CAN YOU EXPLAIN Where demons come from WITHOUT GAP THEORY?

Can you explain without Gap Theory?
Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

102 Comments

  • Troy Day
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Troy Day

    I know I cant explain where demons came from without Gap Theory How about you Gary Micheal Epping ?

  • Jared Cheshire
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Jared Cheshire

    Genesis 6

  • Troy Day
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Troy Day

    Genesis 1:1-2?

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 19, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      There are many that explain demons in Gen 6.

      Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit (Nephesh נֶ֫פֶשׁ‬) shall return unto God who gave it.

      If there were nephilim, they were a perversion of God’s design without a God given nephesh. If their spirit wasn’t of God, it wouldn’t go back to Him.

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Since the time of Adam and eve, human spirits either go to heaven or hell after death, negating any free roaming demonic spirits. Yet the Bible speaks of demons that are present on the earth. So where did they come from?

  • Troy Day
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Troy Day

    pre-Adam?

  • Jared Cheshire
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Jared Cheshire

    This is not an endorsement, just an example of another view.

    https://blog.logos.com/2015/10/where-do-demons-come-from/

  • Billy Monroe Poff
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Billy Monroe Poff

    Before Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning” is referencing the beginning of God creating the heavens (1st and 2nd ) and the Earth. The Earth was created with hell in it’s core. Hell was created for Satan and his fallen angels (demons). The humans God created were to replace ( so to speak) the worshippers of heaven ( whom Satan was the lead worshiper) the fall of Lucifer happened before creation. Creation came as a result of that fall.

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 19, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Billy Monroe Poff OMG, so the purpose of you & me (creation) is an after thought due to a rebellion in heaven 😳

    • Billy Monroe Poff
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Billy Monroe Poff

      Not an after thought at all. God knew what Satan would do when He created him. God had us in mind even then. There is never an “after thought” with God. He is and always has been omniscient. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world signifying how God knew that mankind would fall into sin with the persuasion of Satan so He prepared a way for atonement to be made even before it happened.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      Good point Billy Monroe Poff BTW finally got my chainsaw fixed 🙂 Wanna hear it roar? Need anything cut off nowadays 🙂

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Billy Monroe Poff glad to hear ya say there is no after thought with God. I would just be careful in how we explain things – we really need to identify ideas & presuppositions from Scripture. And explain it that way, my opinion is or I thinks it happened this way – but that is an addition to this portion of Scripture.
      Because the idea that we the Body of Christ are replacing the lead worshiping angel, “Lucifer” & his angels in heaven is a good idea & was first introduced by a guy that I can’t remember his name (but have it in my book), I’m not saying it’s wrong but I am saying the Bible doesn’t teach that – it’s our conclusion – not a bad conclusion/deduction but we must identify that & call it that & NOT teach it as a doctrine!!! – our idea not pure Scripture. That’s all I’m saying here.

    • Billy Monroe Poff
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Billy Monroe Poff

      Troy Day I figured you would have broke down and bought a new one by now…. Bring it down here to Virginia and see how it holds up cutting some of these downed oak trees….

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    First of all, I have trouble figuring out how an angel whose nature is spiritual can copulate physically with a human woman and reproduce. If it somehow happened, any deceased spirits that did not follow Jesus, including Nephilim, watchers, etc, are taken into hell and do not have an opportunity to wander around on the earth. That is why God created hell. All deceased spirits must go to one place or the other, EXCEPT for any lost souls that died before the creation of hell. So where did these lost souls come from?

  • Robert Franzen
    Reply January 19, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Folks, I have a whole long detailed chapter on this all that examines many of these theories, given some different options but all within the bounds of Scripture. I identify what is theory/tradition/mans best guesses & Scripture.

    I asked this before; does anybody know what Lester Sumrall & Derek Prince believed about the origin of demons?

  • Robert Franzen
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    How did the Church explain before there was. Gap theory?

    https://1drv.ms/b/s!An9UOFBJ81vygpJLQvL90h7vp_YcVg

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Sounds like a diversion to me. Why not simply answer the question?

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping whatever happened to the old teaching that fallen angels/spirit beings are the demons? Isn’t that answer enough? Can we gather anything else from Scripture?

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Angels already have a spiritual body, and do not need to possess a human body. Certainly they are a dark force, but hardly a demon that needed to possess a flock of pigs when cast out by Jesus.

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping ok, so is Satan a fallen angel? Can he enter into someone? Can you provide Scriptural evidence?

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Satan already had an etheral body. Why would he need to live in a human body. But a demon who is a lost soul would.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      I agree with Gary – answering the question with asking irrelevant questions just to state that the irrelevant questions are not answered is truly a strawman diversion

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    The gap or what ever you want to call it has been been there in GEN 1:2 since Moses wrote it: “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping Gen 1:2 is a creation context – a perfect God creating a perfect earth for you & I to live in – no gap. It’s made up to answer modern scientific questions.

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping Were there such a thing as a pre-adamic race?

  • Robert Franzen
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    So if the gap theory isn’t true, & invented & developed since 1814, there obviously are other answers that carried the Church for centuries – does anyone know what church history has always shown?

  • Robert Franzen
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Why should we presuppose the gap theory is true? No church father ever taught it, mentioned it or alluded to it. The burden of proof is on the theory.
    I’m shocked that no one is sharing what the church has always taught on the subject.
    Ever since the Enlightenment, more confusion has entered in on these obscure subjects

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Verse 2 is not a creation context but a description of destruction, without form, void and darkness. How did that get there before God began creating on the 1st day in verse 3?

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping all vs 2 means is “formless & empty,” as in “not yet formed & not yet filled.” That’s all it means from the Hebrew. It is a simple sequence of process & it was perfect in its stage. Just like a 2 inch apple tree – fruitless & useless to us but perfect in its stage.
      Theology starts with a perfect flawless God creating a perfect & flawless cosmos & earth.
      Please look thru church history for the gap

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      And the earth (was H1961) without form,….

      הָיָה
      hâyâh
      haw-yaw’

      Strong’s
      1. to exist.
      2. to be or become.
      3. to come into being, i.e. to happen, to occur (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary).

      Brown-Driver-Briggs Definition:
      1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
      1a) (Qal)
      1a1) —–
      1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
      1a1b) to come about, come to pass
      1a2) to come into being, become
      1a2a) to arise, appear, come
      1a2b) to become
      1a2b1) to become
      1a2b2) to become like
      1a2b3) to be instituted, be established
      1a3) to be
      1a3a) to exist, be in existence
      1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
      1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
      1a3d) to accompany, be with
      1b) (Niphal)
      1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
      1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      one MUST follow the proper steps of hermeneutic principles & exegesis – the gap is exegeses not exegesis!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      As in – you’re reading into something that’s not there.

      It is absolutely a creation context – the entire chapter is!

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Robert Franzen It may be Ixegesis! (I-SEE-gesis) LOL

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Jared Cheshire
      There is significantly more proof, such as the testimony of the way the KJV and the Septuagint translate the Hebrew verb hayah. The gap theorists’ go against all ancient and scholarly works and import a different definition to the same verb. The Septuagint (LXX) that was written about 250-200 B.C. does not allow for a gap of any kind in its reading, because the 70 Jewish Translators didn’t recognize any gap in the text, or in their history. Gap theorists, such as Mr. Custance admit this. We could go on by using Jonah 3:3, which prove our case again. It is established by all lexicons and the obvious rendering of hayah that is used in Genesis 1:2 as the verb to be.

      Even after all his arguments to the contrary, Custance had to admit that there are instances in which haya can be used copulatively. Recognized grammarians, lexicographers, and linguists have almost uniformly rejected the translations “became,” or “had become,” (in Gen. 1:2) … a man cannot exempt himself from all recognized Hebrew grammar any more than he can immobilize the ever-moving tide. If we are going to fly in the face of lexicons and grammars, reprimanding them for “ill chosen” examples, then we should be certain we are standing higher above the tide mark than gap theorists are. The tide of Hebrew grammar has inundated the Gap Theory.”

      Most long-age creationists today understand the fallacies of the gap theory because they understand that the only way the word was can be translated as became is if the verb hayah is seen with the preposition to (Hebrew le) on the object of the verb. The only time it can be translated as became is when the combination of haya + le is seen. Genesis 1:2 lacks this preposition, so that is why it cannot be translated became and even less likely had become. In other words, as is known by any real Hebrew scholar, saying Genesis 1:2 can be interpreted as became overlooks a critical distinction in the use of the verb haya in the Hebrew text. The original text of Genesis 1:2, haya appears without the Hebrew preposition le (this why we have to dig beyond the surface of human translation). A good example of this combination is in the appropriate translation of Genesis 2:7, “man became a living soul.”

      Again, a great way to better communicate Genesis 1:2a would be: But the earth was (or came into existence) unformed and empty, and thus, God continued to finish His work, taking six days, showing His care and thought to detail, and also establishing a six day work week for man to follow. Thus, He purposed to form the earth to be inhabited by and for His prize creation, man, (His main purpose for making the earth).

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Robert Franzen I was agreeing with you. I considered the Gap theory years ago and discarded it as a stretch beyond scripture.

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Robert Franzen I do not mind debating with you, but please stop copying and pasting from your book and popping it into the thread. I take the time to write my own response. Please do likewise.

    • Rico Hero
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Robert Franzen Re: the earth was (or came into existence) unformed. How then, can the unformed earth hold the water for the Spirit to hover over? Have you looked at other ways the Hebrew word we translated “without form” in Gen 1:2 was used?

    • Rico Hero
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Jared Cheshire What does the Gap theory say that made it to you a stench beyond scripture?

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      The assumption of a previous judgement. Nowhere in scripture have I been able to find that. If it were so why wouldn’t it have been there for us as an example? The very term “Gap Theory” admits it is an assumption because a theory is an idea that has yet been proven.

    • Rico Hero
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Jared Cheshire A hypothesis is and idea that has yet been proven. It becomes a theory when some proof is established. Check out Dakes lecture on Pre Adamite world ( 1:10 min) http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/finis-j-dake-teaching-on-the-pre-adamite-world/?fbclid=IwAR078i0a4zstTupB-ggsuQsLK_ckbypO3_mr_nS3gW9aLV78JDuxC-Vs-xs

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Pre adamite world can easily be explained Genesis 1 after the creation of man Genesis 2 is not a retelling of Genesis one but it’s about a particular man. Did you notice the creation that took place in Genesis 1 and the telling and Genesis 2 or not in the same order. in Genesis 1 everything was created before man and man and woman were created together. And Genesis 2 Man was created then the garden and then woman. A very strong argument could be made that God had created man oh, but that Adam was a special man. Weight Cain left his mother and father and went to wander, who did he marry, and who did he build the city for? Seth was not born until after Cain was gone, other children following that.

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Rico Hero
      the·o·ry
      /ˈTHirē/Submit
      noun
      a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
      “Darwin’s theory of evolution”
      synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Hypothesis and theory are synonyms not sequential in order

    • Rico Hero
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Jared Cheshire In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation. Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      when I hear someone saying it’s easily explained without I get the feeling there is NO way of really explaining it without

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      I just did.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      I read your writing and you did not You just mentioned Gen 6 This is neither what OP is about nor what pre-Adamic gives an explanation Gen 6 is many many years later

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      The theory I just proposed has more evidence than the Gap theory. All you have to do is read Genesis 1 and compare it to Genesis 2.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      you are proposing a common misconception that demons came from the giants without explaining where the giants came from 🙂 or the sons of God or anything else

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      We’re not on Genesis 6 right now we’re on the Gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 with this thread. Where the demons come from Genesis 6 can be explained with the synchronized biblically endorsed extra-biblical texts

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      We’re not on Genesis 6 – you are right AND when you say extra-biblical texts I am done listening JUST like I told Link Hudson I was done listening to Heiser when he was proving God had 72 sons with some extra-biblical texts

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Troy Day I did say where the Giants could have come from, but I said don’t trust me study it for yourself.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      which we are dully doing in this group with the BIBLE without extra-Biblical texts and other mantras

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Also, who said that it was extra biblical? The Bible quotes from The book of Enoch, Jude floated a whole paragraph early work from work, almost as if he was copying and pasting. Evidently they gave us some creedence if that least just history

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    When God originally created the heavens and the earth, He did so by creating everything from nothing but his spoken word. Verse 2 definitely is not starting from nothing, but is something left over from what looks like a previous judgment from God.

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      While that is possible, it is still just an assumption. That is why it is called the Gap **Theory**.

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping – God created by His spoken Word – yes. Then you said verse two “LOOKS like a previous judgment.”

  • Gary Micheal Epping
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Without form, void, and darkness is hardly an assumption. It is a reality that Moses described before God began to recreate the earth. Why else would it be like that? In the very beginning there was absolutely pure nothingness except for God. The Spirit was moving on the face of the water which is certainly something, and that is where God began. Not trying to argue, but stating what is presented in verse 2. We can not just sweep this verse under the rug and act like this state of earth was not there. This must be dealt with along with the 7 days of creation.

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      “Without form, void, and darkness” is not what I called an assumption. The assumption I was referring to is a previous judgment. Prove it is scriptural or it remains an assumption.

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Jared Cheshire References to darkness and void, most often are used in reference to judgment from God. Why else would that state of earth be there. It this were the very beginning, would not God be creating everything in the universe from nothing?

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      vs 1

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Jared is correct here: a preconceived idea has made people believe this phrase is a judgment in the middle of a creation context – violating sound hermeneutical principles. “Unformed & Unfilled” is what God was working with in the remainder of the chapter. It is NOT a recreation. The “Darkness” is simply GOD on the scene. I can show you a bunch of Scriptures proving that!

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      the two Hebrew words for darkness are often seen together throughout the OT, (Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11, 5:22-23; II Sam. 22:10-12; I Kg. 8:12; Job 38:9; Ps. 97:2; Isa. 60:2; Jer. 13:16; Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15), and the TWOT says that the word hoshek in Gen. 1:2 also accompanied God’s appearance on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 14:20; Deut. 4:11; Deut. 5:23). Well, the author used hoshek in a congruent way in context of differentiating from light, and measuring time, with the evening (darkness) and the morning (daylight) cycles. The word was not used in a judgmental way at all in this context and furthermore, the idea that these words were used judgmentally was introduced many centuries later. This is sufficient evidence, proving the word by itself did not mean judgment occurred in Gen. 1:2. Remember, the context controls how the word is used. With the bold print above in mind, the reason for the darkness of Gen. 1:2 is the same reason that the top of Mount Sinai was covered in darkness in Deut. 4:11 and Deut. 5:22, when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. It was the same great darkness that came over Abraham in Gen. 15:12. It is the same darkness in Ex. 20:21, “And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.” It is the same reason it was dark around the cross; this darkness is the dark shield created around God Himself. This darkness simply indicates that God was on the scene! It was God moving over the waters in Gen. 1:2 (as the very next clause states). Furthermore, read Gen. 1:1-5 with no periods, because there were no periods in the original Hebrew text. It was one continuous thought, proving that no gap of time occurred. When the darkness came upon the earth, (God coming down upon the earth to finish it) the face of the waters moved and God said, “Let there be light” (a physical light) in verse three. It is a congruent description of the events of creation in systematic order, very simply stated.

      We have learned what transpired in the supernatural realm; but the author of Genesis uses the word for the absence of physical light because the context is that of the origin of darkness, light, and everything else in our physical universe. When God comes down, He comes with a thick dark cloud around Himself that can be positive and/or negative; both blessing and judgment can come forth from Him. After all, mercy and judgment are two balancing aspects of His character. Thus, to say that this darkness represents only judgment is totally inaccurate and ignorant, especially in the Genesis narration of Creation! It is simply God appearing on the scene finishing what He started!

  • Troy Day
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Troy Day

    I agree with Gary Micheal Without form, void, and darkness is hardly an assumption and is not grammar acrobatics. On the contrary it hits us right at the start of the Bible and we dont know what to do with it except try to explain it. Many have tried without gap theory to NO avail I remember Pete Fiske really struggled when we dissected it point by point a while back

    This time I only chose to bring it back point by point because Rob Franzen published a book claiming that it all could be proven in 10min without Gap Theory He tried on 1-2 points to no avail and seems to have given up on this current point here. At the same time, except of his many questions I am yet to see ANY part of his book that actually deals with Gap theory and disproves it any way whatsoever ON quite the contrary it seems to me the more questions he is asking the more it seems these 10 points cannot be proven without Gap Theory So we wait for the counter proof…

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      My use of the word assumption was specifically addressing the idea of a “previous judgement”. The “without form, void, and darkness” were not in dispute.

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Again, taking a judgment context of darkness from say the plagues on Egypt & inferring & forcing it backwards onto a whole different kind of context – a creation context is wrong on every level. Every scholar will tell you cannot do this – violates sound hermeneutics. What you guys are doing is eisegesis – reading something IN that isn’t there, rather than exegesis, pulling out what is there. People tend to do this because of a presupposition, a preconceived idea that we heard & have been taught & interpret Scripture through this lens

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      if darkness is not judgment, then why is it in verse 2? If this was the very beginning of creation, then God would be creating the entire universe from nothing. BUT, we have a big something here, the earth. I am not trying to hermeneuticize or use elsegesis as you imply. When you study the bible, one must deal with what is presented, not sweep it aside, or try to devalue it with a theological explanation. in this case the face of the earth is without form, void, and filled with darkness. That is what the text says. If verse 2 were not there before the start of the 7 creation days, then we would not be having this discussion. But, it is there and must be dealt with in any discussion of creation.

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Gary Micheal Epping that is circular reasoning

  • Troy Day
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Troy Day

    hey Rob Franzen I got to ask you straight again because thus far it aint too clear CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHERE DEMONS COME FROM WITHOUT GAP THEORY or not?

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Gen 6

    • Robert Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Now if I can explain the fall of Satan without the gap theory, will you admit it can be done? I’m not saying you will agree with it – doesn’t matter but it can be done – and done without violating any doctrines, hermeneutics or science. Are ya ready?

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      To believe in the Gap theory as the starting point of demons seems to hinge on the belief in the Sethite theory of the “sons of God” in Gen 6. Much of Genesis seems to be summarizing a common knowledge. What is the common knowledge that is being referenced? The books of Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees are synchronized with Genesis. While one may or may not believe they were inspired scripture (not debating that here), they are at the very least Biblically endorsed history, as they are quoted, mentioned, or referenced approximately 160 times in the current cannon. The word says that in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established, but there are things in the cannon that can only be witnessed in those books. Taking that into account, I believe “sons of God” was referencing the same thing that sons of God was referencing in the book of Job. If that is the case, then the book of Enoch tells where the demons came from, summarized in Gen 6. Don’t believe me, study it for yourself.

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Jared Cheshire Neither Troy or I are talking about any of those books. We are referencing what is said in the bible, and trying to deal with it.

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Gary Micheal Epping since the Bible references those books so many times, you have to deal with them in some way.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      Jared I think you are right – partially

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Troy Day, like I said before, on one of the posts, I am not endorcing a Therory, but am saying to study it out. I don’t believe there is a gap between vs 1 and 2, because lack of evidence, but I have some other possibilities with more evidence that I am working to confirm. Some of my comments may have seemed more direct than intended because voice to text isn’t great, but I was trying to provoke thought and study.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      There is no luck of evidence of a gap between vs 1 and 2 On the contrary there is overwhelming Biblical evidence to prove it and no need for any extraBiblical sources to use

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Troy Day I haven’t seen it. I thought I had, but upon investigation it didn’t pan out.

  • Jared Cheshire
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Jared Cheshire

    I am not claiming these books are inspired scripture, I am simply saying that there is enough evidence just suggest that they do matter, whether you believe they’re inspired scripture or not would have to be based on the leading of the spirit and not the council’s of men

  • Rico Hero
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Rico Hero

    Jared Cheshire Re: Did you notice the creation that took place in Genesis 1 and the telling and Genesis 2 or not in the same order. Rico: It seems to me that Gen 2 is just giving more detail. Perhaps you have answers to the 2 questions I asked Robert Franzen Re: the earth was (or came into existence) unformed. How then, can the unformed earth hold the water for the Spirit to hover over? Have you looked at other ways the Hebrew word we translated “without form” in Gen 1:2 was used?

  • Jared Cheshire
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Jared Cheshire

    Rico Hero then why are they not in the same order?

  • Jared Cheshire
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Jared Cheshire

    God is not the author of confusion so why would he add a confusing detail by putting things in a mismatched order?

  • Rico Hero
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Rico Hero

    Jared Cheshire Interesting take. (maybe start a thread ?) It seems to me Gen. 2:4 – Gen. 2:25 is a more detailed account of the work of days two, three, five, and six.

  • Jared Cheshire
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Jared Cheshire

    Rico Hero but why the reverse order Genesis 2 God created Adam, then prepared the garden, then brought animals to Adam, then created Eve. Genesis 1 he created the plants first then the animals then man and woman simultaneously.

  • Rico Hero
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Rico Hero

    The Gap theory is sound, but I do not know if demons are from the earth before Adam. If they were, why have them roaming around and not jailed like the angels in Tartarus? Why are they disembodied when angels are not?

    • Rob Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rob Franzen

      Rico Hero brother, I was taught the gap theory very well, & then I put it to the test only because I just wanted to know if it was true or not. I studied it objectively & would be promoting it if I found it to be true; but I found it, like hundreds of other scholars have, full of holes. Every supporting Scripture is taken way out of context. Please study it objectively;

      Creation Under Fire from within the church https://www.amazon.com/dp/1607916436/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_2HqrCbY64YN4K

    • Rob Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rob Franzen

      Rico Hero here’s a short decent overview (I’m not a big advocate of Dr Hovind but the gap theory part is very well done Plus the timing of Satans fall very well done).

      https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8a9590a9-a22e-4c9a-bdae-259b6ffd19c0

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Rob Franzen Not looking at the $21 price, the no preview and over a week to get it, eliminates your book from serious discussion at this time.

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      There are as many scholars that favor the gap theory as ones like you that want to trash it.

    • Rico Hero
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Rob Franzen Thanks. I will have a look at both previews– creation under fire and Dr Hovid overview. Thanks. I will have a look at both previews– creation under fire and Dr Hovid overview. Re: the earth was (or came into existence) unformed. How then, can the unformed earth hold the water for the Spirit to hover over? Have you looked at other ways the Hebrew word we translated “without form” in Gen 1:2 was used?

    • Rob Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rob Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping Yeah, I’m sorry about the price, I didn’t set that. It’s being redone anyway. Pulling the chapter out “Where Did Demons Come From” our to be its own book. Also includes the Satans fall & a section on Gen 6.
      I would be happy to send you chapters of it but to large to fit here – I tried.

    • Gary Micheal Epping
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Rob Franzen Thanks for the effort.

    • Rob Franzen
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Rob Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping not anymore my friend

  • Troy Day
    Reply January 20, 2019

    Troy Day

    Sure Jared Cheshire we will take them under consideration of course BUT neither we will count them as divinely inspired nor as Bible and most certainly we will NOT build our theology on it I already condemned the sons of God reasoning in my discussions with Link Hudson and Ricky Grimsley on HEISER and his demonology. When you step out and start using extra-Biblical texts it just turns to a hog wash – wouldnt you agree the Bible is our only standard in doing Pentecostal theology for practical living? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/are-demons-and-fallen-angels-the-same/

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Troy Day do you throw out Job as well. It has the same terminology for angels.

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      I don’t think fallen angels are demons. Used to. Jude addressed that. They are in chains of darkness, held captive until judgement. That said, there are demons. I haven’t heard anything credible other than disembodied spirits that shouldn’t have been because they were a corruption of God’s design

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      Job is good as long as one does not resort to dualism – like Jesus and Lucifer being brothers. Hesier uses Job to explore dualism in the sonship of Christ which is pure heresy

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Troy Day I agree.

    • Troy Day
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Troy Day

      I like Heiser’s 70 son explanation too BUT when he digs into dualis and extraBiblical I draw the line

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      One must understand idiom to discern the difference between Jesus as the Son of God and angels as son’s of God.

    • Jared Cheshire
      Reply January 20, 2019

      Jared Cheshire

      Context of the culture of the time must be considered.

  • Troy Day
    Reply January 26, 2019

    Troy Day

    Robert Franzen it is actually very very simple. If your book has the answer for the question in OP just copy paste it so we can read and discuss. If not you cant answer the question without Gap Theory – that’s all It aint the end of the world really

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.