A Theological Defense of "Gap Theory"

If your “reasonable approach” leads you contradict what is said in several major areas, I think your reasoning must be a reasoning without God being included in the process.I think the most fundamental of fundamentals in the Bible is that was written to convey the living Person and His presence in our spirits. I could give mental assent to many things in Scripture but not receive the living “breath” of God’s imparting Himself through the writing. In that case I believe that I have missed the fundamentals. I am aware that this is a great difference. But I did not say that the Bible is not a book or a collection of books. A book of God conveying His Spirit to us through writing is not Verses a book or a collection of books. I believe that also. We agree on this! Well, my experience is different from yours. I find that the living God breaths fresh life and light into words written long ago. We need not only God’s word which was written a long time ago. We also need God’s living Spirit to illuminate the writing and apply it to our consciences.If you say that you don’t need that. Then we obviously differ. Without the Bible I would be completely lost in the dark.It doesn’t bother me to be dependent upon the Bible any more than it bothers me to be dependent upon the living and present Holy Spirit.The principle of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is that one learns something, and does not need therefore to depend on God. You hear it once, you learn it, and that is all you need.The principle of the tree of life is that man is continually to depend on the life of God. This way leads to blessing and life. The independent way leads to death. Don’t think that I have no questions concerning hard to reconcile passages in the Bible. Perhaps, I could come up with some issues as well as you. I have plenty of good questions about paradoxes in Scripture.But I don’t think the book has the sole purpose to tickle our curiosity. I think belief and obedience is what opens the way for greater and greater understanding. Unbelief and disobedience cannot shed much light on the true meaning of the Bible. And it may not be a necessary path. It depends on what one wants.I want to have God impart more and more of His Spirit into me that I may live through and in the realm of God. Having sat down to a turkey dinner, I think it is silly to only search out bones to choke on. I have faith in the Bible and in prayerful reading of it - coupled with a willingness to be changed by God’s Spirit.Anyone who is unwilling to be adjusted or corrected by the Spirit of Christ cannot understand the Bible very well. They come to it blind and leave it more blind. Identifying who wrote it is probably secondary from the standpoint of receiving the spirtual nourishment embodied in it.That is my goal, to be fed by God with His words in my innermost being. Even my study I try not to allow to become an idol in itself or a distraction. I do have tools such as Lexicons and dictionaries and maps, etc. I know no one is perfect. But human nature would conceal the failures of a great political hero or national leader. Would you expect the Democrats to voluntarily expound on Clinton’s affairs? Or would you expect the Republicans to go out of their way to recount Nixon’s Watergate problems?I think nationalisms would tend to play down as much as possible the scandals of a hero. I think the Bible has a candidness about it which brings out that a perfect one has not yet come. That is until Jesus Christ comes. He is perfect. Here we go. Enter Mithra, Zues, etc. Are your jumping into the “Jesus - Copycat Savior” argument? It’s really late. I’ll have to continue this exchange latter. Without knowing the specifics of your referals I would say, in general divine inspiration did not exclude human sentiments from sometimes being expressed. The Psalms of David have many vengeful utterances in prayers against his enemies.I think that the revelation of the Scripture is progressive. And when Christ comes He says “You have heard that it was said by the ancients . . But I say unto you . ” .Perfection then is only found in the Son of God. To appreciate Him we have a long history of many nobel characters who nevertheless could not be the Savior appointed and anointed to be Lord of all.So David’s passages about how he wants God to do his enemies in and fix em real good, does not cause me to doubt that I am still dealing with the inspired word of God. I think there is also poetry and some philosophy in the Bible.But you have to admit that the geneology tracing a virtually seemless flow of lineage back to Adam in Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke, doesn't seem to argue that the writers thought time stopped and we enter into some transcendent mythical realm in speaking about the history of man. I guess I would not include myself as one who missed these things. God spoke in many portions and in many ways.And I don’t think it was a dictaphone kind of transcription of God’s speaking in every book.I must conclude here for today.This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-27-2005 05:55 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 12-27-2005 05:58 AM

which part am i contradicting? i know that i am occasionally forced to leave out things that just fail to make sense anymore. for instance, i no longer feel that paul was inspired, because i cannot find a way to line up what he says about the law and jesus with what the law and jesus actually say.in this case, it's not me contradicting anything, but paul contradicting established scripture. christians never like admitting that there are contradictions in the bible, but there are. and it's a product of it being written by many different over long periods of time. heck, even one person given enough time will contradict themselves.yes, and i know you say that all scripture is breathed by god. so says paul, and about which scripture who knows. the bible does help. don't get me wrong. for me, help is a challenge. a journey. the words written long ago are helpful and important, but lots of stuff written in the past still applies today as well. i'm just saying that the bible is not the source of god in our lives, and it should not be. i guess i'm the opposite. question and doubt leads me along the path of faith. it's odd, really, but so am i. i find simple obedience and faith stagnating, and contributing to cult-like following in most churches. it's not for everyone. it ruins a lot of people's faith, but that's mostly because their faith is in a book. or, rather, bones NOT to choke on. the problem i have is getting people to admit that there ARE bones. well, for me the tool is understanding its context and background, and the language and culture it was written in. you'd suprised how much learning hebrew is helping. you have to understand that 6th centure bc jews are not democrats or republicans. their customs are quite different, and one is to teach by counter-example. another is to emphasize the difference between god and man.there are cultures today that do make note of their mistakes. for instance, in germany, by law, you cannot deny the holocaust. no, i meant jesus. look at how easily we've conflated yehoshua with yahweh. the father with the son? the jews took great care to distinguish their kings as NOT gods, to separate them from most other cultures of the area. as for the sin of jeroboam, you might want to look over the arguments in my old thread on the forgery of deuteronomy. the "bastards" claim is in genesis twice, inbreeders once (same story as one of the others), architecture mocking is also in genesis, and the idolators claim is throughout the entire book of kings (see the other thread). i could find myriad examples in books like isaiah and ezekiel of taunting political enemies.but human sentiment. do you agree that some of it is political? you'll find that the genealogies presented in genesis break the story line (be honest, you skip 'em. everyone does) and repeat several story elements. chronicles seems to partly source genesis, samuel and kings (one of the reasons it's not in the same section of the tanakh as samuel and kings). genealogies were quite important to the hebrews, and their traditions. we're told in timothy to ignore them, mostly because they don't line up and create too many questions. i don't think so either. i think there's some inspiration of underlying truths there, but it's not word-for-word "the word of god." the majority of it's fundamentally human.

---

אָרַח

Say, in the first chapter of the gospel of John could you make a list of the verses that you consider truths from God and which you consider fundamentally human and non-truth?There's 51 verses there. From 1 to 51 arrange them into true verses and untrue verses for me, please.

that's a bit of an excercise. would it help you if i told you that i don't especially like the gospel of john, because it's a little on gnostic side for my tastes? the jesus portrayed in john is more a mystic, and a mystical figure himself than a realistic person as presented in the synoptic gospels.

---

אָרַח

I didn't mean you had to write out the verses. Just refering to the number would have been okay. Somehow, I'm not surprised. That's interesting. I and thousands of other Christians I know consider the gospel of John exceedingly practical.However, I think that I am going to let this thread on a Defense of the Gap Theory go for my part.Maybe, we can chat some more on one of the other threads. I think I'll let this one retire.

yes, i think i will too. perhaps we can come back to john in a new thread when i have a little more time, specifically to read it again.

---

אָרַח

Thanks for clearing that up Jay.We know the Gap theory is a fact corroborated by Science, and of course; what Jesus demonstrated in Luke 4.YEC's are nontheless more ballpark correct than Darwinian mega-billion bullshit needed to accomodate gradualism.Ray

Well, I would say this. When I was a young kid believing basically evolution there seemed to be less talk about great cataclysmic events and what in the world killed all of those ancient animals. It seemed that they kind of smoothly and gradually died off.Then I noticed more and more discussions about killer comets, killer volcanoes, killer gas, and other kinds of worldwide catastraphies that rendered earlier living things extinct.With encreased study of the Bible and with these discussions going on, it seemed to be that some quarters of science were inching closer to a Destruction / Reconstruction view which I believed from my Bible study.Catastraphism (if that's a word) does come closer to what I believe about the Interval (Gen1:1,2).This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-29-2005 05:05 PM

This is a strictly Biblical response to the gap hypothesis. The post assumes all interested will understand the implications of said verses without a great deal of explanation. In short, it is written with the intent of being read by a gapper.Job38: 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
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?In the above text does it not say "ALL the sons of God"?Would evil, wicked, fallen sons of God be shouting for joy?Exactly when were these foundations laid?Prov8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.That this covers "before" Gen1:1 and goes up to the "foundations of the earth" is 100% without controversy.Now examine the following:Gen1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Notice that Day,Night,Heaven(1st and 2nd),Earth,Seas,and Woman???Notice that they are all in capitals???Know why???Because previosly to them being named they never existed!!!Pretty cool or what?!?!In the light of GOD'S word lets look at the following:2Peter3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water(Which is exactly what Gen1:6-1:10 is describing):
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.The text says the WORLD was overflowed with water(see 2PETER2:4,5),never the less the heavens were MOST DEFINITELY affected. Read the following:Gen7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.Talk about going to 7:11 for a big gulp!!!!!HEY ALL YOU GAPPERS, THATS A LOT OF WATER!!!Check this out!Rom8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.Did you catch it????Those silly heavens went through another traumatic experience even BEFORE the flood, it was called the FALL OF MAN, NOT SATAN.A TEXT OUTSIDE IT'S CONTEXT IS A PRETEXTPraise God I am not "willfully ignorant"Mark10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.Y'all catch that, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATIONRom3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

---

...let God be true, but every man a liar...

Glory2God,Hi, I started this thread. I trust you may have read some of the previous discussions on it. If the rebellion of the angels under Day Star’s deception occurred sometime after God laid the foundation of the world, then I don’t see how this verse proves a 6,000 old universe. The phrase ”all the sons of God” could simply mean that none of the angels had YET become the FALLEN sons of God. Therefore prior to their being in rebellion they could rejoice at the creation with the other ”sons of God.” Before SOME of the sons of God followed the Anointed Cherub to rebel against God, ALL the sons of God certainly could rejoice in God’s creation.Accordingly, I don’t think Job 38:7 can be used to prove that there was no pre-Adamic age in the universe. Before Gen. 1:1 is of course, before God created the heavens and the earth. But I see nothing in this passage proving that there could not be a pre-Adamic age. Look at verse 25 - Before the mountains were settled . ”When we compare this with Psalm 104 we see that there was a time associated with the establishing of the earth, when the mountains did exist but were covered by the waters:” . You stretched out the heavens like a tent curtain. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chaoriot; He walks upon the wings of the wind . He established the earth upon its foundation, So that it cannot be moved forever and ever. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they rushed away --The mountains rose, the valleys sank - To the place that You established for them. You set a border that they may not pass over, That they may not turn back to cover the earth.” (See Psalm 104).If this is a Psalm concerning God’s making of the earth we should notice that the mountains were covered by the waters until God’s command caused them to rise and the water receed. Concerning the dry land in Genesis chapter one, we are told that God caused it to appear, it does not say that He created it on the third day:”And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR, and it was so.” (Gen. 1:9 my emphasis). This compares exactly to Psalm 104:6 - “ . The waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled . the mountains rose . ". The preexistent mountains, it says, God covered it with the deep - ”He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it cannot be moved forever and ever. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains” (Psalm 104:5,6).From the time that God created the heavens and the earth to the time He rebuked the waters that covered the already existing mountains underneath so that the dry land appeared, there could be a pre-Adamic age. I believe so. And in that pre-Adamic age God ”covered it [the earth in verse 5] with the DEEP as with a garment. What we see in Genesis 1:2 is the Spirit of God brooding upon the face of the deep. And the earth was without form and void. And on the third day He cammanded the dry land of the underwater mountains to appear. Your reference to Wisdom being with God in very ancient times does not prove that there was no pre-Adamic universe. Rather the original earth was rendered without form and void and the waters covered the mountains. A new earth was prepared for a new creature, man. And this is the six days of work spoken of in Genesis. I see nothing in this passage absolutely proving that there could be no pre-Adamic age. I see these verses as God’s restoration work and further creation work after some time in the pre-Adamic past when He rendered the earth judged and without form and void. The previous world He destroyed. He had a new start with man as the main creature on the earth. I think that whether or not these words are capitalized is a matter of how the English translators decided to put emphasis on the Hebrew words. But I would like to know what English version of Genesis it is that you are quoting before I make any further comment on this.What version are you quoting?I will consider your references to 2 Peter, Mark, and Romans in another post.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-11-2006 05:20 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-11-2006 05:23 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-11-2006 05:25 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-11-2006 05:26 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-11-2006 05:43 PM

Glory2God, Would you also say that this same logic proves that there are no evil angels in the universe when Christ comes in His second coming?"And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth, He says, 'And let ALL the angels of God worship Him' " (Heb. 1:6)Why would the evil angels want to worship the Lord Jesus at His second coming?I don't think the Job passage proves that there was no pre-Adamic angelic rebellion of the sons of God anymore than Heb.1:6 proves that there are no evil angels when Christ comes a second time. And this in spite of the fact that it says "ALL the angels of God".This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-11-2006 05:36 PM

Glory2God,I believe that your other references includes 2 Peter 3:4-7. This passage points out that "from the beginning of creation" all things have not continued uninterrupted by an intervening judgement of God. This would be true regardless of one's belief or nonbelief in a pre-Adamic age of the universe. That is if God did create heaven and earth in the beginning in some unknown epoch before the six days of Genesis, and judge that world, rendering it "without form and void (Gen. 1:2), Peter's statements would still be true.The specific reference to judgement that the Apostle Peter draws our attention to is the flood of Noah, IMO. It may be true that Peter is only highlighting the calamity of the flood in Genesis 6 pertaining to Noah. But though he does not mention any other judgement per se, i.e. what rendered the earth waste and void in Genesis 1:2, this doesn't prove that no pre-human world and judgement ever took place. Peter only intends to prove that from the creation of the heavens and the earth God has indeed interrupted the flow of history with divine judgement.He is addressing his teaching to counter those who are willifully ignorant that God judged the world in Noah's day. Does this prove that no pre-Adamic judgement took place on other non-human creatures before man's creation? I think it does not prove that at all. The same book in chapter 2 verse 4 says "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned but delivered them to gloomy pits, having cast them down to Tartarus, they being kept in judgment..." (2 Pet. 2:4). I think it is obvious that all the angels who followed Satan have sinned. Some who have sinned in a particularly grevious way have been confined in Tartarus until the last judgement. But others who have sinned, including the Anointed Cherub himself, have not been yet confined. But they all sinned.The evidence is strong that Satan was active from the sixth day when man was created by God. So the angels who sinned had to have done so before that day. Some choose the believe that they sinned sometime between the first day and the sixth day. I think that that is too short of a time for such a great cosmic opposition party challenging God to have fermented and amassed. Rather than Satan deceiving one third of the angels (Rev. 12:4) during the first week Genesis chapter 1, I believe that this rebellion took place earlier in the universe. When the Spirit of God brooded over the face of the deep in Genesis 1:3 the fermentation, development, and divine reaction of some amount of judgement had already taken place. And on this account the world under their authority was rendered waste and void. Latter some of these evil angels sinned in a more grevious manner and were further confined to Tartarus.The alternative to a pre-Adamic angelic rebellion is to assume that a few days (if not a few hours) after God created heaven and earth some being immediately launched on a conflict against their Creator. And this fully developed by the time Adam was in the garden to be tempted by the Devil. A pre-Adamic rebellion makes more theological sense to me.Now you drew attention to these verses: "... by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth was compacted out of water and through water, Through which the world then, being flooded with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth now ..."You drew special attention to the fact that the flood in Noah's day effected the heavens. I think I would like you to explain a little more why these facts prove that there could be no pre-Adamic world judgement before Genesis 1:2.The Mark verse says that God created human beings male and female from the creation."But from the beginning of creation, He made them male and female"This statement is true regardless of when God first created the heavens and the earth. As far as human beings are concerned, God has created them male and female from thier first coming into existence. This verse does not prove that there could be no pre-Admic age after God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" (Gen. 1:1). Moving forward in time from the beginning of creation, humans have always been made by God as male and female.We may say that the first male and female humans were created so many thousands of years ago. In my opinion we cannot use this verse to prove that the beginning of creation could not have preceeded man's creation some unspecified amount of time before. The focus is the nature of man's created being not the time of the creation of heaven and earth.John chapter 9 says something similiar:"Since time began it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of the blind" (John 9:32)This statement is true even if the beginning of time preceeded the creation of man by some unknown interval, even a very large unknown interval.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 04:12 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 04:14 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 04:15 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 04:17 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 04:23 AM

jaywill writes:

quote:

---

If your “reasonable approach” leads you contradict what is said in several major areas, I think your reasoning must be a reasoning without God being included in the process.

---

Logical error: Slothful induction.You're starting with the conclusion and doing everything you can to find evidence in favor of it, including denial of evidence against it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I don't know where you lifted this quote from. It sounds like something I wrote. But perhaps you could refresh us on what the specific matter being discussed was.Where did you cut this portion of an exchange from? Was I talking to you? Was I talking to someone who claims to be a theist?This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 06:59 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 07:03 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 07:04 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-12-2006 07:04 AM

jaywill responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know where you lifted this quote from.

---

Then look at the bottom of my post and you will find the post from which I pulled it. Here, let me help you: Message 61

quote:

---

Was I talking to you?

---

Does it matter? I've never understood this attitude of "I wasn't talking to you" in a public forum. If you didn't want other people to respond to your comments, then you shouldn't have made them in an area that invites exactly that.

quote:

---

Was I talking to someone who claims to be a theist?

---

Non sequitur. Could you try again, please?Was I talking to someone who claims to be a theist?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.