The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

[Byblos]

Maybe an exorcism could expunge this gap thinking obsession? Any good Catholic practitioners in the house?

Not touching that with a 10-foot papal ferula.

[abelcainsbrother]

OK as far as the words bara and asah or created and made in english.I've actually simplified what they mean from researching the Hebrew. Anytime you see bara or created anywhere in the OT it is always something new God created but when you see asah or made anywhere in the OT it is something that had already been created before,it is not new,it has already been done before by God.

So that when you read Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It means they are new creations that had never been created before.

Yes, so agreement, so moving onto Gen 1:2: "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." You said:

Most Gap Theorist claim that it can say the earth became without form,and void. And they base this alot of times on Genesis 19:28"But his wife looked back from behind him,and she became a pillar of salt." These are the same hebrew words (hayah) both in Genesis 1:2 and here in Genesis 19:28 showing that it is translated became,but there are more examples in the OT kinda like with the hebrew word (yom) where there are examples it can mean longer than 24 hour days.However it is not necessary to change it to became and some Gap theorists don't.

First, we should note Gen 1:2 appears to be a running thought, that is, a continuation of Gen 1:1. There is the letter vav prefixed to ha'erets (the earth) in Gen 1:2. This may/may not be significant, since all the verses in Gen 1 have this; I find it significant that Gen 1:2 begins with v'ha'erets (And'the'earth) -- there is a certain accentuation in Hebrew and rhythm -- and the author picks up the flow in verse 2 with where verse 1 "ended" with 'ha'erets'.

The author could have re-jigged the words like in Gen 1:12 which also has in English translations: "And the earth brought forth grass." In the actual Hebrew though, the "brought forth" comes first prior to "the earth". Notice, that Gen 1:11 the focus is of grass and herbs coming out of the ground, so it is just proper that Gen 1:12 continue that focus on the coming forth.

Similarly, I'd reason that Gen 1:2 is continuation a focus in Gen 1:1 with an accentuation of "the earth", and this is supported by the flow of the text in Hebrew.

Why is this important? Well, it just lends weight against those who argue Gen 1:1 is just a summary statement of all that follows in Gen 1:2+. They're now on poorer foundations for such an interpretation. This doesn't really affect ACB much though, or does it?

If we have a continuation of thought into verse 2, then this is all at the same time. Where then is there room for a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 -- these are a continuation of thought. I mean take a look at how the Hebrew Transliterated Bible flows at http://biblehub.com/interlinear/transli ... esis/1.htm, verse 1 and 2 are grouped together, and correctly so! There is no break here between verse 1 and verse 2.

In relation to this ACB, you state of Gap Theorists:

Yes we believe there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Hopefully you can see this interpolation (introduction) of something not in the text, which has to be exegeted (read into) the text, and such is on really shaky grounds.

Also, your reference to Gen 19:28 of Lot's wife looking back, it doesn't really matter. In fact, rendering hayah "became" rather than "was" perhaps better supports the continuation of Gen 1:1 into Gen 1:2 as Day-Agers interpret, especially in light of the fact that God's creating in the active sense ('bara'), then in Gen 1:2 God is still active in creation!

To be clear to those reading, in Gen 1:2 we have "And the earth was formless and void" and ACB just reasoned that some Gappists believe "And the earth became formless and void" better fits based upon Gen 19:28 where Lot's wife "became" ('hayah') a pillar of salt (as opposed to "was a pillar of salt" which doesn't make much sense in light of the story).

Therefore the earth became formless and void (through angelic destruction of the creation of universe created in Gen 1:1) -- this is what ACB is getting at with the Gap Theory in reference to Lot's wife becoming a pillar of sale. So then, what of this and does it matter?

Well firstly, I already reasoned in my opening post of verse 1, which ACB you seem to agree with, that the ha'shamayim v'eth ha'erets refers to the totality of the universe and NOT an "the heavens" and then the "planet earth" in a separate sense. That is, Genesis 1:1 is just saying as the ISV translation has that "God created the universe."

So then, we come the Gen 1:2 where it reads v'ha'erets ("And the earth"), this is now a direct reference to earth. Keep in mind all signs point to verse 2 being more than likely a continuation of God's active creating ('bara') in verse 1, and the earth then actively becomes formless and void. This is the first beginnings of earth.

Now, I don't want to inject science into the picture, but it is here helpful to elucidating what might be going on. God created the universe and it's just come into existence. As science tell us, the universe has been expanding ever since it existed as far back as we can measure to Planck time, which is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after point zero (i.e., the beginning of the universe).

From there, earth was formed from an accumulation of particles into a massive object in it's rotation and gravitationally attracting more matter. Largely volcanic, due to collisions with other bodies, it eventually coalesced and cooled over time forming a solid crust and a thin layer of water developed on the Earth's surface.

Ok, now I don't want to read science into Scripture, and I'm not, but surely the parallel here to Genesis 1:1-2 account is obvious? Yes, the earth "became" formless and void, but that was part if its actual development -- not because some unmentioned destruction happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 -- of which the Hebraic text is highly suggestive that verse 2 is a continuation of verse 1 which closes any such gap!

So then, I'm not at all anti interpreting "was formless and void" in Genesis 1:2 as "became formless and void". This appears to be a continuation of God's active creation ('bara') in Genesis 1:1. AND, I'm not reading in additional narrative into Scripture as to how the earth became formless and void -- it's just all flowing on from verse 1 with God's creation of our universe!

The former world had to do with Genesis 1:1 but it later became without form and void and the first day did not start until verse 3 and it was God restoring the earth and heavens after verse 3 in order to create the life for this world.

Disagree, Day 1 begins in Gen 1:1 is how I see matters. God starts actively creating 'bara' in Genesis 1:1. You correctly said: "Anytime you see bara or created anywhere in the OT it is always something new God created." God's creation begins on Day 1 and vice-versa, and that active creation ('bara') is found in Gen 1:1.

Now what might we expect if the Gap Theory was found in Scripture? Well, perhaps the destruction would have happened on Day 2 and God re-created on Day 3. The days there, help to break up the creation into an order.

Furthermore, here is what Exodus 20:11 says about the "heavens and the earth" like in Gen 1:1:

• "For in six days the LORD made ('asah')the heavens and the earth ('ha'shamayim-veh'ha'erets'), the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

The ha'shamayim v'ha'erets (the heavens and the earth) are IN the six days. Not outside of, therefore the first day began in Gen 1:1 NOT Gen 1:3 as you here say.

Where we differ from YEC's is they don't know the difference between the words create and made and we do so they do not interpret Genesis 1 properly,where we agree though is it was 6-10,000 years ago when God made this world we now live in.He did not create it in the 6 days like they think though.

Some YECs would acknowledge the distinction between 'bara' and 'asah', considering some YECs actually place the creation of the Sun in day 1. Others however, see much fuss about nothing between these two words. I personally see significance to there being a distinction.

It is interesting for example that Exodus 20:11 uses 'asah' (complete act) of God having made the heavens and the earth, whereas Gen 1:1 says God created ('bara') the heavens and the earth. The difference seems obvious to me with Exodus 20:11 recollecting the creation of the heavens and earth and all that is in them, and Gen 1:1 detailing God's active creation.

But also YEC's make Genesis 1:1-3 all apart of the first day,we disagree with this.The first day started in verse 3 and is why it ends with "and the evening and the morning were the first day".

No, you're wrong.
Some YEC's do not include Gen 1:1 in day one. As I previously wrote some consider verse 1 a summary.
Day-Age and some other YECs see Day 1 as beginning in Gen 1:1 -- which Exodus 20:11 supports.
God's active creation ('bara') clearly starts in Gen 1:1, so what support do you offer for the odd start of Day 1 at Gen 1:3 where there isn't even a bara reference let alone an asah?

We agree they were 24 hour days too because of these phrases "and the evening and the morning were the ..." after each day that clearly is saying it was a 24 hour day.

No, we do not agree at all. Day-Age also do not agree. Only 24-hour YECs would agree with you.

Take them as ordinary days if you will, but assigning time is reading in something not there in the text. The days could have been a few hours less, they could have been more, we do not know. The text does not say, and I'd argue that the author wasn't concerned with how long a day is as YEC 24-hourists and Day-Agers make out.

The most literal reading would assume that there was an evening and morning cycle hence the Sun going through Earth's sky. Some YECs believe God created the Sun on Day 1, and works in the day, rests during the night. Fewer YECs believe there was simply light and darkness without any source.

Both Day-Age and YECs can believe them to be ordinary days without assigning a length of time. However, some YECs choose to assign "24 hours" to the days, Day-Agers tend to take up a symbolic meaning of these ordinary days representing an unspecified period of time (both are variants in the Hebrew lexicon!).

For myself, I've come to see it is often important to stop where Scripture stops. We're all often quick to shove what we feel or want to be the case into words, where actually it's not clear at all. People like completion, but in many instances Scripture leaves us incomplete. In such cases, it is likely because the author in Scripture is focused upon and concerned about something else entirely than what we're concerned about.

So with Genesis 1, time is just not dealt with. To assign "24 hours" or long periods of time covering billions and millions of years to each day, well the author evidently isn't concerned to define such.

Instead, I'd argue the author is employing the use of the seven day 6-1 structure to emphasise God's Lordship over all, and then once the seven day creation is completed we have in Genesis 2:4 God now being referenced as Yehovah elohiym ("LORD God") instead of just elohiym (God). Why? Well some suggest different authors, but another reason is because God has now been identified as the LORD of all creation -- the focus of Genesis chapter 1 up until Gen 2:4. This is what the author has been setting out to establish since Gen 1:1.

• 8“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Genesis 1 is about revealing who is the LORD ('Yehovah') of everything, Israel's God ('elohiym'). It's not concern with periods of time, but it is right a proper for us all to remember who the one true Lord is. So no wonder keeping the sabbath day was a commandment! To not keep it would be for Israel to deny their God as rightful LORD of all of creation! But, that there is my theology...

There is no need to stretch the days out to be longer in order to have an old earth because the bible already teaches an old earth.

To be more fair, it neither necessarily teaches an old or young earth and universe, although I strongly feel it leans towards such being old and ancient. We should be careful to stop where Scripture stops.

What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days? No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new. Because any other translation we go with angels are not mentioned in the 6 days and yet we know angels exist and we know Satan is a fallen angel as well as a third of the angels. also the first time we see or hear about Satan in Genesis 3 he is already Satan. So how did he skip from Lucifer to Satan and we don't hear about it? This is why it makes since to believe Lucifer ruled over the former world in the garden of God until he rebelled and God poured out judgment and the earth became without form and void,or empty and waste. We cannot just ignore angels in the creation story in Genesis 1 and only the Gap Theory has the answer of why angels are not created in the six days,it is because they had already been created in the beginning.

Also you brought up Exodus 20:11 inwhich it tells us God MADE them in the 6 days and yet how come it seems you think made means the same thing as created? They are not interchangeable like certian people think. Even in english created and made have a slightly different meaning and they do in hebrew too.

But not only do we have Exodus 20:11 telling us God made them in the 6 days we also have Genesis 2:2 telling us this also plus Isaiah 45:18 telling us God made it and that he did not create the earth in a waste state in the beginning but that he created it in the beginning to be inhbited so that we know the earth was inhabited in the beginning whenever he created it,so we know God did not create the earth in a empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says and I think it makes our all powerful God look weak to believe when he created the earth it was junk and not new and perfect like Genesis 1:1 suggests because it would have been brand new,both the heaven and earth in the beginning, and so he had to decorate it? Does not sound right. But science teaches for now the earth was a molten lava hell pretty much in its beginning but that science seems to be changing like I mentioned above with zircon crystals.

[abelcainsbrother]

I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).

No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.

[Philip]

Not touching that with a 10-foot papal ferula.

I had to look up that term.

[Kurieuo]

What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days?

You're kind of loading in "Gap" ideas with your thinking here.
God didn't intend have the end objective of earth to be an empty and wasted state, rather earth passed through a "formless and void" state during God's creation.

No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new.

Perfectly "brand new" or do you actually mean perfectly "completed"?
What for you is wrapped up in "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets) in Gen 1:1.
Like visually, if we could see such a creation, what do you think someone would have seen?

[abelcainsbrother]

What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days?

You're kind of loading in "Gap" ideas with your thinking here.
God didn't create earth in an empty and waste state, rather earth passed through a "formless" state after which it was "empty" or "void".

No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new.

Perfectly "brand new" or do you actually mean perfectly "completed"?
What for you is wrapped up in "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets).
Where do you agree/disagree with what I wrote about such?

Yes I mean perfectly completed. How long was it when the earth passed through a formless state after which it was empty or void?

The heavens and the earth represents the entire universe and everything in it after God spoke and it was perfect and inhabited also from the beginning based on Isaiah 45:18. I don't like this idea we must read Genesis as if it as we have not read the rest of the bible because when you say I'm loading the Gap idea into it,it is based on what the bible says in other places that allows me to load Gap thinking into it. It is not just made up,it has always been based on other scriptures throughout the bible why we load a gap into it. This is what so many who reject it don't understand.They assume we made it fir first and then tried to find other scripture to support it,etc.But it is based on what the rest of the bible reveals to us throughout both the old and new testaments.

I probably seemed alittle rude maybe because I did'nt address all of your points but it was'nt meant in a bad way or anything but I was trying to address your overall point from your above post because some of it seemed like your opinion,so I tried to address the biblical points you were explaining. I will try to go back over it and reply to each of your points.

[abelcainsbrother]

I think I can teach the Gap Theory only using Genesis 1 though,although it is harder to but the key is knowing the difference between created and made and then reading Genesis 1 with a very strict adherence to it.

[abelcainsbrother]

Let's try to do it.Let's try to read Genesis 1 by knowing the difference between created and made and reading it with very strict adherence to it. First of all you need to know why it is important to know the difference between created and made and we know it is important because of Genesis 2:1-4 where Moses stresses for us to know the difference.

Genesis 2:1-4 "1.Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,and the whole host of them.2.And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.3.And God blessed the seventh day,and sactified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.4.These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

OK go back over this several times and notice the words made and created being used.In verse 2 we see that God ended his work which he had made but then Moses reiterates it again in the same verse that he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. Notice in verse 3 notice how in this verse God ended his work which God created and made,so now he adds the word created in here with the word made. You'll see that God mostly makes things but he does create certian things in Genesis 1.Then in verse 4 we can see there were generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. So we know the heavens and earth are generations old,which means when they were created there were generations of the heavens and of the earth,so the heavens and earth we already know are old but then we see that in the day when the Lord God made it,he made it,he did not create it.And another thing we see is that in the day God did this he made the earth and heavens,this is important as we'll see when we get to Genesis 1.

So from this we see Moses is really trying to get us to understand the difference between created and made but also we already know the heavens and earth are old before we even read Genesis 1.So we can already assume the heavens and earth are old when we read it,we know there were generations of the heavens and of the earth before God made it in the day he made it,which are the six days.

Now I have simplified the hebrew meaning for the words bara and asah from researching the hebrew.When we see created it is the hebrew word "bara" and when we see made it is the hebrew word "asah".Now if we were reading it in hebrew we would see bara and asah in the text as we read and would know the difference as we read it but we are reading from english so we have created and made.But the principle still applies.

Now anytime we see the word created it means God had never created this before,it is a brand new creation from God and perfect and new,it is something new God created. However when we see the word made it is something God had already created before,it is not something new,God had already done this before or had already created this before,it already exists or existed before and God is working on it. Now go over this a few times and try to memorize it. Notice that they do not mean the samething,they are not interchangeable,they are similar but do not mean the samething.

Now Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

OK we know the heavens and earth are already old and we see that God created them so we know that these had never been created before,they are new,they are perfect the way God intended them to be,a new creation,God had not done this before,he is not working on it,it is finished and complete,we could even say.

But let's look at Genesis 1:2 because something has happened."And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

OK so since we know that God had already created the earth and it was a new creation and perfect the way God intended it to be and perfect, we can ask,what happened? It is not necessary to change the hebrew word to became because we can see something happened to cause it to become like this.So what happened to cause the earth to now be in this state and we know the heavens and earth are old.But what can we tell by this description we read and what can it tell us? We know the earth had already been created before and it is in its orbit,but we also know that the heaven already exists too.But the earth is in an empty and waste state and it is in water and since there is no light shining it is in darkness we can know it was frozen too,in this state,we can think of a flood especially when we think of the deep and water.The earth is now in bad shape and no life is on it and it is uninhabitable at this point.

So what does God do? first he says "Let their be light: and there was light. So we can assume the water frozen begins to melt.And God divides the light from darkness which seems to imply an evil force that already exists,I would think Satan and his evil kingdom.Is that cheating? By borrowing from other books when I said with only Genesis 1?At the very least there is already an evil presence.But God also establishes day time from night time too based on there being both a good and bad force,and notice he says the light is good too.And this was the first day.

And God said,Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters the earth is in.And it sais God MADE the firmament so we know this was not something new,it was something that had alredy been created before,God was working on something that he had already created before.But he divides the firmament from the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. Try to picture the earth is in water and God makes the firmament in the midst of the waters,think in the middle of these waters on the earth and then he divides these waters that are on the earth and raises the firmament like stretching it both up to heaven and down off the earth while it divides these waters off of the earth all the way up to heaven to seperate heaven where God lives from us down to the earth.In this process the waters the earth is in are removed off of the earth.Remember the crystal sea in Revelation? Notice God does not say it is good like he does on the other days because this seperated us from God,but was necessary.

I am trying to show the earth was flooded and what God did about it to remove it off of the earth.But now I will only focus on when the words created or made are used in Genesis 1 to show what it reveals.However keep in mind that everything is being made except when you see the word created as you read,very important.It is not being created until something is created otherwise it is made even if it does not say made.This is based on Genesis 2:1-4 above. God is working on something that had already been created before and it is old.

I'll give an example of how important it is and what it reveals. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass,the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,whose seed is in itself,upon the earth." Notice the phrase after his kind,since we know God made this,it is not new,it had already been created before and he made them after his kind,which tells us this was made after these kind of things that had been created before that had been on the earth before.So the earth already had this before because it is not new,it had not been created.The earth is old so we can know there was this kind of life before on the earth before the earth was flooded and became empty and waste and it had died.Which is why God made it again.

We see the samething in Genesis 1 as we read on.
And God made two great lights one to rule the day and one to rule the night.These are not new,they had already been created before,God is working on them,he made the stars also. The same thing applies.They already exist.

And God created great whales/sea creatures and every living creature that moveth in the waters,so these are brand new creations that had never been created before,they are new and perfect the way God intended them to be and he created them after their kind too,which means these were new kinds of life based on old kinds of life that had been created before,that had been on the earth before it became empty and wate and flooded where they died.

Now I think you have it down enough so that you can read the rest for yourself and apply these principles when it comes to the words created and made in Genesis 1. You'll see how it opens up so much more understanding when you read.It brings out things you may have overlooked when you read Genesis 1.

[Jac3510]

I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).

No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.

Oh, I know . . . rather than ban K OR make him world dictator, we could add the word "gap" to the swear filter!

fakeedit: I think you need to replace the batteries in your facetiousness detector, ACB. It's all good. You're all like



And I'm all like

[Audie]

I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).

No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.

What is with this thing you do, thinking people "get mad" or "upset"?
Do you not understand how deeply disrespectful it is?

Nobody here gets "mad" at you. Exasperated now and then, sometimes feel sorry
for you.

[abelcainsbrother]

Drop of Lucifer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zsIwUjMtmg

[Nessa]

I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).

No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.

What is with this thing you do, thinking people "get mad" or "upset"?
Do you not understand how deeply disrespectful it is?

I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think there is anything disrespectful at all in what acb is doing. He possibly is sensitive (not always a bad thing) and misunderstands at times where people are coming from. E.G thinking they maybe upset when they are not.

It is also hard to always gauge how people mean something in their post. There is no tone, body language etc

[Audie]

I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).

No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.

What is with this thing you do, thinking people "get mad" or "upset"?
Do you not understand how deeply disrespectful it is?

I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think there is anything disrespectful at all in what acb is doing. He possibly is sensitive (not always a bad thing) and misunderstands at times where people are coming from. E.G thinking they maybe upset when they are not.

It is also hard to always gauge how people mean something in their post. There is no tone, body language etc

You are right, tho it is also so that if a person keeps saying something aftrr repeated
explanations / corrections, it is legit to question their intent.p


I should talk, hypersensitive as I am.

Whether my heart is really flint would need a geologist to say.

[Kurieuo]

Whether my heart is really flint would need a geologist to say.

Gosh, I don't know what that means really, to have a heart of flint, but it made me laugh.

[RickD]

Whether my heart is really flint would need a geologist to say.

Gosh, I don't know what that means really, to have a heart of flint, but it made me laugh.

I'd have to say it means her heart is contaminated.

It's a reference to the contaminated water in Flint, Michigan.