[_ Old Earth _] The Gap Theory

[Lewis]

Tradition VS Bible: The Gap Theory

The Genesis Gap
An animated presentation explaining the Ruin-Reconstruction interpretation of the Bible's Genesis creation account, also known as the Gap Theory.

 

[Barbarian]

There are numerous "Gap Theories." This started with the realization by geologists, in the early 1800s, that the evidence didn't fit a single worldwide flood. Sedgwick, just before retiring as president of the Geological Society in 1831, described how the evidence had shown him that the many deposits could not have been from a single flood. He remained convinced that the evidence did not rule out Noah's flood, however.

Gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers,[5] a professor at the University of Edinburgh, founder of the Free Church of Scotland, and author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises, who attributed it to 17th century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius. Other early proponents included Oxford University geology professor and fellow Bridgewater author William Buckland, Sharon Turner and Edward Hitchcock.[4]


It gained widespread attention when a "second creative act"[6] was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.[4]


In 1954, a few years before the re-emergence of Young Earth Flood geology eclipsed Gap creationism, influential evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm wrote in The Christian View of Science and Scripture:[4]


"The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

YE creationism is very modern revision of creationist belief.

 

[turnorburn]

What you say here Barbarian "In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture"

Sounds almost identical to what was said here..

Young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

God doesn't care whether or not you accept long ages of creation. You can be wrong about a lot of things, so long as you're right about the things that count.

What matters?

Jesus says:
Matthew 22:[36] Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? [37] Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Do that, and you can be a YE creationist all your life, without worry.

 

[Sparkey]

In the KJV we read, in Gen 1:5 ... And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Again, in the KJV, we read, in Gen 1:8 ... And the evening and the morning were the second day.

It looks the same but upon looking just a little deeper we can see a difference.

Gen 1:5 `ereb (evening) boqer (morning) 'echad (one) yowm (day)
Gen 1:8 `ereb (evening) boqer (morning) sheniy (second) yowm (day)​

Young's Literal translates these two sentences as:

Gen 1:5 ... and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.
Gen 1:8 ... and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.​

The Word of God continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text say it differently: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad").

• 'One' is absolute.
• 'First' is comparative.

But why the difference? I think that Day One may have been made distinct from the other six because that that was when Time itself was created. The thought does not originate with me.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder (Aish.com) said it this way:

"Time was created. You can't grab time. You don't even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah's use of the phrase, "Day One." And that's exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: that there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself.​

We don't often think of it this way but a minute on the moon goes faster than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the sun goes slower. Time on the sun is actually stretched so that if you could put a clock on the sun, it would tick more slowly. Even Atomic Clocks mark time differently if they are in different gravitational fields. And, as you know, time is not effected by gravity only but also by rate of speed. Traveling at the speed of light actually makes time stop. Traveling near the speed of light makes time go by much more slowly. (Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity).

So now comes the question, Is the universe billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data?

What if it's both? Couldn't the answer be "both of the above"? Could the earth be billions of years old if time were measured while traveling on one of its primitive building blocks (for want of a better term) from the time of its creation? Imagine how much time would slow down under the tremendous influence of gravity during the first big bang moments. And if that isn't mind boggling enough consider the influence of the astronomically fast speeds as the first elements (sorry, I know that elements came later --but words themselves become cumbersome as we speak of this) exploded outward at the speed of light. There would be no time passing whatsoever at that speed. Time would be monumentally slower at near light speed especially under such strong gravitational fields.

Could any man know how much time went by in those first few moments? But what if God knew how long we would think a day (yowm) was even before He created the sun? What if Light itself was created at the 'time' (so called) of the big bang? And what if, for the sake of CLARITY, God spoke of that time as measured in terms we are familiar with? What if God made it take a day? That way, Day One could be a day (24 hours) as measured from our current perspective and there would also be room left for a Gap Theory too. If that single day (from God's perspective and measured in a way we could relate to) took billions of years? Who am I to say? Fact is, I really do not know. But taking God's word for it seems the right way to ponder such things.

Here's a couple more thought at no extra charge: We know that Rosh Hashanah is the celebration of the Jewish New Year and that the name means “Head of the Year”. It is the anniversary of the day of the creation of Adam and Eve (not the anniversary of the creation of the universe or even the world). The central observance of Rosh Hashanah is the sounding of the shofar, the ram’s horn, which also represents the trumpet blast of a people’s coronation of their king (chabad.org). I think it was made that way so that He could say, "I have shown the end from the beginning."

__________________________________________________________

Did I say a couple thoughts at no extra charge? Okay, here's another: Let's pretend we met a friendly and cooperative alien being and wanted to determine his/her/its age. After all manner of tests we might announce that the Earth had revolved around the sun 127 times since he/she/it was born. Would we be surprised to find the alien smiling at our method of measuring time from our current perspective only or even more surprised to hear the answer, "Who says I was born?"

It's okay to ponder things we know nothing about. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we don't know what we're are talking about. Right? I'm certain that is the essence of what was said to the righteous man, Job. The only safe way to say is to quote an authoritative source. One who was there. Our Father in Heaven told us about it in 31 verses. Imagine that.

 

[Barbarian]

But why the difference? I think that Day One may have been made distinct from the other six because that that was when Time itself was created. The thought does not originate with me.

The universe was made first. And then, as God indicates, everything else unfolded according to His will, from that. Of course there's a significant difference between making the universe, and making all other things from it.

This is why Genesis 2 says that it was made in "the yom." (translated as "day.")

Otherwise, there's a conflict between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

 

[Sparkey]

Barbarian? Where did God indicate that "everything else unfolded" according or not? Do you have a verse to back up your comment, please? It sounds like 2 Barbarian C&S, verse 23 to me.

Your version of things includes all life 'unfolding' from a single cell. As you know, our Father never said any such thing.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian? Where did God indicate that "everything else unfolded" according or not?

For example,
Gen 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

As Augustine pointed out, He created the world with the potentiality for all of that, and it works as He intended. And that was very good.

 

[Sparkey]

Okay.
I understand better how you are developing your idea. Thank you. I personally like the way that God says things because I don't feel excluded because of my beliefs. He said that He did it and upon this we can agree --and He does not insist that it was or was not done instantly, except for when He says it was done in a day. Your expression demands your view, that God somehow set things in motion and they "unfolded" over long periods of time. Can you see why I prefer God's Word to yours?

No offense meant. I am equally confident that you also prefer His word to mine. No doubt. I am quite amazed at how the Bible allows for difference. "The Living Word of God" is more than a catch phrase. Blessings to you!

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

This is why most Christian groups acknowledge that it's an open question, and cannot be determined from the text. It really doesn't matter to salvation, which is what the Bible is for in the first place.

You kind and diplomatic conclusion is appreciated, and perhaps is the best conclusion for this thread.