Bolshevik

I've been thumbing through it, got a little bogged down on the language stuff. I'll keep looking. There are claims of human and dinosaur encounters in the fossil record. Like human footprints alongside a dinosaurs and a hammer found in Cretaceous Rock. Also cave paintings and clay artifacts of dinosaurs. If these are hoaxes or not I do not know. One paper claimed that an evolutionist got so angry he took a hammer and smashed what evidence he could. Does anyone know if Gap Theorists believe in life on Earth prior to Gen 1:2 and if so, what life? Dinosaur? Human?

but the word in Gen 1:2 doesn't indicate which it should be?( "was" or "became" ?) So it still could be either interpretation?

I should add that the creationist don't consider plants synonymous with life. Not sure why . . .

Interesting point Sunesis, thank you. This mist, for me indicates a very different world prior to the Fall of Man, and yet this is the world Adam and Eve began with. Things changed after the Fall of Man, thorns and thistles grew up. The earth was changed dramatically further after Noah's Flood, wipping out the plant and animal life, mixing the oceans over the surface of the land. Still further things changed during the "Days of Peleg", when the supercontinent broke up.I mentioned on another thread the possibility that lakes weren't around before Noah's flood, and the Flood formed the large lakes gouged into the land. Some lakes distrupted during the continental shift, causing more catastrophe (another topic). Anyway, I don't know exactly when rain first started (maybe not until after Noah's Flood?) But why couldn't II Peter be referring to before Noah's Flood? Perhaps I should ask where did the water come from? If it came from beyond the solar system could it have distrupted our heavens? If it came from underground, that's different. couldn't earth just mean "dry land"?

It appears that the creationists believe nothing ate animal flesh when its kind was first made. Prior to Genesis 9, man killed animals in an offering to God for the covering of sin, but not for food. So they say, originally cats ate vegies, but genetically degenerated into meat-eaters. I could easily see this with omnivores like bears, which eat whatever they want. A crocodile I'm not aware eats any vegies. But perhaps before the fall the plant life was more favorably diverse and nutricious. I've heard of meat-eating kangaroos, which are now extinct. Don't know that kangaroos nowadays eat meat. Would God have originally created animals to eat each other? Or, is a world with this type of peace, where lions eat plants, just a conjured fantasy?

Interesting T.L, so even the animals didn't reproduce before the Fall of Man? Because it looks like God told the animals to be fruitful and multiply on the Fifth Day, but this is also an aside as Gen 1:28 is?

Even if there was a period of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, what evidence is there that there was life prior to the Garden of Eden time? Wouldn't be like saying "In the beginning God created clay, the clay was without form and void, so God turned on the light and got to work. . ."

Ah, but do you believe in the existance of government bodies?

"And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." I wonder what the phrase is trying to indicate. You're suggesting that Abel possibly had the easier work? hmm. If he was the favored son he would probably be given the easier, possibly more respected jobs. Maybe this is how Cain's jealousy began to develop.

Can't argue with that as being a possible scenario.

You met Dr. Menton? Do you know if he was just visiting or does he works there full-time?

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 ¶ And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Cain must've been already married when he was cast out. That's interesting Roy. I guess what your saying is true they were probably born as a husband-wife package.

The question is where? Some would say a small town in Ohio . . . Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. ' If the Earth has a fossil record from prior to Gen 1:2, the earth continued to have had some form, wouldn't it?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? . . . It was available for Cain to change. An offering has to come from the heart. Abel offered firstling lambs, Cain offered cucumbers :) . Was it the actual offering or the heart behind it? If it was the heart Cain was already giving second rate offerings and was already bitter at God. God not having respect for his offering multiplied his anger. Cain kills Abel. If it was the physical offering that was a problem, there's other reasoning. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. Does this word "but" have any significance?

But what was the source of the evil thoughts? Yes he had free will, but God took the time to ask why he was troubled. Something was bothering him. I don't what is was either. I do agree he didn't become a murderer overnight. Thoughts have a beginning (what was Cain's?), and their cultivation takes effort. He had to have had a reason in his mind for his actions (which were yes, of his free will).

Gen 1 28 And God blessed them, Gen. 5.1, 2 and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Their original instructions were to multiply Gen 2 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, 1 because she was taken out of Man. 2 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh Talking about sons leaving mom and dad? Gen 3 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception . . . How can you multiply something that didn't exist? One million times zero is, zero. Gen 4 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. Who is Cain worried about?

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. If Cain knew what would please God, why didn't he do it?

Gap Theory seems to be based on the changing of one word in Genesis 1:2. ("Became" instead of "was") I'm not an Aramaic (or whatever language is used in Genesis) scholar so I don't know the answer from that perspective. My understanding is that Gap Theory came into being about the same time erosion was used to explain geological phenomena, and therefore the belief in an old earth. That alone causes me to doubt the idea. It seems a desperate attempt to rectify matters. Living fossils, (animals known to science first from the fossil record, then later found to still live on this earth), pose a problem for Gap Theory I think. There are animal fossils found along with dinosaur fossils which still exist (the animal kind is not extinct). Did God remake some of the animals or were there survivors between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2? How does the fossil record reflect Gap Theory? Is changing "was" to "became" a twisted translation of God's Word?

I've read somewhere that some believe Cain was offspring of the devil. That is why Eve was "the mother of all living" and Adam was not referred to as the "father of all living." They gave the reason to why Cain was so upset and not giving God a good offering was he was jealous of Abel being the true son of Adam.

In the Garden of Eden, they ate of fruit of trees. After the Fall, Gen 3:18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground. . . After the Flood, Gen 9:2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. These verses seem to indicate the eating of flesh began as directed by God after the Flood. God's instruction of what to eat changed, indicating unique progressions. (Maybe I missed some other reference of the eating of flesh by people or animals?) God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve, and Abel offered animal sacrifice to God. I thought it interesting because I eat a hamburger and don't think anything unusual about it. But it seems we were not originally intended to eat meat. And if not us, why not the animals also? Isn't there a reference in Revelation about a Lion and sheep sitting together?

Six billion years? . . . Whew!! For a second there I thought you said six million.

I agree. I was just referring to Gap Theory's origins. The circumstances surrounding its beginning. (Just Curious) How does Gap Theory allow for death, bloodshed etc?

Here's some history. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html IMO, that it began just 200 years or more ago, makes me doubt it. Why didn't anyone notice it before?

If you're referring to Gap Theory, I don't for certainty either way. But, I believe it started about the same time as the idea that slow erosion became popular to explain geological phenomena. It wasn't until Mt. St. Helens eruptions that some of this same phenomena was shown to occur form very rapidly.

Thanks for the link Larry! The YECs are very bold in their literal interpretation of Genesis. They reject many beliefs of modern "science", the Gap Theory, and the local flood idea. They believe firmly that a global flood explains the data better than the common theories of today do.