"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Not touching that with a 10-foot papal ferula.Philip wrote:Maybe an exorcism could expunge this gap thinking obsession?Any good Catholic practitioners in the house?
What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days? No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new. Because any other translation we go with angels are not mentioned in the 6 days and yet we know angels exist and we know Satan is a fallen angel as well as a third of the angels. also the first time we see or hear about Satan in Genesis 3 he is already Satan. So how did he skip from Lucifer to Satan and we don't hear about it? This is why it makes since to believe Lucifer ruled over the former world in the garden of God until he rebelled and God poured out judgment and the earth became without form and void,or empty and waste. We cannot just ignore angels in the creation story in Genesis 1 and only the Gap Theory has the answer of why angels are not created in the six days,it is because they had already been created in the beginning.Kurieuo wrote:Yes, so agreement, so moving onto Gen 1:2: "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." You said:abelcainsbrother wrote:OK as far as the words bara and asah or created and made in english.I've actually simplified what they mean from researching the Hebrew. Anytime you see bara or created anywhere in the OT it is always something new God created but when you see asah or made anywhere in the OT it is something that had already been created before,it is not new,it has already been done before by God.
So that when you read Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It means they are new creations that had never been created before.
First, we should note Gen 1:2 appears to be a running thought, that is, a continuation of Gen 1:1. There is the letter vav prefixed to ha'erets (the earth) in Gen 1:2. This may/may not be significant, since all the verses in Gen 1 have this; I find it significant that Gen 1:2 begins with v'ha'erets (And'the'earth) -- there is a certain accentuation in Hebrew and rhythm -- and the author picks up the flow in verse 2 with where verse 1 "ended" with 'ha'erets'.ACB wrote:Most Gap Theorist claim that it can say the earth became without form,and void. And they base this alot of times on Genesis 19:28"But his wife looked back from behind him,and she became a pillar of salt." These are the same hebrew words (hayah) both in Genesis 1:2 and here in Genesis 19:28 showing that it is translated became,but there are more examples in the OT kinda like with the hebrew word (yom) where there are examples it can mean longer than 24 hour days.However it is not necessary to change it to became and some Gap theorists don't.
The author could have re-jigged the words like in Gen 1:12 which also has in English translations: "And the earth brought forth grass." In the actual Hebrew though, the "brought forth" comes first prior to "the earth". Notice, that Gen 1:11 the focus is of grass and herbs coming out of the ground, so it is just proper that Gen 1:12 continue that focus on the coming forth.
Similarly, I'd reason that Gen 1:2 is continuation a focus in Gen 1:1 with an accentuation of "the earth", and this is supported by the flow of the text in Hebrew.
Why is this important? Well, it just lends weight against those who argue Gen 1:1 is just a summary statement of all that follows in Gen 1:2+. They're now on poorer foundations for such an interpretation. This doesn't really affect ACB much though, or does it?
If we have a continuation of thought into verse 2, then this is all at the same time. Where then is there room for a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 -- these are a continuation of thought. I mean take a look at how the Hebrew Transliterated Bible flows at http://biblehub.com/interlinear/transli ... esis/1.htm, verse 1 and 2 are grouped together, and correctly so! There is no break here between verse 1 and verse 2.
In relation to this ACB, you state of Gap Theorists:Hopefully you can see this interpolation (introduction) of something not in the text, which has to be exegeted (read into) the text, and such is on really shaky grounds.ACB wrote:Yes we believe there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
Also, your reference to Gen 19:28 of Lot's wife looking back, it doesn't really matter. In fact, rendering hayah "became" rather than "was" perhaps better supports the continuation of Gen 1:1 into Gen 1:2 as Day-Agers interpret, especially in light of the fact that God's creating in the active sense ('bara'), then in Gen 1:2 God is still active in creation!
To be clear to those reading, in Gen 1:2 we have "And the earth was formless and void" and ACB just reasoned that some Gappists believe "And the earth became formless and void" better fits based upon Gen 19:28 where Lot's wife "became" ('hayah') a pillar of salt (as opposed to "was a pillar of salt" which doesn't make much sense in light of the story).
Therefore the earth became formless and void (through angelic destruction of the creation of universe created in Gen 1:1) -- this is what ACB is getting at with the Gap Theory in reference to Lot's wife becoming a pillar of sale. So then, what of this and does it matter?
Well firstly, I already reasoned in my opening post of verse 1, which ACB you seem to agree with, that the ha'shamayim v'eth ha'erets refers to the totality of the universe and NOT an "the heavens" and then the "planet earth" in a separate sense. That is, Genesis 1:1 is just saying as the ISV translation has that "God created the universe."
So then, we come the Gen 1:2 where it reads v'ha'erets ("And the earth"), this is now a direct reference to earth. Keep in mind all signs point to verse 2 being more than likely a continuation of God's active creating ('bara') in verse 1, and the earth then actively becomes formless and void. This is the first beginnings of earth.
Now, I don't want to inject science into the picture, but it is here helpful to elucidating what might be going on. God created the universe and it's just come into existence. As science tell us, the universe has been expanding ever since it existed as far back as we can measure to Planck time, which is .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after point zero (i.e., the beginning of the universe).
From there, earth was formed from an accumulation of particles into a massive object in it's rotation and gravitationally attracting more matter. Largely volcanic, due to collisions with other bodies, it eventually coalesced and cooled over time forming a solid crust and a thin layer of water developed on the Earth's surface.
Ok, now I don't want to read science into Scripture, and I'm not, but surely the parallel here to Genesis 1:1-2 account is obvious? Yes, the earth "became" formless and void, but that was part if its actual development -- not because some unmentioned destruction happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 -- of which the Hebraic text is highly suggestive that verse 2 is a continuation of verse 1 which closes any such gap!
So then, I'm not at all anti interpreting "was formless and void" in Genesis 1:2 as "became formless and void". This appears to be a continuation of God's active creation ('bara') in Genesis 1:1. AND, I'm not reading in additional narrative into Scripture as to how the earth became formless and void -- it's just all flowing on from verse 1 with God's creation of our universe!
Disagree, Day 1 begins in Gen 1:1 is how I see matters. God starts actively creating 'bara' in Genesis 1:1. You correctly said: "Anytime you see bara or created anywhere in the OT it is always something new God created." God's creation begins on Day 1 and vice-versa, and that active creation ('bara') is found in Gen 1:1.ACB wrote:The former world had to do with Genesis 1:1 but it later became without form and void and the first day did not start until verse 3 and it was God restoring the earth and heavens after verse 3 in order to create the life for this world.
Now what might we expect if the Gap Theory was found in Scripture? Well, perhaps the destruction would have happened on Day 2 and God re-created on Day 3. The days there, help to break up the creation into an order.
Furthermore, here is what Exodus 20:11 says about the "heavens and the earth" like in Gen 1:1:
The ha'shamayim v'ha'erets (the heavens and the earth) are IN the six days. Not outside of, therefore the first day began in Gen 1:1 NOT Gen 1:3 as you here say.
- "For in six days the LORD made ('asah')the heavens and the earth ('ha'shamayim-veh'ha'erets'), the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Some YECs would acknowledge the distinction between 'bara' and 'asah', considering some YECs actually place the creation of the Sun in day 1. Others however, see much fuss about nothing between these two words. I personally see significance to there being a distinction.ACB wrote:Where we differ from YEC's is they don't know the difference between the words create and made and we do so they do not interpret Genesis 1 properly,where we agree though is it was 6-10,000 years ago when God made this world we now live in.He did not create it in the 6 days like they think though.
It is interesting for example that Exodus 20:11 uses 'asah' (complete act) of God having made the heavens and the earth, whereas Gen 1:1 says God created ('bara') the heavens and the earth. The difference seems obvious to me with Exodus 20:11 recollecting the creation of the heavens and earth and all that is in them, and Gen 1:1 detailing God's active creation.
No, you're wrong.ACB wrote:But also YEC's make Genesis 1:1-3 all apart of the first day,we disagree with this.The first day started in verse 3 and is why it ends with "and the evening and the morning were the first day".
Some YEC's do not include Gen 1:1 in day one. As I previously wrote some consider verse 1 a summary.
Day-Age and some other YECs see Day 1 as beginning in Gen 1:1 -- which Exodus 20:11 supports.
God's active creation ('bara') clearly starts in Gen 1:1, so what support do you offer for the odd start of Day 1 at Gen 1:3 where there isn't even a bara reference let alone an asah?
No, we do not agree at all. Day-Age also do not agree. Only 24-hour YECs would agree with you.ACB wrote:We agree they were 24 hour days too because of these phrases "and the evening and the morning were the ..." after each day that clearly is saying it was a 24 hour day.
Take them as ordinary days if you will, but assigning time is reading in something not there in the text. The days could have been a few hours less, they could have been more, we do not know. The text does not say, and I'd argue that the author wasn't concerned with how long a day is as YEC 24-hourists and Day-Agers make out.
The most literal reading would assume that there was an evening and morning cycle hence the Sun going through Earth's sky. Some YECs believe God created the Sun on Day 1, and works in the day, rests during the night. Fewer YECs believe there was simply light and darkness without any source.
Both Day-Age and YECs can believe them to be ordinary days without assigning a length of time. However, some YECs choose to assign "24 hours" to the days, Day-Agers tend to take up a symbolic meaning of these ordinary days representing an unspecified period of time (both are variants in the Hebrew lexicon!).
For myself, I've come to see it is often important to stop where Scripture stops. We're all often quick to shove what we feel or want to be the case into words, where actually it's not clear at all. People like completion, but in many instances Scripture leaves us incomplete. In such cases, it is likely because the author in Scripture is focused upon and concerned about something else entirely than what we're concerned about.
So with Genesis 1, time is just not dealt with. To assign "24 hours" or long periods of time covering billions and millions of years to each day, well the author evidently isn't concerned to define such.
Instead, I'd argue the author is employing the use of the seven day 6-1 structure to emphasise God's Lordship over all, and then once the seven day creation is completed we have in Genesis 2:4 God now being referenced as Yehovah elohiym ("LORD God") instead of just elohiym (God). Why? Well some suggest different authors, but another reason is because God has now been identified as the LORD of all creation -- the focus of Genesis chapter 1 up until Gen 2:4. This is what the author has been setting out to establish since Gen 1:1.
Genesis 1 is about revealing who is the LORD ('Yehovah') of everything, Israel's God ('elohiym'). It's not concern with periods of time, but it is right a proper for us all to remember who the one true Lord is. So no wonder keeping the sabbath day was a commandment! To not keep it would be for Israel to deny their God as rightful LORD of all of creation! But, that there is my theology...
- 8“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
To be more fair, it neither necessarily teaches an old or young earth and universe, although I strongly feel it leans towards such being old and ancient. We should be careful to stop where Scripture stops.ACB wrote:There is no need to stretch the days out to be longer in order to have an old earth because the bible already teaches an old earth.
No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.Jac3510 wrote:
I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).
I had to look up that term.Not touching that with a 10-foot papal ferula.
You're kind of loading in "Gap" ideas with your thinking here.abelcainsbrother wrote:What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days?
Perfectly "brand new" or do you actually mean perfectly "completed"?abelcainsbrother wrote:No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new.
Yes I mean perfectly completed. How long was it when the earth passed through a formless state after which it was empty or void?Kurieuo wrote:You're kind of loading in "Gap" ideas with your thinking here.abelcainsbrother wrote:What would make you think God would created the earth in an empty and waste state like Genesis 1:2 says? This is one reason why I never liked the other translations that teach God did this. God did not create junk in the beginning and then decorate it in the six days?
God didn't create earth in an empty and waste state, rather earth passed through a "formless" state after which it was "empty" or "void".
Perfectly "brand new" or do you actually mean perfectly "completed"?abelcainsbrother wrote:No when God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning he spoke and they appeared perfectly brand new.
What for you is wrapped up in "the heavens and the earth" (ha'shamayim-ve'et-ha'erets).
Where do you agree/disagree with what I wrote about such?
Oh, I know . . . rather than ban K OR make him world dictator, we could add the word "gap" to the swear filter!abelcainsbrother wrote:No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.Jac3510 wrote:
I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).
abelcainsbrother wrote:No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.Jac3510 wrote:
I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).
I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think there is anything disrespectful at all in what acb is doing. He possibly is sensitive (not always a bad thing) and misunderstands at times where people are coming from. E.G thinking they maybe upset when they are not.Audie wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.Jac3510 wrote:
I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).
What is with this thing you do, thinking people "get mad" or "upset"?
Do you not understand how deeply disrespectful it is?
You are right, tho it is also so that if a person keeps saying something aftrr repeatedNessa wrote:I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think there is anything disrespectful at all in what acb is doing. He possibly is sensitive (not always a bad thing) and misunderstands at times where people are coming from. E.G thinking they maybe upset when they are not.Audie wrote:abelcainsbrother wrote:No,ban K? I would'nt even want you banned. You're welcome to jumo in here and give your take too,if you want. But I hope that you can discuss it to where you don't get so mad or angry over it.I can discuss any issue and even if I totally disagree with it,I can agree to disagree. I can still give reasons why I might disagree and leave it at that and I can even admit if I'm wrong and I will change my mind if I'm shown to be wrong about something and I have done it before even on here when discussing things. So jump on in if you want to bro but don't get mad or angry because we might disagree. I like you,even if you don't like me over our creation interpretations or whatever else. I think we mostly agree though. I don't mind being challenged about what I believe as long as it is respectful.Jac3510 wrote:
I make a motion that we either permaban K for starting this thread in the response to the sheer grief that comes from touching on this again or else we make him dictator of the universe out of sheer gratitude for now having a place to contain any and every single post with any reference to the gap (even if some posts about trendy blue jeans accidentally get sucks into the abyss that is this issue).
What is with this thing you do, thinking people "get mad" or "upset"?
Do you not understand how deeply disrespectful it is?
It is also hard to always gauge how people mean something in their post. There is no tone, body language etc
Gosh, I don't know what that means really, to have a heart of flint, but it made me laugh.Audie wrote:Whether my heart is really flint would need a geologist to say.
I'd have to say it means her heart is contaminated.Kurieuo wrote:Gosh, I don't know what that means really, to have a heart of flint, but it made me laugh.Audie wrote:Whether my heart is really flint would need a geologist to say.
