 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > The Gap/Restoration theory... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 11:56 AM (GMT -6) |   |
MrIndifference
02/25/01 1:58 AM
The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gap/Restoration theory...
Is it Biblical?
Is it Theologically sound?
Is it supported by scientific evedence?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
whasssuuuppp
02/25/01 3:07 AM
RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi MrIndifference,
As for the Gap view being Biblically/Theologically sound, I would recommend reading the chapter on this in God at War, and make your own judgment call. There's some pretty interesing linguistical evidence in there exploring the Hebrew meaning of words like Tohu Wabohu (formless and void), Tehom(?) (the deep), and others, along with an interesting discussion about Jewish restorationist ideas. It IS interesting that there is this pattern in the OT of "pruning"--meaning that when a situation gets so bad God has to basically "scrap" it, he salvages what he can and then starts over. The Gap theory fits well with this. Anyways, read the book if you can.
I think what I most appreciate about the discussion is how GB shows that Genesis 1 is MOST likely not even a "chronological" record of how God created. It is an account written in the midst of a Pagan culture and it contrasts Yahweh's power against the powerless gods of Paganism. Pagans worshipped the god of light, Genesis says that Yahweh-God CREATED the light. Pagans worshipped the god of water. Yahweh CREATED the water. You get the picture.
As for the SCIENTIFIC evidence, well, the interesting thing about the Gap theory is that it really doesn't matter WHAT comes up in science, what new discoveries are made about the age of this universe or that star, etc, because no one has or could try to say how long the "gap" between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 actually is. If the scientists say 4 billion years, fine. If they say 20 billion, fine. The dinosaurs? No problem. Evolution, even? Why not? There'd be time for it.
Personally, I find the Gap theory quite intriguing. I've never really jived with those who insist on reading Genesis 1 like a scientific textbook description of how and when God created this universe. Genesis 1 says to the Jews, "Look, here's the deal. This world is here, and I created it. I am much, much more powerful than the gods all of your neighbors are worshipping."
Time for bed. It's late.
Peace.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
02/25/01 2:42 PM
RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sup...
Thanks
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
02/26/01 2:11 AM
RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc or whomever
For some reason I seem to remember reading something about there being 10 different creation accounts in the bible. Don't quote me on this, I could be thinking about something else. Does anyone know if and where they may be located.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
03/02/01 1:25 AM
RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this might have some of what you are looking for:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/p0014.html
"Is it Biblical? Is it Theologically sound? Is it supported by scientific evedence?"
I don't think the gap theory can be supported by scientific evidence can it? Doesn't it posit two creations? (1) Scientists view the old original creation while the (2) Bible recods the second creation right? Apples and oranges...
We are admonished to test everything and to hold on to that which is good. If my understanding of this is true then what about the evidence in creation that the Bible speaks of? This doesn't seem consistent with the Gap theory. Are there different spins on the basics of the gap theory?
I am an advocate of the Day-Age interpretation. A regular RTB groupie
Lots of love,
Vinnie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
03/02/01 1:36 AM
RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My post could be confusing because of the "two creation" stuff depending upon how you use the words. BY two creations I meant God's creation got a little messed up and he restored it. This restoration is what I meant by the second creation.
Peace,
Vinnie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
03/02/01 12:15 PM
RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the info. I will have to check it out.
Jay
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
whasssuuuppp
03/02/01 2:09 PM
RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi ilgwamh and others,
I don't put a lot of effort into deciding what exactly I believe in regards to the theology of creation. I think I gravitate to the Gap Theory for reasons I mentioned in a previous post. But I haven't looked much into other views, either. Truthfully, I find it all pretty interesting and would read more if I could, but in the end I'm not real concerned debating endlessly.
BUT, that said, the main reason I WOULD study it more, if I had time, is because I think it is helpful to offer people skeptical of Christianity plausible explanations for how science and Christianity interface. So, on this thread, I do think the Restoration theory is scientifically plausible--the 2 "creations" aren't the same--Gap theorists would hold that God created the universe "ex nihilo" and then, when things had gotten very bad, destroyed the first creation and "fashioned" a new universe out of the old one. Not really something that conflicts with modern science.
Anyways, just wanted to clarify a little. If you have time, tell me more about the day-age theory--doesn't it hold that each "day" in Genesis spans epochs of time (millions of years)? It tends to fit well with science, does it not?
Peace, ms. wassup
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
mn777saint
03/02/01 3:57 PM
RE: RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A day is as a thousand years & a thousand years is as a day
Wether that applies to creation or not is ilrealivant - let me explain
I had the oppotunity to be in the middle of a heated debate between a Pastor and a Science Major. While I was hearing both men argue over the "Age of the Earth" One side held to the Earth is billions & billions of years old and evelution happen over that time - the other side held to God created the world in 6 Days and in those 6 days God created Man, and Man has only been on this Earth approx. 6 thousand years. Each using sience to approximatly date a given object.
During this debate - I bieng only part of the observers felt moved by the Holy Spirit - I was to Stop this Debate and to speak God's word. Who am I to say no to God.
So I did what God told me to do & trusted him to give me the words to say. What I was to say, I didn't know until it came out my mouth. I stood up and walked up and stood between the two men took a quarter out of my pocket held it up between them and said "What do you see?"
one responded "Heads", the other "Tails" I continued to speak as I was told to and said "Your both correct in what you say, for the coin has two sides, just as you are both correct in the age of the earth" now that really got them confused, my self included, I was thinking "What???" I open my mouth and continued I said to the Scientist "You say that the Earth is Billions & Billions of years old, and I say you are correct in that the earth is very, very old as you say." Now the Pastor wasn't happy about that one so I turned to him and said "You say God created the Earth in 6 days and in that He also created Man, let me ask then, witch came first the chicken or the egg?" his responce was "The Chicken - of course" I Then Said "Lets continue on that premise that God in His creation created a fully already aged mature chicken, so when he created Man, did he create an infant or a fully already aged mature Man? - Of couse Man who bieng only seconds in existance - was already fully mature at the time of creation.
So then why is it so hard to say that God didn't do the same thing to the Earth and the Universe - Fully Aged and Mature at the time of creation.
Bieng in existance for only say less then 13 thousand years, yet bieng at the same time Billions & Billions of years old"
That ended the debate & both of them said "Now that makes sence"
God Is Good
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
mn777saint
03/02/01 3:58 PM
RE: RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A day is as a thousand years & a thousand years is as a day
Wether that applies to creation or not is ilrealivant - let me explain
I had the oppotunity to be in the middle of a heated debate between a Pastor and a Science Major. While I was hearing both men argue over the "Age of the Earth" One side held to the Earth is billions & billions of years old and evelution happen over that time - the other side held to God created the world in 6 Days and in those 6 days God created Man, and Man has only been on this Earth approx. 6 thousand years. Each using science to approximatly date a given object.
During this debate - I bieng only part of the observers felt moved by the Holy Spirit - I was to Stop this Debate and to speak God's word. Who am I to say no to God.
So I did what God told me to do & trusted him to give me the words to say. What I was to say, I didn't know until it came out my mouth. I stood up and walked up and stood between the two men took a quarter out of my pocket held it up between them and said "What do you see?"
one responded "Heads", the other "Tails" I continued to speak as I was told to and said "Your both correct in what you say, for the coin has two sides, just as you are both correct in the age of the earth" now that really got them confused, my self included, I was thinking "What???" I open my mouth and continued I said to the Scientist "You say that the Earth is Billions & Billions of years old, and I say you are correct in that the earth is very, very old as you say." Now the Pastor wasn't happy about that one so I turned to him and said "You say God created the Earth in 6 days and in that He also created Man, let me ask then, witch came first the chicken or the egg?" his responce was "The Chicken - of course" I Then Said "Lets continue on that premise that God in His creation created a fully already aged mature chicken, so when he created Man, did he create an infant or a fully already aged mature Man? - Of couse Man who bieng only seconds in existance - was already fully mature at the time of creation.
So then why is it so hard to say that God didn't do the same thing to the Earth and the Universe - Fully Aged and Mature at the time of creation.
Bieng in existance for only say less then 13 thousand years, yet bieng at the same time Billions & Billions of years old"
That ended the debate & both of them said "Now that makes sence"
God Is Good
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
mn777saint
03/02/01 4:00 PM
RE: RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A day is as a thousand years & a thousand years is as a day
Wether that applies to creation or not is ilrealivant - let me explain
I had the oppotunity to be in the middle of a heated debate between a Pastor and a Science Major. While I was hearing both men argue over the "Age of the Earth" One side held to the Earth is billions & billions of years old and evelution happen over that time - the other side held to God created the world in 6 Days and in those 6 days God created Man, and Man has only been on this Earth approx. 6 thousand years. Each using science to approximatly date a given object.
During this debate - I bieng only part of the observers felt moved by the Holy Spirit - I was to Stop this Debate and to speak God's word. Who am I to say no to God.
So I did what God told me to do & trusted him to give me the words to say. What I was to say, I didn't know until it came out my mouth. I stood up and walked up and stood between the two men took a quarter out of my pocket held it up between them and said "What do you see?"
one responded "Heads", the other "Tails" I continued to speak as I was told to and said "Your both correct in what you say, for the coin has two sides, just as you are both correct in the age of the earth" now that really got them confused, my self included, I was thinking "What???" I open my mouth and continued I said to the Scientist "You say that the Earth is Billions & Billions of years old, and I say you are correct in that the earth is very, very old as you say." Now the Pastor wasn't happy about that one so I turned to him and said "You say God created the Earth in 6 days and in that He also created Man, let me ask then, witch came first the chicken or the egg?" his responce was "The Chicken - of course" I Then Said "Lets continue on that premise that God in His creation created a fully already aged mature chicken, so when he created Man, did he create an infant or a fully already aged mature Man? - Of couse Man who bieng only seconds in existance - was already fully mature at the time of creation.
So then why is it so hard to say that God didn't do the same thing to the Earth and the Universe - Fully Aged and Mature at the time of creation.
Bieng in existance for only say less then 13 thousand years, yet bieng at the same time Billions & Billions of years old"
That ended the debate & both of them said "Now that makes sence"
God Is Good
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
03/02/01 5:31 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either I'm seeing triple, or Saint777 just posted the same message three times.
Linguistic evidence aside (see God at War), one of the theological advantages of the gap theory is that it explains how the world could be filled with violence and pain -- animals eating animals, tar bits sucking animals to suffocating death, etc. -- before Adam ever fell. For those who do not think Satan was involved on the planet prior to Gen. 3, how do you explain this suffering? Was THIS carnivorous state of affairs God's ideal -- what God called "good"? Why was the entire creation in Gen 1 vegetarian (vs. 31)? Why does Scripture depict a non-violent, vegetarian kingdom in the eschaton (e.g. the Lion lays down with the lamb)? If it is not God's ideal will for animals to devour other animals, then it seems we have to admit that a different will, opposing God, a will that is "like a lion, seeking whom he may devour" was at work in creation prior to Gen. 1:2.
What'd ya think?
GB
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
03/02/01 7:14 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept that God created the world fully aged and mature upon creation is something that I have problem with. It is fine if you are talking about the redemption of the world like in the Gap Theory, but wouldn't it go against who God is if He created a fully formed earth especially if upon creation it had what seemed to be a pre-creation history. I see that as a fabrication of something that had never happened...a lie.
The Gap theory as a whole is something that I generally agree with. Biblically I don't see any reference of there being any for of death before the fall of Adam. If there is nothing about it in the bible, then we must rely on science.
Here are some ?'s for you. When was the fall of Satan? was it somewhere between Gen 1.1 1.2, or was it later in the creation process? Do we have reason to believe that there was death before the fall of Adam? Biblical? Scientific? The references to Yam, Leviathan, Behemoth, Tiamat, and the Sea, could they also be placed, for example, durring the flood of Noah and before? Demons as we know them, could they simply be pre-flood man not under the covenant of salvation?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
MrIndifference
03/03/01 12:14 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm.
I figured I would get some sort of reaction from the whole "pre-flood man not under the covenant of salvation" Comment. No I was not sereous about that particular question, Just so you know.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ilgwamh
03/12/01 11:26 AM
RE: The Gap/Restoration theory...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First things first: *throws big mushy tomato at Boyd for bringing up...uh...er..."apparent" vegetarian verse* I'll try to offer an opinion on that later. I have a few possible ways that stretch...er...I mean argue how that verse does not imply animals did not engage in carnivorous activity before the fall.
quote:
"BUT, that said, the main reason I WOULD study it more, if I had time, is because I think it is helpful to offer people skeptical of Christianity plausible explanations for how science and Christianity interface."
Thats one of the reasons I study this issue too (1 Pet 3:15). Science is one of my passions too. I also study this issue for myself and for other Christians. We are to love God with our heart, mind, and soul. For me, its hard to love with my mind when the plants are created before the sun, the earth is 6,000 -10,000 years old or when you find other "contradictions" between dueling revelations. I personally beleive science and the Bible can never contradict one another. God is the author of both and He can't lie. The creation declares His glory, His invisible qualities and divine nature. I think there are really 67 books in the Bible counting general revelation. In this view a discrepancy between science in the Bible is due to an inaccurate interpretation/understanding of either the Bible or science.
"Some readers might fear I am implying that God's revelation through nature is somehow on an equal footing with His revelation through the words of the Bible. Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error. Just as it is absurd to speak of some entity as more perfect than another, so also one revelation of God's truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another. It could be different, just like the content of Ezra is distinct from that of Romans, but it canno be better or worse. Thus when science appears to conflict with theology, we have no reason to reject either the facts of nature or the Bible's words. Rather, we have reason to reexamine our interpretations of those facts and words because sound science and sound biblical exegesis will always be in harmony." (Ross, Creation and Time, pg. 57-58)
quote:
So, on this thread, I do think the Restoration theory is scientifically plausible--the 2 "creations" aren't the same--Gap theorists would hold that God created the universe "ex nihilo" and then, when things had gotten very bad, destroyed the first creation and "fashioned" a new universe out of the old one. Not really something that conflicts with modern science.
Thats the main reason for my addendum but I'm not sure about the gap theory being scientifically plausible. I have read that it posits scientists (astronomers, geophysicists, paleontologists, et cetera) measure the ancient ruined creation while Genesis one and the other creation accounts speak of the restoration or second creation (not ex nihilo). The gap theory would then just be silent with regards to science would it not? No matter what scientists find the gap theory fits. Its not really testable and falls outside of the realm of science, accrding to the most germane definition of science.
I guess I'll throw my comments on the gap theory out there for review. I believe the gap theory is inconsistent with both the Bible and science. Thats getting right to the point huh?
I think one has a hard time reconciling general revelation with the gap theory. When the Bible tells us to look up at the sky and ask ourselves who made these, are we looking at the old ruined creation or the new creation? It would have to be the old ruined creation as stars are much older than the earth and when we look at them we are actually looking into the past (it takes a long time for the light to reach us). This ruined creation is what declares the glory of God and proclaims the work of his hands? If the gap theory is true it was the restoration that was deemed good was it not?
On a scientific level I think a lot of scientists would argue that the physical laws have not changed since the beginning of our universe. Starlight gives us direct evidence of its age. The creation scientists measure seems to be the only one. Paul tells us to test everything and to hold on to that which is good. When we "test" the age of stars we get a really old age. Genesis 1-3 doesn't really seem to imply the laws of physics changed at all. Things like thermodynamics and electromagnetism are implied throughout. Maybe I am misunderstanding the gap theory but it seems to lack evidence. When we look at God's creation and try to scientifically determine its history should we not get an account consistent with the one in the Bible on the basis of the dual revelation recorded in the Bible. But there is always the framework interpretation...
"I have also read that in Gen. 1:2 the verb haya is not followed by the hebrew proposition la. Haya + la is what is used in Gen. 2:7
"The phrase tohu wabohu appears in only two other passages in scripture. Isaia 24:11 and Jeremiah 4:23. In both instances the context points to future actions by sinful humans. No compelling reason exists to put a pejorative spin on tohu wabohu in all contexts." (Ross, The Genesis Question, page 25).
quote:
"Anyways, just wanted to clarify a little. If you have time, tell me more about the day-age theory--doesn't it hold that each "day" in Genesis spans epochs of time (millions of years)? It tends to fit well with science, does it not?"
I think it fits well with science. It doesn't really mesh well with neo-darwinistic evolution though. At least I don't think so.
Basically, just as God's ways are not our ways, His days are not our days. A lot of early church fathers tended to view the days of creation as thousand year periods. Interpreting Genesis 1 other than including 24 hour days is not without precedent.
A general run down of the day/age interpretation:
The opening verse in the Bible that makes a bang:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Creation ex hihilo. Hebrew word bara is used. Indicates a type of creating only God can do. The universe (hebrew phrase heavens and earth refers to the totality of creation, including time!) did not always exist. Some people see a direct corollary between Genesis 1:1 and Big Bang Cosmology. The space, time, matter or energy, and dimensions of this universe popped into existence around 15 billion years ago.
Hebrews 11:3 reads, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." The visible universe was made from that which we cannot see, detect, or measure.
Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters
Verse two in the creation account is very important because it sets our reference frame for the rest of the account. Our reference frame is now on the earth's surface not in the starry realm. The text says "darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters." The reason this reference frame is so important will become clear in a minute.
"Genesis 1:3, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
Is this the creation of electromagnetic radiation? The first appearance of light? According to science it cannot be as the sun was around before the earth. Light was created in the very beginning. One initial condition of the earth's surface was darkness. There were still planetesimals and all kinds of debris from our original solar nebula surrounding the earth. New evidence in planetary formation shows that all planets start off with thick layers of gases surrounding them. Planetary debris and these gases keep sunlight from reaching the surface of new planets. Planets start off with opaque atmospheres ergo, surface darkness. This is what the Bible is describing. It is only referring to one small part of the electromagnetic spectrum: visible light. It is not saying that electrons went up an orbital and came back down for the very first time. As verse 1:2 shows, our perspective is on the earth's surface and light appeared. Sunlight was starting to break through the debris and gas.
"The Hebrew verb used in God's opening statement, "Let there be light," is haya, meaning "to exist; to be; to happen; or to come to pass." The verbs bara, asa, and yasar, meaning "create," "make," and "form," respectively are not used, and this word choice makes sense." (The Genesis Question, Hugh Ross, page 30-31)
Gravity would have over time cleared up some debris, gas, and space junk. Genesis 1:3 when understood properly accurately describes the early state of our atmosphere and its transition from opaque to translucent.
Thats why the reference frame is so important. It puts you on the earth's surface.
Genesis 1:4-5, God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
Now that the atmosphere is no longer opaque we can tell that there is such a thing as day and night. The suns light wasn't able to reach the surface and therefore day and night were nonexistent on the earth until this time. Now that some light comes through we can tell that here is a day and night cycle. It should be noted that the sun still cannot be seen from earth at this time. The atmosphere has become more light-permeable but it is not until its transition from translucent to transparent that the outline of the sun can be seen.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the creation account between Christians is the length of the "days" in Genesis. Young-earth creationists argue that God created everything in 6 days. Old-earth creationists, myself included, say God created the heavens and the earth over billions of years.
Gerald L. Schroeder in his book, The Science of God, has argued that God could have created the universe in six days in his reference frame but from ours it took 15,000,000,000 years. This may sound like science-fiction but rest assured it is not. There is a time dilation formula anyone familiar with basic algebra can use. Time dilation finds its roots in relativity. There are no absolute reference frames and the speed of light is always constant regardless of its source's motion (2 postulates of relativity). Using these facts we could create a "light clock" and very easily demonstrate, in a thought experiment, that time does dilate. Time is not universal. All of our times travel at slightly different rates. The difference in rates is so small that here on earth we call them negligible or zero. Traveling at relativistic speeds changes the picture entirely. There are parts of Schroeder's material that I disagree with but I generally find his info to be interesting to read.
The NIV Study Bible text note on verse 1:5 (first appearance of the word "day" in the Bible) says, "Some say the creation days were 24-hour days, others that they were indefinite periods." I want to delve a little deeper into the subject and look at the Hebrew meanings of the word translated "day."
The word for "day" in the Genesis account is yom. Yom means a few things: sunrise to sunset, sunset to sunrise, a space of time (defined by an associated term), an age; time or period (without any reference to solar days). The third definition of yowm up above shows why the Niv text note says, "Some say the creation days were 24-hour days, others that they were indefinite periods." It says that because a literal interpretation of the text can also say six epochs instead of six days. There is nothing in the Genesis account that must be translated as six literal twenty-four hour days. Look up the word "day" in a concordance or Hebrew lexicon. The New American Standard Hebrew Lexicon is available online at www.biblestudytools.com
Genesis 2:4 provides an excellent example of yowm's various meanings. The word yowm can be found in verse 2:4 but it does not refer to a literal 24 hour period. Crack open your Bible and a Hebrew Lexicon and see for yourself. It refers to God's creative week. "The word "day" sometimes signifies an indefinite time (Genesis 2:4; Isaiah 22:5; Hebrews 3:8, etc.). In Job 3:1 it denotes a birthday, and in Isaiah 2:12, Acts 17:31, and 2 Timothy 1:18, the great day of final judgment." (Easton's Bible Dictionary )
Some have suggested that because of the ordinal (i.e. fist day, second day etc.) that the "days" must be interpreted as literal twenty-four hour periods.
"This argument can be challenged on several counts. For one, it is true only for passages describing days of human activity rather than days of divine activity. For another, nowhere else does the Bible have the occasion to enumerate sequential epochs. More important, the rules of Hebrew grammar do not require that yôm must refer to twenty-four hours, even when attached to an ordinal.
Hosea 6:2 prophesies that "after two days he [God] will revive us [Israel]; on the third day he will restore us." For centuries Bible commentators have noted that the "days" in this passage (where the ordinal is used) refer to a year, years, a thousand years, or maybe more." (Creation and Time, Hugh Ross, chapter 5. Available online at www.reasons.org)
We now move on to the "evening" and "morning" in the Genesis account. We have discussed a lot so I will quote the scripture I am referring to in case anyone has forgotten it: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day. (Genesis 1:5)" We already went through the "day" aspect of this verse but do "evening" and "morning" signify a literal twenty-four hour day? Here are the Hebrew words translated morning and evening and their definitions:
The words translated evening and morning in Hebrew are the words 'ereb' and boqer'
ereb: the beginning of darkness; dusk, twilight, or nightfall; closing, ending, or completion.
boqer: the breaking forth of light; dawn, daybreak, or morning; dawning, beginning or origin.
The Hebrew word 'ereb, translated evening, also means "sunset," "night," or "ending of the day." And the word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of day," "break of day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage.
In other words, evening and morning refer to the beginning and ending components of "day," however it is used. For example, "in my grandfather's day" refers to my grandfather's lifetime. So the morning and evening of his day would be his youth and old age." (. Creation and Time, Hugh Ross, chapter 5)
Genesis1:6-9 "Verses six through nine draw very little attention from skeptics. Verses six through eight seem to describe the formation of the earth's troposphere while verse nine accurately depicts another condition of the early earth: the primordial ocean that blanketed the early earth and the formation of land through vulcanism and plate tectonics."
Does the Bible really teach the sun was created after the earth? How could the plants survive without the sun? Young earth creationists have attempted to discredit the old earth creationist interpretation of scripture saying that if each "day" were millions or billions of years long then how could the plants survive without the sun until day four? Young earth creationists claim that their literal twenty four hour interpretation solves this dilemma while advocating the inaccurate notion that plant life could have survived for a mere twenty four hour period without the sun. Without the sun the temperature would have been close to absolute zero. It would have been far to cold for plants to have survived one day. Young earth creationists must venture off and speculate that God somehow sustained the plants.
Verses fourteen through nineteen do not describe the creation of our sun and moon. They describe the transition of our atmosphere from translucent to transparent. As previously mentioned, the earth started off veiled in darkness. Verse two establishes our reference frame as the earth's surface. Verse three describes the transition of our atmosphere from opaque to translucent. While translucent day and night could be discerned from the earth's surface but the sun, moon and stars were not yet visible. The Bible teaches us that on day four the visible outlines of the sun, moon and stars were able to pierce through the earth's atmosphere for the very first time. The earth's atmosphere was a lot thicker during its infancy. Weight Watchers not withstanding, the atmosphere's thinning is attributed to the slowing rate of the earth's rotation and a few other factors. At this point some may disagree with the Biblical material I have presented. After all, the Bible does say God "made" two great lights and the stars while discussing His creative acts on the fourth day. The resolution to this dilemma lies in the Hebrew language. "The Hebrew verb asa translated "made" appears in the appropriate form for completed action. There are no verb tenses in the Hebrew language to parallel verb tenses in English, but three Hebrew verb forms are used to denote action already completed, and commands." (The Genesis Question, Hugh Ross, page 44)
Verses seventeen and eighteen explain the reason God created the celestial bodies that became visible on the fourth creation day. "God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness." This seems to hint that the sun was already in existence when we are told day and night became visible in verse three where God said, "Let there be light."
That is the basics of the view I promote. I welcome questions though I may not be able to answer all of them. I think there are a few difficlties that need to be worked out but i think its the best interpretation right now.
I'll get to the Veggie verse a little later in another post.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:44 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|