Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:I have been following this thread with interest as I am not convinced about the Gap theory (sorry ACB) and I`m still not convinced.


There is a page on the home site that puts forward why the Gap theory is wrong, how it came about through misinterpretation, I will see if I can find it. I think it was something about Genesis 1 and 2. How, if you read it as seperate verses rather than as a whole you can interpret it differently.

This is OK as it took my awhile to realize how true it is biblically.It was not easy at first reading what critics said about it but I decided to check it out for myself and realized just how wrong the critics were about it.You have probably heard that Genesis 1:2 cannot be translated "became without form and void" instead of "was without form and void" but get out your NIV and you'll see it can be translated "became" regardless of what the critics claim,there are Hebrew bibles that have used the word "became" instead of "was".So somebody is lying.

Question is, who?

I respect that you believe in the Gap theory and although I can kind of see why, it doesn't convince me. Something just doesn't gel for me.

Storyteller wrote:Question is, who?

I respect that you believe in the Gap theory and although I can kind of see why, it doesn't convince me. Something just doesn't gel for me.

It for sure does not gel with anything in science, unless, of course, a person gets into either the vast world wide conspiracy to suppress True Knowledge.

abelcainsbrother wrote:So somebody is lying.

Yes, someone is. But I bet we disagree about who that would be.

For the record, as I've said before, Gen 1:2 cannot be translated "the earth became formless and void." But what does it matter? You've already insisted that you don't believe the Hebrew text has anything to do with the Gap Theory, anyway.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:So somebody is lying.

Yes, someone is. But I bet we disagree about who that would be.

For the record, as I've said before, Gen 1:2 cannot be translated "the earth became formless and void." But what does it matter? You've already insisted that you don't believe the Hebrew text has anything to do with the Gap Theory, anyway.

The NIV says it can be.I said the gap theory was first realized from reading the NT and it was.Jac if you disagree with me then let's discuss it because the gap theory is in both the OT and NT.If you believe the gap theory is wrong try to show me why however I think we both need to be willing to "Let God be true and every man a liar" now I don't know if I can change your mind but can God's word?Because I'd change my mind if I discovered the gap theory is wrong,but would you change your mind if I can show why it is true?I'm willing to repent,are you?

If you've got the time you can try to show me why it is wrong.

Jac, I'm looking at my NIV and at the bottom of the page it for verse 2 it says " or possibly became" so why do you say it can't?

We already discussed it, ACB. You basically said you didn't care about Greek or Hebrew and you just believed it anyway. I mean, that's up to you, but why should I or anyone bother with it if you're just going to ignore every bit of evidence?

Fact: Gen 1:2 cannot be translated became formless and void. No translation has that for a reason. Yes, the NIV has it as a marginal reading, but that's not for the reasons you think. If it were possible, don't you think SOME translation or SOME scholar would be defending it today? I suspect you don't have access to scholarly journals, so just for fun I ran a search on it in EBSCOHost and The Theological Journal Library. I couldn't find a single article in defense of the position since the 70s, and the most recent one to seriously discuss it was written back in '92--and then, it was just to reject it as "no longer . . . a viable option."

In other words, Hebrew scholars gave up on this ridiculous notion thirty years ago. Only people who don't know what they are talking about cling to it. It doesn't matter what the NT says. Genesis 1:1-2 do not and cannot be interpreted to allow for a gap of any time between them whatsoever. Let me put it plainly: if the NT teaches the GT, then the NT contradicts Genesis 1. Is that what you are trying to argue for?

Obviously not. Give it up, ACB. The GT was a bad attempt to harmonize geology with a literal reading of Genesis 1. When we actually started studying how the Hebrew language works, though, we realized it couldn't support the idea. And to get the GT out of the NT is absurd. You are really telling me that you are getting your interpretation of Genesis 1 from texts written fifteen centuries later?!? Think about what you are saying. If you are right, then the original readers, even Moses himself, would have been totally unaware of what the text was saying. And when Moses went around teaching people about the very text he worked on, he would have been wrong as to its meaning. Are you saying that no one in OT times knew what Gen 1 meant until Peter came along and gave a cryptic reference that suddenly unlocked the true, secret meaning of Genesis 1? The hermeneutics are just absurd.

Look, I'm sorry here. I know you have a lot invested in the GT. You've defended it passionately. I respect you for that at least. But you are just mistaken. You are sincerely mistaken, and I know you want to believe Scripture. So stop for a minute. The GT is wrong. It directly contradicts what the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 says. You don't get to use the NT to contradict the OT. Biblical interpretation doesn't work that way.

edit:

If you want to know why Gen 1:2 can't be rendered that way, see the post I linked to in my response above. The bottom line is that rendering the word "became" treats the verse like an independent clause. We now know the verse is not independent so the GT rendering is no longer viable.

Jac3510 wrote:We already discussed it, ACB. You basically said you didn't care about Greek or Hebrew and you just believed it anyway. I mean, that's up to you, but why should I or anyone bother with it if you're just going to ignore every bit of evidence?

Fact: Gen 1:2 cannot be translated became formless and void. No translation has that for a reason. Yes, the NIV has it as a marginal reading, but that's not for the reasons you think. If it were possible, don't you think SOME translation or SOME scholar would be defending it today? I suspect you don't have access to scholarly journals, so just for fun I ran a search on it in EBSCOHost and The Theological Journal Library. I couldn't find a single article in defense of the position since the 70s, and the most recent one to seriously discuss it was written back in '92--and then, it was just to reject it as "no longer . . . a viable option."

In other words, Hebrew scholars gave up on this ridiculous notion thirty years ago. Only people who don't know what they are talking about cling to it. It doesn't matter what the NT says. Genesis 1:1-2 do not and cannot be interpreted to allow for a gap of any time between them whatsoever. Let me put it plainly: if the NT teaches the GT, then the NT contradicts Genesis 1. Is that what you are trying to argue for?

Obviously not. Give it up, ACB. The GT was a bad attempt to harmonize geology with a literal reading of Genesis 1. When we actually started studying how the Hebrew language works, though, we realized it couldn't support the idea. And to get the GT out of the NT is absurd. You are really telling me that you are getting your interpretation of Genesis 1 from texts written fifteen centuries later?!? Think about what you are saying. If you are right, then the original readers, even Moses himself, would have been totally unaware of what the text was saying. And when Moses went around teaching people about the very text he worked on, he would have been wrong as to its meaning. Are you saying that no one in OT times knew what Gen 1 meant until Peter came along and gave a cryptic reference that suddenly unlocked the true, secret meaning of Genesis 1? The hermeneutics are just absurd.

Look, I'm sorry here. I know you have a lot invested in the GT. You've defended it passionately. I respect you for that at least. But you are just mistaken. You are sincerely mistaken, and I know you want to believe Scripture. So stop for a minute. The GT is wrong. It directly contradicts what the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 says. You don't get to use the NT to contradict the OT. Biblical interpretation doesn't work that way.

edit:

If you want to know why Gen 1:2 can't be rendered that way, see the post I linked to in my response above. The bottom line is that rendering the word "became" treats the verse like an independent clause. We now know the verse is not independent so the GT rendering is no longer viable.

Jac, can you explain to me if past bible scholars said it can be translated became why you trust the new scholars so much?Also I believe God's world is living and it can reveal things at the right time,like a revelation but yet you seem to deny this. Perhaps instead of trying to convince you of the gap theory I should try a different approach and explain why I can no longer accept the young earth interpretation,and you can address my reasons.Now that I understand the gap theory I can see why I was so wrong to believe the bible teaches a 6000 year old earth.

Here are some problems I now see with the young earth interpretation.

1. On what day were the angels created in Genesis 1? Because it does not mention angels being created on any of the 6 days of creation and yet we know they exist but to believe the young earth interpretation you must assume when angels were created.With the Gap theory I don't assume,for if we do a biblical study about angels we know that they sang and rejoiced when God first created the earth.Job 38:4-7" Wherewast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth?declare,if thou hast understanding.Who hath laid the measures thereof,if thou knowest?or who hath stretched the line upon it?Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?or who laid the corner stone thereof: When the morning stars sang together,and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" This right here shows that angels had already been created before God created the earth,but also notice sons of God,who were these sons of God? They were a race of men that were on the earth God created in the beginning and we have fossils of primates to confirm it. So it seems to me that the bible and science bear this out.

OK but if you start off and say verse 2 cannot be translated became and you make verse 1,2 and 3 of Genesis 1 all apart of the first day then you have a problem because angels had already been created and this is why they are not mentioned being created on any of the 6 days of creation. This also implies that Lucifer was a good angel at this time and later sinned I would say before God made this world in Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1 Notice the word made until the 5th and 6 th day,God created new kinds of creatures like whales and man but everything else he made which means the material was already there for both the heavens and the earth,this means the sun,moon and all of the stars and planets in the universe but also the earth and the kinds of life he makes "after their kind" or " after his kind" made not create,this is restoration of what was already created in the beginning.

2.2nd Peter 3::4 makes it clear that scoffers will say" Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" and yet you as a young earthed have a problem because first off,everybody knows about Noah's flood but evenso you must ignore this verse right here knowing that this world has went on since Adam and Eve,yet you must ignore this in order to say Genesis 1:2 cannot be translated " became" instead of " was" you claim it and believe it,but know this world has went on including Noah's flood.

3. 2nd Peter 3:5-7" For this they willingly are ignorant of,that by the word of God the HEAVENS were of old,and the EARTH standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the WORLD that then was,being overflowed with water perished:" You as a young earther make Noah's flood fit here,but it cannot be done based on a biblical study of Noah's flood,for we know in Noah's flood only the earth was flooded,but Peter describes both the heavens that were of old,and the earth flooded which is a much much worse kind of flood than Noah's flood.Yet to hold to a young earth interpretation you must ignore what Peter describes and make Noah's flood fit into it,but then on top of it you must ignore the scientific evidence of the earth,the earth is billions of years old,the fossil evidence,the geological evidence of death and extinction that confirm the bible true,you must ignore it and make it fit into Noah's flood,ignoring that a former world perished in water that the bible tells us and the scientific evidence confirms.
Young earthers are ignoring a lot of scientific evidence in order to hold to a rigid interpretation that ignores what the bible actually teaches for if a former world existed that perished like Peter declares the evidence in the earth should bear it out and this makes the earth older than 6000 years old and without having to stretch the 6 days of creation out.It is revealed as a revelation of God's word and the scientific evidence that confirms it true.

Jesus said,If the people do not praise me the rocks will cry out and they do.

There are more reasons too but these 3 are good for now why the young earth interpretation is wrong.

UPDATED MY POST ACB.
ACB, attacking the yec position is not going to help. Did I ever tell you why I left the gap theory? It wasn't that I found evolution and stopped believing in the GT.

When I first found about GT I was pretty excited. Though with time the theological implications of it, that is the more I studied, became apparent. Jac talked about it in his post and I will reiterate some of his points, mainly that if there was a gap, why did Moses and the entire Bible, until you get to peter, is silent about it?

Why was Christ silent about it? Why didn't the Apocalypse is referred back to the GT, instead of the days of Noah? I think some apocryphal rabbinic teachings inspired the tale. If you look at it, some rabbinic teachings about silent periods in the bible, are nuts. E.g That Abraham visited heaven on a winged horse, that When they threw Manasseh the king of Judah in the boiling oil angels came down and held him up. Things like that push theology into fantasy.

So what is the problem with the GT? first no one translates it as "became" in Gen 1:2, even the NIV which puts the marginal note in there does not do it. No other respectable translation does. And to top that we have to claim ignorance on the part of the writers/authors who clearly-multiple times in the bible, refer to a six day creation period. That just cancels GT out, no matter what 3 verses in the entire Bible you have found which may support your case.

And you are dead wrong, the Bible CLEARLY teaches a six day creation period. Infact its the most accurate-consistent reading you can get out of it.

Do you know that text in Gen 1:1 doesn't exactly reads to heavens and the earth the way we sometimes mistakenly read it? To its original audience it only meant a tent, "shamiyan" on top of them, a roof so to say and dry land beneath their feet. Its not talking about the entire planet even, that is why the "earth" is always with a smaller "e". To the poeple who wrote these, heaven meant the blue tent-dome-thing they saw when they looked up and earth was the thing they stood upon.

Further, no one in the entire church history and canon ever taught of the gap theory. It only came when people found fossils. Because right until then everyone believed that there was no extinction. That God would never let any of his creations be dead, like forever. So in the church, the idea bore into view that these must belong to sometime past where these creatures were destroyed.

I know it could be hard to just leave your belief but I think you'd be doing yourself a favor. And I suppose it will be hard for you for the reason you have painted yourself in a corner that the only way to "combat" evolution is by believing in the GT. While I think nothing has to combat evolution at all, nor do I think there is any other model which explains things like it , I sincerely think that a YEC position is great and consistent with scripture, its solid, unlike the GT. And you can go with many OEC theories also, nothing wrong with that but go with some which actually treats the scriptures more seriously.

Don't take it in the wrong tone, but in a brotherly tone, for that is what its really intended as.

neo-x wrote:UPDATED MY POST ACB.
ACB, attacking the yec position is not going to help. Did I ever tell you why I left the gap theory? It wasn't that I found evolution and stopped believing in the GT.

When I first found about GT I was pretty excited. Though with time the theological implications of it, that is the more I studied, became apparent. Jac talked about it in his post and I will reiterate some of his points, mainly that if there was a gap, why did Moses and the entire Bible, until you get to peter, is silent about it?

Why was Christ silent about it? Why didn't the Apocalypse is referred back to the GT, instead of the days of Noah? I think some apocryphal rabbinic teachings inspired the tale. If you look at it, some rabbinic teachings about silent periods in the bible, are nuts. E.g That Abraham visited heaven on a winged horse, that When they threw Manasseh the king of Judah in the boiling oil angels came down and held him up. Things like that push theology into fantasy.

So what is the problem with the GT, first no one translates it as "became" in Gen 1:2, even the NIV which puts the marginal note in there does not do it. No other respectable translation does. And to top that we have to claim ignorance on the part of the writers/authors who clearly-multiple times in the bible, refer to a six day creation period. That just cancels GT out, no matter what 3 verses in the entire Bible you have found which may support your case.

And you are dead wrong, the Bible CLEARLY teaches a six day creation period. Infact its the most accurate-consistent reading you can get out of it.

Do you know that text in Gen 1:1 doesn't exactly reads to heavens and the earth, to its original audience it only meant a tent, "shamiyan" on top of them, a roof so to say and dry land beneath their feet. Its not talking about the entire planet even, that is why the "earth" is always with a smaller "e".

Further, no one is the entire church history and canon ever taught of the gap theory. It only came when people found fossils. because right until then everyone believed that there was no extinction. That God would never let any of his creations be dead like forever. So in the church, the idea bore into view that these must belong to sometime past where these creatures were destroyed.

I know it could be hard to just leave your belief but I think you'd be doing yourself a favor. And I suppose it will be hard for you for the reason you have painted yourself in a corner that the only way to "combat" evolution is by believing in the GT. While I think nothing has to combat evolution at all, nor do I think there is any other model which explains things like it , I sincerely think that a YEC position is great and consistent with scripture, its solid, unlike the GT. And you can go with a lot OEC theories but go with some which actually treats the scriptures more seriously.

Don't take it in the wrong tone, but in a brotherly tone, for that is what its really intended as.

Thanks neo and I hope that I don't come off as rude,I'm trying to explain why YEC is wrong.I'm not trying to make it personal but just like Jac is frustrated with the GT,I'm frustrated with the YEC interpretation.

I agree with you that the YEC interpretation has always thought to be true but this is why I talked about how I believe God's word is living and is revealed true over time,the world of God is a revelation from God and is revealed at the right time.For up until the geological discoveries the age of the earth was not a burning issue,it only became an issue when the age of the earth became important and at the right time the gap theory was revealed and it had always been in the word of God the whole time,we just did not realize it.
Also it is not just a few verses in the bible the gap theory is revealed but althroughout the bible,both in the OT and NT but you can't realize it until you understand the revelation,then it is apparent.I' m finding new verses all the time that reveal the gap theory in both the old and new testaments.But I believe based on St.Augustine's writings it can at least be shown that he believed the first day in Genesis 1 started in verse 3, not verse 1 and this is/exactly what GT's believe and he lived almost 500 years ago,so to say the gap theory was first thought of because of evolution science just does not hold up,it was around long before the geological discoveries in the earth that were Christians by the way,who loved Jesus and his word.

YEC's ignore evidence first Discovered by Christians who were scientists,it makes sense that as the discoveries were made challenging their YEC interpretation that they did research and discovered Augustine's writings and it led to the discovery of the GT.

I see the YEC as a traditional biblical interpretation.

Also I hope I did not make you think that I deny the 6 days of creation as I don't and no GT does either,we even believe they were 24 hour days and that it was about 6000 years ago when God made this world.The only difference is it was restoration.
Where did you get your info about Genesis 1:1? Because I have never heard that before.

As far as evolution? I could not accept it and I have tried to but I cannot find enough evidence despite how much evidence there seems to be,it does' not mean much to me if scientists can't demonstrate life evolves but that is another topic.

How can you not see the points I made against the YEC interpretation? They are solid biblical reasons and how do you over look the warning about saying all things have gone on since the beginning?How can you ignore it and go around it? It is like a line I cannot cross if I believe the bible,but also about angels?another good point.I'm using the bible not my opinion,it is the word of God and if it won't change our mind,what will?I personally cannot just go around that sign about the last days.

I hope I have addressed everything you believe.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:UPDATED MY POST ACB.
ACB, attacking the yec position is not going to help. Did I ever tell you why I left the gap theory? It wasn't that I found evolution and stopped believing in the GT.

When I first found about GT I was pretty excited. Though with time the theological implications of it, that is the more I studied, became apparent. Jac talked about it in his post and I will reiterate some of his points, mainly that if there was a gap, why did Moses and the entire Bible, until you get to peter, is silent about it?

Why was Christ silent about it? Why didn't the Apocalypse is referred back to the GT, instead of the days of Noah? I think some apocryphal rabbinic teachings inspired the tale. If you look at it, some rabbinic teachings about silent periods in the bible, are nuts. E.g That Abraham visited heaven on a winged horse, that When they threw Manasseh the king of Judah in the boiling oil angels came down and held him up. Things like that push theology into fantasy.

So what is the problem with the GT, first no one translates it as "became" in Gen 1:2, even the NIV which puts the marginal note in there does not do it. No other respectable translation does. And to top that we have to claim ignorance on the part of the writers/authors who clearly-multiple times in the bible, refer to a six day creation period. That just cancels GT out, no matter what 3 verses in the entire Bible you have found which may support your case.

And you are dead wrong, the Bible CLEARLY teaches a six day creation period. Infact its the most accurate-consistent reading you can get out of it.

Do you know that text in Gen 1:1 doesn't exactly reads to heavens and the earth, to its original audience it only meant a tent, "shamiyan" on top of them, a roof so to say and dry land beneath their feet. Its not talking about the entire planet even, that is why the "earth" is always with a smaller "e".



Further, no one is the entire church history and canon ever taught of the gap theory. It only came when people found fossils. because right until then everyone believed that there was no extinction. That God would never let any of his creations be dead like forever. So in the church, the idea bore into view that these must belong to sometime past where these creatures were destroyed.

I know it could be hard to just leave your belief but I think you'd be doing yourself a favor. And I suppose it will be hard for you for the reason you have painted yourself in a corner that the only way to "combat" evolution is by believing in the GT. While I think nothing has to combat evolution at all, nor do I think there is any other model which explains things like it , I sincerely think that a YEC position is great and consistent with scripture, its solid, unlike the GT. And you can go with a lot OEC theories but go with some which actually treats the scriptures more seriously.

Don't take it in the wrong tone, but in a brotherly tone, for that is what its really intended as.

Thanks neo and I hope that I don't come off as rude,I'm trying to explain why YEC is wrong.I'm not trying to make it personal but just like Jac is frustrated with the GT,I'm frustrated with the YEC interpretation.

I agree with you that the YEC interpretation has always thought to be true but this is why I talked about how I believe God's word is living and is revealed true over time,the world of God is a revelation from God and is revealed at the right time.For up until the geological discoveries the age of the earth was not a burning issue,it only became an issue when the age of the earth became important and at the right time the gap theory was revealed and it had always been in the word of God the whole time,we just did not realize it.
Also it is not just a few verses in the bible the gap theory is revealed but althroughout the bible,both in the OT and NT but you can't realize it until you understand the revelation,then it is apparent.I' m finding new verses all the time that reveal the gap theory in both the old and new testaments.But I believe based on St.Augustine's writings it can at least be shown that he believed the first day in Genesis 1 started in verse 3, not verse 1 and this is/exactly what GT's believe and he lived almost 500 years ago,so to say the gap theory was first thought of because of evolution science just does not hold up,it was around long before the geological discoveries in the earth that were Christians by the way,who loved Jesus and his word.

YEC's ignore evidence first Discovered by Christians who were scientists,it makes sense that as the discoveries were made challenging their YEC interpretation that they did research and discovered Augustine's writings and it led to the discovery of the GT.

I see the YEC as a traditional biblical interpretation.

Also I hope I did not make you think that I dent the 6 days of creation as I don't and no GT does either,we even believe they were 24 hour days and that it was about 6000 years ago when God made this world.
Where did you get your info about Genesis 1:1? Because I have never heard that before.

As far as evolution? I could not accept it and I have tried to but I cannot find enough evidence despite how much evidence there seems to be,it does' not mean much to me if scientists can't demonstrate life evolves but that is another topic.

I hope I have addressed everything you believe.

Lets put YEC and evolution aside for a minute.

The problem is, you are claiming that Moses didn't know there was a gap, nor did the later authors. This is problematic because now you are saying that the authors were wrong when they referred back to the creation story. Augustine believed that the creation was instant. He didn't believe in the traditional YEC belief. But he did not teach GT.

If you study Hebrew a little and research for yourself theN Gen 1:1 is pretty standard knowledge. You can just check, take any english Bible and see that the earth is always written with small "e" it means in plain english, soil, land. It does not mean Earth, like in planet Earth. I suppose it is more easy to know for those who study this formally, which I did, and Jac too. That is why Jac is so confident in his analysis of why he rejects the GT and I second him on that because it is just the truth.

I hope you comment on the concerns and problems in both Jac's post and in mine because whether you accept YEC or not, or evolution for that matter is a secondary issue. The main issue is the validity of the GT and that is where my primary interest lies, in your answers I hope.

The problem is the moment you say the authors did not know what they were writing about, you are opening a floodgate for trouble and problems, such a thing is absurd.

You can find any kind of verses, not to be rude but the slavers also found verses that they relied on to enslave people, from the Bible and the flat earthers are also finding verses all the time. The issue is not if you found a verse, context of that verse within its writing is the one which counts.

The suggestion here is, it doesn't matter what that verse means to you in light of discovery of fossils. It only matters how the author penned it to be and how they understood it originally. That is why GT is out of the question. So if Gen 1:1 talks of earth as soil, land and not Planet Earth, you can't take that today and say Gen 1:1 means planet Earth. It does not. When you look at it this way you see how limited the use was of the language was and how limited we are in applying those to our understanding. It does not give us much choice to substantiate what the authors meant.

This alone throws GT out completely. If Gen 1:1 doesn't talk about "Planet Earth" specifically or the "Heavens" like we think today, then there is nothing for GT to stand on. And you can't use verse two's "became" as you want to with verse one because it is a different kind of earth being talked about. It could be all land, known land or the land which was immediately known to authors or what they thought all land was. That is excluding the arctic and the poles and Americas and Australia.

For example, if peter talks about the flood, you can't take that single reference out and conjoin it with the genesis and form an opinion. The first and most basic rule is that you see what within the context of Peter's writing does this reference mean anything. Please remember these people did not have the bible to cross reference when they were writing these things.

Let me know what you think.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:UPDATED MY POST ACB.
ACB, attacking the yec position is not going to help. Did I ever tell you why I left the gap theory? It wasn't that I found evolution and stopped believing in the GT.

When I first found about GT I was pretty excited. Though with time the theological implications of it, that is the more I studied, became apparent. Jac talked about it in his post and I will reiterate some of his points, mainly that if there was a gap, why did Moses and the entire Bible, until you get to peter, is silent about it?

Why was Christ silent about it? Why didn't the Apocalypse is referred back to the GT, instead of the days of Noah? I think some apocryphal rabbinic teachings inspired the tale. If you look at it, some rabbinic teachings about silent periods in the bible, are nuts. E.g That Abraham visited heaven on a winged horse, that When they threw Manasseh the king of Judah in the boiling oil angels came down and held him up. Things like that push theology into fantasy.

So what is the problem with the GT, first no one translates it as "became" in Gen 1:2, even the NIV which puts the marginal note in there does not do it. No other respectable translation does. And to top that we have to claim ignorance on the part of the writers/authors who clearly-multiple times in the bible, refer to a six day creation period. That just cancels GT out, no matter what 3 verses in the entire Bible you have found which may support your case.

And you are dead wrong, the Bible CLEARLY teaches a six day creation period. Infact its the most accurate-consistent reading you can get out of it.

Do you know that text in Gen 1:1 doesn't exactly reads to heavens and the earth, to its original audience it only meant a tent, "shamiyan" on top of them, a roof so to say and dry land beneath their feet. Its not talking about the entire planet even, that is why the "earth" is always with a smaller "e".



Further, no one is the entire church history and canon ever taught of the gap theory. It only came when people found fossils. because right until then everyone believed that there was no extinction. That God would never let any of his creations be dead like forever. So in the church, the idea bore into view that these must belong to sometime past where these creatures were destroyed.

I know it could be hard to just leave your belief but I think you'd be doing yourself a favor. And I suppose it will be hard for you for the reason you have painted yourself in a corner that the only way to "combat" evolution is by believing in the GT. While I think nothing has to combat evolution at all, nor do I think there is any other model which explains things like it , I sincerely think that a YEC position is great and consistent with scripture, its solid, unlike the GT. And you can go with a lot OEC theories but go with some which actually treats the scriptures more seriously.

Don't take it in the wrong tone, but in a brotherly tone, for that is what its really intended as.

Thanks neo and I hope that I don't come off as rude,I'm trying to explain why YEC is wrong.I'm not trying to make it personal but just like Jac is frustrated with the GT,I'm frustrated with the YEC interpretation.

I agree with you that the YEC interpretation has always thought to be true but this is why I talked about how I believe God's word is living and is revealed true over time,the world of God is a revelation from God and is revealed at the right time.For up until the geological discoveries the age of the earth was not a burning issue,it only became an issue when the age of the earth became important and at the right time the gap theory was revealed and it had always been in the word of God the whole time,we just did not realize it.
Also it is not just a few verses in the bible the gap theory is revealed but althroughout the bible,both in the OT and NT but you can't realize it until you understand the revelation,then it is apparent.I' m finding new verses all the time that reveal the gap theory in both the old and new testaments.But I believe based on St.Augustine's writings it can at least be shown that he believed the first day in Genesis 1 started in verse 3, not verse 1 and this is/exactly what GT's believe and he lived almost 500 years ago,so to say the gap theory was first thought of because of evolution science just does not hold up,it was around long before the geological discoveries in the earth that were Christians by the way,who loved Jesus and his word.

YEC's ignore evidence first Discovered by Christians who were scientists,it makes sense that as the discoveries were made challenging their YEC interpretation that they did research and discovered Augustine's writings and it led to the discovery of the GT.

I see the YEC as a traditional biblical interpretation.

Also I hope I did not make you think that I dent the 6 days of creation as I don't and no GT does either,we even believe they were 24 hour days and that it was about 6000 years ago when God made this world.
Where did you get your info about Genesis 1:1? Because I have never heard that before.

As far as evolution? I could not accept it and I have tried to but I cannot find enough evidence despite how much evidence there seems to be,it does' not mean much to me if scientists can't demonstrate life evolves but that is another topic.

I hope I have addressed everything you believe.

Lets put YEC and evolution aside for a minute.

The problem is, you are claiming that Moses didn't know there was a gap, nor did the later authors. This is problematic because now you are saying that the authors were wrong when they referred back to the creation story. Augustine believed that the creation was instant. He didn't believe in the traditional YEC belief. But he did not teach GT.

If you study Hebrew a little and research for yourself theN Gen 1:1 is pretty standard knowledge. You can just check, take any english Bible and see that the earth is always written with small "e" it means in plain english, soil, land. It does not mean Earth, like in planet Earth. I suppose it is more easy to know for those who study this formally, which I did, and Jac too. That is why Jac is so confident in his analysis of why he rejects the GT and I second him on that because it is just the truth.

I hope you comment on the concerns and problems in both Jac's post and in mine because whether you accept YEC or not, or evolution for that matter is a secondary issue. The main issue is the validity of the GT and that is where my primary interest lies, in your answers I hope.

The problem is the moment you say the authors did not know what they were writing about, you are opening a floodgate for trouble and problems, such a thing is absurd.

You can find any kind of verses, not to be rude but the slavers also found verses that they relied on to enslave people, from the Bible and the flat earthers are also finding verses all the time. The issue is not if you found a verse, context of that verse within its writing is the one which counts.

The suggestion here is, it doesn't matter what that verse means to you in light of discovery of fossils. It only matters how the author penned it to be and how they understood it originally. That is why GT is out of the question. So if Gen 1:1 talks of earth as soil, land and not Planet Earth, you can't take that today and say Gen 1:1 means planet Earth. It does not. When you look at it this way you see how limited the use was of the language was and how limited we are in applying those to our understanding. It does not give us much choice to substantiate what the authors meant.

This alone throws GT out completely. If Gen 1:1 doesn't talk about "Planet Earth" specifically or the "Heavens" like we think today, then there is nothing for GT to stand on. And you can't use verse two's "became" as you want to with verse one because it is a different kind of earth being talked about. It could be all land, known land or the land which was immediately known to authors or what they thought all land was. That is excluding the arctic and the poles and Americas and Australia.

For example, if peter talks about the flood, you can't take that single reference out and conjoin it with the genesis and form an opinion. The first and most basic rule is that you see what within the context of Peter's writing does this reference mean anything. Please remember these people did not have the bible to cross reference when they were writing these things.

Let me know what you think.

What would it matter if Moses didn't know it?But I did not say he did not know,he could've but he could not have known,like I said the age of the earth was not a burning issue like it is today,however I am not saying Moses didn't know.

OK about Genesis 1:1 earth means dry land for instance in verse 10 of Genesis 1 it says " And God called the dry land earth. OK so if Genesis 1:1 means dry land then why is the earth covered in water in the very next verse? Not only is it flooded but it is frozen as well in verse 2 does the bible contradict itself? Also notice God has to remove water off of the earth on day 2. Yet in verse 1 it is dry land called earth.

Isiah 45:18" For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he established it,he created it not in vain,he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord and there is none else." So God did not originally created the earth without form and void,yet it is without form and void in verse 2. The bible does not contradict itself,the earth was perfect and inhabited in the beginning.

I think you have your mind made up and nobody can change your mind but I think that in Christianity repentence is important and it is something I try to do,not saying you don't but I repent,I change my mind to line up with God's word when I am wrong.This is why it would be better to back yourself up with the bible.

I would like you to explain based on 2nd Peter 3:4 you can believe all things have gone on continually since the beginning because you did not address it and this is why I cannot accept anybody saying all things have gone on since the beginning.I'd like to know how you go around it?

You seem to be dismissing the gap theory based on an opinion that the biblical writers did not know about the GT but this is not a good reason to IMO because we can't know,we can only know what we now know.

Yes let's talk about the flood Peter describes in 2nd Peter 3:5-7 because I do not understand how you can overlook that in the flood both the heavens and the earth were flooded,and yet in Noah's flood only the earth was flooded. Here read Genesis 9:8-16 and tell me when in this world God has caused a flood that destroyed all flesh and life off the earth? Because again you cannot say it was Noah's flood because life survived Noah's flood,now why do you refuse to consider another flood that did destroy all flesh? We have both Peter and Moses telling about a flood that destroyed all flesh and yet you can't consider it,even when we have fossils that reveals the kind of life that lived in the former world that died.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:UPDATED MY POST ACB.
ACB, attacking the yec position is not going to help. Did I ever tell you why I left the gap theory? It wasn't that I found evolution and stopped believing in the GT.

When I first found about GT I was pretty excited. Though with time the theological implications of it, that is the more I studied, became apparent. Jac talked about it in his post and I will reiterate some of his points, mainly that if there was a gap, why did Moses and the entire Bible, until you get to peter, is silent about it?

Why was Christ silent about it? Why didn't the Apocalypse is referred back to the GT, instead of the days of Noah? I think some apocryphal rabbinic teachings inspired the tale. If you look at it, some rabbinic teachings about silent periods in the bible, are nuts. E.g That Abraham visited heaven on a winged horse, that When they threw Manasseh the king of Judah in the boiling oil angels came down and held him up. Things like that push theology into fantasy.

So what is the problem with the GT, first no one translates it as "became" in Gen 1:2, even the NIV which puts the marginal note in there does not do it. No other respectable translation does. And to top that we have to claim ignorance on the part of the writers/authors who clearly-multiple times in the bible, refer to a six day creation period. That just cancels GT out, no matter what 3 verses in the entire Bible you have found which may support your case.

And you are dead wrong, the Bible CLEARLY teaches a six day creation period. Infact its the most accurate-consistent reading you can get out of it.

Do you know that text in Gen 1:1 doesn't exactly reads to heavens and the earth, to its original audience it only meant a tent, "shamiyan" on top of them, a roof so to say and dry land beneath their feet. Its not talking about the entire planet even, that is why the "earth" is always with a smaller "e".



Further, no one is the entire church history and canon ever taught of the gap theory. It only came when people found fossils. because right until then everyone believed that there was no extinction. That God would never let any of his creations be dead like forever. So in the church, the idea bore into view that these must belong to sometime past where these creatures were destroyed.

I know it could be hard to just leave your belief but I think you'd be doing yourself a favor. And I suppose it will be hard for you for the reason you have painted yourself in a corner that the only way to "combat" evolution is by believing in the GT. While I think nothing has to combat evolution at all, nor do I think there is any other model which explains things like it , I sincerely think that a YEC position is great and consistent with scripture, its solid, unlike the GT. And you can go with a lot OEC theories but go with some which actually treats the scriptures more seriously.

Don't take it in the wrong tone, but in a brotherly tone, for that is what its really intended as.

Thanks neo and I hope that I don't come off as rude,I'm trying to explain why YEC is wrong.I'm not trying to make it personal but just like Jac is frustrated with the GT,I'm frustrated with the YEC interpretation.

I agree with you that the YEC interpretation has always thought to be true but this is why I talked about how I believe God's word is living and is revealed true over time,the world of God is a revelation from God and is revealed at the right time.For up until the geological discoveries the age of the earth was not a burning issue,it only became an issue when the age of the earth became important and at the right time the gap theory was revealed and it had always been in the word of God the whole time,we just did not realize it.
Also it is not just a few verses in the bible the gap theory is revealed but althroughout the bible,both in the OT and NT but you can't realize it until you understand the revelation,then it is apparent.I' m finding new verses all the time that reveal the gap theory in both the old and new testaments.But I believe based on St.Augustine's writings it can at least be shown that he believed the first day in Genesis 1 started in verse 3, not verse 1 and this is/exactly what GT's believe and he lived almost 500 years ago,so to say the gap theory was first thought of because of evolution science just does not hold up,it was around long before the geological discoveries in the earth that were Christians by the way,who loved Jesus and his word.

YEC's ignore evidence first Discovered by Christians who were scientists,it makes sense that as the discoveries were made challenging their YEC interpretation that they did research and discovered Augustine's writings and it led to the discovery of the GT.

I see the YEC as a traditional biblical interpretation.

Also I hope I did not make you think that I dent the 6 days of creation as I don't and no GT does either,we even believe they were 24 hour days and that it was about 6000 years ago when God made this world.
Where did you get your info about Genesis 1:1? Because I have never heard that before.

As far as evolution? I could not accept it and I have tried to but I cannot find enough evidence despite how much evidence there seems to be,it does' not mean much to me if scientists can't demonstrate life evolves but that is another topic.

I hope I have addressed everything you believe.

Lets put YEC and evolution aside for a minute.

The problem is, you are claiming that Moses didn't know there was a gap, nor did the later authors. This is problematic because now you are saying that the authors were wrong when they referred back to the creation story. Augustine believed that the creation was instant. He didn't believe in the traditional YEC belief. But he did not teach GT.

If you study Hebrew a little and research for yourself theN Gen 1:1 is pretty standard knowledge. You can just check, take any english Bible and see that the earth is always written with small "e" it means in plain english, soil, land. It does not mean Earth, like in planet Earth. I suppose it is more easy to know for those who study this formally, which I did, and Jac too. That is why Jac is so confident in his analysis of why he rejects the GT and I second him on that because it is just the truth.

I hope you comment on the concerns and problems in both Jac's post and in mine because whether you accept YEC or not, or evolution for that matter is a secondary issue. The main issue is the validity of the GT and that is where my primary interest lies, in your answers I hope.

The problem is the moment you say the authors did not know what they were writing about, you are opening a floodgate for trouble and problems, such a thing is absurd.

You can find any kind of verses, not to be rude but the slavers also found verses that they relied on to enslave people, from the Bible and the flat earthers are also finding verses all the time. The issue is not if you found a verse, context of that verse within its writing is the one which counts.

The suggestion here is, it doesn't matter what that verse means to you in light of discovery of fossils. It only matters how the author penned it to be and how they understood it originally. That is why GT is out of the question. So if Gen 1:1 talks of earth as soil, land and not Planet Earth, you can't take that today and say Gen 1:1 means planet Earth. It does not. When you look at it this way you see how limited the use was of the language was and how limited we are in applying those to our understanding. It does not give us much choice to substantiate what the authors meant.

This alone throws GT out completely. If Gen 1:1 doesn't talk about "Planet Earth" specifically or the "Heavens" like we think today, then there is nothing for GT to stand on. And you can't use verse two's "became" as you want to with verse one because it is a different kind of earth being talked about. It could be all land, known land or the land which was immediately known to authors or what they thought all land was. That is excluding the arctic and the poles and Americas and Australia.

For example, if peter talks about the flood, you can't take that single reference out and conjoin it with the genesis and form an opinion. The first and most basic rule is that you see what within the context of Peter's writing does this reference mean anything. Please remember these people did not have the bible to cross reference when they were writing these things.

Let me know what you think.

What would it matter if Moses didn't know it?But I did not say he did not know,he could've but he could not have known,like I said the age of the earth was not a burning issue like it is today,however I am not saying Moses didn't know.

OK about Genesis 1:1 earth means dry land for instance in verse 10 of Genesis 1 it says " And God called the dry land earth. OK so if Genesis 1:1 means dry land then why is the earth covered in water in the very next verse? Not only is it flooded but it is frozen as well in verse 2 does the bible contradict itself? Also notice God has to remove water off of the earth on day 2. Yet in verse 1 it is dry land called earth.

Isiah 45:18" For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he established it,he created it not in vain,he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord and there is none else." So God did not originally created the earth without form and void,yet it is without form and void in verse 2. The bible does not contradict itself,the earth was perfect and inhabited in the beginning.

I think you have your mind made up and nobody can change your mind but I think that in Christianity repentence is important and it is something I try to do,not saying you don't but I repent,I change my mind to line up with God's word when I am wrong.This is why it would be better to back yourself up with the bible.

I would like you to explain based on 2nd Peter 3:4 you can believe all things have gone on continually since the beginning because you did not address it and this is why I cannot accept anybody saying all things have gone on since the beginning.I'd like to know how you go around it?

You seem to be dismissing the gap theory based on an opinion that the biblical writers did not know about the GT but this is not a good reason to IMO because we can't know,we can only know what we now know.

Yes let's talk about the flood Peter describes in 2nd Peter 3:5-7 because I do not understand how you can overlook that in the flood both the heavens and the earth were flooded,and yet in Noah's flood only the earth was flooded. Here read Genesis 9:8-16 and tell me when in this world God has caused a flood that destroyed all flesh and life off the earth? Because again you cannot say it was Noah's flood because life survived Noah's flood,now why do you refuse to consider another flood that did destroy all flesh? We have both Peter and Moses telling about a flood that destroyed all flesh and yet you can't consider it,even when we have fossils that reveals the kind of life that lived in the former world that died.

What would it matter if Moses didn't know it?But I did not say he did not know,he could've but he could not have known,like I said the age of the earth was not a burning issue like it is today,however I am not saying Moses didn't know.

If Moses didn't know then he was writing what? An inspired word? If Moses didn't know then he didn't know and he taught everyone the wrong thing. And it just so happens that God who was speaking to him on a day to day basis, forgot to correct him?
But you are saying that exactly because the text and the authors never call for a GT, they always return to six days of creation and Adam being the first man. If GT is true then Adam can't be the first man. And Moses did not write about the Gap then obviously Moses didn't know or else he would have made matter clearer.

OK about Genesis 1:1 earth means dry land for instance in verse 10 of Genesis 1 it says " And God called the dry land earth. OK so if Genesis 1:1 means dry land then why is the earth covered in water in the very next verse? Not only is it flooded but it is frozen as well in verse 2 does the bible contradict itself? Also notice God has to remove water off of the earth on day 2. Yet in verse 1 it is dry land called earth.

Because water is never created in the Bible. Have you not noticed. Its part of the landscape. Dry land existed and so did water. Gen 1:2 never says the earth is flooded. That is why the explanations comes in later verses that God commanded that all water should become one, an ocean. And we got dry land because the oceans combined.

Isiah 45:18" For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he established it,he created it not in vain,he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord and there is none else." So God did not originally created the earth without form and void,yet it is without form and void in verse 2. The bible does not contradict itself,the earth was perfect and inhabited in the beginning.

And there is no denying that, God created the earth to be inhabited and it was inhabited when God made the living things and Adam and Eve and other people. You don't think God made the world in an instant with everything grown on it already?

I think you have your mind made up and nobody can change your mind but I think that in Christianity repentence is important and it is something I try to do,not saying you don't but I repent,I change my mind to line up with God's word when I am wrong.This is why it would be better to back yourself up with the bible.

Please! I have been an Atheist, a YEC, a Gap theorist, a legalizer, a T.E and perhaps much more. Everyone needs to repent, but that has nothing to do here.

I would like you to explain based on 2nd Peter 3:4 you can believe all things have gone on continually since the beginning because you did not address it and this is why I cannot accept anybody saying all things have gone on since the beginning.I'd like to know how you go around it?

2nd Peter 3:5-7

Noah's world perished. The concept of heaven flooded is the correct proverbial term to use here. The ancients believed that reality was in three realms. The realm at the bottom was the realm of the dead, Hades. Then in the middle were us, the living. And above them was heaven a place where spiritual being existed. So the water, where did it come from? what was above them? Heaven, so the water must have come from where? Obviously heaven.

Peter is referring back to Noah, just like Christ did. You ever wonder when Christ was talking about the last days, why didn't Peter just told him then, Lord that isn't true, there was a world before which perished completely?

There is plenty of hyperbole involved in writings and I wouldn't take the average expression of the day make it into something its not. The former world did perish. Noah did not.

Listen, when we say the whole world morned the loss of Lady Diana, do you really think every single person did it?
Or when we say my son can eat all the chocolate in the world, does it mean that he really can eat every last drop of ice cream there is in the words?

So the term "former world" can mean former world and still not cover Noah and family.

And for its day, Peter's audience would have no trouble understanding what he meant, and in this instance Noah, because they knew what was being talked about. Peter's message is more important here, the message of his chapter that is,not just a couple of verses. In context he is talking about redemption for the believer and agony for the wicked. He is telling his audience not that there was a former world. That is not the emphasis. The emphasis is, what happened to them. In the former world, i.e Noah's world, the wicked were destroyed and only the righteous remained. So shall be in the end, the wicked will be destroyed and believers will be saved.

You are putting emphasis on a point that the author never intended to. Its like he is pointing to the moon and you are focusing on the finger. Stop looking at the finger and look where the author wants you to.. Peter's message is not to show there was a former world but show how the wickedness is destroyed and righteousness prevails. That is the overall arch of the message, to take that out of the its context and apply it to Gen is just wrong treatment of the text.

Neo wrote:
If Moses didn't know then he was writing what? An inspired word? If Moses didn't know then he didn't know and he taught everyone the wrong thing. And it just so happens that God who was speaking to him on a day to day basis, forgot to correct him?
But you are saying that exactly because the text and the authors never call for a GT, they always return to six days of creation and Adam being the first man. If GT is true then Adam can't be the first man. And Moses did not write about the Gap then obviously Moses didn't know or else he would have made matter clearer.

Neo,

I find it extremely ironic that you are trying to discredit the gap theory because of what you believe the bible teaches. Because what you believe the bible teaches about Adam being the first man, and the six day creation, if you're being honest, also should be used to disprove the evolution you believe in.

So, on one hand, you argue for the gap theory not being true because the bible shows it's wrong. And on the other hand, you believe in evolution, even though the bible shows it's wrong(according to your argument!!!!!)

You are sawing off the branch you are sitting on!!!
Or, perhaps you prefer, hoist by your own petard!!