TL:DR: The Genesis Question part nineteen

Hi, Everybody!

Sunday: Dave. Genesis Question:

1 June 14

Hi Troy and Mia!

I have to admit that I had never heard of the "gap theory" before reading Mr. Ross' book.  He writes:

The "gap theory" proposes that the beautiful universe and Earth God created "in the beginning" somehow became ruined (the most popular interpretations blame Satan and the rebel angels, or demons) and was later repaired by God as described in the six-day account.  According to this theory, astronomers, geophysicists, palaeontologists and anthropologists are measuring the ancient ruined creation, whereas the Bible addresses the recent, repaired creation.

The gap theory's resolution of the major contradictions between the scientific record and the twenty-four-hour creation days interpretation is one of silence only.  According to this theory, the Bible bears no testimony to natural history, and the record of nature bears no testimony to biblical history.  Thus, it makes a mockery of those Scripture passages commanding us to "test everything" and to look to the creation for evidence of God's existence and character.

On this latter observation, Mr. Ross offers twenty-four Biblical citations in support -- which I will be dutifully plodding through shortly. 

In support of what I'm really not quite sure.

Mr. Ross' assertion that  "the gap theory's resolution…is one of silence only" I'd be tempted to refute-- tongue-in-cheek -- with the  observation that "contradictions between the scientific record and the twenty-four-hour creation days interpretation are implied throughout." 

[On the basis that if the "sauce for the goose" of  "Thermodynamics, electromagnetism and gravity are implied throughout" (one of Mr. Ross' earlier bullet points) then it would seem to me that the "sauce for the gander" of asserting that a contradictory theory is "implied throughout" would have equal validity since, as far as I can see, Genesis 1-3's record on the subject of thermodynamics, electromagnetism and gravity "is one of silence only"]

The "gap theory" has the appearance to me of what I see as a "broken telephone cover story" on the part of the YHWH to explain why there is such a wide divergence between the God Narrative (which I see as consisting of Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis 2:1-3) and the YHWH God narrative (which I see as consisting of Genesis 2:4-24 and Genesis 3 and 4).

I mean, if you actually read the text, Genesis 1:1-31 consists of a six-day account of the creation of the heaven and the earth, while Genesis 2:4 forward all takes place in a single day according to the text:

These the generations of the heavens & of the earth when they were created: IN THE DAY (singular: emphasis mine) that the YHWH God made the earth and the heavens

So, not only did YHWH God purportedly create both the earth and the heavens in a single day, YHWH God, evidently -- according to Genesis 2:5-6 -- began the creation of the heaven and the earth with…plants and herbs:

And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew: for the YHWH God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there not a man to till the ground.  But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground

Not to be too jocose about all this, but you start with plants and herbs -- before they grew because YHWH God had not caused it to rain upon the earth (where did the earth come from all of a sudden?) -- and "there not a man to till the ground". 

As Allan Fotheringham used to say "That muddifies the fuzzification nicely". 

You could just add that "thermodynamics, electromagnetism and gravity are implied throughout" and you would have a very nice, tight, iron-clad "single day creation narrative". 

I say that "the gap theory" has a "broken telephone cover story" appearance to it because it would appear to want to serve as a bridge between the two narratives.  But not (I don't think) as Mr. Ross (this is where I see the "broken telephone" aspect) asserts it: his

somehow became ruined (the most popular interpretations blame Satan and the rebel angels, or demons) and was later repaired by God

I don't think was intended at all to refer to the six-day account of Genesis 1 so much as it was intended to explain that the six-day account "documents" the ruined creation of Satan (that is, God as seen from YHWH God's vantage point) which YHWH God then needed to repair, starting with the creation of plants and herbs and mist that rises up from the ground in Genesis 2.    

According to this theory, astronomers, geophysicists, palaeontologists and anthropologists are measuring the ancient ruined creation, whereas the Bible addresses the recent repaired creation

There's a peculiar internal logic there which is usually a property of a "cover story". 

What it does in the context of my own model is to attempt to render God's creation -- the six-day narrative of Genesis 1 -- irrelevant to the discussion.  It is simply declared to be "beside the point" because it was a ruin and a corruption that astronomers, geophysicists, palaeontologists and anthropologists persist in wasting their time in examining.  "Wasting" their time because the YHWH God -- starting with plants and herbs before they were in the ground -- fixed all that.

Okay. On to Mr. Ross' citations

Job 10:8-14:

Thine hands (Hebr.: take pains about me; KJV: have made me) and fashioned me together round about: yet thou doest destroy me.  [9] Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay, and wilt thou bring me into dust again? [10] Hast thou not poured me out as milk and curdled me like cheese?  [11] Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast (Hebr.: hedged KJV: fenced) me with bones and sinews.  [12] Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit. [13] And these things hast thou hid in thy heart; I know that this with thee.  [14] If I sin, then thou markest me, and thou wilt not acquit me from mine iniquity

Trying to see this from Mr. Ross' perspective, I have trouble seeing how this passage applies to the "gap theory" or his denunciation of it. 

Personally, I would fault Job's reasoning in a few areas here. 

"Yet thou doest destroy me".  Well, my observation would be, if you're able to enunciate the thought then it's premature:  you haven't been destroyed.  You have fallen a long way from where you had been in a materialistic sense and, in a materialistic sense, you are closer to destruction than would be popularly conceived to be otherwise by the general materialistic population.  But "destroyed" for the God-fearing is a very different concept from "destroyed" in the popular materialistic imagination.

"…and wilt thou bring me into dust again?" The short answer would be: depends on what you mean by "me".  If you mean your physical form, yes, that ends up as dust.  If you mean your soul, well, that's up to you.  If you live your life in such a way that your soul doesn't end up as dust then odds are your soul won't end up as dust.  Unless you're hiding something from yourself and attempting to hide it from God.

"Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit"

It certainly seems true to me that God has granted ALL of us "life and favour".  The mere fact of existence and free will presupposes God's undeserved kindness.  If you are alive and you are able to make choices then you have been granted "life and favour".  As to "thy visitation hath preserved my spirit", Job is, arguably, in a different human category where I couldn't comment intelligently on the observation.  I'm aware of God's presence in my life, but not, factually, of any specific "visitation".  My spirit seems to me to be mostly inaccessible to my conscious mind but I've never been aware of a need for it (my spirit) to be preserved.  My assumption is that my spirit is present.  I can corrupt it or improve it depending on my choices but I don't think preservation enters into the discussion.  Job's experience is likely very different from my own.  Although the text identifies the YHWH speaking to Satan in Job 1:9…

(arguably the Larger Context of the Job narrative is YHWH talking to himself, on the one hand as a God "surrogate" and on the other hand in his/her/its actual form as the spirit inhabiting the earth -- "from going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it" as it says in Job 1:7)

…the quote directly refers to God:  "Hast thou set thy heart on my servant Job, that none like him in the earth?  a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil?" 

I'm guessing that the experience of "a perfect and an upright man" is going to be different from the rest of us.  Which seems confirmed by:

"and these things hast thou hid in thy heart; I know that this with thee" 

For a God-fearing man to assert something like this this definitively, suggests to me an entirely closer relationship to God that that of the run-of-the-mill believer.  For anyone else it would be blasphemous to suggest that you, as a human being, knew what God had hidden in His heart and to suggest that you know what is "with God". The only way that I could see you "getting away with it" is if God knows it to be irrefutably true. 

Also, presumably Job believes that the YHWH is God, so, arguably he isn't talking about what God has hidden in His heart or what is "with God" but rather what the YHWH has hidden in his heart and what is "with YHWH" which, presumably, God and YHWH also knew.

Job 12:7 "But ask now the beasts and they shall teach thee;  and the fowls of the air and they shall tell thee."

I don't think Job intends this in a literal sense.  He doesn't want his interlocutor, Zophar, to actually go and ask the beasts and the fowls.  I think what he is suggesting is that -- just as the beasts and the fowls are of a simple, God-fearing nature, untroubled for the most part by choice and the consequences of it -- so Job has been from his youth.  What Job is saying is that Zophar is counselling him to be exactly as he has been and as he is.  He can't be any more God-fearing and obedient than he has already been and is being. It's as natural to Job as beasts being beasts and birds being birds.

Of course I would argue that Job's misconstruction that YHWH is God is a major part of his problem and it would seem that Zophar is counselling against that:

"But, O that God would speak and open His lips against thee.  And that He would show thee the secrets of wisdom, that double to that which is: know therefor that God exacteth of thee, then thine iniquity.  Canst thou by searching find out God?  Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?  As (Hebr.: the heights of heaven KJV: as high as heaven) what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know?  The measure thereof longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.    

The KJV interpolates into this:  "know therefor that God exacteth of thee LESS than thine iniquity DESERVETH."  I think it's a lucid thought as is: that God will exacteth of Job as a person and THEN of Job's iniquity.  All have fallen short of the glory of God so the process of "exacting" is always valid.  The purpose is to see what Job chooses to do in reaction to the "exacting".  If his reaction is "iniquitous" he will be punished for that iniquity. 

The overall sense, I think, is that Job is aware of the YHWH and what the YHWH has hidden in his/her/its heart and that Zophar is correct: that that is a very different thing from knowing God in the same sense.

Job 34:14-15  "If He set His heart (Hebr.: upon him KJV: upon man) he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again into dust."

These are the words of Elihu, directed at Job which seem to answer Job's question about being turned into dust again.  I think the more pertinent passages in Elihu's observations occur in Job 34:10-12:

"Therefore hearken unto me, ye (Hebr.: men of heart KJV: men of understanding) far be it from God, wickedness, and from the Almighty, that iniquity. [11] For the work of a man shall He render unto him, and cause every man to find according to ways.  [12] Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgement.

Wickedness is far from God and wickedness is "that iniquity".  It is simply a man's own work that God "render(s) unto him" and "cause(s) every man to find according to ways".  Free will allows for a panoply of decisions, works and ways.  Man finds his own decisions, his own work and his own ways and then God rewards or punishes each of those appropriately. 

It would be difficult for Job to see it that way in his then-present circumstances.  But he has no way of knowing that those circumstances are temporary.  That "neither will be the Almighty pervert judgement".  He might skew it a little for a period of time to make His point, but that's very different from perverting judgment.  What is required is "the patience of Job" that justice will be done. 

This is followed by an interesting, multi-levelled tangential thought in Job 34:13, the lead-in to Mr. Ross' citation:

Who hath given him a charge over the earth?  Or who hath disposed (Hebr.: all of it; KJV the whole world)?

You can infer the text as referring to God ("Who hath given Him a charge over the earth?").  That is, no one appoints God to any position.  Any position God holds He holds by divine right. 

Or you can read it as referring to man.  "Who hath given him (man) a charge over the earth?"  The answer to that would be...God, as documented in Genesis 1:28:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and REPLENISH THE EARTH, AND SUBDUE IT…"

It seems to me a direct reference, not only to the earth, but especially to the YHWH.  "Who hath disposed all of it?"  Again, it seems to me the answer is God.  God created the YHWH and the earth and God has asserted the disposition of each from the outset.

Mr. Ross' next citation is:

Job 35:10-12  "But none sayeth, Where God my maker, who giveth songs in the night?  [11] Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?  [12] There they cry (but none giveth answer) because of the pride of evil men."

This is more the end of one of Elihu's thoughts rather than a self-contained thought, following on from his observation that Job's actions and decisions have no effect on God ("if thou sinnest what doest thou against Him?" and "If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? or what receiveth He of thy hand?").  Which seems to me particularly cogent in the context.  The Koran makes the same point in several places:  a man sins to his own hurt only and is righteous only to his own benefit. God is "rich without us".   The opportunity to choose and behave in ways of our own choosing is part of God's "undeserved kindness".  We haven't been given the opportunity because we deserved the opportunity to advance or retard our own position, but God chose to give it to us anyway.  Just as He made sure that if we chose to turn our backs on Him and to restrict our interests to "the casual fruitions of this world" we get exactly what we choose and chose.  So it's an abomination to suggest that we're in any kind of bargaining position: that God "owes" us anything for our (self-perceived) loyalty or (self-perceived) righteousness.

Only the "pride of evil men" allows them to point and say "There is God, my maker."  He exists but nowhere that you can point at.   

Job 37:5-7  "God thundereth marvellously with His Voice: great things doth He, which we cannot comprehend.  For He sayeth to the snow, Be thou the earth: [Hebr.: and to the shower of rain, and to the showers of rain of His strength KJV: likewise to the small rain and to the great rain of His strength].  He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know His work.

I think the point of this passage is implicit in the observation "which we cannot comprehend".  The KJV interpolates "Be thou ON the earth" in reference to the snow.

But, I suspect that the point is that we don't comprehend -- and, I suspect, wouldn't comprehend even if God were to explain it to us -- what it means when God says to the snow, "Be thou the earth" and then when He says the same thing to "the shower of rain and to the showers of rain of His strength".

That only God comprehends the meaning of that: that there is a way of commanding snow so that snow becomes analogous to the earth itself and way of commanding the rain so that the rain becomes analogous to the earth in a different way and that "God's strength" has an analogous quality to both the "shower of rain" that we are aware of and the "showers of rain" that we have no means of comprehending. 

Likewise "He sealeth up the hand of every man, that all men may know His work."  Nothing comes readily to mind when we picture God "sealing up" the hand of every man, so it's only natural that we can't follow the ensuing logic "that all men may know His work".  It is all that "which we cannot comprehend" which is why it is inherently foolish to attempt to second-guess God and His actions.  But, there is a knowledge that we do possess, the knowledge of "His work".  We just don't know HOW we know it.

Next week (and possibly the week after that and the week after that), Mr. Ross' next citation:  Job 38-41

Best,

  

Dave

Don't forget: Comics Link.

Next Time: Unless something else "pops up", ComicsGate.