Gap Theory

[Mallon]

I notice oldwiseguy has been tooting his horn lately with regards to his belief in what he sees as the infallible Gap Theory. I only have a basic familiarity with what the the theory has to say, and I'm interested in exploring it a little here. Maybe if oldwiseguy is up to it, he can defend it in this thread.

Myself, I see Gap Theory as a bit of a cop-out. It seems to have arisen out of the necessity to account for the old age of the earth, as geology has found it. And yet, GT subscribers continue to hold to a literal Creation account in Genesis, rejecting the theory of evolution out of hand. This sort of picking-and-chosing of only those scientific principles that don't contradict the Bible seems a might bit dishonest to me. What do others think?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I notice oldwiseguy has been tooting his horn lately with regards to his belief in what he sees as the infallible Gap Theory. I only have a basic familiarity with what the the theory has to say, and I'm interested in exploring it a little here. Maybe if oldwiseguy is up to it, he can defend it in this thread.

Myself, I see Gap Theory as a bit of a cop-out. It seems to have arisen out of the necessity to account for the old age of the earth, as geology has found it. And yet, GT subscribers continue to hold to a literal Creation account in Genesis, rejecting the theory of evolution out of hand. This sort of picking-and-chosing of only those scientific principles that don't contradict the Bible seems a might bit dishonest to me. What do others think?

First, don't mischaracterize my position. I believe in my own modified version of Gap theory. Read my past comments and you'll see this. I also don't know the details of the original theory, just that it confirms an old age earth that was destroyed prior to GenOne, and that is the foundational part that is obvious to me.

Regards picking and choosing, any seeking knowledge will use all resources, including science, to flesh out a theory. That is what research is about. Do you think that probation is closed on new thoughts?

You also seem to be insisting that if one accepts an old age earth that one must also accept TE's homegrown theory of evolution, or you're being dishonest. Who made that rule?

 

[gluadys]

First, don't mischaracterize my position. I believe in my own modified version of Gap theory. Read my past comments and you'll see this. I also don't know the details of the original theory, just that it confirms an old age earth that was destroyed prior to GenOne, and that is the foundational part that is obvious to me.

I am not that conversant with gap theology either, but from what I do know, you are right in identifying the foundational part as the assertion that the earth was destroyed prior to Gen. 1.

This is why I cannot accept gap. I find the scriptural support for this concept too thin. It all depends on interpreting scriptures consonant with the theology when there are, in every case, equally good alternative interpretations. And, of course, there is no scientific basis for a destruction of the earth consistent with gap theology at any time in its 4.5 billion year history. The closest one might come is the period of heavy meteroic bombardment which occurred between 4.0 and 4.5 billion years ago.

You also seem to be insisting that if one accepts an old age earth that one must also accept TE's homegrown theory of evolution, or you're being dishonest. Who made that rule?

Since you ask that your position not be misrepresented, may I ask for the same courtesy in return. TE's do not have their own homegrown theory of evolution. The theory of evolution they subscribe to is a well-tested, well-supported scientific theory.

Nor is it true that accepting an old age for the earth requires accepting a TE position. The Old Earth Creationist position accepts the geological and astronomical evidence that the earth is old without accepting the theory of evolution. And without subscribing to gap theology either.

 

[Willtor]

First, don't mischaracterize my position. I believe in my own modified version of Gap theory. Read my past comments and you'll see this. I also don't know the details of the original theory, just that it confirms an old age earth that was destroyed prior to GenOne, and that is the foundational part that is obvious to me.

Regards picking and choosing, any seeking knowledge will use all resources, including science, to flesh out a theory. That is what research is about. Do you think that probation is closed on new thoughts?

You also seem to be insisting that if one accepts an old age earth that one must also accept TE's homegrown theory of evolution, or you're being dishonest. Who made that rule?

If you're going to complain about people mischaracterizing your position (maybe rightly), you're going to have to work hard not to mischaracterize theirs. There is nothing "homegrown" about the typical TE's view of evolution. If you read any of the scientific literature for evolution (whether published by a Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or anything else), you are reading something of a TE's view of evolution.

Enough of that, though.

I, for one, have gotten the idea that you don't accept a typical gap theory view. Why don't you walk us through your view, bit by bit. You don't have to go into too much detail, but at least give us an idea and be prepared to present reasons for any particular point.

 

[Mallon]

First, don't mischaracterize my position. I believe in my own modified version of Gap theory.

I appologize if I have misrepresented you. I'm still new here and and am still getting a feeling for everyone's beliefs. I started this thread so we could get a better understanding of your (and others') position on Gap Theory.

Regards picking and choosing, any seeking knowledge will use all resources, including science, to flesh out a theory.

So what is your reason for rejecting evolution? Is it a scientific one? Or is it simply faith-based because you believe evolution contradicts the Bible? If the latter, then why do you feel the need to incorporate any science -- including geology -- into your interpretation of the Bible?

You also seem to be insisting that if one accepts an old age earth that one must also accept TE's homegrown theory of evolution

Not at all. I'm simply wondering why you are apt to accept some science, but not other science... seemingly at your own convenience. You were touting Gap Theory in some other threads here, and even claimed that TEists "feared" it. I don't. So let's have at it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I won't requote and answer individual questions, much too tedious, so I'll simply post answers in a general quick reply.

Mallon,

I accept 99 per cent of science. But evolution is the 1 per cent that I can't get my head around. There are claims about it, but no convincing evidence. Also I cannot see God using evolution. It just makes no sense to me.

Willtor,

The 'homegrown' part simply means that an atheistic, godless, unproven scientific idea has been morphed into a godly one and incorporated into a theology.

Glaudys,

Others opposing my ideas keep tying evolution and OAE together and criticising me for accepting one but not the other. Read them for yourself.

I like the heavy meteor bombardment idea, though I know little about it. It sort of fits into my theory, which I will briefly outline (again) here:

In the beginnng God created the heavens and the earth. He formed it, as a potter would form a valuable piece of pottery. When it was complete, with land, sea, atmosphere, he presented it to Lucifer and his angels, to be a material estate and habitation for them.

Led by Lucifer they sought equality with God in ruling not only their material universe and the spirit realm of the third heaven as well.

God's response was to angrily cast them back to earth, destroying (the surface) of it, and upsetting all of the natural balances and destroying all life forms upon it. The impact of the casting down caused the earth to tilt on its axis, and move slightly out of orbit. The crust was cracked leading to the upheaval of mountains, formation of volcanoes, massive and violent flooding.

The energy released onto and into the earth surged within the earth for perhaps millions of years, causing periodic flooding and upheaval.

During this long period God continued to punish Lucifer (now Satan) and the demons by creating the horrible life forms, now found in the fossil record, for them to inhabit. Prior to the rebellion they possessed beautiful bodies made especially for them to enjoy the sensuous nature of all that was a perfect earth. Periodic floods and upheaval destroyed these life forms, burying them under the sediments of huge floods and earthquakes.

After perhaps millions of years of this turmoil God decided to restore what had been lost. As he would not simply replace Satan and the demons with yet more spirit beings he fashioned a new creature to fulfill the plan of restitution.

The plan is set in motion in Genesis One.

Just a side note about Noah's flood. This may have been a 'natural' event caused by a vestige of those surging forces within the earth. God knew when it would happen and could have raised up Noah for his predetermined task. The real supernatural element of the story may be that God 'quieted' the earth so that no more such floods would occur, much like Jesus 'calmed' the storm over the Sea of Galilee.

 

[Mallon]

The 'homegrown' part simply means that an atheistic, godless, unproven scientific idea has been morphed into a godly one and incorporated into a theology.

What makes evolution any more atheistic or godless than the other "99 per cent" of science that you subscribe to?

The impact of the casting down caused the earth to tilt on its axis, and move slightly out of orbit. The crust was cracked leading to the upheaval of mountains, formation of volcanoes, massive and violent flooding.

Do you believe any of these events left behind evidence for us to find? Do you believe science can test these events (such as the tilting of the Earth on its axis)? Or would any attempt to reject the scenario you present fall within the 1% of science that you refuse to accept?

 

[gluadys]

I accept 99 per cent of science. But evolution is the 1 per cent that I can't get my head around. There are claims about it, but no convincing evidence. Also I cannot see God using evolution. It just makes no sense to me.

Probably the evolution that does not make sense to you is not the scientific theory of evolution, but a strawman version of it that mischaracterizes what evolution is.

I have known of more than one preacher who asks unbelievers to describe the God they don't believe in. And when they have done so, answers truthfully: "I don't believe in that God either. Let me tell you about the God I do believe in."

Just as unbelievers often have warped notions of God, many people who can't make sense of evolution have a warped notion of evolution---not surprising when so much misinformation about evolution is so readily available.

The 'homegrown' part simply means that an atheistic, godless, unproven scientific idea has been morphed into a godly one and incorporated into a theology.

The scientific theory of evolution is no more godless than any other scientific theory. The assumption that evolution is godless is part of the mischaracterization of the theory I mentioned above.

Others opposing my ideas keep tying evolution and OAE together and criticising me for accepting one but not the other. Read them for yourself.

Well, I don't take responsibility for other people's ignorance. You know that an old earth does not need to be tied to evolution, even when it does not acknowledge gap theology either. So you can tell them they are wrong.

I like the heavy meteor bombardment idea, though I know little about it. It sort of fits into my theory, which I will briefly outline (again) here:

You need to know more about it before you try fitting it into your theory. Here's a place to start.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=9270

I think there are two aspects of the bombardment that you are not taking into consideration. First is how long ago it happened: 3.8 to 4 billion years ago.

I know our brains are not really programmed to deal with large numbers. We can scarcely conceptualize a millennium. Most people don't begin to comprehend that Napolean, Jesus and Moses were not contemporaries until into their adolescence, and even then have a hard time grasping how far apart in history they were.

Even you speak of millions of years as a long time, and it certainly is compared to thousands. But how many millions did you have in mind? 5, 50 maybe as many as 500? Much too short a time frame. We are looking at 2 centuries of meteorite bombardment which occurred 3800 to 4000 million years ago. So long ago that there is no place on earth where the ancient crust is still found intact.

Second is that any life that existed at that time was bacterial or even pre-bacterial, if any existed at all.

I won't put words into your mouth, but most scenarios of gap theology imply the existence of complex life before the destruction. Maybe you don't agree with that.

In the beginnng God created the heavens and the earth. He formed it, as a potter would form a valuable piece of pottery. When it was complete, with land, sea, atmosphere, he presented it to Lucifer and his angels, to be a material estate and habitation for them.

Well, here is where I first stumble. Where on earth does this idea come from? Why would angels even need a material estate and habitation? Where is it ever stated that the earth was given for this purpose to Lucifer?

Led by Lucifer they sought equality with God in ruling not only their material universe and the spirit realm of the third heaven as well.

This sounds more like John Milton than the bible.

God's response was to angrily cast them back to earth, destroying (the surface) of it, and upsetting all of the natural balances and destroying all life forms upon it. The impact of the casting down caused the earth to tilt on its axis, and move slightly out of orbit. The crust was cracked leading to the upheaval of mountains, formation of volcanoes, massive and violent flooding.

Again, where do these ideas come from? I know of a scriptural reference to Satan being cast down to earth, but that is a reference to the last days and does not speak of any such physical consequences as destroying all life forms, tilting the earth's axis, cracking the crust, rapid mountain formation, etc.

Science certainly knows nothing of these events. So to me it comes across as somebody's (not necessarily you) overactive imagination.

The energy released onto and into the earth surged within the earth for perhaps millions of years, causing periodic flooding and upheaval.

How many millions of years? See above.

Earth has had a dynamic geological history, so in general this is a reasonable description as long as it keeps to known geological events.

During this long period God continued to punish Lucifer (now Satan)

I know that it is a common Christian belief that Satan was once Lucifer. However, I believe this is misinterpretation of scripture. So I would ask you to substantiate that Lucifer became Satan. In fact, I would ask you to substantiate that Lucifer was an angel.

and the demons by creating the horrible life forms, now found in the fossil record,

Let me get this straight. If I understand you correctly, extinct species found in the fossil record, were the physical bodies of demons. Have I got that correct?

Two questions. What about species that have become extinct since humanity has been around. Were mammoths the physical bodies of demons? The dodo? The carrier pigeon? Or was this true only of ancient species like trilobites, foraminifera and pterodactyls?

Second, what on earth do you mean by "horrible" life forms? What makes a trilobite any more horrible than its modern cousin, the crab? Why would one call a pterodactyl any more horrible than an American eagle?

In fact, I am astounded that any life form, past or present, could be called "horrible". To me they are all creations of God and therefore "good".

Periodic floods and upheaval destroyed these life forms, burying them under the sediments of huge floods and earthquakes.

Many fossils are found in situations that indicate a geologically minor event: a local flash flood or mudslide rather than a huge flood. This is not to say that big catastrophic events never happen. They do. But fossils are also formed when big catastrophic events are not happening.

After perhaps millions of years of this turmoil God decided to restore what had been lost. As he would not simply replace Satan and the demons with yet more spirit beings he fashioned a new creature to fulfill the plan of restitution.

Again, what is the source of the idea? Where did God reveal his mind on this?

I take it from this scenario, that unlike many gap theologians who place the destruction of the earth shortly before the re-creation about 6,000 years ago, you envision a long period of time between the destruction and the restoration. In the middle period, if I have it right, the earth was inhabited by demons who resided in the "horrible" bodies of the creatures whose remains we find in the fossil record.

One question only at this point. How does the evolution of plants fit into this scenario? (I find many people unaquainted with evolution forget that it applies to plants as well as animals, and also to fungi, and all the unicellular forms of life, and even viruses. Are/were all of these in the intermediate period also the habitation of demons? Are/were all these forms of life "horrible"?

The plan is set in motion in Genesis One.

Just a side note about Noah's flood. This may have been a 'natural' event caused by a vestige of those surging forces within the earth. God knew when it would happen and could have raised up Noah for his predetermined task. The real supernatural element of the story may be that God 'quieted' the earth so that no more such floods would occur, much like Jesus 'calmed' the storm over the Sea of Galilee.

This has always been another reason I could not buy into gap theology. It is one thing to claim the near-universal destruction of the flood when the evidence contradicts it, but to have another universal destruction as well is just too much. At least that is certainly true of those gappers who place the destruction well after the appearance of complex life and not long before the restoration.

Both of these destructions should leave clear evidence in the geologic record. Yet there is no such evidence for even one of them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Glaudys,

I think you protest too much, but I'm not surprised by your response. I can add much more detail to my theory, if I thought there was any real curiosity about it. But not being a physicist I cannot add the math.

I perceive that you and others are not terribly interested in the perfection of God, but rather identify with imperfection. I am more of a perfectionist and am troubled by such things as: a 365 1/4 day year, when perfection would dictate a 360 day year to be in harmony with a 360 degree circular orbit around the sun. A 23.5 degree tilt in earth's axis bothers me when an axis closer to perpendicular to the sun would yield much better climatic conditions. I envision God's original earth without earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, ice caps, and other forms of destruction, etc. etc. etc.

You folks seem to accept this destruction as normal and embrace it. And even though God is responsible for this destruction I don't think he likes it, and he intends to correct it.

Regarding evidence: Any investigator will use any piece of evidence to construct a total picture of an event. That includes circumstantial evidence, which can often reveal more than physical evidence. Forensic science is used in all types of investigations, but no one would present a case based on that alone. You scientists do just that regarding the knowledge of God.

To relegate God's 'truth' to one corner of the universe and scientific 'facts' to another is seriously limiting your knowledge of God and his purpose.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What makes evolution any more atheistic or godless than the other "99 per cent" of science that you subscribe to?

Do you believe any of these events left behind evidence for us to find? Do you believe science can test these events (such as the tilting of the Earth on its axis)? Or would any attempt to reject the scenario you present fall within the 1% of science that you refuse to accept?

Do you think that your rhetorical criticism of something that you are totally ignorant of is warranted?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I am more of a perfectionist and am troubled by such things as: a 365 1/4 day year, when perfection would dictate a 360 day year to be in harmony with a 360 degree circular orbit around the sun. A 23.5 degree tilt in earth's axis bothers me when an axis closer to perpendicular to the sun would yield much better climatic conditions. I envision God's original earth without earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, ice caps, and other forms of destruction, etc. etc. etc.

And even though God is responsible for this destruction I don't think he likes it, and he intends to correct it.

.

Hmmm... So your entire argument is "I don't like this thus God does not like this."? That is it? Why would you feel that since you do not like some things that God must not like them either? Why is your opinion of what is perfect any better then mine or anyone elses?

 

[gluadys]

Glaudys,

I think you protest too much, but I'm not surprised by your response. I can add much more detail to my theory, if I thought there was any real curiosity about it. But not being a physicist I cannot add the math.

Not being a physicist I couldn't follow the math if you did post it. But before you add any more detail I would like to understand what you have already posted. I asked many questions that don't require math to answer. And its not all about science either. What is the scriptural basis for this theology? I don't see it.

I perceive that you and others are not terribly interested in the perfection of God, but rather identify with imperfection. I am more of a perfectionist and am troubled by such things as: a 365 1/4 day year, when perfection would dictate a 360 day year to be in harmony with a 360 degree circular orbit around the sun.

But why do you identify the number 360 with perfection in the first place? What is imperfect about the number 365 1/4? What is imperfect about an elliptical rather than a circular orbit?

I would not say I am uninterested in the perfection of God. I just don't understand your rationale for saying a perfect year would be 360 days rather than any other number. Why not 393 days? or 287.96 days?

Is your modified gap theology based on numerology?

A 23.5 degree tilt in earth's axis bothers me when an axis closer to perpendicular to the sun would yield much better climatic conditions.

Again, why do you associate a perpendicular axis with better climatic conditions?

I envision God's original earth without earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, ice caps, and other forms of destruction, etc. etc. etc.

Vision does not replace fact, though. There does not appear to be any time since its inception when these events did not take place on earth. A vision or theology which denies fact seems very impractical to me.

You folks seem to accept this destruction as normal and embrace it. And even though God is responsible for this destruction I don't think he likes it, and he intends to correct it.

Natural forces are normal, since they are God-ordained. I think the destruction God wants to correct is that inflicted by humans, such as the current rapid climate change.

Regarding evidence: Any investigator will use any piece of evidence to construct a total picture of an event. That includes circumstantial evidence, which can often reveal more than physical evidence. Forensic science is used in all types of investigations, but no one would present a case based on that alone. You scientists do just that regarding the knowledge of God.

To relegate God's 'truth' to one corner of the universe and scientific 'facts' to another is seriously limiting your knowledge of God and his purpose.

Actually, what I am really interested in is the scriptural basis of what you have proposed. And I do not separate God's truth from scientific facts. The very reason for taking science seriously is that all truth, including scientific truth, is God's truth. So to me, any suggestion that God's truth does not include scientific truth is suspect. We cannot understand God's truth if we declare a significant part of it imaginary.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hmmm... So your entire argument is "I don't like this thus God does not like this."? That is it? Why would you feel that since you do not like some things that God must not like them either? Why is your opinion of what is perfect any better then mine or anyone elses?

Why are you arguing with something that you have never considered until a few minutes ago?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

(Glaudys.) Not being a physicist I couldn't follow the math if you did post it. But before you add any more detail I would like to understand what you have already posted. I asked many questions that don't require math to answer. And its not all about science either. What is the scriptural basis for this theology? I don't see it

You have to build the history of past events using any resource that is helpful, much like paleontologists build entire organisms using a tiny fragment of bone.

But why do you identify the number 360 with perfection in the first place? What is imperfect about the number 365 1/4? What is imperfect about an elliptical rather than a circular orbit?

360 revolutions around the sun makes it perfect. No more leap years. All months have 30 days. Have I mentioned that I think the moon is also out of its proper orbit?

I would not say I am uninterested in the perfection of God. I just don't understand your rationale for saying a perfect year would be 360 days rather than any other number. Why not 393 days? or 287.96 days?

Is your modified gap theology based on numerolog

There is order and symmetry in mathematics. This is reflected throughout the creation. The solar system is a timepiece on a grand scale, but it needs some adjusting due to damage done to it. Anyone involved with this science has to deal with the astronomical clock being goofy.

My theory is based upon God creating a perfect earth for a perfect Lucifer. When Lucifer sinned he became imperfect and was cast violently back to the earth which was then rendered imperfect as well. It will remain so until it is restored to its original pristine condition.

Again, why do you associate a perpendicular axis with better climatic conditions?

A perpendicular axis would greatly expand the tropical, and sub tropical climate zone. Much nicer.

Vision does not replace fact, though. There does not appear to be any time since its inception when these events did not take place on earth. A vision or theology which denies fact seems very impractical to me.

If all you've ever seen is a broken earth it may be hard to envision a whole one.

Natural forces are normal, since they are God-ordained. I think the destruction God wants to correct is that inflicted by humans, such as the current rapid climate change.

Natural maybe, but only normal because that is all we've ever experienced. Just lower the Rocky mountains a bit and watch a wondrous climate change that would bring vast areas of desert into productivity.

Actually, what I am really interested in is the scriptural basis of what you have proposed. And I do not separate God's truth from scientific facts. The very reason for taking science seriously is that all truth, including scientific truth, is God's truth. So to me, any suggestion that God's truth does not include scientific truth is suspect. We cannot understand God's truth if we declare a significant part of it imaginary.

I have no problem with that. I see a broken earth that is still in great turmoil. That being the case I believe that at one time the earth wasn't broken. I believe the earth was created for Lucifer. The entire bible is revealing this on just about every page, if one has the eyes to see it. Everything is about Lucifer.

I appreciate your curiosity.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Why are you arguing with something that you have never considered until a few minutes ago?

What do you mean? You think that I have not looked into Gap theology before? Sorry that would be wrong.

Anyway, why not answer my questions, you have said that your Gap theology would kick rear in a thread, let us see it kick rear.

Let me repost the two I feel most important:

Why would you feel that since you do not like some things that God must not like them either?

Why is your opinion of what is perfect any better then mine or anyone elses?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What do you mean? You think that I have not looked into Gap theology before? Sorry that would be wrong.

Anyway, why not answer my questions, you have said that your Gap theology would kick rear in a thread, let us see it kick rear.

Let me repost the two I feel most important:

Why would you feel that since you do not like some things that God must not like them either?

Why is your opinion of what is perfect any better then mine or anyone elses?

I didn't respond to your knowledge of Gap theory. I responded to just what you posted. Also, my theory goes way beyond Gap theory.

Gap, even in unfinish form, kicks butt.

Your first question is an argumentive assumption.

Regards the second: I guess that I believe that I understand God's mind. I was made in the image and likeness of God and do have his spirit within. I can discern simple things like what is good and what is not good. If I find a broken dish on the floor I assume: 1. That the plate was once whole. 2. It is not good that the plate is broken. 3. It would be good if the plate were fixed.

See how God's spirit works?

 

[shernren]

Let me just get some chronology in place to frame your origins theology ... it all seems hazy to me right now because I don't have any definite timeframes to deal with.

So God created angels, and the universe, 13.5 billion years ago.
He created the earth 4.5 billion years ago.
Lucifer and gang rebelled 6,000 years ago.
God almost immediately punished and bound them and sent them down to earth, 6,000 years ago.
Then God "recreated" the earth as "stated" in Genesis, 6,000 years ago.

Am I getting you right?

360 revolutions around the sun makes it perfect. No more leap years. All months have 30 days. Have I mentioned that I think the moon is also out of its proper orbit?

I can't understand your fixation with 360. What's so significant about 360? It is just a coincidence that the Babylonians came up with the notion that the circle has 360 degrees in it. Interestingly, I have little to no idea where that came from. But my point is that 360 is a man-made number. There is nothing inherently perfect about it.

I come from a mathematical background. To a mathematician the radian measure is more useful, and therefore since a circle is 2pi radians, I should expect that God, using a perfect number, should have constructed the earth's orbit so that the earth could orbit the sun in 2pi days. That would be really nice. Perfect proof of Intelligent Design - plus we wouldn't need expensive calculators and weird theorems to count pi, we'd just need really accurate telescopes and clocks. (While we're at it, aren't you troubled that pi and e are irrational numbers? Isn't that an imperfection in the world? I suppose that before Lucifer fell, pi was exactly 22/7, and e was 5/2.)

But being less esoteric, 360 is hardly a perfect number. Why? Because a year which is 360 days would still cause weekly precession - the tendency for every year to start on a different day, and therefore for every numbered date to have a different day each year. As a kid I kept noticing that every year started a day ahead - if Jan 1 last year was on Tuesday, Jan 1 this year would be on Wednesday - except for on leap years, and I got quite into perpetual calendars which would tell you the day of any year. And your 360-day year would have a similar problem, wouldn't it? You know what the perfect number would be, considering that? 364 days, or a neat 52 weeks. Never need to look at a calendar ever again - January 1 would be a Monday, February 27 would always be a Saturday, etc.

Or to be more theological, a really nice number would be 343 - 7 cubed. Why not have each year have 7x7x7 days, a perfect monument to God's perfection?

Seriously, though, perfect numbers are far more a Gnostic concept than a Christian one, the idea of hidden knowledge apart from the Bible. What are the numbers of the Bible? We have 3 - the Trinity, 6 - the number of creation and man, 7 - the perfect number of God, 12 - the number of God's assembly, 40 - the number of the wilderness, 70 - the number of God's thoroughness. Even if one could make up a numerology from the Bible it would be next to impossible to quantify 360 in it as any number of God.

So, do you have biblical proof that God intended the earth to have 360 days' worth of a year? Do you have biblical (and scientific) proof that God intended the earth to have a perpendicular axis? Do you have biblical proof that God intended a different orbit for the moon? Do you have biblical proof that the earth was originally a home for angels? Do you have biblical proof that angels even have physical bodies?

Or is this all a figment of an overactive imagination?

 

[Willtor]

You have to build the history of past events using any resource that is helpful, much like paleontologists build entire organisms using a tiny fragment of bone.

360 revolutions around the sun makes it perfect. No more leap years. All months have 30 days. Have I mentioned that I think the moon is also out of its proper orbit?

There is order and symmetry in mathematics. This is reflected throughout the creation. The solar system is a timepiece on a grand scale, but it needs some adjusting due to damage done to it. Anyone involved with this science has to deal with the astronomical clock being goofy.

My theory is based upon God creating a perfect earth for a perfect Lucifer. When Lucifer sinned he became imperfect and was cast violently back to the earth which was then rendered imperfect as well. It will remain so until it is restored to its original pristine condition.

A perpendicular axis would greatly expand the tropical, and sub tropical climate zone. Much nicer.

If all you've ever seen is a broken earth it may be hard to envision a whole one.

Natural maybe, but only normal because that is all we've ever experienced. Just lower the Rocky mountains a bit and watch a wondrous climate change that would bring vast areas of desert into productivity.

I have no problem with that. I see a broken earth that is still in great turmoil. That being the case I believe that at one time the earth wasn't broken. I believe the earth was created for Lucifer. The entire bible is revealing this on just about every page, if one has the eyes to see it. Everything is about Lucifer.

I appreciate your curiosity.

oldwiseguy, you're espousing a philosophy of perfection that is different from perfection in the Christian sense. Perfection, in light of God, does not necessitate whole numbers in mathematical equations. It does not require inactivity on the surface of the Earth. If anything, it is quite the opposite. God is pleased to move in these things. The quandaries, perplexities, and intricacies of nature are a result of (not an affront to) God's creative work.

 

[Willtor]

Shernren, stop saying what I say ahead of me, better than me! It's almost like a lame form of plagiarism, and I don't appreciate it.

 

[shernren]

In a perfect world our telepathy would coordinate our responses perfectly, ensuring that when both of us are saying the same thing only one of us would post. In this world our innate telepathic superpowers have been blocked by the 23.5 degree tilt of the earth's axis from the vertical. More proof that the earth is imperfect, I tell you.