# Lucifer's Fall



## Craig (Apr 24, 2004)

I've got a question concerning satan's fall because I've been reading a book by Barnhouse called &quot;the invisible war&quot;. It is his understanding that there is a &quot;gap in between Genesis1:1 and verse 2. It was during this &quot;gap&quot; that Satan fell. It was some time after this (perhaps thousands, if not millions of years) that God reformed the earth in six days. I though it was fascinating and pretty convincing. What do other exegetes think? Is it plausible, laughable? It satisfies my questions pretty well.

[Edited on 4-25-2004 by Craig]


----------



## Christopher (Apr 25, 2004)

Please do not be offended brother, but, the &quot;Gap Theory&quot; is considered a joke amongst most solid theologians.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 25, 2004)

Craig,

One problem with this theory (apart from the fact that there's no need for it) is that it postulates the entrance of sin into a world before God pronounces it good. Later on in the narrative we read not only that God called it good, but very good. If Lucifer had fallen, if the angelic rebellion had already taken place, then that seems too sweeping.


----------



## Craig (Apr 25, 2004)

So when did the Fall occur? I purchased this book by recommendation from Modern Ref sometime ago, I am not sure why it would be recommended if this theory is so laughable (don't worry, I'm not offended Chris).

I know people laugh at the idea, but I need some biblical basis to reject it. I have no problem with God reforming the earth and the heavens and calling it very good. He doesn't say &quot;yeah, the heavens are very good...so's the earth...man, animals, and oh yeah, Lucifer&quot;. All that is very good is that which He's just made.

Could anyone point me in any direction (biblically...I don't have time or money to go find other books) to get more info?

Thanks.


----------



## Preach (Apr 25, 2004)

Craig,
Check out www.visionforum.com They are six day creationists. Their ministry is primarily family oriented. Once you are there, you should see names of theologians associated with them that you are familiar with. I am reading a book I ordered from them. This is the book that convinced R.C.Sproul Sr. to become a six day creationist. That factr caught my attention.


----------



## Craig (Apr 25, 2004)

Josh,
Let me play devil's advocte a little bit (I am still leaning toward gap theory, I will definitely check out the link. Thanks for that one, Preach). I won't say this view is unorthodox, as Barnhouse was minister of 10th Presbyterian just before Boice. He was dedicated to Reformed theology and preached it convincingly.

Also, in my reading of the book, the gap has next to nothing to do with the appearance of old age in regards to the earth. Here is part of Barnhouse's argument:

[quote:490d3a9dd7]
On the one side of the abyss stands the phrase,&quot;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&quot; We come to the other side and read the second verse as it is found in the KJV:&quot;And the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep.&quot; The revisers in both the English and American revisions, not satisfied with the terms &quot;without form and void,&quot; have given us the better translation, &quot;waste and void&quot;, though the RSV has gone backto the KJV rendering. Still another translator interprets the Hebrew as &quot;a wreck and a ruin.&quot; In French there is a common expression which translates our idea of topsy-turb: it is tohu-bohu- an expression transliterated from the Hebrew of this second verse of Genesis. These are the words which various translators have rendered &quot;without form,&quot; &quot;void,&quot; &quot;desolate,&quot; &quot;empty,&quot; &quot;wreck,&quot; &quot;ruin&quot;....In Isaiah 45:18, we read that God did not create the world as found in the second verse of Genesis: &quot;For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made itl he hath established it, created it NOT tohu...&quot; Here is the SAME Hebrew word as in the second verse of the Bible.
[/quote:490d3a9dd7]
Is it so far fetched to say that for the purpose of relaying our coming to being, it wasn't necessary for God to explain what was &quot;missing&quot; between verse 1 and 2? It was the story of our coming into being and our Fall. We fell because Adam succombed to temptation. Genesis explains our death, and isn't concerned with Lucifer's fall. We get bits and pieces through the prophets, and I think it might make a nice fit in between both verses. I am a literal 6 day creationist...I deny any form of evolution, or day age theory. That is extra biblical and puts man at the center of interpretation. I have ALWAYS found verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 disjointed. 

I am not convinced this is merely eisogesis. Why would Scripture skip &quot;millions&quot; of years between verse one and two? How does John 1 skip from eons in the past to the pre-existence of Christ and jump eons ahead to His appearance? John was demonstrating something about Christ...He is God. He didn't need to recount all the history in between. Why not? That would have detracted from the intent. Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Godhead who has been in perfect union with God the Father for eternity past and He took on the Flesh...wow! I wouldn't want to stick anything between that. Genesis is showing God is Creator. He created us. Redemption is a story about God's interaction with man, and Satan is a portion of it. All I can say is, it doesn't appear to concern God to explain what was going on between verse 1 and 2. He was concerned about relating our origin and fall.

[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Craig]


----------



## mjbee (Apr 25, 2004)

Craig, I have that Barnhouse book. But the &quot;gap theory&quot; has been refuted. Very well,and very ably, by creationists.


----------



## Craig (Apr 25, 2004)

Thanks Melissa.

However, the issue for me has nothing to do with creation or 6 day literal creation.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 28, 2004)

Ok I have a question too:

Now did satan fall before man?

Why did he choose the serpent?

Why would God allow him to do so? 

Did the angels all fall at once?

Or do they those who are predestined to be fallen angels fall away gradually? or over time.

blade


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 28, 2004)

Ok more questions:

Now was there a battle fought because of this fall?

How does there fall relate to the sons of god who lay with woman of men? gen 6

What did the jews believing jews before Christ view the fall and the creation saga?

If there was a war and the very distinct possibility that greek mythology is a malignment of the creation saga and how each planet is accomppinied by a 'god' would their be the distinct possibility that certain angels and groups of angels were given these worlds to watch over and that during their fall thses wrolds were ravaged as opposed to the earth ravaged theory?

Now if mars is the planet of war could this be where if their was a great war due to the fall of angels might have taken place?

ok now im really getting into theoretical ante-dilluvian and pre-ante-dilluvian thought dealing with the worlds famous creation and mythlogical tales and their impact or the impact that biblical and historical jewish interpretation have on them and current debate on creationism. 

blade

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## Saiph (Apr 28, 2004)

You guys should read &quot;Paradise Lost&quot;.

The demons that committed fornication with women are in a place called Tartaros, here translated &quot;hell&quot;.

2Pe 2:4 
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 


Jud 1:6 
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.


----------



## Craig (Apr 28, 2004)

Josh,
you made some very good points.

[quote:db15b038c3]
Maybe it wasn't necessary, but it is still &quot;reading into the text&quot; to place a gap in between vs. 1 and 2. 
[/quote:db15b038c3]

How is it reading &quot;into&quot; the text IF the language actually makes it appear there is a gap? You didn't deal with the quotation I gave you from Barnhouse. I gave you that quote anticipating more of your charges that this is eisogesis.

[quote:db15b038c3]
These two passages are like comparing oranges and apples
[/quote:db15b038c3]
I didn't use those two passages to show similar content. I was using them merely to show that the inspiration of Scripture reveals INTENT...if something detracts from the intended truth, it is left out. Both these passages reveal that.


[quote:db15b038c3]
Also, someone pointed out Mark 10:6, &quot;But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'&quot; Now, if there's a gap between vs. 1 and 2, this no longer put's the creaton of Man and Woman at the &quot;beginning of Creation.&quot; 
[/quote:db15b038c3]
But man was created &quot;from the beginning&quot;. He was created on the sixth day. Also, woman wasn't even created during the &quot;original&quot; creation. 

[quote:db15b038c3]
Why would it not say, &quot;But from the beginning of re-creation, 'God made them male and female.'&quot;? 
[/quote:db15b038c3]
Why not? Because re-creation is a category man came up with to make distinction. I think my previous comment applies here also. Just because we would like such categories, doesn't mean God should have used them with His revelation to ancient people. Remember, if we use the categories you laid out when interpreting Scripture, I would have to conclude that God has a befuddled memory...after all, Eve was created AFTER the formation of the of creation.

Please keep the comments coming. I truly need to see something contradicting what I'm beginning to study.

Also, Mark, I will have to re-read Paradise Lost. It's been a few years.


----------



## sundoulos (Apr 28, 2004)

Barnhouse was influenced by dispensationalism. This theory was popularized by Scofield. There is no gap in the text except in the Scofield Bible (and maybe Ryrie's).


----------



## Craig (Apr 28, 2004)

No problem, Josh.
I just finished my retail job Monday. I was a cell phone sales rep...I couldn't stand working Sundays, and I couldn't stand some of the customers. I hope it treats you better than it did me! (although the commission was always, always nice!)


Sundoulos,
that is a good point. I know Barnhouse was dispensational on some points, which is why I'm not ready to fully embrace the gap theory...but since the gap doesn't involve Dispensationalism, I am not terribly worried.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 28, 2004)

paradise lost ill check it out cool avater mark

blade


----------



## sundoulos (Apr 28, 2004)

The Gap Theory error dates back to the encroachment of Higher Criticism and Darwinism. It is an accomodation to liberalism. It seeks to bridge the gap between the evolutionists millions upon millions of pre-history and the biblical account of creationism and the young-earth theory.

Leupold (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974) p. 46 says, &quot;By an outstanding double expression an almost onomatopoeic effect is secured to describe the utmost of an unshapen mass: 'waste and void' - [i:3bbd8afd89]tohu wavohu[/i:3bbd8afd89]. [i:3bbd8afd89]Tohu[/i:3bbd8afd89] is really a noun used as an emphatic adjective, as is also, of course, [i:3bbd8afd89]bohu[/i:3bbd8afd89]. The verb 'it was,' [i:3bbd8afd89]hayethah[/i:3bbd8afd89], cannot bear the emphasis in a sentence where two such significant predicates follow. It must merely serve as a copula. Consequently, all attempts to put into this verb some thought like: the earth then was there, or lay thus for quite a time, are grammatically quite inadmissable.&quot;


----------

