Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Kairos2014

Old Earth - Gap Theory

Recommended Posts

Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.

 

I believe in a Young earth creation and was doing a bit of study on the Gap theory or Old earth creation which I may have misunderstood in the past. So I am here to hopefully to get some clarity with what I originally thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

I've been a Kent H*vind fan on Young earth creation, the Holy bible makes sense perfect sense of how the Lord created everything in existence according to the genesis account. However, when I recently looked up Old earth it said something which I may have missed in the past "In the beginning ... the earth was formless and void." and "This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew"."

 

I have a few questions on the Gap or Old earth creation and do appreciate your time in responding:

 

1. If GOD is timeless, eternal and created everything; how would you interpret that particular scripture Genesis 1:1-2?

2. If GOD aged the universe or leaped forward since being unaffected by time, do you apply a 24hr literal day to the creation account once GOD has aged the universe or long period (yom)?

3. When I listen to Hugh Ross on the Old earth creation, he explains a long period (yom) during the 7 day creation account. Is Yom used after GOD has aged the universe?

If so, on day 3 the vegetation, plants, fruits, etc, was created but day 4 the lights were created; sun and moon? Is the long period (Yom) still in process during the creation account day 3 and 4? If so, how would the plants survive without sunlight?

4. How long is the Yom period between each creation day?

 

Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the subtext to your questions is the uncertainty inherent in interpretation of Scripture. That can of worms contains tens of thousands of worms. To what end does one open that can? I don't understand.

 

You have the cart before the horse if you accept ONE English translation of the original languages--assuming that there aren't intermediate languages. Imagine that?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. How long is the Yom period between each creation day?

 

The word "Yom" can be translated in a few different ways, but given the context of Genesis 1 I'm inclined to say it means a 24 hour day (or its equivalent). Mainly because Genesis 1 uses the phrase "and there was evening, and there was morning - the first/second/third/etc 'yom'." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a warm cup of coffee or a cold cup of coffee I still have a cup of coffee.

 

If the creation is old or young, we still have a creation, with birds, and bees and trees that require the miraculous to create them. 

 

:)

 

I think a good evidence for a young earth is living fossils, because those gaps sometimes scale as about 2 to 300 million years according to the evolutionary record. The most parsimonious explanation for the Wollemi pine disappearing is that there is no such thing as millions of years, which would mean that none were missing, and the ones we find were simply the ones buried by the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a warm cup of coffee or a cold cup of coffee I still have a cup of coffee.

 

If the creation is old or young, we still have a creation, with birds, and bees and trees that require the miraculous to create them.

 

:)

 

I think a good evidence for a young earth is living fossils, because those gaps sometimes scale as about 2 to 300 million years according to the evolutionary record. The most parsimonious explanation for the Wollemi pine disappearing is that there is no such thing as millions of years, which would mean that none were missing, and the ones we find were simply the ones buried by the flood.

.

I'm amused that you preceeded "explanation" with "parsimonious" and avoided "simple".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, was hoping an Old earth creationist could answer this for me, no offense to the atheists and agnostics?

 

Kind of quiet on this forum these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.

 

I believe in a Young earth creation and was doing a bit of study on the Gap theory or Old earth creation which I may have misunderstood in the past. So I am here to hopefully to get some clarity with what I originally thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

 

 

First, I would Look for additional SUPPORT other than "Wikipedia".  (Personally, I only get simple definitions there...I'm even hesitant with that)....

 

Harvard Guide to Using Sources:

 

"There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

 

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays." 

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

 

 

However, when I recently looked up Old earth it said something which I may have missed in the past "In the beginning ... the earth was formless and void." and "This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew".

 

 

That Ellipses ( ... ) is the Problem...

 

(Genesis 1:1-2) "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."

 

That's Game Over !

 

 

1. If GOD is timeless, eternal and created everything; how would you interpret that particular scripture Genesis 1:1-2?

 

 

Exactly the way it reads.

 

 

2. If GOD aged the universe or leaped forward since being unaffected by time, ....

 

 

HE didn't.

 

 

3. When I listen to Hugh Ross on the Old earth creation, he explains a long period (yom) during the 7 day creation account.

 

 

First mistake is Listening to Hugh Ross.  He may be a Good Man but he's clueless regarding Science and his Hermeneutics are even worse.

 

 The Hebrew word for day: "yom". When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of about 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morningâ€, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. There were plenty of words that GOD could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, yet HE did not use them.

 

Here's a Very Good Read and puts the Issue to Bed, Abruptly...

 

http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-papers/other-papers/recent-creationism/what-about-the-gap-theory/

 

It's quite Comprehensive.

 

 

hope it helps

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, that was very helpful thank so much for your insight! You're exactly right. I have a habit of using wikipedia as a reliable source because sometimes nothing else is listed on the google search?

 

I should of explained it further why I asked these questions. In my circle of people and friends I am dealing with different worldviews and some believe in the Gap and evolution theory. So I wanted to use apologetic to hopefully shred some light on why YEC makes more sense? Obviously, it would be a future reference to use and be ready in and out of season.

 

That Ellipses ( ... ) is the Problem...

 

(Genesis 1:1-2) "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."

 

That's Game Over !

 

My apology Enoch, I assume everyone knew it is referring to Genesis 1:1-2? I am not quite sure what you mean by "Game Over"? Am I missing something or could you kindly elaborate for me please? Interesting, I am starting to notice why it is recommend to read KJV. NIV uses "...the heavens..." and KJV uses "...the heaven...".

 

Exactly the way it reads.

 

I know that is common for the average bible reader but how would OEC interpret this scripture when yom is used as a long period? I think this will be answered by question 1?

 

First mistake is Listening to Hugh Ross.  He may be a Good Man but he's clueless regarding Science and his Hermeneutics are even worse.

 

 The Hebrew word for day: "yom". When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of about 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morningâ€, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. There were plenty of words that GOD could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, yet HE did not use them.

 

Ops I forgot to mentioned I only heard him when he was debating brother Kent H*vind. I never agreed with Hugh Ross since it didn't feel right what he was saying. I like watching all the YEC like Jason Lisle, Ken Ham, but brother Kent H*vind is my favorite and so please to see him released and with his family.

 

I always believed in the bible when I became a born-again and had no choice but to go on Faith since it's impossible to please GOD without Faith. Until I heard and studied the creation model it brought everything into perspective and totally changed the way I view our universe. Now I have confidence when I share to the people/friends in my circle. We always hear Jesus is the answer but when I actually hear questions answered it literally means no questions on GOD is unanswered.

 

Thanks for the link I will read it now and post back :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, that was very helpful thank so much for your insight! 

 

 

You're Welcome.

 

I should of explained it further why I asked these questions. In my circle of people and friends I am dealing with different worldviews and some believe in the Gap and evolution theory. So I wanted to use apologetic to hopefully shred some light on why YEC makes more sense? Obviously, it would be a future reference to use and be ready in and out of season.

 

 

Yep, I figured that.

 

 

My apology Enoch, I assume everyone knew it is referring to Genesis 1:1-2? I am not quite sure what you mean by "Game Over"? Am I missing something or could you kindly elaborate for me please? 

 

 

Yes well, GOD SAID...

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

Then you look back...

 

(Genesis 1:1-2) "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."

 

So.... GOD CREATED, the Heaven and the Earth on the First Day .  When it was CREATED, it was Formless and Void. HE didn't START with Formless and Void.

 

Interesting, I am starting to notice why it is recommend to read KJV. NIV uses "...the heavens..." and KJV uses "...the heaven...".

 

 

Personally, I'd BURN all of these....

 

(NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation)  Probably more now...I haven't updated this in some years.

 

They are Demonstrably Corrupt, sourced from...

 

(Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vaticanus) all from Alexandria; Home of the Gnostics. *** There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!!!! 

Then used by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort....(affectionately known as Westcott and Hort).  They are known satan worshipers and "SELF" described Heretics.

 

 

I know that is common for the average bible reader but how would OEC interpret this scripture when yom is used as a long period?

 

 

It's not used as a "Long Period" of Time.

 

 

 I never agreed with Hugh Ross

 

 

Agree/Disagree have nothing to do with "SCIENCE" and are Non-Sequitur to it.  Hypotheses are either Validated/InValidated, PERIOD.

 

"Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid — and merits universal acceptance — only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't."
Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005)

 

 

I always believed in the bible when I became a born-again and had no choice but to go on Faith since it's impossible to please GOD without Faith

 

 

Be careful that it's not "BLIND FAITH"....you're talking about.

 

Biblical Faith is....

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has "Substance" and "Evidence".  As Opposed to "BLIND" FAITH. 

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "PROVE ALL THINGS; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

regards

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well, GOD SAID...

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

Then you look back...

 

(Genesis 1:1-2) "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."

 

So.... GOD CREATED, the Heaven and the Earth on the First Day .  When it was CREATED, it was Formless and Void. HE didn't START with Formless and Void.

 

Ah yes, that makes perfect sense now when you read Exodus 20:11! I re-read Genesis 1:1-5 and verse 5 completes the first day. 

"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.

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

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

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

 

 

Be careful that it's not "BLIND FAITH"....you're talking about.

 

Biblical Faith is....

 

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

It has "Substance" and "Evidence".  As Opposed to "BLIND" FAITH. 

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "PROVE ALL THINGS; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

I appreciate your input. As for my own Faith I am basing it off the word of GOD and believing everyword. For example; if GOD said "He created the heaven and the earth or Jesus walked on water, or raised from the dead", etc, it is quite normal for a Christian like myself to go on Faith without evidence and believe in the word of GOD. Is this not part of our Christian Faith? I understand Hebrews 11:1 but when I read Ephesians 2:8-9 it is clearly talking about Faith alone.

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

 

I don't know what you mean by Blind Faith until looked I it up? Why would you accuse or warn me of possibly having Blind Faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind-faith)? Maybe I need to go back to the basics and understand what Faith is? As for evidence, that is only a concern for the non-believers not for the believers my friend because it has clearly been shown in Romans 1:20 or have I misinterpreted?

 

cheers

 

P.S My friend Enoch, I really do appreciate your input and will always try to respect you as best as I can. I believe I have all the answers you have given me on Old Earth Creation and very well please with it. I have another thread if you can please take a look: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6494-speciation-divergent-and-micro-evolution/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for my own Faith I am basing it off the word of GOD and believing everyword. 

 

 

I'm glad you brought this subject up.  I've discussed it piecemeal over the years but never focused on the finer points.

 

 

 

Why would you accuse or warn me of possibly having Blind Faith

 

 

Because you said this...

 

"I always believed in the bible when I became a born-again and had no choice but to go on Faith since it's impossible to please GOD without Faith"

 

Be patient, it's coming....

 

For example; if GOD said "He created the heaven and the earth or Jesus walked on water, or raised from the dead", etc, it is quite normal for a Christian like myself to go on Faith without evidence and believe in the word of GOD.

 

 

And there it is !!!!  :gotcha:  I knew it was coming.

 

1. Faith and Proof (evidence) are NOT Mutually Exclusive.  I'll show you...

 

(Matthew 14:26-31) "And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.  {27} But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying,  Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.  {28} And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  {29} And he said,  Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  {30} But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  {31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

 

* Peter had AAA ++ Proof, yet still doubted. *

 

 

I hope this Blesses you as it did me:  When reading Scripture, while the stories are AWESOME....there are BIGGER LESSONS that GOD is Telling YOU that underlie the TEXT; EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE !!!

 

 

2.  GOD doesn't want BLIND FAITH. For whatever reason (That is well beyond my comprehension. Caveat: I know who the author of this "deception" is) people seem to think that GOD respects or holds in high regard Blindly Following HIM and Biblical Concepts...and then they call that FAITH  :get_a_clue:   I suppose this has come from many a Pulpit that are just Lazy and/or have adopted/ compromised THE WORD with Secular Science to appease the masses; They Understand Neither. 

 

Faith that is Based on Absolutely NOTHING "Blind Faith"...will eventually collapse; it has NO ROOT.  SEE: the Parable of the Sewer and Seed 

 

If all of this falls on Deaf Ears but there is One Thing that Sticks, I hope it's this....

 

**** 3. The End does NOT Justify the Means with GOD !!! ****

 

 

(1 Samuel 15:22) "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 

 

Read all of 1st Samuel 15 and Saul....If it doesn't smack you in the face, PM me.  There are many cases in Scripture of what I'm referring too but for the sake of Brevity, I'm just posting these.

 

Looking @ the Whole Counsel of GOD...it's the Opposite:  The Means is MORE IMPORTANT than the Ends !!

 

I have been Absolutely Blown Away over the past few years Reading Scripture and discovering the simple TRUTHS and Secrets within (I'm convinced there are MILLIONS of them, btw)... (Proverbs 25:2) "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

 

Which leads me to this...

 

(2 Timothy 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

 

 

 

4. I know what you're saying here but be careful.  You/me (or anyone else) obviously don't have "direct evidence" of: Creation, Jesus, The Resurrection, et al but the "Evidence" of "HE IS"...IS The Evidence of The WHOLE of Scripture.

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

 

Maybe I need to go back to the basics and understand what Faith is? As for evidence, that is only a concern for the non-believers not for the believers my friend because it has clearly been shown in Romans 1:20 or have I misinterpreted?

 

 

You have most certainly "misinterpreted". (All is not lost however, I've misinterpreted Scripture [until I got smacked :yes: ] for Years and still do on occasion). 

 

Scripture is not for Non-Believers...they don't believe it. ;)  Scripture is....

 

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

(1 Corinthians 10:11) "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

 

..... FOR US !

 

 Is this not part of our Christian Faith? I understand Hebrews 11:1 but when I read Ephesians 2:8-9 it is clearly talking about Faith alone.

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

 

 

I Highlighted The KEY

 

It goes back to what I said previously: "......but the "Evidence" of "HE IS"...IS The Evidence of The WHOLE of Scripture.

 

In other words.... Biblically Speaking: Proof/Evidence is the "Necessary and Sufficient Condition" of " Faith "... Biblical Faith.

 

SEE It, you just posted it ??  It's Black and White in Hebrews 11:6.

 

 

 

In conclusion, You've never seen GOD, You have no "Direct Evidence" of HIS Existence....How do you know HE EXISTS ??

 

You will inevitably be challenged (if not already) REPEATEDLY with this as a Christian....what's your answer ???

 

Because "the Bible say's so"...isn't gonna Inspire, Convince, instill Confidence, or offer any Veracity to your claim whatsoever; in fact, it's a Begging The Question (Fallacy) IN TOTO.  You'll be dismissed with Prejudice and often laughed at.

 

What's your answer??  What are those "INVISIBLE THINGS" that are "CLEARLY SEEN" ??   :gotcha:

 

 

Praying that this something of an Epiphany for you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus 20, verse 8

 

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

If you do not believe what the Bible says to be true, You have bigger concerns than how old the planet is.

 

Tom

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch:

 

Personally, I'd BURN all of these....

 

(NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation)  Probably more now...I haven't updated this in some years.

 

They are Demonstrably Corrupt, sourced from...

 

 

Amen. I would be there to help you pour the gasoline on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus 20, verse 8

 

“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

 

If you do not believe what the Bible says to be true, You have bigger concerns than how old the planet is.

 

Tom

 

Welcome to the board, Tom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "Yom" can be translated in a few different ways, but given the context of Genesis 1 I'm inclined to say it means a 24 hour day (or its equivalent). Mainly because Genesis 1 uses the phrase "and there was evening, and there was morning - the first/second/third/etc 'yom'."

 

Even an atheist can see that Bible speaks of a literal six day creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey y'all, long time no see hope all is well.

 

I believe in a Young earth creation and was doing a bit of study on the Gap theory or Old earth creation which I may have misunderstood in the past. So I am here to hopefully to get some clarity with what I originally thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

I've been a Kent H*vind fan on Young earth creation, the Holy bible makes sense perfect sense of how the Lord created everything in existence according to the genesis account. However, when I recently looked up Old earth it said something which I may have missed in the past "In the beginning ... the earth was formless and void." and "This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew"."

 

I have a few questions on the Gap or Old earth creation and do appreciate your time in responding:

 

1. If GOD is timeless, eternal and created everything; how would you interpret that particular scripture Genesis 1:1-2?

2. If GOD aged the universe or leaped forward since being unaffected by time, do you apply a 24hr literal day to the creation account once GOD has aged the universe or long period (yom)?

3. When I listen to Hugh Ross on the Old earth creation, he explains a long period (yom) during the 7 day creation account. Is Yom used after GOD has aged the universe?

If so, on day 3 the vegetation, plants, fruits, etc, was created but day 4 the lights were created; sun and moon? Is the long period (Yom) still in process during the creation account day 3 and 4? If so, how would the plants survive without sunlight?

4. How long is the Yom period between each creation day?

 

Thanks in advance

"In the beginning ... the earth was formless and void." and "This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew"

 

It is true that the Earth was formless and void when God's Spirit hovered over the primeval ocean, however you seem to have got this the wrong way around.  If you look at the oldest Hebrew codex's it is plain that verse one is a stand alone statement, a perfect verb.  In the second verse the word translated as formless seems to mean 'purposeless' or without purpose, the word void simply means empty.  This very much fits with the way God created the universe.  The only possible 'gap' was between God's creation of the first matter which would have instantly created both time and space, and the point at which a water planet was ready for His intervention to terraform the proto-Earth.  That Gap was a very short one, but we can only make guesses as to the length of the period.  However it is entirely logical that the Earth had to exist after the initial creation act, no at exactly the same time, even if that was seconds apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the Scriptures, I believe creation took place in two separate stages.

 

Stage 1 is described in Genesis 1:1 - "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

-Stage 2 is described in Genesis 1:2-31 - the "six days" of creation.

 

 

In other words, Stage I of creation can be likened to a 'blank canvas', onto which God later adds the 'paint' of Stage 2 of creation. So the possibility exists for a gap between the two Stages.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Exodus 20:11 - "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them".

 

This verse is commonly thought to be a reference to "the heavens and the earth" of Gen 1:1, but I beg to differ. Notice that the "earth" is mentioned, but then also "the sea". This strikes me as odd because the planet earth includes "the sea", so why is "the sea" mentioned separately? It seems to be an unnecessary tautology. I believe the answer to this puzzle can be found in Genesis 1 ...

 

 

The earth's atmosphere was created on Day 2 (Gen 1:6-7), and God called it "heaven" (v.8);

The land was created on Day 3 (Gen 1:9), and God called it "earth" (v.10);

The oceans were created on Day 3 (Gen 1:9), and God called them called "seas" (v.10).

 

So I believe the "heaven ... earth ... sea" of Exodus 20:11 actually refer to the earth's atmosphere, land and oceans, respectively.

 

Thus, Exodus 20:11 describes only Stage 2 of creation. Stage 1 is described elsewhere - in Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

 

--------------------------------

 

Genesis 1:1-2 begins with the creation of "the heavens and the earth", but the earth was empty and dead, "without form and void" - this is the aforementioned 'blank canvas' of Stage 1 of creation.

Then, "the Spirit of God" begins moving over "the face of the waters". This I believe heralds the commencement of Stage 2 of creation, which actually begins in verse 3, with the words, "And God said ...".

I think this phrase, "And God said ..." Is significant and adds weight to my theory of a two-stage creation. Why? Because each of the eight creations from verses 3-26 are preceded by this same phrase, "And God said ...", yet this phrase does not precede Stage 1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (v.1).

 

Now, if the planet earth was created during the "six days", surely God would have mentioned it in this verse - after all, the planet earth is the centre-piece of the whole shebang. But I don't believe he has; he's mentioned the earth's atmosphere, land and sea ... but nothing about the planet earth. This leads me to suspect that the planet earth was created separately, ie, before, to the "six days". Hence, I contend there must have been two separate stages of creation.

 

At the end of the six days of Stage 2 of creation, we read, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Gen 2:1). I believe this verse is referring Stage 1 ("the heavens and the earth" of Gen 1:1) and Stage 2 ("and all the host of them").

In other words, Stage 1 of creation has been "finished" by the addition of the six days of creation of Stage 2. Stage I is the 'blank canvas' and Stage 2 the 'paint' that finishes the job.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

"Oh Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your possessions ... You send forth your Spirit, they are created ; and you RENEW the face of the earth." - Psalm 104:24,30. (Emphasis mine)

 

It seems obvious to me that this passage is referring to the Genesis creation ... which is described as a RENEWAL. Interesting. Does this suggest that there was a previous creation that was destroyed? After all, the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 is very reminiscent of the state of the earth during noah's Flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b]"Oh Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of your possessions ... You send forth your Spirit, they are created ; and you RENEW the face of the earth."[/b] - Psalm 104:24,30. (Emphasis mine)

 

It seems obvious to me that this passage is referring to the Genesis creation ... which is described as a RENEWAL. Interesting. Does this suggest that there was a previous creation that was destroyed? After all, the state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 is very reminiscent of the state of the earth during noah's Flood.

I wish to recant this part of my post ... on account of it being erroneous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my main problems with gap theory is that it was created around 1800 in order to reconcile scripture with the scientific understanding of an old Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my main problems with gap theory is that it was created around 1800 in order to reconcile scripture with the scientific understanding of an old Earth.

 

That's my problem with it too, although, when I was a gap theorist, I was one more for theological reasons, than scientific. When I started examining both its scientific problems (e.g. invoking a pre-Adamic global flood to harmonize with a geological methodology that presupposes and requires no such event, whether Noachic or pre-Adamic), and its theological problems (e.g. postulating that a pre-Adamic earth was ruled by angels for billions of years until Lucifer fell when the Bibles clearly states that the devil sinned from the beginning 1 John 3:8), I abandoned it as an untenable position, and began to do some serious study on the whole issue of origins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of my main problems with gap theory is that it was created around 1800 in order to reconcile scripture with the scientific understanding of an old Earth.

 

That's my problem with it too, although, when I was a gap theorist, I was one more for theological reasons, than scientific. When I started examining both its scientific problems (e.g. invoking a pre-Adamic global flood to harmonize with a geological methodology that presupposes and requires no such event, whether Noachic or pre-Adamic), and its theological problems (e.g. postulating that a pre-Adamic earth was ruled by angels for billions of years until Lucifer fell when the Bibles clearly states that the devil sinned from the beginning 1 John 3:8), I abandoned it as an untenable position, and began to do some serious study on the whole issue of origins.

I'm not reading too much into what happened during the Gap. But it makes sense to me that the stars would have to have been created a long, long time before the "six days". If the stars were created during the six days, we wouldn't see many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not reading too much into what happened during the Gap. But it makes sense to me that the stars would have to have been created a long, long time before the "six days". If the stars were created during the six days, we wouldn't see many of them.

 

Stars were created on day 4; Genesis 1:14-19

 

I hear you that the stars are far away, and several thousand years isn't enough time for all the lights to reach Earth - let alone enough time for ancient people to see them, but that is what the text says. My personal belief is that Genesis is not meant to be read literally in such a dogmatic sense; the story is literal in a sense, but the story is fundamentally a vehicle to express theological truths in a way the original audience would understand. Both those that try to force science into the story, as well as those who try to force Genesis into science, are taking the wrong approach in my view, and that includes gap theory and day-age theory.

 

It might be helpful to note that the ancient Hebrews that wrote Genesis did not view the universe or the solar system as you or I would. For them the Earth is a flat (albeit hilly) disk covered by a solid dome/firmament that is so low that birds could fly up to it, and the stars are fastened to the firmament. The Sun moves across the inside of the firmament by day, and above this firmament by night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not reading too much into what happened during the Gap. But it makes sense to me that the stars would have to have been created a long, long time before the "six days". If the stars were created during the six days, we wouldn't see many of them.

 

Stars were created on day 4; Genesis 1:14-19

Actually, I somehow missed "and he made the stars also" v.16!! But no problem, because these words seem out of place with the rest of the passage, which is all about our Sun and moon. Notice the first sentence - "And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done."

 

So I think the reference to "stars" here could be read: "Oh, by the way, while where on the subject of the Sun and the moon ... God made the stars too - that is to say, not on this day, but earlier."

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

Another thought I had was that when God said "Let there be light" (which marked the beginning of Day 1), this could have marked the moment when the light of the stars he'd created much earlier finally reached earth (in unison, of course, which means the various stars when created at different points in time, according to their distance from earth).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I somehow missed "and he made the stars also" v.16!! But no problem, because these words seem out of place with the rest of the passage, which is all about our Sun and moon. Notice the first sentence - "And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done."

 

So I think the reference to "stars" here could be read: "Oh, by the way, while where on the subject of the Sun and the moon ... God made the stars too - that is to say, not on this day, but earlier."

That doesn't really work with Genesis 1:16 though. There is one (non-infinitive) verb in verse 16--'asah (וַיַּ֣עַשׂ--and He made), and there are three definite direct object indicators (Hebrew 'et-- אֶת)...one for the sun, one for the moon, and one for the stars. So, rather than being a side note, the stars are tied to the verb of God "making" at that time just as much as the sun and the moon.

 

Another thought I had was that when God said "Let there be light" (which marked the beginning of Day 1), this could have marked the moment when the light of the stars he'd created much earlier finally reached earth (in unison, of course, which means the various stars when created at different points in time, according to their distance from earth).

In a way that's more consistent with Genesis 1 (and some current creation models being bandied about, although three days too early). The only "clock" (i.e. inertial frame of reference) used in Genesis 1 is the earth, so any statement in opposition to Genesis 1 about the timing of the creation of the stars must be expressed with the earth as the frame of reference, or it's just a straw-man argument. Russell Humphreys argues for gravitational time dilation (i.e. the earth being suspended in gravitational no-time while the rest of the universe is being processed). Jason Lisle, contrary to the way it is sometimes portrayed, argues that the convention used in Genesis is an anisotropic synchrony convention, where the timing (i.e. simultaneity) of the creation of the stars is based on when the observation is made (on earth), not when the event happened locally (i.e. according to an Einstein synchrony convention).

 

One of the ironies I've noticed about the whole distant starlight problem (I study bones, not physics) is that it seems to be a case of "wanting to have your cake and eat it too". The whole problem is expressed in terms of newtonian/galileian mechanics (where time and space are assumed to be absolute and the speed of light is infinite), with no regard for relativity and the problem of simultaneity that a finite speed of light creates when dealing with the question of simultaneity (i.e. the relative timing of events). Jason gives an interesting example in his paper where, using the earth as your inertial frame of reference and an ESC (Einstein synchrony convention), a galaxy created on day four at thirteen billion light years from the earth with the earth moving toward it, six months later with the earth orbiting the sun and headed in the opposite direction, would appear to have been created 2.6 million years earlier. And, even stranger, a galaxy created on day four at thirteen billion light years from the earth with the earth moving away from it, six months later would appear to not yet have been created for another 2.6 million years. :think:

 

Still puzzling through relativity and its affect on distant starlight and simultaneity. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't really work with Genesis 1:16 though. There is one (non-infinitive) verb in verse 16--'asah (וַיַּ֣עַשׂ--and He made), and there are three definite direct object indicators (Hebrew 'et-- ×ֶת)...one for the sun, one for the moon, and one for the stars. So, rather than being a side note, the stars are tied to the verb of God "making" at that time just as much as the sun and the moon.

Thanks for that. In that case, what are the "heavens" in v.1, which existed before the "light" in v.3 and the "stars" in v.16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms