If memory serves, Kent Hovind deals with the gap theory...giving it a quick body slam. Yeah, I think it's bogus, biblically.
While we're on the subject, I see nothing in the Bible to negate the possibility that the fall of Lucifer happened after Adam & Eve were already in the garden...
"How art thou fallen to the earth, O Lucifer..."
So, perhaps there was an earth for him to fall to?
Naturally, I understand the gap theory accounts for that as well...
So, perhaps there was an earth for him to fall to?
. . .
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?
Several years ago the Canadian scholar Arthur Custance devoted a study to the question of Gen.1:1-2 entitled "Without Form and Void". The book can be read and downloaded at http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html
If memory serves, Kent Hovind deals with the gap theory...giving it a quick body slam.
Aww darn, Evan. I was under the impression that you didn't go for bogus 'researchers'. ... Put it to you this way. Kent Hovind is to science what Victor Paul Wierwille is to biblical research.
Please tell us that you don't use Hovind's materials in your home schooling courses. ... I mean, that would not shore up my confidence in the claim of superiority of home schooling over the public schools.
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.
Is changing "was" to "became" a twisted translation of God's Word?
It's Hebrew. The same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 2:7: And the Lord God frmed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. So it can be translated was or became.
You're probably right Bolshevik. I can't imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to live in a small town in Ohio. One would have to be regulated to one. ;)
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. . ."
I guess I do believe in the gap theory, I'll give a couple of reasons why I do.
I always wondered why, after Gen. 1:1, God only called things "good" or "very good" - but never went beyond that. That started me thinking (I know, that can be dangerous :)).
From Ez. 28:18, we know Satan had sanctuaries which he defiled. We know also that Satan was the guardian cherub, the mediator of worship between God and the angelic creation - before mankind.
When we look, just at the state of our own solar system, planets riddled with crators, the exploded planet that's now known as the asteriod belt, the deadness of Mars, etc., it is obvious something catastrophic happened. I just don't think God would create a "perfect" universe that looks like its been through a war.
Yet, in Ez. 28, Satan was called the model of "perfection." He was "perfect." Not just good, or very good.
In Ez. 28:14-19, he was stripped of his position and glory and removed from the Mountain of God where he had his throne. We are told he became full of violence.
In II Peter 3:3-7, he tells us the scoffers say: "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" Note - he says from the beginning of Creation... BUT
"this they willingly are ignorant of...the world that then was being overflowed with water perished, BUT the heavens and the earth which are NOW....
When Noahs flood happened, the world did not change, nor the heavens, there was a lot of rain - a flood, but still had light, sun, moon, solar system, heavens, etc.
Peter is implying a past change of the structure of the heavens.
Scoffers are all aware of Noah's flood, so that is not the one Peter is referencing.
The world in Gen 1:1 perished. We are in the world of Gen 1:2 and on.
I do believe that Satan - the "perfect" one, who ruled the perfect universe of Gen 1:1 and before, that his rebellion and fall was so cataclysmic it darkened and caused ruin and destruction to the Universe.
God says, ok, you want to be the most high? you want to be the creator? fix this mess.
Satan cannot. He is publically humiliated before the heavenly beings.
God then begins his re-formation, using materials already created, puts things back where they should be, sets the stars in place for the new creation - Adam and his descendants, in the sky to read.
In scripture, every time flooding and darkness are used, judgment for sin is the cause. Flooding and darkness are never linked with creation.
I believe the first flood in Gen. 1:1 separates the administration of the earth by angels, and the administration of the earth by man (Gen 2:1).
4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
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.
II Peter 3
3 knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
couldn't earth just mean "dry land"?
Genesis 1
9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
I no longer believe in the gap theory and now consider Genesis 1:1 a summary statement of God's work, followed by a detailed account starting in verse 2. This is done several times in Genesis 1 and 2. In my opinion, Hugh Ross presents some sound arguments against the gap theory in his book The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. On page 25, Ross says this of the gap theory:
"…This theory, popularized by C.I. Scofield's study Bible published at the beginning of the twentieth century, still holds sway among some Bible interpreters. However, it falters on several significant points, both biblical and scientific…The Bible teaches that God alone, not Satan or any other created being, has the power to create and to destroy what God creates…
…Astronomers, physicists, and geologists have established that the physical laws governing the heavens and the Earth have not changed since the universe was created about 15.5 billion years ago…
…The Hebrew verb haya, used in the beginning of Genesis 1:2, is not followed by the Hebrew preposition la. Only the combination haya + la would render the translation "to become." An example of this combination is found in Genesis 2:7, "Man became a living soul."
End of excerpts
In my opinion, the gap theory seems forced – as a means to hold onto a literal 6-day creation/young earth viewpoint. Many things in the Bible could be taken different ways. I like Ross' approach – he doesn't ignore the scientific data – and to me that's important. Understanding science has never stood in the way of my faith. The more I learn from science - I see a tighter fit between God's Word and the universe.
…The Hebrew verb haya, used in the beginning of Genesis 1:2, is not followed by the Hebrew preposition la. Only the combination haya + la would render the translation "to become." An example of this combination is found in Genesis 2:7, "Man became a living soul."
End of excerpts
Gen. 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. Here's the Hebrew verb hayah without the prefixed preposition l.
I'm not arguing here for the gap theory, just that the verb hayah can mean to be or to become, so you can't discount the theory based on the meaning of the verb in Hebrew. ( I should know what I'm talking about, I have a Ph.D. in Semitic languages.)
Gen. 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. Here's the Hebrew verb hayah without the prefixed preposition l.
I'm not arguing here for the gap theory, just that the verb hayah can mean to be or to become, so you can't discount the theory based on the meaning of the verb in Hebrew. ( I should know what I'm talking about, I have a Ph.D. in Semitic languages.)
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'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?
Does anyone know if Gap Theorists believe in life on Earth prior to Gen 1:2 and if so, what life? Dinosaur? Human?
I recall reading in a Clarence Larkin book proposing upon the basis of a passage in Isaiah
(sorry, I no longer have this book) that there were human or humanoid-like "inhabitants" and "cities" in Earth I.
I just googled this to see if remembered correctly, and came across this :
Some proponents of the Gap Theory, such as Clarence Larkin and Kenneth Wuest, say that Lucifer was over a Pre-Adamic 'man' or 'humanoid' race that existed on the Pre-Adamic earth, and the the demons today are the disembodied spirits of this race. While that is a possibility, I just don't see that. 1 Corinthians 15:45 declares that Adam was the first man.
(From Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, p24)
(From Kenneth Wuest, Prophetic Light in Present Darkness, p66)
It seems best to agree with the earlier assessment that demons today are the disembodied spirits of the angels who who were on the original earth with Lucifer.
(From M.R. Dehaan, THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS, p6-8)
Gen. 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. Here's the Hebrew verb hayah without the prefixed preposition l.
I'm not arguing here for the gap theory, just that the verb hayah can mean to be or to become, so you can't discount the theory based on the meaning of the verb in Hebrew. ( I should know what I'm talking about, I have a Ph.D. in Semitic languages.)
Aww darn, Evan. I was under the impression that you didn't go for bogus 'researchers'. ... Put it to you this way. Kent Hovind is to science what Victor Paul Wierwille is to biblical research.
Please tell us that you don't use Hovind's materials in your home schooling courses. ... I mean, that would not shore up my confidence in the claim of superiority of home schooling over the public schools.
<_<
As far as the gap, I was speaking of the biblical slam dunk, not 'scientific'.
Our kids watched the Hovind videos. I think he's really funny and entertaining. He's also careful to call his theories theories. Anyway, our kids somehow failed to get brain damage from the experience and somehow managed decent scores on the science portion of their ACTs.
I do believe the dinos and fossils were from the first creation. I find it very hard to believe that mankind existed with t-rex and others roaming around.
I tend to believe the cro-mags and other ancient hominids were not "man" from Adam's line as we know mankind now.
There's a verse in Isaiah - I don't have my bible with me, where he prophecies and goes back in time and talks about the total ruin of the earth, before Gen 1:2 (used a a warning to Israel to get thier act together), where he talks about the ruin and waste and says there was NO ADAM - no man, or mankind as we know it now.
This leaves me with two alternatives, either after the dino destruction, Satan tried to create some type of man, or a body for fallen angels to inhabit - and this is why he is so enraged when God creates the perfect Adam and Eve, thus he is publically humiliated again resulting in his deep hatred of mankind, or
They were some kind of hominid - more along the line of advanced ape than man.
We know from DNA that mankind - Adam's line - us - we are not related to cro-mag, neanderthal or any of those that came before. This was a huge disappointment to the scientific community when it was proven neanderthal is not us. Thus scientists are still wondering where man came from. The old evolution picture of man - you from ape to man is wrong.
Its very interesting when you look at scientific timelines of homonids from millions of years ago, one arises, dies out, theres another one, another type arises over here - its more of a jumble of starts and stops. If I can find the science site with the chart I'll post it.
That's interesting. Please let me know if you find that verse in Isaiah?
Only problem I have with the YECs view of dinos is that the only ones we know for sure are around still are birds. The ceolocanth does show that something could have existed in the "cretaceaous" time and today.
I agree the "evolution record" is nothing more than jumble. I think our understanding of DNA is still very much in its infancy. Junk DNA could still reveal a lot about how diverse a kind can become.
Several years ago the Canadian scholar Arthur Custance devoted a study to the question of Gen.1:1-2 entitled "Without Form and Void". The book can be read and downloaded at http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html
Thanks for the link. His writings look really interesting. I looked at the biography posted on his website and he seemed to be a man of integrity and what I would call "biblical honesty". I will definitely be reading his works.
This is a topic of great interest to me, thanks for starting it Bolshevik. It's a subject I've been reading about and studying, but I haven't come to a definite conclusion at this time. Some of my current thoughts:
The bottom line in my thinking is, that God created the heavens and the earth, in the beginning. I guess the big questions are: When was that? and How did He do it? I wasn't there to mark it on my calendar and observe how He did it.
I like Chuck Missler's teachings and books on the subject, especially, The Creator Beyond Time and Space. Interesting to see that the Custance site is hosted by Missler's ministry, Koinonia House.
I recently purchased Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Shroeder, He's an orthodox Jewish physicist. Here are some quotes from the book:
"What was for me the most exciting discovery in this search is that the duration and events of the billions of years that, according to cosmologists, have followed the Big Bang and those events of the first six days of Genesis are in fact one and the same. The are identical realisties that have been described in vastly different terms."
"There is just no avoiding the issue. The Bible gives God six days to form mankind from the material produced at the creation. "
"Current cosomology claims, it even proves, that nature took some 15 billion years to accomplish the same thing.
Which understanding is correct?
Both are. Literally. With no allegorical modifications of these two simultaneous, yet different, time periods."
Recommended Posts
TheEvan
If memory serves, Kent Hovind deals with the gap theory...giving it a quick body slam. Yeah, I think it's bogus, biblically.
While we're on the subject, I see nothing in the Bible to negate the possibility that the fall of Lucifer happened after Adam & Eve were already in the garden...
"How art thou fallen to the earth, O Lucifer..."
So, perhaps there was an earth for him to fall to?
Naturally, I understand the gap theory accounts for that as well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Several years ago the Canadian scholar Arthur Custance devoted a study to the question of Gen.1:1-2 entitled "Without Form and Void". The book can be read and downloaded at http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Aww darn, Evan. I was under the impression that you didn't go for bogus 'researchers'. ... Put it to you this way. Kent Hovind is to science what Victor Paul Wierwille is to biblical research.
Please tell us that you don't use Hovind's materials in your home schooling courses. ... I mean, that would not shore up my confidence in the claim of superiority of home schooling over the public schools.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
It's Hebrew. The same Hebrew word is used in Genesis 2:7: And the Lord God frmed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. So it can be translated was or became.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You're probably right Bolshevik. I can't imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to live in a small town in Ohio. One would have to be regulated to one. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Bolshevik
God loves you my dear friend
I deo not believe in the gap guess
see
http://www.freewebs.com/year2027/Patters%20in%20Gen.htm
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
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. . ."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I guess I do believe in the gap theory, I'll give a couple of reasons why I do.
I always wondered why, after Gen. 1:1, God only called things "good" or "very good" - but never went beyond that. That started me thinking (I know, that can be dangerous :)).
From Ez. 28:18, we know Satan had sanctuaries which he defiled. We know also that Satan was the guardian cherub, the mediator of worship between God and the angelic creation - before mankind.
When we look, just at the state of our own solar system, planets riddled with crators, the exploded planet that's now known as the asteriod belt, the deadness of Mars, etc., it is obvious something catastrophic happened. I just don't think God would create a "perfect" universe that looks like its been through a war.
Yet, in Ez. 28, Satan was called the model of "perfection." He was "perfect." Not just good, or very good.
In Ez. 28:14-19, he was stripped of his position and glory and removed from the Mountain of God where he had his throne. We are told he became full of violence.
In II Peter 3:3-7, he tells us the scoffers say: "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" Note - he says from the beginning of Creation... BUT
"this they willingly are ignorant of...the world that then was being overflowed with water perished, BUT the heavens and the earth which are NOW....
When Noahs flood happened, the world did not change, nor the heavens, there was a lot of rain - a flood, but still had light, sun, moon, solar system, heavens, etc.
Peter is implying a past change of the structure of the heavens.
Scoffers are all aware of Noah's flood, so that is not the one Peter is referencing.
The world in Gen 1:1 perished. We are in the world of Gen 1:2 and on.
I do believe that Satan - the "perfect" one, who ruled the perfect universe of Gen 1:1 and before, that his rebellion and fall was so cataclysmic it darkened and caused ruin and destruction to the Universe.
God says, ok, you want to be the most high? you want to be the creator? fix this mess.
Satan cannot. He is publically humiliated before the heavenly beings.
God then begins his re-formation, using materials already created, puts things back where they should be, sets the stars in place for the new creation - Adam and his descendants, in the sky to read.
In scripture, every time flooding and darkness are used, judgment for sin is the cause. Flooding and darkness are never linked with creation.
I believe the first flood in Gen. 1:1 separates the administration of the earth by angels, and the administration of the earth by man (Gen 2:1).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
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"?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I no longer believe in the gap theory and now consider Genesis 1:1 a summary statement of God's work, followed by a detailed account starting in verse 2. This is done several times in Genesis 1 and 2. In my opinion, Hugh Ross presents some sound arguments against the gap theory in his book The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. On page 25, Ross says this of the gap theory:
"…This theory, popularized by C.I. Scofield's study Bible published at the beginning of the twentieth century, still holds sway among some Bible interpreters. However, it falters on several significant points, both biblical and scientific…The Bible teaches that God alone, not Satan or any other created being, has the power to create and to destroy what God creates…
…Astronomers, physicists, and geologists have established that the physical laws governing the heavens and the Earth have not changed since the universe was created about 15.5 billion years ago…
…The Hebrew verb haya, used in the beginning of Genesis 1:2, is not followed by the Hebrew preposition la. Only the combination haya + la would render the translation "to become." An example of this combination is found in Genesis 2:7, "Man became a living soul."
End of excerpts
In my opinion, the gap theory seems forced – as a means to hold onto a literal 6-day creation/young earth viewpoint. Many things in the Bible could be taken different ways. I like Ross' approach – he doesn't ignore the scientific data – and to me that's important. Understanding science has never stood in the way of my faith. The more I learn from science - I see a tighter fit between God's Word and the universe.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Gen. 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. Here's the Hebrew verb hayah without the prefixed preposition l.
I'm not arguing here for the gap theory, just that the verb hayah can mean to be or to become, so you can't discount the theory based on the meaning of the verb in Hebrew. ( I should know what I'm talking about, I have a Ph.D. in Semitic languages.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
but the word in Gen 1:2 doesn't indicate which it should be?( "was" or "became" ?) So it still could be either interpretation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Right!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Has anyone here checked out yet Arthur Custance's exhaustive review of the verb haya?
It's a tad dry in places, but his survey certainly leaves the question open in my mind.
Also fascinating is Some Pagan Traditions of a Like Catastrophe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I recall reading in a Clarence Larkin book proposing upon the basis of a passage in Isaiah
(sorry, I no longer have this book) that there were human or humanoid-like "inhabitants" and "cities" in Earth I.
I just googled this to see if remembered correctly, and came across this :
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Interesting point...thanks for mentioning that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
As far as the gap, I was speaking of the biblical slam dunk, not 'scientific'.
Our kids watched the Hovind videos. I think he's really funny and entertaining. He's also careful to call his theories theories. Anyway, our kids somehow failed to get brain damage from the experience and somehow managed decent scores on the science portion of their ACTs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
I am leaving out of town, so I don't have time to give you verses..................
but just food for thought....
I have been wondering how the devil could've been in God's presence to accuse/ talk over JOB, if he had
already been ''kicked out'' of heaven, before Adam and Eve.????
I think this question fits into this Gap discussion.
I'll get back to ya. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I do believe the dinos and fossils were from the first creation. I find it very hard to believe that mankind existed with t-rex and others roaming around.
I tend to believe the cro-mags and other ancient hominids were not "man" from Adam's line as we know mankind now.
There's a verse in Isaiah - I don't have my bible with me, where he prophecies and goes back in time and talks about the total ruin of the earth, before Gen 1:2 (used a a warning to Israel to get thier act together), where he talks about the ruin and waste and says there was NO ADAM - no man, or mankind as we know it now.
This leaves me with two alternatives, either after the dino destruction, Satan tried to create some type of man, or a body for fallen angels to inhabit - and this is why he is so enraged when God creates the perfect Adam and Eve, thus he is publically humiliated again resulting in his deep hatred of mankind, or
They were some kind of hominid - more along the line of advanced ape than man.
We know from DNA that mankind - Adam's line - us - we are not related to cro-mag, neanderthal or any of those that came before. This was a huge disappointment to the scientific community when it was proven neanderthal is not us. Thus scientists are still wondering where man came from. The old evolution picture of man - you from ape to man is wrong.
Its very interesting when you look at scientific timelines of homonids from millions of years ago, one arises, dies out, theres another one, another type arises over here - its more of a jumble of starts and stops. If I can find the science site with the chart I'll post it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That's interesting. Please let me know if you find that verse in Isaiah?
Only problem I have with the YECs view of dinos is that the only ones we know for sure are around still are birds. The ceolocanth does show that something could have existed in the "cretaceaous" time and today.
I agree the "evolution record" is nothing more than jumble. I think our understanding of DNA is still very much in its infancy. Junk DNA could still reveal a lot about how diverse a kind can become.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Thanks for the link. His writings look really interesting. I looked at the biography posted on his website and he seemed to be a man of integrity and what I would call "biblical honesty". I will definitely be reading his works.
This is a topic of great interest to me, thanks for starting it Bolshevik. It's a subject I've been reading about and studying, but I haven't come to a definite conclusion at this time. Some of my current thoughts:
The bottom line in my thinking is, that God created the heavens and the earth, in the beginning. I guess the big questions are: When was that? and How did He do it? I wasn't there to mark it on my calendar and observe how He did it.
I like Chuck Missler's teachings and books on the subject, especially, The Creator Beyond Time and Space. Interesting to see that the Custance site is hosted by Missler's ministry, Koinonia House.
I recently purchased Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Shroeder, He's an orthodox Jewish physicist. Here are some quotes from the book:
"What was for me the most exciting discovery in this search is that the duration and events of the billions of years that, according to cosmologists, have followed the Big Bang and those events of the first six days of Genesis are in fact one and the same. The are identical realisties that have been described in vastly different terms."
"There is just no avoiding the issue. The Bible gives God six days to form mankind from the material produced at the creation. "
"Current cosomology claims, it even proves, that nature took some 15 billion years to accomplish the same thing.
Which understanding is correct?
Both are. Literally. With no allegorical modifications of these two simultaneous, yet different, time periods."
Interesting stuff.
Links:
The Creator Beyond Time and Space
Koinonia House, Chuck Missler's Ministry
Genesis and the Big Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I heard this guy on the radio and thought he was excellent, at least the little I heard. I don't know where he comes down on the gap theory.
http://www.fishdontwalk.com/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.