AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Studies (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   2 Peter 3:5 (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1068)

kevinvw 03-06-2009 01:49 AM

2 Peter 3:5
 
This verse is the biggest advocate for the gap theory and I think in light of certain other passages it doesn't support any gap at all.

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

In this passage Jesus is talking about the second coming and he compares it to the days of Noah when the people didn't hearken to the warning of the coming judgment.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I think the biggest reason why people see this verse as supporting some flood that happened between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 is because they read it without the context. Notice the similarity between the warning of Jesus Christ and this passage.

The scoffers are saying that the Lord isn't coming back and that nothing different has happened since the beginning just like the people didn't believe Noah that there was going it was going to start raining. It says they are willingly ignorant of the flood that wiped out the people in the days of Noah. They refuse to believe that God killed those men with a flood and they refuse to believe that God came to earth as a man, died, rose from the grave, ascended into heaven, and is going to come back to kill them. Peter warns us to not be willingly ignorant like these men because the Lord is not slack concerning His promise even though it seems like He's taking a long time. He will come back and kill scoffers just like He killed the scoffers in the days of Noah.

Both Jesus and Peter are talking about the second coming, and they both liken it to something. Jesus likened it to the days of Noah. Some people think Peter is talking about some mysterious time period between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. I think it's evident that he's repeating the same warning that Jesus gave, and not telling us about some period of time so mysterious that it hides between two verses.

You say, why does Peter talk about an old world and the world that is now. Well look at 2 Peter 2:5.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Unless Noah lived between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, the old world was the world from the beginning of time to the flood of Noah, which would make the world that is now the world from after the flood to the second coming of Jesus Christ. After which, the Lord makes the new heavens and the earth.

geologist 03-06-2009 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinvw (Post 16337)
This verse is the biggest advocate for the gap theory and I think in light of certain other passages it doesn't support any gap at all.

Unless Noah lived between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, the old world was the world from the beginning of time to the flood of Noah, which would make the world that is now the world from after the flood to the second coming of Jesus Christ. After which, the Lord makes the new heavens and the earth.

I think I have already addressed these points on my website on this page:

http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html

I'm glad to see, however, that this subject has shook you up enough to get you started denouncing it. Good for you.

chette777 03-06-2009 04:50 AM

this is an explanation from Ole Madsen. I quote him because I couldn't make it any clearer on these verses.

"Compare the phrase "the heavens and earth, which are now" to the phrase the "heavens were of old":

When Noah's flood happened did it change anything in the upper heavens (above Earth's atmosphere)? Were there changes made to the sun, moon, or stars? The answer is NO. The heavens that were already ordained and up in the sky during Adam's day are the very same heavens that were there for Noah and his sons after the flood. And those same heavens are still there today.

FACT: The flood had no effect on the heavens. All flood effects were confined to the Earth's surface and atmosphere.

Again, note the contrasting comparison between the phrases the "heavens were of old" (before the waters) and the "heavens and earth which are now" (after the waters). If Noah's flood did not alter the heavens, why does the passage clearly speak of former heavens "of old" and different heavens afterwards. This can not be an accurate reference to Noah's flood, but it could be a reference to a reconstruction of all things; a reconstruction that happened during the seven days. "

Mind you I do not agree with all of Ole's view but this interpretation is pretty accurate. I just don't call the 6 day creation a reconstruction as I believe it was a new form and creation not wholly something left over.

kevinvw 03-06-2009 02:12 PM

Maybe you guys are taking critical of a view of the words old, now and new.

Deu 19:14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.

Deu 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

I mean, look at this. These people didn't live in a previous heaven and earth. I think Peter is just saying that back in the day, God flooded the earth, and now he's waiting to come back and burn everything fire, and he's gonna kill the scoffers just like he did back then, but this time we get to dwell in a new creation where there is only righteousness.

kevinvw 03-06-2009 04:10 PM

Psa 74:2 Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed; this mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.

Psa 74:12 For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.

Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

Psa 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Jer 28:8 The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence.

Jer 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Lam 3:6 He hath set me in dark places, as they that be dead of old.

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

I think these verses clearly demonstrate what the phrase "of old" means, and it always used to describe something from a long time ago or something that is aged like an old shoe or old person, not a former creation or existence.

MC1171611 03-06-2009 05:50 PM

kevinw,

The problem with your long list of verses is that none of them are in reference to the earth except for Psalm 102:25, which when compared with Job 38 is shown to be the Creation in Genesis 1:1.

I'm afraid nothing you've provided even lends credence to your views, let alone disproves the Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

chette777 03-06-2009 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinvw (Post 16363)
These people Peter

God uses men and the circumstances of men to reveal many things in his word. I have gone over certain verse every year and each time I learn something different from it. there is a shallow meaning and there are deeper meanings to some verses in God's word.

that is what Paul describes when he says, Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; not all the saints know everything. But the ability to comprehend what I have just explained above all understand.

I refuse to allow myself to get polarized into only one view as God may change my whole comprehension on that area. I remain open to him. Now when it comes to The sound doctrines of God's grace in Salvation. they are firm and God does not changes my mind on those. but other things he does.

kevinvw 03-06-2009 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MC1171611 (Post 16375)
kevinw,

The problem with your long list of verses is that none of them are in reference to the earth except for Psalm 102:25, which when compared with Job 38 is shown to be the Creation in Genesis 1:1.

I'm afraid nothing you've provided even lends credence to your views, let alone disproves the Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

I think the issue flew completely over your head. I gave those verses because they clearly explain the phrase of old. It does not mean that there was an earth that existed before this current one. It means in times past, old in age, back in the day, from ancient times, or a long, long time ago if you will.

2 Peter 3:5 ...that by the word of God the heavens were of old...

This phrase does not ever mean a former existence. It is dealing with the heavens and the earth from ancient times, not former heavens and earth. I would say a good example of something that is dealing with former and latter things is the old and new testaments. The old testament is called old not because it's old in age but it is the former and now we have the new testament which superseded the old testament and took its spot. When the new heavens and earth are made then we can rightfully call the heavens and earth that we live in now the old ones because they will be the former, but that isn't what is being talked about when the phrase of old is used. Good thing we won't even remember this wretched and terrible world that we live in anyway, according to Isa 65:17. It also explains the former and latter situation you're trying to push the phrase of old into, but you can't because it would only mean former if it was just old and not of old.

Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

chette777 03-07-2009 12:40 AM

Kevin,

The term "the old" does give the meaning of a former existence also as found in

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
Col 3:9, 10 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

It would seem your boat has a leak in it and it is an old leak:D

kevinvw 03-07-2009 02:48 AM

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

To go even further we have the same phrase "were of old", and it carries the same meaning as 2 Peter 3:5. It deals with the time frame, not their state of being.

1Sa 27:8 And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.

These weren't former inhabitants of the land (well not until David slew then all, but I think you get the point.) Remember that Amalek was the first nation Israel ran into after leaving Egypt, so these definitely are nations that have been inhabitants for a long time.

Besides, I just found a verse that completely blows everything out of the water.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

I don't think it's possible to get around this one. The first heaven and first earth? Anything that is first preceeds anything in a line of succesion. The only way I can see there being a gap is if the "old" heavens and "old" earth weren't destroyed, but luckily there weren't "old" heavens and an "old" earth, there was just a flood that happened on earth killed all flesh in an ancient time.

chette777 03-07-2009 03:04 AM

a state of being is part of a time frame. the before and after all have to do with time. that is why tiem was created firston day One. Not light

It is correct just as it says the first earth goes all the way back to the pre Adamic earth inhabited by Lucifer and angles. that is part of the first earth. and in Rev 20 it is burned with fire according to Peter and rev 21 just repeats what took place when the earth fled from the presence of God. the new earth is just that a completely new earth.

Gen1:1 amd 1:2 are the same first earth. no problem there for me.

kevinvw 03-07-2009 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 16399)
Kevin,

The term "the old" does give the meaning of a former existence also as found in

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
Col 3:9, 10 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

It would seem your boat has a leak in it and it is an old leak:D

This leak would only sink my boat if you replaced heavens were of old with were the old heavens. Heavens of old is saying the heavens at an earlier time, or long since. It does not mean the they were completely different heavens like the old heavens can, and like you are trying to insinuate.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The same became the old mighty men is not the same as the mighty men which were of old.

1Sa 27:8 And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt.

This one has to be completely restructured to the old nations are the inhabitants of the land which completely changes the meaning.

So we see that the old which is simply the same as the word old without the in front of it is not the same as of old which I already said earlier.

The heavens were of old implies that it is talking about a time period far in the past, in this case the time of Noah, not heavens that were old, or old that heavens were destroyed and replaced by heavens that had been recreated. The heavens and earth that are now is simply the heavens and earth during the present time.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Just a recap, in case you forgot. It says the world that then (when the heavens were of old) was, being overflowed with water, perished, which we find out in 2 Peter 2:5 that this isn't some former heavens and earth that were different and destroyed and had to be recreated, it is the earth in the time of Noah. Which makes sense since the passage in chapter 3 is a recap of Jesus' short statement on the second coming. In the time of Noah, the people were doing their business after their own lust instead of listening to Noah, and the earth was overflowed with water up past the highest mountains, and all the ungodly men died besides Noah because he was righteous. Now when the second advent comes, only those who are righteous and listen to the holy prophets and the apostles will escape the coming judgment when the ungodly men are going to die yet again and the heavens and the earth this time will be completely destroyed. I mean, why would Peter say something, and then say something using the same words but with a complete different meaning behind them. It doesn't make sense. Plus the similarities between the passage in 2 Peter 3 and Matthew 24 are outstanding. I don't get how you guys don't see them, but instead fumble around with words and inject your own meanings behind them.

chette777 03-07-2009 05:50 AM

well I have been known to forget it is part of the OLD Age. hee hee.

I would expect that Jesus wouldn't mention anything that was prior to the current TQ that began on day one. and he didn't. Not always did the Prophets or Apostles understand the things in which they spoke. I wont go hog wild.

anyway, I do understand your argument of the old I have tossed it around for many years already. but Ole has a great understanding of it that you have not addressed yet. So I wait for that before I will consider and change of course on my part.

Winman 03-07-2009 11:56 AM

Chette said:

Quote:


When Noah's flood happened did it change anything in the upper heavens (above Earth's atmosphere)? Were there changes made to the sun, moon, or stars? The answer is NO. The heavens that were already ordained and up in the sky during Adam's day are the very same heavens that were there for Noah and his sons after the flood. And those same heavens are still there today.
I absolutely disagree. Before the flood, there was no rain on the earth.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

The first time rain is mentioned is Noah's flood.

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

These are the first two mentions of the word "rain" in the Bible. In Gen 2:5 it says God had not caused it to rain, in Gen 7:4 it says God caused it to rain.

And there was a change in the heaven.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Now obviously, there was a huge amount of water in our atmosphere or heaven, but it was contained. In Gen 7:11 its says God opened the "windows" of heaven, releasing rain for the first time upon earth.

Now the use of the word windows is interesting, because it shows the rain was contained by something transparent. The very purpose of a window is to keep the cold and heat out, but still allowing us to look outside. So, this rain was held back or contained by something either invisible or transparent.

But there was a change, we have had rain since Noah. And we also see the first reference to a rainbow and the clouds.

Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

There is also another huge problem in the account of Noah's flood with the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory says the earth was destroyed by a flood TWICE.

But what did God say?

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

If the world has been destroyed by flood twice as the Gap Theory demands, why does God not mention it?

Oh, and I personally believe Noah's flood may have caused changes to outer space above our atmosphere. One of the greatest evidences for this are comets. Comets are known to contain water, but scientists cannot figure out where this water came from as it is super-rare in the universe. I personally believe when the fountains of the deep were broken up, that gigantic geysers of water shot high in the atmosphere. Much of this would have frozen immediately and returned to earth as snow, perhaps hundreds of feet deep in some areas. This could explain the evidence for the Ice Age. But I believe some of this water (and rock too) actually escaped our atmosphere. This would account for the comets, and perhaps the asteroids as well. Scientists know comets cannot be over 10,000 years old because they would have been depleted ages ago. Everytime a comet passes the sun it loses much material, this is the long tail which we can easily see.

I even believe that Noah's flood may account for the pocked-marked surface of the Moon. If water and rocks were spewed out into space, it is possible the Moon was struck by thousands of the earth-made meteorites.

Now that is a personal theory.

chette777 03-07-2009 05:20 PM

read Ole's remarked again, his statement was above the Atmosphere not in the atmosphere.

Ole Madson, "All flood effects were confined to the Earth's surface and atmosphere."

the change he points out is to the stars and planets the second heaven. He doesn't disagree with the fact that rain was a new thing.

It sounds as if you misunderstood what Mr Madsen said, He did not change anything concerning the flood. May have changed is no proof they were changed. the water above in storehouse was the atmosphere.

I agree with Kent Hovin on the geyser thing. but that was not the point in Ole statement. re read it again I did to see if I misunderstood. But it would seem you misread it some where and confused the first and second heaven

Winman 03-07-2009 06:10 PM

I didn't misunderstand, I tried to answer you. I spoke of comets which contain water. Now I am not the first person to realize that both comets and the Earth contain water. But modern science will always try to explain away God. Just 2 weeks ago or so, I watched a program on the History Channel where scientists are trying to say that our oceans came from comet strikes on the earth. Now, in all the history of man, we do not have a record of a comet striking earth. And to fill our vast oceans? It is laughable, it would take many billions of comet strikes to account for all the water in our oceans, probably much more than that. The more likely and probable answer is that the comets came from Earth. And how could that happen? Well, perhaps a celestial body as an asteroid striking Earth could knock some water out in space. Hey, wait a minute, what about the fountains of the deep breaking up in the Book of Genesis? Now, there is a real possibility. If super pressurized water were to spew out of the Earth, that could easily account for all the comets. And it may also account for the asteroids, they don't know where they came from either. There are millions of chunks of rock up there, and they have no clue where they came from. Well, if gigantic geysers of water were spewing out of the Earth, don't you think much rock would be carried along? We see that with volcanoes all the time. But our volcanoes are nothing compared to Noah's flood, the Bible says "all" the fountains of the deep were broken up. This was a world-wide catastrophe as has never happened before or since.

I think it not only possible, but actually very probable that water and rock were spewed out of our atmosphere into space accounting for both comets and asteroids. And as I wrote, I think it is very possible all the craters on the Moon and other planets and moons in our Universe may have come from this catastrophe.

So, I am no scientist, nobody is going to pay attention to a person like me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

You simply cling to your theory, no matter how much scripture (or common sense for that matter) is presented against it.

In Exodus 20:11 God says he made the heaven (same exact word as used in Gen 1:1) , the earth, the sea, and ALL THAT IN THEM IS in six days. If there was a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 this verse would be false. This verse also must include Satan and all the angels.

It is you that refuses to listen to God's Word that is the problem, you would rather listen to a man. I don't care what "ole whats-his-name" said, I believe the Bible. You should too.

chette777 03-07-2009 06:28 PM

but where did I or Ole mention water on comets?

Well until man can catch a comet it is a theory that water is on one. equipment is made to look for such but I doubt it's accuracy as they are programed to give the answer men want to disprove God more than anything. I wouldn't consider a comet to be a storehouse of waters. while it could be something left over from the Noah flood water explosion as Hovin THEORIZES . remember this is all theory of great geysers that spewed water into outer space. there are waters above and water below but beware when men try to make great supposing ideas and then say they are biblical.

though water can be supposedly traced to other planets and comets there is not way to say it is in a form you can drink. the spectrometers only divide the chemicals they are not loose water floating or frozen, it is a mixture of created elements. interesting fact you can create 18 different types of water by changing the ion activity in the water. one of these types you can drink all you want and you will still die of dehydration

you are welcome to think that But God's word says the water came from above and below to cover the face of the earth. It doesn't say great geysers shot rock and water into deep space vacuum that landed on Mars and made comets. that is a good example on how men sneak their theories in on you cloaked in Bible terminology and then you swallow it as gospel truth.

the Bible is clear on the purpose of the earth Rev22. the purpose of man through out the Bible to glorify God in Grace and/or in Judgement. The purpose of Satan and his angles is clear to deceive, destroy, to kill, to tempt, to test and lie. the purpose of his son to save men and to take the throne not just promised to an earthly king but as was the purpose for the earth in the beginning.

BornAgainBibleBeliever514 03-24-2009 03:43 PM

The Ole statement of:
Quote:

FACT: The flood had no effect on the heavens. All flood effects were confined to the Earth's surface and atmosphere.
is refuted succinctly by the Hydroplate theory and by Winman. The comets, the moon craters, the evidences of water in space are all exceedingly logical when looked at in the hydroplate model presented by Hovind.
The Ole statement said heavens, plural, so Winman presented evidence from the first and second heaven, both of which are excellent.

Quote:

but where did I or Ole mention water on comets?
Well until man can catch a comet it is a theory that water is on one. equipment is made to look for such but I doubt it's accuracy as they are programed to give the answer men want to disprove God more than anything.
Ole begged for evidence in the heavens of the flood, in stating there was none as a FACT.
Why would men program their spectrometers to give a result of water in comets if that lends credibility to the flood/hydroplate theory?
Also, as I understand, the same side of the moon is always facing the earth, and ironically, its the only side with many craters on it, the other side being fairly smooth.

Quote:

you are welcome to think that But God's word says the water came from above and below to cover the face of the earth. It doesn't say great geysers shot rock and water into deep space vacuum that landed on Mars and made comets. that is a good example on how men sneak their theories in on you cloaked in Bible terminology and then you swallow it as gospel truth.
One of many truthful evidences we are left with are the massive oceanic trenches and seams, which when looking at a map of the world in relief, one can observe they practically wrap around the globe like a baseball stitching.
This is where the hydroplate theory makes sense. If that much water under that much pressure (weight of all the zillions of pound of crustal rock) were released, its not only plausible, but probable that it would have shot up into space beyond our atmosphere, and once there is no more resistance, could fly very far, perhaps ionizing along the way.

As for misunderstanding Ole,
Quote:

the change he points out is to the stars and planets the second heaven. He doesn't disagree with the fact that rain was a new thing.
Quote:

When Noah's flood happened did it change anything in the upper heavens (above Earth's atmosphere)? Were there changes made to the sun, moon, or stars? The answer is NO. The heavens that were already ordained and up in the sky during Adam's day are the very same heavens that were there for Noah and his sons after the flood. And those same heavens are still there today.
I understand Ole as meaning that for example, the hunk of rock we call the moon was still the same hunk of rock after the flood. It wasn't replaced, but it sure got a few scars. If comets came from the earth, shot into outer space by the fountains of the deep breaking up, does that change space? No, it just means that a few more hunks of rock are flying around in the same space with all the other planets that were already out there.

Hovind points out something interesting that comes up in his debates, that due to the latent heat of condensation, had all the water for the flood come from rain fall, there would have been enough heat energy released to fry the planet. Part came from above (the canopy falling down), but a much greater part came from the fountains of the deep.

None of this hydroplate theory is UNscriptural or contradictory, but makes sense of the evidence left behind from the Biblical account.

I agree fully with the difference between something being OLD and something being OF OLD.

Re: The rainbow promise
Quote:

If the world has been destroyed by flood twice as the Gap Theory demands, why does God not mention it?
in fact, why doesn't God mention the "first flood" at all, if its so important?
How could a flood punish angelic, non-physical beings anyways, especially since they kept right on existing? If angelic beings occupied this earth before recreation, why would there have been any need at all for a physical world for them to inhabit or pollute?

It makes perfect sense to me that it was all very good at the end of the sixth day, then Lucifer observed the importance given to mankind, and became jealous of God's interest in them. His Pride of his own beauty led Satan to tempt man's worship away from God to himself. Surely there had to be a catalyst to Satan desiring to exalt himself, and what better one than jealousy for this measly man, made a little lower than the angels, being given so much attention by God Almighty? The timeline allows for Adam and Mrs. Adam to live in the garden of Eden for up to around 100 years before the fall of man. Plenty of time for Lucifer's fall.


Anyways, I know I'm jumping into the discussion and it may seem like I'm ganging up against the gappers, but I want it to be clear that my interest is in TRUTH, not in arguing with brothers in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. Arguing is a waste of time, but pursuit and defense of truth is for edifying the church and giving glory to God.

Winman rightly said:
Quote:

You simply cling to your theory, no matter how much scripture (or common sense for that matter) is presented against it.
There will come a point where all points have been made, the truth is hanging there, for the reader to take or reject, and once that point is past, there is no more use in debate.

Biblestudent 03-24-2009 06:50 PM

"of old" vs. "new"
 
In my observation the words "of old" refer to two time periods, depending on the context:
1. Before the flood of Genesis 1:2
2. Before the flood of Genesis 7-9
This idea came up from the two kinds of "new heaven and new earth" in the Bible:
1. The "new heavens and new earth" of the Millennium (Isa. 65)
2. The "new heaven and new earth" in Eternity (Rev. 21)

chette777 03-24-2009 07:09 PM

Hydroplate theory is just that theory no Biblical proof. This is one of the many points in Hovinds presentation in over 9DVD where Hoind presents as facts an unsupported biblical idea and everybody falls for it.

To say the moon and the planets bear the marks of the Noah's flood is a little far fetched ans holds no Biblical support.

the first flood was not important to man so it is not mentioned in scriptures for two reasons. One it had nothing to do with anything inthe 24/7 TQ and secondly it had nothing to do with man.

God doesn't mention when the Lake of fire was made. But what is revealed only has to do with man. the eternal fire mentioned in Jude makes it clear that the fires reserved for the devil and his angles were created before our 24/7 TQ


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study