AV Bible Believers Fellowship

Question #53

QUESTION: Should we make an issue of Bible translations?

ANSWER: Only if you believe anything out of it.

EXPLANATION: Many Christians attempt to evade the issue of whether of not there really is a perfect Bible (as they are told from the pulpit) by piously hiding behind the statement, "I don't make an issue of Bible translations."
It is perfectly acceptable to assume such a position as long as you are consistent in your stand... or lack of it.
In other words, if the issue of a perfect Bible is a "non-issue" with you, then to be consistent, neither should be ANY of the following:
1. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Isa 7:14
2. The deity of Jesus Christ. I John 5:5
3. The substitutionary death for sins made by Jesus Christ. Romans 5:8
4. The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I Cor 15:4
5. Salvation by grace alone without works. Eph 2:8, 9
6. The Pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ. I Thess 4
7. The existence of a literal Heaven. John 3:13
8. The existence of a literal Hell. Mark 9:42-44
9. The acceptance of Creation over the theory of evolution. Gen 1:7
This is by no means a comprehensive list of convictions held by those who call themselves "Fundamentalists." Yet every one is taken from the Bible. How on earth can a thinking, rational person make an issue or have a conviction on something that they have taken out of the Bible, but see "no issue" concerning the perfection of the Book on which they base their every issue? IF the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can we be sure that it is correct in those passages on which we base our convictions?
Some may say, "I accept the Bible where it is accurately translated." Fine! THAT is the statement of faith of every Mormon in the world! WHO is to judge just where the Bible is "accurately translated?"
No, it is impossible to make "any issue" over even one doctrine from the Bible and claim not to make an "issue" over the Bible itself.
Why then do people make such a statement? Basically, it is out of fear of the consequences of such a stand. They are afraid of the rejection of their friends, family, and fellow-workers.
How bold for the truth are you?

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/1...iblecenter

Amen Dr. Gipp..

Quote:9. The acceptance of Creation over the theory of evolution. Gen 1:7

What do the other versions change WITH CREATION?

Does Sam Gipp believe in a 24 hour 6 day creation or the gap?

(07-03-2010 10:00 PM)chriskjv Wrote: [ -> ]What do the other versions change WITH CREATION?

Does Sam Gipp believe in a 24 hour 6 day creation or the gap?

I don't know Gipp's views on the matter, brother, but I'll try to check it out.

Personally, I believe in the "24/6" formulation, but also believe in the gap: I simply believe that the six-day creation took place after the gap. I don't see a conflict.

In the above quote, I don't think that Gipp is saying that the other versions attack creationism in Gen. 1:7. Gen. 1:7 is simply the verse he chooses to demonstrate that the Bible teaches direct creation; after Gen. 1:1, it's the first verse dealing with the creation of the physical universe as it now exists. His point is not that these verses are necessarily compromised in the new versions; for example, Eph. 2:8, 9 is pretty clear, even in the new versions. He is choosing the salient verses illustrating the various doctrines, and asking: "If you claim to believe in these doctrines, how can you fail to believe in a perfect Bible?" He's pointing out the inconsistency of "fundamentalists" who claim to believe all these doctrines, but refuse to acknowledge the existence of a perfect Bible, namely, the KJB.

William you explain it quit nicely. I agree it is possible of a six day creation after a gap. The way I have heard several people explain it is there was a gap which evolution took place during that time and the current earth was created over millions of years. And a day was 1000 thousand years.

(07-04-2010 07:45 PM)chriskjv Wrote: [ -> ]William you explain it quit nicely. I agree it is possible of a six day creation after a gap. The way I have heard several people explain it is there was a gap which evolution took place during that time and the current earth was created over millions of years. And a day was 1000 thousand years.

I think that's absurd, and twists the Gap Theory into something it was never intended to be. After Gen. 1:2, I do not believe that there was any physical life on this planet, although spiritual forces were present. To use the Gap as an excuse for teaching evolution is intellectually dishonest and spiritually perverse.

I do 100% believe the GEN account from God. I've read it and have put a lot of thought into it from some things. But, as it is with my models; I can only say that God knows and they do agree with the GEN account best I can tell. Again, God's word is far above my opinion or an idea.

Young earth:
Now to Adam ~6,000 day 6. And a day is as a thousand years.
Day 5 1,000
Day 4 1,000
Day 3 1,000
Day 2 1,000
Day 1 1,000

11,000

Sure; heat and pressure can create a diamond immediately if enough applied.......... HOw much was there?

To me; it's no real issue. The gospel of Christ is. We need not to get side-tracked and drawn away from preaching theh gospel and bringing as many as possible into the fold.

Now: another view

Some have surmised that a period 0-day 1; and then war with Satan and into the sea he went and then the second percession (catestrophic event) the water and land were seperated and creepy things crawled and God killed them (dinasour extinct) and then the next percession occured which is the one we live in.

This model makes a lot of sense to me and accounts for plate shifts and violient shaking of the planet and all the placement of things where they are. Seemingly to me it also adds up to a time frame that puts Mercury where it should be as if there were the (Carl SAgan junk) billions and billions and billions of years the sun would be half-way to the earth and neither Mercury or Venus would exist.

It accounts for everything but: it may not be nearly that long. You may wish to search these things. One scientist said we have theroies of time and how long the earth has been here. However, if we have to go on proof and only things that we can prove, it is possible that it may not be older than 25,000 yrs and a possibility of only 12,000.

Dr. T Gish was a very prominent scientist. As I recall, he was an atheist and later accepted Christ. He then started lectures on creation and is very good.

Also interestingly one can model biology and how things change with cell mutations and genes with time and breeding. Interestingly; you can take two whites and 16 generations later have a black. We do selective process with animals all the time(no evolution here). Aren't we now down to marriages past the fourth cousin. Having said that; who is your fourth cousin? Do we get smarter with time? Absolutely not! Ask the ancients of 5,000 yrs ago. How advanced were they? WE are now finding boats larger than the Titanic and evidence that they traveled the whole world and they had electricity and radio.

We can loose technology in one generation. Which model do I subscribe to: the Bible. What it says I believe. Do I know it all. Well; maybe not all ;-D

If this of interest and approiate; I have a more detailed I made with or from the thinking above. It could be a fun read. God may wink at me and my stupidity for all I know. What a loving God we have.

Okay, after reading through this, I just have two simple things to throw out there. And these are merely just to get the mind thinking - it is nothing that has been scientifically researched or examined or anything at all like that. Just throwing them out there.

1) If one day is as a 1,000 years, then the earth was created in 6,000 years right? Then Adam wasn't 930 years old when he died; he would have been 930,000 years old! He he...

2) When you look at the age of the earth (I don't know if I have mentioned this before), what's to say the Lord didn't create the earth with "age." He created Adam and Eve with age - not from a baby. ??? So I wonder if he created the earth with age to fool these scientists? Hmmmmmmm.

I personally believe that the six days each consisted of 24 hours. That opinion, plus $1.25, will get you a bottle of drinking water.

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
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.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

If the one day is 1000 years, why have the 'evening and the morning were the first day' in there?

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day."

God made plants on the third day...

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the Heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the Heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the Heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." (Gen 1:1-19)

If the plants were created on the third day, they survived for how long until God made the sun? A thousand years?

I take the text as it is written, that there were six days of creation, consisting of evening and morning.

I agree with you, HAI. I was just throwing something out for people to think about when others say that it was impossible for everything to be created in 6 days.