Talk:Gap theory

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

"No longer lighting the Earth"

In the "support" section is the line that Genesis 1:2 "shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens". Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Verse 1 says nothing about the Earth being lit, so how can verse 2 mentioning that the Earth was in darkness be indicating a change? Philip J. Rayment 07:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Because of the editing rules here I will have to post quite a lot of material before actually engaging in a debate. However, heaven (including the sun) and the earth were created first. If the EArth were dark, then something must have changed to make the earth dark. Or are you suggesting the the sun is not in the heavens?Tolerance 12:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Genesis records the sun being created on day 4 (and light being created after verse 1). So where do you get the idea that heaven includes the sun? The "unproductive activity" commandment refers to 90% talk and 10% editing. You are nowhere close to that. Philip J. Rayment 17:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
But the sun is in the Heaven - ie the sky. It is created in Day One. Isn't that obvious? (I must admit that I have a rather literal interpretation though - and I acknowledge that more liberal interpretations are poissible.) As an aside I would like to thank you for confirming my edit position. Are the statistics held somewhere so that I may reference them and Confirm my Position? I consider it most important that one should Follow the Rules.Tolerance 12:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
The sun is in the heavens now, but that doesn't mean that when the Bible says that the heavens were created that everything in the heavens were created at the same time, and Genesis specifically says that the sun was created on day 4. Isn't that obvious? And literal? As for your edit statistics, see the Personal edit counter link in the welcome box on your talk page. But keep in mind that the "90/10" rule is not a precise 90%/10% figure, but a commandment against "unproductive activity", with the 90/10 split being a guide to what that might be. Philip J. Rayment 00:55, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
So that I understand your interpretation correctly: your position would be that when the heavens were created there was no sun? Just the earth floating in space? And when Scripture says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It should be "In the beginning God created the heaven, but not the sun, and the earth."? Personally I think the literal (gap) interpretation make more sense from every angle. Why not just let the bible explain itself and accept it literally?
On another issue, thank you for pointing me to the edit counter, and for explaining the edit rule - I thought it literally meant 90/10 I understand now that it's more symbolic.Tolerance 11:15, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, my position is that when the heavens were created, there was no sun, moon, or stars, as we are told that they were created on day 4. I do let the Bible explain itself and accept the creation account literally. It says that the heavens were created on day 1, and the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. It doesn't say that the heavens were created with the sun, moon, and stars on day 1.
I wouldn't call 90/10 "symbolic". Rather it's a guide to what "unproductive activity" is.
Philip J. Rayment 11:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply, but I remain confused by your position. If no sun, moon or stars were created when the heavens were created - then what was created when the heavens were created? Tolerance 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
The universe. The stars, etc. are in the universe. They are not the universe itself. Philip J. Rayment 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
But surely, the Universe is Defined by the matter within it. If there were no Matter in the Universe would it exist?Tolerance 12:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Tolerance, heavens mean the space , the vast empty space ...--Heffalump 12:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Some would argue that the vast emptiness is defined by the distance between two points of matter. Without these two points such a measurement cannot be made. To put it another way, the Universe only exists where there are things in it. One could argue that if you removed all the Matter from the universe you have no Universe.Tolerance 11:13, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Assuming that the concept that the universe can only be defined by the matter within it is true, it still doesn't follow that the sun, moon, and stars comprised that matter. God may have, for example, created a universe containing hydrogen atoms, or water, or dust, or something, and added the sun, moon, and stars later. Philip J. Rayment 22:43, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Waw

I just reversed a recent edit that added the words that I've bolded:

"Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth became formless and empty. However, others maintain the Hebrew letter waw used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context."

Although this is accurate, I believe that it is misleading in giving the impression that it's just a matter of two opposing opinions. Rather, the ones who maintain that waw cannot be used to mean became are basing their arguments on the Hebrew language (see also the second reference I've just added), and I've seen no evidence that those who hold to the gap theory can make the directly-opposing claim about the word. If Hebrew scholars or equivalent can be quoted who argue that waw can be translated this way, then the wording above can probably be reinstated.

Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools