Spock Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 Anybody have any thoughts on this? I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3). View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32 View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33 View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34 If you had to choose one, which one, if any? PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article. As soon as I saw Dallas Theological Grad I started...... I choose GOD'S Version Mine me asking why you are not a fan of Dallas TS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 Anybody have any thoughts on this? I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3). View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32 View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33 View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34 If you had to choose one, which one, if any? PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article. As soon as I saw Dallas Theological Grad I started...... I choose GOD'S Version Spock, I truly admire your persistence!! I confess I gave up on discussing the YE/OE debate. But exegetically, I hold (i think, if I read it right) to option 2. I don't believe in the gap theory (the character Satan did not develop until just before the N.T.; we have satans here and there, but not a proper noun. If option 2 means that God first created the "stuff" of creation, i.e the raw materials yet unformed, and then proceeded to form them, then that is what I hold. I'm currently putting together a rather long outline and long bibliography showing my argument. I'll be very interested in hearing your ideas!! clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Anybody have any thoughts on this? I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3). View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32 View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33 View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34 If you had to choose one, which one, if any? PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article. As soon as I saw Dallas Theological Grad I started...... I choose GOD'S Version Mine me asking why you are not a fan of Dallas TS? Don't mind @ all.... For One....they teach the "Sethite" View of Genesis 6. I mean, whats really left to say after that.....I wouldn't trust them if the told me the air pressure in their tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34 I would go with option #3 as it is the most similar to what the Hebrew seems to indicate in Gen.1:2. It is the one I have been advocating for, previously as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 Here is an excellent article by David J. Stewart that thoroughly explains the positions of the Gap Theory and the literal 6-day creationism in a nutshell. You may recall this author from an article Shiloh posted by him in regard to the translators of the NIV Bible. This is a good read for anyone. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/gap_theorists_defended.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 Anybody have any thoughts on this? I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3). View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32 View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33 View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34 If you had to choose one, which one, if any? PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article. As soon as I saw Dallas Theological Grad I started...... I choose GOD'S Version Spock, I truly admire your persistence!! I confess I gave up on discussing the YE/OE debate. But exegetically, I hold (i think, if I read it right) to option 2. I don't believe in the gap theory (the character Satan did not develop until just before the N.T.; we have satans here and there, but not a proper noun. If option 2 means that God first created the "stuff" of creation, i.e the raw materials yet unformed, and then proceeded to form them, then that is what I hold. I'm currently putting together a rather long outline and long bibliography showing my argument. I'll be very interested in hearing your ideas!! clb Actually, he was Lucifer before the fall. He then was referred to as "Ha Satan" (the adversary) after the fall. He has hence forth been referred to as Satan. He lost the name Lucifer, (which mean light-bearer) when he sinned and was expelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 Anybody have any thoughts on this? I got it from bible.org article by Pastor Bob Deffinbaugh, Dallas theological graduate Many interpretations exist for the first three verses of the Bible, but we will briefly mention the three most popularly held by evangelicals. We will not spend a great deal of time here because our conclusions will be tentative and the differences have little bearing on the application of the text. Let me simply begin by saying that we who name the name of Christ as Savior must ultimately take Genesis 1:1 at face value on faith (Heb 11:3). View 1: The Re-creation (or Gap) Theory. This view maintains that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth, prior to the fall of Satan (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12ff). As a result of Satan’s fall the earth lost its original state of beauty and bliss and is found in a state of chaos in Genesis 1:2. This ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 not only helps to explain the teaching of Satan’s fall, but it also allows for a considerable time period, which helps to harmonize the creation account with modern scientific theory. It does suffer from a number of difficulties.32 View 2: The Initial Chaos Theory. Briefly, this view holds that verse one would be an independent introductory statement. Verse 2 would describe the state of the initial creation as unformed and unfilled. In other words the universe is like an untouched block of granite before the sculpter begins to fashion it. The creation is not in an evil state, as the result of some catastrophic fall, but merely in its initial unformed state, like a lump of clay in the potter’s hands. Verses 3 and following begin to describe God’s working and fashioning of the mass, transforming it from chaos to cosmos. Many respectable scholars hold this position.33 View 3: Precreation Chaos Theory: In this view (held by Dr. Waltke), verse one is understood either as a dependent clause (“When God began to create … ”) or as an independent introductory summary statement (“In the beginning God created … ”). The creation account summarized in verse one begins in verse two. This ‘creation’ is not ‘ex nihilo’ (out of nothing), but out of the stuff existing in verse 2. Where this comes from is not explained in these verses. In effect, this view holds that the chaotic state does not occur between verses one and two, but before verse one of an unspecified time. The absolute origin of matter is, then, not the subject of the ‘creation’ account of Genesis 1, but only the relative beginnings of the world and civilization as we know it today.34 If you had to choose one, which one, if any? PS if you like this, I will attach the link to the entire article. As soon as I saw Dallas Theological Grad I started...... I choose GOD'S Version Mine me asking why you are not a fan of Dallas TS? Even more than those, Spock. Also, these types of creationism: Young Earth, Old Earth, Gap, Day-Age, Progressive, Intelligent Design, etc. It goes on and on, throughout the ranks and ages of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 Here is an excellent article by David J. Stewart that thoroughly explains the positions of the Gap Theory and the literal 6-day creationism in a nutshell. You may recall this author from an article Shiloh posted by him in regard to the translators of the NIV Bible. This is a good read for anyone. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/gap_theorists_defended.htm Shar, I've read this article previously and also found it interesting and offering a lot of good thoughts to ponder. The following point from the article has been debated here before, but In my opinion no definitive conclusions were ever made. Just another interesting tidbit to ponder among the many others: WHY ONLY 3 CREATIVE ACTS IN GENESIS CHAPTER ONE? I personally believe this is one of the strongest arguments the opponents of the Gap Theory have to deal with. The fact that the word for CREATE is used only 3 times is Genesis 1 is one of the strongest arguments for the GAP THEORY and its belief that Genesis 1 desribes the 'Re-Creation' of the earth in 6 days! This Gap theory would explain why ONLY 3 creative acts are found in Genesis chapter 1: 1. In verse 1 we see the word ‘bara’ (create out of nothing) used when the heavens and the earth were originally created. 2. It is again used in Gen. 1:21 in the creation of fowl and fish. 3. It is used again in Genesis 1:24-25 when referring to creation of animal and man. This word 'BARA' is not used in the other days where the sun, moon, stars were ‘made to appear’ on day 4. They already existed, having been originally created in Genesis 1:1 before Lucifer’s judgment in Gen. 1:2. Very thought provoking indeed, Spock out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 327 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 232 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/01/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 One of the best ways to interpret Scripture is through other Scripture. You cannot read your Bible like it is the latest novel off the New York Best Seller's list. If you would dig through the Scriptures, as if searching for treasure, you may find additional exegesis. The constant roar that anyone who does not agree is spreading false doctrine is a primitive debate tactic to swing the debate in your favor, when really and often, you cannot respond with an adequate answer. My argument is not that if you disagree with me you are spreading false doctrine. My argument is that the Gap Theory is a false doctrine. It impugns God's character and really borders on heresy, though I doubt it completely rises to the level of heresy. There is a differnce between using Scripture to interpreet Scripture and strining verses together to support a theory that is completely false at the outset. You are trying to use Scripture in a way that justifies a false teaching, and that is an illegitimate use of the texts. Shiloh, I see you have learned the art of using key words to arouse passion from the masses- false doctrine, God's character, heresy ( that was a good one), illegitimate (people react to this word no matter what setting). Hard to believe so many godly men are guilty of all this. Well, at least in your eyes. Oh, what was that adjective you used to describe what shar has been sharing? Ridiculous. Classy!! I stand behind every word I said. Yes, it is heart-breaking that otherwise intelligent godly men are led astray by this false teaching of a Gap. I'm sure they don't think they are being led astray. Yes and I am sure the Branch Davidians didn't they were being led astray either. They may think you are being closed minded and are in error in your exegesis of the bible. Isn't it POSSIBLE you are the one in error? If am, it would be easy to prove. So far, no one has produced an actual degreed scholar of Hebrew that would refute anything I have said. I have produced a Hebrew scholar who confirms what I have said about a young earth , and his comments were soundly ignored. If the Bible actually claimed there was a pre-adamite earth, there would be nothing left for me to say. See, I am only reflecting the facts, which up to this point you have been helpless to refute. So why should I believe I am in error? The are numerous scholars. Just do a search for rabbis who believed in an old earth. Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam. · Some midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 9. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted February 11, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 11, 2014 Spock, leaving out the Gap Theory, what you wrote abvoe fits well with Big Bang cosmology. There is no conflict between it and the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts