What's wrong with my thinking?

Biblewriter · Nov 7, 2007

busterdog said:
As for the "sequence" on day one, are Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 a sequence, or could they be more or less contemporaneous? SInce dry land had not appeared on day one, the first day was manifestly incopmplete. (I think I am abandoning the first idea I wrote about a second sequence starting in Gen. 1.2 as unnecesary.)

Isaiah tells us the purpose of the earth. To be populated. By Isaiah's terms, that did not happen until the sixth day. Thus, on day one, the earth, by that definition must have been void. I like the idea of the favored position for the earth. The whole point was the people who would live there and be saved by their King. On day one, the earth had not reached that potential or realized its purpose in sustaining life..

Aren't you putting a lot of emphasis on one view of Hebrew grammar, that the earth "had become" void? That is one view of the verb, but that indication of transition need not have been from a finished creation to a wasted creation. It could have been a transition from nothing to something.

As for the word "empty", the question is, Empty of what? I am having a hard time seeing that it must be "more empty than it had previously been" unless one wants to assume that Gen 1:1 establishes a completed earth and a starry firmament, which I don't think is required.

God does call the "firmament" "heaven", and the "firmament" was made on day 2. So what was heaven on day 1? How do you get something more intact or complete in Gen. 1:1 than what you have in Gen. 1:2? Would you also suggest that a heaven that needed to be reformed on day 2 suffered some casualty between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2?

I do not put a great emphasis on the "had become" option in Genesis 1:2. But there is no way to avoid the fact that this is a possible translation of the Hebrew original. But it would be straining the text to assume that "had become" referred to a transition from nothing to something.

I agree with you that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 does not require a completed earth. But it does require a creation of a heaven of some kind at that time. We must remember that the Hebrew word for heaven was used three different ways. It was used for the sky. it was also used for the region occupied by the stars. And it was used for the dwelling place of God. I take the heaven in Genesis 1;1 to be the starry heavens, and the heaven in Genesis 1:8 to be the sky.

I do not think the word "empty" (or, as I prefer, waste) in Isaiah 45:18 implies "more empty that it was before. But it says that He did not create it that way.

My main point is that these interpretations of the text of Genesis are allowable in a literal reading of the text. And if the text truly allows such an interpretation, it is error to insist that this interpretation is not correct unless some other strong scriptural reason to reject this interpretation can be found.

juvenissun · Nov 7, 2007

Biblewriter said:
In Genesis 1:1-2 we read:

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

The Hebrew word translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18 is tohu (word number 8414 in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.) This is exactly the same Hebrew word as the one translated without form in Genesis 1:2. It is not only basically the same word, but the same form of the same word.

I did not read all the postings on this thread. But here is how I see your question, even I do not have a strong opinion on this issue yet.

I like to check what we know about sciences today by what's said in Scripture (not the other way around !). So, the processes on the formation of galaxies, stars and planets (satellites included, today) are very interested to me. Among the three, I think we have better idea on how the star is formed, even what we know is still only a theory. Regards to galaxy and planet, we simply do not know how did they come into exist.

So, in Genesis 1: 1 and 2, the heaven part has little problem, although we should not think it is the sky, even not the space in this universe. This thought about heaven is also followed by a thought that the "earth" may not also be the earth as we know it today.

So, gap theory or not, it doesn't really matter because we simply do not know what do these two verses are referring to. They are different from other verses that describe more specific and understandable objects, for example, the sun and the moon.

The key still lies on one nature: TIME. According to the understanding of current science, no matter gap theory or not, the earth would be OLD in any sense (this has nothing to do with biological evolution). So, the OE concept does not have to depend on the truth of gap theory.

So, if you take the two Bible quotes and the Gap hypothesis as a base for your OE stand, it is fine. However, you could still be right even these two quotes are explained otherwise. If you feel uneasy about OE, then may be you should consider other problems too.

Biblewriter · Nov 7, 2007

juvenissun said:
If you feel uneasy about OE, then may be you should consider other problems too.

I do not feel uneasy about OEC. I firmly believe it.

But I am extremely jealous about teaching only truth. Any time I apply my intellect to the word of God, I inject a possibility of error. Interpreting scripture is an intellectual pursuit. If done in the spirit, it is also a spiritual pursuit. But it is very easy to convince ourselves that we are being subject to the Spirit when we are actually only acting in the flesh.

In the field of OEC vs. YEC, although I am firmly convinced that OEC is the correct interpretation of scripture, I clearly recognize that YEC is not based on any false doctrine. It is not a denial of scripture. It is based on reverence for scripture as the very words of a God that cannot lie. And it is held by many men (and women) whose godliness is beyond dispute.

For these reasons I periodically check to see if anyone can demonstrate to my satisfaction that I am wrong. I assure all of you that if anyone here succeeds in this, I will publicly admit it. My answers to arguments presented here may seem like debate, but they are not. My purpose in this thread is to learn if there is any argument I have overlooked in forming my opinion. So my answers to various arguments (in this thread only ) are not given in the spirit of debate, but of request for stronger reasoning.

juvenissun · Nov 8, 2007

Biblewriter said:
I do not feel uneasy about OEC. I firmly believe it.

I am a YEC. Why? Not because I do not know the mounting "evidences" of long time given by many physical evidences (biological evidences is really minor, in comparison). My worldly training does make me understand what are the research scientists talking about.

The key lies on the mysterious nature of TIME. Yes, it seems the earth is old. But it only "seems" to be so. One critical message given a few times in the Scripture is that the length of time could easily be modified by God. We do not know how. But it seems God does know and has demonstrated. So, all the long time periods we discovered through this and that arguments may really only be the "surface feature" of time. Noticed that even as limited as we are, who still can argue a little bit on the variation of time based on the Theory of Relativity.

From another point of view, our life stretches only a few tens, hundreds of years. But the recorded (not only by word) history is about 10,000 years. A few thousands of years is REALLY LONG to us. And millions or billions of years is almost like eternity. If billions and billions of years of natural history were true, then why do we still need the concept (one thing given by God) of eternity? More seriously, the human history is only a blip in this long long string of time. But we are talking about been saved into eternity. When you put these together into the time scale of alleged natural history and the eternity, it really looks like a very bad illustration or even a joke to me.

So, even all evidences we discovered pointed to a long history of Earth, but we do not really know how long is this "long" history. In other words, we do not really know how long is 1000 years, or 1 million years.

If you admit this is one "possibility" on the real nature of time, then you could have a different view on the meaning of YEC.

Biblewriter · Nov 8, 2007

juvenissun said:
I am a YEC. Why? Not because I do not know the mounting "evidences" of long time given by many physical evidences (biological evidences is really minor, in comparison). My worldly training does make me understand what are the research scientists talking about.

My belief in OEC is not based on science, but on scripture. I believe that the so-called "gap theory" is not only allowed in a literal interpretation of scripture, but is actually specified, or at the very least strongly implied, by Isaiah 45:18.

busterdog · Nov 8, 2007

Biblewriter said:
I do not put a great emphasis on the "had become" option in Genesis 1:2. But there is no way to avoid the fact that this is a possible translation of the Hebrew original. But it would be straining the text to assume that "had become" referred to a transition from nothing to something.

I agree with you that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 does not require a completed earth. But it does require a creation of a heaven of some kind at that time. We must remember that the Hebrew word for heaven was used three different ways. It was used for the sky. it was also used for the region occupied by the stars. And it was used for the dwelling place of God. I take the heaven in Genesis 1;1 to be the starry heavens, and the heaven in Genesis 1:8 to be the sky.

I do not think the word "empty" (or, as I prefer, waste) in Isaiah 45:18 implies "more empty that it was before. But it says that He did not create it that way.

My main point is that these interpretations of the text of Genesis are allowable in a literal reading of the text. And if the text truly allows such an interpretation, it is error to insist that this interpretation is not correct unless some other strong scriptural reason to reject this interpretation can be found.

Interesting. I look forward to trying to respond in detail.

juvenissun · Nov 8, 2007

Biblewriter said:
I do not put a great emphasis on the "had become" option in Genesis 1:2. But there is no way to avoid the fact that this is a possible translation of the Hebrew original. But it would be straining the text to assume that "had become" referred to a transition from nothing to something.

I agree with you that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 does not require a completed earth. But it does require a creation of a heaven of some kind at that time. We must remember that the Hebrew word for heaven was used three different ways. It was used for the sky. it was also used for the region occupied by the stars. And it was used for the dwelling place of God. I take the heaven in Genesis 1;1 to be the starry heavens, and the heaven in Genesis 1:8 to be the sky.

I do not think the word "empty" (or, as I prefer, waste) in Isaiah 45:18 implies "more empty that it was before. But it says that He did not create it that way.

My main point is that these interpretations of the text of Genesis are allowable in a literal reading of the text. And if the text truly allows such an interpretation, it is error to insist that this interpretation is not correct unless some other strong scriptural reason to reject this interpretation can be found.

I think the heaven mentioned in Gen 1:1 is the universes. And I am very happy whenever I see the Scripture put the word heaven in plural case at countless occasions.

As implied by modern physicists, I do "believe" there are multiple universes. Ours is only one of them.

If this were true, then the concept of OE become further meaningless. Because we do not know what the O means.

busterdog · Nov 10, 2007

Biblewriter said:
I do not think the word "empty" (or, as I prefer, waste) in Isaiah 45:18 implies "more empty that it was before. But it says that He did not create it that way.

My main point is that these interpretations of the text of Genesis are allowable in a literal reading of the text. And if the text truly allows such an interpretation, it is error to insist that this interpretation is not correct unless some other strong scriptural reason to reject this interpretation can be found.

Couple of questions.

I am intrigued by the gap theory idea, but I just am not sure why they game is worth the candle. In other words, what does it really do for a person's hermeneutics? What does it add to theology? What does it really add to scripture itself?

I am not trying to be argumentative. Since I respect your learning and perspective. I am just not sure why you are so motivated to pursue this line of thought. To put it another way, if an idea is merely "allowable", why pursue it without a really good reason? By contrast, the tomb was empty on the third day as the Word says. I needn't find a rationale for accepting that, since the text doesn't allow anything but an empty tomb.

Keyarch at one time had me thinking seriously about the issue. But, the more I look at the text, the more I see nothing but a plain old beginning in Gen. 1:1 and 2.

I see that in a sense your interpretation is "allowable", as in, it has some good ordinary human reason behind it. There are a number of interpretations I disagree with that have such reason behind them.

But, why put such stock in something that is merely "allowable" or that has some reason?

I note your preference for "waste" above "empty". Why do you have such a preference? I would tend to simply note the range of meaning, perhaps like an "error" bar and then plot all the various points together. My feeling for the "purpose" of the earth as habitation out of Isaiah kind of skews the picture toward just a plain old day one of 24 hours beginning with Gen. 1:1 and running through "and the evening and the morning."

Looking forward to your response and comments.

HypnoToad · Nov 10, 2007

Biblewriter said:
I believe that the so-called "gap theory" is not only allowed in a literal interpretation of scripture, but is actually specified, or at the very least strongly implied, by Isaiah 45:18.

Any reason not to think Isaiah is simply talking about creation as a whole?

busterdog · Nov 10, 2007

XianJedi said:
Any reason not to think Isaiah is simply talking about creation as a whole?

As in, the whole of creation throughout time?

I am missing the need to make the Isaiah reference require a pre-historical reading. I don't think there is a time reference. Maybe BW can make the case for that proposition.

I think it is most likely all of creation -- as in all of it had a purpose. It was not void, but was full of purpose and potential.

I think going back into Isaiah, you can all make that case from the context, which is probably worth doing.

Hope I understood you.

HypnoToad · Nov 10, 2007

busterdog said:
As in, the whole of creation throughout time?

Like Isaiah is speaking of the entire creation week as a single unit/act.

I am missing the need to make the Isaiah reference require a pre-historical reading. I don't think there is a time reference. Maybe BW can make the case for that proposition.

I think it is most likely all of creation -- as in all of it had a purpose. It was not void, but was full of purpose and potential.

I think going back into Isaiah, you can all make that case from the context, which is probably worth doing.

Hope I understood you.

Yeah, you do - in the phrase "the earth wasn't created void" - the "created" wouldn't mean just the first day, but referring to after the week of creation was done. To me, that really seems the simplest way to read it.

If you talk about a building, for example. Someone might say, "we built it with double-pane windows." Does that mean the windows were there the same instant the foundation was laid? No, that came later. "Built" refers to the entire construction process as a single act, and very few people, if any at all, would assume anything different from that statement. Same thing with Isaiah.

busterdog · Nov 10, 2007

XianJedi said:
Like Isaiah is speaking of the entire creation week as a single unit/act.

Yes. Seems reasonable.

Yeah, you do - in the phrase "the earth wasn't created void" - the "created" wouldn't mean just the first day, but referring to after the week of creation was done. To me, that really seems the simplest way to read it.

If you talk about a building, for example. Someone might say, "we built it with double-pane windows." Does that mean the windows were there the same instant the foundation was laid? No, that came later. "Built" refers to the entire construction process as a single act, and very few people, if any at all, would assume anything different from that statement. Same thing with Isaiah.

Maybe Keyarch will come back and make the case. I remember thinking I had a handle on the argument. But, quite frankly, I am having a hard time seeing it other than your way.

I think the main argument is really about the range of meaning within the one word -- whether we are talking about waste, wasted, void, empty, unformed, inchoate, purposeless, vain, unclear, uncertain, ephemeral. I see the range of meaning, but I would suggest that you need more than a range of meaning to hang your hat on. I think the meaning is a bit fuzzy, but when you pull back and look at the whole, I think the picture becomes clearer, and it is as you suggest.

holdon · Nov 11, 2007

XianJedi said:
the phrase "the earth wasn't created void" - the "created" wouldn't mean just the first day

But there is no "evidence" that the earth was created on the first day. That's the whole point of discussion. We read in Gen 1:1 that the earth was created. Then we have a gap. Then in 1:2 the earth became/was chaos and empty, darkness and the Spirit hovering over the waters.
Then in 1:3 we have God creating Light and only then it is called the first day, etc..

busterdog · Nov 11, 2007

holdon said:
in 1:2 the earth became/

Click to expand...

"became" is a translation not required by the text.

was chaos and empty, darkness

Click to expand...

or "unfinished"

Again, little more is required.

Biblewriter · Nov 11, 2007

XianJedi said:
Any reason not to think Isaiah is simply talking about creation as a whole?

Only that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 45:18 is not only the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2. In each of these places exactly the same form of the same Hebrew word is used.

Biblewriter · Nov 11, 2007

busterdog said:
Couple of questions.

I am intrigued by the gap theory idea, but I just am not sure why they game is worth the candle. In other words, what does it really do for a person's hermeneutics? What does it add to theology? What does it really add to scripture itself?

I am not trying to be argumentative. Since I respect your learning and perspective. I am just not sure why you are so motivated to pursue this line of thought. To put it another way, if an idea is merely "allowable", why pursue it without a really good reason? By contrast, the tomb was empty on the third day as the Word says. I needn't find a rationale for accepting that, since the text doesn't allow anything but an empty tomb.

Keyarch at one time had me thinking seriously about the issue. But, the more I look at the text, the more I see nothing but a plain old beginning in Gen. 1:1 and 2.

I see that in a sense your interpretation is "allowable", as in, it has some good ordinary human reason behind it. There are a number of interpretations I disagree with that have such reason behind them.

But, why put such stock in something that is merely "allowable" or that has some reason?

I note your preference for "waste" above "empty". Why do you have such a preference? I would tend to simply note the range of meaning, perhaps like an "error" bar and then plot all the various points together. My feeling for the "purpose" of the earth as habitation out of Isaiah kind of skews the picture toward just a plain old day one of 24 hours beginning with Gen. 1:1 and running through "and the evening and the morning."

Looking forward to your response and comments.

If we conclude that a gap is allowable between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:2, then the entire OEC vs YEC question becomes moot. That is, is is inconsequential. The exact text of scripture allows us to take our choice. We must remember that the Bible is neither a textbook on science or a textbook on history. It is a textbook on our relationship with God. What God chose to do or to not do before Genesis 1:2 has no bearing on our relationship with God.

I remember a comment by Stephen Hawking that what happened before the big bang makes no difference, for it is impossible to reason beyond that point.* Even so, in interpreting scripture, it is impossible to determine how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The text of Genesis simply does not indicate whether the delay amounted to a fraction of a microsecond, billions of years, or somewhere in between.

So I would turn your question around and ask you, why do you bother to labor so hard to prove that these two verses took place on the same day?

When the exact text of scripture allows for more than one Godly interpretation. We end up choosing which interpretation more closely fits our impressions of other things. The other thing I have chosen is Isaiah 45:18.

I have found that arguing from my perspective, I have repeatedly been able to convince evolutionists that my argument may have some merit. Have you ever been able to convince an evolutionist that your position may have merit?

HypnoToad · Nov 11, 2007

holdon said:
But there is no "evidence" that the earth was created on the first day. That's the whole point of discussion. We read in Gen 1:1 that the earth was created. Then we have a gap. Then in 1:2 the earth became/was chaos and empty, darkness and the Spirit hovering over the waters.
Then in 1:3 we have God creating Light and only then it is called the first day, etc..

There's no Scriptural "evidence" of this "gap" you mention, either. You only put it in there to reconcile Scripture with science.

Biblewriter said:
Only that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 45:18 is not only the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2. In each of these places exactly the same form of the same Hebrew word is used.

So? There's no reason the same word can not be used to describe creation as a whole.

Here, I'll do it in English:

"On the first day the earth was created void."

"In creation as a whole, the earth was not created void."

Wow, look at that - two different meanings, yet both times the exact same phrase "created void" is used - same spelling, same tense.

What makes the same thing impossible in Hebrew?

So I would turn your question around and ask you, why do you bother to labor so hard to prove that these two verses took place on the same day?

No "labor" needed. The text naturally reads that way. If you knew nothing of what science tells you to believe, you'd read it as the same day as well.

We end up choosing which interpretation more closely fits our impressions of other things. The other thing I have chosen is Isaiah 45:18.

You have yet to demonstrate why Isaiah fits your view "more closely".

I have found that arguing from my perspective, I have repeatedly been able to convince evolutionists that my argument may have some merit. Have you ever been able to convince an evolutionist that your position may have merit?

Who you're able to convince has no bearing on what is true. Since evolutionists accept science as more reliable than God's word, I would never be surprised if I were not able to convince one of them.

Biblewriter · Nov 12, 2007

XianJedi said:
If you knew nothing of what science tells you to believe, you'd read it as the same day as well.

Then why are there records that show the "gap theory" being taught hundreds of years before Darwin published his famous book?

The truth is, that you reject the gap theory because you do not like it, not because it is an erroneous intepretation of scripture.

busterdog · Nov 12, 2007

Biblewriter said:
Only that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 45:18 is not only the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:2. In each of these places exactly the same form of the same Hebrew word is used.

I am looking for a source on this point. But, I think I am right in saying that the Hebrew combines a number of interesting values all at once: numerical, phonetic and pictographic/symbolic. As for the last, I am groping for the right word. To illustrate, YHWH is both yav hey bov hey (or something like that) and Hand behold, nails behold.

When dealing with such values, what you have is something for which context is far mor important than it is say, in Greek. In Greek, precision in grammar and vocabulary makes it uniquely apt to Paul's writing (which even Peter thought was unwieldy). And thus by extension, the Hebrew vocabulary has less precision in meaning in isolation, but relies more heavily upon context to distinguish meaning.

In the range of meanings possible for tohu in Gen. 1 and in Is 45, I am still having trouble finding a common meaning that requires in both places (or even in either place) the concept of the ruins or wasteland.

busterdog · Nov 12, 2007

Biblewriter said:
If we conclude that a gap is allowable between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:2, then the entire OEC vs YEC question becomes moot. That is, is is inconsequential. The exact text of scripture allows us to take our choice. We must remember that the Bible is neither a textbook on science or a textbook on history. It is a textbook on our relationship with God. What God chose to do or to not do before Genesis 1:2 has no bearing on our relationship with God.

Except that if God has spoken and if we decide to believe things to be other than as he says, that is sin. Now, there are sins and then there are sins. Relative to other theological problems, I have considerably less passion and worry regarding this one. Its mostly interesting. I have a couple of hunches about why it should make a difference to us, but that is a bit tohu in my own mind.

But, I think we rightly desire a correct understanding, even if its implications are not clear.

I remember a comment by Stephen Hawking that what happened before the big bang makes no difference, for it is impossible to reason beyond that point.* Even so, in interpreting scripture, it is impossible to determine how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The text of Genesis simply does not indicate whether the delay amounted to a fraction of a microsecond, billions of years, or somewhere in between.

That is the question isn't it, whether God has told us or not.

So I would turn your question around and ask you, why do you bother to labor so hard to prove that these two verses took place on the same day?

1. Because you are the most pleasant and engaging person I have argued with in a several weeks. 2. Because it is fun. 3. Exercise is good for me. 4. Because I think the text says something clearly and getting clear on such issues is always a virtue.

When the exact text of scripture allows for more than one Godly interpretation. We end up choosing which interpretation more closely fits our impressions of other things. The other thing I have chosen is Isaiah 45:18.

Scripture indeed gives a basis in human reason to reach your conclusion. And in terms of your heart and motivations, I am sure there is grace for you and some pleasure in heaven for your desire to receive the Word.

That being said, either one of us or neither of us is right. We can't both be right. Being right about scripture is a virtue. To that extent, I think you can say there is only one "Godly" interpretation. A bit of a quibble. I think we are on the same wavelength.

I have found that arguing from my perspective, I have repeatedly been able to convince evolutionists that my argument may have some merit. Have you ever been able to convince an evolutionist that your position may have merit?

Hmmmm. I guess not. However, at times, I do regard myself with great favor for having incensed the odd evolutionist. All I want to be is the annoying analogy to the "meow-mix" song, that never quite leaves the TE brain. SO, I simply measure success a different way (tongue in cheek, of course.) Also, there is of course the approbation of martyrdom to consider!!

I think it is a principle worth repeating that we have been asked to decide whether God is capable of expressing Himself with clarity. I believe that He is and has. So, I am not uncomfortable with the idea that Human reason and a proper heart can take one in different directions. But, I still assert that there is only one unambiguous truth.

What's wrong with my thinking?

Senior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Veteran

*croak*

Senior Veteran

*croak*

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

*croak*

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

croak

croak

croak