The Gap Theory - Understanding Genesis

[Kurieuo]

Since we have a thorough-bred Gap theorist who loves turning threads always towards that end, I'd like to undertake perhaps the silly task of helping (no names mentioned) get it out of his system. So then, ACB, let's start with Genesis 1:1:

• "In the beginning God created ('bara') the heavens and the earth ('ha'shamayim v'eth ha'erets')."

Now, some theologians make a fuss about 'bara' and 'asah' -- each used in Genesis 1 and translated as "created" and "made". I've seen the ACB person I won't name make a fuss about both. Well, Day-Agers make a fuss too. And since I'm still fond of Day-Age I see merit to doing so also.

What's the difference? Well, when 'asah' is used, it is said to denote an already completed action. For example, "Then God made ('asah') two great lights" in Gen 1:16 -- God isn't actively created two great lights in this verse but rather this is referring to an act of an already completed creation (which Day-Agers place in Gen 1:3-5).

BUT, when 'bara' is used, then it is said that God is actively creating.
That's all I think you really need to know about these two terms. Got it? Good.

So in Gen 1:1 'bara' is used, so many believe in Genesis 1:1 that God actively created (this isn't a recollection of some previous creation event). I don't believe Gappists would disagree, right ACB who I won't name? Although some YECs might, but we don't care about them much here so moving on. (sorry Jac! )

We have in ha'shamayim v'eth ha'erets what is considered by most as NOT representing an "individual heavens" AND the "planet earth" -- but rather an Hebraic expression of everything in the entire world/cosmos (all matter, energy and the like). So this may or may not actually include our planet Earth. Note I inserted the 'v', which is the Hebrew letter vav, in front of eth (the) -- this behaves like a connector. Gen 1:1 ISV simply has "In the beginning God created the universe." That's probably one of the most accurate translations, even if it's not thoroughly accurate in a literal word-for-word sense.

So then, all the "stuff" in the universe that is and ever will be comes into existence at Genesis 1:1, right? Genesis 1:1 doesn't tell us how far along or how far developed the cosmos actually is. Also, in the lexicon, you'll miss the "ha" which is a definite article i.e., the word "the". So the literal translation is "the'heavens-and-the'earth". Does it matter? I don't know. Most translations get it right. The thing to understand, and YEC sites like AiG agree, that "the heavens and the earth" is representative of absolutely everything.

A possible distinction between Day-Age and some YEC interpretations however, is that some YECs say that verse 1 is like an introduction summary that God created absolutely everything. Then we proceed into verse 2 which provides more details of the creation. Day-Agers say, "no way!"—Genesis 1:1 is part of God's active creation and not a summary statement. God is actively ('bara') creating the heavens and the earth (i.e, this is the "big bang"). Then we move to Genesis 1:2 which is further along in time. Understand? Great!

As for Gappist, no idea really. All I know is that Gappists say there's a "gap" between verse 1 and 2. That a lot of things happened in Genesis 1:1 that is unstated and by the time we reach Genesis 1:2 God is re-creating everything from the destruction fallen angels made in the world. There's a lot of story reading with what is missing and frankly, this is on par with me almost like believing the Book of Mormon should be considered canon. As far as I see matters, Gappists need to perform eisegesis of the worst kind (reading into Genesis entire narrative it is silent on).

I'm sure the ACB person who I won't name disagrees and sees lots of evidence. So now I'll shut up, and give the floor to him to let him explain how he sees Genesis 1:1 (take it slowly ACB, don't rush past to Genesis 2 or something else, stay focused). Seriously, I'd really like to know exactly where you part ways with YEC/Day-Age interpretations.

[RickD]

Wait...ACB is a Gap theorist? I never would've known.

[Audie]

Wait...ACB is a Gap theorist? I never would've known.

"Thinks he is".
He would be if there were a gap theory.

[Kurieuo]

ACB, when he was younger:



Am I right? I think I am!

[RickD]

ACB now:

[RickD]

Wait...ACB is a Gap theorist? I never would've known.

"Thinks he is".
He would be if there were a gap theory.

Kinda like atheists would be atheists, if atheism were true?

[Audie]

Wait...ACB is a Gap theorist? I never would've known.

"Thinks he is".
He would be if there were a gap theory.

Kinda like atheists would be atheists, if atheism were true?

Not remotely comparable. There is such a thing as atheism, there is no gap theory.

No more than there is a loch ness monster. Talking about it doesnt make it exist.

"Gap" may be a theory in some biblical sense. He presents it as science. As such, there is no theory.

Do you have something to contribute here other than an inane quip?

[abelcainsbrother]

Since we have a thorough-bred Gap theorist who loves turning threads always towards that end, I'd like to undertake perhaps the silly task of helping (no names mentioned) get it out of his system. So then, ACB, let's start with Genesis 1:1:

• "In the beginning God created ('bara') the heavens and the earth ('ha'shamayim v'eth ha'erets')."

Now, some theologians make a fuss about 'bara' and 'asah' -- each used in Genesis 1 and translated as "created" and "made". I've seen the ACB person I won't name make a fuss about both. Well, Day-Agers make a fuss too. And since I'm still fond of Day-Age I see merit to doing so also.

What's the difference? Well, when 'asah' is used, it is said to denote an already completed action. For example, "Then God made ('asah') two great lights" in Gen 1:16 -- God isn't actively created two great lights in this verse but rather this is referring to an act of an already completed creation (which Day-Agers place in Gen 1:3-5).

BUT, when 'bara' is used, then it is said that God is actively creating.
That's all I think you really need to know about these two terms. Got it? Good.

So in Gen 1:1 'bara' is used, so many believe in Genesis 1:1 that God actively created (this isn't a recollection of some previous creation event). I don't believe Gappists would disagree, right ACB who I won't name? Although some YECs might, but we don't care about them much here so moving on. (sorry Jac! )

We have in ha'shamayim v'eth ha'erets what is considered by most as NOT representing an "individual heavens" AND the "planet earth" -- but rather an Hebraic expression of everything in the entire world/cosmos (all matter, energy and the like). So this may or may not actually include our planet Earth. Note I inserted the 'v', which is the Hebrew letter vav, in front of eth (the) -- this behaves like a connector. Gen 1:1 ISV simply has "In the beginning God created the universe." That's probably one of the most accurate translations, even if it's not thoroughly accurate in a literal word-for-word sense.

So then, all the "stuff" in the universe that is and ever will be comes into existence at Genesis 1:1, right? Genesis 1:1 doesn't tell us how far along or how far developed the cosmos actually is. Also, in the lexicon, you'll miss the "ha" which is a definite article i.e., the word "the". So the literal translation is "the'heavens-and-the'earth". Does it matter? I don't know. Most translations get it right. The thing to understand, and YEC sites like AiG agree, that "the heavens and the earth" is representative of absolutely everything.

A possible distinction between Day-Age and some YEC interpretations however, is that some YECs say that verse 1 is like an introduction summary that God created absolutely everything. Then we proceed into verse 2 which provides more details of the creation. Day-Agers say, "no way!"—Genesis 1:1 is part of God's active creation and not a summary statement. God is actively ('bara') creating the heavens and the earth (i.e, this is the "big bang"). Then we move to Genesis 1:2 which is further along in time. Understand? Great!

As for Gappist, no idea really. All I know is that Gappists say there's a "gap" between verse 1 and 2. That a lot of things happened in Genesis 1:1 that is unstated and by the time we reach Genesis 1:2 God is re-creating everything from the destruction fallen angels made in the world. There's a lot of story reading with what is missing and frankly, this is on par with me almost like believing the Book of Mormon should be considered canon. As far as I see matters, Gappists need to perform eisegesis of the worst kind (reading into Genesis entire narrative it is silent on).

I'm sure the ACB person who I won't name disagrees and sees lots of evidence. So now I'll shut up, and give the floor to him to let him explain how he sees Genesis 1:1 (take it slowly ACB, don't rush past to Genesis 2 or something else, stay focused). Seriously, I'd really like to know exactly where you part ways with YEC/Day-Age interpretations.

OK as far as the words bara and asah or created and made in english.I've actually simplified what they mean from researching the Hebrew. Anytime you see bara or created anywhere in the OT it is always something new God created but when you see asah or made anywhere in the OT it is something that had already been created before,it is not new,it has already been done before by God.

So that when you read Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It means they are new creations that had never been created before. As far as Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form,and void;and darkness was upon the face of the deep.and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Most Gap Theorist claim that it can say the earth became without form,and void. And they base this alot of times on Genesis 19:28"But his wife looked back from behind him,and she became a pillar of salt." These are the same hebrew words (hayah) both in Genesis 1:2 and here in Genesis 19:28 showing that it is translated became,but there are more examples in the OT kinda like with the hebrew word (yom) where there are examples it can mean longer than 24 hour days.However it is not necessary to change it to became and some Gap theorists don't.

Yes we believe there was a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The former world had to do with Genesis 1:1 but it later became without form and void and the first day did not start until verse 3 and it was God restoring the earth and heavens after verse 3 in order to create the life for this world.

Where we differ from YEC's is they don't know the difference between the words create and made and we do so they do not interpret Genesis 1 properly,where we agree though is it was 6-10,000 years ago when God made this world we now live in.He did not create it in the 6 days like they think though.

But also YEC's make Genesis 1:1-3 all apart of the first day,we disagree with this.The first day started in verse 3 and is why it ends with "and the evening and the morning were the first day".

We agree they were 24 hour days too because of these phrases "and the evening and the morning were the ..." after each day that clearly is saying it was a 24 hour day.

There is no need to stretch the days out to be longer in order to have an old earth because the bible already teaches an old earth. However I personally am more open to the idea they can be longer than 24 hour days but I'm not totally sold on it and it does'nt effect me as a Gap Theorist.

I think this is enough for now.I've been planning on making a new Gap Theory thread and expanding on it since my last thread on it because I've learned more since then about it,but I just have'nt had the time yet. But I would like to expound on it now that I have more biblical knowledge about it and to make a stronger biblical case for it.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:

Do you have something to contribute here other than an inane quip?

My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

[Audie]

Audie wrote:

Do you have something to contribute here other than an inane quip?

My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:

Do you have something to contribute here other than an inane quip?

My inane quip was just an appropriate response to your quip, which was a response to my other inane quip.

Googling "inane".....

I was just stating the facts. If you prefer a heavy pedantic style, I can do that too.

There is no gap theory.

Of course there is.

Theory:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There's more than one meaning of theory.

And as ridiculous as you think the Gap theory is, it's infinitely less ridiculous than atheism.

[abelcainsbrother]

Where Day Agers and Progressive creationists focus more on the Big Bang theory in science and have come up with a very interesting way to blend it into Genesis 1 and I must say,it is very believable to me espeacially when I've heard Hugh Ross teach on it. However scientific theories are falsifiable and there are scientific theories that have been replaced before by better newer theories and if the Big Bang is ever falsified? It ruins Day Age Creationism. Where we Gap Theorists focus on Geology of the earth more for evidence which is much more sound science that cannot be falsified,or is alot less likely to be changed.
I have alot of respect for Hugh Ross especially from a scientific standpoint and I've often said you can listen to say Lawrence Krauss and Hugh Ross amd get pretty much the same science taught to you,but one from a God perspective and the other a no-God perspective. I just think Hugh Ross picked the wrong creation interpretation and has invested so much time and effort into it,that he won't change.

[RickD]

ACB wrote:
...and if the Big Bang is ever falsified? It ruins Day Age Creationism.

I can't wait to hear the explanation on this...

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:
...and if the Big Bang is ever falsified? It ruins Day Age Creationism.

I can't wait to hear the explanation on this...

It seems pretty sound for now and it does'nt seem like its going to be changed anytime soon,but...

[RickD]

ACB wrote:
...and if the Big Bang is ever falsified? It ruins Day Age Creationism.

I can't wait to hear the explanation on this...

It seems pretty sound for now and it does'nt seem like its going to be changed anytime soon,but...

That's no explanation. If the Big Bang is ever falsified, why would that ruin Day Age Creationism?