GAP Theory

[Calminian]

I agree but the issue is when someone is completely misrepresenting what someone is saying and refuses to hear that they are saying the same thing and accusing someone of being dangerous, that is a problem.

annsni, please tell me where I'm misrepresenting Mr. Cassidy. He said explicitly 4.5 billion years cannot be ruled out by the text.

Could it be 6,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 100,000 years? Yes.The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 1,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 10,000,000,000 years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.
Could it be 4.5 billion years? Yes. The bible doesn't say.

But judging from other indications I would be very surprised to find creation is older than 10,000 to 100,000 years.

I'm saying it can and it is ruled out by the text. It's a valid disagreement we have. Please tell me my crime in pointing this out.

 

[annsni]

annsni, please tell me where I'm misrepresenting Mr. Cassidy. He said explicitly 4.5 billion years cannot be ruled out by the text.



I'm saying it can and it is ruled out by the text. It's a valid disagreement we have. Please tell me my crime in pointing this out.

Yet he then said "But judging from other indications I would be very surprised to find creation is older than 10,000 to 100,000 years."

Why do you ignore that? If you say that the Bible tells us the age of the earth, please post the verse. But you can't because it doesn't tell us. That is just what Mr. Cassidy is saying.

 

[Salty]

Much on this post has been said about genealogy - actually this thread has NOTHING about genealogy!
The question is how old was the Earth just prior to Day one of Creation week - ie time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

 

[Calminian]

Yet he then said "But judging from other indications I would be very surprised to find creation is older than 10,000 to 100,000 years."

Why do you ignore that? If you say that the Bible tells us the age of the earth, please post the verse. But you can't because it doesn't tell us. That is just what Mr. Cassidy is saying.

I not only did not ignore it I acknowledge it and explained why it was irrelevant to my point and my challenge. In fact I even included that statement in the quote I responded to. What is it with you guys? Can't you just acknowledge I have a valid disagreement with TC?

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

Time slows down in gravity wells. ← proven fact.
We witness / experience the rest of the universe through what is (to us) sped up time in outer space.
What may be 6,000 years here could be several billion years way out to the extremes of space.

Possibility.

Time is a trickier thing than most realize.

 

[Reformed]

In another thread about Andrew Wommack the Young Earth subject came up.

Does the Bible scripturally allow for the possibility of the Gap theory - specifically between Gen 1:1 and 1:2

Hmmmm

Does the Bible allow for the possibility? I'll give you my Obi-Wan Kenobi answer, "...you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Now, I happen to believe there is only one true answer to your question. The day-age, or Gap theory, is just one view of creation. There are quite a few faithful Christians who believe in this theory. They believe it mostly because of their exegesis of the first three chapters of Genesis. They see nuance in the Hebrew word for day (yom), and whether it means a literal 24 hour day in creation. I happen to believe God did create the the physical world in six, literal 24 hour days. So, is the Gap theory biblical? It is in the sense that is a theory based on biblical exegesis. But, while it is biblical in that its proponents defend it from the bible, I believe it is an incorrect view, and therefore it is unbiblical.

yet?

 

[Calminian]

Does the Bible allow for the possibility? I'll give you my Obi-Wan Kenobi answer, "...you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Now, I happen to believe there is only one true answer to your question. The day-age, or Gap theory, is just one view of creation. There are quite a few faithful Christians who believe in this theory. They believe it mostly because of their exegesis of the first three chapters of Genesis. They see nuance in the Hebrew word for day (yom), and whether it means a literal 24 hour day in creation. I happen to believe God did create the the physical world in six, literal 24 hour days. So, is the Gap theory biblical? It is in the sense that is a theory based on biblical exegesis. But, while it is biblical in that its proponents defend it from the bible, I believe it is an incorrect view, and therefore it is unbiblical.

yet?

Yes, but when you dig deep, they see the nuances because they trust science before Scripture. Virtually all of these "experts" cite science as their primary motivation for seeking out nuances in the first place. Their statements on this are well documented. You can see quotes from all the big names in the link below.

Why Don’t Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis?

They give lip service to exegesis, but when it comes down to it they cite science. At the core of all old earth theories is a lack of faith in God's Word.

That said, I don't think that's where JohnDBaptiste was going. He's merely saying that while everything happened about 6000 years ago, time can elapse differently in different places because of time dilation (through velocity or high gravity). Therefore it's possible that time has elapsed in different parts of the cosmos much more rapidly than it did here in our solar system. It's a valid theory.

 

[TCassidy]

It is in the sense that is a theory based on biblical exegesis.

I disagree. A knowledgeable exegesis of Genesis 1:1-3 recognizes that the waw-disjunctive which starts verse 2 makes a gap in time between verse one and verse two grammatically impossible. The waw-disjunctive is a waw affixed to a non-verb, in this case the noun eretz translated "earth."

 

[Reformed]

I disagree. A knowledgeable exegesis of Genesis 1:1-3 recognizes that the waw-disjunctive which starts verse 2 makes a gap in time between verse one and verse two grammatically impossible. The waw-disjunctive is a waw affixed to a non-verb, in this case the noun eretz translated "earth."

Perhaps I wasn't clear that I reject the conclusions of the GAP theory exegesis? The only reason I said it was based on exegesis is because I have heard the argument of some theologians who advocate for the GAP theory, and they do so based on their exegesis of scripture, not based on faulty science like the people at Biologos.

 

[TCassidy]

Perhaps I wasn't clear that I reject the conclusions of the GAP theory exegesis?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was not disagreeing with your conclusion. I was disagreeing with your statement:

They believe it mostly because of their exegesis of the first three chapters of Genesis.

I don't see how they can do a competent exegesis and miss the waw-disjunctive.

I was also disagreeing with your followup statement.

They see nuance in the Hebrew word for day (yom), and whether it means a literal 24 hour day in creation.

I don't see how a Gap theorist uses the meaning of "yom" to insert geologic ages except in the non-gap "day age" theory.

Most gap theorists accept the literal 24 hour day understanding. They find the gap wherein they insert the geologic ages prior to verse 3 which is the introductory circumstantial clause that sets the conditions recounted in the following verses.

 

[Calminian]

Perhaps I wasn't clear that I reject the conclusions of the GAP theory exegesis? The only reason I said it was based on exegesis is because I have heard the argument of some theologians who advocate for the GAP theory, and they do so based on their exegesis of scripture, not based on faulty science like the people at Biologos.

The guys are Biologos are a lost cause, but the others claim and probably believe they are doing exegesis. But the motivation is always modern scientific theory. It's at the heart of anyone not willing to take a stand on a young earth. They think they are helping but are only undermining Biblical authority.

I'm with Ken Ham on this one. Before we see revival in our country, we need to see reformation in our Churches.

 

[Reformed]

Before we see revival in our country, we need to see reformation in our Churches.

Amen to that.

 

[Calminian]

Amen to that.

Check out Terry Mortensen's article if you get a chance.
Why Don’t Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis?

 

[Reformed]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was not disagreeing with your conclusion. I was disagreeing with your statement:
I don't see how they can do a competent exegesis and miss the waw-disjunctive.

I was also disagreeing with your followup statement.
I don't see how a Gap theorist uses the meaning of "yom" to insert geologic ages except in the non-gap "day age" theory.

Most gap theorists accept the literal 24 hour day understanding. They find the gap wherein they insert the geologic ages prior to verse 3 which is the introductory circumstantial clause that sets the conditions recounted in the following verses.

I think we're talking past each other (or it feels that way). I have some good Presbyterian pastors I am friends with that absolutely believe their position on the GAP theory is biblical. They go to great lengths to defend it. I disagree (and vehemently so) with their exegesis and conclusions, but I view them differently than the those "theologians" that use a quasi scientific theology to make their claim. It takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to make the GAP theory, and theistic evolution, fit into their schema.

 

[ICHTHUS]

And how, exactly, did you come to that conclusion?

Because it is NOT taught in the Holy Bible, and therefore MUST be rejected as heretical, as this "theory" opens the door to other heresies like Evolution.

 

[ICHTHUS]

I really do not understand why such a discussion even takes place? I mean, there is NOT even a hint anywhere in the entire Holy Bible, that suggests that God RECREATED. What we always read is that God CREATED all things out of nothing, "creatio ex nihilo", which is found in Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible"; and Romans 4:17, "God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did". Discussions like this are very damaging to a complete faith in the Infallible, Inerrant and Perfect Word of God. IMHO

 

[TCassidy]

Because it is NOT taught in the Holy Bible,

And how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[ICHTHUS]

And how did you come to that conclusion?

Well, you show me where in the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation is this nonsense taught? Apart from some who twist what Genesis 1:1-2 says from the Hebrew, there is nothing that they have. I might not know Hebrew, but do Greek, and know for a fact that there is no option here for any "gap". The Greek uses "en", which is in the imperfect tense, which does not mean "became". It LXX was the work of about 70 of the best Hebrew scholars of the day, and rightly render the Hebrew.

 

[TCassidy]

I mean, there is NOT even a hint anywhere in the entire Holy Bible, that suggests that God RECREATED.

There are some indications in the English translations that God commanded Adam and Eve to scatter, and multiply, and replenish the earth. The word "replenish" according to some Gap Theorists suggests that the earth had been full, had been destroyed, and needed to be "replenished."

That theory is based on a failure to understand both Hebrew and English.

Hebrew: ומלאו = A primitive root verb meaning to fill.

English: replenish = Late middle English meaning to "supply abundantly" I.E. "to fill."

 

[Yeshua1]

Check out Terry Mortensen's article if you get a chance.
Why Don’t Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis?

ALL who reject a literal understanding of origins/Genesis are trying to accomodate "scientific facts" of evolution!