Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 136 of 144 (344341)
08-28-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by arachnophilia
08-28-2006 2:53 PM


Re: structure and purpose of genesis
arachnophilia:
in hebrew, souls are literally associated with "wind" or breath. when god breathes into adam's nostrils, it not only makes him alive, but gives him a soul.
Yes. Nephesh--closely connected with the idea of Ruach and Neschamah, three different takes on the word breath/wind/spirit. Centuries after Genesis is written, kabbalists will say the human soul consists of three parts and use these three words to describe them.
the idea of a shared soul does come into play, though, as part of the explanation of marriage. i'm just not sure if bones have anything to do with it. but that is an interesting idea.
I hope I didn't just repeat an urban legend. I do have that on hearsay, as I indicated. A rabbi--an erudite lady and usually a good source for these things--told me that some years ago. She didn't mean to suggest the association of life with bone marrow was one Judaism had carried forward. More that this is a place where earlier Mesopotamian beliefs leave a trace in the text. She did suggest another passage where traces of this belief may appear: the Torah's rationale for its prohibition on ingesting of animal blood 'for the life of the creature is in the blood.'
I am not qualified to say. Just some Bible skuttlebutt for that Worldwide Office Cooler, the Internet.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by arachnophilia, posted 08-28-2006 2:53 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 144 (344347)
08-28-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
08-27-2006 6:10 PM


Re: A Theological defense of the Gap Theory
Hi RAZD,
Nah I'm not defensive just a little irked. I had a thread on this subject in Science Forums Origin of Life The Gap Theory Examined. Since it was in the wrong forum it was kind of sliced and diced, since we were arguing theology and there was only a smattering of science. The reason given was that we were off-topic. Now I find this one and it seems that off topic doesn't matter anymore.’
Any subject needs to be argued from a logical and rational point of view, without that there can be no discussion because of all the distraction and irrelevence given to the ambience of said discussion.
1. Yes I am arguing from an OE standpoint
2. Yes the bible is not metaphorical, in other words yes there was a Creation by God as shown in Genesis.
3. The argument is how can we justify the existence of said theory (Gap Theory)when the bible is not clear on the subject.
4. Yes I take for granted the scientific evidence in geology as well as biology is correct as far as we can tell with alot of unknowns and guesswork tying it all up in a nice little bundle.
When I look at the words "bible study" then that is what I think is meant within the context of this particular thread.
Using the bible, can I make a case for the GAP THEORY that can stand a biblical approach as well clearly satisfying many of the open questions that science put on the Genesis account?
That's what I'll find out.
So in this instance this is not about each persons faith and how they interpret it, it is about using the bible as you would use scientific analysis to substantiate a theory.
Does this answer your post or have I left anything out?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 08-27-2006 6:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2006 7:36 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 144 (344354)
08-28-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archer Opteryx
08-28-2006 5:09 AM


Re: Genesis as Art & Theory
I would agree with you if I was actually in a literature class sudying the bible under those guidelines.
But, since in this case the object of said study is the basis we must use in a theological discussion to prove a specific point, it stands to reason that the argument is not about the merit or demerit of the bible as a work of literature hence Art, but the use of the bible as a way to prove a hypothesis concerning its inherent interpretation regardless of whether you actually believe said bible is the word of God or not. That is, in my understanding, what "Bible Study" is all about.
The argument about Gen 1:1 as well as the following verses related to creation in general including the creation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion is what this particular thread is about from what jaywill posted as a guideline.
Just for nitpickings' sake why did you put a comma after earth in your bible verse? It pretty much defeats your argument doesn't it?
Since commas and verse numbers don't exist in the copies of the so-called originals we have. There is alot to be said for looking at multiple translations which I do, as well as the original hebrew and chaldee texts.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-28-2006 5:09 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-28-2006 6:17 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 144 (344355)
08-28-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Archer Opteryx
08-28-2006 5:09 AM


Re: Genesis as Art & Theory
Hi Archer Opterix
I would agree with you if I was actually in a literature class sudying the bible under those guidelines.
But, since in this case the object of said study is the basis we must use in a theological discussion to prove a specific point, it stands to reason that the argument is not about the merit or demerit of the bible as a work of literature hence Art, but the use of the bible as a way to prove a hypothesis concerning its inherent interpretation regardless of whether you actually believe said bible is the word of God or not. That is, in my understanding, what "Bible Study" is all about.
The argument about Gen 1:1 as well as the following verses related to creation in general including the creation of Adam and Eve and their expulsion is what this particular thread is about from what jaywill posted as a guideline.
Just for nitpickings' sake why did you put a comma after earth in your bible verse? It pretty much defeats your argument doesn't it?
Since commas and verse numbers don't exist in the copies of the so-called originals we have. There is alot to be said for looking at multiple translations which I do, as well as the original hebrew and chaldee texts.
Edited by Jor-el, : Sorry about the double post, could an admin take care of this error on my part please.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-28-2006 5:09 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 140 of 144 (344400)
08-28-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Jor-el
08-28-2006 4:21 PM


Re: Genesis as Art & Theory
Jor-el:
I would agree with you if I was actually in a literature class sudying the bible under those guidelines.
I'm not talking about guidelines. I'm talking about reality.
Truth starts with knowing what you have in your hands. It's literature.
But, since in this case the object of said study is the basis we must use in a theological discussion to prove a specific point, it stands to reason that the argument is not about the merit or demerit of the bible as a work of literature hence Art,
I am not discussing the 'merits or demerits.' I am acknowledging reality: a book is literature. Literature is art.
Reality has to be factored into the equation no matter what you want to prove. Reality is an essential part of proving anything.
but the use of the bible as a way to prove a hypothesis
Then I'm not sure you respect the Bible as much as you claim.
You told me earlier you thought it was 'God's word.' Now you admit you see it as something to use in order to prove something.
If you believe the book is from God, why wouldn't you let it talk to you on its own terms--poetry, metaphor, history, surrealism--as the author wants? Why would you dictate to the author that everything you read has to work a science lab report?
Just for nitpickings' sake why did you put a comma after earth in your bible verse?
No nitpick. That comma was what I wanted to show you.
It pretty much defeats your argument doesn't it?
Not mine. I have no idea what argument I'm making that you could mean.
It could have implications for your hypothesis, though.
Since commas and verse numbers don't exist in the copies of the so-called originals we have.
But dependent clauses do. Written English uses commas to render them. In the Hebrew the first sentence extends through verse 2, where the subject, 'earth', appears.
Here it is again:
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
I just thought you'd be interested.
There is alot to be said for looking at multiple translations which I do, as well as the original hebrew and chaldee texts.
Well, of course. I've examined translations and made every effort to understand the Hebrew. But I confess you've got me beat on the Chaldee.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : No reason given.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Fixed two typos.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Jor-el, posted 08-28-2006 4:21 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Jor-el, posted 08-29-2006 4:19 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 141 of 144 (344429)
08-28-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Jor-el
08-28-2006 4:02 PM


Re: A Theological defense of the Gap Theory
Yes I am arguing from an OE standpoint
Yes the bible is not metaphorical,
Yes I take for granted the scientific evidence in geology as well as biology is correct as far as we can tell
Using the bible, can I make a case for the GAP THEORY that can stand a biblical approach as well clearly satisfying many of the open questions that science put on the Genesis account?
That's what I'll find out.
Cool with me. I wish you luck in your journey.
I'll go back to lurking the thread -- I find the concept intriguing in some ways, and have always been puzzled by those that claim that every second has been accounted for.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Jor-el, posted 08-28-2006 4:02 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 144 (344786)
08-29-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Archer Opteryx
08-28-2006 6:17 PM


Re: Genesis as Art & Theory
Hi Archer Opterix,
I'm not talking about guidelines. I'm talking about reality.
Who's reality, yours or mine?
That's a prtetty vague affirmation considering that it is neither here nor there. What point are you trying to make? Be clear because I tend not to see the indirect quips as well as others. Don't beat around the bush.
In my case truth is coloured by many facets of my life, from my beliefs to my social background as well as my politics among many others. All of these tend to curve what we learn in what I might call a lense of perspective. As you very well know you hav one as well.
Pure truth can only be found in the word of God. I'm sure you will laugh at that but that in the end should be the "be all" and "end all" for all christians.
Did he not say: seek the truth and it will set you free?
I am not discussing the 'merits or demerits.' I am acknowledging reality: a book is literature. Literature is art.
Yet what you don't understand is that THIS work of "art" as you put it is also a book with a specific application in mind:
To know the will of God and to apply his word in our lives. In other words it's a manual for living a Godly life. No matter how "artistically" it was rendered it doesn't stop being what it is in it's essence, a book with a purpose.
This reminds me of a story about a man who had a priceless collection of paintings by the greatest artists of all times, in his desire to be a collector among collectors he added to his collection continuously.
He had a vault built to gaurd his masterpieces and filled it from top to bottom. One day he meets another collector and they start talking. The visitor asked the collector how much time he passed admiring the works in his collection.
The collector answered that he had a great love for art but just never had the time to spend admiring those masterpieces he bought because he was always looking for new pieces to add to his collection.
Poor guy he didn't appreciate what he had in his hands because he was always looking for more art.
Maybe you shouldn't consider the Bible so much a work of art or Literature but as the manual that teaches you to know God and His will for your life.
Then I'm not sure you respect the Bible as much as you claim.
You told me earlier you thought it was 'God's word.' Now you admit you see it as something to use in order to prove something.
Interesting that you should say that, you seem to consistently miss the fact that the Bible is there to be used by us for just such a purpose. It is our (christian) operating manual.
When you want to know how something works, you don't ask the neighbour if you've got the manual in your hands!
Here are a few different versions of the same Verse you provided:
Genesis 1:1-2
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:
Genesis 1:2 Or possibly became
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Genesis 1:2 Or a waste and emptiness
Genesis 1:2 Or hovering
Cross references:
Genesis 1:1 : Ps 102:25; Is 40:21; John 1:1, 2; Heb 1:10
Genesis 1:1 : Ps 89:11; 90:2; Acts 17:24; Rom 1:20; Heb 11:3
Genesis 1:1 : Job 38:4; Is 42:5; 45:18; Rev 4:11
Genesis 1:2 : Jer 4:23
Genesis 1:2 : Job 38:9
Genesis 1:2 : Ps 104:30; Is 40:13, 14
Genesis 1:2 : Deut 32:11; Is 31:5
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Version (ASV)
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
American Standard Version (ASV)
Copyright © 1901 Public Domain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New King James Version (NKJV)
Genesis 1
The History of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The 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.
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like you to note that I provided current translations that are the most popular of the translations available. (All except the last which I included since it is unique among the tranlations as the most literal of them all. It is also similar to the NRSV edition you provided.)
What also needs to be taken into account is the number of people involved in each translation as well as their essential background as scholars "modern or conservative".
After some deliberation I doubt that you can throw away the translations I provided as erroneous.
When we clear this little hurdle then we can start talking on whether the Gap Theory Hypothesis is without merit. according to the guidelines of the "Bible study" forum.
To make your life easier check these sites out:
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-28-2006 6:17 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-30-2006 6:19 AM Jor-el has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 143 of 144 (344978)
08-30-2006 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Jor-el
08-29-2006 4:19 PM


Re: Genesis as Art & Theory
Jor-el:
When we clear this little hurdle then we can start talking on whether the Gap Theory Hypothesis is without merit.
I just shared some information I thought you might find helpful. That's all.
Who's reality, yours or mine?
I said the Bible is a book. A book is literature. Literature is art.
I only called that 'reality' because I thought these things were obvious.
I am sorry I was mistaken.
That's a prtetty vague affirmation considering that it is neither here nor there. What point are you trying to make? Be clear because I tend not to see the indirect quips as well as others. Don't beat around the bush.
I apologize for my inability to communicate more clearly. It was not my desire to be vague.
Maybe you shouldn't consider the Bible so much a work of art or Literature but as the manual that teaches you to know God and His will for your life.
The Bible is a manual, you say?
A manual is a book. A book is literature. Literature is art.
A manual is just one kind of book. Many kinds of books exist.
So how do you know what kind of book you are looking at?
You open the book. You read. You let the author's language guide you.
- If you see instructions for putting together a bike, you're probably looking at a bike manual.
- If you see a list of names in order of generation, you're probably looking at a genealogy.
- If you see talking animals and place names like 'Cliffs of Insanity' and 'Pit of Despair', you're probably looking at a fable.
- If you see flowerly language praising eyes, breasts and belly buttons, you're probably looking at a love poem.
Libraries have many kinds of books. For this reason, 'What kind of book am I looking at?' is always a good question to ask.
- If you try to put together a bike by reading a love poem, you will have problems with the bike.
- If try to get your spouse in the mood by singing words from a bike manual, you will have problems with your spouse.
Maybe you know a good library where every book is by the same author. Maybe the author is God. 'What kind of book am I looking at?' is still a good question to ask.
God can do anything. God can write any kind of book God wants. You want to enjoy each book to the fullest.
It would be a shame to use a love poem to put together a bike. The bike won't work, and you'd miss all the beauty of the love poem.
That's all I am trying to say.
I apologize if this is still vague. I wish you the best--truly--as you explore Genesis further.
It's a great book.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Jor-el, posted 08-29-2006 4:19 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Jor-el, posted 08-30-2006 1:36 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 144 (345050)
08-30-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Archer Opteryx
08-30-2006 6:19 AM


Re: Genesis as Art & Theory
Hi Archer Opterix,
Maybe you know a good library where every book is by the same author. Maybe the author is God. 'What kind of book am I looking at?' is still a good question to ask.
God can do anything. God can write any kind of book God wants. You want to enjoy each book to the fullest.
It would be a shame to use a love poem to put together a bike. The bike won't work, and you'd miss all the beauty of the love poem..
I never said that you could not considetr the writings of the Bible a work of art. It is that and much more. It does have every type of element used in Literature in it, from geneologies to histories of nations,it even has Fables.
If you analyse a work of literature, which I'm sure most have done at one time or another; some of the works of Shakespeare continue to be required study in schools; we see that authors use many elements in their writings to convey an ideal or an emotion. The Bible is no exception to that. I don't place the bible on pedestal as I have seen some do, but I do use it with a purpose. It is a tool of study for wisdom and knowledge, a path to fellowship with God and understanding of his will and character.
As you say and I agree, one should use the correct book for the correct task.
To get my wife in the mood I certainly wouldn't read a bike manual or even the geneological line of Adam, but I might use the Song of Songs by Solomon. It was after all written for that purpose (among others).
I do not deny the use of Language and writing as an art form in the bible but that after all, is the least of its' qualities.
Edited by Jor-el, : Spelling errors corrected.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-30-2006 6:19 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024