Gap theory

[FollowingHim]

I'm not...."And God called the firmament Heaven"

Which is the problem with most of what you said about heaven, you're reading modern astronomy into the creation narrative.

Fair point, I need to explain myself better. I use modern science to understand what the world actually is. I am well enough versed in science to know to take things skeptically and not just believe whatever scientists say (e.g. evolution), but have also looked into this carefully enough to conclude that the earth is not flat, it's round, floats in space, stars are a long way away and all that - basically, the universe is roughly as astronomers describe it. Their accuracy will diminish the further away you get, some things that are believed today as fact will be shown tomorrow to be incorrect, but the basic idea that the earth is a ball moving through a space that contains other balls in it is correct. So, knowing that, I look to Genesis to see where it all came from.

"Heaven" = "shamayim", meaning sky, abode of the stars, abode of God.
From God's perspective, He knows the full extent of the Heaven, and He created it all.
However, when we look up, at the Heaven, we see the atmosphere. For a man without a spaceship, everything up is "heaven".
So God created the firmament, this layer surrounding the earth with water above and below it. But man at the time could never actually see it as something distinct from the rest of heaven. Whenever you look up, you see "heaven" - and God named what you see when you look up "heaven".

In the same way, God called the light "day" and the darkness "night". In astronomical terms, a "day" is meaningless - it doesn't actually affect anything other than the earth, because it is caused by the earth's rotation. Day and night exist simultaneously, and light exists even when it is nighttime (we are just in shadow). Nevertheless, God spoke to man from man's perspective, and "called the light day", because when man looks up and sees the light from the sun it is daytime. Now, in reality, the light from the moon is that same light, and we don't call that light "day". We don't call the light from the sun hitting a spaceship "day". We only use the word "day" when we are on a planet and talking about the light as opposed to the darkness of night.

So when God created something, He made what truly exists.
But when He names something, He does so for the benefit of man, because the name is being given to man to use, and therefore the name he uses is related to man's perspective, a useful day-to-day term for humans to use, but not necessarily an accurate scientific description of the whole.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

check out Earth's Earliest Ages by G H Pember (on line free public domain Copyright 1876

 

[The Revolting Man]

Isn’t that entropy? Entropy happens in time, but time isn’t created by entropy.

We are both arguing about something that I’m convinced neither of us has a clue what we talking about lol

But again, without entropy what meaning does time have? I submit none. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. Time has no definition outside a fallen world and no purpose.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I presume you mean this...



That is not inconsistent with what I'm saying. "made" doesn't have to mean ex nihilo creation. How did God "make the earth"?



He called the dry land earth, but it was not there until he gathered the waters into one place.



This debate is far older than that, older even than Christianity, and not one the Jews were in agreement on.



I'm not...."And God called the firmament Heaven"



Which is the problem with most of what you said about heaven, you're reading modern astronomy into the creation narrative.

As a fellow ENTP let me say that you should put a warning label when reflexively arguing about important things. Some people may be swayed by your mental exercise and with this issue that can be dangerous. This argument is frequently a refuge point for those who want to reconcile evolution with the Bible. It is seen by many as a de facto admission that the miracles of the Bible can’t be true and must be reconciled with a modern “scientific” perspective. Many people invest a lot of time and effort in to refuting the lies of the old earth atheists and theories like this, which may not stop short and of being labeled crackpot, are simply destructive to that end. You have to squint, turn your head to the left and cough to make multiple phrases mean alternate things in order to make an inference that this idea could fit the text. Don’t turn your head to the left and cough. You know what comes next and this whole idea reminds me of it already.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

An "Old Earth" does not have to excuse or be compatible with evolution at all if one recognizes a complete destruction and a Re-creation.
The flood of Noah the water covered the earth. Lucifer's flood the earth was in the water and out of the water.

Noah's flood the water drained naturally. about a years time.
Lucifer's flood the water and earth was separated by an act of God.

Noah's flood destroys every thing with breath. Lucifer's flood destroys All life even fish and clams.

Noah's flood light is still. Lucifer's flood heavens light blocked.


Here (I believe) the Prophet is shown the destruction of Lucifer's flood in his prophecy as a type of coming desolation.

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
Jer 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

This vision is not a future event. It is not the flood of Noah. It fits Lucifer's flood perfectly, and was a fitting allegory of the coming desolation to the nation of Israel.

 

[FollowingHim]

check out Earth's Earliest Ages by G H Pember (on line free public domain Copyright 1876

Very interesting, thankyou. I hadn't read it before but just skimmed key parts now to see what position he's taking and roughly why, as I'm already familiar with the general arguments. This is an important historical work even though I disagree with it - I may come back to it in more detail later.

His basic premise, on which the remainder is based, is that the words "tohu" and "bohu" - without form and void - imply the aftermath of a destruction. Then, taking this assumption, he goes on to interpret Genesis on the basis of that - this interpretation forms the bulk of the book. But the whole book rests on the idea that these two words imply the aftermath of a destruction. And he devotes only two pages (26 and 27) to an extremely brief analysis of these words, in which he actually relies heavily on the interpretation of one other author and not even standard lexicons.

The book I linked to earlier, "Unformed and unfilled", examines the Hebrew of these two words in far greater detail than Pember does. Fields has an entire chapter devoted to a very detailed study of these words, including referring to the other passages in scripture Pember cites and many arguments made by subsequent gap-theory authors. Fields concludes that the more accurate translation is "unformed and unfilled", hence the title of his book. God created a clean, empty world for life.

I won't go through all his analysis, except to note one simple point: The Septuagint translates these words into Greek with the meaning "invisible and unwrought (rough)" - no indication at all of the aftermath of a destruction.

 

[The Revolting Man]

An "Old Earth" does not have to excuse or be compatible with evolution at all if one recognizes a complete destruction and a Re-creation.
The flood of Noah the water covered the earth. Lucifer's flood the earth was in the water and out of the water.

Noah's flood the water drained naturally. about a years time.
Lucifer's flood the water and earth was separated by an act of God.

Noah's flood destroys every thing with breath. Lucifer's flood destroys All life even fish and clams.

Noah's flood light is still. Lucifer's flood heavens light blocked.


Here (I believe) the Prophet is shown the destruction of Lucifer's flood in his prophecy as a type of coming desolation.

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
Jer 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

This vision is not a future event. It is not the flood of Noah. It fits Lucifer's flood perfectly, and was a fitting allegory of the coming desolation to the nation of Israel.

Again, interesting but devoid of evidence. The Jeremiah passage says nothing about a flood or even Lucifer and there multiple actual events in the Bible it could refer to before we have to make up a whole new era of history. On a side note I have heard this theory used to justify racism. The idea was that non-white people and Jews whether white or not were survivors of this earlier “gap” period and were an inferior creation. It’s crackpot. It’s completely made up and has less than no evidence since the evidence presented is so obviously false that it further undermines the whole thing. It’s negative evidence.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

survivors of this earlier “gap” period

Just to be clear I do not believe in any "survivors", Not even any bacteria or life of any Kind! There was a recreation of earth and Adam was the first man of our race, Eve is the mother of all living.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

A populated earth before Adam

answers many questions.
​

Isaiah 45:18 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.

1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

If all was created in six days:

How was there an earth before the first day?

Why was the earth created in darkness?

Are we to believe that God created all of heaven and the spirit realm and innumerable angels and earth on day one and yet it took five more days to finish this one planet and make Adam who was lower than an angel?

Why was Adam told to Keep the garden? From who?

How did Lucifer fall and persuade a third of the Angels to follow him before Adam and Eve could conceive?

Where did demons come from?

How come the math and observable physics indicate an old creation? (See Hugh Ross) Young creationist have evidence for a young earth, Yet there is evidence for an old earth. A Re-created earth answers both sets of facts.

Young creationist have only theories and no, or very few facts, to refute stellar evidence of an old creation. Even an old creation now supports the Biblical concept of a beginning a designer. There is a growing consensus in the scientific community concerning this.

Sin and death in a pre-Adamite world does not refute the fact that sin and death entered our world through Adam.

How come most fossils are water creatures when they weren't cursed in Noah's flood?

These questions are easily answered by a Pre-Adamite world. A Six day creation of all things including Heaven and Angels makes many questions hard to answer.

 

[frederick]

Young creationist have only theories and no, or very few facts, to refute stellar evidence of an old creation.

You might wish to edit this comment after you take the time to read the research articles on sites such as the Institute of Creation Research or Creation Ministries International. They do a steller job in refuting the claims of the old age earthers. More importantly though, they present the biblical arguments for the position they champion, upholding the authority of the Bible. Shalom.

 

[The Revolting Man]

A populated earth before Adam

answers many questions.
​

Isaiah 45:18 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.

1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

If all was created in six days:

How was there an earth before the first day?

Why was the earth created in darkness?

Are we to believe that God created all of heaven and the spirit realm and innumerable angels and earth on day one and yet it took five more days to finish this one planet and make Adam who was lower than an angel?

Why was Adam told to Keep the garden? From who?

How did Lucifer fall and persuade a third of the Angels to follow him before Adam and Eve could conceive?

Where did demons come from?

How come the math and observable physics indicate an old creation? (See Hugh Ross) Young creationist have evidence for a young earth, Yet there is evidence for an old earth. A Re-created earth answers both sets of facts.

Young creationist have only theories and no, or very few facts, to refute stellar evidence of an old creation. Even an old creation now supports the Biblical concept of a beginning a designer. There is a growing consensus in the scientific community concerning this.

Sin and death in a pre-Adamite world does not refute the fact that sin and death entered our world through Adam.

How come most fossils are water creatures when they weren't cursed in Noah's flood?

These questions are easily answered by a Pre-Adamite world. A Six day creation of all things including Heaven and Angels makes many questions hard to answer.

Not one thing you just wrote supports an old earth or refutes a young one. None of those verses seemed to even address the issue. Maybe I’m missing something but I honestly don’t see it.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

You might wish to edit this comment after you take the time to read the research articles on sites such as the Institute of Creation Research or Creation Ministries International. They do a steller job in refuting the claims of the old age earthers. More importantly though, they present the biblical arguments for the position they champion, upholding the authority of the Bible. Shalom.

I have followed this debate for almost fifty years. There is plenty of evidence for a young earth true, but there is plenty of evidence for an old creation. Some evidence for an old earth and much evidence for an old universe when the stars and space is considered. As is often said around here the truth is often somewhere in the middle. An old universe with a younger earth and a re-creation around 6,000 years ago fits all of the facts and theology I have seen so far.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Like it or not there is some hard evidence (again see Hugh Ross) for an old universe. most of the evidence for a young creation is really evidence for a young earth. A recreated earth solves this issue. Theology does have room for the facts without espousing evolution and without wrecking the scripture. Granted evolutionary science has been proven wrong at every turn but Astronomy is there for all to see and the numbers are backing an old creation. one of the young earth answers to the numbers is "God created with the appearance of age," but they offer very little evidence to back that theory in the realm of physics.

We may criticize the scientist of the past and even of the present for some outlandish theories but theologians haven't had a much better track record. If the facts contradict our understanding one of us is in error.

True facts do not contradict the Scripture and a proper understanding of the Scripture does not contradict true facts.

 

[FollowingHim]

Like it or not there is some hard evidence (again see Hugh Ross) for an old universe. most of the evidence for a young creation is really evidence for a young earth. A recreated earth solves this issue. Theology does have room for the facts without espousing evolution and without wrecking the scripture. Granted evolutionary science has been proven wrong at every turn but Astronomy is there for all to see and the numbers are backing an old creation. one of the young earth answers to the numbers is "God created with the appearance of age," but they offer very little evidence to back that theory in the realm of physics.

I can see where you're coming from with this (old-universe / young-restored-earth). It makes some logical scientific sense. However, it does contradict the Genesis account of the stars being created on day 4 (yes, I know old-earthers will argue they were just made visible then, but that's not what the Hebrew says). So although the science seems to indicate that now (young-universe arguments are indeed ways of explaining how it could look as it does despite being young), I'd hold it very loosely.

However, if we took the universe as being old anyway, ignoring the stars creation issue - would there be any problem saying that God created the universe billions of years ago (maybe He liked looking at lights), and then 6000 years ago decided to create an earth in it exactly as described in the Bible? Why is there any need for the idea of an old earth that was ruined and restored? Could He not just have created a new earth? Would that not fit the evidence for a young earth even more seamlessly?

There is vast geological evidence for a global flood, but all that evidence (including fossil sea creatures) could readily be caused by one flood. Had there been a first Lucifer's flood, any evidence of it would have been obliterated by Noah's flood anyway, so it serves no purpose in explaining geology.

Isaiah 45:18 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.

God did not create the earth in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. With the intention that it would be inhabited. And He then immediately (within days) proceeded to make creatures to inhabit it. This is commonly used as an old-earth argument, but in reality it only makes sense to someone who has already accepted an old-earth view. The remainder of your verses are simply ones that, like Zec said, may be able to be interpreted within an old-earth view to mean one thing, but actually more naturally mean something else.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I

I can see where you're coming from with this (old-universe / young-restored-earth). It makes some logical scientific sense. However, it does contradict the Genesis account of the stars being created on day 4 (yes, I know old-earthers will argue they were just made visible then, but that's not what the Hebrew says). So although the science seems to indicate that now (young-universe arguments are indeed ways of explaining how it could look as it does despite being young), I'd hold it very loosely.

However, if we took the universe as being old anyway, ignoring the stars creation issue - would there be any problem saying that God created the universe billions of years ago (maybe He liked looking at lights), and then 6000 years ago decided to create an earth in it exactly as described in the Bible? Why is there any need for the idea of an old earth that was ruined and restored? Could He not just have created a new earth? Would that not fit the evidence for a young earth even more seamlessly?

There is vast geological evidence for a global flood, but all that evidence (including fossil sea creatures) could readily be caused by one flood. Had there been a first Lucifer's flood, any evidence of it would have been obliterated by Noah's flood anyway, so it serves no purpose in explaining geology.

God did not create the earth in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. With the intention that it would be inhabited. And He then immediately (within days) proceeded to make creatures to inhabit it. This is commonly used as an old-earth argument, but in reality it only makes sense to someone who has already accepted an old-earth view. The remainder of your verses are simply ones that, like Zec said, may be able to be interpreted within an old-earth view to mean one thing, but actually more naturally mean something else.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I have never had young creationist give a satisfactory theological theory as to the creation of the spirit realm, Angles and the Fall of Lucifer.
The Idea seems to be that Lucifer's fall was when he tempted man. It seems like very fast work to lead 1/3 of the angels into rebellion in what seems to be a short time between creation of Adam and the fall of Adam. I say short because they were commanded to multiply and Eve hadn't conceived yet. as well as the other questions I posed in a previous post.

Note:
This is not essential doctrine, but how we perceive this could influence how we interact in the spirit realm.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

God did not create the earth in vain, he formed it to be inhabited

OF course my emphasis would be on did not create the earth in vain

the question is not how or why it was formed but how it was created

 

[Paulsen]

Isn’t that entropy? Entropy happens in time, but time isn’t created by entropy.

We are both arguing about something that I’m convinced neither of us has a clue what we talking about lol

It is not complete entropy. Even without time information may exist. Entropy lacks information. Information as an essential element of our reality was a big part of disproving newtonian physics.

Yes we are all talking about stuff we know little about and if you added 3 professional quantum physicists to this discussion we would still be talking about things we know little about.

The conversation about whether you can have a succession of events without "time" as we know it seems to center around whether or not decay or "death" is in the picture. Without decay "time" means a succession of events; with decay "time" describes what we usually think of as time (some mix of a measurement of a rate of decay which happens via a succession of events).

 

[Jim an Apostle]

"time" means a succession of events;

that was always my definition.

 

[Paulsen]

that was always my definition.

I agree with your definition, but not surprisingly the secular (Godless) definition of time considers decay an essential part. This is why carbon dating is akin to the voice of God for them.

The secular definition of time is pretty laughable even according to science. Secularists simultaneously claim that time is linear and uniform and claim that time can be altered by gravity.

If the big bang is how things started then at some point time was universally and drastically non-uniform due to the completely irregular dispersion of mass and gravity at different stages of universal expansion. I have never seen this even acknowledged during assertions of dating even back billions or trillions of years.

If time is merely a succession of events, then this universe makes a lot more sense to me.

The thing I can't reconcile with this is the claim by many christians that time will be no more at some point. But maybe that's just the point where we get completely beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

[Soldier's Psalm]

I can see where you're coming from with this (old-universe / young-restored-earth). It makes some logical scientific sense. However, it does contradict the Genesis account of the stars being created on day 4 (yes, I know old-earthers will argue they were just made visible then, but that's not what the Hebrew says).

I think it is what the Hebrew says.
Job 38:4-7 New International Version (NIV)
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?I)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-13801I" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> shouted for joy?
Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much.
5 Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line?
6 What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone
7 as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 “Who kept the sea inside its boundaries as it burst from the womb?

We have the morning stars singing at the creation of earth on day 1. Now I know that stars are a picture of angels but according to scholars with the writer mentioning angels later in the verse this actually refers to stars. And stars can sing. Pretty cool youtube videos on it.

The real issue I see with young earth is the placement of the fall of Satan which I have seen some very colorful theories about from young earth guys. I tried to watch a video of a young earth guy but I don't think it was a good one because he butchered the Hebrew part and he was having to do some bending to get some pieces to work. There are probably better vids out there so I will try and find another when I have the time.

I have noticed a trend of Young earth guys wanting to skate away from verses outside of Genesis because it starts getting tricky to make things work.
You have Satan portrayed as the prince of Tyre which has to now become an allegory of some one else and then you have Lucifer wearing what looks like a high priest garment walking in the stones of creation becoming a poetic story of a human as well. It seems most references to satan at the time of creation become poetic stories of other people. Maybe its a fault but I tend to take the Bible much more literal and I have not seen a literal use of those verses yet when I could even find them being addressed.

Also with the fall of Satan had to be death/judgement. This is my thought that I am trying to form out but I think it works. When man fell we had authority of all the earth. So with sin/rebellion comes death. "The wages of sin is death." The thing I want to tie together here is that we brought death to everything we had authority over. The beast of the field and the birds of the air did not rebel against God but our authority over them caused them to suffer our judgement as well. Why didn't the world fall when Eve ate the Fruit? Authority. When we apply this to Satan I have to ask what was judged and what died when he fell? After all there has to be a price. Did Satan have authority over anything? Well in Hebrew thought he did hence the reason he said he would exalt his throne in Isaiah. He had a throne and that means he had authority. My thought is that he had authority over this world since he was the anointed Cherub here and is referred to many times as prince which means ruler. So, when he fail the world was destroyed which is the gap theory thought. And with that I enter my thoughts on time that sin brought death which brought time. There was no time till Satan fell and there will be no time after the new Heaven and new Earth. Sin created time. Satan fell and time starts ticking with day one of the creation story in Genesis. I am going to take this thought a step further and say that Where God is there is no time because there is no sin. I believe this is why when God speaks it is nearly every time G in the present tense. God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow because he exists outside of this small little anomaly in eternity called time. And this small anomaly was caused by sin.... The time part is still a work in progress but I think I am on to something.

 

[rockfox]

As a fellow ENTP let me say that you should put a warning label when reflexively arguing about important things. Some people may be swayed by your mental exercise and with this issue that can be dangerous. This argument is frequently a refuge point for those who want to reconcile evolution with the Bible. It is seen by many as a de facto admission that the miracles of the Bible can’t be true and must be reconciled with a modern “scientific” perspective. Many people invest a lot of time and effort in to refuting the lies of the old earth atheists and theories like this, which may not stop short and of being labeled crackpot, are simply destructive to that end. You have to squint, turn your head to the left and cough to make multiple phrases mean alternate things in order to make an inference that this idea could fit the text. Don’t turn your head to the left and cough. You know what comes next and this whole idea reminds me of it already.

So I should make it clear, I don't believe in macro evolution and all that jazz, and I do believe in the miracles and in the existence of a creator God. Most of your arguments seem to be just trying to associate this with various people you dislike. Hitler believed in gravity, does that mean the theory of gravity is bad too?

This theory doesn't seem far fetched; but this does:

Time has no definition outside a fallen world and no purpose.