Featured Where are the Fossilized Remains of Millions of Humans?

http://creative2567.blogspot.com/2011/03/hebrew-professors-who-affirm-old-earth.html

 

I don't care if there is a rule or not. You still have no basis to suggest a figurative sense. Not one.

 

Luke would you agree with me that day and night in John 11:9,10 is in the context of light and darkness in Acts 26:18 rather than being relative to the sun rising and setting?

From the context could one assume that day and night of John 11:9,10 is a 24 hour period?

Would not in the same context, the darkness and light, the evening and morning, the day and night of Gen. 1:4,5 be a 24 hour period?
Of course in Gen 4 night is still considered as evening and is given distinction as night later.

I believe in those literal 24 hour periods of Genesis yet I also am a gap er.

 

The Gap Theory is easily refuted by Gen 1:31;

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The Gap Theory holds that Satan and one third of the angels rebelled against God between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. This is refuted by Gen 1:31, because scripture says God saw "every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good".

I don't know when Satan and the fallen angels rebelled, but it was after the first six days, and it did not happen between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

 

1. Are you certain that all permutations of the "Gap Theory" require what you have stated?
2. How do you know When this angelic rebellion took place?

I am not being snarky, just curious.

 

Well, I heard of the Gap Theory many years ago, and it was suggested in Scofield's Bible which I owned many years ago.

There might be various theories, but I have always heard this Gap appeared between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

One of the reasons I stopped using the Scofield Bible was I did not agree with the Gap Theory.

 

I threw that in there because most think you can not be gap and hold to the 24 hr p/d of renewing of the earth.


You also don't know when Satan and all the fallen angels were made, er created.

 

Sure I do, God made EVERY THING in six days and rested on the seventh.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Note that after six days the heavens and the earth were finished, and ALL THE HOST OF THEM.

So Satan and the angels were made sometime between the first and sixth day. And after six days everything that God made was still VERY GOOD.

So, Satan and his angels must have rebelled sometime after the sixth day.

 

The Gap Theory

I can't accept the "Gap Theory" simply because it pre-supposes sin,death and destruction BEFORE God's creative work from Genesis 1:1 thru Genesis 2:3.

Bro.Greg

 

Sure I do. The same basis that I have for understanding the numerous passages that speak of the "four corners of the Earth" to be figurative.

I could have thought they were literal before it was broadly accepted that the Earth was round. But now that we KNOW the Earth is round I KNOW that these passages are figurative.

One who lived before science had uncovered the fact that the Earth is very old and that the universe is billions of years old could justify stubbornly demanding that "day" in Genesis is a literal 24 hour period. But now that we KNOW that we are seeing stars that blew up a billion years ago but their light is just now getting to us (and a host of other conclusive evidences)- then we have to look at the passages and say, "Is it possible that these days are actually 'epochs' of time (like "day" USUALLY means anyway!)?"

Then we look at the text and we see that the word "day" IN THIS VERY TEXT means something other than a literal 24 hour period ("In the DAY that the Lord made the heavens and the Earth') and we say "Well DUH!!!! Obviously the word "day" in Genesis 1 does not HAVE to mean a 24 hour period since it absolutely does NOT mean 24 hour period in Genesis 2."

Now, it COULD mean a literal 24 hour period. It COULD... but with each passing day it seems less and less likely and, frankly, those who cling to it look a little more and more desperate to cling to tradition when they have no exegetical reasoning to cling so vehemently to it.

 

Your peurile conclusions about stars and expansion ignore the critical, established, but less publicized observations that belie them. You aren't well read on the subject, and you're more knowledgeable in your own eyes than we who are well-read, so we'll move on. I'll ask you again about the creation of Eve, and you'll probably ignore it again.

Adam's sleep, the opening of his flesh, the removal of the rib, the closing up of his flesh, the fashioning of the woman, the presentation to Adam: Was it all figurative?

 

Look, Aaron, if you want to be taken seriously by thinking people, the way you should have said what you said above is something like this:

I realize that the VAST, VAST majority of scholarship is against what I am purporting and that there is only an EXTREMELY small percentage of scientists who think people like Ken Ham and his disciples can be taken even REMOTELY seriously... I realize that.

I realize that I am not a very well educated man, like Ken Ham, and that thousands of extremely educated scientists look at the star light and expansion of the universe and carbon dating and conclude that people like me are just ignorant or blinded by fanaticism....

I realize that for every one astrophysicist who Ken Ham can conjure up there are a thousand or more who think he is an absolute moron...

BUT... it is POSSIBLE... it is REMOTELY POSSIBLE that uneducated people like me and Ken Ham are right and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of educated scientists, many of whom are Christians, are wrong."

Now if you had said it that way, thinking people would have said, "OK, maybe this guy is not just a hack. He is not like the morons who haphazardly sweep away all of academia just so he can blindly hold on to his fanatical traditions."

But you DIDN'T say it that way.

And now, no educated, thinking person can take you seriously.

How sad.

 

Anything to avoid answering the question about Eve.

 

Seems the more one refuses to accept God's word literally (except when directed otherwise BY the word) the more questions that are avoided. :sleep:

 

And anything to ignore the fact that many thousands of scientists think uneducated people like Ken Ham are ignorant and totally ridiculous in their assertions.

Let's not pretend that there are many people who actually know what they are talking about who think that the universe is ten thousand years old.

 

LOL.. anyone who makes a comment like the above is not only ignorant biblically but in relation to actual science and what that entails. :laugh:

 

I'll cut to the chase. Lukewarm is avoiding the Eve question because it undoes his enlightened and intelligent acceptance of the possibility of creation by evolution. What, God took millions of years to make Adam so He could create Eve in an hour?

The straightforward narrative describes in detail a surgical procedure through which God extracted the raw material to form Eve. Attempting to relegate the narrative to allegory requires he deny what he asserted elsewhere, that Adam and Eve were historical people, the first humans.

So, unless the entire narrative is reduced to mere allegory, it is only special pleading (and laughable baffoonery) that would say in the same breath that Adam's, the first human's, creation from the dust of the earth means he had sub-human parents and suckled sub-human breasts, and Eve was literally made from a rib taken from his side.

Adam was created directly from the dust. Eve was formed from a rib taken from his side, and this was the only act of creation on the Sixth Day.

 

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:19,20

That pre-supposes sin, death and destruction before God's creative work from Gen. 1:3 fol.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14


And that tells why the creative work of God from Gen 1:3 fol. took place.

So the Son of God could be born of a woman to accomplish the above.

The darkness upon the face of the deep, "on the earth," was the devil, Satan.
He was here and needed to be dwelt with and destroyed.

Therefore lets create a man in our image making the woman from him by which the Son of Man can come and destroy the works of the devil.

 

Just bringing us back to the point of the thread.

 

How stupid!

I didn't SAY anything about the Bible in that statement, dufas!