The Missing Gap in Genesis

StanJ

New member
The first problem with what 6days is saying is to drag out titles from 50 years ago which are inaccurate.

Have to agree.

When I was young and didn't know any better, I was exposed to the gap theory. Sounded reasonable so I went with it. Since I GREW in knowledge of God's word I concur with you that there is NO gap there. The way to read Genesis is simple.

Headline: Gen 1:1
Details of 1:1: Gen 1:2-31
Details of 1:27: Gen 2:4-26

Then from Gen 3:1 we move back to the historical account of mankind.
Synopsis is not a new word or concept, but it definitely shows through IF you read it with sound hermeneutical exegesis.
 

6days

New member
Have to agree.

When I was young and didn't know any better, I was exposed to the gap theory. Sounded reasonable so I went with it. Since I GREW in knowledge of God's word I concur with you that there is NO gap there. The way to read Genesis is simple.

Headline: Gen 1:1
Details of 1:1: Gen 1:2-31
Details of 1:27: Gen 2:4-26

Then from Gen 3:1 we move back to the historical account of mankind.
Synopsis is not a new word or concept, but it definitely shows through IF you read it with sound hermeneutical exegesis.
Yes! :)
 

keypurr

Well-known member
24 hours of course.
We know that from the context in both the Hebrew language and scripture.

No we don't, there is no verse that says that the first days of creation were 24 hours long. The Earth is millions of years old, not six thousand years.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member


I can agree with Stan J as long as he will agree with things that most scholars say are part of Moses style:
section title,
setting,
new action.

In the case of 1:2, the setting allows for a window of time going way back. 'Formless and void' means that many, many things have happened, and ended disapproved and destroyed by God.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
No we don't, there is no verse that says that the first days of creation were 24 hours long. The Earth is millions of years old, not six thousand years.


There are several things about 6days handling that are unclear or incomplete or misapplied.
1, the belief in such a short total time means things like Niagara's wearing away of base sediment is an optical illusion; in fact, a whole bunch of things are for no good reason.
2, it is perfectly fine to keep to 24s for the 6 days of creation, but not the size of the window of time for 'formless and void.' I don't know how many posts we are into this now, but he has never addressed how an expression like 'formless and void' came to be except for one remark that was mindless that 'there is no destroyed city in Gen 1:2.' (see Jer 4:23).
3, even the conservative evangelist and philospher F. Schaeffer allows for the extension of the genealogies based on comps with others and the two in the NT to show that as much as 10K is allowed on that question.
4, it would be hard to find a world event that would have the features of the flood, including both an ice age and a deluge due to the collapse of the 'canopy,' which would be other than the abrupt warming at the end of the last major ice age 10K ago. There is all the evidence around for that from cores to Niagara to lines in granite in NYC to Lake Morse in Olympic National Park. That is not a huge admission of defect on the part of the Biblical text which was transmitted verbally for quite a while! Nor is it unreasonable to agree with scientists about things so near in time compared to their billions of years about other things. It only puts the 6 days back between 10 and 15K ago.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
There are several things about 6days handling that are unclear or incomplete or misapplied.
1, the belief in such a short total time means things like Niagara's wearing away of base sediment is an optical illusion; in fact, a whole bunch of things are for no good reason.
2, it is perfectly fine to keep to 24s for the 6 days of creation, but not the size of the window of time for 'formless and void.' I don't know how many posts we are into this now, but he has never addressed how an expression like 'formless and void' came to be except for one remark that was mindless that 'there is no destroyed city in Gen 1:2.' (see Jer 4:23).
3, even the conservative evangelist and philospher F. Schaeffer allows for the extension of the genealogies based on comps with others and the two in the NT to show that as much as 10K is allowed on that question.
4, it would be hard to find a world event that would have the features of the flood, including both an ice age and a deluge due to the collapse of the 'canopy,' which would be other than the abrupt warming at the end of the last major ice age 10K ago. There is all the evidence around for that from cores to Niagara to lines in granite in NYC to Lake Morse in Olympic National Park. That is not a huge admission of defect on the part of the Biblical text which was transmitted verbally for quite a while! Nor is it unreasonable to agree with scientists about things so near in time compared to their billions of years about other things. It only puts the 6 days back between 10 and 15K ago.

The point I tried to make is that we have no clue how long the first days were. It is unknowable.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
24 hours of course.
We know that from the context in both the Hebrew language and scripture.


There weren't any! That's the point. The window of time is wide open during 'formless and void' which was dark, except for distant Milky Way light. 'Formless and void' is complex and by tying it together with the fact and purpose of blackest darkness in 2 Pet 2 and Jude, it has a very mysterious background.

The 24s refer to after God made local light.

Even the 'marker' of the Milky Way would not be seen well through the opacity of the canopy except as a vague line shifting only a little each night. All canopy-man (Adam to Noah) could see was a major and minor light.

I have read that by using the term 'govern' similarly for both sun and moon, the text is recording the fact of celestial regularity about the moon before the flood, and that the event of the flood was a partly celestial catastrophe which left the earth 'wobbling.' There are no rains before the canopy is gone, nor are there seasons. That is all after.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The point I tried to make is that we have no clue how long the first days were. It is unknowable.


I don't think the information is missing there. There was evening and morning for each unit. It makes much more sense to say that the window of time for 'formless and void' is pretty wide. God made a woman in a moment. He confused human language in a moment. Sarah gets pregnant at 90, years after menopause. The God we are talking about would have no problem forming each realm in a day.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
I don't think the information is missing there. There was evening and morning for each unit. It makes much more sense to say that the window of time for 'formless and void' is pretty wide. God made a woman in a moment. He confused human language in a moment. Sarah gets pregnant at 90, years after menopause. The God we are talking about would have no problem forming each realm in a day.

Yes there was an evening and morning, but what determined what time was used. There is no time mentioned until the sun and moon were created.

I believe my God has no limits, but I try not to assume things that are not there. I see no conflict with Science on the age of this planet.
 

StanJ

New member
I can agree with Stan J as long as he will agree with things that most scholars say are part of Moses style:
section title,
setting,
new action.
In the case of 1:2, the setting allows for a window of time going way back. 'Formless and void' means that many, many things have happened, and ended disapproved and destroyed by God.


I'm confused now...I thought you didn't accept a GAP theory?
Gen 1:2 is the START of the creation story IN detail. Gen 1:1 is the synopsis of the whole of Gen 1. The word NOW that Moses uses to start v2 connotes the beginning of the historical account, obviously as it was written post event. It's not much different than the opening of A TALE OF TWO CITIES.
 

RBBI

New member
I would have to disagree with the comments about what formless and void mean. It was not denoting judgment but transformation. The key to prophesying is hidden in plain sight here. Formless means it didn't have the image or form of the Son yet, and void means it didn't have the Ruach HaKodesh (Spirit) yet. In other words, it was an empty vessel without His nature or anointing yet.

What He does with the earth in Gen. 1 is a macrocosm for what He does with our "earth" (Adam taken from the dust of the earth), which is the microcosm. The Ruach Hakodesh moving upon the face (face denotes nature) of the waters (waters denote spirit and peoples), means He is changing the nature to conform it into His nature and form.

The true meaning of to prophesy is to call those things that are not as thought they were. That's the sovereign King realm; He speaks and things happen without any resistance. When the Ruach HaKodesh moves upon the face of OUR waters, He is changing our nature and giving us more of His form. This is the action of Him increasing as we decrease. Saul said that he was willing to stay with one of the churches until "Christ be FORMED in them."
Peace
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
OTHER arguments against the gap theory.

A. *As shown above, *gap theorists need to perform mental gymnastics which leads to a very confusing Gospel. *

It's interesting that just this morning a atheist in TOL made this comment to a gap theorist..."Wow. Then the Biblical text is not a simple, clear, and meaningful message to be taken to the world at large, but instead is an obscure abstract treatise that can be appreciated only by those who are learned in the subtleties of ancient languages...."

The mental gymnastics is also easy for youth to see through. When they are taught to perform mental gymnastics with Genesis, it then becomes natural to 'interpret' the gospel with the same technique.*

B. Genesis 1:31 God calls everything "very good". *It defies logic to think God would rebuild upon millions of dead things from a previously corrupted world and call it very good. But, even more difficult is that Satan would already have been "god of this world". 2 Cor. *4:4

C. Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"
Question. ..if everything was made in six days, what was made before the six days?

yes, and i was thinking, as i try to simplify to help comprehend creation.
in a nutshell, Evolutionists think everything is billions of years old, that everything just worked out this way, and even though there have been multiple mass extinctions over these billions of years, that somehow some critters survived and morphed into mankind.

now THAT is faith !!!! the wrong kind, but wow, it takes more blind faith in fantasies, than to know God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour -
 

6days

New member
keypurr said:
No we don't, there is no verse that says that the first days of creation were 24 hours long.
Gen. 1:4 " God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."
24 hour days

Jonah 3:4 "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown."
24 hour days

Joshua 6:3 " You shall march around the city, all you men of war; you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days."
24 hour days

Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them"
24 hour days

Keypurr.... throughout scripture whenever a number is associated with the word day, it refers to a 24 hour day. Throughout scripture...every single time the word 'day' is associated with the word .evening' or morning, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day.

keypurr said:
The Earth is millions of years old, not six thousand years.
Jesus "'God made them male and female' from the beginning of creation"
 

6days

New member
yes, and i was thinking, as i try to simplify to help comprehend creation.
in a nutshell, Evolutionists think everything is billions of years old, that everything just worked out this way, and even though there have been multiple mass extinctions over these billions of years, that somehow some critters survived and morphed into mankind.

now THAT is faith !!!! the wrong kind, but wow, it takes more blind faith in fantasies, than to know God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour -
Great comments .....
You know..... believing in billions of years may not seem like a big deal when it comes to the gospel... but it truly is.
One problem, is that young people are taught scripture does not mean what it clearly says, which leads to a low view of God's Word. (Why believe the flood covered all the earth? Why believe virgin birth etc).
A second problem is that billions of years of death and suffering before sin enters the world, leads to a distorted gospel and destroys the purpose of Christs death and resurrection.
Thanks again for good comments.
 

Stuu

New member
yes, and i was thinking, as i try to simplify to help comprehend creation.
in a nutshell, Evolutionists think everything is billions of years old, that everything just worked out this way, and even though there have been multiple mass extinctions over these billions of years, that somehow some critters survived and morphed into mankind.

now THAT is faith !!!! the wrong kind, but wow, it takes more blind faith in fantasies, than to know God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Lord and Saviour -
You don't actually know anything about evolution by natural selection, do you.

Stuart
 

rougueone

New member
I see where people are taking Gods words and trying to master them when they should be more attentive to letting the "Master" have HIS place in their life.
We are not going to understand every bit of Scripture.
 
Top