Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shiloh357

Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory

Recommended Posts

The article demonstrates that the Gap Theory, far from being an actual "theory,"  has the intellctual substance of "Litte Red Riding Hood, or The Three Little Pigs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you list the Presuppositions of EVERY SINGLE POINT he/she MAKES.  Once you list those Presuppositions.....PLEASE VALIDATE EACH.

That would be the author's job, not mine. 

 

 

If you disagree with the substance of article, you are free show why the author is wrong.

 

 

Sorry, as Spock indicated it was an inside joke.   I am not a proponent of the Gap Theory so I would not try and show the article is wrong.  But one thing that does strike me is his view of "formless and void " is very different than yours.  he seems to think it was a bit more than just some random elements waiting to be formed into a planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article: "The work done over the first six days of creation are summed up with “created,” bara’, and “made,” ‘asah. These two verses univocally communicate that “create” and “make” are virtual synonyms used for God’s supernatural creative activity on the first six days of creation (for other examples, see Gen 2:4; Isa 41:20; 43:7; 45:7; see also Fields, pp. 65–74). Consequently, the biblical evidence overwhelmingly establishes that “create,” bara’, and “make,” ‘asah, are used as synonyms in creation contexts, and, therefore, the gap theory is indefensible in contending for an absolute semantic dichotomy between these two verbs."

Spock: sorry, but this didn't move me like it moved you. I still see a difference between the two verbs and I do not believe they are used interchangeably and synonymously as this author supposes. I'm not impressed with the basis for that support. This has been discussed many times and I have no desire to debate this point anymore.

Translation: "I don't want to be confused by facts, truth or reality, so I am not going to talk about this."

Whatever.....I'm weary of this science forum, I need a time away, and I certainly don't like to be redundant. I don't know what you do for a living, but my job, 50-55 hour work week is exhausting enough, I don't need my time here to add onto that. And like I previously said, I'm not here to win an argument, but rather to share my perspective, viewpoints, and research. It's not that important to me what you or anybody else here believes in these gray matters. I do not consider them MAJOR points of contention. I know you do, so fine, do what you feel you have to do.

Spock now at rest from science forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article demonstrates that the Gap Theory, far from being an actual "theory,"  has the intellctual substance of "Litte Red Riding Hood, or The Three Little Pigs."

Hey, I happen to find both of these to be very stimulating and pleasing.

Grrrrrrrrrrr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you list the Presuppositions of EVERY SINGLE POINT he/she MAKES.  Once you list those Presuppositions.....PLEASE VALIDATE EACH.

Lol.

Point made. (Inside joke)

 

 

The funniest part is it's Non-Sequitur.

 

Actually, it's my EXACT response to you in TOTO (copy and pasted here) regarding "just a link" you posted on another thread with many presuppositions.

 

 

"EVERY SINGLE POINT he/she MAKES"  :huh:

 

Dr. Robert V. McGabe is a professor of Old Testament Studies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Can you list the Presuppositions of EVERY SINGLE POINT he/she MAKES.  Once you list those Presuppositions.....PLEASE VALIDATE EACH.

Lol.

Point made. (Inside joke)

 

 

The funniest part is it's Non-Sequitur.

 

Actually, it's my EXACT response to you in TOTO (copy and pasted here) regarding "just a link" you posted on another thread with many presuppositions.

 

 

"EVERY SINGLE POINT he/she MAKES"  :huh:

 

Dr. Robert V. McGabe is a professor of Old Testament Studies. 

 

 

 

Yes, yes it is.  If it was fair to ask of Spock, seemed fair to ask of shiloh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is wrong with regards to its origin.

"Some scholars argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because THEY ASSUME this interpretation came about only recently, after scientists determined the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE EARTH "BECAME" WASTE AND VOID HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR CLOSE TO 2,000 YEARS, as pointed out by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2

The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century.

The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, rendered Genesis 1:2 with an Aramaic expression Dr. Custance translates as "and the earth was laid waste" (1988, p. 15). The original language evidently led them to understand that something had occurred which had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2 , "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?' ( De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, part 1, chapter 6).

Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology embraced an ancient origin for the earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless.

Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by Dr. Custance in his book. He states: "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (p. 7)."

"Without Form and Void"
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html#TableofContent

Arthur C. Custance: An expert on the most ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek versions of the bible, he was a Canadian anthropologist, scientist and author specializing on science and Christianity.

Edited by euroclydon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I agree with Spock. This doesn't really prove anything (except maybe that this guy knows his waw conjunctives or whatever; I am impressed by that).  If one was to read Genesis as an historical narrative and not hyper-literal (taken at face value, which I don't believe was necessarily intended by the author/Author), this (clearly biased) article really doesn't add anything.

 

 

Although...

Second, to disconnect the physical darkness of 1:2 from God “because darkness came to symbolize evil and sin is to confuse the symbol with the thing symbolized. It is like saying yeast is evil because it came to represent spiritual evil. The fact that a physical reality is used to represent something spiritual does not mean that every time this physical reality is mentioned, it must be representing that spiritual entity. Those who claim that darkness in Genesis 1:2 is evil have confused the spiritual symbol as used elsewhere with the physical reality in this passage” (Rooker, “Genesis 1:1–3 [part 2],” p. 422).

This could be used to defend my earlier suggestion that physical death is not evil  and, while it is still a consequence of sin, was part of the natural world before the fall.

And also:

My point was that initially I agree with you that the Bible was meant to be understood wihthout knowing any Hebrew or any Greek.

Thread is now irrelevant. ;)

 

Spock now at rest from science forum

That is highly illogical.  :mellow:  (<--spockface)
 
I completely understand your frustration. Don't say away too long, though.  I enjoyed your perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love you Sheniy! (((((Big hug )))))

Thanks euroclydon for that article. Tell Shiloh this is what I believe and if he wants to debate wah, let him debate Arthur Custance. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The purpose of this paper has been to examine and evaluate the gap theory and its supporting arguments. None of the supporting arguments for the gap theory can be consistently defended in Scripture. In fact, the supporting arguments are both exegetically and theologically myopic. Furthermore, its ruin and restored old earth premise is the result of an unwarranted geological concession. A problem for this flawed premise is that it requires an old earth with a history of death and destruction; and this history of death took place millions of years before the fall of Adam and the Edenic Curse. This is biblically inconsistent with God’s pronouncement of perfection in Genesis 1:31: “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” In the final analysis, the gap theory, according to Douglas Kelly, “is not a fair and straightforward reading of Scripture, nor does it successfully reconcile the biblical picture of origins with ‘scientific’ naturalism. The ‘gap’ theory should serve as a model of what Christians should not do in their legitimate desire to speak Biblical truth into a world held in the tight grip of humanistic premises” (Kelly, p. 95).

AdamEveonmountainofboneseverythingisgood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×