Gap creationism v. progressive creationism..

[DarkSoul999]

Really no reason the think the second chapter is figurative. Some of the naming conventions, 'Adam, Eve, and Serpent have figurative meanings buts the extent of it. It's popular with some evangelicals, is that there was a local flood and other communities that survived the flood. Neith a figurative interpretive or a local flood can be reconciled with the clear meaning of the text. Neanderthals had a migration pattern fonsistant with Noah and his family emerging from the Ark in modern Turkey. Their remains are found from Iraq to Spain, very often in caves indicating a practice common to this day. The Neanderthal had a brain 20% greater then our own, religion, tools and weapons of various kinds. DNA comparisons indicated their genome would have been compatible with our own.

It might even be possible that the "serpent" was some jerk Neanderthal who convinced Adam and Eve to sin. The Bible does not need to go into any detail on this matter because it is unimportant and changes nothing in the scripture.

 

[Anguspure]

I agree. If it was written to be highly specific like so many creation myths it would be totally dismissed by now.

The deliberate vagueness of Genesis caused Christians to invent early European science. Had it been a straight up creation myth about planet sized turtles we wouldn't even be typing on computers right now! xD

On the other hand a deeper and more specific study of the Hebrew reveals a very profound description of creation.

For example:
In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-a-vis the Bible, are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. At Harvard, at the Weidner library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentences you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.

The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that God couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days for an infinitely powerful God? No problem.

So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.

The idea of looking for a deeper meaning in Torah is no different than looking for deeper meaning in science. Just as we look for the deeper readings in science to learn the working of nature, so too we need to look for the deeper readings in Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 25:11 alluded to this. “A word well spoken is like apples of Gold in a silver dish.” Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed interprets this proverb: The silver dish is the literal text of the Torah, as seen from a distance. The apples of gold are the secrets held within the silver dish of the Torah Text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are subtleties in the Text that expand the meaning way beyond its simple reading. It's those subtleties I want to see.
Dr Gerald Schroeder Age of the Universe

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This Holy Bible, God's Inspired, Infallible and Inerrant Word, says NO! Who really gives a hoot about science or the like, they are ALWAYS WRONG!

The rocks don't lie. The operative word is "in the beginning". If evidence shows an earth older than the recent creation of YEC belief then there was indeed a large time gap between that and the earth of the YECists.

 

[Anguspure]

The rocks don't lie. The operative word is "in the beginning". If evidence shows an earth older than the recent creation of YEC belief then there was indeed a large time gap between that and the earth of the YECists.

Yes, creation itself is a revelation of God. As was the case for flate earth and geocentricism, if our interpretation of scripture is at odds with the revelation of God in creation then perhaps we need to modify our approach somewhat.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions”."

* This excerpt is from “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” by St. Augustine of Hippo written AD 415

 

[Daniel9v9]

Real people witnessed Christ return from the grave.

The fantasy of a young flat Earth exists only in the minds of loopy modern Christians.

Genesis 1 was NEVER supposed to be a geology lesson. It was and is a highly abbreviated picture of the world meant to express God's role and power. A complete picture would fill a thousand books just like it does now!

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, in a world dominated by Rationalism, we can't fall into poor Biblical exegesis by ignoring explicit truths as given us through the Word of God. Genesis, in short, explains something of epic proportions in very simple terms - Its primary focus is on Almighty God's relationship with man, and the promise of Christ. Whatever scientific theory we may have, it needs to concur with the entire corpus of Scripture.

As already mentioned, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the deluge or the literal persons of Adam and Eve as the first actual human beings, or God's creation of animals, are purely figurative or symbolic. Jesus himself testifies to these things, and so does Moses (the Law) and the Apostles (the Gospel).

 

[Chinchilla]

Yep. It is not possible for any human, especially a below average human to comprehend infinite intelligence. God does not see ANY events in sequence. He already saw Christ on the cross when the early chapters of the Old Testament were still being written. Past, present, and future are totally interchangeable where he is sitting!

1. Christ was God
2. He came to earth and was inside of human body.
3. Human body is limited to time and sequences
4. He was limited to time and sequences

Also your post is reported for calling me below average human , if you can't win argument just leave don't attack the person behind it .

 

[Tolworth John]

one would need to show that God's Word/command was not the sufficient cause of creation

We do not need to show this, as Gods word is sufficient to create out nothing.

God's commands do not necessitate complete fulfillment within each day.

he bible discribes creation as taking 6 days and no longer.

As is seen in the 10 commandments.

 

[Jamsie]

We do not need to show this, as Gods word is sufficient to create out nothing.
he bible discribes creation as taking 6 days and no longer.
As is seen in the 10 commandments.

Agreed that is exactly what was stated that God's word is all sufficient. What does "Let the land produce..." or "Let the water bring forth..." mean?

 

[mark kennedy]

It might even be possible that the "serpent" was some jerk Neanderthal who convinced Adam and Eve to sin. The Bible does not need to go into any detail on this matter because it is unimportant and changes nothing in the scripture.

Serpent is more like a proper name, aka the Dragon and the Devil as he is called in Revelations. That Serpent of old, yea it most certainly has implications for the rest of Scripture just as the rest of Genesis does.

 

[DarkSoul999]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, in a world dominated by Rationalism, we can't fall into poor Biblical exegesis by ignoring explicit truths as given us through the Word of God. Genesis, in short, explains something of epic proportions in very simple terms - Its primary focus is on Almighty God's relationship with man, and the promise of Christ. Whatever scientific theory we may have, it needs to concur with the entire corpus of Scripture.

As already mentioned, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that the deluge or the literal persons of Adam and Eve as the first actual human beings, or God's creation of animals, are purely figurative or symbolic. Jesus himself testifies to these things, and so does Moses (the Law) and the Apostles (the Gospel).

There is nothing wrong with describing Adam and Eve as the first humans. This does not contradict anything in currently accepted science. There was at one point in time only two Cro Magnon who produced all future generations.

 

[DarkSoul999]

1. Christ was God
2. He came to earth and was inside of human body.
3. Human body is limited to time and sequences
4. He was limited to time and sequences

Also your post is reported for calling me below average human , if you can't win argument just leave don't attack the person behind it .

It wasn't target at you but apparently you identify as such. 25% of the population struggles with logical thinking so they really ought to be take their time when addressing new information. You can report me or be as offended as you would like I don't care. Facts are facts.

Yes Jesus was human and confined to time. That changes nothing about God's perspective.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

There is nothing wrong with describing Adam and Eve as the first humans. This does not contradict anything in currently accepted science. There was at one point in time only two Cro Magnon who produced all future generations.

They seem to have mixed with Neanderthals.

 

[gideon123]

I offer these thoughts without any "head bashing". You are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions.

One problem with the more literal interpretation of Genesis is the word "day". It appears quite clearly ... On the first day, On the second day.

So let me ask you .... what Day? Genesis says the planets were not created until Day 4. But a "day" can only exist when Planet Earth is rotating in the light of the Sun. Therefore, the first three days cannot possibly have existed, if you take a literal interpretation. Do you see why that is a problem?

I dont mind if people want to use a literal interpretation. But I object strongly to the idea that Christians who interpret Genesis differently have a 'weaker faith', or a 'watered down faith'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I see nothing in the Bible that tells us that our beliefs should be simplistic.

Furthermore, if God wanted to spell out exactly how He created the Universe, there is not a single person alive today who would understand His words. Therefore, God gave us an account that is intelligible - to our own minds and our own lives. That is my point of view.

Blessings!!

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I offer these thoughts without any "head bashing". You are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions.

One problem with the more literal interpretation of Genesis is the word "day". It appears quite clearly ... On the first day, On the second day.

So let me ask you .... what Day? Genesis says the planets were not created until Day 4. But a "day" can only exist when Planet Earth is rotating in the light of the Sun. Therefore, the first three days cannot possibly have existed, if you take a literal interpretation. Do you see why that is a problem?

I dont mind if people want to use a literal interpretation. But I object strongly to the idea that Christians who interpret Genesis differently have a 'weaker faith', or a 'watered down faith'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I see nothing in the Bible that tells us that our beliefs should be simplistic.

Furthermore, if God wanted to spell out exactly how He created the Universe, there is not a single person alive today who would understand His words. Therefore, God gave us an account that is intelligible - to our own minds and our own lives. That is my point of view.

Blessings!!

Genesis 1 does say that there was light before the making of the sun and the moon. I think that dividing the light from the darkness has some deeper meaning - but I agree - Genesis 1 is framed in a way that we can understand. There is also some meaning to there being no night - only morning and evening - what that meaning is - that night has some other significance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Genesis 1 sets the stage for everything that is to follow. Lots of analogy, metaphor, and typology there. God is basically making some very sharp distinctions in this first chapter. What is clear is that this is a renewal of the earth's surface, not the original creation.

 

[The Ark Hive Mind]

I offer these thoughts without any "head bashing". You are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions.

One problem with the more literal interpretation of Genesis is the word "day". It appears quite clearly ... On the first day, On the second day.

So let me ask you .... what Day? Genesis says the planets were not created until Day 4. But a "day" can only exist when Planet Earth is rotating in the light of the Sun. Therefore, the first three days cannot possibly have existed, if you take a literal interpretation. Do you see why that is a problem? ...

If I may share a thought?

The "light" of Days 1-3, are the glory of God itself, as shining from the face Jesus Christ:

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2Co 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.​

God is light:

1Jn_1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Rev_21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

&c.​

Jesus is even called the "Sun of righteousness", the "Light" of the world:

Mal_4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.​

God conceals Himself in thick darkness [wraps in waters, like clouds], but can reveal that glory.

Deu_5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.​

Notice, that Genesis is the history of the original of natural days of the 7 day week, for the natural comes first, and later the spiritual:

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.​

Without the natural first, the spiritual or even symbolic cannot be understand without the foundation of the natural. For instance, there was a natural lamb slain in Genesis 3, and later comes the spiritual Lamb, Jesus Christ. Metaphoric days cannot be understood without there first being natural days.

Also, 'light' is more than sunlight, but is what some call the entire 'electro-magnetic' spectrum.

God said in Exodus, that He literally created in 6 days, and rested the 7th, and even ties it to human experience, since as Jesus said, the sabbath of Creation was made for the man:

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:​

We do not have to guess about Genesis at all, when we prayerfully ask God, and study His word as instructed, Isa. 28:10.

I pray that this sheds some light on Genesis. There is the natural in Genesis, and then there is great material in the spiritual there dealing with salvation [for sinners are in darkness [even as the mind/heart is encased in water in darkness and is made of earth, think about your brain where it is, what it is], without form and void, and the Gospel brings the light, and reformation and life, and each day from the natural, also explains the spiritual events of the Gospel upon the individual, as well as the whole world], but the one does not negate or erase the other.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"I pray that this sheds some light on Genesis. There is the natural in Genesis, and then there is great material in the spiritual there dealing with salvation....... "

But that would mean that the light in Genesis 1 was the natural light, the light of the sun.

 

[marineimaging]

I believe in gap creationism or the gap theory. The theory is based on Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

the gap is here: there was one creation of the world, the prehistoric world of ammonites, trilobites, etc. This gap is supported by the following:

Deuteronomy 32:4–32:4
4 The Rock, his work is perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he.

according to deut. there is no demiurge, but a creator without deceit, and the creation was perfect.

Isaiah 45:18–45:18
18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it - he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited! : I am the Lord, and there is no other.

Ezekiel 28:11-19 - the fall of Lucifer.

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.

'And the earth was without form', can also be rendered as 'became without form and void.

Psalm 104: 31-35
30 When you send forth your spirit, they are created; and you renew the face of the ground.

The action of the Holy Spirit, upon the waters, is a renewal or re-creation, in six literal days.

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.

the dry land appears - it was already there, it was not made or created at this point.

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.

The earth brings forth - this is like a form-making potential of the earth itself.

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:

this light from the luminaries is different to the original light, in verse 3 - the luminaries are set in the firmament of the heaven - not outside it, as with outer-space vacuum. The waters have been divided, above and below - and presumably the waters are still above the firmament.

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.

God made the sun and the moon, and the stars, on the fourth day. This means that there was light previously to day four, but no night - just evening and morning, so the cycle of 24 hours occurs with the making of the sun and moon on day four. This means that there is not a specific time duration for the previous days, and the vegetation, brought forth on the third day, might have lasted long enough for the trees to mature.

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.

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.

v.25 says that God made the beast of the earth - this is a different Hebrew word to create. In my understanding, the earth and water has creative potential.

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.

Man is created (see verse 27) in the image of God - not drawn from earth or water. Man does not have dominion over beast of the earth (it is missing in verse 26).

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So, the cosmology of Genesis one is, in my understanding, like a flat disc, that appears out of water, above and below. The firmament is a space made between the waters. There is a barrier of some sort, separating the water above the firmament - so there is no vacuum of space above. When I studied this, years ago, sticking to a very literal reading of the text, I derived a flat disc surrounded by water. This went against my understanding of the globe-earth, so I couldn't deduce the truth from the text.
The bible makes it clear that the earth is fixed. Just one example -

Psalm 104:5
5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Atheist critics will say that the authors of the bible were just ignoramus' and believed that the earth was fixed. My research has led me to believe that the earth is fixed, and is not a globe. Space is fake and hoaxed. Genesis 1 was correct.
So what about Hugh Ross and 'reasons to believe? - old earth progressive creationism. I think there is value to the study that they have done on the hominids. However, in my opinion, they try to shoe-horn in the bible, to fit the science.
Genetic studies conclude that homo-sapiens originated 150,000 yrs in East Africa. There is evidence that homo-sapiens interbred with homo-neanderthal when they moved out of Africa into Europe. This lines up with Genesis one, but not with the rest of Genesis. So, do we need to drop the genealogies of Genesis? - arriving at 6000 years? I think so. I don't think you can try to work it, so that 6000 years becomes 50K yrs as Hugh Ross tries to do.

I personally think that the flood of Noah, is impossible. When you think about the birds and marsupials of Australia, and the bird distribution in the Americas - and the number of insect species - it seems impossible to me. There might have been a flood in southern Mesopotamia - which gave rise to the biblical flood story.

Wikipedia says that YEC science is pseudo-science. I think the YEC research is also useful, in revealing that geology is not according to Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism, but the layers were deposited by the great flood - only I believe that the great flood was within the gap of Genesis 1, and was not Noah's flood. And nothing survived it. There were no people on the earth. And the seas froze over and there was prolonged darkness:
Job 38:30
30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

What is the age of mankind? Two species, created, some time after the gap in Genesis 1. Maybe three species, if we want to include denisovans. Evolutionists claim that homo-eretcus died out c. 1.8 myrs.
How long ago was the six days of creation? - I don't know, but I do know for certain that YEC is not true - as there is no radioactive carbon remaining in coal - and so the coal is older than 40K yrs.
Hugh Ross' team accept the standard cosmology - inc. the big bang - he has a PhD so he must be correct? I think not. Just because some of the bible is not true, doesn't mean that the foundation of Genesis 1 is not true.

Or, you can just leave it to be that God created the earth and all we know in 6 days and on the 7th He rested and it was Good. Now, spend the rest of your life like Christ, helping and lifting up others in the name of Jesus. If someones needs reason for being Christ centered let them find it themselves becasue you will never convince them beyond what they want to believe - and they can come up with that all by themselves.

 

[Daniel9v9]

There is nothing wrong with describing Adam and Eve as the first humans. This does not contradict anything in currently accepted science. There was at one point in time only two Cro Magnon who produced all future generations.

Sure, but there is one important distinguishing factor: Scripture claims that Adam and Eve were made in the image of God, which means two things: (1) They had original righteousness before God which was lost at the fall, and (2) They were a perfect reflection of God's nature, in that they were fully mature and complete. A part of the latter is that they were highly intelligent and sophisticated, which flies in the face of the idea of human evolution as starting with a lower species.

 

[Tolworth John]

Agreed that is exactly what was stated that God's word is all sufficient. What does "Let the land produce..." or "Let the water bring forth..." mean?

genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
God spoke and plants started to grow.
and
Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

No long ages there just YEC.