The Gap Theory

[Jorge]

Please explain the "Gap Theory" the best you could...I have met a few in our fellowship that believe in it...wouldn't debate...but believe it. What is this 'theory' exactly?
Was there or was there not some sort of pre-Adamic race??? human or not.
Thoughts Please???

[Pastor Jerome H. Weymouth]

Well Seniorty does carry a lot to it --- Remember I known your pop since 1978. I remember when your mother first came to the Maywood Church. So if i call you "Little David (or David the younger)" You should rejoice that name you got is from your father. I watched him grow up and become a leader in the Saturday Night Alive and on in to the ministry., Your father and I have a deep respect for each other. And your Grandfather is also a mighty man of God ! The truth is how you say it. HOW you proclaim it and HOW it is recieved. In your zeal do you want to be know as "One little Hothead" or someone will zeal that has a "good method of delivery"
that others are not blow away, and they recieved the truth without injury! Think about it.
With all Sincerely Pastor Jerome

[David Diga Hernandez]

Jorge,

I know you don't believe that nonsense about "gap theories" and old earth. I just respond to it so that those who do will be drawn into debate. I always have fun finding those types.

[David Velasquez]

That's the thing about e-mail and writing - it does not carry tone well, unless the person writing is a gifted writer, so the recipient can easily misconstrued what’s being said. Keep this in mind beloved. We are doing great you all - You old guys don't start using the older and wiser excuse, to account for the lack of zeal. hahaha - I am really J/K - I am an old dude too. haha
Compassionate Warriors Babyyyyyyy!!!!

[Robert Jimenez]

Jorge,

Just because Hugh Ross does not embrace a world flood does not negate the possible truth that the earth is old. I personally have been to the mountains, and have found sea shells, they are not that hard to find.

[Jorge]

On the flood: My point was that I do not agree with Ross. I stand strong on a world flood view. I used to find seashells in Sonora, Mexico. No ocean around there....but this is not why I hold to this view. I simply hold to this because the bible speaks of a world flood. The LORD gave Noah a promise that He would never flood the world again...and if Hugh believes his view is correct then one has ask him why have there been many floods since then?

Now on the "possible truth that the earth is old."
That's what I love about these discussions...in the end an old earth is possible...just as a new earth very well could be possible as well.
Same thing goes with a "Gap" here or there...while I don't grasp it as total truth one could ask is it possible that there may be some truth to the "Gap Theory" for example...the answer to my opinion would have to be, yes it's possible.
In the end these are just...what are they called...secondary issues.

[Robert Jimenez]

"The Age of Earth"
By Dr. J. P. Moreland

Used with permission.

This topic was addressed by Dr. Moreland during a lecture at North...

Now we know beyond reasonable doubt that the universe of space-time and matter had a beginning. It is now no longer reasonable to believe that the universe has always been here. That is now an irrational belief. Instead, we now know beyond reasonable doubt that the physical cosmos, of matter, and of space and of time, came into existence some time ago. At this point, it doesn't matter how long ago that was--some estimates are 15 to 20 billion years--that is not relevant to my concerns. What is relevant is that it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the universe came into existence a finite period of time ago.

This portion was from a Q & A time, following a presentation by Dr. Moreland that was based upon his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind"

The argument is that if you take the days of Genesis as not being six days and take them as maybe longer periods of time, then where do you draw the line...why wouldn't the same reasoning imply that we'll eventually have to reinterpret the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. Let me give you a counter-example. I doubt, sir, that you or anybody else in the room takes the biblical passages that say that 'Jesus will call his angels from the four corners of the earth' to teach a flat Earth. I also doubt that anyone in here says that when the sun rises and sets it literally means an earth-centered universe. But you must understand that...there were times when the church interpreted the text that taught that God--Christ will call his angels from the four corners of the world to teach very obviously that the world has four corners. The text says that. There is absolutely no evidence in that text that it means anything other than four corners. You can read it until you're blue in the face, and it says that the Earth has four corners. Similarly, the Bible says the sun rises and sets. Now, that's what it says. You can dance around it all you want. That's what the text says. But there's nobody in here that believes that. No one in here believes the earth has four corners. And so, what we've done is taken that language and interpreted it metaphorically. Similarly, with the rising and the setting of the sun, we treat that...phenomenologically--we say that's the language of description; it is not meant to be taken literally.

So then, suppose that you believe that...those texts do not teach that there are four corners and that the sun rises and sets? Are you now going to deny the virgin birth? Are you going to to give up the resurrection? No, of course not. So, the point is...that the general argument from adopting a certain view of one text, there's no way to block the slide to doing that to other texts, is an example in philosophy of what is called hasty generalization; it makes a generalization based upon a slim sampling of evidence. The fact of the matter is that when you interpret biblical texts, you've got to take each one at it's own merits and you've got to do the very best you can to handle that text by itself. And so from the fact that one particular text is handled in some way, it does not follow that...other texts will need to be handled in any way whatsoever, unless you can show that there's a clear parallel in the way that the two texts are being handled.

Now, when it comes to the...flat earth and the rising and the setting of the sun: it was scientific evidence that caused people to say 'maybe we'd better re-look at those passages.' There was nothing exegetically or strictly in the Hebrew grammar and syntax. There was absolutely nothing about the literary genre of the passage or the historical-grammatical method of interpretation that could tell you anything at all about one way or the other--it was scientific evidence. So now the q

[Robert Jimenez]

I know I said I wasn't going to debate, and I am not this is what JP Moreland has to say on this matter.

[Jorge]

So is JP Moreland saying that the earth is Old...that Gen. 1 is not speaking of a day as in "the evening and the morning was the first day". and so forth...and while we're on this subject of days...why wasn't the 2nd day/Age/thousands or billions of years considered a good day? Why?

Anyhow, in the end it may be possible that it is a new earth...and it may be possible that it is an old earth...is it not?

[Robert Jimenez]

JP is saying that you are not twisting or torturing the biblical text if you choose to believe the earth is older (billions), rather than younger (thousands) of years. It can be interpreted that way. He is not the only either. Just read what expert Hebrew theologian Gleason L. Archer has to say.

If Gleason Archer is not all shaken or bothered by an old earth, and he is a Hebrew Scholar, then why should I worry? I was an old earth advocate, and someday may change my position, but for now I am fine with an old earth.

[Jorge]

I feel you brother...I know what you're saying...I know there are some really good guys on both sides of this one and many other topics...it's just fun talking about it.