The Gap Theory

[GenemZ]

Can we have anything but a tenuous interpretation of one word to validate this theory.

Isaiah 65:17
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."


There will be a new creation to replace this one. The planet itself that this new creation rests on will be much older than this new creation. Will it not be?

And, those passages show us a modus operandi of God. He destroys one creation, and on the surface of the planet creates a new heaven and earth. God does not change.

He's done it before. He destroyed the heaven and earth of the dinosaurs.... and replaced it with what we now see. And, what we now see? Will not be known to those who walk in the new creation.

Isaiah 65:17
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."


Grace and peace! GeneZ

 

[justified]

One can not make something unless the materials to make it are already created! It is like the carpenter does not create the lumber to make a house! The Hebrew words have specific meanings. This one you did not catch. I did (others have, too). Now you have it as it is written.

Your use of the different hebrew words, bara' and 'asar (if I recall correctly) is very poorly thought out. You need to know a little more about Hebrew before you go around spouting things off like that; Dake knew Hebrew, but he still interpreted it this: at least he had his reasons. What are your reasons? Do you really think the Hebrew words are that different? Do you know how many times bara' is translated "make" instead of "create"? Do you know the east-semitic parallels in their cosmogonies?

 

[Micaiah]

Isaiah 65:17
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."


There will be a new creation to replace this one. The planet itself that this new creation rests on will be much older than this new creation. Will it not be?

And, those passages show us a modus operandi of God. He destroys one creation, and on the surface of the planet creates a new heaven and earth. God does not change.

He's done it before. He destroyed the heaven and earth of the dinosaurs.... and replaced it with what we now see. And, what we now see? Will not be known to those who walk in the new creation.

Isaiah 65:17
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."


Grace and peace! GeneZ

The passages clearly refer to events in the future which is also verified in the NT.

 

[sawdust]

Hi justified!


Actually, exegesis wise I think it's very sound however when it comes to the physical evidence I see problems with it.

The main thing is that before the 6 day reformation of the earth, roughly 6,000 years ago, there is no good evidence that a cataclysmic event took place. If you believe in the gap theory you have to believe in this cataclysmic event took place for it's the reason why you believe that the earth became without form and void.

Hey Neph,

Does it have to be cataclysmic?
I ask because genez gave two analogies, World Trade Centre and Model T Ford, one was due to a calamity but the other was due to neglect.
I don't know what the physical arguments are, but is it possible that it became derelict due to negligence on the part of the "ruler" at the time?
And if that is possible, is it also possible we are just not seeing the physical evidence because we are not looking for the right things?

peace

 

[JBaker45]

JBaker: Wasn't Ussher a Bible scholar?

Didn't I say "nearly all" ;-)

Peace

 

[Micaiah]

Jeremiah 4 NASB

20Disaster on disaster is proclaimed,
For the whole land is devastated;
Suddenly my tents are devastated,
My curtains in an instant.

23I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;
And to the heavens, and they had no light.
24I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
And all the hills moved to and fro.
25I looked, and behold, there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were pulled down
Before the LORD, before His fierce anger.
27For thus says the LORD,
"The whole land shall be a desolation,
Yet I will not execute a complete destruction. "

Read in context with the rest of the chapter this is plainly a reference to the destruction wthat would and did come upon the Jews. You are taking vesrses out of context to invent a theory. A bit like cutting letters out of a newspaper to write a letter. All I have seen to date is nonsense.

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
Your use of the different hebrew words, bara' and 'asar (if I recall correctly) is very poorly thought out. You need to know a little more about Hebrew before you go around spouting things off like that; Dake knew Hebrew, but he still interpreted it this: at least he had his reasons. What are your reasons? Do you really think the Hebrew words are that different? Do you know how many times bara' is translated "make" instead of "create"? Do you know the east-semitic parallels in their cosmogonies?

254 bara' baw-raw' a primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes):-- choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).

Jewish scholars traditionally only use the meaning of the word "bara" "to create out from nothing", when used in reference to God creating. For what reason? Only God can create something out from nothing.

This has been the accepted meaning for the word (when spoken in context to God) for many centuries, until recent attacks were manifested by certain modern so called "scholars" who got stuck in what they want us to believe, but could not with the long held accepted meaning for "bara." And, I mean recent!

It is not, "asar." Its, "asah." This word is generic, especially in comparison to its usage with "bara." Asah, is commonly used for both man and God. "Bara" is used for God, and when speaking of creating, was held in high esteem by Jews from the beginning. Believing Jews!

Here is a page with some good references.

http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/create.htm

And, take note...

Its a Mormon position that tends to blend the meanings of "bara", and "asah, like you said, Dake, did.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[doctorluke]

My understanding of the gap theory is that there was a material created order prior to the one spoken of in Genesis. I know of no verses in Scripture that provide an indication that this was the case. I'd hardly call that sound exegesis.

People talk of a long gap between verses 1 and 2. what about between verses two and three. This may be off the track, but when was the Spirit hovering over the waters? It could have been years and years before Light came along.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hi sawdust!

Hey Neph,

Does it have to be cataclysmic?
I ask because genez gave two analogies, World Trade Centre and Model T Ford, one was due to a calamity but the other was due to neglect.
I don't know what the physical arguments are, but is it possible that it became derelict due to negligence on the part of the "ruler" at the time?
And if that is possible, is it also possible we are just not seeing the physical evidence because we are not looking for the right things?

peace

With the gap theory you believe that God created the heavens and the earth in a perfect state sometime far in the past. How long of a time is not revealed in the Bible but the earth had become formless and void. The earth for some reason lost it's perfect state of being and became a wasteland. The only way I can adequately picture this is to believe that a cataclysmic event or a series of cataclysms is what made the earth formless and void. The general belief amongst gappers is that it was judgment from God that basicly performed the deed.

Does that answer your question?

 

[nephilimiyr]

hi DoctorLuke

People talk of a long gap between verses 1 and 2. what about between verses two and three. This may be off the track, but when was the Spirit hovering over the waters? It could have been years and years before Light came along.

I played around with that idea and I just don't know for sure but I did ask myself why would God wait? With the gap theory you believe that God first created everything in a perfect state but then that perfectness became imperfect. The question to myself was since god once had a perfect creation why would he wait to restore it to perfectness after it had become imperfect? I couldn't find any good reason for the idea so I dropped it from consideration.

If that is what you believe that's fine, I could be wrong. I'm just saying I couldn't adequately find reason to it.

What I see you suggesting I can only see it as a two gap theory if you know what I mean? I didn't consider the one gap being between verses 2 and 3 but between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3.

 

[justified]

Its a Mormon position that tends to blend the meanings of "bara", and "asah, like you said, Dake, did.

Actually, it's a philological position. You need to understand the Memphite Cosmogony and how creation was done in the East, then pay a bit more attention to the etymological data. Instead of doing all that (I've listed that information elsewhere; see the Deception of Genesis thread as one example) I'll just quote a few brief parts from the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. My Hebrew teacher referred to it as the "cadillac" of Hebrew Lexicography.

ברא to shape,fashion, cut out, pare [a reed], create. The same word can also mean "to be fat."

You see, the difficulty is that there is a great deal more to defining words than simply what you read in strong's. Context determines meaning, and there is very little in Genesis 1-3 to suggest a strong semantic difference between ישא and ברא. A lot of studies have been done on the semantical domains of these words, and one of the first things you realise when you study ancient lexicography is how ill-defined those domains really are. So I beg of you, do not use this in your argument.

 

[doctorluke]

hi DoctorLuke


I played around with that idea and I just don't know for sure but I did ask myself why would God wait? With the gap theory you believe that God first created everything in a perfect state but then that perfectness became imperfect. The question to myself was since god once had a perfect creation why would he wait to restore it to perfectness after it had become imperfect? I couldn't find any good reason for the idea so I dropped it from consideration.

Well Nephilimiyr
I don't think God created a universe that went bad in the first place. There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that. I think however that God created a universe formless. The fact that the earth was formless and void, doesn't mean it was messed up. It was empty of life, rather like a shapeless lump of clay waiting to be made into something. There's nothing necessarily imperfect about that. It just is without any ... recognizable form. Anyway, how could there be anything imperfect in the world before sin came along into the World? I think that on this formless world that the Lord created, the Spirit of God was hovering for a while, whatever that means. Then at a certain point he started to create. Thoughts?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well Nephilimiyr
I don't think God created a universe that went bad in the first place. There's nothing in the Bible to suggest that.

Actually if you read my post to sawdust you would've seen me make the statement that those who believe in the gap theory believe that the earth became formless and void because of judgment from God. God's creation just didn't go bad on it's own but the earth going from being perfect to becomeing formless and void was a direct result of judgment from God. There is Biblical proof for this as the whole theory of the gap is solely based on interpreting the original hebrew. Perhaps genez would like to step in on showing you how this is believed to be true? he's much better at explaining it then I am.

Actually, I'm mistaken, it isn't true that all those who believe in the gap theory believe it was caused by judgment from God but that when Lucifer fell into sin and millions of angels sided with him that this is what caused the original creation to go bad. A theory I think shows some merrit.

As for the rest of your post, again, you can believe what you want,. I certainly won't stop you or condemn you.

I do have one question though. How long do you think God was hovering over the waters? Do you believe in any certain amount of time?

 

[GenemZ]

[/font]
Your use of the different hebrew words, bara' and 'asar (if I recall correctly) is very poorly thought out. You need to know a little more about Hebrew before you go around spouting things off like that; Dake knew Hebrew, but he still interpreted it this: at least he had his reasons. What are your reasons? Do you really think the Hebrew words are that different? Do you know how many times bara' is translated "make" instead of "create"? Do you know the east-semitic parallels in their cosmogonies?

Because God uses the words "asah" and "bara" in the same paragraph in, Genesis 1. They held two different meanings when speaking in reference to the creation.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

Asah, speaks of creating something according to a pattern. Its the concept that is created in this case! Its a design God had in mind when "asah" was used. Then when was what God had made/designed by God, to be manfested? God "bara'd" it in the next verse.

There were two phases to creating man in God's image. One was for the Godhead to make (asah) the design. The next was to actually create (bara) it, and as a result, bring it into existence.

This account of "asah" and "bara", could likened to a team of car designers getting together, and saying.....

"Let is make (ashah) this new model in the likeness of this classic."

Later on?

"It was CREATED." (bara)

Unlike man creating the new model automobile. In God's case, he was able to create man "out from nothing." Man can not do that.

The Hebrew says that something called "man" was created in Genesis (1:27). We know it was not the body. For, the body was not yet formed (yatsar) from the elements of the earth until the next chapter. What God created in his image (Gen 1:27) was the male and female souls.

What was later breathed into the lifeless body which God had just formed from the earth? It was a "soul." A soul which had been already created in Genesis 1:27! (bara).

Our body is not in God's image. Our invisible soul, is!

You seem only to be bent on blurring all distinctions so no one can know what was going on. Why is that? I may be wrong. But, that is how you come across. Sorry, if I am wrong about your intentions.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Duplicate post deleted

 

[sawdust]

Hi sawdust!


With the gap theory you believe that God created the heavens and the earth in a perfect state sometime far in the past. How long of a time is not revealed in the Bible but the earth had become formless and void. The earth for some reason lost it's perfect state of being and became a wasteland. The only way I can adequately picture this is to believe that a cataclysmic event or a series of cataclysms is what made the earth formless and void. The general belief amongst gappers is that it was judgment from God that basicly performed the deed.

Does that answer your question?

Not really but that's ok because in your answer to doctorluke I realised why. To quote you from your response to him:

God's creation just didn't go bad on it's own but the earth going from being perfect to becomeing formless and void was a direct result of judgment from God.

but then you said:

Actually, I'm mistaken, it isn't true that all those who believe in the gap theory believe it was caused by judgment from God but that when Lucifer fell into sin and millions of angels sided with him that this is what caused the original creation to go bad.

I have always thought that the latter statement is the reason for the Earth becoming desolate. The Lord only has need to judge sin and evil, yes? If the desolation was caused as a direct result of God's judgemnet alone then He would have been judging what was still perfect, which in effect would be to judge Himself, yes? Why would He need to do that? For all He does is right and therefore there is no need to judge.
Having learned a little about what others have said regarding the Gap Theory, the resultant impression I have got is to see the Earth detoriate over a very long time and then seeing the Lord bring down His judgement, not by destroying the Earth, but rather like putting it into a deep freeze. A bit like how we use cryogenics. Of course that impression maybe my misinterpretation of what I have heard but...

So this is why I am asking about the physical evidence because for the most part, what I see others who do not hold to the theory, seem to be rejecting it on the basis of no physical evidence to "instant destruction". Yet what I am suggesting is ... is it possible the destruction wasn't instant but over a long time period and that God's judgment is going unseen because we are not looking for the right things or intrepreting the evidence wrong?

I am just thinking out loud here so please bear with me.

peace

 

[justified]

heh. Nice double post!

You seem only to be bent on blurring all distinctions so no one can know what was going on. Why is that? I may be wrong. But, that is how you come across. Sorry, if I am wrong about your intentions.

I'm not blurring any distinctions in my mind; my purpose is to get people off lexical horses which have broken legs! I've studied Hebrew and Greek and other ancient languages and if there's anything I realised, it's that it's not as simple as "this word means this" and "that word means that." So yes, I am interested in blurring distinctions between words which have semantic domains which cross. Here's a common example:
In Greek, the three words αγαπη, ερος, φιλος all mean "love." The first and the last occur in the NT, the other does not. There's a common preaching technique that distinguishes these three words, usually along these lines: "αγαπη means god's love; φιλος means brotherly love; ερος means sexual love." Except that these distinctions are totally wrong. Not only are they made on the basis of etymology rather than actual usage, but even the classical data (much less the Biblical) does not support the conclusions. It is, basically, a myth.

You must understand the difference between etymological meaning (what you arguing) and contextual. The latter determines the meaning in any passage; the former is nearly useless in this respect. For example, the word "pineapple." Or take the word "trunk." The word "trunk" can mean a lot of different things; the word "pineapple" you would never get its actual meaning from the sum of its parts.

So far the examples. With the case at hand, ברא and ישא, you claim that their usage in the same paragraph indicates they meant different things. Why couldn't it be simply stylistic variation?

 

[GenemZ]

So far the examples. With the case at hand, ברא and ישא, you claim that their usage in the same paragraph indicates they meant different things. Why couldn't it be simply stylistic variation?

You answer that.

Obviously, you and I do not think along the same lines, even when we do.

If I have to answer that one? Then it indicates that you could not accept the answer. For, you should be able to figure that out for yourself.

If you want to know one of my sources for what I do understand, you can have a "blepo" at the following link.

http://www.rbthieme.org/r_b_.htm

Grace and peace in Him, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

Well I'm not here to pick a fight with you genez but regarding what you said about the "created" soul and the "made" body that sounds pretty dualistic to me and I don't really think that is very Biblical. Are there any other Biblical evidences or agreements from contemporary Jewish philosophy that support the idea that the soul and the body were created separately? I must admit that this whole area is quite speculative but I believe that Biblical and traditional Hebrew philosophy points more towards a holistic view of man, where soul and body are not separate components.

 

[GenemZ]

The passages clearly refer to events in the future which is also verified in the NT.

It also refers to a modus operandi of God's. One you are ignoring.

But, I'm not...


In Christ, GeneZ