# "Gap Theory" revisited



## D. Paul

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/modified-gap-theory-49879/

I've searched other threads on the PB; this one seemed to address the topic sufficiently to ask this one Q:

The subject came up in class this a.m. and an explanation in defense of the Gap Theory was given. Supposedly the "gap" is between *Gen 1:1* and *Gen 1:2* correct? So, dealing with _just those two verses_, it was proposed that the Hebrew language states *Gen1:1* "God created..." while the subsequent verse uses a different form of the word which means to "re-create". I do not know Hebrew, but my Bible program w/ KJV and Strongs Hebrew #'s does not reflect this sentence structure, nor is there a use of the word for "create" in any form in *v.2*. 

How does the Gap proponent find this "create / re-create" wording?


----------



## Skyler

The same way the Arminian finds free will.


----------



## MW

You are correct. There is no basis for the create/re-create idea in the Hebrew language. Verses 1, 21, 27, use the verb to create, which emphasises "the initiation of the object" so as to bring out its newness (Theological Wordbook of the OT, 1:127).

Exodus 20:11 includes heaven and earth in the six days of creation and effectively negates any attempt to justify a ruin-reconstruction theory.

Mark 10:6 ties the creation of man to the beginning of creation, thus negating any hypothesis of a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:27.


----------



## fralo4truth

The Gap Theory probably originated to accommodate the idea that the universe was billions of years old as taught in the theory of evolution.

Creation science evangelistic groups such as 'Answers in Genesis' focus heavily on defeating the idea. And do a good job, I might add.


----------



## MMasztal

I subscribed to the Gap theory for quite some time although I never had a belief in evolution, but to my shame my opinion was uninformed. After accepting my current position as a science teacher, I knew I would be getting questions pertaining to this issue. 

After a lot of study, I found that the Gap Theory and positions other than 6- 24 hr/day creation were Biblically untenable. Only by bringing in an evolutionary mindset could one even consider these other theories.


----------



## Peairtach

There are two gap theories

(a) The idea that there was an originally formed and filled world which_ became tohu wa bohu _- without form and void - by the intervention of Satan. This idea was in the Dispensational Schofield Reference Bible. According to this theory the gap would explain fossilised life before Man.

(b) A more modest proposal - which I was exploring in the post you reference - that the unformed and unfilled Earth (and the unformed and unfilled Heavens; together with God's Heaven itself and the angels?) were created before the First Day, which Day commenced the forming and filling of the precreated Earth.

It is notable that we are not told on what day the unformed and unfilled Earth (and the Heavens) were formed but just that they were created "in the beginning". We are not told if the period between "the beginning" and the First Day of forming and filling was long or short.



> Only by bringing in an evolutionary mindset could one even consider these other theories.



I don't subscribe to evolution, yet I think the second idea above i.e. (b) may be possible. There's no mention of evolution in it. It would also give room for the creation of the Heaven of Heavens/Third Heaven/God's Heaven and the angels and the Fall of the angels.


----------



## Jon Peters

MMasztal said:


> I subscribed to the Gap theory for quite some time although I never had a belief in evolution, but to my shame my opinion was uninformed. After accepting my current position as a science teacher, I knew I would be getting questions pertaining to this issue.
> 
> After a lot of study, I found that the Gap Theory and positions other than 6- 24 hr/day creation were Biblically untenable. Only by bringing in an evolutionary mindset could one even consider these other theories.



I don't think I have an evolutionary mindset, but I do think that it is fair to reevaluate what the Bible says when confronted with scientific evidence. We should not force an interpretation that is not tenanble. Nor should we lower our view of Scripture to accommodate such a scientific belief. Nonetheless, I don't think that it is inherrently wrong to reevaluate our understanding of cetain passages in Scripture when faced with seemingly incompatable scientific claims. If there are no such reasonable interpretations, I will stand with the truths of Scripture.


----------



## lynnie

aaawww shucks, next thing you know you'll be saying the Dake's bible theory of the preadamic race is wrong too.....


----------



## MMasztal

Richard Tallach said:


> There are two gap theories
> 
> (a) The idea that there was an originally formed and filled world which_ became tohu wa bohu _- without form and void - by the intervention of Satan. This idea was in the Dispensational Schofield Reference Bible. According to this theory the gap would explain fossilised life before Man.
> 
> (b) A more modest proposal - which I was exploring in the post you reference - that the unformed and unfilled Earth (and the unformed and unfilled Heavens; together with God's Heaven itself and the angels?) were created before the First Day, which Day commenced the forming and filling of the precreated Earth.
> 
> It is notable that we are not told on what day the unformed and unfilled Earth (and the Heavens) were formed but just that they were created "in the beginning". We are not told if the period between "the beginning" and the First Day of forming and filling was long or short.
> 
> I don't subscribe to evolution, yet I think the second idea above i.e. (b) may be possible. There's no mention of evolution in it. It would also give room for the creation of the Heaven of Heavens/Third Heaven/God's Heaven and the angels and the Fall of the angels.



You still have to address Exodus 20:11, i.e., God's ordering of the Sabbath with His reference to 24 hour days in light of His reference to the Genesis creation.


----------



## sastark

Jon Peters said:


> I don't think I have an evolutionary mindset, but I do think that it is fair to reevaluate what the Bible says when confronted with scientific evidence. We should not force an interpretation that is not tenanble. Nor should we lower our view of Scripture to accommodate such a scientific belief. Nonetheless, I don't think that it is inherrently wrong to reevaluate our understanding of cetain passages in Scripture when faced with seemingly incompatable scientific claims. If there are no such reasonable interpretations, I will stand with the truths of Scripture.



So, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is not the Scripture itself, but Scripture and nature?


----------



## Jon Peters

sastark said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I have an evolutionary mindset, but I do think that it is fair to reevaluate what the Bible says when confronted with scientific evidence. We should not force an interpretation that is not tenanble. Nor should we lower our view of Scripture to accommodate such a scientific belief. Nonetheless, I don't think that it is inherrently wrong to reevaluate our understanding of cetain passages in Scripture when faced with seemingly incompatable scientific claims. If there are no such reasonable interpretations, I will stand with the truths of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is not the Scripture itself, but Scripture and nature?
Click to expand...


No, that's not what I said. I said that it is permissable to reevaluate our interpretation of Scripture based on natural revelation, NOT to interpret Scripture based on natural revelation. The same rules of interpretation apply. We can become complacent in our interpretations and it often takes an outside push to get us back into the text.

We can't ignore what goes on around us. Nor should we be frightened to change our interpretation of certain texts if the text requries it. 

I think your objection is a red hering and, frankly, I think that many 24 hour creation defenders spend so much time putting forth objections such as yours that they fail to interact in a substantive way with alternative interpretations of the text.


----------



## brianeschen

Jon Peters said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I have an evolutionary mindset, but I do think that it is fair to reevaluate what the Bible says when confronted with scientific evidence. We should not force an interpretation that is not tenanble. Nor should we lower our view of Scripture to accommodate such a scientific belief. Nonetheless, I don't think that it is inherrently wrong to reevaluate our understanding of cetain passages in Scripture when faced with seemingly incompatable scientific claims. If there are no such reasonable interpretations, I will stand with the truths of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is not the Scripture itself, but *Scripture and nature*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I said. I said that it is permissable to reevaluate our interpretation of Scripture based on natural revelation, NOT to interpret Scripture based on natural revelation.
Click to expand...

You just restated what sastark just said, namely using Scripture AND natural revelation as the infallible rule for interpreting Scripture.


----------



## Peairtach

MMasztal said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two gap theories
> 
> (a) The idea that there was an originally formed and filled world which_ became tohu wa bohu _- without form and void - by the intervention of Satan. This idea was in the Dispensational Schofield Reference Bible. According to this theory the gap would explain fossilised life before Man.
> 
> (b) A more modest proposal - which I was exploring in the post you reference - that the unformed and unfilled Earth (and the unformed and unfilled Heavens; together with God's Heaven itself and the angels?) were created before the First Day, which Day commenced the forming and filling of the precreated Earth.
> 
> It is notable that we are not told on what day the unformed and unfilled Earth (and the Heavens) were formed but just that they were created "in the beginning". We are not told if the period between "the beginning" and the First Day of forming and filling was long or short.
> 
> I don't subscribe to evolution, yet I think the second idea above i.e. (b) may be possible. There's no mention of evolution in it. It would also give room for the creation of the Heaven of Heavens/Third Heaven/God's Heaven and the angels and the Fall of the angels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have to address Exodus 20:11, i.e., God's ordering of the Sabbath with His reference to 24 hour days in light of His reference to the Genesis creation.
Click to expand...


I believe that the Earth was formed and filled in the Six Days as normal. When we move from Exodus Twenty to Genesis One for more detail on Creation, you have to address the fact that in Genesis One we are not given any day on which the unformed and unfilled "canvas" of the Heavens and the Earth themselves were made.

I don't know of what use, if any, this point from Scripture, if it is the case, would be to Creationists vis-a-vis scientific views of the creation.

Even if it is so, Genesis doesn't tell us if the formless and void Heavens and Earth were there before the First Day for a short or long period.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Jon Peters said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I said. I said that it is permissable to reevaluate our interpretation of Scripture based on natural revelation, NOT to interpret Scripture based on natural revelation. The same rules of interpretation apply. We can become complacent in our interpretations and it often takes an outside push to get us back into the text.
> 
> We can't ignore what goes on around us. Nor should we be frightened to change our interpretation of certain texts if the text requries it.
> 
> I think your objection is a red hering and, frankly, I think that many 24 hour creation defenders spend so much time putting forth objections such as yours that they fail to interact in a substantive way with alternative interpretations of the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural revelation has been used as the impetus for the re-examination of scripture in the past.
> 
> Geocentrism was the widely held view within the early church, with church fathers such as Augustine arguing that a literal interpretation of scripture requried that the earth remain stationary.
> 
> "But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible... For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood..." Augustine, The City of God.
> 
> I suspect that there are few who now hold that the inerrancy of scripture requires a belief in geocentrism. This does not mean that the "gap theory" or other alternative interpreations of Genesis are valid, nor does it mean that science can be used to interpret scripture, but it does suggest that natural revelation can be the spark that draws us back to scripture for a more thorough examination of the text.
Click to expand...


----------



## Christusregnat

Empiricism makes no claim to categorical definitions, and can't provide any propositional information; only observations. Therefore, natural revelation can't affect our understanding of any categorical definitions or propositions provided by Scripture. On the other hand, since Scripture provides such information, it must be used to evaluate "natural revelation."

Cheers,

-----Added 10/19/2009 at 04:46:50 EST-----



ericfromcowtown said:


> Geocentrism was the widely held view within the early church, with church fathers such as Augustine arguing that a literal interpretation of scripture requried that the earth remain stationary.



Do you know which model is used for space-shuttle launches? Geo or helio?


----------



## Jon Peters

brianeschen said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is not the Scripture itself, but *Scripture and nature*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I said. I said that it is permissable to reevaluate our interpretation of Scripture based on natural revelation, NOT to interpret Scripture based on natural revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just restated what sastark just said, namely using Scripture AND natural revelation as the infallible rule for interpreting Scripture.
Click to expand...


Why is it so important to make me say something I am not saying? You need to stop reading your prejudices into my comments.


----------



## brianeschen

Jon Peters said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I said. I said that it is permissable to reevaluate our interpretation of Scripture based on natural revelation, NOT to interpret Scripture based on natural revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> You just restated what sastark just said, namely using Scripture AND natural revelation as the infallible rule for interpreting Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to make me say something I am not saying? You need to stop reading your prejudices into my comments.
Click to expand...

So how is what you said different?


----------



## MMasztal

MMasztal said:


> You still have to address Exodus 20:11, i.e., God's ordering of the Sabbath with His reference to 24 hour days in light of His reference to the Genesis creation.



I believe that the Earth was formed and filled in the Six Days as normal. When we move from Exodus Twenty to Genesis One for more detail on Creation, you have to address the fact that in Genesis One we are not given any day on which the unformed and unfilled "canvas" of the Heavens and the Earth themselves were made.

I don't of what use, if any, this point from Scripture, if it is the case, would be to Creationists vis-a-vis scientific views of the creation.

Even if it is so, Genesis doesn't tell us if the formless and void Heavens and Earth were there before the First Day for a short or long period.[/QUOTE]

"When we move"??? Who is the "we" you mention? God is the one speaking or"moving" as you put it. Then you say, the "fact" that in Genesis one... Fact? Your interpretation maybe, but surely not a "fact".


----------



## Peairtach

> "When we move"??? Who is the "we" you mention? God is the one speaking or"moving" as you put it. Then you say, the "fact" that in Genesis one... Fact? Your interpretation maybe, but surely not a "fact".



I'm just talking about the use and interpretation of Scripture. One "moves" from one passage to another. God is the One Who is always speaking in His Word and has told us things about how, as well as that, He Created the Heavens and the Earth.

Does "Heavens" in Genesis 1:1 include the Heaven of Heavens/Third Heaven/God's Heaven?

In Genesis One we are not told when the unformed and unfilled Heavens and Earth were created, but it must have been a long or short time before the First Day.


----------



## MMasztal

Richard Tallach said:


> "When we move"??? Who is the "we" you mention? God is the one speaking or"moving" as you put it. Then you say, the "fact" that in Genesis one... Fact? Your interpretation maybe, but surely not a "fact".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just talking about the use and interpretation of Scripture. One "moves" from one passage to another. God is the One Who is always speaking in His Word and has told us things about how, as well as that, He Created the Heavens and the Earth.
> 
> Does "Heavens" in Genesis 1:1 include the Heaven of Heavens/Third Heaven/God's Heaven?
> 
> In Genesis One we are not told when the unformed and unfilled Heavens and Earth were created, but it must have been a long or short time before the First Day.
Click to expand...


Or it just happened on the first day.


----------



## Peairtach

_Or it just happened on the first day._

All I'm saying is that it does not say that in Genesis One and there must be a reason for that.

Each of the Days start with the words "And God said". God created light  on the First Day (Genesis 1:3-1:5)


----------



## Jake Terpstra

I believe that sometimes (especially in this case) it is better to remain agnostic on this matter (don't freak out. I only mean rest humbly in the fact that we do not know). The reason for this is that at this point we are simply quibbling about something that is not in Scripture and could be in the world. This is dangerous territory for brothers to be fighting. If it were perhaps a creation pattern debate (i.e. 6 day vs Day Age) we would be suited to debate from exegesis and such that defines appropriate Biblical debate. But in the first post we already established that there is nothing to exegete. This leaves us only with personal and scientific eisogesis (sp?)


----------



## DMcFadden

sastark said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I have an evolutionary mindset, but I do think that it is fair to reevaluate what the Bible says when confronted with scientific evidence. We should not force an interpretation that is not tenanble. Nor should we lower our view of Scripture to accommodate such a scientific belief. Nonetheless, I don't think that it is inherrently wrong to reevaluate our understanding of cetain passages in Scripture when faced with seemingly incompatable scientific claims. If there are no such reasonable interpretations, I will stand with the truths of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is not the Scripture itself, but Scripture and nature?
Click to expand...


I am a six day YEC. But, it must be admitted that no less a Reformed luminary than Charles Hodge (Mr. Inerrancy) said much the same thing:

His rejction of the plain meaning of Geneis was due to alleged geological facts, which were really just uniformitarian interpretations of facts.



> ‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, [millions of years] and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’



Hodge, C., *Systematic Theology*, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> His rejction of the plain meaning of Geneis was due to alleged geological facts, which were really just uniformitarian interpretations of facts.



The question begging an answer is whether subsequent Presbyterian history has shown Hodge's inductive methodology to be fatal to the Christian system of truth.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> His rejction of the plain meaning of Geneis was due to alleged geological facts, which were really just uniformitarian interpretations of facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question begging an answer is whether subsequent Presbyterian history has shown Hodge's inductive methodology to be fatal to the Christian system of truth.
Click to expand...


It certainly introduced a tenor of agnosticism to points required for faithful subscription to the then standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. In other words, the Confession and Catechisms clearly speak of "in the space of six days" (a theological term), but Princeton allowed for old earth geology to be taught, and refused to take a hard-line stand against Darwin once his nonsense came out.

So, the inductive method did perhaps contribute to such a move contrary to the Christian system of truth.

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> It certainly introduced a tenor of agnosticism to points required for faithful subscription to the then standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. In other words, the Confession and Catechisms clearly speak of "in the space of six days" (a theological term), but Princeton allowed for old earth geology to be taught, and refused to take a hard-line stand against Darwin once his nonsense came out.
> 
> So, the inductive method did perhaps contribute to such a move contrary to the Christian system of truth.



Hodge's own account of subscription would suggest that it was this loose before he came on the scene. I would be inclined towards the view that his inductive method had no way of stemming the liberal and modernist movements. They would always be able to claim that theirs was a consistent inductive approach to the Scriptures.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Hodge's own account of subscription would suggest that it was this loose before he came on the scene. I would be inclined towards the view that his inductive method had no way of stemming the liberal and modernist movements. They would always be able to claim that theirs was a consistent inductive approach to the Scriptures.



It might be as you say. I read a paper by my brother-in-law about B.B. Warfield in which he (as an old earther) documented some of the thought patterns that developed at Princeton. You may find it of interest:

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the Darwinian Controversy

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> It might be as you say. I read a paper by my brother-in-law about B.B. Warfield in which he (as an old earther) documented some of the thought patterns that developed at Princeton. You may find it of interest:
> 
> Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the Darwinian Controversy



You are blessed to have a learned brother in law; I can imagine you would have much to discuss at family get togethers, as well as a little to debate. 

That is an excellent piece and pinpoints Warfield's position very well. For what it's worth, I agree with the conclusion -- "Those theories which are blatantly contrary to scripture must be resolutely opposed, but those which in good faith attempt to account for the whole of both natural and scriptural revelation should be permitted and debated." It only begs the question as to whether old earth geology properly accounts for either natural or special revelation. I would also say that Hodge's inductive method goes beyond this commitment to include a scientific openness which superimposes itself on the revelation of the Bible.


----------



## bookslover

For what it's worth, those who are interested should check out Chapter IV of Gertrude Himmelfarb's _Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution_ (London: Chatto & Windus, 1959). (The book had an American publisher also, but I don't know who it was.)

Himmelfarb's chapter has an interesting discussion about the early struggles between uniformitarianism and catastrophism, showing how Darwin's theory helped, in time, catastrophism get uniformitariansim kicked to the curb.

She is a conservative, and her book was published the year of the _Origin of Species_ centennary.


----------



## D. Paul

This is taken from the Self Interpreting Bible. Does this language sound the same as the language which supports the Gap Hypothesis? I was surprised and somewhat dismayed to read this. Does it mean there is credence to the view?


----------



## Peairtach

Can't see - or at least use - the link, D.Paul.



> showing how Darwin's theory helped, in time, catastrophism get uniformitariansim kicked to the curb.



It's geological uniformitarianism that took possession of nineteenth and early twentieth century geology, along with evolutionary thought; although in different ways, catastrophism has come roaring back.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Richard Tallach said:


> Can't see - or at least use - the link, D.Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> showing how Darwin's theory helped, in time, catastrophism get uniformitariansim kicked to the curb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's geological uniformitarianism that took possession of nineteenth and early twentieth century geology, along with evolutionary thought; although in different ways, catastrophism has come roaring back.
Click to expand...


You are correct that "uniformitarian" geology pre-dated Darwin and evolutionary theory, and not the other way around, as is often erroneously assumed.

Uniformitarianism is a bit of a straw man, though. Although there were a few early geologists who were strictly uniformitarian (Lyell is the only one that I can think of off hand), strict uniformitarianism quickly became the minority opinion and has been virtually unheard of in living memory. Almost all conventional / "uniformitarian" geologists have always accepted the role of catastrophic events in the geologic record hand-in-hand with uniformitarian processes, just as the vast majority of YEC proponents have always accepted the role of uniformitarian processes pre and post flood. It's a question of which has dominated and been the prime factor behind the geologic column which is debated.


----------



## D. Paul

*Self-Interpreting Bible quote*

Sorry about the link. Here is the quote from the Self-Interpreting Bible (a work of John Brown of Haddington)

*The “heaven and the earth” whose creation is thus simply announced, embraced the whole pre-adamic universe. The fact of its creation at some undefined past age is recorded; and then it is indicated that from some cause the earth having been reduced to chaos, God put forth anew creative power, and prepared it for a new race of animals, and for the noblest of all - man.*

Sounds like Gap language to me.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

D. Paul said:


> Sorry about the link. Here is the quote from the Self-Interpreting Bible (a work of John Brown of Haddington)
> 
> *The “heaven and the earth” whose creation is thus simply announced, embraced the whole pre-adamic universe. The fact of its creation at some undefined past age is recorded; and then it is indicated that from some cause the earth having been reduced to chaos, God put forth anew creative power, and prepared it for a new race of animals, and for the noblest of all - man.*
> 
> Sounds like Gap language to me.



Or more precisely, the ruin-reconstruction version of the gap theory.


----------



## MW

D. Paul said:


> Here is the quote from the Self-Interpreting Bible (a work of John Brown of Haddington)



It is also the work of numerous later editors, whose statements are contained in brackets and an initial provided to show who has contributed the comments. The statement which includes the ruin-reconstruction idea is contributed by P., which stands for Josiah Porter.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might be as you say. I read a paper by my brother-in-law about B.B. Warfield in which he (as an old earther) documented some of the thought patterns that developed at Princeton. You may find it of interest:
> 
> Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield and the Darwinian Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are blessed to have a learned brother in law; I can imagine you would have much to discuss at family get togethers, as well as a little to debate.
Click to expand...


Indeed, I am blessed. It is always an interesting mix of edifying discussion and hot debate!



armourbearer said:


> That is an excellent piece and pinpoints Warfield's position very well. For what it's worth, I agree with the conclusion -- "Those theories which are blatantly contrary to scripture must be resolutely opposed, but those which in good faith attempt to account for the whole of both natural and scriptural revelation should be permitted and debated." It only begs the question as to whether old earth geology properly accounts for either natural or special revelation.



Indeed, the approach of some at Old Princeton was more favorable to the perspecuity of natural revelation rather than special.



armourbearer said:


> I would also say that Hodge's inductive method goes beyond this commitment to include a scientific openness which superimposes itself on the revelation of the Bible.



That is an interesting thought which I hope to research more in the future.

Godspeed,

Adam


----------



## D. Paul

armourbearer said:


> D. Paul said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the quote from the Self-Interpreting Bible (a work of John Brown of Haddington)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is also the work of numerous later editors, whose statements are contained in brackets and an initial provided to show who has contributed the comments. The statement which includes the ruin-reconstruction idea is contributed by P., which stands for Josiah Porter.
Click to expand...


Is the significance of the passage diminished then? I can't seem to grasp the idea that "reconstruction" is somehow implied in the "construction" of the verses.


----------



## gene_mingo

Oswald T. Allis addresses the Interval Theory in his book "God Spake by Moses". He mainly deals with the language of Gen 1:2.


----------



## ronlsb

What seems to be missing from all this debate is the bliblical teaching on the creation of Adam. I am not aware of any old-earth advocates who have a biblical view of Adam and Eve being created on the sixth day in the span of 24 hours. Since Christ is clear about His view of Adam as a literal, factual creature, any view of Genesis one that produces a less than literal view of the creation of Adam on the sixth day seems to be a direct contradicition of Christ. This, of course, is unacceptable.


----------



## Peairtach

ronlsb said:


> What seems to be missing from all this debate is the bliblical teaching on the creation of Adam. I am not aware of any old-earth advocates who have a biblical view of Adam and Eve being created on the sixth day in the span of 24 hours. Since Christ is clear about His view of Adam as a literal, factual creature, any view of Genesis one that produces a less than literal view of the creation of Adam on the sixth day seems to be a direct contradicition of Christ. This, of course, is unacceptable.



Both the ruin/reconstruction gap theory and the theory that the heavens and earth were first created and then formed and filled on days 1-6, allow for a literal Adam to be created on a literal Sixth Day.

The gap between the creating of the heavens and the earth and Day One would be in Genesis 1:1-2. Day One doesn't (appear to) start until 1:3.


----------



## ronlsb

Thanks for the response. I'll have to research those theories and see how their proponents view Adam and Eve.


----------

