There was no recreation of the world. Only one creation - and the Bible is pretty clear that God created ALL things within Heaven and earth in those six days. Doesn't leave room for anything else.

The OT didn't look forward to the death of Christ? Genesis 3 tells a different story - so does Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, other passages.

This ends the debate, if you accept the Bible:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Abraham, David, and all OT believers were saved by faith, by grace - not by the works of the Law.

[chette777]

if there was one creation why does the earth appear in vs 1 heaven and earth and then he calls forth light to come upon a earth that is in darkness. darkness denotes something that is not of God. for in him is no darkness at all. the second day of recreation he had to place firmament around our universe to separate the sinful darkness that had engulfed the earth (that was not there since the begining of time when the earth was in the heaven) from a Holy God and his dwelling place you will notice it is the only day God does not say it is good. for anyhting that separates from God is not Good and sin is one thing that separates all men from God, and the believer he is separated by not yielding to God.

so what your saying from the beginning God created something that he would not pronounce as good and separates men from Gods abode. I think not the reason for the darkness on the earth and the firmament being put in place was to put a limit on how far sin could go and not invade the holiness of God. In wisdom he did that.

Originally Posted by chette777

if there was one creation why does the earth appear in vs 1 heaven and earth and then he calls forth light to come upon a earth that is in darkness. darkness denotes something that is not of God. for in him is no darkness at all. the second day of recreation he had to place firmament around our universe to separate the sinful darkness that had engulfed the earth (that was not there since the begining of time when the earth was in the heaven) from a Holy God and his dwelling place you will notice it is the only day God does not say it is good. for anyhting that separates from God is not Good and sin is one thing that separates all men from God, and the believer he is separated by not yielding to God.

so what your saying from the beginning God created something that he would not pronounce as good and separates men from Gods abode. I think not the reason for the darkness on the earth and the firmament being put in place was to put a limit on how far sin could go and not invade the holiness of God. In wisdom he did that.

Wow - nothing like building a doctrine where the Bible doesn't speak. Where are the other verses that talk about an earlier creation? There are none. Therefore the Gap Theory is a doctrine that is completely made up - never wise to build your life on speculation!

God created the light - therefore it makes sense that there was no light until He did so. Later, darkness is used as a symbol for evil - you cannot have a symbol until you have the reality (darkness).

There is nothing "sinful" about the night that God created. Gen 1 says that God called the darkness night and the light He called day. The verse referred to above that "in Him is no darkness at all" is refering to sin, it has nothing to do with day and night. By the way it is at night that we can see the glory of God declared by His awesome creation of the stars and planets!!

Also as to Ruckman, he just uses the Bible to make it say what he wants. Kind of like the Calvanists! Ruckman has been divorced and remarried so he takes the verse that says that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife to mean... one wife at a time! Check out his views on this. He believes that there was a gap between Gen 1:1 & 2 so he reads that into the Bible and uses other references to "prove" his point - such as Gen 1:28 replenish. In the Hebrew this means to fill or fulfill. The KJV translators used the best word in their day that meant this - replenish. Do some research on this and you will find it to be factual.

Ruckman has some good things to say but HE and his biased views get in the way many times. I am not a follwer of his but of Jesus Christ. There are many who follow this man and take his views as gospel, inventing gap theories, condoning divorce and remarriage and inspiring the translation of the KJV (which is God's PRESERVED Word in the english language but the translators were not inspired in the same way the original authors were - contrary to Ruckman).

[Diligent]

I'm not an apologist for Ruckman, but citing his views on a pre-Adamic creation as an example of his "strange" error is not reasonable. The Gap Theory did not originate with Ruckman. In fact, the majority of right-dividing theology I have read from the late 1800s and early 1900s support this theory.

I am also not defending the Gap Theory, mind you, just stating a fact.

Also, my understanding is that his previous wives abandoned him. 1Cor 7:15 seems to me to teach that there is no bondage of marriage in such a case.

Originally Posted by Diligent

I'm not an apologist for Ruckman, but citing his views on a pre-Adamic creation as an example of his "strange" error is not reasonable. The Gap Theory did not originate with Ruckman. In fact, the majority of right-dividing theology I have read from the late 1800s and early 1900s support this theory.

I am also not defending the Gap Theory, mind you, just stating a fact.

Also, my understanding is that his previous wives abandoned him. 1Cor 7:15 seems to me to teach that there is no bondage of marriage in such a case.

Brandon - I realize that Ruckman was not the originator of the Gap Theory, I was just showing his connection to it as others in this thread had done.

Your view of I Cor 7:15 is Ruckman's view as well. We should know how God feels about divorce (Malachi and others). While we may not be able to control what a mate does, God clearly commands us not to remarry. This is a really unpopular scriptural principal in today's world. But the Bible does offend! Just because it is the way we live today does not make it right. At any rate, God can and does forgive BUT the office of a pastor of a church is reserved for undivorced individuals whether we like God's plan or not.

One more thing... when the Gap theory was invented, during the late 1800's, is the same time the new versions came on the scene! Maybe a coincidence.

God clearly commands us not to remarry.

kstsells, I have no problem with that. Its what my pastor teaches. But I've always wondered, if the believing mate is not bound on those cases, then why doesn't that mean they are free to remarry? I

Question: Isn't the "bond" to which he refers marriage? i.e. doesn't this verse mean he was not married? And therefore free to marry?

OR

Does the "bond" only refer to the fact that the believing mate does not have to remain married and all is well. . .so long as he doesn't remarry?

I think its traditionally seen in the latter, whereas others take it to mean the former.

Thank you for indulging me here and for letting me continue taking us off message.

Originally Posted by The Bible for Today

Gary Hudson has a set of questions against the King James Bible as published in the internet (http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/questkjv.htm). His questionnaire entitled, "Questions for the KJV-Only Cult," is actually directed at Ruckmanites. Unfortunately, Hudson did not care to clarify that the majority of KJV advocates are not of the Ruckmanite origin or stripe. Many readers do go away confused, thinking that all defenders of the King James Bible are "Ruckmanites" and "heretics."

It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud, Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT espouse at all the beliefs of Ruckman that:

the KJV is doubly inspired;

the KJV is advanced revelation;

the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;

the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;

there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an "inspired" English translation;

the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement of the KJV);

the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;

those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and

all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.

Nevertheless, Hudson’s questions have created enough misinformation on and misrepresentation of the King James Bible and the majority of its advocates that a response is necessary. Below are Hudson’s questions followed by my answers from a KJV-superiority perspective.

go to the link below to find NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS by Dr. Jeffrey Khoo
http://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/answers.htm

I often site this article because those like Ruckman give KJVO's a bad name.

So... let's say that my believing wife leaves me who is a a believer too, even though I don't want the divorce, and she wants it anyway so she can further an adulterous reltionship (not to say Ruckman's wives were as I do not knwo anything about it and frankly, it's none of my business), then what am I to do? Am I in sin for the divorce? (Just a scenario)