IMHO, No Gap and No Chaos!

[Partaker of Christ]

Some reasons why I cannot accept the gap and chaos theory.

If there is a gap after verse 1, then (imho) there would have to be at least one or two more milestone days and nights.

It should then (for me) read something like this:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [And the evening and the morning were the first day]
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. [And the evening and the morning were the second day]
Gen 1:3a And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3b And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. [And the evening and the morning were the third day]

That would result to eight days creation.

Another issue I have is that 'if' the earth became (via chaos) empty and void, then it would be that the heavens also became empty and void via some chaos.
The reason is; that the sun, moon and stars were created on the forth day. If they were created as 'good' in verse one (the heavens), and then again one the forth day, then it would have also had to become empty and void.
'If so, then Verse 2 should read 'but the heavens and the earth became empty and void'

For me, verse 1 is simply an intro:
Verse 2, (is as it reads) and the earth was without form and void. The potter had His lump of clay, and then went on to form it into a beautiful vessel.

 

[crawfish]

For me, verse 1 is simply an intro:
Verse 2, (is as it reads) and the earth was without form and void. The potter had His lump of clay, and then went on to form it into a beautiful vessel.

I don't buy into the gap theory, but the interpretation of scripture is not "for you". It must be interpreted in a way consistent with the original language and literary style.

 

[philadiddle]

Partaker of Christ,

What does it mean to you when you try to make it personal? In other words, how does it apply to you in the here and now?

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Partaker of Christ,

What does it mean to you when you try to make it personal? In other words, how does it apply to you in the here and now?

Hi philadiddle!
Not sure if I understand your questioning?

If it is similar to what crawfish wrote:
"but the interpretation of scripture is not "for you", then I would say he is wrong.

When I say "for me", I mean it to be 'how I personally see it'

 

[juvenissun]

Hi philadiddle!
Not sure if I understand your questioning?

If it is similar to what crawfish wrote:
"but the interpretation of scripture is not "for you", then I would say he is wrong.

When I say "for me", I mean it to be 'how I personally see it'

Very good. That is probably all you need to care about.

However, don't just stop there. The way you see this particular issue must have a consequence. How would your vision on this matter affect the understanding of other Christian doctrines? If it does not relate to any other views, then this piece of seeing may not be very meaningful after all.

In other words: OK, no gap. So what?