Recreation

[Messy]

I was a YEC, but I just found this. Never heard from it:
THE TIME BETWEEN GENESIS 1:1 AND GENESIS 1:2
Genesis 1:2 begins with the word "AND". This word means "at a following time." It is not known how long, exactly, this time period is... but it must have been millions and millions of years.

Genesis 1:2
"And (at a following time) the earth was (became) without form and void (=tohu va bohu = waste and empty), and darkness (probably a dark nebula) was upon the face of the deep (waters)."

The earth was not created "without form and void", or "waste and empty." It had to have become that way following creation. Isaiah tells us this truth in his book.

Isaiah 45:18

"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself Who formed the earth and made it, He hath established it, He created it not in vain (not "tohu"), He formed it to be inhabited."

Jeremiah explains in his prophetic book that the earth became "without form and void", and in a great "darkness", after a great destruction, and fierce judgment of God, that destroyed all the people that were on the earth, and destroyed cities, all animal life, and all vegetation.

Jeremiah 4:27

"I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

The darkness that was upon the earth was a result of this judgment. It was a turning off, or an obscuring of the sun, that caused a great ice age. It would indicate that the "waters" mentioned would have been in a frozen state.

Dr. Alter, once director of the Griffith Planetarium said that Genesis 1:2 is the best description of a dark nebula that was ever written. A dark nebula is a feature of outer space that has puzzled scientists for many years, since their discovery. They are dark black clouds which allow no light to shine through them. Normal darkness on this earth is simply the absence of light. Yet there is in space another kind of darkness that has substance. Light cannot even pass through a dark nebula.

Most scientists now believe that the earth was once within a dark nebula. Genesis 1:2 describes it, and Jeremiah 4:23 tells about Jeremiah seeing it in his vision. This is why, on the first day of the re-creation, God says "Let there be light" for the sun had already been created in the original creation, but no light from it was reaching the earth. This also explains the difference between the age of the sun, and the rest of the universe. The sun, within this dark nebula, was not burning down as it did before, or after the dark nebula. (See lesson 1)

It was only about 60 years ago that scientists discovered the dark nebula. Previously, they thought that the dark areas of the heavens were spots in which there were no stars. Then scientists noticed that there was light from stars reflecting from behind the dark areas. These are more prevalent in the heavens than any other objects, except stars. These come in a multitude of shapes, as the one shaped like a horse's head within the constellation of Orion. Scientists are still forming theories about them, and there is much debate about them, but we can see here in Genesis, that the earth must have at one time been within one of these.

The word "deep" in verse 2, means "waters." The earth must have been flooded before this nebula caused the waters to freeze. Theologians call this "Lucifer's flood" to distinguish it from the flood in Noah's time. In Genesis 1:1, the word "earth" means "dry land." So in the judgment of God upon this first, original creation, was by flood, and then a darkness upon the earth that froze all these waters. It must have been, as Jeremiah tells us, a "fierce anger" of the Lord that brought this terrible judgment.

What could have caused God to become so angry to do this to the perfect creation that He had made? There was an original creation that had people, which we will call the PRE-ADAMITES. The earth had been created billions of years ago to be inhabited.

Isaiah 45:18

"He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited..."

This is why Adam and Eve were commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth."

When Lucifer fell in his sin (previous to the temptation of Adam and Eve, for he was already fallen then), there were many other people who fell with him. His sin had caused the people of this previous creation to fall.

Isaiah 14:12

"How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning, how art thou cut down to the ground, thou which didst weaken the nations (peoples)."

The sin of Lucifer (this is the one we know as Satan, the devil) involved people. These people were the pre-adamites.

Ezekiel 28:17-19

"Thine (Lucifer's) heart was lifted up because of thy beauty... I will lay thee before kings... thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of these iniquities..."

These people were mortal, and they drowned in the flood sent by the "fierce anger" of the Lord. Peter refers to Lucifer's flood (not Noah's) in II Peter 3:5-7:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water. whereby, the world that then was being overflowed of water perished..."

DISTINGUISHING LUCIFER'S FLOOD FROM NOAH'S FLOOD

LUCIFER'S NOAH'S

The earth was made waste Earth not made waste

Genesis 1:2, Jer. 4:23 Gen. 8:11-12,22

Earth made empty Earth not made empty

Jer. 4:23 Gen. 6:17-22, 8:16

Earth totally dark Earth not totally dark

Jer. 4:23 Gen. 8:6-22

No days Days

Gen. 1:2-5 Gen. 8:1-22

Vegetation destroyed Vegetation left

Gen. 1:2-12, Jer. 4:23-26 Gen. 8:11-12,22

All fish, fowl, and animals destroyed/ Not all fish, fowl or animals destroyed

Gen. 1:20, Jer. 4:23-26 Gen. 8

No men left Men and women left

Jer. 4:23-26 Gen. 6:18

Cause = Satan's sin Cause = man's sin

Isa. 14:12-14 Gen. 6:5-13

 

[gluadys]

I was a YEC, but I just found this. Never heard from it:
THE TIME BETWEEN GENESIS 1:1 AND GENESIS 1:2
Genesis 1:2 begins with the word "AND". This word means "at a following time." It is not known how long, exactly, this time period is... but it must have been millions and millions of years.

Genesis 1:2
"And (at a following time) the earth was (became) without form and void (=tohu va bohu = waste and empty), and darkness (probably a dark nebula) was upon the face of the deep (waters)."

The earth was not created "without form and void", or "waste and empty." It had to have become that way following creation. Isaiah tells us this truth in his book.

Isaiah 45:18

"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself Who formed the earth and made it, He hath established it, He created it not in vain (not "tohu"), He formed it to be inhabited."

Jeremiah explains in his prophetic book that the earth became "without form and void", and in a great "darkness", after a great destruction, and fierce judgment of God, that destroyed all the people that were on the earth, and destroyed cities, all animal life, and all vegetation.

Jeremiah 4:27

"I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

The darkness that was upon the earth was a result of this judgment. It was a turning off, or an obscuring of the sun, that caused a great ice age. It would indicate that the "waters" mentioned would have been in a frozen state.

Dr. Alter, once director of the Griffith Planetarium said that Genesis 1:2 is the best description of a dark nebula that was ever written. A dark nebula is a feature of outer space that has puzzled scientists for many years, since their discovery. They are dark black clouds which allow no light to shine through them. Normal darkness on this earth is simply the absence of light. Yet there is in space another kind of darkness that has substance. Light cannot even pass through a dark nebula.

Most scientists now believe that the earth was once within a dark nebula. Genesis 1:2 describes it, and Jeremiah 4:23 tells about Jeremiah seeing it in his vision. This is why, on the first day of the re-creation, God says "Let there be light" for the sun had already been created in the original creation, but no light from it was reaching the earth. This also explains the difference between the age of the sun, and the rest of the universe. The sun, within this dark nebula, was not burning down as it did before, or after the dark nebula. (See lesson 1)

It was only about 60 years ago that scientists discovered the dark nebula. Previously, they thought that the dark areas of the heavens were spots in which there were no stars. Then scientists noticed that there was light from stars reflecting from behind the dark areas. These are more prevalent in the heavens than any other objects, except stars. These come in a multitude of shapes, as the one shaped like a horse's head within the constellation of Orion. Scientists are still forming theories about them, and there is much debate about them, but we can see here in Genesis, that the earth must have at one time been within one of these.

The word "deep" in verse 2, means "waters." The earth must have been flooded before this nebula caused the waters to freeze. Theologians call this "Lucifer's flood" to distinguish it from the flood in Noah's time. In Genesis 1:1, the word "earth" means "dry land." So in the judgment of God upon this first, original creation, was by flood, and then a darkness upon the earth that froze all these waters. It must have been, as Jeremiah tells us, a "fierce anger" of the Lord that brought this terrible judgment.

What could have caused God to become so angry to do this to the perfect creation that He had made? There was an original creation that had people, which we will call the PRE-ADAMITES. The earth had been created billions of years ago to be inhabited.

Isaiah 45:18

"He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited..."

This is why Adam and Eve were commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth."

When Lucifer fell in his sin (previous to the temptation of Adam and Eve, for he was already fallen then), there were many other people who fell with him. His sin had caused the people of this previous creation to fall.

Isaiah 14:12

"How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning, how art thou cut down to the ground, thou which didst weaken the nations (peoples)."

The sin of Lucifer (this is the one we know as Satan, the devil) involved people. These people were the pre-adamites.

Ezekiel 28:17-19

"Thine (Lucifer's) heart was lifted up because of thy beauty... I will lay thee before kings... thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of these iniquities..."

These people were mortal, and they drowned in the flood sent by the "fierce anger" of the Lord. Peter refers to Lucifer's flood (not Noah's) in II Peter 3:5-7:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water. whereby, the world that then was being overflowed of water perished..."

DISTINGUISHING LUCIFER'S FLOOD FROM NOAH'S FLOOD

LUCIFER'S NOAH'S

The earth was made waste Earth not made waste

Genesis 1:2, Jer. 4:23 Gen. 8:11-12,22

Earth made empty Earth not made empty

Jer. 4:23 Gen. 6:17-22, 8:16

Earth totally dark Earth not totally dark

Jer. 4:23 Gen. 8:6-22

No days Days

Gen. 1:2-5 Gen. 8:1-22

Vegetation destroyed Vegetation left

Gen. 1:2-12, Jer. 4:23-26 Gen. 8:11-12,22

All fish, fowl, and animals destroyed/ Not all fish, fowl or animals destroyed

Gen. 1:20, Jer. 4:23-26 Gen. 8

No men left Men and women left

Jer. 4:23-26 Gen. 6:18

Cause = Satan's sin Cause = man's sin

Isa. 14:12-14 Gen. 6:5-13

This is gap theology and it has been around in some form for a couple of centuries. But it has always been a minority theological position. As you say it depends on interpreting Gen. 1:1 & 1:2 as having a time gap between them and translating the verb "be" as "became" in the phrase "the earth was/became without form and void.

So, hermeneutically it depends on whether one can justify this interpretation of the text. The majority of biblical scholars say "no" (though I agree they could still be mistaken).

As far as I know, when gap theology was first applied to the question of evolution, it was simply to provide a legitimate way to account for geological time within the text of scripture.

More recently, there has been an addition to gap theology which purports to explain how the earth acquired its empty, formless state: namely a war between God and Satan which left the earth devoid of life.

The earlier version of gap theology was intended as a way to make scripture concord with geology and the existence of the fossil record. It attempted reconcile science and scropture.

This newer version does the opposite, for it claims that there was no life on earth for millions of years prior to the sudden creation of the world as we know it about 6,000 years ago.

This is not scientifically tenable as the evidence is that life on earth has been continuous and abundant during the whole nearly 4 billion years since it first appeared.

It is an impoverished form of gap theology to accept only the age of the earth and reject the evidence of the continuity of life on earth during all those ages. This form of gap theology is only technically different from young-earth creationism and has all the same weaknesses, with an additional one. Why is the alleged gap filled with evidence of living, changing eco-systems?

 

[Calminian]

I was a YEC, but I just found this. Never heard from it:
THE TIME BETWEEN GENESIS 1:1 AND GENESIS 1:2
Genesis 1:2 begins with the word "AND". This word means "at a following time." It is not known how long, exactly, this time period is... but it must have been millions and millions of years.

Actually waw (the hebrew word here) just means and. There's no justification to pour the additional meanings you've poured into it. I used to buy into this theory myself. I'm a former gapper. I finally realized it does't work on any level. I'll explain as I go down your list. I used to believe all this stuff.

Genesis 1:2
"And (at a following time) the earth was (became) without form and void (=tohu va bohu = waste and empty), and darkness (probably a dark nebula) was upon the face of the deep (waters)."

The word here is not become. It's simply was. It's a form of the hebrew "to be."

Also, the term earth here just means land. Earth in scripture is never a word for our globe or planet. That only comes later on in modern nomenclature. The passage here is very simple. In the beginning God created the sky and land, and initially, the land was unformed and unfilled. In the gap theory, the land is merely submerged in a flood, not unformed.

It actually make perfect sense. If one was going to give an account of the earth (land) being formed, but would be logical to start at the point it existed by was not yet formed and shaped as we see it today. There's just no gap here to be found.

The earth was not created "without form and void", or "waste and empty." It had to have become that way following creation.

But according to this text it was created (verse 1) and at that precise moment was still unformed, and unfilled. It's very logical when you think about it. Over the six days we are show how the heavens, earth and sea are formed and filled.

...Jeremiah explains in his prophetic book that the earth became "without form and void", and in a great "darkness", after a great destruction, and fierce judgment of God, that destroyed all the people that were on the earth, and destroyed cities, all animal life, and all vegetation.

Jeremiah 4:27

"I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."

The darkness that was upon the earth was a result of this judgment. It was a turning off, or an obscuring of the sun, that caused a great ice age. It would indicate that the "waters" mentioned would have been in a frozen state.

No, that's not what's going on in the Jeremiah passage. If you read the entire context you'll see this is a vision of a future judgement.

Jer. 4:25 I beheld, and indeed there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.​

The word here in the hebrew for man is adam. Adam is the hebrew word for mankind. We all bear that name because we all come from him. Thus, this passage cannot possibly be talking about pre-adamites.

26 I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were broken down
At the presence of the LORD,
By His fierce anger.
27 For thus says the LORD:
“The whole land shall be desolate;
Yet I will not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn,
And the heavens above be black,
Because I have spoken.
I have purposed and will not relent,
Nor will I turn back from it. ​

Read on and you see that among the sufferers in this event are the jews and the city of Jerusalem.

31 “For I have heard a voice as of a woman in labor,
The anguish as of her who brings forth her first child,
The voice of the daughter of Zion bewailing herself;
She spreads her hands, saying,
‘Woe is me now, for my soul is weary
Because of murderers!’
1 “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem;
See now and know;
And seek in her open places
If you can find a man,
If there is anyone who executes judgment,
Who seeks the truth,
And I will pardon her.​

Dr. Alter, once director of the Griffith Planetarium said that Genesis 1:2 is the best description of a dark nebula that was ever written. A dark nebula is a feature of outer space that has puzzled scientists for many years, since their discovery. They are dark black clouds which allow no light to shine through them. Normal darkness on this earth is simply the absence of light. Yet there is in space another kind of darkness that has substance. Light cannot even pass through a dark nebula.

Again, you're forcing modern nomenclature on to the ancient term earth (erets) which merely means land.

Most scientists now believe that the earth was once within a dark nebula. Genesis 1:2 describes it, and Jeremiah 4:23 tells about Jeremiah seeing it in his vision. This is why, on the first day of the re-creation, God says "Let there be light" for the sun had already been created in the original creation, but no light from it was reaching the earth. This also explains the difference between the age of the sun, and the rest of the universe. The sun, within this dark nebula, was not burning down as it did before, or after the dark nebula. (See lesson 1)

But according to the text, this initial light of day 1 was not from the sun. We have the creation of light "let there be light" but the sun was not yet in existence. That didn't come until day 4.

You see the biblical record reveals an simultaneous creation, in which the entire universe was made at the same time (within six days).

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...​

Believe me, I understand the motive behind the gap theory. I was believing in that theory for many years. It doesn't line up with scripture or modern scientific theories.

The word "deep" in verse 2, means "waters." The earth must have been flooded before this nebula caused the waters to freeze.

But again, let me take you back to the text. The earth (land) in Genesis 1:2 is not said to be submerged, nor flooded, but unformed.

Theologians call this "Lucifer's flood"....

Of course there is no such thing as "Lucifer's flood." In fact, there's no such thing as a proper name Lucifer in the Bible. This is a transliterated word from a latin translation that was never meant to be a proper name in the original hebrew. Satan was always named Satan. And according to Ezekiel, his fall was actually in the Garden of Eden. This passage played in instrumental role in getting me to see the shortcomings of the Gap Theory.

Ezek. 28:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, “Thus says the Lord GOD:
‘You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.
16 “By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.
17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.
18 “You defiled your sanctuaries
By the multitude of your iniquities,
By the iniquity of your trading;
Therefore I brought fire from your midst;
It devoured you,
And I turned you to ashes upon the earth
In the sight of all who saw you.
19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;
You have become a horror,
And shall be no more forever.”​

You'll notice there that Satan, the being who possessed the King of Tyre had his fall from glory in the Garden of Eden. This flies in the face of Gap Theorists who speak of a previous fallen world before Eden where Lucifer fell.

What could have caused God to become so angry to do this to the perfect creation that He had made? There was an original creation that had people, which we will call the PRE-ADAMITES. The earth had been created billions of years ago to be inhabited.

There is no indication in all of scripture of pre-adamite. Even in the passage you quoted, the descendants of Adam are referred to.

Jer. 4:25 I beheld, and indeed there was no man (adam in the hebrew),
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.​

Mankind is named adam in the Bible, as we are all descendants of Adam. If this was really a destruction of pre-adamites, then the word adam certainly would not have been used here.

These people were mortal, and they drowned in the flood sent by the "fierce anger" of the Lord. ....

Messy, according to your own proof text, these people were adamites. Did you miss that in the original hebrew?

You see this is the problem with the Gap Theory. It attempts to reconcile Scripture with science, and in doing so makes some very sloppy mistakes with the text—not recognizing the hebrew word adam for man, coming up with a pre-garden fall for Satan, trying to turn the word was into become, trying add millions of years to waw, etc. There's not biblical foundation in it.

 

[Messy]

Wow, you know everything about it. Thanks.
Okay, I'm convinced, I'm a YEC again.

 

[ChetSinger]

I was a YEC, but I just found this. Never heard from it:
THE TIME BETWEEN GENESIS 1:1 AND GENESIS 1:2

Hello!

I'm a YEC who been periodically intrigued by the gap theory. But now I no longer believe it has grammatical support. Not that I'm a Hebrew grammarian, but I've read some stuff by those who are.

Here's a blog entry and a teaser by Dr. Michael Heiser on the subject:

The Naked Bible » Genesis 1:2 and the “Gap Theory”

Some have asked for some comments about the validity of the gap theory – the idea that Genesis 1:1 speaks of the initial creation, while Genesis 1:2 describes the destruction of that creation by some evil cataclysmic event (the fault of Satan) that happened between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 (in the “gap” there). I know of know scholar who holds this view, though it had its defenders a century ago. Typically this view is put forth in more popular Christian circles, sometimes (but not always) in an attempt to explain the fossil record in the context of a literalist view of Genesis...

...In a nutshell, the theory is overturned by Hebrew grammar — specifically the fact that we have a classic waw-disjunctive beginning Gen 1:2 (Hebrew conjunction waw prefixed to a noun instead of a verb, which mars any narrative sequence). This is basically why no Hebrew grammarian defends the view...

I remain a YEC who doesn't believe a gap is necessary. YEC is, imo, the most straightforward reading of Biblical history. And since I'm content to be skeptical toward the assumptions and conclusions behind radiometric dating I have no problem with a young earth. I'm not dogmatic about it and might be convinced otherwise, but that hasn't yet happened.

EDIT: Whoops, I didn't see your previous post. Cheers!

 

[Calminian]

Awesome!

 

[Calminian]

...I'm not dogmatic about it and might be convinced otherwise, but that hasn't yet happened....!

What would convince you otherwise? Something in science? Something in the hebrew?

I just ask because I guess I am dogmatic. If there was something hidden in the text I suppose I would have found it, but that may be incredibly presumptuous. But just curious where your thoughts are on this (off topic, but I seems the OP has had a change of heart).

 

[ChetSinger]

What would convince you otherwise? Something in science? Something in the hebrew?

I just ask because I guess I am dogmatic. If there was something hidden in the text I suppose I would have found it, but that may be incredibly presumptuous. But just curious where your thoughts are on this (off topic, but I seems the OP has had a change of heart).

It would have to be the scriptures.

What I currently read in Genesis is a human timeline that goes back 6,000 years and stops. Those genealogies are specific (purposefully, I'm sure) and I don't consider them negotiable. I've also read evidence that the histories of peoples as far away as China and North America have some eerie parallels to the earliest chapters of Genesis which leads me to believe that all people are truly descended from Adam and Noah.

So I'm a YEC.

I remain open to the idea that my understanding of the scriptures could be wrong. But so far the attempts I've read to extend mankind back to the distant past are, imo, implausibly forced.

 

[Calminian]

It would have to be the scriptures.

What I currently read in Genesis is a human timeline that goes back 6,000 years and stops. Those genealogies are specific (purposefully, I'm sure) and I don't consider them negotiable. I've also read evidence that the histories of peoples as far away as China and North America have some eerie parallels to the earliest chapters of Genesis which leads me to believe that all people are truly descended from Adam and Noah.

So I'm a YEC.

I remain open to the idea that my understanding of the scriptures could be wrong. But so far the attempts I've read to extend mankind back to the distant past are, imo, implausibly forced.

Okay, I suppose I'm somewhere close to that in my thinking. To be perfectly dogmatic I suppose I'd have to deny my fallen nature.

 

[Messy]

Sorry, I'm back again. I was counting days.
Every day it had been evening and morning. So in the evening of day one He created the heaven and the earth and in the morning the light. Day 1 Sabbath starts on friday evening.
I think He created heaven and earth not when it was dark, because He is Light and in Him is no darkness. So He must have created it on day 0, which doesn't exist and could have been billions of years.
2 Peter 3:
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That's about day 0, the beginning, not all days.
it says there was one morning and one evening in each of those days...
so if they were 1000 years long, then there was a 500 year night when everything froze us, and plants died from lack of light, etc..

the 'morning and evening' if not literal, are unnecessary... and are only necessary if the Lord was wanting to make sure we knew they were normal days...
But I read this:
Why the Gap Theory Won't Work
And there are no verses, only eventually Peter for another world and the evidence would have been destroyed they say. So I think it only explains why the earth and universe maybe are billions of years old, not that it proofs evolution or explains the fossil record. Dino's could still have been on the Ark.

 

[Calminian]

Sorry, I'm back again. I was counting days.
Every day it had been evening and morning.

This is actually one arid I don't think the modern jews have correct. I don't think the writer of Genesis or Moses or any other scripture writers believed the day starts in the evening.

Think about what those words actually mean, evening and morning. I'll be back later to expand on this....

 

[Calminian]

Sorry, I'm back again. I was counting days.
Every day it had been evening and morning. So in the evening of day one He created the heaven and the earth and in the morning the light. Day 1 Sabbath starts on friday evening.

In jewish tradition the day starts in the evening, and I'm assuming that tradition is based on the creation passage here in Genesis, and evening being mentioned before morning. But does this really imply creation started in the evening?

When you look the the language closely, this in my mind, is clearly a mistake in reasoning. What do the terms, evening and morning actually mean?

Quite simply, evening marks the close of the day, and morning marks the close of the night. When looked at that way, it's makes perfect logical sense that evening is mentioned fist. For if God first created the day, and if that day was followed by night, then we would expect evening to mark the close of the day. I other words, they have confused evening or dusk, with nighttime. First came the day and the close of the day—dusk. Following that is the night, and the close of the night, dawn (or morning). Dusk marks the end of the day, and dawn the end of the night.

The mistake here is conflating evening with night, and morning with day. Those terms are not perfectly parallel in the hebrew or in english.

I think He created heaven and earth not when it was dark, because He is Light and in Him is no darkness. So He must have created it on day 0, which doesn't exist and could have been billions of years.

But then what do you do with Moses' clear statement,

....11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them
​

There's just no wiggle room there. In six days God made the heavens and all that was in them. It was not on day 0 it was within the six days, and the specific days are actually given. The expanse of heaven was stretched out on day 2, and that expanse was filled on day 4.

2 Peter 3:
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Peter certainly has Genesis 1 in mind here as it was the waters of v. 2 that were made into the land and the sea (v. 9-10). But let's not forget it was those same waters that God divided on day 2 to create our great expanse of space (v. 6-8). Both events were long ago according to Peter (and 6000 years ago is a very long time). The NIV contains a bit cleaner english syntax.

2Pet. 3:5 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.​

If you look at Genesis 1 you see that originally there were waters (of what kind we're not sure). These were separated by an expanse that God called heaven.

Gen. 1:8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The word there in the hebrew is shamayim, heaven.

Then a portion of those waters were formed into that land and sea (our planet). This is when he says the land was formed out of water. He's talking about these original waters that were divided on day 2 to create the heavens (Not day 0). Then he filled these heavens with the great luminaries on day 4 (again not day 0).

That's about day 0, the beginning, not all days.
it says there was one morning and one evening in each of those days...
so if they were 1000 years long, then there was a 500 year night when everything froze us, and plants died from lack of light, etc..

the 'morning and evening' if not literal, are unnecessary... and are only necessary if the Lord was wanting to make sure we knew they were normal days...
But I read this:
Why the Gap Theory Won't Work
And there are no verses, only eventually Peter for another world and the evidence would have been destroyed they say. So I think it only explains why the earth and universe maybe are billions of years old, not that it proofs evolution or explains the fossil record. Dino's could still have been on the Ark.

I"m not really following the logic there, but when Peter says 1 day is like a thousands years, that means to God, a thousand years is not difficult to wait through. It doesn't mean that to us a day is like a thousand years. Otherwise we'd be like God. Were are not like God, and don't have patience like God. To us, a day is a day. Waiting a thousand years is very difficult to us. For for God, it's like just waiting around for a day. It's nothing to Him. That's something we can definitely rejoice in as He patiently waits for all, not willing that anyone should perish.

Messy, I would suggest looking into Russell Humphreys works on starlight and time. Jason Lisle is also good on this subject as a PhD Astrophysicist. And here's a resource page I thought you might find helpful. ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A

 

[Knee V]

The OP sounds like it came straight from an episode of Shepherd's Chapel. I did the Arnold Murray thing (and the Companion Bible thing) back in the 90s. I wouldn't touch that with a 1000-ft pole now.

 

[Messy]

The OP sounds like it came straight from an episode of Shepherd's Chapel. I did the Arnold Murray thing (and the Companion Bible thing) back in the 90s. I wouldn't touch that with a 1000-ft pole now.

No, I got it from someone else who doesn't deny the Trinity.
It's about where do demons come from.
BATTLING LAST DAY DEMONIC ATTACK - GOD's ARMY, CONTENDING for the FAITH