GAP…theory…or…fact?

[Gregg]

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?

Perhaps "pillar" was a poor choice of words on my part. My intention was to convey that personal accountability and repentance from sin is a necessary part of the Gospel message.

It is a necessary part of the Gospel message in that we must be aware of our own sin before being able to repent; evidence that the Holy Spirit has began to prepare the heart for having faith in God and a saving knowledge of Christ.

 

[Gregg]

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?"

Only that it should not be interpreted as "became", which incorrectly infers that it needed a restoration.

 

[gr8grace3]

Only that it should not be interpreted as "became", which incorrectly infers that it needed a restoration.

I just want to be clear. It absolutely,unequivocally has to be "was?" In Genesis 1:2

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

One point of order. The so-called human life shares no DNA with man's. Man's DNA can be traced back about 6-10,000 years only. Whatever life there was isn't human.

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.

This is an assumption that there was no plant or animal life before Gen 1:2ff. What do you do with the phrase "after their kind" when God placed animals on the planet in Gen 1? If there were no animals before Gen 1:2, how do you explain that?

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.

More assumption. This just ignores the very real probability that there was plant and animal life before the Holy Spirit brooded over the waters, and God created all that He did in 6 literal days.

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.

Here's Isa 48:13 in the KJV: - Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand uptogether.

This verse says that God's "hand" spanned the heavens, not stretched it.
טפח
ṭâphach
taw-fakh'
A primitive root; to flatten out or extend (as a tent); figurativelyto nurse a child (as promotive of growth); or perhaps a denominative from H2947 , from dandling on the palms:—span,swaddle. {note: not "stretch"}

And to say stretched the heavens "instantaneously" is just your attempt to explain something, without any definitional support.

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.

We know from Eze 28:11-15 that Lucifer was in Eden before the fall. Read the passage.

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.

Trashing and destruction are 2 completely different actions. And what's the problem with the LORD allowing it anyway? Are there verses to the contrary?

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).

I don't see how this is a problem. He created the earth. And He did subject it to depravity due to man's sin. What happened before man came on the scene just isn't described, but Rom 8:20 refers only to the time of man's placement on the earth. The Bible doesn't orient earth to angels, but to man.

Gap Theorists refute this by saying that "made" actually means 're-made'

I don't. Let's deal with my view and facts. The Hebrew for 'made' is asah, which means to make someout of of existing materials. So in Gen 1, we see God making things from what was already there. But in Gen 1:1, the word isn't 'made', but 'created', which means to create out of nothing, or "ex nihilio".

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.

Yes, "beginning" in 1:1 does mean exactly that. Which is when God originally created the heavens and earth. Then, the earth became a waste place, and God restored the planet for habitation and created man.

"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).

Why must this refer to Gen 1:1? No reason. The point of reference is Adam, not Lucifer here. Remember? Apples and oranges.

Sin didn't enter into the world after Satan set up his HQ's here and trashed his living room.

Really? How do you know that? Any references?

A pillar of the Gospel states that sin entered the world through Adam, passing to all men.

Right. Notice the point of reference: "man". Not Lucifer or fallen angels.

Why would Paul make any reference to angels? There is no reason.

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.

Please explain what you mean here. I've undermined nothing from Scripture. And you've not shown that I have. You've made a few assumptions that cannot be backed up.

 

[FreeGrace]

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

I need to correct myself. God was teaching angels something. I did cite 1 Pet 1:12 as a reference. They are learning from humans.

However, by teaching angels, He was proving who He is to them as well.

Anyway, hope that clears things up.

 

[FreeGrace]

.

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.

While it doesn't directly address "who's on first", it isn't that difficult. Eze 28:11-15 clearly indicates that Lucifer was in Eden before "iniquity was found in him". And we know that when man shows up, he had already fallen.

Are you arguing that Adam was created before Lucifer? I do know some people who claim that Lucifer fell after Adam showed up.

More conjecture.
More conjecture.

Nope. Just "rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

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

Never heard of him.

Regarding conjecture, what do you call your own view of things? I've at least provided clear evidence that the words in Gen 1:2 can easily without any stretch indicate that the earth became a waste place.

 

[FreeGrace]

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

Not in v.1. The restoration begins in v.2. Sorry if I've confused you.

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...

The OP made that exact point. Which I then supported by showing how the words "was" and "without form and void" have been translated in other places. And Isa 45:18 which used the exact same phrase "without form and void", and stated that God didn't create (barah) the earth "without form and void". Conclusion? It became that way. No other explanation.

Why does the NASB translate that phrase in Isa 45:18 as a "waste place", even though it's what's found in Gen 1:2?

 

[gr8grace3]

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.

I believe God Created man to prove something to the Angels. As believers what are we to reveal? His Grace and Mercy. And to Glorify Him. We are to prove to mankind and the angels that He is fair and Just, full of Grace and Mercy.

The Book of Job(Satans appeals to God), is the believers life. And Satan is standing before God, "If only You were fair..... Job 1:9......He would curse You." We are witnesses to Satan and His Fallen angles, as well as to mankind.

1 Cor 4:9 NASB~~For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.

 

[FreeGrace]

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.

I never said that God created the earth for angels. The Bible doesn't say that. God did create the heavens and earth, and we know from Eze 28:11-15 that Lucifer was in Eden before "iniquity was found in him". That indicates that angels had access to all the planets, stars, etc in the universe.

What are your evidences in scripture for God creating the earth for the angels.

I don't have one, because I've never suggested that.

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.

If so, it should be quite easy to refute. All I've seen so far is resistance to the idea, in spite of how the words can easily mean what I've shown.

 

[FreeGrace]

When you say the earth 'became a waste place', that is the beginning of your assumptions.

I have clearly shown that the words in Gen 1:2 can easily be translated that way without any stretch at all. And no one has refuted that fact.

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."

So the NASB screwed up Isa 45:18, huh? And every translation that renders "tohu wabohu" as a desolation, wasteland, etc? I've given the verses where that phrase occurs. Maybe checking them out might be of benefit.

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.

I don't recall that you've proven or even provided any evidence that I "misinterpreted" Isa 45:18. Check out the NASB, which I've already cited. Maybe the NASB really screwed up, huh?

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.

I think all of this on your part is just conjecture. It is obvious that you don't like my OP. That's ok. I', not selling anything. Just pointing out from both the OT and NT that there was a time gap, which is supported by science. Evolution is just a stupid theory and needs an old earth. The fact is; the earth is old, way older than Adam.

Have you looked at www.kjvbible.org yet? The geologist explains the age of the earth very well. And he totally rejects evolution.

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

I believe it did, and I provided evidence from Scripture that it did.

 

[Gregg]

I just want to be clear. It absolutely,unequivocally has to be "was?" In Genesis 1:2

I'll say again, only that it should not be interpreted as "became", which incorrectly infers that it needed a restoration.

 

[FreeGrace]

Only that it should not be interpreted as "became", which incorrectly infers that it needed a restoration.

And you really don't see any bias here at all?????

 

[FreeGrace]

I'll say again, only that it should not be interpreted as "became", which incorrectly infers that it needed a restoration.

This is resistance to an inference. How else would or could Moses have communicated it? Remember, he didn't write in the King's English. He used Hebrew, and I've shown that those words clearly are used differently in other passages. There is no reason at all to deny that "was" can mean "became", esp since I gave 4 other verses where the exact same form WAS translated as "became".

Only bias would deny it.

 

[Deborah13]

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?"

He did 'being without form'.

I pointed out the definition of the word many posts ago the the word translated as 'was' in the KJV, can also be 'BE' , as well as become, has existed, etc.

 

[Gregg]

This is resistance to an inference. How else would or could Moses have communicated it? Remember, he didn't write in the King's English. He used Hebrew, and I've shown that those words clearly are used differently in other passages. There is no reason at all to deny that "was" can mean "became", esp since I gave 4 other verses where the exact same form WAS translated as "became".

Only bias would deny it.

That is not letting you and gr8grace3 put words in my mouth, or shape my end of the conversation.

Other than that, Uncle! I give.

 

[Gregg]

There is no reason at all to deny that "was" can mean "became"

Only bias would deny it.

Except when it means "was."

Blue can actually mean green if you keep telling yourself that's what it means.

 

[gr8grace3]

I'll say again, only that it should not be interpreted as "became", which incorrectly infers that it needed a restoration.

hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

I will even admit that it could be "was." Just with the word hayah It denotes that it was something else before it "was"

I will not absolutely say that it has to be "become" but it fits a whole lot better than "was" from our English understanding of "was"

Even the people Here will not say absolutely it is "become" but have laid a lot of evidence and scripture that there is a strong possibility that It could be "became."

And all I hear from the naysayers is," It absolutely has to be WAS!" It may not be said exactly that way, but that is what your post says to me.

 

[Deborah13]

Have you looked at www.kjvbible.org yet? The geologist explains the age of the earth very well. And he totally rejects evolution.

So I looked at this site you have posted, www.kjvbible.org and I quote:

"Why the old "world that then was" ended, and why God made a new world and modern Man, requires a study into the ancient origins of Satan and the Angels.

Very interesting seeing you don't believe that man existed before Adam. It appears the author of this site does.

I need to correct myself. God was teaching angels something. I did cite 1 Pet 1:12 as a reference. They are learning from humans.

However, by teaching angels, He was proving who He is to them as well.

Anyway, hope that clears things up.

Really? Where does the scripture say anything about God teaching angels by watching us?

This is an assumption that there was no plant or animal life before Gen 1:2ff. What do you do with the phrase "after their kind" when God placed animals on the planet in Gen 1? If there were no animals before Gen 1:2, how do you explain that?

What?
I just read a verse to my grandson from the KJV containing 'after their kind' and asked him what that meant to him. "God said, cattle will make cattle not snakes." I think I'll stick with Jake's interpretation.

 

[FreeGrace]

He did 'being without form'.

I pointed out the definition of the word many posts ago the the word translated as 'was' in the KJV, can also be 'BE' , as well as become, has existed, etc.

Sure, "hayah" can be translated many numbers of ways. But in 4 other verses, the exact same form as in Gen 1:2 was translated as "became". That is significant.

 

[FreeGrace]

Except when it means "was."

Please explain why in 4 other verses, the exact same form of the word was translated as "became". What rule are you using to demand that in Gen 1:2 it can only mean "was"?

Blue

can actually mean green if you keep telling yourself that's what it means.

Cute. I've PROVEN that "hayah" was translated "became" in 4 other verses, with the exact same form as in 1:2. That seems to keep being ignored or something.