The Gap Theory

[Quantrill]

I went back 10 pages in 'Bible Discussions' and 'Questions about Christianity' to see if this had been a recent topic. I couldn't find it, so thought It would be a good discussion.

I will say that I do hold to the Gap Theory as I believe it is Biblical. I know many oppose it because they say it supports evolution. To this I disagree. It does however support an old earth as opposed to a young earth of 6000 years.

The Gap Theory in general states this. (Gen. 1:1) is the original creation of the universe. (Gen. 1:2) is a description of the earth after something occurred that brought it into a chaotic condition. In between the verses of (1:1) and (1:2) there is an unknown time element or gap of time that has been skipped over and no information given there of how the earth got into that chaotic condition.

But, in studying the entire Bible, information can be had that sheds some light on what occurred. And what has been postulated is that the fall of satan occurred, causing a severe judgement of God upon the earth, and He shut out the Light. Thus we find the earth in it's condition in (Gen. 1:2). This would make what is normally called the six days of creation, really the six days of recreation or restoration of the earth.

So, has any studied this or have an opinion on it. And if so, why?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The first opposition against the Gap Theory is that (Gen. 1:2) uses the connective word 'and' which means it is a continuation of things stated in (Gen. 1:1). And this is true...grammatically. So in the normal reading one would see that the events of (1:2) follow the events of (1:1). Which they do. But in the Scriptures though the events follow, it does not mean there is not a time element involved between the verses. In other words, though the earth being without form and void does follow the original creation, it doesn't need to follow immediately.

Here is an example to support this. (Deut. 10:5-6) says, "And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me. And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead." The normal reading of this makes it appear that the children of Israel made this journey immediately after Moses put the law in the ark as well as Aaron's death. But, when you follow the list of Israel's wanderings and journeys given in (Num. 33) you will find that there were 40 years between the two events. (Num. 33:38) "And Aaron the priest went up into mount Hor at the commandment of the LORD, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt...."

The point here being that if you only read (Deut. 10) you would assume the journey and death of Aaron occurred next in the order of events. But because we have (Num. 33), we know much occurred between these events during a period of 40 years.

Quantrill

 

[KingJ]

If we focus only on the age of the earth, we should be able to have a friendly and light hearted discussion. The earth would have needed to be spoken into existence on both occasions. Either view does not diminish God as a great and wonderful Creator.

Issues arise only when some (evolutionists) propose inhabitants of said earth are millions of years old. As it 'may' insinuate God is wicked.

Examples:

1. Millions of years old dinosaurs = millions of years of cruel and torturous natural selection.
2. 100 000 years plus intelligent man = God who never cared about mankind until 6 000 years ago.

 

[Quantrill]

If we focus only on the age of the earth, we should be able to have a friendly and light hearted discussion. The earth would have needed to be spoken into existence on both occasions. Either view does not diminish God as a great and wonderful Creator.

Issues arise only when some (evolutionists) propose inhabitants of said earth are millions of years old. As it 'may' insinuate God is wicked.

Examples:

1. Millions of years old dinosaurs = millions of years of cruel and torturous natural selection.
2. 100 000 years plus intelligent man = God who never cared about mankind until 6 000 years ago.

Yes, you have original creation, and then the restoration of the earth in the six day period.

How does the age of the earth insinuate God is wicked?

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

The gap theory looks very weak to me. Nowhere in the Bible teaches it, and there's no scientific evidence that points to it. At best, it's a possibility that fits around various uncertainties. I don't see that it does much to clear up the inconsistencies between a literal reading of Genesis and the findings of geologists and biologists.

 

[Quantrill]

The gap theory looks very weak to me. Nowhere in the Bible teaches it, and there's no scientific evidence that points to it. At best, it's a possibility that fits around various uncertainties. I don't see that it does much to clear up the inconsistencies between a literal reading of Genesis and the findings of geologists and biologists.

What do I care about findings of geologists and biologists? Hint...nothing.

What is weak about it? You said there is nothing in the Bible that teaches it yet you haven't produced any argument against what I have already said.

So, do you really know what it is saying or are you just offering the more accepted view of denying the Gap Theory? If you don't know the evidence in Scripture for the Gap Theory why say anything at all?

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

In your opening post you asked if anyone had an opinion and to give reasons. I've given my opinion and reasons.

 

[KingJ]

How does the age of the earth insinuate God is wicked?

An old earth alone does not. But when we consider what earth is, it becomes hard to argue earth + life are not a similar age.

Earth has an atmosphere. Soil to grow food. Drinkable water. It's whole purpose is rather crystal clear.

I lean probably 70/30 toward young earth creationism. The 30% is due to a verse like Eze 28:13. Satan had a crown which consisted of many precious stones found on earth. It tells me that angels interact with our tangible 'dimension' a lot more then we realize. As such it is possible that the earth accommodated them and God prior to us.

It is hence also possible that they be behind dinosaurs / a corruption of sort prior to Adam.

I also find a verse like Gen 9:11 interesting. Why would God say He will never again destroy earth with a flood....if He has only done it ''once''.

 

[Quantrill]

An old earth alone does not. But when we consider what earth is, it becomes hard to argue earth + life are not a similar age.

Earth has an atmosphere. Soil to grow food. Drinkable water. It's whole purpose is rather crystal clear.

I lean probably 70/30 toward young earth creationism. The 30% is due to a verse like Eze 28:13. Satan had a crown which consisted of many precious stones found on earth. It tells me that angels interact with our tangible 'dimension' a lot more then we realize. As such it is possible that the earth accommodated them and God prior to us.

It is hence also possible that they be behind dinosaurs / a corruption of sort prior to Adam.

I also find a verse like Gen 9:11 interesting. Why would God say He will never again destroy earth with a flood....if He has only done it ''once''.

I don't see how that would insinuate God is wicked, but no matter. Yes it is hard to argue that earth was not created for life. Just as most likely the whole universe was. But there may well have been life on the earth prior to Adam. Or, as you say, it's purpose before could have been only for angles. As the verse you pointed out, (Eze. 28:13), describes an Eden not pictured in the six day creation. Instead of vegetation Eden was adorned with precious stones. That the six day creation described in (Genesis) is for the purpose of man, I agree.

God saying in (Gen. 9:11) that He will never destroy the earth again with a flood, only indicates that He won't do it again. It doesn't define the number of times He may have done it already.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

@KingJ

Another interesting verse to consider, or verses, is the comparison of (Gen. 9:1) and (Gen. 1:28). Noah and his family are told to 'replenish' the earth. And Adam and Eve were told the same.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I would like to add another example of how the word 'and', in connecting two verses, does not necessarily mean there is nothing else that followed between the verses. For, in the Bible, this can be true even if it is used, not just to connect verses, but used in a single sentence.

This verse is used by Jesus when He began His public ministry. Jesus went up before the synagogue and turned to the book of (Isaiah) and said, (Luke 4:18-19) "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel...to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

Jesus is quoting (Is. 61:1-2). But when you read (Is. 61:1-2) you will see that Jesus did not finish the quote. It says in (61:2) "To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn." Jesus stopped after saying 'year of the Lord' just before 'and'. Why did He stop? Because the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance were two different purposes. And His purpose in the first coming was to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. The day of vengeance pertains to the second coming and has not yet come, but will. We see it in the book of Revelation.

So, here in (Is. 61:1-2) you have a gap in a sentence of at least 2000 years even though in its normal reading the word 'and' would make it appear that both purposes occur at the same time.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

(Gen. 1:2) "And the earth was without form and void"

The whole of the universe was the subject of (Gen. 1:1), but now it turns to earth alone. In other words, it is not saying the universe was without form and void, only the earth. The definition of the words 'formless' and 'void' can be determined by how they are used else where in Scripture. And in all other places it indicates a judgemental condition.

(Jer. 4:23) "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." Jeremiah is describing an Israel under the judgement of God. See (4:20) and (4:27).

(Is. 24:1) "Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof." (Is. 24-27) is about future judgements to come upon Israel and the Gentiles. I believe it speaks to the future Tribulation period, but either way, it is about judgement. The word 'empty' here comes from the same word used for 'void' in (Gen. 1:2). And the word 'waste' describes the same condition as 'without form' in (Gen. 1:2)

(Is. 45:18) "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." The word 'vain' here is the exact same word used for 'without form' in (Gen. 1:2). Thus, is this not a direct statement that God did not create the earth in the condition it is found in (Gen. 1:2)? And here an Israel under judgement is being addressed, but not just under judgement. God is speaking to Israel concerning her restoration out of judgement. And it is in this context that the words 'without form and void' must be understood.

God is bringing the nations and Israel through judgement. But God always assures Israel that she will not be completely destroyed. He will not bring a full end of her though she will go through terrible judgement. (Is. 43:1-2) And God in (Isaiah 44-45) constantly gives this hope of restoration to Israel. And He describes the earth in (Is. 45:18) as proof that he will restore Israel. So, if the earth in (Gen. 1:2) being without form and void, followed by the six day creation, (Gen. 1:3-27), is not a picture of restoration out of judgement then it serves as no hope. Because that was the condition Israel was in.

So God is saying to Israel, you can know that just like I brought the earth under judgement but restored it, so will I also restore you.

Quantrill

 

[Bendito]

The gap theory looks very weak to me. Nowhere in the Bible teaches it, and there's no scientific evidence that points to it. At best, it's a possibility that fits around various uncertainties. I don't see that it does much to clear up the inconsistencies between a literal reading of Genesis and the findings of geologists and biologists.

Mr. Heruran, assuming for a microsecond that you are right, and the Earth and man are the same age, at what time in human history did Satan fall? Adam was in the garden but Satan was already on the Earth......There was a war going on.....At what point?

 

[Hekuran]

I don't know. The Bible does not dwell on the mechanics of how evil entered creation.

 

[Bendito]

I don't know. The Bible does not dwell on the mechanics of how evil entered creation.

But we know that Satan fell to Earth....If the Earth and man are both only 6000 years old, at what point in that time did Satan fall? That is not a creation issue....It's simple history As to mechanics....Satan fell....Not complicated mechanics there.

 

[Bendito]

The Book says that the Earth became " tohu vavohu" It would then read, 'The Earth became without form, and void'

 

[Quantrill]

(Gen. 1:2) "...and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

A question one might ask is why is there darkness here at all. God is light. Throughout the whole of the universe that God created, there should be light. The answer I believe is because God turned out the light. He removed His light. Why? Probably due to the sin and rebellion of satan. But, the point is there is the earth submerged in judgemental waters, formless and void, and in darkness. And darkness is contrary to God who is light. So quite naturally the first thing God did in the six day creation was to turn the light back on. (Gen. 1:3) And that was His light, not the sun. The sun would later replace His light. (1:14)

And remember, the only reference we have here, and in the whole of the six day creation, of the earth itself being created, is found in (Gen. 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Every thing throughout the six day creation pertains to things outside the earth. The firmament. The appearance of the lights in the heavens. Plant life. The animal life. Man. There is no creation of the earth in the six days. That had already been accomplished, "In the beginning". (1:1)

If one says the earth was part of the first day of creation, then you have the problems already mentioned of the earth being formless and void and covered in darkness and judgemental waters. This is completely contrary to God's method of creating as is seen in His work of the six days. He spoke and it was. And it was good.

Quantrill

 

[Hekuran]

But we know that Satan fell to Earth....If the Earth and man are both only 6000 years old, at what point in that time did Satan fall? That is not a creation issue....It's simple history As to mechanics....Satan fell....Not complicated mechanics there.

Ok, but to get there, you need to show that the 'morning star', translated lucifer is the Satan. I'm not convinced. The passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are addressed to the Kings of Babylon and Tyre, with ironic overstatement. I don't believe it goes any further than that.

 

[Bendito]

Ok, but to get there, you need to show that the 'morning star', translated lucifer is the Satan. I'm not convinced. The passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are addressed to the Kings of Babylon and Tyre, with ironic overstatement. I don't believe it goes any further than that.

I understand, you're not being able to answer the question, my friend....There is no information as to when it happened... I strongly believe in an old Earth. I believe Satan was on the Earth perhaps thousands of years before man came on the scene.... The Bible intimates an old Earth. New Earthers, those who believe the Earth was born a day or two before man, age the Earth by the genealogies of man.....You cannot do that....Man is not a rock, and the planet is not a man. What one has to do, is to read the Book and take into consideration the grammar....What does the Bood say? As in Genesis 1:1 ....God created the heavens and the Earth....the word created, yes past tense,, but the word itself..' created' It indicates a completed work. It was all done in Genesis 1:1...Finished! It was during Genesis 1:2 that the Earth was destroyed...And in vs 3 that God began RECONSTRUCTION.

 

[Quantrill]

You don't need do anything to prove the gap between (Gen. 1:1) and (Gen. 1:2) other then what I have already stated. As to what occurred during that time period, that is another question. That question should be viewed in light of this. What could occur during that time period which would cause God to exact such a terrible judgement upon the whole earth? Another question that should be entertained here is, why the earth only and not the whole of the universe?

We know that when God laid out the foundations of the earth and it's cornerstone, that the angels were present and there was no rebellion at this time. (Job 38:4-7) One may only wonder what lucifer was thinking as he watched. Was that seed of rebellion already present in him? Of course it was. (John 8:44) "....he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth...." Remember (Gen. 1:1) "In the beginning...."

So, God creates the earth, and how glorious it must have been. How beautiful it is today even though it is under the curse. We can't imagine it at it's origin. But it evoked the praise of the angels. (Job 38:7) Yet, there it lies in (Gen. 1:2), without form and void and in darkness.

Quantrill