GAP…theory…or…fact?

[FreeGrace]

I have made 4 points about Gen 1:1,2. The first point was in the OP, dealing with "was" translated as "became" in 4 other occurrences, using the exact form as in v.2.

Second point was in post #8, dealing with how "tohuwabohu" was translated in the other occurrences, and a considering what Isa 45:18 says about creation.

3rd point was in #101, dealing with commentary from JFB, acknowledging that scholars have recognized the "waste place" translation.

4th point was in #114, dealing with the Greek of 'katartizo', and how it's used in the NT, with emphasis on Heb 11:3 and Mark 10:6, which deal specifically with creation.

Thus far, There's been a lot of push back, but no refutation of any point. Whether one likes my points or not, they haven't been proved to be wrong. And my point is that when both the OT and NT are considered, it is entirely probable that the earth became a waste place and God restored it (Gen 1).

Such a view does no harm to any Scripture, in spite of the claims by YEC such as AIG, who consider anyone who believes the earth is way older than Adam to be an evolutionist. That is nonsense. There is nothing in my points that leads one to evolution.

I think the main problem with the YEC view is when dealing with secularists or scientists while witnessing. To claim that the earth is only 6,000 +/- yrs ago is always met with disdain and scorn.

Why? The geologic columns were developed WAY before Darwin wore diapers. Though he was influenced by Charles Lyell, a geologist, it is clear that Lyell was not influenced by Darwin's theories of evolution.

Carbon dating is said to be accurate out to about 1,000 +/- years, and slowly degrades after that. So if the earth really was only 6-10,000 yrs old, carbon dating would note that, and scientists would all fall into line.

The YEC only explanation is that the earth was created "old", like Adam was created as a mature adult.

My question for the YECers; why would God create the earth with "apparent age"? What's the point?

 

[FreeGrace]

This reads to me like you agree with restoration of planet earth.

Yes, that has been my point since the OP.

Again, Gen 1:1 is original creation. After a gap of time, God began the restoration process of planet earth for mankind. v2ff.

What happened between v.1 and 2 is obviously none of our (humans) business. Or God would have directed Moses to fill in the gaps. I believe this is because the more detail about angels, the more the tendency for some to latch onto whatever God's dealings with the angels was, and try to apply them to mankind. But that would be "apples and oranges".

There is nothing in Scripture about Christ dying for anyone but humans. How God handled the angelic rebellion is simply not known. But we can be sure that He did handle it, and handle it very well.

 

[Sinthesis]

You haven't proven your view. Nor refuted mine.

Eventually you should realize creation views can't be proven. One can only present their view and the reasons they choose to hold it.

Imho, God created the heavens and earth for his angels. Imho, after Lucifer rebelled, and "fell from heaven", he might have used earth as HQ for his followers. Which he and they trashed. So God packed the earth in ice, keeping him off it. Then, God "katartizo'd" the earth for man's existence.

See? As long as you present this as your humble opinion supported by carefully chosen evidence others can appreciate your viewpoint based on merit. Yet if you present your opinion as objective fact then others will assert their opposing views, and refute yours, using evidence you've either rejected or are just not aware of. No side will prove anything to those who don't choose to believe.

 

[reba]

Yes, that has been my point since the OP.

Again, Gen 1:1 is original creation. After a gap of time, God began the restoration process of planet earth for mankind. v2ff.

What happened between v.1 and 2 is obviously none of our (humans) business. Or God would have directed Moses to fill in the gaps. I believe this is because the more detail about angels, the more the tendency for some to latch onto whatever God's dealings with the angels was, and try to apply them to mankind. But that would be "apples and oranges".

There is nothing in Scripture about Christ dying for anyone but humans. How God handled the angelic rebellion is simply not known. But we can be sure that He did handle it, and handle it very well.

and this is the definition of restoration
res·to·ra·tion
noun\ˌres-tə-ˈrā-shən\
: the act or process of returning something to its original condition by repairing it, cleaning it, etc.

: the act of bringing back something that existed before

: the act of returning something that was stolen or taken

Again your words say to me God didn't do it right the first time... I read you saying God failed.

 

[Gregg]

You haven't proven your view. Nor refuted mine.

Do you suggest that chaos and entropy existed before sin and the fall of man?

 

[Gregg]

Well, it's the truth. The Bible does not say that God created the earth for man. It does say that the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. Matt 25:41.

What is your reasoning for quoting Mat 25:41, that the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels?

 

[Gregg]

Imho, God created the heavens and earth for his angels. Imho, after Lucifer rebelled, and "fell from heaven", he might have used earth as HQ for his followers. Which he and they trashed. So God packed the earth in ice, keeping him off it. Then, God "katartizo'd" the earth for man's existence.

Imho, God created mankind to prove something to his angels. That is suggested from several verses. Primarily 1 Pet 1:12.


Sure. All of God's plans occurred before the foundation of the world.

Wow! Now I understand why God created man - we are just an afterthought, so that He could prove something to angels. Thank you for being candid.

 

[FreeGrace]

Eventually you should realize creation views can't be proven. One can only present their view and the reasons they choose to hold it.

I've demonstrated that my view is supported by the words chosen by the writers of Scripture.

See? As long as you present this as your humble opinion supported by carefully chosen evidence others can appreciate your viewpoint based on merit.

Yep. I've never done otherwise.

Yet if you present your opinion as objective fact then others will assert their opposing views, and refute yours, using evidence you've either rejected or are just not aware of. No side will prove anything to those who don't choose to believe.

I am looking for refutation. I don't want to be wrong any more than anyone else. If my view can be refuted from Scripture, I'll be the first to scrap it.

 

[FreeGrace]

and this is the definition of restoration
res·to·ra·tion
noun\ˌres-tə-ˈrā-shən\
: the act or process of returning something to its original condition by repairing it, cleaning it, etc.

: the act of bringing back something that existed before

: the act of returning something that was stolen or taken

Again your words say to me God didn't do it right the first time... I read you saying God failed.

I've tried to be a clear as possible. God didn't trash the earth. He created it out of nothing (ex nihilio). He spoke the worlds into existence. But, the earth became a waste place. Not by God, obviously. But it happened. The Bible doesn't specify who did it, or how they did it. But I've shown that the words very easily be understood to mean that it was.

The "original condition" would refer back to v.1.

 

[FreeGrace]

Do you suggest that chaos and entropy existed before sin and the fall of man?

Your question is "loaded". Who was the first sinner? Lucifer was. And he sinned way before Adam did. Once sin, there will be chaos and entropy. Regardless of who sinned.

When the Bible speaks of Adam bringing sin into the world, that would refer to Adam's world, not original creation. The world that had been restored (katartizo).

 

[FreeGrace]

What is your reasoning for quoting Mat 25:41, that the lake of fire was prepared for the devil and his angels?

To point out what was created and for whom. Nothing about the earth being created for man. Certainly God did prepare the earth for man. But how anyone can believe that the earth is only 6,000 +/- years old is amazing to me. Carbon dating would have proved that easily. But it has shown that the earth is way older than that.

For an excellent source for the age of the earth, I suggest www.kjvbible.org by a Christian geologist. He explains why the geologic formations cannot be explained by Noah's flood, and the evidence for an old earth.

 

[FreeGrace]

Wow! Now I understand why God created man - we are just an afterthought, so that He could prove something to angels. Thank you for being candid.

Did I say an "afterthought"? No, I did not. Please don't twist my words into nonsense. God cannot have "afterthoughts".

You know why? He is omniscient. All knowing. Can't have afterthoughts, or "plan B".

And I never said anything about "proving" anything to angels, either. Please read my posts before commenting, so at least your responses will be based on what I really said.

 

[Gregg]

An explanation would be nice on that one.

The Gap Theory is based in part upon an old earth, which scientists claim based on fossil records. Their dating of those fossil records place animal life and human life in existence well before the Biblical account of the creation of Adam. If there are fossils, then there was life and there was death. Yet death came to be as a result of the Fall of Adam in Garden. Adam's Fall had to occur prior to the death of the animals in the fossil records. So immediately the two viewpoints disagree with one another.

All plant and animal life was created within the 6 days of Gen 1, and did not exist before Gen 1:2; and therefore the age of the earth can not be dated by plant and animal records.

So scientists attempt to date the earth by measuring decay of matter. Decay exists because of entropy, and entropy exists because creation was subjected to it after the Fall of Adam.

Scientists also attempt to date the cosmos by measuring the time and distance that light has traveled. But I would suggest, as I believe the Bible suggests, that the LORD stretched heaven instantaneously a vast distance, perhaps millions of light-years; "My hand surely founded earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; I called to them, they stood up together" (Isa 48:13, Isa 40:22, 42:5). I believe His hand stretching out the heavens accounts for vast distance and time of the cosmos [not a big bang]. Perhaps the earth aged as well while the LORD stretched out the heavens. That could account for an old earth, perhaps, I don't know, but I suspect as much.

To answer the question - sentient life did not exist on earth in a fallen state before Adam, not in a fallen state as some claim that Satan was here in a fallen state before Adam. If Satan and his angels 'trashed the earth' [as others claim] before Adam, then the LORD would have allowed the earth to suffer destruction before the Fall of Adam. But that can't be because He subjected creation to depravity due to man's sin: "For the creation was not willingly subjected to vanity, but through Him subjecting it, on hope;" (Rom 8:20). Gap Theorists refute this by saying that "made" actually means 're-made', and "beginning" is not actually the real or first beginning, and that creation happened millions of years before the 6 days of creation in Gen 1.

"Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned" (Rom 5:12). Sin didn't enter into the world after Satan set up his HQ's here and trashed his living room. A pillar of the Gospel states that sin entered the world through Adam, passing to all men. Quietly undermine this pillar of the Gospel in the minds of men, and perhaps the other pillars of the Gospel will begin to fall as well.

 

[Gregg]

And I never said anything about "proving" anything to angels, either. Please read my posts before commenting, so at least your responses will be based on what I really said.

Yes you did, neighbor. Please read your own posts, as you stated in your post below that God was proving something to angels . . .

Imho, God created mankind to prove something to his angels.

Are you getting these ideas from Chuck Missler? If so, may I suggest you bury them in ice so that no one can get to them.

 

[Gregg]

.

Your question is "loaded". Who was the first sinner? Lucifer was.

Unfounded conjecture. Scripture does not specifically say even who was created first - Adam or the Angels, much less who sinned first. But the Gospel is not about fallen angels, but the redemption of fallen man through the blood of Christ.

And he sinned way before Adam did. Once sin, there will be chaos and entropy. Regardless of who sinned.

More conjecture.

When the Bible speaks of Adam bringing sin into the world, that would refer to Adam's world, not original creation. The world that had been restored (katartizo).

More conjecture.

I am seeing a pattern of conjecture and argument similar to that from Chuck Missler. Do you follow his teaching?

 

[reba]

I've tried to be a clear as possible. God didn't trash the earth. He created it out of nothing (ex nihilio). He spoke the worlds into existence. But, the earth became a waste place. Not by God, obviously. But it happened. The Bible doesn't specify who did it, or how they did it. But I've shown that the words very easily be understood to mean that it was.

The "original condition" would refer back to v.1.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You sure see a lot in verse 1 i dont..
again restoration was your word

But, the earth became a waste place.

I dont see where God says it became a waste place... I am sure you have posted the verse you believe says that .. please one more time.. then i will be gone...

 

[gr8grace3]

The Gap Theory is based in part upon an old earth, which scientists claim based on fossil records. Their dating of those fossil records place animal life and human life in existence well before the Biblical account of the creation of Adam. If there are fossils, then there was life and there was death. Yet death came to be as a result of the Fall of Adam in Garden. Adam's Fall had to occur prior to the death of the animals in the fossil records. So immediately the two viewpoints disagree with one another.

All plant and animal life was created within the 6 days of Gen 1, and did not exist before Gen 1:2; and therefore the age of the earth can not be dated by plant and animal records.

So scientists attempt to date the earth by measuring decay of matter. Decay exists because of entropy, and entropy exists because creation was subjected to it after the Fall of Adam.

Scientists also attempt to date the cosmos by measuring the time and distance that light has traveled. But I would suggest, as I believe the Bible suggests, that the LORD stretched heaven instantaneously a vast distance, perhaps millions of light-years; "My hand surely founded earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; I called to them, they stood up together" (Isa 48:13, Isa 40:22, 42:5). I believe His hand stretching out the heavens accounts for vast distance and time of the cosmos [not a big bang]. Perhaps the earth aged as well while the LORD stretched out the heavens. That could account for an old earth, perhaps, I don't know, but I suspect as much.

To answer the question - sentient life did not exist on earth in a fallen state before Adam, not in a fallen state as some claim that Satan was here in a fallen state before Adam. If Satan and his angels 'trashed the earth' [as others claim] before Adam, then the LORD would have allowed the earth to suffer destruction before the Fall of Adam. But that can't be because He subjected creation to depravity due to man's sin: "For the creation was not willingly subjected to vanity, but through Him subjecting it, on hope;" (Rom 8:20). Gap Theorists refute this by saying that "made" actually means 're-made', and "beginning" is not actually the real or first beginning, and that creation happened millions of years before the 6 days of creation in Gen 1.

"Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned" (Rom 5:12). Sin didn't enter into the world after Satan set up his HQ's here and trashed his living room. A pillar of the Gospel states that sin entered the world through Adam, passing to all men. Quietly undermine this pillar of the Gospel in the minds of men, and perhaps the other pillars of the Gospel will begin to fall as well.

I think that science is once again catching up with the Bible. It wasn't very long ago in Science that it was Fact that the earth was Flat. It was Fact that there were only 3000 stars. Science is just catching up with the fact that the earth is old. And all scientists do not base that conclusion on Fossil records.

As to the Gospel message Gregg. You have stated it yourself that the GAP theory does not impact the Gospel.

Post 235~~Gregg~~Unfounded conjecture. Scripture does not specifically say even who was created first - Adam or the Angels, much less who sinned first. But the Gospel is not about fallen angels, but the redemption of fallen man through the blood of Christ.

The Gospel is not about fallen angels. And the fallen Angels(sin) can't impact the Gospel to mankind......Even IF the angels sinned first.

And I would have to disagree with you that "How" sin entered the world is a pillar of the Gospel. How many of us new that Adam sinned first and that sin was Here because of one mans sin when we got saved?

The Gospel is the "good news"...."how" sin got here is not part of the Good news. The fact that Sin is dealt with through Christ is the Gospel.

So Romans 5:12 is for mankind, it is not about the fallen angels. No matter if the Angels sinned first or mankind. The fact of the matter is, is Adam was mankinds First representative and only impacted mankind and their world.

Satans fall, no matter where it took place, is not mankinds representative.

 

[Deborah13]

Thus far, There's been a lot of push back, but no refutation of any point. Whether one likes my points or not, they haven't been proved to be wrong. And my point is that when both the OT and NT are considered, it is entirely probable that the earth became a waste place and God restored it (Gen 1).

If you had stated your whole theory or thesis in the OP, I probably would not have even bothered to participate in this thread.
Your theory includes that God made the earth for the angels, they "trashed it". God then restored the earth and created man in order to prove something to the angels.

What are your evidences in scripture for God creating the earth for the angels. I would except that they would be much more evident than those for the time gap has been or imo, your theory is very weak indeed.

 

[Gregg]

I've tried to be a clear as possible. God didn't trash the earth. He created it out of nothing (ex nihilio). He spoke the worlds into existence. But, the earth became a waste place.

When you say the earth 'became a waste place', that is the beginning of your assumptions. Anything following which is built upon that, by nature of what it is built on, becomes a weak argument. Gen 1:2 should be read "was without form" or "being without form." But you will not allow that because after misinterpreting Isa 45:18, you come back to Gen 1:2 and believe that it must actually mean 'became' instead of "was." You consciously changes the meaning of a Scripture because of a misinterpretation of another Scripture.

Because of that you come up with other extra-biblical teaching - such as:
1. a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2,
2. Satan trashing the earth prior to Gen 1:2,
3. God covering the earth in ice to keep Satan out prior to Gen 1:2,
4. the Holy Spirit needing to melt that ice for earth to be habitable for Adam prior to Gen 1:2.
5. Satan's existence prior to Gen 1:2
6. Satan's rebellion prior to Gen 1:2
7. "Imho, God created mankind to prove something to his angels." [your post # 215]

8. I think I could go on with this list of your conjectures if I looked hard enough.

Not by God, obviously. But it happened. The Bible doesn't specify who did it, or how they did it. But I've shown that the words very easily be understood to mean that it was.

You leap from what words could potentially mean . . . to statements like this "But it happened."



.

 

[gr8grace3]

When you say the earth 'became a waste place', that is the beginning of your assumptions. Anything following which is built upon that, by nature of what it is built on, becomes a weak argument. Gen 1:2 should be read "was without form" or "being without form." But you will not allow that because after misinterpreting Isa 45:18, you come back to Gen 1:2 and believe that it must actually mean 'became' instead of "was." You consciously changes the meaning of a Scripture because of a misinterpretation of another Scripture.

Because of that you come up with other extra-biblical teaching - such as:
1. a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2,
2. Satan trashing the earth prior to Gen 1:2,
3. God covering the earth in ice to keep Satan out prior to Gen 1:2,
4. the Holy Spirit needing to melt that ice for earth to be habitable for Adam prior to Gen 1:2.
5. Satan's existence prior to Gen 1:2
6. Satan's rebellion prior to Gen 1:2
7. "Imho, God created mankind to prove something to his angels." [your post # 215]

8. I think I could go on with this list of your conjectures if I looked hard enough.




You leap from what words could potentially mean . . . to statements like this "But it happened."



.

These debates always get so much information going, they at times become hard to follow. So I will Just stick to one point.

You say, "Genesis 1:2 should be read as,'was without form' or 'being without form.'"

Are you saying that it is impossible for it to be anything other than "was?"

You will not allow it to be anything other than "was?"