The Gap Theory Examined

quote:

---

It's 930 years from the time of the fall. Time before that happened is not taken into account since man was immortal before the fall, so says the bible

---

Aaah. Very good point and thanks for the correction, and sorry for my oversight.

Only, in a no-death-before-fall scenario, if bacteria, cockroaches, mice, and rabbits weren't reproducing. Otherwise all those critters would stack up to the Moon.
And that's just dandy with me if you want to add "no reproduction" to Eden. But it may be tough to find a verse to justify it.

If I had to subscribe to mans science as you put it I would become an evolutionist.I give credence to the bible as God's word but I also know how many fallacies we christians use to comfort ourselves when faced with dificult questions.Why is it, that you hold to this idea when so many of the answers stare you in the face.If it's a question of following mainstream thought then you're just following the majority who don't even bother to ask themselves difficult questions. I did that too at one time, until I went to Bible School. When I did ask difficult questions of my teachers who were and are respected in the christian community I got myself into some trouble. One even called me a heretic!!!!One thing is faith, I don't dispute our faith. Another is closing ourselves to ideas that even the ancients had, just because it's not the majority view.In absolutely no post of mine have I undermined the Authority of Scripture. I use scripture to underline my points, not scientific findings of which we are all aware and familiar with.I am not a proponent of evolution but I consider that scripture must give us the answers that we seek.By keeping to your statements you feel that you are being loyal to scripture, yet I am starting to wonder if you really study it with an open mind that lead you to a greater awareness and a greater accuracy in interpretation, instead of assuming that the mainstream is absolutely correct in everything they say.Have you actually taken the time to read and think about the posts I put up with an open mind or are you just fighting to maintain mainstream thought. I see that you don't answer my questions with a rebuttal based on logic and scripture but you fall back to what you seem to take for granted.While I know that my arguments may not be perfect because I don't know everything, I do take the time to answer your posts fully.Do you have a NIV bible? If not, borrow one, they are used by most people. There you will see that even the expert translators give my position at least some credit, why can't you at least do the same?I'm not trying to convert you to my position, but try to at least be honest when the arguments wheigh against you.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I totally agree with your point. It is my belief that there was death before the fall, as well as sexual reproduction. It is also my belief that only Adam and Eve (humans) were exempt from death due to Gods plan for humanity. We as humans were the only ones with the Spirit of God in us, breathed into our bodies by God.This is a totally different situation as it was applied to the rest of creation.(My opinion only, I'm not going to take the trouble to prove it with scripture, since what we have is vague at best, but not inconsistent with scripture.)

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

quote:

---

If it's a question of following mainstream thought then you're just following the majority who don't even bother to ask themselves difficult questions. I did that too at one time, until I went to Bible School. When I did ask difficult questions of my teachers who were and are respected in the christian community I got myself into some trouble. One even called me a heretic!!!!

​

One thing is faith, I don't dispute our faith. Another is closing ourselves to ideas that even the ancients had, just because it's not the majority view.

---

I respect that you question mainstream ideas. I respect that you've done your own research. I have as well. My conservative ideas are hardly mainstream anymore. I've done/doing the research, and trust me I am continually questioning my Bible professors, and they continue to answer me with excellent answers.

quote:

---

By keeping to your statements you feel that you are being loyal to scripture, yet I am starting to wonder if you really study it with an open mind that lead you to a greater awareness and a greater accuracy in interpretation, instead of assuming that the mainstream is absolutely correct in everything they say

---

I am being loyal to Scripture, and I am also keeping an open mind on the subject. I've done/doing the questioning, and I've done/doing the research as I've mentioned before. I'm still young and I still have plenty more study to do on the subject. And again, what I believe is hardly mainstream anymore.

quote:

---

Have you actually taken the time to read and think about the posts I put up with an open mind or are you just fighting to maintain mainstream thought. I see that you don't answer my questions with a rebuttal based on logic and scripture but you fall back to what you seem to take for granted.

---

Yes, in every reply to you I've referred to my own notes as well as notes taken from my Genesis professor. I have always used logic, and I've gone to the extent of using Hebrew grammar to refute some of your claims. I can however only do this to some extent as I'm not fluent in Hebrew. As I've stated several times I'm waiting for a reply from my Gen. professor, who can give in greater detail a rebuttal. However, he's a busy man and I'm simply still waiting. I have used Scripture in almost all of my posts, so please don't accuse me of beligerrantly replying to you.

quote:

---

While I know that my arguments may not be perfect because I don't know everything, I do take the time to answer your posts fully.

---

As have I. Perhaps a bit rushed at times simply because I have an extremely rough week of classes. But I have always put thought and time into my replies.

quote:

---

Do you have a NIV bible? If not, borrow one, they are used by most people. There you will see that even the expert translators give my position at least some credit, why can't you at least do the same?

---

Yes I do have an NIV (in fact its what I've been using for the last few years), and I have some serious problems with it as do many others. I don't have time now to get into them, b/c I have a lab to attend. In any case, I never meant to personally attack you. I hope I merely presented my case. If I haven't I apologize.

I didn't interpret your posts as a personal attack. Discussion, even if it's indirect gets alittle heated, that's all. That's the way we force each other to think and broaden our perspectives.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Jor-el, that was an informative post. I agree that the term suggests a perfect or complete creation, but have an alternative view. Considering the difficulties of translating, maybe we could look for a more theological understanding to consider which way to go with it.Jesus in the Book of Revelation says He is "the beginning."Maybe "in the beginning" could be thought of as more inside the beginning, as in Christ it was created, but not formed into the world.That's how I've come to see Genesis. What we see then, with the Word activated, "God said," and the Holy Spirit doing is more a depiction of how God works.

And a persuasive argument.You are very persuasive on the concept of destruction, and "the deep" I too believe refers to the Abyss, but here is where it gets sticky for me.Many who interpret it as you do then think of the fact that light did not exist, as just referring to no light on the earth, and "the deep" just being the ocean.I don't think that is correct, nor the right picture, but if God obliterated the heavens, all light, and had to recreate the sun and the moon, what you are writing could work. I've got to think about it.On harmonizing with science, I think it may be useful to consider that time and "history" may not actual be as linear as we assume.We know man was judged in the Garden, and a "curse" was put on the earth which would have changed even the physical laws of the universe, imo, if read literally. I can accept that.But what is the most likely way that occurred?I tend to think God probably did not instantly change everything from that point forward, but that everything was changed from the beginning forward.In quantum physics, we have several strong indicators that such a thing could occur. There are strong indications of a connection between consciousness or the ability for something to be perceived, and matter, and the strongest argument used against consciousness-based models are ones arguing waves flowing back through time. Both ideas are consistent with what I see happening in the scriptures, and imo, there is merit to both, but that's a different thread.The principle of entanglement also demonstrates that there can be a causal effect from a present or future event directly upon the past.So we should consider that maybe the judgement that produced the Abyss and the theorized destruction between Genesis 1:1-2 was Man's Fall, and of course Satan's rebellion.

Not necessarily. It could refer to dark matter and dark energy.On the create versus "made" words, I do think it is significant which is why I think God created everything as a design in Christ first, and then made it by manifesting it via the word of God.

Hi randman,Could you be so kind as to clarify what it was that took your interpretatrion in the direction that you have stated...I had some difficulty knowing what you meant by your posts. It's just that I haven't thought about the subject in a while and that has left me a little outside the context... thanks

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Hi randman,If there was really a major cataclysm that destroyed all life on earth as I suggested in this post, everything would have been darkened by the dust that was raised by such an event. All light would have been blotted out of the earths lower atmosphere to such a degree that nothing could be seen at all, not even the sun much less the moon and the stars.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

This sentence is nonsense. "Manifest" as a verb is synonymous with "make", so you've just said that God made it by making it. It's meaningless. It's just linguistic legedermain that you're using to conceal ignorance.

Crash, grow up. "Create" and "make" are not necessarily synonymous. In fact, both terms are used in the text.Wonder why?

Jor-el, I am on my way to the beach, but will respond later when I have more time.

Blow me. Yeah, pretty much they are. Especially if you're going to play an asinine game of:1) How did God create the Earth? By making it.
2) How did God make the Earth? By creating it.What fun! It goes on forever, you see. I'll never understand the mindset of people like you; people that prefer circuitous word-games to actual, honest inquiry about the origin of the natural world.