Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Real Idea of Gap Creationism

veteran said:
Firstly, the Gap idea did not originate with Darwinists, evolutionists, etc. That's just a trick to try and discredit it, propaganda by those who somehow think it's out to destroy the Genesis traditions most of us were taught in Sunday School (myself included). There's been many Christian Bible scholars, ministers and pastors that see it, and teach it, and don't believe in evolution at all.

Well, I accept evolution in light of the evidence so I don't understand how people reject it thinking it is against 'God' somehow especially when those claiming it is don't understand the theory to begin with so, like me at one time, was fed lies about what the ToE states by creationist's trying to forward their own agendas.

When I did study the Gap Theory at one time, the source I was reading was reconciling evolution with the theory. The issue I had was they added in the war of the angels or Lucifer's rebellion which I wondered where the evidence came from for that line of thinking. I was curious as to what you believed about the theory and how you view it alongside the physical evidence we have. At this point I'm assuming you still believe in the 6-day literal account of creation but instead of it being the original creation it is God repairing the earth after satan destroyed it? Am I understanding your position correctly?

cheers
 
jasoncran said:
why we do on this earth, doesnt matter.
we can kill,rape, etc and still be holy.

Interesting. Judging on the history of religions they obviously thought the same thing as long as it was done in the name of their God.
 
seekandlisten said:
jasoncran said:
why we do on this earth, doesnt matter.
we can kill,rape, etc and still be holy.

Interesting. Judging on the history of religions they obviously thought the same thing as long as it was done in the name of their God.
no, that was in the 2nd or third century, its called gnosticsism.

the secular world wants us christain to "hide" our faith in that manner to an extent. dont vote, dont preach nor teach.or anywhere outside the church or home.

the Lord makes no such statment but the opposite. the secular should only be seperated from the profane. sadly many christians arent taking their worldview and applying it nor are living it.(by doing this they maynt be christians)
 
jasoncran said:
no, that was in the 2nd or third century, its called gnosticsism.

Could you cite a source for this? I've studied many gnostic writings and have yet to find the whole 'knowledge is what saves you' and now this 'you can do whatever you want on earth' line of thinking. To me it sounds like the work of those that disagree trying to discredit those they don't agree with or someone trying to work in their own personal desires with their beliefs.

jasoncran said:
the secular world wants us christain to "hide" our faith in that manner to an extent. dont vote, dont preach nor teach.or anywhere outside the church or home.

Well, when you infringe on other's choices just because you don't agree or try to promote unsupported theories about a 6000 year old earth despite the evidence that states otherwise I would suggest that some are being generous in saying that 'well your ideas are a little crazy so as long as you keep them to yourself you're free to practice whatever you want'. We all have freedom to practice our own beliefs and of that I'm grateful and would have it no other way.


jasoncran said:
the Lord makes no such statment but the opposite. the secular should only be seperated from the profane. sadly many christians arent taking their worldview and applying it nor are living it.(by doing this they maynt be christians)

Here you run into the problem of who's interpreting what is 'secular'. Which is why we all have the freedom to practice our belief's without fear as long as we don't infringe on the same rights of others.

cheers
 
ah but in america, we are being told shut up. just look at the rcc, they were forced out of the business of adoption agency. or deny their faith.

we arent saying that we deny other votes, but with your comment here.
Well, when you infringe on other's choices just because you don't agree or try to promote unsupported theories about a 6000 year old earth despite the evidence that states otherwise I would suggest that some are being generous in saying that 'well your ideas are a little crazy so as long as you keep them to yourself you're free to practice whatever you want'. We all have freedom to practice our own beliefs and of that I'm grateful and would have not other way.

is just that. by believing something else we should just accept evo and never ever look at the contrary pov. is that science.how is my denying evo gonna effect the engineer who builds a bridge or or the nuke plant( i know a nuke enginneer who is yec'r) yet what does the the evo do with the here and now?

did evo cure cancers(types)
or build the space shuttle?

evo isnt science but a theory. if you say and believe that only evo is science, then what will happen when that is falsified. science failed.
 
beside the irony of the this in america the public schools do more damage and misinformation on the toe than we yec'rs could ever do.

i was shown the the "proof" of the toe with these, the nebraska man and the piltdown man and others well debunked before i was born.

the school system couldnt afford new books so they used 30 to 40 yrd out of date books.
 
jasoncran said:
ah but in america, we are being told shut up. just look at the rcc, they were forced out of the business of adoption agency. or deny their faith.

I think you've been misinformed. I did read about the RCC pulling out due to their disagreements having to do with homosexuality. There is a difference. This becomes where your beliefs are infringing on the rights of others to the same freedoms you have.

jasoncran said:
we arent saying that we deny other votes, but with your comment here.
Well, when you infringe on other's choices just because you don't agree or try to promote unsupported theories about a 6000 year old earth despite the evidence that states otherwise I would suggest that some are being generous in saying that 'well your ideas are a little crazy so as long as you keep them to yourself you're free to practice whatever you want'. We all have freedom to practice our own beliefs and of that I'm grateful and would have not other way.

is just that. by believing something else we should just accept evo and never ever look at the contrary pov.

Go ahead and look at the opposing point of view. They are full of lies and deception from what I found. Show me one creationist site that isn't promoting lies and deception in their 'facts'. I once believed evolution was wrong until I looked at both sides and by that I mean reading evolution sources not creationist's versions of what the evolutionary theory states. Read the Greatest Show on Earth and come back and tell me everything you disagree with, or better yet discuss it with the Barbarian as he is highly informative.


jasoncran said:
is that science.how is my denying evo gonna effect the engineer who builds a bridge or or the nuke plant( i know a nuke enginneer who is yec'r) yet what does the the evo do with the here and now?

Well, evolution is only relevant if you are interested in how life progressed.

jasoncran said:
did evo cure cancers(types)
or build the space shuttle?

Nope, but if you trust their methods why do you disagree with what science has discovered about life?

jasoncran said:
evo isnt science but a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you disagree with gravity? After all it's just a theory.


jasoncran said:
if you say and believe that only evo is science, then what will happen when that is falsified. science failed.

Oh I don't doubt that science can fail. But we can't deal with what if's. That is why I don't have to believe in it because I know if evidence is presented that falsifies it, it will be revised to follow the evidence. Unlike Creationists, Scientist follow the evidence not make the 'evidence' match their point of view.

cheers
 
jasoncran said:
beside the irony of the this in america the public schools do more damage and misinformation on the toe than we yec'rs could ever do.

i was shown the the "proof" of the toe with these, the nebraska man and the piltdown man and others well debunked before i was born.

the school system couldnt afford new books so they used 30 to 40 yrd out of date books.

Well this is very true but that is a whole other issue in itself.
 
seekandlisten said:
jasoncran said:
ah but in america, we are being told shut up. just look at the rcc, they were forced out of the business of adoption agency. or deny their faith.

I think you've been misinformed. I did read about the RCC pulling out due to their disagreements having to do with homosexuality. There is a difference. This becomes where your beliefs are infringing on the rights of others to the same freedoms you have.
negative the state of mass Wouldnt compromise and told them by law they had to let gays adopt.
jasoncran said:
is just that. by believing something else we should just accept evo and never ever look at the contrary pov.

Go ahead and look at the opposing point of view. They are full of lies and deception from what I found. Show me one creationist site that isn't promoting lies and deception in their 'facts'. I once believed evolution was wrong until I looked at both sides and by that I mean reading evolution sources not creationist's versions of what the evolutionary theory states. Read the Greatest Show on Earth and come back and tell me everything you disagree with, or better yet discuss it with the Barbarian as he is highly informative.
i have engeaged and one see what they want to see

jasoncran said:
is that science.how is my denying evo gonna effect the engineer who builds a bridge or or the nuke plant( i know a nuke enginneer who is yec'r) yet what does the the evo do with the here and now?

Well, evolution is only relevant if you are interested in how life progressed.
yes, whether true or false what does how we got here matter?
jasoncran said:
did evo cure cancers(types)
or build the space shuttle?
up buddy read on down i have good counter for that faith by athiests
Nope, but if you trust their methods why do you disagree with what science has discovered about life?
the conclusiions

jasoncran said:
evo isnt science but a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you disagree with gravity? After all it's just a theory. :mad yup and that faith of yours isnt shared by fellow secular scientists, i have a book on that.


jasoncran said:
if you say and believe that only evo is science, then what will happen when that is falsified. science failed.
P

Oh I don't doubt that science can fail. But we can't deal with what if's. That is why I don't have to believe in it because I know if evidence is presented that falsifies it, it will be revised to follow the evidence. Unlike Creationists, Scientist follow the evidence not make the 'evidence' match their point of view.
really what of this quote"ALLEGIANCE TO DARWIN HAS BECOME A LITMUS FOR DECIDING WHO DOES AND WHO DOES NOT HAVE NOT, HOLD A "PROPER SCIENTIFIC'WORLD VIEW",'YOU MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN FAITH IN GOD AND FAITH IN DARWIN;AND IF YOU WANT TO BE A SECULAR HUMANIST, YOU BETTER CHOOSE THE LATER'.SO WERE TOLD.

FROM THE BOOK WHAT DARWIN GOT WRONG BY JERRY FODOR AND MASSIMO PIATTELI-PALMARINI BOTH ARE ATHIESTS AND ARE ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS.

SO BY THAT DOES THE SCIECTISTS THAT ACCEPT EVO ARE UNBIASED?

AND CAPS IS USED TO SHOW THIS, I AM NOT YELLING.
 
I found the source I had read up on the Gap Theory a few years ago. Taken from here.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/gap-theory.htm

The gap theory teaches that God created the world perhaps billions of years ago, and it was perfect and beautiful in every way. This is the creation described in Genesis 1:1. This creation was populated with plants and animals and perhaps even with a race of pre-Adamic men who had no souls. Then, as a result of Lucifer's rebellion and fall (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28), the earth—Lucifer's domain—became chaos. The picture of formlessness, emptiness, and darkness in Genesis 1:2 is allegedly a picture of divine judgment, for God could not have originally created the earth this way (see Isaiah 24:1; 45:18; Jeremiah 4:23-26). Darkness is often used as a symbol of judgment and sin in Scripture (John 3:19; Jude 13). The original creation in Genesis 1:1 was one of light, but after God judged the earth, it was characterized by darkness (verse 2). Millions of years—perhaps even billions of years—are said to have taken place between verses 1 and 2. Hence the 'gap' theory.


It then goes on to a layout of the metaphorical days of creation.

Day One: Big Bang to transparency of light. (And God said let there be light)

The Radiation Era
10,000 years

The first major era in the history of the universe is one in which most of the energy is in the form of radiation -- different wavelengths of light, X rays, radio waves and ultraviolet rays. This energy is the remnant of the primordial fireball, and as the universe expands, the waves of radiation are stretched and diluted until today, they make up the faint glow of microwaves which bathe the entire universe.

Day Two: Transparency of Light to Domination of Matter (GOD separates Earth from Heaven)

The second epoch of the Big bang was when the universe cooled so that matter could form as stable atoms. Beginning the Era of Matter Domination
300,000 years

At this moment, the energy in matter and the energy in radiation are equal. But as the relentless expansion continues, the waves of light are stretched to lower and lower energy, while the matter travels onward largely unaffected. At about this time, neutral atoms are formed as electrons link up with hydrogen and helium nuclei. The microwave background radiation hails from this moment, and thus gives us a direct picture of how matter was distributed at this early time.

Day Three: Birth of Stars and Galaxies (God said let dry land appear)

300 million years
Gravity amplifies slight irregularities in the density of the primordial gas. Even as the universe continues to expand rapidly, pockets of gas become more and more dense. Stars ignite within these pockets, and groups of stars become the earliest galaxies. This point is still perhaps 12 to 15 billion years before the present.

Day Four: Birth of the Sun and our Solar system (And God said, let there be lights that mark the seasons.)

5 Billion Years Before the Present
The sun forms within a cloud of gas in a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. A vast disk of gas and debris that swirls around this new star gives birth to planets, moons, and asteroids . Earth is the third planet out and the moon is its companion.

Day Five: Life Evolves (And God said, "Let the water, earth and air teem with living creatures)

3.8 Billion Years BP
The Earth has cooled and an atmosphere develops. Microscopic living cells, neither plants nor animals, begin to evolve and flourish in earth's many volcanic environments.

Primitive Animals Appear
700 Million Years BP
These are mostly flatworms, jelly fish and algae. By 570 million years before the present, large numbers of creatures with hard shells suddenly appear.

The First Mammals Appear
200 Million Years BP
The first mammals evolved from a class of reptiles that evolved mammalian traits, such as a segmented jaw and a series of bones that make up the inner ear.

Dinosaurs Become Extinct
65 Million Years BP
An asteroid or comet slams into the northern part of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This world-wide cataclysm brings to an end the long age of the dinosaurs, and allows mammals to diversify and expand their ranges.

Day 6: Man appears (And God said let us make man in our image)

Homo Sapiens Evolve
600,000 Years BP
Our earliest ancestors evolve in Africa from a line of creatures that descended from apes.

Here is the url I used to get the epochs from. http://www.strangemusic.com/BBTL.htm

So from this viewpoint Genesis is the word of GOD but very symbolic and metaphorical..



Is this in line with what those that believe in the Gap Theory believe to be true.(MysteryMan and Veteran, unless there are others who would like to chime in)

cheers
 
jasoncran said:
seekandlisten said:
I think you've been misinformed. I did read about the RCC pulling out due to their disagreements having to do with homosexuality. There is a difference. This becomes where your beliefs are infringing on the rights of others to the same freedoms you have.

negative the state of mass Wouldnt compromise and told them by law they had to let gays adopt.

Exactly, the RCC can't discriminate against homosexuals in the real world. If they want to discriminate against them in their own church go ahead but when it comes to public adoption they infringe on the rights of same-sex parents to adopt. Do you not see the difference? You have your freedoms and same-sex couples are allowed the same freedoms otherwise it gives you the right to rise above and treat them like second class citizens.



jasoncran said:
is that science.how is my denying evo gonna effect the engineer who builds a bridge or or the nuke plant( i know a nuke enginneer who is yec'r) yet what does the the evo do with the here and now?

Well, evolution is only relevant if you are interested in how life progressed.
yes, whether true or false what does how we got here matter?

It only matters if you care. If you don't care then believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it right.


jasoncran said:
evo isnt science but a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you disagree with gravity? After all it's just a theory.
:mad yup and that faith of yours isnt shared by fellow secular scientists, i have a book on that.

And what 'faith' is that? I don't 'believe' in science, I accept it's theories, which are falsifiable, based on the evidence.

Your statement makes no sense to me sorry?


jasoncran said:
if you say and believe that only evo is science, then what will happen when that is falsified. science failed.
P

Oh I don't doubt that science can fail. But we can't deal with what if's. That is why I don't have to believe in it because I know if evidence is presented that falsifies it, it will be revised to follow the evidence. Unlike Creationists, Scientist follow the evidence not make the 'evidence' match their point of view.
jasoncran said:
really what of this quote"ALLEGIANCE TO DARWIN HAS BECOME A LITMUS FOR DECIDING WHO DOES AND WHO DOES NOT HAVE NOT, HOLD A "PROPER SCIENTIFIC'WORLD VIEW",'YOU MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN FAITH IN GOD AND FAITH IN DARWIN;AND IF YOU WANT TO BE A SECULAR HUMANIST, YOU BETTER CHOOSE THE LATER'.SO WERE TOLD.

FROM THE BOOK WHAT DARWIN GOT WRONG BY JERRY FODOR AND MASSIMO PIATTELI-PALMARINI BOTH ARE ATHIESTS AND ARE ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS.

SO BY THAT DOES THE SCIECTISTS THAT ACCEPT EVO ARE UNBIASED?

AND CAPS IS USED TO SHOW THIS, I AM NOT YELLING.

I don't feel the need to accept someone's opinion on 'faith'. If it is worth listening to they will have evidence that will back up their claims. I don't have to make a statement of faith to accept evolution. Also coming from a book titled 'What Darwin Got Wrong' I wouldn't expect it to agree with Darwin. I haven't read the book though to comment. Let me ask you this though, if you agree with looking at the opposing sides point of view did you read what Darwin had to say in The Origin of Species to see if their claims about what he said are correct and what Darwin actually presented? I'm assuming not.

cheers
 
jasoncran said:
thats not the gap theory they embrace.

Sorry Jason but you really have to learn to present a source or opinion to go along with your assertions. Why isn't this the gap theory? Just because you say? Not to sound argumentive but seriously, I'm trying to understand the theory so I put forth the source that I studied on it, if you disagree show me your version of the 'gap theory'. The source this comes from excepts more than one point of view on religion so I would assume there is a little influence from everything, the Bible, evolution, the Gap Theory, etc. There is a lot of informative sources on that site if you wish to broaden your understanding of religions and issues you have had questions on. I don't agree with everything on that site but I have learned a lot of different perspectives from it.

cheers
 
seekandlisten said:
jasoncran said:
seekandlisten said:
I think you've been misinformed. I did read about the RCC pulling out due to their disagreements having to do with homosexuality. There is a difference. This becomes where your beliefs are infringing on the rights of others to the same freedoms you have.

negative the state of mass Wouldnt compromise and told them by law they had to let gays adopt.

Exactly, the RCC can't discriminate against homosexuals in the real world. If they want to discriminate against them in their own church go ahead but when it comes to public adoption they infringe on the rights of same-sex parents to adopt. Do you not see the difference? You have your freedoms and same-sex couples are allowed the same freedoms otherwise it gives you the right to rise above and treat them like second class citizens.YES I DO, I HAVE TO LET THE GOVERMENT DECIDE THAT I MUST DECIDE NOT TO PRACTICE MY BELIEF, WHICH IS THIS IS. ITS WRONG. I WAS BI AND KNOW WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT. THANKS THAT LINE OF THINKING IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SO WHATS NEXT A MUSLIM BEING TOLD THAT HE MUST PERFORM AN ABORTION AS THAT VIOLATES HIS BELIEFS.SO WE CANT ACTUALLY PRACTICE WHAT WE BELIEVE IN VOTING, THANKS. YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU, IF WE ARE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE BIBLE WE CANT JUST SAY NO TO WHAT THE LORD SAYS IS GOOD, AND TURN IT IN TO WELL YA SEE JESUS SUGGESTED THIS, NO HE SAID TO ALL DO THIS AND THOU SHALT LIVE.HIS COMMANDS ARENT SUGGESTIONS.



jasoncran said:
is that science.how is my denying evo gonna effect the engineer who builds a bridge or or the nuke plant( i know a nuke enginneer who is yec'r) yet what does the the evo do with the here and now?

Well, evolution is only relevant if you are interested in how life progressed.
yes, whether true or false what does how we got here matter?

It only matters if you care. If you don't care then believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it right.


jasoncran said:
evo isnt science but a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you disagree with gravity? After all it's just a theory. [quote:25u1bow3]
:mad yup and that faith of yours isnt shared by fellow secular scientists, i have a book on that.

And what 'faith' is that? I don't 'believe' in science, I accept it's theories, which are falsifiable, based on the evidence.
SEE THE STATEMENT IN THAT BOOK, THEY SAID THAT. THE FAITH IN DARWIN THAT IS.
Your statement makes no sense to me sorry?


jasoncran said:
if you say and believe that only evo is science, then what will happen when that is falsified. science failed.
P

Oh I don't doubt that science can fail. But we can't deal with what if's. That is why I don't have to believe in it because I know if evidence is presented that falsifies it, it will be revised to follow the evidence. Unlike Creationists, Scientist follow the evidence not make the 'evidence' match their point of view.
jasoncran said:
really what of this quote"ALLEGIANCE TO DARWIN HAS BECOME A LITMUS FOR DECIDING WHO DOES AND WHO DOES NOT HAVE NOT, HOLD A "PROPER SCIENTIFIC'WORLD VIEW",'YOU MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN FAITH IN GOD AND FAITH IN DARWIN;AND IF YOU WANT TO BE A SECULAR HUMANIST, YOU BETTER CHOOSE THE LATER'.SO WERE TOLD.

FROM THE BOOK WHAT DARWIN GOT WRONG BY JERRY FODOR AND MASSIMO PIATTELI-PALMARINI BOTH ARE ATHIESTS AND ARE ANTI-EVOLUTIONISTS.

SO BY THAT DOES THE SCIECTISTS THAT ACCEPT EVO ARE UNBIASED?

AND CAPS IS USED TO SHOW THIS, I AM NOT YELLING.
[/quote:25u1bow3]

I don't feel the need to accept someone's opinion on 'faith'. If it is worth listening to they will have evidence that will back up their claims. I don't have to make a statement of faith to accept evolution. Also coming from a book titled 'What Darwin Got Wrong' I wouldn't expect it to agree with Darwin. I haven't read the book though to comment. Let me ask you this though, if you agree with looking at the opposing sides point of view did you read what Darwin had to say in The Origin of Species to see if their claims about what he said are correct and what Darwin actually presented? I'm assuming notTHEY WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT DARWIN SAYS, AND THEN LATER SHOW WHERE HE WENT WRONG. .
 
veteran said:
Some others here started another thread about the Gap idea of Genesis 1 obviously to air out (hot air mostly) their opinions against it, without actually giving anyone a chance to grasp it from Scripture. For those interested, here's a more fair view of it.

General Explanation:
Many Christian scholars and ministers who understand what some call The Gap Theory of Genesis do so not because of trying to reconcile The Bible and science. The idea did not originate from Darwinists or evolutionists either, because the gap idea only supports the idea of God as Creator, NOT theories of EVOLUTION. Those not given to understand it are likely to give it negative associations, just as the ignorant did with our Lord Jesus' Ministry on earth among sinners. It's also important to understand that true scientific discovery will always agree with God's Word, for real science is the study of facts. It's false or pseudo science that confuses the concept of God's creation. We don't have to fear true science, for it won't conflict with God's Word.


Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

We have the definite article 'the' in front of heaven and earth. Heaven is plural in the Hebrew.

It's assumed by most this first statement serves as a general introductery to every event that follows after it. Like this is what I did, and then here's how I did it. There's no reason to treat the meaning of this verse any other way at this point. But as in many places in God's Word, an introductery statement may take on a whole lot more depth once the detail in the rest of the chapter comes out.

2 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.

This is the first verse in Genesis 1 that can cause one to go back to verse 1 and look at it in a deeper light. Here's why...

The phrase "without form, and void" in the Hebrew is tohuw va bohuw. In Jeremiah 4 this whole phrase appears again, however, in the Jer.4 example it's about a trembling of the already existing earth, a destruction of its surface, turning the earth into a waste, into confusion, vanity. In Isaiah 45:18, God uses the word 'tohuw' to show vanity, something vain, useless, wasted or in a ruin. This word 'tohuw' is translated in other KJV passages also as: confusion, empty place, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

In all other examples of this word 'tohuw' in The Bible, it is used in the sense of something that existed going into confusion or a wasted condition. The Hebrew word 'bohuw' (Gen.1:2 as "void") is also translated in that same sense in other KJV usages. You can use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and/or Englishman's Concordance to easily confirm that tohuw va bohuw meaning from the Hebrew and in other KJV cases.

This revealing of the meaning of 'tohuw va bohuw' presents two main choices. Is this Gen.1:2 verse about a time before the earth was created, when there was a state of nothingness? Or is this actually pointing to an already created earth back at Gen.1:1 that is being described as having gone into a waste or ruined state at Gen.1:2?

With the phrase "face of the deep", Hebrew 'tehown' ("deep") has very specific usage pointing to waters in the earth. It's used for the waters of fountains of the great deep in Gen.8 during the flood of Noah's day. It's used about God parting the waters of the Red Sea when leading Israel out of Egypt. It's used of springs that come out of the earth. In Ps.104, it used of the depth of waters covering the earth like a garment. In all those Bible cases, it is used in association with an already existing earth. That poses another problem here in Gen.1:2 in thinking the earth is non-existent at this point.

The "face of the waters" is associated with that previous "deep" and time of darkness. These "waters" will be continually mentioned in this first part of Gen.1. As of yet, there still is no direct statement of God creating earth matter beyond Gen.1:1. It is assumed by many that God is creating earth matter at some point here after Gen.1:1. But so far, there's nothing about it beyond Gen.1:1. Instead, Gen.1:2 is declaring the earth is a waste or in a ruined state, with waters affecting it, like a flood covering over the earth.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.[i/]

Still nothing about the creating of earth matter here. Darkness was over the face of the waters, and now there is light by God speaking.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

These are the same waters first mentioned back at Gen.1:2. Here God is forming a firmament (sky, cloud, atmosphere), by separating those waters in two. Still nothing about creating earth matter here. Those waters are either suspended in empty space at this point, or the earth was already there underneath those waters since Gen.1:2.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


God creates the sky with this act, by parting the waters, taking some of the waters up to form the atmosphere, while leaving the rest of the waters below the sky. Again, either those waters below the firmament were hanging in empty space, or the earth was already there underneath.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
(KJV)

Here God gathers the waters below the sky into one place, and suddenly dry land appears from underneath. That still is not the specific act of creating earth matter. Instead, it is like those waters were completely covering the earth (like a garment per Psalms 104).


When those Gen.1:1-10 verses are covered in accordance with other Scripture evidences, it suggests that God first created the heavens and the earth back at Gen.1:1 as written, and then at Gen.1:2 something happened to the earth that caused it to be covered by a flood of waters, much like how the flood of Noah's day covered the whole earth to destroy the wicked off the earth.

If Gen.1:2 is indeed pointing to a destruction upon the earth by waters of a flood, then that would suggest that in between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 there was an indeterminable time period only God knows how long. That's where the idea of a 'gap' of time comes from. It would mean that starting at Gen.1:2 forward, God is renewing the earth because of something that happened in between verses 1 and 2. It then becomes impossible to determine just when God originally created the earth.

SEEKANLISTEN REREAD THIS AND THE CAPS AREA AND THEN YOU WILL SEE, VET DOENST ACCEPT EVOLUTION. THAT GAP THEORY ISNT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
 
jasoncran said:
seekandlisten said:
Exactly, the RCC can't discriminate against homosexuals in the real world. If they want to discriminate against them in their own church go ahead but when it comes to public adoption they infringe on the rights of same-sex parents to adopt. Do you not see the difference? You have your freedoms and same-sex couples are allowed the same freedoms otherwise it gives you the right to rise above and treat them like second class citizens.

YES I DO, I HAVE TO LET THE GOVERMENT DECIDE THAT I MUST DECIDE NOT TO PRACTICE MY BELIEF, WHICH IS THIS IS. ITS WRONG. I WAS BI AND KNOW WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT. THANKS THAT LINE OF THINKING IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SO WHATS NEXT A MUSLIM BEING TOLD THAT HE MUST PERFORM AN ABORTION AS THAT VIOLATES HIS BELIEFS.SO WE CANT ACTUALLY PRACTICE WHAT WE BELIEVE IN VOTING, THANKS. YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU, IF WE ARE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE BIBLE WE CANT JUST SAY NO TO WHAT THE LORD SAYS IS GOOD, AND TURN IT IN TO WELL YA SEE JESUS SUGGESTED THIS, NO HE SAID TO ALL DO THIS AND THOU SHALT LIVE.HIS COMMANDS ARENT SUGGESTIONS.

It has nothing to do with the government deciding what beliefs you are allowed to practice. The government makes sure there is equal rights for everyone including same-sex couples. The RCC disagreed with letting same-sex couples adopt, a right they have whether you agree or not, so they pulled out of the adoption agency because it went against their beliefs. A Muslim has the right to refuse a abortion because of his beliefs just like Church's have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals because it goes against their beliefs. They do not however have the right to ban homosexuals from getting married, just not in their churches. By making everyone conform to your line of thinking which is violating their right to freedom goes against the freedom we are given. If the table turned and only one religion was allowed rather then the freedom to practice whatever religion you want to then I'll be right there with you protesting it, but that isn't the case.

jasoncran said:
evo isnt science but a theory.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you disagree with gravity? After all it's just a theory.

jasoncran said:
:mad yup and that faith of yours isnt shared by fellow secular scientists, i have a book on that.

And what 'faith' is that? I don't 'believe' in science, I accept it's theories, which are falsifiable, based on the evidence.

jasoncran said:
SEE THE STATEMENT IN THAT BOOK, THEY SAID THAT. THE FAITH IN DARWIN THAT IS.

Just because a book says it doesn't make it true.




seekandlisten said:
I don't feel the need to accept someone's opinion on 'faith'. If it is worth listening to they will have evidence that will back up their claims. I don't have to make a statement of faith to accept evolution. Also coming from a book titled 'What Darwin Got Wrong' I wouldn't expect it to agree with Darwin. I haven't read the book though to comment. Let me ask you this though, if you agree with looking at the opposing sides point of view did you read what Darwin had to say in The Origin of Species to see if their claims about what he said are correct and what Darwin actually presented? I'm assuming not.
jasoncran said:
THEY WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT DARWIN SAYS, AND THEN LATER SHOW WHERE HE WENT WRONG. .

Wouldn't it be better to see what Darwin has to say for himself rather than take someone else's word on it?

cheers
 
jasoncran said:
SEEKANLISTEN REREAD THIS AND THE CAPS AREA AND THEN YOU WILL SEE, VET DOENST ACCEPT EVOLUTION. THAT GAP THEORY ISNT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

And if you would look back at my response to him I realized that and asked for clarification with this statement.

I was curious as to what you believed about the theory and how you view it alongside the physical evidence we have. At this point I'm assuming you still believe in the 6-day literal account of creation but instead of it being the original creation it is God repairing the earth after satan destroyed it? Am I understanding your position correctly?

I also asked you to cite a source to say what you believe the Gap Theory states. I only posted the source I read on it. I don't believe in the Gap Theory but I would like to understand those who hold it to be true viewpoints on it.

cheers
 
but vet DOESNT buy into evolution, so that is what this thread is about.

and on the government, you just said that we cant openly practice what we live, meaning this it must be what the society votes as moral,not what the lord says is moral.

in order words if i decide to be doc and i work for the socialized medicinal system in canada as an ob-gyn, i must ignore what i believe to be wrong and kill the child if need be.in america that is still against the law and that is slowly being undone.

by your thinking should we christian then be consistent and stop helping the poor? after all we all like all the good things about the lord but forget that he did also call sin sin and we are to honor that.

one cant be honest to the lord and say that well its not right for us to live the the calling in all arenas.
 
Back
Top