Gap Theory (right or wrong)

[Izdaari]

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.

I agree. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I assume, though I haven't read the entire thread, that this somehow goes to Dispensationalism and the emphasis on literal interpretation.

I agree with my prof in college, who was a dispensationalist.
If you believe the Gap Theory, you just might have a gap in your intellect.

One doesn't have to believe in thr GT in order to be a dispensationalist or emphasize literal interpretation.

 

[christundivided]

If you believe the Gap Theory, you just might have a gap in your intellect.

Care to elaborate on the points I made in the OP?

One doesn't have to believe in thr GT in order to be a dispensationalist or emphasize literal interpretation.

I'm not using "GT" to fit either.

It is rather arrogant of mankind to think that God's creative action/interaction is limited or confined to a period of a few thousands years. The very nature of a Eternal God requires an eternally "creative" God. Forget about Scientific evidence. The very thought that God has only created "all things" within the last few thousands years is totally contrary to common sense. Its mankind's pride that requires him to look through such a narrow "prism" of thought.

 

[christundivided]

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.

In like manner it inconstant to believe that the Bible can be read solely in a "figurative" manner. "It seems to be a very selective application bases solely on their presuppositions."

 

[christundivided]

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.

Where in Exodus?

 

[Izdaari]

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.

In like manner it inconstant to believe that the Bible can be read solely in a "figurative" manner. "It seems to be a very selective application bases solely on their presuppositions."

I don't think there is anyone on this forum who would claim that. But some of us favor using both literal and figurative approaches, depending on what seems to be the intent.

 

[christundivided]

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.

In like manner it inconstant to believe that the Bible can be read solely in a "figurative" manner. "It seems to be a very selective application bases solely on their presuppositions."

I don't there is anyone on this forum who would claim that. But some of us favor using both literal and figurative approaches, depending on what seems to the be the intent.

I agree.

I disagree that there is clear intent in Genesis 1 to present a "figurative" expression of God's creative actions.

 

[brianb]

If the gap theory is true why isn't the Bible specific about it? Why is there all this mythos that reads like an H.P. Lovecraft story?

Aside from that there are other questions.

Why did God have to recreate light (and Day and Night)? Wasn't the earth still rotating? Did God destroy the sun - why destroy something that was good the way it was? According the gap theory the earth was shrouded in darkness - that can't be possible if the sun was still there because the light from the sun would dispel the darkness. Also why was there no expanse or firmament? I can see why the earth would be destroyed and flooded but the atmosphere?

 

[rsc2a]

If the gap theory is true why isn't the Bible specific about it? Why is there all this mythos that reads like an H.P. Lovecraft story?

The Bible isn't specific about the internet, automobiles or tele-tubbies either. God didn't give us the Bible primarily to understand creation, but to understand the Creator.

 

[christundivided]

If the gap theory is true why isn't the Bible specific about it? Why is there all this mythos that reads like an H.P. Lovecraft story?

I can see your point. I honestly believe that it really doesn't matter much the grand scheme of things. God never went into great detail and it really doesn't add up to much. The simplest facts are God created everything and he was happy with it. Other than that.... It probably doesn't matter to a great degree.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Gap Theory wrong.  I don't agree with those who say the young earth doctrine contradicts science.  Tis the other way around.

 

[Castor Muscular]

Gap is not a theory, it is fact.  We have one at the North Star Mall. 

 

[brianb]

Genesis 1:1 in my view is actually an introductory summary of God's finished creation and not the first act of creation. The rest of the Bible seems to support this interpretation. Just do a search of all verses that contain the words "six days" or "made the heavens and the earth". They all say God made the heavens and the earth not "remade" like Gap theorists. If there was previously formed earth with animals but not humans I don't see how God would have a problem telling us about it just like he told us about the flood and how "it repented himself that he made man on the earth". 

Also some of the people living today who are Gap theorists have some wacky ideas - many are in the charismatic movement.
In the old days the Gap theory was more widely accepted but now it's considered one of those fringe fundamentalist beliefs.
There are also very few if any orthodox Jews either now or in history who have interpreted Genesis the way Gap theorists do.
The ancient Jews after Moses not only knew the words of God in the law which included Genesis but also the "sense "or meaning - Nehemiah 8:8. We need to be cautious of who listen to today - a lot of these teachers like gap theorist Chuck Missler are not necessarily good Bible teachers - some are even heretical. I believe a good start to understanding obscure passages in the Old Testament is to read the writings of the Classic Rabbis - they were wrong about Jesus and justification but not wrong about everything else - Jesus even said to his disciples to obey what the scribes and Pharisees command them from the law of Moses.  It's time we stopped thinking we are smarter then we are. There are also some good Messianic Jewish Bible teachers - sadly they get ignored because they are not as cool as the Gentile teachers.

 

[OncePagan]

Gap...is an intellectual exercise of vain imaginations.
Consider the following Scripture:
Rev21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.  (Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22; 2Pet 3:13

First "protos" in Greek, first in place , time, and rank...

Scripture cannot be broken...I've tried and failed!

 

[Izdaari]

If the gap theory is true why isn't the Bible specific about it? Why is there all this mythos that reads like an H.P. Lovecraft story?

I can see your point. I honestly believe that it really doesn't matter much the grand scheme of things. God never went into great detail and it really doesn't add up to much. The simplest facts are God created everything and he was happy with it. Other than that.... It probably doesn't matter to a great degree.

I think we can all agree God made it, and was happy with it. And compared with that, the details of how it was done and how long it took are relatively unimportant.

 

[Izdaari]

Gap Theory wrong.  I don't agree with those who say the young earth doctrine contradicts science.  Tis the other way around.

So instead of young earth doctrine contradicts science, science contradicts young earth doctrine? Ok, that works for me.  ;D

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

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.

When he made Adam, I believe he was a full grown man, and the first day he was only one day old, but had the appearance of age.  Why couldn't he do the earth the same way?

 

[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.

When he made Adam, I believe he was a full grown man, and the first day he was only one day old, but had the appearance of age.  Why couldn't he do the earth the same way?

In Adam's case, nobody would've been deceived by it. If someone asked Adam how old he was on that first day, he would've said "One day", since the Fall had not yet happened and he didn't know how to lie.

Could God make a universe that appears to all tests we can devise to be billions of years old, but is really only thousands? He could, of course. But I can't think of a reason why He would, other than to deceive us... and that seems totally out of character for Him. If the universe were really only thousands of years old, I think He'd have used General Revelation (the evidence of the created universe itself) to make that obvious. Honesty. It's how He rolls.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I believe in this gap theory:  There is a huge gap in our knowledge of creation, and the missing details can't be found by reading the Bible or by listening to the wild speculation that passes for "science" these days. 

 

[BandGuy]

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".

I am not sure that a relation can be made between God's perfection in creation (or lack thereof) and whether or not He created the universe "empty" or "תֹ֙הוּ֙".  The only verse of the three that you posted that even mentions that Hebrew word is Isaiah 45:18.  There are several different translations to this word as I am sure you are well aware from the Hebrew.  Further, it would seem that God is speaking more about a spiritual meaning in Isaiah than about an historical account of creation from the context of the whole verse.  Here is what TWOT says about it: