Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Who could possibly doubt the existence of a Pre-Adamite World.

[Grandfather]

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

Not at all.
The earth is not created again after verse 1.
No assumptions just can read the Bible.

But if you want to believe it is then have at it.

I did not say it was created again. Re-read my statement if you will and point me to where I say it was created again.

[Grandfather]

What word in the Hebrew would explain the creation of the cosmos?

[bibleman]

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

Not at all.
The earth is not created again after verse 1.
No assumptions just can read the Bible.

But if you want to believe it is then have at it.

I did not say it was created again. Re-read my statement if you will and point me to where I say it was created again.

Well if you believe that he creation off the earth took place after verse 1 then that would be again.

[Grandfather]

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

Not at all.
The earth is not created again after verse 1.
No assumptions just can read the Bible.

But if you want to believe it is then have at it.

I did not say it was created again. Re-read my statement if you will and point me to where I say it was created again.

Well if you believe that he creation off the earth took place after verse 1 then that would be again.

Where did I say that? It appears you are reading into my statements things you object to in order to refute them. That comes close to the Strawman fallacy You’re better than that.

[bibleman]

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

Not at all.
The earth is not created again after verse 1.
No assumptions just can read the Bible.

But if you want to believe it is then have at it.

I did not say it was created again. Re-read my statement if you will and point me to where I say it was created again.

Well if you believe that he creation off the earth took place after verse 1 then that would be again.

Where did I say that? It appears you are reading into my statements things you object to in order to refute them. That comes close to the Strawman fallacy You’re better than that.

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. If you would like to ask a question I would be glad to respond.

[Grandfather]

Think what you like or you can accept the Word that the earth was created in verse 1 as it says.

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

Not at all.
The earth is not created again after verse 1.
No assumptions just can read the Bible.

But if you want to believe it is then have at it.

I did not say it was created again. Re-read my statement if you will and point me to where I say it was created again.

Well if you believe that he creation off the earth took place after verse 1 then that would be again.

Where did I say that? It appears you are reading into my statements things you object to in order to refute them. That comes close to the Strawman fallacy You’re better than that.

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. If you would like to ask a question I would be glad to respond.

You continue to accuse me of believing in two creations. My question is where have I alluded to that? What did I write that lead you to that assumption?

[bibleman]

I acknowledge that a while back. The issue is vs 2 - it is reasonable to assume that vs 2 is an explanation of how vs 1 transpires. You assume it is reasonable to assume a gap between 1 and 2. Both are assumptions, and both have support for those assumptions.

Not at all.
The earth is not created again after verse 1.
No assumptions just can read the Bible.

But if you want to believe it is then have at it.

I did not say it was created again. Re-read my statement if you will and point me to where I say it was created again.

Well if you believe that he creation off the earth took place after verse 1 then that would be again.

Where did I say that? It appears you are reading into my statements things you object to in order to refute them. That comes close to the Strawman fallacy You’re better than that.

I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. If you would like to ask a question I would be glad to respond.

You continue to accuse me of believing in two creations. My question is where have I alluded to that? What did I write that lead you to that assumption?

I don't know, can't find it, maybe I got a little mixed up for sure!

So you believe that the original creation took place in Genesis 1:1 and that all that follows is simply the restoration of the earth after the judgment of verse 2... Is that right?

[Grandfather]

You continue to accuse me of believing in two creations. My question is where have I alluded to that? What did I write that lead you to that assumption?

I don't know, can't find it, maybe I got a little mixed up for sure!

So you believe that the original creation took place in Genesis 1:1 and that all that follows is simply the restoration of the earth after the judgment of verse 2... Is that right?

I believe that is one plausable reading of Genesis chapter 1

[bibleman]

[*]

You continue to accuse me of believing in two creations. My question is where have I alluded to that? What did I write that lead you to that assumption?

I don't know, can't find it, maybe I got a little mixed up for sure!

So you believe that the original creation took place in Genesis 1:1 and that all that follows is simply the restoration of the earth after the judgment of verse 2... Is that right?

I believe that is one plausable reading of Genesis chapter 1

Well then that means that you also believe in 2 creations like the others who reject the Bible truth of the
Pre-adamite world.

[Grandfather]

[*]

You continue to accuse me of believing in two creations. My question is where have I alluded to that? What did I write that lead you to that assumption?

I don't know, can't find it, maybe I got a little mixed up for sure!

So you believe that the original creation took place in Genesis 1:1 and that all that follows is simply the restoration of the earth after the judgment of verse 2... Is that right?

I believe that is one plausable reading of Genesis chapter 1

Well then that means that you also believe in 2 creations like the others who reject the Bible truth of the
Pre-adamite world.

No it doesn’t. If that is what you believe then it reveals a very limited knowledge of the subject which then explains your constant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of opposing views.