posted
Hey Jeff L. I had actually been thinking of doing this. Please understand I am not trying to destroy your faith, but show you how one can discern Biblical facts [truth] from one's convictions [opinions]. There is a vast difference!
I know you believe that God is the creator of the universe. I have some theories (that I believe to be true) on how to explain the age of the earth, etc. You can feel free to TOTALLY disagree, because I have no FACTS to back up my belief, but I do have evidence. There is a total difference.
Please understand that my "proof only" way of seeing thing greatly limits what one can claim to be truth. It also greatly limits the things one can allow themselves to get upset about.
I have two "pet peeves" so to speak. 1.) When someone tells me The Bible says something, when they only THINK The Bible say this or that. 2.)When someone tells me "God said (this or that)" and offers no proof (or even directly contradicts Scripture).
See, it's easy to say I believe this or that and go on to discuss it. It is an entirely different matter to use "The Scripture Card" or "The God Card" as I like to call them.
Having said that, and having allowed the RCC to create a URL, I will continue with my research on "The Gap Theory".
posted
First, I will start by posting a Biblical fact (a quote) from Genesis 1:1-2 1 In the beginning He, Elohim created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth, she became chaos and vacancy, and darkness was over faces of the abyss. And The Spirit of Elohim was vibrating over the faces of the waters.
Notice here I have gone back to the Hebrew. This is caused "best evidence," which simply means that I have gotten to the (most original) source. (The courtroom example most often understood best is "the original document verses a photocopy or someone's claim they remember what they saw on the original document".)
I have found that best evidence helps prevent nasty surprises!
Now, notice how the KJAV did not do this very first Bible verse justice! "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Now, on to "The Gap Theory"! The "gap" is supposedly between the first and second verse. If you look only at the KJV you may wonder why God created the earth "without form and void (of whatever) ...but if you look at the best evidence, you may see that the earth "became chaos and vacancy" which STRONGLY implies that it was not always so, (and just maybe there was something here that was destroyed) before The Lord's Spirit was spoken to be vibrating over the water's surface.
How am I doing? Are you interested? Is this a good topic for you? If so, I will begin building a case [speculating] on what went on during this "time." I will offer no claim to truth at the end ...but let you decide.
posted
Yes, this looks good. Sorry I didn't answer sooner and don't have time right now to dig too deeply but I am preparing for the Sabbath. But I did want to get something off quickly to let you know I am reading, well, kinda right now. I skimmed it cuz I am racing a storm outside.
I don't like anything to interrupt the Sabbath rest so I try to get everything done that I know will annoy me if I don't get it done. You know, when things slow way down you start seeing things you never saw during the week-- like that piece of string on the floor or the hairs on the bathroom floor or the spots on the mirror. Get it! "Stop and smell the roses." So I try to be prepared so I have as little as possible to interrupt time with my family and God. This is a time to build relationships and you can't do that when you are going 60 mph.
Anyway, I enjoy the Sabbath. It's time off from the business of the week. I guess it's my favorite day. I sometimes wish Sabbath were every day. But then, you need some time to get your business done and earn some money. So I guess I'll accept the one in seven as a gift from my Creator who knows exactly what I need.
I'll catch up to you soon! I'm cooking supper, folding laundry, and creating a video for Sabbath school. I already built out the south wall of an addition I am working on, cut the grass, ate weeds, blah, blah, blah-- the usual choirs that consume our work week.
Thanks for agreeing to do this. It looks very interesting.
posted
Hey, thanks! I'll be patient. Don't feel any obligation at all to hurry. There is a lot here to do too. Let me know when you are ready, and I'll fire it up again. I submit this, http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/gaptheory.html as a good rebuttal to The Gap Theory. I find it quite interesting, since they offered Exodus 20:11 as proof that there was no gap. To be honest, I'm shocked!
I'll look into this further ...and maybe just shut-up.
posted
Well, I opened the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer (times two) and went back and forth, and back and forth. The same Hebrew words are used in Genesis 1:1&2 that are used in Exodus 20:11. It would appear that the "gap" has been Biblically closed.
Just for information sake, I used to totally believe that the devil ruled here for an unknown amount of "time" (for lack of a better word) and then his world was destroyed. Adam was told to "replenish" the earth in the KJV ...implying there was something here before (Noah was told to do the exact same thing in Genesis 9:1). The word is not in the Interlinear, just the word "fill".
I also found much debate on the Interlinear's use of the word "became," verses the KJV choice of "was." Something about a missing "l"? Most feel the word "was" fits better. Take away "became", and remove the KJV word "replenish", then add a dash of Exodus 20:11 and "The Gap Theory" seems to have dissipated before I could even build a case for it.
Oh well, so much for the ideas of what I felt satan was doing when he fell. I'm still going to study this out to see if there is a loophole. I have believed this for quite some time...
posted
That was an interesting article. I read it too. I've never held to the gap theory but I have wondered why science dates things in the millions of years and theologians date them in thousands of years. My speculation is that when God created the earth he also created rocks, mature rocks. Adam and Eve were apparently mature (not infants). Why not other things. You want to know what came first? It was the chicken-- male and female. And God told them to populate the earth.
You may enjoy this cite which talks about the instant creation of the earth. It is from a scientist who based his research on Hubble's observations. Very interesting read, but scientifikey! http://www.halos.com/
So, do you want to pick another subject? Seems this one has been solved if not spoiled. I guess you could also change your position and make a case for a six day creation.
posted
MAN! Oh well... This is actually a pretty big blow. It doesn't really "effect" anything much, but the truth is... I have believed this for years. I've even supported this theory as not just possible, but probable!
It seems many have used it to explain away a lot of conflict where "scientist" disagree with creationist on a young earth hypothesis, etc. To me it mostly explained how and where Lucifer fell. That's why I say it's not really "all that important" ...but it is a shock!!!
I guess I'm going to have to step away from it for a bit, clear my head, and then take another look at it. For now, it does seem to be "spoiled" (and I had a really good case too ).
The "problem" is, I KNOW that the first five books of The Bible were perfectly kept. The Jews were quite precise in their preservation of the original Hebrew. The words are there ...I just have to make sure there is no loophole. I really would like to find a loophole...
Can you tell I hate this!?! Serves me right , Matthew
posted
I normally don't get up this early, but this was really bothering me.
Genesis 1:1-2 1 In the beginning He, Elohim created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth, she was chaos and vacancy, and darkness was over faces of the abyss. And The Spirit of Elohim was vibrating over the faces of the waters. 3 And Elohim, He is saying, "he shall become light." and he is becoming light. 4 And Elohim, He is seeing that the light is good, and Elohim, He is separating the between the light and between the darkness. 5 And Elohim, He is to calling light, day. And to darkness He calls night. And he is becoming evening, and he is becoming morning, day one.
Exodus 20:11 11 That six of days Yahweh, He made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all of which in them is. And He is stopping in the seventh day. On so, Yahweh, He blessed the day of the sabbath, and He is hollowing him.
I find it interesting that the earth is given the female gender and the day and night are given the male. Other than that oddity, I found no other. There is no apparent loophole, no "gap" that I can see. The Hebrew is the same in both places! RATS!!! Exodus leaves no doubt (in my mind at least) that the total physical universe was created in one seven day week.
Where are you getting the text from when you quote Exodus 20:11? Are you using ISA? Mine is not displaying exactly these words. Are you quoting the CHES portion?
The reason I ask is because mine reads like this...
quote: CHES
that six-of days he-made Yahweh >> the.heavens and.>> the.earth >> the.sea and.>> all-of which in.them and.he-is-stopping in.the.day the.seventh on.so he-blessed Yahweh >> day-of the.sabbath and.he-is-hallowing.him
CLV For in six days Yahweh dealt with the heavens and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and He stopped on the seventh day. Therefore, Yahweh blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
Also, are you interpreting "heavens" here as the universe?
quote: Exodus leaves no doubt (in my mind at least) that the total physical universe was created in one seven day week.
posted
Yes, I am using the ISA. However, I am looking directly under the Hebrew and trying to copy that as close as I can.
PLEASE NOTE: Around, some words I am spinning, making it better American English I am attempting.
Also notice that I never use quotes. I explained this once, (sorry, but it was quite a while back) and it is pretty much always what I am doing, unless I state otherwise.
Yes, I am. The word universe... Wait! Are you possibly saying that the word "heavens" was only talking about the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome aka, the atmosphere or "firmament"!?!
If this is true, "The Gap Theory" could easily be placed before Genesis 1:1. That would explain why there is much evidence for something. I guess this would have to be called, "The Before 'The Beginning' of Time Theory."
posted
Yes, I understand there is more than one heaven described in scripture. There seems to be three (3) heavens (2 Cor 12:2). Paul talks about being caught up into the third heaven. I believe they are as follows:
1st heaven - the firmament 2nd heaven - the stars and planets 3rd heaven - where God is said to dwell
In Genesis God creates heaven and earth. In 2Peter 3 God destroys heaven and earth by fire. This heaven wouldn't be God's dwelling place but is in all probability our atmosphere that we have polluted.
In Revelation 5:13 it mentions creatures-- in the air (heaven), on the ground, under ground, and in the sea. I don't think it's talking about animals in heaven. I suppose it could be talking about human creatures being in heaven, on earth, buried in graves, and lost at sea. Of course, many time in scripture we hear things talking that ought not to talk-- such as Abel's blood. So it could be animals which are praising God.
In Revelation 6:13 the stars fall from heaven. In Revelation 12:4 the dragon draws a third of the stars in heaven with his tail (or is that tale).
In Psalm 147:8 the Lord covers heaven with rain clouds. In Genesis 1 God called the firmament heaven. He sets lights (stars) in the heaven. The birds fly in the heavens.
Anyway, I won't belabor something you may already agree with. Let's just say that there are things higher and higher and still higher in the heavens. Like layers, I suppose, but not as some believe that there are degrees of paradise.
I believe that the universe already existed at the time our portion of the universe was created. There is evidence that our galaxy was created at the same time, thus, even scientist have a big bang theory. Check out this site ==> http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm#cou
Also, I have heard that the "three heavens" are times; 1.) The first heaven was before the fall of man. 2.) The second heaven was after the fall of man, and before the return of Christ. 3.) The third heaven will be when The King again reigns, and peace is restored after his return.
...or something like that. Have you ever heard that?
I called and spoke with my scientist friend this morning, and there is much debate over every little thing, even within the christian community. There are some who love the gap theory, and some that hate it. Many believe in a very old earth, while others think The Bible only allows for a young earth. My friends specialties are, protein bonding, and immunology. He recently discovered what the human appendix does, which has been a hot topic in the evolution and creation debate.
He refuses to get in on the debates, even though he keeps getting invited to do so. There is lots of animosity out there, and no proof. Many consider any "science" that is in the past, philosophy anyway.
I guess that's why we started this thread. It is hard enough to get folks to come around to believing clear Biblical facts like, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." and "Jesus loves you."
Life's just too short to spend it speculating on what could be.
posted
I don't believe I have ever heard of the "three heavens" being different eras. Though I don't doubt it is out there.
I've heard that the Mormons believe in many heavens and I understand that another religion has about 7 heavens. But all of these false ideas of heaven relate to man aspiring to higher and higher levels of exaltation based on his own works. Will we never shed the caste system?
Yes, time is too short to spend on speculation. However, with that said, I would like to put forth the idea that there is strong evidence that when God created this earth he created mature animals capable of reproduction, and not embryos, eggs, hatch-lings or such that would require "parents" to raise them. I believe this also includes rocks and other foundational materials.
But that doesn't explain why skeletons have been found inside of rocks. From a purely creationist view that would be impossible since nothing had yet died before sin entered the world.
But I am not tempted to explain the Bible through science but rather I prefer to view science through the lens of scripture. I don't believe that scripture must validate all of science and neither do I believe that science must validate scripture. If scientific evidence were to oppose a clear teaching of scripture then I would have to side with the Bible, even if I were the only person on earth that believed that way. Maybe I am boasting where I have no strength to boast-- God help my resolve!
I believe that one reason why so many theories flourish even among Bible-believing Christians is that they are either ignorant of what the Bible says or fear being laughed at and mocked because they hold to such simplistic views. We haven't helped matters much with our ignorant rhetoric. Instead of repelling the darts of the enemy with a "Thus saith the Lord," we, being at a loss for authoritative evidence, defend our faith by muttering something like, "I don't need to know, God knows." Thus, we appear weak and Christianity is portrayed as a crutch for the simple-minded when in reality our God is the Creator of all things which concern science, the ruler of all the laws of the universe. The Christian faith is built on a Rock of Truth that never can fail.
God could cause even the laws of physical nature to fail, and in the end time they do appear to break down. But the government of His Kingdom is forever and stands sure and never changes-- it cannot fail. Everything, everything, that man has put his trust in will fail so that the only thing a person can rely on is faith in God. Those who accept His invitation to rest in Him will understand and patiently wait on Him. But those who resist will curse God. Even when their whole support system breaks down they will refuse to place their trust in a loving God. A loving God who causes these things to happen to wake them out of their sleep in a last, desperate, yet loving, attempt to win their allegiance so that He might be their protector and provider. He is crying to them, "Please, accept my ruler-ship and you will have liberty and happiness abounding!"
If we, as a Christian community, had kept marching forward in the truth and not dug in our heels by creed, canon, or tradition, we would present to the world a more convincing argument in favor of the kingdom of God. Or, should I have said, "marching backwards" as in marching back to the truths established by Christ. I suppose it is proper to say that our progress is forward in its movement to get back to God's church.
I heard an interesting item the other day. After Billy Graham delivered a sermon some concerned persons approached him accusing him of setting the church back 200 years. Mr. Graham said something along these lines, Gentlemen, if I have set the church back 200 years I have certainly failed and for that I apologize. I intended to set it back 2000 years.
If the last day church is a remnant of the church that Jesus started then to be a true remnant it must have the same texture, the same color, the same weight, the same pattern... in other words, it must be identical to the original bolt of cloth from which it remains. Otherwise, it is not a remnant of God's church at all. In this respect the HC is on the right track-- modeling after the apostolic church. However, if we fail to rid ourselves of any pagan, papal, or Babylonian influence, doctrines, or traditions then we will not look the part of a remnant of God's early church but rather we will more closely match Babylon with its confusion of teachings and man-made traditions.
We really have nothing to be ashamed of. Though now we may feel peculiar, different, derided, mocked, ridiculed, teased, laughed at, scorned, belittled, deprived, restrained, controlled, bruised, and at times tortured or put to death, we must wait for that time when God will exalt us. I wonder sometimes why we fear being different or holding to some belief that is unpopular with the masses. Are the masses ever right? Is the way narrow or broad? Do many find it or few? Then why do people allow themselves to be influenced by these popular teachings? The fact that they are so popular and are held by such a great number of Christians should sound alarms in our heads to warn us to check whether or not we are on the narrow path that few will find.
I have so much more to say but I need to be silent now.
May God brings us to the place where we can intelligently glorify His name and His honor and not succumb to the scorn of men but suffer reproach for His name.
1Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
posted
I really agree. I guess my question is: How much do we need to know to refute the "Greek" and the "religious"? ...and how much do we need to just say, "Well, I just trust God." These are both from the KJV.
8 And [Paul] went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning The Kingdom of God. 9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. 10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of The Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
1 Titus 1:7-11 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
posted
I believe that where the Bible is silent perhaps we should be too. Then is when we resign to a "I just trust God." I guess that is a 'no speculation' rule.
However, too often the laity (a term invented by the clergy as an extension of the caste system) are silent where the Bible is bold and plain. And the clergy often seem to be bold where the Bible is silent.
Christians have generally upheld the caste system notion by allowing, probably through apathy, pastors to interpret scripture for them. But then, maybe it's a carryover from bygone days where the people were indoctrinated to believe that only the clergy could understand scripture and only the clergy were enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Again, a false notion that God is a respecter of men.
Many Catholics I know, and I know a few, believe this way. It's very powerful! They don't believe anyone but a priest can rightly interpret scripture. A very powerful indoctrination technique, indeed. Almost a learned adversion to the entrance of the Holy Spirit.
posted
Hey Jeff L., Again, that's really good! Somewhere buried here I commented on the fact that a lot of christians go to church "to be fed" when Jesus always said "grazing" or "shepherding." I remember finding it interesting that Jesus used sheep as an example (they feed themselves) instead of baby birds (who often have to have their food poked into their little mouths). The Greek strongly suggested that the "shepherds" were to kinda gather folks in a safe place so they could feed themselves. (Also, no one was directly called a shepherd (by name), but Jesus ...at least in The New Testament).
Jeff L. One of the things that drove me here was the fact that "church" suddenly wasn't really that far off from the catholic church. The "pastor" pretty much held authority over everything. He even called a public fast, and described just how he was going to fast (so we would behave similarly).
By the way, I don't think any of this is off topic, because we opened this to discuss truth verses speculation. The speculation in the afore mentioned paragraph was the "truth" that fasting gave one more power etc. from The Lord. When confronted with the truth of Scripture, he agreed with me, showed me even more evidence, and then went right on with what he was doing!!!
Somewhere here on the RCC, I also went back to the Greek to show that rank in the church is, well... rank! The "rank," in fact, was just their job! I didn't know that until I came here.
I wish someone would have told me years ago...
If you want, we could move this to the topic you opened Re: Revisiting the Antichrist Question, and Modern Beliefs. It seems to be headed there anyway.
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There is a total difference.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The "gap" is supposedly between the first and second verse. If you look only at the KJV you may wonder why God created the earth "without form and void (of whatever) ...but if you look at the best evidence, you may see that the earth "became chaos and vacancy" which STRONGLY implies that it was not always so, (and just maybe there was something here that was destroyed) before The Lord's Spirit was spoken to be vibrating over the water's surface.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
