GAP Theory

The gap theory is just another heresy

 

Similar to what TC said, there could have been 14billion years between the verses. But it doesn't matter. Nothing was formed or 'evolved' during that time.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

It wasn't too long ago that scientists began to recognize that the age of the earth (and universe) was greater than was accountable by a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.

The Gap Theory was an early attempt to reconcile the vast ages with the biblical account. It did a poor job with both the scientific evidence and with biblical account.
The "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 isn't recognized by Hebrew scholars.
The "Gap Theory" was made popular in the Schofield Bible notes and still is popular today in some circles.

I was reminded about the Gap Theory a few years back when reading John Sailhamer's book, Genesis Unbound. He proposed a theory he calls, Historical Creationism, which divorces the time element from the biblical reading, providing a much smoother way to incorporate
the long time proposed by science.
Just one Theory among many.

Rob

 

Oh you mean the one's who are antiGod

 

Myriads of books have been written about this topic; with some points I agree with you, with others I don't.
It's important to recognize that much of this is conjecture or as you say, "exegesis".

Well, no Rev,
Many of the scientists of the early 19th century were solid Christians. They recognized that it was very difficult to reconcile geological and biological theory with a young earth.
They wrestled with the text and developed a number of ways to understanding it.

Rob

 

Any science, involving the earth's age, divorced from proper theology is anti-God. We cannot interpret scripture through the lens of man made science. We must do the exact opposite.

 

No, no possibility of a gap. The ancient reader would have never come to that conclusion. It's an effort to separate the creation of the universe with the creation of the earth or recreation of the earth. The problem is sandwich creation statements immediately before the six days (Gen. 1:1) and immediately after (Gen. 2:1).




The term, creation of the heavens and earth is a sort of merism which sums up the creation of everything. By placing this merism at both ends of the 6 days, the author left no room for a gap. The 6 days is the account of the creation of the universe and the creation of the universe is the account of the 6 days.

You have a similar summary statement in Exodus 20:11.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them...​

Again, absolutely NO distinction between the creation of the Universe and the 6 days. They are the same thing. Moses (The author/compiler of the Genesis accounts) emphatically treats the 6 days as the creation of the entire universe.

The theory was an attempt to marry scripture with long ages and separate the long history with animal death with a more recent creation of humans. It doesn't work textually.

 

”

Indeed. I would challenge you, you are one of them. There are several errors below. I'll get them one by one.

Not so much a title as perhaps a topic sentence. But what you miss is this same statement used at the conclusion of the 6 days, effectively marrying to the 6 days to this statement.

Yes, which also effectively ties it to the prior verse. The waw consecutive is a good indication of narrative, and connects sentences sequentially (either logically or chronologically). In the beginning God created.. and the earth, at the time of creation was unformed and unfilled. It's inescapable. What the waw consecutive does is establish a connection between verse 1 and 2, not obliterate as you claim.

Oh my goodness no, just the opposite. The six days are a running description of the statement "In the beginning" that occurs before the six days and after the six days.

Now I understand the attractiveness of this. By separating the creation of humans with the creation of the universe, you now can accept millions of years. And if you just leave all life out of it until recently, you've solved the death before sin problem. But you, unfortunately, still have a textual problem. The six days are indicated as the creation of the universe by the author.

Not only this, you have a disagreement with Jesus. He said,

Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.’ ....”​

Jesus, just like Moses, also believed humans (Adam and Eve) were from the beginning of creation. He did not see them as latecomers after the universe was created millions/billions of years earlier. That alone destroys the gap theory.

 

Nope, jut was made popular by Scofield Bible, and was n attempt to bridge between Evolution long ages and what tey thought Bible taught!

 

Sailhamer's Historical Creationism suffers the same problems the gap theory does. In fact, it's much worse. See: A Closer Look at Historical Creationism. Sailhamer actually believes the 6 day account in Genesis is the creation of Eden, which he believes is the land of Israel. He theorizes about a conspiracy theory where hellenized jews corrupted the Bible we have today. It is off the deep end weird. The only thing keeping it afloat is Sailhamer's credentials. He couches his arguments in much scholarly rhetoric, but the logic of his argument is easily dismantled.

 

Indeed. Science, at the very minimum, is anti-supernatural. It must accept the absence of non-uniform causes in order to logically do the scientific method. This is not a problem the vast majority of the time, but in the case of origins, God specifically tells us of supernatural non-uniform causes (the six days).

 

None. I'm a Hebrew neophyte. And I did mistake those two bits of grammar. Indeed I'll defer to your knowledge on those subjects.

touche.


Now deal with the bulk of my argument. "In the beginning" is both a topic sentence (1:1) and a summary sentence (2:1) that sandwiches the six day account, making the six days effectively an account of the creation of not just of life, not just of Adam and Eve but of the entire universe—the heavens and the earth.

Also, explain Christ's very straightforward statement that Adam and Eve are not merely johnycomelatelies, but form the beginning of Creation.

Also explain Moses statement in Exodus 20:11. See if your vast Hebrew knowledge can rescue you from a simple logical argument.

 

BTW, from Dr. Barrack at TMU. Very interesting.

• Verse 2 begins with a waw-disjunctive (the conjunction waw + non-verb) indicating a disjunctive clause. Such a clause has two major functions: contrast and background information (cf. Putnam, Hebrew Bible Insert, §3.2.2). Since contrast does not appear to be the intent of the narrator (e.g., the earth is not purposely being contrasted with the heavens), the obvious choice is background information (normally parenthetical when inserted within a narrative in this fashion). Anaphora is employed here by beginning this sentence just as the last one ended (with ha’arets, “the earth”). That acts as a hinge to focus attention on the primary topic for the rest of the section through 2:3.
• It is best to treat verse 2, therefore, as a parenthesis providing background information regarding the earth, which is the major topic of the section.

So I do believe your waw-disjunctive argument is not an argument in and of itself. You have to show the author to be making a contract between the heavens and earth for your gap theory to take hold. I believe my arguments above make that quite difficult.