Gap Theory
I'm sure there are people who've probably heard this before, and I did a search and didn't find anything conclusive without searching through hundreds of posts wasting time I don't have.
A preacher at my church brought up a verse which seems to clearly refute the gap theory (I'm still very undecided on the matter, and still leaning more towards the gap theory), but I was wondering what you guys think on the matter.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
The only problems I see with saying this verse is a crystal clear refutation is the fact that it really isn't clear that Gen 1:1 & 2 are included in the first day and the fact that darkness exists before God makes the light, and we aren't told when the deep is made. It also doesn't say THE heaven or THE earth. It just says heaven (which heaven is it? first, second, third?), and it just says earth, which could easily just be dry ground, and sea, which, like earth, could just be the water that was brought into one place on THE earth. I also know about the passage in 2 Peter 3, which is kind of a murky passage as well, but does give a lot more support for the gap theory than it does for saying that verses 5 & 6 refer to the flood of Gen 7, because the earth during the flood was covered in water, not overflowed with water, being IN and OUT of it, and the obvious implications of the heaven and earth of old, the heaven and earth that are now, and the new heaven and earth.
I realize i just gave most of the major refutations that actually work on both sides of the argument. I don't consider Satan's fall and the sons of God one because there was, at the most, 130 years before the fall of Adam, also Ruckman's case on the meaning behind the implications of the word worlds in Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 aren't that great either, but I completely understand why he would have said it. I was wondering if any of you guys had anything else on the subject.
|