The Gap Theory

robycop3

Active member
I believe astronomy, physics, & math prove the gap theory. While man may have been here for only the last 6K years, the earth has been around much longer. When Moses wrote what became Genesis, he wrote what God told him; otherwise he would not have known of Adam & Eve, or the flood, etc. He didn't tell him about any other people besides those who formed Israel, & whom Israel would come in contact with in the near-future.

Nor did He tell Mo much about earth before He made man. And before man, there was no one to write about it, of course ! But God chose to make earth's history before man known to us. He enabled man to find fossils & learn many of them are far-older than mankind.

Also, He enabled man to discover the speeda light, & the rough distances of many stars, galaxies, etc. from us. Thus, we know many of them existed millions of years ago, knowing the speeda light & the distances those objects are from us.

Also, it's estimated, from the number of fossilized species we've found, that 99% of all animals & plants that ever lived are now extinct. There might be a few dinos left (dragons, Loch Ness monster, etc. ) but most are history.

And earth has been hit by catastrophes before God made man. Dinos aside, in more=recent times, there are animals that were better-equipped to survive than their modern equivalents. One was the woolly mammoth. It could live in climates where modern elephants cannot. Most wild elephants die when their teeth wear out & they can't chew their food enough to properly digest it. But the mammoth's teeth were much-harder, and no mammoth remains have been found with worn-out teeth. But SOMETHING killed'em all. same with super-bison, smilodons, dire wolves, & "cave bears". That last one was much-better-equipped than modern bears; it could live in almost any climate, had a much-better sense of smell than modern bears, was larger, & was built for traveling long distances on all fours & running very fast when necessary, & judging by its teeth, it was omnivorous, as modern bears are. But yet, it's gone !

There's a huge variety of "recent" animals' remains, large, small, I insects, in the La Brea tar pits near Los Angeles. Almost all are now extinct, & were never seen by man. Some catastrophe(s) eliminated them all. God has enabled us to discover that paleontological treasure trove.

Some will say, "They died in Noah's flood". However, God told Noah to take AT LEAST ONE PAIR, MALE & FEMALE, OF EVERY KIND OF ANIMAL & BIRD ABOARD THE ARK ! God's command didn't exclude any animal. (Doubtlessly, God collected most of the animals, as one man couldn't collect a pair of every one in five lifetimes !) The answer is, most were extinct before man was created ! God created new ones shortly before he made Adam.

Now, the earth isn't only 6K years old. God's CURRENT ARRANGEMENT of the surface is.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
"They died in Noah's flood"
You're right...they did in Noahs flood.

The bible also implies that Satan walked in the Garden of Eden in an unfallen state.

Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. 15 From the day you were created you were blameless in your ways—until wickedness was found in you.

Most people use the Gap theory to show the fall of Satan destroyed the earth. That doesn't seem to be true.
 

The Pixie

Active member
You're right...they did in Noahs flood.

The bible also implies that Satan walked in the Garden of Eden in an unfallen state.

Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. 15 From the day you were created you were blameless in your ways—until wickedness was found in you.

Most people use the Gap theory to show the fall of Satan destroyed the earth. That doesn't seem to be true.
Excellent use of quote-mining to rip something out of context.

Read the verse before and it is clear the verses in Ezekiel are about the King of Tyre (unless you think satan was king of Tyre at some point!)

11 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a song of mourning over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord God says:
“You [d]had the seal of [e]perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your [f]settings and [g]sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Excellent use of quote-mining to rip something out of context.

Read the verse before and it is clear the verses in Ezekiel are about the King of Tyre (unless you think satan was king of Tyre at some point!)

11 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 “Son of man, take up a song of mourning over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord God says:
“You [d]had the seal of [e]perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your [f]settings and [g]sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
Was Tyre in the Garden of Eden? I think not.
Was Tyre a cherub? I think not.

Tyre was a type of Satan...
 

The Pixie

Active member
Was Tyre in the Garden of Eden? I think not.
Was Tyre a cherub? I think not.
This is a metaphor. Tyre was considered as magnificent as the Garden of Eden, the rule as blessed as a cherub.

Tyre was a type of Satan...
Tyre was and still is a city in Lebanon.

Do you think Sidon is Satan too? There is a taunt against the king of Sidon later in the chapter.

The previous chapter starts like this:

27 Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “And you, son of man, take up a song of mourning over Tyre; 3 and say to Tyre, who sits at the [a]entrance to the sea, merchant of the peoples to many coastlands, ‘This is what the Lord God says:
“Tyre, you have said, ‘I am perfect in beauty.’
4 Your borders are in the heart of the seas;
Your builders have perfected your beauty.
5 They have [c]made all your planks of juniper trees from Senir;
They have taken a cedar from Lebanon to make a mast for you.

Is that about Satan too? Does Satan sit at the entrance to the sea, is or was Satan merchant of the peoples to many coastlands?

And the chapter before that:

26 Now in the eleventh year, on the first of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said in regard to Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gateway of the peoples is broken; it has [a]opened to me. I shall be filled, now that she is laid waste,’ 3 therefore this is what the Lord God says: ‘Behold, I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down her towers; and I will sweep her debris away from her and make her a bare rock.

God is threatening to destroy the walls of Satan, right?

The reality is that this is part of a long tirade against several nations. Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia in chapter 25, the Tyre in chapters 26, 27, 28, Sidon also in 28, Egypt 29, 30, 31 and 32. This is Ezekiel prophesising what he hopes will happen to all the nations (other than Babylon for some reason) that have troubled the Hebrews for years. Tyre gets special mention, it would seem, because it was all set to level Jerusalem.

There is nothing about Satan here, CrowCross. That is something that has been added long after the text was written. When read in context, that is all to clear.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
This is a metaphor. Tyre was considered as magnificent as the Garden of Eden, the rule as blessed as a cherub.


Tyre was and still is a city in Lebanon.

Do you think Sidon is Satan too? There is a taunt against the king of Sidon later in the chapter.

The previous chapter starts like this:

27 Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “And you, son of man, take up a song of mourning over Tyre; 3 and say to Tyre, who sits at the [a]entrance to the sea, merchant of the peoples to many coastlands, ‘This is what the Lord God says:
“Tyre, you have said, ‘I am perfect in beauty.’
4 Your borders are in the heart of the seas;
Your builders have perfected your beauty.
5 They have [c]made all your planks of juniper trees from Senir;
They have taken a cedar from Lebanon to make a mast for you.

Is that about Satan too? Does Satan sit at the entrance to the sea, is or was Satan merchant of the peoples to many coastlands?

And the chapter before that:

26 Now in the eleventh year, on the first of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said in regard to Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gateway of the peoples is broken; it has [a]opened to me. I shall be filled, now that she is laid waste,’ 3 therefore this is what the Lord God says: ‘Behold, I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down her towers; and I will sweep her debris away from her and make her a bare rock.

God is threatening to destroy the walls of Satan, right?

The reality is that this is part of a long tirade against several nations. Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia in chapter 25, the Tyre in chapters 26, 27, 28, Sidon also in 28, Egypt 29, 30, 31 and 32. This is Ezekiel prophesising what he hopes will happen to all the nations (other than Babylon for some reason) that have troubled the Hebrews for years. Tyre gets special mention, it would seem, because it was all set to level Jerusalem.

There is nothing about Satan here, CrowCross. That is something that has been added long after the text was written. When read in context, that is all to clear.
As I've said before....The King of Tyre was a type of Satan.

The gap has been closed.

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable. Reference

A second reference
  1. Ezekiel 28:12-17 is generally considered a "double" passage, containing a parenthetic pertaining to Satan as well as an address to the king of Tyre. In it, the being referred to was in Eden as a blameless guardian cherub. If you cross reference this passage to the passage that is clearly regarding Satan in Isaiah 14:12-15, you will see a parallel structure which really cannot be denied. There are a series of "I will's" in Isaiah, answered by the corresponding actions of the Lord in return in Ezekiel. This being the case, Satan, or Lucifer as he was originally, could not have been in rebellion before Eden was formed and therefore there was no "Satan's Flood' which could have destroyed a world he had corrupted in some sort of gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
 

The Pixie

Active member
As I've said before....The King of Tyre was a type of Satan.
What does that mean? Was it Satan or not?

You originally cited Ezekiel 28 as evidence that Satan walked in Eden. How can it be evidence if it is about a "type" and not Satan himself?

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable. Reference
It is hyperbole. No more than that. The whole context is God railing against the nations that troubled Judah. It makes no sense for a couple of verses to suddenly be about Satan, and then to flip back to the King of Tyre.

A second reference
  1. Ezekiel 28:12-17 is generally considered a "double" passage, containing a parenthetic pertaining to Satan as well as an address to the king of Tyre. In it, the being referred to was in Eden as a blameless guardian cherub. If you cross reference this passage to the passage that is clearly regarding Satan in Isaiah 14:12-15, you will see a parallel structure which really cannot be denied. There are a series of "I will's" in Isaiah, answered by the corresponding actions of the Lord in return in Ezekiel. This being the case, Satan, or Lucifer as he was originally, could not have been in rebellion before Eden was formed and therefore there was no "Satan's Flood' which could have destroyed a world he had corrupted in some sort of gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
What is your point? I do not dispute modern Christians nearly all think Ezekiel 28 is about Satan. The idea of a "double" passage is just the usual Christian twisting of the text. There is no reason to suppose the author meant it that way.
 

robycop3

Active member
You're right...they did in Noahs flood.

The bible also implies that Satan walked in the Garden of Eden in an unfallen state.

Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared.
14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. 15 From the day you were created you were blameless in your ways—until wickedness was found in you.

Most people use the Gap theory to show the fall of Satan destroyed the earth. That doesn't seem to be true.
True. But we don't know how long Eden was there before God made A&E.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
What does that mean? Was it Satan or not?

You originally cited Ezekiel 28 as evidence that Satan walked in Eden. How can it be evidence if it is about a "type" and not Satan himself?


It is hyperbole. No more than that. The whole context is God railing against the nations that troubled Judah. It makes no sense for a couple of verses to suddenly be about Satan, and then to flip back to the King of Tyre.


What is your point? I do not dispute modern Christians nearly all think Ezekiel 28 is about Satan. The idea of a "double" passage is just the usual Christian twisting of the text. There is no reason to suppose the author meant it that way.
It's a reflection of what Satan did. If you can't understand that..oh well.

You didn't address the parts where the king was associated with supernatural abilities...called a cherub.

What you see here is the destruction of the gap theory.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
True. But we don't know how long Eden was there before God made A&E.
Yes we do.

Man formed then placed in the garden...

7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

while in the garden..still day 6...

21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he madeh into a woman and brought her to the man.

Adam was made on day 6...then on day six the garden was made ..then on day six Eve was made.

I'm not trying to argue...just trying to show you what the bible says.
 

The Pixie

Active member
It's a reflection of what Satan did. If you can't understand that..oh well.
No, I do not understand it.

Either Ezekiel is actually about Satan, and therefore offers some evidence that Satan walked in Eden, or it is NOT about Satan - and is about a "type" or "reflection" or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you can contrive - and it does not offers any evidence that Satan walked in Eden.

You didn't address the parts where the king was associated with supernatural abilities...called a cherub.
Yes I did:

"This is a metaphor. Tyre was considered as magnificent as the Garden of Eden, the rule as blessed as a cherub."

What you see here is the destruction of the gap theory.
What I see is you desperately trying to pretend the text says something it patently does not, and so having to resort to vague terms like "type" or "reflection", and when challenged you clearly are unable to say what they mean.

Why did Ezekiel stick three verses about Satan in a six chapters long rant against the nations that had caused Judah woe? Read in context, this is about the King of Tyre.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
No, I do not understand it.

Either Ezekiel is actually about Satan, and therefore offers some evidence that Satan walked in Eden, or it is NOT about Satan - and is about a "type" or "reflection" or whatever other mumbo-jumbo you can contrive - and it does not offers any evidence that Satan walked in Eden.


Yes I did:

"This is a metaphor. Tyre was considered as magnificent as the Garden of Eden, the rule as blessed as a cherub."


What I see is you desperately trying to pretend the text says something it patently does not, and so having to resort to vague terms like "type" or "reflection", and when challenged you clearly are unable to say what they mean.

Why did Ezekiel stick three verses about Satan in a six chapters long rant against the nations that had caused Judah woe? Read in context, this is about the King of Tyre.
I find it a waste of time to keep on with this topic. The King of Tyre was not a cherub. He was likend to one who was a cherub..one who walked on Gods holy mountain.

But, hey, believe what you want.
 

robycop3

Active member
Yes we do.

Man formed then placed in the garden...

7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

while in the garden..still day 6...

21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he madeh into a woman and brought her to the man.

Adam was made on day 6...then on day six the garden was made ..then on day six Eve was made.

I'm not trying to argue...just trying to show you what the bible says.
Well, actually, we don't know how long it was before God made Adam after He made the GOE. Evidently, Satan had fallen by then as evil already existed, I. E. "the tree of the knowledge of good & evil".
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Well, actually, we don't know how long it was before God made Adam after He made the GOE. Evidently, Satan had fallen by then as evil already existed, I. E. "the tree of the knowledge of good & evil".
The bible tells us Satan walked in the garden in an unfallen state.

The bible puts it this way...God made Adam...then the garden...put Adam in it...then made Eve.
At the end of creation God said it was very good....and at that time that would have included an un-fallen Satan.
 

robycop3

Active member
The bible tells us Satan walked in the garden in an unfallen state.

The bible puts it this way...God made Adam...then the garden...put Adam in it...then made Eve.
At the end of creation God said it was very good....and at that time that would have included an un-fallen Satan.
There was no evil til Satan made it by his rebellion, but the garden contained the tree of the knowledge of good AND EVIL.
 

The Pixie

Active member
The bible puts it this way...God made Adam...then the garden...put Adam in it...then made Eve.
At the end of creation God said it was very good....and at that time that would have included an un-fallen Satan.
But that was just an animal of the field. A snake on legs, who was then made into the traditional snake-.form when God cursed him.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field which the Lord God had made.
...
14 Then the Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all the livestock,
And more than any animal of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And dust you shall eat
All the days of your life;

He is not cursed more than any other angel, because he is not an angel. He is compared to the animals of the field because that is all he is.

Do you think Satan goes on his belly all the time? Or do you think snakes do that?

Perhaps you think Satan was pretending to be a snake, and he fooled God, and that is why God cursed snakes rather than Satan?
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
There was no evil til Satan made it by his rebellion, but the garden contained the tree of the knowledge of good AND EVIL.
So what? Do you know what good and evil are when speaking of the tree?

Satan walked in the garden in an unfallen state.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
But that was just an animal of the field. A snake on legs, who was then made into the traditional snake-.form when God cursed him.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any animal of the field which the Lord God had made.
...
14 Then the Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all the livestock,
And more than any animal of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And dust you shall eat
All the days of your life;

He is not cursed more than any other angel, because he is not an angel. He is compared to the animals of the field because that is all he is.

Do you think Satan goes on his belly all the time? Or do you think snakes do that?

Perhaps you think Satan was pretending to be a snake, and he fooled God, and that is why God cursed snakes rather than Satan?
The verse you presented tells us at the fall ALL the animals were cursed.

You're presenting the verse as if you're an expert...and basically all you have is sheer conjecture.

Was Satan the serpent or was Satan possessing the serpent?
 
Top