Let's Talk About Genesis

[Jesus4Me]

It might be best to share how we are reading Genesis in relation to this so called gap theory. I'll start, and hopefully, others will share how they are reading Genesis OR you all can start reproving how I am reading it in defense of the gap theory.

Genesis 1st chapter of the King James Bible at this link below.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...01&version=KJV

If we were to place Genesis in a paragraph, I believe Genesis 1:1 is the topical sentance while the rest is God descibing how this was done, ending that paragraph in Genesis 2:3 with the creation of the seventh day.

Genesis 2:4 is actually the start of another paragraph, with the topical sentence starting another subject; here it is:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

So in other words, God is going over the event of the sixth day in more detail, talking about the origin of the generations of mankind since mn was not created yet to till the ground: thus proving that this no longer talking about how God created the heavens and the earth as a whole in the beginning.

So there is no two creation account; but the second account was about going into detail about the creation of mankind on that sixth day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's one point; that Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 2:4 are seperate topical sentences where the following sentences are in relations to that topical sentence.

Expounding on that point in relations to the gap theory, Genesis 1:2 is starting the topical sentence on how God created the heavens and the earth by clarifying in verse 2 that the earth had not existed at all.

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void;....

Now some will say that the earth had existed, and there was life on it, before it was emptied as inferring from one definition of void as meaning. The problem with reading that definition into the verse is that one is overlooking that the earth was without form as in non-existent.

God created light to create that first day where there was evening & morning.

God created the water planet and its upper atmosphere with space beyond on the second day.

Then God created the one land to appear instantaneously, having it surrounded by the sea. Pleochroic halos or Polonium halos are mayhap the only evidence that proves instantaneous creation out of all the firmament of dry land called earth.

http://www.halos.com/

Then the fourth day, God created the sun and the stars to govern the earth to give it its times and seasons.

That means not only did God create the sources for that light in the eavens that fourth day, but filled in the space between that source and the earth so that it can govern the earth that day & night.

So using the speed of light to say how old the earth is unBiblical just as it is to deny that Adam was made a full grown man, having knowledge and could speak.

God is setting up how He created everything, and He is not confined by the laws of science to do it. The laws of science is not lord over God. God is Lord over time & space when He was setting everything up to run.

So in regards to the gap theory, how can life exists inbetween Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2 if there was no sun nor stars for life to thrive on the earth until the fourth day?

There was no dry land to call it earth until the third day.

There was no water planet with an upper atmosphere and space beyond until the second day.

God had to create the very first day with evening & morning to set the stage of how He began creating the heavens & the earth within that six days of creation to rest on that seventh day which was created for man.

Now you can either use the KJV only to correct me by or just share how you are reading the Genesis account in defending the gap theory.

I am fully aware that other modern Bibles will say something different, but as you can see by the context of the reading, there was no heaven and earth as stated in verse 2 since they had yet to be created after that first day.

[awareness]

Bro J4M, please explain if you are taking the 7 days as literal 24 hr days???

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro J4M, please explain if you are taking the 7 days as literal 24 hr days???

I am one who takes these days as literal 24 hour periods, and have seen no reason why we should not.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

It might be best to share how we are reading Genesis in relation to this so called gap theory. I'll start, and hopefully, others will share how they are reading Genesis OR you all can start reproving how I am reading it in defense of the gap theory.

Now you can either use the KJV only to correct me by or just share how you are reading the Genesis account in defending the gap theory.

Genesis 1.1 in every translation says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Then Genesis 1.1 says the earth was wasted and empty.

What happened? How can God create the waste and empty? Think about it, did God actually need a few "practice runs" to get things right.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am one who takes these days as literal 24 hour periods, and have seen no reason why we should not.

That's an easy one bro Ohio. A 24 hour day is based upon the sun. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day. So tell me how long a day was before the sun and I'll tell how long the days were for God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's an easy one bro Ohio. A 24 hour day is based upon the sun. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day. So tell me how long a day was before the sun and I'll tell how long the days were for God.

Read about the first day.

[Timotheist]

Do not believe in the gap theory expounded by Lee: between 1:1 and 1:2

I personally believe that older versions of Genesis started with 2:4 as the introductory sentence, and covered only the A&E account.

The 7-day account was added later, which introduced contradictions.

Note that God's name changes from Elohim to Jehovah as one clue of this addition.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Do not believe in the gap theory expounded by Lee: between 1:1 and 1:2

I personally believe that older versions of Genesis started with 2:4 as the introductory sentence, and covered only the A&E account.

The 7-day account was added later, which introduced contradictions.

Note that God's name changes from Elohim to Jehovah as one clue of this addition.

Well howdy bro Timotheist. Ya kinda dropped out on us. Left us hangin'. Glad to see your return.

Growing up, and in the LC, it always went undeniably that, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. I knew nothing else was even possible.

But some time ago (before Bart Ehrman -- "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" - published mid 90s - a great read, btw -- I can see why inerrantists hate him) I came across scholars that see 4 authors, and/or editors, of the first 5 books :

1. The Yahwist
2. The Elohist
3. The Deuteronomist
4. The Priestly

But I don't ever remember coming across the theory that originally older manuscripts of Genesis started at 2:4.

Can you please provide your source of that claim?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's an easy one bro Ohio. A 24 hour day is based upon the sun. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day. So tell me how long a day was before the sun and I'll tell how long the days were for God.

There's absolutely no way to confirm how long the first day was. There was no sun to clock it with. The 7 day creation literalists just assume it was 24 hours ... but have no Biblical backing for that assumption ... none I've come across, nor has anyone brought one forth ... so far ... but it does make clear that time is not the same for God, as it is for us.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I don't ever remember coming across the theory that originally older manuscripts of Genesis started at 2:4.

Can you please provide your source of that claim?

Nope. I cannot recall who put the idea in my head. That was a long time ago.

It makes logical sense, however. The Elohist and the Yahwist unlikely got together to write Genesis. Rather, it looks like the Elohist text was added, interleaved, with the existing Yahwist text.

Genesis 2:4 looks to me to be the original first verse. All the earlier verses are Elohist, and the interleaving can be seen in later verses, esp when Elohim speaks to Himselves ('Us') at key points in the Yahwist text.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Nope. I cannot recall who put the idea in my head. That was a long time ago.

It makes logical sense, however. The Elohist and the Yahwist unlikely got together to write Genesis. Rather, it looks like the Elohist text was added, interleaved, with the existing Yahwist text.

Genesis 2:4 looks to me to be the original first verse. All the earlier verses are Elohist, and the interleaving can be seen in later verses, esp when Elohim speaks to Himselves ('Us') at key points in the Yahwist text.

Elohim means plural "gods." Those that believe in the Trinity say this was the first mention of the Trinity in the Bible. But it actually means what you mentioned "us." As in many gods.

Yahweh, on the other hand, was a very human figure, anthropomorphized; creating by has hands, walking the the cool of the evening, the theophany on Mt. Sinai, and was even a warrior God.

Together they make up quite a God.

But the Genesis creation story is a Reader's Digest version of creation. Prolly a story told to children around a campfire, explaining where everything came from. Ya can't expect much coming out of the bronze age ... way, way, before the age of knowledge.

[Timotheist]

Thus the problem with the insistence on inerrant text as a part of 'the faith'. When the believer begins to doubt the text, he then begins to doubt his faith.

When I had that "Aha" moment where I could still have one (faith) without the other (inerrant text), a sense of relief came over me. Did Adam and Eve exist? I don't have to say 'yes' or 'no'. If they did or did not exist makes no difference to me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Thus the problem with the insistence on inerrant text as a part of 'the faith'. When the believer begins to doubt the text, he then begins to doubt his faith.

When I had that "Aha" moment where I could still have one (faith) without the other (inerrant text), a sense of relief came over me. Did Adam and Eve exist? I don't have to say 'yes' or 'no'. If they did or did not exist makes no difference to me.

That's a great testimony bro Tim. Plus, the Bible is not the gospel, or Good News. It may contain it, but the text doesn't have to be inerrant to get it across. And definitely, salvation is not based upon believing if the creation account is literal or figurative. And I doubt very much that it will be a requirement at the judgment seat ... to follow that story line.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Thus the problem with the insistence on inerrant text as a part of 'the faith'. When the believer begins to doubt the text, he then begins to doubt his faith.

When I had that "Aha" moment where I could still have one (faith) without the other (inerrant text), a sense of relief came over me. Did Adam and Eve exist? I don't have to say 'yes' or 'no'. If they did or did not exist makes no difference to me.

Tim,

At times I have had this "what is he talking about" question at some of your posts. But at the base of it all is this general position that the faith is not the Bible nor its inerrancy, or lack thereof. On this I heartily agree.

I do not find anything "wrong" with the Bible. I just find that the things that we (man) make out of it to be well beyond its scope, intent, and internal claim. I don't know about different times or authors for Genesis 1 v 2, but it is clear that there are two perspectives in the two chapters. And even with that, it is not made obvious that Adam and Eve were literally formed of the dust in a single act (Adam), or taken from a rib (Eve). But that God did it is not being challenged.