Does Evolution and Science draw people away from God?

[Danieltwotwenty]

For me personally, I draw the line in the sand if I'm told I've been deceived by the devil for being a globalist.

Today I learned about Globalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism

It's the work of Satan, be wary brothers.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, why do you think virtually no current evangelical Hebrew scholar believes the wording of Genesis can support the Gap Theory? These are people who believe the text is true, that it's God's Word, who have studied it to an exhaustive scholar's depth, and yet they overwhelmingly say the text does not and cannot support Gap Theory. It sounds to me like you like it because you think it solves problems and matches the evidences. But the scholars and theologians overwhelmingly reject that. Doesn't that at least make you wonder why that's the case?

The Gap theory was discovered reading the new testament 2nd Peter 3:3-7 so I do not understand why you focus on the Hebrew.If you can explain to me how you can make Noah 's flood fit into it and why you do not see a gap then I might can see why you reject the gap but if this is not talking about Noah's flood then what is it referring to about a former world perishing?Answer this and you just might change my mind,but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

[Danieltwotwenty]

ACB, why do you think virtually no current evangelical Hebrew scholar believes the wording of Genesis can support the Gap Theory? These are people who believe the text is true, that it's God's Word, who have studied it to an exhaustive scholar's depth, and yet they overwhelmingly say the text does not and cannot support Gap Theory. It sounds to me like you like it because you think it solves problems and matches the evidences. But the scholars and theologians overwhelmingly reject that. Doesn't that at least make you wonder why that's the case?

The Gap theory was discovered reading the new testament 2nd Peter 3:3-7 so I do not understand why you focus on the Hebrew.If you can explain to me how you can make Noah 's flood fit into it and why you do not see a gap then I might can see why you reject the gap but if this is not talking about Noah's flood then what is is referring to about a former world perishing?Answer this and you just might change my mind,but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

I wonder does ACB realise the Bible wasn't written in English and that Jesus didn't have blonde hair, blue eyes and a physique to rival Schwarzenegger. Good luck Philip, you will need it.

[neo-x]

but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

Why? Your whole theory rests in the hebrew of Gen1:1 - 1:2 and it doesn't matter to you?

Dan, Phillip, I suggest you stop taking this seriously. I mean even ACB is not taking it seriously.

[abelcainsbrother]

but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

Why? Your whole theory rests in the hebrew of Gen1:1 - 1:2 and it doesn't matter to you?

Dan, Phillip, I suggest you stop taking this seriously. I mean even ACB is not taking it seriously.

It does not rest on Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1 :2 it rests on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 where it tells us the former world perished in water,once we see the gap here we then start looking for another flood which we find in Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23-28,etc. First we need to know what to look for to have a gap.

[Kurieuo]

For what it's worth Abel, I don't think the gap theory is as easily dismissed as others may think. I'm not about to get into a debate over it though, being that I'm not 100% sure.
When I first came on here I was a Christian who had quite deliberately shied away from creation theology, theology and/or any doctrine outside of the bible. In that sense I was niave. I had previously seen others at church and bible studies get in very heated theological debates and thought 'they can have it', so I just read the bible and tried to learn the most fundamental lessons especially the words of Jesus.
So when I was a newbie I jumped on a creation thread and stated that we couldn't know for certain but I leaned towards a belief, I stated what I thought and I was informed that it was the gap theory. I had come to that conclusion purely based on my own interpretation. Since then I have read a lot regarding creation theology, I still think no-one can know for certain, some other beliefs have really pipped my interest but I certainly by no means have ruled out the Gap Theory. If I had to place a bet, my money's still there

That's brave of you to be admitting that amongst this crowd, so it seems to me.

If I'm honest, given my knowledge re: various creation positions... I must admit I've never actually studied why it was largely rejected.
That said, I do know I'd reject it based upon what I've read and largely forget. And, if you find a position you're content with then there's little motivation to look further suppose.

Something I'll give the Gap Theory is that it highlights the spiritual forces in the world. (Ephesians 6:12)
I feel such are very real. That, often our struggles in life are due to masterful webs that such have spun within humanity.

[neo-x]

but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

Why? Your whole theory rests in the hebrew of Gen1:1 - 1:2 and it doesn't matter to you?

Dan, Phillip, I suggest you stop taking this seriously. I mean even ACB is not taking it seriously.

It does not rest on Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1 :2 it rests on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 where it tells us the former world perished in water,once we see the gap here we then start looking for another flood which we find in Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23-28,etc. First we need to know what to look for to have a gap.

But 2 peter must place it Gen1:1-1:2 should it not?

[abelcainsbrother]

but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

Why? Your whole theory rests in the hebrew of Gen1:1 - 1:2 and it doesn't matter to you?

Dan, Phillip, I suggest you stop taking this seriously. I mean even ACB is not taking it seriously.

It does not rest on Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1 :2 it rests on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 where it tells us the former world perished in water,once we see the gap here we then start looking for another flood which we find in Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23-28,etc. First we need to know what to look for to have a gap.

But 2 peter must place it Gen1:1-1:2 should it not?

Not necessarily,we just need to find another flood and we have looked for another flood and it just so happens to be in Genesis 1:2 but it could've been somewhere else but there isn't nowhere else,so it must be Genesis 1:2 because the earth is flooded and frozen too.

[Danieltwotwenty]

but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

Why? Your whole theory rests in the hebrew of Gen1:1 - 1:2 and it doesn't matter to you?

Dan, Phillip, I suggest you stop taking this seriously. I mean even ACB is not taking it seriously.

It does not rest on Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1 :2 it rests on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 where it tells us the former world perished in water,once we see the gap here we then start looking for another flood which we find in Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23-28,etc. First we need to know what to look for to have a gap.

Well I read 2Peter 3:3-7 and found no mention of a previous world to this one, it did talk about the flood however but it did not talk about any Gap. But it does say this

“Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”

It is saying that all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation, which implies there is no Gap, if there was a Gap then it would say all continues as it was since the beginning of the Gap.

[abelcainsbrother]

but claiming the Hebrew doesn't support it does nothing for me.

Why? Your whole theory rests in the hebrew of Gen1:1 - 1:2 and it doesn't matter to you?

Dan, Phillip, I suggest you stop taking this seriously. I mean even ACB is not taking it seriously.

It does not rest on Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1 :2 it rests on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 where it tells us the former world perished in water,once we see the gap here we then start looking for another flood which we find in Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23-28,etc. First we need to know what to look for to have a gap.

Well I read 2Peter 3:3-7 and found no mention of a previous world to this one, it did talk about the flood however but it did not talk about any Gap. But it does say this

“Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”

It is saying that all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation, which implies there is no Gap, if there was a Gap then it would say all continues as it was since the beginning of the Gap.

I guess you skimmed over verse 6.verse 6 tells us the former world perished and I do not think it is talking about Noah's flood also verse 5 in the NASB tells us this world was formed out of water now go to genesis 1:2 and read further and you'll see it was,God said "Let the dry land appear and God called the dry land earth.So Peter has to be going back to Genesis 1:2 and not Noah's flood.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I guess you skimmed over verse 6.verse 6 tells us the former world perished and I do not think it is talking about Noah's flood also verse 5 in the NASB tells us this world was formed out of water now go to genesis 1:2 and read further and you'll see it was,God said "Let the dry land appear and God called the dry land earth.So Peter has to be going back to Genesis 1:2 and not Noah's flood.

I didn't skim over it, it was talking about the Noahic flood and saying that God destroyed with water and this time he will destroy with fire just like what was prophesied. It first talks about Genesis here

heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

and then it separates that with

through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

which is saying God used the water he created in the beginning to destroy the wicked people at that time and will destroy the people again but this time with fire which was created at the beginning (probably solar fire, I would imagine). Your interpretation makes no sense.

[abelcainsbrother]

I guess you skimmed over verse 6.verse 6 tells us the former world perished and I do not think it is talking about Noah's flood also verse 5 in the NASB tells us this world was formed out of water now go to genesis 1:2 and read further and you'll see it was,God said "Let the dry land appear and God called the dry land earth.So Peter has to be going back to Genesis 1:2 and not Noah's flood.

I didn't skim over it, it was talking about the Noahic flood and saying that God destroyed with water and this time he will destroy with fire just like what was prophesied. It first talks about Genesis here

heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

and then it separates that with

through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

which is saying God used the water he created in the beginning to destroy the wicked people at that time and will destroy the people again but this time with fire which was created at the beginning (probably solar fire, I would imagine). Your interpretation makes no sense.

Genesis 1 tells us the earth was formed out of water like I said so Peter has to be going back to Genesis 1 .I noticed you said it separates which I would say is the gap.You see it is telling us the former world perished in water,while this world will be destroyed by fire,which has not happened yet,this world has not perished which is what you must think to see it like you do,but you are still a descendant of Adam and Eve going by the bible,so you can't say this world has perished until it perishes with fire.Also don't forget we have evidence that a former world full of life perished like Peter says.Look at all of them fossils and evidence of the life that lived in the former world.Trilobite's,dinosaurs,primates,Wooly mammoths,etc that are evidence for the life in the former world that perished in water.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I guess you skimmed over verse 6.verse 6 tells us the former world perished and I do not think it is talking about Noah's flood also verse 5 in the NASB tells us this world was formed out of water now go to genesis 1:2 and read further and you'll see it was,God said "Let the dry land appear and God called the dry land earth.So Peter has to be going back to Genesis 1:2 and not Noah's flood.

I didn't skim over it, it was talking about the Noahic flood and saying that God destroyed with water and this time he will destroy with fire just like what was prophesied. It first talks about Genesis here

heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

and then it separates that with

through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

which is saying God used the water he created in the beginning to destroy the wicked people at that time and will destroy the people again but this time with fire which was created at the beginning (probably solar fire, I would imagine). Your interpretation makes no sense.

Genesis 1 tells us the earth was formed out of water like I said so Peter has to be going back to Genesis 1 .I noticed you said it separates which I would say is the gap.You see it is telling us the former world perished in water,while this world will be destroyed by fire,which has not happened yet,this world has not perished which is what you must think to see it like you do,but you are still a descendant of Adam and Eve going by the bible,so you can't say this world has perished until it perishes with fire.Also don't forget we have evidence that a former world full of life perished like Peter says.Look at all of them fossils and evidence of the life that lived in the former world.Trilobite's,dinosaurs,primates,Wooly mammoths,etc that are evidence for the life in the former world that perished in water.

But that's not what it says, it says nothing about a gap, the only thing it is doing is drawing parallels between the first judgement and destruction of mankind (Noahic flood) and the final destruction, the first destruction we know was the Noahic flood and it only refers to Genesis for the purpose of poetry, that being the waters that were there in the beginning destroyed mankind just as the fire that was there in the beginning (sun) will destroy the Earth (well at least that's what I reckon will happen). It says absolutely nothing about a gap and you would really have to twist what it says to fit the Gap Theory, it would need to be stretched beyond recognition.

[melanie]

For what it's worth Abel, I don't think the gap theory is as easily dismissed as others may think. I'm not about to get into a debate over it though, being that I'm not 100% sure.
When I first came on here I was a Christian who had quite deliberately shied away from creation theology, theology and/or any doctrine outside of the bible. In that sense I was niave. I had previously seen others at church and bible studies get in very heated theological debates and thought 'they can have it', so I just read the bible and tried to learn the most fundamental lessons especially the words of Jesus.
So when I was a newbie I jumped on a creation thread and stated that we couldn't know for certain but I leaned towards a belief, I stated what I thought and I was informed that it was the gap theory. I had come to that conclusion purely based on my own interpretation. Since then I have read a lot regarding creation theology, I still think no-one can know for certain, some other beliefs have really pipped my interest but I certainly by no means have ruled out the Gap Theory. If I had to place a bet, my money's still there

That's brave of you to be admitting that amongst this crowd, so it seems to me.

If I'm honest, given my knowledge re: various creation positions... I must admit I've never actually studied why it was largely rejected.


That said, I do know I'd reject it based upon what I've read and largely forget. And, if you find a position you're content with then there's little motivation to look further suppose.

Something I'll give the Gap Theory is that it highlights the spiritual forces in the world. (Ephesians 6:12)
I feel such are very real. That, often our struggles in life are due to masterful webs that such have spun within humanity.

I have done brave K. And speaking honestly and openly is not a prerequisite to bravery but more so to authenticity.
Authenticity is being honest regardless of the fall out. Trusting that the fall out is amongst friends who value us regardless.

This crowd I trust, not to entertain me but to hold me to question and value my input, not my creation stance but maybe my spirit.

edit: and if not, then bravery perhaps is a factor
The one point I will touch on is spirtual forces.
They are very real.
Something I know for certain.
To have felt God, unfortunately is to have felt His counterfeit.

[Audie]

For what it's worth Abel, I don't think the gap theory is as easily dismissed as others may think. I'm not about to get into a debate over it though, being that I'm not 100% sure.
When I first came on here I was a Christian who had quite deliberately shied away from creation theology, theology and/or any doctrine outside of the bible. In that sense I was niave. I had previously seen others at church and bible studies get in very heated theological debates and thought 'they can have it', so I just read the bible and tried to learn the most fundamental lessons especially the words of Jesus.
So when I was a newbie I jumped on a creation thread and stated that we couldn't know for certain but I leaned towards a belief, I stated what I thought and I was informed that it was the gap theory. I had come to that conclusion purely based on my own interpretation. Since then I have read a lot regarding creation theology, I still think no-one can know for certain, some other beliefs have really pipped my interest but I certainly by no means have ruled out the Gap Theory. If I had to place a bet, my money's still there

I suppose its reasonable to theorize about the many gaps in the Bible.

There is, however, no "gap theory" if the subject involves science.
There are certain reasonable requirements for a scientific theory.
Among these are a large body of data that is explained by the theory.

Another very reasonable requirement is that the evidence must consistently support
the theory- ie, that there must be no data that disproves the theory.

This thing being called a gap theory is quite incoherent, but one clear detail is world wide flood,
quite recently.

There was no such flood. That being the case, there is no gap theory.

A review of the various ways a flood hypothesis is disproved is outside the scope of this post.