I've been here before and I've learnt  when people begin circumventing and contradicting their doctrines/beliefs/teaching in a bid not to answer your query then its safe not to expect any tangible answers from them.

I do not think I have contradicted my belief system so I guess you can still expect tangible answers from me.

@ all
the bible is no science textbook,it purpose is >>4 our learning
>>d powa of God to salvation(shows way of salvatn) and oda biblically stated purpose.
If u want indepth explanatn to human existence consult ur science,anthropology,philosophy textbk.howeva hav it at d back of ur mind dat d bible supercedes any science tkbk,any in oppositn to it is blasphameous and callin God a liar. It take faith to do this. WITHOUT FAITH NO MAN CAN PLEASE GOD(Heb 11)

When you start waiting for me to reveal my circumstances, challenges, problems etc  then you can tailor your "truth" to meet my needs, I think that is plain wrong and you're merely taking advantage of my "poor" situation. This is not feasible because as soon as I see another version of "Truth" that better meets my selfish needs I scamper. This is what we see in churches and different faiths today.

I think the whole point of the discussion is to explain something you don't understand to you.

I am not asking you to elucidate your selfish needs, I am asking you to elucidate the questions that arose from the reality of your selfish needs.

Answering the questions is not the same thing as meeting your selfish needs.

I am not a pastor, neither am I telling you to attend any particular denomination so I guess there is no ocassion for ulterior motives here.

the bible is no science textbook,it purpose is >>4 our learning
>>d powa of God to salvation(shows way of salvatn) and oda biblically stated purpose.
If u want indepth explanatn to human existence consult your science,anthropology,philosophy textbk.howeva hav it at d back of your mind dat d bible supercedes any science tkbk,any in oppositn to it is blasphameous and callin God a liar. It take faith to do this. WITHOUT FAITH NO MAN CAN PLEASE GOD(Heb 11)

I have one question for you:
Would you think the way you do if you were born to communist parents in russia during the cold war.
Communists generally do not believe in the notion of God at all.
or better still, what would you do if you were born to hindu parents in india?

the bible is no science textbook,it purpose is >>4 our learning
>>d powa of God to salvation(shows way of salvatn) and oda biblically stated purpose.
If u want indepth explanatn to human existence consult your science,anthropology,philosophy textbk.howeva hav it at d back of your mind dat d bible supercedes any science tkbk,any in oppositn to it is blasphameous and callin God a liar. It take faith to do this. WITHOUT FAITH NO MAN CAN PLEASE GOD(Heb 11)

Do you honestly expect someone who has not read the bible and who has not been exposed to Christianity to simply believe that the bible supercedes science textbooks?

Ok, suppose I told you that the Qu'ran supercedes any science textbook and any opposition to it is blasphemous and calling God a liar would you believe it unconditionally?

Mr Logic1 sorry but I'm not going to ask you again.
The question I have asked you SEVERALLY is plain simple that even a 3 year old will understand what i'm saying.

You want me to present you my notions/beliefs so you can beat them down and climb up at the expense of the weaknesses of whatever beliefs I may have. How sad. All religions do this.

Funny thing is when you leave them to climb up on their own and they seem not to know where to start. Lol

if your "Truth" cannot stand on its own then i'm sorry to say its total rubbish.

Anyone else willing to take an intellectual stab at the VERY SIMPlE question?

Why should I accept the Christian God as the "True" God and disregard others? Why should I believe you?

You want me to present you my notions/beliefs so you can beat them down and climb up at the expense of the weaknesses of whatever beliefs I may have. How sad. All religions do this.

I do not intend to beat your beliefs down. I merely seek to answer whatever questions you have as realistically as I can.

If you think your beliefs have fundamental weaknesses then the question is why you still believe what you believe.

Why should I accept the Christian God as the "True" God and disregard others? Why should I believe you?

I have told you why I accepted Christianity.
When I did that you replied and said everyone can give you the same answer. What stops you from saying the same thing about any other thing I say?

I may not be able to give you satisfactory answers on why YOU should accept Christianity if I don't know anything about the questions that you really need to be answered in your life.

You cannot accept truth objectively. you can only accept it subjectively.

Why should I believe you?

The only way you can believe someone is if you experience what the person is saying.
for example you will not really believe a stranger if he/she told you that his father owns an aeroplane except you see something that YOU consider to be a representation of ownership

So you see the stranger can only prove ownership by your definition of ownership not by his/hers.

The same way I can only prove that Christianity is the right way by your own definition of what the right way should be.

Step 1: I would like to determine what your definition of what the right way should be is
Step 2: Examine whether those definitions of yours are consistent
Step 3: Prove to you that Christianity meets those definitions if the definitions are consistent with themselves

I have spelt out the entire process. Do you suspect any foul play?

logic1:

I do not intend to beat your beliefs down. I merely seek to answer whatever questions you have as realistically as I can.

If you think your beliefs have fundamental weaknesses then the question is why you still believe what you believe.

Sorry, my questions arent about my beliefs but why I should believe you. My belief is irrelevant here. Circular reasoning again lol

logic1:

I have told you why I accepted Christianity.
When I did that you replied and said everyone can give you the same answer. What stops you from saying the same thing about any other thing I say?

I may not be able to give you satisfactory answers on why YOU should accept Christianity if I don't know anything about the questions that you really need to be answered in your life.

You cannot accept truth objectively. you can only accept it subjectively.

I'm sorry but DID I LIE? Do most religions not have an answer to the "4 fundamental questions of life" as you call it?
Funny how you didn't refute that but here you are crying foul.

Again I have to say sorry but any ultimate truth is objective irrespective of subjectivity.
Moses may be blind thus cannot see the moon, james may be in sudan and cant see the full moon but that doesnt change the ultimate truth there is a moon circling the sky bro.

logic1:

The only way you can believe someone is if you experience what the person is saying.
for example you will not really believe a stranger if he/she told you that his father owns an aeroplane except you see something that YOU consider to be a representation of ownership

So you see the stranger can only prove ownership by your definition of ownership not by his/hers.

The same way I can only prove that Christianity is the right way by your own definition of what the right way should be.

Step 1: I would like to determine what your definition of what the right way should be is
Step 2: Examine whether those definitions of yours are consistent
Step 3: Prove to you that Christianity meets those definitions if the definitions are consistent with themselves

I have spelt out the entire process. Do you suspect any foul play?

Excuse me, but if I knew what the "right way" is supposed to be, I wouldn't be here asking you questions.

I'm sorry but DID I LIE? Do most religions not have an answer to the "4 fundamental questions of life" as you call it?
Funny how you didn't refute that but here you are crying foul.

I don't think most religions have satisfactory answers to the 4 fundamental questions I raised.
I don't intend to go into a lengthy discourse on how each religion does not answer the four fundamental questions I raised. I probably would not be able to go over all the religions as I don't even know all the religions that there are in the world.

Again I have to say sorry but any ultimate truth is objective irrespective of subjectivity.
Moses may be blind thus cannot see the moon, james may be in sudan and cant see the full moon but that doesnt change the ultimate truth there is a moon circling the sky bro.

Yes it doesn't change the truth but how do you go about proving that there is a moon in the sky to a blind man.

If you can give me a method to do that then I will try to use the same method to prove that Christianity is the right way to you.

Excuse me, but if I knew what the "right way" is supposed to be, I wouldn't be here asking you questions.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean you should know what the right way is but that you should know the questions that the right way has to answer to be the right way.

I hope you understand now.

logic1:

I don't think most religions have satisfactory answers to the 4 fundamental questions I raised.
I don't intend to go into a lengthy discourse on how each religion does not answer the four fundamental questions I raised. I probably would not be able to go over all the religions as I don't even know all the religions that there are in the world.

really? You dont know all religions in the world then somehow you are certain christianity has the best answers? Oh my this is hilarious.

You dont think most religions have the "satisfactory" answers lol. Really? I know quite a number of their respective adherents who find the answers "satisfactory" lol.

It all gets murky when you begin to add "subjectivity" into it, doesnt it friend?

logic1:

Yes it doesn't change the truth but how do you go about proving that there is a moon in the sky to a blind man.

If you can give me a method to do that then I will try to use the same method to prove that Christianity is the right way to you.

Hmm lets see. Of all the millions of ways let me think of a futuristic way.
Well the blind dude has a problem with his eyes, you bypass the eyes and beam the optic rays directly to his optical cortex using the artificial eyes. Simple (at least not yet).

logic1:



I'm sorry, I didn't mean you should know what the right way is but that you should know the questions that the right way has to answer to be the right way.

I hope you understand now.

I already gave you the questions.
Why should I follow your GOd and disregard others? Why should I believe you.

The "right way" should at least answer these basic simple questions.

logic1:

Yes it doesn't change the truth but how do you go about proving that there is a moon in the sky to a blind man.

If you can give me a method to do that then I will try to use the same method to prove that Christianity is the right way to you.

Let us assume that the blind man has had a standard education and so know about geography and astronomy and also is capable of making inferences. I would take him a riverside, or seaside and let him stand there. in a few hours he will feel that the river is rising and rising. and then afterwards he will feel that it is ebbing away again. He will notice that there is a rhythm to the rising and falling of the river. he will recognise these as the tides. I could take him around the world repeating the experiment for him to realise that the tides is a global phenomenon.

Then I will suggest to him that the only way that all the waters of the world could be pulled so is due to the gravitational effects of another massive body above the earth. I will then make calculations that will demonstrate to him that the rhythm of the tides fits in perfectly with the manner of movement of two massive bodies above the earth, namely the Sun and the Moon. He will definitely agree with me that the existence of a moon is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon of the tides.

Can you now please explain to baboon yansh how your christianity is plausibly true, and not only so but the only true religion.

really? You dont know all religions in the world then somehow you are certain christianity has the best answers? Oh my this is hilarious.

The probability of anyone knowing all the religions in the world is extremely slim. Does that mean that no one should believe anything?

In mathematics we have what is known as an asymptote and I believe this is a clearly an asymptotic situation.

I have looked at Islam, Communism, Atheism, Deism and Pantheism which account (together with Christianity) for about 90% of the world's population.
I think it is enough to take a stand. Don't you think so?

I also intend to keep studying and asking questions. That's one of the purposes of this thread.

Standing behind a shroud of mystery and hurling insults is not a sign of one who is truly seeking knowlege.

Let us assume that the blind man has had a standard education and so know about geography and astronomy and also is capable of making inferences. I would take him a riverside, or seaside and let him stand there. in a few hours he will feel that the river is rising and rising. and then afterwards he will feel that it is ebbing away again. He will notice that there is a rhythm to the rising and falling of the river. he will recognise these as the tides. I could take him around the world repeating the experiment for him to realise that the tides is a global phenomenon

Ok let's say baboonYansh is the blind man.
What I have been asking from baboonYansh is for him to tell me what he knows because I don't know if he knows Geography and astronomy or if he is a carpenter or a meat seller.

If he tells me he knows Geography and Astronomy then I can start.

BaboonYansh, I sincerely hope you can give me a head start.

You dont think most religions have the "satisfactory" answers lol. Really? I know quite a number of their respective adherents who find the answers "satisfactory" lol.

Many Christians find Christianity satisfactory because they have never questioned it. Is that sufficient for you?

I already gave you the questions.
Why should I follow your GOd and disregard others? Why should I believe you.

The "right way" should at least answer these basic simple questions.

Those are the original questions baboonYansh.
It's like you are saying the only way I can believe that your display name is baboonYansh is if your display name is baboonYansh

Now who is being cyclical?

Hmm lets see. Of all the millions of ways let me think of a futuristic way.
Well the blind dude has a problem with his eyes, you bypass the eyes and beam the optic rays directly to his optical cortex using the artificial eyes. Simple (at least not yet).

Also realise that I don't have access to the blind man in question here because he is hiding behind a shroud of mystery.

If the blind man comes out and I can see him then I will have a shot at beaming the optic rays directly into his optical cortex.

logic1:

The probability of anyone knowing all the religions in the world is extremely slim. Does that mean that no one should believe anything?

In mathematics we have what is known as an asymptote and I believe this is a clearly an asymptotic situation.

I have looked at Islam, Communism, Atheism, Deism and Pantheism which account (together with Christianity) for about 90% of the world's population.
I think it is enough to take a stand. Don't you think so?

I also intend to keep studying and asking questions. That's one of the purposes of this thread.


Standing behind a shroud of mystery and hurling insults is not a sign of one who is truly seeking knowlege.

I really hope the "hurling insults" jab was not directed at me coz I struggle to see where I insulted you. Or is it your new tactic, play "Victim"?

I'm sorry but woldviews you mentioned above are not up to 50% of the various worldviews out there. Even if it where 90% that is not enough to take a stand and call your views the "truth". What stops the truth from being amongst the 10% you have left to peruse?

Look Mr Logic, Its obvious you're bent on wasting my time. You have NO answers. I have admitted ignorance and told you I Know NOTHING about God you decide to argue with me and claim I indeed know but being mysterious.
So coz I know NOTHING about God, I cant have access to the truth? Lol

This world is something else. You claim to know, the say you are ignorant. You admit Ignorance they say you are "mysterious". What again?

i can still keep asking you the same question from now till next millenium your hands will still be tied and you wont know where to begin. Even though I see this all time time, it still cracks me up lol.

I'm sorry but woldviews you mentioned above are not up to 50% of the various worldviews out there. Even if it where 90% that is not enough to take a stand and call your views the "truth". What stops the truth from being amongst the 10% you have left to peruse?

If you want to get results, you must be honest in the search for truth.
Even a search as basic as wikipedia will show you that the religions I mentioned make up about 90% of world religions.

I forgot to include judaism because to really study Christianity you must have studied Judaism.

Yes indeed, we cannot with 100% empirical certainty say that the truth is not amongst the remaining 10% but the likelyhood of that is extremely remote.
With the advent of the internet and with so many people seeking the truth it would (in all probability) have been found by now.

Look Mr Logic, Its obvious you're bent on wasting my time. You have NO answers. I have admitted ignorance and told you I Know NOTHING about God you decide to argue with me and claim I indeed know but being mysterious.
So coz I know NOTHING about God, I cant have access to the truth? Lol

You say you know nothing and then you turn around and say I have NO answers.
It means you KNOW that I have NO answers. How is that possible?

Let me tell you some of the things you know.
1. You know your name.
2. You know that your nairaland username is baboonYansh
3. you know the name of your parents
4. you know the religion of your parents or whether they don't have any religion
5. You know whether you went to university or not
6. you know whether you believe in GOd or not.
7. you know whether you trust science or not
8. you know how to use a computer
9. You have some idea as to the questions that the truth must answer for it to be the truth (or else you would have believed wholesale when I told you the things that made me to believe that Christianity is the right way).

Except you can prove #9 wrong, please give me a head start or at least acknowledge that you do not really want to know the truth.

logic1:

If you want to get results, you must be honest in the search for truth.
Even a search as basic as wikipedia will show you that the religions I mentioned make up about 90% of world religions.

I forgot to include judaism because to really study Christianity you must have studied Judaism.

Yes indeed, we cannot with 100% empirical certainty say that the truth is not amongst the remaining 10% but the likelyhood of that is extremely remote.
With the advent of the internet and with so many people seeking the truth it would (in all probability) have been found by now.

Sorry but this is a Bare-faced LIE. The views you mentioned are not even 90% of the RELIGIONS in Nigeria alone!

They might be the Religions/views of 90% of the world population BUT NOT 90% of religions available in this world!

Wierd that you mention Honest search for truth. Have you considered that no one is actually right? What if everyone has been searching the wrong way? What is your guarantee the truth has been found? Even if the likelihoodof the truth being among 10% is 0.00001, so what? What stops it from being amongst th 10%? Oh so your Truth is now a game of probabilities and throwing dice? You're not even 100% sure and you're trying to convince me? Is this not the joke of the century? Lol

Mr logic1, Go and convince yourself 100% then come back to me. Maybe then you'll be able to answer simple questions.

logic1:

You say you know nothing and then you turn around and say I have NO answers.
It means you KNOW that I have NO answers. How is that possible?

Let me tell you some of the things you know.
1. You know your name.
2. You know that your nairaland username is baboonYansh
3. you know the name of your parents
4. you know the religion of your parents or whether they don't have any religion
5. You know whether you went to university or not
6. you know whether you believe in GOd or not.
7. you know whether you trust science or not
8. you know how to use a computer

I'm sorry but I clearly stated I KNOW NOTHING about GOD.
And you're busy telling me "you know rice", "you know beans", "you know garri". Did you just wake up from sleep?

9.You have some idea as to the questions that the truth must answer for it to be the truth (or else you would have believed wholesale when I told you the things that made me to believe that Christianity is the right way).

Except you can prove #9 wrong, please give me a head start or at least acknowledge that you do not really want to know the truth.

Sorry I have NO IDEA the questions the right way is supposed to answer.

When you gave me YOUR questions and the correspondings answers of christianity, since I had NO IDEA , i told you most religions have one form of answer or the other the the same questions, Why Should I believe your story. Many years later you're yet to give an answer instead telling me "you know gaot", "you know cow", "you know computer". Na wa o

so friend, NO 9 is total hogwash.

@Logic1:

logic1:

I don't think I have come across a direct allusion to a pre-Adamic creation.

Genesis 1:1 says the earth BECAME without form and void therefore if it became then it was something before.

Also the bible doesn't say there was no pre-Adamic life.
I may be wrong but I have not found proof that I am wrong.

I hope I have answered your question.

I would have to disagree with you on this: There is no version of the Bible that translates Genesis 1:2 the way you wrote it above except the NIV in its footnote of Genesis1:2. This was discussed on another thread so I reproduce what was written there here.

Joagbaje:

Have you checked out your NIV. Footnote?

^Sir. I have seen it. And there was a time when I believed the gap theory just like you but Exodus 20:11 shattered that illusion. Ask yourself this questions:
1. If that is a valid interpretation of Genesis 1:2, why is it in the footnote and not the body?
2. Why do other English translations not include this new translation either in the body or the footnote? (I checked: even the Amplified does not render Genesis 1:2 so)

[center]Was or Became[/center]

Hebrew OT: BHS Consonants & Vowels Transliterated:
1 be·re·poo ba·ra e·lo·him et ha·sha·ma·yim ve·'et ha·'a·retz. 2 ve·ha·'a·retz ha·ye·tah to·hu va·vo·hu ve·cho·shech al-pe·nei te·ho·vm ve·ru·ach e·lo·him me·ra·che·fet al-pe·nei ham·ma·yim.

"Gappists" translate “the earth was without form and empty” as “the earth became [or, ‘had become’] without form and empty.” At stake is the translation of the Hebrew word hayetah (a form of the Hebrew verb, hayah, “to be”).
The meaning of a word is controlled by its context, and verse 2 is circumstantial to verse 1. Thus, “was” is the most natural and appropriate translation for hayetah. It is rendered this way in almost all English versions (as well as the Septuagint). Furthermore, in Genesis 1:2 hayetah [/i]is not followed by the preposition [i]le, which would have removed any ambiguity in the Hebrew and required the translation “became.”

[center]Problems with the gap theory:[/center]

1. It is inconsistent with God creating everything in six days, as Scripture states.

Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy”. Thus, the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sea and all that is in them (the rest of creation) was completed in six days. Where is there time for a gap?

2. It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.

From Romans 5:12, “Therefore, even as through one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as have sinned,” we understand that there could not have been human sin or death before Adam. The Bible teaches (1 Corinthians 15) that Adam was the first man, and as a result of his rebellion (sin), death and corruption (disease, bloodshed, and suffering) entered the universe. Before Adam sinned there could not have been any animal or human death. Note also that there could not have been a race of men before Adam that died in “Lucifer's flood” because 1 Corinthians 15:45 tells us that Adam was the “first” man.

Romans 8:22 teaches us that “we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.” Clearly the whole of creation was, and is, subject to decay and corruption because of sin. The fossil record shows disease, decay, and death. When gap theorists believe that disease, decay, and death existed before Adam sinned, they ignore that this contradicts the teaching of Scripture.

Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the gospel at its foundations.

By accepting an ancient age for the earth (based on the standard uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column), gap theorists leave the evolutionary system intact (which by their own assumptions they oppose).

Even worse, they must also theorize that Romans 5:12 and Genesis 3:3 refer only to spiritual death. But this contradicts other Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15; Genesis 3:22-23). These passages tell us that Adam's sin led to physical death as well as spiritual death. In 1 Corinthians 15 the death of the last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ) is compared with the death of the first Adam. Jesus suffered physical death for man's sin, because Adam, the first man, died physically because of sin. Genesis 3:22-23 tells us that if Adam and Eve could have partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever, but God decreed that they should die physically because of their sin.

The gap (or “ruin-reconstruction”) theory is based on a very tenuous interpretation of Scripture.

[center]The Straightforward Meaning of Genesis 1:1-2[/center]

The gap (or “ruin-reconstruction”) theory is based on a very tenuous interpretation of Scripture.

The simple, straightforward meaning of Genesis 1:1-2 is that when God at the beginning created the earth it was initially formless, empty, and dark, and God's Spirit was there above the waters. It was through His creative energy that the world was then progressively “formed and filled” during the remaining six days of creation.

Consider the analogy of a potter making a vase. The first thing he does is get a ball of clay. What he has is good, but it is unformed. Next, he shapes it into a vase, using his potter's wheel. Now it is no longer formless. He then might dry it, apply glaze, and fire it. Now it is ready to be filled—with flowers and water. At no time could one of the stages be considered evil or bad. It was just not finished—unformed (without form) and unfilled (void). When it was finally formed and filled, it could be described as “very good.”

God, of course, did not have to take six days to create everything, but he did this deliberately as a pattern for us—for our seven-day week.

You can follow up on this here

BTW: this might be a good time for you to examine the reasons why the NIV is considered by many to be a bad and misleading translation. I used to use it until I read the preface (which made me begin to wonder about the NIV; further research convinced me to ditch it).

Was There A World Before Genesis 1?

No.

Nothing new under the sun. The age which one prescribes for the earth is extremely dependent on one's view of creation. There are five major theories on the interpretation of the six days of creation.

1. The pictorial day theory claims that the six days mentioned in Genesis are the six days in which God revealed to Moses the events of creation. But the bible relates the creation as clearly, simply, and historically as it does other events. To interpret the text in this manner requires the abandonment of all exegetical principles.

2. The gap view claims that Genesis 1:1 describes an original creation which was followed by the fall of Satan and great judgment. Genesis 1:2 is then supposed to be a description of the recreation or restoration that took place. The Old Scofield Bible [Also Dake's Bible] maintains that the condition of the earth in verse two is the result of judgment, and therefore interprets the verb "hayah" as "became". However the Hebrew construction of verse two is disjunctive, describing the result of the creation described in verse one. The phrase "without form and void" is often misunderstood because of this rendering. These words are found only in a few other places (Is 34:11; 45:18; Jer 4:23). They do not describe chaos but rather emptiness and so would mean "unformed and unfilled". Exodus 20:11 teaches that all the universe, including the heavens and the earth, was created in the six day period mentioned in Genesis 1.

3. The intermittent view claims that the days mentioned are literal days, but that they were separated by long periods of time. This view is in direct contradiction of Exodus 20:11 and conveniently ignores the recurring phrase: "And the evening and the morning. . ." which describes the passage of the six days.

4. The day-age theory claims that the word "yom" which is the Hebrew word for "day" is used to refer to periods of indefinite length, not to literal days. While this is a viable meaning of the word, it is not the common meaning, nor is the meaning of the word sufficient foundation for the theory. Moreover it ignores the clearly stated meaning of Exodus 20:11. The phrase "And the evening and the morning" indicates literal days (cf. Daniel 8:14, where the same phrase in Hebrew is translated "day"

5. The literal day view accepts the clear meaning of the text: the universe was created in six literal days. The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable even by the various gap theories.

God of His own will and by His absolute power called the universe into being, creating it out of nothing (Ex 20:11; Ps 33:6, 9; 102:25; Is 45:12; Jer 10:12; John 1:3; Acts 14:15; 17:24; Rom 4:17; Col 1:15-17; Heb 3:4; 11:3; Rev 4:11). When one acknowledges the absolute power of God, he must accept His power to create and destroy as stated in the Scriptures. The believer must accept these things by faith.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I believe the world was created in six days because God said so.

Have you considered that no one is actually right?

If you believe that no one is actually right then it may be right to conclude that you were never seeking for the truth as you do not believe that anyone has it.

Oh so your Truth is now a game of probabilities and throwing dice? You're not even 100% sure and you're trying to convince me? Is this not the joke of the century? Lol

You were the one that asked the question in the first place baboonYansh.
All I was trying to do was to answer your question not to convince you. I believe that everyone should come to their own conclusions.

All I am doing on this thread is trying to answer questions.

When you gave me YOUR questions and the correspondings answers of christianity, since I had NO IDEA , i told you most religions have one form of answer or the other the the same questions, Why Should I believe your story. Many years later you're yet to give an answer instead telling me "you know gaot", "you know cow", "you know computer". Na wa o

What I did was to prove to you that ONLY you knows why you should believe anything.
I can only give you reasons why I believe what I believe.

I can give you my answers to many questions but only YOU can determine if you believe them or not.

Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy”. Thus, the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sea and all that is in them (the rest of creation) was completed in six days. Where is there time for a gap?

The Gap is before the six days.

The problem is that most people assume that during the "GAP" we had a race of humans.
I do not think so.

2. It puts death, disease, and suffering before the Fall, contrary to Scripture.

My theory of the Gap does not put death disease and suffering of Humans before the fall.

Humans were not in existence during the GAP

Most importantly, the gap theory undermines the gospel at its foundations.

By accepting an ancient age for the earth (based on the standard uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column), gap theorists leave the evolutionary system intact (which by their own assumptions they oppose).

Even worse, they must also theorize that Romans 5:12 and Genesis 3:3 refer only to spiritual death. But this contradicts other Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15; Genesis 3:22-23). These passages tell us that Adam's sin led to physical death as well as spiritual death. In 1 Corinthians 15 the death of the last Adam (the Lord Jesus Christ) is compared with the death of the first Adam. Jesus suffered physical death for man's sin, because Adam, the first man, died physically because of sin. Genesis 3:22-23 tells us that if Adam and Eve could have partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever, but God decreed that they should die physically because of their sin.

The gap (or “ruin-reconstruction”) theory is based on a very tenuous interpretation of Scripture.

I do not believe in Evolution. My theory of the Gap does not support evolution.
The fact that we accept an ancient age of the earth does not mean we support evolution.
God could have created a set of beings that lived for millions of years. The beings did not have to have evolved.

Therefore My theory of the Gap does not undermine scripture in any way.