gen. ch1v1 and gen. ch1v2.

[daygo]

Otherwise known as the gap theory, am becoming interested in this topic. Does anyone know about this and whether there is any truth in it, also are there any decent articles or links to get my teeth into so to speak.

[mattfivefour]

Brother, I am one who has in the past subscribed to the gap theory. As with those who developed the theory back in the early 1800's I thought it to be a way of dealing with the geologic evidence that seemed to exist. However, I have changed my view. The reasons are complex, but scripturally based.

I highly recommend The Gap Theory of Genesis Chapter One | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site an excellent online article that deals with ALL aspects of the gap theory and gives a conclusion that I think all open-minded bible students can agree with.

[IamPJ]

Wow, that was a good study mattfivefour! Thanks for posting it! I had always wondered about the Gap theory also.

[dave-o]

I have to admit that I still lean towards the ruin/reconstruction interpretation but not dogmatically. There just isn't enough scriptural evidence to build a solid doctrine upon.

The Bible is about God's unique relationship with mankind. So *IF* there was an age before Gen 1:2 it had nothing to do with us and so is pretty much irrelevant.

I did read the article you posted Mattfivefour. There are some pro-gap points left unaddressed and some assumptions that can't be substantiated. But it also left out one argument that is worth considering.

In the Massoretic Text, the Jewish scholars tried to incorporate enough 'indicators' to guide the reader as to correct punctuation and there is one small mark which is technically known as Rebhia, which is classified as a "disjunctive accent" intended to notify the reader that he should pause before proceeding to the next verse. In short, this mark indicates a "break" in the text. Such a mark appears at the end of Genesis 1:1. This mark has been noted by several scholars including Luther. It is one indication among others, that the initial waw which introduces verse 2 should be rendered "but" rather than "and" a dis-junctive rather than a con-junctive.

Was this Rebhia in the original text that Moses set down ages ago? No one knows for sure. But *IF* it was then verse 2 should read: "but the Earth became...".

BTW Daygo, be very careful studying the Gap Theory. Many who go there have the unfortunate tendency to also come up with all manner of theories about Satan which CANNOT be justified at all.

[mattfivefour]

Brother, the vowel and breathing points codified by the Massoretes are their imposition upon the text, not an inherent part of it. They (or at least the oral tradition of which they were recipients) decided that there should be a breathing point at that spot. But, of course, there are thousands of such breathing points in the Tanakh. They are there to aid in the oral reading of the Scriptures (which, as you likely know, are sung or chanted ... not read in the sense we would read text.) I would not suggest they be used in any textual interpretative effort.

Incidentally, I am interested in what pro-Gap points the writer left untouched. While I believe the Gap theory is untenable, I am of course always willing to alter my own belief to accord with Scripture should something I have overlooked be shown to me.

[dave-o]

Brother, the vowel and breathing points codified by the Massoretes are their imposition upon the text, not an inherent part of it. They (or at least the oral tradition of which they were recipients) decided that there should be a breathing point at that spot. But, of course, there are thousands of such breathing points in the Tanakh. They are there to aid in the oral reading of the Scriptures (which, as you likely know, are sung or chanted ... not read in the sense we would read text.) I would not suggest they be used in any textual interpretative effort.

Incidentally, I am interested in what pro-Gap points the writer left untouched. While I believe the Gap theory is untenable, I am of course always willing to alter my own belief to accord with Scripture should something I have overlooked be shown to me.

I've discussed this so many times with different people and honestly I'm not all that concerned about it. If you feel that scripture definitively says that the universe is 6000 years old that's just fine with me. The natural reading certainly more than suggests it so for me it's a waste of time to debate it in depth, especially considering that I fully concede that the GT might be wrong!

I truly don't care how old the universe is. God created and fashioned it and that's all I really need to know.

[mattfivefour]

I agree with you, Dave! I personally have no interest in debating non-essential topics! The only reason I sometimes pursue a topic like this is because RF has a lot of believers (and not-yet-believers) who are curious about these things. Scriptural discussion gives them information through which the Holy Spirit can lead them to the truth.

[daygo]

Thanks mattfivefour, and thanks for the advice dave-o, am a very carefull guy with capital C.

[RonJohnSilver]

I have no problems with this authors refutation of the gap theory. I am still somewhat ...unfulfilled?...because although he has shown what isn't true, it still leaves the legitimate questions of time and sequence, etc. unanswered. I know that God did it, I'd just like to know how He did it. I understand that those issues are not what most would consider 'essential', certainly not to salvation, and possibly not even interesting but for those of us with a physical science bent, those dilemmas still perplex us. Have to wait, I guess, until the time when we see clearly and not in shadows.

[dave-o]

Thanks mattfivefour, and thanks for the advice dave-o, am a very carefull guy with capital C.

It does make for an interesting study for those way past the "milk" stage. But I also agree with RonJS. Neither side on this particular debate leaves me feeling particularly fulfilled.