The Gap Theory...

devin553344

I believe in the Resurrection
Nov 10, 2015
3,607
2,249
Unkown
✟93,810.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 And the earth was (became) 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.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Hi. I am a Genesis 1 literal'ist - however I do not believe in Noah's flood in the later chapters of the bible. I believe that there was a world before Genesis and the Bible - nothing much is known about that world, but the fossils remain as evidence, of a deluge or series of tsunamis - covering flora and fauna in sediment (same as the YECs teach).

Why don't I believe in Noah's flood? - Because of the distribution of animals and birds - especially marsupials in Australia, and birds. Also, if Noah took
on-board the Ark two foxes and two rabbits, then on disembarking the Ark, the foxes would eat the rabbits and then they would eat the gerbils and hamsters, and then would themselves starve - Noah's flood for me is impossible.
But - the YECs provide a compelling case, for the geology. There
seem to be some experts on this forum on geology - I am not, but I have seen for myself giant ammonites, one meter across on the stony beach at Lym Regis (UK) and I have found ammonites there myself. This is the Jurassic coast, where plesiosaurs and icthiosaurs were discovered - these creatures were originally found by amateurs and seem to me to be genuine - whereas I have serious doubts as to the authenticity of dinosaurs in general (see Eric Dubay).

YECs such as Grady Mc Murtry teach that fossils are dated according to the evolutionary theory - the animal types date the rocks where the fossils are found - is that true? For what it's worth, I reject evolution. I am an old earth creationist - but how old? - For coal to form, imo. sediment covered vegetation suddenly.
Coal has been carbon dated by YECs and has been found to contain virtually no carbon 14 - so the date for the coal is at least 40,000 years old. (Unless there was less carbon 14 available in the past - if there was an early creation - it takes some 10,000 years for carbon 14 to accumulate in the atmosphere).
Eric Dubay and others suggest that many dinosaurs lack form-function - they would have toppled over, with a head and body being too heavy to be counter-balanced by the tail - in the raptor type dinosaurs. Also, dinosaurs were and are conveniently discovered by those who stand to gain the most from the discoveries, anyway.
What I am posting here, is the possibility to discuss the Gap Theory, as a solution to the fossil record, for those who are creationists - atheists will not be interested. The gap is between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. There was darkness and water - suggesting that the earth had been submerged and whatever source of light there had been, was out - the sun, moon and stars of the biblical age had not as yet been created.

As nothing is known about the previous world, from the bible - then the ruins and fossils remain to suggest what was - imo. angels lived on a paradise world - along with the reptilian lifeforms, and with birds and bats, ammonites, trilobites - something killed off that life - presumably prolonged darkness.
There were no humans. Angels, being supernatural, would not fossilize, obviously. The angels fell from grace somehow, and the world was made ruin. The angels were exiled, somewhere else.

You don't believe in Noah's flood then how do you explain finding shellfish and whale fossils on the top of mountains: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-ocean-fossils-mountains-future.html
 
Upvote 0

Hiscosmicgoldfish3

Active Member
Mar 11, 2018
274
97
60
Barnstaple
✟19,869.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
When do you suggest the first day to begin?
Not in the beginning?
Just read the text.
In the beginning.... ....and it had been evening and it had been morning, the first day.
Every day is counted at the end of each of the 6 paragraphs.
You're thinking western days.
But Biblical days start in the evening, when it's dark (sun down).
In the beginning it was dark, and then God ordained there be light, and that was the first day.
The evening (dark) and the morning (light) were the first day.
But opinions vary.
What do i know. I wasn't there at the time.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

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.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

it is the first day, when God said let there be light - the days are also a structure to the text. there is still a gap between v1 and v2 - And God called the light Day - the light indicates the first day.
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,818
✟328,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

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.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

it is the first day, when God said let there be light - the days are also a structure to the text. there is still a gap between v1 and v2 - And God called the light Day - the light indicates the first day.
You're thinking western days.
But Biblical days start in the evening, when it's dark (sun down).
In the beginning it was dark, and then God ordained there be light, and that was the first day.
The evening (dark) and the morning (light) were the first day.
 
Upvote 0

GUANO

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2013
739
324
40
Los Angeles
✟32,324.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is not important whether or not the creation myth in Genesis 1 is literal. There is no 'useful application' for a literal Genesis creation and it's not important even in the least bit to the rest of the Bible. Genesis is useful for is establishing archetypes and important themes that are developed and referred to throughout the canon as well as establishing Hebrew Cosmology which is important for understanding the meaning of dreams, visions, and prophetic utterances throughout the canon... I personally use the cosmology in Genesis as a good map for the psyche which is ultimately where the 'spirits' reside and where all spiritual things take place...

Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The sun/stars were created on Day 4. What are the "luminaries" you mentioned above?

Thanks!

--David
If we read the Genesis account literally on day 1 light is created but on day 4 the sun, stars and moon. This is why literal misses the point.

The creation account is more about God organizing chaos and allowing good to reign. In the beginning there was preexisting chaos then God goes through a processes of organizing the chaos and filling it (the word for creation can also mean 'to fill' or 'to fatten') and he fills it with that which is good. What is this preexisting chaos? It doesn't matter and is not relevant to the account, nor is it literal.

He starts by separating the light and darkness, the waters and the sky, and the waters and the land then he fills these things, first the celestial objects, then the birds and sea creatures, and then land animals. Note the pattern where day 1 and day 4 compliment each other and this also works with 2-5 and 3-6. Days 1-3 God separates and prepares and Days 4-6 God fills these things.

This all echos the plan of God and points to him. Literalism misses the point and so do gaps. That's not the point or even a sub point. The point is God and that he sent his light into the world.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If we read the Genesis account literally on day 1 light is created but on day 4 the sun, stars and moon. This is why literal misses the point.
Maybe the point missed is that the light on the first day was not the sun.
The creation account is more about God organizing chaos and allowing good to reign. In the beginning there was preexisting chaos then God goes through a processes of organizing the chaos and filling it (the word for creation can also mean 'to fill' or 'to fatten') and he fills it with that which is good.
It depends.
"Without form and void" is not exactly the same as chaos.
"Chaos" usually implies it was less chaotic before.

I'm not sure where to stand on this though.
Reading it at face value, the steps towards the resulting creation and the sequence of the days seem to be relevant.
It also became a part of the 10 Commandments.
God seems to want to get something across i.m.o.
He starts by separating the light and darkness, the waters and the sky, and the waters and the land then he fills these things, first the celestial objects,
Well, no...
Celestial objects came on the 4th day.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I never made it about salvation. Of course I question why someone who claims to be saved would throw out such an important teaching in the Bible.

But I'm really curious how you would answer the events I mentioned in my last comment. How do you decide which miracles or events are true and which are not?

And again, if you can't trust the first 10 chapters of the Bible, how can you trust anything else to be true? Is the word of God mingled with lies?

I'm glad you asked!

I believe in every miracle in the Bible. Every last one.

I was saying this to you above. Is that visible?
The Gap Theory..(post 35).
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe the point missed is that the light on the first day was not the sun.

Ok, I'm totally ok with others believing other guesses, but Earth has day and night because the sun shines on the Earth and the Earth rotates.

We should not worship our doctrines or theories though!!!

Everything we see, all, is God's design. His.

His design -- gravity. Chemistry. Physics. Orbits. Light. Nuclear fusion.

All His design. By His amazing ability to create.

Life began on Earth we can see, in both Genesis 1 (and also in science) under clouded skies. It's no surprise that science over time begins to line up with Genesis chapter 1. That the moon and stars can only be seen from the surface of the Earth only on a clear sky day/night isn't the ultimate thing to notice here even. The Narration from God, Himself, to Moses, tells Moses (and us!) why these are "good." We are on an amazing Earth in an amazing Universe....

"...and it was very good."

This world, this sky, this Universe -- is a very good place He made. A wonderful home. If we had not fallen this would truly be a full paradise!

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ok, I'm totally ok with others believing other guesses, but Earth has day and night because the sun shines on the Earth and the Earth rotates.
I would say earth has a day and a night because that's how God ordained it.
He apparently (reading Genesis 1 at face value) put a mechanical clockwork in place (the solar system) on the 4th day.
Before that i assume God was the light source, just like He will be eventually (somewhere in Revelations it says so).
But that's literal reading.
But i don't really see why it shouldn't be read literally.
But eventually there will be no sea either, so there is something to interpreting the waters of the deep and the 'having become' chaos as a time period before or during the 1st day.
We should not worship our doctrines or theories though!!!
I agree.
It's not all that important i.m.o.
I just find myself defending the literal reading every time this is discussed.
This is God's design. His.

His design -- gravity. Chemistry. Physics. Orbits. Light. Nuclear fusion.

All His design. By His amazing ability to create.

Life began on Earth we can see, in both Genesis 1 (and also in science) under clouded skies.
Where are the clouds in Genesis?
Yeah, i'm sure science assumes there must have been clouds, and rain too, probably...
Genesis states it hadn't rained in those days though.
It's no surprise that science over time begins to line up with Genesis chapter 1. That the moon and stars can only be seen from the surface of the Earth only on a clear sky day/night isn't the ultimate thing to notice here even. The Narration from God, Himself, to Moses, tells Moses (and us!) why these are "good." We are on an amazing Earth in an amazing Universe....
Hmmm... That's a matter of perception.
I think our reality sucks a little.
sure, nature (creation) is impressive and humbling, but there's too much death suffering and evil everywhere.
Even before i became a Christian i was under the impression something must have either gone terribly wrong with the once Paradise like creation, or that somehow evil and suffering were meant to be part of it by design.
"...and it was very good."
Yeah, past tense...
This world, this sky, this Universe -- is a very good place He made. A wonderful home. If we had not fallen this would truly be a full paradise!

.
Exactly.
I now have faith and hope it will all be Paradise eventually.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hiscosmicgoldfish3

Active Member
Mar 11, 2018
274
97
60
Barnstaple
✟19,869.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
I have lifted this post from over on the other creation/evolution forum:

How many Christians here on CF believe in the "Gap Theory" in Gen 1:1,2?

I am interested in knowing how many Christians on CF believe or not believe in the "Gap Theory".
Below is a synopsis of it from one site, for those unfamiliar with that view, tho there are a plethora of resources on the Net concerning this topic. Let the discussion begin......

Gap theory creationism - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Gap Theory Creationism, also known as the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation of Genesis, is a belief system which holds that there is a "gap" of time inferred from the Bible during which the Earth became "ruined", and was then "reconstructed" during the six days of creation described in Genesis. The gap theory claims that God pronounced a cataclysmic judgment upon the earth during this period (Gap) as the result of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) and that the verses following Genesis Chapter 1:2 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state; this re-creation, then, is not the first creative work of God.

The gap theory allows for both the geologic evidence of an old earth and the literal wording of the Holy Bible. It does not need to appeal to evolution, parable, symbolism, or allegory, nor does it deny accepted scientific data. Therefore, proponents believe it deserves full consideration..........

Proponents of the Gap teaching point out that the men that 'could not be found' & the cities that were destroyed were not men from the seed of Adam. In agreement with natural geological studies, the 'men' that rebelled were beings that lived during the Ice Age period. Where science does not have an answer for the spiritual events on planet earth, it inserts it's opinions & hypotheses. However, in their study of the 'men' during the Ice Age, they have found beings with a genetic code unlike ours, yet very human-like.

It is important to study the Hebrew definitions in both Genesis & Jeremiah as to why the earth became this way. These two Scriptures are the only reference where the earth, or the physical ground, is described as 'without form and void'. The Hebrews Strong's definition for 'without form' is 8414, are the following:

  1. formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
a) formlessness (of primeval earth): nothingness, empty space
b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)
c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
d) place of chaos
e) vanity

In God's dealings with sin & rebellion, sinful beings were destroyed by their nature's becoming violently perverted to Lucifer's propaganda against the Godhead. In the widely understood & excepted judgment in Noah's day, there is a detailed event of the race of men that refused to follow God. In the not-so detailed judgment in Lucifer's day, we rely on the harmony of Scriptures to ascertain why the LORD had fierce anger to the point of taking the earth to a place that was made an 'empty formless space'.


In enters the apostle Peter in the New Testament, who expounds even further on the judgment of Lucifer's rebellion.

Objections to the Gap Theory
Critics of the Gap Theory would say that the compromise of the gap theory is that it attempts to allow for both the supposed geologic evidence of an old earth and the literal wording of the Holy Bible. It claims not to need to appeal to evolution, parable, symbolism, or allegory, yet it accepts many evolutionary concepts of scientific data, such as millions of years.

A primary error of the Gap theory is that it asserts that the earth "became" without form and void as a result of this supposed prior catastrophe. If this is true, it would have annihilated the geologic, fossil and other evidences which the theory was invented to explain. In short, we have no evidence whatsoever for the Ruin-Reconstruction nature of this theory because it was annihilated before Genesis 1:2. If a theory needs anything, it's evidence for support.

The Gap Theory attempts to fork-lift the Earth's geology and fossil record into a prior time which is just as unmeasurable, untestable and un-observable as evolution itself.

The proponents of this theory are merely saying they don't believe the plain text of Scripture, so now give themselves the permission and authority to alter earth history with another version. They don't propose this theory in order to help them believe the Scripture more, but to believe it less.

Another error of the gap theory is seen in that it allows for millions of years of death and suffering before the fall of Adam. Yet Romans 5 (and I Cor 15:21-22) makes it clear that death came into the world through Adam.[2]..................

I am swayed by the arguments: Objections to the Gap Theory
  1. formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
a) formlessness (of primeval earth): nothingness, empty space
b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)
c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
d) place of chaos
e) vanity


the abyss would seem to be a place of formlessness and chaos, and not just a ruined earth covered in water. If I through out the Gap Theory, what have I got? - Old Earth creation, without uniformitarianism - an old earth, with a series of floods or tsunamis, catastrophism.
Any old Gap-world would have been erased, removing the geology, so it doesn't work as a viable theory, if the world was: a) formlessness (of primeval earth): nothingness, empty space
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The proponents of this theory are merely saying they don't believe the plain text of Scripture, so now give themselves the permission and authority to alter earth history with another version. They don't propose this theory in order to help them believe the Scripture more, but to believe it less.

I don't think proponents of the theory are saying they don't believe the plain text; I think they just see more in the plain text than do opponents of the theory.

Another error of the gap theory is seen in that it allows for millions of years of death and suffering before the fall of Adam. Yet Romans 5 (and I Cor 15:21-22) makes it clear that death came into the world through Adam.[2]..................

The death and suffering of pre-Adamic beings would have been of another world that God ended after verse one. Some pre-Adamic beings may have resembled Adamic man in ways, but they would not have been the same or even of the same world. Adam brought sin into the Adamic world.

Any old Gap-world would have been erased, removing the geology, so it doesn't work as a viable theory, if the world was: a) formlessness (of primeval earth): nothingness, empty space

God could have done it without erasing everything; He still called it earth, and there was still water according to verse two.
 
Upvote 0

Hiscosmicgoldfish3

Active Member
Mar 11, 2018
274
97
60
Barnstaple
✟19,869.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
I don't think proponents of the theory are saying they don't believe the plain text; I think they just see more in the plain text than do opponents of the theory.



The death and suffering of pre-Adamic beings would have been of another world that God ended after verse one. Some pre-Adamic beings may have resembled Adamic man in ways, but they would not have been the same or even of the same world. Adam brought sin into the Adamic world.



God could have done it without erasing everything; He still called it earth, and there was still water according to verse two.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

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.

without form, suggests nothing - abyss, not a previous earth. Darkness was on the face of the abyss. the waters also have a face or surface - water and abyss.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

implies that the darkness was not good.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

on a level now, with water above the firmament and below.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

I am thinking that the Genesis creation outlines how it was done.. in a way that we can understand. The world might be very old, and creation is drawn out of the water and earth. The earth was originally abyss - confusion, unreality, possibilities? the other is water. The Mandela effect is making me think that creation is part of consciousness - that it is the alteration of the consciousness of God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not created, set, check your favorite translation, it doesn't use the Hebrew word for created.

You're wrong about this. The word for the creation of the lights is actually 'asah (made). The very same word used of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26) and the creation of the land beasts of day 6.

Gen. 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.​

In essence the Hebrew says God made the two great lights and the stars also. Most translations will then supply the made for the stars, as that's the obvious meaning.

And the language is very similar to the language on day one. You'll notice the phrase "let there be." This always speaks to the creation of what follows. Let it come into being.

Gen. 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.​

You could actually use your argument to argue that animals weren't created on day 6 because the word bara' was not used. It's a bad argument. God made the sun moon and stars on day 4.

Oh and 'asah is also used for the creation of the heavens and the earth—Gen. 2:4 Created and made are virtually interchangeable in the creation account.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You're wrong about this. The word for the creation of the lights is actually 'asah (made). The very same word used of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26) and the creation of the land beasts of day 6.

Gen. 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.​

In essence the Hebrew says God made the two great lights and the stars also. Most translations will then supply the made for the stars, as that's the obvious meaning.

And the language is very similar to the language on day one. You'll notice the phrase "let there be." This always speaks to the creation of what follows. Let it come into being.

Gen. 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.​

You could actually use your argument to argue that animals weren't created on day 6 because the word bara' was not used. It's a bad argument. God made the sun moon and stars on day 4.

Oh and 'asah is also used for the creation of the heavens and the earth—Gen. 2:4 Created and made are virtually interchangeable in the creation account.
Something can be made and created at the same time. Adam was made from the dust of the ground and he was also created a living soul which is a brand new creation. God did not create the sun, moon and stars on day four or the author would have used that word. It's as simple as that.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Something can be made and created at the same time. Adam was made from the dust of the ground and he was also created a living soul which is a brand new creation. God did not create the sun, moon and stars on day four or the author would have used that word. It's as simple as that.

Therefore, God didn't create land animals on day 6? That's what your argument implies. The author didn't use bara' of land animals.

It's a silly argument.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Therefore, God didn't create land animals on day 6? That's what your argument implies. The author didn't use bara' of land animals.

It's a silly argument.
God created life in verse 21.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God created life in verse 21.

And he created the stars on day 4. and created the land animals on day 6 (even though bara' isn't specifically used.

The argument doesn't work Mark. bara' isn't used of land animals and so you're fudging but you're being strict on the day 4 account. Inconsistent.

You can make a new argument, or perhaps just believed God's Word, but the gapper argument from the Hebrew is a giant fail. Been debunked for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0