What's new
  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

The Gap Theory

Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,907
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#42
Theo, I see you are browsing this topic, so I'll make this post fast so that, mabye you'll see it now.... (may not put a lot of thought into this....)

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.
I don't think that an old earth serves ONLY as a support for evolution. First, I think evolotion is baloney - a reptile can't turn slowly into a bird - if it did, what use is a PARTIALLY formed wing? How does THAT serve the creature over a milliion or more years as it "evolves". Ok, 'nuff of that, I'm sure you and I agre that evolution is baloney.

An old earth IS necessary for one very compelling reason - because we can't deny that the earth is old, because it is!*

Now, since God will NOT lie, I am left to believe that His word is being mis-interpreted or mis-translated when we see an indication that the earth is 6,000 years old!


*Ok, wait - perhaps the earth IS young, but the UNIVERSE is OLD! How do you respond to THAT? I mean, I know the universe is old, and I suspect the earth is as well, but I am incomplete in my research for supporting an old earth - an old universe and creation is easy and fairly obvious. Making a CERTAIN case for an old EARTH is not that easy. I'm still working on that, when I am done, I'll start a thread about it.
 
T

Theofilus

Guest
#43
Theo, I see you are browsing this topic, so I'll make this post fast so that, mabye you'll see it now.... (may not put a lot of thought into this....)



I don't think that an old earth serves ONLY as a support for evolution. First, I think evolotion is baloney - a reptile can't turn slowly into a bird - if it did, what use is a PARTIALLY formed wing? How does THAT serve the creature over a milliion or more years as it "evolves". Ok, 'nuff of that, I'm sure you and I agre that evolution is baloney.

An old earth IS necessary for one very compelling reason - because we can't deny that the earth is old, because it is!*

Now, since God will NOT lie, I am left to believe that His word is being mis-interpreted or mis-translated when we see an indication that the earth is 6,000 years old!


*Ok, wait - perhaps the earth IS young, but the UNIVERSE is OLD! How do you respond to THAT? I mean, I know the universe is old, and I suspect the earth is as well, but I am incomplete in my research for supporting an old earth - an old universe and creation is easy and fairly obvious. Making a CERTAIN case for an old EARTH is not that easy. I'm still working on that, when I am done, I'll start a thread about it.
Yes, we do agree that the theory of evolution is nonsense. Let me clarify one thing. When I said that evolution was the only reason for the gap theory and the day=age theory, I didn't mean that everyone who believes one of those theories has to also believe in evolution. I know that this is not the case, since I once believed the gap theory myself, while at the same time rejecting the idea of evolution. What I meant was that evolution is the reason the theory was invented in the first place. Before the theory of evolution became popular, nobody thought that the world was billions of years old. There was no reason to think that. But for evolution to work, it needs an old earth. When scientists started telling everybody that the earth was much older than they had previously thought, people believed them, because they were supposed to be the experts. So, to reconsile the biblical account of creation with this new "knowledge" of science, the gap theory was invented. Without the theory of evolution, the gap theory would never have existed.

You say that we know that the earth is old. I disagree. What we know is that it looks old. But why would God make a universe that looks like it's billions of years old, when it's really only a few thousand years old? It's really quite simple, and the first chapter of Genesis gives us the answer.

It takes about two years from the time a baby is born until it starts to say simple words. It takes even longer before a child can cary on an intelligent conversation. Yet, on the day of Adam's creation, God talked to him. A person isn't capable of reproducing until he's in his teens. Yet, on the day of their creation, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply". Years pass from the time we sow seeds until the trees that sprout from them bare fruit. But when the newly created trees were only 3 days old, they were already baring ripe fruit for Adam and Eve to eat. All these things and more looked much older than they were, because it was necessary for them to have a certain level of maturity. Babies couldn't tend the garden or take care of themselves. Without mature plants, there would be nothing for people to eat. These things had to look old. So, what about the earth itself? Did it have to look old for things to work? Yes, it did. If you start with bare rock, how long does it take for soil to form? First, wind and water have to break the rock down into sand, then plants take root in the sand (no fruit trees though) and, when they die, they decompose and mix with the sand and eventually soil is formed. This process takes a very long time but, on the third day of creation there was already soil for the trees to grow in. The earth looked old. It had to so the rest of creation would be possible.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,907
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#44
Yes, we do agree that the theory of evolution is nonsense. Let me clarify one thing. When I said that evolution was the only reason for the gap theory and the day=age theory, I didn't mean that everyone who believes one of those theories has to also believe in evolution. I know that this is not the case, since I once believed the gap theory myself, while at the same time rejecting the idea of evolution. What I meant was that evolution is the reason the theory was invented in the first place. Before the theory of evolution became popular, nobody thought that the world was billions of years old. There was no reason to think that. But for evolution to work, it needs an old earth. When scientists started telling everybody that the earth was much older than they had previously thought, people believed them, because they were supposed to be the experts. So, to reconsile the biblical account of creation with this new "knowledge" of science, the gap theory was invented. Without the theory of evolution, the gap theory would never have existed.
Ok, I get that.

You say that we know that the earth is old. I disagree. What we know is that it looks old. But why would God make a universe that looks like it's billions of years old, when it's really only a few thousand years old? It's really quite simple, and the first chapter of Genesis gives us the answer.

It takes about two years from the time a baby is born until it starts to say simple words. It takes even longer before a child can cary on an intelligent conversation. Yet, on the day of Adam's creation, God talked to him. A person isn't capable of reproducing until he's in his teens. Yet, on the day of their creation, God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply". Years pass from the time we sow seeds until the trees that sprout from them bare fruit. But when the newly created trees were only 3 days old, they were already baring ripe fruit for Adam and Eve to eat. All these things and more looked much older than they were, because it was necessary for them to have a certain level of maturity. Babies couldn't tend the garden or take care of themselves. Without mature plants, there would be nothing for people to eat. These things had to look old. So, what about the earth itself? Did it have to look old for things to work? Yes, it did. If you start with bare rock, how long does it take for soil to form? First, wind and water have to break the rock down into sand, then plants take root in the sand (no fruit trees though) and, when they die, they decompose and mix with the sand and eventually soil is formed. This process takes a very long time but, on the third day of creation there was already soil for the trees to grow in. The earth looked old. It had to so the rest of creation would be possible.
Wow. Even tho I am not ready to give up on an old universe, THAT was a POST.

You win "Pizza's Post of the Day" award. (Even tho I am not ready to agree yet... that was a POST!)
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
696
Christian
Yes
#45
No i do not believe in the Gap Theory. Here are some sermons by Jessie Delewski on the Gap Theory:

Part 1:
In this sermon we begin a study on the gap theory. Does the Bible really teach that there was a huge span of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? When and where did the teaching of the gap theory enter into the church? In the first part of this study, brother Jessie Delewski will answer these questions, and also prove that the "day-age theory" is unscriptural. You will plainly see that the day age theory is an unnecessary compromise that Christians make between the Bible and the ridiculous evolution theory. We truly must beware of "oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Timothy 6:20)
SermonAudio.com - The Gap Theory

Part 2:
In this sermon we look at the meaning of the word "replenish". Does this word mean "to fill" or to "fill again"? Should we use dictionaries, or the Bible itself to define this word? What about the passage in Jeremiah 4? Are verses 23-26 really speaking about a "pre-Adamite earth"? Or are these verses describing another event?
SermonAudio.com - The Gap Theory Part 2

Part 3:
In this message, Jessie Delewski covers the fall of Satan and how this event relates to the supposed "pre-Adamite fall" held by many advocates of the Gap Theory. You will see why this pre-Adamite fall of angelic beings, just doesn't line up with scripture!
SermonAudio.com - The Gap Theory Part 3
 
A

Alabaster

Guest
#46
I have always leaned toward the Gap Theory, as it explains the pre-existence of the planet, that it may have not always been void, seeing as it is described as void and the pre-existence of vast waters, and the fact that God didn't have to plant any flora. The seeds were already there---my take on it.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
38,271
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#47
I have always leaned toward the Gap Theory, as it explains the pre-existence of the planet, that it may have not always been void, seeing as it is described as void and the pre-existence of vast waters, and the fact that God didn't have to plant any flora. The seeds were already there---my take on it.
so the dinosaurs were carnivores before God said let the animals eat herbs. thats the main issue with the gap theory.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
38,271
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#49
in genesis theres no mention of death save after the fall of adam(death of the animals) its reasonable to say that plants died to be eaten. or we could say that only fruits were eaten.

man more questions on the account.looks like i will have to hit up icr or aig again.:lol
 
A

Alabaster

Guest
#50
in genesis theres no mention of death save after the fall of adam(death of the animals) its reasonable to say that plants died to be eaten. or we could say that only fruits were eaten.

man more questions on the account.looks like i will have to hit up icr or aig again.:lol
That there is no mention of death in the Creation account doesn't mean that much death occurred eons before the Creation that we know about, and are so integral to. God doesn't consider it our business to know the details.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
38,271
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#51
That there is no mention of death in the Creation account doesn't mean that much death occurred eons before the Creation that we know about, and are so integral to. God doesn't consider it our business to know the details.
for by one man DEATH entered the world. kinda kills that doesnt it. besides since when did you become and old earth type? i know you dont buy evolution but what did the animals eat if they werent carnivores?

i dont buy there was a world before ours. reread gen 1:2. now the earth was without form and void of shape(meaning it didnt exist).
 
A

Alabaster

Guest
#52
for by one man DEATH entered the world. kinda kills that doesnt it. besides since when did you become and old earth type? i know you dont buy evolution but what did the animals eat if they werent carnivores?

i dont buy there was a world before ours. reread gen 1:2. now the earth was without form and void of shape(meaning it didnt exist).
Adam is the first of our race of man, of the Creation as we know it. What went on before is none of our business. Death could easily have occurred in eons before this particular Creation. The animals He created (dinosaurs, etc) would have been herbivores, and if there were carnivores, why couldn't they be prey to one another as animals have become in this Creation?

The Earth was created, and it was once formless and void, which means EMPTY, which hints at a previous form and fullness. It says darkness covered the waters, and hints at a previous light and the pre-existence of deep oceans.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
38,271
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#53
Adam is the first of our race of man, of the Creation as we know it. What went on before is none of our business. Death could easily have occurred in eons before this particular Creation. The animals He created (dinosaurs, etc) would have been herbivores, and if there were carnivores, why couldn't they be prey to one another as animals have become in this Creation?

The Earth was created, and it was once formless and void, which means EMPTY, which hints at a previous form and fullness. It says darkness covered the waters, and hints at a previous light and the pre-existence of deep oceans.
huh? ok heres the problem, why did God kill off all life? sin? faulty creation? there was NO sun before the earth! the earth was first then it says let there be light, then the stars and sun and moon for time!

so you dont believe in a literal six days.
 
A

Alabaster

Guest
#54
huh? ok heres the problem, why did God kill off all life? sin? faulty creation? there was NO sun before the earth! the earth was first then it says let there be light, then the stars and sun and moon for time!

so you dont believe in a literal six days.
Hopefully when you see Him you can ask Him.

Genesis 1:1 says that God made the heavens and the Earth. Verse 2 says that the Earth was formless and empty. Eons could have existed between verse 1 and 2.

Who says there wasn't any light? Who says that the war in the heavens didn't cause the death of this planet originally? There is so much history that has gone before our own history that you just cannot discount that Earth could have once been a flourishing planet.

To me this explains the prehistoric fossil record, and the vast stores of oil in the earth, the result of eons of degradation of organic material.

This is just a theory and I am not going to stand adamant on it.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
696
Christian
Yes
#55
I encourage you to listen to the sermons i posted previously on this thread it goes right through the Bible to prove that the Gap Theory cant be true. No one on earth here was alive when Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 happened so the best thing to do is to believe God and that the Bible is right.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
38,271
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#56
Hopefully when you see Him you can ask Him.

Genesis 1:1 says that God made the heavens and the Earth. Verse 2 says that the Earth was formless and empty. Eons could have existed between verse 1 and 2.

Who says there wasn't any light? Who says that the war in the heavens didn't cause the death of this planet originally? There is so much history that has gone before our own history that you just cannot discount that Earth could have once been a flourishing planet.

To me this explains the prehistoric fossil record, and the vast stores of oil in the earth, the result of eons of degradation of organic material.

This is just a theory and I am not going to stand adamant on it.
most creationists explain that through the flood. and i could go into the big problems of dating the earth. no method is really all that accurate.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,907
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#57
I have always leaned toward the Gap Theory, as it explains the pre-existence of the planet, that it may have not always been void, seeing as it is described as void and the pre-existence of vast waters, and the fact that God didn't have to plant any flora. The seeds were already there---my take on it.
And my take on it is that God owes us no explanations - His book says "He did it" but it leaves out a lot, again, He owes us no explanations.

To that end: I like all of your posts in this thread.

Additionally, IF we are to believe that oil is the byproduct of decayed plant and animal life, there must have been a LONG history of life on this planet. Of course, I am still not convinced. I have long suspected that oil is produced by the earth thru some process we don't understand.
 
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
3,145
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
#58
Here, here Pizzaguy!

Biggest scandal of the century is that idea that oil is dead animal! Oil is a natural resource that is produced by the earth, not dead stuff. Bit off topic, so I won't sustain this train of thought for long, but have you looked into the deep oil wells and such? They have these super deep wells in Russia and they are discovering that there is even more oil than they thought before. People are going around, like a chicken with their heads cut off, screaming about how all the oil will be gone in X years. Thing is the Russians have just found that if you dig even deeper there is even more oil.

Back on topic now...

Perhaps a 100000000000000000000000000000000 years went by between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, but that doesn't change anything. God CREATED the plants and the animals and the sun and light AFTER Genesis 1:2, meaning that even if a bajillion years had gone by between 1:1 and 1:2 it was a very boring and empty (for earth) bajillion years because there wasn't anything going on down here, since nothing that would hang out on the earth had been created yet. Maybe in that bajillion years they had a war in Heaven, maybe not. I personally feel that the war went on after Adam was made.

The one thing we know for sure, is that we don't know the time between Adam's creation and his fall from grace. I imagine it was in his time in paradise that the war went on and that is why the devil came to Eve and tricked her into taking the apple and eating it.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,227
Christian
Yes
#60
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

There are two bodies mentioned in this verse; the heaven and the earth. It simply stated a fact and left the time factor out. The verse not only did not say when, but left it totally to our imagination, as to the eternal span of time, and how the creation took place.

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

Who is that Spirit of God? He is the Holy Spirit, and it is God's Spirit that moved upon the face of the waters.

In the Hebrew translation of the word, "was", as used in this verse "...the earth was without form,..."; in the original text it reads "became without form...". This same mistranslation of the word "became", and turning it into the word "was" is also present in Genesis 2:7. It should read there; "..and man became a living soul."

The correct Hebrew translation from the Massoretic Hebrew text for the words, "without form" is "tohu-va bohu" in the Hebrew Strong's dictionary. So we see that the earth was not "created without form", but it "became [tohu] without form and void". Lets go to Strong's Hebrew dictionary, reference number 1961 to verify the word "was", that we read in this verse. "Yahah, haw-yaw; a prime root, to exit; to become, or come to pass." [#1961]

Now lets continue in the Strong's Hebrew dictionary to get the true meaning for the word "void". # 2258, on page 36 tells us that we have to go to # 2254 for the prime on the meaning of this word "void". # 2254; "Chabal, khaw-bal; to wind tightly as a rope, to bind, to pervert, destroy, to corrupt, spoil, travail," This corresponds with its other use in # 2255, which reads; "to ruin".

"Tohu" of the earth, then means that total destruction had come to pass upon the earth. The second "was" in the verse is in italics type because there is no verb "to be" in the Hebrew language. One of the problems in translating the Hebrew into English is that the verb, "to be" is not distinguished from the verb, "to become".

At the end of Genesis 1:1 the first earth age ceased to exist in its previous form. God created the earth to be inhabited, and then He destroyed it. There was an entire earth age that existed between verses one and two of Genesis. This first earth age is spoken of in II Peter, Jeremiah, Proverbs, and Jude. We will look into these Scripture passages and try to understand the deeper meaning of our Father's Word.

In 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."

This is God speaking as Isaiah is writing it down, and He is telling us that when He created the earth, it was not in vain. "Vain" is the same Hebrew word that we saw in Genesis 1:2, which was given as "void". God created this earth to be lived on, and to be inhabited. Genesis 1:1 told us that God created the earth to be inhabited. The "Tohu", the "destruction", was not part of the creation plan of verse one, but came after the fall of Satan when one third of all the souls followed Satan in the first earth age, in verse two.

We find more documentation concerning the first earth age in II Peter 3. In fact we can read of all three earth ages, as Peter becomes a witness to the fact.

II Peter 3:5; "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:"

The earth came about by "the word of God", God's speech. Some ministers preach that this was Noah's flood, well let's see.

II Peter 3:6; "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

Perished means total destruction. "The world [age] that then was" ended in total ruin through another flood that was prior to Noah's day. There were no survivors of that flood; no animals, no man, no insects, nor vegetation survived in any form. Everything perished! We know in Noah's flood that two of all life forms were saved.

II Peter 3:7; "But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are dept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

This is the second heaven and earth age which we are living in now. This earth age will not be destroyed until God's time of judgment on the ungodly men of this earth age comes to a close. that time of perdition [destruction] is after the millennium, and after the judgment. Then will come the consuming fire. Hebrews 12:19 tells us that our God is that consuming fire.

II Peter 3:8; "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

One week is 7000 years, and we are coming to the Sabbath of that week very shortly, which the common name for the next thousand years is "the Millennium age". The Millennium age is the thousand years after Jesus Christ returns to earth at the seventh trumpet to establish his kingdom here on earth. All souls at that time will not be in the flesh bodies, but in another dimension. They will exist in their incorruptible bodies, spoken of in I Corinthians 15:50-54.