GAP: Theory or Fact

How about comparing Scripture with Scripture and demonstrate where Gen.1:1 and 1:2 speak to the gap and the rebellion?

 

I'm sure that there will be those that will answer your question, but I simply don't have the time to devout at this point, because it would simply take too long.

I have been studying these matters for two years now. This is hardly the venue to discuss some of these more weightier (is that a word - hey is that the language cop I saw - look out :laugh matters.

If you would like some study material I would be more than happy to point you in that direction.

 

1. From your first post, I thought you were ready to roll with some answers.

2. Let's debate it here. Two years of study should help you to express things in a concise manner.

 

This one's easy and doesn't take many hours of prep work. We'll see if the Hebrew font shows up on the board or not.



Genesis 1:1 is generally accepted to be the beginning of everything; the ultimate beginning. It does not state how God created the universe, only that “in the beginning, God” (God is eternal) and that He created. There are many who believe that it is only the beginning in reference to man, but the text does not support that. It doesn’t exactly deny it, but the wording most likely represents the ultimate beginning.

The Hebrew word אָרָ. does not necessarily mean that it was created out of nothing, but most likely, that is the intent. It is not, however, limited to mean absolute creation.

ְו is a very important thing to look at. The “waw” can be either conjunctive or disjunctive, depending upon the conditional clauses involved and their relationship to verse 1. What are the three conditional clauses?

1.The earth was without form and void
2.and darkness was upon the face of the deep
3.and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Are these three clauses connected inseparably to verse 1? If yes, and verse 1 is the absolute beginning, then verse 2 would have to describe [FONT=&quot]how [/FONT]God created them (without form and void). This would mean that the beginning of verse 2 would describe the condition of the earth at the time of the action in verse 1. Then, the six subsequent days would describe how God completed the creation, step by step.

So, if ְו is conjunctive, then either God created something imperfect or verse 1 does not describe an absolute beginning. God cannot be perfect and create something imperfect. James 3:11 asks the rhetorical question “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet [FONT=&quot]water [/FONT]and bitter?”

Therefore, verse 2 should begin with “but”, not “and”. As a matter of fact, if you look in the Septuagint, you will find that the Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew to Greek used the word “but”, just as it is used in Matthew 3:7. When used in the disjunctive sense, Genesis 1:2 is not inseparably connected to verse 1: A separation would exist. Verse 1 would be the absolute beginning and verse 2 begins events occurring later. Creation is perfect; six days to restore. (It should be noted here that verse 1 could be a summary declaration of creation followed by a revelation of “how”, but this would not properly follow Hebrew linguistics.)

The expression .הֹבָו .הֹת is translated here as “without form and void”, but elsewhere is used to describe a state as being the result of catastrophe. .הֹ., by itself (translated “without form”) means “in vain”. Isaiah 45:18 says specifically, “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, he formed it to be inhabited: I [FONT=&quot]am [/FONT]the LORD ; and [FONT=&quot]there is [/FONT]none else.” He specifically says that He did not create it in such a state.

If we look at the first circumstantial clause in verse 2, the word translated “was” is most appropriately “became”. Not exactly “became”, but more appropriately “it was not this way, then it was”. Even the days “became” (vv 5,8,13,19,23,31) and at the end of the verses, it is, “and it became so”.

If you look at Job 38:4, His angels were present at the creation. The earth was created after the angels, but before the rebellion of Satan. Isaiah 14:12 says, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [FONT=&quot]how [/FONT]art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Satan was not created evil; he became evil.

Satan wants a world that is religious; it’s conducive to his power now and that of the anti-Christ later. That’s why you see so many false religions: Astrology, palmistry, numerology, etc. Satan does not want to banish religion, he wants to draw people away from Christianity.

Religion is man reaching for God; Christianity is God reaching man.

Scriptures will only support one position:

1.The absolute beginning is in Genesis 1:1
2.The ruin of creation is described in Genesis 1:2a
3.Restoration is performed through Divine intervention over 6 days in Genesis 1:2b-25
4.Rest

To be scripturally sound, absolute creation could not have taken place in six days; only the recreation or restoration could have. The Bible does not tell us how long the creation of the universe took, but the creation of the world as we know it took place in six literal days.

Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry at its finest, comprising several layers, which can best be expressed in a chiastic structure, based upon the Hebrew:

1.1:1 He (God) Created
2.1:1 God
3.1:1 Heavens and Earth
X.1:2 - 31 Forming and Filling of the Earth
3’. 2:1 Heavens and Earth
2’. 2:2 God
1’. 2:3 He (God) had made

To boil it down, the seven days of creation can be broken down as follows.

1.First, in Genesis 1:1, it speaks of the creation of everything.
2.Then, in 1:3 – 1:13 has to do with forming. Days 1 – 3 use verbs of formation.
3.1:14 – 1:31 has to do with filling. Days 4 – 6 use verbs of filling.
4.Then, it is announced that he finished them.

[FONT=&quot]To summarize, I think the creation account in Genesis 1 is accurate and true. However, different interpretations by man that don’t line up with Scripture have muddied the water.[/FONT]

 

The gap theory is nothing but that... a theory. It is not factual. It cannot be taken as factual in line of the Scriptures.

 

You have stacked your argument in such a way that it leaves no room for another view. BTW, good read.

 

That's the way it is with Scripture. You have the right view and then you have all the rest.

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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. (Genesis 1:1-2)

Where does it say 'And after many thousands of years the earth was without form and void'?

I don't see it. It is not there. And we should not add to the Word of God that which is not there.

 

Nobody here has said that the gap consists of "many" thousand years. I know there are some that think that, but again just because some people abuse a sound doctrine, doesn't make the Truth untrue.

So you would have us believe that a Perfect God created something that was imperfect to start with? I simply fail to see how anyone could or would even want to believe that.

 

Just as there is no mention of thousands of years between verses 1 and 2, there is no mention of any time period between the two.

It is foolish to assume a gap was there.

 

So you would have us believe that a Perfect God created something that was imperfect to start with?

And there is no explicit mention of the "Trinity" either, but because of the text and the language used we know that the Godhead is a Trinity. Not everything is explicity spelled out in Scripture.

 

So you would have us believe that our Advocate, Jesus Christ, who stands in our defense and pleads our cause would prosecute us and cast us away for 1,000 years? I simply fail to see how anyone could or would even want to believe that.

 

This is not a difficult question SFIC. And your dodging tactics are shedding some real light as usual. Just answer the question. How does a Perfect God create imperfection?

 

The Bible says He created it. How? I don't know. Ask Him.

As to the dodging, you are the master at that game.

 

I didn't ask you "how" He created. I asked you how can a Perfect God create imperfection?

By the way the Bible also says He "didn't" create it that way. So you have two issues to deal with in "your" view. One you have a Perfect God creating imperfection and two He explicity says He didn't do it.

Those are some MAJOR problems if you ask me.

By the way I'm unaware of any question that you have asked me that I have dodged. But I'm sure that's just more of your accusations that have no foundation to them. :thumbs: