There Is No Gap Theory In Genesis

Some are using celebrity Evangelicals to justify their Gap theory or Old Age theory and then say that there's a gap of time in Gen. 1:1-2 (by absence I guess--which how do you prove then, that's it's there?). The problem is that the source of the theories are unbelievers who value "science" as the standard of interpreting Scripture, not Scripture as the standard nor it's Author. In other words, they value the world's silly views and accreditation over that of the King of king's and Lord of lord's --who was the One Who was actually there in the Beginning.

Here are some excellent articles and excerpts:

Quote:

Another often-repeated claim is that Genesis 1:2 should read, "the earth became without form and void," as opposed to the traditional understanding that when God first created the earth in verse 3, it "was without form (i.e., not yet in completed form) and void (i.e., not yet inhabited)." The verb's normal meaning, however, is simply "was," and while it may be translated "become," the context does not warrant it, and all accepted versions of the Bible use "was."

Each verse in Genesis 1, except verse 1, begins with the conjunction "and," thereby connecting each verse sequentially to those before and after. There is no hint of the passing of millions or billions of years of time between verses 1 and 2.

Gap advocates frequently turn to other portions of Scripture for support, particularly those which use the words "without form" and "void" (Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 24:1, and 45:18 are most important). In each case, the prophet refers to a wasted state due to the judgment of sin, thereby implying that Genesis 1:2 likewise implies a condition brought about by judgment. But in each case, the context regards the land of Israel not the original earth. There is no justification for postulating long ages present in a supposed gap in Genesis.

~Dr. John Morris, ICR


Additional info here:

Some do criticize and reject Darwinian evolution, but then will still allow some other form of evolution--"creative evolution," "pantheistic evolution," "punctuational evolution," or something. Some still resort to the unscientific "gap theory" which seeks to insert the "ages" between the first two verses of Genesis. Every such group must turn to either the "local flood theory" or the "tranquil flood theory" if they are going to hold to the geologic ages, since a global cataclysm such as the Bible describes would have destroyed all evidence for the geologic ages...

The difference is this: we believe the Bible must take priority over scientific theories, while they believe scientific theories must determine our biblical interpretations.

Is the Bible God's Inerrant Word?

It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question. Do we really believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word or not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then--by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every subject with which it deals. This assumption leads clearly to the conviction that the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago. We believe this simply because God said so and said it quite plainly! And then we find also that this revealed fact will fit all the facts of science much better than the long-age evolutionary scenario does.

It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11; see also Exodus 31:15-18)...

"But science has proved the earth is old," they still insist, "and we dare not alienate the academic community by insisting on a literal Genesis." No, "science" has not proved the earth is old! The oldest written records we have, apart from the Bible, are in Egypt and Sumeria, and these only go back a few thousand years.

End quote. 

~ICR

Excellent:

Why The Gap Theory Won't Work by Dr. Henry Morris.

Also, Gap theorists use this verse to establish their interpretation back into Gen. 1:1-2

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:18).

Morris explains:

Quote:

Actually, the meaning of tohu is very flexible; it occurs 20 times and is translated 10 different ways, depending on context. In our text above, Isaiah was not writing about the initial state of the creation, but the purpose of the creation, that purpose being to provide a beautiful and appropriate home for mankind. 

The translation “in vain” was required by Isaiah’s context, just as “without form” best fits the context in Genesis 1:2. There is no conflict, since the two passages are dealing with two different subjects, and Isaiah’s message simply extols God’s ultimate and certain goal for His creation. 

When God first created the space/time universe, only the basic elements of the earth (Genesis 1:1) were created, with neither structure nor inhabitant, but that was not its full purpose. God had merely “created” the heavens according to this verse. But then, with great care, He formed the earth, made the earth and established the earth, and all this was done to make it ready to be inhabited by men and women who would share His image and know His love.

End quote. Bold, my emphasis.

~ Dr. Henry Morris, ICR, "Days of Praise"

Why Must The Age of the Earth Be Resolved?

The Gap Theory: a Trojan Horse by James J.S. Johnson :

Quote:

In some cases, a sentence using hayah can make sense whether it is translated as a form of “to be” or a form of “to become,” but it still appears that a form of “to be” makes better theological or historical sense in those contexts (e.g., Genesis 13:8; Judges 18:19; 2 Samuel 7:24).

As noted above, gap theory advocates say that the earth described in Genesis 1 clashes with Isaiah’s earth, positing Isaiah 45:18 as a proof text. In effect, they say Isaiah 45:18 clashes with the history reported in Genesis 1:2. This is the question they often pose:

In Isaiah 45:18 we are told that God created the world to not be formless (lô’ tohû), yet in Genesis 1:2 we are told that the world was formless (tohû). Likewise, we read in Genesis 1:2 that earth was “void” (bohû, meaning “empty,” i.e., empty of inhabitants), yet in Isaiah 45:18 it says God created the earth “to be inhabited” (a form of yashab, meaning “to inhabit”). How can both verses be true, unless they are describing different times in earth history?

Answer: These really are two different times. Genesis 1:2 describes Day One; Isaiah 45:18 describes (the “very good”) Day Six or thereafter.

Genesis is a chronological narrative reporting how and when God created stuff and what God did with it, sequentially, to implement His intentions for creation. Isaiah, however, emphasizes why God created stuff and later developed it: Because God wanted an inhabited, orderly world....

End quote. (Bold, my emphasis.)

Other info: 

"Jesus, Evangelical Scholars and the Age of the Earth" by Fr.Terry Moretenson:

Quote:

Besides the above mentioned evidence that Jesus took Genesis 1-11 as straightforward reliable history, the gospel writers record several statements that Jesus made, which are relevant to the age of the earth. Those verses, hereafter collectively referred to as the “Jesus AGE verses,” show that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. They are:

1. “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)
2. “For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days.” (Mark 13:19–20)
3. “. . . so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.” (Luke 11:50–51)

The key phrases that will attract our attention in these verses are “from (or since) the beginning of creation” and “since the foundation of the world.” Old-earth advocates who interact with these verses contend that in them Jesus is not referring to the beginning of the whole creation but only to the beginning of the human race, which they believe was millions of years after the creation of the universe, earth, trilobites, dinosaurs, etc. In what follows I will first present my exegetical arguments for concluding that Jesus is referring to the beginning of the world (Gen 1:1) in these verses. Then later I will come back to these texts as I interact with the writings of the few old-earth proponents who have addressed these verses with respect to the age of the earth.

End quote. Go to the link above for the whole treatment of men who hold to something other than a biblical Creation view and how they do not rightly deal with Jesus' own teaching on the age of the earth.

Scriptural Geology :Abstract:The scriptural geology (SG) movement is described by historians as a reaction among both scientists and theologians to the long-ages models being proposed by geologists in the early nineteenth century. Specifically, it occupied the period of 1820 to 1860 after which time the movement essentially died out until revived by George McCready Price and the modern creationist movement of the twentieth century. Possible reasons for the precipitous decline of scriptural geology after the 1850s are explored. Historians have noted remarkable similarities between scriptural geology (SG) and the modern creationist movement (popularly known as young-earth creationism or YEC). Most of the basic issues have not dramatically changed in the last 150 years and more. A review of the more important issues in the SG movement can prove very helpful in resolving parallel issues being grappled with by YEC scholars today. One issue that caused the most diverse opinions among SG was where to place the biblical Flood in the geological record. This remains one of the most hotly debated issues among creationist geologists today....

End quote. Italics, original.  See the whole article linked above.

Info on Old Age theory origins here.

Insights on the Gap Theory and eschatology.