Is The Gap Theory Biblical?
Debate Rounds (3)
Definition - The gap theory postulates that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also reputed to encompass the so-called "geologic ages." Proponents of the gap theory also postulate that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) and that the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God (https://bible.org...).
Round 1 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)
Round 2 - Rebuttals (No Defense of Arguments)
Round 3 - Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments)
I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!
My position is that the Gap Theory is an unbiblical reading-into the text what just is not there. Without making accusations as to how such a view of Genesis 1 comes about, allow me to simply address why the Gap Theory is contrary to holy writ (the Bible).
Firstly it should be noted that Jesus Himself stated that God created Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6). This corresponds to their having been created on the sixth day of the creation week (Genesis 1:27). In the event that Genesis 1 were a continuous account of creation in which the first six days constituted the whole of the subject of the chapter, Jesus' statement would be perfectly congruent with scripture. However, if the Gap Theory were true, Christ's claim to Adam and Eve's creation having taken place "at the beginning" would be inaccurate and dishonest since in fact the beginning would have been eons before Adam and Eve were ever created. Since Jesus Christ embodied perfect righteousness, such an idea would be absurd and heretical.
Secondly, Exodus 20:11 states that "all" things were created during the first week of creation. If any amount of time exceeding a single day were to have taken place between the creation of the Earth and that of the light, the Mosaic passage would have been an utter lie as the Earth would have been created long before everything else. To insert any gap in time between the first two verses of Genesis is to falsify the statement Exodus 20:11. Since all scripture is given by inspiration of God and it cannot be broken, the Gap Theory is invalidated (2 Timothy 3:16, John 10:35).
Finally, it is quite plain that read in its grammatical context, Genesis 1:2 is not the result of a destroyed and desolate world in need of reconstruction, but simply a description of the newly formed hydrous planet. Before dry land appeared, the Earth was a sphere of water whose shape was formless as water conforms to its container but gravity alone contained the Earth. Thus the Earth on day one was without form. It was void because it had no physical landscape or biological life, and it was dark because God had not yet caused their to be light. The introduction of light allowed for the classifying of time as the first day; a period of light and a period of dark on the face of the rotating Earth.
Thus, as we can see, the Gap Theory is entirely extraneous and incongruent with the text of Genesis 1. Verse to is simply a part of the subject of the first day.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my argument. I look forward to defending my claims in the third round. On to Pro's opening argument. God bless.
In Genesis 1:1 we are told that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The term used for create here is bara.
In Genesis 1:2 we are told the earth was without form and void. The term used here is Tohu wa-bohu. It is the same term used elsewhere to describe a wasteland.
Bara is used in Genesis 1:1, 1:21, and 1:27 for the creation of the heavens and the earth, sea creatures and birds and man/woman.
The main question before us is if there is a distinction between verse 1 and 2, if so what does it mean and what are the implications?
So first and foremost we are told "in the beginning". This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions. I do not think its plausible from a Christian perspective to put a timestamp on this. We know our God is eternal and has been around literally forever even before this earth or anything arrived on the scene. What was God up to before this? I don't personally think that knowledge is for us.
When its said He created we have the term bara which insinuates something out of nothing. This is applied to the beginning and to life, lastly to man. theres no doubt the bible absolutely does not teach evolution because life and man is created, bara.
We are told the earth was without form and void, darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured. Space is a pretty barren landscape. It truely resembles a wasteland of sorts. Yet we find evidences that life may have been out there be it from bacterium or water on mars and ice in space. Since this is a revelation to man, we are told about our earth comming to the state of being without form and void after it was already created in verse 1. Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God. The bible generally associates darkness as being a state without God and light with God. In Isaiah 45:18 we are told the earth was tohu wa bohu. That God did not create this earth we know but that he "formed it to be inhabited". The entire verse gives us an excellent context in that it says: "For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited."
Interestingly enough we are told here our God created the heavens followed up by being told our earth was made and formed to be inhabited and that this same earth was not "created" in vain. Why would be told our earth was not created in vain if there was no plan for it after its creation and why go to this extent to make it clear it was "formed" to be inhabited? I think its clear that this is supporting the same manner Genesis describes the whole thing.
So what was here before the earth was formed? We dont 100% know but its often thought its wasted state and "darkness" (indicating God was absent with it) has something to do with the fall of Lucifer though even this does not have to be the case.
The point of all this is to show the 6 days are the rennovation of the earth. This is supported im exodus 20:11 where we are told that God made everything in the heavens and the earth in 6 days. Its important to note that nowhere here is a mention of anything being created but rather formed and made. The emphasis is that God is recreating out of things that were already created in Gen 1:1.
Id like to spend a bit of time on the age of man although this debate technically has nothing to do with that I think it too is an important thing to visit as I can pretty much assume anyone who is a YEC will use the genealogies to establish something in the way of a 6000 year old earth. Again a response to this isn't necessary but I have some room left and it does somewhat tie into the theme of this discussion.
As to the age of man we have to consider that the generations listed are not neccesarily understood in the same way then as they are today. There is very likely a geneology gap here for the sake of summarizing specific persons to be mentioned and certain ones left out. In the NT this occurs as the author clearly wants to fit it all in 3 blocks. On example I quoted from answersingenesis say this: "Matthew"s record of Christ"s genealogy is probably the most obvious. Matthew 1:8 states that Joram was the father of Uzziah, yet 1 Chronicles 3:11"14 reveals that Joram was actually the great-grandfather of Uzziah (a.k.a. Azariah)." its further explained that in hebrew a grandfather could be called father and grandson could be called son. The only point for the geneologies is to narrow down who came from what line. I would imagine this wouldnt even be problematic for a great grandfather great grandson relationship as we see Jesus being reffered to as the son of David. I think the point is simply of relevance and nothing more. We also dont have a summary of years listed in the geneology of genesis and so why should we jump out and make up our own summary?
To me the main thing to get around in this debate is what the difference between 1:1 and 1:2 is telling us. I have done some last minute research on the topic as I actually wasn't aware this position had a name but I find it telling that an argument actually used by some people is that you shouldn't have to have a degree or speak multiple languages to understand the bible. While I also believe this to be true, I don't think that anyone will make an argument the bible teaches one to be lazy about seeking the truth and knowing His word.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
That is all.
Pro states, "This is a period which no one can accurately put a time stamp on. It could be millions of years or billions or even trillions." I take exception to this statement as Christ Himself has placed a "time stamp" on the beginning by letting us know that it was the same week that man was created.
Pro states, "There are grounds to think inbetween verses 1 and 2 some kind of catastrophe occured." What grounds may I ask are you referring to? The context and language itself does not lend to such a spurious conclusion, and you give no evidence for this.
Pro states, "Darkness on the face of the deep can be seen to mean it was without God." How is this so if God's Spirit is present on Earth in the same passage?
Pro's main contentions seem to be that verse two of Genesis 1 describes a desolate wasteland and that "create" and "form" or "make" are describing separate acts of God. We must be careful when attempting to interpret biblical language. One must always take the context of the passage and allow it to help interpret the verse, word, or phrase. There are many examples in scripture where a Hebrew or Greek word are used to describe vastly different things, but there are also times when two different words are used to describe the same thing. The words "create" and "form" or "made" a certainly an example of the interchangeable use of similar words. The key however is the context; nowhere in the text of Genesis 1 does it compel us to believe any significant act of destruction took place before Earth was "made to be inhabited."
The Earth was made as a hydrous planet before the dry land appeared, thus the descriptors of "void" and "without form" make sense. An analogous comparison to a dry desert wasteland does not fit the context. God ex nihilo created the Earth and the fabric of space-time but He fashioned everything else out of the water of that which was created on day 1. A planet with crustal rock covering its surface does indeed have a spherical shape, but the true shape of water alone is formless. Thus a hydrous planet fits the description of a formless Earth much better than a Mars-like landscape.
As for Pro's comments on the YEC biblical view of the genealogical history of man, it is quite clear that a few gaps exist but are probably a few centuries of time at the most. It is highly unlikely that a few thousand years are missing from the record, but even in this case, the Earth would still be less than 10,000 years old. A gap of tens of thousands or even a million years is out of the question. Regardless, these gaps are not before or during the generations of Adam and thus lend no support to any old Earth interpretation of Genesis. The Bible gives us a genealogical account of man from Adam to Jesus and the ages are given of the men who fathered their sons and thus we get a rough age of about 4,000 years, which would make the Earth, which was created on the same week as Adam, approximately 6,000 years old (creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies).
The language of "and" as the first word in most of the verses in Genesis 1 including verse two reveals that Genesis 1 is a continuous account of creation from the formation of the Earth to that of man; the entire chapter concerns a six day creation event including the first two verses.
There is absolutely no contextual or grammatical basis for the Gap Theory. On the other hand, there is every contextual and grammatical reason to interpret verses one and two as a part of the creation week spoken of in Exodus 20:11. The Gap Theory is extraneous to the text, overtly unsupported by scripture, and utterly unnecessary. Thank you for your time.
Con lists Matthew 19:4 as an example, lets dive in. It states as follows:
"King James Version
19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,"
Now the context of this verse is simply that Jesus is addressing an issue of divorce. Jesus addressing man is addressing man from a perspective man can understand. Jesus is simply stating that from the beginning of this earth being formed and humanity's beginning, he made them male and female. Another translation also provides more insight. This is a literal translation of the Greek:
Young's Literal Translation
19:4 And he answering said to them, 'Did ye not read, that He who made them, from the beginning a male and a female made them,
Note the wording here. He is simply saying God who made humanity from mans beginning he was made male and female and he continues on to say the purpose was to "leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh." (Matt 19:5)
There is no emphasis on creation here, this is purely about the purpose for man. Since it is mans purpose that is the subject Jesus is obviously going to use verbiage like in the beginning or from the beginning. What other verbiage would he use? Its mans beginning.
This is actually supported by Mark 10:6 which con listed in which Jesus again affirms
King James Version
10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Young's Literal Translation
10:6 but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;
Who is the them? The creation. Who is the creation? Its humanity, its the subject of the discussion. Again we know this because again Jesus is directly answering a question in verse 4 where man is the topic in which it states "They said 'Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her'"
This is all a reference to an occurrence on the 6th day:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The creation topic is man, the timetable is the beginning of man. These verses hold 0 value to the very first verse of Genesis which states:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen 1:1)
Con mentioned Exodus 20:11
Well Exodus 20:11 states the following:
Exodus 20:11King James Version (KJV)
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Guess what term the author used that is translated as made? Asah. (pulled from interlinear Hebrew)
What does Asah mean according to the lexicon Hebrew?
1. to do, fashion, accomplish, make
What does Genesis 1:1 say about making? Nothing The term Asah is not even used. The term Bara however is used.
What does Bara mean?
1. to create, shape, form a. (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) 1. of heaven and earth
2. of individual man
3. of new conditions and circumstances
4. of transformations
Now considering that the author of both Genesis and Exodus are the same person, why would the author use two distinctly different words if He is knowingly reiterating an earlier point? If it is his understand to convey that there is a distinction between the 6 day creation and the creation in Gen 1:1, hes obviously making it. If there was no distinction to be made we would find a consistency here in the verbiage.
I find it interesting that con reasons that Genesis 1:2 is in their own words " not the result of a destroyed and desolate world in need of reconstruction, but simply a description of the newly formed hydrous planet"
Yet lets just examine that claim.
Genesis 1:2King James Version (KJV)
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Here is the "state" the earth was in. The Hebrew for form and void goes as follows:
Definition of tohubohu
1 chaos, confusion
Origin and Etymology of tohubohu
Hebrew tohu bohu; without form and void, ; formlessness, confusion., emptiness
There is another location in the scriptures that makes use of this verbiage. It is in Jeremiah 4:23-28. It states:
"23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black; because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it."
again for verse 23 we find
[it was] outside form
These are the words Jeremiah uses to describe an earth in which the Lord has made desolate. Desolate. I think it speaks for itself. These are the EXACT same words and meaning behind Genesis 1:2.
Now this is the phrase used to describe the earth in Gen 1:2. As anyone reading it can plainly see, its not so simple as to say it was just a bunch of water, it was chaos, confusion. It is after this chaos and confusion that the 6 day account begins and rightfully so.
Why is this Important? Isaiah 45:18 tells us exactly why:
Isaiah 45:18King James Version (KJV)
18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. Once again here is the Hebrew:
in vain it
Here we find again this separation of a world that was created not in vain. why wasn't it created in vain? It is because it was then formed to be inhabited. If it was already created to be inhabited why again is there a distinction being made here? Why go through the trouble of explaining that God created the heavens, created the earth not in vain but formed the earth to be inhabited? Can con explain why Isaiah 45:18 is making this specific distinction?
Con will have to show that the Hebrew used in these verses indicates a continuous creation, one where the earth was not a desolate space after verse Genesis 1:1, con has provided no evidence to indicate this. Con will have to show what Isaiah 45:18 really means outside of my explanation. Con did not even address that "bara" is only applied to the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), sea creatures and birds (Gen 1:21) and man (Gen 1:27).
Defense of Arguments
Concerning Matthew 19:4, Pro states, " Jesus is simply stating that from the beginning of this earth being formed and humanity's beginning, he made them male and female." He gives no justification for his claim that "creation" must be referring to "humanity's beginning" alone. He says the same about Mark 10:6, but this verse states that God made Adam and Eve at "the beginning of creation" as a reference to a period of time in history. While the subject of the passage is indeed marriage and humanity, the verbiage correlates with Genesis 1:1. Of course Genesis 1:27 is when man was created and marriage was instituted, but the reference is to the beginning of creation in general.
Pro's appeal to the "literal" translation of Robert Young fails to support his case. Young's translates "from the beginning," which I assume Pro intends to mean "since humanities' beginning" but in fact it has the precise meaning of "at the beginning." We see this in similar occurrences of the word apo or "at" where the term archē or "beginning" is used in conjunction. For example, "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And theat repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47). From this passage we can see that apo denotes an occurrence at a point in time and archē denotes commencement. If it was translated "beginning from Moses," and "beginning from Jerusalem," there would be no difference in meaning.
Ktisis or "beginning" denotes the act of original formation. Pro's contention is that ktisis solely refers to the creation of man. While it is certain that Genesis 1:27 is a part of the reference, the term "creation" in Mark 10:6 encompasses more than just the creation of man as Jesus is placing the creation of man "at the beginning." Similar language is used in Mark 13:19, "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be" and 2 Peter 3:4, "And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." In both passages we understand the meaning to not refer to a particular day but the narrative of the creation week which begins at Genesis 1:1. Clearly the phrase "beginning of the creation" must refer to the creation week and not the formation of man alone. Thus Pro's unsubstantiated claim that "creation" refers to humanity alone and not the entire creation is falsified.
Concerning Exodus 20:11, Pro continues his assertion that asah and bara are used to denote a difference in type of creation being referenced. Again I must point that one must be careful in deriving private interpretations of scripture foreign to the context of the passage based on the variant usage of Hebrew or Greek words; often times different words are used to denote the same thing. I will demonstrate that this is the case with asah and bara. If Pro's hypothesis were true, that the author intended the audience to perceive a difference in the type of creation being referenced, one should find that bara is consistently used in reference to that which was created out of nothing and that asah is consistently used in reference to that which was formed from pre-existing, created matter. However, we find that this simply is not the case. In Genesis 2:3 we find that the author uses bara in reference to all God has created in conjunction with asah, "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Again in Genesis 5:1 we see both terms used conjunctively to refer to the same thing, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him." Genesis 6:6 and 9:6 refer to the creation of man as asah. Genesis 6:7 again uses both asah and bara interchangeably, "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
Clearly Pro's hypothesis that asah, in Exodus 20:11, does not include Genesis 1:1 is not only falsified by the content of the passage itself, that in six days God created "heaven and earth," but both asah and bara are used interchangeably. Considering the reference in the passage alone, and Pro's hypothesis, did God bara create or asah create the heaven and the earth? If bara, then why does Exodus 20:11 say He asah created? If asah, then why does Genesis 1:1 say He bara created? This argument certainly has no basis and is easily refuted by considering other instances of the usage of the terms asah and bara. Thus my argument stands that Exodus 20:11 states that "all" things were created in six days, including the heaven and earth of Genesis 1:1.
Concerning Pro's contention regarding my claim that Genesis 1:2 is describing a hydrous planet and not a desert wasteland, I would again point out that we need to be careful when ascribing definitions to words outside of their context and based on other passages. Although a Greek or Hebrew word may have many definitions, the context determines the proper interpretation. Pro uses Jeremiah 4:23-28 to give the meaning of "without form and void" as "chaos and confusion." While bohu simply means "void" or "emptiness," I believe the main contention arises with the meaning of tohu, as bohu can describe either Pro's or my interpretation of Genesis 1:2. Depending on the context, tohu can mean "formlessness," as in Jeremiah 4:23, "confusion," as in Isaiah 24:10, "vanity," as in Isaiah 45:18, or "emptiness," as in Job 26:7. While my case is not contingent upon the veracity of my claim to a hydrous planet in Genesis 1:2, it is better supported by the content and context of the text, and given that my arguments from Matthew 19:4 and Exodus 20:11 still stand, if Genesis 1 be a continuous account of the creation week, that Genesis 1:2 is describing an empty, hydrous planet without light fits very well especially since waters are present in the verse and in verses 6 and 7 and that dry land is brought out of water in verse 9. Pro's view of a destroyed, desolate wasteland must go read into the text as nothing within the context of the passage compels us to such an interpretation.
Pro claims that the usage of the phrase "without form and void" in Jeremiah 4:23 suggests that Genesis 1:2 should be interpreted the same way. Logically this does not follow, however we can see key information is missing from the context of Genesis 1 as compared to Jeremiah 4. Jeremiah 4 describes the judgment of Israel for their sins and the desolation of their land while Genesis 1 describes the "very good" original creation of God. Since God gives us absolutely no information regarding a further understanding of Genesis 1:2 beyond its being a part of the description of day 1 of creation week, there is no justification for Pro's interpretation of the verse for which he has provided no evidence. Concerning Pro's line of reasoning, "The only reason they [tohu vabohu] refer to being ‘laid waste’ is due to the context in which the words are found. They simply mean ‘unformed and unfilled’. This state can be due either to nothing else having been created, or some created things being removed. The context of Jeremiah 4 is a prophecy of the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem, not creation. In fact, Jeremiah 4:23 is known as a literary allusion to Genesis1:2—the judgment would be so severe that it would be leave the final state as empty as the world before God created anything. Jeremiah 4:23 cannot be used to interpret Genesis 1:2 as a judgment—that would be completely back-to-front, because an allusion works only one-way" (http://creation.com...).
That is it, there is no bara anywhere else. Matthew 19:4 talks about since the beginning in reference of man. Well man was created the 6th day. Is the 6th day really the beginning or is the beginning the first day according to con? Since man is specifically segregated out as being created bara, then its quite clear Jesus is talking about the beginning of man. This is also the same logic behind Mark 10:6. Con has said this is a reference to the whole of creation in general, at least that's what I'm assuming it has to mean for him, but again where is any talk of the heavens or the earth? Where is the topic here besides mankind? There isn't. Its about man, his purpose from HIS beginning.
I find it interesting that con goes on to make an argument from the greek as there is no greek interlinear in existence because the topic of discussion was strictly written in Hebrew. However it is of note to see just what youngs literal translation is:
1In the beginning of God"s preparing the heavens and the earth " 2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
youngs translation goes out of its way to say the earth "hath existed" and uses language like "God's preparing the heavens and the earth" If this doesn't indicate a recreation or forming out of something existent I don't know what does.
Con mentioned the greek word Arche which is supposed to be the beginning of all beginnings and yet this is not what this means in greek at all:
arch": beginning, origin
Original Word: O36;`1;`7;^2;, Q34;`2;, O69;
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
Short Definition: ruler, beginning
Definition: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.
interestingly it is associated with rule. Could it be that Jesus is again as I have pointed out before, talking about Mans beginning or rule? hmmm.
Con mentioned Ktisis.
ktisis: creation (the act or the product)
Original Word: _4;`4;^3;`3;_3;`2;, ^9;`9;`2;, O69;
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is)
Short Definition: creation, creature, institution
Definition: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance.
Well hes right Ktisis is denoting a creation. Yet con failed to mention where Ktisis directly references what the "creation" is.
It is used here to tell us exactly what the creation is and what Jesus is referring to because it is used in the very same book con is trying to make his point from
Mark 16:15 New International Version
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Here we have the same author of the same book using the same word for the same thing I have been saying all along. The creation being man as once again man is the topic in EVERY single verse con attempted to make a point with.
Would con really hold the gospel is from animals? Or for the physical earth and heavens themselves?
Con then goes on to try and find Greek answers to Hebrew scriptures but I think the answer to that is obvious.
Con goes on to say that my referencing the actual Hebrew of the OT is somehow a private interpretation, well I have cited my sources and anyone is free to simply read them and what I have quoted. I didn't interpret anything, I simply followed what root words mean and are defined as. Con did not address why Moses the author of Genesis AND Exodus would use two different words in reference to THE beginnings creation.
Con went on to list Genesis 2:3 as reasoning that bara and asah mean the same thing well heres the interlinear version:
In the first section of this entire debate, I already mentioned that God formed land animals and made them. This is in Genesis 1:24-25. So why wouldn't it be mentioned that God rested from all that he created AND made? If there was no distinction to be made in asah and bara, why wouldn't the author just say God rested from all he created, or God rested from all that he made? Its because the author is being consistent and telling things in a consistent way. The mentioning of 2 words in the same sentence is not a reason to think both words just up and mean the same thing.
Con mentioned 5:1 which indeed we do see both terms being used and yet we find that the word Asah is used in conjunction with God making man in his likeness. This is merely a description of man being created after the likeness of God and nothing more. Its about who man is, not what he physically is. Again why make a distinction of God creating man and making man in his likeness? Why not just say God created man in his likeness? Its because the author is trying to tell you God created man and after he was physically created formed him into his likeness. Its like creating clay and then making it into something. Which ironically is mentioned in Isaiah 64:8
"Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand."
Con wants to use Genesis 6:6 in which God is sorry that he made man Asah.
Again for everyone Asah:
accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow,
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application (as follows) -- accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress(-ed), (put in) execute(-ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, (fight-)ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfill, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ((a feast)), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, pracise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be (warr-)ior, work(-m
http://biblehub.com...), yield, use.
Once again this isn't talking about God being sorry he created man, because hes not. that's not what it says, God is sorry about mans circumstances on the earth as you can see above there are quite a few words this can be seen as being used for. Yet once again we are told God will destroy man who he created Genesis 6:7. Why once again make a distinction if there isn't one to be had?
I'm pretty much out of room so I will very briefly address the rest:
Exodus 20:11 doesn't say created
Genesis 9:6 refers to his image only. Since it is in Gods image, it is a recreation.
Jer 4:23 wasn't used to show judgement it was used to show another place where tohu wabohu is used and its used to describe desolation
Thanks for the debate and thank you all for your time!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.