The context the words are used in is important as to the meaning. God says He created the heavens and the earth. Then He describes an empty Earth and over six days how he created those heavens and the earth. Then He states in Genesis 2:1, "Then the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were finished." The heavens used in this application and many others throughout the Bible describe our atmosphere, the sun, moon and stars. This is the same description as the people worshipping the host of heaven. This did not only apply to Eagles and birds but to the sun and stars.

Furthermore in Genesis 2:4 it again describes this as the time that the heavens were created.

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

All of these verses give the context as to when God created the heavens and the earth and the natural reading that the Earth was empty when he created our world.

There is a verse that provides a purpose for angels’ existence. It is found in Hebrews 1:14 "are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation". Since man is currently lower than the angels and Lucifer was either the best or one of the greatest of the angels it is easy to see how he could become jealous of man and sin in the Garden of Eden by seeking to destroy man.

When people think of a time prior to Adam there is a problem with the evidence in old rock and coal (if you consider this as pre-adamic time) that requires a pre-Adamic mankind that was very similar to man when God describes Adam as the first man in 1 Corinthians 15 for example. (By the way there is no scientific evidence for an earlier form of mankind. Many fraudulent claims have been made but no scientific evidence exists – nor ever will exist.)

Christ said in Mark 10:6 "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." Refering to Adam and Eve being at the beginning of his creation.

Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." Notice that even in talking about sin and death the wording is death reigned from Adam not before. If the world was occupied prior to Adam then death reigned from before Adam not from Adam. In that context would grace have come prior to the second Adam – Jesus. The answer is no.

No biblical evidence exists that supports a pre-Adamic world. The only way to use verses to support it is through reading your theory into the scripture and not from biblical exegesis which is supposed to be the hallmark of biblical fundamentalists.

Note: Most theorists have great confidence in the Bible and oppose evolution. However, they accept many evolutionary interpretations of such things as dinosaurs, ice ages, coal-producing peat bogs and fail to see these things with their connection to the flood. This attitude greatly supported the evolutionary viewpoint becoming the public one in our school systems.

Genesis 1:3-5 "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

Day is used here with evening and morning and with a number. The Hebrew word used for day here in this context is always considered a 24 hour period throughout the scripture. Without that context it could describe a larger period of time. We use day to describe the daytime portion or a period of time like in his day but when it is used to define a period we mean the 24 hour period. Just like a day is defined in Lev 23:27-32 describes a day. God wants us to consider this time period a 24 hour day and reinforces it again in Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6 for that matter. While the passing of a lot of time is like one day to God no verses are meant to turn the term into a thousand years. The expression simply means time is insignificant to God but it is very meaningful in what God is doing for and with mankind so he created heavenly hosts for days, months, seasons, and years. He gave the Sabbath to define a week.

If that is the case and there is no sun where does the light come from? Revelation 21: 23 "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light." Obviously God can supply the light for this day.

Then God creates an atmosphere for Earth.

Then God creates the Land.

Then God creates the plants.

Then God creates the heavens and all the host there in for man to tell time. This requires that man is able to see the heavens, which calls into question a large watery canopy above the earth, which some assume occurred before Noah’s flood. Age Theorists say this is when God cleaned up the atmosphere enough for man to see the stars, not when he created the stars. The use the concept of man saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west as proof it is from man’s viewpoint. While that viewpoint does give better understanding of those usages with the sun it would be complete supposition here. It would also defy the context as given in Genesis 2:1,4, Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6. It does however, explain the usage of seeing the sun, moon and stars in the sky.

Then God created water and air creatures on the fifth day.

Then God created animals and mankind on the sixth day.

All of these things had to be created supernaturally. They had to have the design information come from somewhere. No information doesn’t just grow in DNA. It had to have a supernaturally beginning because the law of biogenesis states life comes from life. Life cant start in an oxygen environment all on its own. Life cant survive without the oxygen content on Earth. Life on earth has a symbiotic relationship. This short supernatural process accounts for all these scientific laws. Long evolutionary periods to get such plentiful life on this planet, defies scientific laws.

Then God states, "Thus the heavens and the earth and all the host of them, were finished."

The natural reading by sincere biblical fundamentalists is that this 6 day period is when God created the heavens and the earth that we see. He created them for mankind and yet at some point He will create a new heaven and a new earth. They weren’t created to be permanent only for us to be in awe of him. Biblical fundamentalists do not fight against scientific facts we argue against scientific theories in opposition to the Word of God being considered scientific fasts.

It is amazing when you throw off the theories what incredible awe develops in nature when you consider it the work of God’s hand –not only in creation but in judgment with the flood. God wanted us to see that judgment too!

2 Peter 3:5-6 " This they willfully forget…the world that then existed perished being flooded by water." Day Agers scoff at this being a global flood -- they say it was local Mesopotamian flood. Jesus described it as a sudden tsunami coming that removed the people from the face of the earth. It was higher then the mountains but only local. I guess they have to accept many local catastrophes because the world is full of evidence of catastrophe from heavy volcanic period, a great mountain building period, a great ice age where animals were frozen in an incredibly surprising and short period of time and not via a slow million of years advancing ice age. Also weird that almost all animals caught in this ice age are existing species. You think we would have evolved. They instead give evolutionary science full authority. Such scientific theory was created to be in opposition to the Bible. That is its history. They then attempt to find ways to make science fit into the Bible.

Creationists give the Word of God full authority and then see how the Bible fits into science. This is why many biblical fundamentalists are able to predict science failures accurately. Failures such as the Piltdown man having to be a fraud. But that is a story for another day.

Notes:

1. The best defense of the age theory is Without Form and Void by Arthur C. Custance. Later he wrote,

   "if a vast antiquity far beyond 4000 years BC traditional date is demanded" and

   "And I do not think that the biblical account can ever be made to accommodate the antiquity that is still being demanded. Personally, I am convinced that the arguments for this vast antiquity will in due course be modified by fresh evidence and the Bible will be vindicated, as it always has been."

   Unfortunately those later quotes are seldom provided when people use his research authority for declaring Genesis 1:2 became void.

2. Some believe names are omitted in the genealogies of Genesis. This would not alter the stated lengths of time between generations in Genesis 5 the genealogy of Adam or Genesis 11 the genealogy of Seth where both declare the age of the one by the time that son or grandson was born.
3. In a letter dated 23 April 1984 to David C.C. Watson, Hebrew Professor James Barr at the University of Oxford wrote: probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most such professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other.

This is provided to demonstrate the Hebrew understanding of the language since I am not Hebrew.