The "gap" theory

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
1,572
726
56
Ohio US
✟147,750.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, I agree with this too,

If this interpretation is correct, then it removes many of the objections that doubters and sceptics have about the Genesis account. Personally, I believe the "gap theory" to be correct. To me, it fits the character of God. Why would He create something formless, empty, a wasteland?

When I first started to discover these truths it really opened my eyes to other truths as well. But I love the fact that the bible does not have to disagree with science, etc. They can compliment one another on this issue.

And you're right, he definitely wouldn't have made the earth a wasteland. I haven't read anything from Watchman Nee but am interested.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is plenty of scriptural backup throughout the bible. Here's a copy and paste I put on another thread.


Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep

was
1961 hayah
hayah (haw-yaw); a primitive root [compare OT:1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):KJV - beacon, altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, use.

void
922
bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:
KJV - emptiness, void.

So we see that the earth "became" without form and void.

Genesis 2

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. KJV

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. NIV

Even Wycliffe uses 'was'
2 Forsooth the earth was idle and void, and darknesses were on the face of (the) depth; and the Spirit of the Lord was borne on the waters [and the Spirit of God was borne upon the waters]. WYC

The word is not 'became' because there was never a previous creation. What do you envision this previous creation was for? God practising? Making a mistake?

How did it become that way even before man was created in the flesh?

Not sure why you are asking me since you are the one to hold to some previous creation before adam and Eve.

II Peter 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:"
II Peter 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

That's the world flood that happened millions if not billions of years ago.

That's the world of Noah and it was not billions of years ago.

Genesis 7
21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.


Luke

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah,
34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.


While few people would say this is a complete list, it did not take billions of years to go from Noah to Jesus.

We are not talking about Noah's flood. Not one Christian is willingly ignorant about that. But not many realize that "by the word of God" -take into account what I posted about the translation of the word "was" that the heavens were of old and the earth was standing out of the water and in the water. That world perished.

This is Noah's flood. God judged the world only once by water and like he judged it like this once, so it will be when Jesus comes again.
Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.


In Isaiah 45:18; "For 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."

He didn't create it in vain, he formed it to be inhabited and it was.

Yes, it was, by Adam and Eve and us their descendants.
Adam-
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
Eve-

Genesis 3:20
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

"I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light

Refers to the creation before God said: "let there be light".

"I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

Notice how the the mountains trembled and the hills moved lightly? This is what we consider "our big bang" This is why you can look at maps today and it looks like everything used to fit together. God basically shook the earth in his anger. No more life, dinosaurs, etc. God didn't make the mountains tremble and the hills move during Noah's flood.

The global flood caused earthquakes and the moutans rose. You have no scriptural basis to make the claim that that verse is about some other world, its this world.

"I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Again, this is not Noah's flood. We had Noah and his family.

Jeremiah 4:26 "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."

Jeremiah is about the sins of Judah and Jerusalem and the Lord's judgment on the people, not Noah or some other creation.

It was paradise until Satan's downfall.

It was paradise until man disobeyed God, Adam brought in sin.

In Job we have a deeper study if one wants to dive into it.

Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

God is asking Job where were you if you have 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?"

So we see the morning stars sang together after the foundations were fastened.

Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."

God is telling Job he made the behemoth at the same time he made Job, think about that.

And anyone reading God's description of the behemoth knows we are not talking about a water ox. No ox has the tail of a cedar tree.

Of course its not a water ox, its a dinosaur. Because dinosaurs which are really dragons lived with man, which is why all cultures have tales about dragons. Job is a descendant of Adam.

But there was definitely an age before this one. And it makes sense.

That makes zero sense and none of those verses says its some other creation. It's this creation, which is why they find dinosaur bones they are another extinct animals among many. In fact if God had made a previous creation there would be no bones or fossils of dinosaurs here to dig up.

God made one world, man fell into sin and Jesus came one time to die for our sins. Or does this so called first creation of yours have men doomed to hell with no saviour? Or ape-men? God's practice run that he needed to wipe out and build on again and called it "very good' No creation built on billions of dead bones would be called 'very good'.

Again, nowhere in there does it indicate some previous creation. Job lived here, many generations ago not on some other creation. So did dinosaurs for that matter, God made them 'along with man' on day 6.
Job 40:15
"Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.

day 6

Genesis
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
ALL land walking animals including Behemoth and other dinosaurs.

And then Adam
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
All made on day 6.


This creation is the one and only.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Edit because I keep messing up the quotes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Then that would mean no Adam, no Eve...no fall.

How do the non-literalist get around that?

there was a fall. But the details describing it isn't literal. I think you need to know the definition of literal, because it's like you think it means "it never happened". No, just not exactly as expressed in literary format.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
there was a fall. But the details describing it isn't literal. I think you need to know the definition of literal, because it's like you think it means "it never happened". No, just not exactly as expressed in literary format.
Then tell me how it happened.

Just for the record there are several verses in the bible that present the Adam and the fall as literal.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Then tell me how it happened.

Just for the record there are several verses in the bible that present the Adam and the fall as literal.

I really don't know how. Many theologist assume that the "forbidden fruit" was something sexual and Adam and Eve may have been more than 1 people.

satan wants you to read/understand the Bible as irrational and unintelligent as possible so that you can display christianity as nonsense that other people wouldn't want to be part of.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I really don't know how. Many theologist assume that the "forbidden fruit" was something sexual and Adam and Eve may have been more than 1 people.

satan wants you to read/understand the Bible as irrational and unintelligent as possible so that you can display christianity as nonsense that other people wouldn't want to be part of.

Yes, there are those that do a lot of assuming...adding to scripture..to make a particular theology work.
Often they do this to force fit the bible into old earth evolutionism.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yes, there are those that do a lot of assuming...adding to scripture..to make a particular theology work.
Often they do this to force fit the bible into old earth evolutionism.

No one is adding anything, we are just accepting facts and trying to be educated in presenting our theology. I mean, by your reasoning.. if someone walked up to you and said the moon is an actual body of light because of how he took Genesis litereally, and you reply that it is just reflecting the light of the sun.. are you force fitting?
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No one is adding anything, we are just accepting facts and trying to be educated in presenting our theology. I mean, by your reasoning.. if someone walked up to you and said the moon is an actual body of light because of how he took Genesis litereally, and you reply that it is just reflecting the light of the sun.. are you force fitting?

No, because the Hebrew allows for that. The wording used in Genesis is ambiguous and allows for two meanings, the moon as both light source and reflecting light. The same way the verse in Job says circle of the earth which allows for both spherical or flat earth models. Of course we can look up at the moon and see with the naked eye that it is spherical so that we can know that when the Hebrew said circle it means spherical circle not flat circle.

You do not have this with Adam and Eve, the Hebrew text was written in a historical literal form not poetic or parable or prophetic. The New Testament also has verses about both Adam and Eve as literal people as well. No, viewing Adam and Eve as anything but literal is people trying hard to twist scripture to fit into a world view not promoted by scripture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No, because the Hebrew allows for that. The wording used in Genesis is ambiguous and allows for two meanings, the moon as both light source and reflecting light. The same way the verse in Job says circle of the earth which allows for both spherical or flat earth models. Of course we can look up at the moon and see with the naked eye that it is spherical so that we can know that when the Hebrew said circle it means spherical circle not flat circle.

You do not have this with Adam and Eve, the Hebrew text was written in a historical literal form not poetic or parable or prophetic. The New Testament also has verses about both Adam and Eve as literal people as well. No, viewing Adam and Eve as anything but literal is people trying hard to twist scripture to fit into a world view not promoted by scripture.

What aramaic/Hebrew word is that ambiguous that the meaning of "reflection" can be assumed in the context?
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
Look here....why do none of these translation use the word became? Just asking.
The same reason why the Greek word "Baptiso" was anglicised instead of translated "immersed". There are a lot of preconceived notions with Bible interpretations. Translators, when faced with a choice, are inclined to go with what is traditional. "Immersed" was never going to fly with the Roman Catholics and even the early reformers. "Was" likewise suited the prevailing theology. It is an acceptable translation.

I had an NIV study Bible many years ago. It had "became" as a possible translation in the margin notes. The theory is not new. Origen raised it in the third century.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What aramaic/Hebrew word is that ambiguous that the meaning of "reflection" can be assumed in the context?

It's not something I can just pull from my memory, I would have to look it up again. I had a lot of info on a Word document which got corrupted. :/ I will see if I can find the info later or you could look it up yourself, but the Hebrew word used can mean both light source and/ or reflected light. I posted about it on one of the flat earth threads.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It's not something I can just pull from my memory, I would have to look it up again. I had a lot of info on a Word document which got corrupted. :/ I will see if I can find the info later or you could look it up yourself, but the Hebrew word used can mean both light source and/ or reflected light. I posted about it on one of the flat earth threads.

Can you find it fast because i've been searching, and there is no credible source out there referencing a word that can both mean source or reflected. So i'm going to assume this was guessed out for the sake of having a retort.

But just in case you are telling the truth about the existence of such a hebrew word. Can I also assume that the moon is the source while the sun reflects it? Sounds silly right, but if there is a word that can mean both then why can't I assume such?
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Can you find it fast because i've been searching, and there is no credible source out there referencing a word that can both mean source or reflected. So i'm going to assume this was guessed out for the sake of having a retort.

But just in case you are telling the truth about the existence of such a hebrew word. Can I also assume that the moon is the source while the sun reflects it? Sounds silly right, but if there is a word that can mean both then why can't I assume such?

I looked through my older posts-but this site doesn't keep older ones nor does it have a good search function -does it?

Genesis 1:15
“Let them [sun and moon] be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give [emit] light on the earth.”

The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”

I didn't think it was of that much importance unless debating flat earth people, which was what I was doing. The flat earthers claim that verse says the moon makes it's own light so I quoted that to show it doesn't say that, it's ambiguous.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I looked through my older posts-but this site doesn't keep older ones nor does it have a good search function -does it?

Genesis 1:15
“Let them [sun and moon] be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give [emit] light on the earth.”

The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”

I didn't think it was of that much importance unless debating flat earth. Since it's ambiguous it means that verse cannot be used as proof that the moon makes its own light. Which was what the flat Earthers were saying.

But the word still has no reason to suggest the word reflect can be included. It still opens up the other question I gave, can the sun be suggested to be a reflector while the moon is the source? Since "owr" can be used in both contexts?
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No one is adding anything, we are just accepting facts and trying to be educated in presenting our theology. I mean, by your reasoning.. if someone walked up to you and said the moon is an actual body of light because of how he took Genesis litereally, and you reply that it is just reflecting the light of the sun.. are you force fitting?

Am I force fitting? No. In this instance the sun and moon are talked about in scripture. No where does scripture tell us the "forbidden fruit" was something sexual and Adam and Eve may have been more than 1 people.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But the word still has no reason to suggest the word reflect can be included. It still opens up the other question I gave, can the sun be suggested to be a reflector while the moon is the source? Since "owr" can be used in both contexts?
It could be. The bottom line is they both illuminate the earth. One brighter and the other lesser. As you guys are fond of saying...the Bible isn't a scientific text book.
 
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
does this gap theory also explain why a disembodied light is on day 1 then all the way at day 4 the sun is created? perhaps forcing a literal read was never how it was meant to be, certainly not adding information in between the lines to force reconcile it. Is not the account exactly how it is perfect? why the need to fill in the blanks?
What was that light on day one? There's a couple of possibilities.

The light could have been this from Revelation 21... 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp.

The let there be light could have been when God created the brightly shining angels.

No one is forcing a literal Genesis. The Bible provides possibilities.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums