[Laissez-faire capitalist]

I have read those scriptures, and they don't conflict with the pre-adamite theory. For those who don't believe in Pre-Adamites: The Lord sent His Son as the second Adam to die for the sins of man, since sin came upon all by Adam's transgression, since all the world was in his loins when he sinned and fell. Christ came to die for Adam's race, not the pre-adamites who apparently were all destroyed and none spared.

[Raycpa]

Of course it doesn't contradict. The point is it doesn't confirm. The bible wasn't written to rebut every dumb idea that comes along. It was written to proclaim the truth. This idea borders on a heresy that the bible contains hidden secrets. This concept is dangerous. For what purpose is this speculation ? Doesn't Scripture say

16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Why must you speculate about something that is omitted from scripture ? There is nothing to confirm this speculation in the NT, there is nothing in God's plan of salvation that requires it and there is nothing this speculation answers.

[Reuben Hick]

I have read those scriptures, and they don't conflict with the pre-adamite theory... not the pre-adamites who apparently were all destroyed and none spared.

Destroyed? Why would they be "destroyed"? And wouldn't being destroyed somehow imply "death"? And if they were "destroyed"; which is to be put to "death"; which would have occured before Adam; and the passages say "wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12) by what twisted reasoning do you oppose two thousand years of orthodoxy and the opinions of the greatest theological minds by declaring without substantiation "they don't conflict with the pre-adamite theory."?