The Gap Theory Examined

Jor-el, that was an informative post. I agree that the term suggests a perfect or complete creation, but have an alternative view. Considering the difficulties of translating, maybe we could look for a more theological understanding to consider which way to go with it.Jesus in the Book of Revelation says He is "the beginning."Maybe "in the beginning" could be thought of as more inside the beginning, as in Christ it was created, but not formed into the world.That's how I've come to see Genesis. What we see then, with the Word activated, "God said," and the Holy Spirit doing is more a depiction of how God works.

And a persuasive argument.You are very persuasive on the concept of destruction, and "the deep" I too believe refers to the Abyss, but here is where it gets sticky for me.Many who interpret it as you do then think of the fact that light did not exist, as just referring to no light on the earth, and "the deep" just being the ocean.I don't think that is correct, nor the right picture, but if God obliterated the heavens, all light, and had to recreate the sun and the moon, what you are writing could work. I've got to think about it.On harmonizing with science, I think it may be useful to consider that time and "history" may not actual be as linear as we assume.We know man was judged in the Garden, and a "curse" was put on the earth which would have changed even the physical laws of the universe, imo, if read literally. I can accept that.But what is the most likely way that occurred?I tend to think God probably did not instantly change everything from that point forward, but that everything was changed from the beginning forward.In quantum physics, we have several strong indicators that such a thing could occur. There are strong indications of a connection between consciousness or the ability for something to be perceived, and matter, and the strongest argument used against consciousness-based models are ones arguing waves flowing back through time. Both ideas are consistent with what I see happening in the scriptures, and imo, there is merit to both, but that's a different thread.The principle of entanglement also demonstrates that there can be a causal effect from a present or future event directly upon the past.So we should consider that maybe the judgement that produced the Abyss and the theorized destruction between Genesis 1:1-2 was Man's Fall, and of course Satan's rebellion.

Not necessarily. It could refer to dark matter and dark energy.On the create versus "made" words, I do think it is significant which is why I think God created everything as a design in Christ first, and then made it by manifesting it via the word of God.

Crash, grow up. "Create" and "make" are not necessarily synonymous. In fact, both terms are used in the text.Wonder why?

Jor-el, I am on my way to the beach, but will respond later when I have more time.

Crash, it's not my fault you made a dumb comment, and were exposed for it,...well, only the latter.Face it. There is a reason the word "create" is used, and "make" is used, and they are not the same words.For example, I can "create" something, and then have someone else "make" it, maybe even mass produce the item. Happens all the time.

JOr-el, I was thinking of the gospel of John, how it opens with similar language and discusses the Living Word, and thus the nature of God, of Jesus as Divine, as God, and yet the Father is still in heaven and is God.So I was approaching the content of John and other passages such as where Jesus calls Himself "the beginning,..." in Revelation, and considering this Christological passages dealing with Jesus's identity, and it occurred to me that perhaps John had a reason for tying his opening to the opening of Genesis.Looking at it that way, we can see the nature of God's identity, the Father, Son [Word], and Spirit in the first 3 verses in Genesis.In the beginning [or within Christ], God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was without form and void [had only been created as a design, not manifested into form, into physical reality].Your arguments are persuasive, and I will look at them more closely.Hopefully, you can see the idea I am presenting.

I am not a YEC, but I think they have done a great deal of real science and a good service to mankind. I once listened to a botany professor who was a YEC give a lecture on evolution and the disinformation involved (at least that's how I would put it) and found it very informative, even shocking. What was being taught as evidence for evolution, and the actual evidence, did not add up.Anyways, back to this topic, why could Genesis 1:1 not refer to God creating "in the beginning" as "inside the beginning" who is Christ?Then, God says (Word activated), and the Spirit of God does?There we would see the Godhead expressed in the creative process right at the beginning of Genesis.I originally heard some of your ideas in the pre-Adamic man claims, which I rejected on scriptural grounds, but since you don't seem to be asserting that, and do make a strong case, I am considering the view.

God can create something He later makes. In fact, I am asserting this is the most logical way God would create the universe, imo, and most fitting with Christian theology as far as the Godhead.

That's your opinion, but the text indicates otherwise since it uses 2 different words, bot create and make.Why is that? Do you have a different understanding of the differences between the 2 Hebrew words? What I am presenting is in harmony with the differences in the language in these 2 words. God is outside time, but He has also chosen to be within time simulateneously. A better description is that God is everywhere, all places, including all points in time.Later in this sense could be thought of as "subsequent" but it is more subtle than that and deals with the aspect of the Word and the whole Godhead. It's actually pretty easy to see it, if you are willing? That's odd you would call artists that create and make at the same time more capable? First off, if they are creating an image in their mind, they are not creating and making at the same time. If they are working more spontaneously and reacting to what they just did, there still seems to be a truth present that they are getting at. In other words, they are "making" a representation of something that already exists, or was created.I am pretty familiar with the process myself and understand it fairly well. You are mistaken in your impression of what occurs.In terms of actually creating something that did not exist before rather than seeking to show a representation of some sort of existing truth, if merely the artists' feelings and personality, for example someone creating a new house, there is generally an architect and engineering design done on paper first, and then the home, exactly as I stated.If that seems weird to you, that's just because you are unfamiliar with both processes. Having been involved in both professionally, I think you need to reevaluate your claims in this area.In terms of the Godhead, accepting Christian theology on the divinity of Christ, we would expect there to be a distinction between the process of things being manifested through Christ in creation, and things being created as a design and plan from the Father to Christ. Jesus says, for example, He does nothing but what He sees His Father do, and John claims all things are made through Christ, through the Word.So we should expect to see things "done" in some non-physical or non-temporal form, (having no form), and then manifested through the action of the Word, and that's exactly what we do see in Genesis 1:1-3.It would be inconsistent with Christian theology if the same word was used for "create" and "make" in the first chapter of Genesis. it would not be so inconsistent to refute Christian theology, but it is definitely more harmonious the way it is written than the way you think it should have been written.

That's not an accurate statement though. I appreciate the comments on the texts and theology, but the idea this is the only real way to reconcile the facts is an error. That's not saying it is not the correct way, but not the only real way.One potentially different way is to view the universe as in a somewhat constant state of "making" or change and creation (human term of creation here). In this context, God created the whole thing and creates the whole thing, which is why we see things like references to the Lamb of God "slain from the foundation of the world."But obviously, not everything has happened yet. So there is a sense that God can create something in the future that has not occurred from our vantage point.Going a little further, I consider it likely that both science and theology indicate that God expands the universe in creation, not just simply linearly, but "spatially." Multi-verse theorists touch on this idea as a way to explain wave/particle duality, although I am not convinced the many-worlds posited is 100% true. I tend to think there is some sort of cancelling out mechanism, but we haven't discovered that yet.Another way to illustrate what I am saying is that we think, for example, of the past as stationary. The past is the past. Since it already happened, it cannot change.That's an assumption probably not rooted in a proper understanding of physical reality. I believe we will discover in science that the past is not static at all, that it grows and changes, and is affected by events today and in the future, that there are causal effects, although much smaller, besides linear effects of causation, and that as time passes, these changes add up.So the way God originally created things, and the way the past is now, may not be the same, but you should expect to see indications of similar parrallel ideas, which we do see. God laid down a pattern, but the pattern has been changing, but some underlying principles remaining the same,or better out, the "pattern" remains the same to a certain extent, but the "model" based on the pattern changes.When we see Adam's fall and the subsequent curse on the earth (and perhaps the whole physical creation or a portion of it), what occurred are changes in physical "laws", that science calls "laws" at least, which either occurred instantly or through some process.I submit it is logical to think that the changes in the universe, or our domain within the larger framework of "reality", that these changes occurred from the beginning of the creation of this world forward, that the past was changed as well as the present.We should therefore expect to see a lot of details line up with creation accounts in the scripture, amazing details in pattern, but somehow things seem off or distorted in parts, depending on whether the scripture refers to the original time-line, the underlying pattern of all time-lines, or the present time-line.Imo, this is exactly what we see in scripture, although it might involve more time to detail here than I can this week. We see that God created the world "all good", but that the original creation has been changed, distorted, in the same way Adam's consciousness was changed. There was an expansion within man in knowing good and evil, but a subordination to sin and by extension to a degree, to the enemy.Sickness and disease for instance are aspects of death working in the world, and the Bible depicts these things as "works of the devil" Jesus went about destroying. I don't see how these things existed prior to Adam and the original time-line, but that is possible perhaps. I am just not convinced by the arguments that other things were created to die, but man created to live forever until sin came.I do see how with my idea of the time-line changing from the beginning forward rather than just an instant, poof, change in the earth after the Fall from that point forward, as more indicative of how God works. God likes process, it seems, and imo, this is how it happened.However, I am still studying this out. I am fairly convinced that the past is not static, primarily from things the Lord has shown me, and secondarily from some discoveries in physics indicating causal effects backwards in time.I am open to a pre-Adamic earth between Genesis 1:1-1:2, but I don't see it necessitated by scientific discoveries at all, and I am not convinced it completely fits everything in the Bible, although some of your textual arguments are strong.This message has been edited by randman, 07-05-2005 02:21 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-05-2005 02:33 PM

That's OK. Not all truth is suppossed to be "taken in easily." Agreed, but we have the ability to imagine from this perspective. Also, there are lots of things science accepts that we cannot see easily or at all, but infer from evidence, such as gravity.Moreover, sometimes prophets see in part past this linear boundary. Not really. The mutable past is something I believe was shown to me long before I had any inkling science had some credible mechanisms or theoritical mechanisms that could indicate this. In other words, I predict this from my own experience with the Lord, and from the word of God, and am happy to see science beginning to move along this path somewhat.Now, I am certainly not dogmatic over every detail of the scenario I depicted, but would caution you as well not to assert there is only one plausible explanation when that is not the case. Our assumptions of time have already been modified in science by relativity, and it seems to be accurate thus far. This is not really that much more of a break with our old assumptions in time, and I suspect we will see more and more data indicating my view of time is correct here. I agree except that the verses in question do deal with the period of time prior to man's creation. I wouldn't exactly refer to them as "the most indirect way" but it's very true the Bible does not provide a lot of prehistoric details, which is why, in one respect, it is silly for evolutionists to insist that evolutionary theory contradicts the Bible. The Bible is far too vague, imo, and is therefore sufficiently elastic in it's language to support a number of different viewpoints, although that does not mean the Bible is deliberately written that way. It just means the details are insufficient.Where you see "darkness" representing an absence of light, I see darkness as some sort of real thing separated from light (hence predicting dark matter and energy), but I also see a higher level of truth being communicated via patterning of physical things indicating spiritual realities, and suspect sometimes the Bible is written more to illustrate the higher principles more than the lower, or initial literal meaning.I think Jesus illustrates this principle by sometimes speaking in confusing language, such as "the leaven" of the Pharissees by which the disciples thought he was talking about bread, or eating and drinking his body and blood and similar language that used the everyday in a metaphorical manner.Not that this is all "just metaphorical" but I believe it can be both literal and metaphorical, and the Bible supports that concept."Does God take care for oxen?"Hmmm.....does he take care for the scientific method?

We could debate that, but for me the fact the Bible says He does "plan ahead" is sufficient to let me know that whether He "needs to" or not, whatever that could mean in the context of a God needing nothing, is a moot point.The Bible says He planned ahead of time the atonement, for example, and the works that He has called His people to, even from before the world began.This message has been edited by randman, 07-05-2005 04:48 PM

Sounds like since you have no argument, you have resorted to mindless bashing with no substance at all to your posts.Carry on.

it was just as necessary in the creation because it was not all created in an instant. To assert that God who flat out tells He revels in planning, to a degree, didn't do any planning in creating the world over a time period, is not a sound argument.It makes more sense that God thought of what He wanted to do, and then did it, just as the Bible seems to state, imo. I can accept these may be overly human terms, but the Bible is full of examples of breaking down aspects of God and how He works in human terms so I suppose I am not in bad company.The simple fact is I did not create the dichotomy between creating and making. The text has 2 different words for a reason.Do you care to offer an alternative reason?Edit to add that God planned for the atonement prior to mankind's creation and subsequent need for it. So it was not a mere matter of waiting for us to catch up to Him, but of Him planning for our error in advance.My point in general is that the time element which the Bible clearly indicates is part of God's creative process indicates a high probability of careful planning, and the fact the Bible states Jesus claiming never to do anything except what His Father first does coupled with John referring to the Logos as making the world suggests to me that God the Father is the Creator part of God, and the Logos is the Maker part.This message has been edited by randman, 07-05-2005 09:46 PM