It's not a person's view of it you reject, it is the clear language of the text.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Gap Theory of Genesis
- Thread starter worddigger
- Start date
It's not a person's view of it you reject, it is the clear language of the text.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You ignore its literary type in the context of the age it was written in. Just like people take Apocalyptic literature literally look silly because its a work based on symbolisism. The creation story outlines creation in such a manner to show the order of the universe God imposed on it as well as creating it, to show the importance of a Holy Day, to demonstrated the fall of man and hints to his redemption. Its not necissarily meant to be taken literally in all aspects. Do you believe the myth that men spoke frequently with animals? That is also conjecture based on intepreting the creation story in such a way as you have. So we have regurgitated myth that men have one less rib than women, that men spoke with animals regularily, etc...
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Are you saying that all men have one less rib than women? I certainly hope not. You can only argue that Adam had one less rib than women.
No. I asked a simple question.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I have no reason to doubt it.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Yep. But how and in what manner, I don't. For instance does God use a special "dirt". Or is he speaking of the material already at hand? And note this activity (according to the bible) did not occur in the Garden of Eden.
I'm just trying to figure out why you'll take the creation of man from dust and the creation of woman from a rib of man literally but you won't take the rest of the creation account literally. Moreover, you likened taking the creation account literally to taking the prophetic language of the bible literally. You are being inconsistent at best. If you can believe that God made man out of dust and woman from a rib of man, what is so hard to believe about God making the earth in 6 literal days, speaking things into existence and causing various separations (waters above the firmament and waters below the firmament, water and earth, darkness and light, etc.) with His word? I just don't get it. If you take one part literally, why not the others?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
See thats where you get me wrong. I believe God created the world just the way he said but not necissarily as simply as a simple reading suggest. For instance did God create man from the material already accessible and able to use? Certainly this has been evidence in science. Man was created then placed in the Garden. Were more men created? I don't know. Was Adam a representative of humanity? I don't know possibly it would make sense in some respect. I believe God created the world in 6 defined steps signified as days. The 4th day being a subset of the 1st day. The 5th day a subset of day 2. Etc... Also the bible uses terms like the whole world when whole region is meant like the gospel was preached to the whole world during the apostles. Well, certianly the whole roman world. Not the world world. So there is a lot to take in consideration.
The woman was named Eve because she was the mother of all living. There weren't any other humans, Adam and Eve are the common parents of the entire human race.
Now, it says God took the dust of the earth, so yes He used material already at hand.
The problem with the view that the days weren't really days is that it says the evening and the morning was the ____ day, and the bible elsewhere states that God created the world in 6 days. What you are telling me is I can't read the bible where it is simple and straightforward and take the simple and straightforward meaning.
Now, it says God took the dust of the earth, so yes He used material already at hand.
The problem with the view that the days weren't really days is that it says the evening and the morning was the ____ day, and the bible elsewhere states that God created the world in 6 days. What you are telling me is I can't read the bible where it is simple and straightforward and take the simple and straightforward meaning.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Certain things you can and other things you can't. Look how God defines the first day. There was light and then there was dark, the first day. This is a refrain used through out the creation account hinting at the type of literature it is. Remember we live 3 dimensionally and understand things on that level. How are you to understand the development of time space at the very begining? You really can't so the indication by the writer of genesis falls back on there was light and then there was dark. and note the sun had not been created and dark is just the absence of light so what was the writer really talking about? You cannot tell me you know all the intricacies of creation. Therefore you fall back on to the simple reading and exclude everything else despite evidence and observation that tells us a little bit differently.
Nothing that is true contradicts the bible. The simple reading of the text tells us what we need to know about creation. The understanding of this is needful because we weren't there to observe the creation. Thus we must take God's word for it.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I take God's word for it. But I don't exclude any observable data either. One doesn't necissarily contradict the other unless you created an environment by you ability to understand the account on the simplist of terms.
When God said the morning and the evening were the ____ day, He was telling us it was a literal day. Obviously He did that for a reason. One possible reason is He knew that people were going to one day wonder what "day" meant, when the word "day" is pretty well established as 24 hours. Thus He put language in there to tell us exactly what He meant by "day". There is no reason to reject this.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
But he defined it as "there was light and there was dark" He didn't say "24 hours"
He used the same terminology that defines what a day is in scripture. Any other reading is throwing out the literal and simplest meaning, not to mention the general meaning, of the term. The one reason one does so is because he brings something to the text rather than reading what the text says.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Thats exactly what he text says there was a period of light then a period of Dark and there was no sun or rotation of the earth that we know about. You're purposely reading 24 hours into it when only after the arrival of sun and moon can you reasonably do that.
So God didn't know what He was doing when He put that in His bible? You are restricting God by saying that 24 hours could not have occured until after the creation of the sun and moon. He says it did occur before, so I'll take His word for it.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Now you're forcing God into you limited view. I never said God didn't know what he was doing. Only you have made that suggestion. I'm saying that you don't know what he was talking about and since there wasn't anything measurable about that time save light and darkness you can only speculate as to what that means once everything was finished but really have nothing else to base it on and since you don't believe science you stick yourself with a narrow definition. I suggest God knew exactly what he was doing and you don't. And by reading the text alone which gives no details apart from light and darkness with out the bodies of the rotating earth or the spinning sun which define for us hours and days you have no real idea. Maybe since it is a refain (light then darkness) maybe it was a song to memorize the importance of days and that God created the universe and the importance of the 7th day. There is so much you don't know that I find it funny you are certain of that which you have no idea.