Creation Genesis 1 and the Gap Theory

The Gap theory. This is just one of a number of views held about Genesis 1:1-2.

            It is frequently attributed to some early Jewish writers, some early Church “fathers” and some even today hold this view. Some translations, such as the TEV are now suggesting it by the use of "when" in verse 1, academics like Michael Hieser also teach it or at least that verse 1 is a dependent clause.

At least four different arguments are mentioned in support of this view that there is a gap in time between verses 1 & 2.

1. It suggested that the word create doesn’t mean out of nothing but God took something and formed it from that. This latter notion just pushes the creation question of origin one step further back. Eg Where did the matter come from for God to form it? Sometimes the word “create” bara, and “made” are used at the same time, as in the creation of man from the dust of the earth, vs 27, so  the word create can be used for out of nothing and also from stuff already there the context makes it clear. READ Hebrews 11:3. What comes to pass out of nothing? “What is seen” ie the universe was “out of nothing”.

2. Some suggest that God made the earth as a place for the angels and that they left their abode and tried to usurp God, or at least some did, eg satan. This then suggests that what we have in Genesis 1 is a recreation. But the text is clear in the following verses that this creation is of the universe, the sun and moon, etc not just of this planet. Granted that angels and satan just enter the story unannounced in chapter 3, but the focus is not on them, but God and mankind.
3. Some argue that verses 1-2 have a possible translation[1] of “in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth” which is called a dependant clause.  Which means you expect further information to complete the sentence. So on this understanding verse 2 supplies that and the real down to business begins in verse 3. Illustration “when Carolyn and I got married in 1987.” This is illustrative that a dependent cluase needs further information to make the point. They say it must be a dependant clause because Ancient Near East Cosmologies such as Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish begins this way. And when Masoretes added vowels to Hebrew in 600AD they translated it as a dependant clause. But the Hebrews knew their Old Testament had dependent and independent clauses but saw fit not to translated it this way, not even between 300-200BC when they wrote the Old Testament into Greek [ The Septuagint ] they left it as an independent clause. 

     4.   Lastly some argue “empty and void” vs 2 suggest destruction. And so this was the way God had the stuff at the time of satan’s rebellion before he “remade” it. However empty and void more aptly means  uninhabited. God made the Heavens and the Earth to be filled, not left uninhabited. Additionally, we must consider that Genesis 1 has the refrain “good” and that at the Creation of light God says it was good. It is difficult  then to think that verse 2 refers to something bad and that God has not bothered to point this out in the  text which has God declare good as a dominant phrase.

---

[1] Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s true.




In Christ
Gary

Global Warming, the Climate and bad arguments

The Sydney Morning Herald on Friday Sept 12 included an article titled 'Climate sceptic puts hand up for science  portfolio' in the new liberal Cabinet.
Western Australian MP Dr Dennis Jensen  who has a Masters degree in Physics and a PhD in material Science questions the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming.

Whether he is right or not, at least he points out that appeals to Authority or appeals to consus are not Scientific at all. They are flawed arguments. what needs to argued is the Scientific evidence.
Who said something is irrelevant, and how many claim something to be true is also. what matters is Scientific reality.

How refreshing

In Christ,
Gary

Science and Faith: How the new Atheists get it wrong

It is quite common today to hear atheists saying that Science gives us all the explanations, all the answers we need in life. Indeed they quite often say that Science and Religion are separate concerns and must be kept separate. But this is just a naive bias that they have towards "Religion" and in particular Christian theism.
What they don't understand is the connectedness of Biblical theism with Science and the foundation that Biblical theism gives to Science, indeed how the Christian faith provides justification for the basic presuppositions of Science that Science itself cannot provide.
Donald M MacKay many yeas ago wrote about all this in a very thoughtful and clear way. He pointed out a long time ago that Science and Faith are connected as a root and it's fruit are!
Further he showed just how reasonable the Christian Faith is to the endeavour of Science. He also spoke of how reasonable the Christian Faith is. He said "I doubt very much whether any argument can do more than prove the Christian position to be not unreasonable."
Is this not what Alvin Plantinga has done in the last century of philosophical endeavour?
MacKay further wrote the following: "let us suppose we are meeting a human friend. 'A mass of pink protoplasm rises to a height of five feet and begins to pucker and wobbler up and down noisily. - but of course, that's the wrong language. I should say "He rises to his feet wreathed in smiles and greets us heartily.' Why should I? because we came to meet as persons, not as a thing."
So it is with meeting Jesus, God in the flesh.

Peace
Gary

Welcome to the human family - defining human

In the same article I just blogged about from New Scientist May 2010, the editorial refers to the comment by the anthropologist Louis Leakey who wrote the following having been told about chimps used sticks to scoop up termites

Now we must redefine tool, redefine man or accept chimpanzees as human.

What is going on here? Do we now define 'human' as using sticks to scoop up termites? Ha! But is this editorial serious that we define humans by their being able to use things such as tools? Isn't it better to say, humans have the ability to create tools, and not merely use a stick, perhaps that is closer to the point? Otherwise we get into conundrums associated with anthropomorphic language.

This editorial goes on to point out that all this raises the question of what a species is. And they point out that this in itself has been vexing question which has flummoxed [ that is, baffled and confused! ] even Linnaeus and Darwin. And yet with authority they declare a truism!

fertile offspring is a hallmark of a species

Wow - of course that's a truism, for if there were no fertile offspring there'd be no species to even consider! And then, without providing the evidence they declare that "there is plenty more evidence to support giving them the status of Homo sapiens Neanderthals."

We read "We cannot know the mental life of a Neanderthal, but it may not have been so different from our own."
And this is based presumably on the fact that the Neanderthal genome differs little from ours, encoding fewer than 100 changes that would affect the shape of proteins.

It is then the writer speaks of the concept of being human that involves traits of thinking and talking and love and belief and art and language.

I just would like a bit more on those who hold to a materialist worldview being able to account for these latter concepts of humanness. Even for Leakey it's a long way from using a stick to concepts such as love, belief, art and language.

Gary

Welcome to the human family - you're a Neanderthal

In the May 2010 edition of New Scientist ( Australia ) the editorial has a piece about "Welcome to the human family. It speaks to the question of whether there is any reason not to allow Neanderthals into the fold of homo sapiens?

After talking about how Neanderthals have a common ancestor with modern humans and how the descendants went their own ways only to 'reconnect' about 50,000 years ago in the Eastern Mediterranean. Their point? "This pattern wouldn't necessarily merit separate species for most animals, so why for us and Neanderthals?

Fair enough in their line of thinking, however it is interesting what they bring into the discussion regarding the concept of being human.
It is more than "ecology and genetics: we are human because we think, talk, love and believe" and later the editor states that this includes "language and art" It is then we read a startling admission - "if that's not human, then what is?

As Christians we would agree to much of this, adding that humanness is being created in the image of God, able to have self-reflection, rationality, ability to reason and love and care, to have and be aware ones own of self conscious.
Still, how do you account for all that on a materialist worldview? that's the humdinger.

Gary