GAP Theory

[Johnf]

You are totally wrong!! TCassidy and Cal are saying the same thing!! Don't you get it?

I don't think so. They are in agreement, but diametrically opposed in that agreement.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe you can judge salvation over this, but as Ken Ham and others point out, it can indirectly affect salvation in that we undermine the authority of Scripture when we allow for old earth interpretations. Even the subtle compromises of BB Warfield and Mr. Cassidy do damage. They leave it open, claiming the Bible is silent on the age of the earth.

It is not. We know the earth is not 4.5 billion years old and can't possibly be even a million years old even with gaps in the genealogies. It's a subtle undermining of Scripture.

Have you checked out "Already Gone" by Ken Ham? He makes the case we're directly responsible for the current trend of youth fleeing the Church. I think he's onto something. You can read chapter 1 here.

I do agree thatwhen one does NOT see Genesis in a literal way does create problems, but alsao he seen some YE elevate tis to essential octrine sttus!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree but the issue is when someone is completely misrepresenting what someone is saying and refuses to hear that they are saying the same thing and accusing someone of being dangerous, that is a problem.

That is very true, as we agree on so many things, but tend to major on side issues!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't speak or understand Hebrew at all. The first phrase "In the beginning", what does it mean? If we look at this in the literal sense, in English, the first thing created was time itself. Is that statement contrary to the Hebrew?

It might stand for in the original of all beginnings..

 

[Johnf]

It might stand for in the original of all beginnings..

My question is that without the sun, stars, and moon with a void earth, what exactly standard at which time is measured. Today we have days, lunar cycle, and the earth revolving around the earth. If there is no sun or moon where do we get a reference for how long the first day was. I'm not talking about a gap, but with no reference point there is no way to accurately say that the first four days were hours. So really until the 4th day there is no way to definitively say what a "Day" is.

 

[Yeshua1]

My question is that without the sun, stars, and moon with a void earth, what exactly standard at which time is measured. Today we have days, lunar cycle, and the earth revolving around the earth. If there is no sun or moon where do we get a reference for how long the first day was. I'm not talking about a gap, but with no reference point there is no way to accurately say that the first four days were hours. So really until the 4th day there is no way to definitively say what a "Day" is.

It would be right when God created the Universe itself, when all things were created by Jesus...

 

[Johnf]

Your reply doesn't address the point.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your reply doesn't address the point.

Time itself was created when God creaated material universe...

 

[Johnf]

I agree with that, but what was the observable standard?

 

[TCassidy]

The first phrase "In the beginning", what does it mean? If we look at this in the literal sense, in English, the first thing created was time itself. Is that statement contrary to the Hebrew?

The Hebrew translated "In the beginning" is a declaration of the original creative act of God, by which the universe was called into being. As the universe consists of space, time, and matter/energy yet is a UNIverse (Three in One!) it is true that time must have been created along with the rest of the space/time continuum.

However the verse is not merely a heading but a declaration of that first creative act. Verse two, which is a circumstantial clause, sets the stage, so to speak, for the following account of the course of the creation and commences with "waw" (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact of original creation expressed in verse 1, as the primary foundation upon which all the rest is built. בְּרשִׁיח (in the beginning) is an absolute. It stands alone.

The following circumstantial clause of verse two cannot be subordinate by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created ..., the earth was,” etc., which is opposed to the grammar.

The waw, prefixing the noun translated "earth" (Hebrew eretz = w-eretz) makes the word a disjunctive indicating no logical or chronological connection between verse one and verse two. Therefore it is mere, unsupported, speculation to try to insert time between verse one and verse two, as the gap theory tries to do.

I am sorry this answer to going so long, but Hebrew grammar is quite complex but is of vital importance in understanding the Creation narrative.

I don't think so. They are in agreement, but diametrically opposed in that agreement.

I don't think so.

My question is that without the sun, stars, and moon with a void earth, what exactly standard at which time is measured. Today we have days, lunar cycle, and the earth revolving around the earth. If there is no sun or moon where do we get a reference for how long the first day was.

I agree. The longer periods of time were delineated by the sun, moon, and stars, not created until verse 14, but the dividing of the light/dark created what the bible is calling a "day" so we have some indication that time, at least at the day/night level was already being recognized. The hermeneutical principle of "shareability" would indicate that two guys looking over Moses' shoulder as he penned the words would have the same understanding of the meaning of "day" as Moses, and other Jews living in the 15th century BC. A "day" to them was one light - dark cycle comprised of roughly 24 hours, and there is no reason to understand the word to mean anything else.

And even though the sun did not yet exist, as the earth turned on its axis, it would still exhibit a sidereal day. A sidereal day is simply the time it takes a point on the earth to rotate on its axis from one point in space, around a 360 degree circle, and back to that single point in space, marking out the roughly 24 hours of the day.

I'm not talking about a gap, but with no reference point there is no way to accurately say that the first four days were hours. So really until the 4th day there is no way to definitively say what a "Day" is.

Well, the sidereal day, as explained about, would account for the length of the day prior to the creation of the sun. But the light was already created so, as God says he divided the light from the darkness it is legitimate to understand that the created light was gathered into a single spot in the cosmos and the day was reckoned using that point source.

I always get this mental picture of God, having created the light, had to keep grabing it and puting it back where it belonged because, as we know, light is fast and will stream away quickly if left unattended. So my mental image is of God grabing the light and puting it in a giant mason jar, screwing on the lid, and saying, "There! That will keep you where you belong." So God created the sun to be the light bearer of His created light. (But the light bearer was probably not a giant mason jar.)

And the use of the word "day" prior to the 4th day would also indicate to me that such a time existed, and the law of shareability would indicate the Jews of Moses' day understood the word to mean the same as it means to us today.

Sorry for the length of this answer. Just write it off to an old seminary professor with too much time on his hands during his retirement.

 

[Johnf]

I like the thoroughness of the answer. Anything less would have been incomplete and left me asking more.

This is the best explanation I've been offered. I'll need to ponder. Thank you.

 

[Johnf]

Where and when did you teach if I may ask?

 

[TCassidy]

From 1985 until 2010 at San Diego Baptist Seminary.

And in the 1990s I also taught at Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College in San Dimas, California.

 

[Johnf]

That's almost as bad as being a Yankee. You still in California? That's got to be a pretty open mission field. I grew up in the World Wide Church of God founded by H.W. Armstrong that was based in Pasadena and spent my first 10 years in Salinas. Are you familiar with the church (cult) and the area?

 

[TCassidy]

That's almost as bad as being a Yankee. You still in California? That's got to be a pretty open mission field. I grew up in the World Wide Church of God founded by H.W. Armstrong that was based in Pasadena and spent my first 10 years in Salinas. Are you familiar with the church (cult) and the area?

I was born in north suburban LA (Altadena), just about 10 minutes from the PCBBC campus and almost next door to WCG's headquarters/college in Pasadena.

In 2012 I retired (forcibly, by my doctor who told me to either retire or buy a casket) and my wife and I moved to the far, far, south of Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley just a stone's throw west of the Gulf of Mexico and a shorter stones throw from the Mexican border.

I am familiar with Armstrongism, but understand that it is now claiming to be mainstream evangelical. Other than that I haven't really kept up. I did know that Garner Ted had started a splinter church in Tyler Texas but don't think it ever went anywhere. I heard that he had died about 10 years ago.

 

[Johnf]

There are actually several splinters. Much of my dad's family still belong to them and even worse. There's one call the Assemblies of Yahweh which is just off the wall nuts. They are led by a guy named Elder Myer.

This guy is my first cousin.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's almost as bad as being a Yankee. You still in California? That's got to be a pretty open mission field. I grew up in the World Wide Church of God founded by H.W. Armstrong that was based in Pasadena and spent my first 10 years in Salinas. Are you familiar with the church (cult) and the area?

The WWCG has loosened up their requirements , such as Sabbath observing, no Holidays, but not sure if they are teaching real Gospel yet though!

 

[Johnf]

The ones that I know that are still in it are still observing the Sabbath day, feasts and living by the health/food laws. The are teaching salvation, but strictly salvation by works.

It is still a works based religion.

 

[Yeshua1]

The ones that I know that are still in it are still observing the Sabbath day, feasts and living by the health/food laws. The are teaching salvation, but strictly salvation by works.

It is still a works based religion.

That sounds like te slinter group, as main church loosened up!

 

[Calminian]

And once again you post untruths about me and what I believe.

I have no idea what you believe, I only know the what you say in your posts. You said the earth could be 4.5 billion years old. I realize you think that's unlikely, but you left it open as a possibility. I called you on it. Here's what you said,

Could it be 6,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 100,000 years? Yes.The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 1,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 4.5 billion years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.

But judging from other indications I would be very surprised to find creation is older than 10,000 to 100,000 years.

You are wrong. The Bible is very clear the earth is 6000 years old or so. The genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 are closed.

The bible nowhere says "the earth is xxxx number of years old."

It doesn't need to. It gives us chronological genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 which are closed, but even if they contain gaps could not possibly take us back 4.5 billion years.

The ethnologies are not closed geneologies. That has already been demonstrated.

You've demonstrated you don't believe the father's age is mentioned at the birth of his son in the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11. And yes, they are genealogies. They are very clear and were meant to give us a timeline. BTW, not all genealogies are chronological. But these are.

There are many reasons to believe the earth is substantially younger than 100,000 years, and even 10,000 years or younger as I said earlier in this thread which you continue to ignore and lie about what I believe.

No, you're lying about my challenge to you. You are making the subtle claim that the Bible is silent on the age of the earth. You are wrong. It is not silent. The text rules out 4.5 billing years. It's impossible textually.

I am really getting tired of this.

You have no idea how little I care about your fatigue. Deal with what I say stop beating your chest. You're not intimidating anyone.