Evidence for God from Science

acb wrote:
Think back when Galileo discovered what he did and yet the majority would not even look through his telescope and just believed their majority interpretation and yet they were eventuallyy shown to be wrong and their interpretation was wrong,not the bible. The bible never said the sun goes around the earth and yet it was the majority belief and interpretation at the time and was wrong.So what the majority believes can be wrong.I'm always sceptical when the majority says this is right. It does not mean they are totally wrong either,alot of times it is alittle bit of truth with a bunch of assumptions to go along with it

ACB,

The problem with your comparing the gap theory to heliocentrism, is the comparison fails. It fails because people didn't want to accept new scientific evidence of heliocentrism. The gap theory would be geocentrism in the comparison. It's old, and antiquated. Just like geocentrism.

GAP Theory Illustrated:

RickD wrote:

acb wrote:
Think back when Galileo discovered what he did and yet the majority would not even look through his telescope and just believed their majority interpretation and yet they were eventuallyy shown to be wrong and their interpretation was wrong,not the bible. The bible never said the sun goes around the earth and yet it was the majority belief and interpretation at the time and was wrong.So what the majority believes can be wrong.I'm always sceptical when the majority says this is right. It does not mean they are totally wrong either,alot of times it is alittle bit of truth with a bunch of assumptions to go along with it

ACB,

The problem with your comparing the gap theory to heliocentrism, is the comparison fails. It fails because people didn't want to accept new scientific evidence of heliocentrism. The gap theory would be geocentrism in the comparison. It's old, and antiquated. Just like geocentrism.

My point is appealing to the majority does not determine truth. The majority have been wrong before.I could careless what the majority believes if they don't have the evidence on their side.Evidence is more important than what the majority believes.I go by evidence more than what people say and I'm trying to do that when it comes to creationism. I can't speak for others though but it is what I try to do no matter what it is. If the Gap Theory has more evidence I'm going to believe it regardless of what the majority thinks.If the majority has evidence it can be pointed out but just expecting us to believe what they say because its the majority belief is not going to change my mind. Regardless if anybody believes it I'm going by what God's word says and rejecting what man says.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Regardless if anybody believes it I'm going by what God's word says and rejecting what man says.

Which is why in our discussions back and forth my focus has been on what Scripture says and the many ways that the man made Gap Theory directly contradicts the teaching of God's Word.

I'm interested in whether or not we've made any progress in a couple of key areas.

1. In Genesis 1:28 God's Word uses the Hebrew word 'male' which means to fill.
Are you willing to embrace what God's Word says in Genesis 1:28, "to fill"?
Are you willing to reject every teaching of man that is based on the discredited mistranslation, "replenish"?

2. You yourself made a post that explicitly stated that the use of 'bara' in Genesis 1:21 was an indicator that God created something new, animal life, "for the first time" in Genesis 1:21.
Are you willing to embrace the teaching of God's Word that God created (bara) animal life for the first time in Genesis 1:21?
Are you willing to reject the teaching of man that contradicts Scripture by claiming that animal life was created before Genesis 1:2?

In Christ

acb wrote:
My point is appealing to the majority does not determine truth.

Of course. But nobody here is saying that because the majority of scholars believe the gap theory is unbiblical, then that makes it unbiblical. Anyone here(Jac, Philip, me) who is pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Hebrew scholars think the gap theory is unbiblical, is pointing it out to show that you're not considering their arguments as to why the gap theory is unbiblical.

This is where you are misunderstanding. It is not argumentum ad populum.

With that aside, I'd like you to concentrate on DBowling's post above. He is showing you from scripture, why the gap theory is wrong. You said if someone could show you from scripture, then you'd consider changing your mind.

Well, he's showing you. Are you willing to be open to the possibility you are wrong? Truly open?

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: Regardless if anybody believes it I'm going by what God's word says and rejecting what man says.

Which is why in our discussions back and forth my focus has been on what Scripture says and the many ways that the man made Gap Theory directly contradicts the teaching of God's Word.

I'm interested in whether or not we've made any progress in a couple of key areas.

1. In Genesis 1:28 God's Word uses the Hebrew word 'male' which means to fill.
Are you willing to embrace what God's Word says in Genesis 1:28, "to fill"?
Are you willing to reject every teaching of man that is based on the discredited mistranslation, "replenish"?

2. You yourself made a post that explicitly stated that the use of 'bara' in Genesis 1:21 was an indicator that God created something new, animal life, "for the first time" in Genesis 1:21.
Are you willing to embrace the teaching of God's Word that God created (bara) animal life for the first time in Genesis 1:21?
Are you willing to reject the teaching of man that contradicts Scripture by claiming that animal life was created before Genesis 1:2?

In Christ

The "teachings of man" include the skill to read and write. The skill to decode
the words, "read for comprehension". Those skills are not universally well developed
as is so often demonstrated on this forum.

The skills involved in decoding what the world around us is no more universal.
One has to learn, some dont try, others arent any good at it, whether it is reading
the clouds, animal tracks, traffic, other people's mood, or rock formations.

(on that latter, we have people who cant distinguish a rock formation in Turkey from a boat,
namely Noah's ark)

Anyway, calling it "the words of man" to successfully figure out that this here is a volcano,
and those are possum tracks in the snow, is kinda silly. Presenting one's chosen reading if gospel
as "God's" perfect and immutable word, superior in all ways to any knowledge that
can be revealed any other way is plain ridiculous. Not to mention arrogant on a stunning level.

Whether one is Christian or not, it is equally plain that no god put pen to paper, nor dictated
to anyone. Men wrote the words, and the Bible nowhere states that it is "God's word".

"Gap" in no way qualifies as a scientific theory, and is disproved by both bible
and the history sritten right into thd earth itself. "Word of God", and "word of man",
if one likes. Either way its. just as wrong.

Audie,

The dialogue between acb and myself is focused on whether or not the Gap Theory is Scriptural.

ACB and I both share the common belief that the Bible is God's Word and thus authoritative.
If a person does not share those beliefs, then my dialogue with acb is meaningless and a waste of time to follow.

However, if the authority of Scripture does mean something to a person, then I think this dialogue is beneficial in determining whether or not the Gap Theory is consistent with the teachings of its supposed source material, authoritative Scripture.

In Christ

Audie: Whether one is Christian or not, it is equally plain that no god put pen to paper, nor dictated
to anyone. Men wrote the words, and the Bible nowhere states that it is "God's word".

Audie, to state the above shows you are exceptionally unknowledgeable as to what Scripture actually claims about the Bible and its words' Origin, even if YOU don't believe what is written. And, as DB points out, this is an argument over what the text actually says and means.

Philip wrote:

Audie: Whether one is Christian or not, it is equally plain that no god put pen to paper, nor dictated
to anyone. Men wrote the words, and the Bible nowhere states that it is "God's word".

Audie, to state the above shows you are exceptionally unknowledgeable as to what Scripture actually claims about the Bible and its words' Origin, even if YOU don't believe what is written. And, as DB points out, this is an argument over what the text actually says and means.

Oh? Quote for me where it says it is God's word.

DBowling wrote:Audie,

The dialogue between acb and myself is focused on whether or not the Gap Theory is Scriptural.

ACB and I both share the common belief that the Bible is God's Word and thus authoritative.
If a person does not share those beliefs, then my dialogue with acb is meaningless and a waste of time to follow.

However, if the authority of Scripture does mean something to a person, then I think this dialogue is beneficial in determining whether or not the Gap Theory is consistent with the teachings of its supposed source material, authoritative Scripture.

In Christ

I aware of the above. Maybe it is Gods word and maybe it is authoritative.

I was questioning ability to decode that word authoritatively..
esp in view of all that the same God presumably wrote right into the earth itself
shows the interpretation to be incorrect.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: Whether one is Christian or not, it is equally plain that no god put pen to paper, nor dictated
to anyone. Men wrote the words, and the Bible nowhere states that it is "God's word".

Audie, to state the above shows you are exceptionally unknowledgeable as to what Scripture actually claims about the Bible and its words' Origin, even if YOU don't believe what is written. And, as DB points out, this is an argument over what the text actually says and means.

Oh? Quote for me where it says it is God's word.

2Timothy3:16

Audie: Audie: Whether one is Christian or not, it is equally plain that no god put pen to paper, nor dictated
to anyone. Men wrote the words, and the Bible nowhere states that it is "God's word".

Philip: Audie, to state the above shows you are exceptionally unknowledgeable as to what Scripture actually claims about the Bible and its words' Origin, even if YOU don't believe what is written. And, as DB points out, this is an argument over what the text actually says and means.

Audie: Oh? Quote for me where it says it is God's word.

Here's a few:

2 Timothy 3:16: ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:20-21: knowing this first of all, that NO prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Acts 3:18: But what GOD foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.

1 Thessalonians 2:13: And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of GOD, which you heard from us, you accepted it NOT as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Sometimes, He spoke directly (see Genesis 12:7; 16:7; Exodus 3:2; etc.). At other times, He spoke in visions and dreams (see Isaiah 1:1; Ezekiel 1:1; Daniel 2:1, 19; Acts 10:10: Revelation 1:10; etc.)

Jesus confirms the Old Testament is God's Word (Matthew 5:17-18): "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Sometimes God DID dictate what to write, as in Revelation 2: "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write..."; "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write..."; “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write..."; "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write..." Etc.

God tells exactly what to say (Isaiah 38:5): "Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears..."

Audie wrote: I was questioning ability to decode that word authoritatively..

As my favorite misquotation of Shakespeare goes
"Therein lies the rub"

The good news is that scholarship today has a pretty good handle on the definitions and grammar of the original Biblical languages, so I am very comfortable relying on scholarly consensus to determine what the Scriptural text is saying.

So when a person makes an assertion based on the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28, I can know with confidence that Genesis 1:28 does not say "replenish". And therefore any assertion based on the use of the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 is by definition not based on Scripture.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

Audie wrote: I was questioning ability to decode that word authoritatively..

As my favorite misquotation of Shakespeare goes
"Therein lies the rub"

The good news is that scholarship today has a pretty good handle on the definitions and grammar of the original Biblical languages, so I am very comfortable relying on scholarly consensus to determine what the Scriptural text is saying.

So when a person makes an assertion based on the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28, I can know with confidence that Genesis 1:28 does not say "replenish". And therefore any assertion based on the use of the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 is by definition not based on Scripture.

In Christ

This enables you to know whether with a time machine you'd see Adam and Eve eating the fruit,
the red sea part and noah float away in an ark?

RickD wrote:

acb wrote:
My point is appealing to the majority does not determine truth.

Of course. But nobody here is saying that because the majority of scholars believe the gap theory is unbiblical, then that makes it unbiblical. Anyone here(Jac, Philip, me) who is pointing out that the overwhelming majority of Hebrew scholars think the gap theory is unbiblical, is pointing it out to show that you're not considering their arguments as to why the gap theory is unbiblical.

This is where you are misunderstanding. It is not argumentum ad populum.

With that aside, I'd like you to concentrate on DBowling's post above. He is showing you from scripture, why the gap theory is wrong. You said if someone could show you from scripture, then you'd consider changing your mind.

Well, he's showing you. Are you willing to be open to the possibility you are wrong? Truly open?

I am being told the majority of todays bible scholars reject the Gap Theory interpretation and it is implied that based on this I should reject it. I already know the majority of bible scholars today reject it eventhough I have heard of about 50 bible scholars that do hold to Gap Theoy creationism but I have not been able to verify it yet. But this is not a reason for me to reject it because todays bible scholars reject it.

I have showed that based on the hebrew definitions that "bara" and "asah" or created or made are not interchangable and yet despite me showing the hebrew definitions it seems to be ignored,I guess because the majority of bible scholars reject it but God gave us hebrew and greek concordances for a reason and it is for our bible study.I have given the definitions and explained what they mean,even explained how important it is to know the difference,plus I gave atleast 4 examples of biblical evidence in Genesis 1 how we know the earth is old and God created life before God created and made life in this world in Genesis 1 and yet the words keep being interchanged and it is ignored that they are not interchangable.

Nobody will understand Gap Theory creationism until they truthfuly understand these definitions and that bara and asah are different hebrew words that are similar but have different meanings and are not interchangable. If somebody ignores this then they will not interpret Genesis 1 properly,but they will if they do.

This is not hard to do,or some trick or something either. This is just looking up the definitions of the hebrew words bara and asah and understandig what they mean and then reading Genesis 1 with these definitions in mind. I can say this that I don't care who or how many bible scholars claim bara and asah are interchangable,I know they are wrong. But I can't seem to get others to understand what bara and asah mean and so they read Genesis 1 and the OT interchanging them anyway despite Genesis 2:2-4 where Moses stresses fr us to know the difference.

I can't help it if somebody chooses to ignore the meanings of these words and chooses to interchange them anyway. But I see no reason to keep repeating myself on this point. So I will just say for people to go back through and review the points made in this thread and to do the research themselves.