A Gap Theory of Creation.

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Glark, Oct 14, 2017.

  1. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God
    The sad part is, I think deep down we come to these forums just to validate our own wisdom sometimes. I know I have been guilty of this, and will be again. I have also been proven wrong several times on other forums like this one. All in all, I think I have grown in my knowledge faith more because of forums like this than in church. It is my experience that church leaders very much dislike it when one of their congregants is able to debate them on any given topic...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God
    If we reason this out logically you will see that Adam and Eve do not need to be mentioned at all or this to be the case. Notice also that I said that it does not give the actual time and that the language used strongly indicates that they are separate events.

    First note how the passage says all the sons of God shouted for Joy. From this we know that Satan had to have been included in this. This means that we know for sure that it is a reference to a time before his fall, and we know the fall happened sometime after Adam was placed in the garden and Eve was created. To add further, we know it had to be after Day four of creation as that is when God created the sun, moon, and stars. Remember, the whole story of Job is based on a competition between God and Satan to begin with. Logically the only place it fits is during the time when man was in the Garden before the fall of Satan. As you pointed out in another post, if the earth is only 6000 years old, Satan had to rebel very quickly. And I would add that if the earth is only 6000 years old, Adam and Eve had to have rebelled very quickly as well...
     
  3. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God
    God was a bit more specific than "every living thing of all flesh" he said specifically said male and female of every bird after its kind, every cattle after its kind, and every creeping thing after its kind.

    Now the question still remains as to exactly how far genetically a kind reaches, but I do know that it does not mean every specie.
     
  4. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    Agree.

    We do not know that from scripture. We have to assume your theory is right to get that. They started shouting for joy when God laid the foundations of the earth that could have been well before Adam was placed in the Garden. I am not ready to separate verse 7 from verse 6 in Job 38.


    You also forget I am contending an unknown period of time between Gen 1:2 &3. What you propose here is based on your theory not mine.
     
  5. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    Still waiting for your explanation of where dinosaurs fit into Genesis 1. No mention of creatures that big seems like a stretch. Did they all live and die before the flood? We know the dimensions of the ark, hard to see them fit in with enough food. How do we solve all of the problems?
     
  6. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God


    I’m not sure if you separated my response and left off the reason on purpose; or, that you read up to that point and stopped reading. As I said already, we know that the shouting for joy had to have been after the stars were created because the shouting was when the stars sang/made noise. The stars couldn’t have sang/made noise until after they were created, could they? Furthermore, as to the fall of Satan, it was only after Adam and Eve were already in the garden that Satan appears on earth to tempt Eve. His appearance on earth is directly related to his fall from heaven.


    I have not forgotten, the context of Job 38:7 clearly places the shouting at the time of or after the creation of the stars, not before; making any time before that irrelevant to the context of Job 38:7.
     
  7. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    #39 TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
    I am not sure what the time of the creation of the sun moon and stars have do with any of this. Heaven could exist without any of those. Do you take “morning stars” in Job to be literal shinning stars in the universe? Literal stars do not sing together. “Stars” is used to speak of angels elsewhere in scripture just like “sons of God” is used to speak of angels in the OT.

    If we say “X” has to be such and such because of ” Y” and we are not speaking the same language we will come up short in understanding what each other is talking about.

    You use your theory to arrive at the statement “ His appearance on earth is directly related to his fall from heaven” that only has to be true in your theory not mine.

    In my scenario satan could have fell a million years ago. I know you disagree, but with the scripture we have, either one of us is going have a challenge proving the time of satans fall.

    Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    Maybe one of those morning stars???
     
  8. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God
    First, I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. There will be times that I cannot get on for several days because of my schedule. That being said, I will now respond to your post.

    "Stars" is used to speak of angels elsewhere in the scriptures, but more often "stars" is meant literally when used in conjunction with angels. Furthermore, there are several examples where the literal heavens and stars are being personified. Look at Psalm 19:1; and 148:1-3 as a couple of examples. Also notice how the questions being asked here in particular seem to answer Job's lament in chapter 3. Especially when you take the context of Job 38:9 with it.

    After this, Job opened his mouth, and cursed his day. (2) And Job spoke saying, "Let the day that I was born be lost, and the night in which it was said, 'There is a man child conceived.' (3) Let that day be darkness; do not let God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. (4) Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; Let the cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. ~ Job 3:1-4

    When I made the cloud its vesture, and darkness the covering for it. ~ Job 38:9



    I actually use scripture to arrive at that statement.

    You were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. (16) By the greatness of your trade you were filled with violence to the core, and you have sinned. Therefore, I cast you, defiled, from the height of God: and you will be lost, O covering cherub, in the midst of the fiery stones. (17) Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty, you have corrupted your wisdom by reason of your brightness: I cast you to the ground. I will put you before kings, that they may see you. ~ Ezekiel 28:15-17.


    How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who weakens the nations. ~ Isaiah 14:12

    As I said, His appearance on earth is directly related to his fall from heaven. Also notice how Ezekiel 28:1 clearly indicates that Satan was created sometime after the creation day was established, because he was perfect in all his ways from the day he was created. Many would use this as proof of the angels' creation on day one, but I contend that, if it is taken in conjunction with Job 38:7, where the stars are mentioned in parallel with the angels, it is highly reasonable that they were created on day four.


    His fall could very well have been millions of years ago, I cannot know how big of a gap there was between Adam and Eve being in the garden of Eden and their expulsion. However, I think I have ample evidence to place his fall between day four of creation and the temptation of Eve.

    Son of the morning, son of the dawn, son of light... you can pick your translation. The only thing we know for sure is that he was included with "sons of God" in Job 38:7.
     
  9. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer
    #41 TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith, Feb 13, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
    I understand your reasoning here and see how you use these passages to support your position, but IMHO these verses are a long way from “proving” the stars that sang together in Job are not angels.



    This is not a possible scenario. Genesis 5:5 tells us all the days of Adam were 930 years.



    Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, (8414) and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, (8414) he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

    Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, (8414) and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

    The Bolden words are all the same Hebrew word “tohuw”.

    Genesis 1:1 says God created the heaven and the earth verse 2 says it was without form and void. God could not have created it that way it must have “become” that way some undetermined time after creation because Isaiah says it was not created that way.

    This is one important evidence of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2.


    2 Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

    5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

    7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    Many take verse 6 to be the flood in Noah’s day. Verse 6 says the world that then was “perished”. That was not the case in Noah’s day all life was wiped out save Noah and all that were on the ark but the world did not perish. A world that perished could look like the one in Genesis 1:2. The heavens were unaffected by the flood in Noah’s time. “The heavens and the earth which are now” IMHO places the destruction of verse 6 before Noah’s time and goes back to Genesis 1:1.

    This is more evidence of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2.


    Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

    13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

    14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

    15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

    How could satan have been cast out of heaven at or near the time of Adam and Eve being place in the garden. His fall was directly related to weakening the nations. There were no nations when he tempted Eve. He must have already been on the earth perhaps the “world that then was” when he decide to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne and be like the most high. All of this could not take place within the time between day 1 and the temptation of Eve.

    Just one more evidence for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 2.

    We have both made our cases, many believe as I do and many believe as you do. I do not see anything you have presented that “proves” conclusively what I have proposed is impossible. Likewise you do not believe I have made my case. Let the readers of this forum come to their own conclusions. You are a formidable debater. God Bless you my friend.

     
  10. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God
    I am glad that you brought this up. Lets take a look at the context and I will attempt to show you how this is very possible (though I do not believe it to be millions of years).

    And Adam lived (H2421) a hundred and thirty years and fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth: (4) and the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years: and he fathered sons and daughters: (5)and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. ~Genesis 5:3-5

    What I would like to draw your attention to is the word lived in Genesis 5:3. This is the first time this root word is used, and it is always used in a sense of allowing someone to live, being saved alive, or being kept alive. (See: Genesis 6:19-20; 7:3; 12:12-13; 19:19-20; 42:2; 43:8; 45:7; 47:19; 50:20; Numbers 4:19; 22:33; 31:15; Joshua 6:25; 2 Samuel 8:2; 1 Kings 18:5... Just to mention a few) So back in Genesis chapter two we are told that man became a living soul, but it was only after the fall that Adam was said to be allowed to live. Remember, death would only come after they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is perfectly reasonable to say that it wasn't until after the fall that Adam began to age, because it was only after the fall that we see that the days of Adam were being numbered, and then only the days that Adam was allowed to live after the fall were being numbered.

    Notice also how the son that Adam had after being allowed to live one hundred and thirty years is said to be in his likeness, and after his image. Now this is only speculation, but given that Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28), that after the fall Adam named his wife "Eve" because she was the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20), that God told Eve that he would greatly increase the pain during child birth, which suggest that she was already familiar with labor (Genesis 3:16), and that, being already the mother of all living, Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Eternal One, which suggest she may have gotten something besides a man (immortal beings perhaps) before Cain (Genesis 4:1). I believe that there is a good case to say that there was enough time before the fall for another race (perhaps the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:3 were the immortal offspring of Adam and Eve from before the fall, before death was passed on to every man because of sin) to fill the earth as God had commanded. If eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the first sin, we must assume that the command to be fruitful and multiply was not being violated.



    First, we already went over Jeremiah 4:23, and I showed how this about a prophetic future, and not about creation.



    They are indeed the same Hebrew word, but in the case of Isaiah 45:18 it is used adverbially in the original Hebrew. This is why it is translated as "vain" instead of void. It should be understood as "he did not vainly create it, he formed it to be inhabited." notice how it was formed (not created) to be inhabited, and its formation was during the 6 days of creation. This gives credence to a gap between Genesis 2:25 and 3:1.


    There are a couple of counterpoints to make here. The first being that the world in Noah's day certainly did "perish," or more literally translated was "lost". If your house caught on fire and burned to the ground, but you and your family escaped, does that mean your house did not perish (or was not lost)? The same concept is being used here by Peter.

    My second counterpoint is that the heavens certainly were affected by the flood in Noah's time.

    In the sixth hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, that same day all the fountains of the deep broke up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    Peter is describing an age when there would be people who do not believe that Noah's flood even occurred, and I see this all the time in this current age.



    I believe Satan's fall was in the gap between Adam and Eve being placed in the Garden of Eden and the fall. The original Hebrew in Isaiah 14:12 doesn't directly relate Satan's fall to weakening the nations. The original Hebrew simply calls him someone who weakens the nations. For the sake of argument, lets say that you are correct and there is a direct correlation between the two. Even still, as I pointed out above, it could be referring to those that Adam and Eve could have brought forth before the fall. It would also explain where Cain got his wife, besides "it was his sister." Again, this part is purely speculation, but certainly a rational possibility.

    Just one more evidence for a gap between Genesis 2:25 and 3:1.

    Many believe as you do for sure, but I have found few who believe as I do (gap between Genesis 2:25 and 3:1) I have much more evidence to provide for my case, but I believe this is enough until such a time that more evidence is needed. I cannot claim that what you propose is impossible, but I do feel that I have provided evidence enough to prove that it is not the most rational theory, nor is it the most compatible with all provided scripture; but as you said, "Let the readers of this forum come to their own conclusions."

    You are surely one of the top debaters that I have come across in a very long time. I have enjoyed our conversations and hope to continue with others in the future. It is not often I find someone who can debate without turning to the deceptive tactics of attacking the other opponent's character and other such logical flaws. God Bless you as well.
     
  11. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer

    Couldn’t resist this one. Interesting “theory” one I have not heard. My only response would be the text of Genesis 5:5 . “ALL the days that Adam lived”. As we found out a few years ago the definition of “is” can be brought into question so I guess we can rightfully question the definition of “all”. Remember the counting of days did start on the first day not the day they ate the fruit. I am not quite ready to agree with the idea Adam only began to live the day he began to die by eating the fruit. Any way it is a pleasure debating with you as well.
     
  12. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God
    If that would be your only response, consider that I already pointed out above that the original Hebrew gives the idea of being allowed to live. Adam certainly did not begin to live the day he began to die, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that it strongly suggests that the day he sinned is the day God began to allow him to continue to live. The whole context is with verse three. If we give it a more literal translation it would be:

    And Adam, being allowed to live (H2421) a hundred and thirty years, fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name, Seth: (4) and the days of Adam after he fathered Seth were eight hundred years: and he fathered sons and daughters. (5) And all the days that Adam was allowed to live (H2425, past form of H2421) were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. ~Genesis 5:3-5

    Notice the difference between the days of Adam and everyone else after him. With Adam it was "all the days that Adam was allowed to live"; whereas, with everyone after him it was "all the days of _____ were." (Genesis 5:8; 5:11; 5:14; 5:17; 5:20; 5:23; 5:27; 5:31; 9:29; 11:32; 35:28) I find this difference very interesting. Given the Hebrew writing style, it is strange that it specifically says "all the days that Adam was allowed to live" and that it is unique to all the days Adam lived, unless it was different and unique to Adam for a purpose. I believe this is extremely good evidence that the time Adam spent in the Garden (however long it was) was not counted toward Adam's final age. The days that Adam lived in the garden would not have counted because, at that time, there was no death for the days to count toward. This is made clear when God told Adam "in the *day* that you eat thereof you will surely die." (Genesis 2:7) This is God telling Adam that it is when he eats of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that his days will be numbered.

    *NOTE* Because this sentence lacks the qualifying phrase "evening and morning" it is understood to be "in the age that you eat thereof you will surely die."
     
  13. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer

    Sorry my friend I have looked into the word study you have proposed and come to a different conclusion.

    The word translated “lived” from the Hebrew (2425) is used only 5 times in the OT.

    Genesis 5:5, Genesis 11:12, Genesis 11:14, Genesis 25:7 and Numbers 21:9

    2425 is also translated “live” 12 times

    Gen. 3:22, Ex 1:16, Ex 33:20, Lev 18:5, Num 21:8, De 4:42, De 19:4, Jer 38:2, Ezk 18:3, Ezk 18:24, Ezk 20:11, Ezk 47:9

    While you correctly pointed out the word relationship between 2425 and 2421 all of the examples in your list were 2421 not 2425 as in Genesis 5:5.

    It is my contention that in your list (post #42), all are(2421,) the wording and context sometimes can allow for the definition you write of “allowing someone to live, being saved alive, or being kept alive” but for the word (2425) that is not the case and IMHO would be a stretch to impose that definition on those texts that use (2425).

    Genesis 7:3, Genesis 12:12-13, Genesis 19:19-20 are just a few from your list in which the other wording and context allow for your definition. Not every use of (2421) is as clear.

    I don’t believe you have made the case from the Hebrew to impose “allowed to live” on Genesis 5:5
     
  14. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer

    You can make that assumption, but I believe God was not speaking of physical death but spiritual death (separation) from God and Adams immortal state.

    Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

    Yes it is true Adams days were numbered but he died spiritually the day he ate the fruit, I am not sure we can argue either or. Both are true.
     
  15. TheWordSmith is a Verified MemberTheWordSmith Well-Known Member
    TheWordSmith

    Member

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Theology:
    Bible Believer

    That would be complete speculation. It was after the fall we have the first mention of the birth of a child Genesis 4:1. As for the theory on the “sons of God” I am one of those who believe they were fallen angels. Another topic, another thread can be started if interested. Not for the faint of heart. :wink:
     
  16. Kenneth Mason Member
    Kenneth Mason

    Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Theology:
    Child of God
    Lets stop here for a second. I believe there is a little misunderstanding going on here.

    First, the list I gave was to show that H2425 was unique to Adam in Genesis 5:5, and that none in the list said "all the days that _______ (H2425) were", but rather H2425 is omitted and that it is not a coincidence that it was omitted.

    Second, it seems that you forget an important universal rule of translation and grammar. This rule states that no word can have more force (a different meaning) than that of its root. Because H2421 is the root of H2425 it will always carry with it the meaning of the root from which it came. Too often I have found this rule violated even within the same sentence in the same context, though it is most often in the NT. Now that I got that little rant out, lets look at the other 14 verses (we already looked at Genesis 5:5) in which H2425 is found and replace it with the root meaning "allowed to live/kept alive" and see if it changes the meaning of any of the verses.

    And the Eternal God said, "Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil: and now, to avoid the risk of him reaching out his hand and also take from the tree of life, and eat, and be kept alive (H2425) continually. ~Genesis 3:22

    And Arphaxad was allowed to live (H2425) thirty-five years and fathered Salah. ~Genesis 11:12

    Before moving on to the next verse, I would like to point out that H2421 is used in the same way, and in the same context in the verse before and the verse after twelve. This shows exactly what I said, and also that the two words are interchangeable. This exact exchange is going on again in verse fourteen.

    And Selah was allowed to live (H2425) thirty years, and fathered Eber. ~Genesis 11:14

    And he (pharaoh) said, "When you see upon the stools, as you help the Hebrew women deliver children, if it is a son, tit will be killed; but, if it is a daughter, it will be allowed to live
    (H2425).
    "​
    ~Exodus 1:16


    And he (God) said, "You cannot see my face: for no man can see it and be allowed to live
    (H2425)
    ." ~Exodus 33:20


    Therefore you will keep my ordinance and my judgments: which, if a man does, he will be kept alive
    (H2425)
    in them: I am the Eternal One. ~Leviticus 18:5


    And the Eternal One said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole: and it will come to pass, that all who are bitten, when he looks upon it, will be allowed to live
    (H2425)
    ." And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it on a pole. And it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he was allowed to live
    (H2425).
    ~Numbers 21:8-9


    That the killer, who accidentally killed his neighbor, and did not hate him in times past, might flee there; and fleeing into one of these cities he might be allowed to live
    (H2425)
    . ~Deuteronomy 4:42


    And you said, "Behold, our Eternal God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God talks with, and he (man) was allowed to live
    (H2425)
    ." ~Deuteronomy 5:24


    And this is the case of the killer which will flee there, that he my be allowed to live
    (H2425)
    . Whoever kills his neighbor, whom he did not hate in times past, without knowledge: as when a man goes into the woods with his neighbor to cut wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with an axe to cut down the tree and the head slips from the tree and falls on his neighbor, that he dies, he will flee to one of those cities and be allowed to live
    (H2425).
    ~Deuteronomy 19:4-5


    And I (Nehemiah) said, "Should such a man as I flee? And who is there that, being as I, would go into the temple to be kept alive? I will not go in. ~ Nehemiah 6:11

    Thus says the Eternal One, "He that remains in this city will die by the sword, famine, and pestilence. But he that goes forth to the Chaldeans will be allowed to live
    (H2421)
    , and his life will become spoils, and he will be kept alive
    (H2425)​
    ." ~Jeremiah 38:2


    As you can see, translating "H2425" into its root meaning does not change the meaning of the text from which it was taken. If anything, it enhances the text in most cases.

    My list in post #42 was meant to be all (H2421) in that I was establishing the primary, root meaning of "H2421." Furthermore, it is my contention that, any time you find H2421 or H2425, you can translate it as allowed to live/kept alive/saved alive and never change the original meaning of the text. Because I do not have the time, and because I have already taken the time to do it for H2425, I will not go through every time H2421 comes up. I believe I have sufficiently proved that the primary, root meaning of the word does not need to be imposed on any verse in which it is used.

    In this case it does not matter if you believe it or not. "Veritas Veritate," and your disbelief cannot change that. Since the "fall of man" there is not a single person who does not draw breath without being allowed to do so by the Eternal One, and that is the primary concept that is being conveyed by H2421 and all of its forms.
     

Share This Page