Gap theory

[FollowingHim]

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)
...
7 as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

I was referring to Genesis 1:16: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." The word "made" is 'asah, which means to make or produce. This verse very clearly states that the sun, moon and stars were all made on day 4 of the creation week - ie they were not pre-existing.

As @ZecAustin pointed out, Job is on the other hand poetic and does not necessarily describe everything in a perfect literal order. But if it is describing things in a literal order, this will be a poetic way of referring to the angels, twice. Hebrew poetry uses parallelism as deeply as our own poetry uses rhyming - it says the same thing in two different ways one after the other. So this would be saying that the angels sang and shouted for joy at the creation of the earth, and does not contradict the clear statement in Genesis that the stars were created later. That is interesting, because it does imply the angels pre-existed the creation of the world. But whether that is meant to be taken literally is of course another question.

 

[PeteR]

that there should be time no longer

Sorry..other translations render this 'there should be no more delay'....

 

[FollowingHim]

Regarding Lucifer and Adam, I find the answers speculative at best.
@Soldier's Psalm: Yes, Adam was to tend and protect the garden - but the Bible does not say he was to guard it from Lucifer, that is just one way this can be interpreted based on the presupposition that Lucifer had already fallen and was already roaming the earth.
@Jim an Apostle: You have speculated about free-will etc, and once again this is an explanation that might work - but I don't see any actual scriptural reason that this explanation is correct.

The entire Gap Theory rests on narrow interpretations of passages in poetic and prophetic books, and is just one way these could be interpreted. For instance, why assume Lucifer was on earth and was judged here at his fall?

There is another theory that some hold - that Lucifer ruled a planet (possibly called Rahab) where the current asteroid belt is, and that this planet was destroyed by God in judgement for Lucifer's sin. Having lost that planet he was cast down to earth - and then caused trouble for Adam. I am not in any way suggesting this is correct, I am rather throwing it out there as an alternative theory that also seeks to explain Lucifer's fall pre-Adam, but not on earth. I find it at least as compelling (or you could read that "as little compelling") as the idea of a pre-Adamic Luciferian kingdom on earth.

Key supporting verses used:
Ezekiel 28:14-16
"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."
Stones of fire is interpreted to mean "planets".
Psalm 89:10 "Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm."
Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?"
Rahab is interpreted to mean the name of Lucifer's planet.

Key supporting physical evidence is the mathematical theory that a planet should exist where the asteroid belt lies today (the planets are spaced in a clear pattern, and there appears to be a gap in the pattern), and the existance of many craters on all other planets that could have been caused by debris from destruction of such a planet.

This theory seeks to explain the same thing, and selected verses can be cited from prophetic and poetic books that appear to support it. Also, there is a clear astronomical theory that supports it. Why not believe Lucifer's realm was here? Why believe it was on the earth?

 

[Soldier's Psalm]

So you’re saying that in a discussion of the Creation we shouldn’t get too wrapped up in the Bible’s account of the Creation but instead refer to an aside in the most allegorical and misunderstood book in the whole Bible?

I'm just saying there is more to the creation story than the first 25 verses of the Bible. If your first reaction to everything talking about creation in every other book besides Genesis messes you up so bad it has to become poetry and allegory then you might want to rethink your stance on creation. I mean wouldn't it be great if there was a theory of creation where the whole Bible becomes literal not just Genesis and it all fits together and to top it off you could sprinkle some science in there too just for fun and everyone gets along?

These are all things you could and would still do with a garden whether or not there as a secret world ruled by Satan that pre-existed the Garden. All you are showing is that God put Adam in charge of Eden. That’s good. We all agree with you. What you have not done is shown us something that says “Satan ruled the world before what we call Creation but is really only a creation and God wipes it all out in a flood and recreated us but on the same plant in the same universe.” That’s the passage you need to find. We know Adam had charge of the Garden.

Your right. Hopefully what I have done so far is prove that Satan fail before Adam since Adam was told to guard the garden. I'm not too sure how standardized the young earth belief is but that contradicts 90% of what I have read of it online. Now you have to decide when did Satan fall in the 6 day creation and why wasn't it talked about. The young earth ideas I saw for this were extremely limited but the ones I did find sure were colorful. But still i think it would be easier to have Satan be the praise leader one day and falling the next than too argue that Adam wasn't told to guard the garden from someone.

Rev 10:5-7
And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand toheaven,
And sware by him that liveth forever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are,†and the earth, and the things that therein are,† and the sea, and the things which are therein,† that there should be time no longer:
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound,† the mystery o f God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Gold! A closing to time. Thanks @Verifyveritas76 I'll have to see how this fits in.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I was referring to Genesis 1:16: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." The word "made" is 'asah, which means to make or produce. This verse very clearly states that the sun, moon and stars were all made on day 4 of the creation week - ie they were not pre-existing.

As @ZecAustin pointed out, Job is on the other hand poetic and does not necessarily describe everything in a perfect literal order. But if it is describing things in a literal order, this will be a poetic way of referring to the angels, twice. Hebrew poetry uses parallelism as deeply as our own poetry uses rhyming - it says the same thing in two different ways one after the other. So this would be saying that the angels sang and shouted for joy at the creation of the earth, and does not contradict the clear statement in Genesis that the stars were created later. That is interesting, because it does imply the angels pre-existed the creation of the world. But whether that is meant to be taken literally is of course another question.

However if meant to be taken literally it indicates two events;

1 the morning stars singing
AND
2 the Angels shouting

Interesting that the Genesis account makes no mention of the creation of Angels and other spirit beings, yet that realm is foundational to the physical realm

Hebrews 11:3 . . . things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

2 Cor. 4:18 . . . for the things which are seen are temporal: but the things which are not seen are eternal

since the unseen i.e. the spirit realm is more durable than the physical realm why is its existence seemingly taken for granted; its creation not detailed to us? Maybe because it was preexisting.

God said let us make man in our Image
when was the us made?

Yes we could talk about the plurality of God or the use of the Royal WE. Both could be in play, as well as an already created angelic host that did rejoice at the creation of the earth.

The more we reject the plain language and make it spiritual or figurative the more chance for error! Yes trees clapping there hands is figurative but the trees will be more blessed and they will be actual trees.
A woman cannot Physically, literally wear the Sun, that must be symbolic language but Pre-existent stars is backed up by Astro-physics.
Forcing everything into a 6,000 year old creation is not backed by science, and not required by scripture, or sound theology. Especially keeping a 6000 yr RE-Creation of the earth in the mix.

 

[FollowingHim]

I also feel that we know very little about Satan at all, and our views on him are influenced very heavily by Catholic tradition. As @AmericanIsraelite has pointed out in another discussion:

The word satan appears many times in scripture but in context just means adversary. You find figurative speech like this used throughout the old testament.

I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions he reaches, but I raise this point to show that our understanding of Satan / Lucifer (and even if they are the same being) is debatable to begin with - because it is based on scriptures that don't explain the whole picture clearly, but each just mentions one detail. Was the Satan mentioned in Job the same Satan that was in the garden and the same Satan that tempted Jesus? Probably - but possibly not. Because this fundamental is itself debatable, I am very wary of further speculations like the Gap Theory, that presuppose the standard view of Lucifer and his fall and then try to find a way to shoehorn it into the historical narrative of scripture somewhere. Because we may have misunderstood Lucifer in the first place, and may be trying to fit in a fantasy.

 

[FollowingHim]

Interesting that the Genesis account makes no mention of the creation of Angels and other spirit beings, yet that realm is foundational to the physical realm
...
Maybe because it was preexisting.

I am very open to the possibility that the angels pre-existed the physical creation of earth described in Genesis. I'm not arguing with that. We simply are not told when they were created, so they may have existed long before Genesis.

What I am debating is the idea that this earth, that God described as "very good", had already been the scene of enormous violence and was still inhabited by a fallen Lucifer that had somehow survived the judgement against him and went on to tempt Adam and Eve back into the same sin. Because that indicates that God's standard of "very good" is not very high.

 

[Soldier's Psalm]

@Soldier's Psalm: Yes, Adam was to tend and protect the garden - but the Bible does not say he was to guard it from Lucifer, that is just one way this can be interpreted based on the presupposition that Lucifer had already fallen and was already roaming the earth.

There was no one else to guard it from. They were in Paradise.

The entire Gap Theory rests on narrow interpretations of passages in poetic and prophetic books, and is just one way these could be interpreted. For instance, why assume Lucifer was on earth and was judged here at his fall?

I think we are using a more literal interpretation than a poetic one. And I just came up with this thought but it fits. When was Lucifer Judged? Lucifer was not judged at the fall of Adam. The serpent was but the serpent in not Satan. Satan merely used the serpent. That means Satan had already fell before Adam or God would have cursed him as well. God cursed Adam and eve and then he put enmity or hatred between the seed of the woman and serpent. Satan is cast into the bottomless pit in Revelations. There will be children playing in adder pits in Revelations with no fear for being bitten. That is 2 entirely different futures.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Psalm 89:10 "Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm."
Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?"
Rahab is interpreted to mean the name of Lucifer's planet.

Rahab symbolic of Egypt
see verse 10

 

[FollowingHim]

Hopefully what I have done so far is prove that Satan fail before Adam since Adam was told to guard the garden.

No, you haven't proved that, that was @ZecAustin's point. You have shown Adam was to guard the garden - that does not tell us anything about what he was to guard it against. Maybe he was simply to guard it against roaming animals that would want to eat it - which does not indicate sin in any way, animals are made to eat food, but you still have to guard your crops from them. This tells us nothing about Lucifer. The idea that Adam was guarding against him is a presupposition.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Because that indicates that God's standard of "very good" is not very high.

The allowing of Satan to test the faith and obedience of man was of course 'very good'

the trial of your faith is more precious than gold!

of course if Satan was not just made and the the narrative is about what was just made then that which was made was very good. Satan was not part of that.

 

[Soldier's Psalm]

Another question for young earth people is who planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Did God plant the tree in the Garden and then tell man not to eat it? That doesn't sound like God because he is neither tempted nor does he tempt. So who did it? Who mingled good with evil and placed it next to the tree of life? If you say God did you are saying one, that God tempted man which can't be true and two, you are saying that God did something he has never did since and created evil and mixed it with good for whatever reason. The fact the tree was there means the enemy had already been there once before. Perhaps Adam wasn't keeping/guarding the garden like he was supposed too. The parable in Matthew of the sewer might give a glimpse of what happened here.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think if Satan had planted an evil tree in the garden, Adam's first job would have been to cut it down not guard it along with all the others.

I see this as God not tempting Adam and Eve, but simply deliberately giving them the ability to disobey Him. He gave them one rule - only one rule - to see if they would obey. And that rule was "don't eat from this tree".

The tree itself was not necessarily evil.

I understand that "Good and Evil" is an idiom that means "everything" - if you include both extreme opposites you include everything (just as in Eastern philosophy, yin + yang = the whole). This makes the tree "The tree of the knowledge of everything", and that Eve was tempted because she would be like God and understand "everything". I don't see it as meaning tree itself was evil, any more than the tree was good - it itself was just a neutral object. Eating from it was a sin only because God had said not to do so.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I think if Satan had planted an evil tree in the garden, Adam's first job would have been to cut it down not guard it along with all the others.

I see this as God not tempting Adam and Eve, but simply deliberately giving them the ability to disobey Him. He gave them one rule - only one rule - to see if they would obey. And that rule was "don't eat from this tree".

The tree itself was not necessarily evil.

I understand that "Good and Evil" is an idiom that means "everything" - if you include both extreme opposites you include everything (just as in Eastern philosophy, yin + yang = the whole). This makes the tree "The tree of the knowledge of everything", and that Eve was tempted because she would be like God and understand "everything". I don't see it as meaning tree itself was evil, any more than the tree was good - it itself was just a neutral object. Eating from it was a sin only because God had said not to do so.

God was not trying to get them to make the wrong choice but trying to get them to make the right choice.

It is also possible that the tree was out side of the garden. the same Hebrew word for in the midst is also translated out of the midst when speaking of Lots deliverance. just a thought.

 

[Soldier's Psalm]

Another question for young earth people is who planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Did God plant the tree in the Garden and then tell man not to eat it? That doesn't sound like God because he is neither tempted nor does he tempt. So who did it? Who mingled good with evil and placed it next to the tree of life? If you say God did you are saying one, that God tempted man which can't be true and two, you are saying that God did something he has never did since and created evil and mixed it with good for whatever reason. The fact the tree was there means the enemy had already been there once before. The parable in Matthew of the sewer might give a glimpse of what happened here.

I think if Satan had planted an evil tree in the garden, Adam's first job would have been to cut it down not guard it along with all the others.

I see this as God not tempting Adam and Eve, but simply deliberately giving them the ability to disobey Him. He gave them one rule - only one rule - to see if they would obey. And that rule was "don't eat from this tree".

The tree itself was not necessarily evil.

I understand that "Good and Evil" is an idiom that means "everything" - if you include both extreme opposites you include everything (just as in Eastern philosophy, yin + yang = the whole). This makes the tree "The tree of the knowledge of everything", and that Eve was tempted because she would be like God and understand "everything". I don't see it as meaning tree itself was evil, any more than the tree was good - it itself was just a neutral object. Eating from it was a sin only because God had said not to do so.

The problem with this is God hates mingling of good and evil. There is a ton of Hebrew teaching on the idea that God hates mingling of seed/things good and evil, wheat and tare so much that that is why we were told not to mix garment types. It was to be a reminder. Satan deceived mixing truth with a lie, good and evil. Its kind of a mark of his. The tree kind of fits his MO.

 

[FollowingHim]

God was not trying to get them to make the wrong choice but trying to get them to make the right choice.

I agree. But he had to give them a choice, in order for them to make the right choice there had to be a wrong option. Hence the tree.

The problem with this is God hates mingling of good and evil. There is a ton of Hebrew teaching on the idea that God hates mingling of seed/things good and evil, wheat and tare so much that that is why we were told not to mix garment types. It was to be a reminder. Satan deceived mixing truth with a lie, good and evil. Its kind of a mark of his. The tree kind of fits his MO.

That is an interesting point.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Rev 10:5-7
And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand toheaven,
And sware by him that liveth forever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are,†and the earth, and the things that therein are,† and the sea, and the things which are therein,† that there should be time no longer:
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound,† the mystery o f God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Beautiful passage, thank you!

 

[rockfox]

This story would indicate that Satan was cast out of heaven after the creation of man, but before the fall of man. I wouldn't call that the last word, for obvious reasons, but it might shed some light on the matter.

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?

Why must our story be the first story? I don't see why ours couldn't be one in a series of stories. God even points to a next story (new heaven and new earth).

I'm not. I copied that right out of the strongs concordance. For giggles I looked up to keep in the 1611 kjv dictionary to see why they used the word keep and when used in this context in 1611 it looks like,it means the,same thing. It seems to me everyone just uses the idea for dressing the garden for both words not realizing there are two completely different words with two completely different meanings behind them.

So for much of history the two most important jobs of a gardener were to weed (tend) the crops and maintain (keep) the walls / hedges. This language could have greater meaning, or it could just be practical gardening language. So the next question for you to ponder would be, what does it mean for Adam to "keep" Eden? Weren't the animals already inside of it? What was he to keep out?

I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions he reaches, but I raise this point to show that our understanding of Satan / Lucifer (and even if they are the same being) is debatable to begin with - because it is based on scriptures that don't explain the whole picture clearly, but each just mentions one detail. Was the Satan mentioned in Job the same Satan that was in the garden and the same Satan that tempted Jesus? Probably - but possibly not.

Rev 12 makes it pretty clear we're dealing with the same Satan from the beginning to the end of the bible. I don't buy this metaphorical devil stuff. There is way more to it than just RCC mythmaking.

What I am debating is the idea that this earth, that God described as "very good", had already been the scene of enormous violence and was still inhabited by a fallen Lucifer that had somehow survived the judgement against him and went on to tempt Adam and Eve back into the same sin. Because that indicates that God's standard of "very good" is not very high.

God saw His recreation as good. I fail to see how that is illogical. And your line of argument here doesn't really make sense considering God called Adam and Eve good as well, and yet they too sinned and fell.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The problem with this is God hates mingling of good and evil. There is a ton of Hebrew teaching on the idea that God hates mingling of seed/things good and evil, wheat and tare so much that that is why we were told not to mix garment types. It was to be a reminder. Satan deceived mixing truth with a lie, good and evil. Its kind of a mark of his. The tree kind of fits his MO.

The vast majority of us were not told not to mix garment types. That was a command to physical Israelites living in physical Israel. You're skimming the surface of deep waters and you're missing a lot of important stuff.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So the next question for you to ponder would be, what does it mean for Adam to "keep" Eden? Weren't the animals already inside of it? What was he to keep out?

Now this is a much more interesting question and one I'm willing to speculate wildly about. I am convinced that there were whole civilizations outside of the Garden. God told them to be fruitful and multiply IN the garden. There's no way their first two kids don't come around until after the Fall. I believe that their children would leave of be expelled from the Garden themselves by either just walking out or eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is why there were people for Cain to be afraid of after he killed Abel.

The first most logical objection to this is why, if someone else ate the apple first, was every one not kicked out of the Garden at the first transgression. The answer comes to us in the New Testament (find the reference yourself) where we're told that through one man sin entered the world. Adam was the only one whose sin could taint everyone and everything else. His children's earlier sin (of eating from the tree) was visited on them and their children but would not affect their siblings or their parents. It was only Adam's sin that affected everyone.

This means that thousands, if not many thousands, of years could have and most likely did pass between Creation and the Fall; certainly enough to let civilizations and cities arise. I do not however allow that it was millions of years.