Genesis 1 Vs Big Bang/String/Inflation and Darwinism

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

AMEN~!

 

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 1 Corinthians 6:24

I believe the Gap Theory is both correct and scientific.

I prefer to believe the Bible, which makes no room for the gap theory.

 

The Bible also teaches a global flood not a local flood.  It is so much easier to take God at His word than to try and mold it around what you want to believe.

 

And from a salvation standpoint, it makes no difference.

 

Actually, it makes all of the difference. You just don't understand how the Bible is structured.

 

I take the Bible literally, that's why I believe in the Gap Theory. 

 

No, you don't take it literally with reference to the Gap Theory, as the Bible knows nothing of any "Gap Theory." 

 

 

That's why I believe in a large local flood.  I take the Bible literally. 

 

No, you don't take it literally.  The Bible doesn't say the flood was a large and local flood.  The Bible calls it global. 

 

 

You believe the Bible contains no gap and also take a literal view.  The language leaves both views to be acceptable.  This is not a view that should divide Christians.  From the standpoint of salvation, it makes no difference.

 

From the standpoint of salvation it makes all of the difference.  A literal view precludes the Gap Theory and a local flood.   Your Gap Theory is not supported anywhere in the Bible, nor is a large local flood.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Books about the Gap Theory:

 

http://www.creationdays.dk/books/book.creation.php

 

Noah's Flood (Large Local Flood)

 

http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

Edited January 11, 2015 by Nobody-2441

[Guest shiloh357]

Books about the Gap Theory:

 

http://www.creationdays.dk/books/book.creation.php

The Gap Theory is impossible grammatically in the Hebrew and impossible theologically given that sin did not exist until Adam.  

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

Books about the Gap Theory:

 

http://www.creationdays.dk/books/book.creation.php

The Gap Theory is impossible grammatically in the Hebrew and impossible theologically given that sin did not exist until Adam.  

 

Statements made without supporting evidence should be ignored.  So that's what I choose to do here.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Books about the Gap Theory:

 

http://www.creationdays.dk/books/book.creation.php

The Gap Theory is impossible grammatically in the Hebrew and impossible theologically given that sin did not exist until Adam.  

 

Statements made without supporting evidence should be ignored.  So that's what I choose to do here.

 

 

Genesis 1:2 is what we call in Hebrew, a "vav disjunctive.   The first words of 1:2 in Hebrew state   v'haereztz ha-ya tohu 'vbohu.   The letter "v" is the Hebrew "vav."  It means "and."   When a vav is followed by a verb in Hebrew it is called a vav connective or vav conjunction.  When that happens it links the previous verse to the thought of the suceeding verse.   If "vav" were followed by a verb in Gen. 1:2, it would mean that the thought contained in 1:1 is continued in 1:2.  

 

But that isn't what we have.   We have "v' haeretz..."   or, "and the earth..."   The "vav" is followed by a noun.  That makes it a vav disjunctive.   That means that Gen. 1:2 is starting a line of thought that is unconnected and wholly independent from verse 1.   The only way you could ever make a case for Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 to be separated by a huge span of time complete with a pre-adamite earth and race of beings that were judged by God is  with a vav conntective.   The Hebrew grammatical structure simply makes it impossible.   Gap theorists try to claim that "ha-ya"  means "became" in Gen. 1:2.   But again, that only works in a vav connective, and not in the vav disjunctive that appears in Gen. 1:2

 

What means is that the creation account starting v. 2 is not new creative event.  It means that Gen. 1:1 is merely synopsis or nutshell statement of the creative event that is to follow.   Gen. 1:1 tells that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.   Gen1:2-31 tells us what the creative event entailed.

 

There is no basis for the Gap Theory in Hebrew.  The text simply won't allow for it.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

Books about the Gap Theory:

 

http://www.creationdays.dk/books/book.creation.php

The Gap Theory is impossible grammatically in the Hebrew and impossible theologically given that sin did not exist until Adam.  

 

 

 

Since the Gap Theory was first proposed by a Jewish rabbi over 1000 years ago, you are wrong.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Books about the Gap Theory:

 

http://www.creationdays.dk/books/book.creation.php

The Gap Theory is impossible grammatically in the Hebrew and impossible theologically given that sin did not exist until Adam.  

 

 

 

Since the Gap Theory was first proposed by a Jewish rabbi over 1000 years ago, you are wrong.

 

That doesn't prove me wrong at all.  That is not in any way a refutation.

 

 You can't refute what I presented so you rattle a one line response with no supporting evidence and while accusing me of the same thing.   The fact that all you can claim is that it comes from a Rabbi only 1,000 years ago only proves that it is a man-made doctrine and not biblical, much less scientific.

 

Please provide the name of this Rabbi and a link to his information for review.

[MorningGlory]

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.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

 

=======================================================================================================================

 

 

I believe the Gap Theory is both correct and scientific.

 

 

Scientific?  OK, Go ahead....

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

??

 

So I take the Bible literally, with a Gap between Genesis 1 and 3

 

 

What Gap?  ....

 

(Genesis 1:1-3) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  {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.  {3} And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

 

Looks like Genesis 1:2 is between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3.

 

 

For example, the Sun wasn't created at this time, but was already created in Genesis 1:1.

 

 

We must be reading different Bible's....

 

(Genesis 1:14-16) " And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

 

??

 

But of because of God's first judgment on earth, the sun and moon were not visible

 

 

Please Identify Specifically in Scripture:  GOD'S First Judgement on the Earth......?  AND,  Where the Sun and Moon were not visible prior to Day 4......?

 

 

Noah's Flood was a large local flood, not a global flood.  The word for earth here and elsewhere means land.

 

 

What about this...

 

(Genesis 7:19) "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."

 

Are you saying there were "High Hills" that existed that weren't under the "Whole Heaven"??

 

 

Additional Questions:

 

1. If the flood wasn't the WHOLE EARTH then why did Noah have to take the animals on the Ark?  Wasn't there animals some place else?

2. Or why build the Ark....why not just tell Noah to move?

 

3. Why build an Ark over 400 feet long if it was only a Local Flood?

 

4. If the Flood was local, then did God break his promise not to Flood the "world" again? Hasn't the Mesopotamian Valley been flooded many times since Noah?

 

5. If the Flood was local, why would birds have been sent on board? Couldn't they simply have winged across to a nearby mountain range?

 

(Matthew 24:37-39) " But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  {38}  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,  {39}  And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

 

So if people would have happened to not live in the Mesopotamia vicinity they would have not been affected and would've escaped GOD's Judgement.  What did Jesus mean when he likened the coming "End Time" Judgement of "all" men to..."in the days of Noah"?  Is the coming judgement a partial judgement?

 

 

The Jewish people did not have a concept of a sphere in space at this time.

 

 

This is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).  How does what concepts the Jews knew or did not know impact whether the The Flood was Local or Global....?

 

And How do you know what the Jews knew or didn't know @ this time....?

 

 

A statement like that puts into question the oral tradition of passing the OT from generation to generation.  Is that your intent?

 

 

 

 

Which statement, I made numerous....?

 

Please support your claims, including this one....?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

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.