Gap Theory

HankD

Isn't Bullinger a hyper dispensationalist?

 

What is the difference between a strict literalist and hyperliteralist view of Genesis 1?

 

An example is a hyperliteralist usually adheres to 6 literal 24 hour days. A nonhyperliteralist will usually adhere to 6 literal days, but they're not necessarily 24 hours, because Gen1 doesn't indicate how long the days were at that time, albeit the periods would be recognizeable as days.

A hyperliteralist will usually say that if you don't believe the days were 24 hours, you don't believe the bible. For the literalist, however, the exact length of the day is not a core scriptural issue, since it's not mentioned.

That's a simple and somewhat generalized example.

 

a VERY generalized view, JohnV.

I would reject being hyper literal as a name. You apply the phrase hyper it immediately becomes a perjorative. Personally, what you describe as merely "literal" is a cover for all sorts of disbelief in the Biblical accounts.

The Genesis account does mention how long. It says "evening and morning".

An individual who believes in the Scriptures being literally true as far as dayd being 24 hours periods does not discount figures of speech or hyperbole as part of the normal course on writing.

 

Not at all. The simple term "literal" is not a perjorative in regards to scriptural application. I acknowlege, though, that "hyper", when used here, is being used to denote extremism. I agree that an individual who believes in the Scriptures being literally true does not discount figures of speech or hyperbole as part of the normal course on writing. A hyperliteralist takes it past that, often discounting hyperbole or other nonliteral writing devices as such. For example, a hyperliteralist will insist that the parables of Christ were all actual events, on the notion that Jesus does not lie, and that the telling of a manufactured fable is a lie.

 

But you called people who believed in literal 24 hour days as hyper-literal. Maybe you've met people who believe the parables are literal, but I've not and I hang with lots of literalist guys.

 

Just came across your post and thought you might like to know a few of the people who held to the "Gap." Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, William Culbertson, past president of Moody Bible Institute, Frank F. Gaebelien, Harry A. Ironside, Herbert Lockyer, Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Lehman Strauss, Donald Gray Barnhouse, Martin Anstey, Alfred Edersheim, H. Browne, G. V. Garland, N. Snaith, T. Jollie Smith, A. I. McCaul, and R. Jameison just to name a few of the past. How about present holders of the Gap. Contemporaries like John Phillips, Jeff Adams, and Dr. Alan Ross hold to the Gap. According to you these must be a bunch of "dumb" people. They were not people who used what you call "eisegesis."

 

Arnold Murray holds very non-Christian views. Besides modalism, he holds to the serpent-seed doctrine, humans lived before being on earth, that "caucasians of Anglo-Saxon, northern European descent who are followers of Murray are the ten lost tribes of Israel, and that the Jews are descendents of the offspring of Satan and Eve," among other unbiblical views.
http://www.watchman.org/profile/murraypro.htm

Also see
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/shepherds-chapel

 

So, I assume you too believe the men mentioned in the prior post were guilty of mishandling the word of God? I don't think they were a bunch of dunces. They must have seen something that substantiated a Gap.

 

There is no "gap" in the biblical text; people are reading into the text to get it.

 

I believe many of the parables were literal. Why wouldn't we...maybe that's a different thread.

 

Do not put words in my mouth. If you have a reading comprehension work on it and come back. As far as John Phillips goes I have his commentary on Genesis and he does not hold to the gap theory.

 

You need terms like hyper-literal so you can hang on to evolution

 

None :thumbs:

 

You go ahead and follow them blindly. I can give you a larger list that would argue against it. Then who are you going to follow?

 

For me it is not a matter of following men. The truth is more important that what any man thinks or says or believes. I simply think honest people will read what all the writers say about an issue and not categorically reject a position because their readership bolsters their pre-conceived position. It the shoe fits, wear it. Also, your statement about "blindly following" someone is a statement that indicates your opinion is that I am blind to the truth. You don't even know me.

 

Interesting many who insist there cannot be a gap in Gen. 1 because the bible doesn't say so, have no problem inserting a gap in Daniel 9.

 

Your statement that they should be trusted that they did not mishandle scripture simply because they said so with your having any knowledge where they get their argument from indicates a blind support.