Genesis 1 Vs Big Bang/String/Inflation and Darwinism

[Guest]

Statements made without supporting evidence should be ignored. 

 

So that's what I choose to do here.

 

 

Beloved

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

Me Too

 

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 2 Peter 3:5-6

 

~

 

PS: Jesus Is LORD

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Really, Jesus Is LORD

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Wow.. very long posts. Too long for me to want to even read them.  I hope you realise that you may enjoy intricate debates but you lose your audience that way, people who follow these threads prefer a succinct response.

I have to agree; most of us don't read posts over two or three paragraphs. Call it the human condition or whatever but the fact remains; if you want to make your point, keep it simple and TO the point. Endless references aren't necessary. Also, when responding to a LONG, LONG post, quoting only the part you're addressing keeps readers focused on your point.

 

If you notice, my posts tend to be short.  It's a frequent ploy of the OEC believers to respond in long lengthy posts that nobody reads, or write attack replies questioning someone's faith.  I haven't seen that here yet, but I wouldn't be surprised when it comes.

 

Still waiting for the name of the Rabbi you claim invented the Gap Theory.  Still waiting for the link to some information about him.  Surely, you can provide supporting evidence for your claims...

[Guest]

people who follow these threads prefer a succinct response....

 

~

 

Beloved, Although Most Prefer A Biblical Response

 

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11

 

Nevertheless They Remain

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Respectful

 

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Wow.. very long posts. Too long for me to want to even read them.  I hope you realise that you may enjoy intricate debates but you lose your audience that way, people who follow these threads prefer a succinct response.

I have to agree; most of us don't read posts over two or three paragraphs. Call it the human condition or whatever but the fact remains; if you want to make your point, keep it simple and TO the point. Endless references aren't necessary. Also, when responding to a LONG, LONG post, quoting only the part you're addressing keeps readers focused on your point.

 

If you notice, my posts tend to be short.  It's a frequent ploy of the OEC believers to respond in long lengthy posts that nobody reads, or write attack replies questioning someone's faith.  I haven't seen that here yet, but I wouldn't be surprised when it comes.

 

Still waiting for the name of the Rabbi you claim invented the Gap Theory.  Still waiting for the link to some information about him.  Surely, you can provide supporting evidence for your claims...

 

 

 

Alright Shiloh, you've crossed the line!  Where do you get off asking someone to support what they say Mister 

 

You must be one of those "fundamentalist" troublemakers, eh?  

 

 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Alright Shiloh, you've crossed the line!  Where do you get off asking someone to support what they say Mister 

 

You must be one of those "fundamentalist" troublemakers, eh?  

 

 

 

 

 

LOL  Yeah... 

[enoob57]

What I like the most is that the simple is the greatest strength to an argument.

As in this pursuit of creation's fundamental aspects the only One that 'WAS' present

'IS' present and 'WILL BE' in that state when we stand before Him... God clearly has

beyond all reasonable doubt set forth the truth literally Genesis into Exodus six

days! As soon as anyone steps out from this ratified and plainly spoken truth they

leave the foundation of God's Word and begin another foundation built upon other!

Matt 7:24

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I

will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

KJV

Love, Steven

Edited January 13, 2015 by enoob57

[other one]

An Exegetical Controversy:
The "Gap" Theory

by Chuck Missler

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services 13

Print this article

Ever since it was originally suggested by Thomas Chalmers in 1814, there have been two reactions to the so-called “gap” theory: either to dismiss it completely or to misapply it. We will attempt to do neither. Let’s start at the beginning:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1

This is certainly straightforward (and if you fully grasp that verse you will have no problem with any other verse in the Bi-ble!). It is the next verse that raises some basic issues:

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.

Genesis 1:2

The words “without form and void,” Whbow” Whto tohu v’bohu, will become critical elements of our vocabulary. Whto tohu means without form, confused; Whb bohu means void, empty. (The w vav between them is the conjunction “and.”) When we examine a declaration of God in Isaiah we note an apparent contradiction:

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:18

The same word for “vain,” WhTo tohu (without form, confused), appears in both verses, and would appear to contradict the decla-ration in Genesis 1:2. The phrase in Genesis 1:2 also appears in Jeremiah:

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Jeremiah 4:23

Whenever you find an apparent contradiction in the Biblical text, we should rejoice! It may be what the rabbis call a remez: a hint of something deeper. It’s like a signpost saying, “Dig here! A treasure is hidden here.” So this compels us to more carefully examine the passage in Genesis 1:2. The verb “was” is actually a transitive verb (indicating action) and the word order (normally, conjunction-verb-subject-object) is reordered to suggest the transitive pluperfect form: “had become.” (It is so ordered in the International Standard Version.) It is the identical transitive verb which appears in Genesis 19:26, where Lot’s wife “became a pillar of salt.”

Furthermore, we also find that the initial conjunction, “And,” is an adversative conjunction (“but”) and is so rendered in both the Septuagint and Vulgate translations.1 (It often suggests a significant time delay.2) Putting this all together suggests the following rendering:

But the earth had become without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

There appears to be an interval of some kind—perhaps eons—between verses 1 and 2. It would seem that the earth was not originally “without form and void,” but had been subjected to some kind of catastrophic judgment prior to the sequence that continues in Genesis 1.

This possibility may also explain when Satan fell. We know that the angels were created prior to the Earth.3 We find Satan had already fallen in Genesis 3. The mystery is, when did he fall? It appears that there are substantial Scriptural references to his rebellion, his agenda, and the subsequent catastrophic judgment that ensued.4

This also raises the whole issue of the origin of evil. And why hasn’t God simply wiped him—and sin—out completely? It is also disturbing to recognize that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him the “kingdom, power and the glory” in the temptations recorded in Luke.5 How could Satan lay a legitimate claim to these? These topics will be explored in future articles and are excerpted from our featured briefing pack, The Origin of Evil.
* * *

Sources:

Pember, George H., Earth’s Earliest Ages, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1907.

Barnhouse, Donald Gray, The Invisible War, Zondervan Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI, 1965.

Custance, Arthur C., Without Form and Void, Brockville, Ontario, Canada, 1970.

[enoob57]

An Exegetical Controversy:

The "Gap" Theory

by Chuck Missler

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services 13

Print this article

Ever since it was originally suggested by Thomas Chalmers in 1814, there have been two reactions to the so-called “gap” theory: either to dismiss it completely or to misapply it. We will attempt to do neither. Let’s start at the beginning:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1

This is certainly straightforward (and if you fully grasp that verse you will have no problem with any other verse in the Bi-ble!). It is the next verse that raises some basic issues:

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.

Genesis 1:2

The words “without form and void,” Whbow” Whto tohu v’bohu, will become critical elements of our vocabulary. Whto tohu means without form, confused; Whb bohu means void, empty. (The w vav between them is the conjunction “and.”) When we examine a declaration of God in Isaiah we note an apparent contradiction:

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:18

The same word for “vain,” WhTo tohu (without form, confused), appears in both verses, and would appear to contradict the decla-ration in Genesis 1:2. The phrase in Genesis 1:2 also appears in Jeremiah:

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Jeremiah 4:23

Whenever you find an apparent contradiction in the Biblical text, we should rejoice! It may be what the rabbis call a remez: a hint of something deeper. It’s like a signpost saying, “Dig here! A treasure is hidden here.” So this compels us to more carefully examine the passage in Genesis 1:2. The verb “was” is actually a transitive verb (indicating action) and the word order (normally, conjunction-verb-subject-object) is reordered to suggest the transitive pluperfect form: “had become.” (It is so ordered in the International Standard Version.) It is the identical transitive verb which appears in Genesis 19:26, where Lot’s wife “became a pillar of salt.”

Furthermore, we also find that the initial conjunction, “And,” is an adversative conjunction (“but”) and is so rendered in both the Septuagint and Vulgate translations.1 (It often suggests a significant time delay.2) Putting this all together suggests the following rendering:

But the earth had become without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

There appears to be an interval of some kind—perhaps eons—between verses 1 and 2. It would seem that the earth was not originally “without form and void,” but had been subjected to some kind of catastrophic judgment prior to the sequence that continues in Genesis 1.

This possibility may also explain when Satan fell. We know that the angels were created prior to the Earth.3 We find Satan had already fallen in Genesis 3. The mystery is, when did he fall? It appears that there are substantial Scriptural references to his rebellion, his agenda, and the subsequent catastrophic judgment that ensued.4

This also raises the whole issue of the origin of evil. And why hasn’t God simply wiped him—and sin—out completely? It is also disturbing to recognize that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him the “kingdom, power and the glory” in the temptations recorded in Luke.5 How could Satan lay a legitimate claim to these? These topics will be explored in future articles and are excerpted from our featured briefing pack, The Origin of Evil.

* * *

Sources:

Pember, George H., Earth’s Earliest Ages, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1907.

Barnhouse, Donald Gray, The Invisible War, Zondervan Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI, 1965.

Custance, Arthur C., Without Form and Void, Brockville, Ontario, Canada, 1970.

The biggest error in the exegetical work of gap is the is no written evidence... it is assumption

and the largest error is that God rebuilds on that which is destroyed where in fact He builds totally

brand new... as the judgement of God is everlasting and it is why the new birth and a new earth and

heaven is required... Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

An Exegetical Controversy:

The "Gap" Theory

by Chuck Missler

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services 13

Print this article

Ever since it was originally suggested by Thomas Chalmers in 1814, there have been two reactions to the so-called “gap” theory: either to dismiss it completely or to misapply it. We will attempt to do neither. Let’s start at the beginning:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1

This is certainly straightforward (and if you fully grasp that verse you will have no problem with any other verse in the Bi-ble!). It is the next verse that raises some basic issues:

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.

Genesis 1:2

The words “without form and void,” Whbow” Whto tohu v’bohu, will become critical elements of our vocabulary. Whto tohu means without form, confused; Whb bohu means void, empty. (The w vav between them is the conjunction “and.”) When we examine a declaration of God in Isaiah we note an apparent contradiction:

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:18

The same word for “vain,” WhTo tohu (without form, confused), appears in both verses, and would appear to contradict the decla-ration in Genesis 1:2. The phrase in Genesis 1:2 also appears in Jeremiah:

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Jeremiah 4:23

Whenever you find an apparent contradiction in the Biblical text, we should rejoice! It may be what the rabbis call a remez: a hint of something deeper. It’s like a signpost saying, “Dig here! A treasure is hidden here.” So this compels us to more carefully examine the passage in Genesis 1:2. The verb “was” is actually a transitive verb (indicating action) and the word order (normally, conjunction-verb-subject-object) is reordered to suggest the transitive pluperfect form: “had become.” (It is so ordered in the International Standard Version.) It is the identical transitive verb which appears in Genesis 19:26, where Lot’s wife “became a pillar of salt.”

Furthermore, we also find that the initial conjunction, “And,” is an adversative conjunction (“but”) and is so rendered in both the Septuagint and Vulgate translations.1 (It often suggests a significant time delay.2) Putting this all together suggests the following rendering:

But the earth had become without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

There appears to be an interval of some kind—perhaps eons—between verses 1 and 2. It would seem that the earth was not originally “without form and void,” but had been subjected to some kind of catastrophic judgment prior to the sequence that continues in Genesis 1.

This possibility may also explain when Satan fell. We know that the angels were created prior to the Earth.3 We find Satan had already fallen in Genesis 3. The mystery is, when did he fall? It appears that there are substantial Scriptural references to his rebellion, his agenda, and the subsequent catastrophic judgment that ensued.4

This also raises the whole issue of the origin of evil. And why hasn’t God simply wiped him—and sin—out completely? It is also disturbing to recognize that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him the “kingdom, power and the glory” in the temptations recorded in Luke.5 How could Satan lay a legitimate claim to these? These topics will be explored in future articles and are excerpted from our featured briefing pack, The Origin of Evil.

* * *

Sources:

Pember, George H., Earth’s Earliest Ages, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1907.

Barnhouse, Donald Gray, The Invisible War, Zondervan Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI, 1965.

Custance, Arthur C., Without Form and Void, Brockville, Ontario, Canada, 1970.

Chuck Missler is just parroting the same errors that other teachers parrot as well.   None of them know Hebrew and frankly, this is just one idea that is passed around from one person to another and is accepted without any critical thinking applied to the claims.

[Enoch2021]

 

An Exegetical Controversy:

The "Gap" Theory

by Chuck Missler

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services 13

Print this article

Ever since it was originally suggested by Thomas Chalmers in 1814, there have been two reactions to the so-called “gap” theory: either to dismiss it completely or to misapply it. We will attempt to do neither. Let’s start at the beginning:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1

This is certainly straightforward (and if you fully grasp that verse you will have no problem with any other verse in the Bi-ble!). It is the next verse that raises some basic issues:

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.

Genesis 1:2

The words “without form and void,” Whbow” Whto tohu v’bohu, will become critical elements of our vocabulary. Whto tohu means without form, confused; Whb bohu means void, empty. (The w vav between them is the conjunction “and.”) When we examine a declaration of God in Isaiah we note an apparent contradiction:

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:18

The same word for “vain,” WhTo tohu (without form, confused), appears in both verses, and would appear to contradict the decla-ration in Genesis 1:2. The phrase in Genesis 1:2 also appears in Jeremiah:

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Jeremiah 4:23

Whenever you find an apparent contradiction in the Biblical text, we should rejoice! It may be what the rabbis call a remez: a hint of something deeper. It’s like a signpost saying, “Dig here! A treasure is hidden here.” So this compels us to more carefully examine the passage in Genesis 1:2. The verb “was” is actually a transitive verb (indicating action) and the word order (normally, conjunction-verb-subject-object) is reordered to suggest the transitive pluperfect form: “had become.” (It is so ordered in the International Standard Version.) It is the identical transitive verb which appears in Genesis 19:26, where Lot’s wife “became a pillar of salt.”

Furthermore, we also find that the initial conjunction, “And,” is an adversative conjunction (“but”) and is so rendered in both the Septuagint and Vulgate translations.1 (It often suggests a significant time delay.2) Putting this all together suggests the following rendering:

But the earth had become without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

There appears to be an interval of some kind—perhaps eons—between verses 1 and 2. It would seem that the earth was not originally “without form and void,” but had been subjected to some kind of catastrophic judgment prior to the sequence that continues in Genesis 1.

This possibility may also explain when Satan fell. We know that the angels were created prior to the Earth.3 We find Satan had already fallen in Genesis 3. The mystery is, when did he fall? It appears that there are substantial Scriptural references to his rebellion, his agenda, and the subsequent catastrophic judgment that ensued.4

This also raises the whole issue of the origin of evil. And why hasn’t God simply wiped him—and sin—out completely? It is also disturbing to recognize that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him the “kingdom, power and the glory” in the temptations recorded in Luke.5 How could Satan lay a legitimate claim to these? These topics will be explored in future articles and are excerpted from our featured briefing pack, The Origin of Evil.

* * *

Sources:

Pember, George H., Earth’s Earliest Ages, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1907.

Barnhouse, Donald Gray, The Invisible War, Zondervan Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI, 1965.

Custance, Arthur C., Without Form and Void, Brockville, Ontario, Canada, 1970.

Chuck Missler is just parroting the same errors that other teachers parrot as well.   None of them know Hebrew and frankly, this is just one idea that is passed around from one person to another and is accepted without any critical thinking applied to the claims.

 

 

 

I consider Chuck Missler the most Insightful, Discerned, and Blessed Scripture Expositors I have ever read or listened to.  # 2 isn't in the remote vicinity.  His Love for the LORD is palpable, and his attention to detail is unrivaled and in most cases beyond reproach, imho.  However, he is just a man.  I take his advice he lays out before every Bible Study (whether it be from him or anyone else)...

 

(Acts 17:11) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

 

I've listened to him speak on this subject many times and he always Caveats it with a Caution.  I side with The WORD of GOD in this case....and this leaves ZERO doubt by itself--- without even looking @ textual considerations (and those can't be overcome in their own right) :

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."