The Gap Theory Examined

quote:

---

The normal order for a Hebrew sentence is:

​

Conjunction--Verb--Subject--Object

---

In my Bible class we recently went over the Gap Theory, and my professor presented the Gap Theorists arguments and then refuted them. For now, I will only make mention of this instance. In Jorel's translation in verse 2 he's changed "was" to "had become." As quoted above this is the normal order for a Hebrew sentence for a consecutive action. He fails to mention that there is another order used for circumstantial statements and it is as follows:verb noun7 (7 is similar to the symbol in Hebrew which is translated as "and." There is no actual word for "and" and the symbol 7 never stands alone)This is the order used in Gen 1:2, and it simply a circumstantial statement that the earth was without form and void and was dark at the time. Therefore, the translation is was and not become. There is no consecutive action taking place. This same order is also used in Gen 2:10. The river didn't "become" it is just simply a circumstantial statment.To get a translation of become the verb must be attached to the preposition, which is not used here. Therefore, there is no room for a gap between verses 1 and 2. Its simply, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and circumstantially that earth is "without form and void and covered in darkness" which does not mean that a judgement was performed. There is no gap!Hopefully, this post is relatively coherent and hopefully I didn't butcher my professors lecture. I've emailed him and hopefully he'll reply with a more coherent refutation to this and the other points Jorel made.

There are also several other Biblical passages that refute the Gap Theory. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 both refer to a literal 6 day creation. This is used to set up a proper work week and observation of the sabbath for the Israelites. (If day meant ages then our work week would not be a week at all and we would never observe the sabbath). James 1:15, 1 Cor 15:21-22, Rom 5:12 and 8:22 are all used to deny the possibility of death before the fall. And finally and most conclusively in my opinion Revelation 21:1 "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away." If the Gap Theory were true then it it would have been the second earth to pass away

quote:

---

What I'm trying to state is that God did not start from scratch at the time that the creation story starts in Gen 1.3. There had been life on the planet before but was destroyed for some reason which is not clear.

---

Based on what evidence? Without form and void, and the word darkness do not at all point to some sort of judgment. Its a circumstantial statement. There is no evidence whatsoever in the Bible that life existed on this planet before us.

quote:

---

When God said "Let there be light" he was not creating light but making it come out through an already existing darkness. Darkness cannot exist without light existing already.

---

Darkness is simply the absence of light. Light does not have to already exist for there to be darkness. When God said "Let there be light" the first light "popped on."

quote:

---

Nowhere in all these verses does create appear since he was not creating, but he was making and shaping. Only in verse 27 do we see the word again but in a differnt context.

---

The words you're talking about here are "bara" (create) and "asah" (made). They are used interchangeably throughout the Bible, and are not to be sharply distinguished. My professor made mention of this, however, I didn't happen to take notes on it, but I'll be sure to talk to him about it.

quote:

---

Only something that is alive can die. Animals and plants are both considered forms of life. If animals couldn't die then neither could plants.

---

This is a very good point; however, the definition of life is man's definition, not necessarily God's. For me, animals and mankind have conciousness. They make decisions, they act. Plants don't, they don't in any state have a conciousness, and that's the difference here. Of course I'm completely speculating here. So if you don't like that explanation then this one might suffice. The eating of a plant is not necessarily the death of a plant. Eating the fruit of a plant in fact is not killing life in the slightest. Fruit is simply a casing which holds seeds. So in fact the eating of fruit does not kill anything at all. In the end, we don't exactly know what the diet consisted of. Most vegetables we eat today aren't completely necessary for the survival of the plant, with the exception of root foods (ie potatoe, carrot).In the end the Bible is quite clear on death before Adam. The verses I mentioned in my last post refer to physical death. Read the original Hebrew and Greek, they refer to physical death.

quote:

---

Why is it so hard to accept that the earth bore life which was destroyed before the existence of humanity?

---

Simply because there isn't the slightest bit of evidence in the Bible for it. Your translation of Gen 1:1-2 despite your attempts to provide evidence from the Hebrew is unfounded. The original Hebrew does not point to that at all, which I showed in my prior post.This message has been edited by jjburklo, 02-19-2005 17:33 AM

quote:

---

This is a question of semantics. Did the chicken come before the egg or the egg before the chicken? From what I know, one can't exist without the other. One forces the other to exist, there is no way around that. Notice that God didn't state " let light be created to banish the dark"

---

There is no semantics here whatsoever. Darkness is literally the absence of light. Therefore, hypothetically, if there is no light and there never was everything would be dark due to the absence of light. Light does not need to exist for darkness to exist.bara

quote:

---

To create - To cause to exist; bring into being. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir. To invest with an office or title; appoint. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

​

To make - To cause to exist or happen; bring about: made problems for us; making a commotion.
To bring into existence by shaping, modifying, or putting together material; construct: make a dress; made a stone wall. To change from one form or function to another: make clay into bricks.

---

Good point, however, to create and to make are simply the nearest English translations of bara and asah. They are not exact. English does not have an exact word for bara and asah. I wish I could make this a bit clearer, however, my own understand of Hebrew will not allow me to do this. Again, I'm waiting on a reply from my professor, who again is fluent in Hebrew, and will be better able to refute your point.

quote:

---

Since in your statements you argue that there was no physical death then to keep the harmony of the planet there must also not have been any births. How were Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply?
and please don't say that there was no sex before the fall because that is a whole other story. I don't even want to get into that discussion.

---

No, I'm not going to say there was no sex before marriage. But why does there have to be death to have birth? The earth is perfect at this time, harmony is already established. Now, of course there is the problem of overpopulation, but lets remember that God is omniscient. He knows man will fall and introduce death into the world.

quote:

---

But one has to accept that science is here and we have to live with it, and we can't just ignore the findings that come up regularly that throw into doubt some of the classical teachings of the bilble. The bible is not wrong and science tries not to be wrong but slowly sheds light on evidence which we as christians can't ignore

---

I agree. I am in fact a Biology major. I love science, and no we shouldn't ignore findings that appear to throw into doubt classical teachings of the Bible. However, science will never in my life and should never by any Christian have authority over Scripture!!!! Neither will archaeology nor any other man performed act take authority over Scripture!!! Science has done wonders for mankind and its applications are limitless, however, secular science can never truly know the age of the earth, the conditions of early earth, the creation of life, nor anything that has to do with origins. Our science can only speculate on the ancient past, it can never give certainties. So to put my faith in man, who has shown to be habitually wrong, over the authority of Scripture is unfounded!

quote:

---

Would you speculate on how long a time there might have been between Creation and Fall? Did cockroaches and flies not only not die back then, but also use some form of birth control? If not, it wouldn't have been but a few weeks before Adam and Eve would have been smothered in bugs. Heck, even mice reach reproductive age in a couple of months, and have pretty fair-sized litters. If none of them die, how many of the Mouse Kind would you have in a year or two?

---

I believe the fall happened very soon after creation. Of course none of us can ever say for sure, but in my opinion w/ in the first couple days.

quote:

---

Bold words. Reminiscent of some astronomer - I forget who - that lamented that science would never know anything about the chemical composition of stars.

​

And then a few years later, along comes spectroscopy, discovering helium on the Sun before it was found on Earth.

​

We already know the age of the Earth to a certainty of far better than 1%, jjburklo.

---

My point was simply that when it comes to origins or anything of the unrecorded past, everything that science can tell us must be taken on some degree of faith. It is not absolute fact regardless of any information. No one was there to record it, no one was there to see it, therefore, a degree of faith that our idea of what happened is indeed what happened must be taken.And no, it is far, very far from 1%. I won't say anything more on this subject simply b/c there is an entire forum devoted to dating in which anything we would discuss most likely has already been discussed there. You can hold to your opinion and man's science, but I'll take the authority of Scripture on the matter.

quote:

---

But it can be said that the fall could also have taken place hundreds or even thousands of years after Adam and Eve were physically made and spiritually created. Even children might have existed at this time before the fall. The bible is silent on this aspect.

---

Well it can't be thousands. Adam dies at age 930. And yes, you are right the Bible is silent on this aspect. We will never know precisely, but I believe in the first few days

Jor-elAs to the question of light having to exist for darkness to exist- what is the definition of darkness? The absence of light. Therefore, if there is no light and there never was light we have darkness.

quote:

---

When we stick to an argument beyond all hope of being convinced to the contrary, we leave the the scope of discussion and move into the scope of dogmatism and fundamentalism. Both of which are exteremely unhealthy.

---

I'm in complete agreement. However, I have not seen enough evidence to convince me of the gap theory in any fashion. You seem to want to have a merging of science and the Bible where they both hold equal ground. That is undermining the authority of Scripture. Science can and does reveal certain aspects of the Bible, but that's as far as I'll let it go. I am not convinced of billions of years, and therefore I will not change my view of creation.You are aslo subscribing to a theory that has in my opinion no evidence from the Bible. You're translation of Gen 1:1-2 from the Hebrew in my opinion is not nearly correct. I have given you some evidences for this, and again I'm waiting for my professor to get back to me (I spoke with him today, and he is currently making notes on your post). Since he is fluent in Hebrew, I'd rather give you a more proper response from him before I attempt at the other areas you mention.So from what I can see, is because of man's science you have subscribed to a theory that has no backing from the Bible. You don't see that as undermining Biblical authority?

quote:

---

It's 930 years from the time of the fall. Time before that happened is not taken into account since man was immortal before the fall, so says the bible

---

Aaah. Very good point and thanks for the correction, and sorry for my oversight.

quote:

---

If it's a question of following mainstream thought then you're just following the majority who don't even bother to ask themselves difficult questions. I did that too at one time, until I went to Bible School. When I did ask difficult questions of my teachers who were and are respected in the christian community I got myself into some trouble. One even called me a heretic!!!!

​

One thing is faith, I don't dispute our faith. Another is closing ourselves to ideas that even the ancients had, just because it's not the majority view.

---

I respect that you question mainstream ideas. I respect that you've done your own research. I have as well. My conservative ideas are hardly mainstream anymore. I've done/doing the research, and trust me I am continually questioning my Bible professors, and they continue to answer me with excellent answers.

quote:

---

By keeping to your statements you feel that you are being loyal to scripture, yet I am starting to wonder if you really study it with an open mind that lead you to a greater awareness and a greater accuracy in interpretation, instead of assuming that the mainstream is absolutely correct in everything they say

---

I am being loyal to Scripture, and I am also keeping an open mind on the subject. I've done/doing the questioning, and I've done/doing the research as I've mentioned before. I'm still young and I still have plenty more study to do on the subject. And again, what I believe is hardly mainstream anymore.

quote:

---

Have you actually taken the time to read and think about the posts I put up with an open mind or are you just fighting to maintain mainstream thought. I see that you don't answer my questions with a rebuttal based on logic and scripture but you fall back to what you seem to take for granted.

---

Yes, in every reply to you I've referred to my own notes as well as notes taken from my Genesis professor. I have always used logic, and I've gone to the extent of using Hebrew grammar to refute some of your claims. I can however only do this to some extent as I'm not fluent in Hebrew. As I've stated several times I'm waiting for a reply from my Gen. professor, who can give in greater detail a rebuttal. However, he's a busy man and I'm simply still waiting. I have used Scripture in almost all of my posts, so please don't accuse me of beligerrantly replying to you.

quote:

---

While I know that my arguments may not be perfect because I don't know everything, I do take the time to answer your posts fully.

---

As have I. Perhaps a bit rushed at times simply because I have an extremely rough week of classes. But I have always put thought and time into my replies.

quote:

---

Do you have a NIV bible? If not, borrow one, they are used by most people. There you will see that even the expert translators give my position at least some credit, why can't you at least do the same?

---

Yes I do have an NIV (in fact its what I've been using for the last few years), and I have some serious problems with it as do many others. I don't have time now to get into them, b/c I have a lab to attend. In any case, I never meant to personally attack you. I hope I merely presented my case. If I haven't I apologize.