Genesis 1:2

[Spock]

Enoch,

 

To me, the "Theory" in the "GAP Theory" gives the game away.

 

You're good, I know you're just looking out for me

You know me well.

I look out for all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Some probably don't need me nor want me to do such.

 

I like the Color Commentary.

 

Have you ever considered Broadcasting?

Funny you should ask that. As a boy growing up, I so very much wanted to either be the New York Giants radio broadcaster doing the play by play or adding the commentary that goes along. Either one would have worked for me.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Enoch,

 

To me, the "Theory" in the "GAP Theory" gives the game away.

 

You're good, I know you're just looking out for me

You know me well.

I look out for all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Some probably don't need me nor want me to do such.

 

I like the Color Commentary.

 

Have you ever considered Broadcasting?

Funny you should ask that. As a boy growing up, I so very much wanted to either be the New York Giants radio broadcaster doing the play by play or adding the commentary that goes along. Either one would have worked for me.

 

LOL LOL

 

I knew it!!

[wincam]

yes all created together on the first 24hr day - the sun, moon and stars appear on the fourth day - so the earth is three days older than the sun and had no sun to revolve around for three 24hr days or three thousand years or three million or three billion even - take your pick -  YEC or OEC - wincam 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Likewise, every resource I've come across on the matter claims this to be the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe: Click here for an image.

 

The Hebrews, like all other ancient people, considered the Sun and the Moon to be in the same plane as the stars, and they circled the "land".

Yes and that goes back to what I said about perspective and the way they described what the saw.  Our modern scientific precision and their phenomenological view of the world are both true, from their particular point of view.   So when they look up into the night sky and see meteor showers, stars, the moon, the Milky Way galaxy, they tell us what they see, and they may not call it the "universe" they may not have a concept of "outer space" like we do and may not realize they are describing outer space, but what they describe is true and accurate from the perspective of an observer looking at these things with the naked eye from a point on the earth.

 

Yes, but by the way you have been arguing translating the Bible "literally," you need to explain how you can brush aside wordage that indicates a flat earth and the heavenly bodies orbiting the earth. Why do the rules change with statements like "pillars of the earth," "four corners of the earth," and the like but not with anything from Genesis 1?  

 

Again, that is the phenomenological language at work.   The heavenly bodies orbiting the earth...  That is what it looks lke to an observer on the earth.  We still use that kind of language today when we refer to "sunrise" and "sunset."    Remember they are not expressing a cosmology, they are simply describing what they see.   The same is true with the four corners of the earth.  

 

Understanding the Bible literally means to understand it from the perspective of the author and what the author is trying communicate.   I think people tend to forget that even ancient people had figurative devices in their language and we fail to factor that in when we are reading the Bible.  

 

When the Bible refers to mountains melting like wax before God's presence, we fail to see that as hyperbole.  We fail to see "four corners of the earth" as a common expression for simply refering to the entire earth.   The Bible's pages are littered with metaphors, hyperbolic exaggerations, and colorful, cultural idioms and other figurative expressions. 

 

When we fail to factor those things into our reading of the text, we walk away thinking that the ancient Jews thought the earth was flat and that the universe revolves around the earth.  We can't seem to decifer the text and people reject the Bible as inaccurate becuase they didn't realize that the writer was not making a cosmological statement, but was simply describing what he saw or was using figurative imagery

 

So the rules don't change when factoring in Genesis 1 at all.   Genesis 1 isn't poetry like the Psalms were alot of the colorful imagery like "four corners of the earth," "pillars of the earth," etc. is usually found.  Genesis is a straightforward historical account of the earth's origin and it is a true and accurate account, as written.

 

It sounds to me like you are trying to fit modern expanded understandings into the descriptions given in the Bible.

 

But I am not.   I am simply pointing to the fact that you cannnot judge the Bible's phenomenological language by modern scientific terminology.  Both are correct from their respective points of view.  

[Guest shiloh357]

The Gap Theory is not without considerable Biblical references, scholarly support and ancient Jewish belief.  It is just that YEC do not want to consider that.  They too are guilty of the distortion of scriptures they accuse OEC of doing, by seeking to fit every point of scripture into a YEC model.  So, you may say it is worthless, pointless or of no Biblical basis, (say the YEC), but it can be substantiated.  The fact remains there are going to be differences of opinions and interpretation.  No single one holds the key to that interpretation, even if they think so.  We simply need to be open to consider, investigate without a personal bias or agenda, and see this as becoming more informed and not as having to win or defend an argument.

 

You're a little late to this party, Shar.   I have already demonstrated why the Gap theory has no biblical credibility, despite you and Spock desperately trying to keep it on life support.  

 

It cannot be substantiated.   All of the evidence for the Gap theory is penciled in by its proponents and has no credibility in the slightest.  And as for "scholarship," there is no genuine scholarship behind it.  There are some radio and TV preachers that accept it because they want to be respected by their peers, but none of them who have accepted the Gap Theory have ever studied it out, otherwise they would see it for the false doctine that it is and reject it.

 

There are no degreed Hebrew scholars who accept the Gap theory.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I have to disagree, again.

 

First of all, the many forces exist apart from the formation of objects. The atoms (elements as we are calling them here) cause or contain these forces. Thus, the forces existed before Gen. 1:3. Thus, by our modern understanding of the universe, it existed prior to Gen. 1:3.

The Bible tells us that everything was in state of chaos, it was formless and out of order.  In addition the Bible tells us that there were no stars, sun or moon until day 4.  So the entire state of things was a mess until God began the process of ordering and organziing and filling everything out, putting everything where it belonged.

 

I fail to see what this has to do with the existence of the forces?

 

What forces specifically are you referrig to?

 

I return to my bread analogy.  If you looked at the assembled ingredients in the bowl, you would not call it "bread."   You would simply acknowledge that the ingredients for bread were there, but you would not intuitvely say that a loaf of bread was sitting in that bowl.

 

Well, if the Scripture stated something like: "the substances were formless and void," I could connect this analogy.

 

 

The analogy isn't tight, but it illustrates  what the text says.   The point of the analogy is to illustrate the absurdity of looking a chaotic, formless mess and call it a "universe" before God had even begun creating a universe.  I think we have no point of reference for anything that doesn't resemble our experience.  We seem to be working from the assumption that all of the forces of the universe were working just like we see them working today.

 

 

If you want to maintain that the chaos and nothingness/emptiness and pitch black darkness that is described in v. 2 constitutes a "universe" that is your call, but I consider that assertion to be absurd on its face, and it doesn't matter how many scientists you can dig up that would agree with you.

 

How many scientists I can dig up? What kind of response is that?

Look, if you want to take on the the scientific community and challenge them that their understanding of what is the "universe" is a bogus concept, that is your prerogative. I don't make the rules; I am just relaying them to the best of my ability.

 

What you call "raw ingredients," scientists call ions, isotopes, and molecules. And they do not constitute the universe; rather they are contained within the universe.

But the point is there is a huge conflict in the definition of what you are claiming the universe to be and that of what those who have studied the cosmos define it to be. And I have a very hard time believing the people running all these complex calculations to determine if the universe is curved or flat and all that other fun stuff would give the consideration of the universe beginning when objects formed the time of day.

 

What is it that I am claiming the universe to be that differs from what scientists claim the universe to be?  

 

And I would also add that you have NO way of determning how long the conditions of Gen. 1:2 lasted.  You cannot tell me with any degree of certainty that the conditions listed in v. 2 lasted for milions or billions of years.

 

Can you claim with any degree of certainty that it did not?

 

 

No, and that's my point.   You appear to be working from an assumption that it was a long indeterminite period of time, thus supporting an old earth, but it is still just an assumption on your part.   Your old earth view has no factual basis to stand on.  So you can't discredit YEC with a baseless assumption.  

 

Since YEC doesn't address that issue, I don't have to make any claims or assumptions about it at all. I would also argue that from what I understand of your pont of view, it really wouldn't matter as you believe the earth wasn't created in six literal days, either.   You, as far as I know also agree with the view that the "days" of Gen. 1 were long epoch periods of time or something to that effect.  Is that true?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So any assertion that v.2 supports an old earth is pure speculation and conjecture and nothing more.

 

I only said that the description in vs. 2 led me to question the validity of the YEC claim. I never said I used it to support another theory. So please stop putting words in my mouth.

[nebula]

Understanding the Bible literally means to understand it from the perspective of the author and what the author is trying communicate.

So why when reading Genesis 1 do people not consider the perspective of the author and what the author is trying to communicate?

Was God interested in teaching His people about the creation for creations' sake, or was He interested in teaching them about Himself?

In addition, the Creation account given is very similar to the stories of creation given by other cultures. Comparing what God revealed in Genesis to what the nations at the time said, Genesis 1 is a very eye-opening experience on who God is and His superiority over the other gods worshiped at the time.

Reading Genesis 1 to understand creation for creations' sake teaches you what about God? About Jesus?

Comparing Genesis 1 to the scientific data of modern times teaches you what about Jesus?

Are you searching the Scriptures to know the Creature or to know the Creator? (How are you searching for the Creator when you are searching for the Creature?)

 

We can't seem to decifer text and people reject the Bible as inaccurate becuase they didn't realize that the writer was not making a cosmological statement, but was simply describing what he saw.

So why is Genesis 1 treated as if cosmology was what God is interested in?

 

Genesis is a straightforward historical account of the earth's origin and it is a true and accurate account, as written.

But what is "historical accuracy" in the ancient mindset? Were they concerned with chronology with the same precision as us? That is,were they interested in recording facts objectively and chronologically, or did they regard history as an attempt to preserve significant truths in meaningful or memorable ways whether or not details are objective facts?

Did they work with linear logic or "block" logic?

Did they regard time as points on a straight line, or was time determined by content?

Every source I have read concerning the ancient Hebrew mindset (such as this one) proclaim that the Hebrew mindset records history for the sake of preserving significant truths in meaningful and memorable ways, not for the sake of recording facts objectively and chronologically. They did not think in linear logic nor recorded time as points on a straight line.

 

So why is it considered "historical accuracy" to interpret Genesis 1 as a recording of facts chronologically and on a time line?

 

 

It sounds to me like you are trying to fit modern expanded understandings into the descriptions given in the Bible.

But I am not.   I am simply pointing to the fact that you cannnot judge the Bible's phenomenological language by modern scientific terminology.  Both are correct from their respective points of view.

 

But then how can you justify making a scientific case out of Genesis 1 if you are divorcing it from science from the get-go?

[nebula]

Consider this:

 

How could there be a "deep" in vs. 2 without a landmass to contain it?

 

How high was their number system? (For instance, when they read the words "a thousand," were they thinking 100 x 10 like we do, or was that their expression for an uncountable number?)

 

Why were the sun and the moon called "the greater light" and "the lesser light" rather than the sun and the moon?

 

Why is there a pattern in Genesis 1 of dividing and then filling?

[nebula]

I have to disagree, again.

 

First of all, the many forces exist apart from the formation of objects. The atoms (elements as we are calling them here) cause or contain these forces. Thus, the forces existed before Gen. 1:3. Thus, by our modern understanding of the universe, it existed prior to Gen. 1:3.

The Bible tells us that everything was in state of chaos, it was formless and out of order.  In addition the Bible tells us that there were no stars, sun or moon until day 4.  So the entire state of things was a mess until God began the process of ordering and organziing and filling everything out, putting everything where it belonged.

I fail to see what this has to do with the existence of the forces?

What forces specifically are you referrig to?

What I mentioned in post 111 - electrical force, magnetic force, gravity, and nuclear forces.

[nebula]

I return to my bread analogy. If you looked at the assembled ingredients in the bowl, you would not call it "bread." You would simply acknowledge that the ingredients for bread were there, but you would not intuitvely say that a loaf of bread was sitting in that bowl.

Well, if the Scripture stated something like: "the substances were formless and void," I could connect this analogy.

The analogy isn't tight, but it illustrates what the text says. The point of the analogy is to illustrate the absurdity of looking a chaotic, formless mess and call it a "universe" before God had even begun creating a universe.

Shiloh, this horn-lock we are having over the definition of the universe started with my questioning how YEC Creationism can be regarded as a valid scientific theory. I still do not understand how you expect this view to be given scientific credence when it can't even talk the language of science?

What you keep calling "a chaotic, formless mass", scientists would describe as ions and isotopes and molecules.

In every response you have given, you have shown by your words time and time again that you are not interested in the scientific understanding, nor the scientific definitions, nor the scientific descriptions of these things - basically, you are not interested in the science.

So what is the goal of YEC, to usurp science, overthrow science, ignore science - all the while pushing for a scientific interpretation of Genesis 1? I don't get it.

And then you wonder why scientists give no credibility to YEC.

You should at least present a case that sounds like you have respect for science if you want to be considered a science.

I think we have no point of reference for anything that doesn't resemble our experience. We seem to be working from the assumption that all of the forces of the universe were working just like we see them working today.

Until someone produces substantial data that the forces of the universe changed, what valid reason is there to assume otherwise?