GAP Theory

[Calminian]

...Exactly. Verse 1 is "Here is what we are going to talk about." Verse 2 is "Here are the circumstances as we begin our narrative." Verse 3 -> is "a description of God's forming the unformed and filling the unfilled."...

No, this is not a logical straightforward reading of Gen. 1:1-2:1.

Verse 1:1: here's what happened
Verse 2-31: here are the details over six days
Verse 2:1: that's what happened.

The six days are a summary of the creation of the heavens and the earth. They are between two heaven/earth creation statements which means they cannot be separated from the creation event of Gen. 1:1.

In the gap theory, the creation happened first. Then there is a recreation. Or in your modified theory, there was a creation, then a later filing that took six days. Neither theory is supported in the Text. You have a textual problem.

Moses' was a young earth creationist, believing creation and filling all happened within the 6 days.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.....​

The creation and the filling are not separated here as you claim.

 

[TCassidy]

Also, explain Christ's very straightforward statement that Adam and Eve are not merely johnycomelatelies, but form the beginning of Creation.

What's to explain? He said it. I believe it. That settles it for me.

Also explain Moses statement in Exodus 20:11. See if your vast Hebrew knowledge can rescue you from a simple logical argument.

Why do I need rescuing when I believe exactly what Moses said?

So I do believe your waw-disjunctive argument is not an argument in and of itself.

You copy and paste an argument then, by your above statement, you prove you did not understand what you copied and pasted!

You have to show the author to be making a contract between the heavens and earth for your gap theory to take hold.

I don't believe the author was making a contrast (not contract) between the heavens and earth. Nor do I accept any part of the gap theory as true.

I believe my arguments above make that quite difficult.

You have no arguments. You don't understand what I wrote. You don't understand the material you copy and pasted from the work of others.

There is a single unifying thought in all of your postings. "You don't understand."

 

[InTheLight]

There is a single unifying thought in all of your postings. "You don't understand."

Hammer. Nail.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo

 

[Salty]

Is it to simplistic to say that regardless if there is a gap or not - it does not change the doctrine of salvation!

 

[Calminian]

....So, is there room for a gap? Yes. But such a gap is meaningless as far as the narrative is concerned. Nothing other than the unformed and unfilled ball of dirt in perpetual darkness existed until God, in verse 3, began to form the unformed and fill the unfilled.

.......So, the bible does not tell us how long ago verse 1 happened. As God has not chosen to reveal that information to us, I will not speculate. If God wanted me to know He would have told me.

I disagree. No, there is not room for a gap (meaningless or meaningful). And God did tell you when it happened. And yes, God said it happened about 6K years ago. He gave us chronological genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 to help us gage the true scope of history.

What am I misunderstanding about your position, and what are you misunderstanding about where I disagree?

 

[Calminian]

Is it to simplistic to say that regardless if there is a gap or not - it does not change the doctrine of salvation!

Ah but it does.....

 

[TCassidy]

Verse 1:1: here's what happened
Verse 2-31: here are the details over six days

Yeah, that is basically what I said. "Here is what happened that we are going to talk about - verse 1."

"Here are the circumstances at the beginning of our narrative - verse 2."

"Here is how it unfolded - verses 3 ->."

The six days are a summary of the creation of the heavens and the earth.

Yes, I know.

In the gap theory, the creation happened first.

Yes, we all know that. It is what we (or at least I) have already proved could not have happened for it would violate the Hebrew grammar.

You have a textual problem.

No, you have a textual problem. You can't read it!

Moses' was a young earth creationist, believing creation and filling all happened within the 6 days.

"Young earth creationist?" How young? When did Genesis 1:1 take place? And where does the bible say when Genesis 1:1 took place? Please post the verses that say "Genesis 1:1 took place in 4004 BC" or words to that effect.

The creation and the filling are not separated here as you claim.

Once again you fail to understand the very simple Hebrew statement.

I am going to do you a favor. If you will do what I ask you will come to understand the Hebrew a bit better. Dallas Theological Seminary is the "Harvard" of the Evangelical Seminaries. I am going to help you by having you sign up for and take a course from Dallas on Genesis. It is free. No cost to you. I've already paid for it.

Go to https://courses.dts.edu/ and scroll down to:

Genesis
Genesis Genesis is a ten-week course taught by Dr. James Allman, DTS Professor of Old Testament Studies. This course will take you on a journey through the book of Genesis concentrating on the creation narrative and the patriarchs.

Then click on: Get Started and follow the instructions.

You will learn about waw-disjunctives, waw-connectives, the days of creation, and why the gap theory is impossible.

Psalm 119:66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 2:3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; 5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

Proverbs 2:10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul.

 

[Calminian]

..."Young earth creationist?" How young? When did Genesis 1:1 take place? And where does the bible say when Genesis 1:1 took place? Please post the verses that say "Genesis 1:1 took place in 4004 BC" or words to that effect.

And Bingo! I knew I'd draw you out.

You're a gap-theorist. You're not like Schofield, nor Sailhamer, but you have your own gap theory. You're try to separate Genesis 1:1 from the six days. Took me a while to hone in on it, but here we are. Now let's stop all the insults and baiting and get to it.

I made this point to you in one of my initial posts. I explained that Gen. 1:1 couldn't be separated form the 6 days. I explained why. You, my friend, are the one that didn't understand my argument. Now I suggest you go back and actually take in my argument. Think about what I said. Try to respond.

 

[Calminian]

..."Young earth creationist?" How young? When did Genesis 1:1 take place? And where does the bible say when Genesis 1:1 took place? Please post the verses that say "Genesis 1:1 took place in 4004 BC" or words to that effect.....

BTW, why is it Christians find this so hard to believe? We have a record of the creation, which starts at the beginning. We have literal days and a statement from Christ that humans (Adam and Eve) were there in the very beginning. We have a six day account saying Adam was born 6 days after the initial creation (even Mr. Cassidy believes you can't separate Gen. 1:1 from the six days). We have chronological genealogies in Gen. 5 and 11, stating the father's age when the child was born. These chronologically link Adam to Abraham. What is the difficult here? Why is it so hard to say "young earth!"

 

[TCassidy]

I disagree.

Yes, because you don't understand.

No, there is not room for a gap (meaningless or meaningful).

Again, if you understood the significance of the waw-disjunctive you would not make foolish statements.

And God did tell you when it happened.

Where?

And yes, God said it happened about 6K years ago.

Chapter and verse, please.

He gave us chronological genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 to help us gage the true scope of history.

Ah hah! Another place you don't understand. The famous, or infamous, Annales Veteris Testamenti, a Prima Mundi Origine Deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto, of Bishop James Ussher. 22 October 4004 BC, 6 PM. LOL! Those lists of names are not genealogies. They are ethnologies. In fact there are several generations between many of the "begats." They are there to show the descent of Mashiach.

Princeton professor William Henry Green wrote a highly influential article in Bibliotheca Sacra entitled "Primeval Chronology" in which he strongly criticised Ussher. He concluded: "We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world. http://www.genevaninstitute.org/syl...rimeval-chronology-by-dr-william-henry-green/

The conservative theologian B. B. Warfield reached the same conclusion in "On The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race," commenting that "it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables." [Princeton Theological Review, 1911.]

What am I misunderstanding about your position, and what are you misunderstanding about where I disagree?

Nothing. Nothing.

 

[TCassidy]

I knew I'd draw you out.

Yes, of course. But I can't help but notice you couldn't answer my question. Here it is again. "Please post the verses that say "Genesis 1:1 took place in 4004 BC" or words to that effect."

You're a gap-theorist.

I will warn you one time and one time only. Do NOT lie about what I believe.

You're try to separate Genesis 1:1 from the six days.

Again you demonstrate the inability to understand the rather simple Hebrew grammar. The waw-disjunctive does not allow any logical or chronological connection between verse 1 and verse 2. The bible does not say when verse 1 took place. But, as it is used as a title for the Book of Genesis (by the way, "Genesis" is the Latin translation of the Hebrew: בְּרֵאשִׁית‎‎, Beresit, meaning "In [the] beginning") it seems obvious to me that verses 2 and following are what is being introduced in verse 1.

I explained that Gen. 1:1 couldn't be separated form the 6 days. I explained why.

And I explained, which you failed to understand, why you cannot make such a dogmatic statement due to the Hebrew grammar in question.

We have chronological genealogies in Gen. 5 and 11, stating the father's age when the child was born.

We have ethnologies. Not chronological genealogies.

Again, take the DTS course I suggested. It will help you greatly in your understanding of Genesis.

 

[Calminian]

....Ah hah!

This is going to get interesting.

Princeton....B. B. Warfield....

That's all you need to know, folks. Princeton was once a conservative seminary/college. Then evolutionary thinking started to creep in. BB Warfield was very open to it, at least in the sense of finding a compromise between Scripture and evolution. Later it fell into utter evolutionary liberalism. That's what happens when you let evolutionary thinking creep into Christianity.

Someone significant went to Princeton BTW. Charles Templeton was once giant in evangelism. He then went to Princeton, lost his faith (never had it, actually) and died an unbeliever. That's the fruits of Princeton.

Some good articles on how this current compromise came about. I put it right at the feet of Charles Hodge, BB Warfield and the like. I agree with them theologically on much, but they fathered this compromise we see now today.

Some good articles by AiG on the subject:

A Response to a Gospel Coalition Blog on the Age of the Earth

Exposing a Fundamental Compromise

The Slippery Slide to Unbelief

 

[Calminian]

...I will warn you one time and one time only. Do NOT lie about what I believe ...

I am stating what I believe. I may be wrong, but I am not lying.

 

[Calminian]

....Again you demonstrate the inability to understand the rather simple Hebrew grammar. The waw-disjunctive does not allow any logical or chronological connection between verse 1 and verse 2. ...

I did not build an argument on the waw-disjunctive. I made the argument based on context, the same way Dr. Barrak made it in his article. He disagrees with you.

I have said that contextually there is no way to separate the beginning from the six days. The creation of everything happened in the six days. I'm also arguing there are no gaps in the Genesis genealogies. There are genealogies that have gaps, but the Genesis genealogies do not in chapters 5 and 11. They are straightforward. There is no precedence for taking this kind of language anything but literal. These are not merely ancestral links, but father son links. Here's a good article against genealogy gaps.

Do the Genesis Genealogies Contain Gaps?

 

[TCassidy]

BB Warfield

Well, we've found another topic you know nothing about. B. B. Warfield was the champion of the Conservative group at Princeton, who kept Princeton from capitulating to Modernism. It was only after his death in 1921 that the seminary fell into apostasy and the Conservatives left to found Westminster Seminary.

I am stating what I believe.

No, you made a statement. You said, "You're a gap-theorist." That is a lie. You have already been told I am not a gap theorist and that the gap theory is impossible, but you posted the lie anyway. Don't do it again.

I may be wrong,

You are.

but I am not lying.

When you have been corrected and you continue to tell the same untruth, I don't know what else to call it.

 

[Calminian]

I am stating what I believe. I may be wrong, but I am not lying.

Also, is it completely outside of the realm of the thinking that maybe you're posts are not crystal clear? Maybe there are statements easily misunderstood and maybe the blame for misunderstanding isn't completely my fault?

If I am misunderstanding you, can't you humbly take just a smidgen of the blame?

 

[Calminian]

Well, we've found another topic you know nothing about. B. B. Warfield was the champion of the Conservative group at Princeton, who kept Princeton from capitulating to Modernism. It was only after his death in 1921 that the seminary fell into apostasy and the Conservatives left to found Westminster Seminary.

I dare you actually read up on this from the articles I cited form AiG. Warfield was very compromised on this as was Hodge. Creationists are well award of the contribution they've made to this subject.

No, you made a statement. You said, "You're a gap-theorist." That is a lie. You have already been told I am not a gap theorist and that the gap theory is impossible, but you posted the lie anyway. Don't do it again.....

I refute your lie accusation. I accept I may have misunderstood, but have not lied and will not be bullied into admitting something false. I don't know what kind of punks you're used to, but I'm not one of them.

 

[TCassidy]

I did not build an argument on the waw-disjunctive.

I know. You didn't know what a waw-disjunctive is!

I made the argument based on context,

And the context includes the waw-disjunctive!

the same way Dr. Barrak made it in his article.

Yes. He said the same thing I said.

He disagrees with you.

No, he doesn't. We said exactly the same thing. But again, you demonstrate the inability to understand some rather simple concepts regarding Hebrew grammar and syntax as well as Hebrew literary styles.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, we've found another topic you know nothing about. B. B. Warfield was the champion of the Conservative group at Princeton, who kept Princeton from capitulating to Modernism. It was only after his death in 1921 that the seminary fell into apostasy and the Conservatives left to found Westminster Seminary.

No, you made a statement. You said, "You're a gap-theorist." That is a lie. You have already been told I am not a gap theorist and that the gap theory is impossible, but you posted the lie anyway. Don't do it again.

You are.

When you have been corrected and you continue to tell the same untruth, I don't know what else to call it.

Didn't BB Wafield thoug hold to a form of Theitic Evolution though?

 

[Calminian]

...No, he doesn't. We said exactly the same thing. But again, you demonstrate the inability to understand some rather simple concepts regarding Hebrew grammar and syntax as well as Hebrew literary styles.

Dr. Barrack is a young earth creationist as is John MacArthur. Barrack has a Genesis commentary coming out soon, if it's not out already. And he states categorically there is no room for a gap after Gen. 1:1.