Gap Theory Refuted

[Jerry]

Still, Madeline, you are reading things INTO the passage. The Isaiah passage states God did not create the earth to be void - He intended it to be peopled and filled with life. That does not mean that He filled it first and then it became void. You START with an empty planet THEN you add life, not the other way around.

[Madeline]

Still' date=' Madeline, you are reading things INTO the passage. The Isaiah passage states God did not create the earth to be void - He intended it to be peopled and filled with life. That does not mean that He filled it first and then it became void. You START with an empty planet THEN you add life, not the other way around.[/quote']

Yes, I have heard that argument before, but it does not take into consideration the fact that Isaiah tells us that the earth was not created "tohu", i.e. "in vain" while Gen. tells us that it was, if we misinterpet the verb to be.

Is. 45:18 reads, For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it: He hath established it, He created it not tohu (in vain), He formed it to be inhabited...". This tells us that God did not create the earth "tohu".

But if we interpret Gen. 1:2 as saying that the earth was tohu (without form) then we have a contradiction. That is to say that Gen. tells us that the earth was created tohu and Isaiah tells us that it was not created tohu.

Yes, God did not create the earth to be uninhabitable, but that doesn't answer the contradiction.

Love,
Madeline

[John81]

I don't see a contradiction.

[heartstrings]

........14. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation, it is foolish to make the bible jump through hoops to meet your expectations... just admit your faith in Science and Evolution.
15. Things that are different aren't the same... You can't have it both ways. The most the earth can be according to the Bible is 7K years and that's being generous with genealogies, etc.

Brother,
Though I do not believe in evolution, I have no fear of science, neither do I fear the fact that God has existed for enormous amounts of time. He is eternal. I do not doubt that He could have been creating for not only millions of years, but billions and trillions.....googles of years. According to the Word of God, He will create again. At this point, I still strongly suspect that He created the earth, destroyed it, it was without form and void, then in six days He made another world. He will do it again.
My faith is not in science or evolution, it is in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But to quote your statement, "things that are different aren't the same", I give you this;

Created
Gen 1:1

[zealyouthguy]

Brother,
Though I do not believe in evolution, I have no fear of science, neither do I fear the fact that God has existed for enormous amounts of time. He is eternal. I do not doubt that He could have been creating for not only millions of years, but billions and trillions.....googles of years. According to the Word of God, He will create again. At this point, I still strongly suspect that He created the earth, destroyed it, it was without form and void, then in six days He made another world. He will do it again.
My faith is not in science or evolution, it is in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But to quote your statement, "things that are different aren't the same", I give you this;

Created
Gen 1:1

[DaveW]

OK a few points to clear up.

God has been around for millions of years?

I think this is a faulty understanding of the situation.
God is outside His creation, not subject to it. As such it is probably more correct to think that time as we know was created with the creation. In that respect God is not subject to time, but the creator of it also.
Therefore "In the beginning" means at the start of creation.

Without form and void has always seemed to me that God created matter, and then on the later days 'formed it' into his creation - as such the first day he created the "stuff" from which he formed all of creation. When He created the 'stuff' it had no form.

A simple reading of the scriptures gives the impression that God meant seven literal and consecutive days.
To find another understanding of it means "reading into" the passage.
A simple reading of Genesis 1 leaves no room for a gap between days, or for eons long days.

As far as being afraid of science.....

You have obviously not studied the so called science invovled in long age theory.

I don't have the references but there have been many things of known age (hats for instance) that have been "fossilised" without millions of years - it doesn't necessarily take a long time for something to become a fossil.

There are examples of bottles being encased in stalagmites, which "long age science" tells us takes thousands of years to grow.

And the crowning glory of long age theory - "isotope dating" (carbon dating as it is commonly known) is notoriously innaccurate.
Even in it's theory there are so many assumptions involved that it has no hope of being correct.
For a quick run down.
They assume the amount of "mother isotope" (how much they started with)
They assume a constant decay rate.
They assume no adding to either the Mother or Daughter Isotope.
They assume no contamination.

Now if they get ONE of these wrong then their figures will be out.

But how can they know for certain how much mother isotope was present?
They can guess, but they can't know.

They probably rightly assume a constant decay rate, but then again temp and pressure affect any chemical reaction, so maybe they can't rely on this?

How can they know that no mother Isotope was leached out of the sample?
How can they know that no daughter isotope was leached into or out of the sample?

They can't know these things, they can only guess and hope.

Can I suggest that you want a gap to be there because you choose to put more store in Science than in God's Word.

I can see no other reason to assume that long ages are right.

The Bible does not naturally state nor imply long ages.

It seem that since "Science" tell you that there are long ages, you are reading long ages into the Bible.

You have said a couple of times that the Bible doesn't clearly state certain thigns - it certainly doesn't clearly state anything relating to a gap or to long ages, yet you are choosing to deny the more simple reading.

The perfect example here is the Behemoth.

You make the statements about the tail swaying vertically relating to the Cedar, and the size is irrelevant.
The natural reading does not say dinosaur, but it does indicate something other than an elephant or hippo.

The simple reading would lead you to believe it is an animal that we don't know much about today, for it doesn;t naturally align with any animal we see in the zoo.

You choose instead to justify your thoughts on it, and ignore the simple reading.

[rancher824]

Brother,
Though I do not believe in evolution, I have no fear of science, neither do I fear the fact that God has existed for enormous amounts of time. He is eternal. I do not doubt that He could have been creating for not only millions of years, but billions and trillions.....googles of years. According to the Word of God, He will create again. At this point, I still strongly suspect that He created the earth, destroyed it, it was without form and void, then in six days He made another world. He will do it again.
My faith is not in science or evolution, it is in the Lord Jesus Christ.

But to quote your statement, "things that are different aren't the same", I give you this;

Created
Gen 1:1

[Jerry]

Wow, Madeline, you sure have a way of doing Bible gymnastics with Genesis 1! There are no passages whatsoever that teach anything about a worldwide flood prior to Noah's flood - yet you are determined to fit one in Genesis 1 because you misunderstand 2 Peter 3! Pretty amazing. If there was some other flood, God would have mentioned it clearly long before He inspired a prophet like Peter to comment upon it.

[Madeline]

Wow' date=' Madeline, you sure have a way of doing Bible gymnastics with Genesis 1! There are no passages whatsoever that teach anything about a worldwide flood prior to Noah's flood - yet you are determined to fit one in Genesis 1 because you misunderstand 2 Peter 3! Pretty amazing. If there was some other flood, God would have mentioned it clearly long before He inspired a prophet like Peter to comment upon it.[/quote']

Well, that isn't really a response to the contradiction between Gen. 1:2 and Is. 45, is it. But I will comment on this suggestion that God would have (should have?, how do people think they have the right to tell God how He should have written His Word?) written of the flood of Gen. 1 earlier that Peter.

We read in Job 38:4-8, Vs. 4) "Where wast thou when I laid the foudations of the earth? declare if thou hast understanding. Vs. 5) Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Vs. 6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof: Vs. 7)when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Vs. 8) Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?"

There can be little doubt that at the very least verses 4-7 refer to the time of creation. That is one reason for my belief that verse 8 also refers to the time of creation, and not, as one might think at first reading, to the time of the flood of Noah's day. That is to say, there is no reason to jump nearly 2,000 years from the creation of the earth to the days of Noah between verses 4-7 and verse 8.

Love,
Madeline

[DaveW]

Couldn't verse 8 be speaking of when God divided the waters from the land?

It is talking of Him restricting the waters, not loosing them across the face of the earth.

Continue on to verse 11 and it is definitely talking of God restricting the waters to a certain place - I would consider it to match up with God dividing the waters and the Land - day three. Gen 1:9.

I am not convinced that this is talking about a flood at all, but rather about God shutting the seas into their place - but this is after only a very brief look at it.

[heartstrings]

The New heaven and New earth is new and God will dwell there. There can be no sin and death has been defeated.

Yes, I know that. Doesn't change the fact that "the elements will melt with a fervent heat" when God destroys this one by fire.

You can shout as loud as you want and repeat yourself over and over, and yet, the Bible still doesn't say what you are saying.

I keep telling you that God is eternal too, friend. Is that not in the Bible?

Why couldn't God save his last creation? I am interested in knowing. Also... since man according to the Bible is made in the image of God, who was the last race made in the image of?

I never said there was a PreAdamic race. The question is not about God's inability. Why will He destroy this earth in the future? Sin

Finally, perhaps the real problem is the lack on your part to understand that God doesn't exist INSIDE of time, but time exists inside of God.

Never said He existed inside of time. I CLEARLY stated that He is eternal. Was He not around "6000 years ago" at the time when you say all things were created?

God doesn't say... "I WAS"... he says "I AM".

That's absolutely right.
Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM". He also said "I am alive forevermore"

Interesting take on the cycle of creation, sin, death... sounds almost like reincarnation.

Reincarnation is basicly where a being dies and is reborn as something else. The Word of God said there will be a new Heaven and a new earth, I didn't. That's not reincarnation.

I serve a God who is able to redeem his people, not lose them to sin and the devil... not to have faced sin and lost, but who conquered sin and death.

Nobody said God faced sin and lost. But everyone isn't going to be saved. He redeemed His people alright, actually, he redeems whosoever will. But those who reject Christ, will be lost. And He didn't create some for Hell and others to be saved like the Calvinists believe.

[heartstrings]

[pneu-engine]

I hear you, HS, thatyou believe that God could have been creating world's long before our time began, i.e. planet earth's time.

I just ask you to give a passage reference for it, because I just do not see that.

What we cannot back up by chapter and verse in our KJV is purely speculative, or opinions. You know what we say about opinions. (((They're like noses, we all have them and they all smell. )))

[heartstrings]

I hear you' date=' HS, thatyou believe that God could have been creating world's long before our time began, i.e. planet earth's time.

I just ask you to give a passage reference for it, because I just do not see that.

What we cannot back up by chapter and verse in our KJV is purely speculative, or opinions. You know what we say about opinions. (((They're like noses, we all have them and they all smell. )))

Absolutely right. That's what I;m saying. He COULD have.

The King James Bible may contain everthing God wants us to know at this point in time, but it can't possibly contain details of everthing God knows, or has ever done. Can we agree on that?
If God showed us everthing, it would blow our minds, If we saw His face, it would kill us instantly.

[zealyouthguy]

Absolutely right. That's what I;m saying. He COULD have.

The King James Bible may contain everthing God wants us to know at this point in time, but it can't possibly contain details of everthing God knows, or has ever done. Can we agree on that?
If God showed us everthing, it would blow our minds, If we saw His face, it would kill us instantly.

I don't think, had you said only what is above that anyone would disagree with you. But that's not what the insinuation is, and it's not what the Gap theory says. The "GAP THEORISTS" believes the earth is millions of years old and the Bible tells us so. In fact there are folks in the previous posts trying to show us where the Bible does indeed say that.

The problem is... it doesn't and it's not there. There is no GAP.

There was no GAP believed by the JEWS, nor by Christ, nor by the first century church, nor early "church father's"... not until our science and discoveries we "couldn't reconcile" told us it was billions of years old.