The Gap Theory...

[Calminian]

It is not important whether or not the creation myth in Genesis 1 is literal. There is no 'useful application' for a literal Genesis creation and it's not important even in the least bit to the rest of the Bible. Genesis is useful for is establishing archetypes and important themes that are developed and referred to throughout the canon as well as establishing Hebrew Cosmology which is important for understanding the meaning of dreams, visions, and prophetic utterances throughout the canon... I personally use the cosmology in Genesis as a good map for the psyche which is ultimately where the 'spirits' reside and where all spiritual things take place...

View attachment 223793

You actually don't understand the cosmology in Genesis. It does not teach the solid dome, nor any other ancient cosmology. It was very different. It taught the raqiya (firmament) was an open expanse rather than a solid dome, which contradicted later ancient cosmologies.

 

[mark kennedy]

And he created the stars on day 4. and created the land animals on day 6 (even though bara' isn't specifically used.

Exactly, the term translated created is not actually used.

The argument doesn't work Mark. bara' isn't used of land animals and so you're fudging but you're being strict on the day 4 account. Inconsistent.

You can make a new argument, or perhaps just believed God's Word, but the gapper argument from the Hebrew is a giant fail. Been debunked for a long time.

The argument stands, I have no reason to abandon it.

 

[Calminian]

Exactly, the term translated created is not actually used.



The argument stands, I have no reason to abandon it.

The argument was completely destroyed, has been for many years.

 

[mark kennedy]

The argument was completely destroyed, has been for many years.

No it's hasn't you can't dismiss the lexicon definitions and frankly, you have never addressed them. Now if you disagree with my conclusions based on a sound exegesis that's on you but I know the text, and it supports my assertions conclusively.

The argument doesn't work Mark. bara' isn't used of land animals and so you're fudging but you're being strict on the day 4 account. Inconsistent.

This isn't about what the Scriptures don't say, it's a flawed argument to assume you know what the writer should have said, the narrator gets to tell the story as he sees fit. This is based on the positive evidence where the Qai form of 'bara is used, and it's five times in Genesis 1, three times concerning the creation of Adam and Eve.

This has tremendous import into the New Testament doctrine of creation since its emphasized that God has promised us eternal life through faith in Christ. This is consistent with the Hebrew teaching that God created life in the beginning and will again at the end of the age. We know little about the history of the cosmos and less about the particulars regarding the original formation except that it was the sole providence of God. Speak were the Scriptures speak and remain silent where they are silent, anything else is idle speculation.

There may be a gap between the original creation of the universe and the creation of life during creation week, there may not be. The text allows for both and that is based exclusively on a exposition and exegesis of the text, not some private interpretation or popular convention.

 

[Ancient of Days]

So who wrote Genesis 1:1-26?

 

[mark kennedy]

So who wrote Genesis 1:1-26?

Moses, why?

 

[Ancient of Days]

Moses, why?

Nope, Moses wasnt even born yet. Try again.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, Moses wasnt even born yet. Try again.

Really, Moses didn't write Genesis because he wasn't born yet? He couldn't have written something God told him from Sinai? Think about what your saying.

 

[Calminian]

Mark, you claimed for years you were a young earther. Truth is you were deluding yourself. Now your deluding yourself with the gap theory, and using fallacious arguments in an attempt to reconcile God's clear word with man's ideas.

You also support abortion and all the nonsense of the democrat party. You need to sit-down with yourself and have a serious discussion. Are you going to believe the world, or believe God. I think that's your biggest issue.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, you claimed for years you were a young earther. Truth is you were deluding yourself. Now your deluding yourself with the gap theory, and using fallacious arguments in an attempt to reconcile God's clear word with man's ideas. You also support abortion and all the nonsense of the democrat party. You need to sit-down with yourself and have a serious discussion. Are you going to believe the world, or believe God. I think that's your biggest issue.

For one thing I've never been a young earther or old earther, I've always felt the issue of the age of the universe and the earth was irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. I base that on a clear exposition of the text. Now while politically I've resigned myself to abortion to being a reality in the first trimester I've never been pro abortion, and never will be.

As far as politics I'm a Democrat because of the hypocrisy of the GOP. Tax cuts for the richest 1% that are unfunded and deficits running our treasury over a cliff is a failing of our political process that both parties are guilty of. Don't get me started on Donald Trump, you won't like where I go with that.

What is more I don't subscribe to any gap theory, I'm a student of Scripture and I take the narrative where it leads me. I know God created life, that is the clear message of Genesis 1 and deeply resent being considered compromised because I won't subscribe to ill-formed superficial readings of the text.

 

[Calminian]

For one thing I've never been a young earther or old earther,

Oh I agree. But you thought you were and labeled your self as a YEC, here on this site. After I called you out on it you changed your profile.

As far as politics I'm a Democrat because of the hypocrisy of the GOP. ...

excuses excuses excuses. you side with the holocaust party. you would rather take other people's money than save innocent children. That's just bad doctrine.

You are not a student of Scripture, you are a student of naturalism and a preacher of naturalism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh I agree. But you thought you were and labeled your self as a YEC, here on this site. After I called you out on it you changed your profile.

I had always been a YEC, over time I came to realize the age of the earth is irrelevant. I neither resent nor do I shun being considered YEC, with regards to the creation of life I am. As far as the creation of the universe and the earth I'm indifferent, it could have been thousands and it could of been billions of years ago it makes no difference at all.

excuses excuses excuses. you side with the holocaust party. you would rather take other people's money than save innocent children. That's just bad doctrine.

That's an absurd hyperbole, I've always been opposed to abortion and always will be. What is more I haven't taken anyone's money, I have just resigned myself to the fact that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned in our lifetime. And finally, I had my kids and never was involved in the abortion of the unborn. If you think that was easy your out of your mind, truth is you don't know me well enough to make those kind of slanderous insults, in fact, you don't know me at all.

You are not a student of Scripture, you are a student of naturalism and a preacher of naturalism.

I have a bachelors in Bible and Theology and with regards to Bible study I have got you beat by a country mile. What is more I don't think you care about the doctrine of creation because you haven't discussed it once. You make all these biting personal remarks but are are not familiar with the Scriptures nor or you interested in the relevant scientific evidences related to the origin of life.

Frankly, your brand of creationism embarrasses me. While I'm being flamed back into the stone age and trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with people regarding the life sciences and the Scriptures posts like this are of little help. Through fifteen years of dealing with the subject I could have used a little help, and appreciated what encouragement I got even if it was in PMs and an occasional post. But a fellow creationist who doesn't even extend me the courtesy of addressing my expositions and exegetical points is in my view, little better then a Darwinian.

To defend the Scriptures you must stand on them. Your posts do nothing of the sort. In spite of all of that I would like to be reconciled if that opportunity avails itself. Otherwise I stand by my previous expositions both Scriptural and otherwise.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tayla]

The earth was an abyss - formless and empty, and there was water. The deep is the abyss.

There was no land, but there was water. I think that is what the text says. Later, the land appeared, poking out of the water which was there all along.

 

[Calminian]

....Frankly, your brand of creationism embarrasses me....

As is the case with most naturalists. I'm not ashamed of God's Word one bit. I adhere to the doctrine of AiG, CMI and ICR, and many other diligent organizations.

 

[Calminian]

There was no land, but there was water. I think that is what the text says. Later, the land appeared, poking out of the water which was there all along.

There are other Texts that suggest the land was actually made out of the original waters.

2Pet. 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.​

It's a mistake to believe these waters were the sea, as the sea was not created until day 3. There was just an initial liquid mass of matter, created in the beginning. It had no form nor any hosts. It wasn't a globe nor any other form. Just a formless liquid mass. This mass was then divided and the lower half was made into the land and the sea. The upper half is still in the heavens and still referred to as the waters above the heavens. They are likely still out there in interstellar space at the edge of the universe.

 

[mark kennedy]

As is the case with most naturalists. I'm not ashamed of God's Word one bit.

I think geology, cosmology and astronomy are all tangents. I think the age of the earth itself is irrelevant but that doesn't change my disdain for things like radiometric dating. Brother if you could understand anything about me, and that seems unlikely, I would just tell you I'm not the enemy. I prefer the life sciences, genetics and paleontology, I believe they are the more informative and substantive issues. I don't subscribe to a gap theory beyond the original creation of the universe and the start of creation week. Everything beyond that point, and I remind you we are talking a couple of verses, we probably have no serious differences.

I don't want to fight with you Calminian, after banging heads with theistic evolutionists all these years, it's refreshing to be accused of not being enough of a young earth creationist. I'm not ashamed of the Scriptures either, I just entertain an alternate reading. We are not so far removed from one another as you think, if you think otherwise let's at least part in peace. I have no problem banging heads with theistic evolutionists, darwinians and certainly have no reservations about taking on atheistic materialists. But I assure you, I will not compromise on the doctrine of creation ever.

Think what you like, I'm not the enemy, I implore you, let there be peace between us.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tayla]

It's a mistake to believe these waters were the sea, as the sea was not created until day 3.

Could be the waters were first named "seas" on day 3 once there was land to contrast with these seas.

 

[Tayla]

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

(2 Peter 3:5) It doesn't specifically say the land molecules were created from the water molecules. It merely says the land was formed out of water, meaning, the land came up out of the water becoming visible -- it was formed by being "out of water" instead of being "under water" as it was previously. And it was formed by water, meaning perhaps, there was erosion after this, or perhaps before this while the land was under the water.

 

[Denadii]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Duzzant say it's a day, does it? - says 'in the beginning'.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

the first day is not until God said - 'let there be light', before the creation of the luminaries - day one is not mentioned until then.

The first day you mentioned is the first day of God rebuilding the Earth. Vs 2 The Earth was without form....Look up the word 'was' in Strongs. It reads 'became' as in...The Earth became without form and void.
God created the world, it became without form and void, God began rebuilding it in vs 3, creating some of the animals. Everything was already there in vs 3

 

[Calminian]

I think geology, cosmology and astronomy are all tangents. I think the age of the earth itself is irrelevant...

But Christ didn't. He said Adam and Eve were created at the beginning. I believe him.