Gap Theory?

[nephilimiyr]

[/font]
Seriously, Neph. I have tried to keep the posts to asking what Gap Theory says. Where the confusion arose is because, as we went along and the answers led to more questions, it looked like I was saying the theory wasn't justified. Also, it got mixed in with conversations on Satan where I really did think your claims were unjustified.

Yeah, alot of questions and while you say that in those instances where I'm not sure of the answers I should simply state that I don't know, you must understand that even though I may not know the correct or appropreate answer I do have opinions and suggestions on what the answer may be. I do have a problem with wanting to answer everything even though I don't have a firm belief or explanation of some of those questions. I think that while I'm answering those questions in that manner, with my opinion, I do need to do a beter job at explaining that they are just posible answers and I don't mean to be stateing a firm belief of mine. I hope that made sense?

I was confused by what you were saying about the serpent in Gen. 3. I do have a firm belief of Satan and the origins of evil, however you did help me realize that I do need to study the aspect of this more deeply. Alot of these things I don't believe we will ever know but for those things that are posible to figure out I want to know. I believe it's important to know these things and it's that knowledge of the origins of evil, be it only a basic knowledge, that makes it able for us to understand what happend in Genesis 1-2-3.

The problem is that there are several relevant topics where Gap Theory apparently says nothing. When you run up against these and don't have answers, then you feel that Gap Theory isn't justified.

When I see you say that the gap theory apparently says nothing on several topics you must understand that I also see you saying that the word of God, what is written in Genesis 1:1, says nothing on several topics. This is exactly what I'm trying to say. The word of God is silent on this period of time that I see in Genesis 1:1. It's that period of time that I believe we as humans can only learn about through Gods other book, geology.

Try and follow me here on this, I'll try to explain this the best way I know how.
I don't know if you believe in the rapture. The rapture is supposed to be an event in the end times where Jesus will call all believer's in him up to heaven to spare them God's wrath on earth. Whether you believe in a rapture of the church or not, the word "rapture" is not written in the Bible but only discribes that event that many believe will happen. The belief in that is put into one word.
This is how I see "gap theory". The belief of a period of time that isn't explained is put into one word, "gap". To me the gap theory is that part of Gods word that is silent to us. It doesn't try to explain what isn't there in the word of God but only reveals that there is a time period, an age that God doesn't expound on.

Here's what I wrote earlier.

The word of God doesn't give us much at all to go on if we are attempting to figure out how things came to be in a scientific way. We can however study Gods creation to give us clues if thats what our aspirations are. God does not forbid us to do this, it's just that he doesn't reveal it to us through his word. I am not totally convinced that the evidence is there to support evolution but I'm not a scientist nor do I want to be. It makes no difference to me how God created, what's important to me is that I do believe that he did create. I believe one of the reasons why God has left out this piece of the puzzel is that he wants me to be more concerned with my salvation, he wants me to learn about his plan of redeption and he wants me to learn how to let Him run my life. He wants to be Lord of my life and by each day I try a little harder to give it to him. It aint easy!

 

[nephilimiyr]

No, it's not. But to avoid accidentally taking on that job, you have to be willing to say "I don't know what Gap Theory says about that." I've been trying to give you that way out.

I know your right about this but I find it hard to just say "I don't know" and leaveing it at that. I feel to every question there is an answer and perhaps I try too hard to answer those questions I'm not sure about or that I don't know about. If we're going to continue on with this discussion I will promise to let you know when I don't know the answer and when my opinions on the answer is just that, an opinion and not necessarily something I absolutely believe or is absolutely fact.

I don't blame you for looking at it seriously. Shoot, I look at all creationist theories seriously. That's how you test any theory: assume it is true. To do that you have to take it seriously. I am concerned by two things: 1. the testing seems half-hearted

The testing I believe that has to be done, has to be done in both the written word of God and in the geologic record.

As in terms of the written word of God I have taken this very seriously and have studied it at length. I don't believe in the gap just because I've read a few commentaries on it. It is something that I've studied at length and have done so prayerfully and forthrightly.

As for the geologic record I admitt that I've not studied this as indepth as the written word. I just don't believe that what the geologic record says in detail can falsify what I believe the written word says. This isn't the reason why I've not studied it at length but because it is a subject that I have a hard time understanding. For one, there are many opinions of what the geologic record says. This becomes confusing to me when reading all the different beliefs of what the geologic evidence says. I tend to get lost in the haze. And two, when I read much of this evidence to form my own opinions on it my mind just doesn't compute.

2) you don't seem willing to let the theory be falsified.

And I understand how you can see that as being the case but you must understand that this belief of mine is very basic, it centers on what the literal Hebrew says and how that language conveys the thought in Genesis 1:1-2. When you try and falsify it by useing the geologic record or by useing the written word you must first understand what the theory says first. I've seen you not understanding what it says so this has made me frustrated. Now that you do have an understanding of what it says you have made some good arguements over it but you must understand also that I don't agree totally with what the gap theory says but only in part.

[/font]
It appears I don't have to! It's just that if a theory can't explain data counter to the theory, then the theory is in trouble. Glossing over it doesn't help.



Neph, it appears that the statements of Gap Theory will allow the Big Bang. Or at least allow a long enough time scale for a Big Bang. Right now the two major areas I see that Gap Theory does not account for are 1) the lack of discontinuity when the "recreation" takes place and 2) the Biblical text that has the sun, moon, and stars created for the first time during the recreation. Where were they thru all the previous eons? How did any life on earth get along without a sun during those eons. If BB leads to star and galaxy formation, how can the stars be created only later?

Now, do you disagree that the recreation from an earth gone without form and void took place 6,000 years ago? An honest question about where you disagree with the website. All I want is a clarification. Promise.

 

[nephilimiyr]

It appears I don't have to! It's just that if a theory can't explain data counter to the theory, then the theory is in trouble. Glossing over it doesn't help.

Here's what I wrote in post #46.

Also, I understand the gap theory as saying this: We do not know anything of the time element involved. God may well have first created the earth over the course of millions or billions of years, or He may have done it in a matter of seconds and then allowed it to go on in a perfect form for an untold amount of time. We do not know how long by reading the word of God. After the earth was without form, and void, it may have remained in that state for many years or it may have only remained that way for a day. We do not know by reading the word of God. There is not a passage in the Bible that gives us any hint at how long this all happend (the original creation; without form, and void). there are two unknown periods of time to be accounted for. If the scientific evidence shows that the universe and earth are billions upon billions of years old, it makes no difference whatsoever to the gap theorist. We know that God spoke the original word of creation, and materialized the original thought of the divine idea which became the heavens and the earth. This is all that the word of God tells us.

This really is how I believe what the gap theory says but most importantly it's how I believe what the word of God says. If you read through that website, which is how most gap theorists believe, you will find that they are contradicting themselves to the basic premise of what they say isn't shown in the word of God. First they say that God doesn't explain how he created but then they say that evolution is falsified because of what the word says.

From what I've read in the Bible, there is nowhere in the Bible that says how God created and it certainly doesn't give us even a hint at how long it took for this initial creation in Genesis 1:1. To say that the word of God doesn't allow evolution to be a posibility is to say God tells us how he created. So I disagree with this. Evolution can only be falsified through the geologic record but in no circumstance can it be falsified in the writen word of God.

Neph, it appears that the statements of Gap Theory will allow the Big Bang. Or at least allow a long enough time scale for a Big Bang. Right now the two major areas I see that Gap Theory does not account for are 1) the lack of discontinuity when the "recreation" takes place

Your correct, I do say that I believe in the big bang, not because the word of God says it but because it can fit in with what it says. I see no contradiction in what the big bang says and what the word of God says.

Again my belief in a gap in Genesis 1 is very basic. Here we're getting into that area where I'm not that knowledgeable in and instead of me trying to explain, I want to ask you a few questions or put the form of my answer in question form.
Following my belief in the gap, the Bible does make it clear that there was no life of any kind on earth at the time he decided to recreate. Again there is no mention of what caused the earth to be without form and void nor does it give us a time table for this. This might have been caused by a single event or it could've been caused by a series of events through an unspecific time table. Now why must we assume that when God recreated life on earth that it would show a discontinuity in the fosil record?

If we see that this "without form and void" came about through a series of events we will still be able to have life on earth through the fossil records but on a declining scale. At a point in time an event happend that eventually wiped out all life. Up untill that point in time there was life. If God right at that moment decided to perform his recreation of that life must we assume that that life would have had no evidence of ever being on earth before?

The 6 day recreation story doesn't tell us if God made the same fowl in the air nor does it say that God made the same creeping things or the same plant life. My point is that during this time of recreation, the 144hrs, God just doesn't say. Couldn't God have performed his recreation in a way that doesn't show a discontinuity? The fossil record may show that some life have lived through the desasters of the history of the earth but what kind of evidence could posibly prove that at a certain time in that history that they weren't around for let's say 1 day or 1 year?

2) the Biblical text that has the sun, moon, and stars created for the first time during the recreation. Where were they thru all the previous eons? How did any life on earth get along without a sun during those eons. If BB leads to star and galaxy formation, how can the stars be created only later?

Actually that wouldn't be following what the gap theory says and what I believe. The sun, moon, and stars were first created in Genesis 1:1 and they have been following the laws of phisics from that time forward undistrubed. The gap doesn't propose that they were created or recreated during the recreatation of the earth.
I believe that through the event or series of events that made the earth without form and void they were always there just not visable from earth. Again, "Let there be light" is not a creative act but only God commanding that the light be seen out of the darkness that had enveloped earth.

Now, do you disagree that the recreation from an earth gone without form and void took place 6,000 years ago? An honest question about where you disagree with the website. All I want is a clarification. Promise.

No, I believe that the earth was recreated 6,000 years ago or so. But don't confuse that with any kind of work God may or may not have done with the rest of the universe. The gap theory doen't answer the question if God tinkered with the universe at the same time of this 144hr recreation of earth.

And as I've said before this recreation is not saying that the earth had totally become destroyed so that God had to start anew but that it had become a place of chaos and a wasteland. The earth had once been a very beautiful planet and after this "without form and void" God made it once again a very beautiful planet.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Neph: don't get to bent-out-of-shape, he's just a religious zealot with no mind for digestion.



It just happens that his faith is 'science' as he views it.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Neph: don't get to bent-out-of-shape, he's just a religious zealot with no mind for digestion.



It just happens that his faith is 'science' as he views it.

Thanks MagusAlbertus for your concern but I am able to form my own opinions.

Lucaspa, I want you to know that you don't have to answer to this.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Your correct, I do say that I believe in the big bang, not because the word of God says it but because it can fit in with what it says. I see no contradiction in what the big bang says and what the word of God says.

Given the evidence in the Bible we know that God spoke and things came to be. I believe it was through his spoken word that he created.
Heb. 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
I believe that in this instance the word "word" is referring to the spoken word.

I imagine the original creation being something like this: God developed his plan, then he spoke perhaps these words...Let it begin...and BANG!!!...matter and all kinds of materials explod outwards. Stars and galaxies form and eventually our galaxy and solar system forms. Our earth forms and when conditions become ripe for life to be able to live, God creates the life.

If this was indeed through an evolutionary process then so be it. If not and God created life at a already developed state, animals each of their kind, then so be it. This part of creation means nothing to me as a man seeking God and his redemptive plan.

Now the Bible doesn't tell us when he created celestial beings, the angels. However in Job 38:6-7 we see that God did have witnesses to him creating the earth.
Job 38:6-7, Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Who are the morning stars that sang? who are the sons of God that shouted for joy? These beings can't be men because God is talking about when he created the earth and man was not made yet nor any living thing, with flesh which is made from the earth. And to the creationists I have to ask the same question. Since man wasn't made until the fifth day how could there be a whole host of them shouting and singing for joy while God was first creating the earth?

What's interesting and very important is that God in Job 38 is not talking about the creation of the whole universe but only the creation of the earth.
Job 38:4, Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the EARTH? declare, if thou hast understanding.
If the stars and galaxies of the universe were made at the same time the earth was why doesn't God here in Job say that? Is it because when God was laying the foundations of the earth there were already stars and galaxies in existance? I think yes!

Now given my belief that I have already stated about Ezekial 28 and Isaiah 14. I believe that God had appointed a very special and powerful being to be the overseer, govenor of his whole creation. He was "the anointed cherub" and earth was his place of office, it was his very own beautiful palace. We do not know for sure when this cherub was created from reading the word of God but we do know that he was both in Eden the garden of God(Eze. 28:13) and also was upon the holy mountain of God and walked among the stones of fire(Eze. 28:14) At a point in time this being sinned. He was not content with the job God had given him but wanted more. In Isaiah we see this same being planning war against the God of the universe, the Most High.

What I see what happend is that this great sin resulted in the confrontation or this war and is what caused the "without form and void" of the earth in Gen. 1:2. God passed judgment upon this being and part of his creation. OK now enter the recreation event of 144hrs. As a result of this sin the earth had become without form and void. There was now sin in his creation and he had to give it a redeptive plan. He had to show and prove his goodness, his righteousness, his loving and forgiving nature. So he reforms the earth, he makes it what it once was before the cherub sinned and caused war.

In God's plan of redeption he makes man and gives him his image, he appoints him to have dominion over the earth. Man is now the ruler of the great cherubs home and office. The cherub had to be enraged with hatred over this new creation and so he develops his own plan of how to take back what was once his. He influences the women Eve to sin. With man sinning this cherub has now won back rulership over his home but because of the curse he now has to develop a plan on how Gods redeptive plan will be destroyed. To thwart this plan of a saviour he goes about trying to wipe out the human race by inbreeding with their seed. The seed of this inbreeding is called the "nephilim" and is carried out by his subordinants.

This plan is almost successful as only one man and his family are left on earth being of pure human blood. But God passes judgment once again on the earth to thwart this cherubs plan but to save his own plan he saves the one man and his family.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Post #66 continued


This cherub has learned his lesson however and will be more patient next time. He waits to find out by what line of seed the saviour will come from. He learns that the saviour will come from the offspring of a man named Abram(Gen. 12). He learns that the land God is going to give him will be Canaan so this inbreeding once again commences but only in the land of Canaan, apparently. The plan here is to prevent the Israelites from owning the land.

The hebrews are in Egypt for hundreds of years but are brought out by God so to be able to inherit the land he has appointed for them to own. The Canaanite wars begin. God is behind the Israelites and they slaughter the Canaanites, the "nephilim" and take over the land. The cherubs plan is once again thwarted!

I'm sorry this had to be so long but I'm working nights now for awhile and have the night off and don't have anything better to do but talk

 

[Breetai]

Nephilimiyr, I'm curious on your opinion. Did not death enter into the world when Adam and Eve sinned? There would've been no death before that. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hi Breetai!

Nephilimiyr, I'm curious on your opinion. Did not death enter into the world when Adam and Eve sinned? There would've been no death before that. What are your thoughts on this?

Good question Breetai, my thought's are that, concerning man, death started with Adam and Eve and their sin. To say that there was no death of anything else is a different matter. Adam and Eve were not the ones who committed the first sin in Gods creation and since "the wages of sin is death" Rom. 6:23, I have to believe that death in Gods creation came before Adam and Eve's sin.

Through the geologic record we have the evidence that says things lived and died long before Adam and Eve were created. Did man live along side the dinosaurs? No, the evidence does not show that to be true. Does God's written word say that all death started with Adam and Eve's sin? I don't believe so but I'm curious to what you would say. I'm open to anything you have to say on this.

 

[Breetai]

Does God's written word say that all death started with Adam and Eve's sin? I don't believe so but I'm curious to what you would say.

After reading it over and over, I don't think that is does say that all death started there. I have a hard time knowing for sure until I learn to read hebrew. With the dinosaurs living along side man issue, I say that they probably did. With all of the dragon legends, drawings and insriptions with depict what looks to be different species of dinosaurs, I think that there is enough evidence to say that man and dinosaurs co-existed. There are many examples of different creatures that have either became extint or extremely rare, often because of man. I still see no reason to doubt that dinos and man lived during the same time. I think that the flood can explain a lot of the fossils that we have today.

Other than that, I am becoming very much in agreement with the views that you've presented.

 

[nephilimiyr]

After reading it over and over, I don't think that is does say that all death started there.

Thank you for considering the word of God.

With the dinosaurs living along side man issue, I say that they probably did. With all of the dragon legends,

Legends and myths are one thing but the geological evidence says that the two were living in two separate times. Also if your referring to Jod's Leviathan and Behemoth and suggesting that they were dinosaurs I would suggest to you to reread the passages keeping in mind that they are talking about Satan, not a literal animal. Just give it a try and see if you see my point.

and insriptions with depict what looks to be different species of dinosaurs,

Well that's just it, they look like they could be dinosaurs, the question is, are they? the eye is in the beholder on this one I guess. We're even on this one!

there are many examples of different creatures that have either became extint or extremely rare, often because of man. I still see no reason to doubt that dinos and man lived during the same time. I think that the flood can explain a lot of the fossils that we have today.

When did these creatures become extinct? How do we know that they were even alive? Is it not by there fossils? How do we know how old they are? By the scientific study of this with trial and error we do find that these fossils are millions of years old.
The ball is in your court Bree, or since your from Edmonton, the puck is on your side of the rink! I don't believe that our understanding of science is so primative that we can't even estimate how old a fossil is. I have stated that I am not a scientist nor do I study geology but I don't ignor what has been tested, tried, and shown to be scientific fact.

I still see no reason to doubt that dinos and man lived during the same time. I think that the flood can explain a lot of the fossils that we have today.

But how do you know? This is what I want to know. What makes you so sure that the flood caused the fossil's that most scientists say took millions upon millions of years to create? Lol, welcome to the theistic evolution/creationist forum, where we deal with what can be proven by way of the word of God or by the way of scientific factual evidence.

Other than that, I am becoming very much in agreement with the views that you've presented.

That's comforting but the "that" is a major part of what I'm saying. I perhaps might be thinking of this wrongly but without the "that" alot of what I'm saying falls. Adam and Eve did not welcome in the first sign of death which means that before them there was a history of death. If the dinosaur fossil's prove to be only 6000 years old so must all the fossils be about that age. If that's the case I have no leg to stand on...er...concerning the age of life on the earth and death.

 

[Breetai]

I think that the short answer is, "I don't know". But how much fun is the short answer?

The Bible is clear that Adam and Eve were created about 6000 years ago. Were dinosaurs mentioned in Job? Maybe. I think to say that Satan was being talked about and not literal animals is taking those verses out on context. I believe that the 'behemoth' and the 'Leviathon' were animals and are likely extinct now.

Are scientific methods of dating accurate? I think that they become less accurate the farther back in time that you go, but I see that as a non-issue right now. Sticking to the 'gap theory' of the earth, maybe there were dinosaurs on earth before Adam; millions of years ago. I don't think that it's unreasonable to consider that. I think it's also possible that God may have created dinosaurs along with man in this 'present' age of the earth. That would explain a lot of the myths that are otherwise unexplainable.

 

[GenemZ]

Am I still the only one here that believes in the gap theory in Genesis 1?
Just wondering because it's been awhile since I've posted here.

Sir... you are not alone. I have been interested and studying this understanding for a quite some time, and have heard many attempts to justify rejecting it. It still stands as the only theory that harmonizes with reality. I find the trouble with young earthers thinking, is that they automatically alienate scientists who know better, and bear a witness that gives them excuse for rejecting Christ. Young earthism also shuts a door for many Christians in understanding why fallen angels are allowed to be roaming the earth at this time and not already in Hell.

Yes, I do believe in the GAP theory. I also have discovered a sound answer to the argument concerning the Hebrew translating of "became chaos and emptiness," vs. "was chaos and emptines," that is found in Genesis 1:2.

Grace and peace, Gene

 

[Breetai]

In response to Genez post, I think you know where I stand Neph. I'm still considering it. It is looking more and more viable though...

 

[nephilimiyr]

Sir... you are not alone. I have been interested and studying this understanding for a quite some time, and have heard many attempts to justify rejecting it. It still stands as the only theory that harmonizes with reality. I find the trouble with young earthers thinking, is that they automatically alienate scientists who know better, and bear a witness that gives them excuse for rejecting Christ. Young earthism also shuts a door for many Christians in understanding why fallen angels are allowed to be roaming the earth at this time and not already in Hell.

Yes, I do believe in the GAP theory. I also have discovered a sound answer to the argument concerning the Hebrew translating of "became chaos and emptiness," vs. "was chaos and emptines," that is found in Genesis 1:2.

Grace and peace, Gene

Hi genez!

Have you read some of the difference's I have with the gap? I'm interested in hearing your opinion on how I view it. For instance if the word of God doesn't tell us how long it took him to create how can we rule out Him creating through an evolutionary process? Yes God commanded the universe to be but where does it say he did this in an instant? Yes God says he created the heaven and the earth but where does he say that he created them at the same time?

I'm happy you found this thread and were willing to share your beliefs/thoughts. I'm looking forward to hearing from you again!

 

[nephilimiyr]

In response to Genez post, I think you know where I stand Neph. I'm still considering it. It is looking more and more viable though...

Please don't take my word for it. Study what the word of God says and don't ignor what the physical evidence says. Do it with an open mind and pray that God will help you along.

 

[sawdust]

Nephilimiyr, I'm curious on your opinion. Did not death enter into the world when Adam and Eve sinned? There would've been no death before that. What are your thoughts on this?

One thing that has always puzzled me is if death did not preceed Adam and Eve how the heck did they know what God was talking about?
For example if I said to you:
"touch that pot of stew and you will floogal"
You'll understand the object (pot of stew), you'll understand the verb (touch) but you won't have a clue on the consequences (floogal??). It's outside you're range of experience.
It seems to me God's command "to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or you will surely die" can only have meaning to Adam and Eve if they knew exactly what death was. But that's just my two cents worth.

 

[Micaiah]

A couple of links from the AIG web site on the subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp#gap
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/gaptheory3.asp

 

[RVincent]

Please forgive me, because there are eight pages here, I didn't bother reading all of the entries. I do not know if what I am posting has been posted.

I believe in a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.

The common argument against this is that it came about recently, due to geological discoveries concerning the age of the earth. In other words, when science determined that the earth was millions of years old, apologists invented the gap theory.

"Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years. The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917,
p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Epíscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered evidence for the ancient origin of earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is groundless.

Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7)."

 

[Breetai]

One thing that has always puzzled me is if death did not preceed Adam and Eve how the heck did they know what God was talking about?

God could've easily created them with that knowledge. They weren't created as infants, they were created as adults and probably with a fair amount of knowledge as well.

I'm still trying to figure out where I stand. I believe that man was literally created from dust 6000 years ago. There appears to be evidence of some kind of life on earth from before 6000 years ago (mainly dinosaurs, humanoid species, pre-historic plants, etc.). Was the earth re-created from chaos 6000 years ago? Were the 'sons of god' around the earth more then 6000 years ago? How old are the angels? Some of these are very tough questions that I'm not sure we were even meant to know the answers to in this lifetime.

Sometimes I almost feel like doing what Rene Descartes did and reject everytime and start anew.