Gap Theory?

[nephilimiyr]

The data we have says that the earth formed from about 5 billion years ago to 4 billion years ago. Now, if you are going for a literal 144 hours at that point, what do you do with the vast geological record, radiometric dating, fossil record, etc. that indicates a far longer time for creation on earth than 144 hours?


Genesis 1 has God saying "Let the earth bring forth" or "Let the water bring forth". Genesis 2:19 says God formed animals and birds from the dust of the ground. Plants are not discussed. They are just there.

Now I have to ask why you said above "Yes, the story of the recreation was done exactly how the Genesis story says it was done, in 6 literal 24 hour days." There you said the Bible was clear. Now you say it's not. Can you make up your mind, please?

Satan doesn't become evil until after the events in Job, so I can't see how this is relevant to the Gap Theory at all. In Job Satan is God's betting buddy and gofer. No hint that he is evil.

Neph, just to be absolutely clear, this is not an attempt to argue the validity of Gap Theory. I only want to have you explain what Gap Theory says, not have to justify it.

Well I explained it for you, perhaps not the best way for you to understand it. Are you now argueing the validity of the theory or are you saying you just wish to understand it better?

LOL, I know it's hard to resist to point out errors when you believe they are.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Assume for the moment that mainstream science is correct regarding the age of the universe (11-20 billion years) and the earth (3-4 billion years). Also assume for the moment that you are the writer of Genesis 1, and God has given you a vision of how He created it all. If you were working with a rather primitive language that had no single word for "universe" but instead used the phrase "the heavens and the earth" to express a concept roughly equivalent to the English concept of universe, how would you express the information God had given you regarding that portion of creation that preceded the formation of our planet?

Are you assumeing that the original Hebrew had no word for universe? They did and it's 'shamayim' and has a few different meanings including "the abode of the stars". The Hebrew also has the word 'erets' that means "land, whole earth (as opposed to a part)".

 

[nephilimiyr]

The data we have says that the earth formed from about 5 billion years ago to 4 billion years ago. Now, if you are going for a literal 144 hours at that point, what do you do with the vast geological record, radiometric dating, fossil record, etc. that indicates a far longer time for creation on earth than 144 hours?

Alright, I'll bite.

What god created in the first creation wasn't wiped out totally by the reforming of the newer earth. Your assumeing that this creation is a totally different earth but it is not. The recreation is the same old earth that God first created. The gap theory says that God reformed it, he recreated the plant life and animal life and if this is true the evidence of an old earth will still be present. So in actuality I agree with you but if your still confused by what I'm saying just let me know

Genesis 1 has God saying "Let the earth bring forth" or "Let the water bring forth". Genesis 2:19 says God formed animals and birds from the dust of the ground. Plants are not discussed. They are just there.

Genesis 1:11, And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Not sure why you left out this verse but there it is. I guess I don't understand what your trying to say.

Now I have to ask why you said above "Yes, the story of the recreation was done exactly how the Genesis story says it was done, in 6 literal 24 hour days." There you said the Bible was clear. Now you say it's not. Can you make up your mind, please?

That's a very fair question. God doesn't explain scientificaly how he is able to just speak and things come to be. Whether the account in Genesis 1 is accurate or not the story still doesn't explain how God made things, it only says that he did. The Genesis 1 story however does answer our question of "how long" this reforming of the earth took, this Genesis is clear about. He does not let us know how long the original creation took although there is a passage in Hebrews that mentions this original creation.

Heb. 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
So we know that God framed the worlds by his word but does it say how long this took? This Hebrews passage is as close an explanation as I can find that explains how Gods word works.

Satan doesn't become evil until after the events in Job, so I can't see how this is relevant to the Gap Theory at all. In Job Satan is God's betting buddy and gofer. No hint that he is evil.

The reason I was talking about this is because I wanted you to understand that it was my interest in the origins of evil that brought me to my wanting to understand Genesis 1. I didn't do so because of the Yec/evolution debate.

I believe differently than you on Job but I'm curious why you brought the book up? It really makes no difference when the book of Job places Satans fall but that in Genesis 3 there is a serpent in the garden that does misconscrew the truth and tempt Eve.

 

[Curt]

It's amazing how deceived the evolutionists are. There has never been an iota of evidence of any kind other than what they have manufactured with words, and every time they do it has been shown to a figment of their imagination. Christian scientists have declared these facts over and over. Evolution has never been anything but a theory created by men trying to figure God out using their own understanding, and it just aint never gonna happen, so you might as will hang it up otherwise the only thing you will have a chance to evolve into is the pit of hell.

 

[Bushido216]

Did you just accuse us of presenting no evidence while presenting none of your own?

 

[nephilimiyr]

It's amazing how deceived the evolutionists are. There has never been an iota of evidence of any kind other than what they have manufactured with words, and every time they do it has been shown to a figment of their imagination. Christian scientists have declared these facts over and over. Evolution has never been anything but a theory created by men trying to figure God out using their own understanding, and it just aint never gonna happen, so you might as will hang it up otherwise the only thing you will have a chance to evolve into is the pit of hell.

Hi Curt!

The word of God doesn't give us much at all to go on if we are attempting to figure out how things came to be in a scientific way. We can however study Gods creation to give us clues if thats what our aspirations are. God does not forbid us to do this, it's just that he doesn't reveal it to us through his word. I am not totally convinced that the evidence is there to support evolution but I'm not a scientist nor do I want to be. It makes no difference to me how God created, what's important to me is that I do believe that he did create. I believe one of the reasons why God has left out this piece of the puzzel is that he wants me to be more concerned with my salvation, he wants me to learn about his plan of redeption and he wants me to learn how to let Him run my life. He wants to be Lord of my life and by each day I try a little harder to give it to him. It aint easy!

In the end I believe your being too harsh with the theistic evolutionist here with your statement. The theistic evolutionists believe that God did create, in this you both have a common bond. They believe that if God wanted to create everything in a second that he very well could have but they don't see the scientific evidence of God's creation saying that that is what happend. This does not make them dammed to hell or evil people spreading lies. I know you didn't actually say that but, well, there it is.

 

[Bushido216]

Go neph, go neph, it's your birthday, it's your birthday!

 

[lucaspa]

Well I explained it for you, perhaps not the best way for you to understand it. Are you now argueing the validity of the theory or are you saying you just wish to understand it better?

Mostly I'm trying to understand your theory better. I'm also noticing contradictions between what you say in different places and would like them clarified.

What you seem to do is take extrabiblical evidence for a great age of the universe and accept it. Therefore you have Gap Theory to accomodate the age of the universe and a more-or-less literal Genesis 1. However, that same extrabiblical evidence you use to get a great age of the earth also says that a literal 144 hour creation didn't happen. So I'm trying to figure out how you deal with that. How do you accept some of the extrabiblical evidence but reject that same extrabiblical evidence at the same time?

The error I have is in your characterization of Satan and the time it took for him to become evil. According to the Bible, Satan was still good at the time of Job. Also, the serpent in the Garden is not Satan. It is the serpent.

 

[lucaspa]

Alright, I'll bite.

What god created in the first creation wasn't wiped out totally by the reforming of the newer earth. Your assumeing that this creation is a totally different earth but it is not. The recreation is the same old earth that God first created. The gap theory says that God reformed it, he recreated the plant life and animal life and if this is true the evidence of an old earth will still be present. So in actuality I agree with you but if your still confused by what I'm saying just let me know

I'm still confused. I'm taking you at your word that we are dealing with the one and only earth. You are taking extrabiblical evidence that the universe is very old. To accomodate that evidence, you have the Gap Theory where you have a gap between the formation of the universe and the creation of the solar system. Am I right so far?

So now you have an earth that is "formless and void" and God shapes that earth in what you say is a literal 144 hours. However, that same extrabiblical evidence that gave you an old universe says that the earth is 4.55 billion years old and its current features were shaped over that 4.55 billion years. Not in 144 hours. Follow me? So, how in that 144 hours did we get the huge amount of sedimentary and metamorphic rock on the planet?

Now, in the above paragraph you seem to be introducing something new: that plant and animal life evolved on the earth but at some time God wiped all that out and recreated species -- presumably in their present form. Right? OK, where is the evidence of that recreation? Where is the discontinuity in the evolution of plant and animal life on the planet?

That's a very fair question. God doesn't explain scientificaly how he is able to just speak and things come to be. Whether the account in Genesis 1 is accurate or not the story still doesn't explain how God made things, it only says that he did.

That wasn't what I was saying. Genesis 1 has God speaking animals and birds into existence. Right? Genesis 2 says God formed them from dust. I don't need to know the exact manufacturing process in order to test whether it happened. All I need to know is that Genesis 1 has discontinuities: there weren't plants and then, bingo, there they were. There weren't apple trees and then, poof, there they were. That discontinuity can be tested.

The Genesis 1 story however does answer our question of "how long" this reforming of the earth took, this Genesis is clear about. He does not let us know how long the original creation took although there is a passage in Hebrews that mentions this original creation.

Heb. 11:3, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
So we know that God framed the worlds by his word but does it say how long this took? This Hebrews passage is as close an explanation as I can find that explains how Gods word works.

That still doesn't get around Genesis 2:19 where it says, basically, that God is a potter. Take a bit of dust, reshape it, and voila! animal or bird!

Now, where do you get "reforming"? I thought the earth was only formed once. You said it was formed out of existing stuff, but not formed and then reformed. This is a place where I wish you would make up your mind. You have two different theories going.

The reason I was talking about this is because I wanted you to understand that it was my interest in the origins of evil that brought me to my wanting to understand Genesis 1. I didn't do so because of the Yec/evolution debate.

I understand. And I just wanted you to understand that the Bible has a different picture of Satan than the one you outlined.

I believe differently than you on Job but I'm curious why you brought the book up? It really makes no difference when the book of Job places Satans fall but that in Genesis 3 there is a serpent in the garden that does misconscrew the truth and tempt Eve.

Because the serpent is not Satan. It is the serpent. Period. Satan is a spiritual being, right? Well, if the Genesis 3 story is correct, then we have Satan's DNA in all snakes! But Satan and God don't have DNA; they are not material beings. Also, the original serpent was mortal and died, leaving offspring. But your Satan is as immortal as God, right?

I brought up Job because the view of Satan evolves in the Bible. In Job Satan is not evil. As I said, He is God's betting buddy and gofer. Satan does nothing that God does not tell him to do. Now, if you taking the Bible literally about these things, that means that the "fall" of Satan had to happen after the time of Job.

 

[lucaspa]

It's amazing how deceived the evolutionists are. There has never been an iota of evidence of any kind other than what they have manufactured with words, and every time they do it has been shown to a figment of their imagination.

Curt, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter "evolution" as your search term. Then start reading the abstracts of the more than 120,000 papers you will get up. These papers have the evidence, and the evidence is not words. It is observations/facts. Please go thru and show us how each of these 120,000 papers is a figment of imagination.

Christian scientists have declared these facts over and over. Evolution has never been anything but a theory created by men trying to figure God out using their own understanding, and it just aint never gonna happen,

Curt, you do realize that all the original evolutionists were Christians, don't you? Darwin at the time he wrote Origin (he later became more agnostic due to personal reasons), Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray, Lyell, Blythe, etc? Also, you also realize that creationism is also a "theory created by men trying to figure God out using their own understanding", right? Not only is evolution happening all around us, but it did happen already.

 

[nephilimiyr]

The error I have is in your characterization of Satan and the time it took for him to become evil. According to the Bible, Satan was still good at the time of Job. Also, the serpent in the Garden is not Satan. It is the serpent.

We can debaye this if you wish but right now I am on the run but here is something that I wrote alittle while back in another thread.

Have you ever wondered why Eve wasn't shocked that the serpent spoke to her? She wasn't shocked because she didn't speak to a snake or a serpent but a "nachash". The word translated "serpent" in Genesis 3 is nachash in Hebrew. It was a common word and can be translated as snake but it has 2 other meanings in the Hebrew Bible. A nachash can be someone who practices divination, or can refer to shinning brass. As a verb the word often means "to shine like brass, gleam". In Daniel 10:13 Daniel was visited by a heavenly being whose body shone like brass, the Hebrew word used there is nachash. In Genesis 3 Eve was visited by a nachash too. Nachash in Genesis 3 can also just as easily be translated as a verbal use of a noun. Meaning Genesis 3 otherwise could be saying "A shinning One", not "A Serpent".

To be in the presense of this shinning and beautiful being must have been pretty intimidateing. If you notice while reading Genesis, God only spoke to Adam and Eve and I wonder if they ever saw him. I would guess that they never did but Eve saw a nachash just like Daniel did and although it must've been an intimidateing experience, she wasn't shocked by it talking to her.

 

[lucaspa]

We can debaye this if you wish but right now I am on the run but here is something that I wrote alittle while back in another thread.

Neph, this still doesn't change that the serpent ended up losing his legs and crawling around on its belly. Genesis 3:14-15. Notice that the serpent has "seed" and that the offspring of the serpent and offspring of Eve will have enmity thru the ages. So if the serpent is Satan we still have the problem that Satan is a material being that bred and had offspring. And the logical conclusion of that is that snakes have Satan's DNA!

What you have done is respond to a logical argument by irrelevant linguistics. None of what you wrote addressed the issues I have raised. Nor does it tell us how this being that crawls around on its belly is now the gofer of God in Job and can flit from wherever God is to earth and back again.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Neph, this still doesn't change that the serpent ended up losing his legs and crawling around on its belly.

I'm sorry but I don't take that as literally as you do or the way that you think that I should. I take the curses that God gives as metaphorical. Helel (Satan) wanted to be above all creation, so God put him beneath all creation, even the cattle were considered superior in status. Even they would trample him, metaphoricaly speaking. This is nothing new, biblical scholars have been saying this for ages.

Genesis 3:14-15. Notice that the serpent has "seed" and that the offspring of the serpent and offspring of Eve will have enmity thru the ages. So if the serpent is Satan we still have the problem that Satan is a material being that bred and had offspring. And the logical conclusion of that is that snakes have Satan's DNA!

The curse in Gen. 3:15 is special because it also has to do with Eve's offspring. We, as humans, are the offspring of Eve but who are the offspring of the nachash? Some bible scholars hold that this is still metaphorical in nature and they will point to a verse in the Gospel of John and say that anyone who lives in sin is a son of the Devil and therefore are his offspring.
John 8:44, Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
This maybe true but I also believe it can be taken literally. I agree with the bible scholars who claim this is not metaphorical but does refer to a literal offspring that is half human and half divine being.

Genesis 6:2, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen. 6:4, There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

What you have done is respond to a logical argument by irrelevant linguistics.

Well here's what you said.

Also, the serpent in the Garden is not Satan. It is the serpent.

You say the the serpent is a serpent. I've showed you that useing the Hebrew, that very well might not be the case. I don't believe that's irrelevant at all. At least I don't take the English at face value. The Hebrew, in which the original Bible was penned, is more important to me than any translation. Just like the extrabiblical evidence of creation is more important to you than what the word of God says.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I'm still confused. I'm taking you at your word that we are dealing with the one and only earth. You are taking extrabiblical evidence that the universe is very old. To accomodate that evidence, you have the Gap Theory where you have a gap between the formation of the universe and the creation of the solar system. Am I right so far?

I don't know if I took too long to write my reply or what but I had just got done answering your whole post here and the site booted me off. Right now I'm too disgusted to rewrite everything and besides I'm out of time!

Later!

 

[lucaspa]

I'm sorry but I don't take that as literally as you do or the way that you think that I should. I take the curses that God gives as metaphorical. Helel (Satan) wanted to be above all creation, so God put him beneath all creation, even the cattle were considered superior in status. Even they would trample him, metaphoricaly speaking. This is nothing new, biblical scholars have been saying this for ages.

You take everything else literally but bail on this one? OK, what is your criteria for literalness? Do you take the Garden as literal or metaphorical? Why?

Other than Revelation has a vision of Satan as a huge dragon (only superficially resembling a serpent), why do you think the serpent in Genesis 3 is Satan? What are the clues in Genesis 3 that tell you this?

If Satan betrayed God as you say in Genesis 3, then why is Satan running God's errands in Job? Why is God trusting Satan to do His bidding and not do some other mischief?

The curse in Gen. 3:15 is special because it also has to do with Eve's offspring. We, as humans, are the offspring of Eve but who are the offspring of the nachash? Some bible scholars hold that this is still metaphorical in nature and they will point to a verse in the Gospel of John and say that anyone who lives in sin is a son of the Devil and therefore are his offspring.
John 8:44, Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
This maybe true but I also believe it can be taken literally. I agree with the bible scholars who claim this is not metaphorical but does refer to a literal offspring that is half human and half divine being.

Now I have another one of your contradictions. Above you said the curse was metaphorical but now say it is literal? Having the serpent crawl on its belly and having its offspring crushed by the heels of Eve's offspring are all part of the same curse. One part is literal and the other metaphorical? Also, the offspring of the serpent isn't part human. So are you now confusing something else in here?

As to John 8:44, don't you people ever take anything IN CONTEXT???!!! Just where do you get the chutzpah to think you can lift a verse out of context and then get it to mean anything you want it to? It's completely amazing to me. John 8:44 is in the middle of a rant by Jesus from 8:42-47 against people who wouldn't listen to him and would not accept him as the son of God. The Jews say they are the sons of Abraham. In 8:41 they say "God himself is the only Father we have and we are his true sons." So Jesus uses ad hominem and says they are the sons of the devil and not God.

Genesis 6:2, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Gen. 6:4, There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Are you saying this refers to the people Jesus is talking to in John 8:44? Not even close.

You say the the serpent is a serpent. I've showed you that useing the Hebrew, that very well might not be the case.

According to Strong's Lexicon, nachash is:

1. serpent, snake
2. serpent
3. image (of serpent)
4. fleeing serpent (mythological)

Nowhere do I see "shining one" listed. The same "nachash" is used in Genesis 49:17 and refers to a snake. "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward."

Strong's doesn't list "nachash" as appearing in Daniel 10:13. Instead, the word is "sar" and is a leader or chieftain. If nachash is not there, then your whole argument falls apart.

What's worse, as a verb, "nachash" is listed as meaning "divine" or "prophecy" not "shine like brass". The Hebrew may mean a lot to you, but you seem to be making up meanings for it. Where are you getting your translations?

 

[nephilimiyr]

You take everything else literally but bail on this one? OK, what is your criteria for literalness? Do you take the Garden as literal or metaphorical? Why?

No, I don't take everything else literally lucaspa and I believe you know that, don't play with me. Use your God given intelligence, quite trying to pull the rug out from under me and give what I'm saying a try, I have given you the same respect.

Have you actually taken the time to understand anything I've said up to now? No, your too concerned with what you believe is true and your mind is all full of preconcieved ideas. You are spiritualy discerned.
1 Cor. 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
What I've said about the gap theory is simple, it's an easy thought, it isn't new. Likewise what I've said about evil is a simple concept. Your belief in what the English says is far from what main stream christainty believes. You are in a tiny minority who, because of your strong belief in what the science of today has said about our world, believes that the serpent was only a serpent. There are very few, if any, serious biblical scholars who agree with your idea. Don't play with me that you have the answer to truth when you give me no evidence of that truth.

You have to at some point in your way of belief or your way of thinking come to terms with what God says in His word. It isn't just a literary garbel of truths or half truths. The word is the power, and the word is god. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. That isn't something we should take lightly. The truth and the Word doesn't work around our belief in scientific evidence but it's the scientific evidence that supposed to work around the Word. The Word is King and should always be your object of study!

 

[nephilimiyr]

According to Strong's Lexicon, nachash is:

1. serpent, snake
2. serpent
3. image (of serpent)
4. fleeing serpent (mythological)

Nowhere do I see "shining one" listed. The same "nachash" is used in Genesis 49:17 and refers to a snake. "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward."

Strong's doesn't list "nachash" as appearing in Daniel 10:13. Instead, the word is "sar" and is a leader or chieftain. If nachash is not there, then your whole argument falls apart.

Daniel 10:6 is where we find the actual word that concerns us.
Dan. 10:6, His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of a multitude.

In the line "colour of polished brass" we find the Hebrew word "Nachosheth", it's what's translated as brass in the English. Nachosheth is in verb form. Again Biblical scholars say that in Genesis 3 Nachash can very well be put into verb form by the simple reason of how it is written, which is how it is written in Dan. 10:6.
The Nachash in Genesis 3 can just as well be understood as a substantive participle or rather the form there can be a verbal used as a noun. Thus Nachash=polished like brass, gleaming, shinning.

The Daniel 10:13 passage I refered to is about the identity of the one who he saw in his vision. The one who shown like brass was the Prince of the kingdom of Persia who many biblical scholars believe to be Satan.

The Hebrew may mean a lot to you, but you seem to be making up meanings for it. Where are you getting your translations?

I follow many biblical scholars but most recently I've been reading alot of Michael Heiser's work. He has currently written his Ph.D. dissertation in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin centering on the Divine Council. He holds a MA in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania and another MA from the UW in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages.

If you want to check him out, here's his website...
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

I can't say that he agree's with the gap theory as I haven't read him saying anything on it but what he has to say about the origins of evil and Satan is most interesting and I agree with much of what he says.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Other than Revelation has a vision of Satan as a huge dragon (only superficially resembling a serpent), why do you think the serpent in Genesis 3 is Satan? What are the clues in Genesis 3 that tell you this?

Satan is given 3 names in Rev. 12:9, one is the Great Dragon, the second is that Old Serpent, and the thrid is the Devil. One of his names being "Old Serpent" is clue number one but what is most convinceing is what we find in Ezekiel 28.

The first part of Ezekiel 28 is a lamentation against the prince of Tyre, who was an actual prince with rule and a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel. He was one of many rulers who lifted himself up with great pride and imagined himself as being deity. However in the 11th verse there is a transition of thought. Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the KING OF TYRUS Who is the King of Tyrus? Historic records show no such man!

The King of Tyrus is above that which was human in the following passages, nothing that follows can be said of a human being. The idea is that God is giving us knowledge of the power behind the throne of this prince of Tyrus. This is a indirect address of Satan just like the serpent is a indirect address to Satan. Behind every earthly power there is an evil power seeking to take control and, unfortunately, the evil power often wins out.

God gave this King of Tyrus a very high position in his government.Ezekiel 28:12, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty In Gods divine government there are ranks of celestial beings, this King of Tyrus is of the highest rank. God sealed up the sum, he made no being higher or equal to this King of Tyrus. Not even Michael, the archangel, was equal unto this being. Jude 9, Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Ezekiel 28:13, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God
It's interesting how Ezekiel discribes this King of Tyrus who presided in this Eden.
every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
This was truely a magnificent creature, all the precious stones, the beauty, the rank, the power! He was created by God to rule over His creation.
Eze. 28:14, Thou art the anointed CHERUB that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

Here's the clincher
Eze. 28:15, Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
At some point in Satan's reign as chief created being he sinned. In the 16th verse we see what that sin was. By thy multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned
This is where Heylel, Helel, Lucifer ceased to be within the family of God and had become known as Satan, the adversary.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Isaiah 14 is another instance where the chapter starts out by talking about a real evil human ruler, the king of Babylon. But in verse 12 we see that God is giveing us a deeper meaning to this. He's showing the power behind the throne of this king of Babylon. These Isaiah passages gives light to Ezekiel and gives us a further hint at what this sin was that this great and powerful cherub committed.
Isa. 14:12, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
First of all "Lucifer" is a great example of how we shouldn't take the English at face value. Lucifer is a Latin word that means-Light bearer and signifies the planet Venus. The proper translation of the name is Heylel or Helel and the verse discribes this name as "son of the morning". In the Hebrew this is written as if it is a proper name. With this name the author has changed the identity of the subject of the story. The author is now speaking about Heylel, not the king of Babylon. He is speaking about the power behind the throne.

The first "I will" is in verse 13 "I will ascend into heaven". This shows that this rebellion began here on earth and proceeded up toward heaven, it didn't originate in heaven. Most christians assume that Satan was in heaven when his fall took place but the scriptures don't bare that out. In Ezekiel Heylel was in the garden of eden and in Isaiah Heylel originated his rebelion here on earth. Yes in verse 12 it says "how art thou fallen from heaven" and "how art thou cut down to the ground". This signifies that Satan's rebellion didn't work. Satan rose up to heaven in hopes of a successful coup but he failed and was thrown back to earth.

lucaspa, Satan had his beginnings in the garden of Eden and although it has changed since then, he is the lord of that place (Satan is the prince of this world), and Satan will meet his end in this world. Yes, Satan was the nachash of Genesis 3.

 

[Dedicated]

The whole reason behind Gap theory is based on misinterpretation of the ancient Hebrew words, i looked this up and genesis 1-2 is pretty clear on creation compared to creation-destruction-creation