Gap Theory (right or wrong)

[christundivided]

Let me first say that I am not a "Scofield" "gaper". I don't personally believe that Genesis 1:1 details the original creation. It details the "new world" that is several thousands years old in its current form. So I don't officially believe in a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. HOWEVER, many of the arguments that are made for the "gap" theory fit my beliefs.

I am going to list a few that are universally recognized.

1. God is perfect and everything he does is perfect, so a newly created earth from the hand of God should not have been without form and void and shrouded in darkness. Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 45:18 1 John 1:5. Not to mention the unlikely scenario that God's first action in creation couldn't have been to "form" a mass without notable, distinguishing features. Nor would he simply form an "sphere" of "water", "covered" in "darkness". In Him is Light and there is no "darkness" at all. Thus, "darkness" would indicate prior "judgment".

2. The Holy Spirit was "renewing" the face of the earth as he hovered over the face of the waters. Psalms 104:30

3. Angels already existed in a state of grace when God "laid the foundations of the Earth", so there had been at least one creative act of God before the six days of Genesis. Job 38:4-7

4. Satan had fallen from grace "in the beginning" which, since the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, had to have occurred before the Fall of man. Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:11-19, John 8:44 THUS, sin already existed. It just hadn't "entered" the NEW world. SO, there is no contradiction Romans 5:12.

5. Space, time, water, and the rock which constitutes the main body of the earth, existed before the period of six days began in Genesis 1:3

What do you think?

 

[OZZY]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

 

[rsc2a]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

 

[OZZY]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

You must have a different bible than me,
mine states six days, but of course I don't believe the foot notes are inspired.

 

[Izdaari]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

Ditto that!  8)

As to the merits of the gap theory... I greatly prefer it over straight YEC, which is wholly implausible to me. But I think the best theory is the Framework Interpretation.

 

[OZZY]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

Ditto that!  8)

As to the merits of the gap theory... I greatly prefer it over straight YEC, which is wholly implausible to me. But I think the best theory is the Framework Interpretation.

Nothing My God can do or has done seems implausible to me.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Let me first say that I am not a "Scofield" "gaper". I don't personally believe that Genesis 1:1 details the original creation. It details the "new world" that is several thousands years old in its current form. So I don't officially believe in a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. HOWEVER, many of the arguments that are made for the "gap" theory fit my beliefs.

I am going to list a few that are universally recognized.

1. God is perfect and everything he does is perfect, so a newly created earth from the hand of God should not have been without form and void and shrouded in darkness. Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 45:18 1 John 1:5. Not to mention the unlikely scenario that God's first action in creation couldn't have been to "form" a mass without notable, distinguishing features. Nor would he simply form an "sphere" of "water", "covered" in "darkness". In Him is Light and there is no "darkness" at all. Thus, "darkness" would indicate prior "judgment".

Not sure about this.

2. The Holy Spirit was "renewing" the face of the earth as he hovered over the face of the waters. Psalms 104:30

I don't think this refers to creation.  Psalm 104 pretty much starts with a reference to the great flood. 

3. Angels already existed in a state of grace when God "laid the foundations of the Earth", so there had been at least one creative act of God before the six days of Genesis. Job 38:4-7

Good point.

4. Satan had fallen from grace "in the beginning" which, since the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, had to have occurred before the Fall of man. Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:11-19, John 8:44 THUS, sin already existed. It just hadn't "entered" the NEW world. SO, there is no contradiction Romans 5:12.

Not so sure about this.  Sin may have entered the world.  It just hadn't entered Eden.  What if the world was already populated (at least somewhat) outside Eden?  Genesis says God formed man from the dust, but the word is still Adam.  Did God form the FIRST man from the dust, or just Adam, a new type of man, innocent? 

If the world was already (at least somewhat) populated, that would explain why Cain was afraid of being cast out.  And he went to the land of Nod -- where did that come from, and how did it get populated?  Yes, it's possible Adam and Eve had other children who went out and founded and populated Nod, but I'm skeptical about that. 

5. Space, time, water, and the rock which constitutes the main body of the earth, existed before the period of six days began in Genesis 1:3

Sounds reasonable.

 

[rsc2a]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

You must have a different bible than me,
mine states six days, but of course I don't believe the foot notes are inspired.

You believe in transubstantiation?

"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." - John 6:54

 

[christundivided]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

Ditto that!  8)

As to the merits of the gap theory... I greatly prefer it over straight YEC, which is wholly implausible to me. But I think the best theory is the Framework Interpretation.

What form of "Framework Interpretation"? Does you view involve long periods of evolutionary change that involved the creation of man from apes? If so, then I have an issue or two with such beliefs

 

[christundivided]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

You must have a different bible than me,
mine states six days, but of course I don't believe the foot notes are inspired.

You believe in transubstantiation?

"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." - John 6:54

Metaphorical/Allegorical interpretations are often abused. Just because John 6:54 isn't a "literal" drink of Christ's blood and a "literal" feast on His flesh.... doesn't mean that Genesis 1,2 is the same.  For example....

Luk 9:23  And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

This is literally a requirement for the apostles and disciples during Christ's time. IF they had not literally followed Christ..... then it would have been a choice made to their destruction.

 

[christundivided]

I don't think this refers to creation.  Psalm 104 pretty much starts with a reference to the great flood.

While I see that as being possible, there is only one corresponding Scripture that perfectly matches the reference. It is Genesis 1:2. There is no such verse for reference post "flood".

Not so sure about this.  Sin may have entered the world.  It just hadn't entered Eden.  What if the world was already populated (at least somewhat) outside Eden?  Genesis says God formed man from the dust, but the word is still Adam.  Did God form the FIRST man from the dust, or just Adam, a new type of man, innocent? 

If the world was already (at least somewhat) populated, that would explain why Cain was afraid of being cast out.  And he went to the land of Nod -- where did that come from, and how did it get populated?  Yes, it's possible Adam and Eve had other children who went out and founded and populated Nod, but I'm skeptical about that. 

The main problem with this type of belief is the teaching of original sin. Original sin and its result is clearly (at least in my opinion) tied to the literal bloodline of Adam. Paul spoke of this in Acts 17:26

(ESV)  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

John Gill writes of this statement

And hath made of one blood,.... That is, of one man's blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, "of one"; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, "of one man"; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: hence the Jews (u) say,

"the first man was דמו של עולם, "the blood of the world";''

I believe it is likely that Adam and Eve very quickly produce many children. I believe the bloodline/health of man has deteriorated significantly since such. Its not unlikely to think that Eve really was a prolific "baby producer".

 

[rsc2a]

Metaphorical/Allegorical interpretations are often abused...

Ironic.

 

[ALAYMAN]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=you%20dropped%20a%20bomb%20on%20me&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D17lkdqoLt44&ei=ytxYT_maNcWysALuhOHNDQ&usg=AFQjCNFK_rqk1CKyPE0vSYBWpGHP_6zicQ

Oh, sorry, this ain't the "What are you listening to now" thread.

 

[Castor Muscular]

The main problem with this type of belief is the teaching of original sin. Original sin and its result is clearly (at least in my opinion) tied to the literal bloodline of Adam. Paul spoke of this in Acts 17:26

I agree.  The idea that there was a race of humans before Adam and Eve is problematic.  I'd rather not start a firestorm with some of my notions of how that problem could be solved, since I'm not thoroughly convinced of my own solutions, I'm not prepared to argue them thoroughly. 

I believe it is likely that Adam and Eve very quickly produce many children. I believe the bloodline/health of man has deteriorated significantly since such. Its not unlikely to think that Eve really was a prolific "baby producer".

Maybe.  I have a hard time believing there was already another city, Nod, and it (and the rest of the local world) was all populated with Eve's family and extended family.  And Cain's fear is spoken as if he would be regarded outside the immediate area as a stranger.  "Whoever finds me will kill me."  Why?  Even in Nod, or elsewhere, wouldn't Adam and Eve's family KNOW that the ONLY people on earth were still family? 

I'm not 100% convinced, but let's say I'm 90% convinced people existed before Adam and Eve.  Where they came from?  I don't know.  Did they have the breath of life (spirit)?  I don't know, but I doubt it.  I think that was unique to Adam and perhaps Eve. 

 

[rsc2a]

I agree.  The idea that there was a race of humans before Adam and Eve is problematic.  I'd rather not start a firestorm with some of my notions of how that problem could be solved, since I'm not thoroughly convinced of my own solutions, I'm not prepared to argue them thoroughly. 

Maybe.  I have a hard time believing there was already another city, Nod, and it (and the rest of the local world) was all populated with Eve's family and extended family.  And Cain's fear is spoken as if he would be regarded outside the immediate area as a stranger.  "Whoever finds me will kill me."  Why?  Even in Nod, or elsewhere, wouldn't Adam and Eve's family KNOW that the ONLY people on earth were still family? 

I'm not 100% convinced, but let's say I'm 90% convinced people existed before Adam and Eve.  Where they came from?  I don't know.  Did they have the breath of life (spirit)?  I don't know, but I doubt it.  I think that was unique to Adam and perhaps Eve.

I tend to agree with you.

And, I believe your last paragraph solves the dilemma in your first paragraph. Even if "people" existed before Adam and Eve, without the Imago Dei, they aren't "human". Once God transferred the Imago Dei (via the breath of life?) onto some of those "people", then they became fully human.

Disclaimer: these are only my personal thoughts on the matter regarding anthropology. Imago Dei = "human" is Bible, though.

 

[Izdaari]

What form of "Framework Interpretation"? Does you view involve long periods of evolutionary change that involved the creation of man from apes? If so, then I have an issue or two with such beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation

One of the things I love about it is that it doesn't require me to decide between Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creation. Both work just fine with it. I cannot believe YEC (because it contradicts science, which I don't believe God would do), nor a-theistic evolution (because I know God is the Creator), so either TE or OEC must be true, but I don't know which one.

 

[Izdaari]

Nothing My God can do or has done seems implausible to me.

Yes, He can do anything. But as we come to know Him, we realize there are things He would not do, things contrary to His character. Lying, for example. One thing I don't believe He would do is create a universe which appears to be, under every test we can devise, billions of years old but is really only thousands. "If the heavens declare His glory and the firmament shows His handiwork", would He make it intentionally deceptive? I don't think so.

 

[Izdaari]

Sounds good, but I just keeping believing the Book,six days start to finnish.

I just keep believing the Book, too. It just doesn't say how long it took. 

You must have a different bible than me,
mine states six days, but of course I don't believe the foot notes are inspired.

You believe in transubstantiation?

"Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." - John 6:54

I believe in Real Presence, but don't try to explain it as Catholics do via transubstantiation, or any other specific theory. I think it's best left as a holy mystery, without attempts to explain how it works. That basically puts me in agreement with Anglicans and Lutherans on the matter.

 

[Hoppy]

Let me first say that I am not a "Scofield" "gaper". I don't personally believe that Genesis 1:1 details the original creation. It details the "new world" that is several thousands years old in its current form. So I don't officially believe in a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. HOWEVER, many of the arguments that are made for the "gap" theory fit my beliefs.

I am going to list a few that are universally recognized.

1. God is perfect and everything he does is perfect, so a newly created earth from the hand of God should not have been without form and void and shrouded in darkness. Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 45:18 1 John 1:5. Not to mention the unlikely scenario that God's first action in creation couldn't have been to "form" a mass without notable, distinguishing features. Nor would he simply form an "sphere" of "water", "covered" in "darkness". In Him is Light and there is no "darkness" at all. Thus, "darkness" would indicate prior "judgment".

2. The Holy Spirit was "renewing" the face of the earth as he hovered over the face of the waters. Psalms 104:30

3. Angels already existed in a state of grace when God "laid the foundations of the Earth", so there had been at least one creative act of God before the six days of Genesis. Job 38:4-7

4. Satan had fallen from grace "in the beginning" which, since the serpent tempted Adam and Eve, had to have occurred before the Fall of man. Isaiah 14:12-15, Ezekiel 28:11-19, John 8:44 THUS, sin already existed. It just hadn't "entered" the NEW world. SO, there is no contradiction Romans 5:12.

5. Space, time, water, and the rock which constitutes the main body of the earth, existed before the period of six days began in Genesis 1:3

What do you think?

All of your evidences are wild speculatin.

God created the earth in 6 days.  Rested on the 7th. Same 7th day we are to rest. It is equated to that in Exodus.

You people make me bored.

 

[rsc2a]

I believe in Real Presence, but don't try to explain it as Catholics do via transubstantiation, or any other specific theory. I think it's best left as a holy mystery, without attempts to explain how it works. That basically puts me in agreement with Anglicans and Lutherans on the matter.

I honestly don't have a problem with those who believe in the Real Presence. (I don't.)

I'm just trying to show how people who want to insist that we have to read the Bible "literally" are, at best, inconsistent in the application of that principle. It seems to be a very selective application based solely on their theological presuppositions. In other words, it's blatant eisegesis...which is a horrible way to study Scripture.