Gap Theory-New Thoughts

OldWiseGuy · Feb 6, 2006

According to the Gap theory a space of indeterminate time took place between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, during which cataclismic events destroyed the surface of the earth.

This theory fell from favor at the turn of the century, and rightly so I now believe.

Having recently studied GenOne more carefully I can now see that the true 'gap' is in our knowledge of what happened to the earth prior to Genesis 1:1.

God opens 'history' (and time) with the account of the renewal of the surface of the earth, and the creation of man. His purpose is the 'restoration of all things', earth being a type of His great spirit kingdom, both having been severely damaged by, or because of, the rebellion of Lucifer.

To 'restore' means to 'repair', not scrap the old and start over. That is why GenOne describes a 'repairing' of the surface of the earth, not a brand new earth.

Interestingly, God chose to repair the biosphere only, and not the mineral surface of the earth, which is still in a state of complete destruction.

So, in verse 1 God states what He did .

Verse 2 simply reveals the condition of the surface of the earth as He began.

However, the Gap Theory did recognize
that a once pristine earth fell into terrible disrepair at some point in 'time', and that the earth is far older than GenOne seems to indicate.

oldwiseguy

gluadys · Feb 7, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
However, the Gap Theory did recognize
that a once pristine earth fell into terrible disrepair at some point in 'time', and that the earth is far older than GenOne seems to indicate.

How does gap theory account for Homo sapiens fossils over 100,000 years old?

How does it account for human art work over 30,000 years old?

FreezBee · Feb 7, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
So, in verse 1 God states what He did .

oldwiseguy said:
Verse 2 simply reveals the condition of the surface of the earth as He began.

The condition of the earth as stated in Gen 1:2 is in Hebrew described with the phrase "tohu-wa-bohu", a phrase taht also appears in Jeremiah 4:23 - but let's read a bit more of that chapter:

Jeremiah 4
23 I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.

24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.

26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.

27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.

28 Therefore the earth will mourn
and the heavens above grow dark,
because I have spoken and will not relent,
I have decided and will not turn back."

This is the prophet's vision just prior to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.

Also notice the similarity between Gen 1:2 and this:

Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded.

This is not to imply successive destructions and recreations, but just to point out to you that there is a recurrent motiv here.

- FreezBee

OldWiseGuy · Feb 7, 2006

FreezBee said:
This is not to imply successive destructions and recreations, but just to point out to you that there is a recurrent motiv here.

- FreezBee

I quite agree. God seems to favor water for doing his enemies in. The pattern of 'baptism' on a grand scale is present in the Noah flood, and the Red Sea escape of Israel. It may be that God also used flooding in prehistoric times as well. The condition of both earth and fossils seems to indicate flooding.

Also, the covenant of the rainbow seems to hint at a past use of flooding and drowning. (Why a covenant after just one event?)

Drowning would, after all, be the most efficient way to remove the 'breath of life' from bad critters.

oldwiseguy

OldWiseGuy · Feb 7, 2006

gluadys said:
How does gap theory account for Homo sapiens fossils over 100,000 years old?

How does it account for human art work over 30,000 years old?

I don't know how anyone can reasonable deal with preGenOne artifacts. Age of stuff keeps changing. Science reinvents its assertions like clockwork. To me the question is a 'pitch in the dirt'. Can't swing at that one.

oldwiseguy

gluadys · Feb 7, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I don't know how anyone can reasonable deal with preGenOne artifacts. Age of stuff keeps changing. Science reinvents its assertions like clockwork. To me the question is a 'pitch in the dirt'. Can't swing at that one.

oldwiseguy

I haven't seen scientists make many assertions. I have seen creationists often refer to conclusions as assertions, which just means they haven't done their homework on finding out why scientists came to those conclusions in the first place.

In any case you have answered my basic question. Gap theory does not deal with the evidence that humans existed prior to the gap. I expect the same goes for all other species with living descendants too. And many of them go back a lot farther than humans.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 7, 2006

gluadys said:
I haven't seen scientists make many assertions. I have seen creationists often refer to conclusions as assertions, which just means they haven't done their homework on finding out why scientists came to those conclusions in the first place.

In any case you have answered my basic question. Gap theory does not deal with the evidence that humans existed prior to the gap. I expect the same goes for all other species with living descendants too. And many of them go back a lot farther than humans.

When a 'scientific observation' (presented in such a way that us campesino's are duty bound to accept it as fact) is debunked by better observations at a later time, the original 'observation' becomes an 'assertion'.

Not being a campesino, I relegate to 'assertion' status most scientific 'observations' that conflict with my core bible beliefs immediately.

Regarding age and type of ancient evidence (pre-creation/historic) I have no problem here. There may well have been 'hominids' stumbling around.

The bible record only deals with what God calls 'man': a creature that He intends to use for a great purpose. Note that we are still here (hopefully fulfilling that purpose), them hominid critters aren't.

oldwiseguy

shernren · Feb 7, 2006

When a 'scientific observation' (presented in such a way that us campesino's are duty bound to accept it as fact) is debunked by better observations at a later time, the original 'observation' becomes an 'assertion'.

I hope you have good "observations" with which you can back your otherwise unfounded "assertion".

gluadys · Feb 7, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
When a 'scientific observation' (presented in such a way that us campesino's are duty bound to accept it as fact) is debunked by better observations at a later time, the original 'observation' becomes an 'assertion'.

If anyone taught you it was a duty to accept scientific conclusions on any basis other than the evidence, that person was a bad teacher.

And when a scientific observation is debunked by a better observation, it does not become an assertion. It becomes discarded as false and obsolete.

Or would you like to present a debunked observation which scientists are still asserting to be true.

Not being a campesino, I relegate to 'assertion' status most scientific 'observations' that conflict with my core bible beliefs immediately.

So it never occurs to you that if you took the time and effort to make the same observations, you would necessarily come to the same conclusions?

Regarding age and type of ancient evidence (pre-creation/historic) I have no problem here. There may well have been 'hominids' stumbling around.

The bible record only deals with what God calls 'man': a creature that He intends to use for a great purpose. Note that we are still here (hopefully fulfilling that purpose), them hominid critters aren't.

I was not talking about "them hominid critters". I was talking about our own species. We are still here, and according to the evidence we have been here for over 100,000 years.

FreezBee · Feb 8, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
I quite agree. God seems to favor water for doing his enemies in. The pattern of 'baptism' on a grand scale is present in the Noah flood, and the Red Sea escape of Israel. It may be that God also used flooding in prehistoric times as well.

Well, I trust that the eschatologists find him more into pyrotechnics, but what do they know?

oldwiseguy said:
The condition of both earth and fossils seems to indicate flooding.

There's a lot of water here on earth, that's true! To become fossils animals would need to be buried quickly such as by a flood. Maybe the fossils are 'lying' by not tellinmg the whole truth, because we only have fossils from 'catastrophes'?

oldwiseguy said:
Also, the covenant of the rainbow seems to hint at a past use of flooding and drowning. (Why a covenant after just one event?)

Why not? Some people are quick to make covenants!

oldwiseguy said:
Drowning would, after all, be the most efficient way to remove the 'breath of life' from bad critters.

Pyrotechnics, my friend, pyrotechnics appears to be the way of the future. It can make a more colorful display than mere hydrotechnics - apart from the rainbow, that is.

- FreezBee

sampson x · Feb 8, 2006

FreezBee said:
Well, I trust that the eschatologists find him more into pyrotechnics, but what do they know?

Click to expand...

As much as we know about Origins...

The evidence is there, but some like to distort the information. We just have to go with what we know. More to comment later....

There's a lot of water here on earth, that's true! To become fossils animals would need to be buried quickly such as by a flood. Maybe the fossils are 'lying' by not tellinmg the whole truth, because we only have fossils from 'catastrophes'?

Click to expand...

I once read that it's nearly impossible to make a fossil without lots of dirt and lots of pressure immediately, which led me to my belief in the Flood as an actual historical event. Too bad I think I read that in a book that I read when I was younger and now when I read it, I find it's old and out of date with lots of propoganda against evolution. Hence its title: Evolution Cruncher. I don't know whether what they say is true or not. I no longer trust Creationist or Evolutionist writings, especially when they're writing to prove the other wrong. Too often the information given is one-sided and doesn't give the full picture.

Whoa, way off topic.

Why not? Some people are quick to make covenants!

Pyrotechnics, my friend, pyrotechnics appears to be the way of the future. It can make a more colorful display than mere hydrotechnics - apart from the rainbow, that is.

Click to expand...

Yes, Water, then fire. Again, there seems to be something about the way God likes to show that one way is not completely sufficient and ends the world with another. Case in point, Perfectness. In Gen, we see that humans with perfect pasts and intention will fail. Later, we find that humans in perfectly set up kingdom with temptations around them will fail. Finally, in Rev, God shows that humans in a perfect society, with no temptations, and Jesus right there, will fail...

I'm not saying that water is deficient. Not for its purpose. It is deficient for the end times where God reall does need to actually destroy...First, God cleanses (water cleanses) and proves that that isn't actually enough to save the world (without Christ). So, God must destroy (Fire) in order to make everything perfect. Like it says, our works will be tested with fire.

Again, off topic. Sorry.

Back to OP...

Sometimes I wonder about this idea, along with the idea that perhaps the New Heaven, and The New Earth in the Rev is really just the cycle starting all over again. Then I realize that Satan is destroyed and that it just can't be quite the same...

As to your theory, I don't see how God can start Gen with In the Beginning when it wasn't actually The Beginning...

FreezBee · Feb 9, 2006

sampson x said:
As much as we know about Origins...

And that's next to nothing, I've heard!

sampson x said:
I once read that it's nearly impossible to make a fossil without lots of dirt and lots of pressure immediately, which led me to my belief in the Flood as an actual historical event. Too bad I think I read that in a book that I read when I was younger and now when I read it, I find it's old and out of date with lots of propoganda against evolution.

I know that kind from my self - books that enjoyed years ago make me shake my head today. The world is simply not as good as it used to be!

sampson x said:
Hence its title: Evolution Cruncher. I don't know whether what they say is true or not. I no longer trust Creationist or Evolutionist writings, especially when they're writing to prove the other wrong. Too often the information given is one-sided and doesn't give the full picture.

True, mud-slinging books, no matter whose mud, are not, what makes you any wiser.

sampson x said:
Whoa, way off topic.

No, no - there's always a gap to be filled anywhere

sampson x said:
Yes, Water, then fire. Again, there seems to be something about the way God likes to show that one way is not completely sufficient and ends the world with another. Case in point, Perfectness. In Gen, we see that humans with perfect pasts and intention will fail. Later, we find that humans in perfectly set up kingdom with temptations around them will fail. Finally, in Rev, God shows that humans in a perfect society, with no temptations, and Jesus right there, will fail...

Yes, humans fail, no matter the conditions - water cannot do it alone, it can only wash away the old sins, not REALLY purify.

sampson x said:
I'm not saying that water is deficient. Not for its purpose. It is deficient for the end times where God reall does need to actually destroy...First, God cleanses (water cleanses) and proves that that isn't actually enough to save the world (without Christ). So, God must destroy (Fire) in order to make everything perfect. Like it says, our works will be tested with fire.

With fire indeed. What was it John the Baptist said?

Matthew 3
11 "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Fire and Holy Spirit - and that ever winnowing fork! That'll be the show to end all shows, won't it?

- FreezBee

WAB · Feb 9, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
When a 'scientific observation' (presented in such a way that us campesino's are duty bound to accept it as fact) is debunked by better observations at a later time, the original 'observation' becomes an 'assertion'.

Not being a campesino, I relegate to 'assertion' status most scientific 'observations' that conflict with my core bible beliefs immediately.

Regarding age and type of ancient evidence (pre-creation/historic) I have no problem here. There may well have been 'hominids' stumbling around.

The bible record only deals with what God calls 'man': a creature that He intends to use for a great purpose. Note that we are still here (hopefully fulfilling that purpose), them hominid critters aren't.

oldwiseguy

So then you believe there was death before sin.... Have another look at Romans 5:12... and note that death is not limited to the human kind.

shernren · Feb 9, 2006

So then you believe there was death before sin.... Have another look at Romans 5:12... and note that death is not limited to the human kind.

Nope, Romans 5 is strictly discussing human death. Note that v. 14 says that death rules even over those who didn't sin by breaking a specific command, i.e. those who sinned because they had inherited this nature from Adam. Nevertheless it does not say that "death ruled over those who did not sin as a result of Adam's sin". Animals do not sin. They have never had the free will to rebel from God and therefore they have no sin and therefore could not have been subjected to death by the Fall since the Fall was strictly a consequence of sin.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 10, 2006

FreezBee said:
Pyrotechnics, my friend, pyrotechnics appears to be the way of the future. It can make a more colorful display than mere hydrotechnics - apart from the rainbow, that is.

God has probably lit the pilot light, but as yet hasn't put in on roast. 8^)

OldWiseGuy · Feb 10, 2006

sampson x said:
FreezBee said:

As to your theory, I don't see how God can start Gen with In the Beginning when it wasn't actually The Beginning...

Click to expand...

John 1: 1-3 is the real beginning, subject to interpretation, of course.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the beginnings found in that book.

We've all heard the expression new start, or , new beginning. Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but we still use it.

If not then we are back to the original Gap Theory to explain an obviously ancient earth.

oldwiseguy

Gap Theory-New Thoughts

Wake me when it's soup.

Legend

Veteran

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Legend

Wake me when it's soup.

you are not reading this.

Legend

Veteran

Supreme Commander of the Paralytic Army

Veteran

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency