Real Idea of Gap Creationism

[veteran]

Some others here started another thread about the Gap idea of Genesis 1 obviously to air out (hot air mostly) their opinions against it, without actually giving anyone a chance to grasp it from Scripture. For those interested, here's a more fair view of it.

General Explanation:
Many Christian scholars and ministers who understand what some call The Gap Theory of Genesis do so not because of trying to reconcile The Bible and science. The idea did not originate from Darwinists or evolutionists either, because the gap idea only supports the idea of God as Creator, not theories of evolution. Those not given to understand it are likely to give it negative associations, just as the ignorant did with our Lord Jesus' Ministry on earth among sinners. It's also important to understand that true scientific discovery will always agree with God's Word, for real science is the study of facts. It's false or pseudo science that confuses the concept of God's creation. We don't have to fear true science, for it won't conflict with God's Word.


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

We have the definite article 'the' in front of heaven and earth. Heaven is plural in the Hebrew.

It's assumed by most this first statement serves as a general introductery to every event that follows after it. Like this is what I did, and then here's how I did it. There's no reason to treat the meaning of this verse any other way at this point. But as in many places in God's Word, an introductery statement may take on a whole lot more depth once the detail in the rest of the chapter comes out.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This is the first verse in Genesis 1 that can cause one to go back to verse 1 and look at it in a deeper light. Here's why...

The phrase "without form, and void" in the Hebrew is tohuw va bohuw. In Jeremiah 4 this whole phrase appears again, however, in the Jer.4 example it's about a trembling of the already existing earth, a destruction of its surface, turning the earth into a waste, into confusion, vanity. In Isaiah 45:18, God uses the word 'tohuw' to show vanity, something vain, useless, wasted or in a ruin. This word 'tohuw' is translated in other KJV passages also as: confusion, empty place, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

In all other examples of this word 'tohuw' in The Bible, it is used in the sense of something that existed going into confusion or a wasted condition. The Hebrew word 'bohuw' (Gen.1:2 as "void") is also translated in that same sense in other KJV usages. You can use a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and/or Englishman's Concordance to easily confirm that tohuw va bohuw meaning from the Hebrew and in other KJV cases.

This revealing of the meaning of 'tohuw va bohuw' presents two main choices. Is this Gen.1:2 verse about a time before the earth was created, when there was a state of nothingness? Or is this actually pointing to an already created earth back at Gen.1:1 that is being described as having gone into a waste or ruined state at Gen.1:2?

With the phrase "face of the deep", Hebrew 'tehown' ("deep") has very specific usage pointing to waters in the earth. It's used for the waters of fountains of the great deep in Gen.8 during the flood of Noah's day. It's used about God parting the waters of the Red Sea when leading Israel out of Egypt. It's used of springs that come out of the earth. In Ps.104, it used of the depth of waters covering the earth like a garment. In all those Bible cases, it is used in association with an already existing earth. That poses another problem here in Gen.1:2 in thinking the earth is non-existent at this point.

The "face of the waters" is associated with that previous "deep" and time of darkness. These "waters" will be continually mentioned in this first part of Gen.1. As of yet, there still is no direct statement of God creating earth matter beyond Gen.1:1. It is assumed by many that God is creating earth matter at some point here after Gen.1:1. But so far, there's nothing about it beyond Gen.1:1. Instead, Gen.1:2 is declaring the earth is a waste or in a ruined state, with waters affecting it, like a flood covering over the earth.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.[i/]

Still nothing about the creating of earth matter here. Darkness was over the face of the waters, and now there is light by God speaking.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

These are the same waters first mentioned back at Gen.1:2. Here God is forming a firmament (sky, cloud, atmosphere), by separating those waters in two. Still nothing about creating earth matter here. Those waters are either suspended in empty space at this point, or the earth was already there underneath those waters since Gen.1:2.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

God creates the sky with this act, by parting the waters, taking some of the waters up to form the atmosphere, while leaving the rest of the waters below the sky. Again, either those waters below the firmament were hanging in empty space, or the earth was already there underneath.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
(KJV)

Here God gathers the waters below the sky into one place, and suddenly dry land appears from underneath. That still is not the specific act of creating earth matter. Instead, it is like those waters were completely covering the earth (like a garment per Psalms 104).


When those Gen.1:1-10 verses are covered in accordance with other Scripture evidences, it suggests that God first created the heavens and the earth back at Gen.1:1 as written, and then at Gen.1:2 something happened to the earth that caused it to be covered by a flood of waters, much like how the flood of Noah's day covered the whole earth to destroy the wicked off the earth.

If Gen.1:2 is indeed pointing to a destruction upon the earth by waters of a flood, then that would suggest that in between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 there was an indeterminable time period only God knows how long. That's where the idea of a 'gap' of time comes from. It would mean that starting at Gen.1:2 forward, God is renewing the earth because of something that happened in between verses 1 and 2. It then becomes impossible to determine just when God originally created the earth.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi V.

I concur --

 

[John]

I believe the Genesis account is to be taken literally just as it was written. It teaches the world was created in six, twenty-four hour days about 6000 years ago; there was no gap. There was no period of time before the original creation. There was actually no time. God made time as well as matter and space.

The Bible teaches "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" and continues by saying "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:1-2). Proponents of the gap theory suggest there is a gap between those two verses that accounts for Satan’s rebellion, dinosaurs, a geological record, and billions of years of evolution.

That "gap," however, is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize God’s perfect Word with man’s imperfect thoughts. In fact, it is irreconcilable with the rest of Scripture. The words "without form, and void" in Genesis 1:2 come from the Hebrew phrase "tohu waw bohu," which means "unformed and unfilled." This indicates the earth was not yet formed or filled.

Further discrepancies between Scripture and the gap theory are seen when looking at the law God gave Moses. As God etched the Ten Commandments in stone, He said, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11). God unmistakably says that everything was made in six days. This would include angels, heaven, earth, and mankind--everything.

The gap theory also disagrees with New Testament Scripture. The Bible is clear that "by man came death" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). These passages undeniably teach that the first sin came by Adam and that there was no death before sin. Therefore, it is incompatible to teach that a civilization existed before Adam, because it would place death before sin--a direct contradiction to Scripture.

Thanks Kyle Winkler.

 

[Mysteryman]

I believe the Genesis account is to be taken literally just as it was written. It teaches the world was created in six, twenty-four hour days about 6000 years ago; there was no gap. There was no period of time before the original creation. There was actually no time. God made time as well as matter and space.

The Bible teaches "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" and continues by saying "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:1-2). Proponents of the gap theory suggest there is a gap between those two verses that accounts for Satan’s rebellion, dinosaurs, a geological record, and billions of years of evolution.

That "gap," however, is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize God’s perfect Word with man’s imperfect thoughts. In fact, it is irreconcilable with the rest of Scripture. The words "without form, and void" in Genesis 1:2 come from the Hebrew phrase "tohu waw bohu," which means "unformed and unfilled." This indicates the earth was not yet formed or filled.

Further discrepancies between Scripture and the gap theory are seen when looking at the law God gave Moses. As God etched the Ten Commandments in stone, He said, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11). God unmistakably says that everything was made in six days. This would include angels, heaven, earth, and mankind--everything.

The gap theory also disagrees with New Testament Scripture. The Bible is clear that "by man came death" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). These passages undeniably teach that the first sin came by Adam and that there was no death before sin. Therefore, it is incompatible to teach that a civilization existed before Adam, because it would place death before sin--a direct contradiction to Scripture.

Thanks Kyle Winkler.

Hi John :

Exodus 20:11 is true, but one must realize that the heaven and earth were already created in Genesis 1:1. When it says "made" it is refering to re-establishing the earth back to having life, which it had after God created the heaven and the earth.

This is realized by looking at Gen. 1:28 where God tells man to "replenish" the earth. If it were not for this word "replenish" , I then would agree with you. But because of this word, I will have to disagree with you.

 

[Caroline H]

I believe the Genesis account is to be taken literally just as it was written. It teaches the world was created in six, twenty-four hour days about 6000 years ago; there was no gap. There was no period of time before the original creation. There was actually no time. God made time as well as matter and space.

The Bible teaches "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" and continues by saying "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:1-2). Proponents of the gap theory suggest there is a gap between those two verses that accounts for Satan’s rebellion, dinosaurs, a geological record, and billions of years of evolution.

That "gap," however, is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize God’s perfect Word with man’s imperfect thoughts. In fact, it is irreconcilable with the rest of Scripture. The words "without form, and void" in Genesis 1:2 come from the Hebrew phrase "tohu waw bohu," which means "unformed and unfilled." This indicates the earth was not yet formed or filled.

Further discrepancies between Scripture and the gap theory are seen when looking at the law God gave Moses. As God etched the Ten Commandments in stone, He said, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11). God unmistakably says that everything was made in six days. This would include angels, heaven, earth, and mankind--everything.

The gap theory also disagrees with New Testament Scripture. The Bible is clear that "by man came death" (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). These passages undeniably teach that the first sin came by Adam and that there was no death before sin. Therefore, it is incompatible to teach that a civilization existed before Adam, because it would place death before sin--a direct contradiction to Scripture.

Thanks Kyle Winkler.

Good stuff But where did it come from?

 

[John]

Good stuff But where did it come from?

I have hundreds of saved text files on evolution, creation and such. My above post was mainly from a guy named Kyle Winkler. I don't have a link at the moment.

EDIT: http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=132

 

[seekandlisten]

I believe the Genesis account is to be taken literally just as it was written. It teaches the world was created in six, twenty-four hour days about 6000 years ago;

Yet 'twenty-four hour days' and '6000 years ago' are added to the 'literal' Genesis account so you are not taking it 'as it was written'.

there was no gap.

Are you sure?

There was no period of time before the original creation.

And you could know this how?

There was actually no time. God made time as well as matter and space.

I thought the passage about a day being like a thousand years to God made it seem like time was irrelevant to God?

Ray Cummings put it a good way by saying, "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."

cheers

 

[John]

Yet 'twenty-four hour days' and '6000 years ago' are added to the 'literal' Genesis account so you are not taking it 'as it was written'.

No. anyone can pick up Genesis and walk away with 6 days, not to mention "As God etched the Ten Commandments in stone, He said, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is"

And the 6000 years was taken from Genesis also, it was not added.

Are you sure?

Absolutely.

And you could know this how?

In the beginning (time) God made the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

If there is no matter or space then there is no time.

I thought the passage about a day being like a thousand years to God made it seem like time was irrelevant to God?

Time is irrelevant to God but when he says that he made everything in six days i am going to believe him. But lets take your example a bit further, If a day is like 1000 years then it took 6000 to make everything....i still do not see room for billions upon billions of years.

Ray Cummings put it a good way by saying, "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."

Yup and God said in six days the He made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

It is what it is, no one said you had to believe it and frankly i don't think anyone cares, however people do care when the word of the Lord is tossed in a blender with mans.

 

[seekandlisten]

Yet 'twenty-four hour days' and '6000 years ago' are added to the 'literal' Genesis account so you are not taking it 'as it was written'.

No. anyone can pick up Genesis and walk away with 6 days, not to mention "As God etched the Ten Commandments in stone, He said, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is"

And the 6000 years was taken from Genesis also, it was not added.

I didn't say the 'six days' wasn't there I said the 24 hours wasn't written in Genesis anywhere.
How did one come up with the evening and morning literal day without a sun or moon for the first 3 days? Calculating ages of people to come up with a timeline for earth's history taken from the very book you are trying to prove to be accurate isn't a very good method.

Are you sure?

Absolutely.

Being that confident in one's own opinions has been cause for the fall of many.

And you could know this how?

In the beginning (time) God made the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)

If there is no matter or space then there is no time.

I don't believe in Gap Creationism so I won't argue that there could be a 'gap' between the first two verses of Genesis.

I thought the passage about a day being like a thousand years to God made it seem like time was irrelevant to God?

Time is irrelevant to God but when he says that he made everything in six days i am going to believe him. But lets take your example a bit further, If a day is like 1000 years then it took 6000 to make everything....i still do not see room for billions upon billions of years.

You just turned the verse that shows time is irrelevant to God into a formula. I disagree with taking that verse to mean that 1 day = 1000 years.

Ray Cummings put it a good way by saying, "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."

Yup and God said in six days the He made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

Yet early Church Fathers didn't agree with a literal interpretation, evidence supports an non literal interpretation, but wait the opinion of YEC of the last couple hundred years must be right.

cheers

 

[John]

I didn't say the 'six days' wasn't there I said the 24 hours wasn't written in Genesis anywhere.
How did one come up with the evening and morning literal day without a sun or moon for the first 3 days? Calculating ages of people to come up with a timeline for earth's history taken from the very book you are trying to prove to be accurate isn't a very good method.

People in the north can go 5-6 months without seeing the moon yet the days are still 24 hours.

Being that confident in one's own opinions has been cause for the fall of many.

I am confidant that 1+1 will always = 2

I don't believe in Gap Creationism so I won't argue that there could be a 'gap' between the first two verses of Genesis.

Thats good, at least we are on the same page.

You just turned the verse that shows time is irrelevant to God into a formula. I disagree with taking that verse to mean that 1 day = 1000 years.

Yet early Church Fathers didn't agree with a literal interpretation, evidence supports an non literal interpretation, but wait the opinion of YEC of the last couple hundred years must be right.

Aren't they the same people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the it?

 

[seekandlisten]

People in the north can go 5-6 months without seeing the moon yet the days are still 24 hours.

I don't even know why I bother sometimes. I think our current time keeping devices might help us out a little with that one. And, if you really want to take this route, artifacts from about 12,000-30,000 years ago show that people used the moon to measure time. But wait your statement still is irrelevant as the moon also didn't exist until the fourth day.

I don't believe in Gap Creationism so I won't argue that there could be a 'gap' between the first two verses of Genesis.

Thats good, at least we are on the same page.

Oh I think we are still a long ways off from that.

Yet early Church Fathers didn't agree with a literal interpretation, evidence supports an non literal interpretation, but wait the opinion of YEC of the last couple hundred years must be right.

Aren't they the same people who thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the it?

The question would become this, when presented with evidence for the earth being a sphere or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun would they cling to their own opinions and ignore the evidence or realize their mistake and correct their position?

cheers

 

[John]

The question would become this, when presented with evidence for the earth being a sphere or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun would they cling to their own opinions and ignore the evidence or realize their mistake and correct their position?

I've been waiting for people to do this for years :rolling

 

[seekandlisten]

The question would become this, when presented with evidence for the earth being a sphere or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun would they cling to their own opinions and ignore the evidence or realize their mistake and correct their position?

I've been waiting for people to do this for years :rolling

Yet your position doesn't have the mountains of evidence on it's side? Even your YEC's views don't agree with the book you are taking 'literally'. Life 'ex nihilo' directly contradicts Genesis without adding anything to it. Your comment makes no sense?

cheers

 

[John]

Yeah ok. Nice talking to ya.

 

[seekandlisten]

I have a question for those that believe in the Gap Theory. I looked into it a little bit and it allows for a time frame between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The majority of the sources I've looked at on the subject insert the war of the angels or lucifer's rebellion in there which destroyed the earth and Genesis 1:2 picks up with God repairing the earth. Why is it that people find this Gap theory more plausible over the scientific theory we have? Is it just another attempt at making the Genesis account line up with the evidence of an old earth? Is there any evidence towards the ideas put forth by the Gap theory? I'm interested if anyone holds the belief of the Gap Theory and wishes to share why they hold these beliefs.

cheers

 

[Mysteryman]

I have a question for those that believe in the Gap Theory. I looked into it a little bit and it allows for a time frame between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The majority of the sources I've looked at on the subject insert the war of the angels or lucifer's rebellion in there which destroyed the earth and Genesis 1:2 picks up with God repairing the earth. Why is it that people find this Gap theory more plausible over the scientific theory we have? Is it just another attempt at making the Genesis account line up with the evidence of an old earth? Is there any evidence towards the ideas put forth by the Gap theory? I'm interested if anyone holds the belief of the Gap Theory and wishes to share why they hold these beliefs.

cheers

Hi

God is a God of life, not someone void of life, as would be indicated if God created the earth void.

Something else to think about would be that we see that water was what made the earth void. This can be substantiated from where the water came from , from Rev. 12:15.

Without there being life (void) , and darkness became upon the face of the deep. This could very well indicate that the water became ice. Also, notice the word darkness here. God is all light and in him is no darkness at all. So this darkness was not of the creator of the heaven(s) and the earth.

The very first thing we notice, is that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Which we notice clearly by verse 3 , where God said, let there be light: and there was light. But his light, God divided the light from the darkness - verse 4. Verses 2 thru 4 shows us that the darkness was not of the creator - God. We see God correcting the impact of the earth becoming without form and void, and the darkness.

God then name the light as well as the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness, night. This is spiritual, and not literal light and darkness, and the words Day and Night are also a spiritual connotation. These two words are used in the NT to indicate walking in spiritual light or spiritual darkness. Here is a NT example - I Thess. 5:4 - 8.

 

[veteran]

I have a question for those that believe in the Gap Theory. I looked into it a little bit and it allows for a time frame between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The majority of the sources I've looked at on the subject insert the war of the angels or lucifer's rebellion in there which destroyed the earth and Genesis 1:2 picks up with God repairing the earth. Why is it that people find this Gap theory more plausible over the scientific theory we have? Is it just another attempt at making the Genesis account line up with the evidence of an old earth? Is there any evidence towards the ideas put forth by the Gap theory? I'm interested if anyone holds the belief of the Gap Theory and wishes to share why they hold these beliefs.

cheers

Firstly, the Gap idea did not originate with Darwinists, evolutionists, etc. That's just a trick to try and discredit it, propaganda by those who somehow think it's out to destroy the Genesis traditions most of us were taught in Sunday School (myself included). There's been many Christian Bible scholars, ministers and pastors that see it, and teach it, and don't believe in evolution at all.

The way I came to it was when I finally got down to deeper Bible study from Genesis through Revelation, going real slow line upon line, and constantly going back to the original Hebrew and Greek. Then I started asking pastors I met about it. Some admitted they understood it too, but didn't teach their congregtions, said only about 25% would understand it. It has to be read in honesty the way it's written, making many Bible comparisons while going back to the manuscripts some.

Here's another example of it:

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Paul compares this present world and its state with the future glory of the world to come, i.e., God's eternity of the new heavens and a new earth. The OT prophets like Isaiah give us quite a bit about that future time also, likewise at the end of the Book of Revelation.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

This word "creature" is the Greek word ktisis (2936). It's the same Greek word rendered as "creation" in a later verse below. It's about God's creation; that's the first point. The creation waits for the future time of manifestation of the sons of God. Paul will later here link that idea with Salvation and redemption of our bodies by Christ.

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him Who hath subjected the same in hope,

Again, this word "creature" here is actually a Greek word for the 'creation' (ktisis). The creation "was made subject to vanity". What's that? Just HOW was God's creation made subject to vanity, and when? That's what Apostle Paul is declaring there, not me.

The word "vanity" (Greek mataiotes) only occurs in 2 other Scriptures, Eph.4:17 and 2 Pet.2:18, both about the vanity of men gone into corruption. Here Paul uses it literally about the state of the earth which God made today's creation subject to. Note Paul also says "not willingly" the creation was made subject to vanity. In Isaiah 45:18, God emphatically stated He did NOT create the earth "in vain" (Hebrew tohuw - "without form"). That "not willingly" aligns with God's declaration in Isaiah 45:18. That's very important.

If we compare today's present creation in Genesis 1 with what God revealed in His Word about the future new heavens and a new earth, we can clearly see a difference. Paul also covers the idea of the "creature" (creation) being in hope. Hope of what? Hope of the future glory that is to manifest with a new heavens and a new earth.

What's the bottomline Message so far then? 1) God subjected today's creation (back in Gen.1) in vanity, but not willingly. 2) He said He did not create the earth in that state of vanity ("in vain"- Isa.45:18). That aligns with the hint in Genesis 1 of an original creation, and then the earth being placed in a waste and ruin state ("without form, and void").


21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

What? The "creature" (creation - ktisis) "also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption"?? Paul meant what he said there. In the future glory of the manifestation of the sons of God is when that will happen, that's the subject Apostle Paul began here with, the future glory that shall be revealed.

How many realize today's creation has been subjected to "the bondage of corruption"? Ask yourself WHEN it was that God did that, and WHY. Our Heavenly Father gives us ample hints and even open declarations of who did the first sin, and that it caused a third of the angels to rebel against Him also. It's really impossible to leave that subject out of this as the cause of God placing His creation into "the bondage of corruption" for this present world.

Ask yourself, if the creation in hope seeks a release from "the bondage of corruption" state it has been subjected to "not willingly", then what kind of state was it in originally? Afterall, God declared He did not make His creation in vain back in Isa.45:18. Can't just omit that verse in favor of men's traditions.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Paul continues this matter of God putting His creation in bondage of corruption, and the "whole creation" groans and travails in pain because of it, even to today. There's that Greek word ktisis again, rendered this time as "creation". So make no mistake what the subject is that Paul's covering there.


23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Not only the creation groans within itself, but so do we (our souls), waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. What kind of body do you think Paul is speaking of? Per his Message in 1 Cor.15, it's the "spiritual body", the resurrection, a body of incorruption, one that cannot die, never gets sick, not subject to hot or cold, etc.

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
(KJV)

That condition is not manifest on earth today, we still await it in hope when our Lord Jesus comes, when the wicked are dealt with. If what you hope for is already seen manifest, that's not hope, for it's already manifested. We hope for what we don't yet see manifest, and with patience wait for it to manifest. So it is with the whole creation. It ALSO seeks a release from the "bondage of corruption" God placed it in.

Some of you will understand this Message from Apostle Paul. It is emphatically pointing to God placing His original creation in a state of vanity, in "bondage of corruption", and "not willingly". The condition His creation is in today is not how He intended it to be, which is why there will be a future new heavens and a new earth. It's showing God had an original creation that was not in a state of vanity, one that was perfect. And for the purpose of His Salvation, He subjected His creation in a state of vanity for this present time (earth age), and it seeks redemption along with us.

 

[jasoncran]

that i understand, vet, but are you stating the earth before the creation of adam and eve, was destroyed because of satan?

 

[seekandlisten]

God is a God of life, not someone void of life, as would be indicated if God created the earth void.

OK, but wouldn't 'God' have to start with a place to put life so the earth would have been void until it brought forth life right?

I understand how people come to the conclusion that their could be a gap and that 'God' was 'repairing' the earth with the whole 'it became void' phrase rather than it referring to an initial creation. We have tons of evidence that puts life existing before 6000 years ago so I was more wondering if that is what the gap theory tries to address as YEC fails miserably in light of the evidence?

Something else to think about would be that we see that water was what made the earth void.

Is there evidence of this? I ask out of curiosity to know if you are referring to the 'mass extinction' that we have record of?

This is spiritual, and not literal light and darkness, and the words Day and Night are also a spiritual connotation. These two words are used in the NT to indicate walking in spiritual light or spiritual darkness. Here is a NT example - I Thess. 5:4 - 8.

Most of the Bible refers to spiritual matters not physical matters. I'm just trying to understand the Gap Creationist's viewpoint and why they hold it.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

that's the problem, for as drew says there's no spritual /physical seperation

btw there's an ancient sect that advocated all manner of immorality using that line of thinking.