Evidence for God from Science

Stu wrote:I like how all the Day-Agers are pointing out that Gap Theory is wrong when there is no Biblical proof of their own views. Their view is solely one of a personal interpretation.

That's not accurate.

The Gap theory is based on a factually incorrect 'translation'.
Day-Age is a function of interpretation, not an incorrect translation.

'Yom' has legitimate and accurate meanings in Scripture other than 24 hours, such as in my poster child Genesis 2:4, which is within the immediate context of the Genesis creation account.

Young Earthers interpret yom as referring to 24 hours which is one legitimate definition of the Hebrew word yom.
Day Agers interpret yom as referring to an unspecified segment of time which is another legitimate definition of the Hebrew word yom.

Both Young Earthers and Day Agers are using valid and legitimate definitions of the word 'yom'. So the difference there is an interpretation issue, not an inaccurate translation as we see in the Gap theory.

Stu wrote:I like how all the Day-Agers are pointing out that Gap Theory is wrong when there is no Biblical proof of their own views. Their view is solely one of a personal interpretation.

Like DBowling said, Day Age and Young Earth both are interpretations of actual, literal meanings of Hebrew words.

And the Gap Theory is based on a few key verses, one of which is Genesis 1:28. And the translation for replenish, is not what our modern English definition of replenish is.

So it's based on a faulty translation.

RickD wrote:

Stu wrote:I like how all the Day-Agers are pointing out that Gap Theory is wrong when there is no Biblical proof of their own views. Their view is solely one of a personal interpretation.

Like DBowling said, Day Age and Young Earth both are interpretations of actual, literal meanings of Hebrew words.

And the Gap Theory is based on a few key verses, one of which is Genesis 1:28. And the translation for replenish, is not what our modern English definition of replenish is.

So it's based on a faulty translation.

Then how were there hominids and neanderthals before man then?Does not the evidence confirm "replenish" correct? Even for Day Agers it does not just Gap Theorists.We both believe there were hominids and neanderthals before man and we also agree that they are not related to man too,just for slightly different reasons. The difference is Day Agers do not acknowledge the gap or former earth age that perished.

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: No matter how much you declare you're right.We have scientific evidence that proves "replenish" is the correct interpretation and "bara" and "asah" confirms it also.

No...no... no... no... no... no... no!!!

Science has no impact whatsoever on whether a translation from Hebrew to English is correct or not.
Translating from one language to another is a function of linguistics.

Now science can be consistent with or inconsistent with a particular ancient Hebrew text, but translating languages and the natural sciences are totally different disciplines.

The way to determine whether a translation from Hebrew to English is accurate is to investigate Hebrew grammars and Hebrew Lexicons.

If you want to know what the Hebrew male, bara, and asah mean, you need to start with a Hebrew Lexicon.

Beating a dead horse here... but if you do the due diligence to discover what these Hebrew words mean according to legitimate Hebrew linguistic tools, you will discover that...
'male' means fill in English
'bara' means create/make in English
'asah' means make/do in English

How come you ignore the evidence of pre-Adamite races that existed before man did and then insist "fill" is correct contrary to the evidence? Replenish is correct.

Because the existence of pre-Adamic races has nothing whatsoever to do with what the Hebrew word 'male' means.
The meaning of the Hebrew word 'male' is a linguistic issue, that is totally independent from the scientific question of whether or not pre-Adamic hominid species... or even pre-Adamic humans for that matter... existed.

You just declaring you're right does not make it so and again you must believe the "fill" interpretation by blind faith.

No what makes me right and you wrong in this particular instance, is my claims are consistent with Hebrew scholarship.
While your claims are just factually inaccurate assertions, with no factual basis in Hebrew scholarship.

Again... I still recommend that you look up male, bara, and asah in 5 Hebrew/English Lexicons.
Hebrew lexicons and other tools will very quickly demonstrate that you are factually wrong on the meaning of these Hebrew words.

You forgot that the Gap Theory interpretation was confirmed correct based on the science findings in the 17 and 1800's this is why the same evidence thst is used for evolution can be used to confirm the gap theory correct.We take the same evidence they do that believe it proves or confirms evolution is true but instead come to a different conclusion that the evidence does not confirm evolution true but instead proves and confirms that there is a lost world that has been over looked.The evidence shows us the kinds of life that lived in the former earth age confirming there was indeed a former world as this interpretation says. This is how we have hominids and neanderthals before man just like in evolution science confirming the word "replenish" is correct and that "bara" and "asah" confirm also.We know that the life God made was not new life so it had existed before which confirms "replenish" correct also.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
You forgot that the Gap Theory interpretation was confirmed correct based on the science findings in the 17 and 1800's this is why the same evidence thst is used for evolution can be used to confirm the gap theory correct.

Ok... if the evidence to support the Gap Theory comes from science, then defend it based on science. If the scientific evidence for the Gap Theory is so persuasive then there is no need to try to perpetuate a Scriptural mistranslation to bolster a scientific theory that you believe can stand on its own merits.

There is no need to distort Scripture if the real support for the Gap Theory comes from science, not Scripture.

RickD wrote:It seems the entire argument for the Gap Theory rests on the one translation, The King James translation, that says male means replenish.

ACB,

You did say that if the Gap Theory was proven wrong, you'd give up defending it. Looks to me that DBowling is right.

Are you really searching for the truth? Will you look at 5 Hebrew lexicons, to see the meaning of male?

Edit:
ACB,

Replenish, and even the King James translation isn't the problem. Replenish is a proper translation. But, when the king James was written, replenish meant, "to supply fully". Replenish didn't mean, "refill". The meaning of replenish has changed over the 400 years since the king James was written.

Here's an article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotque ... words.html

Replenish. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve to “replenish” the earth. Many readers are confused by this word, thinking it means the earth was formerly inhabited and that Adam and Eve’s descendants would replace an original race. The Hebrew word male' actually meant “to fill completely,” not “to refill.”

In 1611, the English meaning (now archaic) of replenish was “to supply fully.” The re- does not mean “again,” as we might think. In this case, it is an intensive prefix; that is, it adds a sense of urgency to the verb. So replenish could be defined as “to fill with urgency and enthusiasm.”

So to restate what DBowling said, you are misinterpreting the meaning of male. It has never meant, "refill". It has always meant, "fill". You are basing the Gap Theory on the modern meaning of "replenish", when the king James meaning of replenish, means "fill".

It's actually pretty simple to see with a basic internet search. But, as DBowling did, I also challenge you to dig deeper, and get 5 Hebrew lexicon meanings of male.

If you're truly honest, you'll change your mind.

I don't have a problem with the hebrew word "male" but using the word "replenish" is still right even today,so why do modern translators change it to"fill" contrary to the evidence? I also believe that the argument "male" has always meant "fill" is not right and it is another example where when we look into it they are wrong.

I brought this up ealier and it is one reason why I believe the Gap Theory is true,it is because when we look into it honestly and search it out it is the critics that are wrong.It is gonna just contradict science and cause confusion.

The bible has been changed today to say "fill" in todays bible translations instead of "replenish" but it is wrong and it is only going to cause confusion for scientific minded people and you should know that Christans are seen as ignorant when it comes to scientific minded people.You should know that it is wrong to translate it to say "fill" today,it should still be translated "replenish" today to be correct.

abelcainsbrother wrote: I don't have a problem with the hebrew word "male" but using the word "replenish" is still right even today,so why do modern translate change it to"fill" contrary to the evidence?

You just aren't getting it are you?
the Hebrew word male has ALWAYS meant fill!!
The modern translations have NOT changed the meaning of the word male

That is not an opinion, that is not an interpretation, that is a fact of Hebrew scholarship.

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: I don't have a problem with the hebrew word "male" but using the word "replenish" is still right even today,so why do modern translate change it to"fill" contrary to the evidence?

You just aren't getting it are you?
the Hebrew word male has ALWAYS meant fill!!
The modern translations have NOT changed the meaning of the word male

That is not an opinion, that is not an interpretation, that is a fact of Hebrew scholarship.

Then how come it is wrong today to translate it to "fill"? It should still be translated "replenish" to be correct. You cannot teach that God filled the earth the first time in Genesis 1 and be correct.Replenish has always been right. You know I've brought this up before but the KJV was translated about 400 years ago long before modern science even knew the age of the earth and it gives an old earth interpretation and was confirmed correct when the scientific evidence was discovered in the 17 and 1800's.There are certian ministries that either ignore true history or re-write it to push their interpretation,or just don't know.These modern translations are translated to give a young earth interpretation which is what you are trying to push here right now contradicting your old earth beliefs by claiming "male" means "fill". So you must give up old earth creationism if you're going to insist it means "fill" today.

As for hominids pre-existing man, well, if they were not men, then they were types of high-functioning animals / primates. And the Bible clearly shows that God created animals before He created man. Theistic evolution supports this without believing in evolution of species. So, that evidence fits well with Scripture - meaning TE fits perfectly with both Scripture and scientific evidences without requiring a dependency upon GAP and it's assertion in a translation problem.

ACB, yours is an evidence-based view that must depend upon a distortion of Scripture that the text itself is oddly silent in explaining anything about - also meaning GAP is never even slightly confirmed. So, it has three big whammies against it: It depends upon a distorted translation, it never is confirmed by Scriptural explanation - unthinkable in God referencing a destroyed world and people without clear cinfirmation or explanation as to why, and the scientific evidence fits a non-evolutionary TE explanation.

Oh, also, ACB's motivation is that he wishes to argue against evolution and to harmonize Scripture with evidences. But to depend upon mistranslation to do so - that's really bad.

Philip wrote:As for hominids pre-existing man, well, if they were not men, then they were types of high-functioning animals / primates. And the Bible clearly shows that God created animals before He created man. Theistic evolution supports this without believing in evolution of species. So, that evidence fits well with Scripture - meaning TE fits perfectly with both Scripture and scientific evidences without requiring a dependency upon GAP and it's assertion in a translation problem.

ACB, yours is an evidence-based view that must depend upon a distortion of Scripture that the text itself is oddly silent in explaining anything about - also meaning GAP is never even slightly confirmed. So, it has three big whammies against it: It depends upon a distorted translation, it never is confirmed by Scriptural explanation - unthinkable in God referencing a destroyed world and people without clear cinfirmation or explanation as to why, and the scientific evidence fits a non-evolutionary TE explanation.

Oh, also, ACB's motivation is that he wishes to argue against evolution and to harmonize Scripture with evidences. But to depend upon mistranslation to do so - that's really bad.

First off the science shows both hominids and neanderthals before man in Thiestic evolution.They must add in things to make theistic evolution fit into it.So replenish would still be correct especially over billions of years.The bible is not oddly silent about it.But we must be willing to dig it out.The bible tells us why.The Gap Theory interpretation did not become so popular in the Christian church for nothing.The truth of it has either been ignored or suppressed. I argue against evolution because it is not true and because I want to present a more believable theory based on the same evidence they are looking at.

I remember when I was a YEC debating evolutionists but now using the Gap Theory I'm much more effective than before and have actually beat evolutionists in debates usng the Gap Theory.I can debate evolutionists with or without the Gap Theory too.I know how effective it can be.I have tested it out before and have compared it to other ministries that have went up against evolution also. You just either don't believe me or something when I tell you that the evidence now used for evolution was evidence for the Gap Theory before evolution became a scientific theory. I just want the truth of God's word to shine through.

It would be awesome to see a knowledgable Gap Theorist take the evidence evolutionists use and teach the truth about what it reveals,so that the truth of God's word is confirmed true while at the same time presenting a more believable theory based on the same evidence they use.

Wow... there are so many non sequiturs in that one paragraph that I don't know where to start...
But I'll wade in anyway.

Then how come it is wrong today to translate it to "fill"? It should still be translated "replenish" to be correct.

You are saying the opposite of what is true.
male has ALWAYS meant fill.
According to Hebrew scholarship It should be translated fill.
(You don't believe me? Take me up on my Hebrew Lexicon challenge)
That is why the modern translations translate male as fill

You cannot teach that God filled the earth the first time in Genesis 1 and be correct.

Sure you can. It's easy.
That is where the Scriptural and scientific evidence points.

Replenish has always been right.

Replenish was correct in the 1600s when replenish meant "to fill completely"
When the meaning of the word replenish changed to mean "to fill again" then it was no longer an accurate translation for male.

These modern translations are translated to give a young earth interpretation

That assertion is pure nonsense and has no basis in fact.
Most Hebrew scholars today reject the Young Earth tradition.

which is what you are trying to push here right now contradicting your old earth beliefs by claiming "male" means "fill". So you must give up old earth creationism if you're going to insist it means "fill" today.

How do you respond to the perfect example of non sequitur?
I don't think any response is even necessary.

DBowling wrote:Wow... there are so many non sequiturs in that one paragraph that I don't know where to start...
But I'll wade in anyway.

Then how come it is wrong today to translate it to "fill"? It should still be translated "replenish" to be correct.

You are saying the opposite of what is true.
male has ALWAYS meant fill.
According to Hebrew scholarship It should be translated fill.
(You don't believe me? Take me up on my Hebrew Lexicon challenge)
That is why the modern translations translate male as fill

You cannot teach that God filled the earth the first time in Genesis 1 and be correct.

Sure you can. It's easy.
That is where the Scriptural and scientific evidence points.

Replenish has always been right.

Replenish was correct in the 1600s when replenish meant "to fill completely"
When the meaning of the word replenish changed to mean "to fill again" then it was no longer an accurate translation for male.

These modern translations are translated to give a young earth interpretation

That assertion is pure nonsense and has no basis in fact.
Most Hebrew scholars today reject the Young Earth tradition.

which is what you are trying to push here right now contradicting your old earth beliefs by claiming "male" means "fill". So you must give up old earth creationism if you're going to insist it means "fill" today.

How do you respond to the perfect example of non sequitur?
I don't think any response is even necessary.

DB all you are doing is declaring you're right.I have backed myself up with both scripture and science to confirm this interpretation is correct.I have explained why the word "replenish" is the correct translation.I have explained how "bara" and "asah" also confirms"replenish" is th e correct translation.For some reason you're ignoring Genesis 2:1-4 and so you will have a different interpretation if you don't know the difference between "bara" and "asah".

Perhaps you have not,but I have searched this out theoughout the whole OT so I know that any time you see the word "bara" in the OT it will ALWAYS be something new God did but when you see "asah" it is something that is not new,it is God restoring what was once already created or done before.This is how I know that Moses was trying to get us to understand the difference between "bara" and "asah" so that we would read Genisis 1 properly and this is why it is consistant throughout the whole OT despite what critics claim.I mean you can disagree with the Gap Theory interpretation but Gap Theorists did not just make it up about the difference between "bara" and "asah".But knowing the difference helps us to understand Genesis 1.

I also have showed how the science or nature God created also confirms the translation "replenish" is correct also. So that not only have I showed you biblically but also have provided evidence to confirm it also. In order to interpret it the way you do you must ignore all of this evidence I've given,declare you're right and then believe it by blind faith also. What more can I do to convince you this interpretation is correct?

If you won't believe or accept an interpretation based on both the bible and science then how could I convince you? I appreciate you taking the time to try to explain the way you interpret it and I respect you but just disagree based on the research I have done. It is not my intention to cause division,etc.I'm just trying to show and explain why I believe this interpretation is correct because one of us is wrong.

But it is OK because this is not a salvation issue,but a truth issue that we are trying to get to the bottom of to see who is right and who is wrong.I do not get mad over translation differences unless it has to do with a false gospel being preached by somebody.

I think for now we just need to agree to disagree because we've both already made our case.I will go back through it sometime and go back over it to make sure I did not overlook anything you explained and will make adjustments with my understanding if it becomes apparent I was wrong about something.

abelcainsbrother wrote: DB all you are doing is declaring you're right.I have backed myself up with both scripture and science to confirm this interpretation is correct.

You need to take a look in the mirror my friend.

In this thread you have repeated false assertions over and over again about what male, bara, and asah mean.
I have constantly referred you to Hebrew lexicons which demonstrate that you are factually incorrect, but you have refused to dig into the Hebrew tools that can tell you what these Hebrew words really mean.

Until you do the due diligence to study what Hebrew scholarship says about what these Hebrew words mean, then you will continue to distort Scripture to support your belief in the Gap Theory.

Perhaps you have not,but I have searched this out theoughout the whole OT so I know that any time you see the word "bara" in the OT it will ALWAYS be something new God did but when you see "asah" it is something that is not new,it is God restoring what was once already created or done before.

Ok... now you are saying something different than what you have asserted earlier in this thread.

if we read and study Genesis 2:1-4 Moses stresses for us to know the difference between the words "asah-created" and "bara-made"

Bara means create/make.
And bara does imply creating something new. Which takes us back to the point I was making earlier about Genesis 1:21.

Genesis 1:21 uses the word bara to describe the first appearance of animal life on day five. The use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 means that God is creating something new when he is creating the animals on day five.
The use of bara in Genesis 1:21 directly contradicts the assertion that these animals somehow existed before Genesis 1:2 and God was recreating something that he had earlier destroyed.

Your definition of asah is factually incorrect. Asah is used in the OT to either make something or do something, so it is more generic than bara. Asah does not carry the implication of 'newness' that bara does, but it does not specifically exclude making or doing something new.
Based on the meaning of the word asah you cannot jump to the following conclusion
"it is God restoring what was once already created or done before."

Asah does mean making something or doing something.
Asah does NOT mean 'restoration' or 'recreation'.

What more can I do to convince you this interpretation is correct?

Check the meaning of male, bara, and asah in 5 Hebrew Lexicons and let me know what you find out.

ACB,

There's no "agreeing to disagree" unless both sides acknowledge the facts, and then disagree about the facts.

But since you refuse to look at 5 Hebrew lexicons as DBowling has asked, you are refusing to look at the proof that contradicts the validity of your position.

Which means you are not proposing an intellectually honest argument.

I have no choice, but to just declare you intellectually dishonest, if you refuse to look at the opposing side's best argument, because it may contradict your view.

If you conduct all of your "debates" this way, you are doing a disservice to Christ. Intellectual dishonesty makes Christians look like fools.

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: DB all you are doing is declaring you're right.I have backed myself up with both scripture and science to confirm this interpretation is correct.

You need to take a look in the mirror my friend.

In this thread you have repeated false assertions over and over again about what male, bara, and asah mean.
I have constantly referred you to Hebrew lexicons which demonstrate that you are factually incorrect, but you have refused to dig into the Hebrew tools that can tell you what these Hebrew words really mean.

Until you do the due diligence to study what Hebrew scholarship says about what these Hebrew words mean, then you will continue to distort Scripture to support your belief in the Gap Theory.

Perhaps you have not,but I have searched this out theoughout the whole OT so I know that any time you see the word "bara" in the OT it will ALWAYS be something new God did but when you see "asah" it is something that is not new,it is God restoring what was once already created or done before.

Ok... now you are saying something different than what you have asserted earlier in this thread.

if we read and study Genesis 2:1-4 Moses stresses for us to know the difference between the words "asah-created" and "bara-made"

Bara means create/make.
And bara does imply creating something new. Which takes us back to the point I was making earlier about Genesis 1:21.

Genesis 1:21 uses the word bara to describe the first appearance of animal life on day five. The use of the word bara in Genesis 1:21 means that God is creating something new when he is creating the animals on day five.
The use of bara in Genesis 1:21 directly contradicts the assertion that these animals somehow existed before Genesis 1:2 and God was recreating something that he had earlier destroyed.

Your definition of asah is factually incorrect. Asah is used in the OT to either make something or do something, so it is more generic than bara. Asah does not carry the implication of 'newness' that bara does, but it does not specifically exclude making or doing something new.
Based on the meaning of the word asah you cannot jump to the following conclusion
"it is God restoring what was once already created or done before."

Asah does mean making something or doing something.
Asah does NOT mean 'restoration' or 'recreation'.

What more can I do to convince you this interpretation is correct?

Check the meaning of male, bara, and asah in 5 Hebrew Lexicons and let me know what you find out.

Create
https://www.google.com/search?q=Create& ... 2.5030j0j4

Make
https://www.google.com/search?client=ta ... o-qnt-npqp%

As you can see create is to bring something into existence that is new while make means to use pre-existing materials in order to bring something into existence and so yes there is a difference otherwise Moses would'nt have used both "bara" and "asah" in Genesis 2:1-4(in the NASB instead of using "made" they use "had done" but it is still "asah" in Hebrew) he would have used only "bara" or "asah" if they meant the same thing and were interchangeable.Only God can create and that is brings things into existence out of nothing,man can only make things out of pre-existing materials and this is how we build things,manufacture things out of pre-existing materials. So we can say in Genesis 1 God was using pre-existing materials to restore,build and work on things to bring about his will and that he did not create except with certian animals and man,we are right.And we can say that when God created it was new but not when he made things,just like they are different in english they are different in Hebrew too. So when it sais "he MADE the stars also" we can know that they were not new and God used pre-existing materials to restore them,we know that he did not bring them into existence out of nothing.And this applies with the animals God MADE also out of pre-existing materials and they were not new and so they already existed.This is just on the surface too but there is more we could get into that confirms it also.