Evidence for God from Science

if you know about the greek word katabole which means the breaking down of something in order to build up something like catobolism.

I do know Greek. You clearly don't. This is false.

I certainly don't need to prove anything to you, and you've long ago showed a distain for real scholarship, but for those actually interested in what people who actually know what they are talking about have to say on this subject, I'm going to quote from the TDNT (the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, also sometimes referred to as Kittel). For those who don't know, while it has its problems and detractos as literally every book of scholarship does, this is one of (if not the) definitive sources on NT Greek. This text is not available in the public domain. If you wish, you can buy the volume I am quoting from here.

• "Laying down," "casting down," in the case of plants a tt. for the casting of seed into the bosom of the earth: spermata eis gen e eis metran kataballomena, men arresin idias katabolas spermaton charisamene, to thelu di hosper gones ti docheion apofenasa. Gal. De Naturae Potent., I.6,11 (ed. Marquardt-Muller-Helmreich, Script. Min., III [1893]), Philo Op. Mund., 132, etc. Plut. Aquane An Ignis Sit Utilior, 2 (II, 956a): hama te prote katabole ton anthropon (of the begetting of individuals); of the "sowing" of a war, Jos. Bell., 2,409 and 417; of the laying of the foundations of a building or government, Polyb., 13,6,2: katabolen poieisthai turannidos, cf. Hb 6:1; ek kataboles, from the basis up, i.e., fundamentally, Polyb., I,36,8. The verb kataballein is common in the LXX, e.g., Prv 25:28, but the noun occurs only at 2 Macc. 2:29: architektoni tes holes kataboles.
  
  In the NT the word is used 1. for the "foundation of the world," in the phrase apo kataboles kosmou, often to denote time, Mt. 13:35; Lk 11:50; Hb 4:3; 9:26, but predominately in the context of salvation history. Thus apo kataboles kosmou expresses the eternity of the divine plan of salvation, which was conceived before all ages and which is fulfilled in the last time, Mt 25:34; Rev 13:8; 17:8. In the form pro kataboles kosmou the phrase expresses the pretemporality of the divine action, Jn 17:24 (love for the Son), 1 Pt 1:20 (the election of the Son), Eph 1:4 (the election of believers). THe Rabbis speak similarly of the divine foreordination from the beginning of creation.
  
  2. In Hb 11:11 dunamin eis katabolen spermatos is used of the sexual function of the male. Though his ability to procreate had failed (v. 12: nenekromenou), Abraham received the power to do so through faith in God's promise. On the Jewish view, katabole spermatos can also be referred to the woman, but in this verse the context, and especially the continuation (v. 12: af henos, sc. Abraham; nenekromenou), forces us to take Abraham as the subject in v. 11. An earlier corruption of the text seems to be responsible for kai aute Sarra. Westcott-Hort (Nestle) and Rgg. Hb. conjecture aute Sarra, "in sexual intercourse with Sarah"; others regard kai aute Sarra as a gloss.

So there you have it, ACB (and whoever is interested). That's the actual scholarly discussion of katabole. For those who want to take this seriously, the scholarship does not back what you are saying. Were I to take the time to dig up Moises Silva, I'd explain how it's actually contradicting you. Suffice it to say here that you have (falsely) made a claim about semantics and lexicography that is just demonstrably false.

For what it's worth, there's no actual Greek word for the idea of "the breaking down of something in order to build up something." You would say that much like you've said it here . . . ballein pros ton oikodomen, which would translate something like "to cast down in order to build up." The point, that just isn't the meaning of katabole. At best, you could look at any of the verses where it is found and say that in the context of the verse that Jesus (or whoever) is talking about a former world that was cast down. But even then you'd have the difficulty in that you'd probably be committing an etymological fallacy, but at least you'd be a little closer to what the word really means.

Anyway, once again, with all due respect, you just do not know what you are talking about. And you are leading people like winner down a path of error. You ought to be absolutely ashamed of yourself. To be clear, the shame isn't in holding the Gap Theory. It's in insisting that you know more than you do, stating or implying that scholarship says what it does not (which is to say, to actively misrepresent what those who know this stuff better than you are actually saying, which is, in a word, to lie), and to actually contradict such authorities without any evidence whatsoever. That is the shame.

Jac3510 wrote:

if you know about the greek word katabole which means the breaking down of something in order to build up something like catobolism.

I do know Greek. You clearly don't. This is false.

I certainly don't need to prove anything to you, and you've long ago showed a distain for real scholarship, but for those actually interested in what people who actually know what they are talking about have to say on this subject, I'm going to quote from the TDNT (the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, also sometimes referred to as Kittel). For those who don't know, while it has its problems and detractos as literally every book of scholarship does, this is one of (if not the) definitive sources on NT Greek. This text is not available in the public domain. If you wish, you can buy the volume I am quoting from here.

• "Laying down," "casting down," in the case of plants a tt. for the casting of seed into the bosom of the earth: spermata eis gen e eis metran kataballomena, men arresin idias katabolas spermaton charisamene, to thelu di hosper gones ti docheion apofenasa. Gal. De Naturae Potent., I.6,11 (ed. Marquardt-Muller-Helmreich, Script. Min., III [1893]), Philo Op. Mund., 132, etc. Plut. Aquane An Ignis Sit Utilior, 2 (II, 956a): hama te prote katabole ton anthropon (of the begetting of individuals); of the "sowing" of a war, Jos. Bell., 2,409 and 417; of the laying of the foundations of a building or government, Polyb., 13,6,2: katabolen poieisthai turannidos, cf. Hb 6:1; ek kataboles, from the basis up, i.e., fundamentally, Polyb., I,36,8. The verb kataballein is common in the LXX, e.g., Prv 25:28, but the noun occurs only at 2 Macc. 2:29: architektoni tes holes kataboles.
  
  In the NT the word is used 1. for the "foundation of the world," in the phrase apo kataboles kosmou, often to denote time, Mt. 13:35l Lk 11:50; Hb 4:3; 9:26, but predominately in the context of salvation history. Thus apo kataboles kosmou expresses the eternity of the divine plan of salvation, which was conceived before all ages and which is fulfilled in the last time, Mt 25:34; Rev 13:8; 17:8. In the form pro kataboles kosmou the phrase expresses the pretemporality of the divine action, Jn 17:24 (love for the Son), 1 Pt 1:20 (the election of the Son), Eph 1:4 (the election of believers). THe Rabbis speak similarly of the divine foreordination from the beginning of creation.
  
  2. In Hb 11:11 dunamin eis katabolen spermatos is used of the sexual function of the male. Though his ability to procreate had failed (v. 12: nenekromenou), Abraham received the power to do so through faith in God's promise. On the Jewish view, katabole spermatos can also be referred to the woman, but in this verse the context, and especially the continuation (v. 12: af henos, sc. Abraham; nenekromenou), forces us to take Abraham as the subject in v. 11. An earlier corruption of the text seems to be responsible for kai aute Sarra. Westcott-Hort (Nestle) and Rgg. Hb. conjecture aute Sarra, "in sexual intercourse with Sarah"; others regard kai aute Sarra as a gloss.

So there you have it, ACB (and whoever is interested). That's the actual scholarly discussion of katabole. For those who want to take this seriously, not only does the scholarship not back what you are saying, it actually contradicts it.

Once again, you just do not know what you are talking about. And you are leading people like winner down a path of error. You ought to be absolutely ashamed of yourself. To be clear, the shame isn't in holding the Gap Theory. It's in insisting that you know more than you do, stating or implying that scholarship says what it does not (which is to say, to actively misrepresent what those who know this stuff better than you are actually saying, which is, in a word, to lie), and to actually contradict such authorities without any evidence whatsoever. That is the shame.

Jac Did you ignore casting down? Catobolism. Matthew 13:13 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,saying,I will open my mouth in parables:I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Put "casting down" where foundation is and then read it.What was cast down before this world? Catobolism has to do with pregnancy her body must break down the male sperm in order to incorporate his DNA information so that a baby can be bearthed. Hebrews 11:11 "Through faith also Sara herself recieved strength to concieve(katabole) seed,and was delivered of a child when she was past age,because she judged him faithful who had promised."
Catobolism.
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=t ... gSA5QpWO6o

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jac Did you ignore casting down? Catobolism. Matthew 13:13 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,saying,I will open my mouth in parables:I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Put "casting down" where foundation is and then read it.What was cast down before this world? Catobolism has to do with pregnancy her body must break down the male sperm in order to incorporate his DNA information so that a baby can be bearthed. Hebrews 11:11 "Through faith also Sara herself recieved strength to concieve(katabole) seed,and was delivered of a child when she was past age,because she judged him faithful who had promised."
Catobolism.
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=t ... gSA5QpWO6o

No, I didn't. Did you ignore the article? Matt 13:35 (not 13:13) is part of the discussion. It simply is not translated "cast down." Look if it were, you would think that SOME translation would offer that as a reading, right? Well I just looked through fifteen translations, and NONE of them offer "casting down." So how is it that YOU, ACB, know more than professional Bible translators? Perhaps you should email the editors and let them know about their mistake?

BTW, you can review the translations here:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... V;HCSB;ESV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... SV;YLT;DRA
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... NV;OJB;NLT

I challenge you, here and publically, find me ONE translation that renders the verse "from the casting down of the world."

Second, your example of Sarah is explicitly discussed in the text. Grammatically the subject of the sentence is Abraham, not Sarah. Furthermore, you are employing the etymological fallacy in your appeal to both Sarah and to "catabolism" here. For example, have you ever heard a preacher talking about the "power of God" who then points out that the word "power" is the word we get the English word "dynamite" from (the Greek word, by the way, is dunamis, or on some transliterations, dynamis), and therefore conclude that God's power is dynamite! They're doing the same sort of thing you are here. They are reading the meaning of a later word that developed from an earlier word back into the meaning of the earlier word. You just cannot do that. I'm well aware of catabolism. Other than etymology, it has nothing to do with the Greek word katabole.

Please, just stop. If you were to put the stuff you are saying on a paper in a theological seminary, they would literally fail you. Take it from someone with nine years of formal seminary. The stuff you are saying is factually incorrect. Please, just stop it.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jac Did you ignore casting down? Catobolism. Matthew 13:13 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,saying,I will open my mouth in parables:I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." Put "casting down" where foundation is and then read it.What was cast down before this world? Catobolism has to do with pregnancy her body must break down the male sperm in order to incorporate his DNA information so that a baby can be bearthed. Hebrews 11:11 "Through faith also Sara herself recieved strength to concieve(katabole) seed,and was delivered of a child when she was past age,because she judged him faithful who had promised."
Catobolism.
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=t ... gSA5QpWO6o

No, I didn't. Did you ignore the article? Matt 13:35 (not 13:13) is part of the discussion. It simply is not translated "cast down." Look if it were, you would think that SOME translation would offer that as a reading, right? Well I just looked through fifteen translations, and NONE of them offer "casting down." So how is it that YOU, ACB, know more than professional Bible translators? Perhaps you should email the editors and let them know about their mistake?

BTW, you can review the translations here:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... V;HCSB;ESV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... SV;YLT;DRA
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... NV;OJB;NLT

I challenge you, here and publically, find me ONE translation that renders the verse "from the casting down of the world."

Second, your example of Sarah is explicitly discussed in the text. Grammatically the subject of the sentence is Abraham, not Sarah. Furthermore, you are employing the etymological fallacy in your appeal to both Sarah and to "catabolism" here. For example, have you ever heard a preacher talking about the "power of God" who then points out that the word "power" is the word we get the English word "dynamite" from (the Greek word, by the way, is dunamis, or on some transliterations, dynamis), and therefore conclude that God's power is dynamite! They're doing the same sort of thing you are here. They are reading the meaning of a later word that developed from an earlier word back into the meaning of the earlier word. You just cannot do that. I'm well aware of catabolism. Other than etymology, it has nothing to do with the Greek word katabole.

Please, just stop. If you were to put the stuff you are saying on a paper in a theological seminary, they would literally fail you. Take it from someone with nine years of formal seminary. The stuff you are saying is factually incorrect. Please, just stop it.

I never said it was translated casting down but I only pointed out that is what katobole means and you even pointed it out too. I think you need to let the prefessional greek scholars know that they have overlooked this.Are we going to go by what man says or God's word? You are ignoring katabole used in Hebrews 11:11 when it means the breaking down of his seed in order for pregnancy. That is exactly what katabole and catobolism means as I showed you. Pointing out catobolism came from the word katabole is no different than pointing out pharmachea in the NT is where we get our english word Pharmacy from or the greek word magea for magic. And also I'm not your enemy,I'm your friend and brother In Christ.Why the anger?

Wow

I'm going to have to appeal to Thumper's Rule



All the best to you, ACB.

Abel: "I never said it was translated casting down but I only pointed out that is what katobole means and you even pointed it out too. I think you need to let the prefessional greek scholars know that they have overlooked this."

Abel, this is a VERY troubling statement. And we're not talking about a few guys who dropped out of some correspondence seminary course, but of innumerable respected scholars at institutions around the world - people whom have spent whole academic careers peering over such texts. And, so it would seem, you're reading/unnaturally forcing GAP Theory into texts that mean nothing of the sort. This is what I meant when I asserted that your lack of even the tiniest consensus of credible scholars latching onto this theory is extremely troubling. But your response is that "professional greek scholars have over looked this" - really? Sometimes, we err, out of a great sincerity that something that initially seemed to make sense to us, in fact, does not have the necessary supporting facts. In such situations, no matter the time, effort and passion we have put into it, there comes a point at which we need to be self-effacing and accept our error. I believe this is true of your passion behind GAP Theory. Because IF it made so much "obvious" sense, that there was a former world that was destroyed, and IF there was substantial evidences, in the texts, scientifically, and it enjoyed widespread Christian adoption, especially in the halls of scholarship, I could see you being open to this. Not to mention that the New Testament is TOTALLY silent on any such OBVIOUS reference to such a world. Plus, at this would be such a major thing that God had done, and clearly would have very likely had a purpose so important that it would likely have been clearly referred to substantially by Jesus and the Apostles. But these are not what are observed about this theory - actually, MUCH the opposite. Really, this theory is the fringe of the fringe.

And, while Jac is being blunt, he's being honest in sharing with you what he KNOWS to be true about the verbiage and the overwhelming consensus is concerning the long scholarly analysis about it. And he's not sugar-coating it, because he wants you to realize that this is a great error that shouldn't be hyped into anyone else being sucked into its orbit. Believe me, you don't need GAP Theory to credibly criticize evolutionary beliefs. And, let's not forget, it's not as if there aren't a large number of Christians who see evolutionary processes as having been God-driven - though not as the Godless, "totally random" views of classical Darwinism. So, while evolutionary beliefs ARE at odds with a literal understanding of key texts of mankind's creation, and they do force one into an allegorical reading of many key texts, it doesn't necessarily follow that if one believes in evolution, then they WON'T believe in God/Jesus. In fact, a very large percentage of Christians came to faith BEFORE they knew much at all of this YEC vs. OEC stuff, or had really put a microscope up to Naturalism creation beliefs.

Katabole means laying down,casting down as Jac showed [Moderator Note: Jac strongly disagrees that he ever showed this] any attempt to change what it means is wrong and we do get our english word catobolism from katabole. Everything else said is just man's opinions. There are 10 times in the NT where katabole is used for foundation of the world.Matthew 13:35,Matthew 25:34,Luke 11:50,John 17:24,Ephesians 1:4,Hebrews 4:3,Hebrews 9:26,1st Peter 1:20,Revelation 13:8,Revelation 17:8.foundation in every verse is katabole which means laying down,casting down.

But also there are 13 verse where foundation is used Luke 6:48,Luke 6:49,Luke 14:29,Romans 15:20,1st Corinthains 3:10,1st Corinthians 3:11,1st Corinthians 3:12,Ephesians 2:20,1st Timothy 6:19,2nd Timothy 2:19,Hebrews 1:10,Hebrews 6:1 and Revelation 21:19 and in these 13 verses the greek word for foundation is themelios and it means something put down,i.e,a substruction (of a building,etc.) (literally or figuratively) - foundation.

But also katabole is used for the english word concieve in Hebrews 11:11 and it means laying down,casting down.

How am I wrong? Am I wrong because I'm not going by professional greek bible scholars who have changed what the meaning of katabole means?

I mean it seems to me that is what Jac was doing after he gave the definition of katabole which means laying down,casting down then it seems goes on and explains that katabole really means something else,I think he got it from Greek classes or something but I don't see how you all cannot see what katabole means and realize that everytime you see "foundation of the world" it is katabole everytime and it means laying down,casting down in order to give birth of something which is exactly why katabole is used for the word concieve in Hebrews 11:11 for CONCIEVE. This is actually a true scientific statement in the bible based on catabolism and pregnancy biologically which I have already tried to show. We know what catabolism means and it also has to do with like breaking food down in order to produce energy and life.

It seems ya'll are appealing to majority consensus instead of believing God's word like evolutionists do when it comes to evolution.

edit:

Deleted. See comments below.

Jac3510 wrote:

if you know about the greek word katabole which means the breaking down of something in order to build up something like catobolism.

I do know Greek. You clearly don't. This is false.

I certainly don't need to prove anything to you, and you've long ago showed a distain for real scholarship, but for those actually interested in what people who actually know what they are talking about have to say on this subject, I'm going to quote from the TDNT (the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, also sometimes referred to as Kittel). For those who don't know, while it has its problems and detractos as literally every book of scholarship does, this is one of (if not the) definitive sources on NT Greek. This text is not available in the public domain. If you wish, you can buy the volume I am quoting from here.

• "Laying down," "casting down," in the case of plants a tt. for the casting of seed into the bosom of the earth: spermata eis gen e eis metran kataballomena, men arresin idias katabolas spermaton charisamene, to thelu di hosper gones ti docheion apofenasa. Gal. De Naturae Potent., I.6,11 (ed. Marquardt-Muller-Helmreich, Script. Min., III [1893]), Philo Op. Mund., 132, etc. Plut. Aquane An Ignis Sit Utilior, 2 (II, 956a): hama te prote katabole ton anthropon (of the begetting of individuals); of the "sowing" of a war, Jos. Bell., 2,409 and 417; of the laying of the foundations of a building or government, Polyb., 13,6,2: katabolen poieisthai turannidos, cf. Hb 6:1; ek kataboles, from the basis up, i.e., fundamentally, Polyb., I,36,8. The verb kataballein is common in the LXX, e.g., Prv 25:28, but the noun occurs only at 2 Macc. 2:29: architektoni tes holes kataboles.
  
  In the NT the word is used 1. for the "foundation of the world," in the phrase apo kataboles kosmou, often to denote time, Mt. 13:35; Lk 11:50; Hb 4:3; 9:26, but predominately in the context of salvation history. Thus apo kataboles kosmou expresses the eternity of the divine plan of salvation, which was conceived before all ages and which is fulfilled in the last time, Mt 25:34; Rev 13:8; 17:8. In the form pro kataboles kosmou the phrase expresses the pretemporality of the divine action, Jn 17:24 (love for the Son), 1 Pt 1:20 (the election of the Son), Eph 1:4 (the election of believers). THe Rabbis speak similarly of the divine foreordination from the beginning of creation.
  
  2. In Hb 11:11 dunamin eis katabolen spermatos is used of the sexual function of the male. Though his ability to procreate had failed (v. 12: nenekromenou), Abraham received the power to do so through faith in God's promise. On the Jewish view, katabole spermatos can also be referred to the woman, but in this verse the context, and especially the continuation (v. 12: af henos, sc. Abraham; nenekromenou), forces us to take Abraham as the subject in v. 11. An earlier corruption of the text seems to be responsible for kai aute Sarra. Westcott-Hort (Nestle) and Rgg. Hb. conjecture aute Sarra, "in sexual intercourse with Sarah"; others regard kai aute Sarra as a gloss.

So there you have it, ACB (and whoever is interested). That's the actual scholarly discussion of katabole. For those who want to take this seriously, the scholarship does not back what you are saying. Were I to take the time to dig up Moises Silva, I'd explain how it's actually contradicting you. Suffice it to say here that you have (falsely) made a claim about semantics and lexicography that is just demonstrably false.

For what it's worth, there's no actual Greek word for the idea of "the breaking down of something in order to build up something." You would say that much like you've said it here . . . ballein pros ton oikodomen, which would translate something like "to cast down in order to build up." The point, that just isn't the meaning of katabole. At best, you could look at any of the verses where it is found and say that in the context of the verse that Jesus (or whoever) is talking about a former world that was cast down. But even then you'd have the difficulty in that you'd probably be committing an etymological fallacy, but at least you'd be a little closer to what the word really means.

Anyway, once again, with all due respect, you just do not know what you are talking about. And you are leading people like winner down a path of error. You ought to be absolutely ashamed of yourself. To be clear, the shame isn't in holding the Gap Theory. It's in insisting that you know more than you do, stating or implying that scholarship says what it does not (which is to say, to actively misrepresent what those who know this stuff better than you are actually saying, which is, in a word, to lie), and to actually contradict such authorities without any evidence whatsoever. That is the shame.

Let the record show that in this post Jac gave the definition for katabole and then went on to explain it meant something else than what the definition says. I never said Jac agreed with me. I only pointed out that he gave the definition for katabole,and yet Jac is claiming I lied and I need to edit my post? Based on what? I'm going by the definition he gave for katabole and because I am Jac seems to be upset with me,because I don't agree with the way he defines katabole. I think it is changing the real meaning of the definition to mean something else. To me it is like when certian ministries teach the hebrew words "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable and yet there is not one verse in the whole OT where they are interchangeable but that is another topic.

However as I always do I will go back over everything as far as the greek goes and look into it more to make sure I'm right.I have no problem if I'm shown to be wrong. But if I'm right? There is no reason to change my mind. I know nobody has 100% authority on their interpretation.

Something that sticks out to me is the definition of katabole -

Laying down," "casting down," in the case of plants a tt. for the casting of seed into the bosom of the earth: spermata eis gen e eis metran kataballomena, men arresin idias katabolas spermaton charisamene, to thelu di hosper gones ti docheion apofenasa. Gal. De Naturae Potent., I.6,11 (ed. Marquardt-Muller-Helmreich, Script. Min., III [1893]), Philo Op. Mund., 132, etc. Plut. Aquane An Ignis Sit Utilior, 2 (II, 956a): hama te prote katabole ton anthropon (of the begetting of individuals); of the "sowing" of a war, Jos. Bell., 2,409 and 417; of the laying of the foundations of a building or government, Polyb., 13,6,2: katabolen poieisthai turannidos, cf. Hb 6:1; ek kataboles, from the basis up, i.e., fundamentally, Polyb., I,36,8. The verb kataballein is common in the LXX, e.g., Prv 25:28, but the noun occurs only at 2 Macc. 2:29: architektoni tes holes kataboles.

Notice that after laying down,casting down it goes on to talk about seeds as an example of something being cast down. The seed is cast down and the result is a tree,plant,etc.But even more so the seed itself is broken down once it is in the ground and it produces a tree,plant,etc. So when I see "katabole(foundation)of the world" it makes me thing something was cast down in order to produce the world.

However I also agree when Jac made the point about divine salvation from the foundation of the world,Jesus would be sent to redeem mankind. I can realize this when God created Adam and Eve and marriage,for it is a picture of the bridegroom Jesus and the church the bride by blood covenant.

I deleted my post above. I have reported my concerns to the moderation team, and I hope that they will be taken seriously. But regardless, ACB, please note that from this point forward, I simply will not engage with you on the subject of the gap theory. It has been pointed out to me by someone I greatly respect that my continued interaction with you on this subject will only further push you into obduracy, and I simply will not be a party to your further corruption.

While I reserve the right to discuss the gap theory at any time in the future with anyone with whom it seems to me necessary or prudent, I simply will not be addressing this subject matter with ACB any further. Frankly, however, I can't imagine what further needs to be said on the matter than what I and others have already said. I'll simply, then, offer a summarization here for the sake of anyone who ever happens to stumble across this and/or if I ever need to link back to a post for quick reference.

Bottom line: no scholar takes the gap theory seriously, and they haven't in decades. It was proposed early on in response to the early geological discoveries that rendered what we now call YEC incompatible with the claims of the emerging science. It was popularized by several well respected evangelicals and immediately after began to be studied. It was immediately abandoned as completely untenable. Literally no one with any formal training takes it seriously. There are many, many, many problems with the theory, such that it is not even deserving of the term "theory" any more than Arianism or the Flat Earth "Theory" are to be regarded as theories. I will not enumerate the problems here other than to make two general points: first, the grammar of Genesis 1 makes it impossible to posit a gap. The only way for the GT to be true is for Moses to have not known Hebrew. Moreover, the same charge would have to be made against the translators of the LXX. To put bluntly, the gap theory contradicts the biblical text as it is written. That should be enough to settle the debate. It is not only because gap theorists do not care about evidence. And that leads to the second general problem. It is not a theory properly speaking. It is a "theory" in the sense of that a conspiracy theory is a theory. There is literally no evidence for it whatsoever. Instead, what these "theorists" do is start with a preexisting theology and then selectively pick and choose verses, passages, and words and read their "theory" into the text. And that is textbook eisogesis. It makes further makes the general hermeneutical mistake of starting with systematic theology and proceeding to exegetical theology.

For these reasons and more, no Greek, Hebrew, Old, or New Testament scholar today takes the gap theory seriously. I repeat: it is regarded as absolute foolishness among professional theologians and translators.

To take it one step further, the only way one can be a proponent of the gap theory is to be completely untrained in the relevant subject matter. To use a secular example, it would be like asking how many professional, serious astronomers give any credence to geocentrism or flat earth theories. It would be like asking how many biologists take Lamarkism seriously; how many physicists still find the Steady State Theory credible; how many philosophers are still impressed by the analytical method of Bertrand Russell; how many ICU doctors are still interested in leech-therapy; and so on.

As such, ACB's consistent defense of the gap theory does not make him look sincere or well versed. Ask yourself what the general public, much less the relevant specialists, would think of someone defending any of the other outdated theories just mentioned above. They wouldn't be praised. They would be ignored at best and mocked at worst, and not because those specialists are arrogant but rather because it would say a great deal about the defender's own arrogance.

So, as I said, I am done forever with you on this ACB. If I'm going to take a few minutes of my time here and there and spend it on these boards, it won't be to waste my time refuting the intellectual equivalent of the claim that the US Government is run by lizard-people. I apologize to myself and everyone else on the board for entertaining this fantasy as long as I have.

Hopefully, then, on to more useful conversation.

edit:

For whoever is interested, and for future reference, here are two good articles on the history of the gap theory and offer some fair explanation as to why scholars no longer take it seriously:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c003.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-g ... blems.html

Do note that these links are written from a YEC perspective. Some specific YEC arguments aside, though, these are still helpful articles for non-YEC Creationists as it explains more generally historical, textual, theological, scientific, and philosophical problems with this nonsense.

Let the record show that Jac did not refute the Gap theory biblically. He appealed to majority consensus ignoring the definition of katabole and changing the meaning of it to mean what he wants it to mean.I simply stuck to the definition of it.Jac is also wrong about the history of the Gap Theory and ignores the many bible scholars that were Gap Theorists.

I could post a list of Hebrew/Greek bible scholars and show how many bible scholars held to the Gap Theory interpretation but I won't for now.I recently found out about a new one I did'nt know about too Dean John Burgon he was a bible scholar at the time who defended Christianity at the time when "Essays and Reviews" was released which was an attack against Christianity and the bible.You can find his book "Inspiration and interpretation" online for free and see how he defended Christianity at the time.

I could careless about what the majority believes. The majority in the church have been wrong before. God's word will be proven right again and the majority wrong again when the Gap Theory destroys the theory of evolution,then it won't matter what bible scholars say.The truth of God's word will shine through again.

I can't wait until we get to heaven and Jesus himself tells Jac I was right.

acb, this is childish, please don't go this route, don't bring Jesus in to your argument. What if you're wrong ?

not to mention... eternity is a long time to wait !

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

I can't wait until we get to heaven and Jesus himself tells Jac I was right.

acb, this is childish, please don't go this route, don't bring Jesus in to your argument. What if you're wrong ?

not to mention... eternity is a long time to wait !

We all cannot be right. Somebody is wrong.I believe the Gap Theory is the true interpretation and I have defended it. Jac did not refute it,he just rejected it. I have been nice this whole debate. I have not judged anybody. I have only tried to show why the Gap Theory is true biblically.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

I can't wait until we get to heaven and Jesus himself tells Jac I was right.

acb, this is childish, please don't go this route, don't bring Jesus in to your argument. What if you're wrong ?

not to mention... eternity is a long time to wait !

We all cannot be right. Somebody is wrong.I believe the Gap Theory is the true interpretation and I have defended it. Jac did not refute it,he just rejected it. I have been nice this whole debate. I have not judged anybody. I have only tried to show why the Gap Theory is true biblically.

Of course Jac refuted it. He showed numerous times, why the verses you interpret a certain way to back the Gap Theory, are wrongly interpreted to mean what you want them to mean.

And for the love of intellectual honesty ACB, please stop saying that you take God's word over man's. It's man's interpretation that you are holding to, to back the Gap Theory.

You completely fail to understand that YOUR INTERPRETATION is not equal to God's word. Your interpretation is as potentially fallible as any other interpretation. And it becomes even more fallible, when you are shown why it's wrong. And then, you still don't acknowledge what you are shown.

And Jac is not appealing to consensus, when he tells you that no scholars interpret scripture to make it fit into the Gap Theory. He's telling you that nobody interprets it that way, so maybe you'll understand that among scholars, the Gap Theory is a joke. It's not considered a valid creation theory by any reputable scholars anymore. And the fact that you know that, and STILL hold to it, says a lot about your intellectual honesty regarding this subject.

And please don't take my bluntness as anything more than my attempt to help you understand that you need to rethink your allegiance to the gap theory.