The Gap Theory Examined

Sidelined, as you must surely know there is no verse in the bible with these "scientific facts". By examining the gap theory we can correlate these facts with the word of God. Since God inspired men to write the bible, we should try to understand what was written in light of present knowledge especially in the case of Genesis since it conveniently interpreted by many as a metaphor.This message has been edited by Jor-el, 12-July-2005 07:31 PM

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

First of all, can we get something straight here?Is it your impression that the gap theory is accepted by many theologians today? Because my impression is that it is not. I've been doing some poking around yesterday and today and it seems that the gap theory is even less accepted than I thought.You've been giving a lot of attitude, suggesting that I am the one who is "out there". I suggest that you either show us that the gap theory is accepted by a lot of theologians, or lose the attitude.------------- But in actual usage, the word hayah is used much more often in the sense of "was", not "became". Stated any way you like, you're twisting the Bible to make it say what you want it to say. If it doesn't actually say it, it is not an acceptable interpretation. I do not ignore scientific evidence. None of that supports a gap theory.I am assuming that you place the gap before Genesis 1:2 (Correct me if I am wrong). If the supervolcano and Ice Age happened in your gap, that would be before the creation of the sun. Pretty silly. The YEC calculations are garbage. We know that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Both the YEC scenario and the gap scenario contradict scientific evidence. Both also contradict the Bible. Neither the YEC scenario nor the gap theory is logical. Therefore, neither is acceptable. If I were you, I'd be very careful about willy-nilly "supplanting" old Bible interpretations with new. Scientific theories change every day. Are you going to change your Bible interpretation every day to match whichever way the scientific wind is blowing?And if you're so enamoured of "new ideas", why do you cling to a gap theory that was rejected by most theologians a century ago? Wrong. I was open to that interpretation but I rejected it, based on the evidence. Why can't you understand that? The Bible was inspired by God. It was not written in God's own handwriting.Genesis is not a science textbook. On many scientific matters, it is flat-out wrong. There are lots and lots of threads here at EvC on that subject. Read some of them.There is no need to reconcile Genesis with the scientific evidence. From a scientific viewpoint, the evidence takes precedence over the Bible. From a Biblical viewpoint, it is wrong to make up a gap to try to cover up the obvious scientific errors. (By the way, there are lots of scientific errors throughout the Bible. Do you insert "gaps" to cover all of them too?) Uh... no.Look:

quote:

---

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make (asah) man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

"Make" and "create" are used in two adjacent verses to refer to the exact same thing. So much for different meanings.(By the way, notice the different words "image" and "likeness". Ancient Hebrew had very few words, so the writers tended to make things interesting by mixing things up as much as possible. Different words don't always represent profound differences of meaning.)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Jor-el You are saying that the facts of science and the word of God are mutually related while st the same time saying there are no such "facts" in the bible.I am confused?Earlier in this topic you stated and I quote This means then that the Earth was created in the beginning.Then a vast amount of time passed {millions or billions} yet this is in conflict with the big bang since the Earth was not formed "in the beginning".
Also intriguing is the statement about the sirit of god moving upon the face of the waters on a planet earth which at the same time was without form and void.How do you accomplish this? Who is the person who started this enduring little saying "God inspired men to write the bible"? Exactly how does one make this statement about a text in which anybody who has seen god dies and cannot have therefore given evidence of such an event.Any person who makes this statement cannot do so from eyewitness vantage.You can claim that it is written by men inspired by god only on faith and not on weight of evidence.So far we have a failure to come even vaguely close to BB theory.You previously stated How is this to be derived from the bible?Also this Are you saying that the validity of the bible is apparent in the lack of contradiction with science? Yet there are contradictions as I have pointed out and there are further ones within the book of genesis as well as other biblical verses that show a distinct lack of understanding of the actual workings of the universe.That a book does not contradict something does not mean you can therefore use this as an arguement for a position.

Finis Jennings Dake
Arthur C Custance
Francis Schaeffer
Cyrus Scofield
G. H. Pember
William Buckland
Jimmy Swaggart
Watchman Nee
Harry Rimmer
L. Allen Higley
Fred John Meldau
Herbert W. Armstrong.
A. G. Tilney
L. Merson Davies
M. R. DeHaan
Charles C. Ryrie
S. G. Posey
John O. Scott
J. Vernon McGee
Duane Thurman
William F. Dankenbring
Benny Hinn
Kenneth Hagin
Don Wardell
Ronald Wlodyga
Reginald Daly
Merrill Unger
John ClaytonSee: The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for detailed comments on the proponents of the Gap theory.P.S. - Notice what the article says on the popularity of this theory nowadays. ______________________________________________________________________Authors:Paul Isaac Hershon - "Midrash, Talmud, Zohar, rabbincal commentary on genesis"
Louis Ginsberg - "The legend of the jews"
J Oliver Buswell - "The length of the creative days "
Arthur C Custance - "Without form and void"
Clarence Larkin - "Dispensational Truth"______________________________________________________________________Science and Philosophers:Jacob Bohme
Friedrich Schlegel
Julius Hamberger
Heinrich von Schubert
Karl von Raumer
Andreas WagnerTheologians:Kurtz, Baumgarten,
Dreschler,
Delitzsch and others among Protestants.Cardinal Wiseman
Leopold Schmid
M. Mayrhofer
Westermayer among the Roman Catholics.Now I'm not listing only present day theologians but past ones as well. This really means that you didn't read any of the posts that I wrote prior to your involvment in this discussion, right?Please refer to:Message 48Also, that's the 2nd or 3rd time you've called me silly directly or indirectly, a little more respect for my person would be nice. I've been disagreeing with you not insulting you!As for the rest of your post you already know where I stand, why rehash what has been explained to exhaustion. Read my posts! You either agree or disagree it's up to you.For someone who apparently has a history in the evangelical church and thus a grounding on how to do biblical interpretation on your own, you should open your mind to the possibility that further study on your part should be done.Also, you have yet to explain exactly what it is you believe, in relation to Genesis.I'm not here just for the sake of arguing till the end of time.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

sidelined, Please refer to message 48 for the relevent post.As for your comment on the big bang theory, it is commonly accepted that the process from the beginning of the universe to the present took between 10 billion to 20 billion years. I didn't state that the earth was immediately created from Genesis 1:1 but that all matter in the universe was created and process continued from there. What is the difficulty in understanding that?As for the Spirit of God moving over the face of the waters, it could mean anything you want it to mean since it isn't explained and I certainly don't know more about that than you do.As for the without form and void aspect, my previous posts again explain this to exhaustion.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Jor-el,If you want to be taken seriously around here, don't cite Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn as "theologians". Did you just copy every name from that NCSE article? Besides Swaggart and Hinn, you cite several lesser-known jackasses, and a goodly number of your list have the smell of death about them.Let me repeat:

quote:

---

Is it your impression that the gap theory is accepted by many theologians today?

---

Would you care to weed out the looney and the dead and actually answer the question?(And while you're at it, no "theologians" who got their degree from Bubba's Backyard Theological Seminary.)My position is that the gap theory is a dead theory, held today only by fringe elements. Your list only supports my position.Another debating tip: instead of repeating "read my posts!" and "I already answered that!", do us a favour and answer again. Maybe you weren't plain enough before.You'll get more debating points by addressing points that are raised than by reference to your previous posts.Case in point: you haven't addressed my Message 92 at all. I have shown, quite simply, that your mistranslation gymnastics don't work. The gap is not there.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Jor-el I did not say you stated this. The bible states that the earth was formed in the beginning{Genesis 1:1}. You cannot,therefore,argue that that the big bang and genesis are compatible since this is in clear disregard of the facts.The Earth came into existence billions of years after the universe from it was made.The gap itself is not suportable by reference to the bible for this very reason.This message has been edited by sidelined, Thu, 2005-07-14 11:15 AM

Since everybody likes repetition around here, I copy and paste. It looks like a simple little phrase but when we study it carefully we see some intersesting things come up."In the beginning". This isn't the correct translation of the original text. This is because english and most other modern languages don't have an adequate term to state the meaning clearly. As I stated before the idea is more clearly expressed as "In a former state". The idea being that there was really no beginning or a starting point. I'll add an extra bit for you since maybe I wasn't clear:Exodus 12:2 This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Here "beginning" is a whole month. (Ro'sh is the root word that "reshiyth" is derived from)Job 42:12 Now the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; for he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand female donkeys. Here "reshiyth" or "beginning" encompasses Job's lifetime up to his trial, including marriage, seven sons and three daughters and vast possessions.John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made, that was made. "In the beginning" is also used by the apostle John to display the eternal existence of Christ and in context describes the span of His existence up to the time that He "became flesh and dwelt among us." Christ, as God, existed eternally, and before "day one." (John 1:1-14 & 1 John 1:1-3) The apostle John is, most likely, expounding on the OT scripture of Proverbs 8:12-36.Proverbs 8:22-23 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of His way. Before His works of old. I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there ever was an earth...:30 Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; And I was daily His delight. Reshiyth and Ro'sh are used consecutively here for the "everlasting" period of time "before there ever was an earth."Since "the beginning" as stated can be period of any number of years, that statement alone covers Everything from the moment of true creation of the Universe (BB theory) until the moment of the recreation inwhich the earth, the sun and the rest of the physical universe already existed.This period of time can thus be understood to be "the beginning".1+1=2 If you don't believe me in relation to the meaning of the original text, check it out for yourself.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Ringo316,Stating that these two men are or aren't theologians depends entirely on who you are speaking to. For that very reason you mentioned them immediately. Thats why I put them there in the list. I'ts not my job to cater to your likes or dislikes and whether you accept or don't accept the names I gave you, no matter who I put on that list (as long as it is factual) you would, I think, never accept it anyway.How do I know this, you might ask? Simple, there isn't a single statement of mine that you have accepted until now in any of your posts, even when I have backed it up.You refuse to accept the "Gap theory", full stop. Your questions are repetitive and from what I've seen you don't even bother reading the links I post. So I ask why I should bother continuing this discussion with you. There is such a thing as a limit. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not backing out, ask a wortwhile question and you'll get an answer from me.As for the need of repeating time and again, ideas and statments that are available on the thread if one cares to study them just because you don't understand, is no excuse. Not that you don't understand, I'm sure you do, and there lies the problem.You refuse this idea, there is no opening at all, only confrontation and that is something that I have no use for, especially on this board.
Feel free to bad mouth me, it's the only way you can prove a point, since in terms of scripture & science, you refuse to accept anything that isn't already accepted in your preconcieved mind.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Get real, Jor-el.Citing two hucksters as "theologians" reflects on your preconceived notions, not mine. You might as well cite Charles Manson as an expert on knives and expect to be taken seriously.I have asked you serious questions which you have not answered.Other readers may very well take your refusal to answer as an admission that you have no answers.I invite you to discuss the topic. Message 92 awaits your reply.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Let'e see, I posted 45 names on the list, a good number of them are well known, others died a long time ago, 4 or 5 died in the 80's which makes them contemporary theologians, many have assorted doctorates in theology, geology and biology, 2 or 3 have study bibles and other assorted books and documents to their names and you're complaining about 2 of them.I gather that anyone who might later see these posts, will wonder why the other 43 (credited and some even famous) students of theology were suddenly forgotten by you. You swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker my friend.Tell me, were you methodical enough to at least go check out their names on a search engine?I have to ask (did you see the implication) what a pro-evolution site who has no feelings about one theory of creation or another anyway, and is therefore at least somewhat qualified to make assertions as to what is popular or not in the church community, says about the Gap theory? (Even though I pasted part of their conclusion in my post.)I suppose you missed that part since you were concentrating on Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn.Or is it that you need a really big name like a Popes' before you consider the possibility that I might just have some wheight in my (and their) argument?Just so you don't "accuse me" of being preconcieved, I give the possibility that the phrase can be translated either way, it's just more logical if it doesn't contradict what we know of science. You on the other hand cannot do the same unless you want to take back much of what you have said in your posts.Even though to many, they are considered (how'd you put it?) hucksters, can you deny that they have a large following, or in the case of Jimmy, had a large following? Does that somehow detract from the fact that many, many people learned from their teachings?Somehow that doesn't seem to give the impression of a "fringe group" as you so boldly suggest.Am I saying that it is the majority view? NO!
Am I saying that this theory is popular and widely taught in many churches of many denominations? YES!

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Thank you. That's what I was asking. You could have saved us all the drama-queenery. I asked you for a reference. Why should I do your homework for you? Give proper references when asked. Hitler had a large following too. I don't accept him as a "theologian" either. Jim Jones had a large following too. I don't accept him as a "theologian" either. Brad Pitt has a large following. I don't accept him as a "theologian" either.I can name a lot of other non-theologians if you're not getting the point. It isn't that people learned from them, but what they learned from them that counts. By their fruit ye shall know them. An evil tree bears evil fruit. Yes. The fact that you cite Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn among your authorites most definitely does give the impression of a "fringe group" - the lunatic fringe.(You'd do your credibility a lot more good by admitting that you made a mistake in citing Swaggart and Hinn as "theologians". ) So, maybe you can finally answer the question. Filter out the corpses and the whackos for us and give us the names of the theologians who accept the gap theory today.While you're at it, give us a list of all the Bible translations that translate Genesis 1 the way you want to see it.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Ringo, No insult intended but are you really that obtuse or are you just trying to irritate me?I dare you to search any and all posts of mine in this or any other thread and find a statement inwhich I claim that this view is held as the majority view by christianity!You will infact find the opposite, this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are just clowning around. You didn't read any of my posts before you became involved and only skimmed through the rest trying to find objections to considering this idea. A question that is asked and answered time and again only means the recipient isn't even bothering to listen to the answers.If you had to ask this question, it's because you weren't paying attention or you are just spoiling for conflict. I reject your interventions on both counts. NO! You asked me for a list of theologians who backed this idea today.I not only gave you the list of people who backed this theory today but also for the last 100 years at least. It's not my problem if you don't accept these names.As a matter of fact you only had problems with 2 names, the others were immediately forgotten, a further indication that you only desire conflict and not communication.I've given you a few links in previous posts all of which contain references to these people.Here are 2 links to a Theologian that meets your requirements Who was Francis Schaeffer?Some of his statements______________________________________________________________________
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)Genesis 1
1In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
______________________________________________________________________
New King James Version (NKJV)Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.Footnotes:Genesis 1:2 Words in italic type have been added for clarity. They are not found in the original Hebrew or Aramaic.______________________________________________________________________
Amplified Bible (AMP)Genesis 1
1IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.(A)
2The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.Cross references:(A)Genesis 1:1 : Heb 11:3
______________________________________________________________________
New International Version (NIV)Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.Footnotes:[a]Genesis 1:2 Or possibly became
______________________________________________________________________
New American Standard Bible (NASB)Genesis 1
The Creation
1(A)In the beginning (B)God (C)created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was (a)(D)formless and void, and (E)darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (F)the Spirit of God (G)was (b)moving over the surface of the waters.Footnotes:(a)Genesis 1:2 Or a waste and emptiness
(b)Genesis 1:2 Or hovering
______________________________________________________________________All pasages taken from: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.It is interesting that the translations vary in wording and and meaning, it clearly shows that there is no real consensus in the translation of these verses.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

You claim that your view is the most "logical" translation of Genesis 1, do you not? If you are admitting that it is a minority view, aren't you suggesting that the majority of Christians take an illogical view? And you cite the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn as exemplars of logic? Forgive me if English is not your first language, but you do know what the word "today" means, don't you? It doesn't include dead people. Francis Schaeffer is dead. Are you really not getting this? How can you claim that he meets my requirement of alive? The problem is that you never specified which are alive today and which are not. Therefore, you never answered the question. If I ask you for a list of Portuguese who like sushi and you quote the entire Lisbon phone book, that is not an answer to the question. No. I only mentioned the two most obvious flakes, the two who would be familiar to most of our members, the two who have been mentioned in recent topics at EvC. There are other "unreliables" on your list that I didn't mention. The question is: can you tell a reliable source from an unreliable one?So, in case you finally care to answer the question, I'll repeat it: How many theologians, who are alive today, accept the gap theory?-------------Thank you for the quotations. It is also interesting that not one of your own examples mentions a gap, and only one (the New Improved Version ) even admits the possiblity that "became" is a valid translation. Do you have any quotes that actually support the gap theory?-------------But let's not forget that this is a science forum. You really need to learn how to determine what evidence is and how to present evidence.So, how about answering a science question?How can you claim that the gap theory "reconciles" the Bible with science, when the order of events in Genesis 1 is completely wrong?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The majority of christians, which are lay people and really don't study the bible at all or even read it in many cases have never heard of the various theories involving the creation account.From the Intelligent Design Theory of Creation; Theistic Evolutionists, Ruin-Reconstructionists (Gap Theorists), Day-Age Theory and Young Earthers, none of these theories are known about in the general population of christianity.So just because a view is in the minority (not fringe) doesn't invalidate it. As you well know, there is at the moment a trend for accepting the Young earth theory, these trends come and go. Or is it that you only accept a mainstream thought as long as it mainstream?As for my statement that the gap theory is the most logical of all, here is another link that says the same. The Major Creation Models Logical Faults and StrengthsAs for the two names (yet again) you keep on mentioning, it really doesn't matter if any one on this board accepts these people or not. The fact is that many do so, for that reason their names are on this list. Here is another who is quite alive. Dr. Max D. YounceBy the way, "today" in the context you applied originally in your post, can also mean "contemporary" which is people who might have died a few years ago but still influence current events. Why is it that the person must actually be alive to satisfy your need? Actually, it's the NIV (New International Version), which is also one of the most distributed bibles in the world. But you forget that the KJV (King James Version) is the most quoted in relation to the Gap Theory. But this proves nothing unless your stating that the copy / translation is worth more than the original Hebrew / Aramaic texts. Would you care to elaborate since your question is too vague.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.