GAP: Theory or Fact

[James_Newman]

or they had a preference to not have a gap?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Only the KJV has "replenish." All the other versions translate male "fill" and they knew what they were doing.

This is not the forum. But when I see that all I think is

"Translation: The KJV translators were idiots to miss something so 'basic'"

It's a wonder Christianity survived until 1850.

 

[Accountable]

I have waited thinking someone would bring this up but since it has not let's look at it.

Do we have a type here? Many (not Just "ME'rs) use extensive typology in their teaching. It amazes me how God gives us word pictures through His O.T.

I believe that Genesis is the skeleton on which the meat of the word holds to. You can't get any deeper than the bone. The skeleton is what our body is affixed to and on.

What do we see with the gap?

1.A. We see Original creation. Perfect, without blemish.
1.B. We see Adam, the first man created perfect , without blemish.

2.A. We see the void brought by the fall by Satan's disobedience.
2.B. We see the void in man brought on by man's disobedience.

3.A. We see God taking six days to restore (Make) the earth as we now know it.
3.B. We see God taking six days to restore man to his proper state, a living body, soul, and spirit for dominion.

4.A. God rested on the seventh day.
4.B. God will rest again in our Lord's seventh day, the Millenium

You do not see God's redemption plan without the devistation.

This view is not taken out of the need for the type but the type comes from the presedented truth. God has shown us HIS plan for man from the first chapter of Genesis.

 

[TCGreek]

It never means that in the KJV.

1. At Genesis 1:22 the KJV reads, "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth" (emphasis mine).

2. At Genesis 1:28 the KJV reads, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth F6 upon the earth" (emphasis mine).

3. In v.22 KJV translate male "fill" but at v.28 it translates the same word "replenish."

4. To say that it NEVER translates male as "fill" is clearly an uninformed statement.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

1. Don't forget Isaiah mentions NEW creation, clearly not the same thing.

There are two main reasons why I personally hold this belief.



2. And this passage from Jeremiah should serve as an interpretive grid for Gen.1:2? What in Gen.1:2 necessitates such?



3. The word "replenish" in the KJV is the Hebrew male and simply means "fill, fulfill, or be filled."

4. I suggest you consult a Hebrew lexicon.

Exactly! Replinish simply means to fill... not refill.

 

[TCGreek]

This is not the forum. But when I see that all I think is

"Translation: The KJV translators were idiots to miss something so 'basic'"

It's a wonder Christianity survived until 1850.

1. Generations upon generations are thankful for the efforts of the KJV translators.

2. Why they chose to render the same Hebrew verb differently in the same chapter with just six verses between them, I will never know.

3. But I dare not call the translators idiots, for they were after all, fallible men.

 

[Lacy Evans]

4. To say that it NEVER translates male as "fill" is clearly an uninformed statement.

I certainly agree. That would be much uninformed.

Good thing I never, ever made any such statement.

I said "replenish" always means "fill again," in English and in context. Maybe you're looking at the wrong "The Original Greek".

I never heard any Hebrew scholar say it cannot be translated either way. (Although lots who like to get to choose say "a better translation would have been . . .")

You think the KJV translators forgot in four verses that the word was male? Do you know who we are talking about here?

 

[TCGreek]

I certainly agree. That would be much uninformed.

Good thing I never, ever made any such statement.

I said "replenish" always means "fill again," in English and in context. Maybe you're looking at the wrong "The Original Greek".

I never heard any Hebrew scholar say it cannot be translated either way. (Although lots who like to get to choose say "a better translation would have been . . .")

You think the KJV translators forgot in four verses that the word was male? Do you know who we are talking about here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCGreek
1. Don't forget Isaiah mentions NEW creation, clearly not the same thing
2. And this passage from Jeremiah should serve as an interpretive grid for Gen.1:2? What in Gen.1:2 necessitates such?.

Just comparing Scripture to Scripture.

Quote:
3. The word "replenish" in the KJV is the Hebrew male and simply means "fill, fulfill, or be filled."

4. I suggest you consult a Hebrew lexicon.

It never means that in the KJV.

I respectfully have no use for such things. I think the overwhelming fruit of the KJV speaks for itself, and I daresay the KJV translators more that likely knew what the word meant.

BTW, they translated it RE-plenish.

Do you mind telling me what IT refers to? I wish not to misquote you.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Do you mind telling me what IT refers to? I wish not to misquote you.

I see your point.

I should have said, "BTW, They translated it 'replenish' in Gen 1:28"

By "IT", I meant the English word "replenish" contextually means "Refill" consistently in the KJV.

My bad. (That's sixth-grader for "I'm sorry")

Lacy

 

[TCGreek]

If that is not clear, see your post #98.

 

[Lacy Evans]

If that is not clear, see your post #98.

You are correct. It wasn't clear. My antecedent got lost. (Prolly shulda tooka left toin at Albuquerque.)

So' I'll see you later my Dear Brother. I enjoyed this debate and appreciate your spirit.

Good night
-BroLacy

 

[av1611jim]

I thought it came from Thin Air Chapter 2.

You are both wrong. Doncha know that invented Bible books have to SOUND like a bible book?
I think he got it from 1 Hezekiah 13: 26:laugh: :wavey: :thumbs:

 

[av1611jim]

Has anyone noticed that the only ones who believe in the gap theory are the ME guys?

Just an observation.

Has anyone ever noticed how some folks can speak with their foot in their mouths?:BangHead:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Has anyone ever noticed how some folks can speak with their foot in their mouths?:BangHead:

Yes, Jim. You do it quite well.

 

[Accountable]

Yes, Jim. You do it quite well.

I guess as you said before, (I can't remember what room but..) it's so much different since you are saying it with love.:thumbs:

 

[Bob Alkire]

The Gap fact was taught long before Darwin ever saw his first monkey.

You could be right, can you name a few who taught it? As I'm sure you know Darwin wasn't the first to have the view that is given to him but the first to push it and so many bought into it. The Gap was first popularized by Thomas Chalmers, a Scottish theologian in the early 19 century or that is what I was taught al long with the Scofield Bible, whic I still use.

So many went to the Gap after this world bought into Darwin. For years I would have agreed with you that it was a fact, but not today. A man I was able to spend some time with in this life, held to the Gap view, J. Vernon McGee and as I said R. B. Thieme taught the Gap better than any man I ever heard.

One thing that helped me was Gen. 1:31 and ,"it was very good." If it weren't very good , God wouldn't said so, and he was talking about creation.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Any suggestions as to the connection between what appears to be planetary cataclysmic histories throughout the perceivable universe and most clearly within our solar system and anything hinted at or can be deduced from Scripture?

Nothing in the creation of this universe was created to look new. Adam could walk and talk, trees were full grown. Are you trying as so many Theologians have attempted to make a harmonization of science and the Bible?

 

[Bob Alkire]

I was referring to Barnhouse, The Invisible War.

Haven't read that book.

 

[Bob Alkire]

The Gap fact was taught long before Darwin ever saw his first monkey.

Also before I forget, "death reigned from Adam to Moses", Romans 5:14 as the Bible says, not before or that is how I see it.

 

[Bob Alkire]

About the only two mainstream theories of creation that are not permitted by Scriptures is that of natural evolution and an absolute six day creation. I personally think that the restoration was six literal days, but the text does not demand that.

Here we disagree, I believe the Scriptures teach a absolute 6 days of creation and on the 7th God rested, and as Gen. 1: 31 tells us and "it was very good".