Problems with the "Literal" Adam

Hello everyone, this is my first post here so I apologize if this is in the wrong section or if my post goes against the standard protocol here.
Yesterday, during one of my live broadcast on our church app. I spoke about an article that challenged the historic Christian understanding that Adam was a real and literal person. The article claimed Adam was merely a symbol. Let me quote from the article: "I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero.”. I understand this kind of attack has been around forever, but this article was put out by a ministry that claims to hold to the historic Christian faith and the inspiration of the Bible. I obviously reject their teaching but thought people should be aware of it, that is why I addressed it on my Broadcast. I posted the entire article on our church app. I will not post it here since I don’t want to violate any rule. However, I will provide a link so people can read their attempt to prove their teaching. https://biologos.org/articles/pauls-adam/

Trevor

You should get involved with the Youtube channel of Kent Hovind and you will get some amazing facts about scientific data. And the creation of the earth

Welcome to Sermonindex Trevor!

You're right, these attacks against the plain teaching of scripture have been around for many years. If an article says something like "Well, the Bible seems to teach this, but modern science contradicts this teaching" you can safely put said article in the trash can where it belongs. No man needs a "guru" to teach them what the Bible says. The average person, if he has the Holy Spirit, can pick up the Bible, read it, and understand it. No man, if he had never heard evolution theory, would read Genesis and think Adam was not a literal person, and that the universe is billions of years old. It simply doesn't teach that.

Evolution theory actually has its roots in pagan religions such as Hinduism. If you like, here is a link to an excellent video by Dr. Paul James-Griffiths explaining this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFChgeSJGA

There are many Dangers of Biologos
https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/the-danger-of-biologos/

Is It Necessary to Believe in a Literal Adam and a Literal Fall?
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/08/09/is-it-necessary-to-believe-in-a-literal-adam-and-a-literal-fall/

There are so many problems believing in a evolutionary beginning as there is no gospel as there is no fall. If there is no literal Adam. There is no reason for being saved from our sin.

Once you destroy there are so many things that are destroyed such as marriage, original sin and the gospel itself.

Psalm 11:3 King James Version (KJV)

3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

I read the Paul Enns article in my estimation you did right to call it error. This same tactic has been used for many millenia, namely " hath God said" questions. Sounding very professorial he invites you to swim in a sewer treatment plant all the while claiming how pure it all is.

His liberal theological stance killed the institutional churches years ago, now in the form of re-thinking Paul's Adam its starts again with college students awed by academic approvals listening to the idiocy of unbelief. Its all very well packaged and marketed as " real knowledge"

The article was a series of rationalizations directed at swaying the Christian from trusting God to teach him. This puppet insinuates you need men like him to guide you into all truth. Paul the apostle was a stupid man he was ancient, old thinking and not savvy to the scientific discoveries of our day. With this little assertion he is saying Paul can't be your bible guide men like himself have arisen to fill your need. I cannot stomach these professors of falsehood, I would discourage every one from listening to liberal theological sewage.

I'll make it very clear biologos considers the current scientific research as equal to mount Everest, But the scriptures cannot be trusted by the simple reading of them. It is this devilish premise that undergirds all their claims.

I believe in is literal Adam but one still has to recognize the problems raised in the article- the archaeological ones- because they are indeed problems if the earth is believed to be only 6000 years old.

For example, where does Gobekli Tepe fit into the biblical timeline? It is far more ancient than 6000 years yet it had to have been built after the flood or it would have been destroyed.

I have heard the arguments on both the sides. I am personally undecided. But I have observed that those who believe in literal interpretation of the Bible are dangerous because they mostly call others heretic just because they disagree with them. I do not believe Bible is saying that earth was 6000 years old. It is just interpretation of men.

Instead of focusing on things that are unclear, why don't we focus on clear things like 'Sin will not be master over you' and 'Anyone who claims to abide in Christ must walk like him'. These things are so plain yet not ture in most of the serious believers. But very few seem to care about this!

Couldn’t agree more Sree. Amen.

Fine I'll be the worst offender, because their main premise is no one understands the bible without modern science. Thae ancients were stupid men incapable of knowing God's meaning in his word. That premise which they cleverly hide is why we suffer their attacks on scriptures.

Who says we have older civilizations? The guys who say the bible cannot be understood without their help. This is just repackaged popery in humanist terms.

There is more to contend with than your own sin conscienceness

"The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years."

From creation.com

Todd: So what is wrong with that? We really don't have any cultures older than that. Yes I know about all the supposed cultures claimed to be older, but by what standard? Surely if the scriptures have a literal Adam, we cant have more than around 6k years to have any.

But if Adam (as Peter Enns says) is just an Israelite symbol, well, I suppose we can just jettison the bible altogether.

With an all powerful God there are no half-right bibles, or half-right chronologies or half-right accounts. Of course with men, they have multitudes of them.

One of the reasons you get fired upon as a Darwinist is because the T.O.Evolution requires these ages to introduce man and animals into the mix. The scriptures do not.

Liberal theology has never stopped attacking literal meanings on any key doctrines.

Adam is myth or poetry
The Noah's flood is myth or a local flood
Parting the Red Sea was just low water that day.
The red Nile was just a mud slide
The Miracles of the prophets are mostly fabrications
The prophecies of Daniel are written 'after the fact'
The virgin birth never occurred
The resurrection never occurred
The miracles of Jesus are mostly fabrications
The sin nature of man is founded upon the misconception of Paul concerning Adam.
The Deity of Jesus Christ is a fabrication
Hell is a pagan myth
Heaven is a hopeful crutch in religion
The scriptures cannot be understood as divinely inspired.
The ancient Church manufactured the Trinity from near-by paganism
Satan is a myth or at best a personification of evil men.
Angels are a myth or at best a personification of good men.

The liberal theologian works exhaustively to supply the skeptic, atheist, agnostic and apostate every tool they need to attack the Church. You will find the Atheists in their books love to quote the Liberal Theologian because even they recognize a theology that inert and superficial comes from the mind of men...a religious concoction.

Letting a liberal theologian teach the Church is to eventually rip away any super-naturalness. The Church is reduced to...as Paris Reidhead says "poetry and nice words and axioms".

I for one refuse Peter Enns and any other liberal theologian. While they may add an ounce of truth to the scales, they have already mined away tons of truth and piled it up as waste.

Paris Reidhead "Ten shekels and a shirt" if anyone has listened to this sermon and actually believes anything the man says cannot without serious conflict and contradiction accept the teachings of liberal theology.

"But I have observed that those who believe in literal interpretation of the Bible are dangerous because they mostly call others heretic just because they disagree with them.”

So, by your definition I am DANGEROUS?

You are using a very broad brush there brother.

A simple study of the ages of those in Jesus’s geneology will add up to roughly 6000 years till now. A honest look at these scriptures will show that they require a literal reading.
The problem I have with those of a differing opinion, is that the Bible IS very clear on this. Be careful of the influence of a narcissistic, worldly approach to reading scripture.
"Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

I do value your contributions and insights on the forum.

Blessings

The problem is not only population growth but also population spread- there are places all over the globe with massive complex structures that required certain levels of culture and skill and manpower. It’s not as if pyramids were only being built near Mesopotamia.

So, by your definition I am DANGEROUS?

You are using a very broad brush there brother.

I apologize if I appear to have used a broad brush. That is not my intention. The literal interpretation people I have met have always called others heretic for not believing in what they believe.

The problem I have with those of a differing opinion, is that the Bible IS very clear on this. Be careful of the influence of a narcissistic, worldly approach to reading scripture.

Unless Bible clearly says that the earth was formed 6000 years before, we have NO reason to believe in such a view. Also those who are undecided are not influenced by Science. I love Science and I am decently intellectual. But it is not of the fear of science or its influence that makes me take a neutral stand. I just do not believe Bible was intended to give a clear picture of Scientific way of formation of earth. Bible is a spiritual book, it answers a realm that science cannot reach, for example nature of God, how God wants us to obey him, his standard, his love for mankind etc. Science answers a realm that Bible is not intended to reach like layers of earth, chemical composition etc.

You are against someone painting everyone with same brush but you do the same when you say Science influences the idea of those who disagree with your view! Which as I explained is not true.

A simple study of the ages of those in Jesus’s geneology will add up to roughly 6000 years till now. A honest look at these scriptures will show that they require a literal reading.

If everything in the Bible is to be taken literal then Sun going down and coming up as well should be taken serious. But there we use the knowledge of science! Bible is not direct word of God, it is an inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16). When God inspired men, he can only inspire him within the boundary of knowledge of men. For example when Jesus used his parable, he did not quote cellphones are laptops in his parable. He only used objects like farming which were known to the people. Same way God inspired only the way people of that time could understand.

Now I certainly do not believe everything in the Bible should be taken literal. I also do not use my wisdom to decide what should be literal and what is not. That is why I am undecided.

On the age of the earth, it was not created on Day one. There is a gap between heaven and earth being created and day 1 creation. We cannot be certain on what happened in this gap.

So, by your definition I am DANGEROUS?

You are using a very broad brush there brother.

I apologize if I appear to have used a broad brush. That is not my intention. The literal interpretation people I have met have always called others heretic for not believing in what they believe.

The problem I have with those of a differing opinion, is that the Bible IS very clear on this. Be careful of the influence of a narcissistic, worldly approach to reading scripture.

Unless Bible clearly says that the earth was formed 6000 years before, we have NO reason to believe in such a view. Also those who are undecided are not influenced by Science. I love Science and I am decently intellectual. But it is not of the fear of science or its influence that makes me take a neutral stand. I just do not believe Bible was intended to give a clear picture of Scientific way of formation of earth. Bible is a spiritual book, it answers a realm that science cannot reach, for example nature of God, how God wants us to obey him, his standard, his love for mankind etc. Science answers a realm that Bible is not intended to reach like layers of earth, chemical composition etc.

You are against someone painting everyone with same brush but you do the same when you say Science influences the idea of those who disagree with your view! Which as I explained is not true.

A simple study of the ages of those in Jesus’s geneology will add up to roughly 6000 years till now. A honest look at these scriptures will show that they require a literal reading.

If everything in the Bible is to be taken literal then Sun going down and coming up as well should be taken serious. But there we use the knowledge of science! Bible is not direct word of God, it is an inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16). When God inspired men, he can only inspire him within the boundary of knowledge of men. For example when Jesus used his parable, he did not quote cellphones are laptops in his parable. He only used objects like farming which were known to the people. Same way God inspired only the way people of that time could understand.

Now I certainly do not believe everything in the Bible should be taken literal. I also do not use my wisdom to decide what should be literal and what is not. That is why I am undecided.

On the age of the earth, it was not created on Day one. There is a gap between heaven and earth being created and day 1 creation. We cannot be certain on what happened in this gap.

Hi Todd

You might find this video interesting -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE

Blessings

Excellent video- thanks. I had watched the Exodus documentary on Netflix which was also very good.

You said Bible has to be interpreted literally but I have posted my concerns on that. Can you please address them? I am not interested in arguments but always wanted to know how people supporting literal interpretation pick and choose certain things.

"Unless Bible clearly says that the earth was formed 6000 years before, we have NO reason to believe in such a view.”

Dear Brother
The Bible does say that clearly. In Exodus 20:11 it says - For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. This is a literal statement. The creation account, although brief and concise, spells this out very clearly & literally. Other creation narratives, like those in Job or the Psalms might be poetic, but Genesis 1&2 are literal accounts, saying that Adam was created on the sixth day. Thereafter his literal age, and those of his kin, is given in literal historical accounts. I don't agree with you, it is possible to discern whether something is stated literally. I am not saying everything is literal ... m
I am also not saying you are swayed by science. I am not calling anyone a heretic either. But when one is unswayed by clear, simple truths in scripture it smacks to me of narcissism. - The unwillingness to accept truth (unteachable), and the inclination to determine their own belief system.

You can believe in a gap theory, but just remember to tippex out Exodus 20:11 :)
Blessings

The gap theory posits an unknown period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Gen 1:2. Ex 20:11 does nothing to disprove the idea because some persons who believe in gap theory also believe in 7 literal creation, or re-creation days.

Ex 20:11 does nothing to disprove the idea because some persons

I do not believe Gap theory is right but I see it having a valid argument against earth being 6000 years old. I think I made my point here which is a neutral stand.

But I would like to know how Ex 20:11 does not disprove gap theory. Can you please expound on this?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Genesis 1:1-2

Gap theorists interpret "was” in v2 as "became” which apparently is also a legitimate interpretation. Thus the creation account is actually a re-creation account, the theory being that there was an earlier creation destroyed by cataclysm- possibly due to Satan’s fall- but that dinosaurs etc existed in the earlier creation until they were destroyed.

Ex 20:11 does not disprove gap theory because gap theorists still believe in 7 literal days of (re)creation.

I have never been a fan of the gap theory. I prefer the idea that Gen 1 is a poetic description of God’s creation of the universe. I simply cannot accept that the universe is only 6000 years old. But we’ve been over that ad infinitum in the past. I couldn’t care less what folks believe about the universe as long as they believe God created it.

"Ex 20:11 does not disprove gap theory because gap theorists still believe in 7 literal days of (re)creation."

Then they have to concede that the heavens was also recreated - which is silly. Nowhere will you find that the heavens "became" ....

Ex 20:11 - For in SIX DAYS the LORD made HEAVEN AND EARTH, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.

You can waltz around Ex 20:11 as much as you like, but Scripture can not be broken.

Also , let me quote Genesis 1:1&2, and please point out to me what you read as "poetic" about it -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Poetic - definition

Ӣ\twritten in verse rather than prose.
Ӣ\thaving an imaginative or sensitively emotional style of expression.

synonyms: expressive, figurative, symbolic, flowery, moving, aesthetic, artistic, tasteful, graceful

Blessings

This has many theological implications on the nature of the gospel
If you do not believe in a literal Adam then there is no literal fall, no need for a second adam
This is not a secondary issue

The gospel , the need for a saviour

Once you destroy the foundation everything else is up for grabs

I have read the so called egyptian creation story it is nothing like genesis and with the genonlogies.

It is only recently that people believe in billions of years as none of the early commentators

Why did Jesus even come and die for our sin if there is no original sin

If there is no death before the fall as the Bible says the world was created perfect but sin destroyed it .
You cannot believe this if you believe in billions of years.

Dom-

What kind of "death?”

I already said I believe in a literal Adam.

Jochb-

What "heavens?”

A gap theorist would say that eons ago God created the universe which would include "heavens” but that creation fell into ruin and had to be remade, which is what Gen 1:2 and thereafter describes.

Like I said I am not a proponent of this but again Ex 20:11 does not render the interpretation impossible.

ADD: Arthur Pink and Chuck Missler were proponents of gap theory.

"Ex 20:11 does not disprove gap theory because gap theorists still believe in 7 literal days of (re)creation."

Then they have to concede that the heavens was also recreated - which is silly. Nowhere will you find that the heavens "became" ....

Ex 20:11 - For in SIX DAYS the LORD made HEAVEN AND EARTH, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.

I think TMK is right. I did some research and the word for create that i used in Ex 20:11 is different from that used in Gen 1. It means recreate. So in short Ex 20:11 can be read as, God recreated heavens and earth in 6 days. Which still holds the gap theory a possible option.

Again I am still neutral, I do not believe Bible says anything about earth's age. Gap theory is a valid argument that puts a considerable possibility that the earth can be old as indicated by science.

If Bible clearly says that earth was created 6000 years ago then I will believe it no matter what Science says. Like I said before, Bible is not intended to answer any of Science's questions. It was revealed to man by the Holy Spirit based on his knowledge of things. If God revealed Genesis to today's man it will be more detailed.

Ex 20:11 word is "asah”
Gen 1 word is "bara”

Interpreting asah as "recreate” would render the text incomprehensible when taken in light of the usage of the two terms...
for example; in Genesis 1:26&27
The idea to create man is in fact expressed first as "asah” recreate???
While in verse 27 the act of creating is referred to as "bara”...
a quick word study reveals that interpreting asah in these passages as recreate would be at best careless-

One has to admit the gap theory solves certain seemingly insurmountable problems.

If correct one can have their cake (accept scientific evidence of billions of years old universe) and eat it too (accept more recent re-creation in 6 literal days).

I may have to research it further.

One has to admit the gap theory solves certain seemingly insurmountable problems.

Other than solving the questions posted by science(which I am not interested), it solves few Spiritual questions,
1. How can a perfect God create an Earth which was formless and empty, as indicated in Gen1:2.

2. When did the fall of Satan happen? Since Satan was already on the earth during Adam's creation, there should have been a period when he fell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsa-A2ynkKs

Dr. Lisle is really good here.

That was quite good, thanks for sharing:))

Reminded me of the verse in 1 Timothy...

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Strong's:+6231 257. עשׂה / Ah.S.H Translation:+Do Definition:+To bring to pass; to bring about; to act or make. AHLB:+1360-H (V) Strong's:+6213

No

40. ברא / B.R.A Translation:+Fatten Definition:+To make more substantial, fleshy or plump; to fill up. The filling of the earth in Genesis 1 with the sun, moon, plants and animals. The filling of man with breath and the image of Elohiym. AHLB:+1043-E (V)

No

What Hebrew lexicon have you been looking up as with the Hebrew root system there is no way that you can say that

There is no evidence of a recreation event in scripture

There is problems with the paleontology record study Dr John McKay and things like polystrata fossils.

The problems are not purely it is with destroying things like original sin and the fact that Jesus is called the second adam and that Jesus mentions Adam as an historical person

Matt 19
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Compare)

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mark 10

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Compare)

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The Gap theory is purely an evolutionary addendum to put evolution in genesis.

Paul in romans

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve

Inasmuch as man is saved, it is fitting that he who was created as the original man should be saved, too. . . . It was for this reason that, immediately after Adam had transgressed (as the Scripture relates), God pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but only against the ground. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

___________________

The Gap theory brings a whole of host of theological problems and it adds to scripture

””””””””””””””””””””””””-
Todd
The problems in not believing in a literal Adam , u say u don’t believe in a literal Adam but you believe in gap theory
God created the world perfectly , dinosaurs have cancer and there are thorns in the fossil record and the fossil record can be only formed through catastrophe
Did Jesus take billions of years to die for evolved apes or did god create humans ?
Is original sin a progeny of an original Adam ?

Gap Theory””an idea with holes
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T7olX8h7Fsk&t=646s

You destroy the foundation of the gospel if you believe in things like the gap theory

Todd I sometimes doubt your salvation

TMK wrote; "This is not a secondary issue"

Amen.

In Whom we have to deal with is God, from when He created Adam and Eve. Any time before that is not necessary for anything we have to deal with From Adam until now. If I ask God who made You, I kinda know what He would say, "that is none of your business, I have told you I always was and will always be. So if I created you, you have no one else to deal with when it comes to your salvation." There is only one that is primary in the issue of Gods Word; Jesus Christ who was birthed by God in Mary went to the Cross, died and was resurrected. The Gospel 1 Cor 15: 1-4 BELIEVE

This is my belief, anything before the foundation of the earth and creation means nothing. 6000 years of scripture is ok by me, this is the dispensation God has chosen for man.

Dom wrote: """You destroy the foundation of the gospel if you believe in things like the gap theory."""

Amen.

In Christ: Phillip

Dom wrote:

//The problems in not believing in a literal Adam , u say u don’t believe in a literal Adam //

WRONG! I specifically said I DO believe in a literal Adam. Please do not misquote me for your own nefarious purposes.

Do you doubt AW Pink’s salvation? He was a proponent of gap theory. So is Chuck Missler and so was Scofield to name only a few.

I have A.W Pink' book on Genesis. I love Pink but he turns a little green when incorporates the science-of-today ( for his generation) into Genesis.

Im no proponent of an old earth or a gap theory, but there are items the scripture clearly mention but leave unexplained.

"darkness was over the face of the deep"
"earth was without form and void"

Though there were no "days", there were elements, matter namely water and earth. When God created those, it is not mentioned. This does give room for hypothesis of ancient creation of the element.
But, the problem lay in 'hypothesis' or speculation, God spent no time explaining that, but he did explain the creation of life forms and those necessary bodies to sustain a physical creation.

I am a young earther, but based upon explicit texts not upon current science; though, I am glad to have ICR and others who help the Christian to realize there is another story the scientific data can tell.

If you take the first two verses of Genesis literally, you have God's quick summation. God created two things. The heavens and the earth. That's it.
So, what I see in Gen 1 is God filling the heavens and filling the earth.
I begs the question "then the earth must be the oldest of all planetary bodies?" Because the Heavens was just 'empty space'.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The problem I have with the gap theory is that Exodus makes it a scriptural impossibility. Six days is six days.

When I was growing up, I was taught a 1000 year day theory of creation. It was based on the new testament scripture that says that a day with the Lord is as one thousand years and one thousand years as one day. I always wondered why this was taught as it seemed to me the scripture in the new testament was being ripped grossly out of context. Then one day, reading a book by the man who was responsible for my denominational group, I found the answer. He said that he believed this and that it more readily agreed with modern science which, at the time, claimed many tens of thousands of years as the age of the earth.

If you are going to use the gap theory, you have to somehow explain away or rip out of context Exodus 20:11.

Which brings me back to the OP. Is Adam literal? To claim that he is not literal is to deny the historicity of Genesis and relegate it to some sore of allegorical tale. The problem is that Genesis is a book of history. If we can deny the historicity of Gen. 1-3, then we can also deny the historicity of the entirety of Genesis through Deuteronomy, because they are written in the same style by the same author.

I think we run into real trouble when we look at modern science and try to use that as the measuring stick to which we compare scripture. Modern science is an attempt by fallen man to explain his surroundings and make sense of them. In some cases, man does a pretty good job of it. In some cases he flops. But in all cases, what is written in scripture is going to prove to be true despite man's ideas. Otherwise we undermine the veracity of scripture in our own mind. (Its veracity is absolute. We cannot change truth, but we can undermine truth in our own mind and hearts and become unfruitful or a worst turn from God.) .

Just some thoughts that have been brought up before I know, but that apply here as well I think.

So many times the "experts" have had "rock solid" evidence that they said you had to believe in or you were scientifically illiterate, a backwards country bumpkin according to them. Piltdown Man, Junk DNA, vestigial organs etc etc. I thank God there are brave men and women in various areas of scientific research who boldly stand on God's Word and take the world's laughter and ridicule in stride.

Hey Travis-

I still don’t see how the Exodus passage necessarily destroys gap theory.

The counting of days does not begin until Gen. 1 vs 3. The proposed gap is between v1 and v 2.

Gap theory has theological implications such as death before the fall

Todd: The Exodus passage is very specific. It says that in six days God made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. So this passage includes Genesis 1:1 and all following. The creation of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them occurred in six days. If Exodus said, "in six days God created all that is in the heavens and the earth.", then I could agree that the gap theory is at least possible. But the wording is very explicit.

My question to consider would be this. Why is there any need to consider a gap theory to begin with. Why would we need to insert something into the text that is nowhere taught in scripture?

//Why is there any need to consider a gap theory to begin with.//

There is no "need” to do so but it would help explain so many things.

Gap theory says that Gen 1:2 onwards describes a re-creation of a world ruined into chaos, perhaps by Satan’s fall.

We really have no idea what the very ancient people knew about creation. Maybe they understood that Gen 1 describes a re-creation; ie maybe it was taken for granted so there was no need for scripture to expound on it.

But Dom is correct that if gap theory is true then there were dead dinosaurs (or their bones) laying around outside the Garden of Eden. I believe they were out there as well but not because of gap theory- although I am becoming more sympathetic to that view.

Todd: But then the question is, what many things does it help to explain? And what do we do with the verse in Exodus that is so very explicit in its language?

BTY: If I am not mistaken, I believe it was Dake who really popularized the ruin / reconstruction and gap theory ideas.

Todd: But then the question is, what many things does it help to explain? And what do we do with the verse in Exodus that is so very explicit in its language?

I have already answered in this thread what unique questions that gap theory answers.
1. how can a perfect God create an earth that was formless and empty. This proves that something should have happened that made the earth farmless and empty after God created it and filled it with darkness.

2. The fall of Lucifer, when did that happen as mentioned in Ezekel 28. Gap theory explains that this even happened in the gap.

//But then the question is, what many things does it help to explain? And what do we do with the verse in Exodus that is so very explicit in its language?//

I could name very many problems it helps to answer, but to summarize greatly if true it explains how we can have a very old universe and earth that is truly billions of years old and also a literal 6 day re-creation. You don’t have to resort to using a Day age interpretation or a poetic interpretation of Gen 1.

I just don’t see the problem with the Exodus passage that you do.

I have read the ancient Egyptian myths about creation in near Eastern ancient archaeology and the problems that I have is that you have to state that God did not create this world perfectly in the beginning
The thing is Gap theory is based on conjecture and not any scriptural evidneces and if there are gaps here why arent there any other gaps that God is not telling us about

The universe is not billions of years old there are so many problems with this as we should have things like population 3 stars or problems with the fact that we still have spirals on the milky way galaxy or comets

Blue stars should not exist becuase they would run out of fuel

Dinosaurs have things like cancer in there bones and there are other diseases in dinosaurs that point to the fall before dinosaurs. Dinosaurs means big lizard

It was only Dr Charles Lyle with him changing his view on how long it would take to form rock layers

The absurd view on evolution it would take 10,000 years to cover a dinosaurs toenail according to evolution and the flood best explains how the catastrophic nature of how the dinosaurs were buried as you have poly strata fossils such as trees which go between the layers

If the world was not created perfect and death and sin were not through the fall there are so many theological problems

//and death and sin were not through the fall//

The result of the fall was spiritual death. Adam did not die physically when he sinned so God was obviously not talking about physical death when He said " for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”- Adam lived on physically for hundreds of years.

Hi Todd and Travis:

The exodus statement "God made the heavens and the earth is 6 days" is a general statement.

It carries in it a common understanding as Travis said and that's 6 literal 24 hr days.

But the point I made earlier is that the elements water and earth existed in a chaotic formlessness before the first day was announced as completed. What we cannot assume is a huge expanse of time for the earth/water existence. God didn't say when these were made, but it's inferred by their presence as the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep.

Secondly, I find it impossible to use verse 1 and 2 for a gap theory. The reason is simple ( too me) there were no stars or planets created yet. We don't see those until vs 14 and on. So, the necessity for a gap to explain old suns and stars and a universe runs contrary to explicit texts telling me God didn't make them until he literally had lands and oceans and plants already made. Taken literally you could say we might have a tree older than the oldest star...which would be ours.

The gap theory is necessary only if you've agreed with current science and their ancient earth/sun/universe assertions. But the gap theory is a non-starter if you hold to a literal 6 day creation.

It takes no stretch of faith or imagination to consider the 'elements' as existing before their organizing; the light in verse 3 could only be God's own light from himself as the sun hadn't been created yet.

If I inject current scientific claims into Genesis I am obliged to honor them by rearranging scripture to fit them in. I then must re-interpret the plain assertions of Genesis in light of a new hermeneutic (current scientific claims). In short, I must in due course admit a new interpreter of scripture into the field of theology which is would be modern science.

The question then becomes why modern science why not ancient myth? Pagan histories? Ancient science? Ancient philosophy? Any of these could have staked their claim in their times for a place in biblical hermeneutics. But our ancients recognized the error of these ancient voices (ancient to us, current to them) do we recognize these voices as the Spirit of God or usurpers, intruders, skeptics?

I recognize modern science as an intruder into biblical hermeneutics whereby it's conclusion inevitably result in skepticism of scripture and faith in modern science.

He did die as he was not immortal anymore as genetic degradation started happening .
He did die thou . The thing is Adams death affected the whole of creation.
The devolution of creation started happening when Adam fell as the world was created perfect
You ignored the science

Marvin-

Do you really and truly believe the earth is only 6000 years or so old, or do you take it as an act of faith?

I guess I have never considered that before when it comes to YE creationists- ie the idea that it’s a faith issue and not an intellectual issue.

What I mean is that faith is essentially getting past common sense. If that is how you approach this topic I can certainly respect that.

Personally I do not think Gen 1 was intended to be taken word by word literally so I am not conflicted. If I truly believed it is literal, but also truly believe that the scientific evidence is overwhelming for an ancient universe, I would be faced with having to accept Gen 1 by faith despite what my intellect tells me.

Actually I do believe the earth was created something on the order of 6,000 years ago. It is primarily a faith issue and secondarily an intellectual issue.

You stated that one of the problems solved by a gap theory is a very old universe. But the science that tells us this age is very uncertain. It is all based upon some primary assumptions that presuppose an old universe. But Einstein among others have shown by Mathematics and Physics that the Universe can appear old to us as observers without being old. In other words, it is just as easy to demonstrate scientifically that the Earth and the Universe is 6,000 years old as it is to demonstrate that it is on the order of billions of years old.

Sree brings up some arguments that I also think can be based upon some presuppositions. The battle in the heavens described in Revelation is in the midst of future prophecy. It seems odd to break the flow of future prophecy to suddenly insert a battle that occurred before the creation week. Consider that the rebellion and fall of Lucifer could have actually been the deception of Adam and Eve. What if His jealousy (I will be like God) was toward a man and woman created in the image of God and given authority and dominion (See Hebrews 2)? Satan's fall does not have to be before the Garden, but rather in it. In fact, that, to me, makes more sense of the text than anything else.

I don't think there were element hanging around in limbo. God created spacetime (Heavens) and a planet in that spacetime (Earth). But He had not made it more than a ball in spacetime, so it was obviously without form and void (simply a ball with nothing on it yet). Then God said, "Let there be light" and began to to add form to and fill the Earth with everything that was necessary to support man, the one who the whole of spacetime exists to house.

I believe that the entire universe, every bit of it, was created by God for man. To realize when I look out at the stars that God put them there for me, the one who He desires to bear His image and glory. The one who He desires to know as a son.

Just my perspective brothers. I understand yours and respect it. Just don't agree with it. However one thing I do believe is that we are all desiring to be transformed more and more into His image and likeness and that He is pretty amazing to create us simply to know and have intimate relationship with us.

Amen Travis.

You do make excellent points.