The Gap and The Sumer Creation Myth

[FreeGrace2]

Professor Ashby was able to stand on his own two feet within the Hebrew text. He recommended Thieme to me as his inspiration for the doctrine of the GAP. Professor Ashby taught Greek and Hebrew to students taking his courses. He had some of his own thinking given while presenting what RBT had inspired him to teach on....

It was professor Ashby (not Thieme) who showed how the Hebrew word used by Jeremiah for the prehistoric man was a generic term for man. He did not use the term "humanoid." That term was developed later on in discussions like this one that followed.

OK, that's helpful. Thanks.

And, keep in mind. None of us are infallible.

Boy, do I ever know that!

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
It's the Bible we are supposed to understand; not necessarily the opinions of others about the Bible.

What are you left with then?

As I have already noted, comparisons of the available translations on biblehub.com and lexicons, etc.

Opinions that are base upon KNOWLEDGE... is where we find Insight!

Opinions are only that. Guesses that cannot be proven nor disproven.

If you listened to RBT for 20 years? You were getting lots of insight in his teachings. And, at times? Some lousy opinions, so a believer could have his excuse to stop learning.

OK.

God always provides a way out for free will. Some quit. Some continue. God did not slap the woman's hand when she took the fruit.

Nope.

 

[GenemZ]

What that does is contradict everything in Genesis 1 if one takes that in the literal sense. God made it clear that He created and formed species after their own kinds, meaning one kind can't procreate with another kind.

No it means... one species will normally only desire one of the same species.

Keep in mind: Man was created only a little lower than angels. Psalm 8:5

And?

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare).

The liger is a hybrid offspring of a male lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris).

Now.. to really gross you out? International team creates first chimeric human-monkey embryos - STAT

 

[GenemZ]

Boy, do I ever know that!

You too?

That makes eight of us.

 

[GenemZ]

A cpl of things come to mind. Maybe regular animals had enough sense to stay far away from these dinos, thus weren't found among where these other fossils were found. Or the ones that didn't have enough sense to stay far away, the dinos thoroughly ate them leaving no trace of them.

Keep in mind... the ones that ate vegetation had no need to stay separated.

 

[GenemZ]

Interestingly, there is no mention of female angels in the Bible. All have masculine pronouns and names.

That is correct. The word always appears in masculine gender.

.........................Vines Expository Dictionary.......................................


1angelos

"a messenger" (from angello, "to deliver a message"), sent whether by God or by man or by Satan, "is also used of a guardian or representative in Re. 1:20, cp. Mt. 18:10; Ac. 12:15 (where it is better understood as = 'ghost'), superior to man, Heb. 2:7; Ps. . 8:5, belonging to Heaven, Mt. 24:36; Mr. 12:25, and to God, Lu. 12:8, and engaged in His service, Ps. . 103:20. "Angels" are spirits, Heb. 1:14, i.e., they have not material bodies as men have; they are either human in form, or can assume the human form when necessary, cp. Lu. 24:4, with Lu. 24:23, Ac. 10:3 with Ac. 10:30. "They are called 'holy' in Mr. 8:38, and 'elect,' 1Ti. 5:21, in contrast with some of their original number, Mt. 25:41, who 'sinned,' 2Pe. 2:4, 'left their proper habitation,' Jude. 1:6, oiketerion, a word which occurs again, in the NT, only in 2Co. 5:2. Angels are always spoken of in the masculine gender, the feminine form of the word does not occur."* [* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 229.] Note: Isangelos, "equal to the angels," occurs in Lu. 20:36."

 

[sawdust]

That's the traditional interpretation, but does a hippo really have a tail that moves like a "cedar" tree?

Job 40:17
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
KJV

https://media.istockphoto.com/photo...=HLA9ocpzBE8NAE6eq96qsCvgNQ1qMsD4MPPFKAFGCH8=

You are making the same mistake as the other poster. It doesn't say it looks like a cedar tree, it says it moves like one. So until you compare a hippo spinning it's tail and a cedar tree whipping in the wind, you are making the wrong type of comparison.

 

[sawdust]

Some YEC's have fabricated a modern idea that dinosaurs are still existing on earth today, just hiding they think? No doubt their theory is because of fossil evidence like below.

Dinosaurs didn't die out, they just turned invisible and hid. hehe

 

[GenemZ]

You are making the same mistake as the other poster. It doesn't say it looks like a cedar tree, it says it moves like one. So until you compare a hippo spinning it's tail and a cedar tree whipping in the wind, you are making the wrong type of comparison.

Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews
of its thighs are close-knit." Jb 40:17​

You could not ask for better proof than this one! ...

 

[DavidPT]

No it means... one species will normally only desire one of the same species.

Keep in mind: Man was created only a little lower than angels. Psalm 8:5

And?

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare).

The liger is a hybrid offspring of a male lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris).

Now.. to really gross you out? International team creates first chimeric human-monkey embryos - STAT

All of that aside, let's at least try and determine logical reasons why God would equip angels with the ability to procreate with humans, meaning women in this case, if He never wanted them to do that at anytime ever. I can't think of any myself. Can you?

Do angels still have this capability? And if yes, what is preventing them from doing this again? It's not like there are not plenty of fair women out there these days. They are already doomed anyway, what would they have to lose if they were to do this again?

And what about what Jesus said in Matthew 24? If one interprets some of Genesis 6 like some of you are, shouldn't this mean angels will start mating with earth women again and producing offspring?


Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Now compare some of this with what is recorded in Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Which led to this---when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown(Genesis 6:4).

If Jesus is comparing to Genesis 6 in Matthew 24:38, which He obviously is, and indicating it will be like those days, how could it be like those days if those days in Genesis 6 led to literal angels marrying earth women, then producing literal offspring, but what is recorded in Matthew 24:38 is meaning something entirely different altogether, in regards to marrying and giving in marriage?

It seems to me then, one should interpret Genesis 6, in regards to marrying, the same way they interpret it to mean in Matthew 24:38. IOW, if nothing in Matthew 24:38 involves literal angels marrying earth women, then producing offspring, then neither does it literally involve any of that in Genesis 6 either.

 

[DavidPT]

Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews
of its thighs are close-knit." Jb 40:17​

You could not ask for better proof than this one! ...

And that video proves the point I was making earlier in regards to doing a Google search on what a Hippo uses it's tail for.

Anyone watching the video you provided should know right away that doesn't fit anything in the following, what I have underlined.

Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

If what we saw in that video is an example of the animal that is the chief of the ways of God, I give up. If someone thinks that, you are not going to be able to reason with that person in regards to what animal is meant in Job 40. May as well not even try.

 

[FreeGrace2]

All of that aside, let's at least try and determine logical reasons why God would equip angels with the ability to procreate with humans, meaning women in this case, if He never wanted them to do that at anytime ever. I can't think of any myself. Can you?

Just like the time gap between Gen 1:1 and 2 where God left out all detail of how and why the earth became "tohu", we aren't given any information about why some angels co-inhabited with females.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that God is omniscient and always knew everything that would occur, so what certain angels did wasn't a surprise to Him.

Do angels still have this capability? And if yes, what is preventing them from doing this again?

God, obviously. Recall that all demons obeyed Jesus and in Job, Satan, the leader of the rebellion was limited by God's word. When God said "don't touch the man" in ch 1, he didn't. In ch 2 all God said was "don't kill him", which he didn't.

So all it takes is a direct command from God and every angel obeys directly.

It's not like there are not plenty of fair women out there these days. They are already doomed anyway, what would they have to lose if they were to do this again?

Not the point. When God commands an angel to NOT do something, they DON'T.

And what about what Jesus said in Matthew 24? If one interprets some of Genesis 6 like some of you are, shouldn't this mean angels will start mating with earth women again and producing offspring?

What is there in Matt 24 that relates to Genesis 6 that you note?


Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Now compare some of this with what is recorded in Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Which led to this---when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown(Genesis 6:4).

If Jesus is comparing to Genesis 6 in Matthew 24:38, which He obviously is, and indicating it will be like those days, how could it be like those days if those days in Genesis 6 led to literal angels marrying earth women, then producing literal offspring, but what is recorded in Matthew 24:38 is meaning something entirely different altogether, in regards to marrying and giving in marriage?

It seems to me then, one should interpret Genesis 6, in regards to marrying, the same way they interpret it to mean in Matthew 24:38. IOW, if nothing in Matthew 24:38 involves literal angels marrying earth women, then producing offspring, then neither does it literally involve any of that in Genesis 6 either.[/QUOTE]

 

[GenemZ]

All of that aside, let's at least try and determine logical reasons why God would equip angels with the ability to procreate with humans, meaning women in this case, if He never wanted them to do that at anytime ever. I can't think of any myself. Can you?

If Adam during the years he had to watch and observe to name all the animals?

Then on one day it happened .. Adam got sick and tired of the work the Lord gave him to do. And, Satan seeing this in Adam? Convinced Adam to rebel and eat of the wrong tree. It could have happened...

At that point?

No woman would have been given to Adam for "blessing."

The question would now be?

Even though Adam could have never been given his "Isha" (woman) because of rebellion against God? Would Adam still have had the ability to procreate? Yes. Just like God created all angels 'male' to begin with!

Problem was.. When the angelic rebellion against God took place (before their females could be granted them) they ended up not knowing what their genitals could really do. Not until later when God introduced the most beautiful woman to ever come from the hand of God.

When the angel's eyes bugged out of their heads seeing the Woman? God made Satan and his angels realize what fools they were for being losers by rebelling against God.

And, to the faithful angels? God granted (in due time) the grace to live in a vigorous peaceful celibacy.

Adam was created to procreate before any woman was given. Angels were also created as real males in their beginning. Fortunately, ADAM finished the work God assigned him and lived to see the blessing of the most beautiful woman to come directly from the hands of the Lord.

 

[GenemZ]

Do angels still have this capability? And if yes, what is preventing them from doing this again?

In Genesis 6 God weeded out all the angels who's hearts were not really with him.

Keep in mind. Two thirds of the angels stayed with the Lord. Only one third went with Lucifer.

That tells us what?

We see it in human life. Some follow the herd and will conform to the majority view. It does not matter what the issue is. They simply want to have safety in numbers.


With the angels.. When it came time to make up their minds as to whom they have allegiance? Lucifer or the Lord?

Some angels noticed that the majority were siding with the Lord. But, their hearts were not really 100% with the Lord. They chose to stay with the Lord for a wrong reason. God knowing this false motive, planned to weed them out later on as seen as to what He allowed for in Genesis 6.

 

[GenemZ]

And that video proves the point I was making earlier in regards to doing a Google search on what a Hippo uses it's tail for.

Anyone watching the video you provided should know right away that doesn't fit anything in the following, what I have underlined.

Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

If what we saw in that video is an example of the animal that is the chief of the ways of God, I give up. If someone thinks that, you are not going to be able to reason with that person in regards to what animal is meant in Job 40. May as well not even try.

Tell me.... name one ANIMAL? That is the chief in the ways of the Lord? Name one.
The Lion? The Hippo is feared by lions....

Here is closer to what the Hebrew intended....

"He ranks first among the works/Ways of God/'El . . .
yet His maker can approach him in spite of his gigantic teeth."​

And, here is what nature teaches us...

 

[sawdust]

And that video proves the point I was making earlier in regards to doing a Google search on what a Hippo uses it's tail for.

Anyone watching the video you provided should know right away that doesn't fit anything in the following, what I have underlined.

Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

If what we saw in that video is an example of the animal that is the chief of the ways of God, I give up. If someone thinks that, you are not going to be able to reason with that person in regards to what animal is meant in Job 40. May as well not even try.

Go pick a fight with a hippo if you think it's a pushover. Make sure you bring some friends ... with shovels .. as they'll need to bury you afterwards (if they can find the pieces).

If it's not a hippo then it could be an elephant but it's not a dinosaur as they weren't around in Job's time for him to compare.

In fact, verse 19 actually lends itself more to it being an elephant because if you go back to Gen.1:24 you see God made the domestic beast first. Elephants have been domesticated but hippos haven't.

Gen.1:24
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

The phrase "chief of ways" could simply mean among the first to be made. The rest of the verse is obscure but some commentaries think it may be a reference to the hippos teeth (in case of an elephant their tusks) or it may be a reference to the Lord having power over it even in spite of it's size.

There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about what I have said.

 

[GenemZ]

There is nothing irrational or unreasonable about what I have said.

That never stopped anyone.

Look what got Jesus to the Cross.

 

[DavidPT]

Tell me.... name one ANIMAL? That is the chief in the ways of the Lord? Name one.

The behemoth.

 

[GenemZ]

The behemoth.

That is a generic term, in case you are not aware. Its a descriptive term. Not a name of an actual animal.

What kind of animal will the Beast of the Tribulation be? Surely you know.

You know one reason why God created many animals? They serve as a living metaphor to describe people. "Stubborn as a mule" "Dumb like a fox." "A she-camel in heat."

God used those animals (and others) to be descriptive when speaking of certain people.... "Living metaphors."

After all... Jesus is called the Lion of Judah! And, He is also the "Lamb of God."

 

[FreeGrace2]

If Adam during the years he had to watch and observe to name all the animals?

Then on one day it happened .. Adam got sick and tired of the work the Lord gave him to do. And, Satan seeing this in Adam? Convinced Adam to rebel and eat of the wrong tree. It could have happened...

But we know it didn't happen. Because the Bible tells us what did happen.

1 Tim 2:14 - And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Eve was deceived by the serpent (Satan). But Adam was not deceived. When Eve offered the fruit to Adam, he made the decision to stay with Eve rather than in the garden. This shows he knew full well the consequences.

At that point?

No woman would have been given to Adam for "blessing."

The question would now be?

It was God who said it was not good for man to be alone (no partner). So your consclusion about "no woman for Adam" goes against God's very plan.

Even though Adam could have never been given his "Isha" (woman) because of rebellion against God? Would Adam still have had the ability to procreate? Yes. Just like God created all angels 'male' to begin with!

Too much presumption. God already knew Adam would rebel. And God already had a plan to remedy the rebellion.

Problem was.. When the angelic rebellion against God took place (before their females could be granted them) they ended up not knowing what their genitals could really do. Not until later when God introduced the most beautiful woman to ever come from the hand of God.

A whole lotta presumption here.

When the angel's eyes bugged out of their heads seeing the Woman? God made Satan and his angels realize what fools they were for being losers by rebelling against God.

Matt 25:41 shows when the fallen angels will really realize what fools they are.

And, to the faithful angels? God granted (in due time) the grace to live in a vigorous peaceful celibacy.