The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Audie » Sun May 08, 2016 3:12 am

RickD wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:Whether my heart is really flint would need a geologist to say.

Gosh, I don't know what that means really, to have a heart of flint, but it made me laugh. :esmile:

I'd have to say it means her heart is contaminated.

It's a reference to the contaminated water in Flint, Michigan.



And that is the sort of thing a prrson touched with the metaphysique
would logically have to say.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8907
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Kurieuo » Wed May 11, 2016 5:17 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days?

You're kind of loading in "Gap" ideas with your thinking here.
God didn't create earth in an empty and waste state, rather earth passed through a "formless" state after which it was "empty" or "void".

abelcainsbrother wrote:No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new.

Perfectly "brand new" or do you actually mean perfectly "completed"?
What for you is wrapped up in "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets).
Where do you agree/disagree with what I wrote about such?


Yes I mean perfectly completed.

The thing is, "the Earth" isn't really individually mentioned in Gen 1:1.

So if you say the Earth was completed here, there is nothing in Scripture that adamantly says such since ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets is a phrase that simply represents the cosmos and all that is within them (no details are yet provided of the contents of the universe).

How far along the universe is, the text doesn't say, however we aren't left hanging long. For Gen 1:2 (which is really a continuation of the sentence in Gen 1:1) introduces us to Earth's existence in a state of being formless and void. So we're at a stage in Earth's past when there wasn't yet anything formed on it, it was empty and ready for God's further creative activity as sovereign Creator and Lord over all.

Now, my reading ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets this way (as the entire universe) isn't just something I say, but it is very much accepted that this is the case by scholars and also YECs. Here is what Answers in Genesis say of this "the heaven and the earth" phrase:

    The phrase “heaven(s) and earth” in Scripture is an example of a figure of speech called a merism, where two opposites are combined into an all-encompassing single concept, in this case the totality of creation. A linguistic analysis of the words “heaven(s) and earth” in Scripture shows that they refer to the totality of all creation (the Hebrews did not have a word for “universe”). For example, in Genesis 14:19 God is called “Creator of heaven and earth.” In Jeremiah 23:24 God speaks of Himself as filling “heaven and earth.” See also Genesis 14:22; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chronicles 2:12; Psalms 115:15, 121:2, 124:8, 134:3, 146:6; and Isaiah 37:16.

abelcainsbrother wrote:How long was it when the earth passed through a formless state after which it was empty or void?

Scripture doesn't say how long earth was empty and void for, does it? It merely passed through such a state.
What do you believe with your Gap theory, please include references?

As a side, where words aren't had it doesn't mean we can inject whatever makes us happy. We must simply stop with where we are dropped off. Christians have gotten themselves greatly entangled in this interpretation and that, largely because they just simply couldn't stop and began insinuating and telling their own story according to their fancy.

The YEC/OEC debate largely happens, or debates around eschatology and what-not, because people get understandably excited about beginnings and endings. It's not good enough that Scripture mentions stuff, we want all the details. I was once this way. Excited especially by RTB to see parallels in Scripture to science, take for example the order of things. But, then, I always felt uncomfortable when they upped the ante by saying correlations found in science and Scripture were perfectly described in Scripture itself.

For example, statements like, "Scripture taught the 'big bang' first", well no, it simply says God stretched out the heavens in rather poetic form "as a tent." Tents can only be stretched so far, the universe unless stopped looks like it'll continually expand and burn out. Scripture was likely referring to the "circle", hemisphere above us that the Sun rises and travels through before setting. It's like the ceiling above Earth, like the tent has its own ceiling one can look up to. It needs to be taken a step further to say this is talking about an expanding universe as described in "big bang" theories.

Another example, at no time does Genesis at all seem concerned with time. Rather it is concerned with God's creating, that's the main thing I'd have anyone take away regardless of if they're Day-Age, Theistic Evolutionist, Young Earth, Gap Theory or what-have-you. That should be the main point we all come together on; God as Lord, not merely a god like in some Greek pantheon, or some far away uninvolved and disinterested God, but a God who delights in His Creation, saw it was good and who is Lord God over all.

ACB wrote:The heavens and the earth represents the entire universe and everything in it after God spoke and it was perfect and inhabited also from the beginning based on Isaiah 45:18.

Isaiah 45:18 in various translations:

    New International Version
    "For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."

    New American Standard Bible
    "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else."

    King James 2000 Bible
    "For thus says the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

You know, even though Earth passed through such a state, whether this was by physical processes of cosmic evolution, or some fallen angelic horde destroying "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets) that you believe perfectly completed in Gen 1:1, it is clear in Scripture that Earth passed through such a state.

Note, in Isaiah 45:18 that phrase ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets is not used. Notice it says "God established it", established what? Established the Earth, right? God established the Earth! Not the angels it seems. And God created Earth not with the purpose of leaving it empty and vain like the millions of planets in our galaxy, but formed it to be inhabited!

Is this not what happened no matter the interpretation one takes?

ACB wrote:I don't like this idea we must read Genesis as if it as we have not read the rest of the bible because when you say I'm loading the Gap idea into it,it is based on what the bible says in other places that allows me to load Gap thinking into it. It is not just made up,it has always been based on other scriptures throughout the bible why we load a gap into it. This is what so many who reject it don't understand.They assume we made it fir first and then tried to find other scripture to support it,etc.But it is based on what the rest of the bible reveals to us throughout both the old and new testaments.

Starting with Genesis 1:1 and working our way forward provides important structure to the discussion, rather then just skipping here and there and everywhere which is disorganised and hard to follow. Feel free to bring any Scripture to bare on your particular interpretation with any verse we're discussing in Genesis 1.

So far, what has been presented is thin and well, they too have the Gap idea loaded in. Forgive me for saying this, but it's like you are coming to Scripture already convinced of the Gap scenario, and so when you read this or that verse you're actually overlaying it on top of a particular narrative that you already accept.

This isn't, or shouldn't be, how Scriptural support works. Rather, we should let Scripture speak where is speaks, and equally let Scripture remain silent where it is silent. Isaiah 45:18 supports any interpretation, and there is nothing of significance in this verse that sets the Gap Theory above other stories of the Genesis creation.

ACB wrote:I probably seemed alittle rude maybe because I did'nt address all of your points but it was'nt meant in a bad way or anything but I was trying to address your overall point from your above post because some of it seemed like your opinion,so I tried to address the biblical points you were explaining. I will try to go back over it and reply to each of your points.

Not at all rude, and I wrote a lot so... as long as you're reading what I've said, so I hopefully won't have to repeat things over and over, you can address any points I've made as they arise in your own writing.

God bless ACB, though you know, I really hate that phrase...
Always seems trite, but that just means if I say it I mean it right?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4200
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby abelcainsbrother » Wed May 11, 2016 9:49 pm

I can agree that the earth is not individually mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and that it is referring to the cosmos as you explained but the reason why I say earth is because it was translated into english "heaven and the earth". It is as simple as that.I'm simply just repeating the english translation. In Genesis 1:2 when it says the earth was without form and void it is referring to the entire cosmos and not just the earth. Because as we read through Genesis 1 we can see God works on the earth first and then the heavens.

Now when you say Genesis 1:2 is a continuation of Genesis 1:1 and that it was'nt long after Genesis 1:1 I don't see how you can say that.We can't know how long it was. I have already explained why but for some reason it seems like you doubt why.This is the problem and difference we have.And I don't know how to explain it any better than I already have but until you trust the real meaning of the hebrew words "bara" and "asah" we may differ on this point. However atleast you can see that the cosmos passed through a without form and void state at some point.

Let me put it to you this way If "bara" always refers to something new and "asah" does'nt. Then how can you claim Genesis 1:2 is a continuation of Genesis 1:1? Somebody has to be wrong even if the phrase "heaven and earth" refers to the cosmos we know the cosmos was new at one time and then it was not because God has to work on it as we read through Genesis 1.

I very well know how beginning and endings can divide us if we are not careful and I agree that the most important thing when it comes to creation is that God created it and is sovereign Creator and Lord of it and we can agree with this as Christians.

About Isaiah 45:18 I'm not sure how I can see how you claim it can fit in any interpretation but again it comes down to what "bara" and "asah" means and for some reason,it seems like I cannot convince you there is a difference. But if we know the difference? It does not fit any interpretation like you imply and regardless of the english translation also as long as we know where the words "bara" and "asah" are in the verse, it tells us alot more than it might seem. I would agree with you though if I did not understand what "bara" and "asah" mean. If they were interchangeable then it would'nt make much of a difference and I then could agree that it can fit any interpretation. Now the word Hebrew word for the english word "formed" in Isaiah 45:18 is a different Hebrew word than "bara" and "asah". It really comes down to "bara" and "asah"

God bless you too and I don't mind ACB ,it is just a shortened way to refer to me. Let me say that I never intend to be divisive over this and I always try to be respectful about it, because if a person has been saved by Jesus? They are a brother or sister in Christ regardless of their creation interpretation but we cannot all be right about our interpretation and I'm just representing this interpretation when creation comes up and I try to show why it is right.

Now I will try to explain what I mean about Isaiah 45:18
King James 2000 Bible
"For thus says the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he has established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."

See the word created? It is the hebrew word "bara" and it means a new creation from God,but then it sais he formed it and made it. made is "asah" and it means to work on something that is not new,so we know God created it new at some point and then had to work on it and do work on it to restore it,we can see this in Genesis 1:2 when God had to work on it to restore it.It tells us that God did not create it in vain "tohu" which tells is that God did not create the earth in a without form and void state like it says in Genesis 1:2,because it is one of the same hebrew words in Genesis 1:2 to describe "without form and void. So we know that God did not create the earth like it is in Genesis 1:2 empty.It had became like that since the beginning. Also most Gap Theorists believe it was judgment from God because of Lucifer's rebellion that caused the cosmos,Universe or "heaven and earth" to become like that. God baptised the earth and cosmos to purge it from sin just like when we are baptised in water it is symbolic of our sins being removed.

Let's read Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form,and void:And darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." How can people not tell the earth is in water? We have the earth that already exists and it is in waters. Darkness was upon the face of the deep And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.This effected the entire cosmos too and we see God work on the earth first and then the heavens in Genesis 1 to clean up this mess. Now how am I adding anything into this? I'm simply reading what is described. We can also assume the earth is already spinning in its orbit too based on Genesis 1:3 because God divides the Day from night,so in order to have a day the earth has to be spinning in its orbit as the light shines on it.Or perhaps God had to start it spinning in its orbit again. It does seem like if the earth was in water it would'nt be spinning in orbit and since it is dark it would be frozen too but in order to have a day the earth must be spinning in its orbit with the light shining on it.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Jac3510 » Thu May 12, 2016 2:45 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:Now when you say Genesis 1:2 is a continuation of Genesis 1:1 and that it was'nt long after Genesis 1:1 I don't see how you can say that.We can't know how long it was.

Yes we can say exactly how long it was because the text tells us exactly how long it was.

There was no interval of time between 1:1 and 1:2.

The grammatical structure is absolutely clear. 1:2 is just three circumstantial clauses. Here is something you can read on circumstanial clauses. In short, though, circumstantial clauses tell you the circumstancs or manner under which the main clause occurs. Gen 1:1 is the main clause, and we are told it happened under three circumstances:

    In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth (<~~~~~~ Main clause)
    (1) the earth was formless and void; (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
    (2) darkness was over the surface of the deep (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
    (3) the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
This, ACB, is just grammar. It's not interpretation. To say that there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 is as stupid as to say that Jesus was "a god" because the you "can" translate John 1:1c, "And the word was a god." The only people who would make such a claim are those with absolutely no grasp of Greek. And likewise, the only people who would make the claim that there is any length of time whatsoever between 1:1 and 1:2 are those with absolutely no grasp of Hebrew. Now you can make a case for a gap between 1:2 and 1:3, but between 1:1 and 1:2 . . . no. You can't have a gap anymore than you can in between these silly English sentences:

    1) (a) While I was typing this, (b) I got a headache. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
    2) (a) I fell off my bike (b) because the ground was so uneven. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
    3) (a) I voted today. (b) It was cold, rainy, and perfectly expressed my feelings about the candidates. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
I really want you to study those examples, ACB. It's not a matter of interpretation to say there is no "gap" between the (a) and the (b) clauses. in each case, one of the clauses explains what it was like when the main clause happened. No gap is possible by nature of the sentences. And so it is with 1:1 and 1:2. Grammatically speaking, there can be no gap between Genesis 1:1 an 1:2. To say there is a gap is to accuse Moses of not knowing Hebrew grammar. So, again, we know exactly how long it was between 1:1 and 1:2 and the answer is this--no time at all.

Okay. Carry on.

edit:

And btw, serious gappers don't contest that Gen 1:2 is made up of three circumstantial clauses. They argue that the clauses are not to be connected to 1:1 but rather 1:3, such that they give us the circumstances under which God said "let there be light" and not how He first made creation. Let pass the numerous problems with that view just in terms of the logic of the narrative. There are grammatical problems with that as well. For a brief discussion of that issue, read this. In short, the Hebrew grammar closes off all attempts at finding a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, a problem so severe that even the esteemed Merrill Unger (a gap theorist) had to argue that the Gap happened BEFORE Gen 1:1! (See his article, "Rethinking the Genesis Account of Creation" (BSAC 115:457 (Jan 1958)).

Really, dude. If you're going to pretend like you're an expert on the gap theory, you should know all of this already.
Last edited by Jac3510 on Thu May 12, 2016 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18261
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby RickD » Thu May 12, 2016 2:55 am

Well,

That settles it I guess. Can we move on from the Gap Theory now?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4200
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu May 12, 2016 12:39 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:Now when you say Genesis 1:2 is a continuation of Genesis 1:1 and that it was'nt long after Genesis 1:1 I don't see how you can say that.We can't know how long it was.

Yes we can say exactly how long it was because the text tells us exactly how long it was.

There was no interval of time between 1:1 and 1:2.

The grammatical structure is absolutely clear. 1:2 is just three circumstantial clauses. Here is something you can read on circumstanial clauses. In short, though, circumstantial clauses tell you the circumstancs or manner under which the main clause occurs. Gen 1:1 is the main clause, and we are told it happened under three circumstances:

    In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth (<~~~~~~ Main clause)
    (1) the earth was formless and void; (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
    (2) darkness was over the surface of the deep (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
    (3) the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (<~~~~~~ Circumstance #1)
This, ACB, is just grammar. It's not interpretation. To say that there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 is as stupid as to say that Jesus was "a god" because the you "can" translate John 1:1c, "And the word was a god." The only people who would make such a claim are those with absolutely no grasp of Greek. And likewise, the only people who would make the claim that there is any length of time whatsoever between 1:1 and 1:2 are those with absolutely no grasp of Hebrew. Now you can make a case for a gap between 1:2 and 1:3, but between 1:1 and 1:2 . . . no. You can't have a gap anymore than you can in between these silly English sentences:

    1) (a) While I was typing this, (b) I got a headache. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
    2) (a) I fell off my bike (b) because the ground was so uneven. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
    3) (a) I voted today. (b) It was cold, rainy, and perfectly expressed my feelings about the candidates. (No gap possible between (a) and (b)).
I really want you to study those examples, ACB. It's not a matter of interpretation to say there is no "gap" between the (a) and the (b) clauses. in each case, one of the clauses explains what it was like when the main clause happened. No gap is possible by nature of the sentences. And so it is with 1:1 and 1:2. Grammatically speaking, there can be no gap between Genesis 1:1 an 1:2. To say there is a gap is to accuse Moses of not knowing Hebrew grammar. So, again, we know exactly how long it was between 1:1 and 1:2 and the answer is this--no time at all.

Okay. Carry on.

edit:

And btw, serious gappers don't contest that Gen 1:2 is made up of three circumstantial clauses. They argue that the clauses are not to be connected to 1:1 but rather 1:3, such that they give us the circumstances under which God said "let there be light" and not how He first made creation. Let pass the numerous problems with that view just in terms of the logic of the narrative. There are grammatical problems with that as well. For a brief discussion of that issue, read this. In short, the Hebrew grammar closes off all attempts at finding a gap between 1:1 and 1:2, a problem so severe that even the esteemed Merrill Unger (a gap theorist) had to argue that the Gap happened BEFORE Gen 1:1! (See his article, "Rethinking the Genesis Account of Creation" (BSAC 115:457 (Jan 1958)).

Really, dude. If you're going to pretend like you're an expert on the gap theory, you should know all of this already.


I do know very well the difficulties with the Hebrew it can be to show there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses,I have read what Arthur Custance says about the Hebrew and he was honest about it,however just by knowing the difference between the Hebrew words "bara" and "asah" we can tell alot more than you realize and we can atleast tell something happened in verse 2 in order for the earth to be without form and void.We can for instance know that certian life had already existed before when it comes to the life God MADE however we can know the things God CREATED were new kinds of life. So we can tell by these words something happened. Also you claim that the Hebrew won't allow for it,but before about the 1970's most bible theologians were gap theorists,it was not young earth creationism,it was Gap Theory that was the dominant view with some Day Agers as well,but they were pretty much all OLD earth creationists. So how could all of these bible theologians be wrong? You would be in a minority view if you were living before the 1970's.I realize things have changed today but it was different back then.Even ancient jewish Rabbi's believed in and taught there was a Gap,yet you claim today the Hebrew won't allow for it? Why were Jewish Rabbi's teaching it then long before the age of the earth was such a hot topic? They certianly believed the Hebrew allowed for it. So does this just come down to wo we choose to believe? The modern theologians or the old ones? Somebody is right and somebody is wrong,they both cannot be right. You might want to follow along in my other Gap Theory thread where I'm refuting an article written by young earth creationists because I'm going to show that they are wrong when they claim "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable,and if there are Hebrew scholars today teaching this? There credibility is already in jeopardy. Now I can agree with you that I do need to learn how to make a better case for the Gap as far as the Hebrew and the first few verses of Genesis 1.I do need to understand the pro's and cons in more detail to be able to make a better case.I agree with you there.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Jac3510 » Thu May 12, 2016 12:47 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:I do know very well the difficulties with the Hebrew it can be to show there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses,

Such dishonest rubbish. It cannot be shown that there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses. On the contrary, it has been shown that there is no gap as it relates the first few verses.

But hey, whatevs. I've done my one every six month post on the demonstrable idiocy that is the gap conspiracy (it's not even a theory). You won't take correction on a factual matter, and the Bible is clear enough on what to say to and about such people.

So I'll see you again in six months you're still busy repeating the same foolishness.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4200
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu May 12, 2016 1:09 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:I do know very well the difficulties with the Hebrew it can be to show there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses,

Such dishonest rubbish. It cannot be shown that there is a gap as it relates to the first few verses. On the contrary, it has been shown that there is no gap as it relates the first few verses.

But hey, whatevs. I've done my one every six month post on the demonstrable idiocy that is the gap conspiracy (it's not even a theory). You won't take correction on a factual matter, and the Bible is clear enough on what to say to and about such people.

So I'll see you again in six months you're still busy repeating the same foolishness.


Jac,buddy. Have you seen this? It is art work?From the Sarajevo Haggada which is jewish art work This was in the 14th century long before the age of the earth was known and before it was such a hot topic. These were Jewish people who understood the Hebrew in the 14th century. Look at this art work depicting creation. Look at the pictures from left to right. The very first picture depicts chaos,then the first day God divides the light,second day God seperates earth and water,third day vegetation,fourth day sun,moon and stars,fifth day fishes and birds,sixth day animals and man,seventh day rest. So that these Jews who knew Hebrew and saw there was chaos before the first day which is in verse 3 of Genesis 1. Who would you believe?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sarajev ... Cm5DwMM%3A
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18261
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby RickD » Thu May 12, 2016 1:29 pm

You get "Gap theory" from a picture of chaos?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Jac3510 » Thu May 12, 2016 1:34 pm

Abel . . .

Yes, I've seen it. Do you not understand that illustrates MY point against yours? The creation in Genesis 1:1, the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, were such that they were created in a state of chaos. (That's what the grammar says . . . remember the circumstantial clauses?) On your view, you would expect a creation FOLLOWED BY chaos FOLLOWED BY a recreation. But that's not what you see. You see exactly what the grammar say: the initial creation is chaotic, and the seven days are all about bringing order out of that chaos. I mean, if you're going to keep defending this stupid conspiracy, AT LEAST adopt Unger's position and say that the gap came BEFORE Genesis 1:1 and that you get the theory from elsewhere in Scripture and not from Genesis.

But as for your paintings, big shock, they just show that today's scholars understand Hebrew better than Hebrew scholars of the 1950s, and our scholarship is now catching up to what people who spoke Hebrew natively were telling us all along. But hey, as I said, whatevs. You're dishonest with the evidence anyway. You're completely intransigent, unable to be reasoned with. You won't accept correction from ancient authorities or modern. I don't really care. Keep making a fool out of yourself. As I said, I'll probably stop in again in about six months and point out the idiocy of your pet conspiracy theory again, and in the meantime, I'll ignore you as I normally do for the simple reason that you ignore evidence. No reason to waste my time beyond what I've already wasted.

Peace out

edit:

And here's the Jewish Encyclopedia article on it. Funny that ACB either didn't read it or didn't pay it close enough attention as it contradicts his point. Best part is the picture he linked to is from that very article! :pound:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... 0-creation
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Audie » Thu May 12, 2016 1:55 pm

Jac3510 wrote:Abel . . .



hey, as I said, whatevs



Thought that was my saying. :D

. You're dishonest with the evidence anyway. You're completely intransigent, unable to be reasoned with.


Unfortunate but true.

You won't accept correction from ancient authorities or modern.


Sure doesnt accept any science either.

Keep making a fool out of yourself


Not just himself. As i tried to tell him, he is the worst sort of ambassador for the church.



. As I said, I'll probably stop in again in about six months and point out the idiocy of your pet conspiracy theory again, and in the meantime, I'll ignore you as I normally do for the simple reason that you ignore evidence. No reason to waste my time beyond what I've already wasted.


Good suggestion for the rest of us to follow.


User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Jac3510 » Thu May 12, 2016 2:02 pm

Audie wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Keep making a fool out of yourself

Not just himself. As i tried to tell him, he is the worst sort of ambassador for the church.

And this is what bothers me so much and why I do register objections every few months. I don't want to be complicit in his absurdity. There are enough very genuine problems that Christians have to deal with without inventing even stupider ones to deal with. I mean, hello, we claim that Jesus came back to life after three days and then ascended bodily into heaven, and that after being savagely beaten and tortured to death by Roman soldiers. And of course the Old Testament is full of miracles that just to a great many just appear absurd (so to pick on the obvious, young earth creationism, the global flood, the tower of babel, and so on--basically the first eleven chapters of Genesis!), no reason for Abel to make our job any harder. So Augustine said, "We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers" (De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39). Here, Abel not only is giving an interpretation that is opposed to science, but one that is opposed to Scripture and basic grammar itself. Absolute insanity . . .
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby Audie » Thu May 12, 2016 2:20 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:Keep making a fool out of yourself

Not just himself. As i tried to tell him, he is the worst sort of ambassador for the church.

And this is what bothers me so much and why I do register objections every few months. I don't want to be complicit in his absurdity. There are enough very genuine problems that Christians have to deal with without inventing even stupider ones to deal with. I mean, hello, we claim that Jesus came back to life after three days and then ascended bodily into heaven, and that after being savagely beaten and tortured to death by Roman soldiers. And of course the Old Testament is full of miracles that just to a great many just appear absurd (so to pick on the obvious, young earth creationism, the global flood, the tower of babel, and so on--basically the first eleven chapters of Genesis!), no reason for Abel to make our job any harder. So Augustine said, "We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers" (De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39). Here, Abel not only is giving an interpretation that is opposed to science, but one that is opposed to Scripture and basic grammar itself. Absolute insanity . . .


I have noticed how he can take a sentence or two from some pop science article he has found, and turn it into something completely different.

A recent example would be that of the many ideas tossed about concerning the evolution of flight in birds, one is that the creatures may have been faster / better able to elude predators if the kind of 'rowed' with their forelimbs while running. I think its a dumb idea, but who really knows.

ANYhow, he changed it to "Evolutionists teach that dinosaurs developed wings to escape from predators".

Nobody with the faintest clue about evolution theory would say anything remotely like that.

I dont think he consciously / deliberately does this since he seems in all ways to be quite sincere. After you see example after example of a failure of reading comprehension like that, it takes on the look of a disability.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4200
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu May 12, 2016 2:30 pm

Jac3510 wrote:Abel . . .

Yes, I've seen it. Do you not understand that illustrates MY point against yours? The creation in Genesis 1:1, the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, were such that they were created in a state of chaos. (That's what the grammar says . . . remember the circumstantial clauses?) On your view, you would expect a creation FOLLOWED BY chaos FOLLOWED BY a recreation. But that's not what you see. You see exactly what the grammar say: the initial creation is chaotic, and the seven days are all about bringing order out of that chaos. I mean, if you're going to keep defending this stupid conspiracy, AT LEAST adopt Unger's position and say that the gap came BEFORE Genesis 1:1 and that you get the theory from elsewhere in Scripture and not from Genesis.

But as for your paintings, big shock, they just show that today's scholars understand Hebrew better than Hebrew scholars of the 1950s, and our scholarship is now catching up to what people who spoke Hebrew natively were telling us all along. But hey, as I said, whatevs. You're dishonest with the evidence anyway. You're completely intransigent, unable to be reasoned with. You won't accept correction from ancient authorities or modern. I don't really care. Keep making a fool out of yourself. As I said, I'll probably stop in again in about six months and point out the idiocy of your pet conspiracy theory again, and in the meantime, I'll ignore you as I normally do for the simple reason that you ignore evidence. No reason to waste my time beyond what I've already wasted.

Peace out

edit:

And here's the Jewish Encyclopedia article on it. Funny that ACB either didn't read it or didn't pay it close enough attention as it contradicts his point. Best part is the picture he linked to is from that very article! :pound:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... 0-creation


Why are you overlooking Bara in Genesis 1:1? You totally overlook what this word means in order to twist it to your intrpretation.But the bottom line is there was chaos before the first day and we see this chaos in verse 2 but because of bara we know it was not created in this state from the beginning. Bara always replies to something new and so we know the creation in Genesis 1:1 was NEW.It was not created in a choas state something happened to cause it. And then as we read on and continue to see bara and asah in the text in Genesis 1 we know God made some things but he created some things. So we know the things God MADE were not new creations,but the life that God created was NEW kinds of life.

You are interchanging "bara" and "asah in order to interpret it like you do. And Moses in Genesis 2:2-4 tells is how important it is to know the difference between "asah" and "bara" but for some reason you ignore this. We already know that God MADE or DONE IT it makes no difference because we see "asah" repeated two times by Moses telling us that it was not new in the 6 days from Genesis 2:2 which means it was NOT NEW,only when God created is it NEW.

asah - means to attend to,to put in order,to do work on something and it is something that had already been done before and it is never something new.Now you may say I'm adding on to it by claiming when we see "asah" it is something that had already been done before but it is based on everytime we see "asah" in the OT it is always something that had already been done before by God.We notice this.

Now in order to prove me wrong I want you to show me anywhere in the OT "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable. If you can do this? I will abandon the Gap Theory but I know you cannot do it.I have already checked it. You will not find anywhere in the OT were "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4200
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu May 12, 2016 4:46 pm

I have a link that I think you should read based on what Jac has said. Now it is alot to read,but I believe it will be worth it to anybody who wants to understand the Gap Theory interpretation of creation.Just click on this link and then go down until you see SECTION TWO and click on it.Now if you want? You can read through all of the sections and I would encourage it.But for this particular argument SECTION TWO is appropriate.
http://www.separationtruth.com/Creation-Gap.html
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.


Return to “Creation Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest