Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Gap Theory Examined
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 130 (221573)
07-04-2005 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
07-03-2005 8:53 PM


Re: dark matter?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2005 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2005 9:25 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 130 (221574)
07-04-2005 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jor-el
07-03-2005 3:02 PM


Re: good post
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jor-el, posted 07-03-2005 3:02 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jor-el, posted 07-04-2005 7:05 PM randman has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 130 (221726)
07-04-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
07-04-2005 1:57 AM


Elohim
I agree with you in this respect since Genesis 1:1 states:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It looks like a simple little phrase but when we study it carefully we see some intersesting things come up.
"In the beginning". This isn't the correct translation of the original text. This is because english and most other modern languages don't have an adequate term to state the meaning clearly. As I stated before the idea is more clearly expressed as "In a former state". The idea being that there was really no beginning or a starting point.
r'shyth. "ray-sheeth" - the first in place, time or rank. Translated "beginning". "Reshiyth" does not mean the second or moment that something begins, it indicates a period of time at the start, it could mean one second as in the Big Bang, six days, or even 4.5 billion years.
It is intersesting to note that physicists theorize that our universe came into being through the "Big Bang Theory", roughly around 10 to 20 billion years ago when all matter and energy were compressed into a point a few mm in diameter, which exploded and widened into our present universe. But that wasn't the begining, we cannot even imagine the beginning. Where did the point come from? All we can really know is that there was a change in the state of matter and energy at some time in the past.
It's amazing how the meaning suddenly becomes clear. (at least to me)
"God Created". Again the english text is not transmiting the whole idea. 1st the hebrew term for God in this verse is "Elohim" which literally means "Gods" in the plural, this directly refers to the plurality of the Godhead (the three in one / the Holy Trinity). This specific word Elohim is mentioned in the O.T. in dozens of different places (239 times).
'elhym. "el-o-heem" - gods in the ordinary sense but specificaly used (in the plural thus especially with the article) of the supreme God.
"Created" is also problematic as can be seen in the previous posts. Even though in current spoken english, the words may be synonomous, that is certainly not the case for the original text in hebrew where a purposful distinction is made between the two words "Bara" and "asah".
br'. "baw-raw" - a prime root; (absol.) to create (as a formative process): choose, create (creator), dispatch, do, to cause to exist; bring into being, to produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role, bring into existence.
'sh - "aw-saw" - a prime root; to do, bring forth, the act or process of making; manufacturing, engage in; "make love, not war"; "make an effort"; "do research", to bring (come) to pass.
"The heavens and the earth". This is the simplest part of the text but I would ask that special consideration be made to the meaning since there is clearly a double meaning involved.
1. The heavens and earth being the spiritual and physical elements of creation. "Heavens" can be taken to mean all the spiritual creation of the angels and later demons, as well as the city of heaven. "Earth can be taken to mean the physical part of creation i.e. the physical universe.
2. The heavens and earth in the traditional form of understanding. "Heavens" being the sun and the Cosmos and "Earth" being the planet we live on.
Now, if the earth and sun were created in Genesis 1:1, there is no way that they came into being in Genesis 1:2-13.
This example and a few others in the text show us quite clearly that the reasoning behind the belief that this is the original creation account is erroneous and that this is rather a recreation account.
The Bible never said the earth is 6000 years old and it certainly doesn't say that the beginning was 6000 years ago either. We cannot be so presumptous to assume that in the 4.5 billion years since the earth was created that nothing else but man roamed on the earth.
One of the most important things people should know about the Bible is that it was written with the purpose of guiding us through what I call the "Dispensation of Man" (The Era of Mankind) and it really doesn't refer to eras before this one exept in the most indirect way.
I hope this explains or clarifies in some way what Im trying to say and that it helps you to understand why I think this explanation is the best way of solving so many misunderstandings that people have had in relation to the conflict between creationism and evolution. I personally believe there is no way for both viewpoints to come together, but it does help in showing that at least some of us are not total idiots when it comes to understanding the physical universe and reconciling it with our faith.
YEC's are a major thorn in Christianity's side in my opinion, and have done more to turn us into superstitious babbling fools in the eyes of the world than any other group who supposedly defends the Christian faith.

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 47 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 1:57 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 12:49 PM Jor-el has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 130 (221728)
07-04-2005 7:11 PM


Sorry about the insult
I guess I was ranting at the end there. Sorry if I hurt anybodies feelings with that last comment

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 130 (221775)
07-04-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
07-04-2005 1:48 AM


Re: dark matter?
For example, I can "create" something, and then have someone else "make" it, maybe even mass produce the item.
Yeah, but that's obviously not what you meant. Or did you forget? You were talking about God doing both the making and the manifesting.
So, where's that difference again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 07-04-2005 1:48 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 12:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 130 (221898)
07-05-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jor-el
07-04-2005 7:05 PM


Re: Elohim
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jor-el, posted 07-04-2005 7:05 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jor-el, posted 07-05-2005 1:27 PM randman has replied
 Message 56 by Jor-el, posted 07-05-2005 1:42 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 130 (221899)
07-05-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
07-04-2005 9:25 PM


Re: dark matter?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2005 9:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 07-05-2005 1:09 PM randman has replied
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2005 5:29 PM randman has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 53 of 130 (221904)
07-05-2005 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
07-05-2005 12:51 PM


Re: dark matter?
randman writes:
God can create something He later makes.
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?
... this is the most logical way God would create the universe....
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 12:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 1:35 PM ringo has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 130 (221907)
07-05-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
07-05-2005 12:49 PM


Logos
But that is what I'm saying. The word that is most relevant in the context you describe would be "Logos".
The Word (Gr. Logos), is one of the titles of our Lord, found only in the writings of John (John 1:1-14; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19: 13). As such, Christ is the revealer of God. His office is to make God known. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1: 18). This title designates the divine nature of Christ. As the Word, he "was in the beginning" and "became flesh." "The Word was with God " and "was God," and was the Creator of all things (comp. Ps.33: 6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:18; Isa. 40:8).
It is interpreted as the living word of God. When God speaks, the word (Logos)is the instrument of that creation. But we here we aren't talking about how the universe was created by God, that is a given. When God created by speaking the universe into existence it was "ex nihlo" (from nothing).
It isn't important to the context to determine which member of the Godhead did what at this time, what is important is that God "did".
See this site for more info...Logos
But we must understand that we cannot determine and the bible doesn't say how long ago that was and if there is any relevance at all between this original creation of the universe and its constituent parts: galaxies star systems and solar systems as well as the earth and the account given in Genesis 1:2-31. The only real way to reconcile the facts that are well known in Astronomy, Geology and Biology and the Bible text are to accept a division between the 1st and 2nd verses of Genesis, with an unkown ammount of time passing between the 1st and 2nd verses.

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 51 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 12:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 2:15 PM Jor-el has replied
 Message 60 by sidelined, posted 07-05-2005 3:55 PM Jor-el has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 130 (221908)
07-05-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ringo
07-05-2005 1:09 PM


Re: dark matter?
Therefore, your dichotomy between "creating" and "making" is useless.
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.
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?
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?
Many human artists "make" at the same time as they "create". Why should God be less capable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 07-05-2005 1:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 07-05-2005 2:13 PM randman has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 130 (221910)
07-05-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
07-05-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Elohim
What was being taught as evidence for evolution, and the actual evidence, did not add up..
That is a fact of life. There are many instances everyday where we act as if the theory is the fact. Since many people cannot function in their lives with theories alone, they tranform a theory into a conclusive fact and then act on it.
It doesn't neccesarily have to do with science or religion, we do it with peoples words, reactions and expresions, since we can't read their minds to find the facts in their thoughts.

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 51 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 12:49 PM randman has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 57 of 130 (221911)
07-05-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
07-05-2005 1:35 PM


Art
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 1:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 4:38 PM ringo has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 130 (221912)
07-05-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jor-el
07-05-2005 1:27 PM


Re: Logos
The only real way to reconcile the facts that are well known in Astronomy, Geology and Biology and the Bible text are to accept a division between the 1st and 2nd verses of Genesis, with an unkown ammount of time passing between the 1st and 2nd verses.
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 PM
This message has been edited by randman, 07-05-2005 02:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jor-el, posted 07-05-2005 1:27 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Jor-el, posted 07-05-2005 3:44 PM randman has replied

  
Jor-el
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 130 (221926)
07-05-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
07-05-2005 2:15 PM


I'm sure you mean well in explaining this theory but I would like to remind you that we live in linear time and as such we can only see things as past, present and future. Although this is a human concept since it is believed that higher order animals only percieve the now, an eternal present.
To explain to anybody how the past is mutable as you suggest cannot be taken in easily unless that person has some knowledge of quantum physics. Thus you can state the theory but having it accepted is another matter entirely.
God is the only being I know of that can see through this perspective that you describe but even he deals with the past, present and future in his interaction with humanity. In Gods perspective I would suggest that everything is always the present.
There is a saying that "God does things in his own time not ours". That is possibly quite true.
Another thing you have to take into account is that you yourself are basing this theory on assumptions and theories of others and we all know that todays theory may be tomorrows lie.
As for a pre-adamic earth, that is not only reasonable but also to be expected. The whole problem is in the interpretation of that pre-adamic world.
I say this again, one of the most important things people should know about the Bible is that it was written with the purpose of guiding us through what I call the "Dispensation of Man" (The Era of Mankind) and it really doesn't refer to eras before this one except in the most indirect way. We shouldn't use the bible to explain the dinasaurs and fossils since we won't get any answers. The bible deals with our era alone and that is a fact.

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 58 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 2:15 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 07-05-2005 4:34 PM Jor-el has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 60 of 130 (221931)
07-05-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jor-el
07-05-2005 1:27 PM


Re: Logos
Jor-el
The only real way to reconcile the facts that are well known in Astronomy, Geology and Biology and the Bible text are to accept a division between the 1st and 2nd verses of Genesis, with an unkown ammount of time passing between the 1st and 2nd verses.
Hello Jor-el,would you care to point out which well known facts of astronomy,geology,and biology are reconciled within the Genesis verses of the bible? Please specify which facts you suppose match the verse you assert to be relevant.

Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jor-el, posted 07-05-2005 1:27 PM Jor-el has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Jor-el, posted 07-05-2005 4:35 PM sidelined has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024