The Gap theory

[Philip]

1) My understanding is that the way the original Hebrew MUST be read, according to its unique rules of grammar, and, almost to a one, Hebrew scholars do not believe the text allows for a former world or for any gap between this world and any previous one. That would be my first redflag. 2) The next redflag would be that Scripture brings no clarity to such a world's existence. It is rare for any Biblical scholar to entertain this as a serious possibility, much less as a known fact - which should also give one pause, as those who are trained in the how to understand and read the Bible's original languages and as written, almost to a one, do not buy this Gap Theory stuff. And to teach it as if it were a proven fact? We're truly a billion miles from that happening. Plus, how would you ever prove it? Until something is an established fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, then it clearly should NEVER be taught as fact! No offense intended, but this thread would seem to be merely an interesting discussion about a novel idea. I'd rather talk about how bigfoot might exist !

[abelcainsbrother]

1) My understanding is that the way the original Hebrew MUST be read, according to its unique rules of grammar, and, almost to a one, Hebrew scholars do not believe the text allows for a former world or for any gap between this world and any previous one. That would be my first redflag. 2) The next redflag would be that Scripture brings no clarity to such a world's existence. It is rare for any Biblical scholar to entertain this as a serious possibility, much less as a known fact - which should also give one pause, as those who are trained in the how to understand and read the Bible's original languages and as written, almost to a one, do not buy this Gap Theory stuff. And to teach it as if it were a proven fact? We're truly a billion miles from that happening. Plus, how would you ever prove it? Until something is an established fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, then it clearly should NEVER be taught as fact! No offense intended, but this thread would seem to be merely an interesting discussion about a novel idea. I'd rather talk about how bigfoot might exist !

It does not matter what man says,it matters what God's word says and if what you say is true about almost no Hebrew scholar believing there can be a gap? Then how come at the bottom of the page in the NIV it says Genesis 1:2 can be translated " became" instead of " was"? So who is lying? Somebody is not being truthful.And what if Genesis 1:2 had benn translated And the earth became without form and void...." Would you still reject it?What if I could show you translations of the bible where Genesis 1:2 has been translated " became" would you still deny a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?

Arther Custance did awesome work documenting and showing how it has been translated became before By Hebrew rabbi's but he even proves how ancient rabbi's in debates with Gnostics claimed there was a gap and even shows how it was painted on ancient artifacts.

So somebody is not being truthful when they claim there can be no gap based on the hebrew.I don't think there would be many Hebrew scholars saying the 6 days of creation can be longer than 24 hours.

But I think you reject the Gap theory because you have never even really known about it and you've already embraced a more popular creation theory and have decided to just go with it,it is what you believe and no reason to change your mind but I don't think like this and it is not why I accept the gap theory,it is because it is biblical that I accept it.

The evidence in this earth used as evidence for evolution proves the gap theory true,it proves there was indeed a former world on this earth and this is why I say had the church been teaching the gap theory instead of the other creation theories?Evolution would not be so believable I mean sure they could try to hide behind peer-review like they do now but the gap theory takes their evidence away from them to prove a former world existed.

I don't see how anybody can deny that if the majority of the church had been teaching the gap theory,from the bible and taking the same evidence evolutionists use as evidence for evolution but instead teaching how the evidence proves there was indeed a former world on this earth that evolution would be as believable as it is today.

Popularity does not make truth and the gap theory would give evolution serious competition problems based on the same evidence.God's word is a fact and we actually have the evidence in the earth to back it up.
The other creation theories are more popular but have not effected evolution.I can't change your mind but I think you should take the time to search out the truth of the gap theory for yourself before you compare it to bigfoot without understanding what you're rejecting. It matters if this is true according to God's word.

[Philip]

ACB, whatever you think the Church once taught, it has previously misunderstood other issues. But here's the question: With all of the tools, knowledge and scholarship of modern evangelicals available to them, why do you think almost to a one they reject Gap Theory? Is that not a redflag for your obsession? It's not a just a matter of opinion, either - it's what does the grammar structure of the original Hebrew allow and what does it NOT allow - which is why the vast majority of modern scholars reject it. And, again, how would you ever prove this? Really, for YOU, this topic is like one obsessed with the age of the earth, as for evangelism purposes, it's not terribly relevant if it cannot be PROVEN to be true, whatever the actual truth. Point is, there are bigger fish to fry! Truly - and I also believe this about the age of the earth and universe (which I tend to believe are billions of years old), as WHAT is truly relevant to US, today, except Scripture revealed AFTER Adam was created and God began interacting with him? His instructions of how to live, what to avoid, Who and WHOM to love are all that really matter. The rest is fun to speculate on but doesn't impact us - not if we can't be CERTAIN of it.

As far as another or ANY other former worlds, I'm agnostic on that - and I'm not speaking to any supposed former earth referenced in Scripture that preceded our own. As one of God's major traits is that He is an awesome Creator and as He's ALWAYS existed, it would stand to reason that He's ALWAYS spent periods creating on large and small scales. Perhaps in a physical realm, certainly in the spiritual realm, perhaps in other dimensions. DID God create other PHYSICAL worlds in which He had unique and subsequently fulfilled purposes, as they no longer exist? IF He created in other dimensions - how would we know? So, you see, I'm quite open to possibilities with God as He is an uncreated, eternally existing, all-powerful Being with unlimited possibilities as to what He might create. Do I think ETERNAL God who has ALWAYS existed NEVER created another physical reality besides this one? I rather doubt it. That would make us a bit narcissistic, would it not - that from God's perspective everything was always about that one day in which He would create the present time and earth? No! It's always been about God and His purposes. And as He is omnipresent, what that might say about His residences, whether physical, dimensional, spiritual? I don't know.

The bigfoot analogy was simply tongue in cheek

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, whatever you think the Church once taught, it has previously misunderstood other issues. But here's the question: With all of the tools, knowledge and scholarship of modern evangelicals available to them, why do you think almost to a one they reject Gap Theory? Is that not a redflag for your obsession? It's not a just a matter of opinion, either - it's what does the grammar structure of the original Hebrew allow and what does it NOT allow - which is why the vast majority of modern scholars reject it. And, again, how would you ever prove this? Really, for YOU, this topic is like one obsessed with the age of the earth, as for evangelism purposes, it's not terribly relevant if it cannot be PROVEN to be true, whatever the actual truth. Point is, there are bigger fish to fry! Truly - and I also believe this about the age of the earth and universe (which I tend to believe are billions of years old), as WHAT is truly relevant to US, today, except Scripture revealed AFTER Adam was created and God began interacting with him? His instructions of how to live, what to avoid, Who and WHOM to love are all that really matter. The rest is fun to speculate on but doesn't impact us - not if we can't be CERTAIN of it.

As far as another or ANY other former worlds, I'm agnostic on that - and I'm not speaking to any supposed former earth referenced in Scripture that preceded our own. As one of God's major traits is that He is an awesome Creator and as He's ALWAYS existed, it would stand to reason that He's ALWAYS spent periods creating on large and small scales. Perhaps in a physical realm, certainly in the spiritual realm, perhaps in other dimensions. DID God create other PHYSICAL worlds in which He had unique and subsequently fulfilled purposes, as they no longer exist? IF He created in other dimensions - how would we know? So, you see, I'm quite open to possibilities with God as He is an uncreated, eternally existing, all-powerful Being with unlimited possibilities as to what He might create. Do I think ETERNAL God who has ALWAYS existed NEVER created another physical reality besides this one? I rather doubt it. That would make us a bit narcissistic, would it not - that from God's perspective everything was always about that one day in which He would create the present time and earth? No! It's always been about God and His purposes. And as He is omnipresent, what that might say about His residences, whether physical, dimensional, spiritual? I don't know.

The bigfoot analogy was simply tongue in cheek

It just seems you trust modern scholars over old Hebrew scholars.I have laid it out very clearly how the bible reveals a former world existed to which not one person has been able to disprove biblically.I mean they can't show biblically why it is wrong but just declare it is not out of opinion without even understanding it or the history of it..

You think I'm obessessed with this gap theory thing but I'm not at all I just want to truth taught,you know it is going to be something one day when we get to heaven and Jesus tells all of these gap theory deniers they were wrong,the gap theory is true and then explains why so many people were deceived because the truth of God's word was denied.

I really don't understand how people claim to believe the word of God is true and yet deny this biblical truth and all for their favorite more popular creation theory.Popularity makes something true,no worries about how we must manipulate God's word to make it fit our interpretation that is more popular and so more true.No worries how we don't really have biblical knowledge and because of it we are missing out on real biblical truth.


Yes, this is one reason why the gap theory makes a lot of sense,what was God doing for billions of years?Look I respect you and this is not a salvation issue,this is a biblical truth issue being ignored. Thanks for the response but I really don't think you understand the truth of this like I do,regardless of what modern Hebrew scholars say that have been saturated in young earth creationism.

If somebody cannot read 2nd Peter 3:3-13 and not see it tells about three different heavens and earth,three different worlds,then what can I do? But I know it does.

[Philip]

ACB: You think I'm obessessed with this gap theory thing but I'm not at all I just want to truth taught,you know it is going to be something one day when we get to heaven and Jesus tells all of these gap theory deniers they were wrong,the gap theory is true and then explains why so many people were deceived because the truth of God's word was denied.

First off, as for whether one is saved or not, has not a thing to do with Gap Theory. Period! And IF it were so obvious, so why do you think so many qualified evangelical scholars deny its possibility - unless, of course, you are bowing to what you perceive as what some might have once thought. But TRUE scholarship builds upon successive levels of knowledge. What can be known now about the language, culture, historical aspects - these have only INCREASED. So, if Gap Theory is a "slam dunk" - it would have wide support TODAY, in fact, ESPECIALLY today (I'm speaking amongst conservative Bible scholars in appropriate disciplines). But if the language portions that you find so clear were in fact so, there would not be such an overwhelmingly one-sided view amongst conservative Christian scholars. But they disagree and are far better trained than you are I - with conservative scholars who also support the inerrancy of Scripture, it's not as if they disbelieve that Scripture is God's Word - only that they disagree that it means - or the way it's specifically written - or that it even CAN mean what you state. The viewpoint is so one-sided amongst those who should know, who are Believers in an inerrant Bible, that this will never be taken seriously unless there is a significant shift in the view of appropriate scholars. Don't tell lay people they should simply disregard respected Christian scholars - which is what you are doing.

At the end of the day, people want to know (or don't want to know or avoid) if God is a reality. They want to know if faith in Christ is pure folly or whether it really matters. The rest is, mostly, fun debate and conjecture. I've never met someone who became a Christian because they think the physical evidences match up perfectly with the Bible. Tying supposed (and immensely debatable) evidences to proof of Gap Theory - that's just not a powerful apologetic for anyone - so, I'd not be too concerned about it. I am am wrong, or YEC is true, or OEC, whatever - it's not what really matters. A big question you must ask yourself is, with so much uncertainty by so many, with the obscureness of your supposed Scriptural evidences for GT, what great value is it as an evangelical tool? Clearly, not too much. I've not met so much as ONE person who has said, "Well, Gap Theory is an obvious scientific fact and so once I saw that the Bible teaches it, it convinced me to become a Christian." And so, that should tell you something about what level of importance/relevance GT truly is, given the worldwide response of the vast number of Christians.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: You think I'm obessessed with this gap theory thing but I'm not at all I just want to truth taught,you know it is going to be something one day when we get to heaven and Jesus tells all of these gap theory deniers they were wrong,the gap theory is true and then explains why so many people were deceived because the truth of God's word was denied.

First off, as for whether one is saved or not, has not a thing to do with Gap Theory. Period! And IF it were so obvious, so why do you think so many qualified evangelical scholars deny its possibility - unless, of course, you are bowing to what you perceive as what some might have once thought. But TRUE scholarship builds upon successive levels of knowledge. What can be known now about the language, culture, historical aspects - these have only INCREASED. So, if Gap Theory is a "slam dunk" - it would have wide support TODAY, in fact, ESPECIALLY today (I'm speaking amongst conservative Bible scholars in appropriate disciplines). But if the language portions that you find so clear were in fact so, there would not be such an overwhelmingly one-sided view amongst conservative Christian scholars. But they disagree and are far better trained than you are I - with conservative scholars who also support the inerrancy of Scripture, it's not as if they disbelieve that Scripture is God's Word - only that they disagree that it means - or the way it's specifically written - or that it even CAN mean what you state. The viewpoint is so one-sided amongst those who should know, who are Believers in an inerrant Bible, that this will never be taken seriously unless there is a significant shift in the view of appropriate scholars. Don't tell lay people they should simply disregard respected Christian scholars - which is what you are doing.

At the end of the day, people want to know (or don't want to know or avoid) if God is a reality. They want to know if faith in Christ is pure folly or whether it really matters. The rest is, mostly, fun debate and conjecture. I've never met someone who became a Christian because they think the physical evidences match up perfectly with the Bible. Tying supposed (and immensely debatable) evidences to proof of Gap Theory - that's just not a powerful apologetic for anyone - so, I'd not be too concerned about it. I am am wrong, or YEC is true, or OEC, whatever - it's not what really matters. A big question you must ask yourself is, with so much uncertainty by so many, with the obscureness of your supposed Scriptural evidences for GT, what great value is it as an evangelical tool? Clearly, not too much. I've not met so much as ONE person who has said, "Well, Gap Theory is an obvious scientific fact and so once I saw that the Bible teaches it, it convinced me to become a Christian." And so, that should tell you something about what level of importance/relevance GT truly is, given the worldwide response of the vast number of Christians.

Well I believe that the gap theory is not believed today by scholars because of more popular creation theories and I know the Gap theory has nothing to do with salvation but when we deny what God's word clearly reveals I do think it is a problem.It is not important to you,it seems,as long as people are saved.I can't just ignore God's word to believe more popular creation interpretations that manipulate God's word in order to make it fit,I can't do that even if I cannot convince others to believe God's word over man.I may not can convince them but I'm going to go by God's word and I don't think it should be a problem,but it is.

I do not care about what is popular it matters more to me what God's word tells us.I'll let Jesus convince them one day,if I can't do it now.If you reject the Gap theory,fine,but I think before you do you should be able to know why it is wrong biblically before you just deny it for whatever reason.I'm not trying to cause division by getting people to believe the truth of God's word.You seem to reject it based on what scholars today say but don't really know how it is wrong biblically.

I have taken the time to examine every creation interpretation I know of,especially the popular ones and yet the gap theory is more truthful biblically and you do not have to manipulate God's word in order to make it fit them interpretations.I could give examples but I would come off like I'm attacking their interpretation for pointing it out.

But I can say the gap theory is more biblical and fits the science better without having to manipulate God's word to make it fit.It is just not known about like the other ones and a lot of things people hear about it are lies and mis-information.

Like for instance you brought up the Hebrew first to try to make the point,no Hebrew scholar accepts the gap theory when the truth is the gap theory was discovered in the bible first from reading the new testament which is Greek.

[NobodySpecial]

It just seems you trust modern scholars over old Hebrew scholars.I have laid it out very clearly how the bible reveals a former world existed to which not one person has been able to disprove biblically.I mean they can't show biblically why it is wrong but just declare it is not out of opinion without even understanding it or the history of it..

The problem, Biblically, with Gap Theory (if taken to also mean the ruin-reconstruction theory) is that it implies death, disease and decay were present prior to Adam's sin which according to Romans 5:12 - sin (and by consequence death and decay) were introduced after Adam's sin. Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:45 cites Adam as the first man - so there couldn't have been any people prior to his creation - according to scripture.

[abelcainsbrother]

It just seems you trust modern scholars over old Hebrew scholars.I have laid it out very clearly how the bible reveals a former world existed to which not one person has been able to disprove biblically.I mean they can't show biblically why it is wrong but just declare it is not out of opinion without even understanding it or the history of it..

The problem, Biblically, with Gap Theory (if taken to also mean the ruin-reconstruction theory) is that it implies death, disease and decay were present prior to Adam's sin which according to Romans 5:12 - sin (and by consequence death and decay) were introduced after Adam's sin. Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:45 cites Adam as the first man - so there couldn't have been any people prior to his creation - according to scripture.

The thing is Gap theorists agree death and the curse of death came into this world when Adam and Eve sinned and that God sent Jesus to redeem us but what happened in the former world has no bearing on this world.It is not a problem at all that there was death in the former world.God wiped the slate clean when he made this world and started over.What would make you think death could not be before Adam and Eve in the former world?

Lucifer sinned long before Adam and Eve did. Gap theorist preach and teach salvation by Jesus and always have as a matter of fact,I actually think they preach the gospel more than YEC's do.Nothing in the bible about death,sin,salvation by Jesus,bible prophecy,etc changes because you accept the gap theory ,it is just if you do accept the gap theory you have a much better understanding of the bible.You'll know more about the history of angels and Lucifer's history too so that it enhances your understanding of God's word.Gap theorists that I'm aware of do not ignore anything in the bible we believe Romans 5:12,1ts Corinthians 15:45,etc are all true.

[abelcainsbrother]

I am now going to show that the Gap theory is taught in both the old and new testament.

First it is important to know the difference between the two hebrew words "bara" and "asah". When you see the word create as in Genesis 1:1 " In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth." The word bara is used and it means to build something new or build something out of nothing.Anybody who disagrees can look up the words in a hebrew concordence and I encourage it so that you know who is telling the truth and who is not.YEC"s claim there is no difference in these two different hebrew words.

But if this is true?Moses would have used "bara" throughout Genesis and he did not instead he used both "bara" and "asah".When you see the word MADE in Genesis it is "asah" especially in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.The word "asah"means to work on something,to build something out of already existing materials and this is why Moses uses these two different words for distinction throughout the text.So when you see CREATE think God building something new out of nothing but when you see MADE think of God working on something,moving something,doing work on something that had already been created.

OK in Genesis 1:1 again "In the beginning God created(worked and built it out of nothing)the heaven and the earth.

OK but look at Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were CREATED"BARA"(worked and built it out of nothing),in the day the Lord God MADE"ASAH"(To work on and build something out of already existing materials)the EARTH and the heavens.

A quick point if you go back and read Genesis 1 you will see God worked on the earth FIRST and then the heavens,so that the last part of Genesis 2:4 lines up with Genesis 1 and it shows God MADE them,he did not create them from Genesis 1:3 -.

Exodus 20:11'For in six days the Lord God MADE the heaven and earth,the sea,and all that is in them,and rested the seventh day:wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day,and hallowed it." Notice the word MADE and not create and the hebrew word "asah" so in the 6 days of creation God did not create it like he did in the beginning whenever that was.Put this all together and this shows that Moses believed and taught the earth is old and not young.

OK now lets move into the New Testament.Matthew 13:35,Matthew 25:34,Luke 11:50,John 17:24,Ephesians 1:4,Hebrews 4:3,Hebrews 9:26,1st Peter 1:20,Revelation 13:8,Revelation 17:8; a total of ten verse references.You will see the english word "foundation"translated from the greek word "katabole". This means breaking down in order to make something new as a result and it is where we get our english word catabolism.
So this means that something was broken down in order to make this world.So that both the OT and the NT reveals the Gap theory true.We believe a former world perished until God made this world which is a breaking down for this world.

[abelcainsbrother]

Once again, abel, you are wrong on the basic facts.

There is no such distinction between asah and bara. That's something gap theorists basically made up to support their claim. Once again, if I might refer to some more recent scholarship, allow me to quote from Gary Gromacki's article titled, "Genesis, Geology And The Grand Canyon" (Journal of Ministry and Theology 12:2 (2008)),

• Gap theorists believe that the two primary words for “create” (בָּרָא used in Gen 1:1 and עשׂה used in Gen 1:25) refer to two different kinds of creation. They say that bara refers to primary creative activity, while asah means that God re-created out of previously existing materials. The Hebrew words are not so distinct. For example, Moses used bara of the creation of man out of previously existing material (Gen 1:27), and he used asah of the whole creation as the primary activity of God (Exod 20:11). Furthermore, he used bara of the creation of some animals (Gen 1:21) and asah of the creation of other animals (Gen 1:25). The real difference between these two words is that Moses used bara only of divine activity, and he used asah of both divine and human activities. (p.48)

So much for that distinction.

As for Isaiah 45:18, once again, you are not taking seriously (your claims to the contrary) that you have Isaiah directly contradicting the grammar of Gen 1:1-2. Do you not even consider the possibility that you have misinterpreted the passage? Go to soniclight.org and pull up Tom Constable's commentary on Isaiah. You would also do well to look at Keil and Delitzsch's comments (again, their commentary can be found online for free). The bottom line is that the phrase "לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ" ("he formed it to be inhabited") are a standard example of Hebrew synonymous parallelism and show what Isaiah has in mind (as an aside, that very verse is another one that collapses your unjustified distinction between asah and bara).

The last problem I'd point out with your reading of Isa 45 is that it is unintelligible in its context. The whole section is a prophecy about the restoration of Israel. What does a reference to this so-called former world have anything to do with what Isaiah is actually talking about? But if you read the line in light of the whole prophecy (and see again the two commentaries I referred to above), you'll see that not only does this not contradict the proper reading of Gen 1:2, it actually contradicts the gap theory.

So why, pray tell, should I abandon the actual text and the grammatical emphasis of Gen 1:1-2 and call Moses a liar (or at least say that he didn't understand Hebrew!)? Why are you so convinced that Moses is wrong? Don't you think it is possible--indeed, given what we've already seen, that it is more likely--that you are misreading Isaiah? After all, if you are right, again, that means that Isaiah's own words are meaningless. If future prophecy can come along and change the meaning of earlier texts, then how do you know that the meaning of Isaiah hasn't been or won't be changed? If Moses could be wrong about what Genesis meant and it centuries to reveal it, how do you know that in a few centuries from now future revelation won't change the meaning of the texts you are looking at now and show that you don't know what these texts mean after all, too?

Or, you could just stick to good hermeneutics and interpret later texts in light of former ones. Let Gen 1:1-2 be Gen 1:1-2, and if later passages contradict your reading of that, then realize that your understanding of those later passages is just wrong.

Jac claims that there is no distinction between "Bara" and "Asah" and this is the problem with the YEC interpretation.There is a difference between the two hebrew words and I tried to point it out to Jac but he did'nt seem to listen.So I'm going to give evidence that "Bara" and "Asah" are two different he brew words that do have distinct different meanings.This is important to understand especially when you read Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were CREATED(Bara),in the day that the Lord God MADE(Asah)the earth and the heavens." Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord God MADE(Asah)heaven and earth,the sea,and all that in themis,and rested on the seventh day:Wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it." Isaiah 45:18 "For thus saith the Lord that CREATED(Bara)the heavens;God himself that formed the earth and MADE(Asah)it;he hath established it,he CREATED(Bara)it not in vain,he formed it to be inhabited:I amthe Lord;and there is none else. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God CREATED(Bara) the heaven and the earth."

Bara means to create in the sense to create something out of nothing like bring into existence,something new and asah means to work on something the sense of making something out of pre existing material,working on something.
âśâh

Phonetic: aw-saw'
BDB Definition:
to do, fashion, accomplish, make
(Qal)
to do, work, make, produce
to do
to work
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
to make
to make
to produce
to prepare
to make (an offering)
to attend to, put in order
to observe, celebrate
to acquire (property)
to appoint, ordain, institute
to bring about
to use
to spend, pass
(Niphal)
to be done
to be made
to be produced
to be offered
to be observed
to be used
(Pual) to be made
(Piel) to press, squeeze

Bara

baw-raw'
BDB Definition:
to create, shape, form
(Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
of heaven and earth
of individual man
of new conditions and circumstances
of transformations
(Niphal) to be created
of heaven and earth
of birth
of something new
of miracles
(Piel)
to cut down
to cut out
to be fat
(Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
Origin: a primitive root
TWOT entry: 278
Part(s) of speech: Verb
Strong's Definition: A primitive root; (absolutely) to create ; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose

As we can see they do not mean the same thing like YEC's claim.

[neo-x]

ACB wrote:
...As we can see they do not mean the same thing like YEC's claim.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:
...As we can see they do not mean the same thing like YEC's claim.

? You don't see a difference? I've been going back over things neo and considering other people's arguments but despite their claims it seems to me that they are wrong for why they claim to reject the Gap theory.I do consider the arguments that have been made against it and I'd change my mind if they were right but it seems that their reasons for rejecting it have more to do with bias than the facts.Still,I still consider that I might be wrong and am just being biased.Evidence matters to me neo more than more popular theories and I'm going by evidence while considering the arguments against the Gap theory.

[neo-x]

ACB wrote:
...As we can see they do not mean the same thing like YEC's claim.

? You don't see a difference? I've been going back over things neo and considering other people's arguments but despite their claims it seems to me that they are wrong for why they claim to reject the Gap theory.I do consider the arguments that have been made against it and I'd change my mind if they were right but it seems that their reasons for rejecting it have more to do with bias than the facts.Still,I still consider that I might be wrong and am just being biased.Evidence matters to me neo more than more popular theories and I'm going by evidence while considering the arguments against the Gap theory.

This isn't about the Gap theory, ACB. And no I don't see a difference because I have no need to insert a gap, since its not a preset choice for me, I don't need to change the meaning of the text which would suit my usage later. And the issue at its basic its about reading Hebrew correctly and within context, both of which you avoid citing obsolete and erroneous research.

Quoting a dictionary means nothing, e.g just look at the word "quick" and how its uses have changed over time in English language.

Calvinism also has to sometimes juggle the words around to suit its mainframe and that was one issue I have with it, somehow the the world for which Christ died, doesn't remain the world. They have to read in their specific meaning to convince themselves that it does, which the normal reading doesn't support.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:
...As we can see they do not mean the same thing like YEC's claim.

? You don't see a difference? I've been going back over things neo and considering other people's arguments but despite their claims it seems to me that they are wrong for why they claim to reject the Gap theory.I do consider the arguments that have been made against it and I'd change my mind if they were right but it seems that their reasons for rejecting it have more to do with bias than the facts.Still,I still consider that I might be wrong and am just being biased.Evidence matters to me neo more than more popular theories and I'm going by evidence while considering the arguments against the Gap theory.

This isn't about the Gap theory, ACB. And no I don't see a difference because I have no need to insert a gap, since its not a preset choice for me, I don't need to change the meaning of the text which would suit my usage later. And the issue at its basic its about reading Hebrew correctly and within context, both of which you avoid citing obsolete and erroneous research.

Quoting a dictionary means nothing, e.g just look at the word "quick" and how its uses have changed over time in English language.

Calvinism also has to sometimes juggle the words around to suit its mainframe and that was one issue I have with it, somehow the the world for which Christ died, doesn't remain the world. They have to read in their specific meaning to convince themselves that it does, which the normal reading doesn't support.

Well I actually consider reasons given why the Gap theory is wrong,yet when I actually examine evidence I see that they were wrong in why they rejected it.I think it is good to question our interpretations and honestly consider reasons given why they say the Gap theory is wrong,but when I look into it? They are the ones wrong.Still,I do consider their reasons for denying it,it just does'nt hold up under further scrutiny.I expect truthful reasons why something is wrong.

[neo-x]

ACB wrote:
...As we can see they do not mean the same thing like YEC's claim.

? You don't see a difference? I've been going back over things neo and considering other people's arguments but despite their claims it seems to me that they are wrong for why they claim to reject the Gap theory.I do consider the arguments that have been made against it and I'd change my mind if they were right but it seems that their reasons for rejecting it have more to do with bias than the facts.Still,I still consider that I might be wrong and am just being biased.Evidence matters to me neo more than more popular theories and I'm going by evidence while considering the arguments against the Gap theory.

This isn't about the Gap theory, ACB. And no I don't see a difference because I have no need to insert a gap, since its not a preset choice for me, I don't need to change the meaning of the text which would suit my usage later. And the issue at its basic its about reading Hebrew correctly and within context, both of which you avoid citing obsolete and erroneous research.

Quoting a dictionary means nothing, e.g just look at the word "quick" and how its uses have changed over time in English language.

Calvinism also has to sometimes juggle the words around to suit its mainframe and that was one issue I have with it, somehow the the world for which Christ died, doesn't remain the world. They have to read in their specific meaning to convince themselves that it does, which the normal reading doesn't support.

Well I actually consider reasons given why the Gap theory is wrong,yet when I actually examine evidence I see that they were wrong in why they rejected it.I think it is good to question our interpretations and honestly consider reasons given why they say the Gap theory is wrong,but when I look into it? They are the ones wrong.Still,I do consider their reasons for denying it,it just does'nt hold up under further scrutiny.I expect truthful reasons why something is wrong.

This isn't about the GAP theory, and this is no excuse to alter the text to use it in a way it fits your needs.