Gap Theory

Well I believe it's the other side that doesn't have any verses to back their view up since it's called the "gap theory." However, here would be my thoughts:

We have no parts of Scripture that explain how Satan "fell," but only intimations from statements that speak of hell being prepared for him and his angels and a passage in Revelation that speaks of such a thing in colorful language (the dragon falling and a third of the stars falling from heaven). Do not let anyone tell you that Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 speak of Satan's fall because there's just no justifiable reason to believe that given the context of those respective passages--Babylon and Tyre really did exist in Isaiah's and Ezekiel's days and really had kings over them, and those aren't the only two passages that use colorful language to speak of the fate of human rulers in their books.

Second, God proclaims that everything he made was good after he filled it.

Third, the earth being unformed and unfilled in v. 2 is not a negative statement describing the effects of some battle, but simpy a description of its state before God put stuff on it. The two terms are neutral, they're not inherently negative words.

Fourth, it would be hard to explain this, but the Hebrew begins vs. 2 with a waw disjunctive (the conjunction in front of a noun instead of a verb) making it difficult to claim that v. 2 follows v. 1 in a significantly consecutive way. Rather v. 1 is a preview of what follows, and v. 2 introduces the longer version of v. 1--which is why a good translation begins v. 2 with "now."

A good commentary on Genesis would help you here (I like Casuto, but there are some other good ones) since none of them would support the gap theory. I believe the editors of the 2nd edition of the Scofield Bible even got rid of that old bit of fanciful nonsense.

 

Cailiosa,

It might help if you start out by knowing the arguments for the other side so that you might study them and come up with a rebuttal for it. Otherwise, you are likely to be blindsided by something that you weren't aware of (I hope that makes sense).

Anyway, once you learn Hebrew, you might want to take a look at the definitions for the words הָיְתָה תהוּ (hayathah tho-hu), which can be translated several different ways. The most common translation that you already know is "And it was empty". Another translation could also be "and it became empty". This is used as an argument for the gap theorists that this is the gap. I don't really know the other arguments. As for me, I am satisfied that the context of the passage goes against this translation, but I leave this information to you to sort out for yourself.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I was taught by my Hebrew Prof (who had a PhD from a Jewish School of biblical language) that it is probable that v.1 is the name/heading of the writing and the actual narrative text begins in v.2.

Anyway, you have been given some very good advice already so, pull up your sleeves and work hard.

peace to youraise:

 

Hello Cailliosa, you're going to have a lot more problems at PBI than just the gap theory. They also have double inspiration, and worst of all (IMO) they teach salvation by works in the OT and in the future dispensations. Not to mention their EXTREMELY uncharitable attitude towards anyone that disagrees with them.

 

What is double inspiration?

Joseph Botwinick

 

They believe that the KJV translation was inspired in the same sense that the originals were inspired. They say if the KJV disagrees with the greek, then disregard the greek. They even believe that the chapter/verse divisions are inspired. I'm KJV only but not like that.

 

This is also what I was taught. Where did you go to Seminary?:wavey:

Joseph Botwinick

 

I certainly will pray for you and I urge you to continue posting on this forum to get a variety of views. Believe me, I've been where you are, and I don't mean Alaska. I used to live in Pensacola and ran in that camp for a while. It can be poisenous.

 

Marcia, I a bit mystified. Am I reading it right that you're going to PBI mainly because it's KJV Only? And you're willing to ignore all the other strange stuff taught there that you're pretty sure you won't agree with, just because PBI is KJVO? Just wondering

 

Wow...so much contention against a Biblical teaching. The problem with the "gap theory" is that theistic evolutionists have taken a Scriptural doctrine and tried to add their mistakes into it to make it fit. Therefore everyone discounts it because some people have abused the correct teaching.

The funny thing is there are several Biblical teachings that people have abused, but we don't abandoned them.

The Bible says if the foundation be destroyed what shall the people of God do?

Evolution is false, but a gap of time (however long it might be - we're not actually told) is Biblically accurate and to view otherwise hampers correct understanding of Scripture down the way.

 

The Gap Theory is certainly Biblically possible based on the text of the second verse. I don't think this is a doctrinal certainty as you seem to think. I also don't, however, think it is a major doctrine that really makes that big a difference in the grand scheme of things. If you would like to believe the gap theory, then God Bless You. I think this is something that isn't cut and dried and is something where Christians can agree to disagree about and still have fellowship.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I ABSOLUTELY agree with that statement.

But I also agree that there is one central Truth as given by the Holy Spirit and it is our duty to find out what that Truth is. If it was nonessential to believe then we wouldn't have been given the information. God gave it to us for a purpose.

If you build on top of an incorrect foundation then your completed project is going to have mistakes in it.

I think it is essential to our understanding the rest of Scripture, but I certainly wouldn't break fellowship with someone that disagreed.

 

Ok. How is the Gap Theory essential to our understanding the rest of Scripture?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I wanted to start out by saying that I'm surprised that PBI teaches that, based on the people I know who go there and the impression that I've been given that they don't care what the Scriptures say unless it's in the KJV.

That being said, I don't so much think of it as a "gap" as a series of sequential events.

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 how 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 water 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 am the LORD ; and there is 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! how 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, I think 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.

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.