Now the earth had become waste and wild, and darkness was on the face of the roaring deep--but the Spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.)
Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several worlds before ours, but he destroyed them all. (Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. I, p. 4.)
Papias thus speaks, word for word: To some of them [angels] He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion well. And he says, immediately after this: but it happened that their arrangement came to nothing.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-43.htm
The Gap Theory is not a new idea, invented simply to accommodate the theories of modern science, but an ancient interpretation of scripture based on the *Hebrew text of Genesis 1:2 (which, according to a footnote in the New International Version, can be translated "and the earth became formless and empty.")
From the Wikipedia Encyclopedia:
The most common "gap theory" assumes that a chronological gap occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which vast spans of geologic time are presumed to have elapsed. It is thus postulated that the Earth was initially created in the distant past, and that all geologic events pointing to an old Earth (and perhaps even evolution) transpired before some event that reduced the Earth to a state of formlessness or chaos as described in Genesis 1:2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism#Varieties
From the geologist (and paleontologist) who wrote the first full account of a fossil:
Geology extends it’s researches into regions more vast and remote than come within the scope of any other physical science, except Astronomy...It not only comprehends the entire range of the mineral kingdom, but includes also the history of innumerable extinct races of animals and vegetables; in each of which it exhibits evidences of design and contrivance, and of adaptations to the varying condition of the lands and waters in which they were placed...In my inaugural lecture, published at Oxford, I have stated my opinion in favour of the hypothesis, “which supposes the word ‘beginning,’ as applied by Moses in the first verse of the book of Genesis, to express an undefined period of time, which was antecedent to the last great change that affected the surface of the earth, and to the creation of the present animal and vegetable inhabitants; during which period a long series of operations and revolutions may have been going on; which, as they are wholly unconnected with the history of the human race, are passed over in silence by the sacred historian, whose only concern with them was barely to state, that the matter of the universe is not eternal and self-existent, but was originally created by the power of the Almighty.” ...It has long been a matter of discussion among learned Theologians, whether the first verse of Genesis should be considered prospectively, as containing a summary announcement of that new creation, the details of which follow in the record of the operations of the six successive days; or as an abstract statement that the heaven and earth were made by God, without limiting the period when that creative agency was exerted. The latter of these opinions is in perfect harmony with the discoveries of Geology...it is nowhere affirmed that God created the heaven and the earth in the first day, but in the beginning...
Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology (by William Buckland.)
As to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, the first chapter of Genesis doesn't say they were "created" on the fourth day (the Hebrew word for creation--"bara"--is used only in verses 1, 21, and 27.)
"Making" and "creating" are different words (in both English and Hebrew), and when Gen. 1:16 says that God made the lights of the sky, it need mean no more than that He cleared earth's atmosphere (making them visible in the sky.)
While older than the modern science of Geology (and therefore having some basis other than mere compromise), this interpretation of the scriptural record certainly fits better with the geologic record than young earth creationism.
Extinct species may or may not have evolved, but modern man was created suddenly (and if the days of Genesis are to be taken literally, the life forms he now shares this world with were also introduced [or re-introduced] suddenly.)
The only argument young earth creationists really have against this theory is that death entered creation because of Adam's sin, but the gap theorist has no disagreement with them on this.
He believes that death entered this creation because of Adam's sin, and that angelic sin brought ruin on a previous creation.
Does scripture not say:
Messengers also, even them who had not kept their own principality, but had forsaken their proper dwelling, unto the judgment of the great day in perpetual bonds under thick gloom, hath he reserved. (Jude 6, Rotherham.)
In his letters to Timothy, Paul alluded to Satan in his instructions concerning the selection of ministerial candidates.
He said that such a candidate "must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil." (1 Tim. 3:6, N.I.V.)
Was the devil not once an angel of light, and is it not possible that his sin (and that of the angels who followed him) brought ruin to a previous creation?
Here are some questions for those who see no gap in the first chapter of Genesis:
1.) If Genesis 1:2-31 is simply a recapping of Gen. 1:1 (as young earth creationists believe), how could angels have been with God when He first founded the earth (Job 38:4)?
2.) Was not the earth itself already in existence when "darkness covered the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters"?
3.) If the following verses simply fill in the details of creation, when were the angels created (and how could they have already been with God)?
4.) Why is their creation not mentioned in the 6 days that follow?
5.) It's certain that Satan is in some way represented by the serpent of Eden (Rev. 12:9), why was he already hostile to God when man came on the scene?
6.) Why did Paul say "For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak" (Heb. 2:5) ?
7.) Is it possible that a previous world was subject to angels?
Perhaps Papias (who sat at the feet of the Apostle John) was passing on Apostolic tradition when he said:
To some of them [angels] He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion well. And he says, immediately after this: but it happened that their arrangement came to nothing.
He also said:
...those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him...for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy...this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved,...that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.v.html
* Note: Even Alexander Thomson (though he seems to have leaned more toward young earth creationism) admitted the following--"That the earth became something which it was not before is evident from Gen. 1:2. The Hebrew word hayah never speaks of mere existence, but always of becoming." (The Differentiator: November 1949--Vol. 11, No. 6.)
Return Home