Gap Theory and Pre-Adamic Civilization Dialogue


GapTheory sm

 

My son and I sometimes have theological discussions in which have minor disagreements.

 

I say minor because we are in complete agreement on the theological majors such as God – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – is One God. Jesus is both fully human and fully God. God emptied Himself of His Divine attributes and became incarnated as a man to save humanity from the sin of Adam passed down to all humanity by approving Satan rather than obey God. Jesus as the Son of the Father died on the Cross was buried and was Resurrected in human bodily life reacquiring the Divine attributes that He removed to be a man. In receiving His Divine attributes again the man-God Jesus was Gloried and sits on the Right Hand of the Father ever interceding for the saints in Christ. All who hear, receive and Believe the Good News of Jesus Christ are Saved from the grasp of Satan’s wicked lease on this planet and are transferred into the Kingdom of God.

 

Frankly it is the minor theological disagreements that wars have been fought over through the years after Christ’s Resurrection. This is not the case between Adam and me.

 

The following dialogue has been edited with spell check, the removal of personal information as well as the removal of short trivial answers and/or statements.

_____________________________

Gap Theory and Pre-Adamic Civilization Dialogue

 

Dialogue: Adam and John Houk

Posted March 4, 2012

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Adam: February 07, 2012 10:28 AM

 

[Editor: I had sent a link of a KCM Ministry broadcast that discussed the point of theological disagreement between us: http://www.kcm.org/media/webcast/gloria-copeland-and-billye-brim/120202-gods-plan-for-a-glorious-church]

 

Ok, I watched the part of your video that explains her reasoning [Creation]. I’m sorry to say but she is incorrect.  What she stated is a clear indication that will lead to this conclusion.  She states that she believes the earth is as old as true science needs it to be.  Now let me start with this.  I am willing to bet that the Pre-Adamic age as she refers to it, came out of a light of trying to explain why science is finding the earth to be really old.  The problem with this and the way her comment was stating is that both are trying to match the Bible to science and not the other way around.  The Bible is the authority on real life, and truth.  For many thousands of years there was no talk of a Pre-endemic age. There was a consensus not to be worried about.  The Bible has a blood line that dates all the way back to Adam and we have written history to Jesus which accounts for all of human time.  Science claims humanoids all the way to 3 million years ago, the Bible does not.  Let’s add some more to this.  Scientists are heavily disproportionally liberal/atheistically heathen to the population. Satan influences the findings of these types of people.  With such a majority of them under such an influence it is easy for them to subvert any true science from being practiced or from being published or made public.  This puts doubts into many of their findings.  Another note to be added, data is easily manipulated to support the agenda.  Just look at evolution and it is easy to see this.  Only 33% of the population [believe in evolution], even though scientists have been teaching it as fact for 40 years or more.  And yet they are super hostile and label anyone who is a dissenting scientist of evolution as not a real scientist. And scientists succeed at this type of propaganda.  I, as a scientist [Editor: MA Physics], have looked at many of the young earth ideas and theories and they have merit, and have much valid evidence to support their findings.

 

There are only 3 foundations to old earth science which I will put much doubt into NOW. 

 

1) Evolution: I already know you disagree with this one so won’t say much – mutations almost always negatively impact, and the likelihood of sequential stacking of positive mutations to create just a human is so unlikely that it would take trillions to much more than quadrillions of years to happen.  There are no transition fossils even though teaching illustrates many transitions. 

 

2) Distance of light traveled:

 

a) We have committed no experiments beyond our solar system to confirm that light is constant or that it indeed takes a certain time to travel that far. 

 

b) In recent years there has been much evidence to suggest the speed of light varies in speed including stars moving at unpredictable rates, physics not appearing correct in far off galaxies, recent particle traveling faster than speed of light. 

 

3) radioactive dating:  3 improper assumptions:

 

a) The amount of parent element in a substance in order to make the calculation.

 

b) No variation to the decay rate over history

 

c) No historical written records are dated far back enough to confirm the validity of dating.  Even the written records of Pharaoh RA had [the time frame] dating it back to a much older [time] in radioactive dating than the event to start with.

 

Being that there is much doubt in what scientists use as the most concrete evidence of an old Earth and there is a lot of evidence for the New Earth, I would say that many are being mislead by a group of liberalistic, atheistic, and heathenistic scientists.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John: February 07, 2012 10:39 AM

 

Her conclusions are actually based less on science and more on the Bible and the etymological meanings of ancient Hebrew words. This is Billye Brim asserting the Bible agrees with science and not science proving the Bible incorrect. I am with her 100%.

 

The key is the Bible is intended by God for the sons and daughters of Adam with a road map of how original sin entered humanity and the earth. Then the road map points to the coming of Jesus.

 

Jesus is the God-instrument Redeeming humanity from the sin of Adam & Eve in the human spirit. The road map continues to point to Jesus’ second return that will restore God’s recreation of the material earth back to the Glory of God shortly followed by the union of the glorified new earth with the new Heaven becoming one.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Adam: February 08, 2012 9:35 AM

 

There are 2 problems. 

 

One the conclusion that one must account for how old science is saying the Earth is, so one goes into the Bible and reads under the lens of this belief in order to find a loophole in which the Bible might suggest the world is this old. 

 

Two that one has to say the Bible agrees with science and not that science agrees with the Bible.  From a Biblical standpoint one must always understand that God’s Word is perfect and therefore cannot be wrong and also understand that humans make many errors and many are under the influence of Satan.  From this understand the primary source of truth is the Bible.  Science only helps us to understand more about the truth of what God gave us.  You still haven’t told me when Pre-Adamic age started to be talked about.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John: February 08, 2012 11:00 AM

 

I have not told you because the Bible only gives clues because the Bible is written for the sons of Adam. The Bible says little to nothing about anything that does not have anything to do with the sons of Adam that are promised Redemption which is eventually revealed in Jesus Christ.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Adam: February 09, 2012 9:20 AM

 

This answer doesn’t address the issues I point out.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Adam: February 14, 2012 10:27 AM

 

The lack of understanding of saying the Bible agrees with science rather than science must agree with the Bible.  When did the Pre-Adamic age talk start?  How science is under the massive influence from Satan, in the current history, making it necessary to take a much more critical view of it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John: February 14, 2012 4:29 PM

 

The Pre-Adamic age was before the creation of Adam. I whole heartedly agree that modern science is under the influence of Satan.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John: February 15, 2012 12:59 PM

 

I do not know when it became a debate. Then I saw the Billye Brim episode of the Believer’s Voice of Victory and realized the Pre-Adamite info was planted into me at RHEMA. RHEMA was not dogmatic; however a couple of teachers were. The Pre-Adamic Theory seemed to allow things to fit with secular science and the Bible. The Pre-Adamite thinking and Scripture is revealed in the etymology of words in Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.

 

[Editor: I am adding this for clarity:

 

Genesis 1: 1-2 (NKJV)

 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

 

Below is some Pro-Gap Theory information excerpted from Kingdoms in Conflict: Origins of the Conflict:

 

The “Gap Theory” was first postulated by G.H. Pember in Earth’s Earliest Ages in 1876 and popularized in the footnotes of Dr. C. I. Schofield’s Bible commentary. It helps us understand how the angelic origins of evil carried over to God’s creation in Genesis 1 but is not without some well-founded critical observation.

1. Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created (Heb. “bara” means to create from nothing. “Asah”, used later in Genesis 1 means to “make” from pre-existing matter.)the heavens and the earth. The adherents of the Gap Theory believe that all of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth occurred in Genesis 1:1 citing as a scripture reference Rom 4:17 “…even God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” God creates from nothing by the word of His faith. And the earth was without form and void: (Heb. tohu wabohu). This Hebrew idiom is used only to depict scenes of God’s awful, terrible judgment in Isa 34:11 in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah and in Jer. 4:23.”Tohu” is used to depict desolation in Deut 32:10, Job 6:18, Job 12:24, Psa. 107:40, Isa 24:10, Isa 40:23, Isa 41:29. Finally in Isa 45:18 we are told that God did not create the world “tohu”. Therefore the earth depicted in Genesis 1:2 is distinctly different than in verse 1 where everything God creates is good. Opponents of the Gap theory state that Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement and that what follows is how God did create the earth. They also question the efficacy of a new doctrine discovered in the Scriptures that has eluded even the greatest Christian teachers of the past. This fact alone should put us on guard against any alleged “new revelation”. Pember and Schofield would simply respond by saying that this is no new revelation but has always been available to us. Early Christian scholarship would have discerned it with more focus on God’s Word and less emphasis on philosophy that began enmeshing the Christian Church during the latter part of the second century, AD.

2. On the second day when God separated the firmament from the midst of the waters, this is the only day that is not noted that “God saw that it was good”. This expression appears to summarize all of the other days of creation except the second day.

3. The word “bara” (to create”) is used after Genesis 1:1 only to refer to sea monsters in verse 21 and man in verse 27 where God both makes (asah) man (his body from pre-existing clay) and creates (bara) man in His own image. Verse 1:27 is in direct opposition to any teaching on evolution. These concepts are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled. Although some have made attempts to do so (e.g. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man), such attempts are unscriptural and foolish. The Gap Theory makes no such attempt.

4. In Genesis 1:2 the earth was (Heb. “hayetha”) can be translated as “became”. This word is used 264 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “became” 6 times and as “was” 258 times. Critics of the Gap Theory accurately point this out.

5. The Gap Theory postulates that Gen 1:2 was the aftermath of God’s judgment on the earth and that the remaining days of creation are a “re-creation of the earth with the new additions of sea monsters and Adam. The theory postulates that the earth was populated by a pre-Adamic race which was led by Satan and judged with Satan. These pre-Adamic creatures are the demons referred to in Scripture. Demons (Greek: daimon, daimonian implying greater and lesser forces) appear to differ from angelic majesties mentioned in Jude 9.

Angels fly and walk whereas demons walk (Matt 12:43). Demons are disembodied spirits whereas angels have angelic bodies and have no need to indwell other created beings unless they choose to do so for strategic reasons. In Mark 5:12 demons exhort Jesus to cast them into a herd of swine. Angelic majesties would not do this. Demons are not the spirits of the departed dead men. Hebrews 9:27 clearly states that “it is appointed for a man to die once, then comes judgment.”

 

In full disclosure a huge majority of theological and scientific experts do not support Gap Theory or a Pre-Adamic Civilization. An example of some criticism to Gap Theory and the use of the etymology of original Hebrew words can be found at The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3: Part II: The Restitution Theory; by Bruce K. Waltke. Restitution Theory is simply a scholarly variant of the more recognizable “Gap Theory”. Waltke’s refutation of Gap Theory employees another interpretation of the word etymology via grammar and similar uses in other Biblical texts. The problem I have with the majority scholar rejection of Gap Theory is the method is nearly exact to Gap Theorists and is a matter of interpretation rather than concrete refutation.]

 

I have since discovered my thinking on a Pre-Adamite civilization has acquired a name – Gap Theory. The link below is a pro-Gap Theory explanation that I might disagree with a bit but agree with in most cases.

 

http://www.originofnations.org/HRP_Papers/Flood_Pre-Adamic.pdf

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Adam: 2/16/2012 11:58 AM

 

Here’s the main problem which was just confirmed by reading your link.  The timing of the theory coincides with timing in ancient earth philosophy of science.  This makes it highly suspect because it is trying to conform to science which is made by humans that are commonly in error instead of science agreeing with the Bible.  Also I want to tell you something personally.  After getting a degree in physics and rereading genesis there was something awesome about it.  I could literally make physical connections to the literal words of the first chapter.

 

Genesis 1:1-2 Consider the word void: basically means empty without matter.  So the universe had no physical matter at all.

 

Genesis 1:3-5 Let there be light: basically the creation of all matter.  Note that all matter emits light as anything with a temperature emits light Genesis 1:6-8  Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters:  Here we see a dividing of space which is called heaven from air or atmosphere Genesis 1:9-10 Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear:  Here oceanic and sea bodies are actually finally formed along with the land that we live on.

 

Genesis 1:11-13 Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according…: Here finally plants of all types are brought into the picture Genesis 1:14-19 Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night: Here the Sun and the Moon are finally made.  The Sun called the greater light which guides the day and Moon the lesser light which guides the night.  He also made the stars, the point in which the rest of the universe other than our solar system is made.

 

Genesis 1:20-23 Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens:  The first sighting of living creatures made up of birds and sea/ocean life.

 

Genesis 1:24-25 Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind: land animals and insects appear.

 

Genesis 1:26-28 Man is made

 

So you can see an actual account of all existence as we know it being made from absolutely nothing.  Before 1:6-8 there would have been nothing to breath.  Before 1:9-10 there would have been nothing to float in or stand on.  Before 1:11-13 there would have been nothing for herbivores to eat.  Before 1:14-19 there would have been nothing to keep warm.

 

There is so much in science, even the order of existence listed above, that just do not coincide with popular science today.  I underline popular because it is clear they are just mistaken.  Even in the past few years there is a number of discoveries that are making people rethink even the most basic philosophies of science as we know it.  For example observations of far distant galaxies are suggesting the something is wrong with the basic understanding of physics there.  Recently a particle moving faster than the known light speed is putting doubts on the constancy of the speed of light.  fossilized trees standing straight up from a cataclysm doesn’t have any ages that would match up with the oldest trees known today which go back all the way to the flood.

 

Humans are hugely fallible and the fact that there hasn’t been any other suggestion up until recent years of a biblical philosophy for a very old earth questions the validity of that doctrine in the first place.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

John: February 16, 2012 5:47 PM

 

Bucko [Editor: My nickname for Adam] I guess this is one we are going to have to agree to disagree. Fortunately the disagreement will not determine either of our Salvation. We both believe the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and raised on the third day as the Savior of humankind and is sitting on the Right Hand of the Father forever interceding for the saints that are Believers.

 

I still think you are missing the point that there is an etymological point between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

 

In either case I am going to work up a post incorporating my Pre-Adamite thoughts and the literal Biblical timeline of 6,000 years. [Editor: Which I have not done]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Adam: 2/17/2012 1:48 PM

 

This knowledge is kind of important to me because it can accomplish something great.  If one can scientifically prove the earth (which I believe has already had some great beginnings) is somewhere between 6000-7000 years old, it would totally obliterate any possibility of big bang or of evolution.  Allowing for only one possibility-creation.  Well you and I already know this is true, but this would also allow for some changes in education curriculum that has sought to deceive children for years.

 

In Scripture, God said he made, is clear to any objective observer that all was created.  This is the single philosophy that would do that.  It is the only one that leaves no wiggle room for atheistic notions.  That along with the literal description of all creation along with a precise definition of day and night and how it was guided suggests Biblically that this is the age of the earth.  In fact I have made it all the [way] to 99% sure now.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John: 2/17/2012 7:12 PM

 

Adam I just can’t wrap my mind around a six to seven thousand year old earth. So when you find that 1% to add to the 99% you will be awesome. You will be better known than old Einstein. Godspeed on your path to prove a literal timeline for the Bible. I do hope you succeed, until then I am going with the Pre-Adamite Gap Theory.

 

JRH 3/4/12

About oneway2day

I am a Neoconservative Christian Right blogger. I also spend a significant amount of time of exposing theopolitical Islam.

Posted on March 4, 2012, in Christianity and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: