The Gap Theory

Originally posted by Kevin Lee Poracan
I agree

Kevin, good to see you hear again.

If you feel led to and if you have the time, you can help set the record straight on the thread about RJHinds proving "false teachings" of Brother Witness Lee.

But only if you feel led of the Lord to participate do so.
Some like Hinds are still rehashing old accusations.

Notice that he doesn't start with teachings, but with rumors which I will also have to research, but only after the matter of the Trinity is researched some.

This RJHinds fellow has occasioned more free advertizing for an effective and blessed servant of God such as Witness Lee. Praise the Lord.

Originally posted by Kevin Lee Poracan
I agree

I disagree. 😏

Originally posted by sonship
Kevin, good to see you hear again.

If you feel led to and if you have the time, you can help set the record straight on the thread about RJHinds proving "false teachings" of Brother Witness Lee.

But only if you feel led of the Lord to participate do so.
Some like Hinds are still rehashing old accusations.

Notice that he doesn't start wit ...[text shortened]... ee advertizing for an effective and blessed servant of God such as Witness Lee. Praise the Lord.

Of course, RJhinds is repeating false accusations against the local churches and He hasn't pinned a single false teaching against Witness Lee. Though I don't highly lift brother Lee himself but the falsehood can affect thousands of innocent Christians. I am felt sadden our brothers and sisters in China.

Originally posted by Kevin Lee Poracan
Of course, RJhinds is repeating false accusations against the local churches and He hasn't pinned a single false teaching against Witness Lee. Though I don't highly lift brother Lee himself but the falsehood can affect thousands of innocent Christians. I am felt sadden our brothers and sisters in China.

I also feel sorry for all the innocent Christians who have been deceived by the false teachings from the Devil by way of Witness Lee and other false teachers. But they may never learn the truth unless they hear the alarm sounding.

The Gap Theory has been defeated.

How Genesis 13 undermines the ‘gap theory’

The gap theory has come in different forms since its conception in the early 1800s. It was a response to the long geological ages that were coming to the forefront, from a naturalistic worldview of the earth’s geological history, in the late 1700s. However the gap theory is like a theological monkey swinging along on ever shortening ropes with every biblical objection put to it, until there is no rope short enough to swing from and the monkey falls down. The truth is that Genesis is the book of beginnings, with God the originator of all things. So we should not pander to a wholly materialistic explanation of things by trying to fit it into the Bible and coming up with ideas like the gap theory.

A major problem for the gap theory—and all long-age compromises—is that all such views place the fossil record before Adam. But this fossil record shows death and suffering. However, death is the result of Adam’s Fall, but the long-age views would entail that death precedes the Fall. The Bible, its authors and Jesus himself were very clear on how they viewed Creation and the Fall, and the importance of these doctrines in the showing the need for the historical, vicarious death of Jesus Christ on the cross to pay the price for sin. This is a Gospel issue, because Jesus came to conquer the death that came to the human race through the sin of Adam; the death which came as a direct result of his fall, which was passed onto us all, the death which was not in God’s very good universe (Romans 5:12, Genesis 1:31)

The Gap Theory is defeated.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]The Gap Theory has been defeated.

How Genesis 13 undermines the ‘gap theory’

The gap theory has come in different forms since its conception in the early 1800s. It was a response to the long geological ages that were coming to the forefront, from a naturalistic worldview of the earth’s geological history, in the late 1700s. However the gap theor ...[text shortened]... ot in God’s very good universe (Romans 5:12, Genesis 1:31)

The Gap Theory is defeated.[/b]

How old is the earth?

Respondng to RJHinds above -

The Gap Theory has been defeated.

Strut around as much as you like.
I think plenty of readers of this thread can see you did a poor job to prove the Gap as untenable.

So let's see your victory dance here.

How Genesis 13 undermines the ‘gap theory’

The gap theory has come in different forms since its conception in the early 1800s. It was a response to the long geological ages that were coming to the forefront, from a naturalistic worldview of the earth’s geological history, in the late 1700s.

I am chiefly interested in how the interval explains the ancient history of the enemy of God. My main interest is in the Bible's revelation.

Only secondarily do I find confirmations or possible confirmations in the natural world to be in harmony with an old earth.

The truth is that Genesis is the book of beginnings, with God the originator of all things.

Sure it is. However, not everything about beginnings HAS to be told us in one place. No slamdunk there.

So we should not pander to a wholly materialistic explanation of things by trying to fit it into the Bible and coming up with ideas like the gap theory.

Hypocritical to the extreme. This YEC guy incessantly beats a materialistic collection of "evidences" to try to prove a 6,000 or so year old universe. Consistently Hinds spends much more space and time to these material issues then he does to actual exergesis of the Bible.

Just go through the pages and examine the titles of the many threads he has started.

In his profile, I could not even see where he confesses to be a Christian. He seems to want only to inform you of what he is against. He says he goes to Spirituality Forum and he does not believe in Evolution. Its pretty clear that Hinds wants to define himself to the website in terms of what he DOES NOT believe.

This is a kind of "Come Fight With Me" invitation. And I think most of his fighting is about material evidences for a recent creation of the universe. And he has the audacity to point out material arguments at this point in his exchanges with me - who has overwhelmingly based my reasoning on the text of the Bible.

A major problem for the gap theory—and all long-age compromises—is that all such views place the fossil record before Adam.

Maybe, maybe not. I can wait on fossil theories to be formulated. Did I argue about fossils in this discussion? No.
I argued from the text of the Bible.

The major problem of Hinds' attack on the Destruction / Reconstruction understanding and an interval between verse 1 and 2 is a lot of ad hoc, "maybe this plausible objection or maybe that plausible objection" could be raised.

Mostly, what we got from RJHinds was exploitation of any possible little whole he could make in a very sound presentation on many points that I provided.

I guess feeling these to be inadequate he goes back to his forte - material issues gleaned from YEC websites in thier discussions of various science interpretations.

Some of these are from an attitude that it is impossible for an unbeliever to know more about the physical world than a YEC Christian.

I still wonder WHY RJHinds is not out there fighting for an earth that cannot be MOVED according to other Bible passages that could be taken as supportive of a Geocentric solarsystem of Ptolemy.

In addition to being an Young Earther I don't know why RJHinds is not a Still Earther arguing that Ptolemy's science is more biblical than that of Copernicus.

If science causes Christians to have to go back to the Bible to more closely examine what is really said there, that is no tragedy.
And we are not told when the beginning was in which time and space, matter and energy, were CREATED.

We are told that the seer communicating to us Genesis chapter one viewed the earth as waste and empty, arguably because of some divine overthrow of which we are not at that moment informed.

Sorry Hinds. No conclusive defeat here.

But this fossil record shows death and suffering. However, death is the result of Adam’s Fall, but the long-age views would entail that death precedes the Fall.

Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, says the Apostle Paul. But there must be some parameters on what " the world " was.

Lucifer SINNED in SOME world with some Eden which apparently was not the Eden described in Genesis one. So says Ezekiel 28.

And every attempt that Hinds has made to shoe horn that sinning and fall to being AFTER Genesis 3 is far less logical. So he argues that the deception Eve must have been the beginning Satan's sinning. Frankly, this has been demonstrated as a weak view of the history of the Devil.

If the angels witnessed a inferior human being being the first to be hoodwinked by Satan, they should have realized that any FURTHER promises of well being to THEM TOO to follow this being were just as likely to be failures.

They saw Adam and Eve begin to die for their disobedience to God in favor of following Satan. A far more logical view is that other beings had already had the bitter lesson that it was a disaster to rebel against the Creator. It was just that for them it was TOO LATE by who knows how many eons.

The Bible, its authors and Jesus himself were very clear on how they viewed Creation and the Fall, and the importance of these doctrines in the showing the need for the historical, vicarious death of Jesus Christ on the cross to pay the price for sin.

Absolutely nothing about the Gap as I have presented it does the slightest damage to the meaning of Christ's redemption. And I think I can present a more effective Gospel message to unbelievers than RJHinds can.

He insists that no possible sin or death before Adam in ANY world makes his presentation of the New Testament salvation mean more. But that has never been demonstrated to me in the years I have been reading his posts here.

Face it RJHinds, Your YEC dogma does nothing to make the Gospel more effective. And my teaching of Satan's pre-adamic fall has not reduced the power of my gospel presentation at all.

On the contrary. Your fancy footwork to make Eve the first casualty of any created being by Satan so obscures his past that the what the Bible has taken the veil away from you labor to quickly re-instate. The deeper meaning of salvation in Christ to express God's image and exercise His dominion is obscured because the invisible war is obscured.

This is a Gospel issue, because Jesus came to conquer the death that came to the human race through the sin of Adam; the death which came as a direct result of his fall,

Nothing i have written here for many years, negates that.
I affirm it better than RJHinds does.
His main subject in fact is that no Evilution took place because there was not enough time. By far the number of threads started by RJHinds are about fighting for a recent age of all the universe much more so than a message about Christ's redemption.

Examine the last 40 thread titles started by RJHinds in the last years. It seems the unforgivable sin is believing in Evilution with its long ages. He presents really "The Gospel of a Young Universe".

which was passed onto us all, the death which was not in God’s very good universe (Romans 5:12, Genesis 1:31)

The Gap Theory is defeated.

Here's another booboo. In a creation which God pronounced on the sixth day as "very good" the serpent seems to have existed who lied to Eve.

He doesn't explain this as far as I know. Perhaps he argues that the fall of Lucifer occured sometime after that sixth day. But that makes very little sense.

The reason is that it calls for God establishing TWO deputy authorities of great authority at one time. This is CONFUSION. This is arbitrary and chaotic.

It is apparent that ONE deputy authority rebelled and failed. And God replaced that with a new one - man. What was "very good" was only so as man remained obedient to God as that deputy authority.

The fall is that Adam ceded it to an ancient enemy of God who had long before been rejected. And this one was too suppose to be UNDER Adam's authority rather than listened to to the detriment of the whole order that God had established.

No slamdunk victory for the "debunking" of the ancient pre-adamic fall of the anointed cherub, Lucifer in this post.

Young Earth Creationism came about because of the popularizing of a book by Price on the Flood of Noah. Some people believe YEC preceded Price's book. But actually it was the other way around.

Price's book on the Flood of Noah was not that popular until people like Henry Morris and Donald Whitcomb began to push Price's ideas of the whole earth contained geological evidence of a world wide global flood engulfing the whole planet. I think this was in the 60s in the US.

Morris and Whitcomb pushed Price's ideas and the modern Young Earth Creationist movement was the result.

I am not sure where this book fits in. But when I first became a Christian it was one that I read through called "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch".

Spiritually, it contained NOTHING. The science theory of it was, well, interesting. The writer argued that a comet came close to the earth and deposited the North and South Poles during the same epoch of a global wide flood.

I read another such creationist book. I was tackling arguably most opposed book in the Bible - Genesis.

Eventually, I can across a very book which ministered to my spiritual hunger a lot more than these two books tickled my science curiosity. That book was G. H. Pember's "Earth's Earliest Ages" . This was before I ever heard of the local church or Witness Lee.

The first half of the book I have to say was used by God to nourish me. And I loved how every idea he presented he firmly backed up with clear exegesis of Scripture. And I said to myself - "Now THIS makes sense."

Some years latter I came to realize that the Gap explanation was indeed under some serious criticism. So eventually, I really decided to hear it from the horses mouth and take in one of these books advertized to debunk the Gap Theory. And they did make a good effort.

That book was Don Whitcomb's The Early Earth. Some good argument there, many of which RJHinds repeats. But they were not quite good enough to unseat my being persuaded that Pember was on the right track.

But I can say that I came open minded to see if Whitcomb had a good refutations of Pember's exposition. I found it not to be as persuasive but well argued at any rate - a good try.

I still remain today convinced that I took the right decision to understand that there was an pre-adamic history of God's enemy. Does it present some problems? Perhaps.

I think the other way of Don Whitcomb and RJHInds involves us with more problems - like the need to make Satan's career coincide with the first week of Genesis one.

I'll stop my comments here.

Originally posted by sonship
Respondng to RJHinds above -

The Gap Theory has been defeated.

Strut around as much as you like.
I think plenty of readers of this thread can see you did a poor job to prove the Gap as untenable.

So let's see your victory dance here.
[quote]
How Genesis 13 undermines the ‘gap theory’

The gap theory has come in different ...[text shortened]... for the "debunking" of the ancient pre-adamic fall of the anointed cherub, Lucifer in this post.

Ezekiel 28 is about the Prince of Tyre becoming the King of Tyre and his fall from approval of God. Any reference to Adam, Lucifer, and Satan is only metaphorical.

The History of Apollonius King of Tyre

Antiochus, the king of Antioch, from whom the city takes its name, had a daughter of such uncommon beauty, that when she came of marriageable years, she was sought after with the greatest eagerness. After a short time, the young prince of Tyre, named Apollonius, well-lettered and rich, sailing along the coast, disembarked and entered Antioch. Approaching the royal presence, he said, “Hail, oh king! I seek thy daughter in marriage.” The king unwillingly heard him communicate his wishes, and fixing an earnest look upon the young man, said, “Dost thou know the conditions?” “I do," answered he boldly, “and find ample confirmation at your gates.”

No sooner had he departed, than the king sent for his steward, whose name was Taliarchus, and spoke to him in this manner: “Taliarchus, you are the most faithful repository of my secrets; you know, therefore, that the boy Apollonius of Tyre has found out my riddle. Pursue him instantly to Tyre, and destroy him either with the sword or with poison. When you return, you shall receive a liberal recompense.” Taliarchus, arming himself, and providing a sum of money, sailed into the country of the young man.

But as Apollonius tarried on the shore, he perceived a person named Stranguilio approaching him with a sorrowful aspect, and every now and then uttering a deep lament. “Hail, Stranguilio!” said the prince. “Hail, my lord the king,” was his reply. “You appear concerned; tell me what occasions it?”

“To say truth,” returned Apollonius, “it is because I have required the daughter of a king in marriage. Can I conceal myself in your country?” “My lord,” answered Stranguilio, “our city is extremely poor, and cannot sustain your attendants, in consequence of a grievous famine which has wasted the land. Our citizens are hopeless and helpless; and death, with all its accompanying horrors, is before our eyes.” “Give thanks to God,” replied Apollonius, “who hath driven me a fugitive to your shores. If you will conceal my flight, I will present to you a hundred thousand measures of corn.” Full of joy, Stranguilio prostrated himself at the feet of the prince, and exclaimed, “My lord, if you will assist our starving city we will not only conceal your flight, but, if necessary, unsheath our swords in your defence.”

But the king hastened to his daughter. “Whom,” said he, “wouldst thou choose for thy husband?” She prostrated herself before him with tears, and answered, “Dear father, I desire to marry the shipwrecked Apollonius.” His child's tears softened the parent's heart; he raised her up, and said, “My sweet child, think only of thy happiness; since he is thy choice, he shall be mine. I will appoint the day of your nuptials immediately.”

Apollonius lived with his wife eighty-four years; and ruled the kingdoms of Antioch and Tyre in peace and happiness.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_History_of_Apollonius_King_of_Tyre

I would like to know if anyone else is interested in the continuation of this thread besides just two posters - sonship and RJHinds.

Is anyone else reading these exchanges of comments?
(Wisecracks are not necessary, thankyou).

I just would like to know if anyone else is reading this.

me, sonship

I'm currently reading Watchman Nee's book entitled The Mystery of Creation"

PDF file
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/MysteryofCreation.pdf

Originally posted by kevinlee123
I'm currently reading Watchman Nee's book entitled The Mystery of Creation"

PDF file
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/MysteryofCreation.pdf

Thanks Kevin. I have been looking for that book myself among The Collected Works of Watchman Nee. Now I know where to find it.

I still want to see if anyone else besides the three of us are interested in this discussion continuing before I devote any more time to it.

Let's see if anyone else is getting any benefit from talk.
To any readers - (Wisecracks are not necessary, thankyou)

Originally posted by kevinlee123
I'm currently reading Watchman Nee's book entitled The Mystery of Creation"

PDF file
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/MysteryofCreation.pdf

Watchman Nee doesn't believe in this stupid gap theory does he? I thought he was a little more level headed than Witness Lee.

No need to reply, I just found out from the first chapter of the book you referenced that he has also been deceived by the wisdom of the world to compromise the words of scripture with extra biblical works.

Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the words “the earth was waste” might equally be translated “the earth became waste.” Dr. I. M. Haldeman, G. H. Pember, and others showed that the Hebrew word for “was” here has been translated “became” in Genesis 19.26: “His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” If this same Hebrew word can be translated in 19.26 as “became,” why can it not be translated as “became” in 1.2? Furthermore, the word “became” in 2.7 (“and man became a living soul” ) is the same word as is found in Genesis 1.2. So that it is not at all arbitrary for anyone to translate “was” as “became” here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [but] the earth became waste and void.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Watchman Nee doesn't believe in this stupid gap theory does he? I thought he was a little more level headed than Witness Lee.

No need to reply, I just found out from the first chapter of the book you referenced that he has also been deceived by the wisdom of the world to compromise the words of scripture with extra biblical works.

Over a hundred ...[text shortened]... oid.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste.

This is why I feel the need to talk past you sometimes. I know you're not going to get it.

Watchman Nee doesn't believe in this stupid gap theory does he? I thought he was a little more level headed than Witness Lee.

You're going to have to get use to the fact that many good teachers of the Bible see the matter of a gap. I do not say they are all unanimous in details they speak of. But get use to the fact that some very spiritually mature and intelligent expositors of the Bible see the gap in unspecified time in Genesis 1:1,2.

Another piece of advice which I'm sure will be wasted on you. You can just forget about attempting to drive a wedge between Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. You should just forget about trying to do that.

The same God had both men in His hand to minister to the churches. And though there may be characteristics peculiar to each, they were one in their vision, in their lives unto the Lord, and in burden to impart to God's people.

No need to reply, I just found out from the first chapter of the book you referenced that he has also been deceived by the wisdom of the world to compromise the words of scripture with extra biblical works.

In your reckless and wild posting of YouTubes like a frantic troll to denigrate a US president you showed not too much Christian maturity. How can you possibly hold a candle to a man like Watchman Nee as being deceived?

When the Apostle Paul wrote Romans chapter 13 the ruler of the land was a man he probably had no agreement with on major matters - Caesar Nero. That's the Nero who incidentally had Paul beheaded. Yet there is no hint of insubordination in any of Paul's instructions as to how the Christians should hold an attitude towards the government.

Your wild troll like parade of YouTubes hardly gave me the confidence that you are in a position to call a servant of God like Brother Watchman Nee deceived.

But you hate your president and call him slimy. That's your display of being just like the unbelievers of this world - insubordinate, not even respecting the position of the office.

I'm not getting into politics here. I am questioning your ground to condemn Watchman Nee or Witness Lee as deceived.

Something else not really for you but for anyone reading along.

Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the words “the earth was waste” might equally be translated “the earth became waste.”

Yet way before 100 years ago Hugo St. Victor [1097 - 1141 AD] wrote this:

"Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering (disposition) of it was taken in hand? For the fact that the first substance of all things arose at the very beginning of time - or rather, with time itself - is settled by the statement that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". But how long it contained in this state of confusion, Scripture does not clearly show."

[My bolding]

Wait, I thought Chalmers came up with these "stupid" ideas !
This was written in French in the 12th Century AD, translated here to English.

Your quote goes on:

Dr. I. M. Haldeman, G. H. Pember, and others showed that the Hebrew word for “was” here has been translated “became” in Genesis 19.26: “His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” If this same Hebrew word can be translated in 19.26 as “became,” why can it not be translated as “became” in 1.2?

That's a fair question. Now this gets technical. There are 128 occurrences of the verb in the KJV of which 39 are without someting called the Lamedh in Hebrew grammer.

It is become or became - in Gen. 3:22; *19:26*; 21:20; 37:20; 48:19;
Exodus has it twice in 7:19 and twice in 8:17. in addition to 9:10; 23:29; 36:13.
In Judges 15:14 we have it and in First Samuel 16:21; 18:29; 28:16 we have it either as become or became.

I will not go on to enumerate its translation in other books and the number of times like in Second Samuel, First Kings, Second Kings, First Chronicles, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Micah.

But Arthur Custance has traced the rendering of the same form of the Hebrew word extensively to argue that "became" is admissible and even proper in Gen. 1:2. I am not a Hebrew translator and only say that some scholars say it is appropriate to render it "became".

The chaos legend influence may account for the assumption that it should be "the earth became" there. Things like that are known to happen. Traditional assumptions can influence translation of the Hebrew.

Furthermore, the word “became” in 2.7 (“and man became a living soul” ) is the same word as is found in Genesis 1.2. So that it is not at all arbitrary for anyone to translate “was” as “became” here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [but] the earth became waste and void.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste.

It is evident that some Hebrew readers of times long before Chalmers, also understood destruction / reconstruction. Or at least as I have shown Hugo St. Victor says that the time the earth remained in the state of verse 2 is unknown in the Scripture.

You would insist that it could not be more than 24 hours.
But before the invention of geology or the concoction of evolution someone in the 12th century taught that the length of time was a gap of unknown duration -

"how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering ,,, of it was taken in hand? ... Scripture does not clearly show."

So wrote Hugo St. Victor in the 12th Century.

Custance remarks on this comment -

In this remark Hugo is certainly not saying, specifically, that he sees the disordered state of the world in Gen. 1.2 as the result of a catastrophe of some kind. He could mean merely that it began this way and, as here visualized, was only awaiting the ordering hand of God to make it into a Cosmos. What is quite clear is that he did not equate the work of the first day with the act of creation. A period of unknown duration intervened between Gen. 1.1 and 1.2.

[Without Form and Void, Arthur Custance, Doorway Papers, pg. 21]