Why the Gap theory makes sense

[holdon]

I believe God inspired the author of Genesis to rewrite the common Babylonian creation account, setting the record straight about who created the Earth and why He did it. Scientific questions pertaining to exactly how it happened were besides the point, and of little interest to God or the ancient Near Eastern people, whose culture sought to ascribe meaning to the world, rather than scientific methodology.

So, if God set the record straight, what He had Moses write up must be correct.

 

[Mallon]

So, if God set the record straight, what He had Moses write up must be correct.

Spiritually correct, yes, given that was Moses' primary concern.
Scientifically correct, no. There are many scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, many of which parallel those same inaccuracies in the Babylonian Enuma Elish, as I have stated already. But why would we hold that against a culture who predated our modern understanding of science by a few thousand years? If God didn't want man's limited perspective and understanding of the earth to enter into the Bible, then why would He inspire man to record the Scriptures in the first place, rather than simply dropping them from Heaven as He did the Ten Commandments? Again, I think this is a shortcoming of the concordist perspective, and an obvious point in favour of accomodationalism. God accomodated Himself to a particular time and culture so that they might understand Him.

 

[holdon]

Spiritually correct, yes, given that was Moses' primary concern.
Scientifically correct, no. There are many scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, many of which parallel those same inaccuracies in the Babylonian Enuma Elish, as I have stated already. But why would we hold that against a culture who predated our modern understanding of science by a few thousand years? If God didn't want man's limited perspective and understanding of the earth to enter into the Bible, then why would He inspire man to record the Scriptures in the first place, rather than simply dropping them from Heaven as He did the Ten Commandments? Again, I think this is a shortcoming of the concordist perspective, and an obvious point in favour of accomodationalism. God accomodated Himself to a particular time and culture so that they might understand Him.

The sun rising in the East may be (may be?) a scientific aberration and "accomodating" man's view.

But: who determines the East scientifically? It's a relative term. And what does "rising" mean? It's a relative term. And to top it off: what does "science" mean? It's a relative term.

 

[Mallon]

The sun rising in the East may be (may be?) a scientific aberration and "accomodating" man's view.

The Bible speaks of more than just the sun rising in the east. It says that the sun "hurries" back to where it rises (Ecc 1:5). It says the sun is not a star (1 Cor 15:40-41). It says the earth is flat "like clay under a seal" (Job 38:13-14). It says the sky (or "firmament") is a solid structure (Job 37:18) with openings (Gen 7:11). It says that stars can fall to earth (Mark 13:25). It says the moon produces light (Mat 24:29).
These are all very out-dated ways of viewing the cosmos, all with parallels in the Babylonian creation account (and other non-canonical Jewish writings, too). You're free to believe that all these many references (and more) were inspired metaphor by God, rather than literal accounts, though you would also have to believe that God inspired the same metaphors in the surrounding Mesopotamian societies as well, to be consistent. I suspect it is more consistent to simply admit that God accomodated His message of salvation to the Near Eastern customs of Moses' day.

 

[holdon]

The Bible speaks of more than just the sun rising in the east. It says that the sun "hurries" back to where it rises (Ecc 1:5).

Doesn't it?

It says the sun is not a star (1 Cor 15:40-41).

It does NOT says that there.

It says the earth is flat "like clay under a seal" (Job 38:13-14).

Please give me a break: it's poetic language there.

It says the sky (or "firmament") is a solid structure (Job 37:18)

Same poetic language. Do you read the contexts of these verses????

with openings (Gen 7:11).

How do you know it was not so? Did you ever figure out where it rains and where it doesn't and why? Is a high pressure system caused by wind or is wind the result? Do you know anything about that?

It says that stars can fall to earth (Mark 13:25).

Well, ever seen falling start in an August night?

It says the moon produces light (Mat 24:29).

It doesn't say that at all. It says the Moon shall not give her light. Read more carefully.

These are all very out-dated ways of viewing the cosmos, all with parallels in the Babylonian creation account (and other non-canonical Jewish writings, too). You're free to believe that all these many references (and more) were inspired metaphor by God, rather than literal accounts, though you would also have to believe that God inspired the same metaphors in the surrounding Mesopotamian societies as well, to be consistent. I suspect it is more consistent to simply admit that God accomodated His message of salvation to the Near Eastern customs of Moses' day.

You're entitled to your suspicion.

 

[Mallon]

It does NOT says that there.

1 Cor 15:40-41 says,"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."
If we were to use this passage as a means of learning about the universe in which we live (as so many anti-evolutionists love to do), would it not be fair to conclude that this verse teaches that the sun exhibits different properties from other stars, given that they exhibit different "splendors"?

Please give me a break: it's poetic language there.

So what did God mean when he said "the earth takes shape like clay under a seal"? There are other passages in the Bible that imply a flat earth as well (Isaiah 40:22; Daniel 4:10-11; Matthew 4:8). Would you argue that they are all poetic?

Same poetic language. Do you read the contexts of these verses????

So what did God mean, then, when He said that the sky was "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" if He wasn't describing what physical properties it exhibited?

How do you know it was not so?

Because when Sputnik broke the atmosphere in 1957, it didn't run into any solid walls.

Well, ever seen falling start in an August night?

Yes. But they're not stars. They're meteors. Stars, which are enormous balls of burning gas, don't fall to the earth, contrary to what the Bible says.

It says the Moon shall not give her light. Read more carefully.

I did. It says "the Moon shall not give her light." Whose light shall it not give? The moon's light. Not the sun's reflected light. The moon's light. This stems from a straightforward reading of the passage. The Bible implies the moon gives off its own light, as implied in Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 30:26; Matthew 24:29; and Mark 13:24. Such a view was completely consistent with that of the other Near Eastern societies of the time. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. Same goes for everything else I mentioned above. Just read what the Jewish Talmud has to say about the shape of the cosmos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy#Conceptions_of_Astronomy_in_the_Talmud
Again, it is easier to believe that God was accomodating His message to the cosmology of the ANE people, rather than delivering a whole new, scientifically-valid cosmology that the people would have been so unfamiliar with.

 

[holdon]

1 Cor 15:40-41 says,"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."
If we were to use this passage as a means of learning about the universe in which we live (as so many anti-evolutionists love to do), would it not be fair to conclude that this verse teaches that the sun exhibits different properties from other stars, given that they exhibit different "splendors"?

???? You're reading way more than it says.

So what did God mean when he said "the earth takes shape like clay under a seal"? There are other passages in the Bible that imply a flat earth as well (Isaiah 40:22;

How literal is this: "he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a gauze curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;"

Daniel 4:10-11;

And this:
"Thus were the visions of my head upon my bed: I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. 4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and its height reached unto the heavens, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. "

Matthew 4:8).

"Again the devil takes him to a very high mountain, and shews him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory, "

Would you argue that they are all poetic?

I'll let you be the judge...

So what did God mean, then, when He said that the sky was "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" if He wasn't describing what physical properties it exhibited?

"Hast thou with him spread out the sky, firm, like a molten mirror?" It seems that the next verse applies: "We cannot order our words by reason of darkness."

Because when Sputnik broke the atmosphere in 1957, it didn't run into any solid walls.

What do you think you see when you look at the sky? I think you're not thinking when you say stuff like this.

Yes. But they're not stars. They're meteors. Stars, which are enormous balls of burning gas, don't fall to the earth, contrary to what the Bible says.

Why do we call meteors falling stars then if they aren't?

I did. It says "the Moon shall not give her light." Whose light shall it not give? The moon's light. Not the sun's reflected light. The moon's light. This stems from a straightforward reading of the passage. The Bible implies the moon gives off its own light, as implied in Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 30:26; Matthew 24:29; and Mark 13:24.

Where does the light come from when you see the moon? Answer: from the moon (otherwise you couldn't see her). Why are people even today calling "moonlight" if it isn't, after so many years of "scientific enlightenment"???

Perhaps Satan's lies were easier to believe than God's command.....

 

[Mallon]

I'm not going to address you point-by-point, holdon, because I don't want the details to detract from my main point, which is this: You seem to agree that the Bible's cosmology was written from a phenomenological point of view. That is, the Scriptural authors refer to "falling stars" because that is how meteors appear. The Bible's authors refer to "moon light" because the moon appears to give off light. The Scriptural authors refer to the sun orbiting the earth because that is how it appears. We even use many of the same colloquialisms today, they have become so entrenched in our verbiage.
But these are not scientific claims.
They are very human attempts at describing phenomena in nature, catered to our finite minds. We admit as much when it comes to verses like the ones I cited above, and I don't think it is inconsistent or inconceivable to apply the same logic to our understanding of the Genesis creation account.

 

[holdon]

I'm not going to address you point-by-point, holdon, because I don't want the details to detract from my main point, which is this: You seem to agree that the Bible's cosmology was written from a phenomenological point of view. That is, the Scriptural authors refer to "falling stars" because that is how meteors appear. The Bible's authors refer to "moon light" because the moon appears to give off light. The Scriptural authors refer to the sun orbiting the earth because that is how it appears. We even use many of the same colloquialisms today, they have become so entrenched in our verbiage.
But these are not scientific claims.
They are very human attempts at describing phenomena in nature, catered to our finite minds. We admit as much when it comes to verses like the ones I cited above, and I don't think it is inconsistent or inconceivable to apply the same logic to our understanding of the Genesis creation account.

The Bible was not intended to satisfy the curiosity of today's scientists. I guess that's what you're trying to say and I agree with that.
But it is another matter to say the Bible is wrong, because science blah, blah, blah.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Bible isn't wrong; your interpretations are, holdon.

That is what Mallon has correctly pointed out.

 

[holdon]

The Bible isn't wrong; your interpretations are, holdon.

Why am I wrong?

 

[Mallon]

The Bible was not intended to satisfy the curiosity of today's scientists. I guess that's what you're trying to say and I agree with that.
But it is another matter to say the Bible is wrong, because science blah, blah, blah.

Excellent. So we agree that the Bible wasn't written to address matters of science, given that it was written from a phenomenological perspective.
Why, then, should we look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions (e.g., age of the earth, origin of species, relative masses of the elements, etc.)?

 

[busterdog]

Good try.

Here's why I think drawing parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian creation accounts is in accordance with Occam's Razor:
(i) The details of the creation accounts are comparable (shape of the earth, composition of the firmament, creation of the planet from formless waters, same sequence of creation, etc.).
(ii) Contrary to Gap theology, which is a concordist approach, an accomodationalist approach does not require that we pick and chose between what facets of science to accept. That is, it is consistent with both science and the Bible.
(iii) Accomodationalism recognizes the Hebrews as a people set apart by God, but integrated into a Near Eastern culture (i.e., the pieces of the puzzle fit better, which is why it is of little wonder why Moses referred to the "face of the waters" in Genesis 1, given that the same waters feature prominently in the Enuma Elish account he would have been familiar with).
(iv) The accomodationalist approach is consistent with how God has operated in history (reshaping sinful traditions to accomplish His will... take the Christmas holiday, for example).

This is just as simple: Noah told his descendants about the flood. Some of them screwed it up and started raving about Gilgamesh.

 

[busterdog]

But He wouldn't tell us nonsense, would He?

Good points by Holdon.

 

[busterdog]

If God didn't want man's limited perspective and understanding of the earth to enter into the Bible, then why would He inspire man to record the Scriptures in the first place, rather than simply dropping them from Heaven as He did the Ten Commandments?

Last time he did that the freakin' rocks were burned.

The Holy Spirit comes in power in Acts 5, and the next thing you know, two believers are dead.

Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God. Deu 4:33 Did [ever] people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
Just the angels are enough to make a man fall as one dead:

Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

Rather, the Word of God is a mercy to those who receive it. This is one reason. Could this world endure the presence of God and not be consumed?

Indeed, this is why the Word is exalted above all His name. Because it is a great, great mercy.

And that is hardly idolatry. If so, then PS 138 is idolatry.

Is it "simple," ala Occam's razor, to attribute the Words of a God who is a consuming fire to the pagan's of Babylon? I find that remarkably complicated.

 

[holdon]

Excellent. So we agree that the Bible wasn't written to address matters of science, given that it was written from a phenomenological perspective.
Why, then, should we look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions (e.g., age of the earth, origin of species, relative masses of the elements, etc.)?

What does God say about "age of the earth", "origin of species", "relative masses of the elements"?

 

[Mallon]

This is just as simple: Noah told his descendants about the flood. Some of them screwed it up and started raving about Gilgamesh.

Simple, yes. But it doesn't account for the fact that there is no solid geological evidence for a global flood, nor the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Flood story of Noah. Therefore, although your interpretation is simple, it does not account for more details than does the accomodationalist interpretation, and as such, does not fulfill Occam's Razor.

 

[Mallon]

What does God say about "age of the earth", "origin of species", "relative masses of the elements"?

You're very good at not answering peoples' questions, and substituting your own instead, so I'll ask again:

So we agree that the Bible wasn't written to address matters of science, given that it was written from a phenomenological perspective.
Why, then, should we look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions, as so many anti-evolutionary creationists do (e.g., age of the earth, origin of species, relative masses of the elements, etc.)?

 

[holdon]

You're very good at not answering peoples' questions, and substituting your own instead, so I'll ask again:

So we agree that the Bible wasn't written to address matters of science, given that it was written from a phenomenological perspective.
Why, then, should we look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions, as so many anti-evolutionary creationists do (e.g., age of the earth, origin of species, relative masses of the elements, etc.)?

If you answer my questions.....

We should look at the Bible for the foundation of our beliefs. This does not exclude looking at answers that might help us to understand the universe around us. We should be well aware that whatever belief system we decide to adhere to, will influence our views and opinions. Even influence our observations to the extend that we may not be able to know what caused our observations to look as they do to us. In other words our subjective mindset will determine our scientific endeavors.

 

[livingword26]

What does God say about "age of the earth", "origin of species", "relative masses of the elements"?

The age of the earth can, and has been calculated according to Gods word. two things that are clear is that everything was created in 6 days, and that man was created separately from the animals.

Gen 1:1-31
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(4) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
(5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(6) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
(8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(9) And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
(10) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
(11) And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
(12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.
(14) And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
(15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
(16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
(18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
(19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
(21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
(23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
(24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
(25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(29) And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
(30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
(31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen 2:1-2
(1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.