A gap in the theory?

[Didaskomenos]

Genez on another thread was giving Mat 19:4 as proof that Jesus was not an evolutionist, but a gap theorist. The NIV says, "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?"

[I wrote]

Hmmm...then what does this do to the Gap theory? I mean, at very least you can see that Jesus wasn't referring to Gen. 1:27. And if the beginning means something other than the very beginning, you'll see why I believe he was referring to the beginning of the human race, whose ancestors for millennia were already male and female.

[Genez responded]
He was not? Well..... I hope you do not wear those glasses you read with while driving. For if you did, you would not see the stop signs.
.......
Jesus spoke about what was WRITTEN. Not something assumed. Where were those words written? In the Torah! What you allude to is not written in the Torah, but simply speculation by your ilk. Now? Where are those things written about? Genesis 1:27 (the beginning of man), and Genesis 2:24 (man will take wife). The Hebrew words are only used in reference to the human race. To Adam and Eve. To man "Ish", and the woman, "Ishah." Animals are never referred to with those words.

I apologize for being unclear. Within gap theory, if "the beginning" was the beginning of the universe, he could not be referring to Gen 1:27, because Gen 1:27 is about the latest creation. However, as you pointed out, we both know Jesus was indeed referring to Gen 1:27. Therefore, when he said "the beginning", he was not referring to the beginning of time, but of the beginning of the human race. What we disagree about is how the human race came about.

Moreover, when Jesus referred to Genesis, he ellucidated one of the intentions of the passage by saying that man and woman were designed as two sexes to be joined as one. This says nothing about the possibility of evolution. You seem to be saying that Jesus' point was that Eve being made from a rib was what validated and sanctified marriage. But number one, Jesus doesn't mention the rib part of the myth, but refers to the chapter 1 version of the creation, which was concerned with God assigning functions to his creation. He designed and purposed that men and women should be together and then said for that reason, "A man shall leave his father and mother..." This seems to be another case of Jesus realigning the Torah with His truth. Jesus would have said that one being made from the other's rib on the sixth 24 hour day was what made marriage holy and unassailable if he had meant it. But he didn't: it was God's plan that man and woman be together as man and wife, and so what validates and sanctifies marriage is the purpose and design God had for it, and that goes however he actuated the design of the humans involved.

 

[herev]

Well, this could be interesting

 

[sawdust]

Genez on another thread was giving Mat 19:4 as proof that Jesus was not an evolutionist, but a gap theorist. The NIV says, "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?"

I apologize for being unclear. Within gap theory, if "the beginning" was the beginning of the universe, he could not be referring to Gen 1:27, because Gen 1:27 is about the latest creation. However, as you pointed out, we both know Jesus was indeed referring to Gen 1:27. Therefore, when he said "the beginning", he was not referring to the beginning of time, but of the beginning of the human race. What we disagree about is how the human race came about.

Moreover, when Jesus referred to Genesis, he ellucidated one of the intentions of the passage by saying that man and woman were designed as two sexes to be joined as one. This says nothing about the possibility of evolution. You seem to be saying that Jesus' point was that Eve being made from a rib was what validated and sanctified marriage. But number one, Jesus doesn't mention the rib part of the myth, but refers to the chapter 1 version of the creation, which was concerned with God assigning functions to his creation. He designed and purposed that men and women should be together and then said for that reason, "A man shall leave his father and mother..." This seems to be another case of Jesus realigning the Torah with His truth. Jesus would have said that one being made from the other's rib on the sixth 24 hour day was what made marriage holy and unassailable if he had meant it. But he didn't: it was God's plan that man and woman be together as man and wife, and so what validates and sanctifies marriage is the purpose and design God had for it, and that goes however he actuated the design of the humans involved.

I think you may have missed the real point Genez was trying to make. Drop back over to the other thread and see my post it might clarify things for you.

peace

 

[Didaskomenos]

Bara means "out of nothing" just as much as "create" does. And I agree that random mutations are not responsible for us: there was divine intentionality in our evolution. So in other words, I still don't know what point I might be missing!

 

[sawdust]

Bara means "out of nothing" just as much as "create" does. And I agree that random mutations are not responsible for us: there was divine intentionality in our evolution. So in other words, I still don't know what point I might be missing!

As far as I have been taught bara means "create out of nothing" as distinct from yatsar which means "create out of something". If Adam (ie the personhood of Adam) evolved from "whatever" then the scripture has lied. If Adam evolved then it should have used another hebrew word to give this meaning, but it didn't.

But people want to go on saying that humans "evolved" when scripture is clear that they didn't. They do so based on science which is only ever partial learning. The point is: that scripture must take precedence over all human learning and understanding otherwise we cannot be led/filled by the Spirit.

This is why genez said to you:

Jesus spoke about what was WRITTEN. Not something assumed.

Note the capitals. We are meant to learn about God from what is WRITTEN not what we think we have discovered.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Didaskomenos]

As far as I have been taught bara means "create out of nothing" as distinct from yatsar which means "create out of something". If Adam (ie the personhood of Adam) evolved from "whatever" then the scripture has lied. If Adam evolved then it should have used another hebrew word to give this meaning, but it didn't.

(Most of this section is from http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html - check it out.)
Yatsar can indeed mean "to create out of something". And it is true that bara' was only used when no material was involved. But the meaning of bara' in Gen. 1 was not to "create without using materials", but to establish, referring to roles or functions. This is demonstrated by the parallel use of bara' with people groups, Jerusalem, phenomena, abstractions, etc. (see the link above).

But people want to go on saying that humans "evolved" when scripture is clear that they didn't. They do so based on science which is only ever partial learning. The point is: that scripture must take precedence over all human learning and understanding otherwise we cannot be led/filled by the Spirit.

It's ridiculous to say that Scripture takes precedence over learning and understanding - as though interpreting Scripture requires no human intellect! Otherwise what you're advocating is that we must turn off our brains entirely in order to engage the Scriptures at all! I disagree with that wholeheartedly, as would any defender of the faith for centuries.

Note the capitals. We are meant to learn about God from what is WRITTEN not what we think we have discovered.

How can we know what is written unless we filter it through our brains and what is contained in them first? How would you know that the Scripture is not stating scientific fact when it talks about the sun rising? That evil Copernicus spread the lie that the earth goes around the sun, right? It's simply preposterous to think that we shouldn't use every means available to us for us to get a better understanding of what the Scripture is saying! The Holy Spirit enlightens us to spiritual truth (the primary purpose of the Bible), but why should he entrust that truth to us if we don't care enough about truth to try our best to interpret the Scriptures aright?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Problem with the "Scripture says that man didn't evolve", indeed along with "Scripture says that the world was created in six days", is that it means that Scripture is demonstrably wrong.

I prefer a Scripture that is right, not wrong. One that can only be interpreted the way YECs insist it must be is as wrong as the creation of the world from the body of Ymir.

This is the fundamental problem with YEC - it shouts, loud and clear, to scientist and well-informed layman alike "Christianity is false".

And it isn't. Thus, YEC is not true.

 

[sawdust]

Problem with the "Scripture says that man didn't evolve", indeed along with "Scripture says that the world was created in six days", is that it means that Scripture is demonstrably wrong.

I prefer a Scripture that is right, not wrong. One that can only be interpreted the way YECs insist it must be is as wrong as the creation of the world from the body of Ymir.

This is the fundamental problem with YEC - it shouts, loud and clear, to scientist and well-informed layman alike "Christianity is false".

And it isn't. Thus, YEC is not true.

"Scripture says that man didn't evolve",

That's true

"Scripture says that the world was created in six days"

Oh? On which day was that when God said.. "and let the earth be created"???

If you read, it is quite clear the earth was created "in the beginning" along with the heavens.

And please don't go throwing me in any YEC camps thankyou, most of them make me wanna cringe. (shudder)

 

[sawdust]

It's ridiculous to say that Scripture takes precedence over learning and understanding - as though interpreting Scripture requires no human intellect! Otherwise what you're advocating is that we must turn off our brains entirely in order to engage the Scriptures at all! I disagree with that wholeheartedly, as would any defender of the faith for centuries.

I fail to see how it can be ridiculous to say that the Word of God is our authority. Do you not call Jesus Lord? The Word made flesh? Within the written word is the mindset of God. What He thinks, how He acts, what He has done, is doing and is going to do. He is the Alpha and Omega, or do you think God is making the story up as we go along in time?

Do you not truly understand what Paul meant when he said the things of God are spiritually discerned?

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Cor.2:14

My reference to "human learning and understanding" was meant in the sense of human viewpoint as being greater than Divine viewpoint. You are taking it out of context to suggest therefore we would need to "disengage our brains". There is a whole lot of stuff science (irrespective of the field) has said "cannot be" because there is "no evidence", but then guess what, various evidences come along that make us change our understanding. Or we do something like launch a Hubble telescope that enables us to see further than we could before.

I'm not a scientist but I do enjoy my science programs. I enjoy finding out about all the new things we discover but when science starts dictating it's theories as truth? When it starts to allow it's assumptions to be the determining factor of what is? Then I pull the plug on it. Just give me the facts. Not that I am advocating science should be without theories, for this is how we continue to learn and prove what is true, but it needs to clearly distinguish it's theories from it's facts when presenting to the "unlearned mind". It doesn't always do that.

That evil Copernicus spread the lie that the earth goes around the sun, right?

Well, I've read the Bible quite a few times and I'm still wondering where those guys ever got the idea that the earth just had to revolve round the sun. But there you go... a good example of "human wisdom".

The Holy Spirit enlightens us to spiritual truth (the primary purpose of the Bible),.....

This is sounding a little like you see matter and spirit as being unconnected? Or that spiritual truth has no determining factor upon matter? Just wondering.

but why should he entrust that truth to us if we don't care enough about truth to try our best to interpret the Scriptures aright?

I would say He doesn't entrust us with that truth, at least not at a personal level which may be why we see the Church so fragmented and powerless to overcome the evils in the world. But we also need to appreciate that our "best interpretation" (or even our worst) doesn't impress God in the least. He looks for those who will walk by faith, who will be led by His Spirit. It is to these whom He gives more and more understanding. I am reminded of the following:

"Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
38Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all.
39“But you have a custom that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Do you therefore want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”
40Then they all cried again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber." John 18:37-40

Seems like the truth was right in front of Pilate's face (literally) but still the truth was unknown to him. And as an aside, looks like according to this, Jesus didn't come to die for our sins but rather to be proclaimed King. Seems like there's a whole lot more to the plot after all.

But I digress... I will get to that link you gave but it might take me awhile.

peace

 

[Didaskomenos]

I fail to see how it can be ridiculous to say that the Word of God is our authority. Do you not call Jesus Lord? The Word made flesh? Within the written word is the mindset of God. What He thinks, how He acts, what He has done, is doing and is going to do. He is the Alpha and Omega, or do you think God is making the story up as we go along in time?

Do you not truly understand what Paul meant when he said the things of God are spiritually discerned?

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1Cor.2:14

"The things of the Spirit of God" have nothing to do with determining what genre each passage of Scripture is. It has to do with application, not interpretation. I think it's unreasonable to assume that the Spirit takes over as soon as you pick up a Bible.

My reference to "human learning and understanding" was meant in the sense of human viewpoint as being greater than Divine viewpoint. You are taking it out of context to suggest therefore we would need to "disengage our brains". There is a whole lot of stuff science (irrespective of the field) has said "cannot be" because there is "no evidence", but then guess what, various evidences come along that make us change our understanding. Or we do something like launch a Hubble telescope that enables us to see further than we could before.

Of course the Divine viewpoint's better, but no one reading the Bible can claim to have the Divine viewpoint - especially when they're just taking a surface reading of the text, one that ignores all the peripheral information that contextualizes it. And it's not just "no evidence" that Creation account is historical and scientifically valid. There's plenty of evidence that it is neither of the two. There's quite a difference.

My point is that the old "man's vs. God's interpretation" jab ignores the fact that man was meant to and in all cases does determine the intepretation of Scripture. It's arrogant to say that TE's interpret more "humanly" and creationists alone have God's special read on Genesis, because they think there's some spiritual advantage to reading the text without any attempt at contextualizing it in reality as we know it. We are simply going with the best knowledge of reality possible and saying, "The Bible reflects spiritual reality irrespective of our limited understanding of physical reality."

Well, I've read the Bible quite a few times and I'm still wondering where those guys ever got the idea that the earth just had to revolve round the sun. But there you go... a good example of "human wisdom".

Saying the sun rises and sets presumes that the sun is moving in relation to the earth rather than vice versa.

This is sounding a little like you see matter and spirit as being unconnected? Or that spiritual truth has no determining factor upon matter? Just wondering.

No, spirit and matter do indeed interact. The Genesis mythology is mythological truth, not scientific or historical truth, because the spiritual underpinnings are true.

I would say He doesn't entrust us with that truth, at least not at a personal level which may be why we see the Church so fragmented and powerless to overcome the evils in the world. But we also need to appreciate that our "best interpretation" (or even our worst) doesn't impress God in the least. He looks for those who will walk by faith, who will be led by His Spirit. It is to these whom He gives more and more understanding. I am reminded of the following:

"Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”
Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
38Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no fault in Him at all.
39“But you have a custom that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Do you therefore want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”
40Then they all cried again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber." John 18:37-40

Seems like the truth was right in front of Pilate's face (literally) but still the truth was unknown to him. And as an aside, looks like according to this, Jesus didn't come to die for our sins but rather to be proclaimed King. Seems like there's a whole lot more to the plot after all.

Interesting, but I'm unsure what bearing this has on our discussion.

 

[sawdust]

My point is that the old "man's vs. God's interpretation" jab......

A jab? Do you always see an attack on your person when someone tries to explain their understanding of things and it differs from yours?

Thanks for your time but if that's your attitude our conversation is ended.

peace

 

[herev]

A jab? Do you always see an attack on your person when someone tries to explain their understanding of things and it differs from yours?

Thanks for your time but if that's your attitude our conversation is ended.

peace

ridiculous--when you say that somone--another Christian--would prefer that we go by what man says than what God says--is that not a jab with the intended result being to denegrate them and elevate yourself?

 

[Didaskomenos]

A jab? Do you always see an attack on your person when someone tries to explain their understanding of things and it differs from yours?

Thanks for your time but if that's your attitude our conversation is ended.

peace

What? Did I say ad hominem? I meant "jab" as an attack in general. You critiqued my "understanding of things," obviously not me personally, but you used a flashy distraction of an argument, which I termed a "jab".

Or was this just an easy way out?