GAP Theory

[TCassidy]

Also, is it completely outside of the realm of the thinking that maybe you're [SIC] posts are not crystal clear?

You mean "your posts." It is a possessive pronoun, not a contraction for "you are." And no, it is not my fault you fail to understand. I have explained it to you several times. I have reduced it to the simplest forms and still you fail to understand it. You Google information from the web and post it and claim it refutes my argument when, in fact, you failed to understand what you copied and pasted as the writing was saying exactly the same thing I said!

Maybe there are statements easily misunderstood and maybe the blame for misunderstanding isn't completely my fault?

I have dumbed them down as much as possible. I have explained over and over and you refuse to listen.

If I am misunderstanding you, can't you humbly take just a smidgen of the blame?

Your lack of academics is not my fault.

I don't know what kind of punks you're used to, but I'm not one of them.

The "punks" I dealt with as a Bible College and Seminary professor for over 25 years at least had a modest understanding of what they were talking about which is more than I can say about you.

 

[Calminian]

You mean "your posts."

Bravo. I go back and correct those errors constantly. hate when eye due that.

Your lack of academics is not my fault....

Actually academics might be your biggest problem. Every kind of error and heresy comes out of these institutions. Only about a dozen seminaries teach young earth creationsim. The rest compromise.

You'd think it's the other way around. You'd think the academics who bring us gap theories and day age theories and theistic evolution and the like would be the ones protecting us. Yet seminaries are cesspools of theological error, with the added ingredient of arrogance. You demonstrate this quite nicely.

 

[TCassidy]

Didn't BB Wafield thoug hold to a form of Theitic Evolution though?

That is a much and ongoing disputed subject. When writing on Darwin's faith, he concluded that evolution was a direct denial of belief.

Warfield wrote, "Thus the doctrine of evolution once heartily adopted by him (Darwin) gradually undermined his faith, until he cast off the whole Christianity as an unproven delusion." (Charles Darwin's Religious Life: A Sketch in Spiritual Biography". As republished in The Presbyterian Review. 9: 569–601. 1988.)

On what most Christians base their accusation of Warfield being an evolutionist was his statement in his 1889 review of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin where he said "There have been many evolutionists who have been and have remained theists and Christians." But he was not one of them.

 

[Calminian]

That is a much and ongoing disputed subject. When writing on Darwin's faith, he concluded that evolution was a direct denial of belief.

Warfield wrote, "Thus the doctrine of evolution once heartily adopted by him (Darwin) gradually undermined his faith, until he cast off the whole Christianity as an unproven delusion." (Charles Darwin's Religious Life: A Sketch in Spiritual Biography". As republished in The Presbyterian Review. 9: 569–601. 1988.)

On what most Christians base their accusation of Warfield being an evolutionist was his statement in his 1889 review of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin where he said "There have been many evolutionists who have been and have remained theists and Christians." But he was not one of them.

Exactly. He was merely part of the slippery slope that lead to where Princeton is today—where you get your thinking on gaps in the genealogies.

 

[InTheLight]

InTheLight said: ↑
..."Young earth creationist?" How young? When did Genesis 1:1 take place? And where does the bible say when Genesis 1:1 took place? Please post the verses that say "Genesis 1:1 took place in 4004 BC" or words to that effect.

And Bingo! I knew I'd draw you out.

You're a gap-theorist. You're not like Schofield, nor Sailhamer, but you have your own gap theory. You're try to separate Genesis 1:1 from the six days. Took me a while to hone in on it, but here we are. Now let's stop all the insults and baiting and get to it.

I made this point to you in one of my initial posts. I explained that Gen. 1:1 couldn't be separated form the 6 days. I explained why. You, my friend, are the one that didn't understand my argument. Now I suggest you go back and actually take in my argument. Think about what I said. Try to respond.

InTheLight Said....

No, I didn't say anything of the sort. The entirety of my posts in this thread is:

Hammer. Nail.

Here we go again. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm beginning to think you don't like me. LOL!

 

[InTheLight]

I will warn you one time and one time only. Do NOT lie about what I believe.

It's what he does.

 

[TCassidy]

Exactly. He was merely part of the slippery slope that lead to where Princeton is today—where you get your thinking on gaps in the genealogies.

And there is another post you utterly failed to understand.

 

[Calminian]

InTheLight Said....

No, I didn't say anything of the sort. The entirety of my posts in this thread is:

Hammer. Nail.

Here we go again. You're confusing me with someone else. I'm beginning to think you don't like me. LOL!

I don't dislike you. I just just disagree with you. And I have not mixed up your post with anyone's here. Cassidy said he believed there was room for a gap. That's what I was responding to, post#25.

 

[Calminian]

And there is another post you utterly failed to understand.

As I'm sure AiG, CMI ICR and all others have. I trust you looked at the articles I provided on genealogies and Warfield and others? Maybe just for ridicule sake you can take a peak.

 

[Calminian]

BTW, here's Dr. Barrack. He has no problem using the term "young earth."

And I have a feeling the guys at DTS don't either.

 

[InTheLight]

And I have not mixed up your post with anyone's here.

People can see for themselves, even if you can't.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Calminian]

People can see for themselves, even if you can't....

oh shoot, just got it. yes, you're right, I did it again. it's what happens when this rapid fire stuff happens. you answered a post meant for another. it happens.

there, satisfied?

In my defense, he has made similar statements.

Y..."Young earth creationist?" How young? When did Genesis 1:1 take place? And where does the bible say when Genesis 1:1 took place? Please post the verses that say "Genesis 1:1 took place in 4004 BC" or words to that effect.

Fair enough? I've been very honest and forthcoming about these mistakes when they've happened. It think it happens to everyone. Is it really something you have to impugn me over?

TCassidy, my apologies. ITL has pointed to one of his posts I confused with yours. If you can forgive that, I'd be much obliged.

 

[InTheLight]

Taking about this post where you got me confused with TC.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Calminian]

Taking about this post where you got me confused with TC.

Yes, I see it now. See above. I do appreciate the correction, and it did cause me to draw some wrong conclusions. Apologies extended.

 

[TCassidy]

Quit trying to blow smoke. Had you bothered to pay attention to my posting in regard to this years meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society you would have noticed I was there and participated in many of the presentations.

In fact, I was in the session when Dr. Barrick presented his paper on "Divine Persons in Genesis: Theological Implications" on Tuesday afternoon.

I did miss the session on Thursday moderated by Dr. Barrick on the Chronology and the Genesis 5 & 11 Genealogies. I had a long lunch with Dr. Robinson and a group from a Textual Criticism blog, then attended a reading of a paper by Stanley Porter on Why a Greek-text Orientated Commentary Series is Necessary along with Dr. Robinson. The paper addressed the issue of a Commentary Series on the Septuagint and why it was important to comment using the Greek LXX text.

So, if you are going to cite an expert you don't understand it might be a good idea to not cite one I spent time with last Tuesday.

 

[Calminian]

Quit trying to blow smoke. Had you bothered to pay attention to my posting in regard to this years meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society....

Er, your posting on what? Yes, I missed it. I suppose that means I'm just not paying enough attention? Forgive me if I don't have time to study all your posts. I'm assuming you're speaking of a different thread. As you know, I'm a JCL.

Mr. Cassidy, please just answer these few questions, so as to clear up any misunderstandings I might have about your position. I'm not blowing smoke. It's possible that me thinking the ITL post was from you caused me confusion. And yes, it's my fault.

Regardless of genealogical gaps (which is not a huge issue), do you hold to young earth creationism? IOWs do you hold to the entire universe being made say, 6K to 10K years ago?

Do you believe Genesis 1:1 happened approximately 6K to 10K years ago? Or do you believe its occurrence is unspecified in regard to all other dating information (genealogies, etc.) in the Bible?

...In fact, I was in the session when Dr. Barrick presented his paper on "Divine Persons in Genesis: Theological Implications" on Tuesday afternoon.

So, if you are going to cite an expert you don't understand it might be a good idea to not cite one I spent time with last Tuesday.

Fair enough. Would you describe yourself as a young earth Creationist as Dr. Barrack does. And even if you don't like the term, being too relative, do you essentially believe what young earth creationists believe (apart from their critiques on guys like Hodges and Warfied.)

I'd be much obliged if you'd clear this up for me. It'll just take simple yes/no answers.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a much and ongoing disputed subject. When writing on Darwin's faith, he concluded that evolution was a direct denial of belief.

Warfield wrote, "Thus the doctrine of evolution once heartily adopted by him (Darwin) gradually undermined his faith, until he cast off the whole Christianity as an unproven delusion." (Charles Darwin's Religious Life: A Sketch in Spiritual Biography". As republished in The Presbyterian Review. 9: 569–601. 1988.)

On what most Christians base their accusation of Warfield being an evolutionist was his statement in his 1889 review of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin where he said "There have been many evolutionists who have been and have remained theists and Christians." But he was not one of them.

Different authors stated diferent things on him, as he was not buying evolution at all, but seemed to buy the billion of years the evolutions held to, so that is why some se him leaning towards Theistic views...

 

[TCassidy]

Regardless of genealogical gaps (which is not a huge issue), do you hold to young earth creationism?

That would depend on your definition of "young."

IOWs do you hold to the entire universe being made say, 6K to 10K years ago?

I have no biblical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Do you believe Genesis 1:1 happened approximately 6K to 10K years ago?

I have no biblical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Or do you believe its occurrence is unspecified in regard to all other dating information (genealogies, etc.) in the Bible?

As I don't believe the ethnologies are genealogies and that Genesis does not specify when creation took place, I cannot be dogmatic. When God says something, I believe it. When God is silent on a subject so am I.

Would you describe yourself as a young earth Creationist as Dr. Barrack does.

That would depend on who I was talking to, and that person's definition of "young."

And even if you don't like the term, being too relative, do you essentially believe what young earth creationists believe.

That would depend on what young earth creationists believe. As far as I know there is no universally held position by those self-identifying as young earth creationists.

As I limit my understanding of spiritual truth to spiritual things, such as the bible, I cannot be dogmatic about the age of creation.

Could it be 6,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 100,000 years? Yes.The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 1,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 4.5 billion years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.

But judging from other indications I would be very surprised to find creation is older than 10,000 to 100,000 years.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes, I see it now. See above. I do appreciate the correction, and it did cause me to draw some wrong conclusions. Apologies extended.

Apology accepted.

Are you using the Reply button when you reply to someone and want to quote them? If not, you should. It will stop the mis-quoting of others.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[InTheLight]

Could it be 6,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 100,000 years? Yes.The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 1,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 4.5 billion years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.

But judging from other indications I would be very surprised to find creation is older than 10,000 to 100,000 years.

This is exactly where I'm at in this argument. I don't worry about it too much.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo