Gap Theory; Old Earth Creationism; Genesis 1 & 2

[Halbhh]

The problem with any kind of evolution is sin. If people evolved from another creature, how could they sin? No animal sins. No animal has a conscience. Why should an evolved being be any different? And how could a glorified ape become in the image and likeness of God? What animal has free will? How could that be a product of evolution?

We get a sense God gives us humans a distinct spirit, which makes us distinct from other creatures who don't have that particular spirit. Below are 2 verses where that shows up. Because we have a God-given distinct spirit added to our fleshly body, then we become accountable I think, with a soul that will face God on the Day of Judgement, to a merciful outcome, or for many instead to a Just outcome.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 before the dust returns to the ground from which it came and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

And this individual spirit is known ahead of time (before conception of the bodily flesh!), by the Lord:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Ergo, the soul does not arise primarily from the flesh (though some think the soul is produced from a spirit residing in a physical body for a time however long or brief) -- and our spirit is not a product/outcome of the physical body, but instead the spirit comes from God who gives it -- puts it in the body -- and it will return to Him after the body dies.

 

[Jipsah]

Why not a 7 day creation?

Because it doesn't agree with the evidence of the universe itself, which, you must admit (or at least I think you'll admit) is what God Himself actually made.

Were you there?

Yeah, I was. I was standing just behind you while you were talking to the bloke who was writing Genesis.

Do you have a hotline to God who says that He made it all up?

No, but I htink you need to take Him to task for not making the reality not look enough like the book.

How do you know what is made up and what is literal?

Hmmmm... lemme see if we have any common ground for that one. Do you believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is literally Christ's Body and Blood? I do, because He said it is. So how do you determine what you're going to believe and what you're going to reject?

For example, the book of Revelation describes Satan as the "Serpent of Old". Have you read God's response to Job's complaint in the last chapters of the book? Or is all that a fairy tale too? Where do you draw the line?

See above. Was our Lord speaking the truth, or was He just winding us up?

If you are relying on human understanding, you will be deceived. The world system is under the control of the evil one. Satan is the one who casts doubt on God's word and God's integrity. God's word is truth, or do you not believe that either?

Once again, Body and Blood, or a ritual snack? You can't have this one both ways.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Halbhh]

"...making the reality not look enough like the book."

It's an interesting question eh. I was truly surprised when I first read back in 2017 (as it got published) the news that (mainstream University) researchers had found actual physical evidence of the early Earth being a Water World. And has now been independently verified by competing research groups checking it for themselves.

So, this is only another recent new group finding the same general finding:

Harvard scientists determine early Earth may have been a water world

Which is just what the Bible says also:
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

For a time, until the continents finally appeared:

Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear." And it was so.

I was truly, really surprised by this evidence, as I'd thought the text was only a general vision that was only generally representative, like a simplification -- and not about specific real events in particular. But strictly a general representation of creation happening, in a way the recipient of the vision would be able to understand.

And perhaps it is, mostly -- perhaps it's a mix of both actual events and general representative pictures, just like visions elsewhere in the bible, like the one in Acts 10. In Acts 10 you have a representation (a sheet), but in the representation are pictured real animals as they actually exist. Both. Both representative picture -- the sheet lowered down, not like the real Earth -- but on the sheet real animals pictured -- so you have the abstract and the actual, mixed together.

Now, this kind of direct physical evidence confirmation of the text is not what I expect. I personally would guess we will not get more of this hard physical evidence about other aspects of Genesis 1.

Why?

Because God wants 'faith' from us, instead of merely conceding he exists only after extensive proof. He wants us to trust in Him without seeing extensive proof. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.

 

[Jipsah]

duplicate

 

[Aussie Pete]

Because it doesn't agree with the evidence of the universe itself, which, you must admit (or at least I think you'll admit) is what God Himself actually made.
Yeah, I was. I was standing just behind you while you were talking to the bloke who was writing Genesis.

No, but I htink you need to take Him to task for not making the reality not look enough like the book.

Hmmmm... lemme see if we have any common ground for that one. Do you believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is literally Christ's Body and Blood? I do, because He said it is. So how do you determine what you're going to believe and what you're going to reject?

See above. Was our Lord speaking the truth, or was He just winding us up?

Once again, Body and Blood, or a ritual snack? You can't have this one both ways.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
God is entitled to do what He wants, how He wants without explanation. He has graciously revealed some things to us and left us in the dark on others. You don't know what the earth was like thousands or millions of years ago. No one does.

The Bible frequently explains itself. Jesus is the Word of God. He calls Himself the Bread of Heaven. He is called spiritual food and drink:
1 Corinthians 10:
…3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

When Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Heaven, He was referring to Himself as the spiritual bread. So, man shall not live on bread along, but by every word that is proceeding from the mouth of God. Lord Jesus is that living word.

So no, the bread does not become the physical body of Christ and the wine does not become His physical blood. His physical body and blood were sacrificed on the cross. Lord Jesus is risen from the dead. His body is spiritual, as ours will be one day. The communion bread and wine looks back to remind us and to proclaim the death of Christ for us.

Those who are born again have the indwelling Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of God's word to us.
1 Corinthians 2:
…12We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.…

Christians have a choice. They can try to understand God through natural logic and reason, or they can ask God to reveal truth by His Holy Spirit. I'm reasonably intelligent and reasonably educated. However, I am helpless and hopeless when it comes to the things of God. I depend on Him to make His word meaningful to me. I've learned through much experience that God's "foolishness" is vastly superior to my highest level of learning and powers of reason.

 

[Aussie Pete]

We get a sense God gives us humans a distinct spirit, which makes us distinct from other creatures who don't have that particular spirit. Below are 2 verses where that shows up. Because we have a God-given distinct spirit added to our fleshly body, then we become accountable I think, with a soul that will face God on the Day of Judgement, to a merciful outcome, or for many instead to a Just outcome.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 before the dust returns to the ground from which it came and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

And this individual spirit is known ahead of time (before conception of the bodily flesh!), by the Lord:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Ergo, the soul does not arise primarily from the flesh (though some think the soul is produced from a spirit residing in a physical body for a time however long or brief) -- and our spirit is not a product/outcome of the physical body, but instead the spirit comes from God who gives it -- puts it in the body -- and it will return to Him after the body dies.

The question for theistic evolutionists is when this came to pass. And how. God explains what He did and how in Genesis. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Halbhh]

The question for theistic evolutionists is when this came to pass. And how. God explains what He did and how in Genesis. Why is that so hard to accept?

Exactly. Consider then: why is it hard to just read and listen to what the text says without painting young earth theories onto it? Let me answer that. The reason we have young earth theories is because just like in all of time, including thousands of years ago -- some questioned God existing at all (as you see in the Old Testament if you read through it). Of course, not believing in God, individuals will then as a mere secondary outcome of their atheism then of course doubt/question most of the various things in all of the bible, including creation of course, thus Genesis chapter 1 (just like for every other of the 66 books).

And so today, modern young earth theories today are a defensive reaction, because some believers accepted the atheist premise without pausing to more carefully think about that premise == that if the earth is old, then the atheist assertion is that would disprove God.

But that's is a false assertion/premise, and we should not accept that premise as a starting point for any discussion. But many have. And then having mistakenly accepted that atheist idea, we see in reaction all of these various young earth theories in defensive reaction to the idea that the old Earth means God doesn't exist.

God exists no matter if the Earth is 1 second old, or 454 years, or 23.5 trillion years, etc., etc.

 

[TomBombidil]

The problem with any kind of evolution is sin. If people evolved from another creature, how could they sin? No animal sins. No animal has a conscience. Why should an evolved being be any different? And how could a glorified ape become in the image and likeness of God? What animal has free will? How could that be a product of evolution?

I’m not saying I agree with this theory, but it is explained as human beings being imbued with a soul once they reached a certain level of evolution development that allowed them to be considered “humans”, and these first beings imbued with advanced cognitive abilities and a soul by God are considered Adam and Eve.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It says, "Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted"

That sounds like no vegetation to me.

Does it say no herb, no grass, no plant? 'Shrub of the field' sounds to me like cultivated bush or fruit tree, and 'plant of the field' sounds like crops. If we are going to say no vegetation, then could we not also say no infection, no bacteria, no microbiology, no intestinal probiotics, etc. ?

 

[Hawkins]

Where are we chronologically in Genesis 2? And,

We all made the assumption that there is only one space/time for God to do the creation and earth has been in its current location all the time. However, it doesn't need to be so.

Earth was created alone, that is independent of our universe, in another space. It is "moved" to our space on day 4. it is thus possible that all plants died during the transition, and re-grew later on. Our human dating methods cannot be usable in this case, as we can't calculate how isotopes behave during the transition. The pre-grown plants before earth moved into our universe serve the purpose of a reservoir of petroleum to be used today.

The above can hardly be conveyed precisely through ancient humans. In order for information to flow, you need to first make some sense out of the situation for ancient humans to comprehend and put it into stories. The maximum human capability to convey facts is by means of a story. God enforces the stories such that the information intended to convey remains intact.

In terms of today's computer technology, it's more like information is encoded into stories for today's humans to decode. You need a key to do the decoding, and you need to stay close to God in order to get the key. In the case of ancient facts without God's enforcement, they all turned into myths and lost the factual information, just as all the flood stores in the different cultures.


That said. Science is incapable of confirming a historical truth. Science relies on a phenomenon's repeatability to confirm the truth behind such a phenomenon. History is a one-time event and thus is out of science's capability to confirm.

History can only be conveyed to its accuracy by means of testimonies. While testimony is considered valid in the presence of two or more eyewitnesses. His Trinity thus testifies to the truth and allows humans such as Noah and Moses to convey the truth as testimonies we read today through the Scripture.

 

[southwestforests]

It says, "Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted"

That sounds like no vegetation to me.

Or might 'of the field' mean that plants of certain classes had not yet appeared while there were other classes of plants; such as it being assumed there were plants of the wild lands but not yet plants for cultivated lands?

 

[southwestforests]

Does it say no herb, no grass, no plant? 'Shrub of the field' sounds to me like cultivated bush or fruit tree, and 'plant of the field' sounds like crops. If we are going to say no vegetation, then could we not also say no infection, no bacteria, no microbiology, no intestinal probiotics, etc. ?

Oh, made my reply before my brain registered yours!

 

[BobRyan]

Bible writers used a summary- then expand on details as their method of writing, in many cases

Gen 2 adds "details" to the timeboxed chronological sequence given in Gen 1 -

So in Gen 2, there is no sun, no moon, no stars, no air, no fish, no sea etc -- since it is not trying to rewrite Gen 1.

But it points to the 7 day week element

We see in scripture a solid hard-wired link between the literal days in Ex 20 "legal code" and Gen 2 as noted below.

In Ex 20:8-11 we have legal code - very clear, exact and precise.
9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:1-3
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

And in Gen 1 each day is one single "evening and morning" rather than one eon or one age.

As noted in the OP -- the phrasing above is not how evolution's opposing view is stated in any science text that I know of.

? what? Hmmm, did you leave out a wording like "at first" or something?

In Gen 2 there is no mention at all of atmosphere, air, sea, no sun or moon or stars are mentioned, no fish -- which is fine since it merely adds detail to the previous chapter - it does not delete the chapter.

 

[BobRyan]

I tend to see it as historical and theological truth told through figurative and poetic language,

However the Bible has it in legal code not just historic narrative. See Ex 20:11 as compared to Gen 2:1-3

 

[BobRyan]

Except for the fact that the Genesis timeline doesn't square with the evidence of what God actually did. Which makes perfect sense given that God doesn't reckon time as we do. See 2 Peter 3:8

That does not work because in Legal code in Ex 20:8-11 God says our same 7 day time unit is what was used.

Ex 20 is a hard-wired link between the literal days in Ex 20 "legal code" and Gen 2 as noted below.

In Ex 20:8-11 we have legal code - very clear, exact and precise.
9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:1-3
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

And in Gen 1 each day is one single "evening and morning" rather than one eon or one age.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We all made the assumption that there is only one space/time for God to do the creation and earth has been in its current location all the time. However, it doesn't need to be so.

Earth was created alone, that is independent of our universe, in another space. It is "moved" to our space on day 4. it is thus possible that all plants died during the transition, and re-grew later on. Our human dating methods cannot be usable in this case, as we can't calculate how isotopes behave during the transition. The pre-grown plants before earth moved into our universe serve the purpose of a reservoir of petroleum to be used today.

The above can hardly be conveyed precisely through ancient humans. In order for information to flow, you need to first make some sense out of the situation for ancient humans to comprehend and put it into stories. The maximum human capability to convey facts is by means of a story. God enforces the stories such that the information intended to convey remains intact.

In terms of today's computer technology, it's more like information is encoded into stories for today's humans to decode. You need a key to do the decoding, and you need to stay close to God in order to get the key. In the case of ancient facts without God's enforcement, they all turned into myths and lost the factual information, just as all the flood stores in the different cultures.


That said. Science is incapable of confirming a historical truth. Science relies on a phenomenon's repeatability to confirm the truth behind such a phenomenon. History is a one-time event and thus is out of science's capability to confirm.

History can only be conveyed to its accuracy by means of testimonies. While testimony is considered valid in the presence of two or more eyewitnesses. His Trinity thus testifies to the truth and allows humans such as Noah and Moses to convey the truth as testimonies we read today through the Scripture.

Multiply that by 'relativity', and multiply that by 'quantum mechanics' and you've got a real mess for science to sort out. We really don't know very much.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Because it doesn't agree with the evidence of the universe itself, which, you must admit (or at least I think you'll admit) is what God Himself actually made.

you not factoring something in here. Gen 1 is written from God's perspective which is the speed of light. We examine the universe at the speed of the planet. this gap may be what accounts for the difference in time measurement.

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives - aish.com Medical and Nature, Science & Medicine, Current Issues, Interpersonal, Judaism 101

 

[Mark Quayle]

you not factoring something in here. Gen 1 is written from God's perspective which is the speed of light. We examine the universe at the speed of the planet. this gap may be what accounts for the difference in time measurement.

The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives - aish.com Medical and Nature, Science & Medicine, Current Issues, Interpersonal, Judaism 101

What makes you think God's perspective is the speed of light? Why limit him to that?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

What makes you think God's perspective is the speed of light? Why limit him to that?

the scripture says, God is light, he lives in light. to live in light you must travel as fast as light.

 

[Halbhh]

Bible writers used a summary- then expand on details method of writing in many cases

Gen 2 adds "details" to the timeboxed chronological sequence given in Gen 1 -

So in Gen 2, there is no sun, no moon, no stars, no air, no fish, no sea etc -- since it is not trying to rewrite Gen 1.

But it points to the 7 day week element





In Gen 2 there is no mention at all of atmosphere, air, sea, no sun or moon or stars are mentioned, no fish -- which is fine since it merely adds detail to the previous chapter - it does not delete the chapter.

I've heard that theory before, yes.