GENESIS..CHAPTER 1-11

[Will]

Originally posted by Don:
[Of course, all I've said is that the Bible is either true, or it isn't....[/QB]

But in a previous post he wrote, "You may not see it as a salvational issue; I reiterate that I do..."

So basically all you said is it is a salvation issue. If this is the case why don't you work to get all Gleason Archer textbooks out of Baptist schools. After all why would they dare allow our future pastors to study the works of someone unsaved concerning the Bible. Also, let's eliminate all references to Warfield, Machen, Riley, and Torrey.

Yes, I am saying you have twisted and perverted the Gospel. Luckily we will answer to God someday concerning our salvation, not Don.

 

[Don]

As I recall, I said I considered it a salvational issue, because either the Bible is true, or it isn't.

YOUR salvation is between you and God, and has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

(let's see: the next response will be "yeah, but you're attempting to manipulate people by your use of 'it is a salvational issue.'" Well guess what? You have every right to disagree with me. We were given the opportunity to express our opinions, and I voiced mine, along with what I considered scriptural support for that opinion.

Your response? That I've twisted scripture, and that I'm pathetic. Know what? You're entitled to your opinion, too. I think I'll just choose not to respond in kind....)

 

[Will]

Originally posted by Don:
YOUR salvation is between you and God, and has nothing to do with me whatsoever

Agreed Don, No one's salvation here is determined by how Don interprets scripture.

Originally posted by Don:
(let's see: the next response will be "yeah, but you're attempting to manipulate people by your use of 'it is a salvational issue.'"

Along with arbiter of salvation via your scriptural interpretation are you now adding a prophetic ability claim?

Originally posted by Don:
(Well guess what? You have every right to disagree with me.

Well thank you Don, however my right to disagree with Don doesn't come from Don.

Originally posted by Don:
Your response? That I've twisted scripture, and that I'm pathetic. Know what? You're entitled to your opinion, too. I think I'll just choose not to respond in kind....)

Not to respond in kind. That is sickening when taking into account your questioning of other's salvation.

Honest Christians can disagree on Biblical issues and interpretation without calling each others salvation into question. To do so is pathetic.

So in your opinion the following men weren't Christians?

R. A. Torrey, deceased president of Biola, who Henry Morris himself claims held him in his arms while Morris was an infant and blessed him into Christian service. Morris disagrees with his Old earth interpretation but values his memory as a great Christian leader.

W. B. Riley, deceased president of Northern Baptist Seminary.

E. Y. Mullins, deceased president of Southern Baptist Seminary and head of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message committee.

I. Brown, who Henry Morris called "Perhaps the most godly, gracious Christian gentlemen I ever met."

B. B. Warfield, deceased president of the Princeton Theological seminary and the leader of the early fundamentalist movement against the higher critics.

So none of these men were saved according to you?

Your willingness to call disagreement with your interpretation a question of salvation is something you should feel shame for.

 

[Don]

Your willingness to call disagreement with your interpretation a question of salvation is something you should feel shame for.

And your obvious attitude isn't?

As I recall, the question was: Are the events depicted in Genesis 1-11 a true account or not, and are they a salvational issue? I posited that they are, and gave my reasons, and why I considered it a salvational issue.

Instead of debating or even arguing the issue, you attack me, and tell me I'm wrong for twisting scripture--which you have yet to prove--and bringing anyone's salvation into question--while at the same time you question my salvation ("Anyone that tries to make it one has so twisted and perverted the Gospel that they seriously need to look at their own salvation.").

I presented an opinion and backed it up with scripture.

All I see you doing is attacking another Christian.

[ March 28, 2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

[Will]

Originally posted by Don:

And your obvious attitude isn't?.

Obvious that you are wrong about questioning others interpretation as a salvational issue, no. Obvious by stooping to your level and asking you to look at your salvation, yes. And for that I apologize. I shouldn't have resorted to the tactics you used to respond to you.

Originally posted by Don:

As I recall, the question was: Are the events depicted in Genesis 1-11 a true account or not, and are they a salvational issue? I posited that they are, and gave my reasons, and why I considered it a salvational issue.

Again, answer my question then, were the men I listed above saved or not? After all none agreed with your view.

Originally posted by Don:

Instead of debating or even arguing the issue, you attack me, and tell me I'm wrong for twisting scripture--which you have yet to prove--and bringing anyone's salvation into question--while at the same time you question my salvation ("Anyone that tries to make it one has so twisted and perverted the Gospel that they seriously need to look at their own salvation.").

As you presented no scripture to show that this was a salvational issue there is no scripture to debate, only your opinion. I said you were twisting and perverting the Gospel by calling this a salvational issue. This is true because you are adding to requirements for being a Christian, something you are not in a position (Praise the Lord) to do.

Originally posted by Don:

I presented an opinion and backed it up with scripture.

You provide no scripture that showed this to be a salvational issue. None.

Originally posted by Don:

All I see you doing is attacking another Christian.

That's where the anger comes in, if this is a salvational issue and I disagree with you, then according to you, I am not a Christian. And that is something I will always comment on and something you should feel shame for.

Again, were any of the men I listed Christians and if not why did so many heretics work to further the kingdom by running and in many cases establishing Christian institutions?

 

[Don]

Will, I actually did answer that question.

Did God inspire (write) the Bible? (see 2 Timothy 3:16)
If no, then none of this matters, and we're done.
If yes, then continue.

Is God a liar? (see Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18)
If yes, then none of this matters, and we're done.
If no, then continue.

Who wrote the first chapter of Genesis? (see 2 Timothy 3:16)
If men, then see first question.
If God, then see second question.

The scripture I used came straight from Genesis. If you agree that God wrote the Bible, then you know I've used scripture, and you are in error.

Were those men saved? I don't know; that's between God and them. Just as you don't know my salvational state, and I don't know yours.

Were they wrong about Genesis 1? In my humble opinion, yes.

If you will calm down for a little while, and follow my trail of posts, you'll find that I started out saying that yes, in a way, I see it as a salvational issue, because it brings into question the authorship and the authenticity of the Bible.

That's where I stand, and where I'll stay for quite a while. When you and I are before the throne, I may have to turn to you and say, "forgive me, brother, I was wrong."

Or you might have to do the same.

Either way, one day we'll both know, won't we?

 

[DHK]

Will,
Don makes some very good points.
One might ask the question: Where does one draw the line?
Can you be saved without believing: the virgin birth? The bodily resurrection of Christ? The deity of Christ? The verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures? The reality of Heaven and Hell? The historical account of Creation? The historical account of the flood? The historical account of Jonah being swallowed by a whale? The historical account of the church in the Book of Acts?
Just where do you draw the line?
Jesus referred to Genesis one in Matthew 19. 4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female."
This is an obvious reference to a literal historical account of the first chapter of Genesis. Who and what was he questioning? "Have you not read?" Read what? The first two chapters of Genesis, where it explains that the same God who created Adam and Eve, created all the rest of the universe.
He was asking them if they had read the Torah, and gives a literal interpretation of part of it. To disbelieve the historical account of the Creation is question the integrity of Christ. To question Christ's integrity is to call into question his very existence as God. It is a salvational issue.
BTW, Jesus also said, "As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights..." Was this also figurative or an allegory?
DHK

 

[Will]

DHK,

Actually I haven't seen any good points made on raising interpretation of creation to salvation status. In your post you make a lot of assumptions, which stand on very little ground.

Are you saying for someone to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 non-literally, they are questioning the authority of Christ. This is absurd.

Have you ever read the Fundamentals?

Have you studied the men that wrote them?

Are you claiming they questioned the authority of Christ?

Also, if you interpret Genesis 1 literally, how do you interpret Genesis 2? Literally as well?

Most Genesis 1 literalists do not as it creates a conflict in the scripture. In fact many literalists claim that Genesis 2 is to be read figuratively.

If you do, what did Adam do in total on the 6th day? I'll help you out here:

1. All the animals were created.
2. Adam was created.
3. Adam maintained the garden.
4. God brought all of the animals to Adam and he named the 500,000 to 1,000,000 different species that exist on Earth (was he a speed namer or what?)
5. Adam longed for companionship (what since noon?)
6. God caused Adam to sleep and created Eve.

What is offensive about what both you and Don contend, is that you claim that to differ from your interpretation is to differ from Christ, I don't see the corelation.

I wasn't offended by Don's literal interpretation of Genesis, I can tolerate what I consider to be false belief on his part as its not an essential to his salvation. However by calling it a salvational issue both he and you are saying you can't tolerate disagreement in the church from your positions.

How sad the church has become.

 

[Don]

That we offend you is quite obvious, Will.

Now, do us all a favor, and show us why we're wrong with our literal interpretation.

You've started with day 6. Please continue.

 

[Will]

Don,

Please re-read my message. I'm not offended that I believe you misinterpret Genesis 1 and 2. But that you claim that agreement with your interpretation is a salvational issue.

Now as to continuing after day 6, why don't you defend your literal interpretation of it first, then defend the different creation order between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.

The way most commentarists answer this is to read Chapter 1 as the literal (or physical) order and Chapter 2 as the spiritual order. Since you feel interpreting these as literal is a salvational issue, I'd like to see your unique answer to why the creation order is different between Chapter 1 and 2.

Something else specific to answer Chapter 1 verses 24-26 says literally that God created animals first then man, yet Chapter 2 verses 7-19 says literally that God created man first then the animals. How do you reconcile this with your literally only interpretation?

 

[Don]

(sigh)

You obviously haven't actually been reading the posts, Will. I gave a lot of reasons as to why Gen 1 should be taken as a literal interpretation.

Now you want to avoid that, and add discussion about Gen 2 without telling us why our literal interpretation of Gen 1 is incorrect.

Fine. Here you go: Gen 2 is obviously a summarization of the events in Gen 1. This is signified by the generic use of the word "yom" as opposed to the specific use of that word in Gen 1.

Please re-read my message. I'm not offended that I believe you misinterpret Genesis 1 and 2. But that you claim that agreement with your interpretation is a salvational issue.

I read you loud and clear, Will. Because I believe that a literal interpretation--not my interpretation, or DHK's, or even yours, but a literal one--is a linchpin of the authenticity of the Bible, you've been offended by me. Because I choose to stand on that position, you've been offended by me. Because I have the opinion that if you doubt the validity of Genesis 1, you necessarily can't in all honesty tell anyone that the rest of the Bible is 100% true, you've been offended by me.

I apologize for offending you, brother--but I can't change my stand on this subject.

----------

As for Alex, I also apologize if I gave you the inclination that I was questioning your salvation. To be more exact, the scenarios you've presented are examples--again, in my opinion--of people leading believers astray with strange teachings.

Whether those people are unsaved, or simply misguided, I can't say. It's not me that judges anyone's salvation, nor is it me that changes anyone's mind or heart.

----------

Dr. Cassidy, if you're reading this, did you receive my e-mail?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Hey Alex,

I believe that the Gen. 1 account of the re-creation took place in literal 24-hour days. The idea that the earth and its natural elements were created in Gen. 1 (after verse 1) is non-existent Biblically. Take a look at the Hebrew text.

It is clear that Gen. 1:1 mentions bara (creation out of nothing). However, until one gets to the marine life and man, bara is not mentioned in relation to everything else in the creation chapter. The word "made" in the Genesis account (referring to the firmament-v 7, sun and moon and stars-vv 16-18, ground beasts-v 25) is the word asah, which is a word for appointment. It doesn't have the creative powers as described by bara. Asah is used to take an existing thing and designate authority to it. I Kings 12:31, Jereboam "MADE (ASAH)priests of the lowest of the people". I Sam. 28:1-2, "Achish replied, I will MAKE (ASAH) you my bodyguard for life." Gen. 12:2 God promised Abraham, "I will MAKE (ASAH) of thee a great nation". Deut. 26:19, God promised to "MAKE (ASAH)" them above all nations. I Sam. 12:22, "it hath pleased the Lord to MAKE (ASAH) you His people." etc. Asah describes a creation of something out of existing material. Gen. 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it, He rested from all His work which God created (bara) AND made (asah).

Also, take a look at the wording in the creation chapter. The earth was covered with water and enshrouded in darkness in Gen. 1:2. It was also uninhabitable (without form and void-tohuw va bohuw). Isaiah says in Is. 45:18, "God Himself that formed the earth and made (asah)it; He hath established it, He created it NOT IN VAIN (tohuw), He formed it to be inhabited..." Why was the earth described as uninhabitable in Gen. 1:2? After all, God did not "bara" it that way. Yet, it was "asah" that way.

Why was there an earth in verse 2 BEFORE creation? Why were waters DIVIDED and not created in Gen. 1? Why did God use the word "let" in the creation process when it describes the idea of allowing an existing thing permission to do something? How can something that does not exist be allowed to perform a task? When was darkness created as seen in verse 2?

Gen. 1:2, "The earth WAS (hayah) without form and void..." Hayah suggest the process of "becoming". The same word is used in Gen. 2:7 "...man BECAME (HAYAH) a living soul" Lot's wife "BECAME (HAYAH) a pillar of salt" (Gen. 19:26), Moses' rod "BECAME (HAYAH) a serpent" Ex. 4:3-4, etc. Arthur Custance in his book "Without Form and Void" notes that the earliest Aramaic translation of the OT, the Targum of Onkelos, renders the following translation for Gen. 1:2, "And the earth was laid waste..." Guess the gap theory had its start early on!

Then comes the argument that death and sin did not exist before Adam. The verse used to support this is generally Rom. 5:12. I fully agree that with Adam's sin, death came into the kosmos (Adam's human race). Death was not a part of God's re-created earth until Adam sinned. However, did Lucifer sin? How about some of the angels that were with him? So sin existed on earth BEFORE Adam sinned. Who is to say, that if there were another world that preceded Gen. 1:2, that death did not occur to them because of their sin? They were not a part of Adam's kosmos, therefore, Rom. 6:23 and 5:12 would not be talking about them.

Remember, when Lucifer fell, there was some kind of social structure involved. Ezek. 28:16 tells us that Lucifer became filled with violence by his "widespread trade" and two verses later mentions Lucifer's "iniquity of thy traffick". Traffic is a word that means "trade" or "merchandising" like we use the term today "drug traffic". Lucifer was certainly travelling around, sinning. Ezek. 28:18 tells us that Lucifer had "sanctuaries" which he defiled by his iniquities. It appears there was a lot of sinning Lucifer did before Lucifer's rebellion in which God cast him out of his kingdom.

The gap theory does not endorse any type of evolutionary processes. It also agrees with the Gen. 1 account where the re-creation of the earth took place in 6 literal 24-hour days. Remember, the Bible does not support true science. True science supports the Bible.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by Don:
(sigh)

As for Alex, I also apologize if I gave you the inclination that I was questioning your salvation. To be more exact, the scenarios you've presented are examples--again, in my opinion--of people leading believers astray with strange teachings.

----------

Dr. Cassidy, if you're reading this, did you receive my e-mail?

Well, Don, you and I have known each other for a long time and have debated much over the last few years. Forgive me if I misunderstood the above where you apologize in the beginning but at the end it seems you lay all this on my shoulders???

Up until a few weeks back, I stuck with the 6 day creation(24 hour days) and still do except for the first day as the Hebrew definition is very "loose", and can easily go either direction.

I did not really get into this until our NEW Baptist Preacher, who was over the Baptist Student Union at our local college, Southeastern Louisiana University, for many, many years. It was he who gave a sermon that included this view as he hold to it. I may have been wrong with 1-11 chapters as he could have been refering to verse 1-11. I will ask him about this soon and to show why he supports this view. My memory is so bad that I do not remember all that he said about a longer than 6 day period. Many in our church hold this view and I would suppose that it ia the same in many memembers of any denomination, except for a fwew. I did not post this to mislead anyone...only for discussion, and so far, there is clearly a split on the topic. A poll would be interesting.

Again, Don, I cannot and will not say or believe that to question the TRUE meaning of any parts in the Bible that obviously have more than one interpertation, can undo my, yours, or anyone else's salvation and has no refelection whether you are saved or not. To me, this is a way to learn, as I read all views and then it is between me and God.

You mentioned way back, that Science does not go against the Bible. When I say Science, I meand all fields including those who dig up bones, that according to Science, is much older than 6,000. So in my opinion Science is far from being close to the Bible, and, Science is supposed to be an exact science, at least to those who teach it.

I asked a Baptist Preacher about 6 years ago about his feelings on this. His reply was, that God created them AS BONES and that they never lived. He believed as you, 6 days of creation. I am inclined to go along with you but the first day and prior to it are still a little fuzzy!

Again, thanks for some great responses along with many from others.........

God Bless............Alex

 

[DHK]

Ex.20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
---What did Moses teach the Israelites? Or the scribes? Or people like Ezra who expounded the law to the people? How were the Israelites down throughout their generations to understand not only Genesis 1 and 2, but statements such as Ex.20:11? Would they believe that the first three days were figurative and the last four literal? When Moses came to them and said "in six days the Lord made..." what do you suppose they thought the six meant? Six periods of geological ages? Or six literal 24 hour days? I take the latter view, as I believe the Jews did as well.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Alex:

You mentioned way back, that Science does not go against the Bible. When I say Science, I meand all fields including those who dig up bones, that according to Science, is much older than 6,000. So in my opinion Science is far from being close to the Bible, and, Science is supposed to be an exact science, at least to those who teach it.

Alex,
I posted earlier stating that science and the Bible do not contradict each other. I have no reason to believe that they do. Not true science. As I mentioned before true science is based on observation. Evolution is not.

The evolutionist uses circular fallacious reasoning to date the earth. How do you know how old the earth is? Answer: by the age of the fossils. How do you know how old the fossils are? Answer: by the age of the earth (the geological strata). How do you date the various geological strata? "By the age of the fossils."
What about Carbon-14 dating? As early the 1960's the basis of Carbon-14 dating was shown to be faulty beyond 5000 years, and even that was stretching it. And the scientists know this very well. Whatever dating method is used, it goes on the assumption that nothing in nature has been tampered with, there has been no leakage of any element, whatsoever, to cause the breakdown of Potassium and Argon, or of radium, or of Carbon, nothing that would interfere, that would either slow up the process or speed it up. It is assumed that all conditions in nature remain constant which of course is not true. The only place where one can control all the variables is in a laboratory.
(2 Pet 3:4 KJV) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
The pure evolutionist is a scoffer, one who doesn't believe in God. Julian Huxley made the decision to believe in evolution, not because it was a credible system to believe in, but because belief in God was far too incredible for him to believe in.
DHK

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Originally posted by DHK:
Ex.20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
---What did Moses teach the Israelites? Or the scribes? Or people like Ezra who expounded the law to the people? How were the Israelites down throughout their generations to understand not only Genesis 1 and 2, but statements such as Ex.20:11? Would they believe that the first three days were figurative and the last four literal?

When Moses came to them and said "in six days the Lord made..." what do you suppose they thought the six meant? Six periods of geological ages? Or six literal 24 hour days? I take the latter view, as I believe the Jews did as well.
DHK

What if the world (not man or beast) were created millions (or even billions) of years ago? Why wouldn't there be a fossil record? When Moses and the prophets said that "in six days the Lord made (asah)," the people KNEW it was not an original creation, but rather a re-creation. How did they know? Because Hebrew was their native tongue.

Again, there were no 6 geological ages in Gen. 1. They were literal 24-hour days. However, the earth had ALREADY been created thousands or millions of years before the Genesis 1 account of the RE-CREATION. The account of a pre-Adamic world-wide flood can be found in Jer. 4, Ps. 104 and II Peter 3. So obviously, more than one Hebrew writer understood the idea of a pre-Adamic flood, thus understanding the idea that Genesis 1:2 begins an account of a RE-creation.

 

[Don]

Well, Don, you and I have known each other for a long time and have debated much over the last few years. Forgive me if I misunderstood the above where you apologize in the beginning but at the end it seems you lay all this on my shoulders???

Not you, Alex. You made it clear in your first post that it was your pastor that led you to this belief; that's who I had in mind. My apologies for confusing that point.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Again, there were no 6 geological ages in Gen. 1. They were literal 24-hour days. However, the earth had ALREADY been created thousands or millions of years before the Genesis 1 account of the RE-CREATION. The account of a pre-Adamic world-wide flood can be found in Jer. 4, Ps. 104 and II Peter 3. So obviously, more than one Hebrew writer understood the idea of a pre-Adamic flood, thus understanding the idea that Genesis 1:2 begins an account of a RE-creation.

It seems odd to me, that if there were a pre-Adamic race, that if there were 6 geological ages, that if there were a pre-Adamic flood or destruction, that if there were a pre-Adamic re-creation, that there would be at least one verse somewhere in the Bible supporting this view. 2Pet.3 refers to the flood of Gen.6-9. I know of no Scriptures that refer to the events that you describe. The Scriptures are silent on those things that seem to have been invented for the sole purpose to accomodate for the theory of evolution.
DHK

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Smellin Coffee:

Again, there were no 6 geological ages in Gen. 1. They were literal 24-hour days. However, the earth had ALREADY been created thousands or millions of years before the Genesis 1 account of the RE-CREATION. The account of a pre-Adamic world-wide flood can be found in Jer. 4, Ps. 104 and II Peter 3. So obviously, more than one Hebrew writer understood the idea of a pre-Adamic flood, thus understanding the idea that Genesis 1:2 begins an account of a RE-creation.

It seems odd to me, that if there were a pre-Adamic race, that if there were 6 geological ages, that if there were a pre-Adamic flood or destruction, that if there were a pre-Adamic re-creation, that there would be at least one verse somewhere in the Bible supporting this view. 2Pet.3 refers to the flood of Gen.6-9. I know of no Scriptures that refer to the events that you describe. The Scriptures are silent on those things that seem to have been invented for the sole purpose to accomodate for the theory of evolution.
DHK</font>

There are several distinction between the two floods. The following list is from Another Time, Another Place, Another Man by Finis Dake. I do not agree with everything on this list nor all of his theological ideology, but he puts together enough corroborated evidence to warrant an investigation.

There are several differences between the pre-Adamic flood (Lucifer's flood) and Noah's flood.

1. Lucifer's-Earth made waste (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Not made waste (Gen; 8:11-12. 22)

2. Lucifer's-Earth made empty (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Not made empty (Gen. 6:17-22, 8:16)

3. Lucifer's-Earth made totally dark (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Not made totally dark (Gen. 8:6-12)

4. Lucifer's-No light from heaven (Gen. 1:2, Jer. 4:23)/Noah's-Light from heaven (Gen. 8:6-22)

5. Lucifer's-No days (Gen. 1:2-5)/Noah's-Days (Gen. 8:1-22)

6. Lucifer's-All vegetation destroyed (Jer. 4:23-26)/Noah's-Vegetation remained (Gen. 8:11-12, 22)

7. Lucifer's-No continual abating of waters off the earth (Gen. 1:6-12)/Noah's-Continual abating of waters off earth (Gen. 8:1-14)

8. Lucifer's-Water removed from earth in one day (Gen. 1:10)/Noah's-Months abating off the earth (Gen. 8:1-14)

9. Lucifer's-Supernatural work of taking waters off earth (Gen. 1:6-12)/Noah's-Natural work of removing waters (Gen. 8:1-14)

10. Lucifer's-God rebuked the waters (Gen. 1:6-12, Ps. 104:7)/Noah's-No rebuke of waters (Gen. 8:1-14)

11. Lucifer's-Waters hasted away (Ps. 104:7)/Noah's-Waters gradually rededed (Gen. 8:1-14)

12. Lucifer's-God set bounds for waters (Ps. 104:7)/Noah's-Bounds already set (Gen. 1:6-12; 8:2)

13. Lucifer's-All fish destroyed because sun witheld from earth (Gen. 1:2, 20-23; Jer. 4:23-26)/Noah's-No fish destroyed, only land animals (Gen. 6:18-8:22)

14. Lucifer's-No fowls left (Gen. 1:20, Jer. 4:25)/Noah's-Fowls preserved (Gen. 6:20; 8:17)

15. Lucifer's-No animals left (Gen. 1:24-25; 2:19)/Noah's-Animals preserved (Gen. 6:20; 8:17)

16. Lucifer's-No man left (Gen. 1:26-28; Jer. 4:25)/Noah's-8 men & women saved (Gen. 6:18)

17. Lucifer's-No social system left (II Pet. 3:6, Jer. 4:23-26)/Noah's-Social system preserved (Gen. 6:18, 8:22, II Pet. 2:5)

18. Lucifer's-No ark made to preserve life (Jer. 4:23-26, II Pet. 3:6-7)/Noah's-Ark was made to save life (Gen. 6:14-22; I Pet. 3:20)

19. Lucifer's-Cause: fall of Lucifer (Is. 14:12-14, Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:11-17)/Noah's-Cause: wickedness of man (Gen. 6:1-13)

20. Lucifer's-Result: necessary to make new fish, fowl, animals, man and vegetation (Gen. 1:3-2:25)/Noah's-Result-No new creations for all things were preserved (Gen. 6:18-8:22)

As far as the gap theory being invented for the purpose of the accomodation of evolution is ludicrous. One of the earliest Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, the Targum of Onkelos, renders the following translation for Gen. 1:2, "And the earth was laid waste..." Guess the gap theory had its start long before evolution was even a twinkle in the eye of Darwin's great-great-grandpappy! Besides, how can YOU biblically account for the presence of water covering the earth in Genesis 1:2? How can YOU biblically account for the darkness? Why are waters "divided" but not even mentioned as being "created" (bara) or even "made" (asah) in the creation chapter after verse 1? Could it be that it already existed by the time Gen. 1:2 came about?

It's fine that one does not hold my view of a gap theory. I really don't care. However, to accuse the gap theory as a way of supporting evolutionary thinking is absurd. Whether or not you agree with it does not mean that its origins are not found in Scripture.

 

[tyndale1946]

Smellin Coffee why don't you drop by the Baptist welcome forum and introduce yourself to our moderators. I know they would like to get to know you. You stated on your profile you were nondenominational, to post on the Baptist Only Forum you must be Baptist and claim a church affiliation. Those are the rules of the board and you can post anywhere else you like but those restricted areas and need to read our rules to see where you can post... Brother Glen