1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Three Earth Ages

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by Christina, May 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    WOW I learned this about "was" and "became" years ago but Ive gotten so much flack about it I dont often bring it up any more nice to hear someone is still teaching this as it should be taught read what I wrote in other world age post and if you take Peters words along with the gap between verse 1 and 2 then there is no division between science and religon as far as the age of this earth.
     
  2. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Oh, I get flack for this all of the time since I've started studying it and it will continue until I die, but until the Holy Spirit convinces me otherwise, this is God's Word and this is how it happened. However, if you guys want flack, just wait until I finish my next two studies.Just a reminder, but Matthew 11 has great information on times when you know in your heart that what you teach is right. As the ole' preacher said to me, teach what you know.Matthew 11
    18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
    Please know that I am in no way comparing myself nor anyone else to even John the Baptist, much less Jesus the Christ, but they were even condemned for their words. If that's the case, don't you know that the old enemy will try and initmidate us with these same tactics?
     
  3. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Gap Theory is a lie.Exodus 20:11 — "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."...there's no room for a billions of years gap in there. Do you think God created Adam as a newborn baby? No. He created him with an appearance of being aged to manhood. The earth may appear to be millions of years old by some measures... but by the authority of the totality of God's Word, it is indeed a young earth.Shalom,
     
  4. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I'm not disputing that part of the creation of this age. You can write off the "Gap Theory" as a lie but you also have to write off the Word of God in II Peter as a lie which I have a problem with doing.I don't quite get your pointed about Adam since it's really not even related to what I am talking about to change the validity of it. God created this age (this heaven and earth) as we know it in 6 days. All of this is described in the Bible, but those other verses do not lie either.
     
  5. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SwampFox)
    I'm not disputing that part of the creation of this age. You can write off the "Gap Theory" as a lie but you also have to write off the Word of God in II Peter as a lie which I have a problem with doing.
    Which part of 2 Peter exactly? Break it down for me.
     
  7. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I've read several such attempts to dispute it, I'm not going to waste my time on various theories that dispute theories. That's another debate for another day. As you'll clearly see above, I've provided other reference verses for the first age. Dispute those, show me where I am wrong in the interpretation of those verses. I'm confident that I am not.I care not for someone's opinion on the gap theory. Christ himself showed us the false teachings of many who were regarded as wise and they scoffed at him with their own "articles" of the day. I care for the Word of God given to us in the Bible.
    Which part of 2 Peter exactly? Break it down for me.
    It's all posted above, I suppose you've not even read what I've had to say?
     
  8. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    dear 7cworldwideI have found after years of study that the best interpter of the bible is thebible itself.Take notice that swapfox uses the bible to back what he is saying and you are using an oppinion of a man named Russell Grigg whoever that may be.Does it not give you reason to pause that you taking Mr.Griggs explanation of truth over that of Gods word??
     
  9. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss)
    dear 7cworldwideI have found after years of study that the best interpter of the bible is thebible itself.Take notice that swapfox uses the bible to back what he is saying and you are using an oppinion of a man named Russell Grigg whoever that may be.Does it not give you reason to pause that you taking Mr.Griggs explanation of truth over that of Gods word??
    kriss,And SwampFox links to other sites... a Mr. Goggin's teachings... :study:
     
  10. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    If you'll kindly notice, I didn't use the teachings of Mr. Goggin to base my study on. I didn't just link to a website and say that explains it go read it. I took the time to write out my own lesson (based on God's Word) and then simply offer links to which help explain things. For example, Mr. Goggin didn't write the Appendix 146 of the Companion Bible; he happened to have a copy of it on his website. Hopefully, we'll have our own copy soon enough.You still haven't responded to what I said earlier, you want to concentrate on everything but what the Bible itself says about these 3 ages. Let's talk about what the Bible says and worry about the supplementary links later. Let those chips fall where they may. The so called "gap theory" does not make or break the lesson.
     
  11. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SwampFox)
    I care for the Word of God given to us in the Bible.
    ...which doesn't make room for man's imposition of an "age" or some untold period of time of prior to that of the first day. There could not have been death prior to Adam's sin. There was no pre-Adamite race. There was no "Luciferian" flood. These are all extra-biblical ideas imposed upon the actual Word of God.As for the original language, verses 1 and 2 form one independent clause... the Hebrew tohu bohu, "unformed" and "unfilled" are not necessarily terms of judgment... hayeta is translated properly as "was" (can't be "became" as Gap Theorists would like to make it).God forbid I post another outside link but this exegesis is articulated better than I'll be able to express in my limited amount of time here: http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb006.html...and much more difficult to refute I might add, as it tears down the 2 Peter 3 arguments rather handily.With Love,
     
  12. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    As for the original language, verses 1 and 2 form one independent clause... the Hebrew tohu bohu, "unformed" and "unfilled" are not necessarily terms of judgment... hayeta is translated properly as "was" (can't be "became" as Gap Theorists would like to make it).
    Number one, the original word is hayah not hayetha. However, I did remember a bit about the disjunctive-waw clause which gets deep into the Hebrew. However, please note:
    A disjunctive-waw clause may also shift the scene or refer to new participants; the disjunction may come at the beginning or end of a larger episode or it may "interrupt" one. The "interruptive" use, better called explanatory or parenthetical, "break into the main narrative to supply information relevant to or necessary for the narrative" The disjunction may also indicate "either the completion of one episode or the beginning of another. [ see Lambdin p.164, citing Gn. 3:1; 4:1; 16:1; 21:1 ] "
    Which, I feel at least, makes it somewhat of a moot point. So, we'll move on to bigger and better things.Correct me if I am wrong here, but would the word was not really matter in this statement given the Hebrew meanings of tohuw and bohu. Look at the other place that it is used in Jeremiah and Isaiah again where the words specifically means it became.The argument on the site is lacking - for example, if you want to use the logic of why didn't God say anything about it then what about Jesus in the Bible of whom we know basically nothing of his young life? Why? Because it's not in God's purpose to reveal it.
    2. Satan, or Lucifer before he fell, was ruler of the earth, which was at that time inhabited by a pre-Adamic race of people, (Robert Alexander, How to Study the Bible p.35)
    Strange, I don't remember the Bible nor myself advocating this. Number one, these weren't the people of creation. Notice that in Genesis 2:7 God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and a man became a living soul." The specific word used here is neshamah which alludes to soul. Notice the specific physical creation but the lack of the creation of the soul. He breathed life into the physical body. In other words, he placed the soul, which existed prior to this second age creation, into the physical body of Adam.It doesn't change the nature of men, and that's another argument I saw Fred make. The ones who rebelled with Satan did so of their own accord, the same way we now rebel from God.Another point I'd like to make, is it doesn't harmonize the views of evolutionists and the creationists. It suggests some things that would certainly explain other things, but that's not my aim. However, it also still disagrees overall with evolution as an origin and if it is/was an attempt, it was indeed a very poor one. Also, I'm not worried about fossils of long dead beasts in the ground. I'm worried about what the Good Book says.
    ...and much more difficult to refute I might add, as it tears down the [url="http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=2+Peter+3]2 Peter 3[/url] arguments rather handily.
    Funny, didn't see a word about about II Peter 3 in there. Why was it left out? He can't explain it!
     
  13. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Praying for wisdom always works.II Corinthians 12:1-31 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, ( whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.3 And I knew such a man, ( whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
     
  14. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    SwampFox,With all due respect, I think you're really confused. I'm getting ready to leave for vacation and won't be back until Memorial Day... I'll try to visit then and see how this conversation has progressed.Shalom,
     
  15. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    And, with all due respect, I am positive that I am not. Have a good and safe trip.
     
  16. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SwampFox)
    And, with all due respect, I am positive that I am not.
    It seems as though the only remaining pillar of the Gap Theory to be pulled down here in this discussion is the flood passage in 2 Peter 3. I assume from your initial post that you believe this to be a pre-Adamic flood (called the Luciferian flood by Gap Theorists). Why? Why don't you believe this is a direct reference the the Noachic flood?(SwampFox)
    Have a good and safe trip.
    I did. Thanks... it was very much needed and very refreshing. [​IMG]
     
  17. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    Why the old "world that then was" ended, and why God made a new world and modern Man, requires a study into the ancient origins of Satan and the Angels. The Earth was originally established according to the Creator’s Intelligent Design and purpose. It has an ancient natural history that can be deciphered from the geologic record. It also has an equally important ancient spiritual history that can only be deciphered from the Bible. Knowledge of both is required to fully reconcile Geology and the Book of Genesis.These are the generation of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,(Genesis 2:4 KJV)
     
  18. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shalom kriss.Science (including all the various fallible dating methods) cannot be more true than God's Word. There's no reason to try to fit the square peg of His Word into any of man's round holes.Again I ask, did God create Adam as a newborn baby or as a full-grown man having an aged appearance? Likewise, the heavens and the earth would have to be given some appearance of age from its very creation. The geological record has yet to disprove the biblical account of a young earth. Actually, from what I can tell, biblical events like the worldwide Noachic flood seem to fit rather comfortably into the puzzle of Truth of the geological record... and again... secular scientists don't like to admit it but they've yet to clearly disprove any literal interpretation of God's Word.As for the time of Satan's revolt, it would have to have been after the sixth day of creation (when God declared all that had been made "very good") and before the original sin. The amount of time spanning between these two events is unknown but there's certainly room for this revolution to have taken place in the given time frame. It's the only sensible biblical explanation for the timing of this occurrence.The angels are understood to be created beings, correct? God created ALL THINGS, including the heavens and the formless earth mentioned in Gen. 1:1. By John 1:3, that's undeniable. By Ex. 20:11, among other passages, we know that ALL THINGS were created in those first six days. See the connection? ALL THINGS by God... ALL THINGS in six days. There's no room for a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Gen. 1. It's absolute silliness to try and prove otherwise and in the same breath say that your argument is based on Scripture.Seek God. The Truth is there in His Word.Shalom,Lane
     
  19. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Likes Received:
    207
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
     
  20. graceforums

    graceforums New Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SwampFox)
    Because of what the verse itself says right there and then what Paul himself says in II Corinthians 12 KJV. I don't think I can break it down anymore than that. If you don't see it, fine, but I make no apologies for what I believe and know to be true
    I don't see it because it's not there! :study: ...you should be able to be a lot less vague if you're defending what you "know" is true. (SwampFox)
    Let me point out that science is indeed fallible. However, these bones in the ground are a part of God's creation that you can both see and feel.
    Yes... your point? I say those bones are there as a result of the biblical Noachic flood... not an extrabiblical, "pre-historic" Luciferian flood.(SwampFox)
    With all due respect, the next two paragraphs seem like someone trying to limit God's power and ability who knows better than that. I know you have respect for God and know what he can do. God can easily defy this relatively simple world (to Him) that he's created.
    How did what I say put any limit on God's power? Please be specific. I re-read it and I have no idea how you can think that... when you say "God can easily defy" what He says, you are saying God has no problem with lying to His people. I have a problem with that! If you think I'm limiting God's power by saying he is not a liar then I don't think there's any reconciliation between the two of us on that point.(SwampFox)
    I completely disagree. God's statement was for what he created here on Earth. As you'll notice, Satan suddenly appears in the Garden of Eden back in Chapter 2 (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).
    Yes. Chapter 2... which is after the time frame I gave as the only sensible biblical explanation for the timing of this occurrence.(SwampFox)
    Unless you're reading another argument here, no one's denying that.
    Are you not saying there had to be a whole other creation before Genesis 1:2? You have to be saying that if you believe in a gap of a gajillion years between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.(SwampFox)
    As for Exodus 20:11 KJV, notice the word choice of "made" (Hebrew word #6213) instead of "created" because, unlike in II Peter, Jeremiah, and Genesis where the creation of everything is outlined, this verse serves to explain the sabbath day. He made the earth and heaven that we see today in this time period.
    Saying that's a stretch is putting it lightly. Please don't try to make it something it's not... the words have basically the same meaning. In fact, in the Septuagint, "made" in Gen. 1:1 and "made" in Ex. 20:11 are the same word, εποίησεν (Strong's Gr. 4160).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...