Genesis gap theory

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by raddmadd, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. raddmadd

    raddmadd Registered Member

    some say that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

    1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    this theory was purposed because in verse 2 it says "and the earth was without form" so why would God, being perfect, create something without form? this theory basically is saying that there could be billions of years in between these two verses, a whole generation. this would match why scientists come up with the universe being billions of years old.

    and also, just because genealogies in the scriptures prove that mankind was here for 6000 years, doesn't mean that the universe is 6000 years old. with saying that the universe isn't 6000 years old as mankind is, the 6 days of creation wouldn't be 24 hour days. it wouldn't make sense. but how do we know that the 6 days of creation are literal 24 hour days? we don't necessarily know that.

    google it and maybe you could find more info on this, but remember not all sources are correct the interenet lies! and i don't necessarily believe this theory, im just looking to discuss it. its a theory so there should be alot of flaws to it, but maybe i could clear that up for you if its not an actual flaw of the theory!


  2. eric

    eric Guest

    Your argument with Genesis is only plausible if you take it literally. Most theologians worth their salt have said that the Old Testament is very much allegorical, and that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution put forward by scientists is very possibly the mthod God chose for his creation.
  3. scitsofreaky

    scitsofreaky Registered Member

    Theories are not inherintly flawed. A theory is something that explains data and organizes it into a coherent concept. This is just speculation based on a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis and cherry-picking science.

    It also seems inconsistent to say that there was billions of years between these two verses, despite no mention of any time passing, and then saying that each "day" was a literal day. It isn't overtly inconsistent, it just seems that way to me.
  4. raddmadd

    raddmadd Registered Member

    i get what your saying. im not really going to debate about this, because alot of people believe Genesis is very metaphorical, which i dont' see it as that. i see it as true storys that also teach us things, i think that basically the whole bible, or alot of the scripture does this with true storys.

    yeah haha, not a good theory i guess then. remember i don't necessarily believe it!

    what do you mean though by "despite no mention of any time passing, and then saying that each days was a literal day?" because i said that each day may not be 24 hour period days, i mean the days of creation my not be. if the theory were true, that would make sense for them to be longer.

  5. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Genesis establishes the myth of creation. The time in which it is accomplishes that really isn't relevant, because Genesis was written by a) The Judaic priests in Genesis 1-2:4 and b)The Jahwehists from about 1000BC after that. In both cases, they didn't have the information or the technology to know how long ago the Earth was formed. They gave it seven days because they wanted people to follow the seven day week with the last day being the Sabbath. It's a religious lesson through myth. It's not science, it's not literal, it's not trying to establish a timeline.

    Verse 2 leads up into the idea of the Godly power of voice, aka "Let there be light" the Earth is without form because there is no separation of dark and light, because God hasn't accomplished that yet. Thus there really isn't a gap so much as it's the buildup to later in Genesis.

  6. raddmadd

    raddmadd Registered Member

    well we know when mankind was here because geneologies are given from Adam to Jesus. which is estimated to be 6000 years. but we don't know exactly how long the universe was here because it doesn't say. if the 6 days of creation are 24 hour periods, it only makes sense that the universe is only 6000 years old. but we don't know how long the days are.

    yep yep i thought of this to. i think i agree, but im not sure about all of this!!
  7. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    You cite the first two verses of Genesis, in which god creates Man, but does not label it with names. Adam is a different creation story done by a different author.

    Genesis 2:5: "and there was no man to till the ground.". Thus, man is not created by now according to this author. So the seven days of creation and the genealogy of Adam are different, and contradict each other to an irreconcilable point.

    There's also of course the fact that Adam's genealogy doesn't makes sense if you believe he and Eve constitute the beginning of all humankind, with inbreeding, human migration, the progression of technology, and fossil evidence before 6,000 years ago. 6,000 years is something they thought of 3,000 years ago. We know more about the Earth, and we can safely say that is incorrect.

    Like I said, the first story of Genesis is a religious lesson that has no basis on time. 6,000 or a million years ago, it doesn't really matter because it's not really the intention of the author.

  8. eric

    eric Guest

    One of th major problems with accepting Genesis as a "true story" is the story of Cain and Abel, the bible says that Cain killed Abel and later "went forth and met his wife" if the Genesis story is "true" than the only females that Cain could have met would be a sister or his mother.
  9. scitsofreaky

    scitsofreaky Registered Member

    There is no mention of time between vs. 1 and vs. 2, so there is no reason to think that any time passed. So now they are speculating. But then some still stick with the literal 24 hours for each day. So these "literalists" have no problem adding to The Bible when it suites their needs, but at the same time they stick to a literal interpretation of what is actually written. It just doesn't seem consistent.
    I think I've seen the idea that "day" is either a mistranslation or not the only way the "original" text could have been translated mentioned in a few articles I've read online. I haven't looked into them at all, so I don't know how true they are, but it could be something you might want to look into.
    That's because Genesis doesn't contain the entire story. In the full version of the myth, Eve is Adam's second wife. His first one, Lilith (or something like that), was banished from Eden. I don't know the details, but I'll try to find them if anyone is interested. (I'm pretty sure there is a wiki page on it)
  10. eric

    eric Guest

    Even assuming that is true he then would have married his half-sister. The problem I have with the old testament is that according to many biblical scholars Genesis isn't meant to be accurate so we shouldn't give it the same weight we give the four Gospels. I remember in a theology class (about a million years ago) hearing that the translation of Adam from the original language meant "mankind" and the translation of Eve meant "all women" (or something similar) thus meaning that God created many men and many women at the same time ans probably through the use of evolution.

Share This Page