CAN YOU EXPLAIN Age of earth WITHOUT GAP THEORY?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN Age of earth WITHOUT GAP THEORY?
Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

48 Comments

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Good luck with that Robert Franzen

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Steve Losee

    easy. Listen to Kent Hovind.

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Kent Hovind? Rico Hero Is this the PDF that was posted in the group last week. Makes no sense and argues things that no one has never said within the Gap Theory His arguments are reproved in 5min or less

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Robert Spurlock

    There is also the ”Geological Age” Theory. The theory that God created the earth in 7 geological ages that may or may not have overlapping intervals on millions of years.

    I am not saying I am a supporter of this theory. But it is out there.

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Yes, the ”Geological Age” is known not to be so logical

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Whoa – don’t jump ship on me – come back & let’s finish the gap theory & if ya want we can talk about this.

    But here’s my honest thoughts on this subject – people make it about the age of the earth/universe. I think that’s foolish –
    With me it’s about the Integrity of Scripture!

    We MUsT be true to the Word & let it lead us, not we impose upon it.

    Let the Word lead where it may. Young earth, old earth, I can care less.
    I think the fallacy of YEC is they are way to dogmatic & make it about the age rather than making it about the Integrity of Scripture.
    Now let’s get back to discussing Gen. 2

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    oh no you are alone on this one – I am a Bible man not other secular logia students 🙂 Now how about that book of yours? Since it failed to address Gap Theory maybe it can talk about secular humanism?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Troy Day been waiting on you guys to talk Bible – let’s exegete verse 2
      & stop running with other nonsense please

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      hold on now 🙂 What credentials do you hold to begin such exegesis Dont jump in the lake of fire so fast

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Troy Day so we have established the word replenish simply means “to fill” right?
      & we know how we got there right?

      (By simply study of the Scripture only!)

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      you actually have established none of that yet 🙂

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Troy Day ?
      Ya mean the green wall isn’t green again
      SMH

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Troy Day , ok, what does replenish mean then in Gen. 1:28?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      Copy paste me your own explanation from your own book on this one or start me like an exegesis

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Troy Day Troy, I just explained the whole thing (condensed) from memory this morning.
      THAN I repeated it 4 times since.
      AGAIN,
      The word replenish simply means “to fill,” from the Hebrew

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      I will help you out like I help my students

      Dear Dr. So and So
      In this paper I will try / do my best to prove that …
      {your thesis goes here}

      In order to do that I will attempt to
      1.
      2.
      3.

      As a result I will try to teach you something new. Since I will probably fail on that I will at least try to entertain you. Finally, if all odds fail I will simply make an educated guess and leave it to your grace to give me a good grade

      Does this help? 🙂

      Now back the Age of Earth without Gap Theory as per this OP pls

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      So me and Gary Micheal Epping have been going thru Gen 1 verse by verse (first few any way), so that I can show/explain how there is other ways, better ways to interpret Gen 1 without violating any hermeneutical principles.
      & y’all don’t want to play
      Severe insecurity being displayed here among other things
      – do you want to go on to verse two?
      Or are ya gunna keep trying to divert me?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      oh no please go ahead you only have like 23,140 verses left till the end of Revelation 🙂

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Troy Day nope – just the first few verses of Gen 1 – that’s all I need.

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Rico Hero

      Robert Franzen I am confused as to what you think the word translated replenish means in Gen. 1:28? Does it mean ‘to fill’ or ‘to fill completely’? You also said that ‘re’ did not mean ‘again’ to those translators of the 1611 king James right? The oxford dictionaries on the word “replenish ” under origin does suggest the “re” was known as ‘again”. snip Origin
      Late Middle English (in the sense ‘supply abundantly’): from Old French repleniss-, lengthened stem of replenir, from re- ‘again’ (also expressing intensive force) + plenir ‘fill’ (from Latin plenus ‘full’).

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Rico Hero again, was trying to cut thru the chase & get right to the bottom line – the Hebrew meaning!

      Nevertheless, if you insist: …

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Robert Franzen Let me save you some trouble. I know you want to diddle around with the word was in verse two. In hebrew it reads, וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃ “hayeta” is the qal perfect feminine singular of the verb “hayah” and in this tense it means “became” or “had become” There it is. I know you want to translate this as was so bad. But, I say what does it matter. Is there a difference between saying Lot’s wife was a pillar of salt, and Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt. Either way she was changed from flesh to salt. No difference in verse 2 of genesis, as it is a description of what the perfect earth in verse one had become in verse 2.

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping ?
      Okay, before I ask how one gets “became” from this verb meaning …
      & what these nunces mean etc.
      Wasn’t that interpreting principle very important?
      Isn’t it worth applying every time?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Rico Hero sorry Rico man, I tried to post my chapter on it explaining the whole thing in depth but it’s not letting me – must be to long.
      Any suggestions on how I post that?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Robert Franzen No it wasn’t. A person without much education can simply read the english text and get the same interpretation.

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping now I’m confused, so we don’t agree on what the word “replenish” means?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping are ya saying the KJ word replenish doesn’t mean just to fill?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Robert Franzen Here is a question. Hebrew has about 3000 words in its alphabet, and English has at least a quarter of a million. Which language should one be able to express himself more precisely linguistically?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping ??‍♂️ so we didn’t get the principle of interpretation:
      Darn man, you’re killing me!
      Gary, none of that matters, if one wants to know what the author said, you have to go to the authors language & grammar, & meanings during the time he/she wrote it.

      If there were only 10 words in Hebrew, we’d still have to study the language of the author.

      Make sense?

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Gary Micheal Epping

      Robert Franzen If you want to know what the authors said, then READ THE ENGLISH BIBLE! Why even have an english translation according to your view. The translators have already gone through these exercises and given us good translations like the KJV and NIV. Why step back to what has already been done. Unless of course you think you know more than than the inspired translators.

    • Reply January 29, 2019

      Robert Franzen

      Gary Micheal Epping I’m not arguing against the English translations if you were paying attention, what I taught was that we have to be very careful with some of the older translations using old English thinking a word means what it means today.
      You thought it meant “fill again.” As we seen by both the Hebrew & the 1611 definition are the same – ie. to fill or fill completely.
      Period

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Can we move on yet?

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Rico Hero

    Robert Franzen dont worry to post your chapter. You said” Bottom line it simply means to fill & the KJ translators used an old French word to keep it alive.

    The gap theory doesn’t rise or fall on the word, like it does on one word in verse 2 – but if we all agree that replenish simply means “fill completely,” My question to you, is what do you think it should be in Gen 1:28 ? ‘to fill’ or ‘to fill completely’? why would they go with ” fill completely” if it is simply ‘to fill’? You also said that ‘re’ did not mean ‘again’ to those translators of the 1611 king James right? The oxford dictionaries on the word “replenish ” under origin does suggest the “re” was known as ‘again”. snip Origin
    Late Middle English (in the sense ‘supply abundantly’): from Old French repleniss-, lengthened stem of replenir, from re- ‘again’ (also expressing intensive force) + plenir ‘fill’ (from Latin plenus ‘full’). end snip,

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Rico Hero why must we argue over insignificant silly things – just look at the Hebrew definition.

    Anyway, here’s a segment:

    ETYMOLOGY: Middle English replenisshen, from Old French replenir, repleniss-; re-, +plenir, to fill (from Latin pl nus; see pel -1 in Appendix I).

    Notice that the etymology says that replenish is derived from the old French word replenir simply meaning to fill.

    Again, in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, notice that the etymology states the word comes from the 14th century French word meaning to fill, period!

    However, in 1611, one of the primary dictionaries was the Oxford English Dictionary, which spanned a period of three centuries. It states:
    A. Replenished (adjective);
    a. fully stocked; provided, supplied;
    b. filled, pervaded;
    c. physically or materially filled;
    d. full, made full.
    B. To replenish:
    e. make full, fill, stock with, as in: ‘This man made the
    Newe Forest, and replenished it with wylde bestes’ (AD
    1494);
    f. inhabit, settle, occupy the whole of;
    g. fill with food, satiate;
    h. fill (space) with; fill (heart) with (a feeling);
    i. fill up again; fill up (a vacant office) (AD 1632);
    j. become full, attain to fullness.

    Note that only ‘I,’ includes the idea of ‘again’ and was not seen until 1632.” 2

    In 1611, when the KJV was put together, English dictionaries defined the word replenish as to fill, to fill full. Simply put, at the time the KJV was written, the word simply meant only fill, not fill again. It wasn’t until decades later that a second definition arose meaning to fill or build up again, as seen above.

    Notice “i” – it was 1632 – after the KJV

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Robert Franzen You must be talking to the wrong guy, as we have never had a discussion about replenish, as it is not mentioned in verse 1 or 2.

  • Reply January 29, 2019

    Rico Hero

    Robert Franzen The implication of what you are saying is that the translators of the King James were incompetent to not even be able to get a simple word right–like “to fill” and that it is really not a word for word translation –they translating a french word to mean fill completely. This would make the king James bible one of the worst if not the most corrupt bibles in the world.

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Rico Hero

    Robert Franzen, Not only is what you are saying here regarding the translators of the King James–from 1611 and all others that revised it, are incompetent and the King James the worst translation ever, but also that people like Rev Dake who was given the supernatural Spirit gift to quote from the KJV Bible to be either demon inspired and a fake, or that the Holy Spirit is also incompetent to choose such a corrupt bible.

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Robert Franzen So, if I have a glass, fill it with water, drink it, then fill it again, and finally set it on the table. Could you differentiate that glass from a second glass that is filled and also set on the table? I don’t think so. Similarly, you have an earth, it is filled with life, then all life is destroyed. Later the earth is restored and is again is filled with life. In the second instance, does it really matter if you use the word fill or refill, as the earth is again populated just like the first glass of water.

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Rico Hero In other words, Robert does not think the english translators (who in fact were the best translators in the world at that time) were inspired enough by God to write an accurate english bible. Rather, both the translators and God need the help of modern day theologians to retranslate it for us so that we might know the true meaning of the bible.

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Gary Micheal Epping I am talking to you because I’m referring to my posts from yesterday morning.
    It was all on the word Replenish, which, as I said a bunch of times before has little to do with vs 2. But that wasn’t the purpose; the purpose was to establish an important interpreting principle.

    Whether you agree or not – Do you at least acknowledge that?

    Do you acknowledge the importance of that principle?

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Rico Hero
    hello again; hey I know I wrote a lot & you may not have been able to read it all or missed it along the way, but I clearly said the KJ translators did NOT get it wrong – the word they used meant the exact same thing as the Hebrew word. Period!
    The discussion was on how the word replenish has evolved over time to include “fill again.”
    But when the KJ translators used it, it was a fancy poetic word that simply meant to fill.

    But many people today read it think it means “fill again,” thus, misinterpreting what the Bible says. A common western fallacy.

    Gary Micheal Epping

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Robert Franzen

    Gary Micheal Epping
    Gary you said: “Robert Franzen So, if I have a glass, fill it with water, drink it, then fill it again, and finally set it on the table. Could you differentiate that glass from a second glass that is filled and also set on the table? I don’t think so. Similarly, you have an earth, it is filled with life, then all life is destroyed. Later the earth is restored and is again is filled with life. In the second instance, does it really matter if you use the word fill or refill, as the earth is again populated just like the first glass of water.”

    The classic gap theory thinking. Okay.
    We cannot change the original meaning to fit our understanding or theory – which is what you’re doing here.
    If the original word meant “fill” we can’t change that.
    If man wrote the Scriptures alone I can see what you’re saying – he wouldn’t be able to tell if the glass had been filled before. However, this is God’s story & He knows if the glass had been filled before or not & God choose to use the word “fill,” not “refill.”

    You’re allowing your view of verse 2 control the way you’re interpreting the rest of Scripture to make it fit – which isn’t so bad unless you’ve made a mistake in vs 2. It appears that you have BECAUSE you are trying to make the Bible say something it does NOT (refill) and that’s what I’m pointing out.

    So let’s get to vs 2 & try to straighten things out.

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Bishop Bernie L Wade

    how old is the earth in your theory?

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Gary Micheal Epping

    Robert Franzen Do you you have a problem with reading? We are looking at what verse 1 and 2 says. THERE IS NO REFILL OR FILL IN EITHER. There certainly is no reason to include something that is not there, yet you keep insisting on trying to jam it in.

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Rico Hero

    Robert Franzen Re: But many people today read it think it means “fill again,” thus, misinterpreting what the Bible says. A common western fallacy.

    Well Robert, it looks like the western fallacy you see continues. The 21st Century King James Version still uses the word “replenish” in Genesis 1:28 and in Genesis 9:1.

    I guess the Young earth Creation remains under fire from within the church.:)

    blessings

  • Reply January 30, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    still waiting on Robert Franzen to explain it all

  • Reply February 7, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Gary Micheal Epping Rico Hero I am concluding that Robert Franzen will not post from his book for discussion any time soon. It also appears that after 2-3 full weeks of talking he is only trying to put down Gap Theory instead of actually answering the question in OP without Gap Theory When realizing it cant be done as many before him have tried and failed he starts putting down Gap Theory which is basically answering the question with Gap Theory which is exactly opposite to what is asked in the OP – well, if the only thing he can offer is slander to Gap Theory I believe I am about done listening…

Leave a Reply

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