Gap Theory in Creation

I don't because I don't believe the context of the Biblical text support the theory. I think the point of Genesis 1 is to tell us that God created the universe and to tell about the creation. The is the verb in verse 2 "hayathah" which could be translated as was or became. This is certainly one point used to prove gap theory, but I don't think it is enough and I don't think that this is the point of the text.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

No reason for a gap. No Biblical reason, no scientific reason, only a minor hiccup in a complete understanding of scripture.

 

To my knowledge the only person who supported the gap therory was C.I. Scofield and a few others. No scientist has ever bought into it.

 

The Gap Theory destroys the foundation of the Gospel of Christ. If there was death before Adam's sin, then the Fall and the Curse are inconsequential. If Adam and Eve lived on top of millions of fossilized dead things then everything was not really "very good."

Romans 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

Any theory that has death in the world before Adam is plainly unscriptural.

 

Dr. Bob,

This is certainly one way to translate it. The Waw conjunction, in this case could also be translated as "and". In either case, it could possibly support the gap theorist case in verse 2 with the verb "hayathah" or "and it became" or "then it became". I don't think we have to go any further than the context of the passage, however, to figure out that the Gap Theory is not true.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I've seen some pretty good arguments for the gap theory and some pretty good ones against it. Personally I don't believe it. My biggest reason is because of Eze 28. Talking about Lucifer and him having been in Eden before iniquity was found in him. Assuming Eden in this passage is referring to the Eden of Genesis 2 (which I have no reason not to assume) then it would seem that there was no gap between 1:1 and 1:2 in which Lucifer fell.

But I don't take a very dogmatic stance on this since it is not a fundamental of the faith. I won't condemn anyone for believing either way like Ruckman did to Hovind.

 

Westin W. Fields has a good book on the grammar issue entitled "Unformed and Unfilled." It debunks the notion that the Hebrew text can support a gap theory.

 

Frankly, I thought the gap theory lost all credibility fifty years ago, when it failed to meet hermeneutic principles and failed to satisfy scientific notions..quite aside from the Hebrew language difficulties.

I am amazed that we even discuss it these days.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I do not. I believe the Bible is correct when it says that God created.

 

Jim, what do you mean? What scientific notions are you referring to? Are you talking about the young earth scientifica data that's out there?

 

Personally, I don't buy the idea that Genesis One is intended to communicate a gap. I think the original language speaks to a single week of creation of all that is. Since it is clear to me that the universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it is necessary for me to interpret these verses in a non-literal fashion, but that doesn't change what they say.

 

14 billion? that's a new one. where'd that number come from? i've heard the 4.5 before but never 14.

 

Harvest, the gap theory came out after the theory of evolution became the scientific norm. The gap was intended to explain the geologic ages not mentioned in scripture in the 6000 years from creation.

Cheers,

Jim

 

oh..ok. i was confused as to what you meant, but i got it now.

what do you think about the age of the earth?

 

I think the earth is much older than we think. Having said that, I am simple enough to believe that if God could call into existence a fully grown man and woman, He would have no difficulty calling into existence a million year old tree.

I don't try to reconcile modern science with scripture, and the Genesis account to not all that conclusive to be dogmatic about all the nuances of creation and geologic observations.

I am not sure Genesis 1 & 2 were intended to be taken literally...In the beginning....God....and that is all I need. The rest doesn't interfere with my theology or my faith in a sovereign God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

ok just curious. while i do believe human history goes back 6000 years and i believe the entire creation story is literal, i also acknowledge that the earth could be older than we think. but who am i?