Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy

[bridgeforsale]

It still doesn't sound like you understand the gap theory premise. The gap theory does not posit the gap between the creation of heaven and earth. It posits a period of time between creation and re-creation, or re-revealing. The premise is that everything created had already been created by verse 1 in some timeless past. We move from that to verse 2 where the theory states that some possibly cataclysmic event caused all creation to become formless and void, and then we move to verse 3 where the theory posits a re-revealing or re-creation within 7 days. Again, its a theory. I recognize its a theory. I don't hang doctrine on the theory, but it seems more plausible to me than some other alternatives.

you're right .... I didn't understand it as well as I thought I did (and it's more plausible that I initially believed). We do know there was a cataclysmic event at some point in pre-history (perhaps an astroid impact). So ... maybe (although it still doesn't exactly correlate with the literal text, so we're still left with the necessity of guessing what the text means)?

Is the belief in a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ an historical blunder? If so then its a far greater historical blunder than geocentrism.

I just don't agree that the slippery slope will lead us there .... your fear here is highly speculative.

Excellent! So why not start from that foundation and work out, rather than assume from the offset that the revealed word of God is at fault.

I don't fault the word of God ... I just don't think it's meant to be interpreted in the rigorous, literal (and sort of legalistic) way it's interpreted by fundamentalists.

Its only subjective depending on who/what you base your foundation on.

that's your subjective opinion

No, it does not. You keep saying this with such certainty, but you're off base., The big bang certainly does not contradict the literal Biblical narrative, in fact, I can think of several well known apologists and scholars who believe in scriptural literalism who use the big bang in their apologetics, and there are plenty of folks who also see no contradiction between a literal interpretation of scripture and evolution. In the end though, if your foundation is on Christ Jesus, why would you choose the theory of evolution over the revealed word of God? Who's more likely to be right in the end? God or man?

As I said above, learning more about the gap theory, I suppose the big bang doesn't have to contradict the biblical narrative (if you add entirely new information to it). For instance, you're forced to say there was a creation, then a recreation (and I assume you think this happened twice, once at the outset of creation and then again with the flood).

So sure ... technically you might be able to say there's no contradiction (but it still seems like a stretch). Assuming an astroid did strike earth and destroyed all biological life, there's still no indication that can lead us to believe life was recreated after that point in seven days. Indeed biological evolution must have began (or restarted itself) after that point. In other words if mankind already existed, but was then destroyed, we would have had to reevolve (since we know evolution is responsible for the biological state mankind exists in today); and it could not have happened in seven days.

When I switch on the tv I don't see a world evolving. I see a world more violent and corrupt today than it was even when I was young. It astonishes me all the time.

we've evolved (socially) in many ways. Today slavery, spousal abuse, segregation, etc. are viewed as horrible periods in history. Arguably there are more out of wedlock births, teenage pregnancies, abortions, contraception, etc. However, even pre-Roe there were about 600,000 abortions per year (and contraception was still used, albeit it wasn't as advanced as it is today). Teenagers were still getting pregnant (but back in the day you married a girl if you knocked her up & you stayed married whether you liked it or not).

Technologically .... we're obviously evolving in leaps and bounds (and that's a good thing).

[Adrift]

you're right .... I didn't understand it as well as I thought I did (and it's more plausible that I initially believed). We do know there was a cataclysmic event at some point in pre-history (perhaps an astroid impact). So ... maybe (although it still doesn't exactly correlate with the literal text, so we're still left with the necessity of guessing what the text means)?

Gap theorists (or whatever they're calling themselves now) believe they can make a strong case that the literal text correlates very well with the theory. For instance, in the first link I offered reads:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/BT/earth-age-genesis.asp

Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated "Now the earth became without form, and void... " as opposed to the common rendering "The earth was without form, and void... " Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly way.

However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the term are possible. Only the context of the chapter and book can determine which one is correct.

© source where applicable

This is just one of several "proofs" they use in the theory.

Anyways, regardless of anyone's view on gap theory the point I've been trying to make is that one does not have to choose between the Bible and science fact (science theory might be another issue, but even then I believe one can possibly find some compromise), and more importantly, it seems to me that if a Christian finds himself at a crossroad between the theories of men and divinely inspired writings given to us by the unction of Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit trumps.

I just don't agree that the slippery slope will lead us there .... your fear here is highly speculative.

Its not speculative. I've seen it with my own eyes many times. On this very forum in fact. Recently even.

I don't fault the word of God ... I just don't think it's meant to be interpreted in the rigorous, literal (and sort of legalistic) way it's interpreted by fundamentalists.

I don't know how you can say that. I can't imagine the author of Genesis thinking to himself "gee, I hope no one takes this literally".

As I said above, learning more about the gap theory, I suppose the big bang doesn't have to contradict the biblical narrative (if you add entirely new information to it).

I can't see how the big bang contradicts the Biblical narrative no matter the view. You could be a young earth creationist and still consistently believe in the big bang as far as I can recon. What makes you think one could not?

For instance, you're forced to say there was a creation, then a recreation (and I assume you think this happened twice, once at the outset of creation and then again with the flood).

I'm not forced to say anything. Gap theorists posit that the Genesis account makes the creation/recreation narrative plain depending on how Hebrew words like make, create, was, become, etc. are translated and when one reconciles other scriptural passages with the Genesis narrative. As for the flood narrative, so far I lean towards a local flood covering the then known earth. I see little reason why this view should contradict a literal interpretation of scripture.

So sure ... technically you might be able to say there's no contradiction (but it still seems like a stretch). Assuming an astroid did strike earth and destroyed all biological life, there's still no indication that can lead us to believe life was recreated after that point in seven days. Indeed biological evolution must have began (or restarted itself) after that point. In other words if mankind already existed, but was then destroyed, we would have had to reevolve (since we know evolution is responsible for the biological state mankind exists in today); and it could not have happened in seven days.

Are you saying that because you believe its outside of God's ability to recreate the earth and everything on it after a cataclysmic catastrophe or create the world in its present state in 7 days as some YEC's believe? Is there any indication that can lead us to believe a man can come back to life after being dead for 3 days?

we've evolved (socially) in many ways. Today slavery, spousal abuse, segregation, etc. are viewed as horrible periods in history. Arguably there are more out of wedlock births, teenage pregnancies, abortions, contraception, etc. However, even pre-Roe there were about 600,000 abortions per year (and contraception was still used, albeit it wasn't as advanced as it is today). Teenagers were still getting pregnant (but back in the day you married a girl if you knocked her up & you stayed married whether you liked it or not).

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one as well. The evils perpetuated through slavery are a relatively recent occurrence in humanity's history. We still live in cultures that are heavily segregated, and Christians have never tolerated spousal abuse rather husbands are to love their wives as Jesus loves the church. Abortion is up over twice what it was pre-Roe vs. Wade that is if you're numbers are accurate:

www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

As for the number of deaths from illegal abortions, in 1960 the total number of all
pregnancy-related deaths (from abortions as well as from childbirth and other problems
during pregnancy) was 1,579 (according to the Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol.
II, Mortality, Part A. 1960-77). To believe the pro-abortion argument that over 5,000
illegal abortion deaths occurred, one must believe that the 1,579 officially recorded
maternal deaths were all caused by illegal abortions and an additional 3,421 deaths were
also caused by illegal abortions and the death certificates were falsified to attribute the
death to something such as "heart attack" or "cirrhosis of the liver," and that no woman
died from any other pregnancy-related cause. But in fact, for 1960, Vital Statistics
attributes 289 of those 1,579 deaths to abortion (legal and illegal).
In 1968, Vital Statistics reports 859 total pregnancy-related deaths; 133 of the 859
attributed to abortion.
By 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion-on-demand
nationwide, there were 24 deaths from legal abortions and 39 from illegal abortions
(according to the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance, Annual Summary,
1978). Not only have pro-abortionists grossly exaggerated the number of illegal abortions
and deaths, they misrepresent what caused the decline in the number of abortion-related
deaths. It had nothing to do with legalization of abortion. The number had been dropping
steadily long before the first states legalized abortion. The real explanations are such
factors as the availability of better antibiotics, such as penicillin, the establishment of
intensive care units and better surgical techniques.

© source where applicable

Unwed mothers have risen from 13% in the 50s to 79% in the 2000s. Gang warfare is rampant. Our prisons are overcrowded. We've had a rash of unthinkable school shootings over the last decade. Our children are told not to trust strangers and are no longer even allowed to play outside without adult supervision (I remember a time when my mother could drive with me in the front seat and leave me in the car when she went to pay a bill). Our TVs entertain us with images and language that would have been x-rated 40 years ago. My baby niece was horrified by a commercial for Drag me to Hell a few weeks ago when my brother got up for a moment while watching a ball game. I've had several close friends who's lives were either ruined or ended by drug use. And that's just the civilized United States.

Technologically .... we're obviously evolving in leaps and bounds (and that's a good thing.

Technology is a tool. Good and evil result from the use of that tool depending on who's hands its in. Thousands were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the use of technology. Millions in WW2 and all the wars that followed. Technology has made it a breeze to have our identities stolen. To be spied upon at any given time. etc. I'm not a conspiracy nut or a luddite, but technology is not our salvation.

[bridgeforsale]

Gap theorists (or whatever they're calling themselves now) believe they can make a strong case that the literal text correlates very well with the theory. For instance, in the first link I offered reads:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/BT/earth-age-genesis.asp

Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated "Now the earth became without form, and void... " as opposed to the common rendering "The earth was without form, and void... " Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly way.

However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the term are possible. Only the context of the chapter and book can determine which one is correct.

© source where applicable

This is just one of several "proofs" they use in the theory.

Anyways, regardless of anyone's view on gap theory the point I've been trying to make is that one does not have to choose between the Bible and science fact (science theory might be another issue, but even then I believe one can possibly find some compromise), and more importantly, it seems to me that if a Christian finds himself at a crossroad between the theories of men and divinely inspired writings given to us by the unction of Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit trumps.

I understand your position, but let me try & clarify my point a little better:

1) In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

2) Gap theorist posit at some point after the initial creation period desribed in 1 (that the bible is silent on) the earth was thrown into a period of lifeless darkness (a formless, empty void). This period is the "gap"?

3) Here's what that must assume:

a) there was a period after some sort of cataclysmic event (assumably caused or at least permitted by God) where the earth was lifeless and in darkness.

b) it is at this point the creation narrative begins (at Genesis 1:3).

c) at this point ... in seven days all life is created?

So we have this period where there is no sun, yet biological life still evolves (and God accomplishes this I guess through biology in seven days, even though scientists know evolution was a process that took millions of years)?

I'm trying to figure out how biblical literalists are not at odds with science .... but I'm at a loss.

Its not speculative. I've seen it with my own eyes many times. On this very forum in fact. Recently even.

there's always been professing Christians who denied the resurrection (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind ... and there have been numerous others); but my line of reasoning certainly hasn't been responsible for it (since this sort of objection to Christian theology pre-exists what we know about evolution and the big bang).

I don't know how you can say that. I can't imagine the author of Genesis thinking to himself "gee, I hope no one takes this literally".

Maybe the ancient Hebrew author of Genesis lived in a society where the standard mode of communication was much different than our own?

Even gap theorists posit there's much left unsaid (indeed an entire era in the history of the universe that's unaccounted for).

I can't see how the big bang contradicts the Biblical narrative no matter the view. You could be a young earth creationist and still consistently believe in the big bang as far as I can recon. What makes you think one could not?

I think the bigger problem is reconciling evolution with the Genesis narrative .... but the big bang has problems as well (albeit depending on ones interpretation).

I'm not forced to say anything. Gap theorists posit that the Genesis account makes the creation/recreation narrative plain depending on how Hebrew words like make, create, was, become, etc. are translated and when one reconciles other scriptural passages with the Genesis narrative. As for the flood narrative, so far I lean towards a local flood covering the then known earth. I see little reason why this view should contradict a literal interpretation of scripture.

this helps illustrate my point .... centuries of western theology and we're still not sure how ancient Hebrew words like make, create, was, become, etc. should be translated? What's to say we have an accurate understanding of anything in the bible?

I would say the bible was probably written literally .... but it's intended meaning has been lost in translation. You might say the Holy Spirit ensures the word is kept in tact (and I agree), but you have no basis to imagine how the Holy Spirit preserves the word (and nor do I).

Are you saying that because you believe its outside of God's ability to recreate the earth and everything on it after a cataclysmic catastrophe or create the world in its present state in 7 days as some YEC's believe? Is there any indication that can lead us to believe a man can come back to life after being dead for 3 days?

Of course I'm not saying anything is beyond God's capability

[Adrift]

I understand your position, but let me try & clarify my point a little better:

1) In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

2) Gap theorist posit at some point after the initial creation period desribed in 1 (that the bible is silent on)

Actually, gap theorists don't believe the Bible is silent on this matter. They believe the creation narrative as well as other passages flesh this out, but this is all off OP really. If you'd like to start a separate thread on the details of the theory, please do so and I'll join you there.

the earth was thrown into a period of lifeless darkness (a formless, empty void). This period is the "gap"?

In a way. The gap is specifically the time between Gen 1 and Gen 2. Again we can talk about this in another thread.

3) Here's what that must assume:

a) there was a period after some sort of cataclysmic event (assumably caused or at least permitted by God) where the earth was lifeless and in darkness.

Yes

b) it is at this point the creation narrative begins (at Genesis 1:3).

Creation, recreation, and revealing.

c) at this point ... in seven days all life is created?

Either created or recreated or revealed.

So we have this period where there is no sun, yet biological life still evolves (and God accomplishes this I guess through biology in seven days, even though scientists know evolution was a process that took millions of years)?

Gap theorists believe the sun was created initially in verse 1 and then recreated or re-revealed in verse 3 based on their interpretation of the Hebrew words for "was" "Let there be" and so on. Again, we can cover this in another thread.

I'm trying to figure out how biblical literalists are not at odds with science .... but I'm at a loss.

Well first you'll need to brush up on what the gap theory actually posits if you want to argue against it. As far as other literalist interpretations, you'll have to take it up with defenders of those... like the day/thousand year folk and the YEC crowd. I think you're making it out to be far more difficult than it really is.

there's always been professing Christians who denied the resurrection (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind ... and there have been numerous others); but my line of reasoning certainly hasn't been responsible for it (since this sort of objection to Christian theology pre-exists what we know about evolution and the big bang).

So I'm not sure what you're point is here. The slippery slope remains.

Maybe the ancient Hebrew author of Genesis lived in a society where the standard mode of communication was much different than our own?

Even gap theorists posit there's much left unsaid (indeed an entire era in the history of the universe that's unaccounted for).

Well we'd probably have to defer to scholars then when it comes to figuring out the style of literature employed by Genesis. From what I understand, the majority view is that Genesis is written in the style of Historical Narrative.

I think the bigger problem is reconciling evolution with the Genesis narrative .... but the big bang has problems as well (albeit depending on ones interpretation).

Maybe so.

this helps illustrate my point .... centuries of western theology and we're still not sure how ancient Hebrew words like make, create, was, become, etc. should be translated? What's to say we have an accurate understanding of anything in the bible?

Its not that we're not sure how they should be translated, but as new knowledge of science, history, culture, etc. come to light we need to be prepared to gain a fuller understanding of what's before us. Its no different really from reassessing an ancient Hebrew or Greek turn of phrase in the light of a new discovery of some ancient text. Paul told Timothy to study to show himself approved as a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Its advice all Christians should be willing to follow.

I would say the bible was probably written literally .... but it's intended meaning has been lost in translation. You might say the Holy Spirit ensures the word is kept in tact (and I agree), but you have no basis to imagine how the Holy Spirit preserves the word (and nor do I).

I think I can maybe agree in areas where the scriptures are somewhat unclear. The scriptures seem pretty clear about sexual immorality.

Of course I'm not saying anything is beyond God's capability

Ok

[bridgeforsale]

Its not that we're not sure how they should be translated, but as new knowledge of science, history, culture, etc. come to light we need to be prepared to gain a fuller understanding of what's before us. Its no different really from reassessing an ancient Hebrew or Greek turn of phrase in the light of a new discovery of some ancient text. Paul told Timothy to study to show himself approved as a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Its advice all Christians should be willing to follow.

I guess we did veer off topic ... a quick final word about gap theory, I personally think it's somewhat obvious that Genesis 1:1-2 happened before the first day. However, I also don't think it's reasonable to think the entire universe was destroyed between verses 2 and 3? The tenor of Genesis 1 is IMO clearly chronological (including between verse 1 and 3).

In the beginning God creates heaven and earth. The earth, as God first created it, was formless, empty, and dark. Then God said let there be light (the beginning of the first day). There's nothing to suggest a gap where the entire universe (or just our solar system or galaxy) was destroyed and recreated?

On your point above ... yes I agree. As we learn more about language, science, history, culture, etc. we are able to translate scripture better (although we also encounter new problems). I guess this is my point. Maybe you're right about gap theory .... but it doesn't seem clear from the text (as it's set forth today).

I think I can maybe agree in areas where the scriptures are somewhat unclear. The scriptures seem pretty clear about sexual immorality.

as the text is laid out and understood today .... I agree the bible clearly depicts homosexuality as sinful. However, I still don't believe we do a great job of language translation.

I referred to the ways Paul uses the term "righteous" as an example of these discrepancies in modern biblical translation (earlier in the thread). Sometimes it's described as imputed (given without merit i.e. by grace), whereas in other instances it's used in the context of human conduct. This has caused significant theological confusion and heated (sometimes violent) debate for centuries.

Theologians act as if Paul is necessarily expressing the same idea each time he uses the term righteous ..... but what if the word is used in numerous different ways (and could mean numerous different things depending on the context)? What if Paul employed rhetorical style and sometimes set up his argument by speaking in the third person or as an antagonist? Or what if Paul anticipated objections to his arguments, and both articulated those objections and rebutted them?

How can we know the cultural context Paul was speaking in? It's perfectly possible Paul was referring to bisexuals rather than homosexuals .... we can't be sure. What if the common translations we see reflects the bias of orthodoxy ... yet it doesn't even come close to expressing the real ideas the biblical authors were trying to convey?

At the same time I understand your objection .... this sort of interpretation method is subjective & can lead to a slippery slope; but what if it's supposed to be subjective?