DBowling wrote:I'm not defending the Young Earth tradition. That's yet another factually false statement that you've made in this thread. I even defended the Day-age position to a Young-Earther in this very thread.abelcainsbrother wrote:You're still defending a young earth interpretation eventhough you claim to be an old earther.I have showed you a few examples of how the KJV gives an old earth interpretation.Why are you defending a young earth interpretation when you're an old earther?DBowling wrote: Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.
On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.
According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.
Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.
All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.
Then do you agree with me that the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 destroys the Gap Theory all by itself?I go by God's word first not science.
You are factually wrong... again.Nope! The word MAKE in Genesis 1:26 is not "asah" it is a different hebrew word.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen ... _conc_1026
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?it is new life when "bara" is used
Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?
You are correct that in Genesis 1:26 it is the hebrew word "asah" I will give you that.And that is one thing that I see I overlooked. However because there were pre-adamite races it just confirms for me that it means there was former life before God created man and woman.It is another sign that the earth is old and not young that I overlooked. It does not help you much and it will still be consistant throughout the whole OT about "bara" and "asah" like I said.And man and woman were still created new and I would say this is why hominids and neanderthals are different than man is despite the way evolutionists interpret it and look at it.
The reason why I say you're defending a young earth interpretation is because you are getting a young earth interpretation insisting "male" can only be "fill'.It is giving you a young earth interpretation. But what you fail to see is that by keeping it "refill" or replenish" like in the KJV bible it helps the Day Age interpretation as well although not as well as the Gap Theory interpretation imo. Because Day Agers acknowledge that there were races of people like beings before God created man and woman also and so it confirms their interpretation too.It just gets kindof tricky where to add them in and on what day they existed before they went extinct.I think that Day Agers need to consider if they agree neanderthals co-existed with man or not and why,because we don't.
No I don't agree that when "bara" is used it means it never existed before,it just means it is new but for me because of "asah" being used it is actually "asah" that reveals to me life had already existed and so just from that I think we can realize it. The way I look at it is only God can truly create things while rthings can really only be made by man,but God can do both.
bara still denotes something new God did even if it is made from pre-existing materials like with "asah" but it still means it is something new and not when we see "asah". So that in Genesis 1:26 where "asah" is used it is just a sign to us that life kindof like this existed before giving us a hint that the earth is old but in the next verse Genesis 1:27 God creates man and woman and so they are new.When we see "asah" it is not something new God did.
You know DB I must say that I like the challenge you have given me and I actually appreciate you taking the time to address this subject and I have not just discounted what you've explaned at all in a blindly discounting way. I don't mind being challenged about the interpretation I believe is true.You know like the old expression iron sharpens iron.I think it is important to question ourselves and our interpretations and not just blindly believe it.I seriously examined what you have explained and challenged myself to make sure and to see if I'm right or wrong.I hope that even you can take the time to question the way you interpret it and honestly consider the things I have addressed and explained like I have yours.I think we can learn from it.
