1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

  2. Please check out our two newest forums, the "Buy, Sell or Trade" (link ) forum in the Society Category, and the "Conspiracy Theories" (link) forum in our Discussion and Debate Category.

What do you think of the Gap Theory?

Discussion in 'Origins Theology' started by hiscosmicgoldfish, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. hiscosmicgoldfish

    hiscosmicgoldfish Liberal Anglican

    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    UK-Conservative
    Faith:
    Anglican
    The Gap Theory

    People such as Chuck Missler and Derek Prince, believe in the gap theory.

    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

    The gap is here.

    2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    This verse can also be translated as:

    But the earth became without form and void, and (deep unnatural) darkness was over the face of the abyss. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

    Isaiah 45:18

    For this is what the LORD says--he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

    Here, Isaiah states that God did not create the earth to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited. So perhaps originally the earth was with form, and inhabited and then became formless, after a judgement.


    Jeremiah 4:23

    23 I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
    and to the heavens, and they had no light.
    24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
    and all the hills moved to and fro.
    25 I looked, and behold, there was no man,
    and all the birds of the air had fled.
    26 I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert,
    and all its cities were laid in ruins
    before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

    This describes a judgment on the earth, when the earth was without form and void, like it says in the second verse of Genesis; became without form and void. The heavens had no light.

    Isaiah 24:19

    18 He who flees at the sound of the terror
    shall fall into the pit,
    and he who climbs out of the pit
    shall be caught in the snare.
    For the windows of heaven are opened,
    and the foundations of the earth tremble.
    19 The earth is utterly broken,
    the earth is split apart,
    the earth is violently shaken.
    20 The earth staggers like a drunken man;
    it sways like a hut;
    its transgression lies heavy upon it,
    and it falls, and will not rise again.
    21 On that day the Lord will punish
    the host of heaven, in heaven,
    and the kings of the earth, on the earth.
    22 They will be gathered together
    as prisoners in a pit;
    they will be shut up in a prison,
    and after many days they will be punished.
    23 Then the moon will be confounded
    and the sun ashamed,
    for the Lord of hosts reigns
    on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,
    and his glory will be before his elders.

    I'm not sure what this is talking about, perhaps the great flood.

    Psalm 104:30

    When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.

    The theory goes that is was the Nachash, the shining serpent, and the other angels, which inhabited the earth, before the gap in verse 1 and 2. Then there was a judgement, because of the rebellion of the covering cherub, and his angels, on the earth. Presumably they were taken away to heaven, to be imprisoned there, waiting the judgement. There were cities on the earth also. I think there is quite a lot of good evidence to support the theory.

     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  2. miamited

    miamited Ted

    Messages:
    5,346
    Likes Received:
    32
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Hi HCF,

    I think it's got a lot of gaps.

    God bless you.
    IN Christ, Ted
     
  3. laptoppop

    laptoppop Servant of the living God

    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    11
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    I have no problem with the gap theory -- it actually helps with giving a timetable for when Satan fell (before he messed with Adam and Eve in the Garden).

    However - the gap theory does nothing to affect how we view creationism - the earth became without form and void. The fossils stand as a solid testimony to the global flood of Noah, not as a record of a pre-adamic evolution.
     
  4. hiscosmicgoldfish

    hiscosmicgoldfish Liberal Anglican

    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    UK-Conservative
    Faith:
    Anglican
    Yeah I agree, it is not to do with the subsequent creation of natural life, and the fossil record. It was an angelic kingdom. What confuses me a bit, is how then did Satan get to the Garden of Eden? As it says in Ezekiel that Satan was in Eden, the Garden of God. I don’t think the serpent was a talking snake, but was Nachash, the shining serpent… an angel.
     
  5. Tigger45

    Tigger45 Christification cadet Supporter CF Ambassador Angels Team

    Messages:
    8,269
    Likes Received:
    160
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Constitution
    Faith:
    Christian
    For me we don't need a gap theory because the universe was created in it's mature tense. Kind of like Adam was created as a full grown mature man and not as an infant. As far as satan's fall goes I don't beleive spiritual realms are bound by physical laws like time and space.
     
  6. ptomwebster

    ptomwebster Senior Member Supporter

    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Protestant
    I agree that there is a gap between Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 1" 2. I am also aware of a number of other gaps in Scripture.

    In Job Satan tells God he has been going "to and fro." (Job 1: 7)
     
  7. Calminian

    Calminian Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    5,955
    Likes Received:
    49
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Christian
    I'm a former gapper, and i'll just throw these out for food for thought. When you look at the language, it doesn't really work with a pre-existance model. First, as Henry Morris has thoroughly addressed, "was" actually means was.

    ‘Was’ Means ‘Was’
    A significant problem with this idea is that the Hebrew word for ‘was’ really should be translated ‘was’. It should not be translated ‘became’. It is the Hebrew verb of being, hayah, and normally it is simply translated ‘was’. In all the standard translations of the Old Testament, that is the way this verse is rendered. On some occasions, in an unusual situation if the context requires it, the word can be translated ‘became’. There are some instances like that in the Old Testament.

    By far the tremendous majority of times, however, when the verb is used, it is simply translated ‘was’. In the absence of any indication in the immediate context that it should be rendered by a change of state, where it became something which it wasn’t, one would normally assume it was simply a declarative statement describing how the situation existed at the time. The earth was, in response to God’s creative fiat, initially without form and void.

    Some people use Isaiah 45:18 as an argument for the use of ‘became’ in Genesis 1:2. In this verse, Isaiah says that God created the earth not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. The word ‘in vain’ is the same as tohu; that is, the same word translated ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2. So ‘gap’ theorists say that since God did not create it that way, it must have become that way. But again, the context is significant. In Isaiah, the context requires the use of the translation ‘in vain’. That is, God did not create the earth without a purpose; He created it to be inhabited. Genesis 1 tells us then how He brought form to the unformed earth and inhabitants to the empty earth. It was not really finished until He said so at the end of the six days of creation.

    The word tohu is actually translated 10 different ways in about 20 occurrences in the Old Testament. Isaiah 45:19 has the same word, and there it has to be translated ‘vainly’ or ‘in vain’. It is also proper to translate it that way in Isaiah 45:18. It depends on the context as to how it is to be precisely translated. In Genesis 1:2 the context simply indicates the earth had no structure as yet. It was unformed; it was not even spherical at that point, but was comprised of only the basic elements of earth material.​

    There is also the vav or waw issue (and) which seems to say the events from 1:1-2 are sequential.

    But the problem I have is, it doesn't solve an problems in bridging the gap between naturalistic theories and the Bible. Scripture still says the cosmos was created in 6 days, as was the earth. The sun moon and stars were made on day 4. And the earth as a whole in present state, land and sea, were formed on day 3.

    The gap can't account for fossils nor astronomy issues that come from naturalistic theories.

    Plus the I don't think it's correct to use passages that were penned thousands of years after Gen. 1:2 was penned to give us insights about how to translate Gen. 1:2. The reverse should be true. Later passages should look back to what has been quoted for insight. The when passage quote formless and void, it should be understood somewhat as hyperbole.

    But again, the gap theory doesn't solve any problems. In six days God created the land, sea and cosmos (the heavens) (ex. 20:11). The gap theorists use the theory to try to explain an old heavens and new earth, but Gen. 1 is clearly describing the creation of the heavens as we now have them. So it would have been a total etch n sketch, with nothing left behind.

    Having said all that, I think the gap theory at least doesn't have the same theological problems as other theories like the day age, which posit death was a very good thing that existed before sin.
     
  8. ptomwebster

    ptomwebster Senior Member Supporter

    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Protestant

    I suppose you think the animal described in Job 40: 15, "behemoth" is a hippopotamus also, right, a hippo with a "tail like a cedar." God tells Job here that He made man at the same time. No, the "behemoth," brontosaurus, lived 160 million years ago in the First Heaven and earth age. Our heavenly bodies, with spirit and soul, were created then also.
     
  9. hiscosmicgoldfish

    hiscosmicgoldfish Liberal Anglican

    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    UK-Conservative
    Faith:
    Anglican
    The word tohu is actually translated 10 different ways in about 20 occurrences in the Old Testament. Isaiah 45:19 has the same word, and there it has to be translated ‘vainly’ or ‘in vain’. It is also proper to translate it that way in Isaiah 45:18. It depends on the context as to how it is to be precisely translated. In Genesis 1:2 the context simply indicates the earth had no structure as yet. It was unformed; it was not even spherical at that point, but was comprised of only the basic elements of earth material.

    Perhaps the first element was water? As that is the first thing to be mentioned. I had visualised the earth to be originally an abyss, and the (sorry but) centre of the universe, and then there was water, from which the earth was formed. Originally there was a deep dark abyss. Chuck Missler said that the word darkness, can be translated as a deep spiritual darkness, this darkness was upon the face of the abyss, as is the correct translation of ‘deep’ where some people think of that deep as being the deep blue sea. Separating the darkness from the night, might have some deeper meaning, as part of a separation of spiritual darkness, from light. That’s why everything evil comes out at night, in the darkness, a sort of deal, in the creation of the temporal order; a deal had to be made, that evil was an inevitable consequence of the creation.
     
  10. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    18,139
    Likes Received:
    16
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist


    What happened during the suggested gap does not make sense to me.

    If the earth was created, how could it become "void"? Why would satan want to destroy the lifeless earth, but not destroy any other planet? If satan wanted to destroy the lives on the earth, then why (how) would he destroy the physical planet earth? If he indeed wanted to destroy the physical earth, how could the earth be destroyed into a "void" status even it was pulverized into space dust? Needless to say where could the "water" be if the earth became void.

    1. All the scenarios of destruction are not practical
    2. The ultimate source of all mistakes is that they treated the word "earth" as the the current earth.
    3. The gap theory could only have some theological meaning, but will have big trouble in scientific meaning.
     
  11. ptomwebster

    ptomwebster Senior Member Supporter

    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Protestant

    You need to study Scripture with a good teacher.



     
  12. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    18,139
    Likes Received:
    16
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you a good one? Teach me ONE thing about the issue.
     
  13. ptomwebster

    ptomwebster Senior Member Supporter

    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Protestant

    Not for someone like you. It's hard to teach someone that's full of old wine.
     
  14. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    18,139
    Likes Received:
    16
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Take a seep. You may not feel it as old as you think. Provided, the new wine may not be all so good.
     
  15. back2thebible

    back2thebible New Member

    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational

    I found anyone trying to make science fit the story will find themselves in error

    A better theory is one where no claims are made on the history of the matter God used to create the earth, Having no record of where or from what God used to make the earth, no dating is relevant
     
  16. juvenissun

    juvenissun Veteran

    Messages:
    18,139
    Likes Received:
    16
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All "planets" are likely made at the same time.

    Before God creates animals, the earth was no different from any other planets. (Have you heard recently that Mars was earth-like before?)
     
  17. Calminian

    Calminian Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    5,955
    Likes Received:
    49
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Christian
    We're in somewhat agreement here. My point was, that Genesis 1:2 is the first occurrence of this phrase in scripture and earliest the phrase has ever been used in any writing. Therefore, we should look to the immediate context to derive the precise meaning of the author. I would agree that from the context, it appears to say that our planet was not yet formed with any structure at all. It was literally a fluid mass of primordial particles. When Isaiah uses the term thousands of years later to describe something else, it should be understood as hyperbole.

    But I don't see any gap here in the text, nor do I think that gap would solve any problems between the bible and naturalistic theories. For the text of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is addressing the creation of the heaves and earth, including outer space (the expanse).
     
  18. Philonephius

    Philonephius Newbie

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Engaged
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Calvinist
    Gap theory could explain the age of the earth, but it wouldn't really explain the fossil record. A better view of Genesis 1-2 IMO is that each day represents a period of hundreds of millions of years, over the course of which God allowed life to arise and evolve, eventually resulting in beings with whom He could have fellowship.
     
  19. back2thebible

    back2thebible New Member

    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational

    the bible is our historical record, It is not a record of what or from where God Got the earth, no doubt God created the heavens and the earth! but there is no record that God created them from new or old material.

    For the record God appears to be a recycler, as He made Eve from one of Adams ribs, and Adam was created from the dust of the earth........It appears God likes to use whats on hand for the task at hand

    there is no way of knowing if God had created before our biblical record, and merely not saved anyone after deciding to destroy it, or maybe thats where the angels came from, spirits saved from a previous time period.

    either way It doesn't matter one way or another to me, the biblical record of God creating the earth is correct, and the only opposition to this story is our own inability to understand its a much more feasable solution to understand Its impossible to know what matter God used to create it

    where by dating or things found buried, can't necessarly be deemed part of our historical record, In the end we can be sure of only one thing, our wisdom is foolishness in Gods sight. so no matter how smart you are, God in the end will prove His story was correct, as He never lies
     
  20. back2thebible

    back2thebible New Member

    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational

    I have no trouble agreeing with the notion that God created all the planets at the same time, but considering from what matter we do see God creating things from, He appears to use stuff that was already there, not that He couldn't just speak things into existance, that is just how amazing God is, but we see from biblical record God used the earth dust to create Adam and Adams rib to create Eve

    all I'm saying is there is a strong possibility that a timeless God used recycled material from who knows where, and seeing how carbon dating is all over the map on earth it stands to reason that there is a much stronger case that the matter from what the earth was created from, was not brand new material
     
Loading...