• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Gap Theory

exchemist

Veteran Member
You make a good point...However, isn't naturalism suggesting a 14 billion year timeline without actually knowing for sure, because of no eyewitnesses?
The key word in your comment is "speculation." It was also speculated that the earth was younger or about 4.6 billion years old. This modern day readjustment is a clear indication that many in the scientific community just don't know how old the earth is, but refuse to admit this...However, there are bible verses that suggest the earth was created, became without form and void and was repopulated with form and life.
This is incorrect.

No theory in science is ever "known for sure" since it is always possible, at least in principle, that new data may show up weaknesses in it. That's why it is a misconception to think that a theory in science can ever be "proved". In science, a theory is a model of some aspect of the physical world from which correct predictions can be made.

The Big Bang cosmological model is supported by several lines of observed evidence and remains by far the best model we have to date, though it is obviously far from complete (e.g. the dark energy issue).

Periodic readjustments to the model are exactly what you expect, in any scientific model which is being actively researched. They are far from a sign that science has no idea, still less of a "refusal to admit" anything. However in this case, you seem to have confused the age of the universe with the age of the Earth. These are quite different things. There is no "modern day readjustment" involved. You seem to have misunderstood the science, that's all.

The Genesis accounts are clearly mythological accounts, designed to be understandable to the people of the time, which teach by means of allegory a number of crucial concepts on which Judaism and Christianity are founded. They serve their purpose admirably.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Does this mean that you trust the translation completely to be without errors, mistranslations or added words used to support a belief?
Of course not, especially since if one knows the difficulty of going from one language to another there's often problems. My wife is from Italy, and some words in Italian cannot be captured in English with just one word. And example is the word "ciao", which has different meanings based on context.

Theologians have long mainly used the RSV in the past, and I would suggest that there's been a reason for that.

I ask this because in the RSV the word "was" is used 20 times in Genesis 1. Yet the Hebrew word eithe (H1961) is used only twice...Once for Genesis 1:2 (was) and Genesis 1:3 for (be).
So? :shrug:
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Yes, I am…Because, you seem committed to avoiding the actual understanding of the Hebrew word eithe (H1961). Yet, to be clear I am not a Hebrew scholar, nor a Greek or English one. However, there are scholars that support my position or if you prefer I support their position, related to Genesis 1:2: Scofield reference bible, E.W. Bullinger's companion reference bible, Newberry reference bible, Dake's Annotated reference bible and Nelson study bible.
^ This is a joke. Give me a link to an online Bible that supports your position.

As for היה/היי, it is the Hebrew copula and, depending on conjugation and context, can be rendered in a number of ways as demonstrated by the eight full columns dedicated to the shoresh (root) in The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB) (9th printing, September 2005, pp 224-227). What we find in Genesis 1:2 is:

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

with הָיְתָה being the third person singular feminine past tense. While it can mean 'became,' Genesis 1:2 is commonly, in fact pervasively, translated as (she, it) "was" or some equivalent. In fact, BDB references Genesis 1:2 in Section III.4.b:

[to] Be - as copula, joining subj. & pred.: sq. pred. noun [followed by a predicate noun]​

I've already provided a link to Bible Hub: Genesis 1:2. In the 28 translations shown, all but one translate הָיְתָ֥ה as "was." The sole exception is Young's Literal Translation where we find "hath existed."

We can also look at ...

Robert Alter
and the earth was ...
The Chabad.org Complete Jewish Bible With Rashi Commentary
now the earth was ...
Everett Fox
when the earth was ...
Richard Elliott Friedman
when the earth had been ...
Jewish Publication Society
the earth being ..
.​
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
the earth was ...
New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT)
and the earth -- it was ...
Soncino Press Pentateuch (Hertz)
now the earth was ...
Stone Edition Tanach (ArtScroll)
when the earth was ...
For what it's worth, the online translations of the Targumim offer ...

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
the earth was
Targum Onkelos
the earth was

Note that "became" is conspicuously absent.

I'm looking forward to your link(s). However, having seen far too many threads like this yours over the years, I'm not holding my breath.

Also a review of Genesis 1:2 in the Hebrew Old Testament Interlinear is more support.
You no doubt mean something like the Study Bible Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament (HOTI) Genesis 1:2 where we find ...

and the earth was

Thanks for sharing.
 
Last edited:

DKH

Member
If you are suggesting that there was life before the earth was prepared in verse 2, and you are concentrating on one word to suggest that......
I'm suggesting that God created the universe and the earth to certain specifications (Genesis 1:1). He then created celestial beings (angels) with abilities and powers to create. They also would inhabit this universe. He (God) assigned them to beautify what was created, under supplied guidelines. Unfortunately, some (about a third) refused to follow these guidelines and did what pleased themselves, not God. This resulted in God (or other celestial beings) destroying the work that some foolishly created. As far as, relating to the earth, the disobedience was so great that it resulted in what's referenced in Genesis 1:2 and can also refer to the other planets in our solar system…So yes, I'm proposing that life (both celestial and physical) existed on the planet earth and other planets, before human beings were created and before the six days of renewal, of the planet earth. Therefore, the word "was" (in Gen.1:2) cannot correctly reference the condition of the planet earth at creation, as many believe. Because, the gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and the condition in Genesis 1:2, must be referenced as become or became, not was. Hence, using the word "was" implies that God created the earth in such a condition and this just isn't truth. So, please supply the bible verses that you feel disagree with this position. Thanks in advance…

Note: This posting is my personal belief/opinion and should only be understood in that context.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
in the Bible "day" is a flexible term that can describe different lengths of time. It can be anything from the 24 hours we're familiar with, to an undefined amount of time.


Says who? The Bible sure doesn't say that.

That's just stuff some religious people make up in order to try to reconcile "The Word of God" with their version of reality.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
No, I'm not! This was my comment: This modern day readjustment is a clear indication that many in the scientific community just don't know how old the earth is, but refuse to admit this.

What do you mean they don't know? How exact do you expect them to be? Unlike your fantasy story, the earth didn't instantaneously appear fully formed. According to science, this process took between 10-20 million years about 4 1/2 billion years ago.

The problem is that many in scientific community refuse to admit that they just don't know, how old the earth is.
If you are correct that there are many, you should have no problem in naming some and what their confusion is.








Because, the bible doesn't tell us
Please show where Bishop Ussher's calculations are wrong.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Everyone seems to assume that Genesis is talking about matter and the material universe that is the subject of science.

Another interpretation is Genesis is talking about the formation of the human spirit; modern human consciousness.

I'm suggesting that God created the universe and the earth to certain specifications (Genesis 1:1). He then created celestial beings (angels) with abilities and powers to create.

This resulted in God (or other celestial beings) destroying the work that some foolishly created.

That there are so many "interpretations" of even just the first part of your holy scripture, shows it is worthless.

It's like a song from in A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum..
Something familiar,
Something peculiar,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!

Something appealing,
Something appalling,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!

Nothing with kings, nothing with crowns;
Bring on the lovers, liars and clowns!
Old situations,
New complications,
Nothing portentous or polite;
Tragedy tomorrow,
Comedy tonight!
Something convulsive,
Something repulsive,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!

Something aesthetic,
Something frenetic,
Something for everyone:
A comedy tonight!

Something for everyone, indeed. Interpret God's Holy Word any way you want. Find something you don't like or disagree with? No problem, just reinterpret. (Or, just start a new religion.)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I'm suggesting that God created the universe and the earth to certain specifications (Genesis 1:1). He then created celestial beings (angels) with abilities and powers to create.

So you are saying that angels (celestial beings) were created after the earthly creation was completed and that these were given creative power?
Where will I find that in the scriptures? :shrug:
If this is your opinion, then without backup its not worth much...is it?

I could refer you to Job 38:3-9... from the Tanakh...where God says to Job...
"Now gird your loins like a man, and I will ask you and [you] tell Me. גאֱזָר־נָ֣א כְגֶ֣בֶר חֲלָצֶ֑יךָ וְ֜אֶשְׁאָֽלְךָ֗ וְהֽוֹדִיעֵֽנִי:
4 Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell if you know understanding. דאֵיפֹ֣ה הָ֖יִיתָ בְּיָסְדִי־אָ֑רֶץ הַ֜גֵּ֗ד אִם־יָדַ֥עְתָּ בִינָֽה:
5 Who placed its measures if you know, or who extended a line over it? המִי־שָׂ֣ם מְ֖מַדֶּיהָ כִּ֣י תֵדָ֑ע א֚וֹ מִֽי־נָטָ֖ה עָלֶ֣יהָ קָּֽו:
6 On what were its sockets sunk, or who laid its cornerstone? ועַל־מָ֖ה אֲדָנֶ֣יהָ הָטְבָּ֑עוּ א֥וֹ מִֽי־יָֽ֜רָ֗ה אֶ֣בֶן פִּנָּתָֽהּ:
7 When the morning stars sing together, and all the angels of God shout? זבְּרָן־יַ֖חַד כּ֣וֹכְבֵי בֹ֑קֶר וַ֜יָּרִ֗יעוּ כָּל־בְּנֵ֥י אֱלֹהִֽים:
8 And [who] shut up the sea with doors when it broke forth and issued out of the womb? חוַיָּ֣סֶךְ בִּדְלָתַ֣יִם יָ֑ם בְּ֜גִיח֗וֹ מֵרֶ֥חֶם יֵצֵֽא:
9 When I made the cloud its raiment and the dark cloud its wrapping? טבְּשׂוּמִ֣י עָנָ֣ן לְבֻשׁ֑וֹ וַֽ֜עֲרָפֶ֗ל חֲתֻלָּתֽוֹ"


Here was God asking Job what he knew about creation? When God founded the earth, according to Genesis 1:1 at the same time that he created the universe, the angels were shouting in what was apparently praise and excitement at what God had accomplished. It seems as if the angels are intensely interested in what is going on down here, especially now because it involves them, thanks to the actions of one of their own. (1 Peter 1:12)

It also brings out the point that God "made the clouds its raiment" and "wrapped it in dark clouds"...hence the "darkness upon the surface of the watery deep" mentioned in Genesis 1:2.

Its always a good idea to allow scripture to interpret other scripture....it does if you give it a chance.

They also would inhabit this universe. He (God) assigned them to beautify what was created, under supplied guidelines.

Actually, it was the humans that God assigned to beautify the earth if you notice in the mandate to "fill the earth" with their kind was also the instruction to "subdue" the earth...most likely because outside the garden of Eden was pretty much an untouched wilderness. By giving the humans an assignment like that, he would have kept them pretty busy for quite some time. They were designed for work and with God's eye for beauty and creativity, they had the garden as a blueprint for what the rest of the earth was to become....what an amazing prospect! The whole earth like the garden of Eden!.....but someone messed it up.

Their creativity was to be reflected without supernatural powers...they were mortals who didn't need them for the assignment they were given. Satisfying work and unending life, with no sickness, suffering or death.....who could ask for more?

Unfortunately, some (about a third) refused to follow these guidelines and did what pleased themselves, not God. This resulted in God (or other celestial beings) destroying the work that some foolishly created.

You seem to have that a bit muddled up. After satan's rebellion, God handed rulership of the world over to the one who thought he could be a god to the newly created humans. (Luke 4:5-8) God did not destroy the rebels straight away because that would have only proven that he was more powerful....satan never challenged God's power...he challenged his Sovereignty...his right to set the limits of human freedom.

Satan managed to get some of his fellow angels on board and they turned themselves into the demons that have plagued mankind ever since. Only up to the time of the flood did they have the ability to materialize, which is the reason why God had to intervene in such a dramatic way by flooding the world and eliminating their freakish offspring from existence and to make sure that their demon fathers returned to the spirit realm where God dealt with them. Their materialized bodies would have perished with their monstrous children, so they were force to dematerialize and face the music......but God was not finished with them just yet. He will finish what he started. (Isaiah 55:11)

As far as, relating to the earth, the disobedience was so great that it resulted in what's referenced in Genesis 1:2 and can also refer to the other planets in our solar system…So yes, I'm proposing that life (both celestial and physical) existed on the planet earth and other planets, before human beings were created and before the six days of renewal, of the planet earth.

How does that fit in with the reason why Christ came to ransom the human race with his own life?

There had to be a starting point in God's purpose for material creation. This eternal Being who has existed as long as eternity, came to a point where he determined to become a Creator. The Bible is his instruction manual for humankind to reveal what happened at the beginning and how he restores what was lost. His very first creation was his "firstborn" son...his "only begotten". The son was then used as the agency for all other creation, in heaven and on earth. (Colossians 1:15-17) The things in heaven came first.

I am supposing that you might at least read the Bible to back up your statements.....? But it appears that you don't really know much about what written in there that argues with your ideas.

Therefore, the word "was" (in Gen.1:2) cannot correctly reference the condition of the planet earth at creation, as many believe. Because, the gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and the condition in Genesis 1:2, must be referenced as become or became, not was. Hence, using the word "was" implies that God created the earth in such a condition and this just isn't truth. So, please supply the bible verses that you feel disagree with this position.

As @Jayhawker Soule has shown you....you are dead wrong about that word "was".....who told you that it was to be translated that way? Which translation fits the rest of scripture?

The Earth was at first "formless and waste" because God had not yet prepared it for life. The early creative periods were about that preparation. God's crowning achievement was the creation of man at the end of the 6th "day".....those whom he would assign as caretakers for his creation. After their creation, God expressed his great satisfaction with all that he had done.

Note: This posting is my personal belief/opinion and should only be understood in that context.

Yes, we know....but if you want to debate something, at least have something substantial to back up what you say....:facepalm:
 
Last edited:

DKH

Member
Something for everyone, indeed. Interpret God's Holy Word any way you want. Find something you don't like or disagree with? No problem, just reinterpret. (Or, just start a new religion.)
Well, you really don't expect us to take your interpretations seriously, do you? We (the believers in God) may not have all the answers and we may not agree on each other's interpretations of the writings. But, we do believe in God and that will eventually bring us to an agreement. If, not in this life, then in the next one, when God's Son will reveal all his Father's truths to us. However, those who don't believe in God should not be surprised or angered when their paths lead to a different conclusion…

Note: This posting is my belief/personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Says who? The Bible sure doesn't say that.

That's just stuff some religious people make up in order to try to reconcile "The Word of God" with their version of reality.

In both the Hebrew (yohm) and the Greek ( he·meʹra), the word “day” can be used in a literal and in a figurative/symbolic sense.

I don't expect you to take my word for it so in case you want to check:
Yom - Wikipedia.

ἡμέρα - Wiktionary
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Because, the gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and the condition in Genesis 1:2, must be referenced as become or became, not was.
And the only people to disagree with you are the many hundreds of scholars reflecting thousands upon thousands of hours of accumulated scholarship in the related fields of Biblical Hebrew and Semitic Studies whose translations and commentaries are readily available. The stark arrogance of your claim is simply astonishing.
 

DKH

Member
And the only people to disagree with you are the many hundreds of scholars reflecting thousands upon thousands of hours of accumulated scholarship in the related fields of Biblical Hebrew and Semitic Studies whose translations and commentaries are readily available. The stark arrogance of your claim is simply astonishing.
Yes, I accept this. But, I didn't say that I was seeking any type of approval…Yet, are you suggesting that the fallacious "argumentum ad populum" can apply hear? Where, I'm also reminded of a saying by the Christ (Messiah): If, they persecuted me, they will persecute you. Maybe, this is something to think about (IMO).
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Yes, I accept this. But, I didn't say that I was seeking any type of approval…Yet, are you suggesting that the fallacious "argumentum ad populum" can apply hear?
I'm suggesting that scholarship matters, that the failure to respect scholarship reflects pathetic arrogance, and that your claim is worthless on the face of it.

Let me add here that you don't seem to have a clue as to what argumentum ad populum is all about. So, for example:

to claim that Johny likely has cancer because the overwhelming majority of oncologists conclude he has cancer is not a fallacious argument.​
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Well, you really don't expect us to take your interpretations seriously, do you?

I don't believe I've offered any interpretations in this thread. Where I have offered interpretations I usually stick to what the Bible (or other holy scripture) actually says. I am a literalist. For instance:
The Beginning
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And 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.

The First Day: Light

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The Second Day: Firmament

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.​


The words in bold are Bible Hub's. They agree with the wording in Genesis. I agree with both.

Why bother calling something The Word of God and then, instead of accepting those words, try to make those words mean whatever you want them to. There is nowhere in the Bible, that I know of, that would lead anyone to think that a day means something other than a day.



We (the believers in God) may not have all the answers and we may not agree on each other's interpretations of the writings.

Uh huh. Those disagreements are one reason why there are 30,000 Christian denominations in the world.

But, we do believe in God
Do you? Just on this forum, I have heard Christians from some denominations say Christians from other denominations are not Christians at all. So, no. You all do not believe in the same God.

and that will eventually bring us to an agreement. If, not in this life, then in the next one, when God's Son will reveal all his Father's truths to us.

Yeah. It's kinda like Desi used to say: Lucy, you got some splainin' to do.

Maybe instead of God/Jesus/HolyGhost revealing all truths, He will ask why you didn't just accept and believe what He wrote to begin with.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
FOR @ecco & WHOMEVER CARES....

What did Adam say, after Eve was created?
"This is at last bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."

Nobody says "at last" after only one day!

Evidence from the text itself, reveals that some time had elapsed in that 6th day.
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
FOR @ecco & WHOMEVER CARES....

What did Adam say, after Eve was created?
"This is at last bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh."

Nobody says "at last" after only one day!

Evidence from the text itself, reveals that some time had elapsed in that 6th day.

Hi Hockeycowboy, I hope y'all doing well there

FWIW
I am not sure whether this is relevant to the thread, but I did look up the Hebrew and got this:

Gen ":23
וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֘ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם
Which translates as
And man said this time
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Hi Hockeycowboy, I hope y'all doing well there

FWIW
I am not sure whether this is relevant to the thread, but I did look up the Hebrew and got this:

Gen ":23
וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֘ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם
Which translates as
And and man said this time
Yeah, it seems relevant, thank you. I wonder what nuances are revealed in the Hebrew text, here? Because so many translations quote Adam as saying "at last."

I'm not a Hebrew Scholar, that's for sure.
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
Yeah, it seems relevant, thank you. I wonder what nuances are revealed in the Hebrew text, here? Because so many translations quote Adam as saying "at last."

I'm not a Hebrew Scholar, that's for sure.

Ditto .
I just did a literal translation.
As to the nuances, that's beyond my paygrade.
 
Top