[jimmyray]

You maintain a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3, where any amount of time could have elapsed and events could have occurred. However, Exodus 20:11 clearly states "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them," which refutes that notion, for it includes the heavens and the earth in the 6 days.

My questions was, then, how do you reconcile Exodus 20:11 with your gap theory?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“You maintain a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3”

Actually, beteen verse 2 and verse 3. I did not use the word gap. I did say God has not revealed the amount of time that occurred.

“However, Exodus 20:11 clearly states “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,”which refutes that notion, for it includes the heavens and the earth in the 6 days.”

I agree that verses 3 and following refer to a literal 6 days of creation. If you read the excerpts I posted to RB just before your post, you will have a better idea of why I believe the Hebrew language and structure of the passage lend themselves to the idea without negating God as sole creator, nor the literal 6 day period of creation.

I believe this idea is difficult for people on this thread for a few reasons:

1. They’ve never studied Hebrew language, grammar, structure or Jewish understanding of the same.
2. They are so focused on trying to refute the evolutionists, atheists and godless that they force the Scriptures into a small space.
3. They are so focused on God’s work on Earth that they make all creation about us. It is all about Him.

Having said all that, and posted my views, I encourage you to go back to my very first post where I pointed out that I divide my understanding into opinions, beliefs and convictions. Of the three, I would only (hopefully) be willing to be martyred for convictions. There are very few of those. The first chapter of Genesis teaches clearly that ALL creation came into existence from God - lock stock and barrel. We agree on that. After decades of study, I personally would classify my understanding of this passage at the believe level (I own it, but it doesn’t own me, as a conviction does). Because of this, I do not believe it has anything to do with salvation. It makes for interesting discussion and is important, but I will not die for a particular view of the details.

I know many good, godly Christian men, who have an extremely high view of Scripture, who disagree with the article that heads this thread. They all know the original languages, etc. My point in posting was to show how silly it is to demand everyone believe the exact same thing.

This is all probably more than you wanted to know. In short, I do not believe there is any conflict whatsoever.

best,
ampu