Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
CAN YOU EXPLAIN Age of earth WITHOUT GAP THEORY?
Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
48 Comments
Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.
Leave a Reply to Gary Micheal Epping Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Varnel Watson
Good luck with that Robert Franzen
Steve Losee
easy. Listen to Kent Hovind.
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
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.
Varnel Watson
Yes, the ”Geological Age” is known not to be so logical
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
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?
Robert Franzen
Troy Day been waiting on you guys to talk Bible – let’s exegete verse 2
& stop running with other nonsense please
Varnel Watson
hold on now 🙂 What credentials do you hold to begin such exegesis Dont jump in the lake of fire so fast
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!)
Varnel Watson
you actually have established none of that yet 🙂
Robert Franzen
Troy Day ?
Ya mean the green wall isn’t green again
SMH
Robert Franzen
Troy Day , ok, what does replenish mean then in Gen. 1:28?
Varnel Watson
Copy paste me your own explanation from your own book on this one or start me like an exegesis
Robert Franzen
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
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
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?
Varnel Watson
oh no please go ahead you only have like 23,140 verses left till the end of Revelation 🙂
Robert Franzen
Troy Day nope – just the first few verses of Gen 1 – that’s all I need.
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’).
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: …
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.
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?
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?
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.
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping now I’m confused, so we don’t agree on what the word “replenish” means?
Robert Franzen
Gary Micheal Epping are ya saying the KJ word replenish doesn’t mean just to fill?
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?
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?
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.
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
Robert Franzen
Can we move on yet?
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,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Bishop Bernie L Wade
how old is the earth in your theory?
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.
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
Varnel Watson
still waiting on Robert Franzen to explain it all
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…