The Gap theory

[abelcainsbrother]

acb wrote:
My point is appealing to the majority does not determine truth.

Of course. But nobody here is saying that because the majority of scholars believe the gap theory is unbiblical, then that makes it unbiblical. Anyone here(Jac, Philip, me) who is pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Hebrew scholars think the gap theory is unbiblical, is pointing it out to show that you're not considering their arguments as to why the gap theory is unbiblical.

This is where you are misunderstanding. It is not argumentum ad populum.

With that aside, I'd like you to concentrate on DBowling's post above. He is showing you from scripture, why the gap theory is wrong. You said if someone could show you from scripture, then you'd consider changing your mind.

Well, he's showing you. Are you willing to be open to the possibility you are wrong? Truly open?

I am being told the majority of todays bible scholars reject the Gap Theory interpretation and it is implied that based on this I should reject it. I already know the majority of bible scholars today reject it eventhough I have heard of about 50 bible scholars that do hold to Gap Theory creationism but I have not been able to verify it yet. But this is not a reason for me to reject it because todays bible scholars reject it.

I have showed that based on the hebrew definitions that "bara" and "asah" or created or made are not interchangable and yet despite me showing the hebrew definitions it seems to be ignored,I guess because the majority of bible scholars reject it but God gave us hebrew and greek concordances for a reason and it is for our bible study.I have given the definitions and explained what they mean,even explained how important it is to know the difference,plus I gave atleast 4 examples of biblical evidence in Genesis 1 how we know the earth is old and God created life before God created and made life in this world in Genesis 1 and yet the words keep being interchanged and it is ignored that they are not interchangable.

Nobody will understand Gap Theory creationism until they truthfuly understand these definitions and that bara and asah are different hebrew words that are similar but have different meanings and are not interchangable. If somebody ignores this then they will not interpret Genesis 1 properly,but they will if they do.

This is not hard to do,or some trick or something either. This is just looking up the definitions of the hebrew words bara and asah and understandig what they mean and then reading Genesis 1 with these definitions in mind. I can say this that I don't care who or how many bible scholars claim bara and asah are interchangable,I know they are wrong. But I can't seem to get others to understand what bara and asah mean and so they read Genesis 1 and the OT interchanging them anyway despite Genesis 2:2-4 where Moses stresses fr us to know the difference.

I can't help it if somebody chooses to ignore the meanings of these words and chooses to interchange them anyway. But I see no reason to keep repeating myself on this point. So I will just say for people to go back through and review the points made in this thread and to do the research themselves.

[DBowling]

I was questioning ability to decode that word authoritatively..

As my favorite misquotation of Shakespeare goes
"Therein lies the rub"

The good news is that scholarship today has a pretty good handle on the definitions and grammar of the original Biblical languages, so I am very comfortable relying on scholarly consensus to determine what the Scriptural text is saying.

So when a person makes an assertion based on the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28, I can know with confidence that Genesis 1:28 does not say "replenish". And therefore any assertion based on the use of the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 is by definition not based on Scripture.

In Christ

This enables you to know whether with a time machine you'd see Adam and Eve eating the fruit,
the red sea part and noah float away in an ark?

It let's you know what the Scriptural text is saying with a certain amount of certainty.

Take your example of Noah for instance...

From language and grammar of the text, I am confident that the Scriptural text asserts that Noah did in fact float away on an ark. The text also tells us that water covered "the land" (erets), but the definition of erets by itself does not provide a geographical context for the scope of "the land".
So my next step is to examine the context and descriptions in the narrative to determine the geographical scope of "the land" that was affected by the flood. And based on data I've discussed elsewhere, I am convinced that the geographical scope of "the land" (which is contextually not grammatically determined) was the land of Mesopotamia.
The last step is to look at extraScriptural data, such as archaeology, Sumerian literature, etc to see if there is external historical data to support the Biblical narrative.

Some things can be determined by language and grammar alone... fill vs replenish.
Some things need to be determined by context... the example above is the geographical context for "the land".
And then we have different types of language... poetic, prophetic, symbolic, etc...
All of which contribute to the "meaning" of a text.

In Christ

[RickD]

acb wrote:
I am being told the majority of todays bible scholars reject the Gap Theory interpretation and it is implied that based on this I should reject it. I already know the majority of bible scholars today reject it eventhough I have heard of about 50 bible scholars that do hold to Gap Theoy creationism but I have not been able to verify it yet. But this is not a reason for me to reject it because todays bible scholars reject it.

The reason you should reject the gap theory, is the same reason why the scholars reject it. THAT'S THE POINT WE ARE MAKING!!

Since we are going around in circles, I'm done here. It's not productive anymore. You have been shown biblically why the Gap theory isn't tenable. But nobody can make you see it.

[Audie]

acb wrote:
I am being told the majority of todays bible scholars reject the Gap Theory interpretation and it is implied that based on this I should reject it. I already know the majority of bible scholars today reject it eventhough I have heard of about 50 bible scholars that do hold to Gap Theoy creationism but I have not been able to verify it yet. But this is not a reason for me to reject it because todays bible scholars reject it.

The reason you should reject the gap theory, is the same reason why the scholars reject it. THAT'S THE POINT WE ARE MAKING!!

Since we are going around in circles, I'm done here. It's not productive anymore. You have been shown biblically why the Gap theory isn't tenable. But nobody can make you see it.

If a person is so self absorbed as to think they have the Answer while
science, scripture and common sense say they are dead wrong, what is to do?

I hope he wakes up someday.*

[RickD]

acb wrote:
I am being told the majority of todays bible scholars reject the Gap Theory interpretation and it is implied that based on this I should reject it. I already know the majority of bible scholars today reject it eventhough I have heard of about 50 bible scholars that do hold to Gap Theoy creationism but I have not been able to verify it yet. But this is not a reason for me to reject it because todays bible scholars reject it.

The reason you should reject the gap theory, is the same reason why the scholars reject it. THAT'S THE POINT WE ARE MAKING!!

Since we are going around in circles, I'm done here. It's not productive anymore. You have been shown biblically why the Gap theory isn't tenable. But nobody can make you see it.

If a person is so self absorbed as to think they have the Answer while
science, scripture and common sense say they are dead wrong, what is to do?

I hope he wakes up someday.*

Sometimes we all need a little waking up. None of us are immune to being blind, from time to time.

[abelcainsbrother]

acb wrote:
I am being told the majority of todays bible scholars reject the Gap Theory interpretation and it is implied that based on this I should reject it. I already know the majority of bible scholars today reject it eventhough I have heard of about 50 bible scholars that do hold to Gap Theoy creationism but I have not been able to verify it yet. But this is not a reason for me to reject it because todays bible scholars reject it.

The reason you should reject the gap theory, is the same reason why the scholars reject it. THAT'S THE POINT WE ARE MAKING!!

Since we are going around in circles, I'm done here. It's not productive anymore. You have been shown biblically why the Gap theory isn't tenable. But nobody can make you see it.

OK I acknowledged the majority of bible scholrs reject it today however I know there was a time when it was the opposite and the majority of bible scholars taught Gap Theory creationism yet these bible scholars seem to be ignored. So that I guess it comes down to wht majority of bible scholars we believe. What makes these modern bible scholars that are mostly YEC anyway but what makes them more right? Especially when we have hebrew/greek concordances to check and verify who is right. Just because people choose to not change their mind does not mean the Gap Theory interpretation is wrong.

[abelcainsbrother]

I was questioning ability to decode that word authoritatively..

As my favorite misquotation of Shakespeare goes
"Therein lies the rub"

The good news is that scholarship today has a pretty good handle on the definitions and grammar of the original Biblical languages, so I am very comfortable relying on scholarly consensus to determine what the Scriptural text is saying.

So when a person makes an assertion based on the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28, I can know with confidence that Genesis 1:28 does not say "replenish". And therefore any assertion based on the use of the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 is by definition not based on Scripture.

In Christ

This enables you to know whether with a time machine you'd see Adam and Eve eating the fruit,
the red sea part and noah float away in an ark?

It let's you know what the Scriptural text is saying with a certain amount of certainty.

Take your example of Noah for instance...

From language and grammar of the text, I am confident that the Scriptural text asserts that Noah did in fact float away on an ark. The text also tells us that water covered "the land" (erets), but the definition of erets by itself does not provide a geographical context for the scope of "the land".
So my next step is to examine the context and descriptions in the narrative to determine the geographical scope of "the land" that was affected by the flood. And based on data I've discussed elsewhere, I am convinced that the geographical scope of "the land" (which is contextually not grammatically determined) was the land of Mesopotamia.
The last step is to look at extraScriptural data, such as archaeology, Sumerian literature, etc to see if there is external historical data to support the Biblical narrative.

Some things can be determined by language and grammar alone... fill vs replenish.
Some things need to be determined by context... the example above is the geographical context for "the land".
And then we have different types of language... poetic, prophetic, symbolic, etc...
All of which contribute to the "meaning" of a text.

In Christ

The majority of bible scholars don't interpret it that way. I guess we should be YEC's now because of the majority of bible scholars.

[DBowling]

acb wrote:
I am being told the majority of todays bible scholars reject the Gap Theory interpretation and it is implied that based on this I should reject it. I already know the majority of bible scholars today reject it eventhough I have heard of about 50 bible scholars that do hold to Gap Theoy creationism but I have not been able to verify it yet. But this is not a reason for me to reject it because todays bible scholars reject it.

The reason you should reject the gap theory, is the same reason why the scholars reject it. THAT'S THE POINT WE ARE MAKING!!

OK I acknowledged the majority of bible scholrs reject it today however I know there was a time when it was the opposite and the majority of bible scholars taught Gap Theory creationism yet these bible scholars seem to be ignored. So that I guess it comes down to wht majority of bible scholars we believe.

I'm not sure you are understanding what Rick said.

Rick is NOT asking you to reject the Gap Theory BECAUSE the majority of scholars reject it.
Rick is asking you to understand WHY the majority of scholars reject the Gap Theory.

The reason the majority of scholars reject the Gap Theory is because it contradicts the teaching of Scripture.
And contradicting Scripture is a valid reason to reject any theological theory whether the majority of scholars reject it or not.

In Christ

[Philip]

ACB: I guess we should be YEC's now because of the majority of bible scholars.

The choice is not simply one between YEC beliefs, evolution, and a former world. Rejecting a former world thesis does nothing to OEC / Progressive Creationism beliefs.

[Philip]

ACB: I guess we should be YEC's now because of the majority of bible scholars.

The choice is not simply one between YEC beliefs, evolution, and a former world. Rejecting a former world thesis does nothing to OEC / Progressive Creationism beliefs.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB: I guess we should be YEC's now because of the majority of bible scholars.

The choice is not simply one between YEC beliefs, evolution, and a former world. Rejecting a former world thesis does nothing to OEC / Progressive Creationism beliefs.

My point is I'm being told the Gap theory is wrong according to the majority of bible scholars yet when it comes to a local flood that the majority of bible scholars reject,it does'nt seen to matter about that interpretation. Throughout this thread I have laid out the Gap Theory interpretation and have given many reasons it is right biblically both from the english translation and the hebrew and that is all I can do. I cannot make somebody change their mind about their creation theory,that is up to them but thus far nobody has refuted the Gap theory biblically and they reject it based on opinion or majority of bible scholars.I know there was a time when the majority of bible scholars and Christians in the church believed and accepted Gap creationism,but this is ignored.

The bible tells us there was a former heavens and earth and the former world perished but I can't help it that people think the former heaven and earth and world was before Noah's flood which is what they must do biblically to reject it. But biblically we know that we had the same heavens and earth and world both before and after Noah's flood. Critics not only don't know the difference between create and made in the OT but also the earth and world in the bible also.

In the discussion me and DB had I just stayed in Genesis 1 and 2 to make my points and but they are just part of the Gap theory interpretation.

[DBowling]

ACB,

I don't think you've responded to these two specific questions yet.

I am very interested in your response to these two questions... Thanks.

1. In Genesis 1:28 God's Word uses the Hebrew word 'male' which means to fill.
Are you willing to embrace what God's Word says in Genesis 1:28, "to fill"?
Are you willing to reject every teaching of man that is based on the discredited mistranslation, "replenish"?

2. You yourself made a post that explicitly stated that the use of 'bara' in Genesis 1:21 was an indicator that God created something new, animal life, "for the first time" in Genesis 1:21.
Are you willing to embrace the teaching of God's Word that God created (bara) animal life for the first time in Genesis 1:21?
Are you willing to reject the teaching of man that contradicts Scripture by claiming that animal life was created before Genesis 1:2?

The second question in particular uses your words and your definitions, and demonstrates that even if we use your definitions of bara and asah, Scripture explicitly states that God created animal life (using your words) "for the first time" in Genesis 1:21.

In Christ

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB,

I don't think you've responded to these two specific questions yet.

I am very interested in your response to these two questions... Thanks.

1. In Genesis 1:28 God's Word uses the Hebrew word 'male' which means to fill.
Are you willing to embrace what God's Word says in Genesis 1:28, "to fill"?
Are you willing to reject every teaching of man that is based on the discredited mistranslation, "replenish"?

2. You yourself made a post that explicitly stated that the use of 'bara' in Genesis 1:21 was an indicator that God created something new, animal life, "for the first time" in Genesis 1:21.
Are you willing to embrace the teaching of God's Word that God created (bara) animal life for the first time in Genesis 1:21?
Are you willing to reject the teaching of man that contradicts Scripture by claiming that animal life was created before Genesis 1:2?

The second question in particular uses your words and your definitions, and demonstrates that even if we use your definitions of bara and asah, Scripture explicitly states that God created animal life (using your words) "for the first time" in Genesis 1:21.

In Christ

First off,whenever we started this discussion after we were led here the very first thing I did was give you the hebrew definitions to the words "bara" and "asah" and yet you obviously did not read about what they mean eventhough I gave the definitions. It is very important that you understand the meaning of bara and asah or created and made and yet you skim over this and insist on interchanging them anyway.

I mean in one sense you say you can acknowledge that they are not interchangable but as soon as you start reading Genesis 1 you start ignoring or overlooking what these two words mean and you interchange them.I think the reason why you do this is to avoid the obvious.

I mean I tell you that based on the word created(bara) according to the hebrew definition is it always something new God created and yet when you see made(asah) it was God working on something that had already existed before and God is working on it and yet you seem to skim over this for some reason. I mean if you disagree with how I'm interpreting made(asah) then go back to the definition and show me how because I'm not wrong about it,I'm right.

And this is important because you need to understad the difference and you can. You can never say when you see made(asah) it is something new God created,never in the whole OT,it is always God working on somethig that already exists or existed based on when God MADE stars and made life.God both CREATED and MADE life in Genesis 1 and this mean when you see created it is aways something new,whether it is life or not,but when you see MADE it is not new life,it cannot be new life because it is not (bara)created. So we know life existed before God MADE the life he made in Genesis 1.We know it was not new life when God made life in Genesis 1.

I've simplified this,I'm not even adding in "after its kind" or "according to their kind"right now but once you understand the difference between bara and asah,then when you do see them phrases you will know that life had already been created before God created and made life in Genesis 1,but you need to first understand what bara and asah mean.

No I do not agree that replenish means fill and I've already given you evidence that refutes that argument but besides that we know biblically that Noah,his sons and their wives replenished the earth after Noah's flood,fill is not the proper word here and it is'nt in Genesis 1 either when God tells Adam and Eve to replenish the earth.

I do acknowledge God created and made life after Genesis 1:2 but I disagree with you that there was no life before Genesis 1:2. I've already given you 2nd Peter 3:3-7 in a former discussion that tells us a former world was destroyed by waters that the earth was formed out of and we know worlds have life in them.So I can say life was created before Genesis 1:2 for the former world that perished in the waters the earth was formed out of in Genesis 1 when God MADE this word Exodus 20:11.

[DBowling]

No I do not agree that replenish means fill and I've already given you evidence that refutes that argument but besides that we know biblically that Noah,his sons and their wives replenished the earth after Noah's flood,fill is not the proper word here and it is'nt in Genesis 1 either when God tells Adam and Eve to replenish the earth.

This is probably the easiest Gap Theory assertion to refute.
So let's start with this one first, and we can work through your other assertions in later posts.

We AGREE that 'replenish' does NOT mean 'fill'.

The Hebrew 'male' means fill. (as shown in the link below)
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4390.htm

The Hebrew 'male' means 'fill' in Genesis 1:28
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/1-28.htm
The Hebrew 'male' means 'fill' in Genesis 9:1.
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/9-1.htm
God's Word says 'fill' in Genesis 1:28. God's Word says 'fill' in Genesis 9:1.

The Hebrew 'male' does NOT mean 'replenish'.
A flawed tradition of man inserts the mistranslation of 'replenish' into Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1 in the KJV.

Are you going to embrace what God's Word says (fill) or continue to cling to a known mistranslation by man (replenish)?

In Christ

[RickD]