How old do you think the universe is?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here is something I observed on this thread.

Some believe the earth APPEARS ancient, but actually is not because God made it MATURE just as God made Adam a man and not an infant. This view is somewhat acknowledging science and admitting science is correct in the estimation that the current matter comprising the earth is ANCIENT. These people would never have known the earth APPEARED ancient if it had not been for science making that claim and providing the evidence of its method of dating. So, the young earth people who claim God made the earth LOOK OLD ALONE, when it actually is not old, are influenced by science as much as it is alleged that gap adherents are solely trying to fit theology with science.

If young earth people were not trying to fit theology in with science they would not accept the claims of science to make them respond and say God made the earth APPEAR old.

You are correct, many "young earth" believers are just as befooled by the modern religion of "science" as the "old earth" believers are.

Me? I don't buy any of it. I never said "the earth looks old". Who says the earth looks old? Oh, that's right... atheists. Hmmm....

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Custance (the author above) has an MA in Hebrew, but he also has a vested interest as a scientist, so, I'm leery of his interpretation. From what I understand he wrote the first Academic paper on the subject, so he is a primary reference, and one that The Anti Gap proponents target with rebuttals.

Scripture and science should be compatible unless there is a error in scientific method or biblical interpretation.

The other issue is that words have various meanings so that you can look at Strong's and pick the meaning you like best, so just looking at words by themselves when you are looking through the filter of your world view isn't helpful.

Even though Hebrew is a dead language, if the discourse over Hebrew words has continued, can't the meaning of the words still be subject to change?

Please notice that I provided a quotation and a link that rebuts Custance's position directly and grammatically.

[Esaias]

And, one more time, for the record, I am NOT saying "there is no gap in Genesis", I am simply saying the arguments in favour of a gap are rather thin and wanting, in my opinion. I'd like to see something a bit more solid.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And, one more time, for the record, I am NOT saying "there is no gap in Genesis", I am simply saying the arguments in favour of a gap are rather thin and wanting, in my opinion. I'd like to see something a bit more solid.

Amen.

You both did a great job. I thank you for all the information that was presented in this thread. You are both are excellent examples of two men holding a good discussion. Amanah did a great job as well.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You are correct, many "young earth" believers are just as befooled by the modern religion of "science" as the "old earth" believers are.

Me? I don't buy any of it. I never said "the earth looks old". Who says the earth looks old? Oh, that's right... atheists. Hmmm....

People on this thread said the earth looks old.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

People on this thread said the earth looks old.

Tonight I feel old.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Amen.

You both did a great job. I thank you for all the information that was presented in this thread. You are both are excellent examples of two men holding a good discussion. Amanah did a great job as well.

Brother Blume does a good job, and definitely gives us all something to think about.

Amanah, too.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And, one more time, for the record, I am NOT saying "there is no gap in Genesis", I am simply saying the arguments in favour of a gap are rather thin and wanting, in my opinion. I'd like to see something a bit more solid.

I would like to add that I agree with you that use of a word determines which of the various definitions we are to realize. But even that can be obscured by a predertemined thought we may not even realize we're reading into the passage.

What are your thoughts about Jeremiah 4 and their reference to Genesis?

Jere 4:23-26 Jeremiah seems to describes a pre-Adamite destruction.

Jere 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Is it Pre-Adamite (before Adam) because we read it occurred when the earth was "void and without form". That fits Gen 1:2.

WHEN were mountains trembling?
WHEN was there no man?
WHEN was the fruitfulness place a wilderness?

ANSWER: When the earth was void and without form (Jeremiah 4:23).

This chapter was speaking about Israel's sin and Jerusalem's judgment. But their sin seems to remind God of something far more ancient that was similar and also required judgment -- rebellion. When considering their judgment and sin, He was reminded of the time the earth was void and without form.

And it is interesting that these passages in Jeremiah are very similar to what we read about Lucifer. I know Lucifer was a Babylonian king, but it's like we're reading about more than him...

Isai 14:16-17 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

JEREMIAH
4:23 ...the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void;
ISAIAH
14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,

JEREMIAH
4:24 ...the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly
ISAIAH
14:16 ...made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms

JEREMIAH
4:26 ...the fruitful place was a wilderness,
ISAIAH
14:17 ...made the world as a wilderness,

JEREMIAH
4:26 ...all the cities thereof were broken down
ISAIAH
14:17 ...and destroyed the cities thereof

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if it's a divine myth? What if it is more about God being creator, creating things in stages, creating from the earth itself, and Adam and Eve being symbols of mankind? We also see the atonement in their fall (what would be our fall) in that God slaughtered an animal, made coats of skins, and clothed them.

I can see a strong argument for the tree of life being not a literal tree with literal fruit, because the same essential understanding is what is seen in new birth with the Life Jesus came to give us. So, is it a picture of God wanting His Spirit in man, and the enemy thwarting it to see man filled with the force of sin through disobedience to drive man to damnation like the devil is doomed?

[Amanah]

Research material for Brother Blume

http://separationtruth.com/resources/GAP-SECTION+4.pdf