What are some logical, alternative interpretations or ways of understanding...

[Neogaia777]

Prior to the fall, do you think Adam and Eve had a similiar body? I'm open to that possibility...but can't biblically supprt it.

That's an idea I'm playing around with and trying to figure out and discover if there could a possibility of any truth to right now... I've looked into the different Hebrew words and meanings of the words "Adam" and "man", among other things/terms in Genesis, might be onto something, I don't know yet...?

Get back to you if I find anything interesting... Would you like to look into that possibility also? If you do, or want or decide to, let me know what you might find out... If you do, K...?

God Bless!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Gap theory and OEC is destroyed by Exodus 20:11 which combines Genesis 1:1 ("heavens and earth") with the rest of the chapter. Also, by Jesus' comment, when He said God made them male and female from the beginning of creation, also rebukes these extrabiblical theories, since if there were millions of year between the start of creation and the creation of Adam and Eve, Jesus would have been lying. And Jesus cannot lie.

There is no reason to pander to the godless world's way of thinking. They require millions of years to give their theory an appearance of plausibility, but it is still stupid. Matter/life does not come from nothing. Their belief is created as a consequence of their rejection of the Creator. You are sitting on the fence and being a friend to God's enemies by preferring their wisdom over God's wisdom when it comes to the age of the earth. The wisdom of the wise is foolishness to God and the wisdom of God is foolishness to the perishing. God is all powerful is fully capable of creating the universe in 6 normal days. He could have done it instantaneously but I think He took seven days for our sakes. He gave us a seven day week and a Sabbath rest, which points to Jesus and the spiritual rest we can have through Him (Hebrews 3-4).

It is clear that the earth is older than 6000 years, therefore the creation story must be interpreted to reflect that. Gap theory does this nicely. The Hebrew allows for the word 'made' to be interpreted 'prepared'. The earth of Genesis 1 was 'prepared' for Adam and Eve, the 'mankind' that would reflect the 'image and likeness' of God.

 

[Luke17:37]

It is clear that the earth is older than 6000 years, therefore the creation story must be interpreted to reflect that. Gap theory does this nicely. The Hebrew allows for the word 'made' to be interpreted 'prepared'. The earth of Genesis 1 was 'prepared' for Adam and Eve, the 'mankind' that would reflect the 'image and likeness' of God.

"In six days, God made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..." (Exodus 20:11)

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth... the first day... the second day... the seas... the third day... the fourth day... the fifth day... the sixth day." (Genesis 1)

The text is crystal clear. There's no gap. For the modern skeptic, in Exodus 20:11 God ties together Genesis 1:1 with the rest of the chapter and affirms it was done in six days. The words translated "Created" (brʾ to create; to be created) and "made" (ʿśh to make, manufacture; to do) are used interchangeably throughout Genesis 1. For example, check out Genesis 1:26-27.

Gap theory is biblical compromise--putting the ideas of men before the clear words of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is clear that the earth is older than 6000 years, therefore the creation story must be interpreted to reflect that. Gap theory does this nicely. The Hebrew allows for the word 'made' to be interpreted 'prepared'. The earth of Genesis 1 was 'prepared' for Adam and Eve, the 'mankind' that would reflect the 'image and likeness' of God.

Of course there is no such thing as "Gap theory", just because someone abuses a word does not mean that thing exists.


And why are you and Luke arguing? There is no doubt that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong. Scientists have known that for quite some time now.

 

[Luke17:37]

Of course there is no such thing as "Gap theory", just because someone abuses a word does not mean that thing exists.


And why are you and Luke arguing? There is no doubt that a literal reading of Genesis is wrong. Scientists have known that for quite some time now.

Isaiah 29:14 "... For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

1 Corinthians 1:20
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

You have believed a lie, Subduction Zone. Genesis 1 is straightforward history--the account of God's creation of the universe and all that is in it. There is a God, and He did create everything by His power. He came already displaying His power, from His first miracle turning water into wine to rising from the dead, that His disciples might put their faith in Him. When He comes again to earth at the last day, those who wish He didn't exist will see Him. And He will slay His enemies by the command of His mouth (Revelation 19:21), just as He created by the command of His mouth (Genesis 1).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isaiah 29:14 "... For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

1 Corinthians 1:20
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

You have believed a lie, Subduction Zone. Genesis 1 is straightforward history--the account of God's creation of the universe and all that is in it. There is a God, and He did create everything by His power. He came already displaying His power, from His first miracle turning water into wine to rising from the dead, that His disciples might put their faith in Him. When He comes again to earth at the last day, those who wish He didn't exist will see Him. And He will slay His enemies by the command of His mouth (Revelation 19:21), just as He created by the command of His mouth (Genesis 1).

Nope, in fact all of the evidence out there says that I am correct. Now if God made the world there are two possibilities that I can see, either Genesis was never meant to be taken literally or God lied when he made the evidence that tells us that Genesis is wrong. Even when I was a Christian I could not believe in a lying God so I concluded that Genesis simply cannot be read literally.


What you have done is to make the mistake of thinking that a morality tale should be taken literally. For a nonbiblical example let's look at Aesop's fables. The author was not lying when he wrote them, he was trying to teach a lesson. The stories in Genesis are roughly the same sort of lessons.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course there is no such thing as "Gap theory", just because someone abuses a word does not mean that thing exists.

Of course there's such a thing as Gap theory. Why do you think there isn't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course there's such a thing as Gap theory. Why do you think there isn't?

Alright then, what reasonable evidence could show "Gap theory" to be wrong?

 

[Doveaman]

It is clear that the earth is older than 6000 years, therefore the creation story must be interpreted to reflect that. Gap theory does this nicely. The Hebrew allows for the word 'made' to be interpreted 'prepared'. The earth of Genesis 1 was 'prepared' for Adam and Eve, the 'mankind' that would reflect the 'image and likeness' of God.

It is true that the creation story is best interpreted to reflect an old earth and the Gap theory of prehistory does that fairly well. But all these events of prehistory could have occurred even before the Genesis 1 account.

Genesis 1 can be interpreted as describing the re-creation, or renewal, of the planet’s atmosphere (the heavens) and the planet’s surface (the earth) after the earth had become formless and empty--(Gen 1:2).

There is evidence to suggest that the earth was not always a part of our present solar system, but was captured by our present sun from a previous Saturn system. This capture event would have led to global catastrophes and mass extinctions overtime that ultimately resulted in the earth becoming formless and empty.

Genesis 1 may then be describing the re-creation of new earth life following the earth’s capture by our present sun..."Then God said, let there be light" --(Gen 1:3). This new light would have become visible on day one, and the source of this new light, the new sun (the greater light), then became visible on day four after the earth's atmosphere was fully restored.

Genesis 1, therefore, is not necessarily describing the original creation of a new universe, but the re-creation, or renewal, of an old earth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is true that the creation story is best interpreted to reflect an old earth and the Gap theory of prehistory does that fairly well. But all these events of prehistory could have occurred even before the Genesis 1 account.

Genesis 1 can be interpreted as describing the re-creation, or renewal, of the planet’s atmosphere (the heavens) and the planet’s surface (the earth) after the earth had become formless and empty--(Gen 1:2).

There is evidence to suggest that the earth was not always a part of our present solar system, but was captured by our present sun from a previous Saturn system. This capture event would have led to global catastrophes and mass extinctions overtime that ultimately resulted in the earth becoming formless and empty.

Genesis 1 may then be describing the re-creation of new earth life following the earth’s capture by our present sun..."Then God said, let there be light" --(Gen 1:3). This new light would have become visible on day one, and the source of this new light, the new sun (the greater light), then became visible on day four after the earth's atmosphere was fully restored.

Genesis 1, therefore, is not necessarily describing the original creation of a new universe, but the re-creation, or renewal, of an old earth.

That follows the ruin/restoration pattern seen in the geologic record. There are scriptures that suggest a preAdamic earth as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Alright then, what reasonable evidence could show "Gap theory" to be wrong?

None that I know of. The 'gap' is that indeterminate time period between the original creation and the restoration of Genesis One.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None that I know of. The 'gap' is that indeterminate time period between the original creation and the restoration of Genesis One.

Then it is not a theory by your own admission, it is merely an ad hoc explanation. And they are not worth anything in the world of science or reality for that matter.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then it is not a theory by your own admission, it is merely an ad hoc explanation. And they are not worth anything in the world of science or reality for that matter.

And why is this of interest to you?

 

[Gene2memE]

Gap 'Theory' borrows a title that it has neither a right or claim to wear. It really should be renamed as Gap Conjecture, Gap Supposition, Gap Assumption, or at best, Gap Hypothesis.

The term theory, when applied in the sciences, is a body of explanation that has been confirmed via repeated verification against the available evidence. Like, the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Oxygen Theory of Combustion.

Gap 'Theory' is just creationism-with-extra-time-inbetween. It is both ad hoc and post hoc, a reaction to the fundamental incompatibility between the literal Genesis account and the evidence produced from cosmology/astrology, geology/geophysics, biology and archaeology/paleontology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why is this of interest to you?

I corrected you on your use a phrase. You challenged me and I explained your error.

Is that enough?

I am not a fan of false beliefs, whatever the source. How life got to its present state is very well explained and supported by the theory of evolution.

 

[ScottA]

What are some logical, alternative interpretations or explanations or ways of understanding and comprehending in a logical, explainable way, other than literal, the Creation account, Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden, up to whatever point you choose in the Beginnings of Genesis, what are some logical, alternative interpretations or ways of understanding and comprehending in a logical, explainable way, other than literal, the beginnings of Genesis...

Ideas? Theories? On logical alternative explanations or ways of understanding or explaining it other than literal...?

T.E.'s please offer your theories...?

God Bless!

You grew up somewhere. If you were to give an "literal" account of your experience of where you grew up...would everyone else that grew up there agree? Not likely.

Okay...so, with that one little example, we all [should] now understand the human component and what we are capable of. What we are not capable of, however, and the part we have no control over...is the overall circumstances, the past, and most of the future...even though we might like to think so.

So...there is a bigger picture...and the picture that comes out of the creation story is one way of getting a grasp of it. But...like your own story of your own beginnings - it's not wrong.

 

[Neogaia777]

You grew up somewhere. If you were to give an "literal" account of your experience of where you grew up...would everyone else that grew up there agree? Not likely.

Okay...so, with that one little example, we all [should] now understand the human component and what we are capable of. What we are not capable of, however, and the part we have no control over...is the overall circumstances, the past, and most of the future...even though we might like to think so.

So...there is a bigger picture...and the picture that comes out of the creation story is one way of getting a grasp of it. But...like your own story of your own beginnings - it's not wrong.

Well, if you talking about God giving us a literal, as we currently define literal to us, account of how, where, God's experience of how it all and he began, I don't think that's possible, in human terms, Jesus couldn't do it, who came from there, Paul couldn't do it, who went there temporarily, I don't think any can, not even God himself...

As far as what I said about our definition of literal, I believe God and angels and that realm, has another definition of literal that surpasses ours...

When Jesus healed the blind man twice in Mark 8:22-25, Where the man first came back and he did "see" but he "saw" in a Godly, angelic way, men are described as being "like" or likened to, "trees" in the scriptures, this is just one example... Then he (Jesus) did it a second time, and he came back not seeing that way, but seeing just like the rest of us... I think the man first came back seeing in a way that was "literal" to God and angels...

God Bless!

 

[ScottA]

As far as what I said about our definition of literal, I believe God and angels and that realm, has another definition of literal that surpasses ours...

Right on! And what is manifest here in the world and in the creation story is a poor likeness, and the story of it is a description of a poor likeness by word of mouth, and so on.

 

[Neogaia777]

Right on! And what is manifest here in the world and in the creation story is a poor likeness, and the story of it is a description of a poor likeness by word of mouth, and so on.

Yes!... That is what I believe, but that it is still "inspired" by God though, and contains much spiritual truth that we can use, it contains many "secrets" to our humanity, and what humanity is destined to become, that is very similar to and is like God's divinity, I believe...

God Bless!

 

[Jimmy D]

From what I can glean from this thread it seems that the creation account offers us very little except as a morality tale. We've got members having to offer up a variety of ad hoc conjectures to make it 'fit' with what we actually know, members insisiting it's 'literally' accurate, members suggesting it's been somehow corrupted over the years, members implying it contains vague 'secrets'.

If the bible does contain the inerrant word of God he didn't do a very good job did he? He managed to sow disagreement amongst his own followers and pass on a story that almost any educated person of modern times can see in no way comports with reality.