The Gap Theory Examined

Ringo316,Stating that these two men are or aren't theologians depends entirely on who you are speaking to. For that very reason you mentioned them immediately. Thats why I put them there in the list. I'ts not my job to cater to your likes or dislikes and whether you accept or don't accept the names I gave you, no matter who I put on that list (as long as it is factual) you would, I think, never accept it anyway.How do I know this, you might ask? Simple, there isn't a single statement of mine that you have accepted until now in any of your posts, even when I have backed it up.You refuse to accept the "Gap theory", full stop. Your questions are repetitive and from what I've seen you don't even bother reading the links I post. So I ask why I should bother continuing this discussion with you. There is such a thing as a limit. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not backing out, ask a wortwhile question and you'll get an answer from me.As for the need of repeating time and again, ideas and statments that are available on the thread if one cares to study them just because you don't understand, is no excuse. Not that you don't understand, I'm sure you do, and there lies the problem.You refuse this idea, there is no opening at all, only confrontation and that is something that I have no use for, especially on this board.
Feel free to bad mouth me, it's the only way you can prove a point, since in terms of scripture & science, you refuse to accept anything that isn't already accepted in your preconcieved mind.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Let'e see, I posted 45 names on the list, a good number of them are well known, others died a long time ago, 4 or 5 died in the 80's which makes them contemporary theologians, many have assorted doctorates in theology, geology and biology, 2 or 3 have study bibles and other assorted books and documents to their names and you're complaining about 2 of them.I gather that anyone who might later see these posts, will wonder why the other 43 (credited and some even famous) students of theology were suddenly forgotten by you. You swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker my friend.Tell me, were you methodical enough to at least go check out their names on a search engine?I have to ask (did you see the implication) what a pro-evolution site who has no feelings about one theory of creation or another anyway, and is therefore at least somewhat qualified to make assertions as to what is popular or not in the church community, says about the Gap theory? (Even though I pasted part of their conclusion in my post.)I suppose you missed that part since you were concentrating on Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn.Or is it that you need a really big name like a Popes' before you consider the possibility that I might just have some wheight in my (and their) argument?Just so you don't "accuse me" of being preconcieved, I give the possibility that the phrase can be translated either way, it's just more logical if it doesn't contradict what we know of science. You on the other hand cannot do the same unless you want to take back much of what you have said in your posts.Even though to many, they are considered (how'd you put it?) hucksters, can you deny that they have a large following, or in the case of Jimmy, had a large following? Does that somehow detract from the fact that many, many people learned from their teachings?Somehow that doesn't seem to give the impression of a "fringe group" as you so boldly suggest.Am I saying that it is the majority view? NO!
Am I saying that this theory is popular and widely taught in many churches of many denominations? YES!

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Ringo, No insult intended but are you really that obtuse or are you just trying to irritate me?I dare you to search any and all posts of mine in this or any other thread and find a statement inwhich I claim that this view is held as the majority view by christianity!You will infact find the opposite, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are just clowning around. You didn't read any of my posts before you became involved and only skimmed through the rest trying to find objections to considering this idea. A question that is asked and answered time and again only means the recipient isn't even bothering to listen to the answers.If you had to ask this question, it's because you weren't paying attention or you are just spoiling for conflict. I reject your interventions on both counts. NO! You asked me for a list of theologians who backed this idea today.I not only gave you the list of people who backed this theory today but also for the last 100 years at least. It's not my problem if you don't accept these names.As a matter of fact you only had problems with 2 names, the others were immediately forgotten, a further indication that you only desire conflict and not communication.I've given you a few links in previous posts all of which contain references to these people.Here are 2 links to a Theologian that meets your requirements Who was Francis Schaeffer?Some of his statements______________________________________________________________________
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)Genesis 1
1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
______________________________________________________________________
New King James Version (NKJV)Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.Footnotes:Genesis 1:2 Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.______________________________________________________________________
Amplified Bible (AMP)Genesis 1
1IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.(A)
2The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.Cross references:(A)Genesis 1:1 : Heb 11:3
______________________________________________________________________
New International Version (NIV)Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.Footnotes:[a]Genesis 1:2 Or possibly became
______________________________________________________________________
New American Standard Bible (NASB)Genesis 1
The Creation
1(A)In the beginning (B)God (C)created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was (a)(D)formless and void, and (E)darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (F)the Spirit of God (G)was (b)moving over the surface of the waters.Footnotes:(a)Genesis 1:2 Or a waste and emptiness
(b)Genesis 1:2 Or hovering
______________________________________________________________________All pasages taken from: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.It is interesting that the translations vary in wording and and meaning, it clearly shows that there is no real consensus in the translation of these verses.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

The majority of christians, which are lay people and really don't study the bible at all or even read it in many cases have never heard of the various theories involving the creation account.From the Intelligent Design Theory of Creation; Theistic Evolutionists, Ruin-Reconstructionists (Gap Theorists), Day-Age Theory and Young Earthers, none of these theories are known about in the general population of christianity.So just because a view is in the minority (not fringe) doesn't invalidate it. As you well know, there is at the moment a trend for accepting the Young earth theory, these trends come and go. Or is it that you only accept a mainstream thought as long as it mainstream?As for my statement that the gap theory is the most logical of all, here is another link that says the same. The Major Creation Models Logical Faults and StrengthsAs for the two names (yet again) you keep on mentioning, it really doesn't matter if any one on this board accepts these people or not. The fact is that many do so, for that reason their names are on this list. Here is another who is quite alive. Dr. Max D. YounceBy the way, "today" in the context you applied originally in your post, can also mean "contemporary" which is people who might have died a few years ago but still influence current events. Why is it that the person must actually be alive to satisfy your need? Actually, it's the NIV (New International Version), which is also one of the most distributed bibles in the world. But you forget that the KJV (King James Version) is the most quoted in relation to the Gap Theory. But this proves nothing unless your stating that the copy / translation is worth more than the original Hebrew / Aramaic texts. Would you care to elaborate since your question is too vague.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I suppose you don't usually talk to people about these questions in daily life. The vast majority of people I've come across and which are "christians" go to church only for a christening or a wedding. Their knowledge of the bible is poor except where it relates to the various church holidays.The minority you speak of are church goers and they only go as far as hearing what the Pastor or Priest has to say on a given subject, which normally revolves around their immediate lives.Very very few are knowledable and actually make a point of studying these things or any other things that pertain to the bible. I know this because I am acquainted with many Pastors and Priests who tell me the same thing.Now, it may be that we're talking from two differnt cultural lifestyles, one being American (I presume) and the other being Portuguese. But I would say that realistically speaking most countries in the world, with the possible exception of America, fall into my statement.As for many of the unbelievers being more knowledgable on the bible and science than many christians, I absolutely agree with you. Many arguments could be avoided if that statement was false. Well, you are free to believe what you want, that doesn't explain away science. I absolutely agree with this statement, God created the heavens and earth in that very same way.When he said "let there be light" he wasn't creating it but allowing it to shine into the atmosphere again. No creating there. When he did so notice the earth already existed as well as the sun and stars (heavens). These were created in Genesis 1:1 as I've being saying all along. Notice again that "made" doesn't appear, just let there... No creating here again. The lights became visible again just as in verse 3. Since we've talked about the differences between "Create" and "Make" the concept isn't new to you. The sun, moon and stars were not created in day 4 they were created "in the beginning". So why does this verse appear here in day 4? Here, he regulated them in connection with the restored earth. Notice how this verse applies to regulating the seasons days and years. Nowhere does it mention creating them on the 4th day. Don't you think that even the ancients knew that for a plant to grow, it needs sunlight? So why the writing in this order? Were they stupid?
It says alot about our concept of them when you inteterpret these verses the way the mainstream does.Also how can there be a morning and evening or even a day as we know it, without light, the suns light that is?So where is the supposed contradiction, in the verses you supplied, with science?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I've made up my mind about you ringo, you are in fact obtuse.
Please tell our audience just what the words "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." mean to you?Answer that and maybe I'll continue answering your "very intelligent" posts.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Maybe you didn't understand the question, explain the verse in your own words. Imagine this is a literature classroom and the teacher has aked you to explain in your own words, the contents and context of a particular phrase, to the rest of the class, explain what "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." mean to you.Interpret the phrase, it's easy. Explain what the words "in the beginning" + "god" + "created" + "the heavens" + "and the earth" mean, what exactly was created with the word "heavens" as well as "earth".This message has been edited by Jor-el, 17-July-2005 12:11 AM

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

I'm not playing any game here, I never have. This not a playground for me. If I wanted to play games I wouldn't spend my time on this board. Now answer the question or don't bother anwering.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Reply and you'll get my answer, or is it that you can quote scripture but not explain it?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

AdminAsgara,Thank you for stating this, the difficulties lie not in the scientific aspect but in the idea that this theory is not acceptable according to scripture. As such would it be possible to give some leeway in connection with this difficulty so that the scientific aspects can be discussed without interference of scriptural interpretation?

Since the discussion here is supposed to relate to the scientific evidence pertaining to the Gap Theory (this being a Science Forum) I am going to propose a new topic where this discussion can continue in the faith and belief forum as indirectly sugested by AdminAsgara.