The Gap Theory

[Neachley]

Do you believe in the Gap Theory? This is a theory that there was a gap in creation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. That human history from Adam is only 6,000 years, but that there was life and and earth before this time, which accounts for fossils, gem stones etc.

It became popular with the success of the Scofield Study Bible in the early 1900s, but has been taken up again by many conservative Christians.

Others, of course, hold that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the flood of Noah is responsible for the fossil record etc.

But what do you think?

[CTZonEdit]

These papers can shed some light on what many of us believe here. Not everyone here believes this way but the evidence speaks for itself.

Article One (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/index.php?pid=2)
Article Two (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/index.php?pid=3)

[Neachley]

I personally hold to the gap theory as it`s the only one that makes any sense.

The articles are very good, by the way! :)

[CTZonEdit]

Well its very clear from the text that the earth became something different than what it was originally.

Glad you like the articles!

[DaimyoMateo]

Is 6000 years the only option? What if I believed in a date of creation much sooner than that? Anyone else believe this?

[CoreIssue]

Is 6000 years the only option? What if I believed in a date of creation much sooner than that? Anyone else believe this?
You mean for the existence of Man and the life on earth now?

Young earth creationist can go back to about 10,000 years. Gap believers go much further back, back do not set definite times.

I believe the articles linked to make that pretty clear.

[wvpeach1963]

I believe that God created this earth and let it evolve over many years to meet our needs.

I don't believe the whole monkey to man part of evolution.

But I do believe God designed the earth and man kind to evolve to a certain point.

[CoreIssue]

I believe that God created this earth and let it evolve over many years to meet our needs.

I don't believe the whole monkey to man part of evolution.

But I do believe God designed the earth and man kind to evolve to a certain point.
Theistic evolution is rejected by the Bible. In all its forms.

Fact is Adam was a ton smarter, healthier and so on, than us. Sin caused genetic decay and loss, no kind of gain from evolution.

Pre-Flood lived for centuries, as will Man during the MK, when God restores him. But we sure dont.

Adam was smart enough to name every animal. None of us could.

In the space of centuries Man invented houses, agriculture, musical instruments and a lot more. Pretty smart for those starting as a handful and having nothing more than animal skins on their backs.

No. Evolution is anti-Biblical by statement and by definition.

[MHz]

Is 6000 years the only option? What if I believed in a date of creation much sooner than that? Anyone else believe this?

I don't believe it is the only option offered by Scripture. Scripture can also support and 'old Earth' theory that isn't at all difficult to understand.
God rested on the 7th day and the earth was complete at the end of the 6th day.

The dates for man after Adam being outside the Garden go back about 4162 years. (If this can be shown to be different than this date it only affects the 4162 numbers, not the zero's apply to the days of creation) This happened during the 7th day. For the 6 days of creation you simply add one zero for each day.

The end of the 6th day was 41,620 years ago. Earth was complete as we know it. Anything that was started before was complete by then.

The end of the 5th day was 416,200 years ago. Seas were full of water and the air full of birds, whales existed. (More than likely a bird that learned to swim, they have much more in common with birds than with fish)

The end of the 4th day was 4,162,000 years ago. Seas full of water, coming from Heaven this 'snow' that melted and became water was the final ingredient that determined out present speed of rotation (day/night cycle) and final orbit around the sun (years, this could not be established until all the water was present. The total weight of the Earth determined our present orbit, much more water, or much less would change the weight enough to alter the orbit we now have).

The end of the 3rd day was 41,620,000 years ago. Grass and trees were (capable of) growing on the dry land.

The end of the 2nd day was 416,200,000 years ago. The Earth reached the temperature that would support water in both liquid and vapor form.

The end of the 1st day was 4,162,000,000 years ago. Earth and sun in more or less a stable orbit, earth had rotation (light/darkness).

This is the physical part of creation, chapter two tells us Adam saw all of this, either through a vision (like John in Revelations) or what was intended to be fulfilled in ch:1 was put 'on hold' until Adam existed. Either way God showed Adam how it all was brought about, at least as far back as the first plants so Adam could name all that came to be.

Ge:2:4:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Ge:2:5:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth,
and every herb of the field before it grew:
for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and there was not a man to till the ground.
Ge:2:6:
But there went up a mist from the earth,
and watered the whole face of the ground.
Ge:2:7:
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.
Ge:2:8:
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden;
and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Ge:2:9:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight,
and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden,
and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Ge:2:10:
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden;
and from thence it was parted,
and became into four heads.

[MHz]

Just an update. I did find a statement that does agree that the first verse is only an opening sentence, no action involved.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86613
"The view of renowned Talmudic scholar Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha was that “aleph tav” was both a particle of amplification and a particle indicating verb/object relationship. This understanding indicates that Genesis 1:1 is not a statement of action, but an introduction, almost like we use the phrase “Once upon a time” as a prologue to the story to come."

For the thread about your 2 articles 92 reads, 0 replies.

[CoreIssue]

Just an update. I did find a statement that does agree that the first verse is only an opening sentence, no action involved.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=86613
"The view of renowned Talmudic scholar Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha was that “aleph tav” was both a particle of amplification and a particle indicating verb/object relationship. This understanding indicates that Genesis 1:1 is not a statement of action, but an introduction, almost like we use the phrase “Once upon a time” as a prologue to the story to come."

For the thread about your 2 articles 92 reads, 0 replies.

So what? The guy is a Rabbi. Which also means he read the OT without being able to see Christ prophesied in it.

They do what you do, MHz. As in turn most everything literal into figurative. It is the only wasy they can evade Christ being God incarnate and the prophesied Messiah. As well as evade the details of the 70th Week of Daniel.

And zero replies normally means they don't like it but cannot refute it.

[MHz]

Hi Core,
And zero replies normally means they don't like it but cannot refute it.
That's possible. Since I promote that fallen angels were active on Earth after Adam and Eve left the Garden I should have an answer to what your article considers.
Vs:1:1 I see as just an introduction to what the rest of the passage will cover in more detail.

Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

Notice the attention paid to how creation works, God speaks and His words are made 'to occur'. This is about Heaven, not Earth. Both were made by 'God said' and then it was made to exist.
If both were complete at the same time then Adam and Eve are part of creation meaning they would have to have been alive.
If Heaven didn't exist before the earth then the Angels would have fallen as soon as they were created. It seems to be a deliberate rebellion by some that have been around for awhile.

(more shortly)

[CoreIssue]

Hey MHz. Hope you are doing okay.

And zero replies normally means they don't like it but cannot refute it.
That's possible. Since I promote that fallen angels were active on Earth after Adam and Eve left the Garden I should have an answer to what your article considers.

Agree.
Vs:1:1 I see as just an introduction to what the rest of the passage will cover in more detail.
But the verse itself denies that.

It states God created, not would create or was in the process of creating. But did create.

Verse 2 says it became. Not was the condition God created it in. And cannot be justfied linquistically. The Hebrew word means it changed from one condition to another, thus demanding the earth already existed in verse 1.


Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

Notice the attention paid to how creation works, God speaks and His words are made 'to occur'. This is about Heaven, not Earth. Both were made by 'God said' and then it was made to exist.

Yes. Created by his word. Not a single thing said about creating a chaotic mass that he reshaped into the earth.

He spoke and it was done. Finished.

Then verse Gen 1:2 says it became, meaning it changed.

If both were complete at the same time then Adam and Eve are part of creation meaning they would have to have been alive.

Nonsense.

It says the heavens and the earth. Nothing about the life on the earth in Gen 1:1.
If Heaven didn't exist before the earth then the Angels would have fallen as soon as they were created. It seems to be a deliberate rebellion by some that have been around for awhile.
That is a nonsense statement.

There are 3 places called Heaven; where God dwells, outer space and the atmosphere around the earth.

Job 38 tells us the angels already existed and were with God when he created the earth.

Trying to define Heaven as only where God lives is a false argument.


2 Corinthians 12
2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

First - Air
Second - Space, stars, etc.
Third - God's dwelling place.

[MHz]

Hi Core,
Hey MHz. Hope you are doing okay.

A few ups and downs but relatively sane.

It states God created, not would create or was in the process of creating. But did create.
So that would be complete in every respect. For Angels to be cast down to the Earth, the Earth would have to be

'seperate from Heaven'. The division is the seperation of water, you need both liquid and vapor. Touching the dry

earth of the surface of the water would be the dividing point between Heaven and Earth. Some translations call them

the fowls of heaven. Genesis 1:20: For Angels to leave their first estate there would have had to be land, molten

rock would qualify in this defination. Eden is after plants etc.


Verse 2 says it became. Not was the condition God created it in. And cannot be justfied linquistically. The Hebrew

word means it changed from one condition to another, thus demanding the earth already existed in verse 1.
So how far was it along? Heaven and all her host were in existance, nothing more is created there before they are

said to be complete. The list of things in that first passage is a picture of what the Earth looks like when it is

created in full.


Yes. Created by his word. Not a single thing said about creating a chaotic mass that he reshaped into the earth.

He spoke and it was done. Finished.

Then verse Gen 1:2 says it became, meaning it changed.
If Adam and Eve weren't there then creation was incomplete at this time. Adam is a creation, part of the way Earth

was created, if he wasn't there how can the word 'Finished' apply, it would be partially created.




If both were complete at the same time then Adam and Eve are part of creation meaning they would have to have been

alive.

Nonsense.
What else wasn't created on the Earth before it was made desolate, you need something before it can be changed in

something different.


It says the heavens and the earth. Nothing about the life on the earth in Gen 1:1.
If Heaven didn't exist before the earth then the Angels would have fallen as soon as they were created. It

seems to be a deliberate rebellion by some that have been around for awhile.
That is a nonsense statement.

So Angels come to a barren Earth?

There are 3 places called Heaven; where God dwells, outer space and the atmosphere around the earth.

Job 38 tells us the angels already existed and were with God when he created the earth.

Trying to define Heaven as only where God lives is a false argument.
I agree about the 3 heavens. The 1st I would define as anything above our reach while standing on the Earth, The

extent would be short of the moon and could be only as high as birds can fly. Everything we can see from earth would

be in the second Heaven, the realm of the 'creations of Heaven'.


"Thus, God’s own light would have illuminated his creation.

Next, look at Job 38:6, where God asks Job about creation of earth to make a point:

"On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone--
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Clearly, this speaks of angels singing while the creation was completed.

When Lucifer ("light bringer") was created, he was the most powerful guardian cherub who guarded God's thrown.

However, he became power hungry and wanted to rule heaven himself."

Was the verses that come after Vs:6 part of what they saw?

That stills leaves Adam uncreated if he isn't there when Angels first come to Earth.

In Ezekiel 28:12-17, when God is giving prophesies against the King of Tyre, God uses Lucifer as an example, saying:
That puts him in Eden, not a barren rock.

To keep these fairly short I'll stop here.

[CoreIssue]

Hi MHz,

Read the Pre-Adamic Thread. It is all in there. All these issues.

Why should I retype all that material to you, here, when your refuse to reply to the points there?

Just read and respond to the point made there, point by point. Show me where I am wrong.

All the word definitions, backing verses, and everything else is laid out there.

Your just looking for an excuse to present your doctrine. Really, you are already dodging points I made, like the 3 Heavens.

Go there. Read. Respond.

But don't just say you don't agree and start posting your doctrine. Actually deal with the meanings and verse presented.

[MHz]

Hi MHz,

Read the Pre-Adamic Thread. It is all in there. All these issues.

Why should I retype all that material to you, here, when your refuse to reply to the points there?

Just read and respond to the point made there, point by point. Show me where I am wrong.

All the word definitions, backing verses, and everything else is laid out there.

Your just looking for an excuse to present your doctrine. Really, you are already dodging points I made, like the 3 Heavens.

Go there. Read. Respond.

But don't just say you don't agree and start posting your doctrine. Actually deal with the meanings and verse presented.

Actually I agreed with the 3 heavens and most of my replies were in response to words taken from that article, the verse from Psalm 33 is from the article, so were the words in my last post that said "quote=article1".

In that article you state, repeatedly, that heaven and earth were created in completeness, one definitive act.

Quote from article 1, "Further, God is omnipotent—meaning he can do exactly what he wants without limitation. Therefore, God does not need to create a formless and void earth and then mold it from there, which would imply God has limits and gets tired. Clear academic logic says he can create a perfect earth and perfect universe in one, definitive act.

In addition, Scripture shows that creation was one, definitive act:

Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

Also, God would have created any inhabitants [company, not race] perfect [perfect physical beings] as well." End quote

If Heaven was created with all its host then why isn't the earth also as complete? That would include Adam.

[CoreIssue]

Actually I agreed with the 3 heavens and most of my replies were in response to words taken from that article, the verse from Psalm 33 is from the article, so were the words in my last post that said "quote=article1".

In that article you state, repeatedly, that heaven and earth were created in completeness, one definitive act.
But it never was said any aspect of the 6 Days were part of that initial creation. And it totally disregards the reasoning and proofs presented. Instead you launched off into your doctrinal position without addressing any of the linquistics, other verse or such offered to back the position. You just stated assumptions of yours.
Quote from article 1, "Further, God is omnipotent—meaning he can do exactly what he wants without limitation. Therefore, God does not need to create a formless and void earth and then mold it from there, which would imply God has limits and gets tired. Clear academic logic says he can create a perfect earth and perfect universe in one, definitive act.

Now quote the parts where the Bible states all God does is perfect. Leaving that out, as well as other proofs of positions makes this an incomplete argument, from you, when you try to go your route on the issue.
In addition, Scripture shows that creation was one, definitive act:

Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

Exactly. Which denies your position on what Genesis 1 states. It demands, when combined with the word defitions, also provided, for the words of verses 1 & 2, that the creation was complete in verse 1 and corrupted in verse 2.
Also, God would have created any inhabitants [company, not race] perfect [perfect physical beings] as well." End quote

Yes. And the backing for the company of being is also laid out in the article. Which you again disregarded to make the first flesh from the 6 Days.
If Heaven was created with all its host then why isn't the earth also as complete? That would include Adam.
Of course, now the you say what makes it clear you did not pay attention to the article. Just pulled out the minimal to try to support your position.

Just forget what verse 1 and 2 say because they do not linquistically fit your doctrine.

Forget the other proofs provided to show the life of the 6 Days was not the first life on the earth.

Forget science proves this is a correct position and the dino times life did't co-exist with Man.

Forget all of that because it does not fit your doctrine.

And no, the Bible rejects evolution.

The difference between our arguments is that I define the words and read verse and passages grammatically and in context. You don't.http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

[MHz]

Actually I agreed with the 3 heavens and most of my replies were in response to words taken from that article, the verse from Psalm 33 is from the article, so were the words in my last post that said "quote=article1".

In that article you state, repeatedly, that heaven and earth were created in completeness, one definitive act.
But it never was said any aspect of the 6 Days were part of that initial creation. And it totally disregards the reasoning and proofs presented. Instead you launched off into your doctrinal position without addressing any of the linquistics, other verse or such offered to back the position. You just stated assumptions of yours.
Quote from article 1, "Further, God is omnipotent—meaning he can do exactly what he wants without limitation. Therefore, God does not need to create a formless and void earth and then mold it from there, which would imply God has limits and gets tired. Clear academic logic says he can create a perfect earth and perfect universe in one, definitive act.

Now quote the parts where the Bible states all God does is perfect. Leaving that out, as well as other proofs of positions makes this an incomplete argument, from you, when you try to go your route on the issue.
In addition, Scripture shows that creation was one, definitive act:

Psalm 33
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

Exactly. Which denies your position on what Genesis 1 states. It demands, when combined with the word defitions, also provided, for the words of verses 1 & 2, that the creation was complete in verse 1 and corrupted in verse 2.
Also, God would have created any inhabitants [company, not race] perfect [perfect physical beings] as well." End quote

Yes. And the backing for the company of being is also laid out in the article. Which you again disregarded to make the first flesh from the 6 Days.
If Heaven was created with all its host then why isn't the earth also as complete? That would include Adam.
Of course, now the you say what makes it clear you did not pay attention to the article. Just pulled out the minimal to try to support your position.

Just forget what verse 1 and 2 say because they do not linquistically fit your doctrine.

Forget the other proofs provided to show the life of the 6 Days was not the first life on the earth.

Forget science proves this is a correct position and the dino times life did't co-exist with Man.

Forget all of that because it does not fit your doctrine.

And no, the Bible rejects evolution.

The difference between our arguments is that I define the words and read verse and passages grammatically and in context. You don't.http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

Well lets see the first life was plants, dinos would have liked that.
We can stop this one right here also.
Just so I didn't waste my time on this so far this is what I had prepared as a reply.


God would have no reason to create darkness in his original creation, for there is no darkness in him.

In 1 John 1:5, John says, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
God didn't create darkness, He created light, Ge:1:3-5.

Further, God himself emits light. And since he would have no reason to create darkness in his original creation [1 John 1:5], he would have let it shine on his creation.
If the Heavens were complete then our sun and moon would have been in place. Isn't that how time would be measured on Earth, one rotation. How would you count the days and nights on an earth that didn't have rotation?

In Revelation 22:5, of the New Jerusalem it says, "There will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light."
That's a comfort since the sourse of our light today will vanish along with the rest of Heaven.

Thus, God’s own light would have illuminated his creation.

That would explain the seperation of light from dark, in New Jerusalem the light means night has also expires with the sun and moon. In the first chapter of Scripture day and night come into existance.

Next, look at Job 38:6, where God asks Job about creation of earth to make a point:

"On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone--
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?"

Clearly, this speaks of angels singing while the creation was completed.
How much did the fallen angels see before they fell?

When Lucifer ("light bringer") was created, he was the most powerful guardian cherub who guarded God's thrown. However, he became power hungry and wanted to rule heaven himself.
I'm not sure what the throne would need guarding from. Since Lucifer was in Eden is that what he was guardian over? Vs:14 could mean that Lucifer had been to the 3rd heaven and the fiery stones could refer the stars in Heaven. Angels are most likely free to roam Heaven, Lucifer being in Eden could have walked about the fiery stones that were in the un-inhabitable parts of the earth.
When was the wickedness of Vs:15 found to be in him?
The fiery stones of Vs:16 would seem to indicate Heaven, in that he was grounded to the Earth but allowed to walk to and fro.

In Ezekiel 28:12-17, when God is giving prophesies against the King of Tyre, God uses Lucifer as an example, saying:

12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

You were a model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace
from the mount of God,
And I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor;” [SEE EZEKIEL ENDNOTE]

[Note: These verses are clearly not speaking of the king of Tyre because:

1) He was not perfect [verse 12], but only human.
2) He was not in the Garden of Eden [verse 13].
3) He is not a cherub [verse 14].
4) He did not walk the mount of God [verse 14].
5) He did not walk the mount of God, so he could not be driven from it [verse 16].]




- - - - -

Ezekiel 28:14:
“You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.”

Eyhl) $dq rhB jyTtnW jekwSh x$mm bWrk . TkLhth $e) jwtB tyyh

Guardian = jks = Cakak {saw-kak'}

Strong's Number: 05526; TWOT: 1475,1492,2259,2260; v.

1. (Qal) to hedge, fence about, shut in
2. to block, overshadow, screen, stop the approach, shut off, cover
a. (Qal)
1. to screen, cover
2. to cover oneself
3. protector (participle)
b. (Hiphil)
1.to screen, cover
2. to cover, defecate (euphemism)
3. (Qal) to cover, lay over
4. to weave together
a. (Qal) to weave together
b. (Pilpel) to weave, weave together

Given the applicable definition [#2a], Lucifer must have had unusually large and specialized wings in which to shield God with. Further, in order to cover God in protection, he would have had to hover about the thrown where God sits.

I'm not sure why God or the throne needs protection, the garden of Eden might have need for 'angelic assistance' now and again.

How much of the below applies to the tower of bable? What nations did Lucifer lay low? I've never heard of nations applieing to Heaven but only to men on earth. Would Nod be considered a 'nation';
Ge:4:16: And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.


- - - - -

Lucifer wanted to be higher than God.

Examine Isaiah 14:12-15, where God related the king of Babylon to Lucifer and his fall while talking to Isaiah,

12 "How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
'I will ascend into heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.'
15 But you are brought down to the grave,
to the depths of the pit."

[Note the significance of the "morning star(s)" is clearly that of angels created in the original creation, as referred to in Job 38:6.]
[Note 2: These verses cannot refer to the king of Babylon because the king did not ascend from the earth in order to be cast down [verse 12].]
So in Vs:13 is Lucifer refering to the 3rd Heaven. (I would assume the temple that is seen in Heaven refers to the 2nd Heaven)


Peace unto your house Core and unto your friends houses.

Bye. Send me an e-mail @ wgabler@shaw.ca if you would like me to finish with my thoughts on your two articles.

[CoreIssue]

Well lets see the first life was plants, dinos would have liked that.
We can stop this one right here also.
Just so I didn't waste my time on this so far this is what I had prepared as a reply.
Again your doctrine and thoughts, not what the Bible says.

Repeated jumping to the 6 days does not deal with Gen 1:1-2. It just avoids the issues.

God didn't create darkness, He created light, Ge:1:3-5.

Read the Pre-Adamic thread. The verse proof is there he created darkness and that light has always existed. Genesis does not say he created light. It says he revealed the light that was already there.

As I said, you don't pay attention to anything except what you believe.

You claim you read it, but obviously, from this statement, you didn't. Or you don't care about verses that disprove you.

If the Heavens were complete then our sun and moon would have been in place. Isn't that how time would be measured on Earth, one rotation. How would you count the days and nights on an earth that didn't have rotation?

That's a comfort since the sourse of our light today will vanish along with the rest of Heaven.
Again you didn't read the pre-Adamic Thread. This is answered there.

And pointless questions here. Eternal beings don't count time. As you see time is not counted on the New Earth, where there is no sun or moon, but eternal light.
How much did the fallen angels see before they fell?
Read the Pre-Adamic. That is answered there.
I'm not sure what the throne would need guarding from.
It doesn't matter what you think. Again bad logic used to form doctrine.

You have never heard of an Honor Guard?

Use the Bible, not your thinking and rationalizations.
Since Lucifer was in Eden is that what he was guardian over?
And here you go with your assumptions again. You don't like what it says about Satan, so you try to make it conform to you.
Vs:14 could mean that Lucifer had been to the 3rd heaven and the fiery stones could refer the stars in Heaven.
Could have been to the 3rd Heaven? Pay attention to the verses given you in the Pre-Adamic thread. That is answered.
Angels are most likely free to roam Heaven,
Obviously.
Lucifer being in Eden
He is never mentioned as being in the earthly Eden before he tempted Eve.
could have walked about the fiery stones that were in the un-inhabitable parts of the earth.

Trying to justify your doctrine again. Addressed in the Pre-Adamic thread.
When was the wickedness of Vs:15 found to be in him?

Try at a time that resulted in Gen 1:2.
The fiery stones of Vs:16 would seem to indicate Heaven, in that he was grounded to the Earth but allowed to walk to and fro.

Again with your theories. He was never said to be bound to the earth. And hasn't been.
Restoration to the perfect conditions of the universe in Gen 1:1. No stars or moons because none are needed.
How much of the below applies to the tower of bable? What nations did Lucifer lay low? I've never heard of nations applieing to Heaven but only to men on earth. Would Nod be considered a 'nation';
Ge:4:16: And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

None. Satan fell long before Adam.

Babel had occurred long before the Babylon of Neb.

Again you disregard the prophets speaking of an ancient time when all the cities of the earth were destroyed, all life gone and the very earth corrupted, using the exact words of Gen 1:2.

And no, Nod was the name of a land area, or an area beloning to someone, not a nation. Again you alter meanings.

You always cherry pick what you think you can spin and disregard what you cannot.
Ge:4:16: And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
So in Vs:13 is Lucifer refering to the 3rd Heaven. (I would assume the temple that is seen in Heaven refers to the 2nd Heaven)

Satan has already been cast out before this time. And the Temple is in the Third Heaven. There are no temples in outer space.
Peace unto your house Core and unto your friends houses.

Bye. Send me an e-mail @ wgabler@shaw.ca if you would like me to finish with my thoughts on your two articles.
You are always welcome here.

But just posting baseless theories is pointless.

They are your thoughts. But they are groundless speculations not even based in proper linquistics.

[CTZonEdit]

I dont think he sees the whole picture of God taking something gone bad and making it good again.

Doesnt pick up on the fact that this current earth is never 'perfect' only 'good'. Good is not perfect. And God calling something 'good' does not make it perfect. If it was perfect why did God not say 'Its perfect!'.

Because it wasnt.

God doesnt make 'good' things initially. He makes perfect things. So somehow in Gen 1:1 God's perfect universe still fell. Amazing isnt it?

It shows the power of S I N. Even in a state of perfection.

That a perfect universe can fall. That the God of this universe can have mercy and make good out of that fallen universe and still bring glory to Himself.

[MHz]

I appreciate you saying I'm welcome anytime.

It is what we discuss that seems to the issue of whether or not to continue.

From your first article you reference Isaiah in that Lucifer 'laid low' the Nations. If I say this is a reference to the tower of Babel (it was when they got different languages so they couldn't be as efficient) it just doesn't apply. My reason for this is that not all translations use the phrase 'laid low', more than one use 'weaken'. You might agree that the confusion that different languages would inhibit the people compared to how much they could accomplish when they had just one language.
You took the approach of listing other verses that also use 'laid low' as support for your definition. If I take that approach, like for 'until' and 'after' it suddenly become an approach that just doesn't have any foundation.

One other point you made is that the birds are said to be gone and that has never happened up to this point in time. What about prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled, can they apply?

Zep:1:3:
I will consume man and beast;
I will consume the fowls of the heaven,
and the fishes of the sea,
and the stumblingblocks with the wicked;
and I will cut off man from off the land,
saith the LORD.

Doesn't the above state the same thing?

Why go point-by-point? This is such a long post that a few minor points might be more uselull to understanding 'what holes' I find than line by line.
Besides that way I get to post some Scripture. Don't you just love to read passages, second best to quotes from Jesus himself.

Core, you have been a gracious host.
As much as a Heathen as I am (really I could have been on a desert island with just the Bible for all I know), no amount of argument is going to change me.
Keep it plain and simple, post the Scripture that supports your view and that is it. Pages of definitions (from anybody but God's own word)isn't going to impress me to accept a different point of view.
We've been there and done that.
In the end, the history books were no more specific than the gathering of translations, Who IAM is for being one, Lord God Almighty, the dominate authority in the setting of the Great White Throne of the third Heaven, Christ, our Lord sitting at the right hand of God in the second Heaven and us, the dust beneath His feet. Yes there are 'buildings in Heaven'. The sons of God met there twice in Job alone. Revelations is full of scenes from 'The other parts of the Kingdom of Heaven' (the 3rd & 2nd). They didn't gather in the third Heaven for these meetings, it was in the 2nd one. If our Heavens will fade away then the Holy Angels would seem to be in store for a new home also.

[CoreIssue]

From your first article you reference Isaiah in that Lucifer 'laid low' the Nations. If I say this is a reference to the tower of Babel (it was when they got different languages so they couldn't be as efficient) it just doesn't apply. My reason for this is that not all translations use the phrase 'laid low', more than one use 'weaken'. You might agree that the confusion that different languages would inhibit the people compared to how much they could accomplish when they had just one language.
The problem here is that context of him laying low the nations was past tense and part of his fall. You cannot move that forward in time to long after his fall. It has to be coexistant with his fall.

Note the context is he corrupted the nations and then was cast down. Not cast down and then corrupted nations.

And nations means peoples. What peoples existed at the time of his Fall?

We know there were angels, but the term is plural. This ties with the prophet seeing an ancient earth with all the buildings destroyed.
You took the approach of listing other verses that also use 'laid low' as support for your definition. If I take that approach, like for 'until' and 'after' it suddenly become an approach that just doesn't have any foundation.
Again. The context of 'laid low' is before his Fall. Not after.

You are wanting to take concepts you accept and force Isaiah to agree with them. That is flawed grammatically.

"Laid low' then Fall. Not Fall then 'laid low.'
One other point you made is that the birds are said to be gone and that has never happened up to this point in time. What about prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled, can they apply?

Zep:1:3:
I will consume man and beast;
I will consume the fowls of the heaven,
and the fishes of the sea,
and the stumblingblocks with the wicked;
and I will cut off man from off the land,
saith the LORD.

Doesn't the above state the same thing?
Why go point-by-point?
Because you cannot start from a conclusion and built the facts. You start with the facts and build the conlcusion.
This is such a long post that a few minor points might be more uselull to understanding 'what holes' I find than line by line.
No. You want to evaluate the conlcusion based on your assumptions. I want facts.

Take a point you think is invalid. Show why it is invalid. Don't try to take something you are comfortable with and 'what if' your logic on it and then say point made.
Besides that way I get to post some Scripture. Don't you just love to read passages, second best to quotes from Jesus himself.
No. You want to dodge the points I made, post scriptures you have put your spins on and make declarations.

My verses are parts of the Bible. You HAVE to deal with them for what they say.
Core, you have been a gracious host.
Thanks.

As much as a Heathen as I am (really I could have been on a desert island with just the Bible for all I know), no amount of argument is going to change me.

Only if you are determined not to truly look at the verses by word meaning and grammar.

True, a man who reads based upon foregone conclusions will not change. They only hear what they want to hear.

Keep it plain and simple, post the Scripture that supports your view and that is it. Pages of definitions (from anybody but God's own word)isn't going to impress me to accept a different point of view.

And it doesn't prove a thing inventing your own word definitions for words that had meaning before the Book of the Bible were written. Which the Bible used.

The words used didn't suddenly exist when the Bible was written. They used already known and defined words.
We've been there and done that.
Yep. When one will not use millennial old rules of language, they loose their ability to communicate with others because they have no shared foundation to talk from.

You refuse to use linquistics, therefore we have no common ground.
In the end, the history books were no more specific than the gathering of translations,
Well, God promised to preseve his message. I trust him to do so.
Who IAM is for being one, Lord God Almighty, the dominate authority in the setting of the Great White Throne of the third Heaven, Christ, our Lord sitting at the right hand of God in the second Heaven and us, the dust beneath His feet.
And Christ is 'I AM.' Third Heaven, not second, by the way.
Yes there are 'buildings in Heaven'. The sons of God met there twice in Job alone.
Only the angelic part of the Sons of God, not the human part. Which Satan was not a member of at that time.
Revelations is full of scenes from 'The other parts of the Kingdom of Heaven' (the 3rd & 2nd).
Now you are talking place, not Kingdom. The Third Heaven is not the Kingdom of God, but only where some of it dwells. Some also dwells on the earth already.
They didn't gather in the third Heaven for these meetings, it was in the 2nd one. If our Heavens will fade away then the Holy Angels would seem to be in store for a new home also.
Wherever you got that notion from, it wasn't the Bible.

Second Heaven is outer space.

I have no problem with the sanctaries of the angels being in outer space. I believe they were, in fact.

I believe they were planets created in Gen 1:1, without stars. And were perfect and the universe was full of light.

They were caught in the war in Heaven and destroyed. Outer space does look like the aftermath of a war.

That makes New Heavens and New Earth have perfect sense.

[MHz]

The problem here is that context of him laying low the nations was past tense and part of his fall. You cannot move that forward in time to long after his fall. It has to be coexistant with his fall.

In the flow of those words, the passage starts before Vs:12. Back in Vs:4 it is speaking about when Satan will be bound for the thousand years. Vs:9-11 puts Satan in the pit where those who are slain by the sword at Christ's return are able to see Satan. Vs:12 begins to explain why Satan is in the pit. The fall from Heaven (mentioned first) resulted in the nations being weakened (mentioned as an event that occurred after the fall, but before when he is in the pit). The tower of Babel is covered in Ge:11:1-9. Isaiah:14:13 & 14 describes how the nations were affected by the words in Vs:12. Since Satan (has the desire to ascend above the clouds) that would mean he has already been cast out of Heaven, grounded to the Earth. Other than God calling him to appear in Heaven (like in Job) he is destined to remain on the earth wandering to and fro.


Note the context is he corrupted the nations and then was cast down. Not cast down and then corrupted nations.
When Scripture speaks of the destruction in Vs:17 it is at some point in time prior to being bound in the pit. Satan is certainly going to cause such kind of damage just before the thousand years


And nations means peoples. What peoples existed at the time of his Fall?
Vs: 14 & 15 & 19 would seem to be the people that are slain on Christ's return.

Are you saying there were people (even many) on Earth when Satan was cast down?. When the dragon is cast out of Heaven he takes 1/3 of the stars with him. At what point are the cities built, in relation to Lucifer? Does he help build them?



We know there were angels, but the term is plural. This ties with the prophet seeing an ancient earth with all the buildings destroyed.
From when Satan is released for the trib until the end of the 7th vial what kind of mental image is given via Scripture?
One thing that is said to occur is that all the cities of all the nations will fall. Nor does it seem possible that man nor beasts will be anywhere in the glorious land. If there was not the kind of destruction mentioned in a time yet to come then I would probably agree with you. Since that kind of destruction is going to occur how have you eliminated the future as being when this occurs. In Isaiah:14 there are several references to Satan being in the pit. As of now, he has never been in the pit surrounded by those who have been killed by the sword of Christ.


Again. The context of 'laid low' is before his Fall. Not after.

You are wanting to take concepts you accept and force Isaiah to agree with them. That is flawed grammatically.

"Laid low' then Fall. Not Fall then 'laid low.'
The only response I have is that the tower of Babel does occur after he was with Eve and convinced her to eat the apple. Isaiah also covers time even in our future.
If Scripture gives me an event in which the nations (after the flood) are weakened by the efforts to build something that will be higher than our clouds why should I ignore the similarities? It isn't an effort to force Isaiah to fit with what I believe, it is a result of considering other Scripture that has an explanation of how (and why) nations were made weaker by what occurred in the story of Babel.

Because you cannot start from a conclusion and built the facts. You start with the facts and build the conlcusion.
And if the conclusions are based on events that Scripture describe then there is no need to 'invent things' like any nations existing before they are first mentioned in Scripture and that is after the flood;
Ge:10:5:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands;
every one after his tongue,
after their families,
in their nations.


No. You want to evaluate the conlcusion based on your assumptions. I want facts.
Only if those facts agree with your conclusions. Every Scripture contains fact. What you won't accept is if somebody takes one of your facts and applies it to something else that puts your conclusion in doubt. As a Christian

Take a point you think is invalid. Show why it is invalid. Don't try to take something you are comfortable with and 'what if' your logic on it and then say point made.
The 'what ifs' are a challenge to your points. They aren't an indication of if I have any doubts.


No. You want to dodge the points I made, post scriptures you have put your spins on and make declarations.
I'm not trying to dodge anything, if a few points are covered at a time that makes for shorter posts. That I'm covering points not right next door to each other in your written article is neither here nor there, as long as they all get the attention they deserve.

My verses are parts of the Bible. You HAVE to deal with them for what they say.
If you leave out the part where Satan is in the pit when it talks about cities in ruin you have not taken future events into consideration. Events that are the same as being described but only occur just before he is in the pit.


Only if you are determined not to truly look at the verses by word meaning and grammar.
Along with that you also have to consider all the verses that speak of the subject being explored and that means verses from all 66 books. If a verse doesn't explain everything then another verse (or verses) will fill in the 'blanks'. Once you have found all of them then you can introduce time

True, a man who reads based upon foregone conclusions will not change. They only hear what they want to hear.
We will continue to beileve what we believe in until we learn for ourselves what is to be be believed in is based on the slim chance that more knowledge will will be considered when we consider what we believe in, and that minor changes might be needed at some time.

And it doesn't prove a thing inventing your own word definitions for words that had meaning before the Book of the Bible were written. Which the Bible used.++
That I use how that very word is used in other Scripture,as support, would seem to eliminate that aspect.


Yep. When one will not use millennial old rules of language, they loose their ability to communicate with others because they have no shared foundation to talk from.
At the same time the subject has to be understood by a writer before it can be written about. The OT prophets didn't understand everything they wrote about.

You refuse to use linquistics, therefore we have no common ground.
How much common ground do you have with those who say the rapture is at the second coming, you still have a 7 year trib in common with them?


Well, God promised to preseve his message. I trust him to do so.
It would seem the one meaning has been lost, confirmed by the very fact that there is more than one version about the times to come. An example that various translations do affect the message is that a few say 'all flesh will see the salvation of God', others change that to read that just men will see that salvation. Man is not equal to 'all flesh' according to the Scriptural defination to 'all flesh'.


And Christ is 'I AM.' Third Heaven, not second, by the way.
The setting where the scroll is handed to Christ, is that the 2nd or 3rd Heaven? When Heaven is said to be rolled back 'like a scroll', is that a reference to the 1st or 2nd Heaven(!st being from the POV of being on earth)?



Only the angelic part of the Sons of God, not the human part. Which Satan was not a member of at that time.
It was still an event that was in the 2nd Heaven.

Which one would it have been when Lucifer was anointed guardian?


Now you are talking place, not Kingdom. The Third Heaven is not the Kingdom of God, but only where some of it dwells. Some also dwells on the earth already. Judgment Day takes place in the 3rd Heaven, that is within the Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven is part of the Kingdom of God, and the Earth will 'fully belong to God'


They didn't gather in the third Heaven for these meetings, it was in the 2nd one. If our Heavens will fade away then the Holy Angels would seem to be in store for a new home also.
Wherever you got that notion from, it wasn't the Bible.
You have read about a new Earth, tell me you have never heard of a new Heaven;
Isa:65:17:
For,
behold,
I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered,
nor come into mind.

Isa:66:22:
For as the new heavens and the new earth,
which I will make,
shall remain before me,
saith the LORD,
so shall your seed and your name remain.


Second Heaven is outer space.

I have no problem with the sanctaries of the angels being in outer space. I believe they were, in fact.
Our known universe. God being quite familar to all the stars in heaven, down to haven given each a different name and a different glory. Was our sun given a name before the text that applies to it existing. Our sun did not have to be the first light in either the 2nd Heaven or as been vi sable from earth. Assuming earth got its crust as a result of a cooling those molten rocks could have been the vis able light before our sun was visible (this does not allow for day from night though). Whether there was anyplace that could have supported life, let alone cities and nations, is questionable but not beyond impossible.



I believe they were planets created in Gen 1:1, without stars. And were perfect and the universe was full of light.

They were caught in the war in Heaven and destroyed. Outer space does look like the aftermath of a war.
It also looks like it is said to be in Ch:2 before a mist of water watered the dry land. It might also look that same way in Re:22 when they are on a high mountain and see New Jerusalem;
Re:21:10:
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain,
and shewed me that great city,
the holy Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven from God,


That makes New Heavens and New Earth have perfect sense.
Having them created new is a one time event, still in our future.

PS the next few posts are just catch-ups.

[CoreIssue]

The problem here is that context of him laying low the nations was past tense and part of his fall. You cannot move that forward in time to long after his fall. It has to be coexistant with his fall.
In the flow of those words, the passage starts before Vs:12. Back in Vs:4 it is speaking about when Satan will be bound for the thousand years. Vs:9-11 puts Satan in the pit where those who are slain by the sword at Christ's return are able to see Satan.
All future tense to when Isaiah spoke.
Vs:12 begins to explain why Satan is in the pit.
False.

The tense shifts to past tense to when Isaiah spoke. And he spoke thousands of years ago.
The fall from Heaven (mentioned first) resulted in the nations being weakened (mentioned as an event that occurred after the fall, but before when he is in the pit).
Satan
The tower of Babel is covered in Ge:11:1-9. Isaiah:14:13 & 14 describes how the nations were affected by the words in Vs:12. Since Satan (has the desire to ascend above the clouds) that would mean he has already been cast out of Heaven, grounded to the Earth. Other than God calling him to appear in Heaven (like in Job) he is destined to remain on the earth wandering to and fro.
It says when Satan decided to take God's thrown in a past tense frame. That was before Adam.


Note the context is he corrupted the nations and then was cast down. Not cast down and then corrupted nations.
When Scripture speaks of the destruction in Vs:17 it is at some point in time prior to being bound in the pit. Satan is certainly going to cause such kind of damage just before the thousand years

It was ancient history with Isaiah looking back upon it from his time frame.


And nations means peoples. What peoples existed at the time of his Fall?
Vs: 14 & 15 & 19 would seem to be the people that are slain on Christ's return.

Are you saying there were people (even many) on Earth when Satan was cast down?.

That is what it says. And Isaiah was looking back, not forward.
When the dragon is cast out of Heaven he takes 1/3 of the stars with him.
He took, past tense, not will take, future tense.
At what point are the cities built, in relation to Lucifer? Does he help build them?
They were built between Gen 1:1 and 2. Destroyed in 2.

Of course Satan didn't help build them. Why are you trying to create false premises and actions never spoken of in the Bible?


We know there were angels, but the term is plural. This ties with the prophet seeing an ancient earth with all the buildings destroyed.
From when Satan is released for the trib until the end of the 7th vial what kind of mental image is given via Scripture?

We are talking Isaiah and ancient times, not the Trib.
One thing that is said to occur is that all the cities of all the nations will fall.
Isaiah is talking ancient times long ago accomplished.
Nor does it seem possible that man nor beasts will be anywhere in the glorious land.
Stay on topic. The ancients of Isaiah.
If there was not the kind of destruction mentioned in a time yet to come then I would probably agree with you. Since that kind of destruction is going to occur how have you eliminated the future as being when this occurs.
It says past tense. Your error to keep trying to make them future tense.
In Isaiah:14 there are several references to Satan being in the pit.
And all are future tense.
As of now, he has never been in the pit surrounded by those who have been killed by the sword of Christ.
The dead mentioned are not limited to being killed in the Trib or Second Coming.

An adding to scripture error on your part.


Again. The context of 'laid low' is before his Fall. Not after.

You are wanting to take concepts you accept and force Isaiah to agree with them. That is flawed grammatically.

"Laid low' then Fall. Not Fall then 'laid low.'
The only response I have is that the tower of Babel does occur after he was with Eve and convinced her to eat the apple.

Absolutely no justification for bring in Babel here. Not in the chapter anywhere. And Satan's rebellion was before Adam, not at Babel.
Isaiah also covers time even in our future.
Yes. But he also covers ancient history of before Adam.
If Scripture gives me an event in which the nations (after the flood) are weakened by the efforts to build something that will be higher than our clouds why should I ignore the similarities?
Because Satan rebelled before Adam and the earth is described exactly in the state of Gen 1:2, which you are ignoring.

Never since Adam has there been a time of the earth in that state and lifeless.

It isn't an effort to force Isaiah to fit with what I believe, it is a result of considering other Scripture that has an explanation of how (and why) nations were made weaker by what occurred in the story of Babel.

It is forcing the verses.

Satan rebelled before Adam and he saw the earth in the exact state of Gen 1:2, even using the exact same words.


Because you cannot start from a conclusion and built the facts. You start with the facts and build the conlcusion.
And if the conclusions are based on events that Scripture describe then there is no need to 'invent things' like any nations existing before they are first mentioned in Scripture and that is after the flood;
Ge:10:5:
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands;
every one after his tongue,
after their families,
in their nations.

You ignore Satan rebelled before Adam and Isaiah saying the earth was in the condition of Gen 1:2.


No. You want to evaluate the conlcusion based on your assumptions. I want facts.
Only if those facts agree with your conclusions. Every Scripture contains fact. What you won't accept is if somebody takes one of your facts and applies it to something else that puts your conclusion in doubt. As a Christian

You ignore the facts Isaiah says the earth was in the condition of Gen 1:2 and Satan fell before Adam.


Take a point you think is invalid. Show why it is invalid. Don't try to take something you are comfortable with and 'what if' your logic on it and then say point made.
The 'what ifs' are a challenge to your points. They aren't an indication of if I have any doubts.

And they ignore the hard facts Satan fell before Adam and Isaiah used the exact words of Gen 1:2 to describe a lifeless earth.


No. You want to dodge the points I made, post scriptures you have put your spins on and make declarations.
I'm not trying to dodge anything, if a few points are covered at a time that makes for shorter posts. That I'm covering points not right next door to each other in your written article is neither here nor there, as long as they all get the attention they deserve.

Then pay attention to the facts Satan rebelled before Adam and the earth is lifeless, as in Gen 1:2, a condition that will never exist from Adam until the end of time.


My verses are parts of the Bible. You HAVE to deal with them for what they say.
If you leave out the part where Satan is in the pit when it talks about cities in ruin you have not taken future events into consideration. Events that are the same as being described but only occur just before he is in the pit.

I have left out nothing. I recognize future verse past tense statements.

You ignore when Satan fell and the Gen 1:2 condition of the earth.


Only if you are determined not to truly look at the verses by word meaning and grammar.
Along with that you also have to consider all the verses that speak of the subject being explored and that means verses from all 66 books. If a verse doesn't explain everything then another verse (or verses) will fill in the 'blanks'. Once you have found all of them then you can introduce time

Satan fell before Adam and the earth is in the state of Gen 1:2. Facts you ignore.


True, a man who reads based upon foregone conclusions will not change. They only hear what they want to hear.
We will continue to beileve what we believe in until we learn for ourselves what is to be be believed in is based on the slim chance that more knowledge will will be considered when we consider what we believe in, and that minor changes might be needed at some time.

There is knowledge in Isaiah 14 you ignore.


And it doesn't prove a thing inventing your own word definitions for words that had meaning before the Book of the Bible were written. Which the Bible used.++
That I use how that very word is used in other Scripture,as support, would seem to eliminate that aspect.

False.


Yep. When one will not use millennial old rules of language, they loose their ability to communicate with others because they have no shared foundation to talk from.
At the same time the subject has to be understood by a writer before it can be written about. The OT prophets didn't understand everything they wrote about.

Rules of language remain true.


You refuse to use linquistics, therefore we have no common ground.
How much common ground do you have with those who say the rapture is at the second coming, you still have a 7 year trib in common with them?

Diversion. They commit the same error you do in different ways.


Well, God promised to preseve his message. I trust him to do so.
It would seem the one meaning has been lost, confirmed by the very fact that there is more than one version about the times to come. An example that various translations do affect the message is that a few say 'all flesh will see the salvation of God', others change that to read that just men will see that salvation. Man is not equal to 'all flesh' according to the Scriptural defination to 'all flesh'.

Again you violate grammar.


And Christ is 'I AM.' Third Heaven, not second, by the way.
The setting where the scroll is handed to Christ, is that the 2nd or 3rd Heaven? When Heaven is said to be rolled back 'like a scroll', is that a reference to the 1st or 2nd Heaven(!st being from the POV of being on earth)?

Christ speaks from the 3rd and the 2nd rolls up as earth views from the 1st.


Only the angelic part of the Sons of God, not the human part. Which Satan was not a member of at that time.
It was still an event that was in the 2nd Heaven.

3rd Heaven.
Which one would it have been when Lucifer was anointed guardian?
3rd.


Now you are talking place, not Kingdom. The Third Heaven is not the Kingdom of God, but only where some of it dwells. Some also dwells on the earth already. Judgment Day takes place in the 3rd Heaven, that is within the Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven is part of the Kingdom of God, and the Earth will 'fully belong to God'

Don't even want to go into where your thinking is coming from on that one.


They didn't gather in the third Heaven for these meetings, it was in the 2nd one. If our Heavens will fade away then the Holy Angels would seem to be in store for a new home also.
Wherever you got that notion from, it wasn't the Bible.
You have read about a new Earth, tell me you have never heard of a new Heaven;
Isa:65:17:
For,
behold,
I create new heavens and a new earth:
and the former shall not be remembered,
nor come into mind.

Isa:66:22:
For as the new heavens and the new earth,
which I will make,
shall remain before me,
saith the LORD,
so shall your seed and your name remain.

Don't want to go into a new disagreement.


Second Heaven is outer space.

I have no problem with the sanctaries of the angels being in outer space. I believe they were, in fact.
Our known universe. God being quite familar to all the stars in heaven, down to haven given each a different name and a different glory. Was our sun given a name before the text that applies to it existing. Our sun did not have to be the first light in either the 2nd Heaven or as been vi sable from earth. Assuming earth got its crust as a result of a cooling those molten rocks could have been the vis able light before our sun was visible (this does not allow for day from night though). Whether there was anyplace that could have supported life, let alone cities and nations, is questionable but not beyond impossible.


No such thing as evolution in the Bible.

Nor your frame of creation.


I believe they were planets created in Gen 1:1, without stars. And were perfect and the universe was full of light.

They were caught in the war in Heaven and destroyed. Outer space does look like the aftermath of a war.
It also looks like it is said to be in Ch:2 before a mist of water watered the dry land. It might also look that same way in Re:22 when they are on a high mountain and see New Jerusalem;
Re:21:10:
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain,
and shewed me that great city,
the holy Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven from God,

Got a feeling you are seeing these issues from a totally different location and other perspectives than the rest of us.

Won't go there for now.


That makes New Heavens and New Earth have perfect sense.
Having them created new is a one time event, still in our future.

Which has no impact on what I said.

Renewing this earth and later destroying it and creating a totally new one are two different issues.