The Mid Ocean Ridge

UppsalaDragby said:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.

Ex 20:11 doesn't leave much room for gaps.

Click to expand...

The gap idea doesn't disagree with that Scripture as you suppose.

So what is the determining factor that tells us what is, or isn't "men's traditions"?

Click to expand...

God's Word as written.

Is belief in the trinity "men's tradition"? Why? Why not? And how is the "traditional" view not "fairly addressing the scripture details in question"?

Click to expand...

That The Godhead is Three Persons as God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit? No, that idea is not a tradition of man, but is written in God's Word. Didn't know the subject here had changed though. Ask Steve how old that term "Trinity" for that idea is though. I'm sure he'd love to share that with us.

By using this kind of argument I could point out anything in the Bible that I don't like and just say it's "men's traditions".

Click to expand...

Well, no, you couldn't and be truthful to God's Word as written. There's a difference between the simplicity in God's Holy Writ and men's doctrines per the fragments idea our Lord Jesus taught.

Could you also provide some details about what you mean by "not sticking to how Genesis is actually written". How was it "actually written"?

Click to expand...

Well, for one, Genesis 1 must be cross-referenced with relevant Scripture witnesses just like everywhere else in God's Word (like what you did with Exod.20:11, which is by far not the only relevant Scripture proof for the events of Genesis 1). You can check out my coverage of Gen.1 in the Bible Study section of this Forum if interested further. Shouldn't be a problem if you truly intend to arrive at the truth, whether you agree with what I covered or not.

I'm interested in lots of things. So what exactly is your point?

Click to expand...

My point is that few appear to care about addressing the relevant Scripture which supports the gap in Gen.1. Most of us were taught in Sunday school that Eve ate an apple, only to discover that idea is only a Church tradition, and not specifically written in God's Word as an apple. Some still have a difficult time believing the snake in God's Eden is simply another title for Satan himself as "that old serpent" per Rev.12:9 and 20:2. We've been taught a lot of things as being in God's Word when they aren't, and thus men's traditions, fragments loosely based on God's Word.

No, I don't, but you certainly seem to want me to say that. But sure, if what you consider to be the "traditional explanation" is incorrect then please demonstrate that it is definitely incorrect.

Click to expand...

I believe in God's creation like the traditional explanation, except not past Gen.1:2 as being about God's first 'original' creation of the earth. From Gen.1:2 forward is of the time of God placing His creation in a state of vanity and bondage of corruption, like Apostle Paul taught in Romans 8. God placing the earth in that state isn't part of the traditional explanation of Gen.1, yet it's an idea that is... written in God's Word. That's the idea I thought you were interested in hearing about per Scripture, and not simply some idea that others only say... came by men.

My point wasn't that the Gap theory had anything to do with the secular model, but that using the speed of light as evidence of an old universe presupposes a model that doesn't take into account God's ability to create the entire universe already in an expanded state.

Click to expand...

If you really understood what the gap idea of Gen.1 was about as written, you'd soon understand how it does not disagree with that. The gap idea is not against God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

Thank you for the explaination Steve, like I said, I won't make a big issue of it either way, I was just interested in your viewpoint on that, as I have never heard it put that way before. I agree that the bible is silent on the subject, so I try not to add or take away from what it says. I will hold my viewpoint and consider/study yours. I think there is alot we do agree on, so there is no need to strain out the gnat on something the bible is silent on. (also....I do not have the geology studies you do)

Thank you again for your explanation.

Secondhand Lion said:

Ugh...With much knowledge seems to come a great deal of confusion often times. I readily acknowledge that I am certainly not as intelligent as you guys seem to be; however may I ask a couple of questions for my understanding?

1. What happens to the cause of Christ if death came before sin? (fossil record)

Click to expand...

Haven't you read 1 John 3:8 that the devil sinned from the beginning? or from our Lord Jesus about the kingdom being prepared since the foundation... of the world per Matt.25? or Hebrews 2 of how Satan was given the power of death?

2. If the penalty for sin was not death....why did God lie to us?

Click to expand...

Using supposition that one says God lied by refusing your view of when death was assigned doesn't work. Stick to God's Word as written and you might learn just when it was assigned to the devil.

3. If sin came before Adam sinned...Why didn't God give us that account instead in His account of beginnings? Or did He lie about what the actual beginning was?

Click to expand...

Well, 1 John 3:8 declares sin began with the devil in the beginning, which makes the rest of your argument on shaky ground.

Secondhand Lion said:

Ummm....wait....where did man come from in the gap theory of evolution....if it still wasnt from animals? Or the original "micro-organism"? Does the gap theory suggest that man was still created but everything else came from some sort of evolution? What you suggest is very interesting, but an awful lot needs to be assumed it seems. I will wait for your answer on where exactly adam came from....I will probably have more questions

Click to expand...

The only difference between the Gap idea of Gen.1 and the traditional interpretation of Gen.1 is, that there's an unknown amount of time that occurred in between the Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 verses.

The origin of that does not originate from any tradition of men, nor evolution theory, etc. It originates directly from the Scriptures of God's Word. For example, in Gen.1:2 the Hebrew word 'tohuw' is rendered as "without form" by the KJV translators into English. Yet in Isaiah 45:18, God specifically... said He did NOT... create the earth 'tohuw' ("without form").

So by sticking to the simplicity that is God's Word, God revealed by that Isaiah 45:18 Scripture (along with others), that He did not create the earth in a "without form" (tohuw) state that the Gen.1:2 verses describes it in.

Many brethren still have difficulty with understanding about the future world to come with God's new heavens and a new earth, much less understanding about how God originally made a perfect creation from the start, and then ended it at Gen.1:2 to bring the state of the earth we're in today.

The Gap idea does NOT suggest a flesh order for man prior to Gen.1:26-27. But it does suggest a previous existence upon this earth by the angels, and the time of Satan's original rebellion in drawing one third of those angels into rebelliion along with him.

As per Gen.1:26-27 and Gen.2:7, God formed Adam's flesh from the earth, and breathed into Adam the Breath of Life, and Adam became a living soul, as written. There is no Scripture evidence to suggest that Adam 'evolved', and the Gap idea certainly does not suggest any such notions.

There are some things I agree with the Catholics on, and there are some things I disagree with. I was a Roman Catholic, and I have studied into the faith more than you (it seems), so this allows me to be able to speak about them.

Funny, you never mentioned that you were once Roman Catholic. I am really not sure how you have decided that you are more educated on Catholic doctrine than I am - have you read my mind? I think it is a rather foolish assumption on your part.

Most denominations, not just Catholics, think their leaders are right no matter what.

Another foolish assumption. Most Protestants are taught to refer to the Bible before believing what their leaders are saying. I was Protestant for 25 years before I became Catholic - it is a safe bet that I research what my leaders tell me.

This is the football team mentality. I like to be a little bit more objective than that. Blind allegiance disturbs me.

Indeed.

I have personally checked on the origin of Christianity, the Roman Catholics, the formation of doctrine, ecclesiastical canons, creeds and decrees, papal bulls, the founders of the faith, the earliest authors and how they contributed to the faith.

And why is it that you seem to believe that you are the only person who has done this? It is your assumption that everyone here needs to be enlightened by your superior knowledge base - ironically, you have been posting here for less than a month! I have been around for a little more than a year and I have met quite a few educated Christians on this board and have learned quite a bit of new information.

When I make statements it is because I have done my homework. I don’t believe the opinion of any institution unless that opinion can be strongly supported by scripture and history. This is where you and I differ. You don’t care whether history or scripture supports your views; your views are decided by other men. This, to me, is a child’s Christianity. Too afraid to step out on your own to ask the big questions, always needing to stay close to mummy’s apron strings.

Wow......stunning for someone who has no idea who I am or what I believe. You have some serious ego issues, friend. The only thing you know about me is that I am a member of the RCC and that is enough for you to pile on all your prejudice. You may believe you are not bias against Catholicism because you agree with a few pet doctrines, but you are just as ignorant as a Chick publication.

That’s fine, so you’re a child… so why engage in adult conversations when you’re always going to give a child’s opinion. Why get so huffy every time your institution is questioned when you have never ventured to fully test it yourself?

You really are a piece of work! I suggest that you heart check that arrogant mind you like to parade around this board - it is in serious need of Christ's humility.

veteran said:

The gap idea doesn't disagree with that Scripture as you suppose.
...

If you really understood what the gap idea of Gen.1 was about as written, you'd soon understand how it does not disagree with that. The gap idea is not against God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Some of these posters have no idea what they are talking about.

Steve said:

You are so defensive about your religion.... When you get challenged you cry “negative attitude.” You can insult me all you like; but if I question your precious traditions you start sulking.

I don’t think you offer any solid answers or proofs for your statements, you just offer circular arguments and opinions. I identified you as a child because you act like one with your adulations and pomp. I don’t mind if you call me arrogant and proud; that’s just the pot calling the kettle black. I’m not as sensitive as you; and I have solid reasons for my faith, in which you don’t. I admittedly get really annoyed with Veteran, who follows every thread I start and spams my threads with his views on Gap Theory. You’re really no problem to me. I didn't figure you for an evolutionist though. I actually thought you were more intelligent. You just like making objections and rejections without any ground to stand on. That’s what a lot of Catholics are like… I know…, I had your problem once.

God Bless
Steve

Click to expand...

I know you really want to make this about Catholicism - but comments like these have nothing to do with Catholicism:

"I was a Roman Catholic, and I have studied into the faith more than you (it seems)"

"When I make statements it is because I have done my homework. I don’t believe the opinion of any institution unless that opinion can be strongly supported by scripture and history. This is where you and I differ."

"your views are decided by other men"

"Too afraid to step out on your own to ask the big questions, always needing to stay close to mummy’s apron strings."

"That’s fine, so you’re a child… so why engage in adult conversations when you’re always going to give a child’s opinion."

"Why get so huffy every time your institution is questioned when you have never ventured to fully test it yourself?"

Once again, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of my church. You are personally insulting me based on your prejudiced against Catholics. I am not whining - I am simply pointing out the facts.

So here are my questions for you:

1. When have I mindlessly towed the Catholic line on doctrine?
2. When have I been defensive about Catholic doctrine?
3. When have I demanded that other people join the Catholic Church because I believe it is the only form of Christianity?
4. When have I placed Catholic doctrine over a personal relationship with Christ?

It takes a big ego to excuse a person you have never met from 'adult' conversations because you believe they are mindless children. So tell me again.....who is insulting whom?

Steve said:

You have no idea what you're talking about... the whole GAP doctrine is based on the artificial reading of a few verses and then twisted. As I stated earlier, the Gap Theory was invented by the 2nd century Gnostics. You modern day gnostics are rising up in these end-times with your destuctive sects, just as Paul had warned us.



I think this topic is a good example.



All of the time, now is a good example.



I never said you did.



When you deny the sayings of Christ about Adam and Eve for your preferred Catholic doctrine.

Now, are we going to be playing this game forever?

Click to expand...

No. I think we are finished here...lol

goodnight and God bless!

veteran said:

The gap idea doesn't disagree with that Scripture as you suppose.

Click to expand...

Nothing disagrees with scripture as long as you give yourself the priviledge of adding things in between the lines that simply aren't there. There is no gap mentioned at all in Gen 1:2.

But even if there was, where was the gap supposed to be? On day 1? (OK, after reading the rest of your post I think you have it occurring the week before).

No, that idea is not a tradition of man, but is written in God's Word. Didn't know the subject here had changed though.

Click to expand...

You introduced the subject of tradition, not me. I just want to get a clear answer from you (beyond just saying "God Word as written") how you are going to back up your claims concerning what is the "tradition of man" contra what is God's Word.

Ask Steve how old that term "Trinity" for that idea is though.

Click to expand...

I would ask Steve how old the term was, if that was the question we were discussing. If every old term is the "tradition of men" then I guess new term is "God's word".

Well, no, you couldn't and be truthful to God's Word as written.

Click to expand...

Exactly, that's my point. You would need to do more than simply state "that's the tradition of men", don't you think? This is why I am trying to get you to make a strong case for your assertions.

Most of us were taught in Sunday school that Eve ate an apple, only to discover that idea is only a Church tradition, and not specifically written in God's Word as an apple. Some still have a difficult time believing the snake in God's Eden is simply another title for Satan himself as "that old serpent" per Rev.12:9 and 20:2. We've been taught a lot of things as being in God's Word when they aren't, and thus men's traditions, fragments loosely based on God's Word.

Click to expand...

Sort of counts me out then. I was raised by occultists and was specifically taught that the Bible was a "vibration" that you shouldn't take too litterally. What turned me around was not anyone knocking on my door, but the fact that I picked up a Bible and God spoke to me. Since then I have done my best not to be swayed by other peoples teachings. I haven't gone to any Bible school and I have purposely tried to avoid reading Christian literature.

You can check out my coverage of Gen.1 in the Bible Study section of this Forum if interested further.

Click to expand...

I did check it out, but as first glance it seems to be pretty much what I expected - connecting the dots, suggesting alternative translations of words, and then speculating on what "might have happened". This is hardly enough for you to say that what other Biblical scholars believe is the traditions of men, whereas what you believe is "Gods Word". Come on man, have a little humility!

I believe in God's creation like the traditional explanation, except not past Gen.1:2 as being about God's first 'original' creation of the earth.

Click to expand...

I get you, and I am pretty sure you will stick to your guns, but I think that, along with studying Hebrew till our eyes are bloodshot, we need to consider what is reasonable, rather than just playing around with the alternative meanings of words.

Is it reasonable to believe that God created the earth twice and somehow forgot to mention the first creation other than throwing around a few incredibly vague clues in other parts of scripture. Why wouldn't He just spit it out? The Bible refers to "the earth" all thoughout the Bible, and how do we know "which" earth he is referring to? It seems your answer would be "every time he uses "viod" and/or "without form" in the verse then that is the first earth. Thats incredibly confusing, and far-fetched! The same goes with the word "creation". Which creation? There are apparantly two of them!

UppsalaDragby said:

Nothing disagrees with scripture as long as you give yourself the priviledge of adding things in between the lines that simply aren't there. There is no gap mentioned at all in Gen 1:2.

But even if there was, where was the gap supposed to be? On day 1? (OK, after reading the rest of your post I think you have it occurring the week before).

Click to expand...

In between... Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2. (The LORD does not always impart His Truth in a direct way with direct statements that we may desire, otherwise He would have not given us metaphors, riddles, and parables to learn. Those are only learned as we come closer in relationship with Him through His Son, and learn to listen to His Word. So if you're looking for some kind of direct statement like, "Now right here folks, I ended Satan's rebellion and My first creation which he caused to go into vanity," you won't find it.)

You introduced the subject of tradition, not me. I just want to get a clear answer from you (beyond just saying "God Word as written") how you are going to back up your claims concerning what is the "tradition of man" contra what is God's Word.

Click to expand...

Like I answered you, by staying... in God's Word... as written. And of course that's going to include some manuscript study, not just a particular Bible translation from those manuscripts. That's always... how we know what is a doctrine of men vs. what is God's Truth.

I would ask Steve how old the term was, if that was the question we were discussing. If every old term is the "tradition of men" then I guess new term is "God's word".

Exactly, that's my point. You would need to do more than simply state "that's the tradition of men", don't you think? This is why I am trying to get you to make a strong case for your assertions.

Click to expand...

Gnats again, and I thought you were being honest with me in your previous post in wanting to understand.

Why not check out the Bible study I did on the gap idea in the Bible Study section, called 'Genesis Time Gap'. Otherwise, I see no reason to take you serious about this matter.

I don't believe in evolution. Adaptation makes sense and is evident. Even that being so, the effect of adaptation is minimal and wouldn't create a new being due to it.

I don't believe that most of the current methods of dating the earth are accurate. Using "a thousand year day" theory doesn't seem to make sense either. I think this was just a way to explain that God is eternal, and we need to be patient. Both of these arguments contradict everything. If a day is a thousand years to God, then that's only 6,000 years. Clearly not enough time to develop all of the sedements that are used for scientific study.

The earth is obviously older than a mere 10,000 years or so. My theory is more like an embryo.

We all agree that God creates the life in the womb. Given that a sperm and an egg are needed. The entire system is set up by God and seems to be autonomous, however, I believe it's God that breathes life into the cells that are created. In a human it takes around 9 months of gestation for a complete human to form. It's not instantanious. It's a process of development and building of billions of cells that create the very complex system that is the human body.

I think the Earth and the Universe were formed much the same way. God designed it, God spoke, and the wheels of creation started turning. Sediments came together, water washed and flowed, earthquakes happened, and the Earth was ready. Life was put on earth and still the wheels kept turning.

We don't know exactly how long Adam and Eve were alive. Until sin they had the potential to be immortal. With a completely healthy ecosystem, and everything perfect, who knows how long we have the potential to live. The Bible says death entered the world after the first sin. I don't think animals died before that. Humans did coexist with the dinosaurs, and later the mammoths. We don't understand that humans only lived in a very small portion of the earth. They inhabited only a few square miles until later. The rest of the earth was ruled by beasts.

Seems to me, this earth has been around for longer than we assume the Bible suggests, and less than the scientists suggest. I don't see the importance of the knowledge of the exact age.

Evolutionists use the same arguments as proof, and deny the very proof that's against them. Having the knowledge of the age of the earth wouldn't benifit anything. People will always find ways to justify their stance and beliefs regardless of the supposed proof.

veteran said:

The LORD does not always impart His Truth in a direct way with direct statements that we may desire, otherwise He would have not given us metaphors, riddles, and parables to learn. Those are only learned as we come closer in relationship with Him through His Son, and learn to listen to His Word. So if you're looking for some kind of direct statement like, "Now right here folks, I ended Satan's rebellion and My first creation which he caused to go into vanity," you won't find it.

Click to expand...

Oh... I should have expected that. The LORD is hiding things from me but revealing them to you. "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them". "Them", of course, is anyone who disgrees with "you".

They haven't been enlightened to the degree that you have.

Like I answered you, by staying... in God's Word... as written.

Click to expand...

Would that be "as written" as in "in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and ALL that is in them" or some kind of extrapolation of a bunch of verses that only the "enlighted" (which would of course include you) have knowledge of? Sounds a little gnostic to me...

Gnats again

Click to expand...

Gnats again??? Not really sure what the first gnats were, but I kind of get the feeling that anything that disagrees with what you say is a case of "gnats".

I thought you were being honest with me in your previous post in wanting to understand

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but In YOUR previous post the words "whether you agree with what I covered or not" gave me the impression that "wanting to understand" also included disagreeing with you. Obviously I missunderstood you!

Why not check out the Bible study I did on the gap idea in the Bible Study section, called 'Genesis Time Gap'. Otherwise, I see no reason to take you serious about this matter.

Click to expand...

I see... Another thread for me to check out. What was wrong with the first one you recomended? Are you going to keep on recommending threads until I finally agree with you and thereby qualify as someone you consider worthy of being taken seriously?

Between the two of us someone seems to be incredibly full of himself.

Sure, it might be me, but since I'm not the one claiming to have any "revealed knowledge" I will leave it to the readers of this thread to determine who it is.

In the meantime I will challenge you to produce evidence that what you say is truly "God's Word" as opposed to the "traditions of men". So far you have failed to do so.

Steve said:

You have developed a really good grasp of things considering your background.

Click to expand...

Thanks Steve. It certainly wasn't easy growing up in a family of six children in a house that was always open for demon activity. My parents were not just people who dabbled in the occult. Seances were held each week in our living room, my mother published new-age magazines that she distributed around the world, and both my mother and father were incredibly fanatical about what they believed.

They weren't evil people, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. They preached about righteous, love, and understanding and were respected in society, but behind the scenes, the fact that they manipulated by demons was evident by the fruits that their activities reaped.

I had incredibly frightening nightmares all the time I was at home, and had so many personal problems as a youngster that I have a hard time describing it. My older brother was a criminal who spent time in jail. My oldest sister ran away from home in her teens. One of my younger sisters got pregnant at 15 (as did her daughter) and she turned into a hopeless drug addict. My youngest brother, at the age of 22 died in a freak accident leaving behind a widow and two infants. As you can imagine It was utter chaos...