Gap Theory?

[lucaspa]

No, I don't take everything else literally lucaspa and I believe you know that, don't play with me.give what I'm saying a try,

Seriously, I'm not playing with you and I am giving you a try. All your language has said that a literal Satan was in a literal Garden and tempted a literal Eve to eat a literal fruit from a literal Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then a literal God gives a metaphorical curse. I'm seriously asking why the rest of it is literal but the curse is not.

Have you actually taken the time to understand anything I've said up to now? No,

Actually, I have tried to understand. If I weren't I wouldn't be confused by the contradictions! If my mind was full of preconceived ideas, I would be lecturing to you instead of asking serious questions. I asked several serious questions in that post: OK, what is your criteria for literalness? Do you take the Garden as literal or metaphorical? Why?

Instead of answers, I get told that I am "spiritually discerned" and a quote from 1 Corinthians saying that I am a "natural man" and not receiving things of the spirit. Did it ever occur to you that I am trying to determine just exactly what your "things of the spirit" are?

So, back up and please try to answer my questions.

What I've said about the gap theory is simple, it's an easy thought, it isn't new.

Some of it is new to me. Such as reformation of the earth. However, some of your "easy thought" leads me to logical contradictions. Such as your acceptance of evidence for an old universe but insistence on a 144 hour creation. I've asked you to clarify those issues. You haven't yet. I'm still hoping you will.

Your belief in what the English says is far from what main stream christainty believes. You are in a tiny minority who, because of your strong belief in what the science of today has said about our world, believes that the serpent was only a serpent.

Actually, the serpent as only a serpent has very little to do with science and deals mostly with the Bible.

There are very few, if any, serious biblical scholars who agree with your idea. Don't play with me that you have the answer to truth when you give me no evidence of that truth.

I've given you the evidence: what it says in Genesis 3 and Job, for starters. You don't address that but instead make these vague innuendos about "serious biblical scholars" without naming them or what they have written. Neph, this claim about of "very few, if any, serious biblical scholars" can also be applied to Gap Theory. I have only found one Presbyterian minister in the 1700s that seriously advocated Gap Theory. YEC websites regularly ridicule the idea because it has an old earth. So, how about we quit this innuendo about how poorly our positions are supported and just deal with each other's questions?

I've been asking some serious questions about Gap Theory. My intent is to understand your theory better. From your answers I've gotten even more confused and asked more questions. Now, you can either attempt to answer or admit that you don't know. But you don't need to personally attack me. If the questions are causing you discomfort, don't blame me. The questions exist whether I ask them or not.

God says in His word. It isn't just a literary garbel of truths or half truths. The word is the power, and the word is god. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Excuse me, but that quote refers to Jesus, not the Bible. Are you saying that it refers to the Bible?

The truth and the Word doesn't work around our belief in scientific evidence but it's the scientific evidence that supposed to work around the Word.

Ah. Here we come to our basic disagreement. What did God create? The physical universe, right? What does science study? The physical universe. What is "scientific evidence"? It is what God put into the physical universe! Therefore I don't have the separate of science from God like you do. God has two books: the Bible and Creation. The Bible had to be inspired to fallible men and is interpreted by fallible men. Creation was done directly by God and the evidence in it comes directly from God.

The Word is King and should always be your object of study!

My object of study should be God. Not the Bible. God is ever so much more than the Bible. The Bible aids my study of God. But God speaks in other ways than the Bible: directly thru the Holy Spirit and thru His Creation.

Neph, what I think you are asking me to do is worship the Bible. That ain't gonna happen. I will not make a false idol out of the Bible. Unfortunately, your words indicate that this is what you are doing.

 

[lucaspa]

Daniel 10:6 is where we find the actual word that concerns us.
Dan. 10:6, His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of a multitude.

You could have apologized for giving me the wrong verse and sending me off on a wild goose chase, wasting over an hour of my time.

In the line "colour of polished brass" we find the Hebrew word "Nachosheth", it's what's translated as brass in the English. Nachosheth is in verb form. Again Biblical scholars say that in Genesis 3 Nachash can very well be put into verb form by the simple reason of how it is written, which is how it is written in Dan. 10:6.

Once again going to Strong's, I find that "nachosheth" is n@chosheth but the Hebrew is TXxn. In contrast, "nachash" is Xxn and does have a verb form of Xxn, which is roughly "to divine" or "perform divination". So, according to Strong's we don't have a verb form of "nachash" in Dan. 10:6, but rather a different noun -- TXxn. In fact, Strong's lists TXxn as "Noun Masculine " as its part of speech. Not "verb". So the word in Genesis 3 is not even the same Hebrew word as nachosheth and thus you can't get Eve to look at a being "shining like brass". It's simply not the Hebrew.

Now, Strong's is considered authoritative on Hebrew in the OT, and Strong's doesn't agree with you at all. So I have to wonder just who the "Biblical scholars" are that are saying this.

The Nachash in Genesis 3 can just as well be understood as a substantive participle or rather the form there can be a verbal used as a noun. Thus Nachash=polished like brass, gleaming, shinning.

Since the nachash in Genesis 3 is Xxn and the "polished like brass, gleaming, shining" is a separate word TXxn, I don't see how this is possible. The similarities in transliteration are simply coincidental, not worth anything.

The Daniel 10:13 passage I refered to is about the identity of the one who he saw in his vision. The one who shown like brass was the Prince of the kingdom of Persia who many biblical scholars believe to be Satan.

As I read the passages, the one dressed in linen with the shining face was the messenger of God. The prince of Persia is the one that opposed the angel for 21 days until the angel Michael intervened. How did you get this one to be Satan?

I follow many biblical scholars but most recently I've been reading alot of Michael Heiser's work. He has currently written his Ph.D. dissertation in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin centering on the Divine Council.

The Divine Council is 1) Heiser's name for a website that contains his works and 2) the name for a pantheon of heavenly beings.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Judeo-Christianity was a monotheism. Yet here in one of Heiser's works we find
"One of the most significant revelations produced by the comparative investigation of the religion of ancient Israel and the Ugaritic corpus was that, like its geographic neighbor Ugarit, the Hebrew Bible contained references to a pantheon. This "divine assembly" or "divine council" soon became a focus of scholars. By the 1950s, prominent studies emerged examining the character and relationships of Ugarit's major gods.1 Other investigations from that period demonstrated striking and unmistakable correspondences between the god of Israel and two of Ugarit's most important deities, El and Baal.2 Subsequent studies in the following decades not only expanded knowledge of the Ugaritic pantheon,3 but confirmed that the god of the Hebrew Bible shared a number of epithets and features of his Ugaritic counterparts.4 Moreover, the names of other "lesser" gods of the Ugaritic pantheon, such as Yamm, Mot, Resheph, Deber, and the goddess Asherah were shown to be present in the Hebrew Bible.5 Even the enigmatic inhabitants of the biblical She)ol , the Repha)im , were frequently found in Ugaritic myths.6 "
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/mshv1n1dcoverview.pdf

Now I have more questions:
1. Heisner is not holding to a literal Bible. He is treating it not as inspired but as a book by humans borrowing concepts from other humans. IOW, it is not the "Word of God"
2. He is saying that Judaism is not a monotheism, but a pantheon.

Do you agree with this? It seems contrary to your other beliefs.

The paper dealing with the serpent is not available free and I am not willing to pay to follow this particular scholar's work.

I can't say that he agree's with the gap theory as I haven't read him saying anything on it but what he has to say about the origins of evil and Satan is most interesting and I agree with much of what he says.

Including the non-divinity of the Bible and the pantheon of other godly beings?

 

[lucaspa]

Satan is given 3 names in Rev. 12:9, one is the Great Dragon, the second is that Old Serpent, and the thrid is the Devil. One of his names being "Old Serpent" is clue number one but .

Since dragons are also a form of serpent, this isn't saying anything about Genesis 3.

what is most convinceing is what we find in Ezekiel 28 ...

Who is the King of Tyrus? Historic records show no such man!

Perhaps because we are still talking of the king of Tyre? Ezekiel 28:2 uses the same Hebrew word as Ezekiel 28:12. Again, according to Strong's Concordance. Either both are Tyre or both are Tyrus. You have made a distinction which does not exist in the Hebrew. BTW, the Strong Concordance # is 06865 and is transliterated Tsor and is Rc.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06865&version=kjv

So, your argument fails right at the premise.

Here's the clincher

Eze. 28:15, Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
At some point in Satan's reign as chief created being he sinned. In the 16th verse we see what that sin was. By thy multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned
This is where Heylel, Helel, Lucifer ceased to be within the family of God and had become known as Satan, the adversary.

And yet we find Satan in the family of God in Job, long after you have him kicked out of the family for sinning at the Garden. Thank you for showing that the serpent can't be Satan.

Job 1:6 "When the day came for the heavenly beings to appear before the Lord, Satan was there among them. ... All right", the Lord said to Satan, "everything he has is in your power, but you must not hurt Job himself." So Satan left.

Job 2:1 "When the day came for the heavenly beings to appear before the Lord again, Satan was there among them. The Lord asked him "Where have you been?"

 

[nephilimiyr]

The whole reason behind Gap theory is based on misinterpretation of the ancient Hebrew words, i looked this up and genesis 1-2 is pretty clear on creation compared to creation-destruction-creation

The Hebrew word hayah is the word "was" in English in the second verse. Strongs put's the meaning as to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.

Now try and say the passage like this:

And the earth came to be without form, or

And the earth had become without form, or

And the earth had come to pass without form


The Hebrew word Tohuw is the word "form" in Gen. 1:2. Strong's put's the meaning as formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness. Here's a list of further understanding of the word.
a-nothingness, empty space
b-that which is empty or unreal (of Idols)
c-wasteland, wilderness
d-place of chaos
e-Vanity

Now try and say the passage like this:

And the earth came to be nothingness; And the earth came to be a wasteland; And the earth came to be a wilderness; And the earth came to be a place of chaos

And the earth had become without form; And the earth had become nothingness; And the earth had become a wasteland; And the earth had become a wilderness; And the earth had become a place of chaos


Bohuw is the Hebrew word for "void" in Genesis 1:2. Strongs put's the meaning as emptiness, void, waste.

Isaiah 34:11,But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of EMPTINESS.
Emptiness is the word bohuw in use and is the word "void" in Gen. 1:2. The word Bohuw is generally employed throught the Bible in connection with the desolation of a city or nation. It also connotes judgment from God. in the Isaiah passage above, the Lord's judgment results in the desolation of that nation.

Also confusion is the Hebrew word tohuw, the same tohuw used in Genesis 1:2 that in the English is "form".

In Jeremiah 4:23 we see both tohuw and bohuw employed together again. Besides Genesis 1:2 this is the only other place the the two words are used in concert with each other in the same way as in Genesis 1:2.
Jer. 4:23, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Here once again both tohuw and the word bohuw is employed and is used to discribe destruction of the earth as a result of judgment from God. Don't you see it as very interesting how similar this verse is written like the Gen. 1:2 verse? but it isn't talking about a glorious creation that was made very good but is talking about an earth made desolate as the result of judgment from God.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Seriously, I'm not playing with you and I am giving you a try. All your language has said that a literal Satan was in a literal Garden and tempted a literal Eve to eat a literal fruit from a literal Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then a literal God gives a metaphorical curse. I'm seriously asking why the rest of it is literal but the curse is not.

Ok but I don't find any problem with that. I don't hold to a strict rule that if the story is talking about a real literal story that it can't inject some metaphoric truth into it. And likewise if the story starts out as being a metaphoric truth that the author can't inject something literal into it. My rule of thumb is that if it really doesn't make any sense then it could very well be metaphoric in nature or my understanding of the Hebrew is flawed.

I have a hard time believeing that a serpent or snake talked to Eve but I don't have a problem believeing Eve was a literal person. Therefore the serpent must either be metaphoric in nature or the understanding of the hebrew is flawed.

Actually, I have tried to understand. If I weren't I wouldn't be confused by the contradictions! If my mind was full of preconceived ideas, I would be lecturing to you instead of asking serious questions. I asked several serious questions in that post: OK, what is your criteria for literalness? Do you take the Garden as literal or metaphorical? Why?

I appreciate that and I'm trying to help you understand the gap theory. I see myself failing in doing so and I am getting frustrated. Please forgive me. Perhaps my reply to Dedicated helps clear up some things that we've talked about so far?

Some of it is new to me. Such as reformation of the earth. However, some of your "easy thought" leads me to logical contradictions. Such as your acceptance of evidence for an old universe but insistence on a 144 hour creation. I've asked you to clarify those issues. You haven't yet. I'm still hoping you will.

Actually I did but that was the post I lost. I will go back and try it again. That still makes me mad! I hate that when then happends!

I've given you the evidence: what it says in Genesis 3 and Job, for starters. You don't address that but instead make these vague innuendos about "serious biblical scholars" without naming them or what they have written.

I don't know how you can say that, I've given you the name of one and even given you his website.

Neph, this claim about of "very few, if any, serious biblical scholars" can also be applied to Gap Theory. I have only found one Presbyterian minister in the 1700s that seriously advocated Gap Theory. YEC websites regularly ridicule the idea because it has an old earth. So, how about we quit this innuendo about how poorly our positions are supported and just deal with each other's questions?

There I wasn't referring to the gap theory but your belief that Satan wasn't a fallen being in the book of Job. His very name means "the adversary" and connotes he is a fallen being. Again, most biblical scholars agree with that. Your belief that Satan wasn't fallen yet is held by a very few.

I've been asking some serious questions about Gap Theory. My intent is to understand your theory better. From your answers I've gotten even more confused and asked more questions. Now, you can either attempt to answer or admit that you don't know. But you don't need to personally attack me. If the questions are causing you discomfort, don't blame me. The questions exist whether I ask them or not.

I see your confusion and I have wondered why. I don't see myself as saying anything that should cause any great confusion but I will attempt this one more time. Perhaps because I have had no trouble understanding it I think other's should find it easy to understand it as well.

Excuse me, but that quote refers to Jesus, not the Bible. Are you saying that it refers to the Bible?

Well what is the word? Is it not what we read in the Bible? I'm thinking deeply here.

My object of study should be God. Not the Bible. God is ever so much more than the Bible. The Bible aids my study of God. But God speaks in other ways than the Bible: directly thru the Holy Spirit and thru His Creation.

What is God without the word? Jesus was the word and we find the word in the Bible. We don't find the word in our natural world. God speaks through both but the natural world is not a book of words but of evidence's. To know God's word you must read the Bible.

"As Christians dedicated to finding and defending the truth, we should make every effort to understand what the literal Biblical text is actually saying, by it's own Scripturally-defined terms, before attempting to harmonize it with our current scientific understanding or traditional belief system".

"God is the Divine Author of both the Scriptures and the Earth’s Geologic record. Both are from His hand. Both witness to historical Truth. He established the principles and physics by which we can search out the answers to things preserved within the Earth’s geology. His Scriptures provide us with a definitive source of Authority and a faithful guide to verify the validity of those answers. Therefore, it is our firm belief that there cannot possibly be any real contradiction in facts between Geology and Genesis. Any such contradictions only arise within the paradigm of our understanding, be it scientific or scriptural".

Gains Johnson

Neph, what I think you are asking me to do is worship the Bible. That ain't gonna happen. I will not make a false idol out of the Bible. Unfortunately, your words indicate that this is what you are doing.

I agree that people can make the Bible as their false idol, the Bible is a book but His words are truth.

 

[nephilimiyr]

After I first wrote a reply to you and lost it, I originally wanted to reply once again to this but had to wait a day. But then you had already replied to other things I was saying and I ignored going back to this. I'm sorry about this and hope this will clear things up alittle.

I'm still confused. I'm taking you at your word that we are dealing with the one and only earth. You are taking extrabiblical evidence that the universe is very old. To accomodate that evidence, you have the Gap Theory where you have a gap between the formation of the universe and the creation of the solar system. Am I right so far?

Actually the gap is not between the creation of the universe and the creation of the solar system. I think your seeing me saying creation of universe-GAP-creation of solar system. This is incorrect. I'm saying creation of the universe, with solar system and earth-GAP-earth was without form, and void.

Also, I understand the gap theory as saying this: We do not know anything of the time element involved. God may well have first created the earth over the course of millions or billions of years, or He may have done it in a matter of seconds and then allowed it to go on in a perfect form for an untold amount of time. We do not know how long by reading the word of God. After the earth was without form, and void, it may have remained in that state for many years or it may have only remained that way for a day. We do not know by reading the word of God. There is not a passage in the Bible that gives us any hint at how long this all happend (the original creation; without form, and void). there are two unknown periods of time to be accounted for. If the scientific evidence shows that the universe and earth are billions upon billions of years old, it makes no difference whatsoever to the gap theorist. We know that God spoke the original word of creation, and materialized the original thought of the divine idea which became the heavens and the earth. This is all that the word of God tells us.

So now you have an earth that is "formless and void" and God shapes that earth in what you say is a literal 144 hours.

I'm not saying God created the earth formless and void. I'm saying the earth became formless and void at a point in time after the original creation. Then God recreates what was once on the earth after it had become without form , and void but God didn't necessarily recreate the exact same plants and animals that once were there. He may have and he may not have or he may have for some but not others. The Bible doesn't let us in on this secret.

However, that same extrabiblical evidence that gave you an old universe says that the earth is 4.55 billion years old and its current features were shaped over that 4.55 billion years. Not in 144 hours. Follow me? So, how in that 144 hours did we get the huge amount of sedimentary and metamorphic rock on the planet?

Are you understanding that I'm not argueing with what your saying about the evidence of an old earth? Are you understanding that what I'm saying about the 144hrs is that God recreated the things that were destoried in the event of the earth becomeing without form, and void? The same old earth was there with all it's evidence of being old but something had made the earth without form, and void. The 144hrs is of God putting the earth back to a very good, perfect state. The same perfect state it had once been before.

Now, in the above paragraph you seem to be introducing something new: that plant and animal life evolved on the earth but at some time God wiped all that out and recreated species -- presumably in their present form. Right? OK, where is the evidence of that recreation? Where is the discontinuity in the evolution of plant and animal life on the planet?

That I admitt to not knowing. I'm not a scientist nor do I have a scientific mind but do we have to assume that there had to be a discontinuity? I don't believe that's necessarily true. If you take what I'm saying and apply it to the scientific record of evidence, is there not evidence of great desasters in earths history? Remember, I've said that the word of God does not give us a time table of all that has accured. He only gives us a time table of Him makeing things perfect again in the 144hr recreation/reforming period.

What about the meteorite that scientists say hit the Yucatan peninsula? I'm not saying that this is the event but if we look at what scientists say happend during this event I think it could be. They say when the meteor hit it sent millions of tons of earth into our atmosphere, blocking out the sun for years and sending our planet into an ice age resulting in most life to become extinct.
In Genesis 1 we see that God says he made the light appear. Gen. 1:3, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. There isn't anything in that passage that says God created this light but only that He is allowing it to appear.
2 Corinthians 4:6, For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Here it says that God commanded the light to shine out of darkness. I take that as saying the light was already there but the darkness hid it. And isn't that what Paul is trying to say in this passage? That God was always there but the darkness of evil has kept us from knowing Him. This is a spiritual truth that Paul is teaching and likens that spiritual truth to the Genesis 1 story.

I've been saying that during this period of Gods first perfect creation, plants and animals may have evolved on the earth if that's what the scientific evidence shows. I'm not convinced that the evidence says that but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It makes no difference to me if I am wrong about this.

That wasn't what I was saying. Genesis 1 has God speaking animals and birds into existence. Right? Genesis 2 says God formed them from dust. I don't need to know the exact manufacturing process in order to test whether it happened. All I need to know is that Genesis 1 has discontinuities: there weren't plants and then, bingo, there they were. There weren't apple trees and then, poof, there they were. That discontinuity can be tested.

I also agree that it can be tested but the 144hrs, I don't believe, is necessarily a creation of things that were never here before. I think that's a good way to put it? I however believe that man, with the image of God, in the 144hrs, is a totally original creation. There may have been humanoids before this but in the 144hrs God gives this man their image

Now, where do you get "reforming"? I thought the earth was only formed once. You said it was formed out of existing stuff, but not formed and then reformed. This is a place where I wish you would make up your mind. You have two different theories going.

LOL, like I told you I'm getting frustrated by not being able to explain this in a way for you to understand. I'm failing!

I say that the universe, along with the solar system and earth were formed out of things not seen before. God says He created these things out of nothingness, things that were not in existance before. But once the earth became without form, and void, all God had to do was fix it and make it perfect again. Reforming it to it's once perfect state.

I hope and pray this clears up some of the confusion!

Here's a site that does explain the gap theory. I can't say I agree with everything they say but for the most part I believe they are correct. If you wish to view it here it is.
http://www.kjvbible.org/

 

[nephilimiyr]

You could have apologized for giving me the wrong verse and sending me off on a wild goose chase, wasting over an hour of my time.

Then I will do so now. I apologize, I didn't realize you worked so hard at this. I now you must have been not too pleased with me and I will try even harder to not add such confusion in the future. I appreciate you takeing me seriously and following up with what I'm saying. At least this is better then just passing me off as a quack!

Once again going to Strong's, I find that "nachosheth" is n@chosheth but the Hebrew is TXxn. In contrast, "nachash" is Xxn and does have a verb form of Xxn, which is roughly "to divine" or "perform divination". So, according to Strong's we don't have a verb form of "nachash" in Dan. 10:6, but rather a different noun -- TXxn. In fact, Strong's lists TXxn as "Noun Masculine " as its part of speech. Not "verb". So the word in Genesis 3 is not even the same Hebrew word as nachosheth and thus you can't get Eve to look at a being "shining like brass". It's simply not the Hebrew.

Yes, perhaps I should study this more.

As I read the passages, the one dressed in linen with the shining face was the messenger of God. The prince of Persia is the one that opposed the angel for 21 days until the angel Michael intervened. How did you get this one to be Satan?

I actually agree with you on this. I was only saying that I've seen it written by a scholar(sorry I don't remember name) who believes that that is Satan. What I believe is that it does describe a celestial being. I totally agree with you.

The Divine Council is 1) Heiser's name for a website that contains his works and 2) the name for a pantheon of heavenly beings.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Judeo-Christianity was a monotheism. Yet here in one of Heiser's works we find

Heiser does believe in monotheism and does argue polytheism.

Now I have more questions:
1. Heisner is not holding to a literal Bible. He is treating it not as inspired but as a book by humans borrowing concepts from other humans. IOW, it is not the "Word of God"

No you are confused with what he's saying. Heiser believe's and teaches a literal Bible from the original Hebrew. I know this man from emailing him and being a subscriber to his newsletter, he does believe in a literal Bible and that the concept of the Hebrews borrowing their religous concepts from other humans is not anywhere close to what he believe's and only believes that other ancient religions have done this with the Sumerian beliefs. He does not believe that the Hebrews also did this.

2. He is saying that Judaism is not a monotheism, but a pantheon.

No, he says that while other ancient religions are polytheistic, Judaism is monotheistic. He believe's in a divine council of divine beings. These beings he says are not deity but are divine, meaning that they were created and are subservient to the head deity which is the Hebrew God. This makes his beliefs fall under monotheism, not polytheism.

Do you agree with this? It seems contrary to your other beliefs.

Yes I agree with what he says, I don't agree with what you think he says, which is incorrect.

The paper dealing with the serpent is not available free and I am not willing to pay to follow this particular scholar's work.

That is true, and I have paid for some of the papers he has written. It's ok if you don't want to pay to read any of the things he has written, in the way you believe what he's saying I don't blame you for not wanting to pay for this. You asked for names of biblical scholars that I have studied and I gave you his name and website. Other names of biblical scholars that I have studied, to a more or less degree, that believe these things but also believe the gap theory is correct are:

G.H. Pember-Earth's Earliest Ages
Donald Grey Barnhouse-The Invisible War
I.D.E. Thomas-The Omega Conspiracy
Stephen Quayle-Genesis 6 Giants
E. Theodore Mullen-The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature
Mark S. Smith
H.R. Page
M.C.A. Korpel
David F. Reagan

Gaines Johnson, the webmaster of the www.kjvbible.org site that I posted above. There's this page from that site that I don't want you to miss. I believe you'll find it very interesting reading. If all I have done so far is add to the confusion of what the gap theory is then perhaps this man can explain it beter.
http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html

Or try David F. Reagan's website
http://www.learnthebible.org/gap_or_not.htm

Here's a thread I started on the Divine Council. It's a long thread with much information and a shareing of ideas.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=85124

 

[nephilimiyr]

Since dragons are also a form of serpent, this isn't saying anything about Genesis 3.

What Rev. 12:9 does is identify who the serpent was in Gen. 3. "that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan" is describing who the "great dragon" is. This in effect tells us who the serpent is. Can you find any place else in the Bible where this serpent is used to describe a personage and then who might that be?

Perhaps because we are still talking of the king of Tyre? Ezekiel 28:2 uses the same Hebrew word as Ezekiel 28:12. Again, according to Strong's Concordance. Either both are Tyre or both are Tyrus. You have made a distinction which does not exist in the Hebrew. BTW, the Strong Concordance # is 06865 and is transliterated Tsor and is Rc.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06865&version=kjv

The distinction isn't between Tyrus and Tyre but between the ranks of prince/King. If I wrote Tyre I was in error and I can't explan why I would write that. Did I write that?
UG! I see that I did . I apologize again for sending you on a wild goose chase. I really don't know what possessed me to write that. I suppose I just had it in my mind the name of the place was Tyre and wrote that but when I started to type the verse out of the Bible I didn't make the connection that I had just mispelled the word.

The first part of chapter 28 is talking about the prince of Tyrus and the second part of chapter 28 is talking about the King of Tyrus. Again, one is a literal human prince with an earthly throne while the other is a literal spiritual being that is described as being the power behind that throne. And the one who is the power behind that earthly throne presided in the garden of Eden.

Job 1:6 "When the day came for the heavenly beings to appear before the Lord, Satan was there among them. ... All right", the Lord said to Satan, "everything he has is in your power, but you must not hurt Job himself." So Satan left.

But Satan means the adversary,superhuman adversary. By the actual name given to this being means that he has already fallen.

Go back to Rev. 12 please and read verse 10.
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Here is Satan, the one called the great dragon, the serpent, and the devil, and now being called the accuser and this fits right in to the story we read in Job.

Job 2:1 "When the day came for the heavenly beings to appear before the Lord again, Satan was there among them. The Lord asked him "Where have you been?"

In both these passages Satan is being both sly and cunning. He has been walking up and down in the earth just before he meets and talks to God. God asks him if he noticed Job and how upright he is and how he fears God and stays away from evil, almost as if God was bragging about him to Satan. But Satan says that Job is only like this because God has put up a hedge around him and protected him from from ever seeing evil, preventing Satan from haveing anything to do with Job. Satan says that if God would take this protection away and allow him (Satan) to effect Job's life with evil, Job would then curse God to his face. God then agrees to let Satan perform his evil unto Job. Satan turns out to be right that Job does curse God and in the end of the book God admonishes Job for this and Job humble's himself and agree's with God.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok but I don't find any problem with that. I don't hold to a strict rule that if the story is talking about a real literal story that it can't inject some metaphoric truth into it. And likewise if the story starts out as being a metaphoric truth that the author can't inject something literal into it. My rule of thumb is that if it really doesn't make any sense then it could very well be metaphoric in nature or my understanding of the Hebrew is flawed.

Cursing the serpent does make sense outside being metaphoric. It is a naive explanation of how snakes lost their legs and have to crawl on their bellies. It is also an explanation why humans have an instinctual fear and hatred of snakes. My problem is that your "criteria" seems to be to make it metaphorical in order to fit with your theological theory, not modify your theological theory based on what the Bible tells you. If you want to do that, then go ahead, but you shouldn't try to hide the criteria and pretend it is something else.

I have a hard time believeing that a serpent or snake talked to Eve but I don't have a problem believeing Eve was a literal person. Therefore the serpent must either be metaphoric in nature or the understanding of the hebrew is flawed.

There are other talking animals in the Bible. Balaam's mule, for one. If God created humans to talk, why couldn't He create the serpent to talk? And then take away the power of speech due to the betrayal?

Basically, there is no reason except you have a hard time believing. Or you want the snake to be Satan. Either seems to be a weird way for someone like you to approach the Bible.

I appreciate that and I'm trying to help you understand the gap theory. I see myself failing in doing so and I am getting frustrated. Please forgive me. Perhaps my reply to Dedicated helps clear up some things that we've talked about so far?

Not really, because that was all about the linguistics. Look, let me give you an out. If you can't answer one of my questions, you can always say "I don't know; let me think about it for a while."

Actually I did but that was the post I lost. I will go back and try it again. That still makes me mad! I hate that when then happends!

I see it after this one. I'll put my questions there.

[quoteI don't know how you can say that, I've given you the name of one and even given you his website.[/quote]But not until after this point.

There I wasn't referring to the gap theory but your belief that Satan wasn't a fallen being in the book of Job. His very name means "the adversary" and connotes he is a fallen being. Again, most biblical scholars agree with that. Your belief that Satan wasn't fallen yet is held by a very few.

Not according to Elaine Pagels in her book The Evolution of Satan. THe word there is "sh'tan" and is simply a spirit. Neither good nor bad. It seems that the Biblical scholars community agrees that Sh'tan wasn't fallen in Job. The concept of Sh'tan doing evil doesn't come until later in Hebrew thought. It was first introduced in I Chronicles 21 when David decides to have a census. "Satan wanted to bring trouble on the people of Israel, so he made David decide to take a census." The people of Israel didn't want a census because, if you know who and where everyone is, you can tax them better. Or, as it says in Chronicles, conscript them. So Satan is blamed instead of David. Notice, however, that 70,000 innocent citizens get killed in the plague that is used to punish David.

The idea of Satan as a complete adversary to God doesn't come until the Intertestament Period and our current view of Satan comes from the Essenes.

Excuse me, but that quote refers to Jesus, not the Bible. Are you saying that it refers to the Bible?

Well what is the word? Is it not what we read in the Bible? I'm thinking deeply here.

"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe. He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light. "
Neph, who else is this referring to than Jesus? This is the opening of John's Gospel, for God's sake! John isn't talking about the Bible in the gospel, he is talking about Jesus! Notice how "Word" morphs into "him" in the third sentence. The Bible is not a "him". Only Jesus is.

Jesus is the Living Word!

God speaks through both but the natural world is not a book of words but of evidence's. To know God's word you must read the Bible.

No, you don't ever have to read the Bible. Paul never read anything from the NT, because the NT didn't exist then. Paul knew the Word thru personal experience. The Bible is useful in knowing God (2 Timothy), but it is not essential. Knowing the Living Jesus will do just fine.

What you are doing is saying God is absent from the natural world. He is not. God's Creation is just as much God's "word" as is the Bible.

"As Christians dedicated to finding and defending the truth, we should make every effort to understand what the literal Biblical text is actually saying, by it's own Scripturally-defined terms, before attempting to harmonize it with our current scientific understanding or traditional belief system".

Again, this says "scientific" is different from God. It's not. God put the evidences in Creation. If you really dedicated to finding and defending truth, you have to consider both of God's Books and not put a literal Biblical text above God's Creation.

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

"The book of God's Word leads to salvation, which is the ultimate concern for mankind, whereas the book of God's Works leads to science, which confers lesser but still very great benefits. This distinction can perserve the integrity both of faith and science, and forestall unnecessary confrontations between them, confrontations wich can only confuse our understanding of both books through which God speaks. If we fail to respect the knowledge of God attainable through either of these books, we neglect his gifts. While one book confers ultimate grace of salvation, and the other confers the proximate benefits of knowledge, we do not need to choose one to the exclusion of the other, for God has laid both open before us. " Roland Frye, Epilog, in Is God a Creationist? ed by Roland Frye, 1983, pg 200

What Johnson does here is pit God vs God. I won't subordinate God to a fallible human "literal Biblical text"

"God is the Divine Author of both the Scriptures and the Earth’s Geologic record. Both are from His hand. Both witness to historical Truth. He established the principles and physics by which we can search out the answers to things preserved within the Earth’s geology. His Scriptures provide us with a definitive source of Authority and a faithful guide to verify the validity of those answers. Therefore, it is our firm belief that there cannot possibly be any real contradiction in facts between Geology and Genesis. Any such contradictions only arise within the paradigm of our understanding, be it scientific or scriptural".

Gains Johnson [/quote]But above Johnson forgot that the error might be our scriptural understanding.

[quoteI agree that people can make the Bible as their false idol, the Bible is a book but His words are truth.[/QUOTE]But your literal interpretation of those words are not truth! And that is what you are doing. You are warping both the language and science to have them conform to your literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. And that is making your literal interpretration into a false idol to worship.

 

[lucaspa]

Neph, I'm going to put some of your writings next to each other so we can compare them.

Actually the gap is not between the creation of the universe and the creation of the solar system. I think your seeing me saying creation of universe-GAP-creation of solar system. This is incorrect. I'm saying creation of the universe, with solar system and earth-GAP-earth was without form, and void. I'm not saying God created the earth formless and void. I'm saying the earth became formless and void at a point in time after the original creation. ... He may have done it in a matter of seconds and then allowed it to go on in a perfect form for an untold amount of time.

First, define "formless and void" and then define "perfect form".

Second, what does a "formless and void" planet look like? Is it a single entity like earth is now with seas and oceans and atmosphere? Or is it a conglomeration of pieces moving in the same orbit but not yet coalesced into a single planet? Or is it a planet but without seas and atmosphere?

Then, extrabiblical evidence says the universe existed for about 9 billion years before the solar system was formed. Does Gap Theory say the earth and universe were created at the same time?

If the scientific evidence shows that the universe and earth are billions upon billions of years old, it makes no difference whatsoever to the gap theorist.

Doesn't it make a difference that scientific evidence shows the earth and universe to be different ages? Both billions of years old but not the same age.

I also now have a problem with the sun and stars.
How about the sun and stars? Genesis says they were formed after the earth. According to you, that would be during the recreation of the earth after the earth became formless and void. Was there no sun or stars before when the earth was perfect?

Then God recreates what was once on the earth after it had become without form , and void but God didn't necessarily recreate the exact same plants and animals that once were there. He may have and he may not have or he may have for some but not others.

Are you saying that the earth had life on it? This is where your definition of "formless and void" becomes so important. When you say the earth "became" that way, what does it mean? Did the earth break apart? Did the atmosphere, seas, and rock all become jumbled together on the surface but the earth was otherwise intact?

In terms of evidence God left in His Creation, your theory implies a gap somewhere in the history of life on earth. Some place where life disappears and then reappears. But how does this happen in 144 hours? And where is that discontinuity in God's Creation?

Are you understanding that I'm not argueing with what your saying about the evidence of an old earth? Are you understanding that what I'm saying about the 144hrs is that God recreated the things that were destoried in the event of the earth becomeing without form, and void? The same old earth was there with all it's evidence of being old but something had made the earth without form, and void. The 144hrs is of God putting the earth back to a very good, perfect state. The same perfect state it had once been before.

I'm understanding the first two. However, that same evidence that you agree with about an old earth also doesn't show any change to "formless and void" and doesn't show any recreation of life. Do you understand that?

That I admitt to not knowing. I'm not a scientist nor do I have a scientific mind but do we have to assume that there had to be a discontinuity? I don't believe that's necessarily true.

It's not an "assumption", it's a conclusion from what you are saying. Earth "perfect", slide to "formless and void", recreation with different plants and animals. All the recreation with the plants and animals taking place in 144 hours. The "recreation" in 144 hours is a discontinuity with what went before. There is no gradual change from formless and void. It's a sudden "poof", back to ordered and with a (at least) partially new cast of characters that just appear. These are conclusions from your statements.

If you take what I'm saying and apply it to the scientific record of evidence, is there not evidence of great desasters in earths history? Remember, I've said that the word of God does not give us a time table of all that has accured. He only gives us a time table of Him makeing things perfect again in the 144hr recreation/reforming period.

That's the problem: there are diasters. Several of them. You are saying there is only one. But in each one the earth never goes to "formless and void" and there is continuity of life between what went before and what came after.

What about the meteorite that scientists say hit the Yucatan peninsula? I'm not saying that this is the event but if we look at what scientists say happend during this event I think it could be. They say when the meteor hit it sent millions of tons of earth into our atmosphere, blocking out the sun for years and sending our planet into an ice age resulting in most life to become extinct.

Actually, only about 40% of species became extinct. Many of them, such as crocodiles, turtles, and frogs marched right thru with no problems. Many birds became extinct, but some didn't. Very few mammals became extinct. Many of the ocean microflora became extinct, but we can see continuity with many of them, followed by radiation to fill the vacant ecological niches.

Ideas are often in the details, Neph. They live or die on the details. God is in the details. It's easy to come up with these grand sweeps, but do the details in God's Creation agree with your idea? In this case, no.

In Genesis 1 we see that God says he made the light appear. Gen. 1:3, And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. There isn't anything in that passage that says God created this light but only that He is allowing it to appear.

What light? The meteor impact? You're kidding, right?

2 Corinthians 4:6, For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Here it says that God commanded the light to shine out of darkness. I take that as saying the light was already there but the darkness hid it. And isn't that what Paul is trying to say in this passage?

What Paul was saying in this passage has nothing to do with Creation and how it happened. Paul is merely using Geneis 1:3 to make a metaphor that the coming of Jesus was like the first light in the darkness of Genesis 1:3. For someone who quotes people as saying to read the Bible literally, you take far more liberties with it than I! For instance, I would never insert the non-literal idea of evil into this passage that you do here:

That God was always there but the darkness of evil has kept us from knowing Him.

I've been saying that during this period of Gods first perfect creation, plants and animals may have evolved on the earth if that's what the scientific evidence shows.

But wouldn't all this have to happen before Genesis tells us that God created plants and animals? Here I have a textual problem. What you are doing is inserting a complete creation that the Bible doesn't tell us anything about. You want me to trust the Bible as "God's Word" but now you are saying that there is an entire creation hidden there without a hint! What else isn't the Bible telling us? Maybe Jesus really did only swoon and God simply lifted him out of the tomb. Or there is a whole other Savior out there that God didn't tell us about but that He expects us to follow!

These kinds of liberties with the Bible are, IMO, greater than anything TEs have ever done.

I also agree that it can be tested but the 144hrs, I don't believe, is necessarily a creation of things that were never here before.

So the world becomes "formless and void" for no reason. Plants and animals are either created by God or evolve. Then God, rather than simply stopping the formless and void, decides to recreate everything but tell us that He is creating for the first time?

I however believe that man, with the image of God, in the 144hrs, is a totally original creation. There may have been humanoids before this but in the 144hrs God gives this man their image

Did it ever occur to you that "in his image" had a completely different meaning in that day and it wasn't referring to physical shape? BTW, who is "their"?

LOL, like I told you I'm getting frustrated by not being able to explain this in a way for you to understand. I'm failing!

Perhaps some of your frustration is simply that the idea has inherent contradictions and doesn't work.

I say that the universe, along with the solar system and earth were formed out of things not seen before. God says He created these things out of nothingness, things that were not in existance before. But once the earth became without form, and void, all God had to do was fix it and make it perfect again. Reforming it to it's once perfect state.

I see that the Bible says the earth was without form and void. But I nowhere see it saying that it was perfect before this. You have to insert that meaning into an otherwise literal text, violating Johnson's rule of putting the literal text first.

That's part of the contradictions, Neph. You aren't even following the rules you set down.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well that was my last try. I was looking for at least one word or sign of understanding from you but once again there was none. If you can't understand what I'm saying by now I guess you never will. It would seem our beliefs are too far apart to gain any understanding but just like how you totally misunderstood what Michael Heiser is saying you have continued to misunderstand me time after time. I see no point in going further with this, to continue will only add to more confusion on your part and more frustration on my part. It certainly has been interesting talking with you though lucaspa, in some ways it's been very enjoyable. Perhaps some other time!



And God Bless




Edited to answer this question.

Does Gap Theory say the earth and universe were created at the same time?

I have my own thought's on what the gap theory is, it doesn't agree 100% with the traditional view of the gap theory. The reason why I started this thread was to talk to another who agree's with the gap theory and to discuss my difference's with it. I however agree with it's basic premise.

The answer to your question is, yes I think the gap theory does say the earth and universe were created at basically the same time. If that's true I don't agree with the whole premise of the theory because I don't exclude any thought to the posibility that God created the heavens and earth seperately. This is why I really wanted to talk to another gapper.

So yes, in the end, there is alittle bit of confusion on my part as well.

 

[lucaspa]

Well that was my last try. I was looking for at least one word or sign of understanding from you but once again there was none. If you can't understand what I'm saying by now I guess you never will. It would seem our beliefs are too far apart to gain any understanding but just like how you totally misunderstood what Michael Heiser is saying you have continued to misunderstand me time after time.

Neph, I quoted Heiser! To demonstrate what he said. If you think he says something different, give me a quote where that happens!

I see no point in going further with this, to continue will only add to more confusion on your part and more frustration on my part.

In other words, you can't answer my questions.

I've been the the kjvbible.org website and it is helping me understand what current Gap Theory is.
http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html
"The Earth is "without form and void" at Genesis 1:2 and in darkness. There is no indication of anything being alive on the surface of the Earth, at this time, and that time is roughly about 6,000 years ago. Now, common sense and reasoning tells you that if nothing was alive at that point of time, then there could be nothing (man or beast, fish or fowl, tree or bush) that survived from any previous old world for this world's life forms to have evolved from. The literal wording of Genesis 1:2 rules out the possibility that anything (or anyone) living today evolved from anything that existed before the seven days. Every living thing today was made/created during the days of Genesis. This is why the specific phrasing of "after his kind" or "after their kind" is used by the Spirit in describing the Lord's regenerative work. The implication is that what creatures live on the Earth today were modeled after the same pattern of living things that were alive on the Earth in the world before this one. Since there can be no genetic line of ancestry there is no evolution. Simple!"

Now, this paragraph makes some very specific statements that can be tested.

Now, above this the website says:
"The Earth's geological history (which, by the way, God also authored), tells us that this planet is very old."

So, we are allowed to trust what we find in geology because God authored it.

Gap Theory is saying that there is nothing alive on the planet 6,000 years ago. The problem here is that we have sequoias and bristlecone pines that have more than 8,000 annual growth rings. Therefore they were alive 6,000 years ago!

What's more, we have deep sea cores that also go thru that 6,000 year boundary and there is no gap where life is absent. We have preserved invertebrates such as foraminifera that go right thru that boundary.

The transformation of this snail sequence in the picture below took place in the period 10,000 - 2,000 years ago, right thru that part where Gap Theory says no life was, it was all recreated, and no evolution occurred. Since God authored this, doesn't that say that Gap Theory is not true?

Finally, genetics is one of the prime evidences of evolution since the genome of every living organism gives evidence of its genetic continuity with previous organisms. Yet Gap Theory says all this God-given DNA is a lie! We are back to a creationist theory calling God a liar again.

The answer to your question is, yes I think the gap theory does say the earth and universe were created at basically the same time. If that's true I don't agree with the whole premise of the theory because I don't exclude any thought to the posibility that God created the heavens and earth seperately. This is why I really wanted to talk to another gapper.

So yes, in the end, there is alittle bit of confusion on my part as well.

GOOD! Progress! You are now starting to think about the theory and look for problems. The kjvbible site agrees. Although their physics here is a bit confused:
"In fact, the physics for "light" were already in place back in verse 1:2 because time, matter, and space are already established and "light" is an integral part of the space-time fabric (remember e=mc2). " They have confused the speed of light (c) with the existence of photons. Obviously, the speed of light is a speed whether there are any light photons or not. "Light" isn't an integral part of the space-time fabric, only that speed for conversion of matter and energy.

However, that still brings us back to the sun, stars, and moon. According to Gap Theory, all those should have been made after the earth went formless and void 6,000 years ago. The kjvbible site glosses over those verses and never discusses them.

BTW, the page misstated theistic evolution:
"Theistic Evolutionists generally hold that the Earth is very old and that life evolved as it was "Intelligently Designed" to do by the Creator. Their general position on the interpretation of the seven days of Genesis is that each "day" represents an indeterminate period of time that closely matches the progression of the Earth's theoretical evolutionary development over the millennia." This is more Day-Age. Theistic evolution doesn't even try to fit the days into a scheme of biological or cosmic evolution.

"Conversely, to shun and deny sound scientific evidence under the banner of "Defending the Faith" against “Evil Evolutionists” is equally unwise and foolish - a discredit to the Faith. ... God is the Divine Author of both the Scriptures and the Earth’s Geologic record. Both are from His hand. Both witness to historical Truth."

This is where Gap Theory is going to founder. Having admitted that geology/biology and other sciences are from God, they are stuck when data falsifies the theory. They have no way to duck the objections from the other Scripture. I would say that the Bible witnesses to theological truth always. It sometimes witnesses to historical truth but this is not necessary as long as the theological truth holds.

 

[mark1970]

As I understand it, the Gap Theory is in serious decline. I've never even heard of an evangelical Bible scholar who promotes this view anymore - although it was popular decades ago. However, the Assemblies of God Church still accepts the Gap-Theory as officially acceptable. The day-age theory seems to be the predominant theory agongst evangelical intellectuals. Even though most people sitting in the pews are Young-Earthers, the Christian leaders (scholars, pastors) are mostly old-earthers. Seems quite strange actually.

 

[Micaiah]

As I understand it, the Gap Theory is in serious decline. I've never even heard of an evangelical Bible scholar who promotes this view anymore - although it was popular decades ago. However, the Assemblies of God Church still accepts the Gap-Theory as officially acceptable. The day-age theory seems to be the predominant theory agongst evangelical intellectuals. Even though most people sitting in the pews are Young-Earthers, the Christian leaders (scholars, pastors) are mostly old-earthers. Seems quite strange actually.

If you accept the plain teaching of the Scriptures, you need to reconcile the Gap Theory with the following verses:

.
8"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

I think that explains why the gap theory is in decline in Christian circles. God's word still stands, and will continue on long after scientists finally accept the idea that people are the result of evolution from a single cell is nonsense.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hi lucaspa!

I'm back

Neph, I quoted Heiser! To demonstrate what he said. If you think he says something different, give me a quote where that happens!

I'm not able to get that pdf file to open this morning but I've read it before in full. In respect to the quote you posted, all Heiser's doing there is saying that the Ugaritic writings and the hebrew writings are very similar. They both give reference to a divine assembly made up of gods. Each has a head god ruleling over the assembly of lesser gods. The Hebrew Bible shares a number of epithets and features of the Ugaritic writings. This is a fact and it should be noted that the Ugaritic writings are older than any known Hebrew manuscript.

The papers I bought off his website were also in pdf form and I had them deleted but I did print them out and will type a bit of them for you here.
In one of these he is going over Psalms 82 and has just read the first verse.
Psalm 82:1, God stands in the divine assembly; He judges among the gods.
He goes about explaining why the first elohim is singular and why the second elohim is plural. Here's what he says shortly after.

"This may sound like polytheism to you but only if you ignor what the rest of the Hebrew Bible says about God and these other 'divine beings'. We moderns recognize that there is a theological difference between deity and divinity. In western religious terms, 'deity' speaks of a being who is independent, self-existent, all-powerful, omniscient, and the source of everything that exists-including the other elohim. On the other hand, 'divinity' implies derived existence, power, and ability. Divine beings are not infinite and self-existent; they had to be created, and are subservient to the creator."

And further on he says this.
"So in reality, we aren't talking about polytheism, where deities compete with each other, rival each other, battle each other, etc. The picture in the Hebrew is that Yahweh, the head of the heavenly council-the cosmic CEO as it were-is without peer and rival. He alone has ultimate power, and His authority cannot be successfully overturned. He is deity and He alone. The other ancient Near Eastern societies weren't completely devoid of the idea that one god was on top, but the other gods could defy the leader not only to be annoying, but to actually compete for the lead god's rank. Only Israel kept a clear distinction between a sole deity and the surrounding derived divinities. The only thing standing in the way of conservative Christianity's and Judaism's admission of the divine council as a legitimate Israelite belief is the fact that we've imposed our own philosophical conception of monotheism on the Semitic mind."

 

[nephilimiyr]

In other words, you can't answer my questions.

Here's what I said way back in post #11

Hi lucaspa
You and I have debated this once before. I don't feel like doing this again however. Just wanted to know if any gap theorists had joined since I was last here. Looks like the answer to that question is...notta.

Then you said in post #12

Neph, just to be absolutely clear, this is not an attempt to argue the validity of Gap Theory. I only want to have you explain what Gap Theory says, not have to justify it.

Aparently you mean I don't have to justify it but if I don't I will be accused of not being able to. LOL, your good lucaspa, real good!

Anyway I did come back with saying this and then with an explanation of the gap theory.

And that would be fine by me. I am currently in deep study on other theologies (the divine council, Sumerian texts) right now and don't really have the time.

I made the time to try and help you understand this. Although I see that that website has helped you understand, I have failed to do so. Thanks for checking out the site and maybe after all I'll find the time to answer your thoughts and questions on it. You must understand however that I don't agree with everything that site says. I generally don't read or attempt to learn off of websites and had to do a google search just to find that one. It's was an interesting task, there simiply isn't very many pro-gap sites on the web. I found that one, I think, on the 3rd page!

I'm working 12hr nights this weekend but will try and fit this thread in.

Later!

 

[lucaspa]

Aparently you mean I don't have to justify it but if I don't I will be accused of not being able to.

No, it means you don't have answers to the questions. That's not a justification, but it is asking what Gap Theory actually says. Apparently you can't do that. You are not sure what Gap Theory actually says about the questions I have asked.

That's OK. Your answer then is not a justification, but a simple "I don't know how Gap Theory explains that." You can add "I'll have to look it up" or "I'll have to think about that.", but you are not required to. IOW, don't duck the questions. If you don't know what the answers are, you simply say so. You don't try to put it off on the other person by saying "You don't understand."

I made the time to try and help you understand this.

I know, but from what I have seen Gap Theory still has some pretty sizeable gaps. What I am concerned about is that you have already accepted it and are now its champion, no matter what the problems with it. IOW, you are no longer critically examining the theory to see if it makes textual and scientific sense, but have decided that it does, so any questions that challenge Gap Theory are met with hostility against the questioner.

Although I see that that website has helped you understand, I have failed to do so.

The website left many questions behind also. Data that wasn't explained by the theory. For instance, we are still stuck with the sun and stars being created while the earth is being recreated. Weren't they around for all those eons before the recreation 6,000 years ago? Gap Theory doesn't seem to address that at all.

Take your time. When you get back to it, you get back to it. Don't kill yourself.
Later![/QUOTE]

 

[MagusAlbertus]

I know, but from what I have seen Gap Theory still has some pretty sizeable gaps

From what he sees so does standard Evolution Theory.



but repose can always be kinder, don' t you agree luc?

 

[nephilimiyr]

[/font]
No, it means you don't have answers to the questions. That's not a justification, but it is asking what Gap Theory actually says. Apparently you can't do that. You are not sure what Gap Theory actually says about the questions I have asked.

No, what you do by your line of questioning is attempt to argue the points of the gap theory that I have stated. You say you want to know what the gap theroy says and I've told you. If you believe it's not justified or believe that the gaps in the gap theory are sizeable, so be it.

I know, but from what I have seen Gap Theory still has some pretty sizeable gaps

It isn't my job nor did I ever intend it to be my job to show you that the gap theory has no holes in it.

. What I am concerned about is that you have already accepted it and are now its champion, no matter what the problems with it. IOW, you are no longer critically examining the theory to see if it makes textual and scientific sense, but have decided that it does, so any questions that challenge Gap Theory are met with hostility against the questioner.

Well let me put your concern for my belief at rest. I have stated that I do have difference's in it. It's those difference's in it that I wanted to talk to a gap theorist about. Don't confuse my wanting you to know what the gap theory says with any zealousness on my part.However I will not apologize for takeing the gap theory seriously and believeing in some of the basic principals it teaches.

The website left many questions behind also. Data that wasn't explained by the theory.

Tell me about it!

For instance, we are still stuck with the sun and stars being created while the earth is being recreated. Weren't they around for all those eons before the recreation 6,000 years ago? Gap Theory doesn't seem to address that at all.

And this is where I differ from the gap theory as stated on that site. Again, I don't believe Genesis 1:1 has a time table nor an itinery(cs) of events that had happend and in this I say I can't agree with the whole gap theory as stated by that website.

I see Genesis 1:1 written in such a general way that the big bang theory is posible to fit it in. I know I stated already that I believed the big bang theory is correct.

I do believe that the big bang is encompased in the first verse in Genesis, and only the first verse.

 

[lucaspa]

No, what you do by your line of questioning is attempt to argue the points of the gap theory that I have stated. You say you want to know what the gap theroy says and I've told you. If you believe it's not justified or believe that the gaps in the gap theory are sizeable, so be it.

Seriously, Neph. I have tried to keep the posts to asking what Gap Theory says. Where the confusion arose is because, as we went along and the answers led to more questions, it looked like I was saying the theory wasn't justified. Also, it got mixed in with conversations on Satan where I really did think your claims were unjustified.

The problem is that there are several relevant topics where Gap Theory apparently says nothing. When you run up against these and don't have answers, then you feel that Gap Theory isn't justified.

It isn't my job nor did I ever intend it to be my job to show you that the gap theory has no holes in it.

No, it's not. But to avoid accidentally taking on that job, you have to be willing to say "I don't know what Gap Theory says about that." I've been trying to give you that way out.

However I will not apologize for takeing the gap theory seriously and believeing in some of the basic principals it teaches.

I don't blame you for looking at it seriously. Shoot, I look at all creationist theories seriously. That's how you test any theory: assume it is true. To do that you have to take it seriously. I am concerned by two things: 1. the testing seems half-hearted and 2) you don't seem willing to let the theory be falsified.

The website left many questions behind also. Data that wasn't explained by the theory.
Tell me about it!

It appears I don't have to! It's just that if a theory can't explain data counter to the theory, then the theory is in trouble. Glossing over it doesn't help.

And this is where I differ from the gap theory as stated on that site. Again, I don't believe Genesis 1:1 has a time table nor an itinery(cs) of events that had happend and in this I say I can't agree with the whole gap theory as stated by that website.

I see Genesis 1:1 written in such a general way that the big bang theory is posible to fit it in. I know I stated already that I believed the big bang theory is correct.

Neph, it appears that the statements of Gap Theory will allow the Big Bang. Or at least allow a long enough time scale for a Big Bang. Right now the two major areas I see that Gap Theory does not account for are 1) the lack of discontinuity when the "recreation" takes place and 2) the Biblical text that has the sun, moon, and stars created for the first time during the recreation. Where were they thru all the previous eons? How did any life on earth get along without a sun during those eons. If BB leads to star and galaxy formation, how can the stars be created only later?

Now, do you disagree that the recreation from an earth gone without form and void took place 6,000 years ago? An honest question about where you disagree with the website. All I want is a clarification. Promise.