The Gap Theory

Originally posted by RJHinds

Satan's sin in lying about God's word to Adam and Eve did not happen between Genesis 1:1 and I:2.

That is what I have always believed and always taught.

This sin happened when the angel Lucifer became Satan the devil by possessing the body of the serpent dragon in the Garden of Eden after everything was created and God rested from this part of His creation work. The event that uncovered the unrighteous in him was his tempting of Eve with lies.

No. The unrighteousness was found in him before the presence of the serpent in Eden.

You make two errors -

1.) The lie told to Eve was the first time God noticed that unrighteousness was found in Satan.

2.) Eve was the first creature that Satan deceived.

Both of these are wrong.

What I presented above is not imaginary, but clearly revealed in scripture.

Dealing with the first error, it is more imaginary.

When the Anointed Cherub who was created perfect in his ways "until unrighteousness was found in you" (Ezekiel 28:15) his station was glorious and heavenly - "you were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." (v.14)

He was cast out of that glorious state after unrighteousness was found"[/b] in him and after his heart was lifted up because of his beauty and corrupted his wisdom by reason of his brightness. (v.17) [/b]

Genesis 3 speaks only of the serpent being more subtle.
Nothing is said about it being bright.
Nothing is said about it being a covering cherub.
Nothing is said about it being particularly beautiful.

And that regardless of how beautiful you might imagine serpents or dragons for that matter, to be.

It is easier therefore for good number of Christians to imagine that the sin of the serpent's lie came at the END of a previous career of closeness and perfection. It is less likely that this lie to Eve was the very first instance in which unrighteousness was found in Satan.

You, on the other hand. must invent imaginary time to present speculations of an imaginary history of sin and death and judgment on a pre-Adamic earth.

I cannot write now. Maybe I'll comment latter.

You, on the other hand. must invent imaginary time to present speculations of an imaginary history of sin and death and judgment on a pre-Adamic earth.

It is not difficult to imagine given that waste and empty, two words used together, indicate elsewhere in the Bible divine overthrow.

It is not difficult to imagine that in Genesis some things are not fully disclosed but are visited latter in other books.

It is evidence that the serpent, lying, slandering, opposing God, is an enigma if we only had Genesis. So apparently actually details about this Adversary and Slander are re-visited in latter books of the Bible.

You should also remember that the oldest book in the Bible is not Genesis but Job. It is possible that some things were already known by the Jews because of what they had from God in Job. Job does talk somewhat about Satan before Genesis was written.

Lastly, the being the Anointed Cherub seems to have left his station ( or expelled out ) in order for him to appear as a serpent or in one in Genesis. We are told elsewhere that it was a SIN for the angels to leave the appointed stations of their creation.

" And angels who did not keep their own principality but abandoned their own dwelling place, He has kept in eternal bonds under gloom for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6).

See also "If God did not spare the angels who sinned but delivered them to gloomy pits, having cast them down to Tartarus... "(2 Pet. 4:4) as a parallel passage to Jude 6.

Don't misunderstand me here.
I believe that this passage refers to particularly pernicious angels who did something more horrific in their changing of their principality and dwelling. For this some of the more offensive ones are in chains in the in some realm waiting for eternal judgment.

But my point is that in principle, leaving the station ordained for the angels and meddling illegally in lower realms to derange God's creation, was an act of sin.

I think that the serpent appearing in Eden is indicative of the fact that previously the glorious Daystar had done this kind of leaving his appointed realm to meddle where he should not have.

The bottom line is that I would teach that the first week of Genesis is not the time of the massive, gargantuan angelic rebellion of angels led by Lucifer to oppose God. It was already an old and ancient history by the time man was placed in the garden of Eden.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]Satan's sin in lying about God's word to Adam and Eve did not happen between Genesis 1:1 and I:2.

That is what I have always believed and always taught.

This sin happened when the angel Lucifer became Satan the devil by possessing the body of the serpent dragon in the Garden of Eden after everything was created and G ...[text shortened]... judgment on a pre-Adamic earth.[/b]

I cannot write now. Maybe I'll comment latter.[/b]

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

(Genesis 3:1 KJV)

Lucifer was an invisible Cherub, not a beast of the field. And serpents or dragons do not normally talk. Lucifers first sin was in becoming a devil or demon by possessing control of the body of this serpent dragon and speaking through it to deceive the woman. It was this sin that began Lucifer's career as Satan the adversary of God.

There are many cases of person that are demon possessed in which Christ casts the demons out and we know from scripture that Satan the Devil is king of the demons.

It is after Christ is caught up to Heaven and God's throne that there is a war in Heaven and Satan and his demon angels are cast out and down to the earth.

And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne... And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 12:5, 7-9 KJV)

Originally posted by sonship
" And angels who did not keep their own principality but abandoned their own dwelling place, He has kept in eternal bonds under gloom for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6).

These angels you are referring to are the fallen angels that became devils or demons by leaving Heaven and coming to earth to possess the bodies of men and choosing the daughters of men to reproduce the evil men of renown that led to God destroying them with the worldwide flood.

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose... There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

(Genesis 6:2,4-8 KJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds

I know what Genesis 6:2:4-8 "sons of God" refer to very well.
I know what the Nephilim refer to.

Though we agree on many of these details, I think you think it reinforces that there was no preadamic age. And there is where I think you're wrong.

The fallen angels are not the demons.
And I don't think I will repeat to you the discussion we've had on the difference between the fallen angels and the demons.

Besides repeating again and again ourselves, I don't know what else I expect to happen, that is unless someone new enters the exchange perhaps.

Originally posted by sonship
I know what Genesis 6:2:4-8 "sons of God" refer to very well.
I know what the [b]Nephilim refer to.

Though we agree on many of these details, I think you think it reinforces that there was no preadamic age. And there is where I think you're wrong.

The fallen angels are not the demons.
And I don't think I will repeat to you the discussion w ...[text shortened]... don't know what else I expect to happen, that is unless someone new enters the exchange perhaps.[/b]

Well, I think you are wrong. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I think you are wrong. 😏

That's good for me that you disagree with me some.
Its humbling and causes me to turn more to the Lord.

Praise the Lord for whatever causes us to turn deeper toward the Lord Jesus.

Sometime I would, though, like to go to some other forums where I could talk to others. Do you have any recommendations among your YEC friends ?

Originally posted by sonship
That's good for me that you disagree with me some.
Its humbling and causes me to turn more to the Lord.

Praise the Lord for whatever causes us to turn deeper toward the Lord Jesus.

Sometime I would, though, like to go to some other forums where I could talk to others. Do you have any recommendations among your YEC friends ?

There was one other one, but I liked this one better and I forget the name of it now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There was one other one, but I liked this one better and I forget the name of it now.

C'mon Hinds, you must know of some others.
Don't want me to show up there ?

Ever hear of "Evolution Verses Creation" ?
That is evcforum.net.

I'm still jaywill over there. I stay in the Bible Study section.

Originally posted by sonship
C'mon Hinds, you must know of some others.
Don't want me to show up there ?

Ever hear of "Evolution Verses Creation" ?
That is evcforum.net.

I'm still jaywill over there. I stay in the Bible Study section.

I don't care where you show up. I just don't remember.

I refer mainly to Youtube for "Evolution Verses Creation" so I have never been to evcforum.net.

I wish my keyboard would stop acting up. To cheap to by a new one.

Originally posted by sonship
The fallen angels are not the demons.

These rebellious (or 'fallen' angels) are known as devils, demons, evil spirits or unclean spirits. Lucifer was a cherub, which is a spirit creature that is also sometimes referred to as an angel. After his fall Lucifer becme known by other names such as the serpent, the dragon, the devil, Satan, Beelzebub, etc.

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

(Matthew 12:23-28 KJV)

Some other versions translate devils as demons. It seems very clear to me that Christ associates Satan the devil as being Beelzebub the ruler over the devils or demons. And I believe we can both agree that Lucifer the cherub later became Satan the devil and ruler over the fallen angels who became identified as evil or unclean spirits called devils or demons.

Christ continues:

When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

(Matthew 12:43-45 KJV)

These rebellious (or 'fallen' angels) are known as devils, demons, evil spirits or unclean spirits. Lucifer was a cherub, which is a spirit creature that is also sometimes referred to as an angel. After his fall Lucifer becme known by other names such as the serpent, the dragon, the devil, Satan, Beelzebub, etc.

ho diabolos is a word which is never used in the PLURAL, and is always a designation of Satan himself. Literally meaning "the one who sets at variance," "the slander," or "malignant accuser."

You can begin to refute this by showing in the NT the plural usage of diabolos. If you cannot locate the plural usage of diabolos then that presents a problem to your English translations of "devils" [plural].

If you find no plural of diabolos then the name Devil is, then, applied to one being alone - Satan.

Deamonia is another word and should translate into demons and not the plural of diabolos. And confusion is introduced in the King James Version by the use of the word "devils". And the mistake has been unaccountably [editted] confirmed in the Revised Version, although the protest of the American Committee took place.

So deamonia or demons are indeed spirits. But they are not plural "devils". I think you could refute this by simply producing the passage in the Greek NT which has the plural of diobolos.

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind,

A better translation in the Recovery Version -

"Then there was brought to Him one possessed by a demon, blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw." ( Matt. 12:22 RcV)

Other English translations that agree -

English Standard Version
Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw.

New American Standard Bible
Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and unable to speak was brought to Him. He healed him, so that the man could both speak and see.

International Standard Version
Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and unable to talk was brought to him. Jesus healed him so that the man could speak and see.

NET Bible
Then they brought to him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute. Jesus healed him so that he could speak and see.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But then they brought to him a certain demoniac, mute and blind, and he healed him so that the mute and blind man could speak and could see.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Then some people brought Jesus a man possessed by a demon. ...

Jubilee Bible 2000
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon,

King James 2000 Bible
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind, and dumb: and he healed him

American Standard Version
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon,

A few English translations do say "devils" but it should be "demons".

http://biblehub.com/matthew/12-22.htm

G.H. Pember writes:

We may, however, in some measure avoid this confusion [of reading devils] by remembering that the proper word for Devil, has, as we have just said, no plural, and is only applied to Satan himself. Whenever, therefore, we meet the plural in the English Testament, we may be sure that the Greek is ... [daimonia], which ought to be rendered "demons."

[ Earth's Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, Revell, pg. 56 ]

Originally posted by sonship

These rebellious (or 'fallen' angels) are known as devils, demons, evil spirits or unclean spirits. Lucifer was a cherub, which is a spirit creature that is also sometimes referred to as an angel. After his fall Lucifer becme known by other names such as the serpent, the dragon, the devil, Satan, Beelzebub, etc.

[i] [b] ho diabolos ...[text shortened]... e rendered "demons." [/quote]

[ Earth's Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, Revell, pg. 56 ][/b]

It really doesn't matter whether if we call them devils or demons or unclean spirits or evil spirits, because whatever we call them they are still referring to the same fallen angels ruled over by Satan the devil. Satan is also referred to by several other names in the Holy Bible and one of these according to the Pharisees and Jesus is Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons. We know that Satans kingdom is made up of the fallen angels, so it is easy to reason that these demons are fallen angels. See how Jesus compares Satan casting out Satan as equal to Beelzebub casting out his own demons and dividing his own kingdom of fallen angels In the following confrontation with the Pharisees concerning there claim against him.

Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. [If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

(Matthew 12:24-27 KJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds

It really doesn't matter whether if we call them devils or demons or unclean spirits or evil spirits, ...

I take it that you cannot find the plural of diabolos as has been pointed out. So you say in essence that we can be rather sloppy and it doesn't really matter if we read "devils" where we should read "demons".

We should be accurate in translating and not read our traditions into the Scripture nullifying a specific utterance of the Holy Spirit.

You do not allow a "well it really doesn't matter" attitude about reading "era" or "span of time" where you have six "days" in Genesis 1 or Exodus 20.

... because whatever we call them they are still referring to the same fallen angels ruled over by Satan the devil.

This is suggesting we be sloppy in how we translate from Greek to English because religious tradition already has decided that fallen angels are demons.

I don't think that is a good rationale. If diabolos was intended instead of deamonia then we would have read that. If they are different some of us are concerned why the Holy Spirit sought to distinguish a difference.

Satan is also referred to by several other names in the Holy Bible and one of these according to the Pharisees and Jesus is Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.

They accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul. Latter we see Jesus said they refered to Himself to Beelzebul.

For you say that it is by Beelzebul that I drive out demons. 19If I, then, drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own people drive them out? (See Luke 11:15 - 26; )

Of course we know that it was not by Beelzebul's power that Jesus was casting out demons, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, by the finger of God.

Now, I think your point is that the expression "if Satan casts out Satan, ..." proves that Beelzebub is the devil [Satan] and the phrase then amounts to the Devil casting out the Devil. However, "Satan" in the second part of the phrase means all those demonic hosts who comprise the whole kingdom of the Devil.

There is one ruler - Satan the Devil. And there are all his spiritual minions which aggregately comprise "Satan" in a collective sense. This does not prove that among these spiritual minions there could not be different categories.

I am just repeating what I have written before. Matthew 12:24-27 doesn't prove that fallen angels have to be the same as demons. That both fallen angels and demons are evil spiritual beings with allegiance to Satan the Devil, is clear.

The following passage Acts 23:8 demonstrates that the Sadducees recognized the distinction between angels and spirits.

New Living Translation
for the Sadducees say there is no resurrection or angels or spirits, but the Pharisees believe in all of these.

English Standard Version
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

New American Standard Bible
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Notice that though the ancient modernists, the Sadducees, did not believe in either "angels or spirits" the ancient fundamentalists, Pharisees, "acknowledge them all". It doesn't say that they acknowledged them. But it is specific that they "acknowledge them ALL" [both angels and spirits].

If angels were the only spiritual beings then the Scripture could have said that the Sadducees do not believe in angels but the Pharisees acknowledge angels. Or it could have said that the Sadducees do not believe in spirits but the Pharisees acknowledge spirits.

There is no getting around that the Holy Spirit intends us to understand that the controversy was concerning two classes of beings. I do not mean that the angels are not spiritual beings. I mean that it reveals there were a kind of spiritual beings they just referred to as spirits.

Here the King James Version is helpful:

King James Bible
For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

BOTH - means two classes of creatures.

In the same chapter the Pharisees object that an angel may have spoken to Paul or a spirit - (Acts 23:9)

And there was a great outcry; [concerning the apostle Paul] and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' party rose up and contended, saying, We find nothing evil in this man. And what if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?

This confirms the fact that the Pharisees believed in both as verse 8 just informed us.

I think the only other issue was whether the Pharisees were right to have the two categories or whether they were mistaken. They were mistaken on many things. But they were right on some things. And I think they were right that there existed both angels and spirits.

Can you point to a passage saying an angel possessed a man or woman? I don't think you can find one. But you can point to unclean spirits possessing a man or woman.

You can shrug and just loosely assume that angels are meant there when it talks about possession. Or you can go by the original language and take what it says about unclean spirits or demons possessing a person.

I choose the latter.

Matthew 10:25 - "It is sufficient for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of His household."

The RcV footnote here says for Beelzebub -

"Beelzebub, meaning the lord of the flies was the name of the god of the Ekronites (2 Kings 1:2). It was changed contemptuously by the Jews to Beelzebul, which means the lord of the dunghill, and was used for the ruler of the demons (12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18-19). In 9:34 the Pharisees, the leading ones of the Jewish religion, reviled the heavenly King by saying that He cast out demons by the ruler of the demons. In using this most blasphemous name, they expressed their strongest objection and rejection."

This post is not an exhaustive explanation of the difference between the fallen angels and the demons. It just points out that the fact is evident that they are two categories of beings - both part of Satan's kingdom.

I do not reason that just because Satan led the angels therefore the demons have to refer to the angels that he led.

I do not reason that because both are bad therefore they are exactly the same in nature.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]It really doesn't matter whether if we call them devils or demons or unclean spirits or evil spirits, ...

I take it that you cannot find the plural of diabolos as has been pointed out. So you say in essence that we can be rather sloppy and it doesn't really matter if we read "devils" where we should read "demons".

...[text shortened]... d.

I do not reason that because both are bad therefore they are exactly the same in nature.[/b]

I said it proves the demons are fallen angels, not that all fallen angels are demons, That is because we know that the "fallen angels" are the third of the angels from Heaven that followed Satan and were thrown down to the Earth with him.

I did not bother to look for the singular or plural of the words translated devil or demon. But we know that words can have more than one meaning. Apparently, the King James translators believed both words could be translated devil or devils and there is no proof that it can't. They apparently mean the same thing.

Strong's Concordance gives the meaning of the word translated demon and demons in other Bible versons in it's variations from Srong's number 1139-1142 to mean: to be exercised by a demon, be possessed by a devil; a demonic being, by extens. a diety - devil; demon-like - devilish; a demon or supernatural spirit (of a bad nature) - devil.