need explanation

[Goinheix]

please can somebody explin to me the meaning of this?

Choose an option that best describes your beliefs regarding origins. Young Earth CreationOld Earth CreationGap TheoryTheistic EvolutionAtheistic Evolution

 

[miamited]

hi goin,

Do you mean you don't undersand the question or you don't understand the choices? The choices should have some spaces to separate the different 'name's of the beliefs.

Young Earth Creation

The earth was created about 6,000 years ago understanding that the six days were actually six literal days and the list of the generations begins with Adam and his first day living in the creation. As you follow out the generations and the rest of the timeline of Scripture you would find that we are now nearing the 6,000th year of this realm of God's creation.

Old Earth Creation

That the earth was created by God, but the creation event was some millions or billions of years ago and how the time accounted to Adam and Eve, if the old earth creationist even believes that they are real people, is a bit fuzzy.

Gap Theory

This claims that God again created, but that there was a gap of millions or billions of years between the day that God said 'let there be light' and created the physical earth and heavens and plants and creatures and when He said, 'let us make man in our image'.

Theistic Evolution

Really isn't much different than the last two, but rather than God saying let there be all the things that he claims to have said, He just kind of got the ball rolling, pun intended, and everything else came about by some form of Darwin's theory of evolution or the newly adjusted such theories.

Atheistic Evolution

No God, everything came about by normal, explainable and observable natural laws. All the phsyical bodies of stars and planets, etc. in all the universe is billions of years old and everything came from some sort of 'starting' force, but not by the fiat of a god.

Hope this helps, but get back to me if that's not the question.
God bless.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

please can somebody explin to me the meaning of this?

Choose an option that best describes your beliefs regarding origins. Young Earth CreationOld Earth CreationGap TheoryTheistic EvolutionAtheistic Evolution

I take it you want to choose the option in your profile.

There is a good explanation of all the terms here: (except atheist, but I don't expect you will need that.)

http://www.christianforums.com/t842473/

 

[Faith.Man]

hi goin,

Gap Theory

This claims that God again created, but that there was a gap of millions or billions of years between the day that God said 'let there be light' and created the physical earth and heavens and plants and creatures and when He said, 'let us make man in our image'.

In Christ, Ted

This is NOT the Gap Theory as I've understood it for the last 30 years. God created the heavens and the earth at some time in the indeterminate past. This is recorded in Genesis 1:1. In Genesis 1:2, we see the earth in a state of chaos, the result of God's judgment on this version of creation. When was this judgment, we don't know for certain. But in Genesis 1:3, we pick up the creation narrative approximately 6000 years ago. Everything previously made in Genesis 1:1 is still in existence. But from the viewpoint on Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, etc. would not be visible. The creation account that follows is a reconstruction account of the original creation. Was there physical death in the original creation, the short answer is yes. Whether this physical death was in God's plan from the beginning or the result of some perversion of Creation by forces the Bible only alludes to is not known with 100% certainty. Nowhere in the Gap Theory (aka Ruin-Reconstruction Theory) is there mention of the Theory of Evolution. The Gap Theory follows the six days of creation as expressed in Genesis. Adam and Eve are told to replenish the Earth, replenish the Earth to it's earlier, uncorrupted condition. But Adam brought spiritual sin into the world and the rest is history.

 

[juvenissun]

This is NOT the Gap Theory as I've understood it for the last 30 years. God created the heavens and the earth at some time in the indeterminate past. This is recorded in Genesis 1:1. In Genesis 1:2, we see the earth in a state of chaos, the result of God's judgment on this version of creation. When was this judgment, we don't know for certain. But in Genesis 1:3, we pick up the creation narrative approximately 6000 years ago. Everything previously made in Genesis 1:1 is still in existence. But from the viewpoint on Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, etc. would not be visible. The creation account that follows is a reconstruction account of the original creation. Was there physical death in the original creation, the short answer is yes. Whether this physical death was in God's plan from the beginning or the result of some perversion of Creation by forces the Bible only alludes to is not known with 100% certainty. Nowhere in the Gap Theory (aka Ruin-Reconstruction Theory) is there mention of the Theory of Evolution. The Gap Theory follows the six days of creation as expressed in Genesis. Adam and Eve are told to replenish the Earth, replenish the Earth to it's earlier, uncorrupted condition. But Adam brought spiritual sin into the world and the rest is history.

Well, eventually, you explained it. Thanks.

I see your point (not that difficult). Do you also entertain questions? I have some of them.

 

[Goinheix]

Thanks. I am not familiar to the terminilogy. I found that no one of those positions is mine. My position is:

The seven days are the seven days in witch Moses has recieved the revelation about creation. Probably at the Sinai mount, but that is irrelevant.

The revelation to Moses start at vers

 

[Willtor]

Thanks. I am not familiar to the terminilogy. I found that no one of those positions is mine. My position is:

The seven days are the seven days in witch Moses has recieved the revelation about creation. Probably at the Sinai mount, but that is irrelevant.

The revelation to Moses start at vers

This is a figurative interpretation that I've heard of, but I don't know of anybody else (here in Origins Theology) who holds it. Therefore, I think you've found a bit of a hole in the typical line of discussion that prevails here: you want to talk about origins theology.

In that light, let me ask: How did you come by this interpretation? Did you read it somewhere? Is it the common interpretation in your church? Is it simply intuitive and it seemed the natural meaning of the text to you?

 

[Goinheix]

The revelation to Moses commences at verse 3. From 1 to 2, and chapter 2 ahead are tales from previous prophet witch records survived until Moses, and Moses included them.

Verses 1-2 are a very short origin. Similar short tales are in John.

Commencing at verse 3, we have the Moses version of the origins.

Each day display some, probably a very small part of what was revealed to Moses that day.

Each day can be billons years, or centuries, or a single day. It depend on the revelation of each day.

 

[Willtor]

Theistic Evolution

Really isn't much different than the last two, but rather than God saying let there be all the things that he claims to have said, He just kind of got the ball rolling, pun intended, and everything else came about by some form of Darwin's theory of evolution or the newly adjusted such theories.

This is one kind of Theistic Evolution and there are TEs who believe this. But this does not describe the view of any of the TEs who post here.

 

[Goinheix]

This is a figurative interpretation that I've heard of, but I don't know of anybody else (here in Origins Theology) who holds it. Therefore, I think you've found a bit of a hole in the typical line of discussion that prevails here: you want to talk about origins theology.

In that light, let me ask: How did you come by this interpretation? Did you read it somewhere? Is it the common interpretation in your church? Is it simply intuitive and it seemed the natural meaning of the text to you?

The bible is one of God revelations but not the only one. Yet is the only book with the revelation of God, but there is other ways God revealed himself. The main way God revealed to us was to born as Jesus. Another revelation is the creation itself. Every creation reveal or reflex it creator.

What I do is to compare the different revelations of God. I understand that cience is not the enemy of christians. Actually cience was born and developed in a christian concept of the universe. Greeks has no cience as we know today. greek thot that the univers has not natural laws and things happens because gods do crazy things.

Cience show me somwething, and I try to use it to help interpreet the Genesis. That is the same we do interpreting all the bible. For understanding the Bible we must know of geography, history etc.

Cience talk about the Big Bang, a huge explotion of light that created everything: matter, energy, space and time. Bible talks about the light being the first act of creation.

Cience talk about evolution of life in a long non-divine prosess. Bible talk about the earth producing life (by the comand and poer and direction of God)

Cience and Bible describe almost the same. Only that the Bible did it 5000 years early.

No. Noibody told me that theory. I dont know of any one saying the same.

 

[Papias]

Goinheix wrote:

Theistic Evolution

Really isn't much different than the last two, but rather than God saying let there be all the things that he claims to have said, He just kind of got the ball rolling, pun intended, and everything else came about by some form of Darwin's theory of evolution or the newly adjusted such theories.

Um, this is nearly polar opposite to my Theistic Evolution understanding. What you described is Deism, not Theistic Evolution.

Theistic Evolution describes a very active and involved God, not a distant nor inactive God. God is not a white bearded human man flying around on a throne rocket in the sky. God is not in the physical shape of humans, and as such, doesnt' create by literally molding things from clay - that's obviously a metaphor used in both the old and new testaments. God creates by using the process of evolution, and as such, God was actively creating things throughout all of the earth's 4.6 billion year history, and is still active today, as we speak, molding new species of animal through evolution, and even causing the cultural and physical evolution of humans.

See the difference? Theistic Evolution describes a God active througout history, as well as now, molding and shaping things the world over, not limited to having only two hands to mold things in one little place. This is a much grander, more vast God.

Cience talk about evolution of life in a long non-divine prosess. Bible talk about the earth producing life (by the comand and poer and direction of God)

No, science describes HOW life evolved, not WHO was behind it, causing it to happen, doing it. Science doesn't deny God any more than Algebra denies God. After all, God is not included in part of Algebra. Does that make math atheistic? Of course not.

The bible is one of God revelations but not the only one. Yet is the only book with the revelation of God, but there is other ways God revealed himself. The main way God revealed to us was to born as Jesus. Another revelation is the creation itself. Every creation reveal or reflex it creator.

What I do is to compare the different revelations of God. I understand that cience is not the enemy of christians.

I completely agree. You have written out the key to Theistic Evolution, which is the result of following what you have written out above.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Thanks. I am not familiar to the terminilogy. I found that no one of those positions is mine. My position is:

The seven days are the seven days in witch Moses has recieved the revelation about creation. Probably at the Sinai mount, but that is irrelevant.

The revelation to Moses start at vers

Yes, I have heard that view. You are right, it doesn't fit any of the choices offered by CF. But it would be closest to a theistic evolution view as it doesn't tie the days of Genesis to a specific time frame as young-earth, old-earth or gap theology does.

Except, perhaps, you don't accept evolution.

Have you ever looked at the Framework Interpretation of Genesis? It is another that doesn't fit into the options and is consistent with either a pro- or anti-evolution view.

The Upper Register: Papers and mp3's by Lee Irons

 

[Faith.Man]

Well, eventually, you explained it. Thanks.

I did not explain it for you.

I see your point (not that difficult). Do you also entertain questions? I have some of them.

No.

 

[Willtor]

The bible is one of God revelations but not the only one. Yet is the only book with the revelation of God, but there is other ways God revealed himself. The main way God revealed to us was to born as Jesus. Another revelation is the creation itself. Every creation reveal or reflex it creator.

What I do is to compare the different revelations of God. I understand that cience is not the enemy of christians. Actually cience was born and developed in a christian concept of the universe. Greeks has no cience as we know today. greek thot that the univers has not natural laws and things happens because gods do crazy things.

Cience show me somwething, and I try to use it to help interpreet the Genesis. That is the same we do interpreting all the bible. For understanding the Bible we must know of geography, history etc.

Cience talk about the Big Bang, a huge explotion of light that created everything: matter, energy, space and time. Bible talks about the light being the first act of creation.

Cience talk about evolution of life in a long non-divine prosess. Bible talk about the earth producing life (by the comand and poer and direction of God)

Cience and Bible describe almost the same. Only that the Bible did it 5000 years early.

No. Noibody told me that theory. I dont know of any one saying the same.

I think that the Bible was not intended do describe scientific truths. I think the nature of the revelation was to teach us things that we could not discover for ourselves.

But, I agree, it is poignant that the Bible talks about the Earth bringing forth life at the command of God.

 

[crawfish]

hi goin,

Do you mean you don't undersand the question or you don't understand the choices? The choices should have some spaces to separate the different 'name's of the beliefs.

Young Earth Creation

The earth was created about 6,000 years ago understanding that the six days were actually six literal days and the list of the generations begins with Adam and his first day living in the creation. As you follow out the generations and the rest of the timeline of Scripture you would find that we are now nearing the 6,000th year of this realm of God's creation.

Old Earth Creation

That the earth was created by God, but the creation event was some millions or billions of years ago and how the time accounted to Adam and Eve, if the old earth creationist even believes that they are real people, is a bit fuzzy.

Gap Theory

This claims that God again created, but that there was a gap of millions or billions of years between the day that God said 'let there be light' and created the physical earth and heavens and plants and creatures and when He said, 'let us make man in our image'.

Theistic Evolution

Believes that God used natural processes in creation and that the account in Genesis 1 (and beyond) is speaking allegorically or symbolically. Believes in a God that is involved and active in creation and in the lives of humankind.


Deistic Evolution

Believes that God kicked off the natural processes of creation and now sits on the sidelines, uninvolved in creation.

Atheistic Evolution

No God, everything came about by normal, explainable and observable natural laws. All the phsyical bodies of stars and planets, etc. in all the universe is billions of years old and everything came from some sort of 'starting' force, but not by the fiat of a god.

Hope this helps, but get back to me if that's not the question.
God bless.
In Christ, Ted

Hope you don't mind, I added an additional category because I think it's important to distinguish between theistic and deistic evolution.

 

[miamited]

Hey crawfish,

Not at all. I wasn't sure if this was the answer the Op was seeking, but apparently it was.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Goinheix]

Yes, I have heard that view. You are right, it doesn't fit any of the choices offered by CF. But it would be closest to a theistic evolution view as it doesn't tie the days of Genesis to a specific time frame as young-earth, old-earth or gap theology does.

Except, perhaps, you don't accept evolution.

Have you ever looked at the Framework Interpretation of Genesis? It is another that doesn't fit into the options and is consistent with either a pro- or anti-evolution view.

The Upper Register: Papers and mp3's by Lee Irons

I do accept evolution. The evolution is a process that God used to make the water and earth to produce life.

What is that Framekork interpretation?

 

[Goinheix]

I think that the Bible was not intended do describe scientific truths. I think the nature of the revelation was to teach us things that we could not discover for ourselves.

But, I agree, it is poignant that the Bible talks about the Earth bringing forth life at the command of God.

Yes, the Bible has not the intention of describing scientific truth, but every time something is discribed it must fit with the true we lern by scientific observation.

 

[gluadys]

I do accept evolution. The evolution is a process that God used to make the water and earth to produce life.

What is that Framework interpretation?

OK. Then in terms of the spectrum listed you would be 6,7, or 8--one of the varieties of Theistic Evolutionist, but with a bit of a twist that isn't listed.

Actually, although you came to your view yourself, you are not the only one. It is sometimes called "Days of Proclamation". In other words, the days of Genesis 1 are not the days on which God created, but the days on which he proclaimed the creation of the things named. In your version, God made this proclamation through a vision to Moses.

St. Augustine held a similar view, for he believed God created all things in an instant, but revealed them to Moses in the pattern of days, so that it would be easy for humanity to understand.

The Framework Interpretation is presented in the link I included. Short summary: the days of Genesis 1 are not historical days, but a literary device. The writer gathered the various elements of creation into logical groups and assigned them to a particular "day" of creation. (Of course, this could have been revealed to him, as in your explanation.)

It goes a little further than just random assignment, though. There is also a connection back to vs. 2 where the earth is described as "without form" and "empty".

When you check out the days in vv. 3-13, you see that each gives form to creation (Day/Night, Sky/Water, Land/Sea + vegetation to cover the land). So now there is form but it is still empty.

Each of the next three days fills a form. To Day & Night are given the lights in the firmament. To sky and water are given birds and sea creatures. Then lastly the land animals are made + humanity to have dominion over them all.

So it is all very artistically balanced and completed with the Sabbath.

Some interpreters see in this an analogy to building a temple. As they see it, creation is God's temple.

 

[Goinheix]

What it is clear is that there is many possible interpretations. Some christians prefer to take a label and identify with it. Some others choose to have the own criteria that probably does not match exactly to a particular label. In my case, for example, I do not agree with Agustine in the sense that God did not create all in a instant. I believe it took billons years of a gradal process.

Any how, I celebrate that there is not only one interpretation, that the fundamentalist reading Genesis literally might be wrong. Then, there is room to found a comon point with what the observation of the creation is telling us.