "Ignore" ... any of these descriptions is Ok with me.

Legitimate usage of this Forum does not have to be defined by always defending my views against yours.

Originally posted by @sonship

I've decide to graduate from arguing with you.
"Dodge" ... "side step" ... "Ignore" ... any of these descriptions is Ok with me.

Legitimate usage of this Forum does not have to be defined by always defending my views against yours.

Suit yourself, it’s your credibility.