The "gap" theory

[-57]

http://www.watchman-nee.nl/creation.pdf

113 pages to explain why "became" should be used?

 

[-57]

I don't believe that they have technology. They are angelic, not human. They do not need technology.

Do you think they can take human form and build a house?

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

This is partly my point, people like to fix the text with all sorts of theories that the text doesn't support and some are quite passionate about it. If Moses is credited with penning the text then it puts the written account 2500 years removed from when it actually happened, not to mention there are no witnesses to the event but the creator itself. You mention no one is forcing a literal Genesis yet provided two literal examples of what it can be. To me, these theories add no value to the account or our walk with Christ today and it is more beneficial to study the deeper meanings the text rather than it's surface meanings.

There is a formless dark world and God speaks light into it, the light is separated from the darkness and it is called good. This is a perfect image of salvation, it also is an image of Christ and it may actually foreshadow the resurrection. Perhaps if we pay attention the creation account can reveal something a lot more relevant than when the angels were created.

 

[Cis.jd]

I also said you can't be dogmatic. Like you.

It must be based upon something feasible...you simply said the forbidden fruit was sexual and there were more people around than Adam and Eve....

Not being dogmatic make no sense. At the end of the day you are actually admitting insertion is permissible, when filling the gaps and understanding certain things in scripture through what we know.

what does "being fruitful and multiply mean". There is nowhere in scripture suggesting that as a metaphor, so I should I take this literal too?

 

[-57]

This is partly my point, people like to fix the text with all sorts of theories that the text doesn't support and some are quite passionate about it. If Moses is credited with penning the text then it puts the written account 2500 years removed from when it actually happened, not to mention there are no witnesses to the event but the creator itself. You mention no one is forcing a literal Genesis yet provided two literal examples of what it can be. To me, these theories add no value to the account or our walk with Christ today and it is more beneficial to study the deeper meanings the text rather than it's surface meanings.

There is a formless dark world and God speaks light into it, the light is separated from the darkness and it is called good. This is a perfect image of salvation, it also is an image of Christ and it may actually foreshadow the resurrection. Perhaps if we pay attention the creation account can reveal something a lot more relevant than when the angels were created.

I can't disagree with your statement that "theories add no value to the account or our walk with Christ". The problem I have with a non-literal Genesis is that the there is no account of the actual fall. There is no explanation for the fall other than the bible presents something that didn't really happen.
No Adam, Eve, garden, tree, serpent, Eve no longer is the mnother of all...etc.

The second problem is that other verses in the bible present the Genesis account as literal and historic. If you're interested I can post a few.

 

[-57]

Not being dogmatic make no sense. At the end of the day you are actually admitting insertion is permissible, when filling the gaps and understanding certain things in scripture through what we know.

what does "being fruitful and multiply mean". There is nowhere in scripture suggesting that as a metaphor, so I should I take this literal too?

Being fruitful and multiply mean to have babies, produce more people. That is a frequent term. God even told Noahs sons to be fruitful and multiply.

Not being dogmatic makes a ton of sense on several verses. For instance we read...Gen 3:1Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gottena a man with the help of the LORD.”2 And again, she bore his brother Abel.

Some people think the "And again, she bore his brother Abel."....shows Cain and Able were twins. Could be, then again Able may have been born a year later. I can't be dogmatic on that twin issue.

 

[DamianWarS]

I can't disagree with your statement that "theories add no value to the account or our walk with Christ". The problem I have with a non-literal Genesis is that the there is no account of the actual fall. There is no explanation for the fall other than the bible presents something that didn't really happen.
No Adam, Eve, garden, tree, serpent, Eve no longer is the mnother of all...etc.

The second problem is that other verses in the bible present the Genesis account as literal and historic. If you're interested I can post a few.

scripture quotes these accounts to echo it's embedded truth not to echo it's literal or not. I actually would describe myself as agnostic to what really happened pre-Abrahamic (not agnostic about God, agnostic about how literal the events are pre Abraham). Adam and Eve with naked before and after the fall but it was only after the fall they released they were naked. Their "need" for God didn't change pre-fall to post-fall (which I think would be ridiculous to claim). They still needed him just as much but post-fall the were aware of their need for God on a much higher level. So the fall tells us we need God, if the account wasn't around we would still need God, the fall just cements it in.

 

[-57]

scripture quotes these accounts to echo it's embedded truth not to echo it's literal or not. I actually would describe myself as agnostic to what really happened pre-Abrahamic (not agnostic about God, agnostic about how literal the events are pre Abraham). Adam and Eve with naked before and after the fall but it was only after the fall they released they were naked. Their "need" for God didn't change pre-fall to post-fall (which I think would be ridiculous to claim). They still needed him just as much but post-fall the were aware of their need for God on a much higher level. So the fall tells us we need God, if the account wasn't around we would still need God, the fall just cements it in.

The bible often interprets itself. There are places where a single verse doesn't give you enough information and a second or third verse found else where fills in the blanks.
Genesis 2 fill is a lot of what happened on day 6.

When it comes to the gap theory the bible doesn't tell us why the earth became null and void. There we see a lot of non-biblical speculation.

 

[JulieB67]

When it comes to the gap theory the bible doesn't tell us why the earth became null and void. There we see a lot of non-biblical speculation.

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

Do we really believe God created it this way when the bible "specifially" tells us he didn't?

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."

The word for vain in this verse is the very same word as void in Gen 1:2. Why would the earth already be in a ruin state 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:"

Peter is telling us here that people are "willingly ignorant that by the word of God the heavens were of old.

The bible has to be taken as a whole. The truth is there but as Peter says, people are willingly ignorant by the word of God that the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.

This is how it became null and void-


Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light

The earth was not described as being in a complete ruin after Noah's flood. There was still light and once the waters abated, they left the ark.

Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

Jeremiah 4:25 "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Noah and his family were still alive

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."

In Job we see that is was the "morning stars and all the sons of God" that inhabited the earth during this earlier time when God first created the heavens and the earth.

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

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

We know Satan's pride caused his downfall. We see it referred to at times in the Bible.

Revelation 12:4 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven.

He was able to draw a third part of the stars. That's a huge number and I'm sure God was very fierce in his anger.

I know many will think this is conjecture and that's fine. But I certainly don't believe that's the case and feel that "by the word of God" the heavens and the earth are of old.

 

[Cis.jd]

Being fruitful and multiply mean to have babies, produce more people. That is a frequent term. God even told Noahs sons to be fruitful and multiply.


Some people think the "And again, she bore his brother Abel."....shows Cain and Able were twins. Could be, then again Able may have been born a year later. I can't be dogmatic on that twin issue.

ah so "fruitful" is a common term for reproduction which involves intercourse, right?

Not being dogmatic makes a ton of sense on several verses. For instance we read...Gen 3:1Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gottena a man with the help of the LORD.”2 And again, she bore his brother Abel.

It doesn't though, not in the context of our whole discussion. The fact of the matter is, we are able to insert things to rationalize the message or the events in it. Dogmatizing has nothing to do with this. The literalism of Genesis' creation story isn't dogma and never was, even as early as the early Church as seen in St Augustine's writings. The point is, you don't realize that you also insert onto scripture and fill in the gaps, while accepting scientific truths such as the moon being a reflector, 8 more planets in the solar system, or a global sphere with a 24 hour day-light difference. You know they where created by God despite no Biblical reference therefore you know that anybody denying the existence of the things I referenced is wrong.

 

[-57]

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

Yes void...thats how the earth started. Empty.

Do we really believe God created it this way when the bible "specifially" tells us he didn't?

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."

The word for vain in this verse is the very same word as void in Gen 1:2. Why would the earth already be in a ruin state before Adam and Eve?

Yes God formed the earth and made it to be established...The bible said God took 6 days then rested one day. Even the 10 commandments confirms that. I have no problem with that verse.

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:"

Peter is telling us here that people are "willingly ignorant that by the word of God the heavens were of old.

The bible has to be taken as a whole. The truth is there but as Peter says, people are willingly ignorant by the word of God that the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.

They were old..."from the beginning", that's old.

This is how it became null and void-


Jeremiah 4:23 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light

The earth was not described as being in a complete ruin after Noah's flood. There was still light and once the waters abated, they left the ark.

God looked at the earth He just spoke into existence...and it was without form and was void. It confirms Gen 1.

Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly."

Jeremiah 4:25 "I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled."

Noah and his family were still alive

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 was comparing the coming destruction to the beginning of creation.

In Job we see that is was the "morning stars and all the sons of God" that inhabited the earth during this earlier time when God first created the heavens and the earth.

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

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

We know Satan's pride caused his downfall. We see it referred to at times in the Bible.

Revelation 12:4 "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven.

He was able to draw a third part of the stars. That's a huge number and I'm sure God was very fierce in his anger.

I know many will think this is conjecture and that's fine. But I certainly don't believe that's the case and feel that "by the word of God" the heavens and the earth are of old.

The morning stars and sons of God are a reference to the angels.

Satan didn't fall until after the Garden of Eden was in existence as the bible shows Satan in the garden in an un-fallen state.

 

[-57]

ah so "fruitful" is a common term for reproduction which involves intercourse, right?

Do you know of any other way?

It doesn't though, not in the context of our whole discussion. The fact of the matter is, we are able to insert things to rationalize the message or the events in it. Dogmatizing has nothing to do with this. The literalism of Genesis' creation story isn't dogma and never was, even as early as the early Church as seen in St Augustine's writings. The point is, you don't realize that you also insert onto scripture and fill in the gaps, while accepting scientific truths such as the moon being a reflector, 8 more planets in the solar system, or a global sphere with a 24 hour day-light difference. You know they where created by God despite no Biblical reference therefore you know that anybody denying the existence of the things I referenced is wrong.

None of what you say is a problem...reflecting moon and all.

As I said we know Genesis was literal...one example is what Paul wrote in his letter to Timothy about the way women should act. He based the reason on a literal account of the creation.

1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

It makes no sense for Paul to present this to Timothy if it wasn't literal.

 

[Cis.jd]

Do you know of any other way?

No i don't. But it's a small piece as to why many believe "forbidden fruit" could have been symbolizing sex and not a literal fruit.

None of what you say is a problem...reflecting moon and all.

As I said we know Genesis was literal...one example is what Paul wrote in his letter to Timothy about the way women should act. He based the reason on a literal account of the creation.

1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

It makes no sense for Paul to present this to Timothy if it wasn't literal.

But to many it could be. If someone does follow the same theological views as yours and disregards all scientific teachings of the moon being a reflector are wrong due to being unbiblical, why would you claim he is wrong, especially since you are on the side of literalism and previously talked against "inserting" of things? You can't even keep context to your arguments.

 

[-57]

No i don't. But it's a small piece as to why many believe "forbidden fruit" could have been symbolizing sex and not a literal fruit.

Well, if you need the Tree of knowledge of good and evel to be a sex tree...have at it. I'm going to roll my eyes and move on.

But to many it could be. If someone does follow the same theological views as yours and disregards all scientific teachings of the moon being a reflector are wrong due to being unbiblical, why would you claim he is wrong, especially since you are on the side of literalism and previously talked against "inserting" of things? You can't even keep context to your arguments.

The bible says one of their purposes was...and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

Give light upon the earth....and both do. Whether or not the moon is a reflector does not void the fact it gives light to the earth.

 

[Cis.jd]

Well, if you need the Tree of knowledge of good and evel to be a sex tree...have at it. I'm going to roll my eyes and move on.

Or it was all symbology which is the point. The creation story is more metaphorical than historically literate.

The bible says one of their purposes was...and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

Give light upon the earth....and both do. Whether or not the moon is a reflector does not void the fact it gives light to the earth.

But you are missing the point. Fact is, you know it is a reflector because of science, not scripture. If someone accepts the book of Genesis as completely literal and accurately as written and claims the moon is an independent body of light or that planets like Saturn don't exist, you know he/she is wrong and that in itself is inserting things, which is supposed to be against your entire case.

 

[DamianWarS]

The bible often interprets itself. There are places where a single verse doesn't give you enough information and a second or third verse found else where fills in the blanks.
Genesis 2 fill is a lot of what happened on day 6.

When it comes to the gap theory the bible doesn't tell us why the earth became null and void. There we see a lot of non-biblical speculation.

This is a "can't see the forest through the trees" type problem. Gen 1 and 2 are a retelling of the same event but they have different goals and focus on different details that build those goal and those details don't completely agree with each other. Gen 1 is about God being the source behind all things and Gen 2 is unique to the creation of Adam and Eve.

 

[-57]

Or it was all symbology which is the point. The creation story is more metaphorical than historically literate.



But you are missing the point. Fact is, you know it is a reflector because of science, not scripture. If someone accepts the book of Genesis as completely literal and accurately as written and claims the moon is an independent body of light or that planets like Saturn don't exist, you know he/she is wrong and that in itself is inserting things, which is supposed to be against your entire case.

Yes, science tell us the moon is a reflector of light....but as I said, it doesn't matter....the moon is still providing light....like the Bible says.

 

[JulieB67]

They were old..."from the beginning", that's old.

But the beginning goes back much farther than what you're thinking. That's the context in these verses that Peter is talking about.

II Peter 3:1 "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance;"

II Peter 3:2 "That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior:"

II Peter 3:3 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,"

II Peter 3:4 "And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? for since the father fell asleep, all thing continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

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:"

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

This is not Noah's flood. We are talking an entire world age perished as talked about in Jeremiah. What Christian is willingly ignorant about Noah's flood? They aren't.

II Peter 3:7 "But the heavens and earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

This is the age we are in now. A new heaven and earth was not made after Noah's flood. When the waters abated, there was plant life and Noah and his family were able to leave the ark.


II Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

This is how God views time and when he says the heavens are of old, he means old. He would not consider 7000 to 14,000 years old. And the bible declares it and is not at odds with the science that declares it.

II Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The morning stars and sons of God are a reference to the angels.

Yes, I know.

 

[-57]

But the beginning goes back much farther than what you're thinking. That's the context in these verses that Peter is talking about.

I already presented the context. You have no biblical reason to interpret the verse the way you do.

 

[JulieB67]

You have no biblical reason to interpret the verse the way you do.

Ok, do you feel Christians are willingly ignorant about Noah's flood?

Going back to Genesis, even the words "without form" (Hebrew word 8414 tohuw) mean to "lie" waste, a desolation, a worthless thing, etc. Why would God create a worthless thing, a desolation? He wouldn't. If you pair it with the right translation of "was" 1961 hayah from the orginal text, it became a desolation, a worthless thing.

Pair that with the verses throughout the bible -God's anger in Jeremiah where he tell us his people are a little sottish and have no understanding when it comes to good and evil and then proceeds to explain what he did to the prior age in his anger, etc. He actually moved the mountains and hills.

Jeremiah 4:24 "I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly." Imagine the mountains trembling and "all" of the hills moving. We are talking massive earthquakes, etc.

That's why today if you look certain maps today, it looks like certain places used to fit together, etc.

Who lived during this time as he tells Job when he first created the heavens and earth? The morning stars and the sons of God, the angels as well as anything else God had created for that time.
This is when Satan had his overthrow and was able to pull a third of the angels on his side. You put 2 and 2 together and God destroyed (desolation) that age and started this one. For it to lie waste could be millions of years if not billions of years, that's why the Bible does in fact agree with science and that's why we find the dinosaur fossils, etc.

God told Job he created behemoth the same time he created Job (there's a deeper study there too)

But this is why Peter's words so resonate. People will scoff in the last days saying where is the promise of his coming? When in reality it's only been a few days to God in this earth age. God is saying that is nothing compared to how old the earth is really.

II Peter 3:4 "And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? for since the father fell asleep, all thing continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

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:"

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