The "gap" theory

[Oaktree125]

I know it is really weird to think about but does the 'gap' have to occur between the days of Creation? Can it occur over the period of history between Adam and Noah? Alternatively lots of people I have read try to insert the long times during Noah's Flood and Im thinking instead about expanding the entire Biblical history to devolve to a vanishing point rather inserting lots of time between two events. Its historically filling the expanding time between preexisting points just like real traversible space is expanding between galaxies today only it is real and created measurable influences like fossil bones and radioactive decay. Creating more time is different than creating more space and harder to think about. That idea preserves the most amount of known physics (i think) and the Biblical history via Noah's reference frame. He just "lands" in a vastly different looking earth and experiences some kind of time travel due to Gods direct presence on earth. The ark doesnt have to be some kind of space ship or anything for that. Scripture says that God destroys the land too and one way to divert the titanic forces that would upend the ark is by dividing them over huge amounts of time given that F=ma. This might mean that what Noah experiences is a recreation of the conditions in Genesis 1:1 - a frightening silence over abnormally calm waters void and without form. It also means that the way"back to Eden" cant be followed in the sense of walking down a road and solves that issue of finding historic Biblical remains. I know it is weird but i dont find as many issues as 'between the Days' and as far as trying to overcome disparity with observations of natural data it is no moreso complicated than any other explanation.
So if this idea is intact then what some are saying about Gen 1:1 being translated "was" or "becomes" is essentially true because it "happens" twice - originally and during the Flood...they are overwritten on each other simply because God 'starts over'. Why isnt the path back exactly the same length, by the same way , by the same twisted path?...well it could be that that would conserve entropy and kill everything in the ark.

 

[coffee4u]

But the word still has no reason to suggest the word reflect can be included. It still opens up the other question I gave, can the sun be suggested to be a reflector while the moon is the source? Since "owr" can be used in both contexts?

Of course, it does.
“to be illuminated"
The moon is illuminated by the sun.

 

[Cis.jd]

Of course, it does.
“to be illuminated"
The moon is illuminated by the sun.

hmm.. no. In Gen 1:15 and 17, the version of OWR is also rendered as Hiphil. Now the reason why your "to be illuminated" doesn't work is because v15 says "let them be for the lights", v17 is also the same- with all lights being generalized. There is nothing there speaking about the moon itself.

 

[-57]

Ok, do you feel Christians are willingly ignorant about Noah's flood?

Some Christians are...most who change the bible to say the flood was local are ignorant of flood geology. Some fight against flood geology in an attempt to force fit Old Earth theology and evolutionism into scripture.
One of the problems with that is the reasons why mankind fell is lost with no explanation as to what really happened.

Going back to Genesis, even the words "without form" (Hebrew word 8414 tohuw) mean to "lie" waste, a desolation, a worthless thing, etc. Why would God create a worthless thing, a desolation? He wouldn't. If you pair it with the right translation of "was" 1961 hayah from the orginal text, it became a desolation, a worthless thing.

God didn't create a "worthless thing"....I never understood that argument...as God created something in six days that He called "very good".

Pair that with the verses throughout the bible -God's anger in Jeremiah where he tell us his people are a little sottish and have no understanding when it comes to good and evil and then proceeds to explain what he did to the prior age in his anger, etc. He actually moved the mountains and hills.

Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly." Imagine the mountains trembling and "all" of the hills moving. We are talking massive earthquakes, etc.

That's why today if you look certain maps today, it looks like certain places used to fit together, etc.

Noahs flood caused that. We can see the results of this movement when we look at recumbent rocks...look at the folds...that didn't snap, crackle and pop like a hard rock would do but bent as a still soft recently laid down by the flood strata would do.

The verse in Jer 4 is prophecy...about a comming destruction where Jerusalem would be destroyed and likened it to the earth on day one where it was formless and void.

Who lived during this time as he tells Job when he first created the heavens and earth? The morning stars and the sons of God, the angels as well as anything else God had created for that time.
This is when Satan had his overthrow and was able to pull a third of the angels on his side. You put 2 and 2 together and God destroyed (desolation) that age and started this one. For it to lie waste could be millions of years if not billions of years, that's why the Bible does in fact agree with science and that's why we find the dinosaur fossils, etc.

Couple of things here. Satan walked in the garden of Eden in an unfallen state. We know this because the bible tells us so. This would mean Satan fell after God created the very good earth in six days. Your theology contradicts that which I believe makes your theology problamatic in that area.

This means you have problems with explaining the fall of Adam as well as the fall of Satan.

We find dinosaur fossils because they were buried in Noahs flood. We know the fossils are not 65+ MY's old because they have found biomaterial in some of the fossils that can't survive 65+ MY's

God told Job he created behemoth the same time he created Job (there's a deeper study there too)

God created the behemoth as well as Job.

God made the beast on the same day He made Adam.

But this is why Peter's words so resonate. People will scoff in the last days saying where is the promise of his coming? When in reality it's only been a few days to God in this earth age. God is saying that is nothing compared to how old the earth is really.

II Peter 3:4 "And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? for since the father fell asleep, all thing continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

II Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

I Peter 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

The heavens were of old.....6,000 years ago is pretty old.

 

[-57]

hmm.. no. In Gen 1:15 and 17, the version of OWR is also rendered as Hiphil. Now the reason why your "to be illuminated" doesn't work is because v15 says "let them be for the lights", v17 is also the same- with all lights being generalized. There is nothing there speaking about the moon itself.

You would then be saying there is two suns.

 

[-57]

I know it is really weird to think about but does the 'gap' have to occur between the days of Creation? Can it occur over the period of history between Adam and Noah? Alternatively lots of people I have read try to insert the long times during Noah's Flood and Im thinking instead about expanding the entire Biblical history to devolve to a vanishing point rather inserting lots of time between two events. Its historically filling the expanding time between preexisting points just like real traversible space is expanding between galaxies today only it is real and created measurable influences like fossil bones and radioactive decay. Creating more time is different than creating more space and harder to think about. That idea preserves the most amount of known physics (i think) and the Biblical history via Noah's reference frame. He just "lands" in a vastly different looking earth and experiences some kind of time travel due to Gods direct presence on earth. The ark doesnt have to be some kind of space ship or anything for that. Scripture says that God destroys the land too and one way to divert the titanic forces that would upend the ark is by dividing them over huge amounts of time given that F=ma. This might mean that what Noah experiences is a recreation of the conditions in Genesis 1:1 - a frightening silence over abnormally calm waters void and without form. It also means that the way"back to Eden" cant be followed in the sense of walking down a road and solves that issue of finding historic Biblical remains. I know it is weird but i dont find as many issues as 'between the Days' and as far as trying to overcome disparity with observations of natural data it is no moreso complicated than any other explanation.
So if this idea is intact then what some are saying about Gen 1:1 being translated "was" or "becomes" is essentially true because it "happens" twice - originally and during the Flood...they are overwritten on each other simply because God 'starts over'. Why isnt the path back exactly the same length, by the same way , by the same twisted path?...well it could be that that would conserve entropy and kill everything in the ark.

I believe you'll have to have to re-write a lot of bible to make your scenario work.

 

[Cis.jd]

You would then be saying there is two suns.

I'm quoting the verse as it is and how his post involving the hebrew word/meaning doesn't work in the context.