Plausible means just that, something that could fit the facts or the evidence, which in this case would arise from the meanings of words and phrases that, like in English, can have a different nuance of meaning depending upon context, or from instances where the meaning is unclear because the context doesn't provide that clarity. Plausible does not mean "true." It means having the appearance of truth or reason. This is not the same thing as a lie, and conflating the two is a mistake. We sift the things that seem true from facts or evidence to find what is actually true.
I know and I agree.
I will not debate the point in question because I am done doing other people's homework for them.
That's a very pessimistic, apathetic, and frankly anti-knowledge standpoint, but alright. Certainly doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the "Great Awakening".
If my statement bothers you, don't take my word for it.
Who said it bothered me? All I did was ask some questions. If you're not interested in sharing what you've learned and spreading the knowledge, that's fine, but I don't find it productive to take the word of random strangers online and chase after every little thread they present. You don't have to explain everything like I'm a 1st grader, but when people actually have something worth looking into they can usually present a little more substance when probed. In lieu of that, it's easier to just move on and assume it was junk than gamble on it. There are plenty of other threads to follow.
In any case, this is a peripheral issue that does not bring into question the validity of the word of God,
Does it not? The Bible says God will preserve His word. It devalues everything if you posit that he preserved it, but virtually nobody understood what it meant for thousands of years after it was written. What else did we get wrong? What do we still have wrong? It loses massive value if you allow for this level of gross misunderstanding. Somehow, only in the past 200ish years have we come to actually understand what the Bible says, in spite of what has been believed and understood by nearly all theologians throughout time. Coincidentally, this happens right around when there is a push by what appears to be an insidious cabal hell-bent on taking total control of society. It also happens right around the time these same cabal members start pushing theories of "millions of years". It also means death came before Sin. It ALSO means that Genesis makes no sense. Why include Genesis if not to explain the creation? But then in doing so, God leaves out a massive chunk of what happened? Even if you say the Bible only includes what's relevant to us (as it's undeniable the Bible isn't exhaustive) it still makes no sense. If only what pertains to us is included (and not what may have come before) why include the verse that allegedly refers to what came before? Why not just start after the split?
Further, God is not the author of confusion. Why make His book in such a way that no one would understand it for thousands of years? It doesn't work.
and it is not a thing upon which Christians must agree in order to be saved.
I agree. Nowhere did I insinuate it did, though you seem intent on bringing up this point with every mention of the gap idea.
Though I will add, that while I agree holding this belief alone does not affect salvation, I do think it devalues the word of God, leads people towards this naturalistic, evolution-based, old Earth idea that can lead people to fall away from God. The sole purpose of these kinds of ideas seems to me to be all a part of Satan's plan to deceive by questioning the word of God. In the garden of Eden, Satan said, "Yea, hath God said". He does the same thing now. "Is this really what God was saying? Or did he mean this?".
A big part of the gap theory, from what little I have read, seems to indicate it's primarily or at least often a way to allow for millions of years AND a literal translation of genesis. But why do we need this? If all of modern science is wrong on evolution, why accept their conclusions on the age of the Earth? Many of which are based on the same reasons?
Again, God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. Satan is the one perpetuating these ideas which change centuries-old theology with the ultimate goal of leading people away from God and to everlasting torment with him in Hell.
So it may not alone compromise your salvation, and it may not lead everyone astray, but it will certainly lead away many, and that to me seems to be the purpose.
Edit: I will add that, regardless of anything else, I appreciate the reply. That is the reason I asked the questions. To learn about an idea I'd never heard of before rather than just make a snap judgement, call it false, and move on. I certainly didn't intend to insinuate anything else if that's how it came off.
Plausible means just that, something that could fit the facts or the evidence, which in this case would arise from the meanings of words and phrases that, like in English, can have a different nuance of meaning depending upon context, or from instances where the meaning is unclear because the context doesn't provide that clarity. Plausible does not mean "true." It means having the appearance of truth or reason. This is not the same thing as a lie, and conflating the two is a mistake. We sift the things that seem true from facts or evidence to find what is actually true.
I know and I agree.
I will not debate the point in question because I am done doing other people's homework for them.
That's a very pessimistic, apathetic, and frankly anti-knowledge standpoint, but alright. Certainly doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the "Great Awakening".
If my statement bothers you, don't take my word for it.
Who said it bothered me? All I did was ask some questions. If you're not interested in sharing what you've learned and spreading the knowledge, that's fine, but I don't find it productive to take the word of random strangers online and chase after every little thread they present. You don't have to explain everything like I'm a 1st grader, but when people actually have something worth looking into they can usually present a little more substance when probed. In lieu of that, it's easier to just move on and assume it was junk than gamble on it. There are plenty of other threads to follow.
In any case, this is a peripheral issue that does not bring into question the validity of the word of God,
Does it not? The Bible says God will preserve His word. It devalues everything if you posit that he preserved it, but virtually nobody understood what it meant for thousands of years after it was written. What else did we get wrong? What do we still have wrong? It loses massive value if you allow for this level of gross misunderstanding. Somehow, only in the past 200ish years have we come to actually understand what the Bible says, in spite of what has been believed and understood by nearly all theologians throughout time. Coincidentally, this happens right around when there is a push by what appears to be an insidious cabal hell-bent on taking total control of society. It also happens right around the time these same cabal members start pushing theories of "millions of years". It also means death came before Sin. It ALSO means that Genesis makes no sense. Why include Genesis if not to explain the creation? But then in doing so, God leaves out a massive chunk of what happened? Even if you say the Bible only includes what's relevant to us (as it's undeniable the Bible isn't exhaustive) it still makes no sense. If only what pertains to us is included (and not what may have come before) why include the verse that allegedly refers to what came before? Why not just start after the split?
Further, God is not the author of confusion. Why make His book in such a way that no one would understand it for thousands of years? It doesn't work.
and it is not a thing upon which Christians must agree in order to be saved.
I agree. Nowhere did I insinuate it did, though you seem intent on bringing up this point with every mention of the gap idea.
Though I will add, that while I agree holding this belief alone does not affect salvation, I do think it devalues the word of God, leads people towards this naturalistic, evolution-based, old Earth idea that can lead people to fall away from God. The sole purpose of these kinds of ideas seems to me to be all a part of Satan's plan to deceive by questioning the word of God. In the garden of Eden, Satan said, "Yea, hath God said". He does the same thing now. "Is this really what God was saying? Or did he mean this?".
A big part of the gap theory, from what little I have read, seems to indicate it's primarily or at least often a way to allow for millions of years AND a literal translation of genesis. But why do we need this? If all of modern science is wrong on evolution, why accept their conclusions on the age of the Earth? Many of which are based on the same reasons?
Again, God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. Satan is the one perpetuating these ideas which change centuries-old theology with the ultimate goal of leading people away from God and to everlasting torment with him in Hell.
So it may not alone compromise your salvation, and it may not lead everyone astray, but it will certainly lead away many, and that to me seems to be the purpose.
Edit: I will add that, regardless of anything else, I appreciate the reply. That is the reason I asked the questions. To learn about an idea I'd never heard of before rather than just make a snap judgement, call it false, and move on. I certainly didn't intend to insinuate anything else if that's how it came off.
Plausible means just that, something that could fit the facts or the evidence, which in this case would arise from the meanings of words and phrases that, like in English, can have a different nuance of meaning depending upon context, or from instances where the meaning is unclear because the context doesn't provide that clarity. Plausible does not mean "true." It means having the appearance of truth or reason. This is not the same thing as a lie, and conflating the two is a mistake. We sift the things that seem true from facts or evidence to find what is actually true.
I know and I agree.
I will not debate the point in question because I am done doing other people's homework for them.
That's a very pessimistic, apathetic, and frankly anti-knowledge standpoint, but alright. Certainly doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the "Great Awakening".
If my statement bothers you, don't take my word for it.
Who said it bothered me? All I did was ask some questions. If you're not interested in sharing what you've learned and spreading the knowledge, that's fine, but I don't find it productive to take the word of random strangers online and chase after every little thread they present. You don't have to explain everything like I'm a 1st grader, but when people actually have something worth looking into they can usually present a little more substance when probed. In lieu of that, it's easier to just move on and assume it was junk than gamble on it. There are plenty of other threads to follow.
In any case, this is a peripheral issue that does not bring into question the validity of the word of God,
Does it not? The Bible says God will preserve His word. It devalues everything if you posit that he preserved it, but virtually nobody understood what it meant for thousands of years after it was written. What else did we get wrong? What do we still have wrong? It loses massive value if you allow for this level of gross misunderstanding. Somehow, only in the past 200ish years have we come to actually understand what the Bible says, in spite of what has been believed and understood by nearly all theologians throughout time. Coincidentally, this happens right around when there is a push by what appears to be an insidious cabal hell-bent on taking total control of society. It also happens right around the time these same cabal members start pushing theories of "millions of years". It also means death came before Sin. It ALSO means that Genesis makes no sense. Why include Genesis if not to explain the creation? But then in doing so, God leaves out a massive chunk of what happened? Even if you say the Bible only includes what's relevant to us (as it's undeniable the Bible isn't exhaustive) it still makes no sense. If only what pertains to us is included (and not what may have come before) why include the verse that allegedly refers to what came before? Why not just start after the split?
Further, God is not the author of confusion. Why make His book in such a way that no one would understand it for thousands of years? It doesn't work.
and it is not a thing upon which Christians must agree in order to be saved.
I agree. Nowhere did I insinuate it did, though you seem intent on bringing up this point with every mention of the gap idea.
Though I will add, that while I agree holding this belief alone does not affect salvation, I do think it devalues the word of God, leads people towards this naturalistic, evolution-based, old Earth idea that can lead people to fall away from God. The sole purpose of these kinds of ideas seems to me to be all a part of Satan's plan to deceive by questioning the word of God. In the garden of Eden, Satan said, "Yea, hath God said". He does the same thing now. "Is this really what God was saying? Or did he mean this?".
A big part of the gap theory, from what little I have read, seems to indicate it's primarily or at least often a way to allow for millions of years AND a literal translation of genesis. But why do we need this? If all of modern science is wrong on evolution, why accept their conclusions on the age of the Earth? Many of which are based on the same reasons?
Again, God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. Satan is the one perpetuating these ideas which change centuries-old theology with the ultimate goal of leading people away from God and to everlasting torment with him in Hell.
So it may not alone compromise your salvation, and it may not lead everyone astray, but it will certainly lead away many, and that to me seems to be the purpose.
Edit: I will add that, regardless of anything else, I appreciate the reply. That is the reason I asked the questions. To learn about an idea I'd never heard of before. I certainly didn't intend to insinuate anything else if that's how it came off.
Plausible means just that, something that could fit the facts or the evidence, which in this case would arise from the meanings of words and phrases that, like in English, can have a different nuance of meaning depending upon context, or from instances where the meaning is unclear because the context doesn't provide that clarity. Plausible does not mean "true." It means having the appearance of truth or reason. This is not the same thing as a lie, and conflating the two is a mistake. We sift the things that seem true from facts or evidence to find what is actually true.
I know and I agree.
I will not debate the point in question because I am done doing other people's homework for them.
That's a very pessimistic, apathetic, and frankly anti-knowledge standpoint, but alright. Certainly doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the "Great Awakening".
If my statement bothers you, don't take my word for it.
Who said it bothered me? All I did was ask some questions. If you're not interested in sharing what you've learned and spreading the knowledge, that's fine, but I don't find it productive to take the word of random strangers online and chase after every little thread they present. You don't have to explain everything like I'm a 1st grader, but when people actually have something worth looking into they can usually present a little more substance when probed. In lieu of that, it's easier to just move on and assume it was junk than gamble on it. There are plenty of other threads to follow.
In any case, this is a peripheral issue that does not bring into question the validity of the word of God,
Does it not? The Bible says God will preserve His word. It devalues everything if you posit that he preserved it, but virtually nobody understood what it meant for thousands of years after it was written. What else did we get wrong? What do we still have wrong? It loses massive value if you allow for this level of gross misunderstanding. Somehow, only in the past 200ish years have we come to actually understand what the Bible says, in spite of what has been believed and understood by nearly all theologians throughout time. Coincidentally, this happens right around when there is a push by what appears to be an insidious cabal hell-bent on taking total control of society. It also happens right around the time these same cabal members start pushing theories of "millions of years". It also means death came before Sin. It ALSO means that Genesis makes no sense. Why include Genesis if not to explain the creation? But then in doing so, God leaves out a massive chunk of what happened? Even if you say the Bible only includes what's relevant to us (as it's undeniable the Bible isn't exhaustive) it still makes no sense. If only what pertains to us is included (and not what may have come before) why include the verse that allegedly refers to what came before? Why not just start after the split?
Further, God is not the author of confusion. Why make His book in such a way that no one would understand it for thousands of years? It doesn't work.
and it is not a thing upon which Christians must agree in order to be saved.
I agree. Nowhere did I insinuate it did, though you seem intent on bringing up this point with every mention of the gap idea.
Though I will add, that while I agree holding this belief alone does not affect salvation, I do think it devalues the word of God, leads people towards this naturalistic, evolution-based, old Earth idea that can lead people to fall away from God. The sole purpose of these kinds of ideas seems to me to be all a part of Satan's plan to deceive by questioning the word of God. In the garden of Eden, Satan said, "Yea, hath God said". He does the same thing now. "Is this really what God was saying? Or did he mean this?".
A big part of the gap theory, from what little I have read, seems to indicate it's primarily or at least often a way to allow for millions of years AND a literal translation of genesis. But why do we need this? If all of modern science is wrong on evolution, why accept their conclusions on the age of the Earth? Many of which are based on the same reasons?
Again, God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. Satan is the one perpetuating these ideas which change centuries-old theology with the ultimate goal of leading people away from God and to everlasting torment with him in Hell.
So it may not alone compromise your salvation, and it may not lead everyone astray, but it will certainly lead away many, and that to me seems to be the purpose.
Edit: I will add that, regardless of anything else, I appreciate the reply. That is the reason I asked the questions. To learn about an idea I'd never heard of before.