The Gap Theory Examined

If God is "outside time", as many believe He is - or if He just has a different concept of time than we do - what does the word "later" even mean? On the contrary, it's most illogical. Many human artists "make" at the same time as they "create". Why should God be less capable?The most logical way for God to create the universe would be to think it up and do it at the same time. Therefore, your dichotomy between "creating" and "making" is useless.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

randman,You are very fond of telling people that they don't understand. And this is yet another area where you don't know what you're talking about.Yes, I have done art. And yes, I have done it professionally.And no, I don't consider architecture and engineering to be art.So come and see my art before you blather about me not understanding the process.Yes, the process does involve action and reaction when done by humans. But God knows how every action will turn out, so He has no reason to change His mind. Do you think God sits at His drawing board with a big eraser?There simply is no need for Him to "plan ahead".

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Ah, but there's "planning" and then there's planning."Planning" for atonement entails God's foreknowledge of what would be necessary - i.e. it involves God waiting for us to catch up with Him, as it were.That kind of planning was in no way necessary during the Creation. Therefore, your dichotomy between "creating" and "making" still fails.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I'm not convinced that there is a profound reason for the use of two different words. More than one word is used for "God", too. Does that imply more than one God? Then why can't "creating" and "making" be different aspects of the same thing, rather than two different things? The "plan" was to wait for us to make the error that He anticipated. That is not the same as planning to make something and then making it. "Clearly indicates"? Chapter and verse? Where does God "flat out" tell us that He "revels in planning"? Chapter and verse?And you still haven't explained why you portray God sitting in a lawn chair, drinking beer and saying to Himself, "I'm gonna build me a Creation. Yep, that's what I'm gonna do, soon as I get around to it. Gonna be a mighty nice Creation, too. Gonna separate the light from the darkness, and maybe the seas from the land, too. Yep, one of these days...."

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Uh uh uh.... That's not the way it works here. You support your own statements and you provide your own references. (And maybe even quote some verses that have something to do with the subject. )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

randman,I asked you for chapter and verse to back up your assertions:1. "the time element which the Bible clearly indicates is part of God's creative process".2. "God who flat out tells He revels in planning".You are required to back up that kind of assertion.I am not required to address every point you make. (And did it occur to you that I don't necessarily disagree with the points that I don't address?)Stop avoiding the question. Put your bible where your mouth is.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You are assuming that there was a "restoration". I am not.The Topic is "The Gap Theory Examined", not "The Gap Theory Swallowed Hook, Line and Sinker". As far as I'm concerned, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there was either a "gap" or a "restoration".It all comes back to the basic question: Did God need to sit back and plan it out before He did it?As jar has pointed out, Genesis shows almost no sign that He did - that's God seen from a primitive human viewpoint. On the other hand, if we see God as omniscient, then there was no need for planning.Either way, the "create/make" distinction fails.The Gap theory is just a feeble attempt to reconcile a fallible human record (the Bible) with the real record (the creation).

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

What I'm saying is that the text doesn't indicate a gap.Are you admitting that "the common interpretation of creation" disagrees with you too? I don't. I said, "there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there was either a "gap" or a "restoration" - i.e. the available evidence doesn't point to your conclusion. Randman does.And the "gap" theory itself implies it. Why would God leave a "gap" at all, unless He needed time? Which is it? Do you know God's mind or don't you? I don't. I've seen the arguments decades ago. Have they improved with age?If the arguments were as compelling as you think they are, the "gap" theory would be mainstream theology, not just on the fringe.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

See this thread.Arachnophilia explains it very nicely: What really doesn't work is trying to hang a fictitious gap on the "difference" between two synonyms.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Your error is in assuming that "to become" - in the sanse of a change - is the only possible interpretation. Your own precious concordances also cite " to be... exist... to come into being". None of those usages suggest a "restoration". I don't take into account what is not in the text. You are reading "the earth was not created in this way originally" into the text when it is not there. (Unless you take the one meaning that you want and ignore all the others.)If there was a gap and a restoration, why didn't the writers of Genesis just mention it? For example:

quote:

---

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
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.
1:2a And then there was a gap while God sat around for a while deciding what to do next.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

---

Well, what does it say happened? Uh... nothing. You know what would indicate a "gap"? Some indication of a gap. Instead of just saying it's erroneous, why not show us that it's erroneous. All you've done is choose one meaning of a word and ignore all the other possible meanings. Many people would argue that your interpretations are erroneous in those examples and that the common interpretations are correct. I've been talking about Biblical evidence only, so:

quote:

---

2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

is my evidence. Scientific evidence does not indicate a one-time destruction and restoration before the creation.And, since the Bible is not a science textbook, it doesn't accurately reflect the scientific evidence. What's the problem with that? Randman has failed miserably to show that there is a difference between "create" and "make" in Genesis. I didn't say I haven't studied it in depth. I said that my studies don't lead to your conclusion. Ah,yes. The refrain of the "I Don't Have a Case" song:

quote:

---

If you understood what I'm saying
You'd agree with me.
Doo dah, doo dah.

---

I do understand what you're saying. My tune is the same: you don't have a case. What a silly thing to say.Where did I ever suggest that what I believe is written in stone? Where did I ever suggest that my Bible interpretations have reformation-stopping powers?Let me put it simply, so you don't have to read your own implications into everything I say:There is no evidence of a "gap" or a "restoration" in the first few verses of Genesis.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

First of all, can we get something straight here?Is it your impression that the gap theory is accepted by many theologians today? Because my impression is that it is not. I've been doing some poking around yesterday and today and it seems that the gap theory is even less accepted than I thought.You've been giving a lot of attitude, suggesting that I am the one who is "out there". I suggest that you either show us that the gap theory is accepted by a lot of theologians, or lose the attitude.------------- But in actual usage, the word hayah is used much more often in the sense of "was", not "became". Stated any way you like, you're twisting the Bible to make it say what you want it to say. If it doesn't actually say it, it is not an acceptable interpretation. I do not ignore scientific evidence. None of that supports a gap theory.I am assuming that you place the gap before Genesis 1:2 (Correct me if I am wrong). If the supervolcano and Ice Age happened in your gap, that would be before the creation of the sun. Pretty silly. The YEC calculations are garbage. We know that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Both the YEC scenario and the gap scenario contradict scientific evidence. Both also contradict the Bible. Neither the YEC scenario nor the gap theory is logical. Therefore, neither is acceptable. If I were you, I'd be very careful about willy-nilly "supplanting" old Bible interpretations with new. Scientific theories change every day. Are you going to change your Bible interpretation every day to match whichever way the scientific wind is blowing?And if you're so enamoured of "new ideas", why do you cling to a gap theory that was rejected by most theologians a century ago? Wrong. I was open to that interpretation but I rejected it, based on the evidence. Why can't you understand that? The Bible was inspired by God. It was not written in God's own handwriting.Genesis is not a science textbook. On many scientific matters, it is flat-out wrong. There are lots and lots of threads here at EvC on that subject. Read some of them.There is no need to reconcile Genesis with the scientific evidence. From a scientific viewpoint, the evidence takes precedence over the Bible. From a Biblical viewpoint, it is wrong to make up a gap to try to cover up the obvious scientific errors. (By the way, there are lots of scientific errors throughout the Bible. Do you insert "gaps" to cover all of them too?) Uh... no.Look:

quote:

---

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make (asah) man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

"Make" and "create" are used in two adjacent verses to refer to the exact same thing. So much for different meanings.(By the way, notice the different words "image" and "likeness". Ancient Hebrew had very few words, so the writers tended to make things interesting by mixing things up as much as possible. Different words don't always represent profound differences of meaning.)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Jor-el,If you want to be taken seriously around here, don't cite Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn as "theologians". Did you just copy every name from that NCSE article? Besides Swaggart and Hinn, you cite several lesser-known jackasses, and a goodly number of your list have the smell of death about them.Let me repeat:

quote:

---

Is it your impression that the gap theory is accepted by many theologians today?

---

Would you care to weed out the looney and the dead and actually answer the question?(And while you're at it, no "theologians" who got their degree from Bubba's Backyard Theological Seminary.)My position is that the gap theory is a dead theory, held today only by fringe elements. Your list only supports my position.Another debating tip: instead of repeating "read my posts!" and "I already answered that!", do us a favour and answer again. Maybe you weren't plain enough before.You'll get more debating points by addressing points that are raised than by reference to your previous posts.Case in point: you haven't addressed my Message 92 at all. I have shown, quite simply, that your mistranslation gymnastics don't work. The gap is not there.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Get real, Jor-el.Citing two hucksters as "theologians" reflects on your preconceived notions, not mine. You might as well cite Charles Manson as an expert on knives and expect to be taken seriously.I have asked you serious questions which you have not answered.Other readers may very well take your refusal to answer as an admission that you have no answers.I invite you to discuss the topic. Message 92 awaits your reply.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Thank you. That's what I was asking. You could have saved us all the drama-queenery. I asked you for a reference. Why should I do your homework for you? Give proper references when asked. Hitler had a large following too. I don't accept him as a "theologian" either. Jim Jones had a large following too. I don't accept him as a "theologian" either. Brad Pitt has a large following. I don't accept him as a "theologian" either.I can name a lot of other non-theologians if you're not getting the point. It isn't that people learned from them, but what they learned from them that counts. By their fruit ye shall know them. An evil tree bears evil fruit. Yes. The fact that you cite Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn among your authorites most definitely does give the impression of a "fringe group" - the lunatic fringe.(You'd do your credibility a lot more good by admitting that you made a mistake in citing Swaggart and Hinn as "theologians". ) So, maybe you can finally answer the question. Filter out the corpses and the whackos for us and give us the names of the theologians who accept the gap theory today.While you're at it, give us a list of all the Bible translations that translate Genesis 1 the way you want to see it.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You claim that your view is the most "logical" translation of Genesis 1, do you not? If you are admitting that it is a minority view, aren't you suggesting that the majority of Christians take an illogical view? And you cite the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn as exemplars of logic? Forgive me if English is not your first language, but you do know what the word "today" means, don't you? It doesn't include dead people. Francis Schaeffer is dead. Are you really not getting this? How can you claim that he meets my requirement of alive? The problem is that you never specified which are alive today and which are not. Therefore, you never answered the question. If I ask you for a list of Portuguese who like sushi and you quote the entire Lisbon phone book, that is not an answer to the question. No. I only mentioned the two most obvious flakes, the two who would be familiar to most of our members, the two who have been mentioned in recent topics at EvC. There are other "unreliables" on your list that I didn't mention. The question is: can you tell a reliable source from an unreliable one?So, in case you finally care to answer the question, I'll repeat it: How many theologians, who are alive today, accept the gap theory?-------------Thank you for the quotations. It is also interesting that not one of your own examples mentions a gap, and only one (the New Improved Version ) even admits the possiblity that "became" is a valid translation. Do you have any quotes that actually support the gap theory?-------------But let's not forget that this is a science forum. You really need to learn how to determine what evidence is and how to present evidence.So, how about answering a science question?How can you claim that the gap theory "reconciles" the Bible with science, when the order of events in Genesis 1 is completely wrong?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.