The gap theory is one of the weakest of positions and has to be the dumbest. What we do know is that creation was made in 6 24 hour days. Adam and Eve are literal and real people and all of Genesis is to be taken literally.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
GAP Theory
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
And to be honest, I don't see any one person on this entire thread who is arguing anything BUT that!
mmm...didn't say they were.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I've been reading this thread and literally laughing out loud. On one side, we have TCassidy saying something, and on the other we have Cal arguing the same thing. It's been interesting watching someone argue against someone while saying the same thing.
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
You are totally wrong!! TCassidy and Cal are saying the same thing!! Don't you get it?
BTW, I just noticed DTS is not on the Answers in Genesis Seminary. Generally I recommend Christians run from those associated with seminaries not on that list. Not necessarily those with degrees from certain seminaries, but those touting seminaries that compromise on Genesis.
I gave you my definition. 6K to 10K is about as much as you can squeeze into the Genesis account, even if you allow for gaps in the genealogies. There are no gaps, IMO, as there is no basis for them. You have the fathers' age at the time of the sons' birth. Pretty straightforward. God was telling us the how much time had passed.
God never called the Genesis genealogies "ethnologies." Utterly ridiculous. Is this what they teach at DTS?
I think we can safely say you are not a young earth creationist and are at odds with organizations like Answers in Genesis and Hebrew scholars like Dr. Barrick.
You are among those that see the Bible as not being definitive on these issues. Perhaps that's what you learned at Dallas, and perhaps that's why AiG doesn't recommend them.
I gave you my definition. 6K to 10K is about as much as you can squeeze into the Genesis account, even if you allow for gaps in the genealogies. There are no gaps, IMO, as there is no basis for them. You have the fathers' age at the time of the sons' birth. Pretty straightforward. God was telling us the how much time had passed.
God never called the Genesis genealogies "ethnologies." Utterly ridiculous. Is this what they teach at DTS?
I think we can safely say you are not a young earth creationist and are at odds with organizations like Answers in Genesis and Hebrew scholars like Dr. Barrick.
You are among those that see the Bible as not being definitive on these issues. Perhaps that's what you learned at Dallas, and perhaps that's why AiG doesn't recommend them.
Last edited:
You are totally wrong!! TCassidy and Cal are saying the same thing!! Don't you get it?
No, we are not saying the same thing. Mr. Cassidy uses a lot of language that confuses the issue, but he believes the earth can be 4.5 billions years old.
And this is exactly what I'm worried about. Guys like Cassidy tell us the earth could be any age, and thus it just doesn't matter. theologians like Hodge and Warfield said similar things leading to the demise of Princeton.
I'm saying it does matter. It does cause theological problems and does cause the Church to lose credibility when they go along with the world's view of origins.
I appreciate you accepting the apology and also pointing out the mistakes. I will try to be more careful.
Yet I agree with your presupposition of the age of the earth. Does that mean you are not a YEC?
Absolutely untrue. The bible is my supreme and final authority in all matters of faith, practice, and understanding.
And I can't help but notice that you edited out my response to your question that shows how wrong you are.
"I have no biblical evidence to suggest otherwise."
And, "But judging from other indications I would be very surprised to find creation is older than 10,000 to 100,000 years."
Hmmm - He said actually quite the opposite of that. I guess you missed it?
This issue is not one to divide though over, or to judge salvation on, correct?
I don't believe you can judge salvation over this, but as Ken Ham and others point out, it can indirectly affect salvation in that we undermine the authority of Scripture when we allow for old earth interpretations. Even the subtle compromises of BB Warfield and Mr. Cassidy do damage. They leave it open, claiming the Bible is silent on the age of the earth.
It is not. We know the earth is not 4.5 billion years old and can't possibly be even a million years old even with gaps in the genealogies. It's a subtle undermining of Scripture.
Have you checked out "Already Gone" by Ken Ham? He makes the case we're directly responsible for the current trend of youth fleeing the Church. I think he's onto something. You can read chapter 1 here.
They are not, but there are MANY who say the are evangelical in their teology that do hold to a less than view on Genesis, as they would al hold to only limited inerrancy, ad also would at times hold to accomdation theory...
Many trying to blend evolution and Bible...
And once again you post untruths about me and what I believe.
The bible nowhere says "the earth is xxxx number of years old."
The ethnologies are not closed geneologies. That has already been demonstrated.
There are many reasons to believe the earth is substantially younger than 100,000 years, and even 10,000 years or younger as I said earlier in this thread which you continue to ignore and lie about what I believe.
I am really getting tired of this.
And yet Mr. Cassidy is dealing directly with the scriptures and agreeing that the age of the earth is not 4.5 billion years old or even a million years old. It is not undermining scripture to say that we don't know the exact age but we can be certain that it is NOT billions of years old. Why must you continue to make false accusations towards him? Deal with the truth of what he is saying.
This issue of old earth/New Earth should not divide us though anyways, should it?
I holdto literal view on Gensis, Universal Flood, but have known sincere Christians diagree on both those views!
I agree but the issue is when someone is completely misrepresenting what someone is saying and refuses to hear that they are saying the same thing and accusing someone of being dangerous, that is a problem.
- Status