The Missing Gap in Genesis

[patrick jane]

Jeremiah used the term from day 1 in Genesis when the earth did not yet have features such as mountains, canyons, lakes etc...The earth at that point was formless and still empty / void. But over the next few days, God continues to form and fill that earth

yes, i believe the Bible says so.

Genesis 1:9-10 NIV - Genesis 1:9-10 KJV -

 

[Stuu]

I've not used 'microevolution' as a term. However I do believe God created organisms with the ability to rapidly adapt and survive to changing conditions.
Yes, mutations happen. And yes natural selection sometimes removes pre-existing information from a populations. It never create

Right. So you accept all the components of evolution by natural selection.

But you deny evolution by natural selection.

That's like me accepting Jesus as the only way to the grace of our LORD but denying it's true.



Which it isn't of course.

Stuart

 

[Desert Reign]

The Missing Gap in Genesis

Aint nothin' missing.

 

[Desert Reign]

In attempts to fit eons of time into scripture, some people go with the 'gap theory". This 'theory' *requires mental gymnastics that result in a rejection of what God clearly says. The 'theory' basically is that Genesis 1 *is not God's original creation...His original creation was ruined, and this was a re-do, or a makeover.

Here are a few of the arguments for the gap theory I have seen here in TOL, and reasons why Christians should reject those arguments.

I agree with many of your conclusions, however, your arguments seem to missing some details or just mistaken.

#1 False argument: God uses 2 different words in Genesis to describe creation;

'Bara' meaning CREATE *from nothing, or

'Asah' meaning to MAKE or mould from something that already exists. The word 'asah' is the more commonly used word in Genesis 1 indicating creation was really a makeover.

False because: In order to insert billions of years into Genesis, gap theorists create an artificial distinction between bara and asah. It is not difficult to notice these words are used interchangeably in scripture.*
For ex. V21 God created (bara) fish and birds.

I have looked up all the uses of BARA in the Old Testament and whilst it is not at all clear cut, the evidence tends to an artistic creation such as that of a craftsman or achitect. This is very much consistent with the Old Testament theme of wisdom. The object of the narrative is not to show how powerful God is but how wise he is. Whatever it does mean, creation from nothing is not one of them. Hence 'formed' or 'fashioned' would in my view be a better translation.

This translation brings out the love and care that God put into creation. There is no point in stating that God can create from nothing if he is God. Of course he can. We don't worship him for that any more than your dog worships you because you were born human and he was not.

#2 False argument: "was formless and void" (Hebrew- tohu wabohu) refers to something fallen in disrepair, or a state of chaos. The translation should read 'became formless and void'.*

False because: *Gap theorists should take a hint that they might be wrong in that no major translation of the Bible says that the earth 'became' formless.*

I agree. Although technically the word 'haita' means 'became', it is simply a Hebraism and is used in a narrative sense. In other words we might translate 'Now it so happened that the world was...'

Also, false because 'tohu wabohu' does not mean chaos or disrepair. The phrase simply means what it says in most translations. The earth was without form and empty. There were no inhabitants on earth. The earth had not yet been formed... there was no dry *land, no mountains etc.*

Well, it is both. Tohu vbohu is a phrase, not merely two separate words. As I said above, bara means to fashion or form, like an artist. What this is saying is that God took what had no meaning, no beauty, no purpose, no life and from it created all those things. Just like an artist fashions a sculpture from the clay.

#3 False argument: Pre-adamites lived in a previous creation accounting for "homonoid" fossils found in geological strata.*

False because: Gap theorists unwittingly erode, or even destroy the gospel message with *this belief. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:45 that Adam was the first man. If gap theorists are correct... then Paul and the gospel message is false.*

I agree that the argument is false but not for the reason you give. The argument is false for a much simpler reason: when you interpret the Biblical text (as with any other text) you cannot bring extraneous material into the interpretation. The text's meaning derives solely from the literary and cultural context in which it was written.

#4 False argument: The heavens existed further back from when the earth was formed. Supporting verse...2 Pet 3:5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago (Ekpali) by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water."

False because: Gap theorists are forcing a definition onto the word 'ekpalai' that is inconsistent with other scripture. The word is also used in 2 Peter 2:3 and 5 other times in the NT, and it's usually associated with human activity....never once referring to a time before Genesis 1.

I agree.

 

[aikido7]

There are gaps in Genesis because it is a profoundly metaphoric narrative. It does not show anything that we moderns would deem as "factually correct."

Being a sacred text, it cannot approach the absolute truth of creation using logic or rationality. It has to use myth and metaphor to articulate the truth.

 

[6days]

There are gaps in Genesis because it is a profoundly metaphoric narrative. It does not show anything that we moderns would deem as "factually correct."

Being a sacred text, it cannot approach the absolute truth of creation using logic or rationality. It has to use myth and metaphor to articulate the truth.

I thought this comment from an atheist a few days back was applicable for comments like yours..." Then the Biblical text is not a simple, clear, and meaningful message to be taken to the world at large, but instead is an obscure abstract treatise that can be appreciated only by those who are learned in the subtleties of ancient languages...."

 

[6days]

I agree with many of your conclusions, however, your arguments seem to missing some details or just mistaken.

I have looked up all the uses of BARA in the Old Testament and whilst it is not at all clear cut, the evidence tends to an artistic creation such as that of a craftsman or achitect. This is very much consistent with the Old Testament theme of wisdom. The object of the narrative is not to show how powerful God is but how wise he is. Whatever it does mean, creation from nothing is not one of them. Hence 'formed' or 'fashioned' would in my view be a better translation.

This translation brings out the love and care that God put into creation. There is no point in stating that God can create from nothing if he is God. Of course he can. We don't worship him for that any more than your dog worships you because you were born human and he was not.


I agree. Although technically the word 'haita' means 'became', it is simply a Hebraism and is used in a narrative sense. In other words we might translate 'Now it so happened that the world was...'

Well, it is both. Tohu vbohu is a phrase, not merely two separate words. As I said above, bara means to fashion or form, like an artist. What this is saying is that God took what had no meaning, no beauty, no purpose, no life and from it created all those things. Just like an artist fashions a scupture from the clay.

I agree that the argument is false but not for the reason you give. The argument is false for a much simpler reason: when you interpret the Biblical text (as with any other text) you cannot bring extraneous material into the interpretation. The text's meaning derives solely from the literary and cultural context in which it was written.

I agree.

Appreciate your comments... Thanks

 

[Base12]

Jeremiah used the term from day 1 in Genesis when the earth did not yet have features such as mountains, canyons, lakes etc...The earth at that point was formless and still empty / void. But over the next few days, God continues to form and fill that earth

Hypothetical situation...

Let's say I'm God creating the Earth for the first time.

As God, I exist outside Time and Space.

The very instance I create the Earth, it's destroyed.

Kind of like an experimenter turning on the power to his creation and it goes 'poof' with lots of smoke and blown electronics.

What happened? Why did the Earth suddenly become 'void' as soon as I created it?

Because Time played itself out in that very moment.

All possibilities occurred in a twinkling of an eye.

So what caused the Earth to become destroyed?

I submit to you that we are finding the answer to that in slow motion.

We will one day discover that Mankind and Satan are to blame.

In other words, Mankind finally found a way to enable Satan to go back in time to try and change things in his favor.

Back to the Garden of Eden. That's how he got there. Time Travel.

As soon as God created Earth, there was Satan. Just like that.

He came from the future, and destroyed it in the process.

Believe it or not, I have the verses to back all of this up.

Someday in another thread I'll present my argument more thoroughly.

Time used to go much faster a long time ago. It has slowed down considerably.

That's where 6 days fit in.

Too much to discuss right now, and I don't want to derail your fun thread.

 

[StanJ]

There are gaps in Genesis because it is a profoundly metaphoric narrative. It does not show anything that we moderns would deem as "factually correct."

Being a sacred text, it cannot approach the absolute truth of creation using logic or rationality. It has to use myth and metaphor to articulate the truth.

You keep asserting this, but NEVER support your assertions. Historical accounts are NOT metaphorical in nature, they are LITERAL.

 

[StanJ]

Hypothetical situation...

The Bible is NOT a hypothetical account, it is factual.

 

[Desert Reign]

Hypothetical situation...

Why not deal with actualities? The text is quite clear already. All you are doing is suggesting answers to questions that haven't been asked.

Let's say I'm God

I'd rather not go down that route if it's all the same with you.

As God, I exist outside Time and Space.

You just contradicted yourself right there. I don't think God contradicts himself - you are obviously making a poor job of being him. But, yes, it was fun. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Interplanner]

Why not deal with actualities? The text is quite clear already. All you are doing is suggesting answers to questions that haven't been asked.



I'd rather not go down that route if it's all the same with you.



You just contradicted yourself right there. I don't think God contradicts himself - you are obviously making a poor job of being him. But, yes, it was fun. Thanks for sharing.

That's right. What we know of God before the foundations of the world is that there were things going that that mattered to our world. Not that those were the only things going on in His doings, but they were some things that mattered to our world.

It is like a family before having children, but doing things in preparation for those children.

 

[Interplanner]

You keep asserting this, but NEVER support your assertions. Historical accounts are NOT metaphorical in nature, they are LITERAL.

Good answer, Stan J.
It only takes a few lines before there are at least some 'ordinary' facts (things that we can know are true apart from supernatural activities going on). The shocking thing to the modern world is that both mesh together. The modern world has elitists in education (like the Huxley who pushed Darwin) who have been insisting that the world is a closed system of natural causes and effects. They have a fit whenever they encounter something that conflicts with that.

One artifact that would conflict with that would be a sacred text--not because it included supernatural events--but because it included ordinarily testable items inextricably interwoven with those events.

The Bible never ends up with 'Fellini' situations: people playing tennis without a ball with onlookers ooohing and aaahhhing as though it was a normal game.

 

[aikido7]

I thought this comment from an atheist a few days back was applicable for comments like yours..." Then the Biblical text is not a simple, clear, and meaningful message to be taken to the world at large, but instead is an obscure abstract treatise that can be appreciated only by those who are learned in the subtleties of ancient languages...."

I couldn't disagree with this atheist more. Like fundamentalists, atheists insist on taking the sacred language of faith literally. It's just that the fundamentalist swallows it whole and the atheist calls it nonsense.

But both sides are so mixed up in "factually correct" logic and rationality that they miss the absolute truth myth always conveys.

My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.

 

[aikido7]

You keep asserting this, but NEVER support your assertions. Historical accounts are NOT metaphorical in nature, they are LITERAL.

Put on your critical thinking cap and give me your legitimate standard for what "supports" my thinking and beliefs and what does not.

All I have is the Bible, son. And barring the discovery of a new text, that is all we can go back to fort "support."

Haven't you ever noticed the claims and counterclaims of posters on TOL and how they all go back to the Bible to support their thoughts and beliefs?

 

[Interplanner]

I agree with many of your conclusions, however, your arguments seem to missing some details or just mistaken.

I have looked up all the uses of BARA in the Old Testament and whilst it is not at all clear cut, the evidence tends to an artistic creation such as that of a craftsman or achitect. This is very much consistent with the Old Testament theme of wisdom. The object of the narrative is not to show how powerful God is but how wise he is. Whatever it does mean, creation from nothing is not one of them. Hence 'formed' or 'fashioned' would in my view be a better translation.

This translation brings out the love and care that God put into creation. There is no point in stating that God can create from nothing if he is God. Of course he can. We don't worship him for that any more than your dog worships you because you were born human and he was not.


I agree. Although technically the word 'haita' means 'became', it is simply a Hebraism and is used in a narrative sense. In other words we might translate 'Now it so happened that the world was...'

Well, it is both. Tohu vbohu is a phrase, not merely two separate words. As I said above, bara means to fashion or form, like an artist. What this is saying is that God took what had no meaning, no beauty, no purpose, no life and from it created all those things. Just like an artist fashions a sculpture from the clay.

I agree that the argument is false but not for the reason you give. The argument is false for a much simpler reason: when you interpret the Biblical text (as with any other text) you cannot bring extraneous material into the interpretation. The text's meaning derives solely from the literary and cultural context in which it was written.

I agree.

Since when is the rebellion of angels and their confinement in blackest darkness 'other human activity'?

re 'haita'
Most of those section title examples in my list of basic cosmology have the literary formula:
section title
pre-existing conditions or setting
new action.
'haita' is how the setting is spelled out

6days is clueless about 'formless and void' In the account, it is about much larger structures than he's saying. It is about the waters not being vertically or horizontally separated, about there not being a sky (open air under suspended water), about land not being separated, and the unfilled part is about none of those things not teeming with life.
Further, there is only Jer 4:23 to go on, and it is a complex end-point to a complex story by the time we find it.

re the 1st Adam
There is not a concern that hominids are human. The gap between them and sapiens is way to great on capabilities, etc., for Dr. Ross. And in terms of using the Bible, the sense of 1st Adam in Romans is not used in a way to settle such questions about previous life forms. In a way, it therefore underscores what Ross is saying; the gap is way too great.

 

[Base12]

The Bible is NOT a hypothetical account, it is factual.

No kidding Dr. Obvious.

Do you have anything intelligent to say about my post?

Are you incapable of understanding time travel in the Bible?

Good grief some of you here are so busy trying to sound smart, you do the opposite.

 

[Base12]

:sigh:

Why not deal with actualities? The text is quite clear already. All you are doing is suggesting answers to questions that haven't been asked.



I'd rather not go down that route if it's all the same with you.



You just contradicted yourself right there. I don't think God contradicts himself - you are obviously making a poor job of being him. But, yes, it was fun. Thanks for sharing.

Another example of a poster that has no idea what the title of this website means.

Why don't you guys come down off of your high horses and actually say something that isn't smug and smirky for once?

There is Time Travel in the Bible.

It is FACT.

Man I swear the attitudes of most of you here is utter garbage.

Welcome to the Idiocracy.

:sigh:

 

[Base12]

So while the posters here are busy being jaded and ill mannered, I'll post a little about Time Travel for those with open eyes...

2 Kings 20:11
"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz"

Isaiah Time Traveled backwards in time.

Amazing.

Satan will do the same...

:Christine

 

[patrick jane]

So while the posters here are busy being jaded and ill mannered, I'll post a little about Time Travel for those with open eyes...

2 Kings 20:11
"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz"

Isaiah Time Traveled backwards in time.

Amazing.

Satan will do the same...

:Christine

what about the boy who was sent out for figs and fell asleep, he awakened and went back to the village and decades had passed. you heard that one ?