A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"

quote:

---

I think that whether or not these words are capitalized is a matter of how the English translators decided to put emphasis on the Hebrew words.

---

You're right. There was no capitalization in the original Hebrew texts. I'm not sure how they determined what was a proper name and what wasn't. Arach would probably know that one.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

*hears his name* there are a few hints in the grammar, but basically tradition and guesswork. it's also grossly complicated by the fact that we can literally translate every biblical name. imho, it's a little silly to justify something with the "the original hebrew texts." we don't have "the originals." the first hebrew text that we DO have is the masoretic, which does contain vowels, punctuation, spaces, section breaks, cantilation marks, emendations, and in some modern versions verse numbering. if i recall correctly, all of these additions (minus the modern verse numbering) were present in various masoretic versions, although at different points. they are generally considered to be the textual improvements of the masoretes.the bit you quote has to be refering to the greek and latin texts, and is thus kind of moot -- the vast majority of all modern bible translations use the masoretic text. but i'd like to demonstrate another point that i kind of glossed over above: tradition. the masoretes derived their very name from the hebrew word for tradition, masorah.we don't think about this very much reading our native language, but language is very intuitive. we read things by knowing what they say, and what certain words look like. i think it was rr who recently posted that old demonstration of how we can all read words with the inside letters all jumbled up. well, hebrew works exactly the same way with vowels. even today, almost nobody writes with vowel points. they barely even exist in printed hebrew texts: just the tanakh. they're really not needed unless you don't know how to pronounce the word. but to the native speaker, the vowels are implied. you recognize the word based on the consonants.and if you recognize the word, you know how it's said, you know what it means, and you know if it's a proper name, or what part of speech it is, etc. what the masoretes sought to do was to solidify their tradition, cement the pronounciation, and unify the canon and intonation. but they didn't just make these things up, either.anyways. here was the original quote:

quote:

---

Notice that Day,Night,Heaven(1st and 2nd),Earth,Seas,and Woman???Notice that they are all in capitals???Know why???Because previosly to them being named they never existed!!!Pretty cool or what?!?!

---

this is merely an issue of creative capitalization on the parts of translators. non of the following the words are proper nouns in regular usage in hebrew:

• -- yom, day
• ‘ -- ereb, night
• -- eretz, earth/land/country
• -- yamim (yam, pl), seas.
• -- ishah, woman
• -- ish, man.

heaven may or may not be, i'm not personally sure of it's usage. but the rest of these are all regularly used hebrew nouns of no special significance at all. the reason the are capitalized here is that it's the first time they are being used, because god is giving them "name" or titles. thus, g2g's logic is actually circular.

---

RrHainThanks for the assistance. Here is the sentence of Arachnophilia to which I was replying: My asking you whether or not I was talking to you was not meant to imply you could not get into the conversation. If you want to take up from where Arachnophilia left off go ahead.As it is you seem to be arguing with me without a position, which is of course a very easy arguement to defend, isn't it?This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 02-13-2006 06:39 AM

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

As it is you seem to be arguing with me without a position

---

Incorrect. I was arguing about the logic of your position, pointing out how you had used a logical error (slothful induction). Therefore, your argument fails from the outset. You need to go back and fix the logical error before you can continue.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

So are you saying that your theological defense is Biblically based? (The study of Gods relation to the world?)Just to reconsolidate: What IS the Gap Theory? (Im too lazy to look it up! )

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

quote:

---

Incorrect. I was arguing about the logic of your position, pointing out how you had used a logical error (slothful induction). Therefore, your argument fails from the outset. You need to go back and fix the logical error before you can continue.

---

Remember this is the Bible Study forum and the OP states that:
This will be a theological defense.In Message 73 you reply to a post that is about a month old and say nothing more than: Is this in relation to the one sentence made by jaywill or his entire theological defense? If it is his statement, then why not explain how, from a theological standpoint, his logic is in error.If it is his entire theological defense of gap theory, again explain how his logic, from a theological standpoint, is in error.Where has he denied evidence against his theory?It doesn't help the discussion progress if you don't make it clear to jaywill where you feel his error lies.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Herepton...what evidence are you referring to when you say that the Gap theory is a fact of science?I'm curious what you base your dating methods on...you don't seem to agree with evolutionary science, yet you also seem to reject a normalistic interpretation of the creation account and subsequent geneologies.Jesus seemed to believe that we were created at the beginning of creation, and not after some Gap of time.Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Just to give a basic definition of Gap Theory....this is from Wikipedia:"Gap Creationists believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is in fact far older than can be accounted for by merely adding up the ages of Biblical patriarchs, as given in the Book of Genesis. By taking the age of each father at the birth of his son, and adding the "six days" of creation, Young Earth Creationists thereby arrive at an age for the earth, concluding that the Earth is only 6,000 - 7,000 years old. In order to hold the two seemingly-contradictory viewpoints that the Bible is inerrant in all matters of fact as well as faith and doctrine and that the Earth is very ancient, they must account for the supposition that certain facts about both the human past and the age of the Earth have been omitted from the Biblical account rather than falsified by it."The problem is the 2 views are entirely incompatible even if you try to avoid the "Age" issue. If you add the gap, of millions or billions of years, between day 7 and the fall...then you have a world of death and disease before sin. (”by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin’ (Romans 5:12))From a scientific standpoint, it also flies in the face of uniformitarianism....which is the "continuity of processes in the ancient world with those in the modern world".

It's a theory, an interpretation based on assumptions.IIRC it involves much more than just addition to reach an assumed age of the earth, as it also involves interpretations of different lengths of lives, and other aspects that make such an interpretation highly questionable.Any relationship between events in the bible and recorded historical events is also open to interpretation as there are no real dates given - reference to events at best are tied to the reign of various rulers and reference to other events (non-biblical historical events) are equally vague - making any attempt to set biblical events into historical ones also a matter of interpretation and assumption.Take the life of Christ as an example: what are the dates of the birth and death? What events during the life can be related to known historical events? And this was (supposedly) recorded shortly after that period.It seems to me that if you can't even nail down these events for the most iconic person, that deriving any other dating from this source is rather questionable at best, with uncertainty increasing the further you go back in time.It would appear that the recording of actual dates of events was not an important {criteria\element} of the record keeping.The logical conclusion is that the YEC theory (of the age and timing of events) is not consistent with the facts, whether those facts involve the geological age of the earth, or the correlation to known historical events, or (more importantly) their lack of evidence at the times where there should be evidence if the YEC theory were true.The logical conclusion is that the YEC theory is falsified.Comparing the (various) GAP (and other) theor(y\ies) to the YEC theory is (therefore) a false comparison. You need to compare them to their ability to predict events, and the records of events, properly in the time scale of things that are known.If they can't do that, then you need to chuck them out and get new ones. Or chuck the whole concept of developing dates from a record that pays scant at best attention to dates: is any {age\dating} theory really necessary? Events can be relative, creating a linear progression, but the actual dates of those events is unimportant to the progression.This isn't science, it's logic.This message has been edited by RAZD, 02*14*2006 08:08 AM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Much historical timeline information is built upon assumptions, you are correct. This is true for the young-earth creationist, the old-earth creationist and the evolutionist. The facts are that none of us were there to see the events take place.The YEC position is more defensible with real science and logic than are the Gap and evolutionary paradigms, in my opinion. But that is a discussion for another topic.This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-14-2006 10:28 AM

---

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

purpledawn responds to me:

quote:

---

Remember this is the Bible Study forum and the OP states that:
This will be a theological defense.

---

Irrelevant. All arguments, even those that propose incredible and extraordinary causes, must maintain logical correctness. It doesn't matter if you're argument is based upon your faith: If you commit a logical error, your argument is not justified.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Logical error: Slothful induction.
You're starting with the conclusion and doing everything you can to find evidence in favor of it, including denial of evidence against it.

---

​

Is this in relation to the one sentence made by jaywill or his entire theological defense?

---

It is in relation to the defense being based upon a logical error. There is a difference between showing an argument to be wrong ("Two plus two does not equal five") and showing an argument is not logically justified ("You are arguing: If A, then B. B, therefore A. That is not justified.") In the former, the claim cannot be true no matter what. In the latter, the claim might be true, but nothing the claimant has said can be used to justify it. False premises can lead to any conclusion you desire.

quote:

---

If it is his statement, then why not explain how, from a theological standpoint, his logic is in error.

---

Non sequitur. There is no "theological standpoint" when referring to logic. All arguments, whatever their basis, need to follow logical consistency. In fact, I am assuming that the theological points are all valid. The problem is that jaywill is only looking at some of them and engaging in a slothful induction that those few data points are sufficient to make a claim, ignoring all of the other equally valid theological points that show the claim to be something that isn't justified.To tie back into the "All Crowes wear black shoes" argument of another thread, he's looking only at the three Crowes who he's observed wearing black shoes (which we are assuming were valid observations of real events) and ignoring the three dozen other Crowes who were not (again, which we are assuming were valid observations of real events).It doesn't matter if we're talking about miracles.

quote:

---

If it is his entire theological defense of gap theory, again explain how his logic, from a theological standpoint, is in error.

---

Again, there is no such thing as "theological standpoint" or any other "standpoint" when it comes to logical errors. A logical error is a false premise and a false premise can lead to any conclusion you wish. Ergo, the conclusion is not justified. It might still be true, but nothing you have said lets us say it is.

quote:

---

Where has he denied evidence against his theory?

---

Did you not read his claim? "Contradict what is said in several major areas." His claim is that we are to ignore those contradictions in favor of the rest. Logical error: You don't get to exclude data points just because they go against your conclusion. You have to take them into account and explain why they are there. It is irrelevant what the specifics of the data are.

quote:

---

It doesn't help the discussion progress if you don't make it clear to jaywill where you feel his error lies.

---

But I was clear: Slothful induction. Do you not know what that means?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Garrett, The usefulness of a Destruction / Reconstruction interpretation to me is that it presents a more plausible history of God's enemy. I think it is a side issue that it allows for an understanding of more time for the age of the universe than the 6,000 to possibly 50,000 years one can calculate from geneological tables. Since the Hebrew linkage ben can be used to mean a grandson or great grandson, etc., and because there might be gaps in the geneological records, we do know exactly how much time the Bible is really speaking of by way of geneolical descendency. My present information, from Hugh Ross, is that at the most it could conceivably stretch back to 50,000 years to Adam.However, I don't believe that the economy of man being asigned dominion ran concurrently with the creature that became Satan, having the dominion. I don't believe that within the space of one week the great conflict of an angelic opposition party against God fermented and developed concurrently with Adam in the garden. I think that history of conflict had a much more ancient past.As for Romans chapter 5, the scope of word "the world" must be carefully considered. The lie of the serpent was a sin. If it was not then God would not have punished the creature for it. That sin was somewhere before Adam sinned. If that sin of lying and slandering God was not somewhere then Eve would have never been tempted. So when the word of God says that sin and death came into the world through Adam, the scope of "the world" must have its limitations. Satan and his hosts existed somewhere.The alternative is to believe that the first creature deceived was Adam and then all of the angelic and demonic creatures were deceived. I don't believe this. I believe that a great Satanic hosts as an opposition party was already in existence at the very time Adam and Eve were lied to. I think it unlikely that within one week such a cataclysmic rebellion was developed. It must have occured in some other "world" prior to the world into which sin and death poured, through Adam's failure.Such an interpretation pre-dates the invention of both geology and evolutionary theory.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:13 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:39 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:40 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:41 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:44 AM

RrHain, I have lost track of exactly what claim you're are talking about.I made a comment about the weakness of reasoning without God's Person and power being accounted for in biblical matters pertaining to God. I objected that the poster was reasoning without including God in the process. That was the basiss of my comment.What is the specific claim that you say I am not considering negative evidence for?And while we are on the subject of slothfulness - my experience is that to receive meaning from the Bible one had better excercise his praying human spirit. The Bible is a revelation which involves a spiritual componant of man's being which needs to be excercised. The Apostle Paul tells us as much:"And receive ... the word of God by means of all prayer and petition, praying every time in spirit ..." (Eph. 6:17,18)This exhortation from one rather experienced in receiving revelation from God says that we should receive the word of God by means of "all prayer". We should pray over and pray with what we read in the Bible. And I would say that there is also the slothfulness of the reader who only trusts that he can ascertain God's word by the active mind apart from the praying and prayerful spirit.So I would be concerned also for the slothfulness of the person who does not pray over what he reads in the Bilble, either because of spiritual laziness or because he doesn't know how.So while you're concerned for slothful inductive arguments, of which you certainly have some right, I would add that there is also the danger of misunderstanding the word of God because of slothfulness in excercising one's praying spirit.History is filled with the testimonies of Bible readers who received the enlightenment from the Bible by means of receiving the word with "all prayer". In fact such prayer is a renewing of the mind too. Our minds have been damaged by sin. Our minds are rebellious and at enmity with God. So we need to humble ourselves to receive understanding from the Bible, not only with rigorous reasoning skills, but all the more with "all prayer and petition, praying at every time and watching unto this ...".This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:33 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:33 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-15-2006 06:45 AM

Purpledawn,It is noted that you somewhat came to my defense.Thanks some undoubtably even handed moderation in this instance.

The question is which assumptions have to ignore less evidence. This is a strawman argument. We were talking about events recorded by people who supposedly were there. Further, I wasn't there for the birth of my mother and father, but I can be pretty sure that these events happened -- some inferences are more logical than others. Good. You can take this to the Age Correlations and an Old Earth thread:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Note this is in it's third incarnation, and to date not one creationist has been able to answer the basic question posed: how do you explain the correlations between all the age dating methods.Given that this thread lists dating methods that count annual layers to over 567,700 years, this completely refutes any YEC model unless you can explain, not just why each method is wrong, but why they have the same results for age and climate and other correlations -- why they are all wrong in exactly the same way in spite of being based on totally different systems of annual layers.So far there have been three basic kinds of responses from people:(1) Ignore the thread and hope it goes away while pretending they still have a valid argument (in spite of being blatantly falsified). This is dishonest.(2) Attempt to explain one or two systems, but fail to address all of them in any kind of valid approach. This is ignoring the issue.(3) Say that they don't know the answer, and don't have the scientific background to challenge the information presented. This is honest.Which are you?In any event, the upshot of any of these approaches is that they cannot answer the conclusion of an old earth that is logical and consistent and based on plentiful available evidence.The net result is that the YEC concept is falsified unless this information is refuted in such a way that explains the correlations.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.