The "gap" theory

[-57]

The same reason why the Greek word "Baptiso" was anglicised instead of translated "immersed". There are a lot of preconceived notions with Bible interpretations. Translators, when faced with a choice, are inclined to go with what is traditional. "Immersed" was never going to fly with the Roman Catholics and even the early reformers. "Was" likewise suited the prevailing theology. It is an acceptable translation.

I had an NIV study Bible many years ago. It had "became" as a possible translation in the margin notes. The theory is not new. Origen raised it in the third century.

The problem is people built theology on that one verse.

 

[Cis.jd]

Am I force fitting? No. In this instance the sun and moon are talked about in scripture. No where does scripture tell us the "forbidden fruit" was something sexual and Adam and Eve may have been more than 1 people.

Oh, there are no planets such as Jupiter mentioned in scripture. Can I assume they don't exist and that they where never created?

 

[Cis.jd]

It could be. The bottom line is they both illuminate the earth. One brighter and the other lesser. As you guys are fond of saying...the Bible isn't a scientific text book.

But, since there is nothing that directly suggesting the moon reflects light then it's fair to say that I can say that the moon is a literal body of light (i don't want to hear any ambiguous translations). The light is it's own light, not a reflection of the sun. Is this correct?

 

[-57]

Oh, there are no planets such as Jupiter mentioned in scripture. Can I assume they don't exist and that they where never created?

There is no mention of ladders or stairs on Noahs ark...can you assume there were none for going from one level to the next?

 

[-57]

But, since there is nothing that directly suggesting the moon reflects light then it's fair to say that I can say that the moon is a literal body of light (i don't want to hear any ambiguous translations). The light is it's own light, not a reflection of the sun. Is this correct?

With the information provided at the time you might be able to make the assumption. We can also assume Adam didn't have a belly button considering he wasn't from a mothers womb.

 

[Cis.jd]

There is no mention of ladders or stairs on Noahs ark...can you assume there were none for going from one level to the next?

So I can insert?

 

[-57]

So I can insert?

You can add an elevator if you like...you simply can't be dogmatic about it.

Sometimes the Bible is silent on a topic. No where does the Bible suggest in any fashion the forbidden fruit was sexual. No where does the Bible even suggest there was a pre-Adamic race. No where does the Bible suggest evolution is how God created man.

 

[Cis.jd]

With the information provided at the time you might be able to make the assumption. We can also assume Adam didn't have a belly button considering he wasn't from a mothers womb.

But can I assume that planets don't exist, mainly because they are not referenced at all in the creation story?

 

[-57]

But can I assume that planets don't exist, mainly because they are not referenced at all in the creation story?

You can assume DNA doesn't exist because it's not referenced in Genesis. Have at it.

 

[Cis.jd]

You can add an elevator if you like...you simply can't be dogmatic about it.

Ah. So I can add anything I like, like Noah got the animals in there through Amazon?

Sometimes the Bible is silent on a topic. No where does the Bible suggest in any fashion the forbidden fruit was sexual. No where does the Bible even suggest there was a pre-Adamic race. No where does the Bible suggest evolution is how God created man.

But the Bible also uses symbology to describe things. If I can apply/insert common sense that the ark had stairs, a plank why can't I apply common sense with other things such as the creation story?

 

[Cis.jd]

You can assume DNA doesn't exist because it's not referenced in Genesis. Have at it.

But you are missing/dodging the point: is it correct, to state the non-existence of DNA, planets, gravity, etc because of not being referenced at all in genesis and the entire Bible? If you believe/say that God created planets with no biblical reference at all, how are you not inserting to scripture?

 

[-57]

Ah. So I can add anything I like, like Noah got the animals in there through Amazon?



But the Bible also uses symbology to describe things. If I can apply/insert common sense that the ark had stairs, a plank why can't I apply common sense with other things such as the creation story?

There's a difference between what is feasible and actual.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The problem is people built theology on that one verse.

Not so. It's not clear cut, but there are other references that support the gap theory. I suggest that you read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I found it most helpful.

 

[-57]

But you are missing/dodging the point: is it correct, to state the non-existence of DNA, planets, gravity, etc because of not being referenced at all in genesis and the entire Bible? If you believe/say that God created planets with no biblical reference at all, how are you not inserting to scripture?

God said he made space and the host in them. Should he have mentioned the Milky Way????? Does it not exist because its not in the Bible????

 

[-57]

Not so. It's not clear cut, but there are other references that support the gap theory. I suggest that you read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. I found it most helpful.

Present it here...provide a link.

 

[Cis.jd]

There's a difference between what is feasible and actual.

So what if there is a difference? You have stated earlier, that you can't insert but then you are making posts in where it is exempted such as through common sense and scientific facts.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What kind of technology do the fallen angels have?

I don't believe that they have technology. They are angelic, not human. They do not need technology.

 

[Cis.jd]

God said he made space and the host in them. Should he have mentioned the Milky Way????? Does it not exist because its not in the Bible????

Why not. If the Bible has no specific statement of planets, milky way, comets, and black holes then why should i believe they exist? The only source saying these exist is science, therefore even suggesting the idea that planets are part of the "hosts" is inserting.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Present it here...provide a link.

http://www.watchman-nee.nl/creation.pdf

 

[-57]

So what if there is a difference? You have stated earlier, that you can't insert but then you are making posts in where it is exempted such as through common sense and scientific facts.

I also said you can't be dogmatic. Like you.

It must be based upon something feasible...you simply said the forbidden fruit was sexual and there were more people around than Adam and Eve....