A brief look at the Gap Theory

[Ole]

Well, if you are not open to have your eyes opened they must then be closed, or? but for me I dont care too much anymore because I have found what matters in my life as a christian, it is being and living as a brother for someone else.

Ol

[Oriental]

Those who generally believe in the 24-hour day interpretation of yom (translated into English as "day") believe the Sun, moon and stars to be created on day four. However, I follow a different exegesis. I am congenial to the Day-Age interpretation.

...

At the second summit of the ICBI, the issue of the age of the universe and earth was on the agenda. Several papers were presented and after long deliberations, the conclusion of all the theologians and Old Testament scholars present was that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not in 24-hour creation days.
Kurieuo.

I have a hard time to accept the Day-Age interpretation in particular it seems to conflict with Exodus 20:11, where it cleary states that God created the heavens and earth in six days so His chosen people has to observe the Sabbath.

How this conflict be explained?

[Kurieuo]

I'll just refer to http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... c&start=40 which is perhaps my most thorough treatment of this. A more concise response can be found at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=194.

If you wish to debate the point hopefully someone else will take my stead as I have limited time on my hands at the moment.

Kurieuo

[puritan lad]

I don't think Dr. Deem's article addresses this, so I'll throw it in for more food for thought...

Ezekiel 28:13-15
"You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you."

This Scripture seems to indicate that the fall of Lucifer occurred after he was in the Garden of Eden, not before. If so, then it is an obvious "death blow" to the Gap Theory. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that Adam's fall and Satan's fall were one in the same event. (If not, this would give even more strength to the Day-Age theory). Thoughts?

[Canuckster1127]

I don't think Dr. Deem's article addresses this, so I'll throw it in for more food for thought...

Ezekiel 28:13-15
"You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you."

This Scripture seems to indicate that the fall of Lucifer occurred after he was in the Garden of Eden, not before. If so, then it is an obvious "death blow" to the Gap Theory. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that Adam's fall and Satan's fall were one in the same event. (If not, this would give even more strength to the Day-Age theory). Thoughts?

I'm not a strong Gap theory proponent in any event and I think it fair to say that it pretty much has fallen from popularity. What popularity it had was probably due to its primary method of distribution as part of Scofield's Notes.

Day-Age theory and Gap-Theory are not interdependent.

I disagree with the thought that Adam and Lucifer's fall were one and the same. It seems reasonably obvious to me that Lucifer's fall took 1/3 of the heavenly host with him and that Satan's entering the garden through the snake was already in rebellion not initiating it. I'll admit I've not given it a great deal of thought however.

[Oriental]

I don't think Dr. Deem's article addresses this, so I'll throw it in for more food for thought...

Ezekiel 28:13-15
"You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you."

This Scripture seems to indicate that the fall of Lucifer occurred after he was in the Garden of Eden, not before. If so, then it is an obvious "death blow" to the Gap Theory. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that Adam's fall and Satan's fall were one in the same event. (If not, this would give even more strength to the Day-Age theory). Thoughts?

I'm not a strong Gap theory proponent in any event and I think it fair to say that it pretty much has fallen from popularity. What popularity it had was probably due to its primary method of distribution as part of Scofield's Notes.

Day-Age theory and Gap-Theory are not interdependent.

I disagree with the thought that Adam and Lucifer's fall were one and the same. It seems reasonably obvious to me that Lucifer's fall took 1/3 of the heavenly host with him and that Satan's entering the garden through the snake was already in rebellion not initiating it. I'll admit I've not given it a great deal of thought however.

I haven't yet gone through the details in the content of the threads that Kurieuo suggested me to read; nor have I an official exegesis over Ezekiel 28:13-15.

Ezekiel 28:13-15 suggests to me, prima facie, that the unrighteousness is referred to fall of Adam and Eve, but not the serpent which allegedly came from Satan. The whole passages exegetically means, up with me, that after God created Adam and Eve, He saw what he created as good; it is praise about God's creation in particular Adam and Eve in Eden well before their falls - the precious stones, the engravings, the anointed cherub for protection; everything looked good. The writer seemingly sighed off the evil that Adam and Evel fell to bring into the world which ruined God's perfect intent for the world.

I am inclined to think that Ezekiel 28:13-15 still upholds Gap Theory, and, I am still looking into the exegesis about Lucifier fall as revealed in somewhere else; I have trouble to grasp at this: why is it true revelation about Lucifier fall?

After all even though Lucifier part is obscure, the day-age interpretation doesn't seem to be in conflict as much with the gap theory, in so far as the heavens and earth as Exodus 20:13 mentioned were actually a world in new order after the the earth had become formless and void in Genesis 1:2. It occurs to me that day-age interpretaion and gap theory may combine.

Another possibility that convinces me is the fact that, genesis creation account is quite honest; as we all know, glacier period ended about 6,000 years ago which, if computed with geneology as bible penned, happens to be the time Adam and Eve were created.

I think we have to be honest when scientific evidence revealed objectively there were pre-historic period; fossil records, crude oil that is caused by petrification of ancient flora under high temperature and pressure, - these signify God's revelation about His creation the age of earth should be quite old. The onus of proof should rest with the creationists to reflect on God's revelation about His creation in genesis, but should not rest with the evolutionists by challenging the reliability of dating methods or theoretical flaws or their political intent; such accussation against the evolutionists sounds to me entirely [nonsense].

I agree with the website's viewpoint over the exegesis on Genesis 1:1-2, which, if literal-day theory is valid, Genesis 1:2 is entirely superfluous. It is almost common sense immune from begging a strictly-educated scholar to opine.

[bluesman]

I think others have voiced it in around about way.
In debating over the how of the creation story we can over look the important
lessons/teachings from the Garden of Eden.

The whole thing is more about who then how. The Who of course being God.

From my kids Bible books. "Who made the World?"
and my two little 4year old twins answer correctly
GOD!!

What did Jesus say about accepting like children do?

I certainly think we can't ignore the knowledge we get from science in how we
view the bible. Certainly the original hebrew can be translated to fit with what
we have learned about how the world was created.

However, back to my point about the fall of Man from the garden.
Why did Eve and Adam sin ?

God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
are though shall surely die.

Yet Eve adds that they were not even suppose to touch it. She misquotes what God has said. Doing that will get you in trouble. So when she touches the fruit and doesn't die "then God must have lied" and the she eats of.

Of course then we see that God didn't mean that they would die an immediate bodily death after eating the fruit. It was more meant as a spiritual death.

So you can see adding to scripture what is not there can cause problem.
Like adding some detailed elaborated gap theory that just is not there.
The flip side of holding to the literal 7 24hour day creation when the bible allows for a different interpretation can also cause a problem.

That being a statement that science contradicts the bible creation therefore the Bible is wrong , God doesn't exist.

However, We know God does indeed exists!! Therefore either science is wrong or our interpretation or translation of the Bible is wrong.

Michael
Thomas

[Ashley]

I think others have voiced it in around about way.
In debating over the how of the creation story we can over look the important
lessons/teachings from the Garden of Eden.

The whole thing is more about who then how. The Who of course being God.

From my kids Bible books. "Who made the World?"
and my two little 4year old twins answer correctly
GOD!!

What did Jesus say about accepting like children do?

I certainly think we can't ignore the knowledge we get from science in how we
view the bible. Certainly the original hebrew can be translated to fit with what
we have learned about how the world was created.

However, back to my point about the fall of Man from the garden.
Why did Eve and Adam sin ?

God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
are though shall surely die.

Yet Eve adds that they were not even suppose to touch it. She misquotes what God has said. Doing that will get you in trouble. So when she touches the fruit and doesn't die "then God must have lied" and the she eats of.

Of course then we see that God didn't mean that they would die an immediate bodily death after eating the fruit. It was more meant as a spiritual death.

So you can see adding to scripture what is not there can cause problem.
Like adding some detailed elaborated gap theory that just is not there.
The flip side of holding to the literal 7 24hour day creation when the bible allows for a different interpretation can also cause a problem.

That being a statement that science contradicts the bible creation therefore the Bible is wrong , God doesn't exist.

However, We know God does indeed exists!! Therefore either science is wrong or our interpretation or translation of the Bible is wrong.

Michael
Thomas

Up to a point. I think scientific discovery is also God's revelation telling us how to interpret the bible; though the former can be flawed or outweighed by new discovery that would come later. We should not deny it, as they are divine revelation when our curiosity on science is revealing appealing things in universe. That we honestly accept it and think about God's words in greater details is more pleasing to God. It is "who" that brings this discovery vitally important, not the "discovery" itself.