Main site bias

Whether you are new or just lurking, take a moment to introduce yourself or discuss something general.
Post Reply
thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Main site bias

Post by thatkidakayoungguy »

I'm not trying to bash other viewpoints but why does this article have a gap view bias?
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... #important
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Main site bias

Post by Kurieuo »

To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Main site bias

Post by thatkidakayoungguy »

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?
I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Main site bias

Post by Kurieuo »

It's a long article, but what I've read, I see him generally leaning towards a Day-Age interpretation. Gen 1:1 is pivotal to a Day-Age understanding, for in it, we have all the heavens and Earth being established. And then Gen 1:2 sets the scene of the cosmos being at a time when Earth had formed, and being at a stage where it is empty and unshaped with water is all over its surface.

A Gap interpretation hinges upon there being a gap between verses 1 and 2 somewhere. They argue from Gen 1:2 our world became a wasteland and the cause of such destruction is attributed to fallen angels, however God then goes onto re-create the world. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Gap being argued or reasoned for in the linked to article.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5016
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Main site bias

Post by abelcainsbrother »

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?
I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.
This is a long article to read and I did'nt read all of it in detail,it seems to keep going and going but I see no acknowledgement of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 eventhough he is using much of the same arguments Gap Creationists do to show why young earth creationism is wrong.Like it teaches that there is a difference between the words bara and asah which Gap creationists know,yet young earth creationists teach wrongly that they are interchangeable.It is just a different way of teaching it than a knowledgable Gap theorist would,but still teaches it correctly. I just see no acknowledgement of a gap and I see no reason why there is no acknowledgement especially when he's using a KJV and even quotes from the Scofield bible,but it is Day Age. I think Day Agers would acknowledge a gap if it was'nt for the Big Bang Theory and how they have made it blend into Genesis 1,but I see no evidence of it yet.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Main site bias

Post by RickD »

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?
I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.
I didn't see any bias towards The Gap Theory. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised to see Rich put an article on his site that is pro-Gap theory, because he thinks the Gap Theory is wrong.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gap.html
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Main site bias

Post by B. W. »

RickD wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, what is the "gap" bias in the article?
I only see a gap theory viewpoint. There are other viewpoints that support an old earth that are drawn biblically.
I didn't see any bias towards The Gap Theory. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised to see Rich put an article on his site that is pro-Gap theory, because he thinks the Gap Theory is wrong.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gap.html
The Gap theory is still a Creation theory as is YEC and Old Earth Creationism.

So, it is not surprising to see such an article here on the site. Guess we will all have to wait till we get to heaven to find out who is right...
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
Post Reply