A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"

Tell me, have you read the thread from the beginning or did you just come for a quick visit?If you had started from the beginning you would have seen that we are not using scientific evidence in this thread, your arguments have to be based on biblical verses and interpretation.That is also the reason why this thread is under: Social and Religious Issues Bible Study A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory".This discussion is based solely on the bible from the standpoint that the bible is the classicaly established authority on these issues as is underestood in mainstream christianity. If you have an argument with that then you shouldn't be in the Bible study forum.If you actually have something to contribute within the defined rules of this forum please feel free to do so.

---

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

The above post goes for you too!!

---

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

Relax. All I did was take a jab at you for claiming you had "heard it all".You haven't.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

myaren't we defensive. This does not prevent you from needing logical consistency. Of course having some relationship to reality might also be worthwhile for those who want to be considered ... rational. The question is how tenuous that relationship is eh?To review: Message 119
These are really the only logical reasons you need an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) model to begin with -- otherwise stick with the YEC model (and all the inherent problems with reality involved there) or go with the metaphorical interpretations (at least for the OT - so we don't need to get into a discussion of the reality of jesus). How you rationalize your personal faith is your business -- everyone has their own approach ... it's part of what faith is about. Care to point out where I am in violation? Funny, I did not ask for "scientific evidence" -- I just pointed out the logical goalposts you were setting up, or are you saying that "bible study" doesn't involve logic and some attempt at a passing relationship with reality ... ? Looks to me like what I said still comes under "reasoned argumentation" and supporting your argument by enlarging upon it.So: do you agree that those are the goalposts or not?And more to the point -- that without them the discussion is as relevant as counting angels on a pinhead.We can discuss the relevance of the YEC position elsewhere, unless of course you are a YEC that is arguing against the OEC position, as then we are dealing with someone arguing about the rationality of a position from a position further removed from reality.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.

just as an interesting point, arach, i agree with this, as an example i see of the fact they didn't really believe it was the fact that they couldn't find agreement between the two genesis stories, namely if one says they were created equal in one, why did the other say woman was created from man?
from reading, the jews incorpirated a sumarian demon called lilith into thier mythologyand later used her for this. if no one has read about this, the story goes that god created adam and lilith as equals but adam wanted to be above lilith in all things but lilith didn't want to be part of that so using the name of god she left eden and after sometime mated with demons to create a hybrid offspring
to recousel the two myths they created this story of lilith being made with adam and leaving and eve being created in the second story (i think its also an amonishment agenst women trying to be equal to men and what they consider the consiquences of disobaying women)
its amazing how sexist the writers areEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

all this really says is that the integrity of the stories was more important than other factors, such as belief. but yes, it is very likely that they did not actually believe the stories they were collecting, and they were merely recording tradition.but the people who originated the stories (independently) likely did believe them. it's not really amazing. we're just so on about how the phrase "manhole cover" is sexist and such these days that when real sexism comes along it suprises us. the ancient hebrew were a patriarchal society. men had a certain role, women had a certain (lesser) role. but the bit about lillith is quite uneccessary. if we're going to treat it as one source, the explanation for male dominance comes at the end of genesis 3 -- when eve is created, she is created to be adam's equal.

---

i'd like to clarify, for a second, if i may.there's an old saying in the area of biblical studies, that nothing undermines faith in god better than the bible itself. the problem is that people approach the text with a certain attitude -- that it is, and must be god's literal an inerrant word to mankind, complete and entirely factual. based on this premise, many people soon discard their faith upon actual study of the text, because it simply cannot be those things to someone who is familiar with it. the mistakes comes in then assuming that because the bible is not what they thought it was, then there is no god.the premise is false, the logic is false, and the conclusion is false, but this does happen quite regularly. to combat this effect, most fundamentalistis take an approach to the bible that is highly intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant. it's almost like they do not want to even hear the truth, lest it cause them to question their beliefs. instead, they follow from their assumption, and create a myriad ad-hoc fantasies to justify the bible and reality, to protect their faith in god. this is what we see in this thread.but the faith that cannot stand up to questioning is a weak and misplaced faith. and the bible is not god. what i am for is an honest appraisal and in-depth study of the text, not justifying it. i am for strong faith, and a personal relationship with god that extends beyond blind worship of a text that he didn't even write.Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle

---

can jesus, or the bible, like the serpent become an idol as well?

---

arachno: Of course. And well argued. Great post all around. Aiya! The notion that you might be never crossed my mind.I was interested in getting the creative element of it into the picture. Personally, I think everyone who takes interpretation seriously gains from doing extensive creative writing, both fiction and nonfiction. Writing down a narrative of any kind involves choices. It's beneficial for avid readers of any literature to experience that process.I do understand better now your sense of a 'literal' reading. Very helpful. Thanks.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

i was thinking its much like modern creationism, where people claim it is the same story when its really two and try to rationize why there are two stories while still claiming god-breathed writings yes i agree, they did believe in them, the lilith thing is from the talmud oh i know, just a bit of ethnocentric values slipped out. as for lillith i'm thinking being that it was a folk-story and part of the oral part of the torah, the bit was just answer after they compiled it and people made this up, to scare chidren since she was said to steal children and to rationize a confusing bit as to why they have two stories about the same event.
hmm i don't agree eve was adams equal she would have also, been created the same way as adam since genesis one says "he created man, both male and female" i would think that was equal being that god didn't just take part of man to create eve as he did in 2. considering the time frame of this, the author didn't think women where equal, so the lilith thing was to show that women wanting to be equal with man in the authors mind was equal to evil and perverse being that her fate was to birth monsters and to be onebut let me ask you, in hebrew what does help meet translate to?, it sounds like a servent or underling rather than an equal, but maybe my feminism is messing me up

thanks, and apologies if i came off as a little agressive. honestly, i've been reading your posts, and most of them have been not only right on the money, but brilliantly argued and written. it's nice to have a well-educated and sharp new member every now and then. sure. i don't mean to deprive the text of its creative choices at all, quite the contrary. the artistic choices of the original authors is part of the reason we can dissect the torah into separate sources, and tell a little bit about who wrote them and when.

---

like any trend, it comes and goes. well, the talmud is much later. internal consistency became a concern of rabbis -- believers -- after the text was grouped together. it wouldn't have been a concern for the original authors to check their work against texts and traditions by other people, from other regions, and from other times. but it does tell us how a book like the torah came together: much like the rest of the bible did.j, e, l, and d were all independent sources. we know that j and e were collected first, with some minor redaction and additions (called p). instead of having a j text, and an e text (like the nt's four separate gospels), the redactors cut the two up, placed them chronologically (alternating), and added some text to stitch them together. we have a few other "lost" books that appear to be something like drafts of the j-e-p text. the redactors at this point seemed concerned about making one story, but wanted to keep the original traditions. this might be respect, belief, or just plain laziness. folk traditions are very strong. lilith is one such tradition, part of the "oral torah." it's really hard to say which came first; whether the oral traditions reflect on the torah, or vice versa. often they expound on the torah, so it's possible the original sources are referencing age-old traditions. and it's possible that the traditions exist to explain the torah.usually, it's hard to say. the lilith one appears to have been worked to explain the torah, but also seems to come from a much, much older sumerian myth. well, think about genesis 2 for a second. adam is lonely, and god doesn't know what to do. apparently, god cannot just re-create another like man. so god first brings animals to adam. the point of eve is that she is very literally the same flesh as adam. adam says, upon meeting her, "finally, flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone." he's not rejoicing in meeting someone he could rule over, like the animals that weren't good enough. he was rejoicing in meeting someone who was equal.eve's subordination is a curse, part of her punishment at the end of chapter three. there is no reason to assume that she was already subject to a curse that had not yet been commanded by god. until god commands her to be subject to adam, she must have been equal. the story itself serves as an etiology and possibly a justification of patriarchal society. and it's not that they were created that way. no, but he also didn't think snakes can talk, or that we live in a garden with access to the tree of life. the point of "just-so" stories is that they explain how things came to be as they are. so before the leopard got his spots, he was spot-less. and before women were cursed to be below man, they were equal. "help" is a literal rendering from the hebrew. i don't know, specifically, what it means idiomatically, other than "wife." "help" can have condescending connotation in english, but it's never sounded like that to me. i'm not aware of the connotations in hebrew, unfortunately. sorry

---

Jor-el: 'Your beliefs'--you mean mine? If so, I'm sorry I overlooked your comment until now.I have no interest in undermining anyone's faith. But it saddens me to learn your faith is so easily threatened.I was discussing Genesis as art. It is art. That is just a fact.What does the word 'Bible' mean? It means book.What's a book? Literature. What's literature? Art.What does the word 'Scripture' mean? It means writing.What's writing? Literature. What's literature? Art.That's the truth. Look it up yourself.Then afterwards, be careful. Defending your idea of 'God's word' against the truth puts you in a strange predicament.It raises the question of whether the deity would approve. Then let me help.The proposed gap falls between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, right?Have you considered the structure of the original Hebrew?Verse 1 is actually a dependent clause. This means that in the original text the first sentence extends into verse 2. It's not two sentences as it appears in the King James.That's why you see recent translations render the opening of Genesis more like this:

[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] 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. [3] Then God said, ”Let there be light’; and there was light.

​

Genesis 1.1-3 NRSV
oremus Bible Browser : genesis 1

I hope this is helpful.Incidentally, if you've never heard Haydn's musical setting of this text in his oratorio The Creation, check it out. Unforgettable.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

arachno: Ancient Mesopotamians, I'm told, believed the soul to be located in the bone marrow.If that's correct, Adam's statement 'bone of my bone' would imply 'soul of my soul.'

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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.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.

---