Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

The Gap theory GARBAGE


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And "Lucifer" being "in the garden of God" etc. ties together with "the Serpent", which describes "Satan", "the Devil" etc. God made him perfect, just like He did Adam, but he "despised dominion" and left his FIRST ESTATE (book of Jude)which ties right back to Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. That "first estate" was perfection and submission: But the "Devil" wanted to be the supreme ruler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrators

In replying to GP's assertion that Satan was never Lucifer I have inadvertently drawn this thread off topic. If we need to continue this subject I suggest we take it to another thread.

Sorry folks my mistake.  :11backtotopic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

In replying to GP's assertion that Satan was never Lucifer I have inadvertently drawn this thread off topic. If we need to continue this subject I suggest we take it to another thread.

Sorry folks my mistake.  :11backtotopic:

This is exactly why the gap theory is trash.

No gap. No Lucifer story. No false trash that there was a 'honest' and 'pure' creature who was a satan after he chose to become 'like God'.

I know all the references to the Lucifer mumbo jumbo, and find it such a funny thing that men of God will support such a thing by taking verses out of context and spread it far and wide by 'honoring' Satan so much that they will 'stick' him in a prophecy.

And when you take God's word as it reads in the text, you will find that Lucifer was used as an example of how far Nebuchadnezzar had lifted himself up - as a man - not as the devil. The rest of the verses in Isaiah that are around that ONE reference to something known as Lucifer (Venus), [which is what men called the star that rises up before the Sun, back in the 1500's and 1600's], you see a fallen MAN. Never a fallen angel.

The gap theory has quite the hold here on OB doesn't it? To believe an angel called Lucifer decided to go contrary to it's perfect creation is a myth. 

Reference to Jesus saying he saw Satan fall from heaven? Come on guys. He was not referring to Lucifer at all. Read the context. Don't give such a made up story such credit. Nor the devil such credit. He doesn't require the same level of prophetic utterence that our Lord gets in the OT scriptures. Nor does he deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

....No Lucifer story. No false trash that there was a 'honest' and 'pure' creature who was a satan after he chose to become 'like God'.

I know all the references to the Lucifer mumbo jumbo, and find it such a funny thing that men of God will support such a thing by taking verses out of context and spread it far and wide by 'honoring' Satan so much that they will 'stick' him in a prophecy.

And when you take God's word as it reads in the text, you will find that Lucifer was used as an example of how far Nebuchadnezzar had lifted himself up - as a man - not as the devil. The rest of the verses in Isaiah that are around that ONE reference to something known as Lucifer (Venus), [which is what men called the star that rises up before the Sun, back in the 1500's and 1600's], you see a fallen MAN. Never a fallen angel.

...To believe an angel called Lucifer decided to go contrary to it's perfect creation is a myth. 

Reference to Jesus saying he saw Satan fall from heaven? Come on guys. He was not referring to Lucifer at all. Read the context. Don't give such a made up story such credit. Nor the devil such credit. He doesn't require the same level of prophetic utterence that our Lord gets in the OT scriptures. Nor does he deserve it.

These passages do not need a gap in order to refer to Satan and human kings at the same time. The fall of the devil was not in some mystical gap period but is synonymous with the judgement of the serpent in Genesis 3:14. Satan was not cursed until after he tempted Eve in the garden. Everything by God was still very good until the moment Satan put it upon himself to question God's stated commands and go against his authorities.

The Isaiah passage was a proverb. It took things that were well known about the spiritual ruler of evil and applied them to his puppet the human king. Isaiah and others are often told and given burdens to speak in parables and proverbs in order to show to those who cared the hidden spiritual influence controlling the physical world. We also see that the Apostle John refers to Babylon  as being is the human symbol of Satan's control on earth and much of the things he refers to in Revelation are alluding back to the OT Prophets. Putting aside the argument on the word "Lucifer," it is clear that God is alluding to the devil and applying it to the Babylonian King.

God tells Palestina not to rejoice after the power of the human Babylonian king is taken away because the nation will once again come against them and we see that happening in Revelation where it is clear Satan is the spiritual ruler of that Kingdom; guiding them through out the ages.

Isaiah 14:4 that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Revelation 12:9-10 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Revelation 20:2-3 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Don't know why preachers teach it as fact, that the devil was a 'good guy' before he was a bad angel, is way beyond me.

 

8 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Do you believe that God created Satan as the evil, lying, murdering devil that we know?

 

Do you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

OK

A few posts back, I asked the question;

Like I said, dinosaurs deserve an explanation and a "gap theory" is the closest thing I have found to one as of yet. That is why I asked; why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea Tarpit deposits? There have been thousands of extinct critters including mammoths. mastodons, smilodons(sabre-toothed cats) dire wolves, giant ground sloths etc. but out of hundreds of different species there have been no dinosaurs found. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

OK

A few posts back, I asked the question;

Like I said, dinosaurs deserve an explanation and a "gap theory" is the closest thing I have found to one as of yet. That is why I asked; why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea Tarpit deposits? There have been thousands of extinct critters including mammoths. mastodons, smilodons(sabre-toothed cats) dire wolves, giant ground sloths etc. but out of hundreds of different species there have been no dinosaurs found. Why?

That's an easy one :rolleyes:

These tar pits are in LA and no self-respecting dinosaur would live anywhere close to LA with all the smog and gangs and whatnot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If I understand correctly a fossil can be carbon dated because it was once organic, but say a flint rock cannot be. However lava rocks can be dated because they consumed organic material while in liquid form. Unlike God's information, this may have changed in last 10 years or so due to some kind of new test or theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 7/16/2016 at 7:04 PM, Steve Schwenke said:

Do you know any pastor who has every single doctrine and preference 100% correct?

So I think there is a distinction to be made between essential doctrine, and non-essential doctrine.  That is, doctrine that we cannot budge on at all, then other doctrines where we can respect each other where we don't agree.  

 

Yes, my pastor!  Well, maybe 99.99% :D

As for your second point, I see the opposite in the words of the bible.  If my local church one day started preaching the Gap, whomever did so would be admonished for it and if unable to vote them out, then I'd beat feet to a sound New Testament Church.  I've never seen a good NTC that taught the Gap, they always held to other doctrines in gross error because they did same the same with them as they did to believe in the fallacy of the gap, they redefined the meaning of God's Words to to tickle their ears.  The most glaring example around where I live, is their women dress like the world in all its immodesty and it goes without saying that they listen to CCM and secular rock music.  Scratch the surface and one will find even more offensive errors.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, heartstrings said:

OK

A few posts back, I asked the question;

Like I said, dinosaurs deserve an explanation and a "gap theory" is the closest thing I have found to one as of yet. That is why I asked; why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea Tarpit deposits? There have been thousands of extinct critters including mammoths. mastodons, smilodons(sabre-toothed cats) dire wolves, giant ground sloths etc. but out of hundreds of different species there have been no dinosaurs found. Why?

Well you could consider the fact that all dinosaurs are not extinct for one thing. They live all around us as reptiles. Ken Ham once said that if people would consider that most large dinosaurs that were on the ark - no more that 24 inches tall as an average - could easily mingle amongst the crowd in the ark.

Now we don't really have any 24 inch dinosaurs around my area of the country, but there are or were some Komodo Dragons at the Cincinnati Zoo a few years back.

A gap theory is not needed to explain dinosaurs at all. But back in the 1800's a bunch of ministers accepted that view to fend off believers who liked Darwinism, AND the Bible.

They had no other excuse the people would accept at that time. They corrupted the truth for comfort.

Reptiles are unlike most creatures - the older they get, the larger they get. So before the flood timeline you have reptiles living very long lives and continuing to grow - producing very large reptiles we recognize as dinosaurs. Since then ages of reptiles AND man have shortened an extreme amount. Compare the giant turtles - living sometimes hundreds of years - and their size, compared to their babies. Humongous size difference!

You might enjoy some Ken Ham documentaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Swathdiver,

I understand where you are coming from regarding keeping a pure church.  One of the most important things to guard is our doctrine.  I get that.  I am a pastor, so I REALLY get that!  
My point here is that I believe there is a difference between heresy, error, and non-essential differences.  Some people teach it as DOCTRINE that a woman must always wear a dress.  To me that is not doctrine, that is preference, and certainly nothing to divide over.  Immodesty is something that should be warned against, the older women should teach the younger women what modesty is, with emphasis on "the inner man" (I Peter 3).  But to call it "heresy" to NOT teach that a woman should always wear a dress is a bit too far.

The same point applies to the gap.  There are plenty of good, sound churches who hold to the Gap, have good clean music, have modest women, and all of the above.  We as human beings are never going to fully agree on every little point, and the Bible does not expect that.  In fact, the Bible anticipates that we have minor differences.  But the Bible also expects us to set aside our minor differences, and come together into the unity of Christ.

This was the whole idea behind teh Fundamentalist movement in the early 1900's.  Rally around the fundamentals to fight against modernism and liberalism.  

And here I think we can be gracious enough with others on this Gap issue, if they are sound in most other places.  I am thinking of people like Oliver Greene and the like.  Good, sound, Bible believing people who have much truth and who can help us a great deal.  If you can't look past something like the Gap, and focus on what is good, in my opinion, we are not much better than any other cult.  

We can only listen to THESE preachers, and read THESE books, but anything with what I consider an ERROR cannot be read!!!  

Yep, that has "cult" written all over it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There are no more dinosaurs because dinosaurs are/were quite tasty.  Man gobbled them up faster than they could make more and their bones I'm sure were put to many good uses around the homestead and cities.  Anyone ever eaten alligator?  Quite good indeed!  

 

Preacher Schwenke, I would hesitate to call a congregation full of immodestly dressed women a New Testament Church.  The Lord says it is an abomination for a woman to dress as a man and visa versa.  Such is a matter of the heart and it is good and proper for the pastor to require his workers to dress properly to set an example for the other members.  

As for cults, the best way to steer clear of them is to have the scriptures be the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice.  Cults follow the dictates of man.  I lost several good friends to the Ruckman cult and his nutty doctrines.  Now having said that, I do not believe that everyone who likes Ruckman or some of his interpretations of bible doctrine is a cult follower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
16 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Well you could consider the fact that all dinosaurs are not extinct for one thing. They live all around us as reptiles. Ken Ham once said that if people would consider that most large dinosaurs that were on the ark - no more that 24 inches tall as an average - could easily mingle amongst the crowd in the ark.

Now we don't really have any 24 inch dinosaurs around my area of the country, but there are or were some Komodo Dragons at the Cincinnati Zoo a few years back.

A gap theory is not needed to explain dinosaurs at all. But back in the 1800's a bunch of ministers accepted that view to fend off believers who liked Darwinism, AND the Bible.

They had no other excuse the people would accept at that time. They corrupted the truth for comfort.

Reptiles are unlike most creatures - the older they get, the larger they get. So before the flood timeline you have reptiles living very long lives and continuing to grow - producing very large reptiles we recognize as dinosaurs. Since then ages of reptiles AND man have shortened an extreme amount. Compare the giant turtles - living sometimes hundreds of years - and their size, compared to their babies. Humongous size difference!

You might enjoy some Ken Ham documentaries.

Geneva,

So you're saying that if a gecko, crocodile, horned toad, camelion or komodo dragon had the chance to live long enough, they would turn into dinosaurs? There is nothing living today thast even has the FORM of a dinosaur, size notwithstanding. Like I asked before, how come no dinos in the LaBrea tar pit deposits? Thousands of extinct mammal bones and zero dinosaurs.

FORM: there are no 'reptiles" living today with these body conformations; none.

Image result for dinosaurs

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It's a popular theory that dinos were just large lizards, and while it is possible a few were, because reptiles, generally, continue to grow as long as they live, and if they lived to be 600 years old, they'd be pretty impressive, I do agree that the bodies don't seem to correspond, for the most part, that the fossils we find. Though some may-like, who knows what a 600 year old horned lizard might look like at, say, 20' long? Or a komodo dragon, that gets 10 feet as is, if it had a few hundred more years to grow? However, I suspect many were unique animals, most of which died off at the flood. That Noah brought some along with him on the ark wouldn't surprise me, but they would be the dragons we hear of, most of which were killed off by 'heroes' and such. Lots of interesting stories of people encountering dinosaurs, much smaller than we generally think, because of the different atmosphere and shorter lifespans. And many may have died off after the flood if that is what began the ice age, as it were-a colder place for a while after the flood, another theory.

The bottom line is, we don't need a gap to explain the dinosaurs, the Bible says all the beasts of the field were created on day 6-we don't know how many, and there was probably a much larger land mass, and overall warmer weather all over, since the earth was created to be inhabited, the whole thing, unlike today were life is almost impossible in many places.

As for why they aren't found in the tar pits, well, who knows? They may have been, but it is kept from the public because it would destroy the theory, which is more important than fact to the evolutionary science position. And they certainly haven't found everything yet-if they were bigger, they may be lower down than the smaller mammals, or just too big to get stuck or sink in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wayne, I believe that before the flood the oxygen content of the earth's atmosphere was much higher and her temperature was uniform across the globe.  Everything was bigger, birds, insects, animals and even giant men were common.  It stands to reason that the dinosaurs were bigger too.  Now come post flood, it's really hot in some places and really cold in others and the oxygen content of the air is less than half of what it once was.  Nothing now grows as big as before, generally speaking of course.

Outside of our church's school we have a mammoth bone that was unearthed nearby.  Further south, one if not two, I forget, mammoths were unearthed at Palm Beach International Airport during an expansion.  It is a sport for Florida divers to recover Mastadon? shark's teeth from freshwater caverns.  I have a zip lock bag full of fossilized shark's teeth from the surf of Gulf Coast beaches.

Man did indeed walk with dinosaurs.  An English pirate in the 1500s, David something, wrote an account of seeing a T-Rex along the Penobscot River and that the Indians were terrified of them as was he.  There are pictures on rocks and carved into wood all over the world of man with dinosaurs, including American Indians out west.  One kingdom had as a title the dragon feeder.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Swath, I agree-oxygen bubbles tested in some examples of amber show a higher amount of oxygen, up to 50% more than today. With a higher oxygen level and a stronger magnetic field, such huge animals could survive-they could not today at that size-they could not take in enough oxygen to breathe through the small nostrils in cases like Brachiosaurus, the size of a horse's nostrils.

I think the sharks you're talking about were the Megalodon shark, a gigantic shark, probably still alive, just smaller.

Another example of men and dinosaurs is the writings of Marco Polo who said that the Emperor of China had his chariot pulled in parades by two 'dragons', and that his court has an official 'Dragon Keeper'. Most of his writings are considered a first-hand view of reality, a reliable source. But this is often ignored or discounted.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I don't know if I buy the higher concentration of oxygen theory: Blue whales are by far the largest known creatures which have ever lived, and they get along just fine on today's oxygen; even holding their breath for long periods of time.

Blue-Whale-Size-Chart.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Big differences: they live in water, and have a much larger breathing apparatus than a Brachiosaurus did. They have two blowholes, larger than 20" each, (that's the size of a humpback, much smaller than a blue, so theirs could be as much as twice as large).   But the higher oxygen content would also explain why other animals grew so much larger, ie, giant sloths, 18' tall Rhinos, 6' beavers, dragonflies with a 50" wingspan, etc. Again the oxygen has been tested from bubbles in amber and found to be higher concentrate.

A brachiosaurus had nostrils the size of a horse's, which would be way insufficient for today's oxygen levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Lady Administrators

I was just doing a bit of searching today and found this article by Henry Morris. It's a really good summary as to why the gap theory (or whatever name its proponents want to call it) is false. And how it actually undermines the gospel. He makes some points that are good to be aware of, from a born again scientist's viewpoint, when discussing it with someone who believes in it.

 

http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By HappyChristian
      I found this article very interesting. Since I help with Creation Club here, I receive emails from various creation groups. This one is headquartered in England. CMI - Creation Ministries International - has some interesting articles on creation, but this one kind of veers from that.  It is a sad read, chilling, really. But it is interesting...evolution causes folk to believe they are nothing special. And so why not kill or commit suicide or do drugs or on and on...This young man was such a one as to buy into that thought.  I'm quoting the whole article so that if someone can't open the link they can still read it.  (Credit goes to CMI)
       
       
      http://creation.com/will-cornick-murders-teacher
       
      The Boy Who's Proud to be a Killer 
      Will Cornick murders teacher in front of classmates in Leeds, England
      by Warren Nunn
       
      Incredibly instinctual and human....
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 17 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...