Gap Theory; Old Earth Creationism; Genesis 1 & 2

[BobRyan]

you not factoring something in here.

God is writing (literally) in Ex 20 - and says it is 7 days at Sinai that are the same as the 7 days in Gen 2:1-3 (see Ex 20:11) -- legal code (as literal as one can get).

God is an expert communicator and told Israel that the 7 day week they were to observe was in fact literal - so then literally once every 7 days ... no manna fell.

I don't think the issue here is that God could not, or would not, communicate to humans - a time frame that makes sense to humans.

 

[Psalm 27]

Genesis accounts are not historical. They are figurative.

I disagree

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

I know the argument, promoted by Catholicism. It makes no sense. So a random being somewhere, sometime, was selected and appointed the founder of the human race? What about all the other beings who were no different? How can a spirit evolve? What about all the other humans (?) who did not sin as Adam did? Where are they now? It totally contradicts God's word. I don't have all the answers. No one is that good. But I sure have learned that God says what He means and means what He says.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

It's not that new a theory. Bishop James Ussher calculated the age of the earth in the 17th century, about 1650. He put it as 4004. BC. Ussher used the stated genealogies in the OT to arrive at his conclusion.

I think it unfair to say that people are just painting YEC theories onto the Genesis account. It was obviously believed long before geologists began to question the age of the earth. It is also fair to say than an ancient earth is essential to evolutionary theory. Since evolution has been bandied about as "proof" that God is either not real or unnecessary, then it's easy to see why YEC people reject the old earth concept. Translators have assumed YEC, hence the use of the word "was" instead of the equally correct "became" in Genesis 1:2.

 

[Jipsah]

God is entitled to do what He wants, how He wants without explanation.

True enough. But most of us are inclined to believe that He doesn't do things that are ridiculous. Yeah, He could have created the universe last December and simply made it look like it's a zillion years old. That would have given Him the 6 days necessary and we'd never know the difference. But that isn't the way to bet, is it? Yeah, God could run a scam on us and it would never fail, but we don't, most of us, believe that's how He operates.

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.

God has also given us the brains to take a look at what He's done and see the evidence of how He did it.

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:

This, I take it, is where you "explain away" our Lord's own words as touching His real presense in the Eucharist. The Jews of His time found the idea repellent, and so, it seems, do many people now, who feel the necessity of telling us what He "really meant"

So it all depends on your doctrine. His words are sybolic when you want them to be and literal when you want them to be. It appears to me, though that you have it reversed. You take the one that is clearly a condensed version of the Creation as literal, and our Lords Words that He was insistent enough about that it drove away those of His followers who wouldn't deal with it. (A lot of them probably took Genesis literally as well, you reckon?)

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.

Keeps your doctrine intact, doesn't it?

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.

So the Eucharist is just a sip and nibble done at odd intervals to jog our memories. No big deal. St Paul abviously saw it differently:

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Hard to discern something you don't believe is there in the first place, don't you think?

Yep, to me the idea that "Genesis must be literal but our Lord's Body and Blood must not be" is like declaring that we should never eat the cereal and always eat the box.

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.

But our Lord can't be taken literally when He says that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood, because that just makes no sense, right? But Genesis must be taken literally even though it mkes no sense. One is very Spiritual, and one Is Not. And I still maintain tat you're throwing away the cornflakes and eating the box.

 

[Aussie Pete]

True enough. But most of us are inclined to believe that He doesn't do things that are ridiculous. Yeah, He could have created the universe last December and simply made it look like it's a zillion years old. That would have given Him the 6 days necessary and we'd never know the difference. But that isn't the way to bet, is it? Yeah, God could run a scam on us and it would never fail, but we don't, most of us, believe that's how He operates.

God has also given us the brains to take a look at what He's done and see the evidence of how He did it.

This, I take it, is where you "explain away" our Lord's own words as touching His real presense in the Eucharist. The Jews of His time found the idea repellent, and so, it seems, do many people now, who feel the necessity of telling us what He "really meant"

So it all depends on your doctrine. His words are sybolic when you want them to be and literal when you want them to be. It appears to me, though that you have it reversed. You take the one that is clearly a condensed version of the Creation as literal, and our Lords Words that He was insistent enough about that it drove away those of His followers who wouldn't deal with it. (A lot of them probably took Genesis literally as well, you reckon?)

Keeps your doctrine intact, doesn't it?

So the Eucharist is just a sip and nibble done at odd intervals to jog our memories. No big deal. St Paul abviously saw it differently:

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Hard to discern something you don't believe is there in the first place, don't you think?

Yep, to me the idea that "Genesis must be literal but our Lord's Body and Blood must not be" is like declaring that we should never eat the cereal and always eat the box.

But our Lord can't be taken literally when He says that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood, because that just makes no sense, right? But Genesis must be taken literally even though it mkes no sense. One is very Spiritual, and one Is Not. And I still maintain tat you're throwing away the cornflakes and eating the box.

You are welcome to maintain what you like. There was a rumour that the cornflake box had more nutritional value than the cornflakes........ I am just joking........

By the way, the Lord's body is all those who are born again. (Ephesians 1:23) In context, the passage is referring to the poor treatment of fellow believers. In proper English, 1 Corinthians 11

20Now then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat. 21For as you eat, each of you goes ahead without sharing his meal. While one remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have your own homes in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? No, I will not!

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Thanks for your replies. We may not agree but that's fine. We don't have to go to war over it.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I have a question about Genesis 1 & 2.

View the following:

Genesis 1:9-13 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. [10] God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. [11] Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. [12] The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. [13] And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And then this:

Genesis 2:4-6 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made them. [5] Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. [6] But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

In Genesis 1, God created the earth with vegetation, and on the 6th day created man. Here in Genesis 2, it speaks of no vegetation and no man. Although God created the earth and heavens in Genesis 1 over the span of seven days, did his commands take billions of years to be fulfilled then? Is earth in Genesis 2:5 in a molten state? My questions are:

• Where are we chronologically in Genesis 2? And,
  
• If God had created all these things in Genesis 1, where did they go in Genesis 2?
• Does this prove creation was not instantaneous over seven days? And,
  
• If so, which would be more probable: Gap Theory or Old Earth Creationism?

Gap theory is heresy.
Gap Theory

 

[Jipsah]

God is an expert communicator

Ezcept whe He's talking about the Eucharist or something that runs contrary to dearly held doctrines, in which case we have to be told what He really means, right?

Doctrinally selective literalism. If it helps my doctrine, it's literal. If it doesn't help my doctrine, it's just a figure or speech or something. Got it.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
God is an expert communicator

Ezcept whe He's talking about the Eucharist or something that runs contrary to dearly held doctrines

hmmm really??

let's take a look and see.

John 6:
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 The one who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.​

First thing we notice is at this point in John 6 is ... "nobody bites Christ"... not even Peter.

...61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”​

So there we see Christ explains the symbol explicitly - right in the chapter

Next we see that Peter "gets the point

66 As a result of this many of His disciples left, and would no longer walk with Him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life​

So then - not confusing at all in John 6.

========================= Next example where bread represents teaching

Matt 16
5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, “You men of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you picked up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets you picked up? 11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you about bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis accounts are not historical. They are figurative.

They are literal according to the legal code in Ex 20:11 stating that they are referencing a literal 7 day week just as the one at Sinai.

This is pretty hard to ignore.

 

[Jonaitis]

I have a question about Genesis 1 & 2.

View the following:

Genesis 1:9-13 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. [10] God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. [11] Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. [12] The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. [13] And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And then this:

Genesis 2:4-6 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made them. [5] Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. [6] But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

In Genesis 1, God created the earth with vegetation, and on the 6th day created man. Here in Genesis 2, it speaks of no vegetation and no man. Although God created the earth and heavens in Genesis 1 over the span of seven days, did his commands take billions of years to be fulfilled then? Is earth in Genesis 2:5 in a molten state? My questions are:

• Where are we chronologically in Genesis 2? And,
  
• If God had created all these things in Genesis 1, where did they go in Genesis 2?
• Does this prove creation was not instantaneous over seven days? And,
  
• If so, which would be more probable: Gap Theory or Old Earth Creationism?

It would seem difficult to consider the cosmology of Genesis 1 literally, given our current knowledge of astronomy. You have primordial water prior to the sun, stars and apparently light itself; and, oh, an atmosphere!

However, Genesis 1 and 2 is difficult to reconcile, for some of the reasons you gave. You have the formation of animals after the formation of man in chapter 2, but the formation of animals before the formation of man in chapter 1. You will noticed a shift in language too, that God is called 'elohim' in chapter 1, but 'yhweh' in chapter 2.

It is best, in my opinion, to take the creation accounts Christological rather than literal, because that's what is most important when it comes to doctrinal interpretation.

 

[BobRyan]

It would seem difficult to consider the cosmology of Genesis 1 literally, given our current knowledge of astronomy.

How so given that Genesis 1 and 2 only describes the Earth the Sun and the Moon - as well as all life on Earth coming about in those 7 days. It says God is the creator of all the stars but does not say when He created them. It only says that on day 4 exactly TWO great lights were created - the Sun, and the moon.

You have primordial water prior to the sun, stars and apparently light itself; and, oh, an atmosphere!

Water covers the surface of the deep - but it does not say "in what form" the water is and we know that in empty space you can have hydrogen and oxygen. In fact you can have ice.

Still a rapidly formed earth having a "surface of the deep" already before the start of day 1 - could well have enough geothermal residual heat dissipating so as to support liquid water around it. I don't think that gets ruled out very quickly from a scientific POV.

However, Genesis 1 and 2 is difficult to reconcile,

On the contrary - they are easy to reconcile because Gen 2 is "details added" to the already established facts/details in chapter 1. It is not a "delete and start over" chapter, for the reasons I already gave.

You have the formation of animals after the formation of man in chapter 2, but the formation of animals before the formation of man in chapter 1.

Chapter 2 has no days. It is not a time boxed chronological sequence like chapter 1 is.

And the legal code of Ex 20 makes the timeline in Gen 1-2 literal as seen in Ex 20:11.

Chapter 2 has a reference to God making the animals but does not assign it to any particular day -- and since this is not "delete and start over" we have the information just given in chapter 1 for that detail.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

How so given that Genesis 1 and 2 only describes the Earth the Sun and the Moon - as well as all life on Earth coming about in those 7 days. It says God is the creator of all the stars but does not say when He created them. It only says that on day 4 exactly TWO great lights were created - the Sun, and the moon.



Water covers the surface of the deep - but it does not say "in what form" the water is and we know that in empty space you can have hydrogen and oxygen. In fact you can have ice.



On the contrary - they are easy to reconcile because Gen 2 is "details added" to the already established facts/details in chapter 1. It is not a "delete and start over" chapter, for the reasons I already gave.



Chapter 2 has no days. It is not a time boxed chronological sequence like chapter 1 is.

And the legal code of Ex 20 makes the timeline in Gen 1-2 literal as seen in Ex 20:11.

Chapter 2 has a reference to God making the animals but does not assign it to any particular day -- and since this is not "delete and start over" we have the information just given in chapter 1 for that detail.

It also says it is a memorial "Remember"

Check out the article from Jewish Scholar Dr. Gerald Schroder
The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives - aish.com Medical and Nature, Science & Medicine, Current Issues, Interpersonal, Judaism 101

 

[BobRyan]

It also says it is a memorial "Remember"

Check out the article from Jewish Scholar Dr. Gerald Schroder
The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives - aish.com Medical and Nature, Science & Medicine, Current Issues, Interpersonal, Judaism 101

Interesting but when it says "we can now calculate the age of the universe" in that article I think they have moved beyond the cope of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 does not give any time frame at all for the universe itself. It only mentions this planet and the creation of our own sun and moon.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Interesting but when it says "we can now calculate the age of the universe" in that article I think they have moved beyond the cope of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 does not give any time frame at all for the universe itself. It only mentions this planet and the creation of our own sun and moon.

I think that is the point of the Article. He is trying to reconcile "scientific" evidence with the Biblical record. some how you missed that.

 

[BobRyan]

I think that is the point of the Article. He is trying to reconcile "scientific" evidence with the Biblical record. some how you missed that.

I get that part -- but he goes to "the age of the universe" topic and that is not something the Bible addresses, other than stating God made the heavens and the Earth in vs 1:1 and stating that God was also the one that made the stars as stated later in Gen 1. That was what I was commenting on.

However they wish to "calculate the age of the universe" I don't know that it affects the age of the earth statements in Genesis 1 - since chapter 1 does not claim the universe was made on the same day as Earth's day 1.

He claims day 3 of Genesis 1 lasts 1.8 Billion real years - so that would be plants without any Sun for 1.8 billion years.. I don't know of any science that would be ok with that idea and the Bible certainly does not suggest it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I get that part -- but he goes to "the age of the universe" topic and that is not something the Bible addresses, other than stating God made the heavens and the Earth in vs 1:1 and stating that God was also the one that made the stars as stated later in Gen 1. That was what I was commenting on.

However they wish to "calculate the age of the universe" I don't know that it affects the age of the earth statements in Genesis 1 - since chapter 1 does not claim the universe was made on the same day as Earth's day 1.

some people deny the universe existed apart from the age of the earth.

 

[Jonaitis]

How so given that Genesis 1 and 2 only describes the Earth the Sun and the Moon - as well as all life on Earth coming about in those 7 days. It says God is the creator of all the stars but does not say when He created them. It only says that on day 4 exactly TWO great lights were created - the Sun, and the moon.

Genesis 1:16 "And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

I think you missed this. I am looking at my concordance, and the same "stars" are employed in Genesis 15 when God spoke to Abraham about his offspring.

Water covers the surface of the deep - but it does not say "in what form" the water is and we know that in empty space you can have hydrogen and oxygen. In fact you can have ice.

You're trying to justify the text based on your interpretation, but you can't. If it was ice, it would say ice; not only that, but the narrative continues with this idea in that when the expanse was made, water was separated into the upper and lower parts of the Earth. It does not make any sense to read that any other way than water. Furthermore, the narrative continues by stating that the sea was the result of the separation of water from the land. If you're going to interpret water in verse 2 to be ice, you must apply that for the rest of the creation account presented in the chapter, otherwise you are isolating a text as a pretense.

Still a rapidly formed earth having a "surface of the deep" already before the start of day 1 - could well have enough geothermal residual heat dissipating so as to support liquid water around it. I don't think that gets ruled out very quickly from a scientific POV.

Well, gravity plays a major role in geothermal energy, and if there is no parent star, Earth would be nothing but scattered debris in interstellar space.

On the contrary - they are easy to reconcile because Gen 2 is "details added" to the already established facts/details in chapter 1. It is not a "delete and start over" chapter, for the reasons I already gave.

It is most likely the result of the documentary hypothesis, in that Genesis 1 was written by the Elohist, while Genesis 2 was written by the Yahwist.

Chapter 2 has no days. It is not a time boxed chronological sequence like chapter 1 is.

Well, that because they are different origin accounts. Genesis 1 is poetic in nature, and the "days" follow the poetic style of the chapter.

And the legal code of Ex 20 makes the timeline in Gen 1-2 literal as seen in Ex 20:11.

You forget that those books are together, so the legal case may have found its justification by the invention of the creation account. It is similar to how there are many legal codes practiced in Genesis prior to the Law, like the fact that Noah was commanded to take with him clean animals for sacrifice. How would Noah know that without the direction of the Law? Or Judah's sons performing the Levirate marriage with Tamar? Some of the legal codes in Exodus are implemented in the stories of Genesis, showing that Genesis may have been intended to teach the Law through storytelling.

Chapter 2 has a reference to God making the animals but does not assign it to any particular day -- and since this is not "delete and start over" we have the information just given in chapter 1 for that detail.

You're trying to connect the two chapters as if they are one, but they are obviously different.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 1:16 "And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

I think you missed this. I am looking at my concordance, and the same "stars" are employed in Genesis 15 when God spoke to Abraham about his offspring.

No doubt but the stars are not in the TWO lights God made on day 4. For the number made on day 4 we have "Two" and they are named.

He is also the maker of the stars -- but the text does not requires that there is only two stars in the sky or that all the stars were also made on day 4.

 

[BobRyan]

You're trying to justify the text based on your interpretation, but you can't. If it was ice, it would say ice; not only that, but the narrative continues with this idea in that when the expanse was made, water was separated into the upper and lower parts of the Earth

It does not say "upper and lower parts of the Earth" it says upper and lower parts of the firmament - atmosphere. Any water above the atmosphere was likely vapor and below would be liquid in that case. I think you are shooting your own argument in the foot just then.

But as I point out -- the heat of formation in a cooling planet newly formed would be sufficient to have geothermal heat capable of sustaining liquid water that covers the surface of the deep.