Creationism

Iosias · #21 13th March 2007, 05:11 PM

I hold to YEC

B®ent · #22 13th March 2007, 05:36 PM

The shift in Fundamentalism over the past 100 years is very interesting. Even 100 years ago, I believe many (if not most) Fundamentalists were Gap Theory Creationists. What happened?

Iosias · #23 13th March 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by B®ent

The shift in Fundamentalism over the past 100 years is very interesting. Even 100 years ago, I believe many (if not most) Fundamentalists were Gap Theory Creationists. What happened?

Gap Theory was really a knee jerk reaction to the teaching of evolutionists and those scientists who using modern scientific methods which are absolutely inerrant decided that the earth was billions of years old. Furthermore Gap Theory has no real biblical basis and so with the rise of a more systematic and, dare I say it, thinking fundamentalism, it was rejected.

B®ent · #24 13th March 2007, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611

Gap Theory was really a knee jerk reaction to the teaching of evolutionists

Nonsense. Gap Theory originated 40 years before Darwin; and there are writings 500 years ago which also hint at the Gap Theory.

Iosias · #25 13th March 2007, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by B®ent

Nonsense. Gap Theory originated 40 years before Darwin; and there are writings 500 years ago which also hint at the Gap Theory.

To which I reply; this does negate my point, because,

1. The key thinkers were Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), Rev. William Buckland Hugh Miller and possibly Episcopius (1583-1643). However the issue is not when GT was invented but rather why it became popular and its sudden popularity was "a knee jerk reaction to the teaching of evolutionists", but as I also said, "scientists who ... decided that the earth was billions of years old."
2. As I have just pointed out, it was not about when GT was dreamt up but when it became poular and so it is well said "
Perhaps we should not be too hard on those Christians who revived the gap theory in the late 1800s. This was a time when Charles Darwin's ideas and the theory of evolution were wrongly starting to be promoted as fact. Many Christians were looking for a way to explain how the Bible could be true in the face of what they thought were facts casting doubt on the Bible's trustworthiness.

The Bible, as Irish Archbishop James Ussher had worked out a couple of centuries earlier, at face value indicates that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
The gap theory seemed to provide an answer. Billions of years could be dumped in a “gap” that was thought may exist between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The idea gained support from Thomas Chalmers, George H. Pember, and later from C. I. Scofield, whose generally superb Scofield Reference Bible became sadly tarnished when its notes included support for this flawed theory."
(see)

B®ent · #26 13th March 2007, 06:58 PM

AV1611,

The fact that the popularity of the Gap Theory coincided with Darwinism does not in any way suggest that the Gap Theory was a "compromise." Personally, the Gap Theory is how I interpret the Bible. I believed the Gap Theory based on scripture even before I heard the theory proposed by others. The first time I heard the Gap Theory was in 2001, by the pastor of a Fundamentalist church in Seattle. I have the recording, somewhere, if you are interested.

From my point of view, it is a Fundamental view of scripture, along with YEC and OEC, all of which are legitimate interpretations of the Bible.

The Bible, as Irish Archbishop James Ussher had worked out a couple of centuries earlier, at face value indicates that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

That is the age of mankind. Not of the Earth itself.

Regards,
Brent

thunderlove · #27 15th March 2007, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by B®ent

So you accept that Adam and Eve replenished (refilled) the Earth?
[bible]Genesis 1:28[/bible]
It is important to note that the words 'fill' and 'replenish' in the OT are translated from the same Hebrew word. However, whereas this is translated 'fill' in Genesis 1:22, it is translated 'replenish' in Genesis 1:28. Why did the KJV translators choose to do this? Because they were guided by the Holy Spirit to choose that word in particular. Plain reading would seem to indicate that Adam and Eve were refilling what was once full at an earlier time.

That is only further evidence that the KJV is the true word of God, and "modern bibles" are not.

Or the opposite...

Originally Posted by B®ent

<clip>

Gap Theory explains the old appearance of the Earth, the fossil record, and various cosmological observations, all while interpreting the Bible literally.

<clip>

Originally Posted by B®ent

If nobody sinned before Adam, are you suggesting that Satan didn't sin when he rebelled against God?

'World' is translated from the Greek kosmos, which does not describe the Earth itself, but its inhabitants. Kosmos often speaks of great numbers of people, multitudes, or all of humanity. In this case, all of humanity.

The Pre-Adamites were not human. They were angelic beings.

So are you saying that death of animals entered the world through Satan (hence the fossils), and that Adam re-introduced death to animals?

Or are you saying that the animals in Eden were mortal, and that Adam introduced death to humankind alone?

B®ent · #28 15th March 2007, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by thunderlove

Or the opposite...

Are you saying our forefathers didn't have the perfect Word of God, because they didn't have the NIV or another modern translation? What makes these modern translations superior to the KJV?

So are you saying that death of animals entered the world through Satan (hence the fossils),

In the world of old, yes. God restores the Earth in the book of Genesis, however, and there is no more death. Until the Fall, that is...

Or are you saying that the animals in Eden were mortal, and that Adam introduced death to humankind alone?

What transpired on the earth of old has no bearing on the new earth restored by God in Genesis 1:3 and forward. God restored everything. But, Adam and Eve ruined this by sinning.

To say that Adam and Eve committed the first sin ever is to suggest that Satan did not sin when he rebelled against God.

Iosias · #29 16th March 2007, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by B®ent

Gap Theory is how I interpret the Bible.

Based upon what?

thunderlove · #30 19th March 2007, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by B®ent

Are you saying our forefathers didn't have the perfect Word of God, because they didn't have the NIV or another modern translation? What makes these modern translations superior to the KJV?

You started with a circular argument, and now introduced a false dilemma....

Circular argument: "The Gap theory is [supposedly] taught by the KJV, and KJV is reliable because it [supposedly] teaches the Gap theory..."

False dilemma: EITHER the KJV OR the NIV are verbally inspired.

My chief objection to the sole reliance on the KJV is that, as the result of the centuries, it uses in essence a foreign language. Too many words have changed in meaning. Replenish did not mean refill in the 17th century; it meant 'fill up'. (at least, not according to Oxford). So too does the original Hebrew word ML, from which it's translated.

I suspect I know your counter-arguments, so let me add this: the emphasis of both words (17th century replenish, and Hebrew ML) is on the state of being full. To fill up. No reference to whether it is the first such filling, or the ten-thousandth....

The word fill has a similar in modern English. Consider for example the subtle difference between "I filled my car's gas tank.", and "I refilled my car's gas tank."

Originally Posted by B®ent

In the world of old, yes. God restores the Earth in the book of Genesis, however, and there is no more death. Until the Fall, that is...

What transpired on the earth of old has no bearing on the new earth restored by God in Genesis 1:3 and forward. God restored everything. But, Adam and Eve ruined this by sinning.

I disagree

God said all of His creation was "very good". (Gen 1:31-2:1). Or does all really mean most? It doesn't sound to me like it all very good ~ Adam and Eve would be standing on an earth stained with the blood and remains of the dinosaurs!

And there are other, more foundational, problems with the Gap theory: Genesis 1: 3 describes the creation of light. What about this? Was this old earth cloaked in blackness? And what of v8, where God created the expanse of heaven, and v10, where God created the earth itself? The 'ancient' earth was all seas? And v14-18, there was no sun on this 'ancient' earth?

Originally Posted by B®ent

To say that Adam and Eve committed the first sin ever is to suggest that Satan did not sin when he rebelled against God.

You are the only one saying this.... I didn't say it, nor did oliveplants.

The Bible does not, to my knowledge, specify when Satan's rebellion took place. Given passages like Gen 1:31-2:1, and Eze 28:13, the only reasonable conclusion to me is that Satan fell some time after the creation.

And I can find no scriptural support at all for the notion that Adam re-introduced death to this earth. None.