Why the Gap theory makes sense

[MyHeart07]

Let's face it. The earth is not 6,000 years old. I however do beleive in the Genesis account of creation just as it is written. However, there is much scriptural evidence to support the theory that there could have been an immeasurable time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In the Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 in its original text : the earth became without form and void, made waste and empty by result of judgment (Jer. 4. 23-26)

Jer. 4:23-26 -- Isa 24:1 and 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as a result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe (such as craters). These could be intimations of a previous testing and fall of angels.

Opinions/thoughts? Thanks.

 

[Mallon]

I think there's a better explanation for the pre-existing abysmal waters over which God hovered in the Hebrew creation account: the same watery abyss features prominently in the Babylonian creation myths Moses would have been familiar with.

 

[MyHeart07]

I think there's a better explanation for the pre-existing abysmal waters over which God hovered in the Hebrew creation account: the same watery abyss features prominently in the Babylonian creation myths Moses would have been familiar with.

Please show me? the Bible is God's Word. I don't trust the Babylonians.

Why is everyones word better than the OT's words better or divinely inspired?

 

[Mallon]

Please show me? the Bible is God's Word. I don't trust the Babylonians.

You don't need to. And I'm not denying that the Bible was inspired by God. But there's no denying that the Genesis creation account has many parallels in the Babylonian creation account (Enuma Elish). Since you subscribe to GAP theology, I don't understand your problem with God reshaping a story (let alone planet) to accomplish His will.

Why is everyones word better than the OT's words better or divinely inspired?

Come again?

 

[PaladinValer]

The Bible isn't God's Word.

Jesus is the Word.

To apply the title "God's Word/Word of God" to anything or anyone other than the Christ amounts to idolatry.

 

[gluadys]

Let's face it. The earth is not 6,000 years old. I however do beleive in the Genesis account of creation just as it is written. However, there is much scriptural evidence to support the theory that there could have been an immeasurable time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In the Hebrew, Genesis 1:2 in its original text : the earth became without form and void, made waste and empty by result of judgment (Jer. 4. 23-26)

Jer. 4:23-26 -- Isa 24:1 and 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as a result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe (such as craters). These could be intimations of a previous testing and fall of angels.

Opinions/thoughts? Thanks.

I disagree that there is much scriptural evidence to support gap theology. It is incorrect to say the original Hebrew text means "became". That is one possibility in a range of meanings with nothing in the text to suggest it is the best one to use in this context.

The rest, as you say, is intimations at best and requires a lot of imaginative filling in by the interpreter. I think the task of the interpreter is to stick as closely as possible to what the text actually says. If one wishes to consider what is intimated by the text, there should be substantial support within and beyond the bible for such consideration.

Finally, though my principal objections to gap theology are hermeneutic, I also see no reason in nature to subscribe to a complete annihilation of life on earth in the recent past. That new species were created de novo only six thousand years ago is totally contradictory to the genetic evidence of inter-species relationships.

Craters do not provide the sort of supporting scientific evidence you would need either. They are too few, too distant from each other in time, and even the impact of 65 million years ago, while credited with the last major extinction, did not obliterate all life on earth or even as much as some other major extinctions.

 

[holdon]

I think there's a better explanation for the pre-existing abysmal waters over which God hovered in the Hebrew creation account: the same watery abyss features prominently in the Babylonian creation myths Moses would have been familiar with.

How is this a better explanation?

 

[Mallon]

How is this a better explanation?

It follows Occam's Razor.

 

[holdon]

It follows Occam's Razor.

It would seem to me that it follows Babylonian Myths.

 

[Mallon]

It would seem to me that it follows Babylonian Myths.

Good try.

Here's why I think drawing parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian creation accounts is in accordance with Occam's Razor:
(i) The details of the creation accounts are comparable (shape of the earth, composition of the firmament, creation of the planet from formless waters, same sequence of creation, etc.).
(ii) Contrary to Gap theology, which is a concordist approach, an accomodationalist approach does not require that we pick and chose between what facets of science to accept. That is, it is consistent with both science and the Bible.
(iii) Accomodationalism recognizes the Hebrews as a people set apart by God, but integrated into a Near Eastern culture (i.e., the pieces of the puzzle fit better, which is why it is of little wonder why Moses referred to the "face of the waters" in Genesis 1, given that the same waters feature prominently in the Enuma Elish account he would have been familiar with).
(iv) The accomodationalist approach is consistent with how God has operated in history (reshaping sinful traditions to accomplish His will... take the Christmas holiday, for example).

 

[crawfish]

It would seem to me that it follows Babylonian Myths.

Not really.

The creation story was told to place the credit for creation on whom it belonged - God - and off the various deities that other cultures were giving credit for it. The ancient Hebrews knew all too well the stories and motifs of the other creation stories; God took advantage of those to teach His truth, just like God might use current knowledge of physics and astronomy to tell the story today. Had He told the story today, He most certainly wouldn't have used information we'll learn in another ten, fifty, hundred or thousand years from now.

I believe the book was written to get many theological points across; who God is, what He did for us, why we're here, for example; NOT to tell us exactly how He accomplished it.

 

[holdon]

Good try.

Here's why I think drawing parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian creation accounts is in accordance with Occam's Razor:
(i) The details of the creation accounts are comparable (shape of the earth, composition of the firmament, creation of the planet from formless waters, same sequence of creation, etc.).
(ii) Contrary to Gap theology, which is a concordist approach, an accomodationalist approach does not require that we pick and chose between what facets of science to accept. That is, it is consistent with both science and the Bible.
(iii) Accomodationalism recognizes the Hebrews as a people set apart by God, but integrated into a Near Eastern culture (i.e., the pieces of the puzzle fit better, which is why it is of little wonder why Moses referred to the "face of the waters" in Genesis 1, given that the same waters feature prominently in the Enuma Elish account he would have been familiar with).
(iv) The accomodationalist approach is consistent with how God has operated in history (reshaping sinful traditions to accomplish His will... take the Christmas holiday, for example).

Not everything is clear to me in this post. But that could be just me.
Now, that there are parallels may be true. But what does that prove? Did Moses get "it" from the Babylonians or did the Babylonians get it from somewhere else?
I thought Moses got it from God being a prophet and all.

 

[holdon]

I believe the book was written to get many theological points across; who God is, what He did for us, why we're here, for example; NOT to tell us exactly how He accomplished it.

But He wouldn't tell us nonsense, would He?

 

[Mallon]

Now, that there are parallels may be true. But what does that prove? Did Moses get "it" from the Babylonians or did the Babylonians get it from somewhere else?
I thought Moses got it from God being a prophet and all.

You're free to believe what you will about the origins of the Genesis creation account. I simply feel that my accomodationalist approach assumes less than your concordist approach for the reasons I outline above.

 

[holdon]

You're free to believe what you will about the origins of the Genesis creation account. I simply feel that my accomodationalist approach assumes less than your concordist approach for the reasons I outline above.

I'll believe the bible first then.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Bible is neutral to the subject; your interpretation however is not.

 

[Mallon]

I'll believe the bible first then.

I believe the Bible, too.
This discussion isn't about who believes the Bible and who doesn't. It is about what we believe about the Bible and how that influences our interpretation of it.

 

[holdon]

The Bible is neutral to the subject; your interpretation however is not.

What subject are you talking about?

 

[holdon]

I believe the Bible, too.
This discussion isn't about who believes the Bible and who doesn't. It is about what we believe about the Bible and how that influences our interpretation of it.

So, if the Bible got it from the Babylonians, do believe the Bible or the Babylonians?

 

[Mallon]

So, if the Bible got it from the Babylonians, do believe the Bible or the Babylonians?

I believe God inspired the author of Genesis to rewrite the common Babylonian creation account, setting the record straight about who created the Earth and why He did it. Scientific questions pertaining to exactly how it happened were besides the point, and of little interest to God or the ancient Near Eastern people, whose culture sought to ascribe meaning to the world, rather than scientific methodology.