Scienceism, Is there such a thing?

[nephilimiyr]

"I went to the extreme ends of the earth and saw there huge beasts, each different from the other and different birds (also) differing from one another in appearance, beauty, and voice. And to the east of those beasts, I saw the ultimate ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out..."(1 Enoch 33:1-2).

Very Good! You have your own translation. See I never have read that in a way that it's saying the earth is flat though. However I can see how the church fathers might have taken it that way. However the question I wanted answered was if you can prove that the church fathers believed in a flat earth because of the Book of Enoch. There's passages in the canonized Bible that are similar and what I see the church fathers used to prove that theology of theirs that the earth was flat.

If you say that you have proven to me that it's the evidence in scientific knowledge that led me away from seeing that passage as not talking about a flat earth when reading it the first time, I must admit you'd be right. Now there I can see science being extra-biblical knowledge! But you see, I see this extra biblical evidence as being relieable.

OK. So here's the theological reason Enoch was discarded. When you say "Enoch threated that theology of their's" you have a bias. It would be just as fair to say "Enoch got the theology wrong." Your bias is that Enoch is right but that the Church Fathers were wrong. It could easily be that the Church Fathers, basing their theology on other sources, could be right and Enoch wrong.

I see my bias as that I have the book of Enoch as well as Genesis 6, along with other canonized books, but also other non-canonized books and ancient writtings. Enoch is the one book that goes into detail about the story of angels mating with human women but it isn't the only reord of it.

The early church fathers had no reason, other than their disbelief, to reject the story. And as I have showed, they came up with other theologies that would disprove the story. This Sethite belief in the "sons of God" came from this new theology and is one that can be easily debated and argued.

Based on what we now know of genetics, Enoch was wrong. Let's face it, if divine beings are lusting after human women, mating with them, and having kids, then we have angelic DNA in the human genome!

Not so fast lucaspa! The belief in this is also the belief in why God sent the flood. It was to pass judgment on the fallen angels and the Nephilim (the children of the fallen angels)

How deep into this subject would you like to go with this? LOL, I could write a book!

Also, it makes divine beings be physical humans. That is theological dynamite. Are they then really divine?

It's what both Jews and christians believed until the early church fathers changed the theology. Members of a church who wanted to continue to believe that "sons of Gods" were angels were excomunicated from the church. Those who continued to write of a belief in this was blacklisted and kicked out.

Also the offspring of these unions did not result in human offspring but what is known to be the "nephilim", Hebrew for the English word "giants".

2nd Peter 2:4-5, For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Jude 6-7, And the angels which kept not their first esate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Even as Sodom and Gormorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Those angels are not divine anymore!
They are now in Tartaroo, in the Greek or Tartarus, in the English, Hell.

It's not "couldn't become flesh" but were flesh. Angels don't have the attributes of changing form. If angels can breed with humans and produce offspring, then they are humans. No wonder the Church Fathers had a problem with that.

Read chapter 18 in Genesis, who were the 3 visiters that Abraham entertained? read chapter 19 in Genesis, were the 2 angels that Lot entertained made of spirit or flesh?

Again, think of the implications. What happens if these "sons of God" really are angels?

Trust me, I've thought of the implications!
But isn't thinking of the implications of believeing them to be angels creating a bias to the possibility of them being so?

When were they created? Were they created? If they are not created then they have to exist forever, just like God. Are they God? Minor gods?

Job 38:6-7, Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This shows that the angels were around when God originally created the earth. This I can only answer for you at this time.

However, notice the phrase "sons of God"? This is translated in the Hebrew as "ben Elohim" There are only a few cases that this phrase is used like this and in every case it shows the meaning to be angels. Ben Elohim is what is written in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. Go ahead check it out.

The only other places this phrase is used is Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and in the singular form Daniel 3:24-25.

I've already gone over the problems if they can mate with human females and produce offspring! Just wanting to mate with human females causes problems.

I can see why they wanted to pretend the book never existed.

I can surmise that it was their disbelief in it that they tried so hard to put the book under wraps. I've read theories on why they were so adamant but right now the thought escapes me nor do I remember where I found this info.

 

[nephilimiyr]

As far as science is concerned, there wasn't anything "before" Big Bang. No space, no time, no matter, no energy. nothing. So nothing "pre-existing" to re-order.

But science can't bring any evidence forward to support what this says. I listened to a scientist several months ago on a radio talk show explain it like this, science can't say either way whether there was anything before the big bang or not. He said that most scientist say that there was nothing before the big bang but they only do so because they don't know. He said there are valid theories to support either idea but the fact is that we just don't know. I see you bringing up only one theory on this.

This is where I really have trouble with literalists! On the one hand they tell me I'm supposed to read the text plainly and literally. On the other hand, they tell me I can make up whatever I want but that isn't in the text! Does anyone else see a contradiction here?

That's not what I said. I said that Genesis 1:1 doesn't say how long this period was, it doesn't suggest how God created but that he did create, I also said that I can prove in other bible passages that during this period there was life. How is that a contradiction?

I see you interpreting the passage on how you believe the book of creation (science) tells you to do so, your belief on what science says tells you to not take it literally. I say I interpret the passage on how I understand what the Hebrew is saying. The Hebrew tells me I can take it literally and I can also use the book of creation without contradiction.

1. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. You can't change it with your interpretation.

I'm not changeing what God is saying only what most of you think he's saying. Plus your showing me that you believe the only way to read it literally is to read it talking about a young earth. I say your wrong.

2. The Bible isn't the complete word of God. Therefore we can change it anyway we want by adding whatever we want.

That's exactly what I see you doing. You have showed me that it doesn't matter what the Bible says but only what his book of creation says, you do call it the more superior book. I see you changeing what the Bible says to conform to your belief in what you believe science says or in other words "anyway we want by adding whatever we want", or rather "We can change what we want by takeing away what we want".

I don't care about other scripture. What matters is what is in Genesis! Using other scripture simply means you are using what some other guy thought about the text, not the text itself.

You don't want me to limit you on how you are able to interpret Genesis 1 but you feel it's ok to limit me? What, do you think I'm just copying something off a web page that I happen to believe? You think my belief in what I'm trying to say only steams from a sermon from my pastor? You don't think I've prayed over this? You don't think I've studied this? See, now I see you dissin' me lucaspa!

You need to go back over and tell my why you think there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I see no reason except extrabiblical evidence of an old universe to insert a gap. But you are saying that we aren't supposed to use extrabiblical evidence. Right? We are supposed to look at the text first.

Right, we find out FIRST, not only, what the word of God says before we use extra biblical evidence and only if we see that extra evidence as being relieable. I don't see the evidence of evolution as being relieable but I do see the evidence for an old earth as being relieable.

Yes, it does. "God said, let there be light, and there was." God spoke, it happened. That's how God created. Throughout Genesis 1 God speaks, and it happens. The exceptions is when God commands "Let the earth bring forth" and "Let the seas bring forth" which implies there is some process in the earth and seas that will produce what God is creating.

Your not understanding what I'm saying lucaspa. God created the heavens and the earth in a seperate time. Genesis 1:1 is the original creation and we are given no clue in Genesis on how or when God performed this act. This is how I believe "bereshyth" is conveyed. Bereshyth is saying this creation has nothing to do with Gensis 1:3 and beyond in the chapter. Bereshyth is conveying that the creation of the heaven and earth is different than that from the following verses.

Also "let there be light" isn't necessarily a creative act. The quote is suggesting that God is allowing the light to shine, not that he is creating light. The light was created "bereshyth".

Genesis 1:3 is the start of the reforming sequence in the chapter.

Not based on the text, you don't. There is no life until Day 3.

Actually Genesis 1 doesn't mention any life until Gen. 1:11.

I don't make the claim that the text says this but only that I can believe life exsisted before the earth became "without form, and void" through other passages in the bible as well as just useing common sense and YES, extra-biblical evidence!

Ah! So you will let science dictate your interpretation!

I see that because the scientific evidence of an old earth is relieable, it builds on my interpretation. I see it as not dictating but helping. I would still believe in my interpretation of Genesis even if the scientific evidence contradicts that interpretation and believeing that one day science will come to the conclusion that the earth is very old.

Please forgive the humor. Game, set, and match!

LOL, yeaaaaah, yeaaaaaah.....Saint Phil

It's not as if you disagreed fundamentally with the first quote in my signature, but that science has not proven to you that the diversity of life on the planet is due to evolution. Right?

Ahhh, right, I'm not convinced and I'm not too optimistic that you can show me either, that's not a dis. But I leave the door open.

The Bible doesn't say that God passed judgement on the earth. Where in Genesis 1 is that? Also, you forgot to tell me what you mean by "desolate and void".

Again the Hebrew conveys Gensis 1:2 differently then the way most people think. "The earth was without form, and void" This is not the sense of the Hebrew. "ruin" and "desolation" is the proper meaning of the noun given as "without form" which is "Tohuw" in the Hebrew. "void" with the meaning of "emptiness" which is "Bohuw" in the Hebrew.

These two words are found in use together only in two other places in the Bible, and both times they are used to express the ruin caused by an outpouring of the wrath of God.

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(Tohuw), and the stones of emptiness(Bohuw).
Confusion and emptiness are from the same Hebrew words Tohuw and Bohuw. The sense is that just as a architect makes careful use of line and stone to construct a building to perfection, so will God to make the ruin or desolation complete.

Jeremiah 4:23-27, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wildreness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.
For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I make a full end.

When Tohuw and Bohuw are together they always signify Gods wrath.

The belief that God made the earth a formless, empty, chaotic world before he shaped it just isn't the truth, the way I see it.
Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
The word translated in English as "vain" is the Hebrew word "Tohuw". This word, no matter what the English translators put it as, can not be "in vain". When They translate Tohuw when the passage is talking about creation they have always translated it as "without form". Now they want to change the meaning and for no reason?
It is clear to me that this is an error.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Game, set, match?

Or stale mate?

 

[lucaspa]

Very Good! You have your own translation. See I never have read that in a way that it's saying the earth is flat though. However I can see how the church fathers might have taken it that way. However the question I wanted answered was if you can prove that the church fathers believed in a flat earth because of the Book of Enoch. There's passages in the canonized Bible that are similar and what I see the church fathers used to prove that theology of theirs that the earth was flat.

If you say that you have proven to me that it's the evidence in scientific knowledge that led me away from seeing that passage as not talking about a flat earth when reading it the first time, I must admit you'd be right. Now there I can see science being extra-biblical knowledge! But you see, I see this extra biblical evidence as being relieable.

Which gets us back to why you pick and choose among the extrabiblical knowledge. Is it because:

1. The extrabiblical knowledge is not reliable?
2. The knowledge is reliable but you don't know or understand it?
3. You don't want to say it's reliable because it messes up your theology.

I see an example of the latter here:

Based on what we now know of genetics, Enoch was wrong. Let's face it, if divine beings are lusting after human women, mating with them, and having kids, then we have angelic DNA in the human genome!

The belief in this is also the belief in why God sent the flood. It was to pass judgment on the fallen angels and the Nephilim (the children of the fallen angels)

The extremely reliable extrabiblical knowledge is that there was no world-wide Flood. Ever. However, you need that world-wide Flood in order to keep your theology and get rid of the Nephilim and their mingling of DNA into the human species. So you reject the extrabiblical knowledge as "reliable". Not on its own merits, but your own man-made theology.

I see my bias as that I have the book of Enoch as well as Genesis 6, along with other canonized books, but also other non-canonized books and ancient writtings. Enoch is the one book that goes into detail about the story of angels mating with human women but it isn't the only reord of it.

The early church fathers had no reason, other than their disbelief, to reject the story. And as I have showed, they came up with other theologies that would disprove the story.

We are discussing the reasons the early church fathers had to reject Enoch as reliable. They had access to all the works you cite, didn't they? And other works besides that have since been lost to us. So, they had more sources than you have. From this they concluded that the alternative hypothesis/theology also explained the canonical texts but weren't falsified by other accepted theological doctrine (data for them).

It's what both Jews and christians believed until the early church fathers changed the theology.

So? We are arguing the accuracy of those early beliefs, not whether they were shared. All the Jewish Jerusalem disciples believed that Gentiles must be converted to Judaism before they could become Christians. Paul challenged and eventually changed the theology. In Mark 10:1-10 we find that all Jews believed in the divorce laws until Jesus changed them. Then all Christians went back to the old views about divorce despite what Jesus told them. So, who was accurate in all these cases?

Also the offspring of these unions did not result in human offspring but what is known to be the "nephilim", Hebrew for the English word "giants".

And giants can't interbreed with human women and produce fertile offspring? Genesis 6:4 says " and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men of old, the men of renown." So now we have angels with DNA compatible with human DNA, able to produce "men".

2nd Peter 2:4-5, For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Jude 6-7, And the angels which kept not their first esate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Even as Sodom and Gormorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Those angels are not divine anymore!

They are not divine in behavior, but still divine in terms of physiology! What we have here is Essene theology creeping into Christianity. This battle of Heaven and Hell is unknown in the OT. It was made up outside the Bible by the Essenes, a Jewish eschatalogical cult.

Read chapter 18 in Genesis, who were the 3 visiters that Abraham entertained? read chapter 19 in Genesis, were the 2 angels that Lot entertained made of spirit or flesh?Trust me, I've thought of the implications!
But isn't thinking of the implications of believeing them to be angels creating a bias to the possibility of them being so?

Let's take the last question first. No. Remember what I described about the scientific method? You assume the hypothesis is true in order to test it. Why do you test it? To try to falsify it! "Implications" here is shorthand for "deductions from the statement". You can't make deductions from a true statement unless you thing (for the purposes of testing) that the statement is true.

Now, back to the visitors to Abraham and Lot. They are "messengers from God", but that doesn't mean they are compatible with humans. Remember the claims, Neph, remember the claims. I had said:
"Also, it makes divine beings be physical humans. That is theological dynamite. Are they then really divine?" The visitors can be angels in the real divine sense -- not able to interbreed with humans -- and that would be consistent with orthodox doctrine that the ben Elohim are humans. These visitors and the ben Elohim are not the same things. See?

Job 38:6-7, Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This shows that the angels were around when God originally created the earth. This I can only answer for you at this time.

It shows that the author of Job thought they were around. However, this gets us into a problem with the literal translation -- incompleteness. Obviously none of the creation stories in Genesis tell us when or how these beings came into existence. Not good for having an "inerrant" Bible.

However, notice the phrase "sons of God"? This is translated in the Hebrew as "ben Elohim"

It's translated from the Hebrew. Remember, the OT was written in Hebrew, not English. "ben" is Hebrew for "son of". "Elohim" is actually gods plural. So the exact translation would be: sons of gods. Now, "Elohim" is the word used in Genesis 1 and elsewhere in P to denote Yahweh.

There are only a few cases that this phrase is used like this and in every case it shows the meaning to be angels. Ben Elohim is what is written in Genesis 6:2 and 6:4. Go ahead check it out.

The only other places this phrase is used is Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and in the singular form Daniel 3:24-25.[/quote]

But are these "ben Elohim" angels? Doesn't say. Just that they are "ben Elohim". In Daniel the usage is by Nebuchanezzar and "elohim" is translated correctly. In this case Nebbie can't be referring to angels because his religion doesn't have them. He is referring to a heroic, handsome, well-muscled hero type.

I can surmise that it was their disbelief in it that they tried so hard to put the book under wraps.

I think it is the problems this does to orthodox Christian theology.

Let's consider an alternative hypothesis.

Within Israel were 2 traditions. One was strict monotheism. The other was a modified monotheism with strong polytheistic overtones. In the second tradition there was one God but all these divine minions who were also immortal. Part of their function was to form a court for the King. After all, you can't have a solitary King. The King must (by human reasoning) have minions. Now, Genesis is a patched together document from these different traditions. The monotheistic tradition gave us Genesis 1. The polytheistic tradition gave us the creation stories of Genesis 2-3 and 6-8. They also have the stories of messengers. The redactor put them together. The monotheists tradition gives us Exodus, where Yahweh has no minions but does everything itself. The polytheists give us Job.

Now we come along 3500 years later and you have to puzzle this out. The Church Fathers rejected the polytheists and firmly committed to the monotheists. Many people today would like to be polytheists and that tradition is gaining ground.

 

[lucaspa]

But science can't bring any evidence forward to support what this says. I listened to a scientist several months ago on a radio talk show explain it like this, science can't say either way whether there was anything before the big bang or not. He said that most scientist say that there was nothing before the big bang but they only do so because they don't know. He said there are valid theories to support either idea but the fact is that we just don't know. I see you bringing up only one theory on this.

Sorry for the confusion, we are talking apples and oranges here.

Before the Big Bang, there was no universe. That is, there was no pre-existing matter for God to form.

What you heard on the radio talk show was that Big Bang represents a singularity in General Relativity. That is, all the laws and rules of the macroscopic universe break down and don't apply in a singularity. That means that nothing on "the other side" or "before" the singularity can come thru the singularity and affect our universe. IOW, there is no "pre-existing" stuff that God can use to form this universe because, even if there is something "before" the BB, whatever it may have been, it can't come thru the singularity to this universe.

I said that Genesis 1:1 doesn't say how long this period was, it doesn't suggest how God created but that he did create, I also said that I can prove in other bible passages that during this period there was life. How is that a contradiction?

You haven't even demonstrated there is a gap!

I see you interpreting the passage on how you believe the book of creation (science) tells you to do so, your belief on what science says tells you to not take it literally.

Actually, here I am not. For the sake of discussion I am reading it plainly just as you are. My arguments are based upon the contradiction that the Bible is inerrant which means complete and then saying that it is incomplete and they can insert whatever they want to make their interpretation come out the way they want.

The Hebrew tells me I can take it literally and I can also use the book of creation without contradiction.I'm not changeing what God is saying only what most of you think he's saying.

I am disputing that. I think you are changing the literal meaning of the words, when you say you are using only a literal interpretation. IOW, you are internally inconsistent.

Now, I am doing something different:

You have showed me that it doesn't matter what the Bible says but only what his book of creation says, you do call it the more superior book. I see you changeing what the Bible says to conform to your belief in what you believe science says

You are taking "science says" as something independent of God. I am not. Science is the study of God's Creation, and God's creation, as you noted, is also what God says. Since God cannot contradict, the two books must correlate. But the Bible is not a book about the how of creation. It is a book of theology. There's no need to put an accurate how of creation in it since we have Creation to give us that. And several reasons why an accurate how of creation would not be in the Bible. So, I use God's Creation not to tell me how to make Genesis conform to science, but to reject any attempts to do so and read Genesis as the theological document God meant it to be. Since we can discard any how of creation in Genesis, what are the stories really trying to tell us about God, about what God wanted to communicate to people of the time, about God's relationship with us, and about how God wants us to relate to each other?

Let's take this out of the Bible for a minute. Shakespeare's Macbeth is not set in literal Scottish history. Should I read Macbeth and try to interpret it such that it matches real Scottish history? Should I go thru these mental convulsions contrary to Scottish history and contrary to what Shakespeare intended? No. Shakespeare wanted to convey truths about the human condition: lust for power, greed, honor, guilt, justice. He set these truths in a fictional Scottish history. But the truths don't depend on the history.

Same with the Bible. The Bible is God's attempt to tell us theological truths: the nature of God, how God regards humans, how God wants humans to behave toward each other, the consequences of some behaviors and the rewards of others, etc. Those truths are set in the fictional science of the time -- the Babylonian cosmology. But the truths don't depend on the science. It does the same violence to Genesis to try and make it match the Creation as it does to Macbeth to try to make it match Scottish history. It's a waste of time. All it does is make a mockery of God's Word and God's Creation.

You don't want me to limit you on how you are able to interpret Genesis 1 but you feel it's ok to limit me?

Yes, because you are breaking your own rules. I am not breaking mine. I am not "taking away" anything. I am just not trying the futile exercise of making the Bible be God's Creation.

Your not understanding what I'm saying lucaspa. God created the heavens and the earth in a seperate time. Genesis 1:1 is the original creation and we on how or when God performed this act.

I understand what you are saying. But now I see another contradiction.

Notice you said "are given no clue in Genesis". Now, the idea of a young earth came from the geneologies outside Genesis 1. Here you say we can't use these to determine how long ago creation happened.

Yet later in the post you used books outside Genesis to tell you that God made the world desolate. Even tho this is not said in Genesis. You break your own rules again.

What I want to see is something in Gensis that tells us there is a gpa between the first "morning and evening" and the second. I don't see it in a literal reading of the text. Following your rules. Nor do I see anything in Genesis of the earth being made desolate.

So, since you accept an old earth, you want to exclude the non-Genesis 1 material that would show you a young earth. BUT, since you do believe that the earth was made desolate so that there was a second creation, you bring in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

I don't see how you can have it both ways.

This is how I believe "bereshyth" is conveyed. Bereshyth is saying this creation has nothing to do with Gensis 1:3 and beyond in the chapter. Bereshyth is conveying that the creation of the heaven and earth is different than that from the following verses.

But you have no reason to do so. You don't even know what bereshyth is! You say reshyth means re-shaping pre-existing stuff but you haven't shown me the connection with bereshyth. Walk me thru it step by step, please.

Also "let there be light" isn't necessarily a creative act. The quote is suggesting that God is allowing the light to shine, not that he is creating light. The light was created "bereshyth".

Aren't you supposed to be able to use other times the phrase is used to decide what it means? So, let's go to Genesis 1:9 "Let the waters ... be gathered". Does that not mean the waters were not gathered before this? Or Genesis 1:6 "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters" Was He not creating a firmament? Actually, Genesis 1:7 then says "And God made the firmament". So, the firmament didn't exist until God said "Let there be" Genesis 1:14 "Let there be lights in the firmament" and Genesis 1:15-16 "and it was so. And God made the two great lights"

So, the other two times in Genesis 1 where we have "Let there be" God makes the entity. Why do you think light is any different?

Genesis 1:3 is the start of the reforming sequence in the chapter. Actually Genesis 1 doesn't mention any life until Gen. 1:11

Neph, Genesis 1:11 is day 3. Just like I said.

I don't make the claim that the text says this but only that I can believe life exsisted before the earth became "without form, and void" through other passages in the bible as well as just useing common sense and YES, extra-biblical evidence!

Oh, that selective use of extrabiblical evidence again.

I see that because the scientific evidence of an old earth is relieable, it builds on my interpretation.

This goes to my previous post. You use extrabiblical evidence only when it builds on your interpretation. Thank you for stating that so well.

Since I believe in listening to God and changing my interpretation by what God says, I see that we really don't have much in common.

I would still believe in my interpretation of Genesis even if the scientific evidence contradicts that interpretation and believeing that one day science will come to the conclusion that the earth is very old

IOW, believe your interpretation no matter what God tells you in His Creation. You are also forgetting falsification. IF science was saying the earth was young, it would be doing so because it had shown conclusively that the earth could not by old. IOW, God in His Creatoin would have shown your interpretation to be utterly wrong. But you wouldn't listen.

Ahhh, right, I'm not convinced and I'm not too optimistic that you can show me either, that's not a dis. But I leave the door open.

Not really open. Just say it is open. You've already told me that you won't allow God to tell you anything against your interpretation. Since evolution is against your interpretation, you aren't going to listen.

Again the Hebrew conveys Gensis 1:2 differently then the way most people think. "The earth was without form, and void" This is not the sense of the Hebrew. "ruin" and "desolation" is the proper meaning of the noun given as "without form" which is "Tohuw" in the Hebrew. "void" with the meaning of "emptiness" which is "Bohuw" in the Hebrew.

So? The issue isn't the exact state of the earth, but whether there is a gap between 1:1-5 and 1:6.

These two words are found in use together only in two other places in the Bible, and both times they are used to express the ruin caused by an outpouring of the wrath of God.

The key here is that it was ruin. Not the cause. Before anything is worked on, it can also be desolate, but not by the wrath of God. Wouldn't the Hebrews describe the desert as bohuw?

[quote ]Confusion and emptiness are from the same Hebrew words Tohuw and Bohuw.

Well, in that case, it seems that "without form" matches with confusion and "void" is a synonym for emptiness. Seems like you've shown the translation in Genesis 1:1 isn't so far off after all. Nice of you to destroy your own argument, but hey! at least it's honest. Too bad you didn't recognize what you did, however.

Jeremiah 4:23-27, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wildreness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.
For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I make a full end.

When Tohuw and Bohuw are together they always signify Gods wrath.

But both examples also use phrases like "by his fierce anger", don't they? Where is the indication of anger in Genesis 1? I don't see angry people saying "and it was good". Do you?

And when "Let there be" is used, it always signifies God making. Yet you ignored that one pretty well. You can't have it both ways.

The belief that God made the earth a formless, empty, chaotic world before he shaped it just isn't the truth, the way I see it.
Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
The word translated in English as "vain" is the Hebrew word "Tohuw". This word, no matter what the English translators put it as, can not be "in vain". When They translate Tohuw when the passage is talking about creation they have always translated it as "without form". Now they want to change the meaning and for no reason?
It is clear to me that this is an error.[/QUOTE]

What, Hebrew words don't have more than one meaning? You just said tohuw and bohuw do? Ok, but put in "without form" or "confusion" in the passage. It still works. The NIV says "he did not create it a chaos". That works very well.

I suspect the KJV used "vain" to try to keep the meter of what is obviously a poem. It's tough translating poety. Do you go for the exact translation or do you try to keep the flavor of the poem? BTW, is the use of tohuw here unconventional for the same reason -- to keep the meter and rhyme?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Sorry for the confusion, we are talking apples and oranges here.

Are you tellin me! or are you just being kind?

Before the Big Bang, there was no universe. That is, there was no pre-existing matter for God to form.

Ha,ha,ha, I'd like to see you try to prove that but frankly I don't have the time. Really, I don't!

You haven't even demonstrated there is a gap!

You haven't been listening to me then lucaspa. You want to argue the semantics of what I am saying but as a result you have totally missed the meaning of what I'm saying. I mean just by reading the posts that started out this thread is proof enough to me that you have no intention to try and understand where another person is coming from. By the jist of your posts to start out this thread you looked upon me as another uneducated literalist who just wanted to spout another interpretation. I'm just another one of those misguided fools who wants to believe in what is written and not what is shown. I believe the one who is real closed minded is you. You have made up your mind long before I came along that I don't know what I'm talking about. You see me as just like those who argue with you about a young earth as well as about evolution.

You may think you scored a game , set, match with me but you don't have a clue of what I'm talking about! You really don't lucaspa. Your locked into the belief that no matter what I say, I'm wrong.

This really pains me but I will answer most of your objections. It pains me because I didn't think I'd get this far into it with you. These are deep beliefs of mine that I usaully don't share on message boards or with anyone. The Bible is a book on how we are to get right with God and find salvation, not on how we are to argue his creative pwoer.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Actually, here I am not. For the sake of discussion I am reading it plainly just as you are. My arguments are based upon the contradiction that the Bible is inerrant which means complete and then saying that it is incomplete and they can insert whatever they want to make their interpretation come out the way they want.

I beg to differ. Even when you plainly read the passage , you do so reading it in the English. All your arguements stem from a literal interpretation from the English and that's not what I'm useing as a literal interpretation. Since it's in the Hebrew that it was originally written in the only way to read it literally is to read it in the Hebrew. This is one point you have not understood and one that you have not applied in your arguements to me.

What I see you saying is that the written word of God is not inspired. I believe it should be our basic belief that what God wanted men to write they then wrote it, that the Spirit of God fell upon them to write what he wanted them to write, not what they wanted to write and not that they were limited with their human experience. Since I see you haveing the belief that the Holy Spirit is limited to only giving theological truths, I see you denying the pwoer of God.

I am disputing that. I think you are changing the literal meaning of the words, when you say you are using only a literal interpretation. IOW, you are internally inconsist

Ah but see I see myself as finding the true meaning of the words. The English translation can only tell you so much. Yes in some cases I do change the meaning of the words but it's within reason when you know how the Hebrew is suppose to be read.I find it ironic that you object to me changeing the literal meaning of the words when you don't even believe in a literal meaning on how they're used. Now this is an oxymoron!

 

[nephilimiyr]

You are taking "science says" as something independent of God. I am not. Science is the study of God's Creation, and God's creation, as you noted, is also what God says. Since God cannot contradict, the two books must correlate.

But man can contradict what God says in both of these books. It's not God contradicting anything but it's that belief in science on how man can and does contradict both of these books.

And there it is. I don't dispute that Gods creation can be used to tell us how we can interpret some scripture but you use it to say that the Bible is nothing but theological truths and can't be read literally. This to me is worse then what your accusing me of doing. You are changing the intended use of scripture to fit in with your belief in mans belief in science.

But the Bible is not a book about the how of creation. It is a book of theology.

The Bible purposely avoids contact with the science of men. God doesn't forbid man to search for answers but he doesn't give aid by revelation with our studies of the laws of his universe. The Bible was written to show man Gods everlasting power and glory, to show man his fallen condition, and the way we are to find salvation from this condition through his great love for us. God wants us focused on the moral renovation of ourselves and our fellow man.

Our job while reading the Bible is to learn dependence upon God and to be submissive to his will. The Bible is to show his dealings with man, his people, and his enemies. The Bible is not a book of theological truths but a book of historic facts.

To say God had the Bible written as theological truth says to me you believe God had limited his power to inspire. God wrote the Bible, not man. These are Gods words, not mans. God used men to write it but he didn't allow those men to write whatever they wanted in a way to show what they believe God had told them. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit what to write. To believe the Bible was written as theological truth is believeing men wrote the Bible to explain what they heard from God, but this is not what the scriptures tells us. The scriptures tell us that God spoke through men when the Holy Spirt was upon them.

2 Peter 1:19-21, We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If this prophecy that Peter is talking about was nothing more than a theological truth, how can we be so sure of it's truth? I'm sure of it because I believe that God spoke it

You say an interpretation is nothing but a belief in what another has said it means, but you can't see how a theological truth is just the same thing? Theological truths can be interpreted in different ways just as much or even more than literal interpretations.

2 Timothy 3:14-16, But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

The theology I believe is based on doctrines that I learn about through the literal word of God, not on doctrines based on a theology. If I based my beliefs on a theology how can I ever be sure of the beliefs that I have learned?

Luke 1:70-74, As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear.

These are not theological truths Zacharias is talking about here, these are truths based on historic facts. Zacharias didn't believe the promise of mercy that God spoke to their fathers was a theology but one of a literal promise spoken by God in times past. And this does show how Zacharias's belief did depend on the history!

 

[nephilimiyr]

Yes, because you are breaking your own rules. I am not breaking mine. I am not "taking away" anything. I am just not trying the futile exercise of making the Bible be God's Creation.

The only rule I mention is that we must learn what the Hebrew says and what it means. I don't break this rule. When you only use a belief in science to tell you how the Bible was written you do take away much if not all the meaning of scripture. You base your beliefs on what science tells you about the creation of God, not on what Gods creation tells you. You see it as one thing where I see a difference between the two.

I understand what you are saying. But now I see another contradiction.

Notice you said "are given no clue in Genesis". Now, the idea of a young earth came from the geneologies outside Genesis 1. Here you say we can't use these to determine how long ago creation happened.

The geneologies can only prove how long ago the reforming of the earth was inreference to our time now. The reforming of the earth has nothing to do with the actual creation of the earth. There are two events here in Genesis 1, one of the actual creation and one of the reforming of the earth. Therefore there is no contradiction at all.

Yet later in the post you used books outside Genesis to tell you that God made the world desolate. Even tho this is not said in Genesis. You break your own rules again.

I have stated from the start that many times if one want's to find the truth in the scripture he is studying he must look elsewhere in the Bible to find out how it correlates with what he's reading. Many times the meaning of the word or phrase that is used in the Hebrew must be shown by how it is used elsewhere in the Bible. I don't break this rule but practise it!

The Genesis 1:2 passage doesn't say "desolate" because the translation is incomplete, not conveying the true thought. You can't prove a thing to me by useing the English translation. It's the Hebrew you must use to show me where I'm wrong.

What I want to see is something in Gensis that tells us there is a gpa between the first "morning and evening" and the second. I don't see it in a literal reading of the text. Following your rules. Nor do I see anything in Genesis of the earth being made desolate.

I haven't mentioned anything yet about the first "morning and evening". When you use the original Hebrew you will see something a little different than what the English conveys. You must understand that it isn't what the English conveys to me that gives me my belief but what the Hebrew conveys to me.

So, since you accept an old earth, you want to exclude the non-Genesis 1 material that would show you a young earth. BUT, since you do believe that the earth was made desolate so that there was a second creation, you bring in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Your belief that a literal interpretation of this event can only mean that of a young earth creation is the only possible way to read it. You are showing your bias.

I don't exclude the non-Genesis 1 material because I actually do use it to show my belief that that material is talking about the reforming of the earth or that which what has transpired since the reforming of the earth, not the actual creation of it. I see that non-Genesis 1 material only talking about what has transpired since the reforming process. I see God saying that the times before the reforming event isn't what's important to man but that what's important is to show how man fell and then on how he has reconciled man to him. To show man the way to salvation. To show man how much he loves us!

See, you really don't understand what I'm talking about!

But you have no reason to do so. You don't even know what bereshyth is! You say reshyth means re-shaping pre-existing stuff but you haven't shown me the connection with bereshyth. Walk me thru it step by step, please.

That's not what I said lucaspa. Please allow me to run this by you one more time. reshyth means beginning but the Hebrew has always needed a modifier to show in what context or in which meaning we are to use it. However the reshyth used in Genesis 1:1 becomes a compound word. It has no modifier, "be" is not the modifier but has become apart of the word. This is why all Bible scholars have had problems interpreting this passage. This is why all translators have had problems translating the meaning of the passage.

In the English be-reshyth means "In the beginning". This gives us no real clue on how we are to use reshyth in meaning to the passage. Remember that beginning is just an english word to discribe what reshyth is meaning. Therefore our task is to find the meaning, to research it further. This is what all biblical scholars have done and is the main reason why there are so many different interpretations to this one passage.

Since the second verse in Gensis 1 mentions that the earth had become without form, and void, or had become desolate, confused, empty (the meanings of the word for tohuw other than formlessness) we then see the true meaning of how reshyth is used in Gen. 1:1. It's talking about a previous beginning in relation to the main topic of the chapter. This "previous" meaning of reshyth is in evidence in other parts of the Bible on how reshyth is used and that evidence is shown in the examples I provided, Job 42:12, and Proverbs 8:22.

Aren't you supposed to be able to use other times the phrase is used to decide what it means? So, let's go to Genesis 1:9 "Let the waters ... be gathered". Does that not mean the waters were not gathered before this? Or Genesis 1:6 "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters" Was He not creating a firmament? Actually, Genesis 1:7 then says "And God made the firmament". So, the firmament didn't exist until God said "Let there be" Genesis 1:14 "Let there be lights in the firmament" and Genesis 1:15-16 "and it was so. And God made the two great lights"

So, the other two times in Genesis 1 where we have "Let there be" God makes the entity. Why do you think light is any different?

LOL, I haven't gotten that far into the scripture with you but yes we can use those passages also. Now remember the claims lucaspa, always remember the claims The phrase "let there be" is used only in Genesis 1:3, 1:6 and 1:14. Genesis 1:9 does not use this phrase and neither does 1:7.

Gen. 1:6 also is not talking about a direct act of creation. God is appointing that firmament to serve it's original purpose once again.

Gen. 1:14 also is not a creative act by God but God saying that he wants the lights to shine once again in that firmament.

All three of these passages as well as the whole reforming sequence is written from the viewpoint of someone on earth.

You are baseing your beliefs in what is going on in Genesis 1 by what the English conveys, not by what the Hebrew conveys. My belief is that those who do so will never know the true meaning of the chapter.

 

[lucaspa]

Are you tellin me! or are you just being kind?Ha,ha,ha, I'd like to see you try to prove that but frankly I don't have the time. Really, I don't!

Neph, what you are saying about the Bible is that the universe was formed from some previous matter within the universe. That is not what we find. Instead, the matter of the universe comes into existence from nothing. Whatever, if anything, that was on the other side of the singularity of the Big Bang could not have come thru the singularity to this universe. As far as this universe is concerned, there is no "before" for God to have used the raw materials to make this universe.

You haven't been listening to me then lucaspa. You want to argue the semantics of what I am saying but as a result you have totally missed the meaning of what I'm saying.

I have the meaning of what you are saying, but you haven't demonstrated the claim to me with your exegesis. And it is an exegesis that we are talking about. In any type of plain reading there is no gap between Genesis 1:5 and Genesis 1:6. I have asked for the text in Genesis 1 to indicate such a gap and you haven't provided it. Nor was there a gap for the authors. Exodus 20:11 relates the six literal days and makes them the 6 days of the week, with the 7th day being the Sabbath. Now, you can't do that by saying "Sunday is the first day of the week, then there are an indeterminant number of days and then you have Monday, Tues. etc so you can rest on the Sabbath." God rests on the 7th day and therefore men rest on the 7th day. Men can't do that if there is an indeterminant amount of time between day 1 and day 2. Whatever we may think about the actual time involved, the authors of Genesis 1 mean 6 literal 24 hour days. They did so for theological reasons, not history.

Now, you and I differ about the ultimate authorship of the Bible.

To say God had the Bible written as theological truth says to me you believe God had limited his power to inspire. God wrote the Bible, not man. These are Gods words, not mans. God used men to write it but he didn't allow those men to write whatever they wanted in a way to show what they believe God had told them.

Look at Mark 10:1-10 and it's equivalent in Matthew 16. Jesus clearly says not only that Moses wrote the scripture but that Moses got is wrong! This directly contradicts what you just said above. Jesus is saying this, not me. This particular version of Biblical literalism is contradicted by Jesus himself. God Himself in human form.

Our job while reading the Bible is to learn dependence upon God and to be submissive to his will. The Bible is to show his dealings with man, his people, and his enemies. The Bible is not a book of theological truths but a book of historic facts.

Your first two sentences are about theology, isn't it? How do they differ from what I said: "The Bible is God's attempt to tell us theological truths: the nature of God, how God regards humans, how God wants humans to behave toward each other, the consequences of some behaviors and the rewards of others, etc." ?

The last sentence is where the trouble lies. It appears that you have taken what I said and decided that I meant that all the Bible is pure theology with no history. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I was speaking only about the creation stories and Noah's Flood. Judeo-Christianity does depend on the historical fact of God intervening in human history. Specifically, if the historical facts of the Exodus and Jesus' life and resurrection are wrong, then Judeo-Christianity is wrong. The Bible is a book of theology and the intervention of God in human history.

However, this does not mean that the history of all these interventions is completely and totally accurate. Nor do they have to be.

1. It is not necessary that the events in the parables of Jesus really happened, is it? In fact, I don't know of any Christian that argues that they are literally true. They are teaching stories for the theological messages in them. Why can't the creation stories also be parables of a sort?

2. All the details of the histories don't have to be accurate. For instance, recent archeological work has found an arch with the name "David" inscribed on it. However, the city and others of the time of David and Solomon are not as large and wealthy as depicted in the Bible. Cities and wealth of that level belong to later kings. Is this critical? Does it matter if the authors exaggerated the wealth of David and Solomon? Does their relative poverty in any way interfere with the basic history?

Another example: the various gospels contradict about the details of the crucifixion. The Midrash says that Jesus was not crucified at all, but was stoned to death for apostasy (remember, the Gospel of John has several accounts of where this nearly happened). Does the exact manner of Jesus' execution matter?

I believe the one who is real closed minded is you. You have made up your mind long before I came along that I don't know what I'm talking about. You see me as just like those who argue with you about a young earth as well as about evolution.

If this were so, Neph, I would not have taken the time to do the research into Hebrew and the Book of Enoch to test your claims. I am subjecting your claims to the same scrutiny that my scientific claims receive every day! They are not fairing too well under testing, but that is because I am taking them seriously and seriously testing them.

The Bible is a book on how we are to get right with God and find salvation, not on how we are to argue his creative pwoer.

I agree!! Which is what I keep telling you. The Bible is a theology book. Yet you insist on making it a book about how God created! WHY??!! Take McCosh's advice. Sit back, relax, make some popcorn, open a Coke. And let science, studying God's Creation, tell you how God works.

So, why are you so tied to the Gap Theory? Why go through tortured exegeses and dismiss large parts of God's Creation in order to keep it? Is your emotional attachment to the Gap Theory causing you to lose sight of the fact that the Bible is a book on how we are to get right with God and find salvation? It looks that way to me.

 

[Vance]

Lucaspa, I don't agree with all of your analysis above, as you know, but as for the attachment to the Gap theory, one reason is that there is a very detailed (and rather dramatic and interesting) story built up around this particular theory. Those who have invested a lot of time and emotional energy absorbing and adopting this intriguing concept are obviously going to be very loathe to let it go. Keep in mind that Neph has gone so far as to choose his handle and graphic based on these ideas.

Neph is sharp and earnest and, more importantly, honest. While I don't agree with the Gap theory or all the concepts and theories which have built up around it, he at least knows his theory very well and supports it with good manners and intelligence.

 

[lucaspa]

I beg to differ. Even when you plainly read the passage , you do so reading it in the English. All your arguements stem from a literal interpretation from the English and that's not what I'm useing as a literal interpretation. Since it's in the Hebrew that it was originally written in the only way to read it literally is to read it in the Hebrew. This is one point you have not understood and one that you have not applied in your arguements to me.

I agree that you need to look at the Hebrew. I disagree that I have not been doing that. I have been following you in Hebrew and discussing the Hebrew meanings and the best English translation for those meanings. For instance, I accepted your view of "reshyth" but noted that "bereshyth" is a different word. Therefore you can't apply what you deduce from "reshyth" to "bereshyth". And I used as an example "yom" and "beyom". You haven't responded to my questions about "berehsyth" or my objections that you are basing your arguments on "reshyth" and not "bereshyth".

Here, let me refresh your memory. This is what I said:
"Hebrew has no hyphens (or vowels). The transliteration is a compound word, not the original. You just said that there is a modifier for reshyth in Genesis 1:1. Either that or you have a completely different word because it is not plain reshyth, but bereshyth.

Now, when you go from yom to beyom the meaning changes. Yom is either a day or a somewhat indefinite period of task or festival. However, beyom is a much shorter time interval, like "instant", or "moment". A time measurement that is much shorter and more immediate that yom.

So, all your arguments based on reshyth alone don't apply. You can't just ignore the "be". Either it is a prefix that modifies reshyth or you have a whole new word.

The noun "reshyth" on it's own does mean beginning but what I'm saying is that in English the word is most often used to denote previously. The passages I gave in the post shows how when the word is employed and the translated word is beginning that it really doesn't mean beginning, or the actual start of something but something of a previous nature.

Does this help?

This makes it worse. Instead of reading what the Hebrew means -- beginning according to you -- you are now sayin "in English" reshyth is used to denote "previously". But we are not in English, are we? We're in Hebrew. So how can you use the way it is in English to make your interpretation when the language used is Hebrew?"

Ah but see I see myself as finding the true meaning of the words. The English translation can only tell you so much. Yes in some cases I do change the meaning of the words but it's within reason when you know how the Hebrew is suppose to be read.

I am arguing that your change of the meaning is not due to the Hebrew but in order to fit your Gap Theory. I have no objection to looking at the Hebrew. What I do object to is cherry picking only the data that agrees with you and ignoring the rest. Do you understand? I also object to your lifting passages out of context and saying they refer to Creation when they don't. The next step for you is to demonstrate (somehow) that the passages really do refer to Creation. I am thinking of the "desolate" passages specifically here. The ones you are using to justify a gap that is not in Genesis.

I find it ironic that you object to me changeing the literal meaning of the words when you don't even believe in a literal meaning on how they're used. Now this is an oxymoron!

No, it's how a discussion is supposed to go. There are always two levels to any discussion:

1. Internal consistency. Are your arguments internally consistent with what you consider data and your other ideas?
2. Correspondence with external evidence. Are your arguments contradicted by external evidence? If so, is that external evidence relevant and reliable (you are arguing both: science is not relevant and is not reliable)? Also included in this is whether your premises (what you assume to be true) really true? An example of this is your premise that the Bible is literally written by God.

We have been mixing the two levels because I thought you understood what was going on. Since it appears that you don't, perhaps we should separate them into two threads: one would be the literal exegesis and internal consistency of Gap Theory within the Bible and the other would be scientific arguments against Gap Theory.

Now, my assuming for discussion a literal reading of the text is part of #1. I am checking to see whether the exegesis actually works and is consistent with a literal exegesis of the Bible. So far, it hasn't. But that I am doing so is an indication that I am taking your points seriously. I am examining them from your viewpoint, not dismissing them from mine. Is Gap Theory a legitimate view within Biblical literalism? So far, testing has shown that it is not.

Now, the "game, set, and match" really seems to have upset you. You took it out of context.

Here is what it was:

Since it is science that has proven to me that the time between these events could be billions of years,


Ah! So you will let science dictate your interpretation!

Please forgive the humor. Game, set, and match!

This was not to say that your interpretation is totally wrong. It was only directed at your narrower claim that you don't let science dictate your interpretation. Your statement that "science that has proven" shows you let science dictate your interpretation! Without that science, would you have gone for gap based on the text alone?? I don't think so. You are now changing the interpretation of the Hebrew in order to match science.

Neph, you have put yourself in the position where you have the worst of both worlds and the benefits of neither. You say that the Bible is God's Word and not to allow science into interpretation, but then allow science in to modify the interpretation.

This leads to a strained exegesis to get a time Gap between Genesis 1:5 and 1:6 that isn't there to accomodate the old universe that science says exists. Yet at the same time you try to use the Bible to deny the evolution of the diversity of life that science says happened.

It's an impossible position. No wonder you feel threatened. You are! From one side you can't satisfy a literal exegesis -- in Hebrew or English -- and on the other side your theory is contradicted by science!

There is a way out of this, but I seriously don't think you are going to allow me to show it to you. I'm truly sorry for you. You are in a position that, no matter what you do, it is going to be emotionally wrenching. No matter how nice I try to be in this discussion, I am going to hurt you. I don't really want to do that and the only justification would be 1) it is going to lead you to a better place or 2) keep others from being in your place. I don't think #2 applies and I have real doubts that you are going to allow me to show you a better place or take it if I do show you.

So, unless I get some indication that you are tired of being in an impossible position and want to find one you can defend, perhaps the best thing is to drop this and agree to disagree.

 

[lucaspa]

as for the attachment to the Gap theory, one reason is that there is a very detailed (and rather dramatic and interesting) story built up around this particular theory. Those who have invested a lot of time and emotional energy absorbing and adopting this intriguing concept are obviously going to be very loathe to let it go. Keep in mind that Neph has gone so far as to choose his handle and graphic based on these ideas.

Neph is sharp and earnest and, more importantly, honest. While I don't agree with the Gap theory or all the concepts and theories which have built up around it, he at least knows his theory very well and supports it with good manners and intelligence.

I have reached the same conclusion as you. In fact, I just acknowledged it in a post I was writing while you were posting this one.

His manners are starting to fray. It is a sign of the stress he is under.

I am truly feeling sorry for Neph. The Gap Theory, and Neph, has the worst of both worlds. He is trying to use some science and some Biblical literalism. The result is a hopeless tangle of internal contradictions. He accepts science and the scientific method to show an old earth ande thus says he has to modify the interpretation of Genesis. He rejects the same scientific method when it comes to evolution and insists on a literal Genesis. He accepts a literal interpretation when it comes to instantaneous creation of living organisms and rejects a literal interpretation of days. If I use his rules of Biblical interpretation, his exegesis doesn't stand testing. If I use science, his claims don't stand testing.

I have tentatively concluded that continuing the discussion can only cause him pain without any chance of getting him to a more defensible position. IOW, causing pain without any chance of a greater good coming from it. Therefore I am seriously inclined to terminate the discussion and agree to disagree.

 

[Vance]

And yet, you and I still approach the Creation story differently. Whereas you are convinced it is meant solely as allegory and nothing in it can be read literally, I do not limit myself this way. I think that it can be something in between, a very true story being told in poetic and non-literal style (which was common at the time). And, yes, this is because I do believe that God had a hand in what happened when the first person told the story orally and when the first person wrote it down. I don't think He micromanaged the text at all, and let the authors describe the story in their own way, but the story itself is true as long as it is read correctly.

I think the Creation story is meant as a message not *just* about God as the first cause of all that exists, his omnipotence, omniscience and all the other omni's, and an allegory about God's relationship to Man. While I think there is a lot of symbolic language, and it is impossible to try and read it as literal history (as we would write today), I think that it does also provide the basic framework for what actually happened as well.

Every statement in the Bible is from God and is wholly true, of that I have no doubt. The question is knowing *what* statement God is making in a given passage. The literalist says it can *only* mean a 24 hour day, etc. You say he is *only* making allegorical references to deeper truths. I say it can be a combination of both, but am not arrogant enough to think I can discern it all perfectly.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Neph, what you are saying about the Bible is that the universe was formed from some previous matter within the universe. That is not what we find. Instead, the matter of the universe comes into existence from nothing. Whatever, if anything, that was on the other side of the singularity of the Big Bang could not have come thru the singularity to this universe. As far as this universe is concerned, there is no "before" for God to have used the raw materials to make this universe.

Hebrews 11:3, Through FAITH we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I stand by what I said. The passage says that the worlds were framed not from nothing but from invisible things. Basically I'm not argueing with you. I believe God made the universe not from matter but maybe from spiritual matter? How do you take the meaning of this passage?
The problem you and I have in comeing to terms with this is that I stand on faith that this passage is speaking truth. I maybe can't explain it to your likeing but I also can't explain it to myself in a 100% satisfactory way.

I have the meaning of what you are saying, but you haven't demonstrated the claim to me with your exegesis. And it is an exegesis that we are talking about. In any type of plain reading there is no gap between Genesis 1:5 and Genesis 1:6.

You say you understand what I'm trying to say but yet you say I'm talking about a gap between Gen. 1:5 AND 1:6? No, I've said the proof is with and between 1:1 and 1:2.

I have asked for the text in Genesis 1 to indicate such a gap and you haven't provided it. Nor was there a gap for the authors. Exodus 20:11 relates the six literal days and makes them the 6 days of the week, with the 7th day being the Sabbath. Now, you can't do that by saying "Sunday is the first day of the week, then there are an indeterminant number of days and then you have Monday, Tues. etc so you can rest on the Sabbath." God rests on the 7th day and therefore men rest on the 7th day. Men can't do that if there is an indeterminant amount of time between day 1 and day 2. Whatever we may think about the actual time involved, the authors of Genesis 1 mean 6 literal 24 hour days. They did so for theological reasons, not history.

You may understand that I'm talking about a gap in Genesis 1 but from that point on you have totally misunderstood everything else what I've said. Your claims that you say what I've said show me you really don't have a clue on how I'm explaining this. I blame mostly myself for this. I'm not a professor like yourself but just a high school grad. I haven't found this an easy task at all. I know I could've done alot better job in explaining myself. Yes I've made mistakes, sorry.

Exodus 20:11, when reading it in the Hebrew, conveys that the passage is talking about the reforming of the earth that took place starting in Genesis 1:3 to 1:31. The word that tells us this is "made" or "asah" in the Hebrew.

Look at Mark 10:1-10 and it's equivalent in Matthew 16. Jesus clearly says not only that Moses wrote the scripture but that Moses got is wrong! This directly contradicts what you just said above. Jesus is saying this, not me. This particular version of Biblical literalism is contradicted by Jesus himself. God Himself in human form.

I guess I don't read the NT as literally as you do, LOL. Jesus was talking to the Pharisees. Jesus knew these men didn't love the law or the scriptures, neither did they understand where these scriptures really came from, nor did they follow the law! Jesus knew these men only saw the law as a man written law therefore he spoke to them as they would understand.
Also Jesus does not say Moses got it wrong! Mark 10:5, And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. Jesus doesn't say Moses got it wrong but to the contary, Jesus gives the reason why Moses wrote what he did. And who else would know the motivation for why Moses wrote what he did other than Jesus? For he was the one who gave him the inspiration to write it!!!

Your first two sentences are about theology, isn't it? How do they differ from what I said: "The Bible is God's attempt to tell us theological truths: the nature of God, how God regards humans, how God wants humans to behave toward each other, the consequences of some behaviors and the rewards of others, etc." ?

You believe our theology is based on a theology from a theological book. I believe our theology is based on a true and accurate account of historic events. I would argue that that lends itself more to a sure thing in what to believe. I mean if you base your theology on a theology I then see a house of cards but if you base your theology on historic facts I see a house with a surerock foundation.

The last sentence is where the trouble lies. It appears that you have taken what I said and decided that I meant that all the Bible is pure theology with no history. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I was speaking only about the creation stories and Noah's Flood. Judeo-Christianity does depend on the historical fact of God intervening in human history. Specifically, if the historical facts of the Exodus and Jesus' life and resurrection are wrong, then Judeo-Christianity is wrong. The Bible is a book of theology and the intervention of God in human history.

I agree, I did believe you were talking about the whole Bible, sorry!

However, this does not mean that the history of all these interventions is completely and totally accurate. Nor do they have to be.

I believe they are because these accounts are what God has inspired men to write. If they are not accurate accounts then I see myself calling God a liar and I know that isn't true.

1. It is not necessary that the events in the parables of Jesus really happened, is it? In fact, I don't know of any Christian that argues that they are literally true. They are teaching stories for the theological messages in them. Why can't the creation stories also be parables of a sort?

True, the parables are not necessarily true stories. This doesn't mean Jesus lied but were just stories to teach a theological truth. Why can't the creation story or the flood story be parables also? Because these two stories are corroborated as being historic events throughtout the Bible where as jesus's parables are not.

[2 Peter 2:5[/b] Peter reference's the flood story as being a literal historic event. Now vance and I did debate over whether it was a global one or a reginal one but Peter does make it clear with his corroboration that a flood did happen. It wasn't just a story to teach a theological truth.

I'm not prepared to give all the scriptures that show the creation event can be taken literal. I haven't gotten to the point where I have segragated the original creation reference's from the reforming creation event but I could if I really wanted to work at it.

Heb 11:3 to me is talking about the original creation.
Exodus 20:11 is talking about the reforming event.
There's two.

2. All the details of the histories don't have to be accurate. For instance, recent archeological work has found an arch with the name "David" inscribed on it. However, the city and others of the time of David and Solomon are not as large and wealthy as depicted in the Bible. Cities and wealth of that level belong to later kings. Is this critical? Does it matter if the authors exaggerated the wealth of David and Solomon? Does their relative poverty in any way interfere with the basic history?

Sorry I disagree with your premise that historic facts have been figured out because of this recent archeological find. This is just another illustration of how I need complete evidence before I believe something is true. My last name is Thomas, I was thinking of useing doubtingthomas for my forum name!

Another example: the various gospels contradict about the details of the crucifixion. The Midrash says that Jesus was not crucified at all, but was stoned to death for apostasy (remember, the Gospel of John has several accounts of where this nearly happened). Does the exact manner of Jesus' execution matter?

I don't believe they contradict at all. I never heard of the Midrash so I can't really comment on it.

If this were so, Neph, I would not have taken the time to do the research into Hebrew and the Book of Enoch to test your claims. I am subjecting your claims to the same scrutiny that my scientific claims receive every day! They are not fairing too well under testing, but that is because I am taking them seriously and seriously testing them.

Ok, so you did do this but if this is in the way you scrutinize scientific claims I can now see why you believe what you believe.

Everytime you have put into words what you think I believe you have gotten my belief wrong. You are not trying to use my logic at all to see if I'm wrong, shouldn't that be apart of your scrutinizing? I know you'll disagree with this and that's why I apear so frustrated!

I am open to the possibility that evolution is true or correct. I haven't scrutinized it to the point of saying I don't believe it. Yes I've said that I don't believe it's a reliable science but I don't flat out say it's false or totally untrue. I just don't know and I don't understand why I have to either believe it or not.

I agree!! Which is what I keep telling you. The Bible is a theology book. Yet you insist on making it a book about how God created! WHY??!! Take McCosh's advice. Sit back, relax, make some popcorn, open a Coke. And let science, studying God's Creation, tell you how God works.

Nothing that I have said in this thread has anything to do with how I believe God created! Again you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about if you truely think I've been sitting here talking about my belief in how God created. I have stated it before and I will here again right now, I don't know how God created but only that he did create, the gap theory doesn't explain how God created but only when the reforming event took place. The original creation took place somewhere off in time or space. That's the whole point of the gap theory!

So, why are you so tied to the Gap Theory? Why go through tortured exegeses and dismiss large parts of God's Creation in order to keep it? Is your emotional attachment to the Gap Theory causing you to lose sight of the fact that the Bible is a book on how we are to get right with God and find salvation? It looks that way to me.

I don't believe your characterizing what I'm doing correctly.

I'm tied to this belief perhaps because it's one of the reasons or it's one of the things that brought me back to the Lord from many years of sin and rebellion. To make a very long story short I got interested in the story of the Nephilim and one of the books I was reading about started out with explaining the gap theory. Anyway the more I read the more I felt that truth was being told to me. I started reading the bible again and slowly but surely I found myself convicted yet again. I rededicated my life to the Lord actually only about a year ago.

I just see the gap theory speaking truth to me where evolution or the Yec theories never did. I never was interested in the subject before. But where once I was a christian years ago I still had faith but honestly, with this new belief of mine I now feel I have boldness in that faith that I never experienced before.

Up untill I started this thread or got involved with vances thread on the flood a rarely read anything in the sub-forum. I really did get into this debate with you almost with my eyes closed in how I was to explain myself and how I was to deal with you. LOL, one who is so tied to his belief in a non-literal Genesis and theistic evolutionist believer....see, I still don't even know yet how I am to catagorize you yet!

Anyway this has been a great learning process for me! I thank you for that! It really has been a pleasure!

 

[lucaspa]

The only rule I mention is that we must learn what the Hebrew says and what it means. I don't break this rule. See, you really don't understand what I'm talking about!That's not what I said lucaspa. Please allow me to run this by you one more time. reshyth means beginning but the Hebrew has always needed a modifier to show in what context or in which meaning we are to use it.

In your other examples of reshyth, what was the modifier you claim is necessary?

However the reshyth used in Genesis 1:1 becomes a compound word. It has no modifier, "be" is not the modifier but has become apart of the word. This is why all Bible scholars have had problems interpreting this passage. This is why all translators have had problems translating the meaning of the passage.

Fine. Then what does the compound word mean? Literally in other words "be" is "in the". If we follow that rule for reshyth then bereshyth becomes "in the beginning".

In the English be-reshyth means "In the beginning". This gives us no real clue on how we are to use reshyth in meaning to the passage.

But you just said that there is no separate word "reshyth" in the passage. It's now a compound word, which means a new word.

Remember that beginning is just an english word to discribe what reshyth is meaning. Therefore our task is to find the meaning, to research it further.

That's what translation is all about. Finding the equivalent words in two different languages. Different words (sounds) that have the same meaning. DUH!

This is what all biblical scholars have done and is the main reason why there are so many different interpretations to this one passage.

But you are trying to tell me your interpretation is the correct one. You have to justify that.

Since the second verse in Gensis 1 mentions that the earth had become without form, and void, or had become desolate, confused, empty (the meanings of the word for tohuw other than formlessness) we then see the true meaning of how reshyth is used in Gen. 1:1. It's talking about a previous beginning in relation to the main topic of the chapter.

You haven't demonstrated the past perfect tense here "had become". The verb in Hebrew looks to be "was". As in straight past tense. It never was anything but without form in a previous state. God is giving it form in the rest of the chapter.

This "previous" meaning of reshyth is in evidence in other parts of the Bible on how reshyth is used and that evidence is shown in the examples I provided, Job 42:12, and Proverbs 8:22.

But you said we can't go out of Genesis 1 to get a time in the past when the earth was created. But you can go out of Genesis 1 to get both 1) a meaning of reshyth (but not the compound word bereshyth, and the idea the earth was desolate). I'm still waiting for you to show me in Genesis the gap between Genesis 1:5 and 1:6.

LOL, I haven't gotten that far into the scripture with you but yes we can use those passages also. Now remember the claims lucaspa, always remember the claims The phrase "let there be" is used only in Genesis 1:3, 1:6 and 1:14. Genesis 1:9 does not use this phrase and neither does 1:7.

Gen. 1:6 also is not talking about a direct act of creation. God is appointing that firmament to serve it's original purpose once again.

I don't see that. Genesis 1:6 is saying "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters" There hasn't been one before. Genesis 1:7 goes on to say "And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so." I don't see the word "again" anywhere here. Since God had to make the firmament, it wasn't ever there to begin with to serve an original purpose. Nor is there any indication anywhere that it ever failed to serve its purpose. Your exegesis is simply not a plain reading. The Israelis (for whom Hebrew is their language) translate it this way. http://www.israelthebride.org/index1.htm

You are going to have to show me the Hebrew word for "again" in thise passages.

Gen. 1:14 also is not a creative act by God but God saying that he wants the lights to shine once again in that firmament.

All three of these passages as well as the whole reforming sequence is written from the viewpoint of someone on earth.

You seem to be ignoring Genesis 1:16 "And God made the two great lights". As in manufactured them right then and there. Not "let them shine once again". You are the one that says God directly wrote the Bible. If that is the case, why is God so impotent that He can't say plainly what He means? If He really means what you say He means, why didn't He say "Let the lights shine once again in the firmament" instead of "Let there be ..." and "God made"?

Find a passage that says the sun and moon shone before this.

You are baseing your beliefs in what is going on in Genesis 1 by what the English conveys, not by what the Hebrew conveys. My belief is that those who do so will never know the true meaning of the chapter.

Well, you are not giving me any reason to think the Hebrew says anything different. Translations are supposed to convey the meaning in one language to another language. You are claiming that all translators up till you have done a **** poor job of translating the Hebrew. I can't buy that without a lot of evidence.

What you are doing is making an appeal to accept your word of what the Hebrew conveys. I see no reason to do that over the word of thousands of very honest and dedicated Jews and Christians who say the Hebrew conveys no such thing. If it was as clear as you say, the Gap Theory would be widely accepted among Biblical scholars and Biblical literalists. Instead, it is promoted by a small minority and ridiculed by AiG and Henry Morris. They don't agree with your idea that the earth "became without form"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1195.asp
"
A significant problem with this idea is that the Hebrew word for 'was' really should be translated 'was'. It should not be translated 'became'. It is the Hebrew verb of being, hayah, and normally it is simply translated 'was'. In all the standard translations of the Old Testament, that is the way this verse is rendered. On some occasions, in an unusual situation if the context requires it, the word can be translated 'became'. There are some instances like that in the Old Testament.

By far the tremendous majority of times, however, when the verb is used, it is simply translated 'was'. In the absence of any indication in the immediate context that it should be rendered by a change of state, where it became something which it wasn't, one would normally assume it was simply a declarative statement describing how the situation existed at the time. The earth was, in response to God's creative fiat, initially without form and void.

Some people use Isaiah 45:18 as an argument for the use of 'became' in Genesis 1:2. In this verse, Isaiah says that God created the earth not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. The word 'in vain' is the same as tohu; that is, the same word translated 'without form' in Genesis 1:2. So 'gap' theorists say that since God did not create it that way, it must have become that way. But again, the context is significant. In Isaiah, the context requires the use of the translation 'in vain'. That is, God did not create the earth without a purpose; He created it to be inhabited. Genesis 1 tells us then how He brought form to the unformed earth and inhabitants to the empty earth. It was not really finished until He said so at the end of the six days of creation.

The word tohu is actually translated 10 different ways in about 20 occurrences in the Old Testament. Isaiah 45:19 has the same word, and there it has to be translated 'vainly' or 'in vain'. It is also proper to translate it that way in Isaiah 45:18. It depends on the context as to how it is to be precisely translated. In Genesis 1:2 the context simply indicates the earth had no structure as yet. It was unformed; it was not even spherical at that point, but was comprised of only the basic elements of earth material.

Sequence

Furthermore, it is important to note that the verse begins with the conjunction, 'and' (Hebrew waw), and this same conjunction introduces every single verse of the first chapter of Genesis, so there is a sequence of actions implied. There was this happening, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this ... each following directly upon the other. When it said that God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, the implication is that this was immediately following the creation."

So, it is not just some bad "evolutionist" who takes science over the Bible saying this. It is Henry Morris, who believes in taking the Bible over science. The exegesis, according to Morris, simply doesn't work in the Hebrew.

 

[lucaspa]

Hebrews 11:3, Through FAITH we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I stand by what I said. The passage says that the worlds were framed not from nothing but from invisible things. Basically I'm not argueing with you. I believe God made the universe not from matter but maybe from spiritual matter? How do you take the meaning of this passage?
The problem you and I have in comeing to terms with this is that I stand on faith that this passage is speaking truth. I maybe can't explain it to your likeing but I also can't explain it to myself in a 100% satisfactory way.

You say you understand what I'm trying to say but yet you say I'm talking about a gap between Gen. 1:5 AND 1:6? No, I've said the proof is with and between 1:1 and 1:2.

Let's take the last first. You say there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? You seem to be changing where you are making the gap. That's even worse.

Let's take the transliteration (http://www.levsoftware.com/verses.htm)
"be.re.**** ba.ra e.lo.him et ha.sha.ma.yim ve.et ha.a.rets:
ve.ha.a.rets hai.ta to.hu va.vo.hu ve.kho.shekh al-pe.nei te.hom ve.ru.akh e.lo.him me.ra.khe.fet al-pe.nei ha.ma.yim: "

You see that "ve.ha" at the beginning of verse 2? That is a connector in Hebrew, roughly equal to "and" or "now" in English. It removes your gap and instead tells you the state of the earth at the time of the initial creation.

Now, as to the passage in Hebrews. I view it as saying what Butler says but in different words:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion

Christians take it on faith that there is a supernatural component to every cause. It can't be seen, it can't be detected by science. You take it as specifically describing the source of the matter in the universe. I take it as describing the general sustaining of the universe.

Exodus 20:11, when reading it in the Hebrew, conveys that the passage is talking about the reforming of the earth that took place starting in Genesis 1:3 to 1:31. The word that tells us this is "made" or "asah" in the Hebrew.

There is no reforming. asah simply says the world was made in 6 days.

Now, I have gone and looked at all the uses of asah
"1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
a)(Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass
b) (Niphal)
1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used


c) (Pual) to be made 2) (Piel) to press, squeeze"

Where is "reformed" in this? http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1063339642-6782.html

I notice that asah is the word used in Genesis 1:26. By your rules, shouldn't it mean that man was reformed? There were humans before Genesis 1:26?

Again, if there is a huge gap of time somewhere in day 1, then Exodus 20:11 still doesn't make sense. We are supposed to celebrate the sabbath on the 7th day but the first day can be large number of days? Doesn't make any sense.

Finally, all the events from Genesis 1:1 thru 1:5 are lumped in a single day. "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." If there was that huge gap of time (billions of years) between 1:1 and 1:2, then how could God possibly say what verse 5 says?

I guess I don't read the NT as literally as you do, LOL.

And why not?
.

Also Jesus does not say Moses got it wrong! Mark 10:5, And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

And the precept is wrong, isn't it? Jesus says it is wrong. The reasons for divorce that Moses gave them are incorrect.

Jesus doesn't say Moses got it wrong but to the contary, Jesus gives the reason why Moses wrote what he did. And who else would know the motivation for why Moses wrote what he did other than Jesus? For he was the one who gave him the inspiration to write it!!!

So Jesus deliberately inspired Moses to get it wrong? All for the benefit of some Pharisees in the future?!! What about all those divorces in the meantime of all those honest people who actually believed Moses had the correct inspiration?

Great! In order to hold on to the Gap Theory, you have now told us that any part of the Bible can be wrong and God can and does lie to us.

Congratulations! You've just destroyed Christianity and convinced me to become atheist. Or at least non-Christian. I'm certainly not going to follow a god that deliberately inspires people to lie and give bad laws just so he can win a debating point with some sect 2,000 years in the future.

Are you happy?

I believe they are because these accounts are what God has inspired men to write. If they are not accurate accounts then I see myself calling God a liar and I know that isn't true.

Too late. You just called God a liar above.

True, the parables are not necessarily true stories. This doesn't mean Jesus lied about them being true when they might not have been but I believe Jesus told those parables not to decieve. Why can't the creation story or the flood story be parables also? Because these two stories are corroborated as being historic events throughtout the Bible where as jesus's parables are not.

The parables are not history, but that is different from saying they are not true. The creation stories (plural, there is more than one and they contradict) are not corroborated as historic events. Rather, they are thought to be historic events. However, if you look closely at how they are used, it is the theological (true) messages that are used, not as history.

Sorry I disagree with your premise that historic facts have been figured out because of this recent archeological find. This is just another illustration of how I need complete evidence before I believe something is true.

Several finds. Science Volume 289, Number 5482, Issue of 18 Aug 2000, pp. 1145-1146.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5482/1145

I don't believe they contradict at all. I never heard of the Midrash so I can't really comment on it.

Of course you don't. You simply ignore that the details are different and contradictory.

You are not trying to use my logic at all to see if I'm wrong, shouldn't that be apart of your scrutinizing?

I have used your logic. That's how I found the internal inconsistencies. What I have not done is confirmed your claims. You are frustrated because I walk down your logical path, test your logic and facts independently, and come to very different conclusions you do.

I am open to the possibility that evolution is true or correct. I haven't scrutinized it to the point of saying I don't believe it. Yes I've said that I don't believe it's a reliable science but I don't flat out say it's false or totally untrue. I just don't know and I don't understand why I have to either believe it or not.

It's the inconsistency. You accept evidence of an old earth. You accept it so well that you enter into convoluted exegeses to get the Bible to conform to an old earth. Evolution has just as much, if not more, evidence for common ancestry and natural selection as the means of getting biological designs. Yet you won't accept it. At least you have moved a bit off your original position at the beginning of this discussion. That is why I say you have the worst of both worlds.

BTW, once accepts scientific theories, not believe.

Nothing that I have said in this thread has anything to do with how I believe God created!

It doesn't? You don't believe God formed the earth from pre-existing matter, created life on it, made it desolate and waste, and then recreated it again in 6 literal days? Neph, all that is a how God created! What else is it?

Just what do you think you are saying? Wait, I see it here:

Again you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about if you truely think I've been sitting here talking about my belief in how God created. I have stated it before and I will here again right now, I don't know how God created but that only that he did, the gap theory doesn't explain how God created but only when

You are taking a very narrow definition of "how". You are viewing the "how" as the details by which God poofed entities into existence. That is way too narrow a definition. Everything you have said about pre-existing matter, making desolate, recreating, etc. is all a how God created. Saying God created in 144 contiguous hours in the recent past is another how God created. Saying God created thru a period of 13.4 billion years and created the stars, galaxies, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution is yet another how God created.

You can't duck behind the narrow confines of just "how" God actually put together the planets and living organisms. The "how" of creation is much broader than that and it includes the "when".

I'm tied to this belief perhaps because it's one of the reasons or it's one of the things that brought me back to the Lord from many years of sin and rebellion. To make a very long story short I got interested in the story of the Nephilim and one of the books I was reading about started out with explaining the gap theory. Anyway the more I read the more I felt that truth was being told to me. I started reading the bible again and slowly but surely I found myself convicted yet again. I rededicated my life to the Lord actually only about a year ago.

So if the Gap Theory is wrong then you lose a reason for coming back to God. A very strong and understandable emotional reason to reject any arguments against the theory. I am betting that you think that if you give up Gap Theory then you are back to sin and rebellion.

But where once I was a christian years ago I still had faith but honestly, with this new belief of mine I now feel I have boldness in that faith that I never experienced before.

So, give up Gap Theory and give up your boldness.

one who is so tied to his belief in a non-literal Genesis and theistic evolutionist believer....see, I still don't even know yet how I am to catagorize you yet!

The grin here seems inappropriate. It's as tho you are taunting me. Categorize me as a mainstream orthodox Christian. Everything I've said about non-literal Genesis and theistic evolution is straight mainline Christian denominations. You can find them in the denominational statements of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Catholics, United Methodists, Church of Christ, African Methodist, Episcopalians, etc.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Thank you vance! I too view you as the same type of forumer!

I have reached the same conclusion as you. In fact, I just acknowledged it in a post I was writing while you were posting this one.

His manners are starting to fray. It is a sign of the stress he is under.

LMAO

, well this has been stressful.
I can't say I always keep my manners but I don't let myself cross the line.

But, "starting to fray" lucaspa? I'm just following your lead. That's always been my weak point. Always a follower, never a leader!

I am truly feeling sorry for Neph.

Thanks but there's only one person I ever ask pitty from, right or wrong, and that's my wife.

The Gap Theory, and Neph, has the worst of both worlds. He is trying to use some science and some Biblical literalism.

Actually when the two are used correctly they sing the greatest harmony.

I have tentatively concluded that continuing the discussion can only cause him pain without any chance of getting him to a more defensible position. IOW, causing pain without any chance of a greater good coming from it. Therefore I am seriously inclined to terminate the discussion and agree to disagree.

I see that from your recent post this statement is null and void. Perhaps I am on the defense but I never did see myself on the offense from the start. Lucaspa, I'm just trying to state my beliefs and why I believe them. There really is nothing wrong with just doing that and seing that the only debate here in this forum is that of a theistic evolution belief vs the literal Yec belief when the forum states that anything related to these two topics are also welcomed, I feel therefore I can also do my part.

 

[nephilimiyr]

So if the Gap Theory is wrong then you lose a reason for coming back to God. A very strong and understandable emotional reason to reject any arguments against the theory. I am betting that you think that if you give up Gap Theory then you are back to sin and rebellion.

Actually no, Again you have totally misunderstood me, not only on my beliefs on the gap theory but also what I have told about myself. Your arrogance in your wit and inteligence stops you from understanding even the most important thing about what I have said about myself and why I have said it.

This subject of Genesis 1, the creation, whether it be literal or a theological truth I don't see as a salvation issue. I mearly said that it happend to be an offshoot of a topic that got me interested in the Bible again. There's no reason for you to think anything other than that. I simply didn't provide you with the information about myself for you to judge me on what I would do if the gap theory was proven to me to be false.

Hmmmm, Betting on a persons salvation??? That'll score alot a points for yah!

I have rejected your arguements because they make no sense if you are to argue my point. You first have to understand what I'm saying to make a valid arguement. Your arguements seem to stem from your not wanting to let go of your belief in a Genesis being nothing but a book on theologic truths. All of the arguements that you have made don't try to argue the logic that I use but only the results of that logic and when you do attempt to try and use that logic, you get the logic wrong!

Who's manners are starting to fray now lucaspa? You seem to take serious offense that I have debated any of this with you. You especially take offense when I say you are misunderstanding me, huh! that I actually suggest that you might be wrong!

If this is how you act as a person on the offensive, how should I expect you to act as one on the defensive? I'm starting to think I don't want to be around to find out...