Gap Theory

[LoG]

I think that your interpretation of Isaiah 45:18 is superfluous at best and eisegetical at worst.

Considering the scientific evidence for an old earth with life, how is my interpretation superfluous? Coming from one who believes Genesis is a myth, the accusation of being eisegetical seems somewhat hypocritical.

The context of Isaiah 45:18 is a "challenge" between God and the false gods, where God proves His superiority by predicting the rise and divine use of Cyrus. Firstly, Isaiah 45:18 does reflect Genesis 1, I agree. But not for the sake of proving the v1-v2 gap - it invokes Genesis 1 because Genesis 1 is really God's trump card: "Those false gods represent created things, but I am the Creator!"

That may be so but He is not going to say He did something He didn't do to try and impress them. He verifies that at the end of verse 19 where he says: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Secondly, there is a comparison of opposites in vv. 18 and 19. In v18, the chaos which God overcame is compared with the order which God instituted; in v19, the mysterious oracles of dark pagan lands are contrasted with the plain truth of God to Jacob. Clearly there is a parallelism between chaos and pagan idolatry, and between order and God's relationship with His chosen people, so that the "chaos" and "order" are really symbols of the fundamental fact that Yahweh the warrior stands with His people against Chaos and defeats it.

Who is being superfluous now?

You are saying here that God overcame the Chaos He himself created? Doesn't sound like much of a trick to me. Like asking if God could create a rock that He couldn't lift.

Thirdly, even taking it at absolute bald face value, there is no collision between this and a conventional reading of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 ends with verse 31 where God says that everything is "very good"; by that time God has indeed "formed the earth to be inhabited". Isaiah 45:18 fits perfectly into Genesis 1:31 and there is no rationale to try and squeeze it into the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Do these verses sound like He is a builder of chaos?

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

As for Jeremiah 4:23, it is clear from the context that Jeremiah is prophesying the destruction of the land of Judea, and that expanding his view to "the world" is a prophetic use of superlatively vivid imagery. Even if one takes the expressions super-literally and says that the whole earth has been destroyed in this vision, just because this chaos was a result of God's destruction the second time does not prove that chaos was a result of God's destruction the first time. It is a circumstancial (I'll grant) but not sufficient proof.

Would God, or Jeremiah for that matter, use that phrase if it wasn't a good description of what they each saw? Jeremiah would have been careful of exercising his poetic license to describe in the exact same terms the Earth in his vision.

Yet I will admit that your reservations make sense. Why would God create the world in chaos and formlessness, instead of putting order in right from the start? Was Genesis 1:2 a prototype gone wrong? ... this is precisely where the TE position is strong: there is chaos and formlessness in God's creation in Genesis 1:2 because Genesis is an expression of the archetypal order-vs-chaos Eastern creation story, and the villain exists and is vanquished - without ever having to worry about the philosophical difficulty of where the villain came from in the first place, since it's a story.]

Genesis is the start. The place where the stage is being set up. There is as yet no villain on the scene. All we have is God and this heaven and Earth He has created in verse 1. Verse 2 says it is "chaotic" (without form and void) and the heaven has water everywhere. Seems a somewhat strange creation process in that He now has to spend a couple days cleaning up the mess he created.

Answer me this, shenren. If God told you in no uncertain terms that there were no myths or stories in Genesis, which do you think would be more plausible, YEC or the Gap?

 

[LoG]

Proof by assuming the proved is de facto invalid.

Why do the evolutionists assume that the various extinction events weren't total?

 

[gluadys]

Why do the evolutionists assume that the various extinction events weren't total?

Because there is evidence at each extinction boundary of some continuity with species which preceded the extinction. e.g. sharks have continued in existence through both the Permian-Triassic and the K-T mass extinctions. Dinosaurs disappeared in the K-T extinction, but crocodiles did not.

 

[LoG]

Because there is evidence at each extinction boundary of some continuity with species which preceded the extinction. e.g. sharks have continued in existence through both the Permian-Triassic and the K-T mass extinctions. Dinosaurs disappeared in the K-T extinction, but crocodiles did not.

How can you be sure that they did not go extinct and God recreated certain ones?

 

[shernren]

That may be so but He is not going to say He did something He didn't do to try and impress them. He verifies that at the end of verse 19 where he says: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

This isn't even switching goalposts, this is drawing tennis lines on the football field and then penalising the goalkeeper for being outside the court. Taking a cheap shot at TEism won't help you hold up Gap Theory. In any case, no TE denies that God did indeed create the earth and create it to be inhabited.

Who is being superfluous now?

You are saying here that God overcame the Chaos He himself created? Doesn't sound like much of a trick to me. Like asking if God could create a rock that He couldn't lift.

Which is precisely why the TE myth position makes more sense.

Do these verses sound like He is a builder of chaos?

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Again, by Genesis 1:31 this was all complete. There is no need to squeeze this verse between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 when there is a perfect place for it right in Genesis 1:31. God ultimately created order, even if He cut through chaos to do it, and this is an acceptable and valid way to read these passages without having to appeal to any "gap", which is why I say your interpretation is superfluous.

Would God, or Jeremiah for that matter, use that phrase if it wasn't a good description of what they each saw? Jeremiah would have been careful of exercising his poetic license to describe in the exact same terms the Earth in his vision.

Take the text of out context and you get a con. The entire segment of Jeremiah this is taken from is a declaration of judgment towards Jerusalem and the peope of God who lived there.

Genesis is the start. The place where the stage is being set up. There is as yet no villain on the scene. All we have is God and this heaven and Earth He has created in verse 1. Verse 2 says it is "chaotic" (without form and void) and the heaven has water everywhere. Seems a somewhat strange creation process in that He now has to spend a couple days cleaning up the mess he created.

Answer me this, shenren. If God told you in no uncertain terms that there were no myths or stories in Genesis, which do you think would be more plausible, YEC or the Gap?

If God told me that there were no myths or stories in Genesis I'd ask Him if we were talking about the same book here. But I get what you mean, although your use of the word "myth" is inaccurate. Genesis 1 is a myth whether or not it is scientifically accurate (I'll be putting up an article about this within a few days, God and workload permitting). What you mean is if God told me that Genesis 1 is really meant to be taken indicatively, and not purely figuratively.

And I say I'd probably go with OECism. another spanner there. But hey, fine, between YECism and Gap Theory? I'd say YECism. And I'll explain why in five minutes.

 

[shernren]

I don't know if any of you remember a piece of amateur apologetics that was floating around the net a few years back. It took the form of an atheist professor grilling a Christian student about his beliefs, and one of the questions was the classic "If God created everything, didn't He create evil, and doesn't that make Him an evil god?"

The reply was that this is a dualistic understanding of the universe. The student asked "Does darkness exist?" No, it doesn't; it is merely the absence of light. You can always take light and add more light to it, but there is a certain final level of darkness (black, hex #000000) to which you cannot add any more darkness. "Does cold exist?" No, it doesn't; it is merely the absence of heat. You can always take heat and add more heat to it, but there is a certain final level of cold (-273.16 degrees Celsius, 0K absolute zero) to which you cannot add any more coldness.

Does sin exist? Sin is merely the absence of goodness and God's presence. God is not responsible for creating sin any more than the sun is responsible for creating darkness where it doesn't shine or a fire is responsible for creating coldness where its heat can't be felt.

And so ... does chaos exist? Nope; it is merely the absence of order.

And the reason the Earth was formless and void in Genesis 1:2 (speaking from a YEC indicative-historical paradigm) is that God chose to create matter first, and then order. God did not have to choose to make matter chaotic; that is its natural, "ground" state until God chooses to impose order on it. Most YECs believe that in fact the first form of matter that God created was a colossal, featureless ball of pure water. This is what is referred to as the "waters" that the Spirit of God was hovering over. Formless, void, and yet the perfect starting point for God's creation.

God could indeed have snapped His fingers and conjured up a perfectly ordered universe from nowhere. Or He could have created orderless matter, and then over the course of 6 days given order to it. Either would have been consistent with the role of God as creator and giver of order. And given that there is no real justification for a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, I would probably lean towards YECist-apparent age if I had to choose between it and Gap Theory. Both of them are really the same way of looking at the world, but starting from different interpretations of the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

How can you be sure that they did not go extinct and God recreated certain ones?

That is a less parsimonious explanation. It adds a frill that is not necessary to explain our observations.

It could be that way. We have no way to say for sure. But there is neither a theological nor a scientific reason to invent this possibility.

Both scripture and observation are adequately explained without the extra step of extinction + recreation.

 

[LoG]

Most YECs believe that in fact the first form of matter that God created was a colossal, featureless ball of pure water. This is what is referred to as the "waters" that the Spirit of God was hovering over. Formless, void, and yet the perfect starting point for God's creation.

It is that line of thinking that God refutes in Job 38: 4-7. God describes the process He went through to construct the Earth and note that it was done outside of the Creation week. In Job, He is describing an event that was a part of Gen 1:1.

Or He could have created orderless matter, and then over the course of 6 days given order to it. Either would have been consistent with the role of God as creator and giver of order.

That doesn't appear to be a very parsimonious process. A builder of a house doesn't throw all the bricks, wood, drywall, shingles etc, into a big heap and then sort it all out to build. The normal process is to start at the foundation and build out from there.

"Orderless matter" is always a result of a destruction process rather than a creation process.

 

[Mallon]

Science says that there was a large extinction event in the last 10000 years. The bible says there was a creation event 6000 years ago on a Earth that was void of life. Prove to me that wasn't the case.

Lion of God, you are using the Bible here to prove the Bible. You can't do that. It's dishonest.

How can you be sure that they did not go extinct and God recreated certain ones?

If you really want to believe that, it's your perogative. But
1) Don't pretend it's scientific
and
2) Don't pretend it's biblical

 

[LoG]

It could be that way. We have no way to say for sure. But there is neither a theological nor a scientific reason to invent this possibility.

Theologically I would have to disagree from the viewpoint of those take the creation week as a literal event.
Scientific observation sees new life forms appearing from nowhere with no real transitionals leading up to it. Lots of hypotheses's and conjectures but no provable answers. The modified Gap theory is the only real answer to the dilemma's faced by YEC's and TE's.

 

[LoG]

Lion of God, you are using the Bible here to prove the Bible. You can't do that. It's dishonest.

Lol, this is the Christian section of Origins, in case you hadn't noticed. The bible is the most honest source I could possibly use.

If you really want to believe that, it's your perogative. But
1) Don't pretend it's scientific
and
2) Don't pretend it's biblical

My viewpoint brings science and the bible into harmony without mythologizing either source. Therefore it isn't GT that is doing the pretending.

 

[gluadys]

My viewpoint brings science and the bible into harmony without mythologizing either source. Therefore it isn't GT that is doing the pretending.

As I see it, gap theology rejects both sound science and sound scriptural exegesis. So it cannot provide a way of bringing science and the bible into harmony since it is, itself, out of harmony with both.

 

[KerrMetric]

As I see it, gap theology rejects both sound science and sound scriptural exegesis. So it cannot provide a way of bringing science and the bible into harmony since it is, itself, out of harmony with both.

Maybe this is the two wrongs finally making a right.

 

[Mallon]

Lol, this is the Christian section of Origins, in case you hadn't noticed. The bible is the most honest source I could possibly use.

Why the need for Gap Theory at all, then? Take the Bible at face value.
Also, if you know the argument you are using to be circular and dishonest (which it is), making use of such logical fallacy is not very becoming of a Christian.

My viewpoint brings science and the bible into harmony without mythologizing either source. Therefore it isn't GT that is doing the pretending.

-The Bible does not say that God created the earth and all life within it twice -- once "at the beginning" and once after the Pleistocene
- Science does not say that some species were miraculously brought back to life after each major extinction

What you are doing is mishmashing the Bible and science together to make them say something that neither says independently. So again, your stance is supported by neither the Bible nor science.

 

[shernren]

You know a theory is really, really out of line when TEs start quoting scripture against it.

It is that line of thinking that God refutes in Job 38: 4-7. God describes the process He went through to construct the Earth and note that it was done outside of the Creation week. In Job, He is describing an event that was a part of Gen 1:1.

If He is, you have yet to show it.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Firstly, Job 38 is a very interesting chapter for meteorologists, since it describes warehouses of rain, talking lightning bolts (in the KJV, at least) and the birds-and-bees of dew. It's really not a good idea to uphold this chapter as the epitome of historical narrative, is it?

Secondly, there is no motivation to assume that Job 38:4-7 belong in any "gap" between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 unless it has already been assumed for other reasons. Note the parallelism between those four verses - which describe the founding of the earth - and the next four verses - which describe the founding of the sea. In the second case, the events of vv. 8-11 can clearly be traced to days 2 and 3, within the creation week, and so there is no reason to have to put vv. 4-7 outside the creation week.

The verses can be interpreted in two ways, both straightforward. The first is to look at vv. 4-7 as an overall description of the wisdom and intelligence of God to craft the earth as revealed in its full glory in Gen 1:31. Actually, another way to interpret it is to put it into Genesis 1:1. In Genesis 1:1, God "created the earth and the heavens". He does not tell us to what degree of polishedness He performed this initial creation. But Job 38:4-7 tells us that God laid the earth's foundations, marked off its dimensions, set its footings, and laid its cornerstone. Having done that, He stood back and "took a snapshot" - Genesis 1:2. The earth had been set in place, but it was still a void and formless earth - though it had been set in place and the great drama of creation had begun.

In conclusion, there are perfectly acceptable interpretations of Job 38:4-7 which do not put it outside the creation week. So this does not constitute a proof for GT.

That doesn't appear to be a very parsimonious process. A builder of a house doesn't throw all the bricks, wood, drywall, shingles etc, into a big heap and then sort it all out to build. The normal process is to start at the foundation and build out from there.

"Orderless matter" is always a result of a destruction process rather than a creation process.

And GT is a parsimonious way to explain the scientific evidence?

Take a sculptor posing with a flat, cubic slab of marble. It is formless and void - it represents nothing and has no purpose. The sculptor starts chipping away when you interrupt him: "I don't get it. Why did you take the marble, make it void and purposeless and dead by cutting it into a flat slab, and then start on it all over again?"

Does the question make sense?

"Orderless matter" need not be the result of destructive activity - it can be the result of restrained creative activity. God formed matter from nothing and then formed ordered matter from orderless matter. I do not claim to know why God used this process but it *is* a valid and acceptable way to interpret Genesis 1 ... parsimonious? The burden of proving its own parsimony lies on GT, not on any other theory.

 

[LoG]

As I see it, gap theology rejects both sound science and sound scriptural exegesis. So it cannot provide a way of bringing science and the bible into harmony since it is, itself, out of harmony with both.

I can understand how in your opinion it would not appear sound, gluadys, being that from what I have seen of your posts around the Origins forum you appear to espouse eisegesis rather than exegesis.

Why the need for Gap Theory at all, then? Take the Bible at face value.
Also, if you know the argument you are using to be circular and dishonest (which it is), making use of such logical fallacy is not very becoming of a Christian.

Gap Theology does take the bible at face value. In fact, more literally than any other origins doctrine.
At best I'm using an informal fallacy only because of your own disbelief in the historical accuracy of the scriptures. On a "christian only" section of the board the charge of being dishonest is not mine to bear.

-The Bible does not say that God created the earth and all life within it twice -- once "at the beginning" and once after the Pleistocene
- Science does not say that some species were miraculously brought back to life after each major extinction

The bible does allude in a number of verses that there was a world before this one. It is a shadowy outline at best, but still there, and was recognized by bible scholars for a couple of thousand years before the scientific evidence caught up with the reality.

Evolutionary science as many of the TE's have verified, will not use miracles as an answer to the origins of life, so your last statement is hardly surprising. That unwillingness leaves many questions unanswered from the evolutionary standpoint, in spite of KerrMetric's many scholars and scientists with excellent credentials and almost unlimited funds, trying to unravel the mystery over the last century. Got to love this verse: 1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is nonsense in God's sight. For it is written, "He catches the wise with their own trickery,"

Secondly, there is no motivation to assume that Job 38:4-7 belong in any "gap" between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 unless it has already been assumed for other reasons. ....... and so there is no reason to have to put vv. 4-7 outside the creation week.

This explains it better than I can:

Now the " and," according to Hebrew usage-as well as that of most other languages-proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. v. i). There the opening words, " This is the book of the generations of Adam," are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. We have, therefore, in the second verse of Genesis no first detail of a general statement in the preceding sentence, but the record of an altogether distinct and subsequent event, which did not affect the sidereal heaven, but only the earth and its immediate surroundings. And what that event was we must now endeavour to discover.
According to our version, " the earth was without form, and void." This, however, is not the sense of the Hebrew, but a glaring illustration of the influence of the chaos-legend. Fuerst gives " ruin," or " desolation," as the proper meaning of the noun rendered " without form." The second word signifies "emptiness," then, " that which is empty " ; so that in this case the authorized translation is admissible. Now these words are found together only in two other passages, in both of which they are clearly used to express the ruin caused by an outpouring of the wrath of God.

Next:
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This verse isn't in regards to Noah's flood since that deluge only affected the Earth, not the heavens.
Therefore the Earth and heaven already existed prior to Day 1 as did His construction process in Job.

"Orderless matter" need not be the result of destructive activity - it can be the result of restrained creative activity.

Orderless matter a result of restrained creative activity? That is a contradiction to my mind.

God formed matter from nothing and then formed ordered matter from orderless matter. I do not claim to know why God used this process but it *is* a valid and acceptable way to interpret Genesis 1 ...

I agree, I wouldn't know why God would use that type of process either, so maybe it is because he didn't.

As I have already said, Gap theology does a better job at harmonizing observation of our world with scripture but as TE's always maintain, it requires a bit of study to see and understand the reality and implications of a doctrine. A Google search will turn up good sources of info on it for those who have any further interest in its study. This is the extent of my contribution to this thread.

 

[Mallon]

Gap Theology does take the bible at face value. In fact, more literally than any other origins doctrine.

Except the "Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar" part, right? (Prov 30:6)

At best I'm using an informal fallacy

You are using the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, or circulus in demonstrando.

On a "christian only" section of the board the charge of being dishonest is not mine to bear.

Why? Are you incapable of being dishonest?

That unwillingness leaves many questions unanswered from the evolutionary standpoint

So "Goddidit", right? Beware the God of the Gaps, my friend.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Consider this carefully:

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

God did not destroy the Adam to Noah world as many suppose this verse to mean. Noah carried that world (age) with him on the ark; the unclean animals, and the unclean people went on to replace and rebuild that evil world. The present evil world is the same one that God destoyed most of in Noah's flood. When asked for a sign of the end time Jesus recalled the 'days of Noah'.

If that evil world had 'perished' why would he compare the end-time world with the preNoah world? And why would he have allowed it to continue after that flood? The only way it makes sense is if it speaks of an ancient destruction which included a flood.

The covenant of the rainbow also alludes to other floods, perhaps many. The very pattern of baptism indicates that drowning was favored by God for the purpose of cleansing the earth from time to time. The geologic record also supports this.

 

[shernren]

Notice how the proof-texts are being silently conceded one by one.

Now the " and," according to Hebrew usage-as well as that of most other languages-proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. v. i). There the opening words, " This is the book of the generations of Adam," are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. We have, therefore, in the second verse of Genesis no first detail of a general statement in the preceding sentence, but the record of an altogether distinct and subsequent event, which did not affect the sidereal heaven, but only the earth and its immediate surroundings. And what that event was we must now endeavour to discover.
According to our version, " the earth was without form, and void." This, however, is not the sense of the Hebrew, but a glaring illustration of the influence of the chaos-legend. Fuerst gives " ruin," or " desolation," as the proper meaning of the noun rendered " without form." The second word signifies "emptiness," then, " that which is empty " ; so that in this case the authorized translation is admissible. Now these words are found together only in two other passages, in both of which they are clearly used to express the ruin caused by an outpouring of the wrath of God.

I agree completely! And the non-GT explanation is:

In Genesis 1:1, God "created the earth and the heavens". He does not tell us to what degree of polishedness He performed this initial creation. But Job 38:4-7 tells us that God laid the earth's foundations, marked off its dimensions, set its footings, and laid its cornerstone. Having done that, He stood back and "took a snapshot" - Genesis 1:2. The earth had been set in place, but it was still a void and formless earth - though it had been set in place and the great drama of creation had begun.

Next:
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This verse isn't in regards to Noah's flood since that deluge only affected the Earth, not the heavens.
Therefore the Earth and heaven already existed prior to Day 1 as did His construction process in Job.

Fallacious argument from inaccurate translation. Most other translations have:

2Pe 3:5

(ESV) For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

(GNB) They purposely ignore the fact that long ago God gave a command, and the heavens and earth were created. The earth was formed out of water and by water,

(NIV) But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

(NLT) They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth up from the water and surrounded it with water.

(RSV) They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water,

(TMSG) They conveniently forget that long ago all the galaxies and this very planet were brought into existence out of watery chaos by God's word.

The flood of 2 Peter 3:5 did not destroy the heavens.

Consider this carefully:

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

God did not destroy the Adam to Noah world as many suppose this verse to mean. Noah carried that world (age) with him on the ark; the unclean animals, and the unclean people went on to replace and rebuild that evil world. The present evil world is the same one that God destoyed most of in Noah's flood. When asked for a sign of the end time Jesus recalled the 'days of Noah'.

If that evil world had 'perished' why would he compare the end-time world with the preNoah world? And why would he have allowed it to continue after that flood? The only way it makes sense is if it speaks of an ancient destruction which included a flood.

This is another one of those "the actual word in Greek is ... " moments.

They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed (apolesen) them all.
(Luke 17:27 ESV)

and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished (apoleto).
(2 Peter 3:6 ESV)

The actual verb root, apollumi, is the same for both. So the process by which the world perished in the 2 Peter flood, is the same process which Jesus used to describe how the people of Noah's time perished during Noah's flood. The text simply doesn't make a distinction between either.

The covenant of the rainbow also alludes to other floods, perhaps many. The very pattern of baptism indicates that drowning was favored by God for the purpose of cleansing the earth from time to time. The geologic record also supports this.

People are only baptized once, so doesn't this mean the world was only drowned in water once?

Orderless matter a result of restrained creative activity? That is a contradiction to my mind.

Not really. It's similar in nature to the argument of theodicy, which really hinges on a limited understanding of time. The skeptic asks: "Isn't God good? Then why does He allow evil?" Of course, one standard Christian answer is that God has not allowed evil forever; evil is here for a time only and eventually it will be destroyed. When that has happened and history is viewed in its completion then it will be seen that God ultimately forbade evil.

Because of God's restrained redemptive actions (for example, He waited at least 4,000 years to send Jesus), His redemptive work takes a longer time than people assume should be the case, and therefore there is a state of temporary fallenness associated with the world today.

In the same way, GT looks at Gen 1:2 and asks: "Doesn't God love order? How could He have created chaos?" The obvious parallel is that God did not allow chaos forever; in fact the chaos only existed for 1 day. Because of God's restrained creative action, chaos existed for a short period of time, and viewed within the entirety of God's creative work we can see that ultimately God did not allow chaos. Thus a GT reading is not necessary.

As I have already said, Gap theology does a better job at harmonizing observation of our world with scripture but as TE's always maintain, it requires a bit of study to see and understand the reality and implications of a doctrine. A Google search will turn up good sources of info on it for those who have any further interest in its study. This is the extent of my contribution to this thread.

"A bit of study" is showing that the implications of GT do not match up to Scriptural reality. It is highly ironic that it has to be a TE who says such things.

 

[gluadys]

"A bit of study" is showing that the implications of GT do not match up to Scriptural reality. It is highly ironic that it has to be a TE who says such things.

Not really ironic. Despite the image of TEs among creationists of various stripes, we really do respect what scripture actually says. We do not "dismiss" "ignore" "set aside" or "not believe" scripture.