Creation

What difference would not having a name for a noun possibly make. I don't have have a name for that thingy that hangs down in the bottom of my throat, but it is still there.I cannot take your question seriously. Am I supposed to?

Nobody is making the claim that Seth existed at Genesis 1:2. But your opinion regarding when Genesis describes Seth has existed is simply your opinion only. It is not supported by the text. I suppose it is possible to read the text as you do. But the motivation required to do so is completely unclear.Besides that, isn't it your claim that there were two Adams each of whom had sons named Seth? Exactly which one of the Enos are Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus a descendant of?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Seriously, ICANT. Did I not explain in my post exactly how I understand what you meant? There is no description in Genesis 1:1, but there is one in Genesis 1:2. Hence you probably meant the latter. Just because I understand your argument does not mean that it is worth the paper it is printed on. I take it that you have no response to my question about the context of Jeremiah and elected to just go with your standard evasion.I've had about enough astrology for a while. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nice summary. And your pointer gives me at least a pointer to see how this ruin-reconstruction theory might be supported textually. Maybe that will help me see where ICANT is headed.ABE:But apparently not. The text based defenses for this theory that I can find are all pathetically inadequate and apparently I am in a thread whose purpose is to debate the GAP theory. I find that I am being needless hard on ICANT. Perhaps this thread would best have fit into a Bible Study group.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am trying to keep an open mind. I am not making a claim, but instead I am asking you to explain your own claim. I see now that my questions have put you on the defensive so that you won't respond directly. That's my fault not yours.I think I understand your position, and that is probably all can I hope to gain from this discussion.

Noun's did exist. Your argument was that the name 'noun' did not exist until 1400BC.I see several things wrong with your arguments so far.First you confuse the name with the thing. A rose is still a rose even if you don't know what to call it. Secondly, you silently switch tactics and write as if you had originally asked a particular question all along. Not so. You initially claimed that the name noun had not been invented which is what drew the response I gave. Thirdly, your statement and question assumes things not in evidence. Did, in fact Moses not have nouns? Who besides you says that. Finally, your particular argument does not address the point the others have made about the usage of the term day.Sometime ago a poster tried to claim that Galileo could not be considered a scientist because the term scientist was not created until well after Galileo's death. In my view such arguments are ridiculous no matter who makes them.Based on the sources I looked at and cited, in Hebrew there exists symbols that represent the names of persons, places and things, those symbols in some cases have forms that separate them from pronouns and other ordinary nouns. The modern name for those things is proper noun, and it matters not one wit whether or not Moses was capable or incapable of diagramming a sentence to my satisfaction.Beyond that, many sources do identify proper nouns in ancient Hebrew. Perhaps it is time to augment your own library.

I don't think there are any posts here that summarize the position very well. ICANT has said the most about the topic, but he seems to dribble out just a little information at a time.The wikipedia article on the topic seems to have some pretty good information.Gap creationism - WikipediaGap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.ICANT seems to say that his own views are not of an old earth, but I don't really understand that.There is plenty written on the web regarding the conflict between YEC beliefs and Gap Creationism. Most of what I've seen from YEC sources are totally dismissive of Gap Creationism as non Biblical and conceding holy ground to science. I have difficulty imagining you feeling any different.Why the Gap Theory Won't Work | The Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

The gap theory is also unsound theologically. The God of Creation is an omnipotent and omniscient God, and is also a God of grace, mercy, and love. The very concept of the geological ages, on the other hand, implies a wasteful and cruel "god," and therefore probably no god at all.

---

Your edit apparently went up while I was posting.Nonetheless my answer included some indication relevant to your concerns. The sources I pointed to, and in particular the ICR reference also addresses some of those questions in more detail.

Whoa, brother. Regardless of how it got there? Your conclusion cuts both ways. Your conclusion would seem to imply that 4:25 and 4:26 cannot be as they appear if your claims are correct. If 4:25-6 are not inserts, then perhaps your interpretation is just incorrect.

You are the one jumping the gun. Your statement assumes your own conclusion. And in addition, it would require that all of Seth's descendants would have met the same fate, since nobody could have survived those events. That situation is inconsistent with other Biblical text.So there is an inconsistency, and I find that indeed it does matter. Other theories do not require that Seth died prior to the day that the heavens and earth were created and thus do not suffer the problems yours suffers.I did recall what you plainly stated. But I have issues with what you stated because it ignores some important consequences. So stating that perhaps your conclusions are incorrect is a reasonable position for me to take.I'm going to pursue this Gap Creation thing a bit more offline. Maybe I'll come up with some ideas to exchange with you later. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Faith has indicated that she wants direct explanations and perhaps a reference to writings is not what she is after. I notice that she has instead been looking at videos.The best written outline I can find so far is the description here:http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9...I note that most of the descriptions I have seen on the net are pretty dismissive of either Gap theology or YEC theology depending on the perspective of the writer. But the description at the link above at least allows a comparison without too much venom spewed by the two sides. On the other hand, I cannot read the article without coming away with an impression of the how weakly supported Gap Creationism on on the thin linguistic skin on which Gap believers rest their conclusions. Unfortunately the site does not provide any of the rebuttals that Gap theologists might make. I suspect that such arguments do exist.

Unfortunately, reading Genesis in english is not of any help. The Gap theory depends on the translations of words that might well map to english words without a distinction. I think it is impossible to being on the journey to become a Gap theology proponent with distinguishing between God making something, and God creating something. The problem however is that the distinctions that Gap theorists make are contradicted readily in Biblical text, and sometimes the words for made or used for things Gap theorists insist were created and vice versa. Maybe ICANT can recommend an English translation that faithfully reflects his view.

How could anyone make this kind of judgment? I am not trying to justify evolutionary time periods with my question, but who could know the duration of events that are not even described in a time sense? Maybe it was 4000 years for example, or 12,000.

Thanks. Any recommendation fro some free information?

An open mind does not mean buying everything that is being offered. Why stop reading Jeremiah at 4:26 and why start only at 4:23? Is that because the additional context reveals Jeremiah to be speaking of the future and not the past? Is it because the only real strength of the argument is the similarity in phrasing between Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23? Surely Jeremiah was familiar with Genesis 1:2 when he spoke.As I indicated I would do, I have done some offline reading regarding the position of Gap theologists and also the rebuttals made against those positions. I have also attempted to discuss interpretations of Jeremiah 4:23-26 with you, but my questions related to possible weaknesses of your argument have so far gone unanswered. For example most people reading those verses would understand Jeremiah to be talking about the future. In fact, it is that conversation has convinced me to look elsewhere.Beyond that, is it not true that Gap theorist rely on Hebrew and not English with some of those verses you cited? For example, "God created the earth not in vain" does not really support Gap theology. Isn't it the Hebrew that leads you to conclude that the verse is a rebuttal to the belief that the earth was created without form? I might ask similar questions about the denial of other verses in Genesis being creation events. Does not that argument rely mostly on an interpretation of Hebrew? Don't you claim that errors in the KJV translation mislead people away the truth. No, it does seem necessary to do more than simply read English with an open mind.I will continue to look because I want to understand Gap theology. But so far it appears that simply having an open mind does not yield acceptance of your position. Got anything else?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.