Gap creationism

[Lewis]

Gap creationism (also known as Ruin-Restoration creationism, Restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory"), is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[1][2][3] In this it differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from Young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

 

[watchman F]

Gap creationism (also known as Ruin-Restoration creationism, Restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory"), is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.[1][2][3] In this it differs from Day-Age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from Young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

This is also bad theology trying to force itself to fit bad science.

 

[Mike]

I can see a literal 6 days, but I leave room for flexibility that it wasn't 6 24-hour periods. It could well have been longer. But that isn't to accept millions or billions of years, and it certainly isn't to accept macro-evolution. I do believe Adam was formed and created.

I heard a pastor on the internet once say that anyone who doesn't believe in the literal 6 days is not a Christian. That seems like quite a statement and quite rigid.

 

[Mysteryman]

I can see a literal 6 days, but I leave room for flexibility that it wasn't 6 24-hour periods. It could well have been longer. But that isn't to accept millions or billions of years, and it certainly isn't to accept macro-evolution. I do believe Adam was formed and created.

I heard a pastor on the internet once say that anyone who doesn't believe in the literal 6 days is not a Christian. That seems like quite a statement and quite rigid.

HI

I do not believe it is any more rigid than telling someone who believes in Jesus Christ that they are not christian because they do not follow one's doctrine of faith.

Anyhoo

I believe that when God went about to replenish the earth, that each day spoken about in Genesis chapter on is one day = 1000 years - II Peter 3:8. These days represent God's days and not man's days. So one day with God is a thousand years of man. And there was life on this earth prior to Adam and Eve - Gen. 1:1, because God told man to "replenish" the earth.

 

[watchman F]

I can see a literal 6 days, but I leave room for flexibility that it wasn't 6 24-hour periods. It could well have been longer. But that isn't to accept millions or billions of years, and it certainly isn't to accept macro-evolution. I do believe Adam was formed and created.

I heard a pastor on the internet once say that anyone who doesn't believe in the literal 6 days is not a Christian. That seems like quite a statement and quite rigid.

HI

I do not believe it is any more rigid than telling someone who believes in Jesus Christ that they are not christian because they do not follow one's doctrine of faith.

Anyhoo

I believe that when God went about to replenish the earth, that each day spoken about in Genesis chapter on is one day = 1000 years - II Peter 3:8. These days represent God's days and not man's days. So one day with God is a thousand years of man. And there was life on this earth prior to Adam and Eve - Gen. 1:1, because God told man to "replenish" the earth.

This is NOT the meaning of 2nd Peter 3:8

 

[Mike]

I do not believe it is any more rigid than telling someone who believes in Jesus Christ that they are not christian because they do not follow one's doctrine of faith.

Ooh, that hurts. And here I thought we made nice.

Are you suggesting that demanding the literal 6 day creation is equal to demanding that someone accepts that Jesus is fully God and has "always been" to be a Christian? This was my argument to the JW we were talking with that you are referring to. I know you know that, but for the benefit of others...

 

[John]

I had a long detailed post about the history of the GAP theory but i think the whole thing got deleted :bigfrown

 

[Mysteryman]

I do not believe it is any more rigid than telling someone who believes in Jesus Christ that they are not christian because they do not follow one's doctrine of faith.

Ooh, that hurts. And here I thought we made nice.

Are you suggesting that demanding the literal 6 day creation is equal to demanding that someone accepts that Jesus is fully God and has "always been" to be a Christian? This was my argument to the JW we were talking with that you are referring to. I know you know that, but for the benefit of others...

Hi Mike

My point was, that many will say just about anything , at any given moment , pertaining to any given doctrine, just to cause some sort of division.

No Mike, I am not saying that at all. There are going to be many views of the book of Genesis and creation. I have seen some doozies in my day.

I have seen time and time again, clear verses of scripture totally denied by another person, just because it does not line up with their doctrine.

We here have a great opportunity to share with one another. Lay out the biblical facts, and let the cards fall where they may. Disputation is only worthy, if one can back up as to why they disagree , as long as they have an excellent biblical reference to substantiate it.

But blindness and pride will not allow most folks to admit even the simplist and clearest of scripture.

And even though creationism can be a little difficult . The understanding is not outside of reach from a biblical perspective. Not that we are going to document the age of the earth, because that would be impossible. However, we could at least document scripture that aligns with all other scripture to allow ourselves a better biblical perspective.

Bless

 

[Mysteryman]

I can see a literal 6 days, but I leave room for flexibility that it wasn't 6 24-hour periods. It could well have been longer. But that isn't to accept millions or billions of years, and it certainly isn't to accept macro-evolution. I do believe Adam was formed and created.

I heard a pastor on the internet once say that anyone who doesn't believe in the literal 6 days is not a Christian. That seems like quite a statement and quite rigid.

HI

I do not believe it is any more rigid than telling someone who believes in Jesus Christ that they are not christian because they do not follow one's doctrine of faith.

Anyhoo

I believe that when God went about to replenish the earth, that each day spoken about in Genesis chapter on is one day = 1000 years - II Peter 3:8. These days represent God's days and not man's days. So one day with God is a thousand years of man. And there was life on this earth prior to Adam and Eve - Gen. 1:1, because God told man to "replenish" the earth.

This is NOT the meaning of 2nd Peter 3:8

Watchman

Are you just a thorn in the flesh ? You sure are acting like it.

God wants us to understand man's days along side of his days. One day with God is as a 1,000 years of man, and a 1,000 years of man , as one day with the Lord.

Discussion over !

 

[watchman F]

I believe that when God went about to replenish the earth, that each day spoken about in Genesis chapter on is one day = 1000 years - II Peter 3:8. These days represent God's days and not man's days. So one day with God is a thousand years of man. And there was life on this earth prior to Adam and Eve - Gen. 1:1, because God told man to "replenish" the earth.

This is NOT the meaning of 2nd Peter 3:8

Watchman

Are you just a thorn in the flesh ? You sure are acting like it.

God wants us to understand man's days along side of his days. One day with God is as a 1,000 years of man, and a 1,000 years of man , as one day with the Lord.

Discussion over !

Discussion may be over for you, but the rest of us who understand scripture will continue on.

Furthermore you misquoted the scripture it doesn;t say 1,000 years to man is as a day to the Lord.
2nd 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.

This passage does not change the fact that Genesis 1 was referring to literal days.

 

[seekandlisten]

God wants us to understand man's days along side of his days. One day with God is as a 1,000 years of man, and a 1,000 years of man , as one day with the Lord.

2 Peter 3:8 (New International Version)

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Could it be as simple as 'God' is not bound by our perception of time?

cheers

 

[John]

So the 6 creation days were only 6000 years then lol

I still do not see how billions of years can be squeezed in with the creation days seeing as the Bible says that the events were opposite to that which evolutionists would have us believe.

 

[seekandlisten]

This is also bad theology trying to force itself to fit bad science.

Here is a statement that I could agree with in reference to Gap Creationism. I don't think one should take a false premise and try and make it fit science.

Genesis 1 was referring to literal days.

Is this not adding to scripture as Genesis doesn't make the clarification of whether it is literal or not. The evidence we have does point towards the latter. Here is a question for literal viewers of Genesis. How can one have 3 'evening and morning' literal days when the sun, moon, and stars did not yet exist??

cheers

 

[John]

how can one have 3 'evening and morning' literal days when the sun, moon, and stars did not yet exist??

We base our 24 hour days based on day/night however Polar nights can be 6 months long yet they still use 24 hours for a day. I am sure God knew about all this, there is no reason to suggest that God took billions of years to make everything when he said he took 6 days.

 

[jasoncran]

This is also bad theology trying to force itself to fit bad science.

Here is a statement that I could agree with in reference to Gap Creationism. I don't think one should take a false premise and try and make it fit science.


[quote="watchman F":2mb9gr81]
Genesis 1 was referring to literal days.

Is this not adding to scripture as Genesis doesn't make the clarification of whether it is literal or not. The evidence we have does point towards the latter. Here is a question for literal viewers of Genesis. How can one have 3 'evening and morning' literal days when the sun, moon, and stars did not yet exist??

cheers[/quote:2mb9gr81]
its says that in revalation that sun and the moon will no longer shine, that the lord himself shall be the light of the city. that doenst seem to indicate an allagory there as its specific.

 

[seekandlisten]

its says that in revalation that sun and the moon will no longer shine, that the lord himself shall be the light of the city. that doenst seem to indicate an allagory there as its specific.

Are you going to try and pass off the book of Revelation as not an allegory?? I think you would have quite a few people disagree with you.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

its says that in revalation that sun and the moon will no longer shine, that the lord himself shall be the light of the city. that doenst seem to indicate an allagory there as its specific.

Are you going to try and pass off the book of Revelation as not an allegory?? I think you would have quite a few people disagree with you.

cheers

parts of it are symbolic and many of it isnt. the problem with saying the books of genesis,revalations are allegory, then what, acts to as jesus Ascended into heaven, and what did the angels say ?likewise in manner ye men saw him leave so shall he reappear.

think about it, then no miracles then? no healings, only the HOPE and a he might be real, not sure since r.dawkins says so.

i dont pretend that i fully understand all of revalation but the lord is coming back to judge and theres judgment commin. i am glad that i was chosen by god,and that i accepted him. and so can all do this, as he is calling us all to repent. if you believe that all of revalation and genesis is allegorical then why even believe in God?

heaven cant be real , nor hell.

what good is God if he neither saves , nor judges, nor heals and so on. i could care less about him if he is that way. but i know that he isnt for my redeemer lives.

 

[seekandlisten]

what good is God if he neither saves , nor judges, nor heals and so on. i could care less about him if he is that way. but i know that he isnt for my redeemer lives.

Reality check. We are only talking about how life came to be what it is today.

That involves Genesis which evidence shows should not be taken literally. Citing Revelation, another allegory, does nothing in regards to that argument other than provide more evidence for a non literal reading. Now as to what the Bible says about salvation, God's judgement, Jesus resurrection, etc. that is a whole other topic with different evidence to present one's point of view.

So simply looking at what we observe about our world and the evidence we have to go on, logic says that Genesis 1 should not be taken literally.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

but the bible is Written as one unit and if the beggining is to be tooken allegorical then so must revalation as it REFERS back to the earlier books and thier prophecies, ie isaih,danial, the gospels, acts and corinthians, and ezekeil, joel and a host more.

you cant rip apart the word like that without consistenisty. you just cant. it meant to be the way it is.

that my friend is what made me realize how the bible is kept together by God. throught the ages the bible has been written(before its compilation) by dozens of authors and often refering to each other some didnt and were long since dead when they were pointing to a prophecy or act, or something.

none of these guys new what the plan of God is.

i suggest that you read the books that i have mentioned and then look at books of revalation. as if he isnt coming back then what. God isnt finished with the earht, he will restore it and change it.

i finished with this man begins in the garden of eden with a tree of life and revaltions refers to the river euprahites and the tree of life for a healing of all nations.

they must be constitenty understood, either allogorical or literal. if literal then book genesis must be and revalation. if allegorical then the same, but these also affect the prophecies of jesus' return.

he spoke a lot on that and so did others about the end times. not all of the end times is spoken about in revalation, the other books i mentoned ideal with this as well

 

[jasoncran]

If God isnt the same then(in the beggining, then he isnt the same today, and tommorow).He would be liar. if he is using a natural process to start the world then why does talk about the massive changes that the earht will have. no sea in revalation?


the earth is going to be burnt up. see the vs on 2 peter on this. judgment. must come. that is why i must conclude that if genesis is allegorical then so must the judgment be, for peter spoke of the earth being flooded and also the judgment by fire, if that is allegorical then what is their to fear?