Re: The refutation of a refutation : Gap Theory
Posted: Tue May 10, 2016 4:22 pm
Im no physicist but I studied enough to see how "illogical"
and counterintuitive it gets.
and counterintuitive it gets.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
The Big Bang Theory is much more sound science based on the evidence than the theory of evolution is.I mean Phycisists can atleast take us all the way back as far as telescopes can see and we can tell the universe is expanding.Why can't Biologists do this when it comes to the theory of evolution?Audie wrote:Im no physicist but I studied enough to see how "illogical"
and counterintuitive it gets.
abelcainsbrother wrote:The Big Bang Theory is much more sound science based on the evidence than the theory of evolution is.I mean Phycisists can atleast take us all the way back as far as telescopes can see and we can tell the universe is expanding.Why can't Biologists do this when it comes to the theory of evolution?Audie wrote:Im no physicist but I studied enough to see how "illogical"
and counterintuitive it gets.
Here are the definitions for bara and asahThere are two major linguistic arguments cited in favor of Gap Theory. First, Gap theorists begin by understanding the term bārā’ in Genesis 1 to mean “create” (from nothing), and ‘āsāh to mean “restore” (at a later time). The bārā’ creation marks the initial stage of Creation in which God set the world into motion by fiat. One of the earliest Gap theorists, George H. Pember, wrote over 100 years ago: “For we are told that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was…quite a different thing from the original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah [sic] is used in connection with them” (1907, pp. 22-23).
I have not heard of John Clayton and his "modified Gap theory" but I might look into it.But for now I'm just going to stick to the normal Gap Theory. No! as we read through the rest of the Hebrew bible,or even the rest of Genesis,you are going to learn these definitions are not impossible to maintain (as I will demonstrate) and remain the same throughout and that you are wrong.Within churches of Christ, John Clayton has been an active proponent of the insights of Gap Theory, although his actual position defies precise categorization. Thompson refers to it as the “modified Gap Theory,” although Clayton himself is rather coy about labeling his position (2000, pp. 281-296). Like others, Clayton also appeals to the Hebrew language to defend his version of the theory. Unfortunately, like the Gap theorists, he too states bārā’ is a miraculous creation from nothing, even going so far as to suggest Genesis 1:1 implies the “Big Bang” (Clayton, 2015, p. 90). Like the Gap theorists, Clayton also parrots the view that ‘āsāh means “reworking existing material” (2011, p. 207). If Clayton were to read the rest of the Hebrew Bible, or even the rest of Genesis, he would learn that his definitions are impossible to maintain (as we shall demonstrate).
This is a fact that you or no Hebrew scholor today can refute.In Genesis 1 the only time something happens is when God speaks,until God speaks nothing happens and God does not speak until verse 3 on the first day in Genesis 1.So before God speaks the heavens and the earth already exist and we can atleast say that we do not know how long it was until God spoke in verse 3.But we know the heavens and the earth already exist and it very well could have been billions of years until God spoke in Genesis 1:3. This is how we Gap Theorists know that we can accommodate billions of years into the text,but we can also say that this does away from claiming the earth is 6000 years old too,because we cannot know how long it was before God spoke in verse 3,even if we knew nothing about science.By interpreting the Hebrew in this fashion, Gap theorists believe they can accommodate an Earth billions of years old without compromising the essential integrity of the Genesis account. The bārā’ stage of Creation occurs first (Genesis 1:1), and, after centuries or even billions of years, the ‘āsāh stage of Creation occurs (the “six days,” Genesis 1:2ff.). Unfortunately, Gap theorists focus their attention, so far as the Hebrew is concerned, principally on Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 (taken as proof of the ‘āsāh stage of Creation). Again, if they were to read the entire Hebrew Bible, however, they would learn their position to be linguistically untenable, as we shall demonstrate.
Yes because we know God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning but we can see the earth became without form and void.There is no reason biblically to think God creates junk and then decorates it.It was not a re-creation,it was a restoration of the earth that had became without form and void so that God could make this world on the earth and create man in his image.No wonder Satan who had been Lucifer but had rebelled was after man from the beginning.God created man in his image and then gave man dominion over the earth.Satan was ticked off.We could say in the former world God tested angels and Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled and in this world he is testing man and we failed so God had to come and save us with Satan doing everything he can to disrupt it.Second, Gap theorists allege the grammar of Genesis 1:2 implies a gap. Basically, three arguments are made from the Hebrew: (1) The Hebrew waw is disjunctive, and thus implies an interruption in the narration from what is reported in Genesis 1:1. This interruption signals a chronological “gap”; (2) The verb form “was” (hāyetāh)should be translated “became,” signaling a new beginning beyond the bārā’ creation of Genesis 1:1; and (3) The nouns traditionally translated “without form and void” (tōhū vā-vōhū) imply a degeneration of the original Creation, and thus what follows is a re-creation.
Let's do it,because you will be lacking.We shall proceed to discuss and evaluate these Hebrew linguistic arguments, beginning first with the question of bārā’ and ‘āsāh, and then turning to the grammar of Genesis 1:2 specifically. In the course of our analysis, the linguistic evidence for the Gap Theory will be shown to be lacking?
Nope! the terms are like this bara(create) and asah(made) NOT make.Some newer translation use done instead of made where we see the word asah but we focus on the Hebrew meaning of these words regardless of the english words used in the translation.The Genesis account uses no less than four terms to describe Creation. The terms best known are bārā’ (“create”) and ‘āsāh (“make”), although yātsar (“form”) and bānāh (“build”) are also found. Man is “formed” (yātsar) from the dirt (Genesis 2:7-8), and woman is “built” (bānāh) from man (Genesis 2:22). The bulk of attention, however, has centered around bārā’ and ‘āsāh, the most frequent of these four words in the Creation account. Gap theorists allege these terms refer to very different stages of Creation, billions of years apart. We shall see that, while this theory is attractive at the macro-level, the Hebrew terminology simply will not bear the burden of proof Gap theorists load upon it.
Yes I agree the bible uses multiple terms to describe God's creative activity however we are only going to focus on "bara" and "asah" because Moses told us to Genesis 2:2-4.He did not tell us to focus on the other terms and so we are'nt going to focus on them.Only "bara" and "asah" and they are not used interchangeably.bārā’ and ‘āsāh
We should begin by noting that the Bible uses multiple terms to describe God’s creative activity. Across the Old Testament, in Hebrew and Aramaic, one can locate no less than 13 different terms for Creation! So Israelite Creation theology is not as simple as making a facile distinction between bārā’ and ‘āsāh. In fact, these terms are used interchangeably of God’s creative activity.
You went strait to Genesis 2:4 skipping over verse 2 and 3 but we do not need to do that because Moses gives us important information in them that we don't need to overlook.Even in the Genesis account itself, bārā’ and ‘āsāh are used together to summarize God’s creative work: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (bārā’), that is, at the time when (literally, “in the day that”) Yahweh God made (‘āsāh)earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4; translation mine). The careful reader will notice that the second half of this verse explains and completes the first. We have here what literary scholars call a chiasm, in which the sentence can be broken into two or more parts, and the various components of the sentence parallel one another in introverted fashion (for more on chiasm, see Dorsey, 1999). Allow me to illustrate:
These are the generations of…
a—the heavens and the earth
b—when they were created
b’—at the time when Yahweh God made
a’—the earth and the heavens
Notice that the first and final components (a and a’) are flipped, signaling the inverted nature of the verse, and they also highlight the verse’s synonymous parallelism (both halves convey exactly the same idea). Also note the parallelism of b and b’. The whole of the Creation narrative could be described by both Hebrew terms. So the forced distinction made by Gap theorists between bārā’ and ‘āsāh is already shown to be artificial in the Genesis account itself. But we can go further.
They are trying to show that the words "bara" and "asah" are interchangeable. So let's go through them and see.God both “created” (bārā’) and “made” (‘āsāh) Adam (Genesis 5:1).
God will destroy man whom He has “created” (bārā’), along with every living thing, for He was sorry that He had “made” (‘āsāh) them (Genesis 6:7).
The hand of God “has done” (‘āsāh) it, and God Himself “created” (bārā’) it (Isaiah 41:20).
God has “created” (bārā’) and “made” (‘āsāh) for His glory (Isaiah 43:7).
God has “made” (‘āsāh) Earth and “created” (bārā’) man on it (Isaiah 45:12).
God “made” (‘āsāh) and “created” (bārā’) the Earth (Isaiah 45:18).
God “creates” (bārā’) wind and “makes” (‘āsāh) darkness (Amos 4:13).
False bible teaching.As any careful reader of the Bible will observe, the Hebrew language does not make a sharp distinction between bārā’ and ‘āsāh in accounts depicting the Creation. On the contrary, the terms are used interchangeably for Creation throughout the Old Testament, and can often be found in parallel expressions.
"Bara" is always something new God creates or does but "asah" is not and it depends on the context of the verse as to how we interpret it.Now, this does not mean that bārā’ and ‘āsāh are always synonymous terms. The word bārā’ occurs 53 times in the Bible, and generally has to do with an initial act, or a new beginning. For example, God “creates something new” at the punishment of Korah and his company (Numbers 16:30). He “makes a new beginning” of Israel after the Babylonian Exile (Isaiah 41:20). The term represents a change—a new beginning—in the natural order as well (Isaiah 65:15; Jeremiah 31:22).
No it would'nt because God can create new things as he did with man and certian kinds of life he created,but he also made certian life too in Genesis 1 so we know the kinds of life God made was not new kinds of life,it is life that God had already created new before.We can understand this as we read Genesis 1 if we do what Moses said to do in Genesis 2:2-4 - know the difference between "bara" and "asah" and it opens up so much more understanding when we read Genesis 1. However if we read Genesis 1 and do not realize the difference and we think they are interchangable we will probably think that all of the life God created and made was only created new,which is wrong. The truth is God both made and created things in Genesis 1.And when it comes to life? He made and created them "after their kind" too which reveals something important that we need to know.Genesis 1:25 "And God made(asah) the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:21 "And God created(bara) great whales/sea creatures,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 that it was good. So we know life had existed before and this is more evidence the heavens and earth are old and something happened in Genesis 1:2 and they became like that.So, in addition to creation, which is always an “initial act” on God’s part, subsequent divine intervention after creation can also be depicted by the word bārā’. This explains why the term can be used of the creation of man. He was a new creature, a new beginning, in the process. If Gap theorists were correct, any usage of bārā’ after the initialGenesis Creation would be inappropriate. This clearly is not the case.
They are trying to trick you in this paragraph hoping you don't notice how they are trying to use other words besides "asah" to confuse you.They are ignoring Genesis 2:2-4 to try to confuse you. "asah" does not also mean "make" like an example would be "And God said let us MAKE man in our image". The word "asah" is not anywhere in this,it is a different hebrew word than asah translated into MAKE. But like I said based on Genesis 2:2-4 we are only going to focus on "bara" and "asah" like Moses told us to. Gap Creationists did not just make this up about "bara" and "asah" and knowing the difference it came from reading and studying Genesis 2:2-4.This is how I already know they are not interchangeable but I have checked just to be sure.Moses would not call our attention to these words if it somehow changed throughout the OT which is why they don't and won't.The term ‘āsāh, by comparison,has a much broader semantic range. This term occurs 2,627 times, making it one of the most common verbs in the Bible. In addition to meaning “make,” ‘āsāh is the standard verb for “do, act, or perform” in Hebrew. It often means to “keep” the Law (Deuteronomy 5:32), to manufacture a product (1 Samuel 8:12), to “carve” (Ezekiel 41:18), to “work” miracles (Deuteronomy 34:11), to “make” money in the colloquial English sense (Deuteronomy 8:17), to “make” a name for oneself (Genesis 11:4), to “make” dinner or a meal (Judges 6:19), to “make” peace (Isaiah 27:5), to “work” a job (Ruth 2:19), and many other possible nuances. In short, many of the same meanings we can assign to the English verbs “make,” “do,” “work,” “perform,” “act,” and the like can also be ascribed to the Hebrew ‘āsāh.
No "asah" has to do with working on something that had already been created new before or once existed based on the context of the verse where "asah" is used.This is why it does have something to do with pre-existing materials. Like for instance when God made animals they were made out of pre-existing materials that already existed however they had died and no longer existed until God worked and made them out of pre-existing materials based after the kinds of life that had lived before. Interestingly, man cannot create like God can,things can only be made by man out of pre-existing materials.Only God can create something out of nothing like in Genesis 1:1 but things can be made by God also.The word ‘āsāh basically has to do with producing something through work, and it may or may not imply pre-existing material. Passages echoing Genesis 1:1 routinely use ‘āsāh instead of bārā’ (e.g., 1 Chronicles 16:26; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 45:12). This fact implies that, while these two terms can be used interchangeably of Creation, one emphasizes the production of a new thing (whether at Creation or afterward), and the other refers to the work involved in producing a thing (whether at Creation or afterward).
I agree creation is one of the most commonly discussed biblical accounts however I don't like how you are ignoring the meanings of "bara" and "asah" and then using different Hebrew words that do not have these words in the text in order to dismiss what Gap Creationists have been explaining for years.You are allowing your bias to effect how you interpret the bible and it is wrong to do so.We are warned not to add or take away from God's word.And as far as the Hebrew language we are focused on " bara" and "asah" not so much the other Hebrew words even if they are verbs too.It is not that we should ignore them but that they are irrelevant to this discussion based on Genesis 2:2-4.The Vocabulary of Creation in the Hebrew Bible
The Creation is one of the most commonly discussed biblical accounts in later biblical literature. The poetry of the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms and Isaiah 40-55, is rich in Creation terminology. God has a claim on the lives of his people (and on the world!) becauseHe is the Creator of everything. It thus makes sense that the Hebrew language would feature many terms to express one of its most basic theological principles.
Wrong! God created and made things throughout the OT.Yes in the future the earth will be destroyed by fire instead of water like it was in Genesis 1:2 and restored again after that just like before only this time it will be forever.Which will make it two times God has restored the heavens and earth and three heavens and earth's.You'll find the number 3 throughout the bible like with the trinity,Jesus rose on the third day,etc and we are being restored ourself through the salvation Jesus offers us.We come to Jesus in a fallen chaos state just as we are and like the heavens and earth were in Genesis 1:2 and we are restored throughout our Christian life.You'll find restoration throughout the bible.The biblical terms for Creation are represented in the chart above. As one can observe, the terminology of Creation in the Bible is rich and varied. Many of these terms are used in parallel to one another, indicating their synonymous nature insofar as Creation is concerned. These terms also illustrate that the Israelites viewed God’s Creation holistically. God “brought creation into initial existence.” God “formed creation.” God “begat” Creation (in a figurative sense). God “established,” “founded,” “acquired,” “spread out,” and “made” every created thing. The full lexicon of Hebrew manufacturing is applied to Creation to illustrate that, in a single period of time, God set the world into existence, just as in a single moment He will destroy it (2 Peter 3:10).