From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 17:51:14 EDT
To reply to George.
>
> I yield to you on the history. In any case, there is nothing in scripture
that
> requires a gap between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 & certainly nothing to indicate a
lapse of long
> periods of time. & it is quite fruitless to claim that millions of years
were required
> for the creation & fall of the angels &c. Any plausibility that the gap
theory has
> today (& I think it is very little) is because it provides a way to fit in
the long
> periods of time required by science.
Hardly any until about 1870 make any reference to the fall of angels except
Boehme in 1623 who seems to be one on his own.
Without geology the duration of chaos could not be determined (assuming
geology took place in the time of chaos) but the interesting thing is that
non-scientific ideas of chaos opened the way for any easy acceptance of
geological time in about 1800 and the Gap Theory a la Chalmers( which is
much more sensible than that of Pember or Schofiled and thus what a previous
generation were brought up on -unless they were Lutheran or anglican!) was
merely a minor modification of an old idea..
>
> Or put it another way. Even if one accepts the gap theory, the statement
"chaos
> could have lasted a long time a long time" has no more biblical support
than "chaos
> could have lasted a short time." The only way advocates of this view get
any estimate
> of the length of time that it lasted is by looking at the age of the
earth. & thus the
> claim that Allen made that this intepretation requires no scientific input
is false.
>
> Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 12 2003 - 01:41:22 EDT