Gap Theory

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 159 times

Re: Gap Theory

#76

Post by abelcainsbrother » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:44 pm

DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote: Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.

On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.

According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.
You're still defending a young earth interpretation eventhough you claim to be an old earther.I have showed you a few examples of how the KJV gives an old earth interpretation.Why are you defending a young earth interpretation when you're an old earther?
I'm not defending the Young Earth tradition. That's yet another factually false statement that you've made in this thread. I even defended the Day-age position to a Young-Earther in this very thread.
I go by God's word first not science.
Then do you agree with me that the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 destroys the Gap Theory all by itself?
Nope! The word MAKE in Genesis 1:26 is not "asah" it is a different hebrew word.
You are factually wrong... again.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen ... _conc_1026
it is new life when "bara" is used
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?

Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?

You are correct that in Genesis 1:26 it is the hebrew word "asah" I will give you that.And that is one thing that I see I overlooked. However because there were pre-adamite races it just confirms for me that it means there was former life before God created man and woman.It is another sign that the earth is old and not young that I overlooked. It does not help you much and it will still be consistant throughout the whole OT about "bara" and "asah" like I said.And man and woman were still created new and I would say this is why hominids and neanderthals are different than man is despite the way evolutionists interpret it and look at it.

The reason why I say you're defending a young earth interpretation is because you are getting a young earth interpretation insisting "male" can only be "fill'.It is giving you a young earth interpretation. But what you fail to see is that by keeping it "refill" or replenish" like in the KJV bible it helps the Day Age interpretation as well although not as well as the Gap Theory interpretation imo. Because Day Agers acknowledge that there were races of people like beings before God created man and woman also and so it confirms their interpretation too.It just gets kindof tricky where to add them in and on what day they existed before they went extinct.I think that Day Agers need to consider if they agree neanderthals co-existed with man or not and why,because we don't.

No I don't agree that when "bara" is used it means it never existed before,it just means it is new but for me because of "asah" being used it is actually "asah" that reveals to me life had already existed and so just from that I think we can realize it. The way I look at it is only God can truly create things while rthings can really only be made by man,but God can do both.

bara still denotes something new God did even if it is made from pre-existing materials like with "asah" but it still means it is something new and not when we see "asah". So that in Genesis 1:26 where "asah" is used it is just a sign to us that life kindof like this existed before giving us a hint that the earth is old but in the next verse Genesis 1:27 God creates man and woman and so they are new.When we see "asah" it is not something new God did.

You know DB I must say that I like the challenge you have given me and I actually appreciate you taking the time to address this subject and I have not just discounted what you've explaned at all in a blindly discounting way. I don't mind being challenged about the interpretation I believe is true.You know like the old expression iron sharpens iron.I think it is important to question ourselves and our interpretations and not just blindly believe it.I seriously examined what you have explained and challenged myself to make sure and to see if I'm right or wrong.I hope that even you can take the time to question the way you interpret it and honestly consider the things I have addressed and explained like I have yours.I think we can learn from it.
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.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 357 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Gap Theory

#77

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:43 pm

I thought Neanderthal were fully human like us-their genetic code is evidence, as well as that they had a similar culture to ours for a long time.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Gap Theory

#78

Post by DBowling » Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:58 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote: it is new life when "bara" is used
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?

Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 159 times

Re: Gap Theory

#79

Post by abelcainsbrother » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:56 am

DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: it is new life when "bara" is used
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?

Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?
I agree with the first part of what you said that it would be "new life" but I'm not sure I agree with the 2nd part of what you explained because I think you might be overlooking context.
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.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 159 times

Re: Gap Theory

#80

Post by abelcainsbrother » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:02 am

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I thought Neanderthal were fully human like us-their genetic code is evidence, as well as that they had a similar culture to ours for a long time.
Nope,Neanderthal's are not man and are not related to man but it is said that they co-existed with man and even mated with humans before they went extinct.I believe God's word over what man says but scientists do not agree about neanderthals,there are conflicting understandings of Neanderthals amongst scientists but I think most believe that Neanderthals were more like previous beings than they were man.I think even Day Agers agree with this too.Remember scientists look at everything from an evolution pov too.
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.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Gap Theory

#81

Post by DBowling » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:48 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: it is new life when "bara" is used
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?

Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?
I agree with the first part of what you said that it would be "new life" but I'm not sure I agree with the 2nd part of what you explained because I think you might be overlooking context.
Ok... were agreeing on something at least.

Let's focus on the word, bara.
We both agree that bara means something is newly created.

Do you believe that it is possible for something to exist prior to when Scripture states that it is newly created (bara)?

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Gap Theory

#82

Post by DBowling » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:57 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I thought Neanderthal were fully human like us-their genetic code is evidence, as well as that they had a similar culture to ours for a long time.
Nope,Neanderthal's are not man and are not related to man but it is said that they co-existed with man and even mated with humans before they went extinct.I believe God's word over what man says
I'm going to point out the obvious here...

Scripture never states that Humans and Neanderthals did not coexist.
This is NOT a God's Word vs what man says issue.

The coexistence of Neanderthals and Humans is a matter of science not Scripture.
Scripture is totally silent about the existence of Neanderthals and their relationship to Humans

BTW... the coexistence of Humans and Neanderthals directly conflicted with past evolutionary theory that said that Humans evolved from Neanderthals.

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 357 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Gap Theory

#83

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:47 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I thought Neanderthal were fully human like us-their genetic code is evidence, as well as that they had a similar culture to ours for a long time.
Nope,Neanderthal's are not man and are not related to man but it is said that they co-existed with man and even mated with humans before they went extinct.I believe God's word over what man says but scientists do not agree about neanderthals,there are conflicting understandings of Neanderthals amongst scientists but I think most believe that Neanderthals were more like previous beings than they were man.I think even Day Agers agree with this too.Remember scientists look at everything from an evolution pov too.
Don't know much about that, tho I see your point. Neanderthals had a very similar DNA lineage as us-, meaning we had a common ancestry (it goes farther back than m-Eve or chromosomal Y Adam, which according to dating methods were around 200-150000 years ago or so). I'm going with what I know, and I dont want it to be a division, but Neanderthals seem pretty human. They had clothes, rather advanced tool industry (compared to animals anyways), btw flintknapping is an art, it takes skill, they painted on caves-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ence-pike/ they buried their dead, seemed to do nature worship involving bear skulls, and evidence suggests they spoke-http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25465102 (along with Homo Heidelbergensis too). They sure seem to be humans, though some say they were nephilim which i can see, but it doesn't seem likely. If angels mixed with humans wouldn't the change in DNA be profound enough for scientists to at least acknowledge the difference in DNA?
This isn't a salvation issue, so u can believe as u like, but I think I'll stick to what I currently think.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 159 times

Re: Gap Theory

#84

Post by abelcainsbrother » Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:57 am

DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I thought Neanderthal were fully human like us-their genetic code is evidence, as well as that they had a similar culture to ours for a long time.
Nope,Neanderthal's are not man and are not related to man but it is said that they co-existed with man and even mated with humans before they went extinct.I believe God's word over what man says
I'm going to point out the obvious here...

Scripture never states that Humans and Neanderthals did not coexist.
This is NOT a God's Word vs what man says issue.

The coexistence of Neanderthals and Humans is a matter of science not Scripture.
Scripture is totally silent about the existence of Neanderthals and their relationship to Humans

BTW... the coexistence of Humans and Neanderthals directly conflicted with past evolutionary theory that said that Humans evolved from Neanderthals.
Do you know what a prediction is? Because I've already explained how this interpretation was confirmed correct once hominids and neanderthals were discovered.Why do you think Gap Theorist's talk about Pre-Adamite races? I have a Dake's annotated referrence bible written in about the 1930's and it talks about Pre-Adamite races and it does not even mention neanderthals or hominids too but also The Scofield bible written in 1909 talked about them also.So everytime they find hominids and neanderthals they confirm this interpretation correct.It is all based on what the bible reveals to us.This is one reason why I believe this interpretation is true.

What do you think this refers to? Job 22:15-16 "Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time,whose foundation was overflown with a flood:" Pre-Adamite races?
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.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Gap Theory

#85

Post by DBowling » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:00 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote: What do you think this refers to? Job 22:15-16 "Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? Which were cut down out of time,whose foundation was overflown with a flood:" Pre-Adamite races?
What does this refer to?
Scripture gives us the answer right there in verse... "wicked men"

And the context makes this abundantly clear if you read through verse 20.
15 “Will you keep to the ancient path
Which wicked men have trod,
16 Who were snatched away before their time,
Whose foundations were washed away by a river?
17 “They said to God, ‘Depart from us!’
And ‘What can the Almighty do to them?’
18 “Yet He filled their houses with good things;
But the counsel of the wicked is far from me.
19 “The righteous see and are glad,
And the innocent mock them,
20 Saying, ‘Truly our adversaries are cut off,
And their abundance the fire has consumed.’
Lets see what Job 22 says
These are wicked men (not neanderthals)
Who rejected God
Who had houses with good things
They were observed by righteous and innocent people
Their abundance was consumed by fire

Nothing about neanderthals
nothing about pre-Adamite races
nothing about pre-Genesis 1:2 world wide deluge.

Try again... :)
But I can tell you with 100% certainty that you will not find anything about neanderthals in Scripture... because they aren't there.
Oh... BTW... A quick reminder, Dake's and Scofield's notes are NOT divinely inspired.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Gap Theory

#86

Post by DBowling » Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:04 pm

Just so we don't forget this...
abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: it is new life when "bara" is used
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?

Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?
I agree with the first part of what you said that it would be "new life" but I'm not sure I agree with the 2nd part of what you explained because I think you might be overlooking context.
Ok... were agreeing on something at least.

Let's focus on the word, bara.
We both agree that bara means something is newly created.

Do you believe that it is possible for something to exist prior to when Scripture states that it is newly created (bara)?

User avatar
Nicki
Senior Member
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:36 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Western Australia
Has liked: 304 times
Been liked: 62 times

Re: Gap Theory

#87

Post by Nicki » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:43 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote: Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.

On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.

According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.
You're still defending a young earth interpretation eventhough you claim to be an old earther.I have showed you a few examples of how the KJV gives an old earth interpretation.Why are you defending a young earth interpretation when you're an old earther?
I'm not defending the Young Earth tradition. That's yet another factually false statement that you've made in this thread. I even defended the Day-age position to a Young-Earther in this very thread.
I go by God's word first not science.
Then do you agree with me that the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 destroys the Gap Theory all by itself?
Nope! The word MAKE in Genesis 1:26 is not "asah" it is a different hebrew word.
You are factually wrong... again.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen ... _conc_1026
it is new life when "bara" is used
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?

Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?

You are correct that in Genesis 1:26 it is the hebrew word "asah" I will give you that.And that is one thing that I see I overlooked. However because there were pre-adamite races it just confirms for me that it means there was former life before God created man and woman.It is another sign that the earth is old and not young that I overlooked. It does not help you much and it will still be consistant throughout the whole OT about "bara" and "asah" like I said.And man and woman were still created new and I would say this is why hominids and neanderthals are different than man is despite the way evolutionists interpret it and look at it.

The reason why I say you're defending a young earth interpretation is because you are getting a young earth interpretation insisting "male" can only be "fill'.It is giving you a young earth interpretation. But what you fail to see is that by keeping it "refill" or replenish" like in the KJV bible it helps the Day Age interpretation as well although not as well as the Gap Theory interpretation imo. Because Day Agers acknowledge that there were races of people like beings before God created man and woman also and so it confirms their interpretation too.It just gets kindof tricky where to add them in and on what day they existed before they went extinct.I think that Day Agers need to consider if they agree neanderthals co-existed with man or not and why,because we don't.

No I don't agree that when "bara" is used it means it never existed before,it just means it is new but for me because of "asah" being used it is actually "asah" that reveals to me life had already existed and so just from that I think we can realize it. The way I look at it is only God can truly create things while rthings can really only be made by man,but God can do both.

bara still denotes something new God did even if it is made from pre-existing materials like with "asah" but it still means it is something new and not when we see "asah". So that in Genesis 1:26 where "asah" is used it is just a sign to us that life kindof like this existed before giving us a hint that the earth is old but in the next verse Genesis 1:27 God creates man and woman and so they are new.When we see "asah" it is not something new God did.
I think you're making too much of the difference between the two words - and having to fudge a bit in addressing these verses. Maybe 'bara' was only ever used to describe God (rather than humans) creating something - that was the impression I got from the lexicon I checked; perhaps DB knows more about it. However, the use of 'asah' for God making things doesn't necessarily imply a different kind of creation, and to me it sure doesn't imply pre-existing material or previously existing animals. God could have 'made' everything totally new.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 159 times

Re: Gap Theory

#88

Post by abelcainsbrother » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:22 am

Nicki wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
DBowling wrote: Here's the problem with your interpretation...
The creation of the first animal life by God uses the word bara (which we both agree implies something new). On day 5 God creates marine life and birds.

On day 6 God makes (asah) animals that live on the land.

According to the Gap theory understanding of bara and asah, all marine life and birds were created (bara) as something new on day 5 and therefore according to Genesis 1, marine life and birds could not have existed in a hypothetical pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

Since the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that marine life and birds did not exist prior to day 5, then that means that anything that coexisted with marine life and birds would also have existed after day 5 and not in a pre-Genesis 1:2 world.

All by itself, the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 totally destroys the Gap Theory.
You're still defending a young earth interpretation eventhough you claim to be an old earther.I have showed you a few examples of how the KJV gives an old earth interpretation.Why are you defending a young earth interpretation when you're an old earther?
I'm not defending the Young Earth tradition. That's yet another factually false statement that you've made in this thread. I even defended the Day-age position to a Young-Earther in this very thread.
I go by God's word first not science.
Then do you agree with me that the use of bara in Genesis 1:21 destroys the Gap Theory all by itself?
Nope! The word MAKE in Genesis 1:26 is not "asah" it is a different hebrew word.
You are factually wrong... again.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen ... _conc_1026
it is new life when "bara" is used
So do you agree that the use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 indicates that the marine life and the birds that were created on day 5 were "new life"?

Would you also agree with me that since bara is used to describe the creation of marine life and birds on day 5 then marine life and birds did not exist prior to when they were newly created (bara)?

You are correct that in Genesis 1:26 it is the hebrew word "asah" I will give you that.And that is one thing that I see I overlooked. However because there were pre-adamite races it just confirms for me that it means there was former life before God created man and woman.It is another sign that the earth is old and not young that I overlooked. It does not help you much and it will still be consistant throughout the whole OT about "bara" and "asah" like I said.And man and woman were still created new and I would say this is why hominids and neanderthals are different than man is despite the way evolutionists interpret it and look at it.

The reason why I say you're defending a young earth interpretation is because you are getting a young earth interpretation insisting "male" can only be "fill'.It is giving you a young earth interpretation. But what you fail to see is that by keeping it "refill" or replenish" like in the KJV bible it helps the Day Age interpretation as well although not as well as the Gap Theory interpretation imo. Because Day Agers acknowledge that there were races of people like beings before God created man and woman also and so it confirms their interpretation too.It just gets kindof tricky where to add them in and on what day they existed before they went extinct.I think that Day Agers need to consider if they agree neanderthals co-existed with man or not and why,because we don't.

No I don't agree that when "bara" is used it means it never existed before,it just means it is new but for me because of "asah" being used it is actually "asah" that reveals to me life had already existed and so just from that I think we can realize it. The way I look at it is only God can truly create things while rthings can really only be made by man,but God can do both.

bara still denotes something new God did even if it is made from pre-existing materials like with "asah" but it still means it is something new and not when we see "asah". So that in Genesis 1:26 where "asah" is used it is just a sign to us that life kindof like this existed before giving us a hint that the earth is old but in the next verse Genesis 1:27 God creates man and woman and so they are new.When we see "asah" it is not something new God did.
I think you're making too much of the difference between the two words - and having to fudge a bit in addressing these verses. Maybe 'bara' was only ever used to describe God (rather than humans) creating something - that was the impression I got from the lexicon I checked; perhaps DB knows more about it. However, the use of 'asah' for God making things doesn't necessarily imply a different kind of creation, and to me it sure doesn't imply pre-existing material or previously existing animals. God could have 'made' everything totally new.
Nope it is never something new when "asah" is used.This is consistant throughout the whole OT.As a matter of fact I challenge anybody to find where "asah" means something new like "bara" does.If it is never something new when "asah" is used then we know it already existed or exists based on context of verse.And again this was discovered by studying Genesis 2:1-4 and then applying it Genesis 1.
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.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1123
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 103 times

Re: Gap Theory

#89

Post by DBowling » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:37 am

abelcainsbrother wrote: Nope it is never something new when "asah" is used.This is consistant throughout the whole OT.As a matter of fact I challenge anybody to find where "asah" means something new like "bara" does.
That's an easy one...

Genesis 1:26-27
In Genesis 1:26 God says "let us make (asah) man in our image"
In Genesis 1:27 God "created (bara) man in his own image"

In Genesis 1:26 and 27 both asah and bara describe God creating man in his image.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 20138
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 180 times
Been liked: 987 times

Re: Gap Theory

#90

Post by RickD » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:43 am

DBowling wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: Nope it is never something new when "asah" is used.This is consistant throughout the whole OT.As a matter of fact I challenge anybody to find where "asah" means something new like "bara" does.
That's an easy one...

Genesis 1:26-27
In Genesis 1:26 God says "let us make (asah) man in our image"
In Genesis 1:27 God "created (bara) man in his own image"

In Genesis 1:26 and 27 both asah and bara describe God creating man in his image.
:lol:
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

#Ihavereallybadgas

Post Reply