Discussion in 'Christian History' started by Lewis, Jul 10, 2009.
Who here believes in The Gap Theory
Nope, not me.
It sounds like a clothing store. ;)
I find the notion interesting, but I am not really a subscriber to the idea.
I have heard of this gap theory but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know what it is.
Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
That is NOT day one. He didn't say when the beginning was but science lets us know that it could have been millions or billions of years ago. Most modern Bibles footnote that the word "was" is properly translated as "became." The world became without form...but it wasn't created that way.
Isaiah 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 phrase "in vain" is the Hebrew word "tohu" that in Genesis 1:2 is translated as "formless." God created it to be inhabited but it became formless and empty.
Why? Are there other places where this is written?
11 Peter 3:5-7 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
This is NOT about the flood of Noah. Peter discusses that flood in [11 Peter 2:4-5]. Here the earth and heavens PERISHED in "the world that then was" but we live in "the heavens and earth which are now." The world that "then was" became "tohu."
Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (became) without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was NO MAN, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by His fierce anger.
This too is NOT about the flood of Noah. Here there was "no man" and no birds. Noah and his family were human and we see specific mention of a raven and a dove. That verse is telling us about the first age....the age in which Satan rebelled.
Satan rebelled....God destroyed that age and then we have the second part of verse 2....
Genesis 1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3-5 And God said, "Let there be light:" and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (day one).
This present age began.
One last thought on this topic....From the Book of Jasher, which is NOT scripture but is quoted twice in the Old Testament [Joshua 10:13 & 11 Samuel 1:18], therefore, we can give some credence to it.
Jasher was the son of Caleb, a contemporary of Moses and when speaking of the creation he said....
1:4-5 And the abyss fled before the face of the light, and divided between the light and the darkness. So that the face of nature was formed a second time."
Robert Theim Jr explains this best.
He is no longer with us, but he was very knowledgeable in Hebrew and Greek.
You can get his sermons from his website for a donation...it's an open donation, but just keep in mind, he is straight forward and no none sense. Most of his sermons was done in the 70's, 80's, and up to the late 90's.
I wish there were more Pastors like him now days...the Church needs this type of Pastor to Wake Up!
Also in Gen 1:28 God says to Adam & Eve to "replenish" the Earth...why "Re"plenish if it never was?
"Who here believes in The Gap Theory"
I've always used it as a working hypothesis since I heard it in the Greenwood Baptist Church in Pasadena, TX back in '61. I'd been Christian for about two weeks, and it served to explain many things that I'd been wondering about before. I haven't had any real reason to reconsider.
Since nobody REALLY knows squat about that period of time, The "gap Theory" is a good any any, more sensible than many. And since most of "Creation Science" is really nothing but BAD Science driven to prove this or that paradigmatic religious agenda of this or that denomination, there's little need of trying to sort out the confusion, since the REAL answer will not be known on THIS side of the grass any time soon.
Good for you Pard, The whole idea is pretty ridiculous.
It stems from a lack of faith in the abilities of our Lord. All things are possible through Him, we do not need to create silly loop-holes, if you will, to maintain the integrity of the Word. "Gap theory" is an attempt to appease the secular world, that is wrong and un-Christian.
As far as I can see, the only real reason for the gap theory (as well as the day=age theory) is to reconcile the biblical creation account with the theory that the earth is billions of years old. The only reason for that, in turn, is to accomodate the theory of evolution. I don't see anything in the text itself that supports either the gap or day=age theories.
AMEN!!!!! I am with you
On the other hand,
It stems from a lack of faith in the abilities of our Lord.
Actually it doesn't. It's a Given that HE "COULD do the creation thing" in 144 hours from scratch. The question is "Did He". And there's simply no compelling reason to believe that He did, and much evidence that there's more to the story.
All things are possible through Him, we do not need to create silly loop-holes, if you will, to maintain the integrity of the Word.
There's nothing about the Gap theory that strives to "Maintain the integrity of the Word". and nothing about it that brings into question any part of the Word either. TRUE some folk's INTERPRETATIONS of the Word are brought into question - but that's simply a normal part of the way folks generate their "Theologies".
"Gap theory" is an attempt to appease the secular world, that is wrong and un-Christian."
Wrong again. The "Secular world" couldn't care less what Christians think or don't think about origins. The Gap Theory is a possible explanation covering many questions, and some biblical passages that APPEAR to indicate that there were things going on - before the "Adamic Creaton" took place. There may have been SEVERAL "Creations" on this dirt ball before Adam and his descendants came on the scene.
It MAY be "inaccurate" in fact, or partially inaccurate - but it's just silly to call it "Un-Christian".
Honestly, I'm willing to be persuaded either way - quite apart from any need for scientific explanation.
As far as whether anything existed for a period of time before the events of Genesis 1:2 and following: what are the waters that the Spirit was hovering over, and where did it/they come from? The Hebrew word eretz is used for "heaven and earth (eretz)" (vs. 1) which is variously translated as earth and land throughout the OT (depending on the context). Yet in verse two see only water (why anything at all?) and then the land emerging later from it. Was eretz in verse 1 a preview of what was to come or a summary of what had been created by the time of verse 2?
This is an open question for me. Whirlwind's scripture quote from Isaiah should also be taken into consideration since it uses the same terms as in Genesis.
Genesis 1:1 simply states that God (through the Word, aka Christ Jesus) created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2 just says that when He created the earth it was empty, formless. The remainder of Genesis 1 explains HOW God turned the earth from a formless and empty thing into what it was at Adam's time. Of course after the flood story the earth becomes something like what we have today (with a few less canyons and a few less lakes and more than one continent)
i didnt know that the belief in the creation account via gap theory was salvinic?
is it? or is one not a christian cause he or she accepts evolution? or the idea of the big bang?
my brother accepts the big bang but not evolution.
i myself am yecer but im still out on big bang.
Okay, no argument there. But still the question is where did the waters come from? Genesis begins with the waters already assumed to be in existance.
The NASB reads:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Young's Literal translation renders it to reflect the tense of the verbs:
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters
The interesting thing to me is that we never see God create water or "the waters" in Genesis, although he creates land. With the water he only divides or gathers it. Never are we explicitly told of its origin.
The next mention of waters in Genesis just mentions the actions performed on it: "Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters" (Genesis 1:6, YLT).
So really my question is, at what point did God create the waters? Also, was it a spherical mass of waters in the form of the earth? But it is said to be formless... But perhaps that is a description of the chaotic ever changing surface of the waters itself (all water in a sense is formless), because how can something not gathered together have a "surface" at all to hover over? Also we must accept it as literal waters. So in what way was the water arranged, where was it, and when did God create it?
Unanswered questions. Perhaps ones which the Bible does not give us sufficient data to answer. Hence a theory has been advanced which lists a possibility. Also what relevance do you think the scripture from Isaiah bears on understanding Genesis 1?
I don't think your view on creation has anything to do about salvation or your Christian status...
I think it can be a good tell about how much faith you have, but not much else.
i do agree as i have found, not always,that those that can fully use proper exegesis for the creation story also dont have a lot of faith in the word of god as either they havent read it or are one of those modern christians, and i say that in a nondegrogatory manner.
such as this"divine healing is for the early church alone' and that God heals only through natural process.
Separate names with a comma.