What's wrong with my thinking?

[holdon]

There's no Scriptural "evidence" of this "gap" you mention, either. You only put it in there to reconcile Scripture with science.

I have no need to "reconcile Scripture with science". Rather the other way around....
But I say, there is Scriptural evidence for this gap. That's the whole point of this discussion.
You said: "God created the earth on the first day". But that is nowhere stated.
I find that God created (the heavens and) the earth in the beginning.
Then, that the earth had become chaos and void.
Only thereafter do I see God creating light, etc. on the first day.
So, between "in the beginning" and "the first day" there is a gap.

 

[busterdog]

I have no need to "reconcile Scripture with science". Rather the other way around....
But I say, there is Scriptural evidence for this gap. That's the whole point of this discussion.
You said: "God created the earth on the first day". But that is nowhere stated.
I find that God created (the heavens and) the earth in the beginning.
Then, that the earth had become chaos and void.
Only thereafter do I see God creating light, etc. on the first day.
So, between "in the beginning" and "the first day" there is a gap.

As a plain text kind of guy, I see the argument regarding the counting of these days, but to me it doesn't add up.

What about Exodus 20?

What about Jesus saying, in the beginning, God made them male and female -- a bit different of an idea, but part of the overall context in which these things are to be judged.

My suspicion is that the idea of a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 2 was not really addressed, since it didn't seem to be an issue at the time this was written. I understand that is a bit presumptuous, I guess another way to say this is that the text does not address the point of a possible gap with lots of precision or emphasis. Building essentially entire era of creation of out implication and indirect-ness is asking a bit much, IMHO. It is not unreasonable, but it lacks an authoritatively direct voice in my view.

That being said, I am pretty happy with a plain text use of "and the evening and morning were the first day" as a way to comprehend all of Gen. 1 up to that point as the first day. Exod. 20 agrees with me. Said otherwise, there is surface text, or plain text justification that relegates the gap to a bit of an exotic invention. Not that it is crazy, but would you agree that the text also permits a literal one day period from Gen. 1:1 to 3? Might you also agree that the surface text fits better with the "day one" model and that the gap is at best implied?

As for reconciliation with science, one has to decide which frame of reference is going to prevail over teh other. The scientific frame of reference is a "consensus" in name only, that in terms of direct and affirmative pronouncements benefits more from 1. denial of Gen.1 than 2. a statement of how everything was created. If you read the science, they presume to know very little, except that they know that people like me are wrong and that dissenting creation scientists need to be pushed to the margins. Just look at the history of science and what it actually claims to be unequivocally true. There is far more definition in denying God than in asserting a clear human view of the mechanisms of creation. So, what exactly are we to reconcile to? I start very simply my preference for a biblical frame of reference by which all others are measured. You may wish to differ, but lets just be clear that this is an intractible choice for all of us in the thread.

 

[holdon]

Not that it is crazy, but would you agree that the text also permits a literal one day period from Gen. 1:1 to 3? Might you also agree that the surface text fits better with the "day one" model and that the gap is at best implied?

The gap is implied because it is inconceivable that God created the earth as chaos. What happened after the beginning to the heavens is left out. But re. the earth it is said she was (I prefer "became") chaos and empty and darkness (not generally a positive thing in Scripture) over the water abyss: all a very gloomy picture, incompatible with God creating it thus.

Then it is clear God starts to do something about it in day 1 and consecutive days: creating light etc..

 

[busterdog]

The gap is implied because it is inconceivable that God created the earth as chaos. What happened after the beginning to the heavens is left out. But re. the earth it is said she was (I prefer "became") chaos and empty and darkness (not generally a positive thing in Scripture) over the water abyss: all a very gloomy picture, incompatible with God creating it thus.

Then it is clear God starts to do something about it in day 1 and consecutive days: creating light etc..

I would challenge your view of the word "chaos" as something not required by the text. In fact, IS 45 is to me instructive to suggest that a better word is inchoate or unfulfilled. IS 45 is clearly about purpose -- what the earth was intended for - namely, us. Obviously the earth was not habitable on day one.

That being said, what is it that requires "chaos" as the state of the earth on day one?

Jer. 4:23 to 4:27 is helpful to your cause. It equates destroyed cities with tohu bohu.

But again, these words have enormous range of meaning.

A popular translation, tohu is equated with vanity and confusion. As for "vanity", the concept of immature or unfulfilled lends some assistance. So, to whose perspective is Gen. 1:2 tailored? To God's or to ours? To us, for whom it was all made, it would indeed be chaotic and unprofitable for habitation. Living there would be living in vain. To God who sees the end from the beginning, it was not that simple. So, I would not worry about God having made something "bad" or less than worthy on day one. One might ask why he bothered to take six days if that were the point. One argument is that he took six days for our benefit. It was indeed about us and how we measure and live. He created a model for us of six days and then rest.

Here is a word study.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H08414&Version=kjv

 

[HypnoToad]

Then why are there records that show the "gap theory" being taught hundreds of years before Darwin published his famous book?

References?

The truth is, that you reject the gap theory because you do not like it, not because it is an erroneous intepretation of scripture.

It's good to know you can read my mind. I'll keep that in consideration.

But I say, there is Scriptural evidence for this gap. That's the whole point of this discussion.

Sure, but I'm still waiting for this "evidence". So far, all we've been given is the Isaiah passage, which no one has shown it should be read any different than the interpretation I've given.

You said: "God created the earth on the first day". But that is nowhere stated.

Sure it is. There were no verse or paragraph separations in the initial text. There is no reason to see any significant passage of time from verse 1 to verse 5. Where is this supposed Scriptural evidence to say otherwise?

The gap is implied because it is inconceivable that God created the earth as chaos.

Lol, why? What's so "inconceivable" about that?

 

[busterdog]

It's good to know you can read my mind. I'll keep that in consideration.

I think we are still all friends here.

Sure, but I'm still waiting for this "evidence". So far, all we've been given is the Isaiah passage, which no one has shown it should be read any different than the interpretation I've given.

I don't subscribe to gap. I would say:

Gen. 1:1-2 has a permissible inference, but I don't think it lines up with the context or other witnesses, such as Exod. 20.

Jer. 4:23 is using exactly the same words in exactly the way proposed by gap. However, I think there is a clear difference in context between Gen. and Jeremiah, and these words still seem to have a wide range of meaning depending on context.

Is. 45 seems to me to be talking about purpose, not the condition of a completed creation subject to catastrophe. But, that depends upon reading the several passages together and consulting other witnesses.

Sure it is. There were no verse or paragraph separations in the initial text. There is no reason to see any significant passage of time from verse 1 to verse 5. Where is this supposed Scriptural evidence to say otherwise?

I agree that you need more to push beyond the surface text.

 

[shernren]

I agree that you need more to push beyond the surface text.

Umm, I think holdon and Biblewriter are suggesting that a gap theory is the surface text ...

 

[holdon]

I would challenge your view of the word "chaos" as something not required by the text. In fact, IS 45 is to me instructive to suggest that a better word is inchoate or unfulfilled. IS 45 is clearly about purpose -- what the earth was intended for - namely, us. Obviously the earth was not habitable on day one.

That being said, what is it that requires "chaos" as the state of the earth on day one?

Jer. 4:23 to 4:27 is helpful to your cause. It equates destroyed cities with tohu bohu.

But again, these words have enormous range of meaning.

A popular translation, tohu is equated with vanity and confusion. As for "vanity", the concept of immature or unfulfilled lends some assistance. So, to whose perspective is Gen. 1:2 tailored? To God's or to ours? To us, for whom it was all made, it would indeed be chaotic and unprofitable for habitation. Living there would be living in vain. To God who sees the end from the beginning, it was not that simple. So, I would not worry about God having made something "bad" or less than worthy on day one. One might ask why he bothered to take six days if that were the point. One argument is that he took six days for our benefit. It was indeed about us and how we measure and live. He created a model for us of six days and then rest.

Here is a word study.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H08414&Version=kjv

I think you might be confusing "tohu" and "bohu". The first is chaos; the second means empty.
I don't see that God created a model for us, but rather that we are to model upon His. See Ex 20:11; 31:17.
By the way, these text mention that God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days. This might be interpreted by some to contradict what I have been saying namely that Gen 1:1 doesn't belong to the 6 days. The key is the word "made" in these verses: different from "create". We have "create" in Gen 1:1 for the heavens and the earth, but we have God actually "making" (ie. forming, dressing up) the earth and the heavens during the 6 days. So, Gen 2:4.

 

[holdon]

Sure it is. There were no verse or paragraph separations in the initial text. There is no reason to see any significant passage of time from verse 1 to verse 5. Where is this supposed Scriptural evidence to say otherwise?

There are plenty of reasons which I already mentioned.


Lol, why? What's so "inconceivable" about that?[/quote]

Because God creates order, which can clearly be seen in days 1 - 6. "Tohu", (chaos), means disorder and destruction. So, necessarily order and construction must have existed prior.

 

[HypnoToad]

There are plenty of reasons which I already mentioned.

Nothing substantiated yet.

Because God creates order, which can clearly be seen in days 1 - 6. "Tohu", (chaos), means disorder and destruction. So, necessarily order and construction must have existed prior.

And, as a whole, God DID create order. Just because it wasn't ordered for a few minutes doesn't make it go against God. The "necessary" order being first - God Himself would be that order.

 

[busterdog]

Umm, I think holdon and Biblewriter are suggesting that a gap theory is the surface text ...

Well that's the question.

As far as surface text is concerned, I am just not seeing it -- except in Jeremiah, to an extent, and only with a very narrow focus on a couple of lines.

 

[busterdog]

I think you might be confusing "tohu" and "bohu". The first is chaos; the second means empty.

Tohu is used at least twice in Is. 45. The second translation is "vain" in NKJV. Chaos is one meaning among several -- again, when you deal with the word in absolute isolation.

Isa 45:19
I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

I don't see that God created a model for us, but rather that we are to model upon His. See Ex 20:11; 31:17.

I don't understand this.

By the way, these text mention that God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days. This might be interpreted by some to contradict what I have been saying namely that Gen 1:1 doesn't belong to the 6 days. The key is the word "made" in these verses: different from "create". We have "create" in Gen 1:1 for the heavens and the earth, but we have God actually "making" (ie. forming, dressing up) the earth and the heavens during the 6 days. So, Gen 2:

Well, Jesus calls what happened on the sixth day, in Greek, the "beginning" (as in creation of male and female). So, I guess there is no precise reason why Gen. 1:1 can't refer to all six days. That doesn't make Gen 1:2 a new beginning, however, necessarily. Nor does that inference appear in the surface text, to my eye anyway. Although I hate quoting it, Occam's Razor suggests a much simpler line of reasoning.

 

[Mallon]

Wrong forum. I was just going to mention Isaiah 45:7, seeing as how it had some relevance to the discussion.

 

[Biblewriter]

Except that if God has spoken and if we decide to believe things to be other than as he says, that is sin.

I could not possibly agree more. If I became persuaded that the Bible says that the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was less than a day long and then continued to believe that the fossil record shows a long history for the earth, I would be sinning. Why? Because I chose to believe something else above the word of God. If you became convinced I was correct and refused to admit it, you would be sinning. For you would then be putting personal respect above respect for the word of God. But a failure to understand what God said is not a sin. It may be caused by sin. That is, it may be caused by a desire to escape what God said. But it may only be stupidity.

1. Because you are the most pleasant and engaging person I have argued with in a several weeks. 2. Because it is fun. 3. Exercise is good for me. 4. Because I think the text says something clearly and getting clear on such issues is always a virtue.

Rejection of the word of God is a serious sin. I, for one, am not confident in my ability to understand what God says. I am confident in that word, but not in my understanding of it. So I periodically feel a need to check and see if anyone can give me a real reason to change my beliefs about what a doubtful passage really means. I have not been arguing in this discussion, much less debating. I have been checking up on myself.

Sorry, guys, so far you have not convinced me I was wrong.

That being said, either one of us or neither of us is right. We can't both be right.

This is manifest.

Being right about scripture is a virtue. To that extent, I think you can say there is only one "Godly" interpretation. A bit of a quibble. I think we are on the same wavelength.

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this one. Desiring to be right is a virtue. Truly seeking to understand is a virtue. But understand the word of God is a process, not a terminus. None of us will ever understand it all.

I think it is a principle worth repeating that we have been asked to decide whether God is capable of expressing Himself with clarity. I believe that He is and has. So, I am not uncomfortable with the idea that Human reason and a proper heart can take one in different directions. But, I still assert that there is only one unambiguous truth.

God has spoken with clarity whenever and wherever he chose to do so. But in some places He chose to speak in words that were hard to understand. You have already pointed out that Peter refers to that in the writings of Paul.

We read in Matthew 13:

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Again we read in Isaiah 66:3-4:
...Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their delusions...

And in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12:
...they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I suspect (this is not doctrine, just an idea) that these words may have been written to give unbelievers an excuse to say the word of God is wrong. They look at the fossil record and say, look! Here's the proof that your Bible is not true. He winks and says, yea, sure. I really blew it, didn't I.

One principle of interpretation I have often used is that what He did not say is often as important as what he did say. And we have indeed established one thing. Genesis 1 does not say that verse 1 and verse 2 took place on the same day, and apparently no other scripture does, either.

 

[holdon]

Tohu is used at least twice in Is. 45. The second translation is "vain" in NKJV. Chaos is one meaning among several -- again, when you deal with the word in absolute isolation.

Isa 45:19
I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Yes, the word "tohu" occurs there too. And it is also used to characterize idols. So, what does this all mean, like I said before: "tohu" is not God's intent, God's way. Therefore it reinforces my belief that "tohu" in Gen 1:2 isn't so either.

I don't understand this.

It seemed to me that you were saying that God arranged the creation work in 6 days with a 7th resting day, because of a "need" in us humans: God modelling His work to our needs. And I said it appears it is rather the other way around: we are to model ourselves (our time pattern) to God's. See the verses I cited. It is because God did it so in the beginning, the Israelites were to follow that same pattern.

Well, Jesus calls what happened on the sixth day, in Greek, the "beginning" (as in creation of male and female). So, I guess there is no precise reason why Gen. 1:1 can't refer to all six days. That doesn't make Gen 1:2 a new beginning, however, necessarily. Nor does that inference appear in the surface text, to my eye anyway. Although I hate quoting it, Occam's Razor suggests a much simpler line of reasoning.

So, now the 6th day would be the beginning? Because that's the day male and female were created. Of course not. So, when Jesus says that is was not so from the beginning He is not referring to Gen 1:1, or 1:2, 1:3, but to 1:26.

 

[HypnoToad]

So, now the 6th day would be the beginning? Because that's the day male and female were created. Of course not. So, when Jesus says that is was not so from the beginning He is not referring to Gen 1:1, or 1:2, 1:3, but to 1:26.

That doesn't make any sense.

You start out saying the 6th day is NOT the beginning, but then say Jesus is referring to 1:26 (which is the 6th day) as the beginning.

Which is it?

 

[holdon]

That doesn't make any sense.

You start out saying the 6th day is NOT the beginning, but then say Jesus is referring to 1:26 (which is the 6th day) as the beginning.

Which is it?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I should have said that the beginning Jesus spoke about, was Adam and Eve' beginning and must be the 6th day. But the beginning of the 6 days was of course 5 days earlier and before that we have the beginning of Gen 1:1. And before that we have the beginning of John 1:1.
Makes sense?

 

[HypnoToad]

So, why is it that when Scripture mentions "chaos", or however you want to translate it, it always refers to the exact same one single thing, yet when Scripture mentions "the beginning", suddenly that can refer to any point you want it to?

 

[holdon]

So, why is it that when Scripture mentions "chaos", or however you want to translate it, it always refers to the exact same one single thing, yet when Scripture mentions "the beginning", suddenly that can refer to any point you want it to?

Who said "chaos" (tohu) refers always to the exact same thing? We have the earth being in a "tohu" state, seeking God is not "tohu", idols are"tohu", cities becoming "tohu", etc...

And "beginning" refers to a start point and can therefore be in principle a starting point of anything.

 

[HypnoToad]

Who said "chaos" (tohu) refers always to the exact same thing?

You did:

"Yes, the word "tohu" occurs there too. And it is also used to characterize idols. So, what does this all mean, like I said before: "tohu" is not God's intent, God's way. Therefore it reinforces my belief that "tohu" in Gen 1:2 isn't so either."

And "beginning" refers to a start point and can therefore be in principle a starting point of anything.

We're not talking about "beginning" - we're talking about "THE beginning".