Ben, you should set yourself at rest with this and dismiss it.
It's not good for some folks to be so agonized over such a thing.
-
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!
The creation: origins
- Thread starter easternstar
- Start date
Ben, you should set yourself at rest with this and dismiss it.
It's not good for some folks to be so agonized over such a thing.
I would for someone who wants to understand the Gap Theory not someone who is hell bent on trashing it.
Obviously I've gotten myself into another one of those damned if you do and damned if don't situations where no one wants to understand but is plentiful with the sword before they can understand.
So I'm withdrawing myself from this particular thread and will keep to myself the possibility of the Gap theory, as I should have done in the first place.
Why could God not have created in 6 literal day? The language used in the text sure suggests that He did
That's a reasonable question, and let's pretend for a moment the Gap Theory is correct just for the cause of understanding the Theory. Which is not possible for some!
We know that God did create and fabricated just as you said. But in the Gap theory the entire universe+ is created in Gen. 1:1. We have nothing on how that creation was actually created, we only know what took place in the recreation that took place from Gen. 1:3 and on.
Some scholars believe that God created everything in Gen.1:1, and in 1:2 it's all void and with no form. They say this can't be.
They believe something catastrophic took place to cause it to be this way sometime in the dateless past.
They present the theory that the rebellion of Satan and the angels that deflected with him caused a great war in heaven and some of the original creation was destroyed and everything that God created in the original creation in Gen. 1:1 was thrown out of proportion in disarray.
This all comes from what I explained in post #26, that Moses has used 2 different words in the creation model that are opposites to one another.
It's clear to see that from Gen. 1:3 and on God is not speaking the universe into existence as He did in Gen. 1 by the word "created."
It's also clear to see that Moses is using the word "made" which is the opposite of "created" in that "made" is the opposite of speaking into existence and means to refabricate something with materials that already exist.
Last edited:
There's no reason for anyone to be upset over this. The thread came up and I presented the of what my study on the Gap Theory means from years ago.
I'm just trying to relay to you that understanding, nothing more. It's up to each individual to study the Scripture for themselves and make their own decisions on what they believe. In this case with this theory, it has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation or our walk with the Lord.
It's just one of the many things in Scripture that's fun to explore.
...and some can take all the fun out of it!!!!
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
It’s not agonizing.
But I don’t like fairy tale stories being added to the history books without evidence.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
I’d be happy to believe if it’s true.
I know several people who believe it but I’ve yet to find supportive evidence for it.
The only thing I ever get is trust me and this theory is not for everyone.
If it’s really true, it should be for everyone.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Not trying to ruin your fun.
I must be to eager for answers.
I’m guess I’m the guy who wants to meet a clam personally and doesn’t know how to introduce himself.
I understand, I'm somewhat such as yourself.
The Gap Theory is a long study, many factors to consider. I haven't even explained half of it yet.
I would rather just let it go, it's not worth the trouble it creates.
easternstar
Active Member
To Young earth creationists: How do you answer the seeming scientific evidence of a very old creation?
A fine example of Brandolini's law - the amount of energy needed to refute nonsense is an order of magnitude greater than the energy needed to produce it.
Rob
Well, first off, Adam, and then Eve, were not created as babies, but as grown adults able to procreate. Same with the earth, IMO. Plus, do you not think the flood did some lasting damage to terra firma? I cannot help but believe in Pangea. Africa looks like it could be slid into North and South America like a hand-in-glove.
I will address this later.
I can't give my answer today, but I will next Monday or Tuesday. Today and tomorrow are filled up. For me, as a former science teacher and a lover of science, I have to base my beliefs on observable and provable science.
More on that Monday or Tuesday.
LOL, ok, Deacon, that makes sense.