The Book relating to Biblical Creation Theology and titled �BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH� by J. da. S. F. Martins, poses a very serious challenge to the traditional and modern six-day Young Earth creationists.
According to the tenets of the traditional and recent Young Earth Creationism, Genesis 1:1 is supposedly inclusive of the work of the six days. However, God's six-day work actually begins from the first day as in Genesis 1:3-5 and not from Genesis 1:1-2 as is commonly believed. As such, according to the Author, the true Biblical Six Day-Creationism is as described in Genesis 1:3-31, and doesn't include Genesis 1:1-2. Accordingly, Genesis 1:1 is a distinct creation account in itself describing God's primeval perfect creation in the eternity past. This scriptural fact is corroborated by Proverbs 8:22-31 which if properly interpreted refer to pre-Adamic life on the primal earth of Genesis 1:1.
Subsequently, Genesis 1:2 is not a work of direct creation as is assumed by the traditional six-day creationists. Instead, Genesis 1:2 describes chaotic conditions on earth which when objectively studied depict a judgmental outcome on earth as a result of Lucifer's rebellion as described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. In view of this, the controversial Gap Theory is biblical and, therefore, acceptable. The Author, therefore, deals extensively on the subject of the so-called Gap Theory and proposes �Pre-Historical, Pre-Adamic Biblical Gap Theology", which is prayerfully worth pondering.
It is now left to serious Biblical Scholars and Theologians to disprove Author's interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible, as relied upon by him; in particular, his interpretation of Proverbs 8:31 as referring to pre-historical life on earth including pre-Adamic 'sons of men' then living on earth, very much prior to the creation of Adam and Eve some 6000 years back. The true Six-Day Biblical Creationism, according to the Author, is actually an account of re-creation of new life forms after their original kind, and only of Man after God�s Image and Likeness, as is briefly but comprehensively described in Genesis 1:3-31.
In his Book, BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH, The Author delves and describes in detail three phases or epochs of God's works of creation, after debunking the mythical theory of biological evolution of man. Finally, the Author gives a brief explanation of man's new spiritual creation in Christ thereby beautifully depicting the evangelical aspects of God's works of creation. The Book is certainly worth reading, more so, as a polemic in creation theology.
Meaning either I agree with you what is and is not "fact", or rather either I agree with you or what I say is automatically not fact but "wild" assersions and not well thought out arguments... sorry sir but no I will never bow to that kind of snobistic bullying. You seem to merely hide your probable inability to properly respond and/or process ideas that conflict with your own. You can either directly attack ideas or admit to their possibility, looking for proof of everything is a never-ending cycle, there will always be something else the disingenuous will find to "need proof for" and I refuse to be trapped in that kind of manipulative farce like I have before and I refuse to apologise for it.
You are the one that makes assersions without even attempting to "prove" them and then turn around and accuse anyone that may or may not dare to even slightly disagree with you of having no proof with an air of self-rightiousness, you sir are simply a hippocrite.
It's been several weeks now and not one of the 3 persons supposedly arguing in favor of Mr Martin's gap theory have submitted any factual defenses for it. Curiously, Martin appeals to a portion of Proverbs 8 and claims this scripture factually supports a "primeval" creation from eternity past. At this point, Martin's argument begins to unravel. He commits a common exegetical fallacy, (an interpretative reasoning error), known as eisegesis (reading one's imagination into the text). If that's not sufficiently absurd already, he commits yet another fallacy by shifting the burden-of-proof to dissenting scholars. Mr Martin is apparently unacquainted with protocol governing formal discussion. Perhaps he's unaware of the fact the responsibility to provide the burden-of-proof rests squarly on shoulders of the unorthodoxy peddler. For example, even in crimial court, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide facts proving the guilt of the accused. The defense does not have to prove innocence.
Partial list of the many problems associated with Mr Martin's gap theory as follows:
1. It is exegetically unsound
2. The Hebrew word "was" in Genesis 1:1 means "was" and cannot mean "became!"
3. The gap theory was invented to accommodate Genesis 1 to the unscientific uniformitarian philosophy that holds to a supposed geological age system of millions of years of earth history.
4. No science supports the gap theory.
5. The sequence, for the 6 days recorded in the Genesis creation record, is unmistakably clear! Even Exodus 20:11 is crystal clear by stating the Lord created everything in 6 days!
6. The gap theory contradicts the Bible by insisting death took place before sin!
There are yet additional and seriously egregious problems that confront the gap theory. Anyone wanting to know more, could easily conduct a search and find detailed lists with explainations
There's no "science pointing to a much older universe". However, establishment scientists, who embrace cosmic evolution and Big Bang cosmology also embrace the philosophy of Uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism points to an older universe but science does not. Uniformitarianism is a philosophy, it is NOT a science!! By assuming "science" points to an older universe, Silver confuses philosophy for science. At this point, he would do well to remember, everything a scientist says, is not automatically and necessarily scientific fact. Sometimes scientists aggregate or blend both scientific and philosophic conjectures
Here it is several weeks and no other comments shared and I’m concerned that some of my comments might have come across as too negative. I want to apologize to anyone, even readers, if I came across as offensive. Looking back, I believe I might well have shared the same content covered in my previous replies but could have presented some of them in a softer package.
