The Gap theory

[abelcainsbrother]

How come the old earth Gap theory has been forgot about by the church? It was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin wrote his book "On the origin of species".William Buckland the first geology professor at Oxford taught the old earth biblical Gap theory.The old earth Gap theory needs to be revived by the church as it would give evolution serious competition problems if it was taught as fervently as say young earth creationism is today.For those that don't know the Gap theory teaches there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 based on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and Jeremiah 4:23-28.

The Gap theory tells us there was a former world on this earth full of life but it perished in a flood(not Noah's flood)Genesis 1:2 and all life that existed in it perished until God created this world and everything after Genesis 1:3 was God creating this world about 6-10,000 years ago. The geological evidence of an old earth with the fossils,coal and oil testify to a former world that existed but evolutionists hijacked this evidence away from the church after evolution became so popular and the Gap theory was forgot about by the church.

Why is regular OEC better than the Gap theory?I don't like stretching the 6 days of creation beyond 24 hour days and the Gap theory is old earth creationism too.

I think both Young earth creationists and Old earth creationists need to accept the Gap theory and stop ignoring it as evolution wouldn't stand a chance when we can remove a lot of their evidence off of the table using the old earth Gap theory to do it while pointing out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and so you cannot use the fossils,etc as evidence for evolution.Evolutionists cannot use the fossils as evidence for evolution because they prove a former world existed that perished NOT evolution.Also the Gap theory is biblically sound which is why it was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin came along.

J Vernon McGee taught and believed in the Gap theory eventhough I don't think he got into the science of it.You can find the Gap theory in the Scofield reference bible,Dake reference bible,etc.

[B. W.]

How come the old earth Gap theory has been forgot about by the church? It was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin wrote his book "On the origin of species".William Buckland the first geology professor at Oxford taught the old earth biblical Gap theory.The old earth Gap theory needs to be revived by the church as it would give evolution serious competition problems if it was taught as fervently as say young earth creationism is today.For those that don't know the Gap theory teaches there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 based on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and Jeremiah 4:23-28.

The Gap theory tells us there was a former world on this earth full of life but it perished in a flood(not Noah's flood)Genesis 1:2 and all life that existed in it perished until God created this world and everything after Genesis 1:3 was God creating this world about 6-10,000 years ago. The geological evidence of an old earth with the fossils,coal and oil testify to a former world that existed but evolutionists hijacked this evidence away from the church after evolution became so popular and the Gap theory was forgot about by the church.

Why is regular OEC better than the Gap theory?I don't like stretching the 6 days of creation beyond 24 hour days and the Gap theory is old earth creationism too.

I think both Young earth creationists and Old earth creationists need to accept the Gap theory and stop ignoring it as evolution wouldn't stand a chance when we can remove a lot of their evidence off of the table using the old earth Gap theory to do it while pointing out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and so you cannot use the fossils,etc as evidence for evolution.Evolutionists cannot use the fossils as evidence for evolution because they prove a former world existed that perished NOT evolution.Also the Gap theory is biblically sound which is why it was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin came along.

J Vernon McGee taught and believed in the Gap theory eventhough I don't think he got into the science of it.You can find the Gap theory in the Scofield reference bible,Dake reference bible,etc.

Not sure why or how the gap theory faded from the norms of Dispensational theology of the western tradition other than fundamentalism crept in during the Scopes Trial and with it came an extremist biblical literalism that became to popular christian fad of the 1920's.

So there are three basic theories on creation:

Gap theory

Young Earth Creationism

Old Earth Creationism

None of these denies that God created from out of nothing and in that they all agree. it is what comes after that is when the sparks fly!
-
-
-

[abelcainsbrother]

Not sure why or how the gap theory faded from the norms of Dispensational theology of the western tradition other than fundamentalism crept in during the Scopes Trial and with it came an extremist biblical literalism that became the popular christian fad of the 1920's.

So there are three basic theories on creation:

Gap theory

Young Earth Creationism

Old Earth Creationism

None of these denies that God created from out of nothing and in that they all agree. it is what comes after that is when the sparks fly regarding God's timing!

Yeah but the problem is there have been web-sights,blogs,etc dedicated to the Gap theory who have tried to get the word out about it and yet they have been ignored especially by Young earth creationists.They have tried to get the word out only to be shot down and rejected by their Christian brethren eventhough the Gap theory would do much more damage to evolution science than they do.And yes the sparks do fly.

[B. W.]

Not sure why or how the gap theory faded from the norms of Dispensational theology of the western tradition other than fundamentalism crept in during the Scopes Trial and with it came an extremist biblical literalism that became the popular christian fad of the 1920's.

So there are three basic theories on creation:

Gap theory (GT)

Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

Old Earth Creationism (OEC)

None of these denies that God created from out of nothing and in that they all agree. it is what comes after that is when the sparks fly regarding God's timing!

Yeah but the problem is there have been web-sights,blogs,etc dedicated to the Gap theory who have tried to get the word out about it and yet they have been ignored especially by Young earth creationists.They have tried to get the word out only to be shot down and rejected by their Christian brethren eventhough the Gap theory would do much more damage to evolution science than they do.And yes the sparks do fly.

I would agree with you and simply do not understand the hostility some YEC pose to the Gap or OEC as the reason for such hostility seems illogical to me.
-
-
-

[Silvertusk]

How come the old earth Gap theory has been forgot about by the church? It was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin wrote his book "On the origin of species".William Buckland the first geology professor at Oxford taught the old earth biblical Gap theory.The old earth Gap theory needs to be revived by the church as it would give evolution serious competition problems if it was taught as fervently as say young earth creationism is today.For those that don't know the Gap theory teaches there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 based on 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and Jeremiah 4:23-28.

The Gap theory tells us there was a former world on this earth full of life but it perished in a flood(not Noah's flood)Genesis 1:2 and all life that existed in it perished until God created this world and everything after Genesis 1:3 was God creating this world about 6-10,000 years ago. The geological evidence of an old earth with the fossils,coal and oil testify to a former world that existed but evolutionists hijacked this evidence away from the church after evolution became so popular and the Gap theory was forgot about by the church.

Why is regular OEC better than the Gap theory?I don't like stretching the 6 days of creation beyond 24 hour days and the Gap theory is old earth creationism too.

I think both Young earth creationists and Old earth creationists need to accept the Gap theory and stop ignoring it as evolution wouldn't stand a chance when we can remove a lot of their evidence off of the table using the old earth Gap theory to do it while pointing out there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and so you cannot use the fossils,etc as evidence for evolution.Evolutionists cannot use the fossils as evidence for evolution because they prove a former world existed that perished NOT evolution.Also the Gap theory is biblically sound which is why it was the bread and butter teaching of the church before Charles Darwin came along.

J Vernon McGee taught and believed in the Gap theory eventhough I don't think he got into the science of it.You can find the Gap theory in the Scofield reference bible,Dake reference bible,etc.

Hi Abel.

William Lane Craig has done a whole series on this and includes the Gap Theory. - See

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s9

He concludes that you cannot get the Gap theory out of the text and are in fact reading science into it - which is Concordism.

[abelcainsbrother]

Silvertusk,

Thanks for the link and I have read what William Lane Craig has said about the Gap theory but here is why I disagree with him. He only focuses on Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 and presumes that Gap theory came about from reading these verses which is not true.You see there are other scriptures that point to it that lets us know there was a Gap like reading 2nd Peter 3:3-7.

2nd Peter 3:3-7 "Knowing this first,that there shall come in the last days scoffers,walking after their own lusts,And saying,Where is the promise of his coming?for since the fathers died all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

OK lets lets stop here and realize that evolution teaches that all things have continued and they also teach that since the fathers died all things continue this is so that life can evolve- primates.

Let's read on "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:Whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water perished."

Ok lets stop here You see Peter is saying NO you are ignorant of the former world and the Gap between it and this world,he is saying it has not always continued now young earth creationists place Noah's flood here but let me tell you why we say it cannot be talking about Noah's flood. OK first off the text makes it clear that this flood effected the whole heavens that were of old and the earth that was also old too,not just the earth,while Noah's flood only effected the earth and the earth's atmosphere.Think of the whole universe filled with water and the earth kinda floating in it like a bobber in the water and reread the text "and the earth was standing out of the water and in the water". Now if this is reffering to Noah's flood then the Gap theory is dead however if it is describing a different flood like I think it is then the only other flood we can find is Genesis 1:2 as there is no other flood that we can point to,so this is where we say there was a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 it is because of scripture that points us there to Genesis 1:2.

OK let's read on "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."

You see it reveals a Gap between the former world and this world.Also eventhough only 8 people survived Noah's flood this world did not perish as God spared this world and kept it going so that Jesus would be born like he said would happen.This idea that this world perished in Noah's flood just does not hold up because this is still the world started off by Adam and Eve regardless of Noah's flood. But the former world did perish and this is why we find the evidence for it in the layers of strata.

[RickD]

You're reading way too much into that text.

[PaulSacramento]

I think WLC is correct.
You are reading science into wording that is NOT scientific.
I think you are trying to interpret things based on what you WANT them to mean to fit with the Gap theory.

[abelcainsbrother]

You're reading way too much into that text.

That is not my intention I'm just trying to amplify how it points to a Gap and why I think it is.I have read this text many times and over time new things stuck out to me and so I'm just blending it all in at once of things that stuck out to me.Perhaps I need to word it alittle different than I did.I'm trying to draw out of the text how I read it and how the Holy Spirit reveals it to me.

[abelcainsbrother]

I think WLC is correct.
You are reading science into wording that is NOT scientific.
I think you are trying to interpret things based on what you WANT them to mean to fit with the Gap theory.

What is not scientific about it? I have a lot of respect for WLC but based on reading the link I don't think he adequately refuted it and have explained why.

[PaulSacramento]

I think WLC is correct.
You are reading science into wording that is NOT scientific.
I think you are trying to interpret things based on what you WANT them to mean to fit with the Gap theory.

What is not scientific about it? I have a lot of respect for WLC but based on reading the link I don't think he adequately refuted it and have explained why.

Do you think Peter was making a scientific statement in those verses?

[abelcainsbrother]

I have yet to hear any Christian brother in Christ adequately refute the Gap theory and I have searched trying to find and I've listened young earth creationists and why they deny it and they are not sound biblical reasons.Ken Ham says that we cannot have death before Adam and Eve and this seems to be his biggest reason for denying it but it is quite easy to realize that what happened in the former world has no bearing on this world,it in no way effects salvation in this world and we agree death came when Adam and Eve sinned in this world and a new heaven and new earth will be created again in the future too.The only difference is a former world existed that perished and so the earth is old and they reject it.

The bible only gives us glimpses of it anyway but it is there nonetheless because God wants us looking forward.WLC is the first non young earth creationist I've heard on why he rejects it.I think if Christians are going to deny it then the Gap theory needs to be fully understood in order to refute it with scripture and yet every refutation I've heard so far refutes it from a perspective of not understanding it.

Like in this instance with William Lane Craig if the Gap theory had been realized by reading Genesis 1:2 then he would have a point but it wasn't and so it is kinda moot but it seems like he comes close to accepting it but just rejects it based on thinking that we can see it just reading Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It is like with evolution in order to refute it you've got to understand it and the evidence that supports it in order to refute it.

I'm not a know it all and I don't want to come off like that as I know I can be wrong but I don't see how I am right now.

Thanks for the replies also.I don't mind being challenged about the Gap theory and I'd change my mind if it was adequately refuted.

I read on another thread where somebody posted a link about how Hebrew conflicts with trying to translate Genesis 1:2 as "became without form and void" instead of "was without form and void" but we don't really need to translate it to "became" to see the Gap so again it is moot although I do think a book written about it years ago made a very strong case for why we could translate it to "became" instead of "was". But it doesn't hurt the Gap theory if we keep it was "was" at all.

I don't like the idea of messing with translations anyway as I feel it is God's word already adequately translated to where we can understand it although we can dig into how it was translated too if we want to.It is just not good to mess with God's word.

[abelcainsbrother]

I think WLC is correct.
You are reading science into wording that is NOT scientific.
I think you are trying to interpret things based on what you WANT them to mean to fit with the Gap theory.

What is not scientific about it? I have a lot of respect for WLC but based on reading the link I don't think he adequately refuted it and have explained why.

Do you think Peter was making a scientific statement in those verses?

I think he was revealing a Gap between the former world and this world and now that science has made discoveries I think science can now be applied to it.

[PaulSacramento]

I think WLC is correct.
You are reading science into wording that is NOT scientific.
I think you are trying to interpret things based on what you WANT them to mean to fit with the Gap theory.

What is not scientific about it? I have a lot of respect for WLC but based on reading the link I don't think he adequately refuted it and have explained why.

Do you think Peter was making a scientific statement in those verses?

I think he was revealing a Gap between the former world and this world and now that science has made discoveries I think science can now be applied to it.

I think you are reading the gap theory into this.

As for refuting the theory:
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.a ... article=57

An exert:

The Gap Theory—A Refutation

I would like to suggest the following reasons why the Gap Theory should be rejected.

1. The Gap Theory is false because of the mental gymnastics necessary to force its strained argumentation to agree with the actual biblical text.

Bernard Ramm, a progressive creationist, has admitted as much:

It gives one of the grandest passages in the Bible a most peculiar interpretation. From the earliest Bible interpretation this passage has been interpreted by Jews, Catholics, and Protestants as the original creation of the universe. In six majestic days the universe and all of life is brought into being. But according to Rimmer’s view the great first chapter of Genesis, save for the first verse, is not about original creation at all, but about reconstruction. The primary origin of the universe is stated in but one verse. This is not the most telling blow against the theory but it certainly indicates that something has been lost to make the six days of creation anti-climactic. So entrenched has this theory become in hyper-orthodox circles that they feel as if the foundations are removed if this theory is criticized, whereas the majority of commentators feel that the entire theory has a peculiarity to it in that it makes the great creation chapter the second time round! (1954, p. 138, emp. in orig.).
2. The Gap Theory is false because it is based on an incorrect distinction between God’s creating (bara) and making (asah).

According to the standard rendition of the Gap Theory, the word bara must refer to “creating” (i.e., an “original” creation), while asah can refer only to “making” (i.e., not an original creation, but something either “made over” or made from preexisting materials). A survey of these two words in the Old Testament, however, clearly indicates that they are used interchangeably. Morris has observed:

The Hebrew words for “create” (bara) and for “make” (asah) are very often used quite interchangeably in Scripture, at least when God is the one referred to as creating or making. Therefore, the fact that bara is used only three times in Genesis 1 (vv. 1, 21, and 27) certainly does not imply that the other creative acts, in which “made” or some similar expression is used, were really only acts of restoration. For example, in Genesis 1:21, God “created” the fishes and birds; in 1:25, He “made” the animals and creeping things. In verse 26, God speaks of “making” man in His own image. The next verse states that God “created” man in His own image. No scientific or exegetical ground exists for distinction between the two processes, except perhaps a matter of grammatical emphasis... (1966, p. 32).
The insistence by Gap theorists, and those sympathetic with them, that the word bara always must mean “to create something from nothing,” simply is incorrect. In his commentary, The Pentateuch, Old Testament scholar C.F. Keil concluded that when bara appears in its basic form, as it does in Genesis 1,

...it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of the material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used for the creation of man (ver. 27, ch. v. 1,2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num. xvi.30) or of that of grace (Ex. xxxiv.10; Ps. li.10, etc.) (1980, 1:47, first emp. in orig.; last emp. added).
There are numerous examples where bara and asah are used interchangeably. In Psalm 148:1-5, the writer spoke of the “creation” (bara) of the angels. Yet when Nehemiah addressed the creation of angels (9:6), he employed the word asah to describe it. In Genesis 1:1, the text speaks of God “creating” (bara) the Earth. But when Nehemiah spoke of that same event (9:6), he employed the word asah. When Moses wrote of man’s “creation,” he used bara (Genesis 1:27). But one verse before that (1:26), he spoke of the “making” (asah) of man. Moses also employed the two words in the same verse when he said: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that Jehovah made [asah] earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4).

Gap theorists teach that the Earth was created (bara) from nothing in Genesis 1:1. However, Moses stated in Genesis 2:4 that the Earth was made (asah). Gap theorists are on record as advocating the view that asah can refer only to that which is made from something already in existence. Do they believe that when Moses spoke of the Earth being “made,” it was formed from something already in existence?

One verse with which proponents of the Gap Theory have never dealt adequately is Nehemiah 9:6.

Thou art Jehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made [asah] heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas, and all that is in them, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
The following quotation from Fields explains why this verse is so extremely critical in a refutation of the Gap Theory.

While the passages in Genesis cited by one of the lexicons...mention only the making of the firmament, sun, moon, stars, and animals, it must be carefully marked by the reader that in Nehemiah 9:6 the objects of God’s making (asa) include the heavens, the host of heavens, and the earth, and everything contained in and on it, and the seas and everything they contain, as well as the hosts of heaven (probably angels).
Now this is a very singular circumstance, for those who argue for the distinctive usage of asa throughout Scripture must, in order to maintain any semblance of consistency, never admit that the same creative acts can be referred to by both the verb bara and the verb asa. Thus, since Genesis 1:1 says that God created (bara) the heavens and the earth, and Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6 contend that he made (asa) them, there must be two distinct events in view here....
So that, while asa is quite happily applied to the firmament, sun, moon, stars, and the beasts, its further application to everything else contained in the universe, and, indeed, the universe itself (which the language in both Exodus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6 is intended to convey) creates a monstrosity of interpretation which should serve as a reminder to those who try to fit Hebrew words into English molds, that to strait-jacket these words is to destroy the possibility of coherent interpretation completely! (1976, pp. 61-62, emp. in orig.).
3. The Gap Theory is false because, in the context of Genesis 1:2, there is no justification for translating the verb “was” (hayetha) as “became.”

Gap theorists insist that the Earth became “waste and void” after Satan’s rebellion. Yet usage of the verb hayah argues against the translation, “The earth became waste and void” (Genesis 1:2). Ramm has noted:

The effort to make was mean became is just as abortive. The Hebrews did not have a word for became but the verb to be did service for to be and become. The form of the verb was in Genesis 1:2 is the Qal, perfect, third person singular, feminine. A Hebrew concordance will give all the occurrences of that form of the verb. A check in the concordance with reference to the usage of this form of the verb in Genesis reveals that in almost every case the meaning of the verb is simply was. Granted in a case or two was means became but if in the preponderance of instances the word is translated was, any effort to make one instance mean became, especially if that instance is highly debatable, is very insecure exegesis (1954, p. 139, emp. in orig.).
The verb hayetha of Genesis 1:2 is translated “was” in all the standard translations because that is its meaning. Surely it is significant that none of the Old Testament linguists felt compelled to translate hayetha to suggest that the Earth became waste and void, as gap theorists propose.

4. We reject the Gap Theory because tohu wabohudoes not mean only “something once in a state of repair, but now ruined.”

Gap theorists believe that God’s “initial” creation was perfect, but became “waste and void” as a result of Satan’s rebellion. Whitcomb has responded:

“Without form and void” translate the Hebrew expression tohu wabohu, which literally means “empty and formless.” In other words, the Earth was not chaotic, not under a curse of judgment. It was simply empty of living things and without the features that it later possessed, such as oceans and continents, hills and valleys—features that would be essential for man’s well-being. In other words, it was not an appropriate home for man.... [W]hen God created the Earth, this was only the first state of a series of stages leading to its completion (1973, 2:69-70).
5. The Gap Theory is erroneous because there is no evidence for the claim that Satan’s rebellion was on the Earth, or responsible for any great “cataclysm.”

The idea of a cataclysm that destroyed the initial perfect Earth is not supported by an appeal to Scripture, as Morris has explained.

There is, in fact, not a word in Scripture to connect Satan with the earth prior to his rebellion. On the other hand, when he sinned, he was expelled from heaven to the earth.... There is, therefore, no scriptural reason to connect Satan’s fall in heaven with a cataclysm on earth.... That Satan was not on earth, at least not as a wicked rebel against God, prior to Adam’s creation, is quite definite from Genesis 1:31. “And God saw everything that He had made, and...it was very good.” ...Therefore, Satan’s sin must have occurred after man’s creation (1974, pp. 233-234, emp. in orig.).
6. We reject the Gap Theory because its proof-text (Isaiah 45:18) is premised on a removal of the verse from its proper context.

Isaiah 45:18 reads:

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 [the phrase “in vain” is tohu, the same as “without form” in Genesis 1:2—BT], He formed it to be inhabited.
Gap theorists suggest since Isaiah stated that God did not create the Earth tohu, and since the Earth of Genesis 1:2 was tohu, therefore the latter could not have been the Earth as it was created in Genesis 1:1. The implication is that the Earth became tohu as a result of the cataclysm precipitated by Satan’s rebellion.

The immediate context, however, has to do with Israel and God’s promises to His people. Isaiah reminded his listeners that just as God had a purpose in creating the Earth, so He had a purpose for Israel. Isaiah spoke of God’s immense power and special purpose in creation, noting that God created the Earth “to be inhabited”—something accomplished when the Lord created people in His image. In Isaiah 45, the prophet’s message is that God, through His power, likewise will accomplish His purpose for His chosen people, Israel. Morris has remarked:

There is no conflict between Isaiah 45:18 and the statement of an initial formless aspect to the created earth in Genesis 1:2. The former can properly be understood as follows: “God created it not (to be forever) without form; He formed it to be inhabited.” As described in Genesis 1, He proceeded to bring beauty and structure to the formless elements and then inhabitants to the waiting lands. It should be remembered that Isaiah 45:18 was written many hundreds of years after Genesis 1:2 and that its context deals with Israel, not a pre-Adamic cataclysm (1974, p. 241).
7. The Gap Theory is false because it implies death of humankind on the Earth prior to Adam.

Pember believed that the fossils (which he felt the Gap Theory explained) revealed death, disease, and ferocity—all tokens of sin. He suggested:

Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident token of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world, and have a sin-stained history of their own (1876, p. 35, emp. added).
The idea that the death of humankind occurred prior to Adam’s sin contradicts New Testament teaching which indicates that the death of humankind entered this world as a result of Adam’s sin (1 Corinthians 15:21; Romans 8:20-22; Romans 5:12). Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Adam was “the first man.” Yet long before Adam—if the Gap Theory is correct—there existed a pre-Adamic race of men with (to quote Pember) “a sin-stained history of their own.” The Gap Theory and Paul cannot both be correct

.

[abelcainsbrother]

OK Read this and compare

http://separationtruth.com/resources/GAP-SECTION+4.pdf