The Gap Theory

[DKH]

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.​

I disagree that the presented hypothetical relates to: 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 (post 53). It also seems clear that the attempt to support ones position, using many selective individuals and their studies to make a claim of superiority or truthfulness over a minority of other commentaries and suggested translations falls under the definition of argumentum-ad-populum: a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that “if many believe so, it is so”.

Where, your several derogatory remarks have supported the argumentum-ad-populum suggestion. I have only given my beliefs/opinions. Therefore, it seems best that any further interaction be avoided (at the least, by myself). Thank you for your input.

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

 

[DKH]

I don't believe I've offered any interpretations in this thread.

It seems that most of your words in post 56 can be considered interpretations (IMO).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

It is also a wholly unsubstantiated opinion maintained in the face of clearly referenced scholarship to the contrary, and an opinion initially asserted as fact.

 

[DKH]

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

I, as well, reference the RVS. However, it seems that you do not think that adding unintended words to the text of the RSV makes a difference…I say this because of your comment "So" to my statement: 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). Well, the reality is that adding or even changing one word to another, can alter the meaning of a verse. Thus, the true understanding of what is intended is lost. So, the adding of the word "was" in several places, where it was not originally intended, can be misleading. This has occurred in Genesis 1:2 and has alter almost everyone's mindset to the true meaning of the verse (IMO).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

...in the RSV the word "was" is used 20 times in Genesis 1. Yet the Hebrew word eithe (H1961) is used only twice.

eithe (H1961)? Oh, my! What the heck is "eithe"?

For what it's worth, from Genesis 1:5 ...

וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד

And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.​

From Genesis 1:7 ...

וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

... And it was so.​

I could easily go on, but I doubt that it will help.

Parenthetically, the Hebrew verb system is complex. When referring to a particular verb the standard is to reference its 3rd person masculine singular of its Qal form.

 

[metis]

However, it seems that you do not think that adding unintended words to the text of the RSV makes a difference…

Literally every translation going back to the Hebrew being translated into Greek includes words not found in the originals, plus there's problems when going from Hebrew into Greek because the Hebrew doesn't include vowels, plus Greek is gender-sensitive.

Thus, the true understanding of what is intended is lost. So, the adding of the word "was" in several places, where it was not originally intended, can be misleading.

But it is virtually impossible, and even illogical, to supposedly know what was originally "intended".

This has occurred in Genesis 1:2 and has alter almost everyone's mindset to the true meaning of the verse (IMO).

Not really. A literalistic interpretation of the Creation accounts simply doesn't make sense based on what we now know in regards to the evolution of our universe and planet. How could the author possibly know what happened 13.7 billion years ago or even just 1 million years ago?

It's impossible for us today to know with any certainty what the author(s) was actually intending with these accounts, but what we do know is that they weren't there when our universe and planet were formed. And also what we do know is that there were other creation accounts with the other neighboring religions, thus it is quite possible that the intent was to counter them in regards to basic early Jewish teachings dealing with God in refutation of especially the Babylonian creation narrative that would have been well known by so many, even in eretz Israel. .

 

[ecco]

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.

How long did it take you to find that version?

Genesis 2 KJV
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


​

KJV just says "now".

This proves, once again, that your religion, like the song, has Something for Everyone.

Don't like one version, find a different version.
Don't like one interpretation, find a different version.

(That's why ya got 30,000 sects of Christianity).

In any case, trying to use "at last" just justify a belief that a day was more than a day is reeeeeeeeeealy a stretccccccccccccch.



BTW: In what translation did you find "at last"?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How long did it take you to find that version?

Less than a minute, actually...
From BibleHub.com:

New Living Translation
“At last!” the man exclaimed. “This one is bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh! She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken from ‘man.’”

English Standard Version
Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Christian Standard Bible
And the man said: This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called "woman," for she was taken from man.

Good News Translation
Then the man said, "At last, here is one of my own kind--Bone taken from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. 'Woman' is her name because she was taken out of man."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And the man said: This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called "woman," for she was taken from man.

International Standard Version
So the man exclaimed, "At last! This is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. This one will be called 'Woman,' because she was taken from Man."

NET Bible
Then the man said, "This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."

New Heart English Bible
And the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called Woman, because this one was taken out of Man."
————————————-
About half, I’d guess.....

Genesis 2:23 And the man said:


I’m doing some research on it.

 

[ecco]

It seems that most of your words in post 56 can be considered interpretations (IMO).

Really?
You consider my quoting Genesis from BibleHub being an interpretation?
You consider my pointing out that all the various interpretations done by Christians is one of the reasons there are 30,000 denominations as my interpreting something from the Bible?




Let's get real. Go back to post #56 and show even one paragraph that you would consider my interpretations.




Also, I see you had no snappy retort for...

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.

 

[DKH]

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? If this is your opinion, then without backup its not worth much...is it?

To satisfy my critics, let me say that my position is a theory and/or opinion based on inspired understandings and materials studied…Yet, to claim that I have stated my beliefs differently, would be incorrect.

So, reviewing the verses you gave relating to Job 38:3-9. I made an attempt to translate the Hebrew included (using Google translate, because of less bias). I also used the same method for the Jewish Bible's Hebrew. The results were quite telling…The English translations from the Google translator did not agree with either your English translation or the Jewish Bible's Hebrew. But, there were similarities. However, the important aspect was that these verses in Job did not (in any way) show or imply that angels witnessed the creation of the earth, nor does any other bible verses…And, in reviewing how the present writings of Job came to be, there appears to have been several rewrites that spanned over many centuries, which included additions and had subtractions. So, my opinion may not be worth much, but the same could be said for past and modern translations of certain writings.

Also, one side note: I am not suggesting that angels were created after the earthly creation was completed…I'm stating that angels are the ones who did the beautifying and inhabiting to God's original design, which came to be before angels were created!

So, as far as, angels having creative powers; don't the JW's believe that the archangel Michael was given creative powers by God? Also, human beings have creative powers. Yet, angels are far superior to humans (Ps. 103:20 and 2 Peter 2:10-11). Thus, God is not limited in His powers! So, He can do what He wants to whoever He pleases. Therefore, where is your back-up for assuming that the archangel Michael was the only angel having creative powers?

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.

I'm sorry, but "most likely" will not suffice. If, it doesn't work for me, it can't work for you…Additionally, there are no references (in Genesis) that suggest God told Adam and Eve to beautify the planet. They were given the ability to reproduce and have dominion over other physical life. Where, God even had to clothe them after they left the garden. They would have no knowledge of farming or any other requirements for survival. They would need to be taught these skills. So, for an extended period of time, God or His angels would have needed to intervene. We also can review Genesis 1:11-13 (third day) where God ordered the planet earth to be covered with all types of vegetation. Then, in verses 20-25 (fifth day) the earth was covered with life. Of course, Adam/Eve were not around until the sixth day. Yet, it seems that from the time Adam/Eve were expelled from the garden, the humankind began destroying (slowly, but surely), not beautifying the earth…

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.

I question your idea that I'm a bit muddled, but your opinion is recognized. Yet, I reject the idea that God handed over the earth's rulership to Satan. Where, God has never given up His Supreme authority over His creation (including the earth). He has only allow others to use the earth and its resources. I don't know about others, but the Tempter doesn't rule over me, because of the mercy of God and His Son…Which, brings us to Luke 4:5-8. The Father of lies used all his influences to persuade the Christ to worship him and this attempt failed. The Devil wasn't able to give the kingdoms of the earth to the Christ, because the Christ was already promised this by his Father, the Supreme Authority over all…

Also, 2 Peter 2:4 plainly tell us that the fallen angels have been cast into the chains of darkness. And, Jude 6 tells us that they are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness. So, there doesn't seem to be much rulership, except for the power of persuasion, which can be rejected.

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

It doesn't…The Christ didn't exist at the time.

There had to be a starting point in God's purpose for material creation.

Yes, there was purpose for the universe and earth to exist, before the creation of the angels…Because, it would only make sense to create a realm (first) for the celestial life to abode in and something for them to accomplish. Where, many seem to have it backwards…Create life, put them into a holding pattern, then create a place for them to exist in, to work in and to enjoy. I don't think so, because God is much wiser than that (IMO)…

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.

The bible is only a highlight of history and God's instructions to mankind, which include the interpretations of man (nothing more, nothing less). Such as, the Christ was created an archangel. Where, is that recorded in the bible? However, I have back-up my statements, just not the way you would like.

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?

Do you accept Jayhawker Soule opinion, because he is a highly regarded scholar or because he agrees with you? Does he support your position on the Christ as well? As far as, references to my position, you can review a few of them in my post # 36. Thus, (IMO) translations are composed to fit what a religious organization (who paid for the translation) believes. However, for the most part, they are just copied from earlier ones. So, it is not unusual that certain verses could be recorded the same for all translations. But, that reality doesn't make the individual verses accurate…

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

Well, I believe I do…Its called making sense of the written word. Where, if something just doesn't fit the scenario, then more thought is required. Instead, of just believing what others claim or write. Isn't this what you support? In Jeremiah 8:8-10, it is recorded that the priests, prophets, the pen of the scribes and wise men were dealing falsely with the people. So, if it was happening then, it is happening today (IMO).

Therefore, the reason I include my note is because of the rules of the forum. I am in no way trying to convert or proselytize. I don't care if I'm believed or not, there is no sense of self-righteousness or embarrassment, either way…I'm just adding my point of view to the discussions. Isn't that what most are doing?

Note: Even though I have used some bible verses for support, this posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.

Thank you for your input

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How long did it take you to find that version?

Actually, Robert alter suggests:

"This one at last, bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh,​

"This one shall be called Woman,

for from man was this one taken."​

He then notes:

The speech takes the form of verse, a naming poem, in which each of the two lines begins with the feminine indicative pronoun, zo't, "this one," which is also the last Hebrew word of the poem, clinching it in a tight envelope structure.​

Similarly, Sefaria: Genesis (JPS) offers ...

Then the man said, “This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, For from man was she taken.”​

Rashi writes:

זאת הפעם THIS NOW — This teaches that Adam endeavoured to find a companion among all cattle and beasts, but found no satisfaction except in Eve (Yevamot 63a).​

 

[DKH]

You consider my quoting Genesis from BibleHub being an interpretation?
You consider my pointing out that all the various interpretations done by Christians is one of the reasons there are 30,000 denominations as my interpreting something from the Bible?

Yes, I do (in both cases). Since, you quoted bible verses and other sources of information relating to Christian denominations, you "own" those statements just like the authors do. Because, it should be understood that these are only interpretations of the writers. They cannot be classified as truth (word for word), until proven…I believe it has been shown (by myself) that bible verses, as they exist today, can be misleading and not actually show the intent of the original source. As far as, Christian denomination are concerned, there are other interpretations that disagree with your comment. So, the 30,000 number may not be accurate, thus only an interpretation of one's opinion.

Also, I have reviewed your additional comments to this thread and have concluded that they, as well, include interpretations.

Let's get real. Go back to post #56 and show even one paragraph that you would consider my interpretations.

This comment is a perfect example of an interpretation: 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 (post 56).

It is my belief that Jesus is not God or part of a Trinity. Nor, is the Holy Ghost (Spirit). The Spirit of God is the power of God, not a separate entity…Thus, this comment can only be an interpretation of one's opinion.

Also, I see you had no snappy retort for...

Well, (maybe) the reason for no snappy retort is that I agree with your interpretation! Which, would also make it my interpretation.

Yet, my statement (in post 51) was not that Christians interpret God the same way. I just stated that they (Christians) believe in God…Hence, if you don't believe in God, you are not a Christian.


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

 

[ecco]

Yes, I do (in both cases). Since, you quoted bible verses

If you don't want to accept the common definitions for interpretation and quotation there's not much point in having a discussion with you.

If you don't understand the difference between interpretation and quotation there's not much point in having a discussion with you.

quo·ta·tion
/ˌkwōˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.

in·ter·pre·ta·tion
/inˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of explaining the meaning of something.

 

[ecco]

This comment is a perfect example of an interpretation: 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 (post 56).

If you don't understand the difference between an interpretation and posing a question to you, then there is no point in having a conversation with you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To satisfy my critics, let me say that my position is a theory and/or opinion based on inspired understandings and materials studied.

That is comical.

 

[DKH]

If you don't want to accept the common definitions for interpretation and quotation there's not much point in having a discussion with you.

quo·ta·tion
/ˌkwōˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a group of words taken from a text or speech and repeated by someone other than the original author or speaker.

in·ter·pre·ta·tion
/inˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of explaining the meaning of something.

Well, we really aren't having a discussion, it seems more like written combat. Where, your supplied definition of quotation is only a generic understanding and needs further explanation. Such as, the wording must be an exact copy (no additions or subtractions). There must be references to: when, where and under what circumstances the quotation was written. Each quotation must acknowledge its source and an explanation for its significance. So, generalizing or omitting the source of claimed quotations make them unreliable…The original source of a quotation must be able to be verified fully. If, it can't, it can be rejected and reclassified as an interpretation of the written source.

Also, it has become clear (to me) that the intent of this topic has been sidetracked (at this point). So, I agree that having further interactions outside the purpose of the topic is useless.

 

[TheSimpleView]

Between verses Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there appears to be a "gap of time" that is not initially explained…Which, could be millions or even billions of years in length!

So, does the bible or any other religious book give us "hints" of what could have been going on during this time period? As well as, do these "hints" point to why humankind was created?

Creation vs. Non-Creation
While reading this post and the responses I thought how can this much energy go into something really can’t be definitely proved either way. Further more, why would you need to prove it? It really isn’t a proof of God’s reality but more of a partial or the start of an explanation of why God did what He did.
Most of the posts are way to complicated for me to understand. I believe the scriptures are absolutely the one way or the other workmanship of God. That being said, please allow me to submit a logical, bluntly literal, concept of what Genesis, 1 could be saying.
I’m not going to attempt anything fancy and definitely not attempt to contradict any of the scholarly, theologically detailed explanations I read in this post but rather just say what might be.
*In the beginning God created something with no form and unusable. Guessing it couldn’t be seen either.
*Than He said, “Let there be light” or, make it seen. The temporary was now separated from the eternal.
*Than He divided what could not be seen, what hid from God, from what could be seen. BIG spiritual implication.
*Let me stop for a second and review what was before this. (A War In Heaven) We tend to place the things that happened in eternity into time frames and moments that we can understand. Eternity however always was, always is, always will be. So the war in heaven would be in that category and not an occurrence that took place at some given time as time could not have existed in no time. If this is what was, it may have very well been damaging eternal existence as dark and light were one thing and because of this, unrepairable as it was. So God created the temporary inside the eternal and divided the light, the Holy, from the dark and hidden and said,” This is Good” and the separation was phase one.
* On the subject of all things temporal being create in six days, or 144 hours I have to reference the sun and moon being created on the forth day. If they were created at 12:01am that means everything else was done in 72 hours. I really don't understand why anyone sees an issue why this phase to the 4 day coildn't have lasted whatever, many days. God, can do anything, of this I personally believe there are no options. However, this is an absolute HOW approach to the mystery of creation. I personally believe that the Genesis account is about WHY, not HOW and thereby rendering HOW seekers frustrated, lacking and staring at their watches.
In Exodus 33, Moses wanted to see the fullness of God, he said “show me your glory” God said, remember God is eternal: was, is, will be, I can’t show you after now, the front part of me, but I will show you before now, the back part of me. I think it is at least possible that Moses saw creation and before creation. It is agreed upon by most that Moses’ pen constructed the Genesis account. If so, it than is not about creation but rather about God and what was.
Anyway, I feel that there is a lot of scriptural information that supports the idea that scriptural information, the account of God’s purpose given to mankind, is predominantly about WHY and not HOW and can be more accurately and more easily understood if God’s purpose and meaning is sought on the why.
I really hope this didn’t seem confrontational. I absouluty didn’t mean it that way.

 

[Goddess Kit]

The bible was imaginatively created during a very specific time period meant for that time period, so of course much will not be included since none of them consulted Nostradamus.

 

[DKH]

I really hope this didn’t seem confrontational. I absouluty didn’t mean it that way.

I didn't take your comments as confrontational…However, my position (on the subject matter) is not mainstream and I do not accept the interpretations of the scholarly or most of the other opinions given related to the topic introduced. While, it is true that my understandings can't be definitely proven (because human beings didn't exist until the sixth day of the earth's restoration and I followed much later)…Yet, I have used sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation to arrive at an opinion that answers the Gap Theory controversy. It also explains; why human beings were created.

Hence, there came a point when God decided to create celestial beings (angels). Yet, there would first need to be a place for these beings to exist-in and have purpose. So, God created the known universe, which included solar systems. Therefore, the universe that we exist-in was created for angels and not for humans. These angels were assigned various solar systems to beautify and create lower forms of physical life under God's will and design. This was their original purpose…Unfortunately, a percentage of these angels rebelled against God's will and design by creating what is known as flesh eating dinosaurs and probably other anomalies. It seems that during this time period, God's displeasure of the continued events, resulted in several (focused) mass extinctions of life within certain areas of the universe. However, it seems that God's patience eventually ran out and all form and physical life within the problem areas of the universe were completely destroyed…This can be supported by reviewing the conditions of the other planets outside the earth's region and within the solar system we (humans) exist-in…Thus, the angels who rebelled against God lost their ability to create life and their standing with God. They became outcasts and would need to be replaced in God's plan for family. This is where humans would enter the picture and where Genesis 1:2 begins God's will for the planet earth and the replacement of the sinning angels.

Thanks for your input…


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