Fundamentalist Creationism?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The 70 weeks has no gap. All bible prophecy is contiguous time spans - to do it any other way is to make mush out of the timeline.

Boy, you would have to make history stand its head to make this even laughable. At this point, it hasn't even risen to that stage. Seriously, to suggest that there is no gap between the 69th and 70th week is to deny the reality of human history. It is simply impossible to fit the 70th week into the first seven years after the crucifixion of Christ, even if you are preterist.

Now the gap of Genesis 1 ... it doesn't exist. The Hebrew text will not allow it and science won't allow it.

 

[Deacon]

With the moderators permission I will respond. Perhaps if we stray to far afield the thread could be moved to another forum that would be more accommodating.

Bob, you write:

”The problems with messing around with the text of Gen 1 and 2 to fit the current fad in some circles today -- are many.”

Let me add that “Scientific Creationism” is a fad too. But are those who study the issue really “messing with the text” or just applying a model or theory in an attempt to understand the text more fully?

And again:

“#1. The authors meaning and the meaning to the primary audience is obvious…”

Who was the primary audience? Answer: The Hebrews of about 3000 years ago. We shouldn’t be so proud as to presume that their thoughts, understandings and worldviews were the same as ours.

***** genesis is well understood by those who interpret it literally****

[ November 16, 2002, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

[Bartholomew]

Hi,

OK, I've got a question a bit more related to the original point of this discussion - how does Genesis 1 teach us that God created "ex nihilo" (out of nothing?) Now, don't get me wrong - I think he did create out of nothing, and I'm a six-day-creationist, but I really don't see how Genesis 1 provides the proof that so many creationists say it does.

Thanks for your help,

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[C.S. Murphy]

I must apologize for I was apparently brain dead during september when the thread began. Todays posts brought it back up and after a careful review I had to do a lot of editing. I have read many who have expressed the view that this fundamental forum must include a nonliteral interpretation but that is not the case. Please be advised that this is not open to debate and post accordingly.
Murph

 

[Ben W]

Maybe this thread could be better put in the forum below, meant for the subject?

As far as gaps go, here is a thought. God created Adam and Eve, the Whole world in Six literal days.
*** content not consistant with literal interpretation****
I liked the post above, about the rings on the trees, that is a valid point.

[ November 17, 2002, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

[Grasshopper]

http://www.reasons.org/

 

[Helen]

Coming back for a few more, if it is of any help:

Bob, the "heavens" of Hebrew were listed as the first, second, and third heaven. The first was our atmosphere, as you noted. The second was 'outer space', as you also noted. Paul mentions going to the 'third heaven' which was defined in the OT as the Throne of God.

It is interesting in Isaiah that God says He stretched out the heavens, but spread out the earth. This takes into account the first two but since God is never changing, His throne would not be 'stretched' or 'spread out.'

Deacon, I have a hard time agreeing that scientific creationism is a fad! Darwinism is more the fad. The early church certainly was YEC as documented here:
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm

Bradshaw has done an excellent job documenting the early church in relation to this issue.

And although they have a different body of knowledge about some things, their world view was the same as ours and the meaning of Genesis is also the same. The audience does not change the truth of what is presented.

Bartholomew: you asked about creation ex nihilo. Genesis 1 employs two different verbs in describing what happened: bara and asah. 'Bara' can mean either formed or created from nothing, but it is ALWAYS, in the Bible, the direct province of God. That verb is never used with any other subject than God. The verb 'asah' can only mean 'formed' or 'made' or words along that line and can be done by both God and man. When the two verbs are used in contradistinction to each other, as they are in Genesis 1, then that context presents 'bara' as the 'other' or 'different' meaning -- 'creation ex nihilo', or from nothing.

That verb is used on only three occasions in Genesis 1.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
One way of looking at that is the creation from nothing of our time (beginning), space (heavens), and earth (mass) continuum itself.
This would then be the physical creation all at once from nothing.

The second time it is used is in verse 20:
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, acording to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Before this, the plants were simply 'asah' formed.

So why a new 'bara' with the animals? What is it animals have that plants do not have -- besides higher mobility?

A central nervous system for the larger animals, certainly. And this central nervous system allows expression of the nephesh, or soul, or breath of life -- that creation in both animals and man which allows for inter-species relationships, individuality, the ability to learn (to different extents), etc. It is this which gives the idea of unique to each individual.

The third time 'bara' is used is only for man, in verse 27:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4 that the Father is spirit. And this is what we have that is not had by any other part of the physical creation: spirit. This was the third new thing. We have bodies made up of the same elements as the stars and grass and stones. We have individuality and the ability to learn the same as the animals. And we have the third thing which marks us as created in the image of God: spirit. This, also, is expressed through the nervous system, but is not the nervous system, contrary to what evolutionists would have us believe.

Our spirit shows up in our own ability to be creative, to theorize, to ask "Why?", to plan for the distant future or recall the distant past, to communicate abstractly via abstract means (like this), to appreciate beauty for its own sake, to comprehend right and wrong for their own sakes, etc.

So it is the fact that 'bara' is used in contradistinction to 'asah' those three times, all of which indicate something entirely new, that gives the Genesis account itself the meaning of 'ex nihilo.'

And finally, to Grasshopper. Hugh Ross believes in 'progressive creation' which denies the clear meaning of Genesis 1. God's creation did not continue after day 6, although variation of existing plants and animals was prolific. Hugh Ross also denies all the research done both inside and outside the creation community which would indicate a change in light speed, a static universe, a six day creation, etc. He is at the forefront of those who are trying to meld the current scientific paradigm with the Bible, and always by squishing the Bible around.

 

[BobRyan]

It is simply impossible to fit the 70th week into the first seven years after the crucifixion of Christ, even if you are preterist.

Gap theories.

I appreciate Pastor Larry coming right out and admitting that it is not any precidence set in scripture nor is it the context/content/exegesis of the text of Dan 9 that forces a few to speculate that there is a Gap in the 70 weeks, rather it is the degree to which they are able to see the fulfillment they expect to find - based on their interpretation of the events predicted - in that 490 year span of time.

To that point - I would have to agree.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Deacon
Let me add that “Scientific Creationism” is a fad too.

It is incorrect to assume that the ancients were not "also" looking to see IN nature - the EVIDENCE of the Creation doctrine and of God's work. Romans 1, and Romans 10 both appeal to the fact that nature itself is speaking (observations in nature) of the Creator via observed phenomina, principles, interaction, design etc.

There is really nothing new in that.

Deacon
But are those who study the issue really “messing with the text” or just applying a model or theory in an attempt to understand the text more fully?

Even the evolutionists will admit that the creation scenario/model/explanation given in Genesis 1 - 2:3 is a model/theory that is "contrary" to the one they use.

The Genesis 1 - 2:3 scenarion gives the time, the method, the sequence and the rationale for the origin of our planet, life on earth and our solar system. It would be hard to argue that this is not a competing and opposing "model" to what many evolutionists prefer today.

Bob
“#1. The authors meaning and the meaning to the primary audience is obvious…”

Deacon

Who was the primary audience? Answer: The Hebrews of about 3000 years ago. We shouldn’t be so proud as to presume that their thoughts, understandings and worldviews were the same as ours.

Agreed - on the other hand - Moses saw God "face to Face" according to God in Numbers 12.

However my argument is not that they were more scientifically advanced. My argument is an appeal to the principles of exegesis and one of the primary of those being - the obvious meaning to the intended audience. That helps us determine what the author intends - rather than what we would like to insert INTO the text to fit more recent preferences in that area.

Using sound principles of exegesis, it is obvious to all that the intent of Moses as reflected in how his report would be viewed by his primary audience - is a literal 7 day week that was (as God said when He spoke directly to the people at Sinai) in lock step equivalence to their "yom" day at Sinai.

The best we can do today in trying to get our own ideas inserted into the text is to pre-suppose that Moses meant to mislead, or that he knew less about what God was showing him in prophetic vision, than we are able to surmise today. If he was trying to mislead them - then God went the extra mile in deception by his wording of the 4th commandment summary of those events. The 4th commmandment language as spoken by God at Sinai appeals solely to the Gen 1-2:3 event as the reason for the "Sabbath that was created for mankind" Mark 2:27.

The 7 day sequence has no other source - than creation week. And God stamps equivalence on it at Sinai as having the same application as 7 days at Sinai.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I appreciate Pastor Larry coming right out and admitting that it is not any precidence set in scripture nor is it the context/content/exegesis of the text of Dan 9 that forces a few to speculate that there is a Gap in the 70 weeks, rather it is the degree to which they are able to see the fulfillment they expect to find - based on their interpretation of the events predicted - in that 490 year span of time.

It is not a "few who speculate." It is the vast majority of the settled body of biblical students. Even the preterists (who have a truckload of difficulties) admit a gap between the 69th and 70th week. Surely you are familiar with the "telescoping" principle of prophecy which is a common occurrence in biblical prophecy. It happens so often in Scripture it is remarkable that any are not familiar with it (even if not by name). The fact is that biblical prophecies are given without reference to gaps in them. By your reckoning, the covenant of antichrist with Israel would have happened immediately upon the death of Christ, the covenant would have been broken by AD37 (at the latest) and the end times would have come by AD40. Are you seriously trying to make us think that is what Daniel teaches??

 

[Dr. Bob]

While understanding the original language, audience and historical context is mandatory, one must be careful about "blowing off" what is said because "we don't understand it" or "we don't know what the original listeners thought."

We have these things written for our instruction and learning (Romans 15) and God's Spirit will help us.

(Btw, there is no room for a "gap" in Genesis from the Hebrew. Just isn't there. There IS a "gap" in the weeks of Daniel. Divisions put there by God for a reason.)

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Helen:
Bartholomew: you asked about creation ex nihilo. Genesis 1 employs two different verbs in describing what happened: bara and asah...

Thanks for the info, Helen!

 

[BobRyan]

Bartholomew
OK, I've got a question a bit more related to the original point of this discussion - how does Genesis 1 teach us that God created "ex nihilo" (out of nothing?) Now, don't get me wrong - I think he did create out of nothing, and I'm a six-day-creationist, but I really don't see how Genesis 1 provides the proof that so many creationists say it does.

When we read and summarize the events as detailed in Gen 1-2:3 we "Might" not see that God was creating the "heavens and the earth" in 6 literal days. Rather we "might" see that He simply created "all that is in them" in 6 days and then rested the 7th day - making it a holy day.

But in God's "own" summary of that same event - in Exodus 20:10-11 He tells us that in fact "IN six days God Created the Heavens, and the Earth, the Sea and All that is In them, and God rested the seventh day". In other words - God gives the account in Gen 1-2:3 - then summarizes that account in a way that says God not only made what is IN them - but He also made THEM in that 6 day period.

But as if that is not enough - we see God commenting in other areas as well telling us that what is seen was made as God "spoke" - He "spoke at it was".

Ps 33:6-9 "By His Word the heavens were Made - and by His Breath all their hosts... for He Spoke and it was done".

, Ps 148:1-5 Prov 3:19-20, Heb 11:3.

Clearly the meaning to the original audience is obvious and has not been doubted in millenia of tradition. Some today would wish to second guess that scenario - but even they can not doubt that the text as given to the primary audience was taken literally.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding Gaps inserted into the text - as in the case of some who interpret Daniel 9 with a Gap

Pastor Larry
It is not a "few who speculate." It is the vast majority of the settled body of biblical students.

The term "settled body of biblical students" is an undefined and subjective term that is useful for comparing to the fact that the majority of Christian scholars do not insert a gap into the 490 year prophecy of Daniel 9 and almost all agree that inserting the gap voids the entire significance of the use of 490 as a timeline.

Rather the concept artificially forces two timelines - one with 483 years and another - at an unspecified distance - of 7 years.

Pastor Larry

Even the preterists (who have a truckload of difficulties) admit a gap between the 69th and 70th week. Surely you are familiar with the "telescoping" principle of prophecy which is a common occurrence in biblical prophecy. It happens so often in Scripture it is remarkable that any are not familiar with it (even if not by name). The fact is that biblical prophecies are given without reference to gaps in them.

Yes absolutely given without gaps - because they do not work if we are allowed to insert gaps as it pleases us. Notice that Daniel 9 begins with the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah. If we were allowed to insert undefined gaps of time into that 70 year timeline - the Jews might still be in Babylon. Instead - the context of the schapter shows that Daniel anticipated no such gap - voiding the timeline for Jeremiah's 70 years and then the chapter ends with the 490 year prophecy - that also has no gaps.

You claim that many prophecies have gaps inserted in this way - voiding their usefullness as continguous timelines. I am not aware of one - and I am not aware of anyone else speculating that such a set of broken timelines exist in any other prophecies except the few who claim it for one of the time prophecies in Daniel 9 (the 490 year timeline - not the 70 year timeline).

I agree with the principle of the initial post regarding the Daniel 9 point - that if you could arbitrarily insert a gap into either timeline in Daniel 9, you might use that same "principle" to insert a gap into Genesis 1.

Pastor Larry
By your reckoning, the covenant of antichrist with Israel would have happened immediately upon the death of Christ, the covenant would have been broken by AD37 (at the latest) and the end times would have come by AD40. Are you seriously trying to make us think that is what Daniel teaches??

No. I am simply pointing out that if you insert the gap and then also "interpret" the events predicted as being the events you have listed above - you can get to your conclusion. However, both are in doubt for many/most Bible scholars and this is true both historically and in modern times.

The alternative does not insert the gap, does not break the timeline and does not use the events you have chosen as those being "predicted" in Daniel 9.

I am simply pointing out that it is the gap theory in Daniel 9 is not the one most scholars use.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 20, 2002, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob,

All I will say is that a great number of Bible scholars admit the gap in the weeks. Perhaps you could show some that don't so we could discuss their reasoning. A great deal of it depends on when you start the 70 weeks to be sure.

You want prophecies that have gaps: Zech 10:12 (they will look on me whom they pierced); Isa 7:14 is a reverse gap of sorts; Isa 61:1-3 has a gap between 2a and 2b as proclaimed by Christ in Luke 4; Zech 9:9 -- these are just a few that contain gaps in them. Admittedly, they do not have the time line involved in Dan 9 but there is a distinct flow that would imply immediacy when in fact there is none.

The timeline in Daniel 9 is no real difficulty when rightly understood to apply to the nation of Israel. In that senes, I would agree there is no gap as relating to Israel. If that is what you mean, then I agree with you. However, that was not what I understood you to say.

 

[BobRyan]

No timeline in given in Zech 10 or in Zechariah 9.

There are in fact NO timelines in scripture with gaps in them. And none have been posted on here as examples to support the practice of wanting to insert a gap into just ONE of the two timelines in Daniel 9.

The 70 year timeline of Jeremiah - the first subject of Daniel 9 - has not gap. The last timeline in the chapter - the 490 year timeline - also has no gap.

Obviously this is the case for all timelines because it is impossible to preserve a timeline that has even ONE gap of unknown time.

Gaps don't work in the timeline of Gen 1-2:3. They don't work in any timeline.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

There is the clear implication of a time line in the Zechariah passages. There are also clear timelines with gaps in them in genealogies which, while not prophecies, show the existence of gaps. Nonetheless, you are right about a gap not existing in Gen 1. It is incompatible, not with a timelines, but with the grammer of the passage and the theological implications of creation. I do not see anyway possible in which you can read Daniel 9 straightforwardly without seeing a gap in the timeline. It is way too clear to suggest otherwise, IMO. It just doesn't work.

 

[BobRyan]

By "timeline" I mean

"70 years of Jeremiah" Daniel 9:2. The explicit cardinal number is given explicitly in the text. A timeline that covers 70 years.

The 490 years - in 70 prophetic weeks (490 prophetic days) of Dan 9:24 - again the explicit cardinal number for the timeline is given in the text. A span of 490 years.

Abraham is given a timeline of 400 years in Gen 15:13.

If you take these spans of time and insert undefined gaps - they fail as timelines.

None of the counter examples you give shows even one case of a timeline with a number assigned - in which undefined gaps of time may be inserted.

I have shown repeatedly that such a system voids a timeline where the cardinal number is given for the entire span - i.e. speicif chronological timelines with the entire span given a numeric value as in the two cases of Daniel 9.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 23, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know what you mean by timeline. However, your point falls both exegetically and historically. The events of the 70th week of Daniel did not happen immediately following the 69th week and indeed Paul and John both show the events of the 70th week to be still future some 30-60 after the 69th week. I understand your concern. But where God's word reveals that how the timeline is to be seen, you and I should not insert our own understanding of the timeline into the text. Let the text and its NT explanation stand for what it says. That is by far the safer and more biblical way to address it. The evidence has been given that times and spans in the Bible are not always straight and chronological. The genealogies and other prophecies are well known examples of "gaps" in prophecies. Let the text stand for what it does and that will solve the problems.

However, I suppose we have both made our points and we agree that a gap in Gen 1 is impossible so I will leave it here.

 

[BobRyan]

Pastor Larry
I know what you mean by timeline. However, your point falls both exegetically and historically.

Exegetically the point stands - since we have no case in all of scripture where any timeline assigned numeric values - is ever said to include undefined gaps of time - thus voiding the timelines contiguous requirement for the number assigned to the span of time. So in fact the text is actually in favor of the view I propose - that of preserving the timeline in all cases as we see with all timelines in scripture.

Historically - the events mentioned in the 70 weeks are "interpreted" to correspond to certain events in history. If you pick the right events - the timeline is preserved.

Interpreted a certain way you could easily conclude that "The events of the 70th week of Daniel did not happen immediately following the 69th week"

But that is the case "only" if you interpret the text to select the events you choose. So again - the gap is only inserted if one chooses to do so to fit one's chosen interpretation of events in the 70th week.

Pastor Larry
and indeed Paul and John both show the events of the 70th week to be still future some 30-60 after the 69th week.

I do agree that the events you have chosen to use in your interpretation of the 70th week are indeed future. But neither John nor Paul claims those events to be part of that 490 year prophecy.

Pastor Larry
I understand your concern. But where God's word reveals that how the timeline is to be seen, you and I should not insert our own understanding of the timeline into the text. Let the text and its NT explanation stand for what it says. That is by far the safer and more biblical way to address it.

You are assuming your point instead of showing it to be proven or supported by the text in this case. Your entire case is based on your interpretation of the 70th week - not based on any interpretation of the 70th week found in the OT or NT. It is circular reasoning to claim that the Bible is interpreting Daniel's 70th week as you do - when no such effort to "interpret the 70 weeks" is presented in the text.

Pastor Larry
The evidence has been given that times and spans in the Bible are not always straight and chronological.

Examples given so far have been from Zech chapter 9 and 10. Neither of them contain a timeline with the time span assigned a value like the 70 weeks of Daniel nine and the 70 years of Daniel 9:1-5. (Neither of which contain gaps).

You do not respond to that point - you just keep repeating your opening statement rather than showing it to hold up.

Pastor Larry
The genealogies and other prophecies are well known examples of "gaps" in prophecies. Let the text stand for what it does and that will solve the problems.

The geneologies are not prophecies and in most cases are not timelines - except in the case where the age of someone is given and in ALL those cases are a number is assigned - where an age is given - there are no gaps in the age. For example if Abraham's age of 175 in Gen 25:7 could be said to include "gaps" of undefined periods of time - all such Bible timespans would be without meaning.

As has been pointed out - there is not a single case in all of scripture where inserting gaps will work in a timeline that has a numeric value assigned to it.

And in all this - you have not found even one case where it could work. That is instructive. It does not work in any Bible timeline - including Genesis 1.

In Christ,

Bob