Gap Theory in Creation

The “Gap Theory” was proposed at a time when the acclaim for Darwin’s theory of evolution was gaining ever-increasing momentum, It was an era of rapidly growing scientific knowledge.

It became evident [to many] orthodox theologians that the geological record was unable to support the commonly accepted young age of the earth. The “Gap Theory” allowed all the time geologists needed.

The gap theory gained its widest audience when it was included as an acceptable alternative creation theory by fundamentalist C.I. Scofield (1909) in his popular New Scofield Reference Bible. Chiefly because of Scofield’s inclusion of the theory in his reference Bible many have come to believe that the Gap Theory is as orthodox as the 4004 B.C. date of Usher. IMO, the impetuous claim by some that fundamental beliefs cannot include old-earth creationism is fundamentally wrong!

As for the validity of the Gap Theory, it has little respect among biblical scholars. It has even less respect among scientists. The Gap Theory does not answer the problems seen in the geologic record. Evidence of a grand worldwide ruination is not present.

*********
A Hebrew scholar, John Sailhamer proposes a theory he calls, “Historical Creationism”, in his book, Genesis Unbound (Multnomah Books, 1996). It is a new generation of Gap theory.

Historical creationism separates the first verse (Genesis 1:1), where “God created the heavens and the earth” and the rest of the creation account in Genesis 1:2-2:4a. The phrase “in the beginning”, is a term of unspecified time, there is no textual reason why ‘the beginning’ could not have lasted billions of years.

The Genesis “week” presented in verses 1:2 – 2:4 is where God prepares “the land”, the Garden of Eden, for man’s habitation.

Sailhamers examination of Genesis is refreshing and eye opening. It offers a new look at the biblical record and a reformation of the ruined gap theory.

This theory successfully separates the age of the earth question from many biblical theology issues.

It is worth the read just to get you thinking.

Rob

 

Rob,

Just a quick correction. The New Scofield Reference Bible isn't the 1909 edition. The New Scofield was edited buy a bunch of people 46 years after Scofield died. They altered his notes and the text of the King James Bible as well.

 

Jim,

If God created a fully grown man and women wouldn't they still be "infants"? If God made man on day 6 wouldn't he be one day old on day 7 even though he was created fully grown? Similarly if God created a tree fully mature wouldn't it be one day old the next day? Just asking.

ChurchBoy

 

Well, the consensus of modern astronomers is that the big bang, the origin of our universe, occurred somewhere around 14 to 15 billion years ago. This is backing away from earlier estimates as great as 20 billion. The estimate of the earth's age has been holding more steadily, at 4.5 billion years, for several decades now.

The revision of the age of the universe is partly due to more accurate scaling of the distance to the nearest stars by sattelite observation and also Hubble Telescope observations. (Other modern telescopes are also involved, I suspect).

 

"impetuous"? How is continuing agreement with 6,000 years of teaching impetuopus?

There is also no textual reason why "the beginning" should have lasted longer than a split second.

 

Not making fun of your post, it is just that those two words just struck me very funny.

unsightly - I sure wish God had done a better job of creation, so it would have looked pretty.

unfurnished - Maybe a couch, couple of end tables, and a bed would have made it juuuuust perfect.

OK, a more serious reply to your post. God created EVERYTHING in six days so the angels were created during this time. Lucifer sinned sometime after this and before Adam fell, which could have been anywhere from 0 years to 130 years but I would guess much closer to 0.

 

Harvest corrected me:

Yeah, I caught that error after the time to edit expired; please edit out the word “New”. While not as forceful, the “new” notes also express his views regarding the Gap theory.

Artimaeus posted,

I chose my word carefully. Impetuous means marked by impulsive vehemence, passion, force or violence of movement or action. I don’t disagree that there is reason that some believe in young-earth creationism, only that other views can be just as “fundamental”. The exclusionary attitude exhibited by some over this issue seems extreme.

You also wrote, “God created EVERYTHING in six days” This is not so. What was the Spirit moving upon (vs 2) before God said, “Let there be light”? The heavens and earth had already been created.

I wrote: ...there is no textual reason why ‘the beginning’ could not have lasted billions of years. And you responded:

I agree, that’s why the issue of the (old) age of the earth should not be an issue for Christians. The Hebrew word, “reshit”, is used much like we do in English. ”The beginning” of a race could be the first step or it could be the first mile of two. The word beginning is indefinite about the length of time. We can “guess” all we like, but any dogmatic statements of truth probably need to be left at the door until we meet the Maker and find out “the rest of the story”.

Rob

 

How is a belief in a young earth impulsive. It isn't like this is something new that I have jumped on without thinking. It is a widely held, looooooong time belief taken directly from scripture. It would be impulsive to leave a 6000 year old belief and jump on the bandwagon of a belief that has no basis in scripture. Young and Old are mutually exclusive and if one is fundemental then the other one isn't. I can't help that, it is just the nature of words. As a believer in a young earth, I do not EXCLUDE others, it is that I do not INCLUDE that which is mutually exclusive.
I will respond more later, I have to go to work now.

 

Now don’t get all hot and bothered. It’s a side issue in this thread anyway. I just find it interesting that one of the founders of fundamentalist thought would be excluded if he were present today.

Rob

 

Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom.5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

No one believing in the gap theory has successfully answered the objection brought up on the first page--that of sin. If there was a primordial world that was destroyed, and then a gap, and then a second creation; there was obvious death in this first destruction. This death is never spoken of in any part of the Bible, only denied. The Bible clearly says that sin came into the world by one man--Adam. It also says that death was a result of Adam's sin; the implication of which there was no death before Adam had sinned. Thus the destruction of this so-called world would have been impossible, not to mention the fact that such a monumental event is not even mentioned anywhere else in Scripture.
DHK

 

No, no, no, getting all hot and bothered was about having to go to work. I am enjoying the thread and typing just as calmly as I can. I am back from work now but it is time for sleep

 

The death that Adam brought into the world was the death of men, not the death of animals. Its a perfectly acceptable use of the phrase "the world" to refer to mankind; for example, Luke points out Caesar decreed that all the world should be taxed.

 

Why do you assume that? That is not what my Bible says.

Gen.1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Everything God created:
1. He created in 6 days,
2. He created perfectly--it was very good, not filled with disease, death, etc.
3. One cannot limit this to man.
4. If this was a prior world why are you limiting it to mankind? This imaginary world is purely that--fictious, without a shred of Biblical or scientific evidence whatsoever. One can put into this world whatever their imagination wishes to.

from Morris. "The Genesis Record"
DHK

 

from Morris. "The Genesis Record"
DHK [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It is man's interpretation that animal death is not good. Do you want the microbes to never die, thereby turning all earth into living microbes? Do you want the flies to never die, thereby turning all earth into living flies? Aren't these two phenomenon incompatible? Do you want plants to continue living, even though eaten?

The pain of non-persons is not suffering in the same sense that pain for a person is suffering.

 

No, you have a wrong concept of God's creation before man's sin. Before Adam sinned were there carnivores? Did man kill and eat meat? Were there thorns? Were there flesh eating diseases caused by harmful bacteria? Were there mosquitos that sucked the blood out of man? Were there leeches that leeched the blood of man? Did polar bears stalk man (the only animal known to mankind that naturally will do so)? Did the flies serve their purpose eventually producing the maggots that sped up the decay of dead carcasses? What kind of creation do you envision when God said it was "very good?"
It was a perfect creation.
If Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life instead of the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, what would have happened. Perhaps they would have lived forever in a perfect paradise with no death. But they didn't. They sinned. What will happen in the world in the Millennial Kingdom, after Christ returns and sets up his Kingdom on earth? How much death will there be then? In a perfect world is it necessary for microbes to live in water? In a perfect world, such as God created, the functions of many of the animals and plants change. For example, will the lion lie down with the sheep? In the future he won't eat it for he will no longer be carnivorous. God will cause change to happen in many animals and plants. Change happened as a result of the curse. Someday that curse will be lifted.
DHK