Homo Naledi
A Creation Without Grace
The Brutal Armstrongist Concept of Pre-adamic Man
By Scout
"A person's a person, no matter how small" – Dr. Seuss
Decades ago, Herman Hoeh mounted the stage in the Field House in Big Sandy and delivered a startling message. I sat in the middle of a large audience and listened spellbound. He explained that ancient man was not only pre-Flood but pre-adamic. Up to that point, Armstrongist history maintained that ancient humans, such as Neanderthal, were descended from Adam but lived before the Noachian Flood and within the boundaries of the 6,000-year period. Hoeh further stated that the pyramids of Egypt were not built by our “Israelite” ancestors in Egyptian slavery but were built by pre-Flood peoples. Later on, I don’t know when or where I first heard it, this understanding included the idea that pre-adamic man was not really a true human and that salvation was not applicable to him. God, then, was a great being who created sentient or near-sentient beings throughout hundreds of thousands of years and discarded them. It was unsettling. It was not a picture of grace.
(Note: Oddly, while there was a published Armstrongist article based on the Young Earth Creationist idea that all ancient men were descended from Adam, there was never an official publication asserting Hoeh’s profound revision of Armstrongist history presented that day in the Field House. I searched an archive of WCG literature and could not find the term “pre-adamic man” or its variant spellings. Any downstream theological implications of Hoeh’s idea were halted by neglect. I have no explanation for this.)
Hoeh’s presentation was unsettling because it was a view of God that one would need to process. If there is anything that we can learn from the anthropomorphic portrayal of God in the Bible, it is that the creation reflects the creator. The corollary proposition is that your understanding of the creation informs your view of God. I paint using watercolor or acrylic and sometimes mixed media. What I create in a work of art reflects my aesthetics, interests and viewpoints. My work is unsurprisingly not perfect because I am not perfect. I would like my art to be perfect but it never will be. God works in the medium of reality. He is perfect and, when he is finished with it, so will be his creation. The question is how does pre-adamic man fit into this picture.
Redemption of the Cosmos by Renewal
God created the Cosmos and the Cosmos reflects who he is. That is why he is going to fix it, restore it and in its final perfect disposition it will be beautiful, shining, new, at peace and redeemed. There is the creation, then the Cross and finally the renewal of all things or the Apokatastasis. Joh 3:16 reads in Greek, “For God so loved the Cosmos that he gave his only begotten son…”. We find in Romans 8, “that the creation itself will be set free from its enslavement to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”
Jesus spoke of the Apokatastasis when he stated, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal (Greek, palingenesia from the words for “again” and “generation”) of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory …”. In Acts 3:21, Peter refers to it as the “restitution of all things (Greek, apokatastasis).” Paul sees in this restitution later that all Israel will be saved, not just those who become Christians during the present era but all Israel for all time. Restitution is a time-spanning principle. It covers not only the living but also the dead. God created all things from the beginning and what he created he will restore in the Eschaton. If this line or reasoning yet seems tenuous, consider the explicit statement in Revelation 21:5, “"He who was seated on the throne said, 'Behold, I am making all things new’”. Nowhere does scripture suggest that God created things blithely. Nowhere does it suggest that he regards any of what he created to be discardable. This would include ancient man such as, say, Homo Naledi.
Homo Naledi
They were a different species of hominid genus. They lived 300,000 years ago and they were small. They stood at about 4’9” and weighed around 100 pounds. Their brain volume was about a third of ours. Their brain size was only slightly larger than that of a chimpanzee. The archaeology indicates that they were around about 100,000 years and then went extinct about 236,000 YA. They co-existed with early modern humans who appeared on earth around 300,000 YA. In fact, God made all kinds of hominids. The more scientists sift through the strata the more types they find.
The Homo Naledi were not just animals that God created nonchalantly. They had human characteristics. At the Rising Star Cave in South Africa there is a rich deposit of Homo Naledi fossils and artifacts. It has been startling to paleo-archaeologists that these ancients were in some ways so human-like. They had reverence for the treatment of their dead. They were driven by emotion to sequester away their loved ones so their dead bodies would not undergo visible decay or destruction by animals. They went way out of their way, over difficult descents, to bury their dead in a deep chamber of the cave. This has a ceremonial quality to it. They illuminated the way with fires. At one point in the descent, they had to engage in teamwork to get the body of the deceased across a deep chasm. Someone had to jump to the other side of the chasm so the body could be passed over. In the cemetery chamber, there were markings on the wall. The conjecture is that it identified who was buried there. Finally, in one of the excavated graves, the interred person seems to have a tool in his hand. The tool might have been a graver for making marks on the cave walls.
So, we have a group of human-like beings who were to some degree sentient. The complexity of their burial ritual indicates they must have had some form of communication, probably speech, to coordinate team efforts. They revered the dead in a way that is ceremonial: considerate burial in a cave requiring difficult passages to accomplish. The tool in the hand of one of the deceased may indicate a belief in the continuation of life beyond death. Animals don’t do any of this. And the profound conclusion that we must acknowledge is that they were created by God. Does God create anything as a lark?
The Armstrongist Version of Evolution
I believe that evolution happened. It was a tool that God used to order the biological creation on earth. I do not, however, believe that evolution was wholly random. I believe it was directed by God. Evolution is theistic. Yet, some literalist interpreters reject evolution as omitting God from the creation picture. I believe Armstrongists fall into this category.
In considering the case of Homo Naledi as an archetypical pre-adamic human, it is important to recognize that evolution asserts a continuity between us and ancient humans. We are not descended from Homo Naledi but we are descended from similar hominids and probably had an ancient common ancestor with the Naledi. Armstrongism rejects biological evolution and also, along with this, rejects any continuity between humans and what Armstrongism considers to be pre-adamic humans. But it is ironic that Armstrongists believe in another form of evolution – one that diminishes God. They believe in the progressive development of God. They believe that God undergoes development and that we may become God-as-God-is-God by also following a line of progressive development. Progressive development, aka evolution, is the pathway to Godhood.
So, Armstrongists believe in an unusual form of evolution. I cannot furnish documentary evidence of this. Like the topic of pre-adamic man, there is nothing officially published on this that I know of. What I found to support this were notes from in a file in the Ambassador College Big Sandy library. The unpublished notes were from a WCG Ministerial Conference held in Pasadena where Herman Hoeh was one of the speakers. I have since misplaced these notes. They are probably somewhere in a box in the garage. I’ll probably die without ever seeing them again.
Hoeh explained at the Conference that God functions just like a human engineer. He must make models and then test the models to see if they will work. He would then evaluate the results of testing and make improvements. And this experimentation by God is what generated the fossil humanoids (I believe Hoeh used that word) we find preserved in the geologic strata. (After all, someone has to explain why there is the progressive development of hominids in the fossil record without recourse to evolution.) So, there is no continuity between modern humans and, say, Neanderthals. Neanderthal apparently was a failed experiment and is now extinct. The complication in this case is that almost all non-Africans (There were no Neanderthals in Africa but there was some later back-migration.) are part Neanderthal. Get yourself a genetic test. So, there is some biological continuity between modern humans and some ancient humans. Other ancient hominids may be reflected in our genome. The jury still out.
What the Armstrongist view means is that evolution did not take place at the biological level but took place in the mind of God. God had to learn to make man. He had to start with a simple understanding and through experimentation progressively develop a more sophisticated understanding. So, Armstrongists see God as evolving. As you might guess, I think this is malarkey. God is absolute. He creates reality. He makes things exist. He does not evolve. He is not a Gnostic demiurge. He is not like us and we will never, ever rise to his level as created beings. And in this view of God evolving there is a brutalness and gracelessness that becomes an inherent part of the creation.
The Brutality of the Armstrongist Pre-adamic Man Belief
In the view of God as engineer, making and discarding progressively more sophisticated hominid models, there is a hierarchy of the results of experimentation. The failed and unacceptable occupy the lower tiers and at the pinnacle is modern man. The hominids in the lower tiers can then be discarded. There is no grace for them. They are not salvable or redeemable. They were just experimental biobots or “crash dummies”, a means to an end, that we need not be concerned about no matter how close they might have been to us. In the case of Homo Naledi, God let them live and propagate for 100,000 years and then cavalierly discarded them, supposedly. They had emotion, families, care for one another, reverence for a lived life, marked the loss of life, used symbols and tools and all this was simply trash-canned. Some local sage may kick-back in his armchair and wax philosophical and say “That’s the way life is. Its harsh.” Yet, a major theme of both the OT and NT is that “life in the fallen world is not the way it’s supposed to be.” So, how Homo Naledi, et al, is viewed makes a difference.
What Difference Does It Make?
The way we think that God treats his creation forms our view of the nature of God. It tells us who God is. It forms our view as to what is acceptable for us to do with the creation. If influences how we treat other people. The God who is a God of grace and cares for his creation is a different God from the God who values hominids according to a hierarchy and discards the ones that don’t meet expectations. A church that follows the latter God just might value people in its congregations according to some hierarchy with some people being more important that others and maybe with some people being just a nameless resource. The topic of ancient man may seem like just another subject for nerds but it is profound spiritually and shapes one’s view of God and denominational social practice.
C.S. Lewis said that nobody would deduce that there is a benevolent God based on observing Nature. Nature is brutal and competitive. Lewis instead deduced that the understanding of a God of grace must then be revealed knowledge. And, as most Christians see it, the present state of Nature is a cross-sectional – just for the present. It is the final disposition, wrought by God in grace, that is telling. And it is my view, that in the last analysis, Homo Naledi will be restored and will have a role. When Jesus said “all things” I believe he meant “all things."
Summation
God has no reason to experiment. He transcends us. Hoeh conjectured that God learns and makes like humans. That is not so.. The Cosmos is not a sandbox where God builds sandcastles and destroys them as he tries to figure out what to do next. I do not know the destiny of Homo Naledi. But I do know that the God of grace certainly does not discard beings who are at some stage of sentience. He may not discard anything – including even your pet cat. Theories that posit such a God are in error and besmirch God’s character of grace. Extinction is counteracted by restoration. In the short term it may seem that all is in disarray but in the long term all is ordered. God created Homo Naledi and I look forward to seeing what God will do for them. One day we will arrive at the New Earth and New Heavens and all will be restored and beautiful and right. All things shining.
Reference
A good summary of the research on Homo Naledi is the Netflix documentary titled “Cave of Bones,” part of the Unknown series.
62 comments:
Thank you for this post Scout. And for your work.
So many questions, so few answers. A new heavens and earth await us. When I ponder those who have passed from life before us, and especially those who have died in tragic circumstances down through the ages in war and famine, by natural disaster, by mans inhumanity to his fellows, and their eventual resurrection; I feel simply helpless in my ability to comprehend the goodness of a God, a Creator who will give us another chance at life. We are reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ alone. And that is enough. To grasp that is to be as a little child ready to inherit the Kingdom of God. The 'Law' which is so central to Armstrongism was simply a tutor to bring us to Him. And that is what scripture teaches us. A creation without Grace is hell.
An interesting commentary thanks for doing so, I will search out the Netflix series.
I, for one, don't believe in evolutionism or the Hoehism/Armstrongism belief that there was a pre-Adamic man and pre-Adamic dinosaurs.
Nor I 7:14. Can easily be disproved by looking at the hebrew words.
Although it seems to be gathering traction in 2025. Perhaps Shabi was keeping it at bay and more no doubt. Winds of doctrine never change.
A thoughtful post. The rejection of fossil, geologic evidence and evolutionary science is both ignorant and short-sighted. Fundamentalist and Literalist Christians have alienated themselves from common sense and ensured the failure of their worldview. What does evolution say about God? That "he" is brilliant and is NOT concerned with time or micromanaging creation. In the words of an old song, "God is watching us from a distance."
God is NOT concerned with time ??? Never mind your songs quote fake name, Psalm 11 contradicts you completely and your evolution alleged belief.
1989- MRP5- "Pre-Adamic Times" Dr Hoeh - Yes indeed, the presentation portrayed our creator as a bit of a tinkerer, and suggested that satan rebelled when he realized that the human product was advanced enough to be competition for the angels. Claimed that man prior to Adam did not have the "spirit in man" as we know it. As might be expected, he ran out of time after a long introduction and suggested that we could read more in the 374 pages of copied articles that were distributed for that lecture. Still have them :)
Nothing in the eleventh Psalm contradicts my statement, and all of us who put on the righteousness of Jesus Christ will stand before Almighty God whole and clean. When we begin to try to get our minds around billions of years, both our own limitations and God's eternal patience come into sharper focus. Our time on this blue-green orb with white swirls is little more than the blink of an eye in the context of the larger creation and its Creator.
God is the Creator of reality. He created it out of nothing. It is ludicrous to think that science somehow opposes God. There is a tension between some interpretations of Biblical scripture and the findings of science. To say the problem is not the interpretation but science is to deny the reality that God created.
Evolution happened. I adhere to theistic evolution. I see evolution as simply a tool that God used to proliferate the phyla of living creatures. All life on earth has shared genetics and came from an original single cell. The cell is referred to as the Last Universal Common Ancestor. That is how God decided to do it. We share some parts of our genome with bananas. Get over it.
Where does that leave us? We have both the Genesis account and evolution and both are true. How can they be reconciled. Literalists, fundamentalists and atheists do not want that reconciliation to happen. Ultimately, we must wait for that answer. But in the meantime, there are many reconciling theories. I believe in one of those theories but my commitment to it is not unbending. Certainty is cases where our data is limited is not faithful but egocentric and foolhardy.
I believe Adam and Eve were real people. I believe they lived in the Middle East in the late Neolithic. And I believe that Adam is not the biological father of all humans but is the father as regards the “spirit in man” – the human archetype in persona, intellection and mentation.
This is a big topic. My two cents - briefly …
Scout
Thank you for posting this. It is an area where documentation accessible to the general reader is poor in the WCG archive sites. In the historical record of the WCG, the missing documentation is the documentation that went to the ministry only. I see that nowhere accounted for. As a result, many younger Armstrongists are skeptical of earlier ideas that came from the pulpit.
You material seems to have dated from the Eighties. The material I had dated from the Seventies.
Scout
Psalm 11
The LORD'S throne is in heaven.
His eyes behold,
His eyelids test the sons of men.
Other translations say 'The LORDS eyes scrutinize..'
God is not a far off God, oblivious to what goes on, He sent his only begotten son after all. All these alleged 4ft part human trials are an insult to God's caring and loving nature. Scripture from King David states how God knew people from the foundations of the earth.
I heard tales of Hoehs "preAdamic" lectures years after those events. Never cared much for the general topic though.
Chabad leader Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson once commented that he believed in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He created Adam and Eve, that man had being here on earth approximately 6000 years, but he couldn’t ignore the evidence that said otherwise. Quite a remarkable comment, available online too. I do think that was a challenge to the Chad membership to open their minds and don’t be afraid to think outside the square. I personally do not believe in evolution but has man being here on this small globe more than 6000 years? The possibility is very real. These things do not negate the sacrifice of Jesus or His return. I can see no other way out of humanities predicament, as scripture tells us if He did not come or arise from the grave, our faith is in vain. That humanity is obsessed with an incredibly small strip of land in the ME points to something bigger than what we as morals can comprehend fully. My two cents worth lol. Good post Scout and good comments.
This is a really interesting project! The question of the hour is, how could an organization whose ministry and members based their entire world view and belief system on the Bible even begin to develop an opinion on something which had happened thousands of years prior to the Bible's timeline?
The existence of pre-Adamic human like beings directly competes with their belief system in the category of "foundational truth"! At the very least, it raises severe questions regarding what is presented in the Bible as "creation week". First course of a creationist's action which comes to mind is the questioning, denial, and rejection of any posible evidence. That would be their pattern. You must go on the attack! Archeology is of little assistance to the creationist, because it is just as difficult to find evidence to support the Old Testament patriarchs as it is a 250,000 year old cave writer named Egrogh!
In pondering the spirit of man, it is doubtful that Armstrongites and other similar groups would ever get so far as to consider the evolution of the corpus callosum. Evolution is verboten! And, yet there is something known as the Axial Age, a period between 750 and 350 BCE, during which mankind had come to the place where major intellectual development happened around the world. Don't hold your breath, this information will not be available through church literature, or in sabbath sermons.
Years ago, I had amassed a list of different topics which Armstromgism, the know-it-all religion, and self-proclaimed perfect universal solution for all of mankinds' deficiencies and evils, simply could not address. Pre-Biblical versions of mankind are yet one more topic! Still, I don't have a real problem with the fact that these creatures existed. We serve a mysterious and unfathomable God, one Whom is unteathered by Armstrongism. It's just that Armstrongism was so simplistic and severely limited, that it could not possibly address other than softball questions! It is a totally useless religious philosophy!
BB
That a design needs a designer is a law that people constantly experience in every realm. In my view, people who embrace evolution or design plus evolution, do so because they desire the warmth of the crowd. Like everyone else, they pretend that the naked emperor is wearing fine clothes.
The Pre-Adamisim belief is generally considered a fringe theory and NOT supported by plain reading of the text. The bible isn't only a "ancient text" it is holy scripture, given by divine inspiration from a Holy God.
To believe in Pre-Adamisim you have to not believe the Bible is holy scripture, because it contradicts the doctrine of the nature of sin. Pre-Adamisim undermines the doctrine of original sin and the need for redemption through Jesus Christ, as it introduces a period of death and sin before Adams fall.
Key scripture in both Old Testament and New Testament proves Pre-Adamisim untrue.
1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis Chapter 2
When God created Adam because there was no helper suitable for him reinforces the belief that Adam was the first man and did not have other humans as companions.
When God forming Adam from dust and creating Eve from Adam's rib, without any reference to pre-existing humans.
There is also grave danger that Pre-Adamisim is a thelogical hypothesis that is sometimes connected to occultism. It can be connected as it involves the rejection of the creator- creature distinction and rejects the holiness of God inspired scripture and attacks the biblical doctrine of original sin.
Scout
I'm scratching my head here but it seems to me that I remember some WCG authority figure in the past suggesting that proto-man was the handiwork of Lucifer and his angelic helpers. Has anyone else heard that before? That could explain the occultism connection 1137 mentions.
Anonymous 7:30 wrote, "In my view, people who embrace evolution or design plus evolution, do so because they desire the warmth of the crowd. "
That is simply a mistaken notion. There is hard evidence that evolution happened. The evidence is insurmountable. And the idea that people who believe in God cannot believe in evolution is a concocted contention. God may use evolution just as easily as he might use creation by fiat. Without a doubt, God created the first living cell by fiat but subsequent developments of life on earth were progressive.
Scout
In some ways, I believe we live in that part of history in which truth has become fragmented. This means that diverse groups of people have retained various parts of truth over time. Gestalting is a process by which parts are gleaned in an effort to assemble those parts into a whole.
The optimism in Scout's final paragraph is distinctly Christian, however I also see in it truths gleaned from some of the Native American beliefs that I've heard over the years. It implies that all sentient beings have a spirit which is preserved. I've learned of beliefs in "the grandfathers", "spirit animals", and other manifestations of a unique spirituality, and somehow, it seems innate within me to perceive these as really ringing true. Part of the whole picture!
I do not know of any Native American ancestry in my family tree. However, my brother, when asking the blessing on Thanksgiving, used to say, "We salute and thank the spirits of the animals whose lives were taken so that we might have sustenance." I thought then and continue to think now that that was a very profound thing to include in the blessing. It was totally in keeping with the story of the first Thanksgiving, a harvest feast held in Plymouth Massachusetts in 1621.
BB
I will point out that the debate over whether or not evolution happened does not alter the thesis of my article. Whether God created Homo Naledi by fiat or evolved him into existence does not impact the issue of the graceless creation advanced by Armstrongism. Grace or the absence of grace can happen in either context. It is not surprising that Armstrongism with its much-attenuated doctrine of grace in soteriology would opt for a graceless creation regarding hominid development.
A good book to peruse is the “Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Frances Collins who is both a scientist and a Christian. This is a genetic view of the evolution of life on earth. It explains why we share 60 percent of our genomes with bananas. I believe that most Armstrongists cannot tolerate the study of genetics for political reasons. Genetics really hammers the Armstrongist proclivities toward White Supremacy. If you look into genetics you will eventually come upon the fact that humankind is descended by mutation from ancient Sub-Saharan Africans. The subclades of A00 are still around today and they are Black Tribes in southern Africa. You can read about this at:
https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/212194138-Paternal-Haplogroups-Haplogroup-Inheritance
The biology tells us that if we trace all of humankind back to its earliest common ancestor, then Adam was haplogroup A00 and was a Black man living in Africa about 300,000 YA. As you can see, the Genesis account cannot be literal.
Scout
BP8
The last pronouncement I heard from the WCG ministry on this was that Satan could not create but could modify what God already created. I am skeptical. I think modification is also an act of creation. And all creation is subsumed in John 1:3.
Scout
I'm 1137 and my research has nothing to do with any 'WCG authority figure in the past suggesting proto-man was the handiwork of Lucifer'. I based my research on scripture. I have no idea if Ambassador College taught for or against Pre-Adam created sub humans.
I'd also add that in 18th and 19th Century the Pre-Adam sub human theory was used by slave traders to justify the slavery of Black Africans. They tried to justify slavery and the barbaric treatment of slaves by the theory promoting white people had descended from Adam, and the non white races had decended from Pre-Adam sub humans.
Please give an example of how Jesus Christ, whilst on earth in his ministry, used the example process of evolution in the miracles he conducted, in healing people, teaching people, feeding people, or warning people.
He didn't.
Or what about the fig tree that withered ? Or the tree that withered hiding Jonah.
Why is evolution not found in scripture ? If it is a process God used to create everything ? Why is there no comparisons? Any hints of evolution in the plans of the Temple given by God ?
"Both prophet and priest are godless; even in my temple I find their wickedness." declares the LORD.
300,000 YA? Nah. Tishri 19, 3976 BC - Tishri 18, 2025 AD. 6000 Y. I'll wait for verification but now there's only faith.
The 300,000-year figure is based on mutational rate of change. This is not very accurate. It is actually represented by genetcists as between 200,000 YA and 300,000 YA. That is why I said *about* 300K.
The exact figure is of little consequence. The nested hierarchy of mutations is written on your DNA. And it says you are descended from a Black African who lived in southern Africa a long time ago. We all are. Geneticists know him as "Y-chromosomal Adam." You can look him up in Wikipedia.
Scout
Scout, you are really mixed up and confused over your much learning. "Much learning doth make thee mad". (Acts 26:24) Sometimes you touch upon a truth but then you go off on a tangent that makes you unreadable and a waste of time. Your constant skepticism reflects the condition of your faith. If the devil has the power to create, how can this be "subsumed" in Jn 1:3, as you say, where John says that all things were made by Christ? In 8:29 you suggest that you don't know if if homo naledi was created or evolved, yet you suggest that because ancient Africans were found with A00 then Adam was descended from them. This comment fails to factor in Gen 1:2, that is, that mankind was a new creation after the previous civilizations were destroyed, with nothing left over. The pre-Adamic creatures looked human but they weren't, just like apes today look human but aren't. It doesn't matter what the genetics say. As Paul said, God can make of one substance (clay, dust, cells, atoms or blood) whatever He wishes. (Acts 17:26) If he used A00 thousands of years ago to create a non-humahominid form, He could use it again to make Adam.
Re your first paragraph, Hoeh was right. 1. There were pre-Adamic creatures existing on earth and 2, The pyramids were built before the flood. Enough dinosaurs and hominids have been unearthed as evidence, and enough evidence exists that the pyramids were not built by humans. Same with Gobekli tepe, Chichan Itza, Stonehenge, Pumapunku, etc. (However humans did leave some inscriptions and carvings on them which gives the false impression that they were built by men)
it really shook things up in the 1800s when some strange fossils began to be discovered.
Oh give us a break. And what was God's purpose in having these Pre-Adam creatures merandering around on earth with no animals but only dinosaurs....no promise of Salvation,... no brains even according to you! But mindless ape like creatures only capable of building objects... lurking about lugging huge bolders for Stonehenge and the Pyramids....how stupid you take people for and God for that matter. Is God cruel ? Was God creating a humanoid toile ? A toile of flesh and blood to see how his patterns worked out ?
Anonymous 6:06 wrote, “Scout, you are really mixed up and confused over your much learning. "Much learning doth make thee mad".
What I have written is confusing because I have not expressed my full view. I have only mentioned bits and pieces on this blog in the past because my personal view on the origin of humankind is not really germane to this blog. So, in this context, let me mention briefly that I believe Adam and Eve existed as persons in history. (Yet, there is that teasing play on words in Genesis where the name "Adam" can be both singular or collective.) I do not believe Adam and Eve were the biological progenitors of humankind. I think they are the symbolic and spiritual progenitors of humankind. Like Paul refers to himself as a kind of father to those who believe as he does. Genealogical descent from Adam does not enter the picture. I do believe that there was a change at the time of Adam that made man savable. The change was either in human mentation or in how God dealt with man. Either one or both.
The archaeology, genetics and geology indicate that the modern human population haplogroups have been around long before Adam. People identical to us biologically formed the latest pre-adamic population. So, he was not a special first-time creation biologically. He may have been a special creation spiritually. Many people alive today are not descended from Adam biologically but live in the “spirit” of Adam. After 300,000 years of stasis, about 10K years ago there was a sudden explosive rise of civilization. Something remarkable happened.
I think Adam was y chromosome haplogroup J, one of the many extant haplogroups back 10,000 years ago. The people who lived over in the Land of Nod could have had a different haplogroup – maybe haplogroup E. Makes no difference just illustrates the point.
That is my view in brief. It is born of reconciling the Bible to science. But brevity can create confusion. Sorry about that.
Scout
I've heard one theory from Armstrongism, and that was thet evolution was indeed responsible for these humanoid creatures, but that God created Adam and Eve, who lived in paradise, while the humanoids were far removed. And then, following original sin, when Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden, at some point, their offspring began marrying amongst the humanoids, great evil resulted, which is why God had to destroy all but Noah and his family.
Again, not very scientific, in fact when were the creators of Armstrongism ever scientific, but at least this theory displays a bit of ingenuity.
One more word. There is a huge theological problem for Armstrongism concerning the origins of humankind. If Armstrongists stick to the idea that everyone is descended from Adam then science tell us that Adam was a Black man living in southern Africa. Hoeh/Armstrong also advanced the idea that Adam was created in the physical image of God, hence, God has racial attributes and is a White man.
At one time Armstrongist believed that the original man, Adam, was a White man and his descendants that were non-White were mutations from the original White type. This is 180 degrees out from the scientific evidence. The evidence is that the original human population was Black, originating in the African Sub-Sahara, and Whites and all other racial types are mutated from that line.
If the Hoeh/Armstrong principle concerning the Imago Dei as a phenotype is true, then God is a Black man. If that were true, many conservative Armstrongists would clutch their White Supremacist hearts and keel over dead when apprised of it. This is where their mistaken notions lead.
Of course, I do not believe God has race. He transcends those categories. And the Imago Dei is not a physical image but spiritual imaging.
Scout
Here's a nice little what if. What if these proto people were one and the same as all of the people alive today? What if God were refining His children over millions of years, taking their spirits and accumulated experience and infusing that into new, fresh bodies experiencing changing times and circumstances, honing them to perfection? It would certainly give new meaning to the scriptural passage to the effect that God is unwilling to lose any of His children, but wants them all to have everlasting life.
BB
Looks like science and genetics has become a God to people.
Also has the flood and Noah been convieniently forgotten ? I recall when the pyramids and other such unexplainable finds where thought to have been created by the godless society after Adam and before the flood.
The pyramids and sphinx do have observable water erosion. They had to have predated the time period in which that part of Egypt was desert. WCG taught an etymological derivation which accompanied the history of Egypt as "Cheops>Eob>Job" It was all speculation, but in their version, basically Job was puffed up because he designed the pyramids.
Good 'ol Garner Ted. A lot of people hated him because he was killer with the ladies, but one of the funniest things he ever did was to have one of the church artists "clean up" an artist's conception of a prehistoric men. Gave him a shave, a $200 haircut, put him into a shirt and tie and an Armani suit, some Gucci loafers, and the dude looked like a member of the Pasadena Country Club!
Iirc, it was for the "Whale of a Tale" series. What a gas!
Anonymous 10:42 wrote, "Looks like science and genetics has become a God to people."
No, genetics is a science. It is a hard science that uses the scientific method and yields repeatable results. There is the Book of Gods Words and also the Book of Gods Works. Genetics comes under the heading of the latter. If you deny either the Words or the Works of God, you are on a non-productive path. If you have a religion that leads you to that sorrowful state, you need to get yourself a different religion.
And the Flood has not been forgotten. You can read about it here:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/12/noah-and-presumed-universal-flood.html
Yes BB.
I believe God had no clue what he was creating and that that was the basic concept God lt.... To have no clue.
Observing human creativity I observe.
Many Companies did something completely different from now include Samsung, which started as a noodle and dried fish exporter before becoming an electronics giant, and Nokia, which began as a paper mill before dominating the mobile phone market. Other examples include Wrigley, which started with soap and baking powder, and Avon, which was founded as a book company before pivoting to perfume.
And we could go on and on Amazon, You tube etc etc entirely different from what the founder started....
So oberving humanoids...like Neanderthal would have been great fun for Superbeings... as we watch nature documentaries for excitement.
Suddenly Gods notice these funny creatures seek meaning, God, observe themselves.... which activates Empathy. This entirely new emotion to Gods warrants a different take, a different approach, a different spirit, a different creation and the "Adamic" Revolution is initiated.....
This new creation and the following empathical changes in the Gods create entirely new value worth preserving...
Little dying babies, millions of lovable 26 year old mothers dying in labor...... This cannot stand and warrants another creation, basically enabled by God forcing the new Laws in the Universe by his sacrifice in 4 BC.
Nck
6:26, it is not a case of denying the works/words of God when you doubt the genetics, it is when you draw the WRONG conclusions from it. If the sub-Saharan Africans came after Adam, how can you say that Adam descended from them unless you are referring to the pre-adamic days? 12:41, God, who is uncreated and doesn't think like a man, does everything according to "the counsel of His will" (Eph 1:11), so His purposes may not align with yours. To you it might seem purposeless to create the nonhuman hominids but no doubt He had something in mind when He created them. You are perceptive enough to see my point that they built structures with stone but what you don't know (like most people) is WHY they built them, which is a greater mystery than HOW they built them (a major mystery of its own) Am I making God look foolish, when I have just quoted Eph 1:11? You make Him look foolish by insulting His intelligence for authorizing the creation of these creatures, not knowing what the building was for or how it would impact the angelic realm that governed it. You could say the same for cats and dogs. Why were they created without hope of salvation? Is it stupid to make something like that that might cheer you up once in a while over a short life? Mr. Editor, we are the created products. Shall the thing formed say to its Creator, why did you make me thus? (Rom 9:20) More mumbo jumbo from you, Scout, at 7:19. A&E were only symbolic progenitors, not biological ones? Paul referred to himself as a father to some (a blasphemy to some who don't know how to read the Scriptures) because he taught them the gospel and trained them up in the ways of the Lord, but God did the begetting. You say that A&E existed, citing Gen, but that they didn't procreate, contradicting Gen. Why are so you wishy-washy? God doesn't accept half-way believers. You know what He did with Lucifer. "Hath God REALLY said what He said or did He mean something else?" (Gen 3:1) won't cut it. Zacharias lost his speech for a while when he questioned how a miracle would be performed against the natural laws of science. (Lk 1:18, 20) So, as you wrote, are you trying to reconcile the Bible to science or vice-versa? Do you suppose to make God guilty now that science has caught up to him in this century to prove Him wrong on many counts? You can do nothing against the truth with the sciences unless you interpret or explain them BOTH incorrectly.
7:28, that error that was taught by somebody in WCG was just an error, stemming probably from a lack of understanding of what the giants were (from Scripture), as well as not knowing about the pre-adamic non-human hominids (from the sciences).
More error from you Scout in 7:55, re the idea that Adam was created in the physical image of God, as you phrase it, which might not have been the way Hoeh phrased it, because God is a Spirit, though with a distinct form to make Himself visible to the holy angels.
God has a spiritual image and can't be associated with a particular race? So what else is new?
Right, 10:42, they don't want to cite Noah's flood because that would corroberate Scripture. A lot of evidence for it exists, weathering on the Sphinx, fossils on the high mountains in Malta (cited by Hancock in his books), the Chinese find of Noah's ark (which doesn't appear to be a hoax), etc. No matter how godless they were after Adam's sin, they could not have done it, though some "scientists" (like Lehner) promote such theories, an example of "moronic science" that doesn't take into account the other refuting sciences. You can compare the man-made pyramids to the ancient ones and there is no comparison by simply looking at them.
6:26, we are not denying the works of God by doubting the genetics, we are opposing the misinterpretation and misapplication of them, when we turn the creation into a god that denies the true God. As Paul said in 1 Tim 6:20, there is a knowledge out there that is a "science (gnosis) falsely so called (pseudonymos)", which promotes opposing postulations (antithesis) that are contrary to the Word of Truth and clear material evidence. (WASN'T DARWINISM SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION IN THE HIGHER SCHOOLS OF LEARNING FOR MANY YEARS?) As believers we seek to support the Scriptures with the sciences (and support the good sciences with Scripture), not provoke God with our double-mindedness as if we are smarter than Him and that He may have overlooked something. Let God be justified and every man a liar, said Paul (Rom 3:4), but we make Him out to be a liar by suggesting that the human sciences contradict His revelations to Moses.
One thing I've always wondered about the flood. It's not as if the ancients had a sewer system for all the dead bodies and animal carcasses to float down as the waters receded! There weren't enough scavengers or even insects to devour them, either. What a mess! And it must have stunk to high heaven. Yuck! Disease! Bacteria. Even if it was only a local Mesopotamian event it would have been like the worst horror movie ever! Not even clean water.
With all due respect to your comment 11:44, the flood was far more than alot of water.
In a biblical context it is described as a global, catastrophic event including geological upheaveal, a unique divine judgment and a promise of a future Covenant.
Genesus 6:11 says '17th day of second month- all the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.' It was far more than it only raining non stop, although that alone would have been horrific enough.
It buried billions of organisms, dead humans and dead animals. The extensive layers if fossils found worldwide are presented as evidence with marine and land-dwelling creatures buried together.
Ocean basins sank and the rise of new landmasses and mountain ranges. The massive force of both subterranean and atmospheric water coming from the 'springs of the deep' and the 'floodgates of the heavens' changed the Earth structure and reconfigured it in ways beyond our understanding.
The design of the ark showed it wasn't just a ship to sail the waters and float, but a robust Ark to weather the unique global events happened all around them. It was designed to remain steady, steadfast. To survive.
God's rainbow covenant in Genesis is a divine promise of a unique global flood and not just a local one.
Something from the ID community for Scout:
A visitor to YouTube these days will be met with a wide array of AI-generated video shorts, purporting to depict the evolution of whales, humans, and other groups, with extinct species morphing into each other in vivid color and effortless ease.
These clips are a wretched farrago of scientific misinformation — perfect examples of AI slop. That would be our opinion even if we were tenured biology faculty, fully convinced of neo-Darwinism. In fact, the outrage we feel is largely on behalf of our evolutionary theory teachers, friends and acquaintances, who have labored for decades to persuade the public of critical points such as these:
Extinct species are not provably lineal ancestors or descendants of each other.
Apparent morphological similarity is not a reliable criterion of relatedness.
Cladistic methods identify sister groups, not ancestor-descendant lineages.
The pace of evolutionary change can be episodic, not steady, with long periods of stasis interrupted by short bursts of change.
There is so much material that has been published on a global flood, the majority of which is dated within the past few decades. Most of the papers written by accredited scientists place this flood (or these floods) prior to the Biblical timeline. There is also a Sumerian legend (Epic of Gilgamesh) which describes a global flood in the late 2,000s BC. This work caused great controversy when it was rediscovered in the Library of Ashurbanipal and translated in the 1870s. The event takes place early enough in the 6,000 year time span which some Christians designate as "God's Plan", but has a differently shaped ark and a completely different cast of characters.
Our contemporary scientists are taking data from ice core samples, sediment layers from mining and oil drilling explorations, archaeology, narratives in literature originally written in dead languages from thousands of years ago, and the fossil records. Much is dependent upon interpretation of the data. There are books, articles, and papers published by scientists, and contrasting "apologetics" published by the various religious communities. And since nearly every topic has been politicized, it is difficult to get past partisan slant when researching these topics. Opinions occupy a wide band width and include those of the people who simply believe what their pastor teaches them that the Bible says, those who look to the sciences to confirm the Bible, those who see the current pros and cons as a living, dynamic court trial between Bible and Science for which the verdict has not yet been determined, and those from the science camp who view the Bible as simply another great work of literature, one which has no basis in science, and little authority in history. I suspect we have people from all of these basic categories here in the discussions on Banned.
It is always nice to see people who shift categories, as influenced by the evidence presented here. That indicates that people are actually thinking, and have not become so constricted by what they think they know that they are immune to new data. But, it's also kind of rare. I get that. Decisions such as that are usually determined by who each individual sees as the authority.
BB
Do you honestly believe that the prismatic interaction between droplets of water and a light source did not exist prior to the conclusion of the flood???
Why do you ask that question ? And to whom do you ask it?
I'm not a rainbow expert. Scripture in Genesis 9:13 says God said to Noah "I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. I will remember my covenant.... This is a sign of the Covenant..."
God doesn't say "I've created a symbol of my covenant today and it is called a rainbow." Scripture doesn't have God explaining to Noah what a rainbow is, scripture and more importantly God Himself takes it for granted that Noah knows what God means when he declares " I will set my rainbow."
All i know is the rainbow is a divine sign of a covenant, a symbol of God's promise- a covenant for all generations. God also has a rainbow over his throne in the third Heavens, does that mean God has a weather system over his throne bringing light drizzle and frequent showers over his throne ?!! I doubt it, but I don't know.
Isn't it interesting that the LGBTQ+ community has co-opted the rainbow?
I do have response for some of the questions raised here but it may take me a while to reply. I have a sick family member. Bear with me.
Scout
I know genetics is a science. Last time I checked it's still a freeworld (mostly), so i'm allowed to write science and then the specific sub category of genetics in the same sentence.
The flood had not been mentioned on this discussion.
I prefer the Bible where God included his words with his works, thanks.
Agree 2:16!
And 5:36 it’s basically religious appropriation like all Satanic inversions and perversions.
Anonymous 9:47, “These clips are a wretched farrago of scientific misinformation…”
Thank you for the word “farrago”. I will be able to find a use for that. I agree with the view on theistic evolution that is advanced on the Biologos webpage. This webpage is pro-Darwinian and takes a stand against ID. I would not attempt to engage in the scientifc debate on my own. My background is in math and information science.
On the theological side, I believe God is absolute. He creates reality. He defines the rules of the game. He can use evolution or he can use special creation or he can use both or something else. The fossil record is not as complete as we would like it to be. New hominids are discovered annually, it seems. Transitions may not be easily identified for lack of intermediate types. This leaves the door open to debate.
I think the ID folks want to beat the drum for special creation for everything. What’s the point? It does not mean anything for the Doctrine of God. Whether Darwinism or ID, neither mitigates absoluteness. I think the ID people believe they are somehow defending scripture – scripture that does not mention the Eocene in Genesis. Scripture that does not really unpack what is meant be creation. The ancient Hebrew, Palestinian perspective of Genesis is updated by John 1:1. From that verse, we know that God created everything that exists – including the Eocene fauna and flora. It does not place a restriction on how he created. ID seems to want to defend special creation because its proponents fear that Darwinism invalidates the Bible. Maybe they think ID is just simply the truth, but I doubt that it does not have a political agenda. I think the ID people are tilting with windmills.
My two cents.
Scout
Anonymous 10:28 wrote, “If the sub-Saharan Africans came after Adam, how can you say that Adam descended from them unless you are referring to the pre-adamic days?”
First, I think you have misinterpreted some of the things that I have written, so let me clarify.
The Sub-Saharan Africans, from whom we are all descended, lived before the Biblical Adam. But their descendants are yet alive today. Haplogroup A00 was around about 300,000 YA based on mutational rate of change (ballpark dating only) and there are tribes in southern Africa still extant who are subclades of A00. Excavation at the Shum Laka site where A00 was extracted from bones establishes that A00 was around 8,000 YA using traditional dating methods. A00 is not descended from the Biblical Adam who lived around 6,000 YA by tradition. Adam was probably haplogroup J and most of mankind is not descended from him biologically.
You also wrote, “To you it might seem purposeless to create the nonhuman hominids but no doubt He had something in mind when He created them.”
This is exactly what my essay asserts. I believe God does have a purposed for other species of Homo. I would only object to your use of non-human. They were, in fact, quite human-like. I am not sure how you define non-human. I assume you mean “descended from Adam” if you are using the Armstrongist model.
You also wrote, “You make Him look foolish by insulting His intelligence for authorizing the creation of these creatures…”
My thesis is that an undeniable attribute of God is grace. And we can use that as a hermeneutic in interpreting the scripture. Creation reflects a gracious God not Armstrongist anthropology. I am showing how the Creation is predicated on God’s divine nature and how Armstrongism misses the mark widely.
I am no going to respond to the rest of what you wrote. It is confusing. It wants a careful reading of what I wrote.
Scout
Scout, only quote 1 was directed to you. The other 2 were directed to the immediate respondent who followed my 2 posts, presumably the editor.
Another regrettable response from you, and a denial of Gen 1:2, as well as a denial that we are all descendants of Adam. When conditions became tohu (desolate) and bohu (empty) on the earth, A00 could not have survived to pass its genes on. You keep resisting but you won't comment on Gen 1:2, which is the killer.
This vain postulation is only recent, and, in my opinion, is a deceitful attempt to give "proof" to a dying hypothesis that man evolved from the apes. If it is true that humans have A00, then so what? We also have what the stars and bananas have. I believe you have been taken. (This is a complex subject even for scientists who are in a race to promote unsubstantiated theories so that they can get some academic acclaim and money, like a doctor or dentist who overbills)
I phrased it as "nonhuman hominids" because technically a hominid includes humans.
Are you a believer for so long and yet you don't know what a human is, that Adam was a special creation made in the image (selem, shadow, figure) and likeness (demut, comparable) of God? (Gen 1:26) The pre-adamic creatures may have been made similar to God's image but they weren't made in His likeness (of mental reasoning faculties powered by the Spirit).
So you are a little cynical toward the IDs but quite welcoming to the scientists, being a mathematician? You don't know that the IDs are on our side, trying to shoot down the theory that man evolved from the apes? See? You question ID's motives while you invite genetic scientists out to an elaborate dinner to fascinate you with their contradictions of Scripture. Don't eat of the wrong tree.
Take a cue from BB's measured, restrained, carefully considered comment above. Well written, BB. Carefully you narrowed the path.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. (Mt 12:36)
We all take deep satisfaction from compliments, 2:24, and I thank you for yours! Let it be known, that although I don't know Scout or Lonnie on a personal level, never met them, (and we do not party together), for the most part I agree with what they present, and I support their efforts in presenting education, and promoting better understanding of the eternal issues which we all face.
People who have imbibed ot the classic Armstrongist method of receiving, evaluating and interpreting incoming data are not our enemies. We were once amongst them. There is always an opportunity for each and every one of us to draw our own conclusions, to be educated out of a mindset, if and when we are presented with compelling facts. We live in times when even the biggest bomb shells, true or not, do not change anything. They do not move opinion one iota. This happens when the facts conflict with the "group think" of our affiliations, some of which people have made part of their core. And, yet, we are responsible for embracing the standards which enable us to seek out truth and live by it! In short, our brain is much like a parachute. It only works when it's open.
BB
Anonymous 2:24 wrote, “You keep resisting but you won't comment on Gen 1:2, which is the killer.”
Years ago, I spoke with an Ambassador College upperclassman in the AC Big Sandy library about Bible translations. He avidly supported the Scolfield translation because it supported HWA’s understanding of Genesis 1:2. He found this amazing. I did, too. But it was because neither of us recognized that this was where HWA got the idea.
The Scolfield Gap Theory is a dog that won’t hunt. A cursory scan of the internet will provide to anyone an extraordinary amount of material, even from conservative creationist sources, that argues effectively against the Gap Theory. I could not possibly relitigate that here, even in summary. I will, instead, focus on just one aspect of this body of argument.
The HWA/Hoeh scenario, as I recall it, opens up on Genesis 1:1-2 and the solar system has come to be in a state of chaos because of a Satanic rebellion. God then, during the Re-creation Week, restarts the solar system and this leads to the creation of Adam. What this means is that the earth was in state of enormous distress about 6,000 years ago. There was no sunlight for instance. God had to redo the sun and the moon. God had to repopulate the earth with flora and fauna. The stress on the earth was not mundane like the Younger Dryas but was extraordinary and of supernatural origin.
This “killer” interpretation is a naïve fantasy for many reasons both scientific and theological. I will walk through one of the reasons why. There is no evidence that the earth was in chaos 6,000 years ago. That time period is well within the range of both tree ring and ice core dating. Both methodologies are sensitive enough to detect changes in the environment. (I have excluded radiocarbon dating because most Armstrongists gratuitously reject it. Ice cores and tree rings are commonly understood techniques that do not have the supposed deniability of radio carbon dating.)
Ice cores indicate nothing more interesting about the earth 6,000 years ago then the fact that it was warmer then than now. No great cataclysm. No "Tohu wa-bohu". Here is a relevant statement from Google AI about how a cataclysm would be reflected in ice cores:
“A global cataclysm would be reflected in ice cores through a sudden, widespread spike in atmospheric particles like dust, ash, and soot, which would appear as a distinct layer of impurities. This layer would be accompanied by a sharp and potentially long-lasting change in the concentration of atmospheric gases, as well as isotopic changes that indicate a drastic shift in temperature and other climate factors, potentially with a clear and abrupt signature from the event. “
Tree ring dating corroborates ice core dating. Again, that was a warm period in earth’s recent history. If there had been a great disorganization of the solar system, tree rings would have reflected it in this way according to Google AI:
“A global cataclysm would be reflected in tree rings through abrupt, widespread changes in ring width, density, and chemical composition (specifically radiocarbon levels), with these changes appearing in the same precise year across the globe.”
Events that happen on this planet are reflected in earth’s surface structures and its organic life. And it is all compatible with an appropriate interpretation of scripture. The Gap Theory is not an appropriate interpretation. It is a harsh and brutal idea which asserts that God is not gracious towards his creation but lets it fall into chaotic ruin. The Scofield interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 seems to be the lynch pin of the Armstrongist model of Genesis. Since that interpretation does not hold as truth, I will not entertain any of your other arguments that cascade from it. If you wish to respond to this, please focus on the geologic and biological issues, otherwise I will not respond. Armstongists tend to “flood the zone” with sound bites rather than constructing a logical counter-point.
Scout
Anonymous 2:24
Further, it is important to understand that the Gap Theory, that interprets Genesis 1:1-2, fits inside a much larger context. This larger context diminishes God. I refer to the view as the Plan B view. It was devised by HWA.
You can read about it here.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/11/plan-b-ultimate-lese-majeste-argument.html
Scout
If anything
......HWA was extremely ahead of its time... as only today modern software developers and actually most "lean/agile" companies are fully in sync with a God who for sure will not deliver a "perfect" creation or product but develops on the go, learning on the way.
Scout reveals himself as a boring completely out of touch and very old fashioned peeson with his totally outdated view of a God who would need billions of years of planning to finally come up with a "perfect" product that no one needs....no one wants.
I suggest reading up on how Microsoft, IBM, Amazon, Google, etc etc all start ups actually produce and develop and you will understand the mind of the Creator God.
Nck
Nck
Thanks for the compliment. Except for being called a "peeson". Not sure what that is. Your usual incoherent comment.
Scout
Scout
You make my point EXACTLY.
A)
You call my comment "incoherent" because you comment on the Creator of All without any understanding HOW things are created.
B)
Not "understanding" what "peeson" means.......underscores your need to have "perfect creation in order to understand". Which make my point EXACTLY. Any creative mind would have accepted that the next version of "Humanoid" should be "person" as the "peeson" was less than perfect.
I do not expect the 70 plus persons to understand what point I am making as they are hooked to the "1920 Fordist" mode of production "we can built anything for you as long as it is a black Ford."
Nck
Oh, nck! Your comment to Scout forces me to invoke the most recent words of our illustrious President: "Quiet! Quiet, Piggy!"
Hoeh's vivid imagination and his followers with their lost notes contradict scripture.
This is were faith versus mankinds intellect go array. We mistakenly judge God as a creating superhuman and think his ways are ours. Without faith we cannot see.
I heard at a feast site once a upset regional Pastor take an entire feast site full of speakers to task for "preaching from their imagination."
Are we to throw out the writings of Apostle Paul and King David? Is faith to be mocked ? Seems so.
Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the Universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
Psalm 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.
Post a Comment