Gap Theory?

[Breetai]

Hey, Breetai isn't supposed to know what happens in the future!

 

[RVincent]

In Robotech II, doesn't he travel with the gang to Tirol?

 

[Breetai]

Yes he does, good point. I haven't even thought of Robotech II. It's not part of the official storyline though (Robotech.com).

You do realize that I check my Robotech thread, right?

 

[nephilimiyr]

"The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4."

Dr. Ginsburg was a translator of the Massorah, and in the Companion Bible, Dr. Bullinger quotes Ginsburg as saying that the word sould be TeAsshur = box cedar.

Hi RV!

See whenever I do a word search to find the definition I use the Strong's concordance. Strong's defines "nachash" as snake or serpent, nothing else, and Asshur as Assyrian.

Now I have to wonder why it is that some Bible scholars do define these words differently. Where are they getting their information. If the root of Nachash is, to shine, why doesn't the strongs say this?

Until I find this out I have to go along with what the Strong's says. I'm going to email Michael Heiser and ask him this question. Hopefully he will reply as he has answered me before. When or if I recieve an answer I will let you know!

 

[lucaspa]

From what I've read in the Bible, there is nowhere in the Bible that says how God created and it certainly doesn't give us even a hint at how long it took for this initial creation in Genesis 1:1.

If you read literally, Genesis 2 tells us that God fashioned man and animals out of dirt/dust/ground. That's a pretty specific "how". In posts later than this one you quote scripture to back a contention that God created by speaking things into existence instantaneously. So that would contradict this claim.

To say that the word of God doesn't allow evolution to be a posibility is to say God tells us how he created. So I disagree with this. Evolution can only be falsified through the geologic record but in no circumstance can it be falsified in the writen word of God.

This is interesting, Neph, since YECers claim exactly what you say they can't. In fact, what usually happens is YECers come on and say science shows YEC and falsifies evolution. That lasts thru 3 or 4 posts when I show that science doesn't say what they say it says. At that point the YECer goes straight to: the Bible says evolution is wrong and tells us how God created and you have to believe the Bible over science. Gander is the latest one on this board that has followed the pattern but you can see it in MagusAlbertus comment that my "god" is science.

Again my belief in a gap in Genesis 1 is very basic. Here we're getting into that area where I'm not that knowledgeable in and instead of me trying to explain, I want to ask you a few questions or put the form of my answer in question form.

Following my belief in the gap, the Bible does make it clear that there was no life of any kind on earth at the time he decided to recreate. Again there is no mention of what caused the earth to be without form and void nor does it give us a time table for this. This might have been caused by a single event or it could've been caused by a series of events through an unspecific time table. Now why must we assume that when God recreated life on earth that it would show a discontinuity in the fosil record?

Because you said "there was no life of any kind on earth at the time he decided to recreate". That's a discontinuity in life. Life, no life, then life again.

Now, your only duck in the evidence of the fossil record is that the discontinuity happened so fast that it wasn't caught in the fossil record. However, the problem there is that the record is clear that some species always come thru any extinction event. So that means that you have to say that God re-created the same species. In other cases, you have to say that God created new species that were almost, but not quite, the same as the old. Now you create theological problems for God. Instead of a rational God with a plan, you've got an arbitrary God that not only does things on a whim, but does them in such a manner that it would deceive us into thinking it was evolution! And, of course, that gets us into huge theological problems. We still have God, but no longer a god we can follow or worship.

If we see that this "without form and void" came about through a series of events we will still be able to have life on earth through the fossil records but on a declining scale. At a point in time an event happend that eventually wiped out all life. Up untill that point in time there was life. If God right at that moment decided to perform his recreation of that life must we assume that that life would have had no evidence of ever being on earth before?

There would be evidence of life on the planet before, but there would be that discontinuity between past life and re-created life. The closest to what you describe is the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction 65 million years ago. We see a decline in the dinosaur populations -- both number of species and the numbers of individuals -- for 10 million years. Then there is a meteor impact and the rest of the dinos, and a lot of other species go extinct. But not all of them. Again, some species come across the boundary intact. You can look at sea cores and see the microfauna in the ocean. Here there is an abundance of individuals and species, then a thin layer where most life disappears. But there are some individuals in it, then there is an increase in the number of individuals followed by a radiation into new forms.

What we would see if you were correct is perhaps a declining population, but then a (thin) layer of no life at all, all over the planet. No little microfauna or microflora, no bacteria, etc. And then all new forms as God makes new creatures. We don't have that anywhere in the fossil record. And the closer we get to our own time, the less it's possible to hide that event in time. If it were 6,000 years ago, it would be really detectable because those layers are all recent, close to the surface, and present in nearly every part of the planet.

The fossil record may show that some life have lived through the desasters of the history of the earth but what kind of evidence could posibly prove that at a certain time in that history that they weren't around for let's say 1 day or 1 year?

Ah, this is the duck I mentioned above. See above for the theological problems.

Actually that wouldn't be following what the gap theory says and what I believe. The sun, moon, and stars were first created in Genesis 1:1 and they have been following the laws of phisics from that time forward undistrubed. The gap doesn't propose that they were created or recreated during the recreatation of the earth.

If you are going to follow the Bible, and view it as accurate, then they have to be created then because the Bible says so! Here you are doing just what creationists always accuse TEs of doing: throwing out parts because you don't like them. Here you are not being consistent with your own beliefs about the Bible. I think this is a disservice to the text and the intent of the author. The author thought the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4. Not recreated, but created. However, to get the text to jive with science, you are altering what the author plainly said. I prefer to take a different path: yes, the author intended that, but I don't require the text to match science. Instead, what theological message was the author trying to say? The author set that message in incorrect science, but I don't care about that. I don't need the science to be correct for the theology of the Bible to be correct. Do you understand what I'm saying here? You want the theology and the science to be correct. To do that, you make adjustments that I think does damage to the text and the intent of the author.

I believe that through the event or series of events that made the earth without form and void they were always there just not visable from earth.

Special pleading. Why wouldn't they be seen from earth? And again, if they are cut off by clouds or thick atmosphere, you have the problem that the earth gets cooked by the greenhouse effect. Not only cooked, but half melted. Now, this may be the way earth became formless and void, but then you are faced with the fossil record that has life on it but doesn't show the extremes of temperature that your scenario would generate.

What I'm doing, Neph, is taking your questions seriously. I'm saying if what you say is true, then what should we see? That's where I end up finding things that should not be there if your theory is correct.

 

[lucaspa]

See whenever I do a word search to find the definition I use the Strong's concordance. Strong's defines "nachash" as snake or serpent, nothing else, and Asshur as Assyrian.

Now I have to wonder why it is that some Bible scholars do define these words differently. Where are they getting their information. If the root of Nachash is, to shine, why doesn't the strongs say this?

That's what I wondered when you brought this up before.

I think what happens is that people take the root and then say that later definitions must be the same as the root. But we all know that isn't true.

I'm going to email Michael Heiser and ask him this question. Hopefully he will reply as he has answered me before. When or if I recieve an answer I will let you know!

I'm also interested in what Heiser says on this, since he is your source. You might also invest in a good Hebrew-English dictionary and see what Hebrew words mean outside the Bible. After all, both Strong's and Heiser are influenced with what they think the Bible ought to say -- the theology -- and not necessarily with an objective translation.

 

[nephilimiyr]

That's what I wondered when you brought this up before.

I think what happens is that people take the root and then say that later definitions must be the same as the root. But we all know that isn't true.

I'm also interested in what Heiser says on this, since he is your source. You might also invest in a good Hebrew-English dictionary and see what Hebrew words mean outside the Bible. After all, both Strong's and Heiser are influenced with what they think the Bible ought to say -- the theology -- and not necessarily with an objective translation.

Hi Lucaspa! Nice to hear from you again!

Yes I did get an answer from Heiser but I thought this thread was dead. He thanked me for emailing him and then directed me to an old newsletter that had this pdf file.
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/members/mshv2n2dc102nachash.htm

 

[sawdust]

Hi Lucaspa! Nice to hear from you again!

Yes I did get an answer from Heiser but I thought this thread was dead. He thanked me for emailing him and then directed me to an old newsletter that had this pdf file.
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/members/mshv2n2dc102nachash.htm

Hi Neph

Couldn't access the link. It wanted a member name and password.

 

[Breetai]

same problem here...

 

[sawdust]

Hi Guys! (wave)

I see you're both viewing.

:Þ LOL

 

[nephilimiyr]

[/font]
If you read literally, Genesis 2 tells us that God fashioned man and animals out of dirt/dust/ground. That's a pretty specific "how". In posts later than this one you quote scripture to back a contention that God created by speaking things into existence instantaneously. So that would contradict this claim.

You know I was in debate with genez in another forum about how we should read genesis 2. I say Gen. 2 is a detailed account of Genesis 1 where he disagrees. But anyway what I mean by saying God doesn't say how He created I'm talking about the first, original creation, the event or events that is mentioned in Gen. 1:1.

Now concerning this original creation I do concede that the word of God says that through His spoken word things came into existance but I don't see that discribing to me in scienticfic terms what actually happend, how His spoken word works. Scientifically we can't answer or explain how things came to be but only know that God spoke. To me that doesn't solve the question of whether God used an evolutionary process or poofed everything in existance all at once. To me that doesn't tell me what God's plan of creation was but only that he enacted it.

This is interesting, Neph, since YECers claim exactly what you say they can't. In fact, what usually happens is YECers come on and say science shows YEC and falsifies evolution. That lasts thru 3 or 4 posts when I show that science doesn't say what they say it says. At that point the YECer goes straight to: the Bible says evolution is wrong and tells us how God created and you have to believe the Bible over science. Gander is the latest one on this board that has followed the pattern but you can see it in MagusAlbertus comment that my "god" is science.

What I wrote there is what I believe is true. No matter how much the YECers would argue with that, it is the truth, and it doesn't matter if you take the word of God in this matter literally or not. God simply does not tell us how by Him speaking, everything came to be. He gives no timeline to this original creation. All that the word of God says is that this original creation happend, He made it happen by speaking. It would be nice to know what exactly he said but He doesn't let us in on that little detail. Yes, starting in Genesis 1:3 and throughout the rest of the chapter he does give us answers to how he reformed and remade the things on a wasted and formless world but if we believe this is how he created the original creation we can only assume that but never know for sure.

The amount of science that I do understand tells me that creationism is probably wrong. The YECers can believe whatever they want but in order for them to believe what they believe they have to turn a blind eye towards what God actually created. Wasn't it Albert Einstien that once said:
"SCIENCE WITHOUT RELIGION IS LAME, RELIGION WITHOUT SCIENCE IS BLIND."
I've played around with the idea that some of them have proposed that God created everything with the apearance of being old. I took it seriously but I could never come to an answer to why would God create like that. There would be no reason I can think of to why God would do this. It would be very decieveing and God does not lie.

Ah yes MAs opinion of you, well I don't know. I know you argue your beliefs rather well and that shows that you do have a firm understanding of the sciences involved in creation. What MA and Gander refuses to address however is the simple fact that you do believe God created, right? I believe this is too hard for them to except. I said it before in this thread and I'll say it again, the theistic evolutionist and the YECers and the gappers all have one common bond between us and that is that we all believe God's hand was involved in creating everything that we see in this universe. It's this common bond I wish was brought out more in the debates here in this forum.

Because you said "there was no life of any kind on earth at the time he decided to recreate". That's a discontinuity in life. Life, no life, then life again.

Now, your only duck in the evidence of the fossil record is that the discontinuity happened so fast that it wasn't caught in the fossil record. However, the problem there is that the record is clear that some species always come thru any extinction event. So that means that you have to say that God re-created the same species. In other cases, you have to say that God created new species that were almost, but not quite, the same as the old. Now you create theological problems for God. Instead of a rational God with a plan, you've got an arbitrary God that not only does things on a whim, but does them in such a manner that it would deceive us into thinking it was evolution! And, of course, that gets us into huge theological problems. We still have God, but no longer a god we can follow or worship.

Well....that's a very good point! I think You did understand me correctly and if I understand you correctly your saying that I've made a theological problem here with this. If theistic evolution is true I can and will gladly allow it and still believe that God made waste of this planet and reformed it and doing so in a 144hr time period. I don't necessarily believe that evolutionary processes being disrupted would have to show in the geologic evidence and in that manner it wouldn't show God as being irrational. Maybe by how I said it it does look irrational but I don't claim to know what actually happend. I'm playing a guessing game with this as I don't know.

Yeah you can call it a duck I suppose, I see it more as me trying to make sense of the geologic evidence with alot of misunderstanding and perhaps a preconcieved view on it. I do find it hard to let go of that part of the word of God that does speak truth to me. If you must know I am strugling with this. There is so much in the word of God about this that is either vague or not mentioned at all.

Sorry lucaspa but I see that there is a problem with accessing the link from Heiser. I'll finish this latter!

First let me fix the Heiser post

 

[nephilimiyr]

same problem here...

Ok then I will type out some of it for you

 

[nephilimiyr]

In the places where the actual hebrew is written I will use Xs ok?



THE TRANSLATION OF THE WORD XXXX



The Hebrew word XXXX is actually an adjective (XXX; meaning "bright", "brazen" [as in shiny brass]) with the prefixed article (X- the word "the" in Hebrew). Thus the word is formed XXX + X for XXXX (a dot is added in the second letter from the right when an article is attached). The whole word then, in the Hebrew text is XXXX, hannachash (nachash is pronounced "nakash").

What is different about this approach is that I view the base word, nachash, as an adjective, not a noun. the NOUN spelled nachash in Hebrew can mean: snake/serpent or one who practices of divination. The adjective means "bright, brazen" and is itself the base word for other nouns in Hebrew, like "shining brass" - XXXX (n choshet). In Hebrew grammar, it is not unusual for an adjective to be "converted" for use as a noun (the proper word is "substantivied"). A common example would be "holy one" (with or without the article). If we take XXXX as deriving from the adjective rather than as a noun, the translation becomes "shining one", which is quite in concert with descriptions of Satan figure in the Old Testament. For example, in ISA 14:12-15, he is called Helel ben shachar- "The shining one, son of the dawn." Elsewhere, divine beings are descirbed as "shining" or luminous, even by use of the adjective XXX. For example:

DANIEL 10
Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris, I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze (XXX; n choshet) in color, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude.

Personally, I tend to think that, in light of the serpentine appearance of divine beings in Yahweh's presence, what we have in Genesis 3 is wordplay using all the meanings of the XXX semantic range. That is, Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to an bright, shining upright being who was serpeantine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her with lies. She was in the presence of one of the sons of God, beings who had free will, who were more powerful than mere angels, whom humanity was created "a little lower" (Psalm 8:4-5; the phrase usually translated as "a little lower than the angels" is actually "a little lower than the elohim in Hebrew text). She was speaking to a member of the divine council who did not share Yahweh's enthusiasm for his new creation, humankind, to whom Yahweh had just given rule over the planet (Gen. 1:26-27). These mere humans were-as the "lesser elohim" had been previously-created as Yahweh's image ("let US" "OUR" in Gen. 1: 26-27), to rule the cosmos for yahweh, and earth- at least until humanity was fashioned. In this last regard, I share the view of certain lines of Jewish tradition that teach the "serpent's" motive for seducing Eve was jealousy at humanity's "appointment" as supreme authority under Yahweh on earth- as opposed to the sons of God getting that job.

Michael S. Heiser

 

[nephilimiyr]

There would be evidence of life on the planet before, but there would be that discontinuity between past life and re-created life. The closest to what you describe is the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction 65 million years ago. We see a decline in the dinosaur populations -- both number of species and the numbers of individuals -- for 10 million years. Then there is a meteor impact and the rest of the dinos, and a lot of other species go extinct. But not all of them. Again, some species come across the boundary intact. You can look at sea cores and see the microfauna in the ocean. Here there is an abundance of individuals and species, then a thin layer where most life disappears. But there are some individuals in it, then there is an increase in the number of individuals followed by a radiation into new forms.

Ok but my point is that if what happend did cause all living things to die and in that very day God started his recreateing 144hr process, would there be a layer in this sea core that shows that on this single day in history not one single living being was alive? Yes if this time period of no life stretched out to be a large peice of time I would agree but if only it was for one day? And then after the 144hrs God made the world exactly how it was from two days before? I don't see that as being impossible for God nor do I see that the geologic evidence would have to show this. And as for taking the geologic evidence not showing this and calling God a deciever wouldn't not correct. I see God's word discribing this so in that way God is not a deciever but a master of creation that we just don't understand as of yet.

No He doesn't give much detail about this but does show that He created, He laid waste, He created again. How can I explain this by useing the geologic record? I have no idea but I do believe that is what the word of God says.

What we would see if you were correct is perhaps a declining population, but then a (thin) layer of no life at all, all over the planet. No little microfauna or microflora, no bacteria, etc. And then all new forms as God makes new creatures. We don't have that anywhere in the fossil record. And the closer we get to our own time, the less it's possible to hide that event in time. If it were 6,000 years ago, it would be really detectable because those layers are all recent, close to the surface, and present in nearly every part of the planet.

Ok but that's only if you go by what I've said which isn't something I said actually happend but is me trying to make sense of what I believe might have been the cause of what happend. It's not the only scenario but one of perhaps many possibilities. Now you've stated that God then makes all new forms of creatures but that isn't necessarily true, they very well could've been the same creatures that were present two days before. When you say that evidence of a catastrophy 6,000 years ago should be more than present in the geologic record I say, or ask, why does that have to be so? If it was sin that caused God to act would God have to reveal evidence of his judgment upon the earth? I'm not saying there is no evidence but that I don't see why I should say that God has to reveal that evidence to us. Just a thought but perhaps he doesn't want to have the scares of this sin, this rebellion, to have lasted long or at all?

Now you may say that I'm useing my imagination then by comeing up with different scenario's but remember what I said from the start, God doesn't explain this part of history to us. He doesn't reveal in His word what actually happend. He states that he created the heaven and the earth and that it had become without form and void. He doesn't state what actually happend to cause this tragedy although I believe he reveals why it happend.

If you are going to follow the Bible, and view it as accurate, then they have to be created then because the Bible says so! Here you are doing just what creationists always accuse TEs of doing: throwing out parts because you don't like them. Here you are not being consistent with your own beliefs about the Bible. I think this is a disservice to the text and the intent of the author. The author thought the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4. Not recreated, but created. However, to get the text to jive with science, you are altering what the author plainly said.

I certainly would agree with you if only I didn't understand what the original hebrew was conveying. See in Genesis 1:14 the thought is being conveyed, just like in gen. 1:3, that the lights in heaven were not being created but were being allowed to be seen. "Let there be" is not a creative act but an allowing, a command for them to be seen. As for the word "made" which is "asah" in the hebrew is not a creation of anything that was unseen before. That word would be "bara" and is translated as "create" and is the same bara that is used in the first verse. You may see the uses of these two words as being insignificant but ask yourself why, if God created the heavens and earth out of nothing in verse 1 the author doesn't use the same term to discribe the same type of act you see happening in verse 16? The reason is because God didn't create the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, they were created in the first verse which was at a different time.

I prefer to take a different path: yes, the author intended that, but I don't require the text to match science. Instead, what theological message was the author trying to say? The author set that message in incorrect science, but I don't care about that. I don't need the science to be correct for the theology of the Bible to be correct. Do you understand what I'm saying here? You want the theology and the science to be correct. To do that, you make adjustments that I think does damage to the text and the intent of the author.

I understand and your right that I want both science and this theology to be correct but I disagree with you that I make adjustments to how the hebrew was written so that I can make it correct.You do claim correctly that I do make adjustments to how many interpret it, this I do.. After I have done so I then formed my theology. Honestly, I only came to the belief in the gap after finding out what certain words meant and how they were supposed to be conveyed in the text. Yes most of that was from what others had written before on it and not my own research but after I had done some study of it myself I conclude they are right.

Special pleading. Why wouldn't they be seen from earth? And again, if they are cut off by clouds or thick atmosphere, you have the problem that the earth gets cooked by the greenhouse effect. Not only cooked, but half melted. Now, this may be the way earth became formless and void, but then you are faced with the fossil record that has life on it but doesn't show the extremes of temperature that your scenario would generate.

Trust me, I don't know but again this is what I see the word saying. Sure the earth would be cooked but how long would this have to take for the tempeture to reach that high? Again the event that caused the sun, moon, and stars to not be seen from earth doesn't mean that the effects lasted for a long period of time. God had stepped in and fixed what happend. Now yes, my scenario really doesn't work too well but it isn't the only one. I do respect you lucaspa and don't feel I am at your level of knowledge concerning these things. I am not a worthy opponent for you to be getting into geologic debates and or discussions. Is this a duck? LOL, Yes it is! I do need to study more about the sciences! I admitt it.

What I'm doing, Neph, is taking your questions seriously. I'm saying if what you say is true, then what should we see? That's where I end up finding things that should not be there if your theory is correct.

Thank you because I know you are taking this seriously. Why else would you answer to a thread that was about to be burried after days with no replies? You are not one to harrass but I believe you do enjoy the acts of poking and prodding , LOL, sometimes I think alittle too much but that's ok

 

[nephilimiyr]

lucaspa, I was reading the book of Ecclesiastes tonight and found these verses. I don't know if you know of them but if not I thought I'd share them with you. They surprised me because I never heard these before. What do you think?

Ecclesiastes 3:11, He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Ecc. 8:17, Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

 

[lucaspa]

They surprised me because I never heard these before. What do you think?

Ecclesiastes 3:11, He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

The translation I have is quite different. "He has set the right time for everything. He has given us a desire to know the future, but never gives us the satisfaction of fully understanding what he does." This hearkens back to verse 1 of the chapter "Everything that happens in this world happens at the time God chooses" Then comes a long list that is the basis for the song "A Time for Everything" A time for birth/death, planting/pulling up, killing/healing, etc. It appears that the archaic wording of KJV here has obscured the true meaning and gotten you to think it means something it doesn't.

Ecc. 8:17, Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

Another translation: "Whenever I tried to become wise and learn what goes on in the world, I realized that you could stay awake day and night and never be able to understand what God is doing. However hard you try, you will never find out. Wise men claim to know, but they do not."

Again, an archaic English wording has given you a meaning that the text really didn't have. This is not saying we can't figure out how God created by looking at Creation -- which is what you imply. Instead, we can't know everything God does. After all, since some of the work is in the spiritual realm, we can't see it via science, right?

Now, if you want to apply the Uncertainty Principle here, it is true that you can never know everything, because some things absolutely can't be known. For instance, the precise location of an electron and it's precise momentum can't be known at the same time. But then, God can't know this either.

 

[lucaspa]

You know I was in debate with genez in another forum about how we should read genesis 2. I say Gen. 2 is a detailed account of Genesis 1 where he disagrees.

So do I. Genesis 2 is not a detailed part of Gensis 1.

Now concerning this original creation I do concede that the word of God says that through His spoken word things came into existance but I don't see that discribing to me in scienticfic terms what actually happend, how His spoken word works. Scientifically we can't answer or explain how things came to be but only know that God spoke. To me that doesn't solve the question of whether God used an evolutionary process or poofed everything in existance all at once. To me that doesn't tell me what God's plan of creation was but only that he enacted it.

Scientifically, saying God spoke and things appeared is the scientific description especially when you consider that they appeared in their present form within 24 hours. That's specific enough. It's as specific a description as we have for how virtual particles appear. Howerver, to get an evolutionary process you have to discard the 24 hours and days, because evolution takes longer than that.

God simply does not tell us how by Him speaking, everything came to be. He gives no timeline to this original creation. All that the word of God says is that this original creation happend, He made it happen by speaking.

The speaking applies to the second creation; the one after Genesis 1:1. And yes, we do get a timeline for that one, don't we?

It would be nice to know what exactly he said but He doesn't let us in on that little detail.

. Sure it tells us exactly what God said. "Let the waters bring forth" as one example. That's what God said. So, according to what you wrote above, we now have a mechanism. Right? Wrong?

Yes, starting in Genesis 1:3 and throughout the rest of the chapter he does give us answers to how he reformed and remade the things on a wasted and formless world but if we believe this is how he created the original creation we can only assume that but never know for sure.

But that "reformed" is also done by speaking.

The amount of science that I do understand tells me that creationism is probably wrong.[The YECers can believe whatever they want but in order for them to believe what they believe they have to turn a blind eye towards what God actually created. Wasn't it Albert Einstien that once said:
"SCIENCE WITHOUT RELIGION IS LAME, RELIGION WITHOUT SCIENCE IS BLIND."

This applies equally to Gap Theory.

I've played around with the idea that some of them have proposed that God created everything with the apearance of being old. I took it seriously but I could never come to an answer to why would God create like that. There would be no reason I can think of to why God would do this. It would be very decieveing and God does not lie.

And there you found the theological flaw with the Appearance of Age argument. The same flaw Kingsley saw in 1857. You may get God creating by poofing, but the cost is a deceptive god that no one would trust or worship.

What MA and Gander refuses to address however is the simple fact that you do believe God created, right? I believe this is too hard for them to except. I said it before in this thread and I'll say it again, the theistic evolutionist and the YECers and the gappers all have one common bond between us and that is that we all believe God's hand was involved in creating everything that we see in this universe. It's this common bond I wish was brought out more in the debates here in this forum.

Too many people tie the existence of God to how God created. And now Scott thinks I'm an atheist. Apparently McCosh's simple words are too tough for some creationists to comprehend.

If theistic evolution is true I can and will gladly allow it and still believe that God made waste of this planet and reformed it and doing so in a 144hr time period.

I'm afraid you can't. The evidence God left in His Creation (upon which the evolution part of theistic evolution is based) won't allow it.

I don't necessarily believe that evolutionary processes being disrupted would have to show in the geologic evidence and in that manner it wouldn't show God as being irrational.

How can it not? Unless God covered it up, but then you are back to the same theological problems of the Appearance of Age argument. When there has been disruptions -- the major extinction events -- we find evidence of them. We also find evidence of the world becoming waste just before the events. Remember, you have to have that one too -- the world becomes waste. That leaves evidence also.

Yeah you can call it a duck I suppose, I see it more as me trying to make sense of the geologic evidence with alot of misunderstanding and perhaps a preconcieved view on it.

Notice that "preconceived view". Drop the preconception and consider other ways to look at the evidence from Creation and how to read Genesis 1-3. You are trying to impose your idea of how to read Genesis 1-3 on text and Creation alike.

I do find it hard to let go of that part of the word of God that does speak truth to me. If you must know I am strugling with this. There is so much in the word of God about this that is either vague or not mentioned at all.

IMO, it's not at all vague when you consider the theology and the times in which Genesis 1 and 2-3 were written. Your problem comes in trying to impose a 21st century American view of the universe on the text. Genesis 1-3 wasn't written for 21st century Americans. It was written for people living in the Near East in 700 BC. Try putting yourself in their shoes and the text becomes a lot clearer. Here, try this:
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=1037

Also try reading the Enuma Elish -- which everyone of the time knew about -- and comparing that to Genesis 1: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm Start by looking at who the "waters" are in the EE.