Are there two creation stories?

[Littlelambseativy]

I can see that this topic brings out the visceral in people. I think that we may be limiting a God who was from everlasting to everlasting...we don't know that time frame and tho' He is still creating today it does not in any way diminish the Bible or God's power or majesty to think that the earth was here and recreated for us....as it will once again be. If God will do it again I see no problem that He has done it before if He was not pleased with what Satan did to His Creation....as he tried to do again with Adam and Eve...but God knew he would try and sent His Son to redeem man and the earth. He makes all things new..including us. To think that the earth is old and was recreated for man to share his life with an all powerful God is incredible... He wanted to be loved by us. If one sees that this earth is only created for us...fine. I also have no problem with the recreation, whether in ice age, flood or fire or in the Words spoken by God the Word that it be so. I will not vilify anyone for not agreeing with me nor belittle their faith or integrity for not agreeing with me.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

I can see that this topic brings out the visceral in people. I think that we may be limiting a God who was from everlasting to everlasting...we don't know that time frame and tho' He is still creating today it does not in any way diminish the Bible or God's power or majesty to think that the earth was here and recreated for us....as it will once again be. If God will do it again I see no problem that He has done it before if He was not pleased with what Satan did to His Creation....as he tried to do again with Adam and Eve...but God knew he would try and sent His Son to redeem man and the earth. He makes all things new..including us. To think that the earth is old and was recreated for man to share his life with an all powerful God is incredible... He wanted to be loved by us. If one sees that this earth is only created for us...fine. I also have no problem with the recreation, whether in ice age, flood or fire or in the Words spoken by God the Word that it be so. I will not vilify anyone for not agreeing with me nor belittle their faith or integrity for not agreeing with me.

This is an exceptional way of looking at things.  God bless you.

[Guest shiloh357]

Or was he..

The context supports my argument.  You cannot interpret the Bible with an agenda and try to make it fit what you want it to  say.   Jeremiah was the prophet of the exile and witnessed the destruction of Judah.   That is how he described it and that is the ONLY correct way to look at it.  Context rules the meaning of a passage, period.

The Gap theory is the product of second rate, bargain basement so-called "scholars"  who can't interpret their way out of a paper bag.

This is the problem with arguing origins.  Someone always has to attack someone else's intelligence.  Now you're holding yourself above people like Merrill F. Unger author of Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament, authors of the Bible Knowledge Commentary from the Dallas Theological Seminary, authors of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, and many many more.  Both sides of the argument are guilty of this practice.

The difference is that I can actually explain why I am right.  I can defend my position because I can break down the Hebrew grammar.   The grammar is what it is and no scholar can change that.  I am really tired of scholars who trade in their integrity for the truth.  

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Or was he..

The context supports my argument.  You cannot interpret the Bible with an agenda and try to make it fit what you want it to  say.   Jeremiah was the prophet of the exile and witnessed the destruction of Judah.   That is how he described it and that is the ONLY correct way to look at it.  Context rules the meaning of a passage, period.

The Gap theory is the product of second rate, bargain basement so-called "scholars"  who can't interpret their way out of a paper bag.

This is the problem with arguing origins.  Someone always has to attack someone else's intelligence.  Now you're holding yourself above people like Merrill F. Unger author of Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament, authors of the Bible Knowledge Commentary from the Dallas Theological Seminary, authors of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, and many many more.  Both sides of the argument are guilty of this practice.

The difference is that I can actually explain why I am right.  I can defend my position because I can break down the Hebrew grammar.   The grammar is what it is and no scholar can change that.  I am really tired of scholars who trade in their integrity for the truth.  

Since it's already been proven that you're rely on falsehoods to support your argument, I see no reason to continue this discussion.  I've left two other Christian forums because of intolerance, I'm doing my best to not make this my third.  Shalom.  Or, I can put you on Ignore.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Guest shiloh357]

Or was he..

The context supports my argument.  You cannot interpret the Bible with an agenda and try to make it fit what you want it to  say.   Jeremiah was the prophet of the exile and witnessed the destruction of Judah.   That is how he described it and that is the ONLY correct way to look at it.  Context rules the meaning of a passage, period.

The Gap theory is the product of second rate, bargain basement so-called "scholars"  who can't interpret their way out of a paper bag.

This is the problem with arguing origins.  Someone always has to attack someone else's intelligence.  Now you're holding yourself above people like Merrill F. Unger author of Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament, authors of the Bible Knowledge Commentary from the Dallas Theological Seminary, authors of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, and many many more.  Both sides of the argument are guilty of this practice.

The difference is that I can actually explain why I am right.  I can defend my position because I can break down the Hebrew grammar.   The grammar is what it is and no scholar can change that.  I am really tired of scholars who trade in their integrity for the truth.  

Since it's already been proven that you're rely on falsehoods to support your argument, I see no reason to continue this discussion.  I've left two other Christian forums because of intolerance, I'm doing my best to not make this my third.  Shalom.  Or, I can put you on Ignore.

What falsehoods?

[Ezra]

This is the problem with arguing origins.  Someone always has to attack someone else's intelligence.

[/quote]

There is no need for anyone to engage in personal attacks. Agreed. At the same time, Christians must be prepared to always challenge the idea that there are alternative ways of interpreting Genesis, so that it is no longer treated as factual and historical. Getting back to the title of this thread, THERE IS ONLY ONE CREATION ACCOUNT -- initially given as an overview and then developed in greater detail as related to Adam and Eve. And this account is integral to the Gospel.  The Gospel begins at Genesis 3:15.  Christ crushed the Serpent's head on the Cross (Heb 2:14,15).

[SavedOnebyGrace]

This is slightly off subject, but those of you who don't know this may find this enlightening.  Look at the sentence formed by the Hebrew names from Adam on.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/284/

What other hidden things are there for us to find in the Bible?  Only a thorough study of His word will answer that question.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Saved.One.by.Grace

[Littlelambseativy]

Have heard Missler a number of times and find his work most interesting and informative.

[Guest shiloh357]

Have heard Missler a number of times and find his work most interesting and informative.

Missler plays with the facts to be a little sensational.  I would not put much stock in him.