Quote:
Originally Posted by Winman
Hi Nehemiah and welcome to the forum. It is very late and I need to get off the computer, so I can't attempt to answer your questions now, but I am sure you will get plenty of responses.
I just wanted to say Hi and welcome you to the forums!  |
Thank you very kindly Winman. I understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish
|
Thanks, but No Thanks; Been there, Ken Ham leaves too many very legitimate questions unanswered.
Ditto.
Quote:
|
Like Winman I can't answer all of these right now, but regarding no. 5 and no. 6, I will refer you to my extensive thread at the link below which contains the answers you seek and a lot more about the sons of God and the daughters of men... the entire thread is pretty good reading, but if you're in a hurry you will find that posts no. 5 and 6 on that thread lay down some pretty good timber on the subject.
|
And I'll find this "
extensive thread" where?
Quote:
|
by the way, what is the meaning of the title to your thread?
|
Just what it states?
Watch out for "Giants" that are only "Giants" according to our fearful perception of them being "Giants".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish
Bro. Tony B,
Have you read Bro. Ruckman's Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, he devotes about 10 pages to this exact issue, pp 174--184. Just for another view on it...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybones2112
Nehemiah, welcome also from me to the forum. You are a man much as myself, I was raised in the Church Of Christ and am a bit of a hardcase regarding sticking to the Scriptures due to the fact COC are very good at twisting them.
|
Not quite; I was not "
raised in the Church Of Christ", nor am I "
a bit of a hardcase". And I certainly don't believe that "
COC" has a monopoly on Scripture, as to being the only ones that, "
are very good at twisting them".
Quote:
|
Brother, we must read the Scriptures as being literal where common sense allows us to:
|
I totally agree with, "
we must read the Scriptures as being literal", but I cannot agree with you on, "
where common sense allows us to". The phrase, "
common sense" is 1) NOT Scriptural; 2) Ungodly; and 3) not nearly so "
common" in this day and age.
Quote:
Ps 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
This does not mean that our Lord is a chicken.
|
True; but what are "
feathers" used for? That's the message.
Quote:
Zec 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.
If I were so inclined I could start a website and use this to preach and teach the First Church Of Santa Claus, and the adherents would run into the tens of thousands and I would be a rich man.
|
Maybe so, but, according to the passage, and if "
the adherents" were paying close attention, they would, "
flee from the land of the north", rather than running to you, let alone sending you letters, right?
Quote:
I'll throw my hat in the ring on answering your questions:
Question One: The "gap" theory is a gap "fact" in that the "gap" is between people's ears. This is an attempt to compromise with "science" because the people who teach and adhere to the Gap Theory feel it's too outrageous to go cross grain with "science" and appear to be dumb hillbillies as people look at me when I tell them, The Gap Is Between Your Ears.
There is no "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Verse one is an overview, an introductory precept, the rest of the chapter describes what occurs in verse one. Those who stand and resist unto blood the defense of the English in the Bible then commit the same sin they lay on others who they accuse of corrupting the meaning of the Scriptures: They "go to the Hebrew" to "prove" that the Hebrew word for "replenish" means "...should be translated refill". I see no sense in being double minded and unstable in trying to prove an unprovable precept.
|
In my initial post, I clearly stated, "(
Please note: I DO NOT believe the so-called 'Evolutionary gap theory'!)".
Now then, according to you, "
Verse one is an overview, an introductory precept, the rest of the chapter describes what occurs in verse one". If that is so, please then explain, How, THE MOST PERFECT "
GOD (WHO IS '
LIGHT, and in HIM is NO Darkness at all.')
Created the Heaven and the Earth", and all of a sudden, it became, "
the earth. . .without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep"???
GOD is not the author of confusion, yet "the earth" that HE Created became, in just the second verse of Genesis One, 1) formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness; a) formlessness (of primeval earth); 1) nothingness, empty space; b) that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig); c) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places); d) place of chaos; which is what the phrase, "
without form" means, right?
Now, dare I bring into the discussion, the word, "
void (
emptiness, void, waste)"? Now surely you'll agree that you cannot 'empty' that which never was contained, right? Nor can that which never was be 'wasted', can it?
Quote:
Question Two: I Cor. 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
You answered your own question here brother.
|
Currently, Michelle Obama is "
the first lady". And I won't even go into the being "
old as dirt" thing. What is the context of "
the last Adam" being "
made a quickening spirit", as opposed to "
The first man Adam", being "
made a living soul"?
Quote:
|
Question Three: If we take the sum total of the Scriptures with regards His general purpose, we see the Universe was created to be inhabited for the glory of God, a minor glitch occurred in Genesis 3 causing the Fix of Matthew 27. We wait for the consumation of all things in Revelation when His plan will then take up where it left off, an inhabited Universe for His glory.
|
Wow!!! Some "
minor glitch". I'm sure GOD considers it a tad bit more than just that, seeing how it COST HIM HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON!
But we can agree on a "
glitch" happening; you believe, in Genesis 3; I believe, right at the end of Genesis 1:1.
And HIS MASTERFULLY MASTER PLAN has been in effect since before, "
In the beginning...". . .so that when all is thought, tried, and done, no one will never ever again so much as, contemplate trying to usurp GOD'S Sovereignty ever never again.
Quote:
Question Four: Ge 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Brother, Cain and Abel both got wives from the same place Seth and the others did until the gene pool stabalized around the time of the giving of the Law: Cain married one of his sisters.
|
According to Scripture, right? or according to "
common sense", and/or man's logic?
Quote:
Questions Five & Six:
The Scriptures define three types of "sons of God":
The believer today is called a son of God,
|
True.
Quote:
|
the line directily leading to Mary's, the mother of Jesus Christ, father,
|
No. In that passage,
(Luke 3:23-38), only Adam is called/referred to as "
the son of GOD".
Quote:
|
and angels are called sons of God. Most who define the sons of God of Genesis 6 as being angels also go to the Hebrew to prove it, the union causing anakims and nephelims.
|
Not so; nowhere, nowhere, nowhere, in ALL of Scripture are "
angels" ever referred to as "
the sons of GOD". . .
NOT even in the Book of Job.
In fact Hebrews 1:5 makes it crystal clear, "
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
Quote:
Grace and peace to you
Tony
|
And you too.