Talk:Gap creationism

1206:

explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Furthermore, ppropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Therefore as long as it makes sense to cite a primary source, no problem. You will have to show that some statement is a synthesis of multiple sources if you expect to edit something out, and I will be reverting your edits which you claimed are syntheses but which are not. As with the McIver cites, I will list each source material here fully for your reading pleasure.

800: 732: 711: 1393:

Gap theory, despite the fact that the citations directly list them as proponents, and you misrepresent the text of the McIver source (I reiterate that it does claim Gap theory came before Darwin's OotS, which can be verified by reading the article in question). I will not get sucked into an edit war. Therefore, instead of spending another hour trying to conscientiously edit this text only to have it again wiped clean with one click of your mouse, I am going to request a

821: 1506:. God and all spiritual beings exist outside of time, therefore time is irrelevant. In this environment, the matter of whether the universe was created in one second or over several billions of years is immaterial; also, the principles of physics were optimal - for example, the speed of light was infinite. Some adherents to this revision also believe that the universe was created considerably smaller and subsequently grew after an immense conflict between 190: 637: 417: 396: 296: 1763:

shared and some hints that i have shared, and even this is just a hint for if we were to say all the secrets maybe this whole page will not be able to contain it,so that's some hint to the confused ones and again if you want to know more ask The Holy Spirit without ceasing, and see those books and ask The Holy Spirit to help you to connect these things, and if this helped you glorify the Lord, for the Lord your GOD has given this knowlage to you.

306: 275: 522: 971:

section to reflect the "pre-re-creation" gap as the highlighted "one approach" since doctrinal consistency would require adherents to assert the belief that human history must have started with Adam. Otherwise, they would be trading a belief in the accuracy of Genesis for a belief in the accuracy of the gospel of Luke, which certainly isn't very likely for the dispensationalist Christians who are the primary advocates of "gap creationism".

501: 427: 1201:

I am using to support a claim in this wiki so that you will see it. As to point 2, I agree and I only use self-pub sources when I say that a certain person believes X or that believers in the Gap Theory believe X. Self-pub is precisely what this kind of source is for. As to point 3, I agree and just didn't have the time that very day, considering I already spent hours fixing many of the previous edits. As to point 4, according to

532: 244: 1979:(1535-1610) wrote, "even though before the last day, the heavens and the elements were made subsequent to the substance, nevertheless, they were not perfected, completely furnished until the period of six days. However long that darkest day of the world lasted, whether it lasted one day or more than one day or less than one day is not clear to me or any other mortal, unless one is divinely made so."<ref: --> 1538:. ." The article should concentrate on the essence of the theory. Subtheories should be identified as such. Gappers simply believe that there is a gap of time between creation & the tohu-bohu state of Gen 1:2. Ideas about what happened in the gap are likely to vary. And it is possible to leave what happened in the gap unrevealed. The rationale & motive of each gapper is variable. ( 1247:"Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing." 1094:

indicates that it is a short summary list of support given by various sources, and includes those sources in one group at the beginning. This is perfectly legitimate. You again also claimed that the sources aren't reliable, but again since the text reads that "people who believe X support it with Y", we don't get to judge the truth of X or Y, we only need to provide a citation of this support.

627: 606: 2023:(Ctrl+F "generations of Formlessness"). This has been taken way out of context; the Zohar only restates the Genesis Rabbah claim in order to refute it: "It is said that the Holy One, blessed be He, created worlds and destroyed them ... But there certainly must be a secret here ... It cannot be that the Holy One, blessed be He, destroyed the makings of His own hands." 1829:, who is an advocate of gap creationism and therefore not a reliable source for our purposes. His book should be treated as a fringe source, only useful for claims about itself – so we could write, for example, "Custance finds support for his theory in the writings of Thomas Aquinas", but not "the writings of Thomas Aquinas provide support for gap creationism". 1589:

that science has proved something, others may think science has a good explanation, others may not be concerned about what science says at all. You just cannot generalize about gappers that way. And the sentence has no documentation. I revised it to say, "Some gap creationists may believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt . . . ."

1757:

how God throw the dinosaur from eden because the dinosaured sin at eden, and how after a few while the earth became so full of the dinosaur that the Lord must destroy all of them,and flood the whole earth, and froze it,thus creating the ice age ,and then AFTER the ice melt,then the HOLY SPIRIT came and floated above the water whitch was gen1:2.

1597:

that, or is this "existed in a state of grace" an importation of RCC theology? I mean that only time I have ever heard that concept is in RCC theology. The whole statement confounds one subset of the theory with the theory. If the statement is kept, it should be changed to "When God laid the foundations of the Earth, no angel had sinned."

1928:(1097 - 1141) wrote in reference to Gen. 1:1 and 1:2: "perhaps enough has already been debated on these matters thus far, if we could add only, how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular ordering of it was taken in hand? But how long it continued in this state of confusion scripture does not clearly show."<ref: --> 1354:

be the "standard" creationist interpretation today—Ramm was writing a few years prior to the reemergence of young-Earth Flood geology creationism in the 1960s—but it is still surprisingly popular." McIver is clearly stating that YEC replaced Gap as the "'standard' creationist interpretation" (i.e. 'eclipsed' it).

1251:

near the James Ussher quote, you can click on the wiki links in that sentence (Ussher himself or the Ussher chronology) to read entire articles concerning that claim. This is nowhere near a claim that would be challenged because there are at least two complete wiki articles elsewhere talking about the subject.

1824:

The History section currently makes reference to lots of ancient and medieval sources, seemingly attempting to prove that the gap theory has been around for a long time and wasn't just invented in the 19th century. Much of this content is inaccurate or misleading. The only non-primary source cited is

1093:

Further, I don't agree with your delete-by-swath method of editing the article. For instance, you deleted an entire section claiming that specific sources should be cited for specific claims. Link to that WP policy or guideline or heck even an essay, please? The intro sentence to that section clearly

1983:

Again, if this is relevant, it needs a better source, and the quotes need putting in context. Thrown in like this, these quotes give the impression that the authors are arguing for full-blown gap creationism, whereas Custance only uses them to support the milder claim that a certain interval elapsed

1608:

Additional baggage: "Satan had fallen from grace "in the beginning"." Is Origen the only one who says this, first citation? If Origen was not a gapper, this is an improper citation. satan had not "fallen from grace." Grace is the unmerited favor sinners receive from the Lord; since before satan

1596:

Additional baggage: "Angels already existed in a state of grace when God laid the foundations of the Earth." This idea is not essential to the theory. To say that angels existed in a state of grace is nonsense. Angels who never sinned don't need grace; sinful men need grace. Does the source say

1537:

I don't know why the above has been cut off. At any rate, one needs to be careful in generalizing about gappers. What gappers think about the inerrancy of physical science, would vary a lot from gapper to gapper. You just cannot generalize that way. You may say, "Some who hold the gap theory . .

1392:

Your edits continue to reflect plagiarism, bad faith, and a misapplication of wiki policies. For instance, your entire first paragraph under history is almost verbatim from McIver, yet you do not use quotation marks or a quoteblock; you claim I am "synthesizing" original research about proponents of

1200:

As to your point 1 above, all of those claims were made by McIver. You should re-read that article. I used it as my main secondary source when I went through and started citing every little thing. I am going through another large edit now, and will cite each and every sentence from his article which

1079:

states: "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." And since we are talking about a belief system, who is to say

987:

One should not confuse translation with what Genesis says. What it says is in Hebrew. Translations vary in accuracy. Genesis contains no translations. One can say the KJV translates inaccurately. Suggesting other translations is a common & legitimate part of exegesis of the Hebrew passage.

965:

As a gap theory believer myself, I have another belief that is not included here. I believe in the gap theory for various reasons, but one of them is not so there would be time to "build up the fossil record". I am not saying that this belief should be removed from this article, but someone should

1634:

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the difference between chapters and verses. Biblical "books" are broken into "chapters," and chapters are broken into "verses." I previously corrected the inaccurate statement in the lead sentence, "two distinct creations in the first and the second verses

1353:

with 'eclipse' is purely fallacious: "The gap theory proved to be a much more popular reconciliation of Genesis with geology; in fact, it proved to be an almost irresistible temptation. In a scholarly appraisal of creationist theories, Bernard Ramm, an evangelical, wrote: ... The gap theory may not

1238:

Re-added primary cite on Scofield Bible; in your previous edit you said it needed a citation, now you say too many are redundant? One primary and one secondary is not cluttering up the article and should not be removed. Re-added original research tag to sentence about Bernard Ramm; your source says

970:

I believe the Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 gap is uncontrovertably the most prevalent flavor of this belief. The New Testament genealogy of Jesus in Luke doesn't really admit of a post-Adamic gap, the "one approach" previously emphasized in this article. I have revised the second paragraph of the "Rationale"

2049:

I don't feel like the Papias quotation is merely an attempt to prove the antiquity of the Gap Theory. Papias does imply that Satan, originally ruling over the world, laid it in waste. That is a central claim in the Gap Creationism theory. But I wouldn't say that Papias shows there is a gap between

1762:

and there are mutch more secrets about not only the beggining,but also the end times secrets, and the only way we can know about it if we have a deep relationship with the Lord, and walk with him, and if we dont it would be very very hard or even impossible to understand about the book that i have

1756:

how the dinosaurs were created and placed at eden(before men) to worship, and how after the fall of Lucifer wnitch was earlier known as luciel, and his followers, they go to eden to possesesd them via the portal or gate on the earth,and mutch more enterance some i am not aware of at this time, and

1588:

More baggage on the theory is stated: "Gap creationists believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt . . . ." The amount of confidence in physical science varies from theorist to theorist. Some observe that science changes its theories given time (Pluto was a planet!). Some may think

1579:

The article states: "it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, . . . ." Actually, the gap theory postulates a gap between Gen 1:1 & Gen 2:2. In considering that theory, it obfuscates the theory by adding on other optional theories, concerning which there is disagreement

1242:

I reverted almost everything on the paragraph listing supporters. You claim SYNTHs where there are none, and you claim that extra references are spammy? I've never heard anyone on wikipedia so intent on removing references as you seem to be. If McIver lists someone as a supporter of Gap theory and

1646:

The remainder of Chapter 1 goes through the familiar six-day creation story. Chapter 2 begins with God resting on the seventh day, then describes the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with a slightly different sequence for the creation of humans and animals, and men and women. These

1250:

Concerning the list of supporting scriptures, as I said above I agree that they should cite specifics on each bullet point as you mentioned before. I simply haven't had the time yet. I will try and get to it when I can; hence I am not editing out your tags in this section. Concerning the fact tag

905:

I reorganized the external links to bundle the "pro" gap theory together and the "other views" together. Also added a couple links and included William Buckland's name up with Thomas Chalmers, since Buckland wrote a treatise on gap theory in 1820. In a sense, that makes him as much a "founder" as

1186:

I will address your points above and your dozen or so edits here. It would be very helpful if you could do more than one edit per save, and less intensive on the page history. It would also help prevent a bot coming in during the middle of your edits and "fixing" things, forcing you to redo many

1047:

Seems fair. I felt the article had begun to take on the character of a discussion between opposing sides, rather than an encyclopedic statement of facts. TO that end, I began a new re-write. I salvaged some of the previous article (as saved below) just because it had been developed over time and

1205:

primary sources are fine as long as they "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive,

974:

Not sure if this is technically Gap creationism, but it is related. There is a theory/opinion that the genealogies in Genesis contain an incorrect translation. Specifically, followers of this theory claim the hebrew word translated as fathered, or was the father of, can be translated just as

1688:

Furthermore, what you are calling the "first creation narrative" is actually a broad genealogy overview of sorts, of the "lineage" of the heavens and the Earth. It is the same Hebrew word 8435. toledoth (Strong's Concordance) used in other parts of the Old Testament where it says "These are

1654:

Thus: the first two verses contain a tiny portion of one creation narrative. The first two chapters contain two complete creation narratives. I am changing verses to chapters in the lead accordingly. I hope anyone who feels moved to revert the change will first explain their reasoning here.

1074:

are unjustified in almost every one of your revision summaries. A wiki article can say "many people claim X" and cite self-published books of people claiming X. It has nothing to do with whether or not X itself is true. We are not verifying X, we are verifying that many people claim X.

919:

It is probably wrong to say that one version or the other is held by "most" Gap Creationists as I doubt that there is any definitive proof either way and what is factual is that there are varying beliefs and varying numbers of adherents to them, so I replaced "most" with "many" in that

1747:

Heres a hint the genesis isnt the beggining, the beggining is on the secrets of the book of enoch,at chapter 24, and that tells the story of genesis 1:1 more detailed but even that is just but a fragment, like on the book of adam and eve whitch reveales some of the fragments.

1518:. The Earth may have pre-existed this event or may have arisen from it, but in both cases was left empty and desolated, and was selected for recreation. In this revised theory, mankind is created by God to take the role of spiritual partnership that was formerly occupied by 1907:, and I don't see anything in it that supports this statement. If we go beyond the given page range to p. 49, Origen there discusses the difference between the spiritual heaven of verse 1 and the corporeal firmament of verse 6, but that's nothing to do with gap creationism. 1800:

According to reliable sources dinosaurs and men never coexisted (except for some of their avian descendents) and the holy texts we have are the result of long term living tradition, compilation and selection, that also include several semi-consolidated origin myths...

1522:, and intended to re-establish God's intended order throughout the regenerated universe as part of an ongoing creative process. Only in such a capacity, can the general state of decay beyond the earth, and throughout the cosmos, be attributed to the Fall of 1883:

There's no citation for the claim that the War in Heaven is thought to have taken place between verses 1 and 2, and this means that the Papias quote is irrelevant. Danielou's restatement of Andreas's restatement of the same Papias quote is also irrelevant.

1953:

and wrote: "It seems better to maintain the view that the creation of the heavens and the earth was prior to any of the days, literally before the days", i.e., there was first the creation of the earth, and then the enumerated "days of creation".<ref:

966:

add that just as God created a full grown (mature) man and woman, He could have also created a mature universe and planet, one that would appear to science to have existed for billions of years (for the universe) and a planet with a "full" fossil record.

1235:." (emphasis mine) If you'd like to revert again that's fine, but please use the entire quote verbatim, and put it into a quote box per the wiki policy cited. Also re-added the bit about it preceeding Darin's OOtS since that is included in McIver. 1936:) admits that Hugh of Saint Victor is "not saying, specifically" that anything happened between verses 1 and 2; and in fact Hugh goes on to say, in his very next sentence, that "between this which was made and that no delay at all intervened" ( 1559:

There needs to be a section that briefly summarizes some of the more significant or popular criticisms or responses to Gap Theory. No more than a paragraph or two needs to appear, but there should be something to help readers frame the debate.

1494:

suppose that certain facts about both the human past and the age of the Earth have been omitted from the Biblical account rather than mythologized by it. The "Gap creationism" explanation of this position is to state that sometime before the

1832:

So I'm going to remove the first five paragraphs of the History section as insufficiently sourced. To more fully explain my reasoning, I've copied this content into the collapsed section below, where I'll comment on each part individually.

953:

While I agree with your first two points, I believe that your third point is an example of trying to define words too narrowly. Looking up the preposition "in", I have found examples listed that substantiate the use of "someone being

923:

The passages cited by many in both the Testaments as describing the fall of Satan are very controversial as to what they really mean, even within conservative groups, so I have reworded that to state that these passages are viewed by

1869:(c. 60 - c. 130 AD) wrote, "To some of them He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion as well... but it happened that their arrangement came to nothing."<ref: --> 1015:) and replacing with a referenced stub that does explain what it is, and can serve as the basis for, and a lead of, an improved article. If you want to move any of this back into mainspace, please find sources to verify it, per 1852:

writers had examined the biblical text and considered the idea that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 there stretched an indeterminate period when the created world fell into chaos. Such a scenario often connects with the idea that the

1048:

discussion, but focused on adding references inline with the text rather than as misc links at the end of the article. I'd like to add more, but a little bit at a time to avoid the article becoming what it was before. --

2055: 153: 1973:(1583-1652), referring to the time gap implied between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, wrote, "The question of how great an interval there was, it is not possible, except by inspiration, to obtain knowledge of it."<ref: --> 1693:

of Adam, of Noah, of Isaac, etc. That ends at Gen. 2:4, where that is plainly stated. The narrative picks up with specific events that happened on the various days, and afterward, in the same creation narrative.

975:

accurately as "was the ancestor of". They use this difference to explain the gap between the Old Earth, and yet small totals of years. I will see if I can find a documented version of this to link to.

1361:-- they are talking about the purported "biblical time" roots of Gap creationism. Given that Custance has been cited, reasonably favourably, by McIver, I did not tag him -- only Madsen, for whom 1642:

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

1239:

young-earthism "re-emerged", but you say that it "eclipsed" Gap theory. This isn't in the source, so you need to source that in 1954 YEC "eclipsed" Gap theory (or any reasonable synonym).

1529:

However, not all adherents of the Gap Theory accept that the scientific geological record refers to the gap between initial creation and regeneration, preferring instead to rely on the

1609:

fell he was not a sinner, the term "grace" is inappropriate for him. However, if Origen was a gapper & said it, then the statement is justified. But was Origen a gapper? (

1145:

I have tagged the "entire section" -- to dump a whole heap of citations on a very generalised statement, and then leave the specific examples unreferenced is not in keeping with

2019:. This passage, commenting on verse 5, says that other worlds existed, but doesn't say they existed between verses 1 and 2. The Zohar quote (or something like it) can be found 2051: 1768: 2011:. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them, and destroyed them, and on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."<ref: --> 147: 1243:

that person also wrote a book on such (such as Pember), I cite both McIver as a secondary and the person's book as a primary. That is not spammy or a synthesis. See

2059: 2003:(without form and void) found in Genesis 1:2, stating: "And these are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was 1629: 1444:

in the early 1800s, though some adherents maintain that it can be traced back to biblical times. Certainly it became quite popular when it was promoted by the

1913:(c. 347 - 420) wrote that Origen taught that a world existed before our own, and another will exist thereafter, and so on, in constant succession.<ref: --> 483: 1880:

Danieliu, Cardinal Jean-Guenole-Marie, ''The Theology of Jewish Christianity'' Translated by John A. Baker, The Westminster Press, 1964, p. 47.</ref: -->

782: 1966:(Distinct. xiii, Article 3). I don't have access to that source, so I don't know the context. If it's relevant, we need a non-polemic source that says so. 883: 1879:

tells us that Papias taught that God had conferred on certain angels the task of administering the Earth, and that they betrayed that trust."<ref: -->

1776: 1728:

This wording seeks to use Knowledge's voice to establish the fact of a time gap, when such a gap is a very debatable matter of religious interpretation.

1717: 1610: 1539: 989: 1670:

This article is not about 'two creation accounts'. The Gap Theory is about what happened between 1.1 and 1.2. Note Genesis 1:2 under 'Biblical support'.

1026:

so they're likewise moving here. If you can demonstrate that any of the represent prominent GC views, or extensive GC information, they can go back in.

1813: 1720:

primarily because they were not verifiable – no source had been cited. However, the changes included some non-neutral wording, such as the following:

378: 1795: 976: 1584:

is another matter. It is best to confine the theory to the gap & not add in other optional ideas, like pre-Adamic creation & literal days.

1011:

The original article was completely unreferenced, had had a lead that failed to explain what Gap creationism is. I am therefore moving it here (per

588: 1857:

realm was originally entrusted with power over the earth, which power concluded with a betrayal of that trust when a number of the angels followed

1742: 209: 1904: 1917:

This is correct, but neither Origen nor Jerome connect this with the idea (or even mention the idea) that there is a gap between verses 1 and 2.

1664: 1900:

Origen, ''Homilies on Genesis and Exodus'', Ronald E. Heine, translator. The Catholic University of America Press, 2002, pp. 47-48.</ref: -->

693: 1569: 2094: 1554: 1398: 1255: 1108: 1049: 907: 473: 988:

What the above post illustrates is that gappers can vary widely on associated issues, none of which is necessarily germane to the theory. (

2134: 772: 1703: 997: 2149: 873: 1127:

Your edits introduced or modified a number of claims in statements sourced to McIver that were not made by him -- I have reverted these.

2099: 79: 946:

These are perhaps minor points but come out of a desire to make the article both factually accurate and as NPOV-oriented as possible.

2139: 2079: 1679: 368: 332: 1638:

The two creation narratives are in the first two chapters, not verses. Here is the text of the first two verses, in their entirety:

1499:, there must have been a "gap" in the Biblical account that lasted perhaps tens of thousands or even millions or billions of years. 2154: 2109: 578: 1514:, which resulted in the signs of a universal cataclysm, which the non-theistic scientific community interprets as evidence for a 1006: 449: 44: 1116: 958:

Disipensationalism" as proper. Of course, the alternatives you suggested are also appropriate, so I'm cool with your changes.

2119: 2089: 2084: 1406: 1382: 1263: 1176: 1057: 1039: 748: 683: 168: 2129: 2040: 1561: 849: 85: 1991:

states, "other worlds were created and destroyed before this present world was decided on as the permanent one",<ref: -->

1870:

Papias, ''Fragments of Papias. From the Exposition of The Oracles of The Lord.'' Chap. VII, Antenicene Fathers.</ref: -->

1618: 135: 2144: 340: 2124: 1737: 2074: 554: 440: 401: 30: 2104: 1937: 739: 716: 1914:

Ep. ad Avitum 4, as cited in Cavindi JC, editor, ''On First Principles'', Ave Maria Press, 2013, p. 30.</ref: -->

553:-related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 1772: 1533:

as a sufficient explanation for the mass extinction of many groups and classifications of creatures, including the

848:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

828: 805: 659: 336: 2114: 1313:" (what a long-winded mouthful) but instead the "new scientific discipline of geology" (far shorter and clearer). 129: 99: 1547: 979: 344: 320: 280: 104: 20: 2036: 1899:

realm, the second a physical realm, although he was not exactly sure what the prior creation was.<ref: -->

1895:

that there were two creations in Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, and a time gap between the two; the first involved a

1574: 1487: 545: 506: 74: 1219:

Edits: removed primary source objection, see my point 4 above. Reverted the first paragraph on history to a

910: 125: 1416: 255: 228: 197: 2016: 1451: 1070:

I basically reverted most of your new edits (although I did add cites in most cases). Your concerns about

1711: 1490:

is inerrant in matters of scientific fact, which includes accepting that the Earth is extremely ancient,

1376: 1170: 1033: 650: 611: 227:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

65: 1346:

You continually and unnecessarily cite primary sources on points already better cited secondary sources.

1782:

This is not usable in Knowledge since neither you nor the divine friend you got it from are considered

1648: 224: 175: 1992:

Genesis Rabba 2, p. 59, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tmm/tmm07.htm accessed 08/02/18.</ref: -->

1724:"The Gap Theory recognizes an evident time gap between the first and the second verses of Genesis..." 1565: 1502:

A revised theory proposes that time in its current measurable form didn't exist prior to the Fall of

1436:

and the origin of man. The concept of the Gap Theory is widely thought to have been promulgated by

1156:. Your edits rely too heavily on primary sources, creating a heavy likelihood that some of them are 2046: 2032: 1445: 747:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

658:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

448:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2012:''The Sepher Ha-Zohar,or The Book of Light: Bereshith to Lekh Lekha,'' Chapter VIII.</ref: --> 1819: 1699: 1476: 109: 1807: 1614: 1543: 993: 216: 1791: 1733: 1491: 1432:, is a term used to describe a particular set of Christian beliefs about the creation of the 959: 261: 141: 1925: 1888: 1866: 1228: 8: 1876: 1675: 1511: 900: 432: 243: 220: 55: 1187:

edits (wiki bots annoy me to no end as well). Just my opinion though, hope it's helpful.

1944: 1695: 1660: 1302: 70: 1802: 1139: 1016: 935: 51: 1976: 1949: 1787: 1729: 1480: 1437: 1402: 1306: 1259: 1142:-- self-published claims can generally only be used in statements about themselves. 1112: 1053: 1107:

I delete a big chunk of near-plagiarism too. Anyway, hope this all makes sense. --

161: 1933: 1921: 1826: 1472: 1441: 1397:

for these multiple and repeated issues of sourcing, citations, and quotations. --

1340: 1244: 1157: 311: 24: 1988: 1962:; Custance actually cites Aquinas's commentary on the second book of Lombard's 1671: 1530: 1464:

is in fact far older than can be accounted for by merely adding up the ages of

1202: 1153: 938:, as it is a set of beliefs, not a separate religion or church, so rather than 537: 205: 1278:

describe the emergence of 'Gap Theory' as something that "became increasingly

2068: 1872: 1862: 1656: 1135: 841: 837: 820: 799: 201: 1999: 1896: 1849: 1783: 1523: 1503: 1394: 1350: 1283: 1223:

version (which is why the words don't match exactly), as your version gets

1023: 947: 642: 445: 331:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 1980:

Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 30.</ref: -->

1974:

Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 29.</ref: -->

1970: 1955:

Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 28.</ref: -->

1929:

Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 28.</ref: -->

1496: 1146: 1131: 1076: 1071: 1012: 744: 731: 710: 2020: 1924:

this was apparently a familiar interpretation. Flemish Catholic writer

1910: 1372: 1166: 1029: 845: 189: 1468: 2015:

The first quote (apparently a somewhat free translation) comes from

1515: 1433: 327: 305: 416: 395: 1519: 1457: 1310: 833: 550: 426: 295: 274: 521: 500: 1997:

comments on Genesis 2:4 and connects it with the Hebrew phrase

1994: 1984:

between the creation of the substance and the forming of it.

1858: 1854: 1507: 1465: 1461: 942:

it one can be a believer in it or an adherent of it or to it.

655: 215:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

1357:

Neither Arthur Custance nor Ole Madsen are talking about

654:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 200:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to

1320:

make any connection between 'Gap Theory' generally and

626: 605: 160: 1339:

that they are Gap creationists -- which inference is

832:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 743:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 632: 549:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 527: 444:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 422: 301: 15: 2066: 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1786:. Maybe you could try Conservapedia instead. -- 1635:of Genesis," but the correction was reverted. 931:I don't think that one can truly be said to be 325:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 1932:Even Custance (whose book is available online 1324:(he only mentioned that Philip Henry Gosse's 1286:" but as something that "became increasingly 174: 1460:has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the 1328:was published two years ahead of that book). 1022:Likewise most of the ELs don't seem to meet 1483:to be approximately 6,000 – 10,000 years. 1848:Long before the modern study of geology, 1335:makes use of the proponents' writings to 2050:Gen 1:1 and 1:2, but he might imply it. 1743:Hint of what happened in between the gap 1582:six day literal 24-hour days of creation 1080:whether any person is telling the truth? 2052:2600:1014:B069:4D62:8A37:F007:56A6:2501 1486:However, in order to maintain that the 241: 2067: 1555:Criticisms or responses to Gap Theory 1369:I am therefore reverting your edits. 1305:gained acceptance, especially in the 1294:first half of the nineteenth century" 1231:"Copyrighted text must be attributed 2095:Low-importance Christianity articles 826:This article is within the scope of 737:This article is within the scope of 648:This article is within the scope of 543:This article is within the scope of 438:This article is within the scope of 317:This article is within the scope of 237: 184: 2135:Mid-importance Creationism articles 915:Explanation of recent minor edits: 260:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 2150:Low-importance Skepticism articles 458:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity 14: 2166: 2100:WikiProject Christianity articles 1753:and also here's another fragmet 1292:end of the eighteenth century and 757:Knowledge:WikiProject Creationism 461:Template:WikiProject Christianity 2140:WikiProject Creationism articles 2080:Low-importance Religion articles 1891:(c. 184 - c. 253) taught in his 928:as describing the fall of Satan. 858:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 819: 798: 760:Template:WikiProject Creationism 730: 709: 635: 625: 604: 530: 520: 499: 425: 415: 394: 304: 294: 273: 242: 188: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2155:WikiProject Skepticism articles 2110:Low-importance Judaism articles 1716:I reverted the changes made by 1301:mention the "modern methods of 1007:Removal of unreferenced article 878:This article has been rated as 861:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 777:This article has been rated as 688:This article has been rated as 583:This article has been rated as 478:This article has been rated as 373:This article has been rated as 1903:The cited source is available 1704:00:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC) 1456:Gap creationists believe that 911:17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 353:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 1: 2120:Low-importance Bible articles 2090:C-Class Christianity articles 2085:WikiProject Religion articles 1947:analyzed these verses in his 1647:differences are described in 852:and see a list of open tasks. 751:and see a list of open tasks. 662:and see a list of open tasks. 563:Knowledge:WikiProject Judaism 557:and see a list of open tasks. 452:and see a list of open tasks. 356:Template:WikiProject Religion 229:contentious topics procedures 42:Put new text under old text. 2130:C-Class Creationism articles 1570:16:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 980:21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 566:Template:WikiProject Judaism 7: 2145:C-Class Skepticism articles 1871:Twentieth-century Cardinal 1680:16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1665:15:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 668:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 2171: 2125:WikiProject Bible articles 2060:14:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) 2041:16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 1649:Genesis creation narrative 1630:"Verses" versus "Chapters" 1475:. By using this approach, 962:13:02, Nov 18, 2004 (EST) 884:project's importance scale 783:project's importance scale 694:project's importance scale 671:Template:WikiProject Bible 589:project's importance scale 484:project's importance scale 379:project's importance scale 2075:C-Class Religion articles 1969:French Jesuit theologian 1619:16:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1548:16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 1407:21:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 1383:18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 1282:in the first half of the 1264:17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 1227:close to plagiarism. See 1177:07:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1117:03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC) 1058:05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 998:17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 950:15:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) 877: 814: 776: 725: 687: 620: 582: 515: 477: 410: 372: 289: 268: 231:before editing this page. 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2105:C-Class Judaism articles 1987:In Jewish writings, the 1814:03:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC) 1796:09:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC) 1777:08:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC) 1738:15:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC) 1477:Young Earth creationists 1446:Scofield Reference Bible 1331:Your 'proponents ' list 1152:You really need to read 1040:18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 441:WikiProject Christianity 343:standards, or visit the 225:normal editorial process 1426:Restitution creationism 740:WikiProject Creationism 212:as a contentious topic. 2115:C-Class Bible articles 1958:This quote isn't from 1769:Friend of Jesus Christ 1492:Old Earth creationists 1363:no standing whatsoever 829:WikiProject Skepticism 250:This article is rated 221:standards of behaviour 75:avoid personal attacks 1975:Catholic philosopher 1863:rebellion against God 1575:Baggage on the Theory 1365:has been established. 1322:Origin of the Species 464:Christianity articles 100:Neutral point of view 2047:@DanFromAnotherPlace 1943:In the 13th century 1926:Hugh of Saint Victor 1889:Origen of Alexandria 1887:In the 3rd century, 1867:Papias of Hierapolis 1417:Unreferenced article 1134:claims, please read 763:Creationism articles 321:WikiProject Religion 217:purpose of Knowledge 105:No original research 1877:Andreas of Caesarea 1712:Non-neutral changes 1512:Michael (archangel) 1430:Ruin-Reconstruction 1349:Your accusation of 864:Skepticism articles 546:WikiProject Judaism 433:Christianity portal 2017:Genesis Rabbah 3:7 1945:St. Thomas Aquinas 1580:among gappers. A 1471:, as given in the 1303:natural philosophy 333:assess and improve 256:content assessment 198:contentious topics 86:dispute resolution 47: 2028: 2027: 1893:Homily on Genesis 1233:and used verbatim 1160:of these sources. 936:Dispensationalism 898: 897: 894: 893: 890: 889: 793: 792: 789: 788: 704: 703: 700: 699: 651:WikiProject Bible 599: 598: 595: 594: 494: 493: 490: 489: 389: 388: 385: 384: 359:Religion articles 347:for more details. 236: 235: 208:, which has been 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2162: 1977:Benedict Pereira 1960:Summa Theologica 1950:Summa Theologica 1841:Extended content 1837: 1836: 1810: 1805: 1784:reliable sources 1481:age of the Earth 1438:William Buckland 1381: 1307:physical science 1175: 1038: 866: 865: 862: 859: 856: 823: 816: 815: 810: 802: 795: 794: 765: 764: 761: 758: 755: 734: 727: 726: 721: 713: 706: 705: 676: 675: 672: 669: 666: 645: 640: 639: 638: 629: 622: 621: 616: 608: 601: 600: 571: 570: 569:Judaism articles 567: 564: 561: 540: 535: 534: 533: 524: 517: 516: 511: 503: 496: 495: 466: 465: 462: 459: 456: 435: 430: 429: 419: 412: 411: 406: 398: 391: 390: 361: 360: 357: 354: 351: 345:wikiproject page 314: 309: 308: 298: 291: 290: 285: 277: 270: 269: 253: 247: 246: 238: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2065: 2064: 2029: 2013: 1981: 1956: 1930: 1922:Medieval period 1915: 1901: 1881: 1842: 1827:Arthur Custance 1822: 1820:History section 1808: 1803: 1745: 1714: 1691:the generations 1632: 1577: 1562:108.246.205.134 1557: 1488:Genesis account 1473:Book of Genesis 1454: 1442:Thomas Chalmers 1422:Gap creationism 1419: 1379: 1370: 1173: 1164: 1036: 1027: 1009: 903: 863: 860: 857: 854: 853: 808: 762: 759: 756: 753: 752: 719: 673: 670: 667: 664: 663: 641: 636: 634: 614: 568: 565: 562: 559: 558: 536: 531: 529: 509: 463: 460: 457: 454: 453: 431: 424: 404: 358: 355: 352: 349: 348: 312:Religion portal 310: 303: 283: 254:on Knowledge's 251: 219:, any expected 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 25:Gap creationism 12: 11: 5: 2168: 2158: 2157: 2152: 2147: 2142: 2137: 2132: 2127: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2107: 2102: 2097: 2092: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2063: 2062: 2026: 2025: 1989:Genesis Rabbah 1986: 1968: 1942: 1919: 1909: 1886: 1847: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1835: 1821: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1798: 1744: 1741: 1726: 1725: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1683: 1682: 1644: 1643: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1591: 1590: 1576: 1573: 1556: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1531:Biblical flood 1453: 1450: 1424:, also called 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1375: 1367: 1366: 1355: 1347: 1344: 1329: 1314: 1295: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1252: 1248: 1240: 1236: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1169: 1162: 1161: 1150: 1143: 1128: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1032: 1008: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 969: 944: 943: 929: 921: 902: 899: 896: 895: 892: 891: 888: 887: 880:Low-importance 876: 870: 869: 867: 850:the discussion 824: 812: 811: 809:Low‑importance 803: 791: 790: 787: 786: 779:Mid-importance 775: 769: 768: 766: 749:the discussion 735: 723: 722: 720:Mid‑importance 714: 702: 701: 698: 697: 690:Low-importance 686: 680: 679: 677: 674:Bible articles 660:the discussion 647: 646: 630: 618: 617: 615:Low‑importance 609: 597: 596: 593: 592: 585:Low-importance 581: 575: 574: 572: 555:the discussion 542: 541: 538:Judaism portal 525: 513: 512: 510:Low‑importance 504: 492: 491: 488: 487: 480:Low-importance 476: 470: 469: 467: 450:the discussion 437: 436: 420: 408: 407: 405:Low‑importance 399: 387: 386: 383: 382: 375:Low-importance 371: 365: 364: 362: 316: 315: 299: 287: 286: 284:Low‑importance 278: 266: 265: 259: 248: 234: 233: 206:fringe science 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2167: 2156: 2153: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2143: 2141: 2138: 2136: 2133: 2131: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2116: 2113: 2111: 2108: 2106: 2103: 2101: 2098: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2076: 2073: 2072: 2070: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033:Dan from A.P. 2024: 2022: 2018: 2010: 2006: 2002: 2001: 1996: 1990: 1985: 1978: 1972: 1967: 1965: 1961: 1952: 1951: 1946: 1941: 1939: 1935: 1927: 1923: 1918: 1912: 1908: 1906: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1885: 1878: 1874: 1873:Jean Danielou 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1828: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1799: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1764: 1760: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1749: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1719: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1696:LovelyLillith 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1652: 1650: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1636: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1583: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1532: 1527: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1498: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1449: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395:third opinion 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1378: 1374: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1230: 1229:WP:Plagiarism 1226: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1204: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1172: 1168: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1125: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1078: 1073: 1072:verifiability 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1035: 1031: 1025: 1020: 1018: 1014: 999: 995: 991: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 978: 972: 967: 963: 961: 957: 951: 949: 941: 937: 934: 930: 927: 922: 918: 917: 916: 913: 912: 909: 885: 881: 875: 872: 871: 868: 851: 847: 843: 842:pseudohistory 839: 838:pseudoscience 835: 831: 830: 825: 822: 818: 817: 813: 807: 804: 801: 797: 796: 784: 780: 774: 771: 770: 767: 750: 746: 742: 741: 736: 733: 729: 728: 724: 718: 715: 712: 708: 707: 695: 691: 685: 682: 681: 678: 661: 657: 653: 652: 644: 633: 631: 628: 624: 623: 619: 613: 610: 607: 603: 602: 590: 586: 580: 577: 576: 573: 556: 552: 548: 547: 539: 528: 526: 523: 519: 518: 514: 508: 505: 502: 498: 497: 485: 481: 475: 472: 471: 468: 451: 447: 443: 442: 434: 428: 423: 421: 418: 414: 413: 409: 403: 400: 397: 393: 392: 380: 376: 370: 367: 366: 363: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 329: 324: 323: 322: 313: 307: 302: 300: 297: 293: 292: 288: 282: 279: 276: 272: 271: 267: 263: 257: 249: 245: 240: 239: 232: 230: 226: 222: 218: 213: 211: 207: 203: 202:pseudoscience 199: 194: 191: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2030: 2014: 2008: 2004: 2000:tohu va bohu 1998: 1982: 1963: 1959: 1957: 1948: 1931: 1916: 1902: 1892: 1882: 1850:early church 1831: 1823: 1767: 1765: 1761: 1759: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1746: 1727: 1718:Oliver mcrae 1715: 1690: 1653: 1645: 1637: 1633: 1611:EnochBethany 1581: 1578: 1558: 1540:EnochBethany 1528: 1524:Adam and Eve 1504:Adam and Eve 1501: 1485: 1455: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420: 1371: 1368: 1362: 1358: 1336: 1333:ubiquitously 1332: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1298: 1291: 1287: 1284:19th century 1280:investigated 1279: 1275: 1232: 1224: 1220: 1165: 1163: 1028: 1021: 1010: 990:EnochBethany 973: 968: 964: 955: 952: 945: 939: 932: 925: 914: 906:Chalmers. -- 904: 879: 827: 778: 738: 689: 649: 643:Bible portal 584: 544: 479: 455:Christianity 446:Christianity 439: 402:Christianity 374: 335:articles to 326: 319: 318: 262:WikiProjects 214: 195: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1971:Denis Petau 1875:explains: " 1788:Hob Gadling 1730:Binksternet 1497:Fall of Man 1479:derive the 1290:during the 1221:paraphrased 1130:As to your 901:Old section 754:Creationism 745:Creationism 717:Creationism 148:free images 31:not a forum 2069:Categories 1911:St. Jerome 1469:patriarchs 1359:themselves 1288:attractive 1140:WP:SELFPUB 1017:WP:PROVEIT 977:Christonjp 855:Skepticism 846:skepticism 806:Skepticism 210:designated 1964:Sentences 1897:spiritual 1672:Smarkflea 1452:Rationale 1448:in 1909. 223:, or any 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 1993:and the 1657:Kirkpete 1516:Big Bang 1466:Biblical 1434:Universe 1341:WP:SYNTH 1326:Omphalos 1318:does not 1299:does not 1276:does not 1245:WP:SYNTH 1158:WP:SYNTH 960:Woodburn 920:context. 350:Religion 328:Religion 281:Religion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1920:By the 1855:angelic 1809:Neonate 1520:Lucifer 1458:science 1316:McIver 1311:geology 1297:McIver 1274:McIver 1203:WP:PSTS 1154:WP:PSTS 948:Rlquall 882:on the 834:science 781:on the 692:on the 587:on the 560:Judaism 551:Judaism 507:Judaism 482:on the 377:on the 252:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 1938:source 1399:shift6 1256:shift6 1138:& 1136:WP:SPS 1109:shift6 1050:shift6 908:shift6 258:scale. 126:Google 1995:Zohar 1859:Satan 1804:Paleo 1508:Satan 1462:Earth 1377:Stalk 1373:Hrafn 1351:WP:OR 1337:infer 1171:Stalk 1167:Hrafn 1034:Stalk 1030:Hrafn 1024:WP:EL 665:Bible 656:Bible 612:Bible 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2056:talk 2037:talk 2021:here 2009:Bohu 2007:and 2005:Tohu 1934:here 1905:here 1792:talk 1773:talk 1734:talk 1700:talk 1676:talk 1661:talk 1615:talk 1566:talk 1544:talk 1510:and 1440:and 1403:talk 1260:talk 1225:very 1147:WP:V 1132:WP:V 1113:talk 1077:WP:V 1054:talk 1013:WP:V 994:talk 926:some 844:and 339:and 337:good 204:and 196:The 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1954:--> 1940:). 1861:in 1428:or 1309:of 874:Low 773:Mid 684:Low 579:Low 474:Low 369:Low 341:1.0 176:TWL 2071:: 2058:) 2039:) 2031:— 1865:. 1812:– 1794:) 1775:) 1736:) 1702:) 1678:) 1663:) 1651:. 1617:) 1568:) 1546:) 1526:. 1405:) 1262:) 1254:-- 1115:) 1056:) 1019:. 996:) 956:in 940:in 933:in 840:, 836:, 156:) 54:; 2054:( 2035:( 1801:— 1790:( 1771:( 1732:( 1698:( 1674:( 1659:( 1621:) 1613:( 1564:( 1550:) 1542:( 1401:( 1343:. 1258:( 1149:. 1111:( 1052:( 1000:) 992:( 886:. 785:. 696:. 591:. 486:. 381:. 264:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index