Gap Theory

[Yekcidmij]

What do you guys think about the Gap Theory as a way of interpreting Genesis?

 

[Assyrian]

I think it wasn't the answer to fitting our interpretation of Genesis with what we know about earth's history. But it shows scripture scholars taking the right approach in responding to the issue as that should and trying to get to grips with the meaning of the text. There are much better ways to read Genesis that came in after the Gap theory, Day Age or as a poetic framework.

 

[Ave Maria]

Well, I think it is compatible with Theistic Evolution so that's a good thing.

 

[theQuestionist]

It's an example of people grasping at the straws of Genesis, in order to please both their logical/rational mind (ie...the evidence for an OE), as well as their dogmatic and indocrinated worldview (ie...that Genesis must be true).

 

[Assyrian]

While the Gap theory is relative newcomer, early 19th century afaik, the idea that the days are purely figurative, or represent longer periods of time have been around since the time of the early church. Augustine thought the figurative meaning of the day was what literal meaning of the text was saying. Clearly this was not done to conform his interpretation to Lyell's geology.

 

[Biblewriter]

The gap theory is interpreted by many to be a concession to supposed "proofs" offered by evolutionists. To some, this may be so, but not to me. I am an ardent creationist. (some would call me rabid) And I believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, and is therefore absolutely accurate and true in every detail. But I believe that the Bible expressly states that the world condition described in Genesis 1:2 was not the condition of the world when it was first created.

Genesis 1:2 says, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
ButIsaiah 45:18 saysFor thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
These two passages do not look very similar until you check the Herbrew in each one. The Hebrew words translated without form in Genesis 1:2 is tohu. And the same Hebrew word is translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18. And it is not only the same root word it is exactly the same form of the same word in both passages.

So when we read Genesis 1 in the context of Isaiah 45:18, we find that (Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2)And the earth was without form, and void; But (Isaiah 45:18) he created it not that way.

I know this will upset many of my Bible believing friends, but I really believe that this is not only a possible interpretation of scripture, but what it actually teaches.

I interpret the fossil record in view of scripture (all of scripture, not just Genesis), not the other way around.

But when I look at the fossil record, I do not see a record of gradual change. That is not what we find. We find a layer of rock anywhere from two inches to twenty feet thick, and the fossils in the bottom of that layer are exactly like the fossils in the top of that layer. Then comes a line that a two year old child could point out, and above that line the fossils are different.

I have pointed this out to many professional geologists, and every one of them (as well as non-professionals) has answered, yes, but there are intermediate fossils in other places.

But then I have pointed out that these layers are classified and named, and every one of them goes all the way around the world. But the layers contain gaps. Each layer has a certain type of fossils, but the fossils in the next layer are significantly different. Without even one exception, every one of the professionals, as well as everyone of the well informed non-professionals, has admitted that they knew this to be factually correct.

I interpret the fossil record to show a long series of stable ecosystems that each appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for a long period of time, and then just as suddenly vanished. Only to be immediately (in geological terms) replaced by a completely different ecosystem.

This is completely compatible with the scriptures, as I read them, and totally incompatible with both theistic and atheistic evolution.

 

[theQuestionist]

This is completely compatible with the scriptures, as I read them, and totally incompatible with both theistic and atheistic evolution.

Hence the reason why it is incorrect.

 

[On the Narrow Road]

Here's a good site with an overview of the Gap theory...at least one version of it:
http://www.kjvbible.org/
Any thoughts?

 

[artybloke]

Personally, I think it's as ridiculous as creationism.

But at least it doesn't tell as many lies as creationism about the reality of the world.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The gap theory is interpreted by many to be a concession to supposed "proofs" offered by evolutionists. To some, this may be so, but not to me. I am an ardent creationist. (some would call me rabid) And I believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, and is therefore absolutely accurate and true in every detail. But I believe that the Bible expressly states that the world condition described in Genesis 1:2 was not the condition of the world when it was first created.

Genesis 1:2 says, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
ButIsaiah 45:18 saysFor thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
These two passages do not look very similar until you check the Herbrew in each one. The Hebrew words translated without form in Genesis 1:2 is tohu. And the same Hebrew word is translated in vain in Isaiah 45:18. And it is not only the same root word it is exactly the same form of the same word in both passages.

So when we read Genesis 1 in the context of Isaiah 45:18, we find that (Genesis 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (2)And the earth was without form, and void; But (Isaiah 45:18) he created it not that way.

I know this will upset many of my Bible believing friends, but I really believe that this is not only a possible interpretation of scripture, but what it actually teaches.

I interpret the fossil record in view of scripture (all of scripture, not just Genesis), not the other way around.

But when I look at the fossil record, I do not see a record of gradual change. That is not what we find. We find a layer of rock anywhere from two inches to twenty feet thick, and the fossils in the bottom of that layer are exactly like the fossils in the top of that layer. Then comes a line that a two year old child could point out, and above that line the fossils are different.

I have pointed this out to many professional geologists, and every one of them (as well as non-professionals) has answered, yes, but there are intermediate fossils in other places.

But then I have pointed out that these layers are classified and named, and every one of them goes all the way around the world. But the layers contain gaps. Each layer has a certain type of fossils, but the fossils in the next layer are significantly different. Without even one exception, every one of the professionals, as well as everyone of the well informed non-professionals, has admitted that they knew this to be factually correct.

I interpret the fossil record to show a long series of stable ecosystems that each appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for a long period of time, and then just as suddenly vanished. Only to be immediately (in geological terms) replaced by a completely different ecosystem.

This is completely compatible with the scriptures, as I read them, and totally incompatible with both theistic and atheistic evolution.

I'm in your corner on this. Well put.

owg

 

[crawfish]

What troubles me about gap theory is the implication that God is NOT in those things with naturalistic explanations; or, that God's power is not evident in them. Is God only the God of miracles? Does God not control those things that are natural? Is it not EVERY bit as impressive to create a complex, self-sustaining entity as it is to just pop it into existence?

I reject gap theory for the same reason I reject creationism. God created ALL things, and ALL the natural laws that govern them. To partition out parts and pieces of God's creation that are somehow "greater" than others simply because they did not happen naturally is disingenuous when we realize that God did it all anyway.

 

[Biblewriter]

What troubles me about gap theory is the implication that God is NOT in those things with naturalistic explanations; or, that God's power is not evident in them. Is God only the God of miracles? Does God not control those things that are natural? Is it not EVERY bit as impressive to create a complex, self-sustaining entity as it is to just pop it into existence?

I reject gap theory for the same reason I reject creationism. God created ALL things, and ALL the natural laws that govern them. To partition out parts and pieces of God's creation that are somehow "greater" than others simply because they did not happen naturally is disingenuous when we realize that God did it all anyway.

The theory implies no such thing. The creation of a self-sustaining ecosystem is, in and by itself, nothing short of fantastic.

Sexual reproduction is an amazing design. The dual genetic structure of all sexual beings incorporates an error correction mechanism. A mistake made in copying the genetic code reduces it to undecipherable garbage. But a back-up copy, received from the other parent, is always available. So mistakes in the genetic code are (at least almost) always recessive. They show up only if the same erroneous code is received from each parent.

There are many things in the world of science that can be interpreted as evidence for evolution, but many more that can be interpreted as evidence for creation.

The only real "proof" of evolution is the fossil record, with its long history of gradual change. Or so we are constantly told. There is only one problem with this "proof." The actual record written in the rocks is not one of gradual change. It is one of a long series of stable ecosystems, each of which appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly disappeared. Only to be immediately (in geological terms) replaced by a different stable ecosystem. Every professional geologist that I have ever confronted with this evidence has finally admitted that he personally knew this statement to be correct.

Thus, the scientific evidence supports the theory of catrostrophism far better than it fits the theory of evolution. realization that this is correct has led to the recent development of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. That is, that an ecosystem evolves rapidly until it reaches a state of equilibrium, and then remains stable until something punctuates that equilibrium. This is nothing more that a drowning man grasping at a straw. One last, desperate attempt to hold on to the theory of evolution even though it has become obvious that it has a fatal flaw.

The gap theory is compatible with the theory of catrostrophism, but not with evolution.

 

[crawfish]

You're obviously either asking a selective group of geologists, asking the wrong questions, or misunderstanding their answers. I've met too many who've had their faith shaken because they found they could no longer deny evolution. Thank God it's not incompatible with faith.

The assertion of many anti-evolution Creationists is that evolution somehow takes away from God's glory. As if something so complicated, so patient, so overwhelming in nature wouldn't have been a glory to create!

 

[Biblewriter]

You're obviously either asking a selective group of geologists, asking the wrong questions, or misunderstanding their answers. I've met too many who've had their faith shaken because they found they could no longer deny evolution. Thank God it's not incompatible with faith.

The assertion of many anti-evolution Creationists is that evolution somehow takes away from God's glory. As if something so complicated, so patient, so overwhelming in nature wouldn't have been a glory to create!

First, it was not a "select" group of geologists. It was, in fact every professional geologist I have ever confronted with the facts.

The first fact I confronted them with was that every fossil bed anywhere consists of a layer of rock anywhere from a half inch thick to twenty feet thick, with the fossils in the top of that layer exactly like the fossils in the bottom of that layer. Then there is a line a two year old child could point to, and above that line the fossils are different.

Of course, the standard answer, given be every one of them, was that there are intermediate layers in other places. But then I pointed out that these layers have been classified and named, and each of them goes all the way around the world. But there are no intermediate layers. No layers containing a mixture of fossils from different epochs. And the differences between the fossil types in even the most adjacent epochs are significant, not small.

Without even one exception, every one of them admitted that he knew these things to be facts. But not even one of them had ever made the connection that these facts flew in the face of evolutionary theory. Every one of them was an evolutionist. But some of them were not so certain after we talked.

One man summed it up this way, "You have by no means convinced me, but you have at least raised the first serious doubts I have ever had that evolution was true ." (approximate quote) Another one simply responded angrily that "You make everything seem so reasonable."

But our contention is not that evolution takes away from the glory of God, although it does, but that evolution is contrary to the express word of God, the Bible.

 

[GenemZ]

The gap theory is interpreted by many to be a concession to supposed "proofs" offered by evolutionists.

Bible Scholars have seen what is now called the GAP theory long before Darwin was ever born.

Its only that the GAP theory was brought to the forefront after being taken out out from obscurity only because of what Darwin proposed.

Taken from:

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

Akiba ben Joseph was an influential Jewish rabbi who was president of the School Bene Barek near Saffa.


He laid the basis for the Mishna. When Barcochebas rebelled against the Romans, Akiba joined him and was captured. He was executed in 135 A.D.

The ancient work known as The Book of Light or Sefer Hazzohar, some- times simply Zohar was traditionally
ascribed to one of Akiba's disciples, a certain Simeon ben Jochai. In this work, which thus
represents an opinion held towards the end of the first centuryand the early part of the second, there is a comment on Gen. 2.4-6 which, though difficult to follow, reads thus:


"These are the generations (ie., this is the history of....) of heaven and earth.... Now wherever there is written the word 'these' (Hebrew fonts) the previous words are put aside. And these are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them and destroyed them, and, on that account, the earth was desolate and empty.".​

Now, no one made any connection with a fossil record when that was written. It was strictly deducted from exegesis of the Hebrew text,



Here is another example. Written long before the theory of Evolution was even thought of....

​

Origen, for example, who lived from 186 to about 254 A.D., and to whom the original languages of the Bible were very familiar, has this to say in his great work, De Principiis, at Gen. 1.1:



"It is certain that the present firmament is not spoken of in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather that heaven and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we now see afterwards borrowed their names."

And that he saw verse 2 as a description of a "casting down" of the original is borne out quite clearly by his subsequent observation that the condition resulted from a "disruption" which is best described, he suggests, by the Latin verb dejicere, ‘to throw down’.


In the course of time, attempts were made - not unnaturally - to fill in the details of the event which led up to the devastation described. Since all such effects were presumed to be moral judgments and since man had not yet been created, the angels were blamed.

​

Origen was living many centuries before Darwin was born! The reasonings for the GAP theory were already on paper!

The GAP theory exists today because its found in Scripture. Not because of Darwin's ideas. It just so happened that scholars before Darwin's day were not sure what to make of why the Hebrew said what it does.

Ironically, it was Darwin's challenge that caused this buried treasure to be dug up for the body of Christ to see. This time, with a relevance like never before. For, now (with the fossil evidence) it made sense why the Hebrew text is saying what it does!

Young Earthers who want only to prove their point have ignored the history of the GAP understanding, and try to claim it was only created to counter Darwin's ideas. Not true! Darwin was the cause for this old teaching to be re-discovered! It was re-discovered! Not quickly concocted at the time of Darwin to counter Darwin's claims!

Here's that link, again. There is much more to find. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

What I quoted is from a book. One that is free to be downloaded online. Written by a scientist.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

Grace and peace, GeneZ







t
​

 

[Biblewriter]

Bible Scholars have seen what is now called the GAP theory long before Darwin was ever born.

Its only that the GAP theory was brought to the forefront after being taken out out from obscurity only because of what Darwin proposed.

Taken from:

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

​

Now, no one made any connection with a fossil record when that was written. It was strictly deducted from exegesis of the Hebrew text,



Here is another example. Written long before the theory of Evolution was even thought of....

​

Origen was living many centuries before Darwin was born! The reasonings for the GAP theory were already on paper!

The GAP theory exists today because its found in Scripture. Not because of Darwin's ideas. It just so happened that scholars before Darwin's day were not sure what to make of why the Hebrew said what it does.

Ironically, it was Darwin's challenge that caused this buried treasure to be dug up for the body of Christ to see. This time, with a relevance like never before. For, now (with the fossil evidence) it made sense why the Hebrew text is saying what it does!

Young Earthers who want only to prove their point have ignored the history of the GAP understanding, and try to claim it was only created to counter Darwin's ideas. Not true! Darwin was the cause for this old teaching to be re-discovered! It was re-discovered! Not quickly concocted at the time of Darwin to counter Darwin's claims!

Here's that link, again. There is much more to find. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

What I quoted is from a book. One that is free to be downloaded online. Written by a scientist.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

Grace and peace, GeneZ







t
​

Thank you. I knew this was my understanding of scripture, but I did not know this history of this understanding.

 

[juvenissun]

The first fact I confronted them with was that every fossil bed anywhere consists of a layer of rock anywhere from a half inch thick to twenty feet thick, with the fossils in the top of that layer exactly like the fossils in the bottom of that layer. Then there is a line a two year old child could point to, and above that line the fossils are different.

Of course, the standard answer, given be every one of them, was that there are intermediate layers in other places. But then I pointed out that these layers have been classified and named, and each of them goes all the way around the world. But there are no intermediate layers. No layers containing a mixture of fossils from different epochs. And the differences between the fossil types in even the most adjacent epochs are significant, not small.

As a professional geologist, I would attest that your description above is precise, and is difficult to prove otherwise.

However, I have to clarify that you are describing two different geology professions who practice two different ways to see the same feature. One is physical stratigrapher, who sees the continuity of rock layer more important than the fossils in the rock. Another is paleontologist, who sees the fossils more important than the actural rock layers they resided in. The former does not use fossils to correlate rock layers, but the latter does. Paleontologist totally ignores the rock property and the rock sequence. As long as the fossils are similar, they tied up the rock as contemporaneous or as in time sequence. This tiny difference of emphasis could lead to tremendous difference in drawing the conclusion.

The underlain problem in this is that it is a common practice in geology that a complete model needs to be supported by evidences collected from many different, usually far separated localities. A shaky principle involved is that features documented or collected from different localities are strung together to represent a time sequence of that feature, aka the "evolution" of the feature. Most geologists hold this principle as an unshakable working foundation. For me, I am still skeptical on it even I have worked with it for a few decades.

 

[shernren]

The only real "proof" of evolution is the fossil record, with its long history of gradual change. Or so we are constantly told.

Not true. The twin nested hierarchy, ERV and GULO pseudogene distributions in primates, chromosome 2 fusion, and studies of genetic diversity bear out the fact of evolution. The fossil record may tell us a lot about how evolution occurred, but you are quite right to say that it cannot prove to us that evolution occurred. That evidence is living and breathing all around us right now.

 

[flaja]

My understanding of the gap theory is that God created the universe and the earth and he populated the earth with plants and animals and maybe even some humans. But then Satan rebelled against God and this lead to the destruction of the earth. God then re-created the earth some 6-10,000 years ago and filled it with plants, animals and people as it is today.

But, this means that God created Adam and Eve in a world that already knew evil and sin. This is why the gap theory doesn’t wash. If Satan had already rebelled against God before Adam and Eve and God hadn’t totally destroyed Satan as punishment, then God had no right to tell Adam and Eve that they must obey God. As far as Adam and Eve would have know Satan had rebelled against God and God had let Satan get away with it, so God didn’t have any right to demand that Adam and Eve not follow Satan. Satan’s rebellion against God had to come after the creation of Adam and Eve.

 

[gluadys]

Not true. The twin nested hierarchy, ERV and GULO pseudogene distributions in primates, chromosome 2 fusion, and studies of genetic diversity bear out the fact of evolution. The fossil record may tell us a lot about how evolution occurred, but you are quite right to say that it cannot prove to us that evolution occurred. That evidence is living and breathing all around us right now.

Also, it is not so much that the fossil record proves evolution as that evolution makes sense of the fossil record. If evolution were not true, a lot of features of the fossil record would probably be different.

This is a strength of a good theory---that it explains, in a coherent way, why what we observe is the way it is. No other theory explains so systematically the features of the fossil record.

No other theory could have predicted (as evolution did) the existence of fossils like Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus or Sinosauropteryx