The Gap Theory Examined

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.

Actually, a literal reading of Genesis seems to imply a near total lack of planning. For example, GOD creates man, then finds that he is alone in the world. So He haphazardly starts creating animals and bringing them to Adam to see if they make good companions. Not once does he sit down and try to figure out what Adam really needs or wants as a companion until Adam's tried every single animal on for size. It's only then, after millions of failures that he tries a last gasp effort and creates woman. Genesis 2:18-22.But that was only the latest example of GOD not planning ahead. The only reason man was created in the first place was as a gardner to maintain the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:15. There was no other reason for man's existence or creation. Yet GOD also created the reason and method that led to losing His gardner. I guess, after he had Chinese Angels do the yard work.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sounds like you can't read, since that's absolutely an incorrect description of my posts to you.The fact that you're reduced to outright lies about your opponents - like every creationist - is the strongest possible evidence that there's no truth to be found in creationism, ID, or any of that nonsense.

And yet I find that we are moving away from the central topic which is The merits of demerits of the Gap Theory to a sideline of insults again...

---

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

Ringo, that would depend on the context inwhich these words are used in the text.In the context of God following a plan, such as was mentioned in the previous posts, I don't think the words would apply but if we are distinguishing between the two types of creation...1. Original Creation of the Universe. (Genesis 1:1)2. Restoration of the Earth. (Genesis 1:2-31)By using the words "make" and "Create" in the context of the verses we see a difference between the original creation (create) of the Universe and the restoration (make) of the earth.When the universe was created it was from nothing just as the word implies. In the restoration we can say that the earth was rebuilt from the existing materials at hand.In this context surely you see that the words are not interchangeable.

---

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

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.

So according to you, no matter how much the text indicates the contrary you refuse to accept the possibility that the common interpretation of creation is flat wrong?Why do you state that there is insufficient information on this?
As can be seen from what I've written; (and I presonally did the investigation, I didn't depend on 3rd party information); the possibility is accepted as an interpretation by many bible translators themselves. Did you actually read what I wrote?As for God planning out before doing, don't you think that that is a pitfall of linear thinking? We are the ones who need to think, plan then do, who says God needed to do any of that?God sees the past, present and the future as one moment, there is no past, present and future for him. Aren't you trying to bracket God into a linear type of thinking?If He speaks through the bible in terms of a past, present or future it's for our benefit not his own. It's how a father would speak to his small child.Jar, in his infinite wisdom seems to know alot about what Gods plans are, when the rest of us don't. If we knew 1% of what Gods plans are and what his intentions were in creating us, we would count ourselves wise beyond human possibility. We would answer the question that we all ask, why are we here?As for the create vs make distinction, don't take my word for it.see the following sites: "Created" vs "made"barah, assah, and hayah.Creation Days (A list of people who accepted this idea for the last 2000 years) Without form and voidOr you can just study the verses themselves, all you need is:1.
The Interlinear Bible
Hebrew-Greek-English
With Strong's Concordance numbers Above each word
by: Jay P. Green Sr.
Published by: Hendrickson Publishers2.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible
by: James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D.
Published by: Hendrickson PublishersThis message has been edited by Jor-el, 08-July-2005 12:03 AM

---

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

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.

It's a bit more precise than that. I said God shows us He enjoys planning and quoted the verse earlier referring the Lord as a man of war, but the type of planning may indeed by a little different than what we think of as planning.In the context here, getting back to the original concept, what I am saying is an alternative to the create/make dichotomy which is cleary present in the text, and that alternative is that God creates within Christ the thing itself, but it is made, put into a real form, via the Word. That's supported by parallel passages in the first chapter of the gospel of John, where the Logos "makes" all things, and by Jesus talking of how not even the Son knows the time of His return, but the Father only.That suggests within God, a more limited range of knowledge of the Logos, meaning the Logos only knows what God the Father reveals to it.Now, I don't want to drift so far into Trinitarianism that we forget the unity of God, but I will say this, we see some of this in the interplay of our subconscious and conscious minds. It seems a greater part of us knows and understands much more, our spirit perhaps?, than we are conscious of moment to moment. That, I agree, is a limited analogy, but I think it illustrates how within one person, there can be communication, and within God, there is laid out the concept of the Logos making all things, but the Father creating all things.Now, another angle is to present explain the dichotomy as one creation and a later re-forming. That's interesting.What doesn't work at all though is your claim that create and make should be viewed as synonymous.Why then 2 words?

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.

So how would you explain that the original text has the word "" hayah {haw-yaw}?1. to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass2. to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become
c) to become like
d) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought aboutSee Strongs Concordance for complete listing.According to most concordances available, the word is interpreted in the same way "BECAME". Tohuw va Bohuw (without form 08414 and void 0922)without form (08414):1. formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness
a) formlessness (of primeval earth)
b) nothingness, empty space2. that which is empty or unreal (of idols) (fig)
a) wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
b) place of chaos
c) vanityand void (0922):1. emptiness, void, wasteSo where is the error in interpretation of this verse? Please take into account that the earth was not created in this way originally it became this way for some reason. Note in verse 23 that the same sequence is used "tohow va Bohow" clearly relating this verse to Genesis 1:2 Again the word "tohuw" is used, and always in reference to a judgment of some kind.So my question is what happened between verse 1 and 2 of Genesis?
If this doesn't indicate a "gap" for lack of a better word, I don't know what does. Many "common interpretations" are later found to be erroneous!History has shown us the folly of sticking to the common interpretation on many different subjects but I'll give a few from church history.Before the Lutheran reformation (protestant movement), what was the church's and the common peoples view of God?1. Salvation by works (and not by grace) or a convenient payment into church coffers was the way to salvation.2. Baptism was by expression (sprinkling of water) rather than by submersion (as the original greek word implies).3. Mary the mother of Christ was the "Queen of the Universe" (still one of her titles) and through her you can gain access to Gods' ear.
etc, etc...Peoples knowledge of the word and of God was passed on by tradition and not the actual study of the word. Just because a majority holds a belief doesn't make it correct according to the word. By your way of thinking, what evidence is there to conclude that God created man? Please point out what available evidence there is to conclude that there was no restoration since the actual text says otherwise by implication.Also, please state how you would otherwise explain the existence of scientific evidence in Geology, Biology and Astrophysics. (which I mentioned in post 62 of this thread) What Randman says isn't applicable to this situation as has been more than adequately stated and proved. Randman was commenting on the use of create and make which seems to be a difficult concept for some to grasp. If you still disagree with what I've posted, there nothing more I can say on the subject except just to keep on arguing what has been meticulously pointed out and explained and which almost all theologians agree on.You pointed out earlier how "the common interpretations" are "important" to you, why not this one?Where does it say that God "needed" time? Who are we to say why God does as He does?I sometimes think we make to much of our own importance when we think that God created the universe just for us alone. Who is to say he wasn't busy doing other things in the meantime that have no bearing on what he has done with us. Is that enough to prove that God has his own time of doing things? I can give you a dozen more quotes if you want... I know Gods mind in relation to what pertains to Gods plan for humanity as is written in Scripture. As for the rest of what He does and thinks as well as his overall plan for humanity and the universe, maybe you can tell me.As I'm sure you are aware, the Bible reveals His character as well as intentions, inasmuch as they pertain to man, nothing else. So your implying that you've known about this theory for ages but haven't studied indepth. If you had your tune would be different.Mainstream theology is well and good but should not become dogmatic, new revelations about Gods word abound. This is not a dead book that has exhausted all subjects. One cannot and should not say that our interpretations are definitive, because they aren't.I'm sure I'm not alone in this thought, since the protestant reformation would not have come about if what you implied were the truth.As for the Gap theory being a fringe movement I would suggest you study up on that a little more instead of being complacent with your current understanding.And remember, People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

---

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

The basis of the theory is not based on the "difference" between two synonyms, but on the word "hayah" which can be translated as "became", Which ultimately implies that something happened that isn't explained. (Message 86)

---

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

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.

Jor-el And the bible verses where these observations are recorded?

You know, you keep harping on and on about how I don't see that there is no "Gap in the text and here you flat out say that I ussume that that is the only possible interpretation... I gave you the page with the complete possible interpretations of the word "hayah" and there it can quite clearly be seen that one of the possible interpretations is the one you cite, yet if you had paid attention you would have noticed that the majority of possible variations cover the "became" idea.Also, I never stated that it was the only possible interpretation (see message 87), I stated that it was the most logical interpretation taking into account what we know scientifically of the world around us. _______________________________________________________________________ Ringo, I don't see the need for further comment on what you wrote, it is apparent just by looking at it. It seems that the only things you can understand are what is spelled out in big letters in front of you.THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED UNDERSTANDING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE WAY A STATEMENT IS PHRASED, WHICH YOU DON'T SEEM TO GRASP.I won't spend my time rehashing statements that have been explained by myself in relation to the area of your post before the comment below. Only when Christians have their heads in the sand is the above statement applicable. Sure ignore scientific evidence all you want. You can argue that there is no scientific evidence for there having been a major catastrophe on earth, but that is true only if you discount the last 15 to 20 thousand years. Before that there is plenty of evidence such as a major Ice Age as well as the eruption of a super volcano which could have led to to the ice age iteself.As for the implication that there was no "Gap" which you directly suggest then biblically the world (Universe) is aproximately 7500 years old by YEC calculations.Which of these two scenerios does not contradict scientific evidence?
Which is logically the more acceptable? I see again that implications of what you say don't seem to filter...Since you mention "the common interpretation" regularly you seem to have missed the point that, if we kept the "common interpretation" in detriment to studying the word and finding new revelations, there would be no christianity as we know it today, it would probably be more of a classical Judaism. If you will notice, the examples I stated were the common interpretation, things have evolved since those views were applied in society. New interpretations of those ideas arose and in many cases supplanted the ones that were an institution.By stating quite clearly that "There is no evidence of a "gap" or a "restoration" in the first few verses of Genesis." you have shown that you are not open even to the possibilty of this interpretation. In other words, your views are written in stone.You still haven't answered the following questions:1.please state how you would otherwise explain the existence of scientific evidence in Geology, Biology and Astrophysics? (which I mentioned in post 62 of this thread and which is in total conflict with the "Divinely inspired Word", if you throw out the idea of a gap between verse 1 and 2))2.You pointed out earlier how "the common interpretations" are "important" to you, why not this one? (relating to create and make, by the way the common interpretation is what Randman and I stated)This message has been edited by Jor-el, 12-July-2005 07:33 PM

---

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