The Gap theory

[Jac3510]

Hey look jumping to other passages rather than dealing with the actual data I presented.

As predicted.

And now I'm done with this conversation.

[abelcainsbrother]

Sorry I upset you but the gap theory came about from reading the NT,not the OT.Once Christians realize that 2nd Peter 3:5-7 was not referring to Noah's flood but a much,much worse flood they looked elsewhere in the bible and noticed the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 then they looked for other verses in the bible in both the new and old testaments and the gap theory was realized.Like I said before if you only focus on Genesis 1:2 then you'll never realize the gap theory.You must look at the bible as a whole and like I said it really does not effect the gap theory like you think when it comes to " became" or " was" because if it did? The gap theory would not be known about,it was only after it was discovered that it was pointed out it possibly could be translated"became"

I did a little research on Thomas Constable's views on Genesis from sonic light and even he points out that Thomas Chalmers published the gap theory in 1814 and that Chalmers was not making science fit into scripture but was basing it on scripture even though Constable is a young earther.
You may not think it is important to look at all of the other scriptures that the gap theory is based on in both the old and new testaments and I don't understand why it seems so hard to do.I don't buy it the these new Hebrew scholars have it right and the bible scholars of the past were wrong instead I think all views should be considered and not favorited over the other,which is what I do.Both views should be considered from both old and new Hebrew scholars.

Another aspect of the young earth interpretation and its something that you seem to do is reading Genesis 1 and basing the rest of the bible around Genesis 1 instead of taking the bible as a whole and then reading Genesis 1

[neo-x]

*sighs* that's called blind faith.

[abelcainsbrother]

*sighs* that's called blind faith.

I don't see how,if it was?I would not believe it but science bears it out and new discoveries are made all the time like this
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltma ... y-thought/

[neo-x]

*sighs* that's called blind faith.

I don't see how,if it was?I would not believe it but science bears it out and new discoveries are made all the time like this
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltma ... y-thought/

updated post
Yes it is. Oh! you don't see it now, nor did I when I was a Gap theorist. So in one way I know what its like but I had the courage to see the problems and then realize that sour to my taste the gap theory didn't gel with scripture. And I did move on from it. And someday when you stop reading the English bible and learn a little bit to do your own research, you will too. At least that is my hope.

Apart from that as to what I wrote earlier, its cherry picked verses, no idea of grammar or linguistics, no weight to the context, what else is there to call it? No discovery can over right what is the original purposes' of the passages you sight. Perhaps you invested a bit too much in the belief.

[neo-x]

And sorry but science does not condone GAP theory at all, nor any other creation theory. Oh its a rare scientist here or a theologian there which says it does but the more I read the more it looks and reads and sounds absurd. Its the same song that many other folks sing in a slightly different tune, no big deal.

Science is at odds with the creation theory and many folks try to fit science in that one single chapter of Genesis and think that they go together.

[abelcainsbrother]

*sighs* that's called blind faith.

I don't see how,if it was?I would not believe it but science bears it out and new discoveries are made all the time like this
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltma ... y-thought/

Yes it is. Cherry picked verses, no idea of grammar or linguistics, no weight to the context, what else is there to call it? No discovery can over right what is the original purposes' of the passages you sight. Perhaps you invested a bit too much in the belief.

Cherry-picked verses?I have verses from both testaments and this is normal,it is not normal to ignore biblical verses that reveals something.I think it is blind faith to believe an interpretation and have to ignore what the evidence in the earth tells us.I think we have the wrong interpretation when nature differs with our interpretation.To accept the gap means both the bible and science go hand in hand confirming it true and without you having to make the evidence fit your interpretation.

[neo-x]

*sighs* that's called blind faith.

I don't see how,if it was?I would not believe it but science bears it out and new discoveries are made all the time like this
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltma ... y-thought/

Yes it is. Cherry picked verses, no idea of grammar or linguistics, no weight to the context, what else is there to call it? No discovery can over right what is the original purposes' of the passages you sight. Perhaps you invested a bit too much in the belief.

Cherry-picked verses?I have verses from both testaments and this is normal,it is not normal to ignore biblical verses that reveals something.I think it is blind faith to believe an interpretation and have to ignore what the evidence in the earth tells us.I think we have the wrong interpretation when nature differs with our interpretation.To accept the gap means both the bible and science go hand in hand confirming it true and without you having to make the evidence fit your interpretation.

Yes cherry picked verses from both testaments, which have no context with each other. Evidence in earth only tells us of fossils, it doesn't say GT is valid. GT validation must come from the Bible. And sadly its not there.

[abelcainsbrother]

And sorry but science does not condone GAP theory at all, nor any other creation theory. Oh its a rare scientist here or a theologian there which says it does but the more I read the more it looks and reads and sounds absurd. Its the same song that many other folks sing in a slightly different tune, no big deal.

Science is at odds with the creation theory and many folks try to fit science in that one single chapter of Genesis and think that they go together.

To me this is blind faith that I don't believe the bible teaches.I know many people just believe the bible by faith and don't need evidence but this does not mean there is no evidence.Even before I accepted the GT I believed Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for,the EVIDENCE of things not seen." And I used to teach it something like this.You cannot see a hurricane and can only tell be the substance and evidence around you it is a hurricane,samething with gravity you cannot see gravity but I can pick up a cup(substance) and drop it and notice it is being pulled downward by an invisible force(evidence) and it is the same thing with God I can't see him but have substance and evidence I can examine to know he exists and his word is true.

[neo-x]

Goodluck to you then, to me GT is purely un-biblical. To be honest I really don't care about your creation position. What I care about is how people treat the scriptures, and you my friend are not treating it correctly. You remind me of my self when I was a teenager and hellbent on believing the Gap theory. Then I actually went to a seminary and studied. Then the change came.

Don't worry though, I hope with time you will come around.

[abelcainsbrother]

*sighs* that's called blind faith.

I don't see how,if it was?I would not believe it but science bears it out and new discoveries are made all the time like this
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltma ... y-thought/

Yes it is. Cherry picked verses, no idea of grammar or linguistics, no weight to the context, what else is there to call it? No discovery can over right what is the original purposes' of the passages you sight. Perhaps you invested a bit too much in the belief.

Cherry-picked verses?I have verses from both testaments and this is normal,it is not normal to ignore biblical verses that reveals something.I think it is blind faith to believe an interpretation and have to ignore what the evidence in the earth tells us.I think we have the wrong interpretation when nature differs with our interpretation.To accept the gap means both the bible and science go hand in hand confirming it true and without you having to make the evidence fit your interpretation.

Yes cherry picked verses from both testaments, which have no context with each other. Evidence in earth only tells us of fossils, it doesn't say GT is valid. GT validation must come from the Bible. And sadly its not there.

Really? If you realized the bible tells of a former world that perished,wouldn't you expect to find evidence the earth is old and fossils?I think so,it is a prediction like evolutionists say about evolution,scientists looked in the strata and found the fossils they expected to find in the layers.What is the difference when it comes to science? But then I posted above a link that is very recent about how geologists now think the early earth was less hostile than previously thought,well if true? It makes sense if a former world existed on this earth,also we know in the future there will be a new heaven and earth again.

[neo-x]

But that's the thing, it doesn't say anything of a former world existing in between the span of two verses at all. Jac and I have been saying that to you for more than 2 pages. The former world is the world of Noah, also called the days of old, which Christ also mentioned multiple times.

[RickD]

Goodluck to you then, to me GT is purely un-biblical. To be honest I really don't care about your creation position. What I care about is how people treat the scriptures, and you my friend are not treating it correctly. You remind me of my self when I was a teenager and hellbent on believing the Gap theory. Then I actually went to a seminary and studied. Then the change came.

Don't worry though, I hope with time you will come around.

Neo,

Tell us how you went to a seminary, studied, a change came, and then you pushed it all aside and believed evolution. I don't understand how you are arguing for correct interpretation of scripture, when you admit that you don't even believe what scripture says in some cases. What's the point of correct interpretation if you just toss it into the trash anyways?

[RickD]

ACB wrote:
Water in outer space confirms this biblical prediction that Moses could not have known without inspiration of God.Moses was right claiming water is in outer space but also the planet Mars used to have water on it,now this baffles secular scientists who wonder where the water went,we if God flooded both the heavens and the earth and removed the water?this is why Mars no longer has water on it,that baffles scientists.
So I have produced scientific evidence to back up Lucifer's flood.

You are saying God took water from Mars, and used it to flood the earth? Water floated 140,000,000 miles through outer space and came to earth. And you call that scientific evidence?

[neo-x]

Hah Rick! but there you are wrong my friend. I have always kept myself to see facts as they are. I didn't push it all aside. Remember I was a T.E, which was not common a beleif but still valid with the OEC framework. So for one your statement is wrong, I didn't throw it all aside. It came naturally at a very slow pace, took more than a year infact. To the point where I saw that to twist the scriptures to fit to NEW scientific findings, one was going against the original message and the purpose for it. If the Bible doesn't merit some things, for instance the use of yom as an extended period of time in Gen 1, then how can we just do that today? Its a bold position, mine that is, and quite unpopular. I understood the scriptures and I was very interested in evolutionary biology and having studied both I concluded that these just didn't gel together. The science is purely anti-creation and the bible is plainly anti-evolution and pro-creation. More so I realized what the authors of Gen 1 probably thought, they wrote down the story, which was handed down to them via oral traditions. Similar to how Luke wrote his Gospel. In Luke's case though the timeline was a few decades old. Incase of Gen 1, the stories being written down were centuries or more so a millennia old. Too much a of a gap to keep those fully intact.

And then I studied how ancient Hebrews sang the scriptures and stories, a good way to preserve them in memory, for lessons and retelling. Oral tradition was a the only tradition until then which was a sure shot way to keep the basic story passing to the new generations. And Genesis 1 is extremely poetical, parallel poetical, infact. That is why there are two accounts, one a summarized one, details too balanced, expressions and wordings repeated and it was so and so and thus it was day x etc (probably the singing version), then the second account a detailed one and fantastic none the less, Adam names all the creatures and so on and so forth. The talking snake and the fruit. The angel guarding the garden.

But what you do get from the story was that the Authors meant it as severely literal. Its so hard to say its allegorical or means other than what it says that now I think that to even consider the possibility is incredible to say the least. And the produce of these stories are answers, answers to fundamental questions people would have naturally.

How everything is made?
Are we above beasts?
e.g Why do we die? because we ate the fruit, leads to concept of punishment and our toiling time on earth.
why is there child labor pains?
why does the earth needs toiling?
why are snakes dangerous?
why do we wear clothes?
what we are to do to get god's favor? sacrifice.

Bottomline, these stories are enriched with lessons. Lessons needed for the Hebrew line. Passing down from oral tradition these stories contained basic truths but not all truth. That Adam and Eve being the first humans, for one.

For instance I am open to idea that Adam and Eve were historical characters, maybe the ancestors who started the Hebrew line. But not that they were the first humans.

However the point being the stories were fundamental and Moses wrote those down probably thinking the same, that these things happened as is. I never can imagine he would make these up on the go. That is not even remotely possible. Next he did not mean it as an allegory because if it was allegorical then it went against the oral stories which the people knew, widespread. So he can't make them up, too many people know the stories and he can't call it allegory, there is no motive to do so and again these stories were widespread knowledge.

So what can he do? He can write these down, preserve them for next generation when they are no longer slaves. And he does that.

The stories from there onward become more coherent. Because the time gap is less and less between these stories and incidents being jotted down. That is why as more time passes we find more evidence from archaeology and such. But fail the more backward we go on the timeline.

To come to evolution the facts are:
1. Adam and Eve were not first humans. No single couple was.
2. That everything living did not eat grass.
3. That death was there, doesn't matter if someone ate the fruit or not. So were earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions etc.

No matter what these say about anything they completely fly in the face of Gen 1.

So you see my conundrum, on one hand I see the scriptures faithfully saying true to their spirit. On other hand the science is undeniable. Hence my conclusion that this story can't be real at least on some points.

And please don't think it rude but what's the point of it anyway when you can't accept that yom in Gen 1 is just that, a 24 day period. I mean that's tossing out scripture in the trashcan. Just because liberally the word can, doesn't mean it should in every instance you prefer, be longer than 24 hours?

Right there I charge you, you don't believe in the Bible in some cases.

Along with, burning the witch and stoning the prostitute and the homosexual. Or turning the other cheek or being proud and be against divorce instead on when its only allowed to us, or to lie or boast or gossip. Sins we all do everyday, everyone of us, one sin or another, I mean really what's the point of believing in it, when by disobeying we throw the scriptures in the trashcan anyway?

I know what you will say, lying is not the same as not believing Gen 1 to be true through and through. And generally I agree with you but the end result is all the same. You don't stone a prostitute, you don't believe in it. You think that part of the Bible is what? irrelevant now? Is it really any different to what I am doing?

But again two wrongs don't make a right. I was not dazzled by the lastest science to just jump ship. Infact my analysis of the Bible further drove me to the conclusion that its very YEC. I agree, however just as you don't seem to be affected by "stoning the harlot" or "killing the homosexual", I am unaffected by Adam and his story be that fact or fiction. It makes no difference to me whether he was real or not. His story matters to me and the lessons it gives. It is only a minor point but the Author does indeed write these people as very real. It is the Author's source which is prone to introduce problems, and here the study of evolution came in, which I will deal latter on below.

Back to the point however.

And thus the scriptures do matter to me. It is out of my respect for those scriptures, that unlike PC's for example, I am not trying to alter the meaning of the words just so it can fit in with the latest scientific findings of the day. I am sure you don't think you are disrespecting scripture even when you don't accept the textual analysis and basis of why yom in Gen 1 can't be penned as more than 24 hours.

But in one way you are plucking the speck of your brother's eye and leaving your plank there in your eye. But since you don't feel that way its different from you, nor do I think its intentional from you. The only difference between your's position and mine, is that I am not ashamed of the eventuality and consequences of my position. My faith in this position is only based on my honesty with which I came to it. I can say I tried with my best and came to this difficult position (and believe me it is dificult). However I am willing to call it as it is, anti-creation, against the Gen 1 story but sincere nonetheless.

You however have to do quite a bit of semantics to get to that long yom you always stress upon. And I call it unbiblical but the problem is, unlike me you are ashamed to accept that and so you don't. You call it biblical. And that just tells me you are not ready to accept the consequences. You will have to give up your core beliefs just to accept that, and as Jac said, if you invested in this belief, it will be hard to let go.

I may be very wrong. I give you that. But there is nothing wrong with my method. Your method in my opinion however is flawed but you keep to it anyway.

And the thing is I am really not trying to blame you for anything. The reason I chose you or (PC's) as an example to use in my points is nothing else but that, that we are conversing and it represents your position.

If science ever finds that we found a bunny in the cretaceous, for example. I will be the first one to accept that the evolution science model is in deep trouble. But what we do know already is so much, the DNA and all...that the Adm Eve first person story doesn't stand anymore.

There is nothing personal here Rick, I have written in a good mood and consider it iron on iron and nothing else. I know these debates get personal but I don't want that. You asked and I have replied with my honest thoughts. These however do not represent the bond we share and that to me is more precious.

I bid you a good day.