Evidence for God from Science

="neo-x"]

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

neo-x wrote:

ACB wrote:
...As we can see they do not mean the same thing like YEC's claim.

? You don't see a difference? I've been going back over things neo and considering other people's arguments but despite their claims it seems to me that they are wrong for why they claim to reject the Gap theory.I do consider the arguments that have been made against it and I'd change my mind if they were right but it seems that their reasons for rejecting it have more to do with bias than the facts.Still,I still consider that I might be wrong and am just being biased.Evidence matters to me neo more than more popular theories and I'm going by evidence while considering the arguments against the Gap theory.

This isn't about the Gap theory, ACB. And no I don't see a difference because I have no need to insert a gap, since its not a preset choice for me, I don't need to change the meaning of the text which would suit my usage later. And the issue at its basic its about reading Hebrew correctly and within context, both of which you avoid citing obsolete and erroneous research.

Quoting a dictionary means nothing, e.g just look at the word "quick" and how its uses have changed over time in English language.

Calvinism also has to sometimes juggle the words around to suit its mainframe and that was one issue I have with it, somehow the the world for which Christ died, doesn't remain the world. They have to read in their specific meaning to convince themselves that it does, which the normal reading doesn't support.

Well I actually consider reasons given why the Gap theory is wrong,yet when I actually examine evidence I see that they were wrong in why they rejected it.I think it is good to question our interpretations and honestly consider reasons given why they say the Gap theory is wrong,but when I look into it? They are the ones wrong.Still,I do consider their reasons for denying it,it just does'nt hold up under further scrutiny.I expect truthful reasons why something is wrong.

This isn't about the GAP theory, and this is no excuse to alter the text to use it in a way it fits your needs.[/quote]

Others are altering the text by claiming bara and asah mean the same thing.I mean I've looked into it as I've shown and it is those who claim there is no distintion between bara and asah that are wrong.Reading the text like they mean the same thing causes you to read the text wrong and you lose context in the text and then you don't understand it properly.I respect Jac and his hebrew knowledge which is why I went back and examined what he said annd yet he is wrong claiming there is no distinction between bara and asah and claiming Gap theorists made it up.Anyway,I mean no disrespect to Jac and miss him being around but he is not right about bara and asah.

Right...carry on.

P.S For fun, I usually keep a short list of people whom over the years I have observed here to be never wrong...like never ever.

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.

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."

You claim it cannot be translated "became" even when the NIV says it can and the very reason the NIV says it can be translated "became" is because of former bible scholars that were Gap Theorists and their influence is still around. Yet you claim it cannot be and expect me to just believe you.

Also Before the 1970's there were bible scholars that were gap theorists,it was because Henry Morris wrote his book "The Genesis Flood" in the early 1960's and pushed young earth creationism and at that time almost all bible scholars were old earth creationists,I think only one was YEC yet YEC has grown in popularity because of Henry Morris lobbying young earth creationism in the 1970's.

And now that YEC has the majority you claim the GT is wrong and Genesis 1:2 cannot be translated became instead of was.But somebody is wrong. There are Hebrew bible translations in the past where it was translated "became" Arther Custance proved this long ago, yet you act like it has never been translated became before,when it has. So were them jews wrong when they translated Genesis 1:2 "became" instead of "was"? We are talking jews translating the OT bible into english, this is also why the NIV says it can possibly be translated "became" also because it has in the past.

Jac3510 wrote:Once again, abel, you are wrong on the basic facts.

There is no such distinction between asah and bara. That's something gap theorists basically made up to support their claim. Once again, if I might refer to some more recent scholarship, allow me to quote from Gary Gromacki's article titled, "Genesis, Geology And The Grand Canyon" (Journal of Ministry and Theology 12:2 (2008)),

• Gap theorists believe that the two primary words for “create” (בָּרָא used in Gen 1:1 and עשׂה used in Gen 1:25) refer to two different kinds of creation. They say that bara refers to primary creative activity, while asah means that God re-created out of previously existing materials. The Hebrew words are not so distinct. For example, Moses used bara of the creation of man out of previously existing material (Gen 1:27), and he used asah of the whole creation as the primary activity of God (Exod 20:11). Furthermore, he used bara of the creation of some animals (Gen 1:21) and asah of the creation of other animals (Gen 1:25). The real difference between these two words is that Moses used bara only of divine activity, and he used asah of both divine and human activities. (p.48)

So much for that distinction.

As for Isaiah 45:18, once again, you are not taking seriously (your claims to the contrary) that you have Isaiah directly contradicting the grammar of Gen 1:1-2. Do you not even consider the possibility that you have misinterpreted the passage? Go to soniclight.org and pull up Tom Constable's commentary on Isaiah. You would also do well to look at Keil and Delitzsch's comments (again, their commentary can be found online for free). The bottom line is that the phrase "לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ" ("he formed it to be inhabited") are a standard example of Hebrew synonymous parallelism and show what Isaiah has in mind (as an aside, that very verse is another one that collapses your unjustified distinction between asah and bara).

The last problem I'd point out with your reading of Isa 45 is that it is unintelligible in its context. The whole section is a prophecy about the restoration of Israel. What does a reference to this so-called former world have anything to do with what Isaiah is actually talking about? But if you read the line in light of the whole prophecy (and see again the two commentaries I referred to above), you'll see that not only does this not contradict the proper reading of Gen 1:2, it actually contradicts the gap theory.

So why, pray tell, should I abandon the actual text and the grammatical emphasis of Gen 1:1-2 and call Moses a liar (or at least say that he didn't understand Hebrew!)? Why are you so convinced that Moses is wrong? Don't you think it is possible--indeed, given what we've already seen, that it is more likely--that you are misreading Isaiah? After all, if you are right, again, that means that Isaiah's own words are meaningless. If future prophecy can come along and change the meaning of earlier texts, then how do you know that the meaning of Isaiah hasn't been or won't be changed? If Moses could be wrong about what Genesis meant and it centuries to reveal it, how do you know that in a few centuries from now future revelation won't change the meaning of the texts you are looking at now and show that you don't know what these texts mean after all, too?

Or, you could just stick to good hermeneutics and interpret later texts in light of former ones. Let Gen 1:1-2 be Gen 1:1-2, and if later passages contradict your reading of that, then realize that your understanding of those later passages is just wrong.

list]

Gap theorists believe that the two primary words for “create” (בָּרָא used in Gen 1:1 and עשׂה used in Gen 1:25) refer to two different kinds of creation. They say that bara refers to primary creative activity, while asah means that God re-created out of previously existing materials. The Hebrew words are not so distinct. For example, Moses used bara of the creation of man out of previously existing material (Gen 1:27), and he used asah of the whole creation as the primary activity of God (Exod 20:11). Furthermore, he used bara of the creation of some animals (Gen 1:21) and asah of the creation of other animals (Gen 1:25). The real difference between these two words is that Moses used bara only of divine activity, and he used asah of both divine and human activities. (p.48)[

Wrong Jac when God created(bara)Adam he was a new creation just like in Genesis 1:1 when God created the heavens and earth and it was new,but when "asah" is used it is God is working on something that already existed and it is not something new.

Like on the 4th day of Genesis and it sais "he MADE(ASAH)the stars also. God did not create the stars he just did work on them to make them shine again.The stars were created in the beginning whenever that was and they existed but were not shining until God worked on them like "asah" means.You may need to review the hebrew word "asah" again. When God creates it is something new and it is'nt when he made things and this is the difference. Gap Theorists have not made up anything like you claim.

As a matter of fact God and Moses wants us to know the difference between "create" and "made" I'll show you. Go to Genesis 2:2-3 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had MADE(ASAH);and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had MADE(ASAH).

And God blessed the seventh day,and sanctified it:because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created(bara) and made(asah).

Look how much Moses stresses the difference between the words created and made,he is calling our attention to these two different words and wants us to know the difference between created and made. and in Genesis 1:3-31 God made(asah) everything in the 6 days of creation except on day 5 and 6 when God does alittle creating but not all of it is created some of it is made in day 5 and 6.

I'll show you Genesis 1:21"And God CREATED(BARA) great whales,and every living creature that moveth,which the waters brought forth abundantly,after their kind,and every winged fowl after his kind:And God saw it was good."

All of this life God created was brand new life that had never been created before but because of the phrase "after their kind" or "after his kind" this life replaced life that had existed before,this was new life based on the old life that had existed before.I think of alligators and crocodiles to replace dinosaurs but this is an example.

However let's look at Genesis 1:24-25"And God said,Let the earth bring forth every creature AFTER HIS KIND,cattle,and creeping thing,and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND:and it was so.and God MADE(ASAH) the beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND,and cattle AFTER THEIR KIND,and everything that creepeth upon the earth AFTER HIS KIND:and God saw it was good.

You see when we see the word made this was not new life,it had existed before which is why God made them after his kind or after their kind, these phrases are telling us this life had existed before and God is making this life after the kinds of life that had lived before.This has nothing to do with reproduction but is God making life after his kind or after its kind and this means life had existed before. When the bible is talking about reproduction it lets us know by the wording with words like breed and after their kind.

This is why on the 6th day God says "Let us MAKE man in our image,because there was a pre-Adamite race of beings that lived before them,that science thinks evolved into modern man.

Let's go on Genesis 1:27 "And God CREATED(BARA)man in his image,in the image of God created he him:make and female CREATED(BARA) he them."

These were brand new creations that had never been created before just like in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created(bara) the heaven and the earth."
This is why Gap theorists believe and say Adam was the first man and death and evil spread when they sinned. There is no contradiction at all with this interpretation,no problem at all with the need for salvation of man through Jesus Christ. Everything is the same the only difference is there was life before God created and made the life in this world because of a former world that existed that perished before God made this world we now live in.
And now it makes sense that God told man and women to replenish the earth. You can change it to "fill" but it does not sound right for God to tell Noah,his sons and their wives to "fill" the earth and it is the same hebrew word for both and "replenish" is right for both instances.

But also there is no way the life in the former world evolved into the life in this world regardless of what modern secular science says and this is why no Gap theorist accepts evolution.

The Gap Theory is my favorite theory right now. It's very satisfying theologically. Also, Ken Ham is really annoying. :/

winningedge101 wrote:The Gap Theory is my favorite theory right now. It's very satisfying theologically. Also, Ken Ham is really annoying. :/

Well let me know if you have any questions about it and I'll help lead you to the information you may need. There are other good Gap Theory links you may want to know about and you can find good teachings about it on youtube too,so let me know if you need them.I think you should first learn as much as you can biblically about it,then learn how to defend it using most any bible translation.Then you can get into the science of it and start trying to find evidence for a former world. If you would like some more links and teachings on it,let me know.

Looks like the Gap Jedi has found himself a new padawan learner. May the Gap force be with you, young Skywalker.









Sorry. I'm going to see The Force Awakens this morning.

Let's see, the GAP theory is an old theory...

So since I am getting older, I can verify that there is really a GAP since I have a gap in my memory and often forget where I put my car keys or if this Monday or Wednesday.

Then I find myself also knowing how long the gaps are between all the local public restrooms in town...



So let's not make fun of the Gap theory then okay?
-
-
-

FYI,

Jac clarified that he DIDN'T say there wasn't a difference between bara and asah. He made it clear that he was referring to one specific bible verse where the words were synonymous.

RickD wrote:FYI,

Jac clarified that he DIDN'T say there wasn't a difference between bara and asah. He made it clear that he was referring to one specific bible verse where the words were synonymous.

They are not synonymous not even in one verse,there is a destinction between them.And it matters if we want to understand the OT properly especially Genesis 1.I have seen certian ministries teaching about "bara" and "asah" and they teach they are interchangable but they are not. I have looked into this with a Strong's concordance to see who is right and I learned that there is a difference and they are not interchangeable.Not realizing this causes us to read Genesis 1 and the OT wrong.

Anytime you see "created" it is always something new that God created but when you see "made" it is not a new creation but is God working on something that had already been created before.Even when it comes to the animals,etc God created and made, some God created and it was new life that had never been created before but some was made and it had already been created before.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:FYI,

Jac clarified that he DIDN'T say there wasn't a difference between bara and asah. He made it clear that he was referring to one specific bible verse where the words were synonymous.

They are not synonymous not even in one verse,there is a destinction between them.And it matters if we want to understand the OT properly especially Genesis 1.I have seen certian ministries teaching about "bara" and "asah" and they teach they are interchangable but they are not. I have looked into this with a Strong's concordance to see who is right and I learned that there is a difference and they are not interchangeable.Not realizing this causes us to read Genesis 1 and the OT wrong.

Anytime you see "created" it is always something new that God created but when you see "made" it is not a new creation but is God working on something that had already been created before.Even when it comes to the animals,etc God created and made, some God created and it was new life that had never been created before but some was made and it had already been created before.

You mean when God made an animal it could mean evolution?

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:FYI,

Jac clarified that he DIDN'T say there wasn't a difference between bara and asah. He made it clear that he was referring to one specific bible verse where the words were synonymous.

They are not synonymous not even in one verse,there is a destinction between them.And it matters if we want to understand the OT properly especially Genesis 1.I have seen certian ministries teaching about "bara" and "asah" and they teach they are interchangable but they are not. I have looked into this with a Strong's concordance to see who is right and I learned that there is a difference and they are not interchangeable.Not realizing this causes us to read Genesis 1 and the OT wrong.

Anytime you see "created" it is always something new that God created but when you see "made" it is not a new creation but is God working on something that had already been created before.Even when it comes to the animals,etc God created and made, some God created and it was new life that had never been created before but some was made and it had already been created before.

You mean when God made an animal it could mean evolution?

Look,I'm not trying to be a know it all. I'm just telling you what I learned looking into this to see who is right and who is wrong.I wanted to know who is right so I looked into. I went to several different ministries and looked at how they teach about "bara" and "asah" and then I looked into it myself with concordances to see who is right. I can't find evolution in the bible though.

All I'm saying is that Jac knows there's a difference between the two words. But he said in one verse the words are interchangeable. I know that he meant that because I questioned him on it.

I'm not saying that he's right or wrong about bara and asah being interchangeable in that verse. I'm just making it clear that he doesn't conflate the two words.

RickD wrote:All I'm saying is that Jac knows there's a difference between the two words. But he said in one verse the words are interchangeable. I know that he meant that because I questioned him on it.

I'm not saying that he's right or wrong about bara and asah being interchangeable in that verse. I'm just making it clear that he doesn't conflate the two words.

OK,that is good because it is important to have proper understanding.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:All I'm saying is that Jac knows there's a difference between the two words. But he said in one verse the words are interchangeable. I know that he meant that because I questioned him on it.

I'm not saying that he's right or wrong about bara and asah being interchangeable in that verse. I'm just making it clear that he doesn't conflate the two words.

OK,that is good because it is important to have proper understanding.

Amen brother.