Oh my gawd

[MDM4AU 336]

You do realize that the only reason you are Christian right now is because it became the official religion in Rome. Constantine decided that this was the right religion, and it spread and was passed down from generation to generation. You aren't Christian because it is right, you are Christian because your parents were, and their parents were, so on and so forth until the time that everyone was Christian because thats what the emperor decided and it is what became wide spread.

So let me see if I understand...we stupid Christians can't make an informed decision for ourselves - we have just blindly and ignorantly followed along for 2000 years. But the all knowing super-intellectual Aufan59 was able to break out of that cycle. He can save you too if you just listen to him and believe what he says.

No thanks.

[BamaGrad03 0]

You do realize that the only reason you are Christian right now is because it became the official religion in Rome. Constantine decided that this was the right religion, and it spread and was passed down from generation to generation. You aren't Christian because it is right, you are Christian because your parents were, and their parents were, so on and so forth until the time that everyone was Christian because thats what the emperor decided and it is what became wide spread.

Yeah, you're right. No one has EVER accepted Christianity who wasn't raised in a Christian household...

[DKW 86 7,481]

No contradictions in the bible?

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

I think some of the inaccuracies of the bible have been summed up in this thread. For example, explain Noah's Ark and dinosaurs? Either Noah didn't get every animal on the ark (like the bible said he did) or dinosaurs didn't exist.

Be a Bible Scholar , just for a second.

Gap Theory

Is there a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis? On this website you will learn about a controversial, lesser known literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative that does not contradict the scientific evidence for an Old Earth. Commonly called the "Gap Theory" or Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation, it is based on the Scriptural fact that, in the second verse of Genesis, the Holy Bible simply and clearly states that the planet Earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the creative process of the seven days even begins. Understanding this Biblical mystery begins with the precise wording of this New Testament cross-reference:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

(2 Pet 3:5-7 KJV)

Contrary to popular interpretation, the above passage is not a reference to Noah's flood (see Introduction Pages for specifics). And the only other place in the Bible where the Earth was covered in waters is Genesis 1:2. The ramifications are obvious: The literal wording suggests that the "heavens and the earth, which are now" (made during the seven days) was not the first-time creation of all things, as is traditionally assumed. The Word of God appears to be telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of modern Man. This invalidates the Doctrine of Young Earth Creationism.

This isnt even a real stretch for some that have studied the Bible. For instance, When did Lucifer actually fall? If he was fallen before Adam and Eve then certain passages in the Old Testament are really flashbacks to the time when he was still a cherub.

When did Satan Fall? He shows up in Isaiah before and after the fall. What about Job? Job was written before the rest of the Bible, yet Satan apppears to be already fallen at that point. If "Gap Theory" is correctm then it helps bridge the timeline back to an older earth, possibly that of the dinosaurs, that was destroyed and restored before Noah's flood.

Isaiah 14:12-14 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)

The Five I Wills of Satan

You said in your heart,

I will ascend to heaven;

I will raise my throne above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.

I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High."

[tgr4lfe 220]

The bible is proven to not be completely true. How are you supposed to take any source of information seriously when it already gave you bad information?

It is supposed to be the word of god. If this was his way to talk to us, then he certainly did a pretty bad job of deciding what to say.

Proven by who? What has been shown to be false? There are no contradictions or discrepancies. There is no bad information in the bible. What do mean by your last statement? Please show us this proof.

No contradictions in the bible?

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

I think some of the inaccuracies of the bible have been summed up in this thread. For example, explain Noah's Ark and dinosaurs? Either Noah didn't get every animal on the ark (like the bible said he did) or dinosaurs didn't exist.

Even christians say that the bible shouldn't be taken literally. My question is for a book that can't be taken literally, how do we distinguish what really happened from what is just a symbol for something. If god creating the earth in 6 days is just a metaphor, what is so wrong about thinking that Jesus's miracles were just metaphors?

The server firewall blocks that little site as "Racism and Hate", so I can view these supposed inaccuracies, but I will offer you this link, which provides detailed research on some of the more frequently used alleged Biblical discrepancies and/or contradictions. Why couldn't there have been dinosaurs on the ark? Did you know he took more than two of some species?

I believe God created the earth in 6 literal days and it is not a metaphor. Here is an article that discusses theses "discrepancies" The Bible and the Age of the Earth. I don't believe the 6 days is a metaphor and no Jesus' miracles were not metaphors. I am more than willing to discuss these alleged discrepancies.

Your opinion on the latter, but when you ignore the facts ( as you've done ) and simply accepted the Bible as the last word on everything, you've placed the cart before the horse, and quickly brought and end to any reasonable or rational discussion of the matter.

Raptor, yes the age of the earth can be dervied from the biblical chronology, but of course this reasononing hinges once again on ones belief in God and His word. Read that article linked above. Have you taken the time to read any of these articles? I believe it is you that have put a reasonable and rational discussion to rest, based your atheistic views. I deduct that you and AUfan59 don't beleive in God or hold the bible to be His word, thus you negate any of the sound and reasonable critiques of some of the so called findings of science, which are not always as legit or accurate as they seem. The scientific critiques of many of these theories I have put out there for you to see seem to get ignored, not for the fact that they do a great job of laying out the problems with said theories, but they get ignored b/c they are Christian based, imo. I am not ignoring any facts, I am disputing theories, and tangles of mistruth and analysis. I am not opposed to science, as I know science gies insight into the Creators design.

Do you believe in God and in His inspired Word? Will you discuss that w/o the sarcastic emoticons? There is no putting the cart before the horse. Like it or not the fabric of evolutionary theory rests on there being an ancient Earth. The Age of the Earth is the very backbone of that theory. I do not profess to have all the answers, but I do know that God created everything. Thus the reason Jesus spoke the words in Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them”.

Why bring something into an argument that is not geared toward an argument like this?

From the www.apologeticspress.org link:

Obviously, then, I am not writing with the atheistic evolu­tionist

in mind. I am well aware that my arguments would

carry no weight whatsoever with the person who falls into that

specific category. Rather, this discussion is intended for those

who: (a) believe in the God of the Bible; ( claim to accept

the Bible as His inspired, authoritative Word; and © are con­vinced

that what God has said can be understood.

Lets assume that god created everything. It still doesn't explain how silly the bible is.

For example, in one portion of the bible, god commands various people to kill, he wipes out entire cities, and even wipes the entire planet clean. Then, for no apparent reason, god all of the sudden feels as though humans are worth saving, and condemns his only son to a life of pain and torment so "We" can all be saved. Now why would an all knowing, all powerful deity just up and decide that "Hey, I don't want you humans to burn in hell any longer."? Just because he can?

You do realize that the only reason you are Christian right now is because it became the official religion in Rome. Constantine decided that this was the right religion, and it spread and was passed down from generation to generation. You aren't Christian because it is right, you are Christian because your parents were, and their parents were, so on and so forth until the time that everyone was Christian because thats what the emperor decided and it is what became wide spread.

What am I bringing into this discussion that is not geared for this discussion?

God created man and woman with free will. Adam and Eve had rules, it did not take long for the serpent to tempt Eve into disobeying God. Thus everything changed. As God's chosen people (Isrealites) disobeyed even after time and time again being taken care of by God, their free will guided them into disobedience to God's commands (10 commandments). God does not want to force people into following and He will not. Thus the reason for the new covenant thru Christ. He gives His grace and mercy.

And all the other faiths are catholics, budhists, muslims, hindus, etc b/c their parents were, and their parents were. That is ludacris argument as not everyone is Christian. I am a Christian b/c I studied what God says in His word and I believe that Jesus Christ is His only son. There are millions of people that are Christians who grew up never hearing of a bible, whose parents raised them in a different faith. The Roman ruler Constantine adopted as the religion of Rome b/c of his belief. That did not dictate that the people in asia had to become Christian but over time some have.

DKW, here is a an excerpt I thought you might want to review.

THE GAP THEORY

In recent years, the Day-Age Theory has fallen on hard

times. Numerous expositors have outlined its shortcomings,

and have shown that it is without lexical or exegetical support.

It has utterly failed to secure the goals and objectives of its advocates

—i.e., the injection of geological time into the Genesis

account in a biblically and scientifically logical manner, with

the subsequent guarantee of an ancient Earth. Therefore, even

though it retains its popularity in certain circles, it has been

rejected by many old-Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists,

and progressive creationists.

Yet the Bible believer who still desires to accommodate his

theology to the geologic ages, and to retain his belief in an old

Earth, must fit vast time spans into the creation account of

Genesis 1 in some fashion. As I explained earlier, there are

only three options. The time needed to ensure an old Earth

might be placed: (a) during the creation week; ( before

the creation week; or © after the creation week. I have shown,

in my review of the Day-Age Theory, that the geologic ages

cannot be placed into the biblical text during the creation

week. I now would like to examine the suggestion that they

may be inserted before the creation week.

For over 150 years, Bible believers who were determined

to insert the geologic ages into the biblical record, yet who re­alized

the inadequacy of the Day-Age Theory to accomplish

- 53 ­

that task, have suggested that it is possible to place the geo­logic

ages before the creation week using what is commonly

known as the Gap Theory (also known by such synonyms as

the Ruin-and-Reconstruction Theory, the Ruination/Re-creation

Theory, the Pre-Adamic Cataclysm Theory, and the Res­titution

Theory).

Modern popularity of the Gap Theory generally is attrib­uted

to the writings of Thomas Chalmers, a nineteenth-century

Scottish theologian. Ian Taylor provided this summary:

An earlier attempt to reconcile geology and Scripture

had been put forward by another Scotsman, Thomas

Chalmers, an evangelical professor of divinity at Ed­inburgh

University. He founded the Free Church of

Scotland, and because of his outreach to the poor and

destitute he later became known as the “father of mod­ern

sociology.” Traceable back to the rather obscure

writings of the Dutchman Episcopius (1583-1643),

Chalmers formed an idea, which became very popular

and is first recorded in one of his lectures of 1814:

“The detailed history of Creation in the first chapter

* of Genesis begins at the middle of the second verse.”

Chalmers went on to explain that the first statement,

“In the beginning God created the Heavens and the

Earth and the Earth was without form and void and

darkness was on the face of the deep,” referred to a

pre-Adamic age, about which Scripture was essentially

silent. Some great catastrophe had taken place,

which left the earth “without form and void” or ru­ined,

in which state it remained for as many years as

the geologist required. Finally, approximately six

thousand years ago, the Genesis account continues,

“The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

The remaining verses were then said to be the account

of how this present age was restored and all living

forms, including man, created (1984, pp. 362-363).

* See: Chalmers, Thomas (1857), “Natural Theology,” The Select Works

of Thomas Chalmers, ed. William Alanna (Edinburgh, Scotland: Thomas

Constable), volume five of the twelve volume set.

- 54 ­

Through the years, the Gap Theory has undergone an “evo­lution”

of its own and therefore is not easy to define. There

are several variations of the Gap Theory, and at times its de­fenders

do not agree among themselves on strict interpreta­tions.

I will define the theory as many of its advocates have,

recognizing that no single definition can be all-inclusive or

encompass all possible facets of the theory. A brief summa­tion

of the main tenets of the Gap Theory might be as follows.

The widely held view among Gap theorists today is that

the original creation of the world by God, as recorded in Gen­esis

1:1, took place billions of years ago. The creation then was

despoiled because of Satan’s disobedience, resulting in his

being cast from heaven with his followers. A cataclysm *oc­curred

at the time of Satan’s rebellion, and is said by proponents

of the Gap Theory to have left the Earth in complete

darkness (“waste and void”) as a divine judgment because of

the sin of Satan in rebelling against God. The world as God

had created it, with all its inhabitants,** was destroyed and left

“waste and void,” which, it is claimed, accounts for the myriad

fossils present in the Earth. Then, God “re-created” (or “restored”)

the Earth in six literal, 24-hour days. Genesis 1, therefore,

is the story of an original, perfect creation, a judgment

and ruination, and a re-creation. While there are other minor

details that could be included, this represents the essence of

the Gap Theory.

* It is alleged by some Gap theorists that the cataclysm occurring at Satan’s

rebellion terminated the geologic ages, after which God “re-created”

(Genesis 1:2). It is alleged by others that the cataclysm occurred

and then was followed by the billions of years thath constituted the ge­ologic

ages; then, at some time determined in the mind of God, He “recreated.”

Because it is difficult to know exactly which school of thought

to follow, both are presented for the reader’s consideration.

** Many, holding to this theory, place the fossils of dinosaurs, so-called

“ape-men,” and other extinct forms of life in this gap, thereby hoping to

avoid having to explain them in the context of God’s present creation.

- 55 ­

This compromise is popular with those who wish to find a

place in Genesis 1 for the geologic ages, but who, for what­ever

reasons, reject the Day-Age Theory. The Gap Theory is

intended to harmonize Genesis and geology on the grounds

of allowing vast periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and

Genesis 1:2, in order to account for the geologic ages. George

H. Pember, one of the earliest defenders of the Gap Theory,

wrote:

Hence we see that geological attacks upon the Scrip­tures

are altogether wide of the mark, are a mere beat­ing

of the air. There is room for any length of time be­tween

the first and second verses of the Bible. And

again; since we have no inspired account of the geo­logical

formations we are at liberty to believe they

were developed in the order we find them (1876, p.

28).

The Scofield Reference Bible,* in its footnote on Genesis 1:11, suggested:

“Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict

of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains” (1917,

p. 4). Harry Rimmer, in Modern Science and the Genesis Record

(1937), helped popularize the Gap Theory. Anthropologist Arthur

C. Custance produced Without Form and Void (1970)—the

text that many consider the ablest defense of the Gap Theory

ever put into print. George Klingman, in God Is (1929), opted

for the Gap Theory, as did Robert Milligan in The Scheme of

Redemption (1972 reprint). George DeHoff advocated the Gap

Theory in Why We Believe the Bible (1944), and J.D. Thomas,

stated in his text, Evolution and Antiquity, that “no man can

prove that it is not true, at least in part ”(1961, p. 54). John Clay­ton

has accepted almost all of the Gap Theory, but has altered

it to suit his own geological/theological purposes. The end re­*

First published in 1909, by 1917 the Scofield Reference Bible had placed

the Gap Theory into the footnotes accompanying Genesis 1; in more re­cent

editions, references to the theory may be found as a footnote to Isa­iah

45.

- 56 ­

sult is an extremely unusual hybrid known as the Modified

Gap Theory* (see: Clayton, 1976a, pp. 147-148; Thompson,

1977, pp. 192-194; 1995, pp. 193-206; McIver, 1988, 8[3]:1-23;

Jackson and Thompson, 1992, pp. 114-130).

SUMMARY OF THE GAP THEORY

Those who advocate the Gap Theory base their views on

several arguments, a summary of which is given here; com­ments

and refutation will follow.

1. Gap theorists suggest that two Hebrew words in the crea­tion

account mean entirely different things. Gap theorists

hold to the belief that bara (used in Genesis 1:1,21,27) means

“to create” (i.e., ex nihilo creation). Asah, however, does not

mean “to create,” but instead means “to re-create” or “to

make over.” Therefore, we are told, the original creation

was “created”; the creation of the six days was “made”

(i.e., “made over”).

2. Gap theorists suggest that the Hebrew verb hayetha (translated

“was” in Genesis 1:2) should be rendered “became”

or “had become”—a translation required in order to suggest

a change of state from the original perfect creation to

the chaotic conditions implied in verse 2.

3. Gap theorists believe that the “without form and void” of

Genesis 1:2 (Hebrew tohu wabohu) can refer only to some­thing

once in a state of repair, but now ruined. Pember ac­cepted

these words as expressing “an outpouring of the

wrath of God.” Gap theorists believe the cataclysm that

occurred was on the Earth, and was the direct result of Satan’s

rebellion against God. The cataclysm, of course, is

absolutely essential to the Gap Theory. Isaiah 14:12-15

and Ezekiel 28:11-17 are used as proof-texts to bolster the

theory.

* Clayton’s Modified Gap Theory will be treated more fully in chapter 4.

- 57 ­

4. Gap theorists believe that Isaiah 45:18 (“God created the

earth not in vain”—Hebrew, tohu; same word as “without

form” in Genesis 1:2) is a proof-text that God did not cre­ate

the Earth tohu. Therefore, they suggest, Genesis 1:2

can refer only to a judgment brought upon the early Earth

by God.

5. Gap theorists generally believe that there was a pre-Adamic

creation of both non-human and human forms. Al­legedly,

Jeremiah 4:23-26 is the proof-text that requires

such a position, which accounts for the fossils present in

the Earth’s strata.

THE GAP THEORY—A REFUTATION

The above points adequately summarize the positions of

those who advocate the Gap Theory. I now would like to suggest

the following reasons why the Gap Theory should be rejected

as false.

1. The Gap Theory is false because of the “mental gymnastics”

necessary to force its strained argumentation to agree

with the biblical text. Even Bernard Ramm, who championed

the idea of progressive creationism, found those mental

gymnastics a serious argument against the theory’s unorthodox

nature.

It gives one of the grandest passages in the Bible a most

peculiar interpretation. From the earliest Bible inter­pretation

this passage has been interpreted by Jews,

Catholics, and Protestants as the original creation of

the universe. In six majestic days the universe and all

of life is brought into being. But according to Rimmer’s

view the great first chapter of Genesis, save for the first

verse, is not about original creation at all, but about re­constructions.

The primary origin of the universe is

stated in but one verse. This is not the most telling blow

against the theory, but it certainly indicates that some­thing

has been lost to make the six days of creation anticlimactic....

Or, in the words of Allis: “The first objec-

- 58 ­

tion to this theory is that it throws the account of creation

almost completely out of balance.... It seems highly

improbable that an original creation which according

to this theory brought into existence a world of won­drous

beauty would be dismissed with a single sentence

and so many verses devoted to what would be in a sense

merely a restoration of it” (1954, p. 138, emp. in orig.).

2. The Gap Theory is false because it is based on a forced, ar­tificial,

and incorrect distinction between God’s creating

(bara) and making (asah). According to the standard rendi­tion

of the Gap Theory, these two words must mean en­tirely

different things. The term bara must refer only to “cre­ating”

(i.e., an “original” creation), while the term asah can

refer only to “making” (i.e., not an original creation, but

something “re-made” or “made over”). A review of the use

of these two specific Hebrew words throughout the Old

Testament, however, clearly indicates that they often are

used interchangeably. Morris commented:

The Hebrew words for “create” (bara) and for “make”

(asah) are very often used quite interchangeably in Scripture,

at least when God is the one referred to as creating

or making. Therefore, the fact that bara is used only

three times in Genesis 1 (vv. 1,21, and 27) certainly does

not imply that the other creative acts, in which “made”

or some similar expression is used, were really only

acts of restoration. For example, in Genesis 1:21, God

“created” the fishes and birds; in 1:25, He “made” the

animals and creeping things. In verse 26, God speaks

of “making” man in His own image. The next verse

states that God “created” man in His own image. No

scientific or exegetical ground exists for distinction be­tween

the two processes, except perhaps a matter of

grammatical emphasis.... Finally, the summary verse

(Genesis 2:3) clearly says that all of God’s works, both

of “creating” and “making” were completed with the

six days, after which God “rested” (1966, p. 32, emp. in

orig.).

- 59 ­

The insistence by Gap theorists, and those sympathetic

with them, that bara always must mean “to create some­thing

from nothing,” is, quite simply, wrong. Such a view

has been advocated by such writers as John Clayton (1990a,

p. 7) and Hugh Ross* (1991, p. 165). Yet Old Testament

scholar C.F. Keil, in his commentary, The Pentateuch, con­cluded

that when bara appears in its basic form, as it does

in Genesis 1,

...it always means to create, and is only applied to a di­vine

creation, the production of that which had no ex­istence

before. It is never joined with an accusative of

the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent

material unconditionally, but is used for the cre­ation

of man (ver. 27, ch. v. 1,2), and of everything new

that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num­bers

xvi.30) or of that of grace (Ex. xxxiv.10; Ps. li.10,

etc.) [1971, 1:47, first emp. in orig.; last emp. added].

Furthermore, the Old Testament contains numerous examples

which prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that bara

and asah are used interchangeably. For example, in Psalm

148:1-5, the writer spoke of the “creation” (bara) of the angels.

But when Nehemiah wrote of that same event, he employed

the word asah to describe it (9:6). In Genesis 1:1,

the text speaks of God “creating” (bara) the Earth. Yet, when

Nehemiah spoke of that same event, he employed the word

asah (9:6). When Moses wrote of the “creation” of man, he

used bara (Genesis 1:27). But one verse before that, he spoke

of the “making” (asah) of man. Moses also employed the

two words in the same verse (Genesis 2:4) when he said:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth

when they were created [bara], in the day that Jehovah

made [asah] earth and heaven.”

* Ross has stated: “The Hebrew word for ‘created,’ always refers to di­vine

activity. The word emphasizes the newness of the created object. It

means to bring something entirely new, something previously non-existent,

into existence” (1991, p. 165, emp. added).

- 60 ­

Gap theorists teach that the Earth was created (bara) from

nothing in Genesis 1:1. But Moses said in Genesis 2:4 that

the Earth was made (asah). Various gap theorists are on rec­ord

as stating that the use of asah can refer only to that

which is made from something already in existence. Yet

they do not believe that when Moses spoke of the Earth

being “made,” it was formed from something already in ex­istence.

Consider also Exodus 20:11 in this context. Moses wrote:

“For in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth,

the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.”

Gap theorists contend that this verse speaks only of God’s

“re-forming” from something already in existence. But no­tice

that the verse specifically speaks of the heaven, the

Earth, the seas, and all that in them is. Gap theorists,

however, do not contend that God formed the heavens

from something already in existence. The one verse that

Gap theorists never have been able to answer is Nehemiah

9:6.

Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made

[asah] heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host,

the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas and all

that is in them, and thou preservest them all; and the

host of heaven worshippeth thee.

The following quotation from Fields explains why.

...in Nehemiah 9:6 the objects of God’s making (asa) include

the heavens, the host of heavens, and the earth,

and everything contained in and on it, and the seas

and everything they contain, as well as the hosts of

heaven (probably angels).

Now this is a very singular circumstance, for those who

argue for the distinctive usage of asa throughout Scrip­ture

must, in order to maintain any semblance of con­sistency,

never admit that the same creative acts can be

referred to by both the verb bara and the verb asa. Thus,

since Genesis 1:1 says that God created (bara) the heav­ens

and the earth, and Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah

- 61 ­

9:6 contend that he made (asa) them, there must be

two distinct events in view here. In order to be con­sistent

and at the same time deal with the evidence, gap

theorists must postulate a time when God not only “ap­pointed”

or “made to appear” the firmament, the sun,

the moon and stars, and the beasts, but there also must

have been a time when he only appointed the heav­ens,

the heaven of heavens, the angels (hosts), the

earth, everything on the earth, the sea and every­thing

in the sea!

So that, while asa is quite happily applied to the firma­ment,

sun, moon, stars, and the beasts, its further appli­cation

to everything else contained in the universe,

and, indeed, the universe itself (which the language in

both Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6 is intended to

convey) creates a monstrosity of interpretation which

should serve as a reminder to those who try to fit Hebrew

words into English molds, that to strait-jacket these

words is to destroy the possibility of coherent interpretation

completely! (1976, pp. 61-62, emp. and parenthetical

items in orig.).

Whitcomb was correct when he concluded:

These examples should suffice to show the absurdities

to which we are driven by making distinctions which

God never intended to make. For the sake of variety

and fullness of expression (a basic and extremely help

ful characteristic of Hebrew literature), different verbs

are used to convey the concept of supernatural crea

tion. It is particularly clear that whatever shade of mean

ing the rather flexible verb made (asah) may bear in

other contexts of the Old Testament, in the context of

Genesis 1 it stands as a synonym for created (bara)

[1972, p. 129, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.].

3. The Gap Theory is false because there is no justification for

translating the verb “was” (Hebrew, hayetha) as “became”

in Genesis 1:2. Gap theorists insist upon such a translation

to promote the idea that the Earth became “waste and void”

after the Satanic rebellion. Yet usage of the verb hayah ar­gues

against such a translation. Ramm noted:

- 62 ­

The effort to make was mean became is just as abor­tive.

The Hebrews did not have a word for became but

the verb to be did service for to be and become. The

form of the verb was in Genesis 1:2 is the Qal, perfect,

third person singular, feminine. A Hebrew concordance

will give all the occurrences of that form of the verb. A

check in the concordance with reference to the usage

of this form of the verb in Genesis reveals that in almost

every case the meaning of the verb is simply was. Granted

in a case or two was means became, but if in the pre­ponderance

of instances the word is translated was,

any effort to make one instance mean became, espe­cially

if that instance is highly debatable, is very inse­cure

exegesis (1954, p. 139, emp. in orig.).

4. The Gap Theory is false because the words tohu wabohu do

not mean “something once in a state of repair, but now ru­ined.”

Gap theorists believe that God’s “initial” creation

was perfect, but became “waste and void” (tohu wabohu)

as a result of a Satanic rebellion. Whitcomb has addressed

this point.

Many Bible students, however, are puzzled with the statement

in Genesis 1:2 that the Earth was without form and

void. Does God create things that have no form and are

void? The answer, or course, depends on what those

words mean. “Without form and void” translate the Hebrew

expression tohu wabohu, which literally means “emp­ty

and formless.” In other words, the Earth was not cha­otic,

not under a curse of judgment. It was simply empty

of living things and without the features that it later pos­sessed,

such as oceans and continents, hills and valleys—

features that would be essential for man’s well-being.

...[W]hen God created the Earth, this was only the first

state of a series of stages leading to its completion (1973b,

2:69-70).

5. The Gap Theory is false because there is no evidence to

substantiate the claim that Satan’s rebellion was on the Earth,

much less responsible for a worldwide “cataclysm.” The

- 63 ­

idea of such a cataclysm that destroyed the initial Earth is

not supported by an appeal to Scripture, as Morris has ex­plained.

The great pre-Adamic cataclysm, which is basic to the

gap theory, also needs explanation.... The explanation

commonly offered is that the cataclysm was caused by

Satan’s rebellion and fall as described in Isaiah 14:12-

15 and Ezekiel 28:11-17. Lucifer—the highest of all God’s

angelic hierarchy, the anointed cherub who covered

the very throne of God—is presumed to have rebelled

against God and tried to usurp His dominion. As a re­sult,

God expelled him from heaven, and he became

Satan, the great adversary. Satan’s sin and fall, how­ever,

was in heaven on the “holy mountain of God,”

not on earth. There is, in fact, not a word in Scripture to

connect Satan with the earth prior to his rebellion. On

the other hand, when he sinned, he was expelled from

heaven to the earth. The account in Ezekiel says: “Thou

wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast

created, till iniquity was found in thee. ...[T]herefore I

will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God;

and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the

midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because

of thy beauty, thou has corrupted thy wisdom by

reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground

[or ‘earth,’ the same word in Hebrew]” (Ezekiel 28:15-

* 17).

There is, therefore, no scriptural reason to connect Sa-

tan’s fall in heaven with a cataclysm on earth... (1974,

pp. 233-234, emp. and bracketed material in orig.).

* I do not agree with Dr. Morris’ comments that Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14

refer to Satan. His statements are left intact, however, to show how (even

when removed from their proper context) the alleged “proof-texts” used

by Gap theorists do not prove a Satanic cataclysm on the Earth. For doc­umentation

that Satan is not under discussion in Ezekiel 28 or Isaiah 14,

see Thompson, 1999, pp. 33-35.

- 64 ­

6. The Gap Theory is false because its most important “prooftext”

is premised on a removal of the verse from its proper

context. That proof-text is Isaiah 45:18, which reads:

For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God

himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath es­tablished

it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be

inhabited.

In their writings, gap theorists suggest the following. Since

Isaiah stated that God did not create the Earth tohu, and

since the Earth of Genesis was tohu, therefore the latter

could not have been the Earth as it was created originally

in Genesis 1:1. The implication is that the Earth became

tohu as a result of the cataclysm precipitated by Satan’s re­bellion

against God.

The immediate context, however, has to do with Israel and

God’s promises to His people. Isaiah reminded his listeners

that just as God had a purpose in creating the Earth, so

He had a purpose for Israel. Isaiah spoke of God’s immense

power and special purpose in creation, noting that God created

the Earth “to be inhabited”—something accomplished

when the Lord created people in His image. In Isaiah 45,

the prophet’s message is that God, through His power, likewise

will accomplish His purpose for His chosen people.

Morris has remarked:

There is no conflict between Isaiah 45:18 and the state­ment

of an initial formless aspect to the created earth in

Genesis 1:2. The former can properly be understood

as follows: “God created it not (to be forever) without

form; He formed it to be inhabited.” As described in

Genesis 1, He proceeded to bring beauty and structure

to the formless elements and then inhabitants to the

waiting lands.

It should be remembered that Isaiah 45:18 was written

many hundreds of years after Genesis 1:2 and that its

context deals with Israel, not a pre-Adamic cataclysm.

(1974, p. 241).

- 65 ­

7. The Gap Theory is false because it implies death of human­kind

on the Earth prior to Adam. Pember believed that the

fossils (which he felt the Gap Theory explained) revealed

death, disease, and ferocity—all tokens of sin. He suggested:

Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures an­terior

to Adam, and yet show evident token of disease,

death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged

to another world, and have a sin-stained history of their

own (1876, p. 35).

Pember leveled a serious charge against the Word of God

in making such a statement. The idea that the death of hu­mankind

occurred prior to Adam’s sin contradicts New

Testament teaching which plainly and emphatically indi­cates

that the death of humankind entered this world as a

result of Adam’s sin (1 Corinthians 15:21; Romans 8:20-22;

Romans 5:12). The apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians

15:45 that Adam was “the first man.” Yet long before Adam—

if the Gap Theory is correct—there existed a pre-Adamic

race of men and women with (to quote Pember) “a sinstained

history of their own.” But how could Paul, by in­spiration

of God, have written that Adam was the first

man if, in fact, men had both lived and died before him?

The simple fact of the matter is that both the Gap Theory

and Paul cannot be correct.

8. The Gap Theory is false because it cannot be reconciled

with God’s commentary—at the conclusion of His six days

of creative activity—that the whole creation was “very

good.”

Genesis 1:31 records God’s estimate of the condition

of this world at the end of the sixth day of creation. We

read that “God saw every thing that he had made, and

behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morn­ing

were the sixth day.” If, in accordance with the gap

theory, the world had already been destroyed, mil­lions

of its creatures were buried in fossil formations,

and Satan had already become as it were, the god of

- 66 ­

this world, it is a little difficult to imagine how God

could have placed Adam in such a wrecked world, walk­ing

over the fossils of creatures that he would never see

or exercise dominion over, walking in a world that Sa­tan

was already ruling. Could God possibly have de­clared

that everything He had made was very good? In

other words, the text of Scripture when carefully com­pared

with this theory creates more problems than the

theory actually solves (Whitcomb, 1973b, 2:68-69, emp.

added).

9. The Gap Theory is false because of God’s plain, simple

statement that the Earth and all things in it were made in

six days. Wayne Jackson has stated: “The matter can be ac­tually

settled by one verse, Exodus 20:11a: ‘for in six days

Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in

them is....’ If everything was made within six days, then

nothing was created prior to those six days!” (1974, p. 34,

emp. in orig.).

In 1948, at the Winona Lake School of Theology. a graduate

student, M. Henkel, writing a master’s thesis on “Fundamental

Christianity and Evolution,” polled 20 leading Hebrew

scholars in the United States, asking them if there were any

exegetical evidences of a gap interpretation of Genesis 1:2.

They unanimously replied—No! (Henkel, 1950, p. 49). Nothing

has changed in this regard since 1948; the evidence for

such a gap still is missing.

From this article Chapter 3

[tgr4lfe 220]

Historical documents ? I'm talking about history of the planet, the events which occurred LONG before humanity. I don't have to offer anything to support that, because it's been done already.

As for my 'belief system', I'm a realist. A naturalist. I treat evidence skeptically until it's withstands the test of scrutiny and time. And I've studied the very topic which this thread was started over, that being paleontology in particular. The clowns in the video have no clue what they're talking about, but are only interested in brainwashing young minds into a belief system which is devoid of fact and knowledge. And understand, I'm talking about THESE CLOWNS ON THE VIDEO, because it's clear by their answers, or lack there of, that they are completely out of their element. And I find that sad. Sad and frustrating that they would willingly stand there and give false info, bare false witness, as it were, all for the sake of making themselves feel better about their own belief system.

Albeit these gentlemen may have a warped belief system, we all know there are many out there that do. I am not saying that what they are advocating is right. I would have to review the video again to critique.

ok, all that is your beliefs, so do you believe in God? the God in the bible?

What is it that we are arguing over primarily? Just that...the authority of the bible as the inspired words of God and the existence of God. There are parts of evolutionary theories, i.e. origins of life, that are contradictory to the existence of God. There is room for micro-evolution within the parameters of belief in creation and God. I for one, do not believe in macro-evolution. If this where fact would not have seen some monkeys become humans over the past 100 years? Or did this evolutionary phenomenon stop at some point.

I treat scientists testing of origins of life and evolution, etc. very skeptically, as I do many of those "preachers of the gospel". Many as you know do not speak the truth, stretch the truth, or just flat out make up stuff. Like the article DKW posted a few pages back on the origins of life from a single cell, which they had to make outstanding assumptions to get things to fit into the little box they wanted it to, i.e. that life could have started from a single cell that they assumed would have a tiny fraction of the necessary proteins to be able to replicate. That, my friend, is absurb science.

There are many many holes in evolutionary theories, origins of life, beginning time theories. THe word of God is the only thing that has remained unchanged over the course of thousands of years.

[DKW 86 7,481]

tgr4lfe, Brother in Christ, please do not post anything more from the Apologetics Press to me. I SOUNDLY, profoundly, with studied and prayerful heart reject the writings and rantings of Dr Thompson. Garbage en masse is still garbage. The disgraced Dr Thompson (a child molester of some note) is not a reliable bible scholar for me and I dare say the rest of the world to look to as a guide in bible study.

Longtime director of Apologetics Press fired

.: posted Sunday, July 03, 2005 ::: by .:webmaster:. ::: EmailThis! »

By Bobby Ross Jr.

The Christian Chronicle

June 21, 2005

Apologetics Press, the Montgomery, Ala.-based church organization that has waged a quarter-century battle against atheism and the theory of evolution, has fired its longtime director, Bert Thompson, amid allegations of sexual misconduct. Interim executive director Dave Miller said the organization, which has a $1 million annual budget, intends to proceed “undaunted by Satan.”

“We are deeply grateful for Dr. Thompson's longstanding warfare against the sinister doctrine of evolution, with his eloquent affirmation of the biblical account of Creation,” Miller wrote in an open letter to Apologetics Press supporters.

“Truth is truth, even if those who defend it eventually succumb to personal sin,” Miller wrote.

In a separate letter, elders of the Palm Beach Lakes church, West Palm Beach, Fla., urged friends of Apologetics Press to stand behind the organization. That congregation had overseen Thompson and Apologetics Press for 18 months and will maintain an advisory role.

“We implore you to increase your financial and moral support to A.P. for the next two years then make an evaluation,” the elders wrote. “We are confident the Lord will bring unparalleled results through the new leadership, its renewed focus and its amazingly talented staff.”

The board of Apologetics Press fired Thompson, 55, its executive director for 26 years, at a May 24 meeting.

Among those who attended were his wife, Rhonda, elders from supporting congregations and his minister, Frank Chesser of the Panama Street church, Montgomery. Chesser declined an interview request.

Miller said the confrontation followed an investigation by Apologetics Press staff members and other interested individuals.

“We didn't lay anything out on the table,” Miller said, referring to specific instances of wrongdoing. “We just said, 'We now have knowledge of multiple incidents involving a number of individuals.'”

At that time, Thompson confessed his sins and asked for forgiveness, according to those present. At his church the next night, he responded to the invitation and again asked for forgiveness.

Glad Dr Thompson asked for rgiveness for himself, sorry he didnt ask it of his victims. Here's hoping the loon got real prison time for molesting young boys.

CHURCH MEMBER SAYS HE'S A VICTIM

A 36-year-old church member, who grew up in Alabama, said he was among alleged victims who gave statements to the investigators.

The member, who preferred not to be identified publicly, told the Chronicle that Thompson started sending him cards and letters when he was 13, then pressed him to go out to dinner after he turned 16, the legal age of consent in Alabama.

At the meal, Thompson invited the teen to go home with him and watch a movie, the member said. Thompson's family was not home, and the member said Thompson lured him to a bedroom, disrobed and touched him inappropriately. The member said he later met two other young men who told of similar experiences with Thompson.

The member voiced concerns that church leaders who gathered evidence against Thompson wanted to keep the accusations quiet.

He said one minister told him, “He didn't molest Methodists. He didn't molest Baptists. He didn't molest atheists. And we intend to keep it in the church.” (The minister who allegedly made that statement declined to comment.)

But the member said the accusations needed to be made public to allow more victims to come forward.

“We don't know if he just molested church of Christ kids,” he said. “This guy was all over the country.”

In an “Open Letter to the Brotherhood” dated May 25, Thompson wrote, “For some time now, I have been struggling with some personal sins in my life, and as a result it was obvious ... that I no longer was the best choice to lead the work forward for the next quarter of a century.”

When contacted by the Chronicle about the firing, Thompson referred all questions to Apologetics Press. “That's something between them and me, and it's a very personal matter,” he said, and declined to comment further.

Rhonda Thompson, his wife of 33 years, said the couple is divorcing. “You can safely say we're devastated,” she said.

But she said she remains supportive of Apologetics Press, describing its work as “vital to the church, and I beg the brotherhood to continue to support it.”

GRAND JURY DECLINED TO BRING CHARGES

The recently uncovered accusations were not the first. A year and a half ago, no charges were brought after a grand jury in Montgomery County heard accusations of inappropriate sexual contact by Thompson with a 17-year-old boy, Miller said.

While that case ended with no legal action, the Eastern Meadows church, Montgomery, withdrew as the overseeing congregation for Apologetics Press. The Thompsons, the Millers and three other families associated with Apologetics Press left that congregation, Miller said.

But the Eastern Meadows church continued to contribute “a fairly large sum of money” to Apologetics Press, Miller said.

“We had information about the allegations,” said Ted Norton, an Eastern Meadows elder. “We were not in a position to know whether they were true or not. We as individuals had our own personal feelings, but we did not have evidence so to speak.”

To many, Thompson was the face of Apologetics Press - the outspoken creationist who delighted in sparring with those with whom he disagreed.

The Abilene Christian University alumnus made national news in the mid-1980s when he accused ACU biology professors of teaching evolution and making light of the Genesis account of creation.

The professors were exonerated after a three-month investigation by ACU.

Another focus of Thompson's books and attacks was John Clayton, a Dowagiac, Mich., church member and former atheist who leads “Does God Exist?” seminars across the nation.

CLAYTON SAYS CRISIS CALLS FOR PRAYER

Thompson took issue with Clayton's views on creation and accused him of advocating “theistic evolution,” since Clayton suggests the earth cannot dogmatically be said to be 6,000 years old.

“I would have nothing to say about it - except that we need to pray for everyone involved, especially the many people who put their faith in Bert and will be seriously damaged by what has happened,” (ya think?) Clayton said of Thompson's firing.

Last year, Apologetics Press published two articles making a biblical case against homosexuality and listing the authors as Brad Harrub, Thompson and Miller. Both articles remain on the organization's Web site, but references to Thompson as an author have been deleted.

Is this academically ethical to remove a writers name from a written piece of his own work?

“I think we just decided to remove those because of the hypocrisy,” said Miller, indicating that he and Harrub had written 98 percent of the original articles.

Phil Sanders, minister of the Concord Road church, Brentwood, Tenn., said Thompson's work blessed thousands.

“I will still place a measure of confidence in what he has written,” Sanders said, “but I am deeply disappointed that he has permitted this sin to enslave him.”

The article you posted, I will review with you in PM if needs be. The article is very long and very deceptive in its outcomes. I do grant you this award:

The Swiss Cheese Award! For an article so full of holes it will be like looking at swiss cheese for all the holes.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Not as many holes as the Gap Theory that you were advocating. Deceptive? It refutes the many different notions of the Gap Theory dealing with them individually.

I PM'd you about this article. Dr. Thompson by all accounts should be in jail. Regardless, of the mistakes (as great as they may be), is one of best in the field of creationism.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Not as many holes as the Gap Theory that you were advocating. Deceptive? It refutes the many different notions of the Gap Theory dealing with them individually.

I PM'd you about this article. Dr. Thompson by all accounts should be in jail. Regardless, of the mistakes (as great as they may be), is one of best in the field of creationism.

I've heard Ben Stein say, as many others before him , that I.D. is NOT a gussied up version of 'Creationism'. Are you promoting them to be one in the same ?

Being the best in the field of 'creationism' is about on par w/ being in the field of fairies and trolls.