Talk:Gap creationism

Old section

I reorganized the external links to bundle the "pro" gap theory together and the "other views" together. Also added a couple links and included William Buckland's name up with Thomas Chalmers, since Buckland wrote a treatise on gap theory in 1820. In a sense, that makes him as much a "founder" as Chalmers. --shift6 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of recent minor edits:

• It is probably wrong to say that one version or the other is held by "most" Gap Creationists as I doubt that there is any definitive proof either way and what is factual is that there are varying beliefs and varying numbers of adherents to them, so I replaced "most" with "many" in that context.
• The passages cited by many in both the Testaments as describing the fall of Satan are very controversial as to what they really mean, even within conservative groups, so I have reworded that to state that these passages are viewed by some as describing the fall of Satan.
• I don't think that one can truly be said to be in Dispensationalism, as it is a set of beliefs, not a separate religion or church, so rather than in it one can be a believer in it or an adherent of it or to it.

These are perhaps minor points but come out of a desire to make the article both factually accurate and as NPOV-oriented as possible. Rlquall 15:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I agree with your first two points, I believe that your third point is an example of trying to define words too narrowly. Looking up the preposition "in", I have found examples listed that substantiate the use of "someone being in Disipensationalism" as proper. Of course, the alternatives you suggested are also appropriate, so I'm cool with your changes. Woodburn 13:02, Nov 18, 2004 (EST)

As a gap theory believer myself, I have another belief that is not included here. I believe in the gap theory for various reasons, but one of them is not so there would be time to "build up the fossil record". I am not saying that this belief should be removed from this article, but someone should add that just as God created a full grown (mature) man and woman, He could have also created a mature universe and planet, one that would appear to science to have existed for billions of years (for the universe) and a planet with a "full" fossil record.

I believe the Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 gap is uncontrovertably the most prevalent flavor of this belief. The New Testament genealogy of Jesus in Luke doesn't really admit of a post-Adamic gap, the "one approach" previously emphasized in this article. I have revised the second paragraph of the "Rationale" section to reflect the "pre-re-creation" gap as the highlighted "one approach" since doctrinal consistency would require adherents to assert the belief that human history must have started with Adam. Otherwise, they would be trading a belief in the accuracy of Genesis for a belief in the accuracy of the gospel of Luke, which certainly isn't very likely for the dispensationalist Christians who are the primary advocates of "gap creationism".

Not sure if this is technically Gap creationism, but it is related. There is a theory/opinion that the genealogies in Genesis contain an incorrect translation. Specifically, followers of this theory claim the hebrew word translated as fathered, or was the father of, can be translated just as accurately as "was the ancestor of". They use this difference to explain the gap between the Old Earth, and yet small totals of years. I will see if I can find a documented version of this to link to.Christonjp 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One should not confuse translation with what Genesis says. What it says is in Hebrew. Translations vary in accuracy. Genesis contains no translations. One can say the KJV translates inaccurately. Suggesting other translations is a common & legitimate part of exegesis of the Hebrew passage. What the above post illustrates is that gappers can vary widely on associated issues, none of which is necessarily germane to the theory. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

Removal of unreferenced article

The original article was completely unreferenced, had had a lead that failed to explain what Gap creationism is. I am therefore moving it here (per WP:V) and replacing with a referenced stub that does explain what it is, and can serve as the basis for, and a lead of, an improved article. If you want to move any of this back into mainspace, please find sources to verify it, per WP:PROVEIT.

Likewise most of the ELs don't seem to meet WP:EL so they're likewise moving here. If you can demonstrate that any of the represent prominent GC views, or extensive GC information, they can go back in. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair. I felt the article had begun to take on the character of a discussion between opposing sides, rather than an encyclopedic statement of facts. TO that end, I began a new re-write. I salvaged some of the previous article (as saved below) just because it had been developed over time and discussion, but focused on adding references inline with the text rather than as misc links at the end of the article. I'd like to add more, but a little bit at a time to avoid the article becoming what it was before. --shift6 (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I basically reverted most of your new edits (although I did add cites in most cases). Your concerns about verifiability are unjustified in almost every one of your revision summaries. A wiki article can say "many people claim X" and cite self-published books of people claiming X. It has nothing to do with whether or not X itself is true. We are not verifying X, we are verifying that many people claim X. WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." And since we are talking about a belief system, who is to say whether any person is telling the truth?

Further, I don't agree with your delete-by-swath method of editing the article. For instance, you deleted an entire section claiming that specific sources should be cited for specific claims. Link to that WP policy or guideline or heck even an essay, please? The intro sentence to that section clearly indicates that it is a short summary list of support given by various sources, and includes those sources in one group at the beginning. This is perfectly legitimate. You again also claimed that the sources aren't reliable, but again since the text reads that "people who believe X support it with Y", we don't get to judge the truth of X or Y, we only need to provide a citation of this support.

I delete a big chunk of near-plagiarism too. Anyway, hope this all makes sense. --shift6 (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Your edits introduced or modified a number of claims in statements sourced to McIver that were not made by him -- I have reverted these.
2. As to your WP:V claims, please read WP:SPS & WP:SELFPUB -- self-published claims can generally only be used in statements about themselves.
3. I have tagged the "entire section" -- to dump a whole heap of citations on a very generalised statement, and then leave the specific examples unreferenced is not in keeping with WP:V.
4. You really need to read WP:PSTS. Your edits rely too heavily on primary sources, creating a heavy likelihood that some of them are WP:SYNTH of these sources.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I will address your points above and your dozen or so edits here. It would be very helpful if you could do more than one edit per save, and less intensive on the page history. It would also help prevent a bot coming in during the middle of your edits and "fixing" things, forcing you to redo many edits (wiki bots annoy me to no end as well). Just my opinion though, hope it's helpful.

As to your point 1 above, all of those claims were made by McIver. You should re-read that article. I used it as my main secondary source when I went through and started citing every little thing. I am going through another large edit now, and will cite each and every sentence from his article which I am using to support a claim in this wiki so that you will see it. As to point 2, I agree and I only use self-pub sources when I say that a certain person believes X or that believers in the Gap Theory believe X. Self-pub is precisely what this kind of source is for. As to point 3, I agree and just didn't have the time that very day, considering I already spent hours fixing many of the previous edits. As to point 4, according to WP:PSTS primary sources are fine as long as they "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Furthermore, [a]ppropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Therefore as long as it makes sense to cite a primary source, no problem. You will have to show that some statement is a synthesis of multiple sources if you expect to edit something out, and I will be reverting your edits which you claimed are syntheses but which are not. As with the McIver cites, I will list each source material here fully for your reading pleasure.

Edits: removed primary source objection, see my point 4 above. Reverted the first paragraph on history to a paraphrased version (which is why the words don't match exactly), as your version gets very close to plagiarism. See WP:Plagiarism "Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim." (emphasis mine) If you'd like to revert again that's fine, but please use the entire quote verbatim, and put it into a quote box per the wiki policy cited. Also re-added the bit about it preceeding Darin's OOtS since that is included in McIver.

Re-added primary cite on Scofield Bible; in your previous edit you said it needed a citation, now you say too many are redundant? One primary and one secondary is not cluttering up the article and should not be removed. Re-added original research tag to sentence about Bernard Ramm; your source says young-earthism "re-emerged", but you say that it "eclipsed" Gap theory. This isn't in the source, so you need to source that in 1954 YEC "eclipsed" Gap theory (or any reasonable synonym).

I reverted almost everything on the paragraph listing supporters. You claim SYNTHs where there are none, and you claim that extra references are spammy? I've never heard anyone on wikipedia so intent on removing references as you seem to be. If McIver lists someone as a supporter of Gap theory and that person also wrote a book on such (such as Pember), I cite both McIver as a secondary and the person's book as a primary. That is not spammy or a synthesis. See WP:SYNTH "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing."

Concerning the list of supporting scriptures, as I said above I agree that they should cite specifics on each bullet point as you mentioned before. I simply haven't had the time yet. I will try and get to it when I can; hence I am not editing out your tags in this section. Concerning the fact tag near the James Ussher quote, you can click on the wiki links in that sentence (Ussher himself or the Ussher chronology) to read entire articles concerning that claim. This is nowhere near a claim that would be challenged because there are at least two complete wiki articles elsewhere talking about the subject.

--shift6 (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

1. McIver does not describe the emergence of 'Gap Theory' as something that "became increasingly investigated in the first half of the 19th century" but as something that "became increasingly attractive during the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century"
2. McIver does not mention the "modern methods of natural philosophy gained acceptance, especially in the physical science of geology" (what a long-winded mouthful) but instead the "new scientific discipline of geology" (far shorter and clearer).
3. McIver does not make any connection between 'Gap Theory' generally and Origin of the Species (he only mentioned that Philip Henry Gosse's Omphalos was published two years ahead of that book).
4. Your 'proponents ' list ubiquitously makes use of the proponents' writings to infer that they are Gap creationists -- which inference is WP:SYNTH.
5. You continually and unnecessarily cite primary sources on points already better cited secondary sources.
6. Your accusation of WP:OR with 'eclipse' is purely fallacious: "The gap theory proved to be a much more popular reconciliation of Genesis with geology; in fact, it proved to be an almost irresistible temptation. In a scholarly appraisal of creationist theories, Bernard Ramm, an evangelical, wrote: ... The gap theory may not be the "standard" creationist interpretation today—Ramm was writing a few years prior to the reemergence of young-Earth Flood geology creationism in the 1960s—but it is still surprisingly popular." McIver is clearly stating that YEC replaced Gap as the "'standard' creationist interpretation" (i.e. 'eclipsed' it).
7. Neither Arthur Custance nor Ole Madsen are talking about themselves -- they are talking about the purported "biblical time" roots of Gap creationism. Given that Custance has been cited, reasonably favourably, by McIver, I did not tag him -- only Madsen, for whom no standing whatsoever has been established.

I am therefore reverting your edits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits continue to reflect plagiarism, bad faith, and a misapplication of wiki policies. For instance, your entire first paragraph under history is almost verbatim from McIver, yet you do not use quotation marks or a quoteblock; you claim I am "synthesizing" original research about proponents of Gap theory, despite the fact that the citations directly list them as proponents, and you misrepresent the text of the McIver source (I reiterate that it does claim Gap theory came before Darwin's OotS, which can be verified by reading the article in question). I will not get sucked into an edit war. Therefore, instead of spending another hour trying to conscientiously edit this text only to have it again wiped clean with one click of your mouse, I am going to request a third opinion for these multiple and repeated issues of sourcing, citations, and quotations. --shift6 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced article

Gap creationism, also called Restitution creationism or Ruin-Reconstruction, is a term used to describe a particular set of Christian beliefs about the creation of the Universe and the origin of man. The concept of the Gap Theory is widely thought to have been promulgated by William Buckland and Thomas Chalmers in the early 1800s, though some adherents maintain that it can be traced back to biblical times. Certainly it became quite popular when it was promoted by the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.

Rationale

Gap creationists believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is in fact far older than can be accounted for by merely adding up the ages of Biblical patriarchs, as given in the Book of Genesis. By using this approach, Young Earth creationists derive the age of the Earth to be approximately 6,000 – 10,000 years.

However, in order to maintain that the Genesis account is inerrant in matters of scientific fact, which includes accepting that the Earth is extremely ancient, Old Earth creationists suppose that certain facts about both the human past and the age of the Earth have been omitted from the Biblical account rather than mythologized by it. The "Gap creationism" explanation of this position is to state that sometime before the Fall of Man, there must have been a "gap" in the Biblical account that lasted perhaps tens of thousands or even millions or billions of years.

A revised theory proposes that time in its current measurable form didn't exist prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve. God and all spiritual beings exist outside of time, therefore time is irrelevant. In this environment, the matter of whether the universe was created in one second or over several billions of years is immaterial; also, the principles of physics were optimal - for example, the speed of light was infinite. Some adherents to this revision also believe that the universe was created considerably smaller and subsequently grew after an immense conflict between Satan and Michael (archangel), which resulted in the signs of a universal cataclysm, which the non-theistic scientific community interprets as evidence for a Big Bang. The Earth may have pre-existed this event or may have arisen from it, but in both cases was left empty and desolated, and was selected for recreation. In this revised theory, mankind is created by God to take the role of spiritual partnership that was formerly occupied by Lucifer, and intended to re-establish God's intended order throughout the regenerated universe as part of an ongoing creative process. Only in such a capacity, can the general state of decay beyond the earth, and throughout the cosmos, be attributed to the Fall of Adam and Eve.

However, not all adherents of the Gap Theory accept that the scientific geological record refers to the gap between initial creation and regeneration, preferring instead to rely on the Biblical flood as a sufficient explanation for the mass extinction of many groups and classifications of creatures, including the

I don't know why the above has been cut off. At any rate, one needs to be careful in generalizing about gappers. What gappers think about the inerrancy of physical science, would vary a lot from gapper to gapper. You just cannot generalize that way. You may say, "Some who hold the gap theory . . . ." The article should concentrate on the essence of the theory. Subtheories should be identified as such. Gappers simply believe that there is a gap of time between creation & the tohu-bohu state of Gen 1:2. Ideas about what happened in the gap are likely to vary. And it is possible to leave what happened in the gap unrevealed. The rationale & motive of each gapper is variable. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

Criticisms or responses to Gap Theory

There needs to be a section that briefly summarizes some of the more significant or popular criticisms or responses to Gap Theory. No more than a paragraph or two needs to appear, but there should be something to help readers frame the debate. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Baggage on the Theory

The article states: "it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, . . . ." Actually, the gap theory postulates a gap between Gen 1:1 & Gen 2:2. In considering that theory, it obfuscates the theory by adding on other optional theories, concerning which there is disagreement among gappers. A six day literal 24-hour days of creation is another matter. It is best to confine the theory to the gap & not add in other optional ideas, like pre-Adamic creation & literal days.

More baggage on the theory is stated: "Gap creationists believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt . . . ." The amount of confidence in physical science varies from theorist to theorist. Some observe that science changes its theories given time (Pluto was a planet!). Some may think that science has proved something, others may think science has a good explanation, others may not be concerned about what science says at all. You just cannot generalize about gappers that way. And the sentence has no documentation. I revised it to say, "Some gap creationists may believe that science has proven beyond reasonable doubt . . . ."

Additional baggage: "Angels already existed in a state of grace when God laid the foundations of the Earth." This idea is not essential to the theory. To say that angels existed in a state of grace is nonsense. Angels who never sinned don't need grace; sinful men need grace. Does the source say that, or is this "existed in a state of grace" an importation of RCC theology? I mean that only time I have ever heard that concept is in RCC theology. The whole statement confounds one subset of the theory with the theory. If the statement is kept, it should be changed to "When God laid the foundations of the Earth, no angel had sinned."

Additional baggage: "Satan had fallen from grace "in the beginning"." Is Origen the only one who says this, first citation? If Origen was not a gapper, this is an improper citation. satan had not "fallen from grace." Grace is the unmerited favor sinners receive from the Lord; since before satan fell he was not a sinner, the term "grace" is inappropriate for him. However, if Origen was a gapper & said it, then the statement is justified. But was Origen a gapper? (EnochBethany (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

"Verses" versus "Chapters"

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the difference between chapters and verses. Biblical "books" are broken into "chapters," and chapters are broken into "verses." I previously corrected the inaccurate statement in the lead sentence, "two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis," but the correction was reverted.

The two creation narratives are in the first two chapters, not verses. Here is the text of the first two verses, in their entirety:

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The remainder of Chapter 1 goes through the familiar six-day creation story. Chapter 2 begins with God resting on the seventh day, then describes the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with a slightly different sequence for the creation of humans and animals, and men and women. These differences are described in Genesis creation narrative.

Thus: the first two verses contain a tiny portion of one creation narrative. The first two chapters contain two complete creation narratives. I am changing verses to chapters in the lead accordingly. I hope anyone who feels moved to revert the change will first explain their reasoning here. Kirkpete (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about 'two creation accounts'. The Gap Theory is about what happened between 1.1 and 1.2. Note Genesis 1:2 under 'Biblical support'.Smarkflea (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, what you are calling the "first creation narrative" is actually a broad genealogy overview of sorts, of the "lineage" of the heavens and the Earth. It is the same Hebrew word 8435. toledoth (Strong's Concordance) used in other parts of the Old Testament where it says "These are the generations of Adam, of Noah, of Isaac, etc. That ends at Gen. 2:4, where that is plainly stated. The narrative picks up with specific events that happened on the various days, and afterward, in the same creation narrative. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral changes

I reverted the changes made by Oliver mcrae primarily because they were not verifiable – no source had been cited. However, the changes included some non-neutral wording, such as the following:

• "The Gap Theory recognizes an evident time gap between the first and the second verses of Genesis..."

This wording seeks to use Wikipedia's voice to establish the fact of a time gap, when such a gap is a very debatable matter of religious interpretation. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hint of what happened in between the gap

Heres a hint the genesis isnt the beggining, the beggining is on the secrets of the book of enoch,at chapter 24, and that tells the story of genesis 1:1 more detailed but even that is just but a fragment, like on the book of adam and eve whitch reveales some of the fragments.

 

and also here's another fragmet

how the dinosaurs were created and placed at eden(before men) to worship, and how after the fall of Lucifer wnitch was earlier known as luciel, and his followers, they go to eden to possesesd them via the portal or gate on the earth,and mutch more enterance some i am not aware of at this time, and how God throw the dinosaur from eden because the dinosaured sin at eden, and how after a few while the earth became so full of the dinosaur that the Lord must destroy all of them,and flood the whole earth, and froze it,thus creating the ice age ,and then AFTER the ice melt,then the HOLY SPIRIT came and floated above the water whitch was gen1:2.

 

and there are mutch more secrets about not only the beggining,but also the end times secrets, and the only way we can know about it if we have a deep relationship with the Lord, and walk with him, and if we dont it would be very very hard or even impossible to understand about the book that i have shared and some hints that i have shared, and even this is just a hint for if we were to say all the secrets maybe this whole page will not be able to contain it,so that's some hint to the confused ones and again if you want to know more ask The Holy Spirit without ceasing, and see those books and ask The Holy Spirit to help you to connect these things, and if this helped you glorify the Lord, for the Lord your GOD has given this knowlage to you.

 

Friend of Jesus Christ (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not usable in Wikipedia since neither you nor the divine friend you got it from are considered reliable sources. Maybe you could try Conservapedia instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

According to reliable sources dinosaurs and men never coexisted (except for some of their avian descendents) and the holy texts we have are the result of long term living tradition, compilation and selection, that also include several semi-consolidated origin myths... —PaleoNeonate – 03:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

History section

The History section currently makes reference to lots of ancient and medieval sources, seemingly attempting to prove that the gap theory has been around for a long time and wasn't just invented in the 19th century. Much of this content is inaccurate or misleading. The only non-primary source cited is Arthur Custance, who is an advocate of gap creationism and therefore not a reliable source for our purposes. His book should be treated as a fringe source, only useful for claims about itself – so we could write, for example, "Custance finds support for his theory in the writings of Thomas Aquinas", but not "the writings of Thomas Aquinas provide support for gap creationism".

So I'm going to remove the first five paragraphs of the History section as insufficiently sourced. To more fully explain my reasoning, I've copied this content into the collapsed section below, where I'll comment on each part individually.

Extended content

Long before the modern study of geology, early church writers had examined the biblical text and considered the idea that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 there stretched an indeterminate period when the created world fell into chaos. Such a scenario often connects with the idea that the angelic realm was originally entrusted with power over the earth, which power concluded with a betrayal of that trust when a number of the angels followed Satan in rebellion against God. Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 - c. 130 AD) wrote, "To some of them [angels] He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion as well... but it happened that their arrangement came to nothing."<ref>Papias, ''Fragments of Papias. From the Exposition of The Oracles of The Lord.'' Chap. VII, Antenicene Fathers.</ref> Twentieth-century Cardinal Jean Danielou explains: "Andreas of Caesarea tells us that Papias taught that God had conferred on certain angels the task of administering the Earth, and that they betrayed that trust."<ref>Danieliu, Cardinal Jean-Guenole-Marie, ''The Theology of Jewish Christianity'' Translated by John A. Baker, The Westminster Press, 1964, p. 47.</ref> There's no citation for the claim that the War in Heaven is thought to have taken place between verses 1 and 2, and this means that the Papias quote is irrelevant. Danielou's restatement of Andreas's restatement of the same Papias quote is also irrelevant. In the 3rd century, Origen of Alexandria (c. 184 - c. 253) taught in his Homily on Genesis that there were two creations in Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2, and a time gap between the two; the first involved a spiritual realm, the second a physical realm, although he was not exactly sure what the prior creation was.<ref>Origen, ''Homilies on Genesis and Exodus'', Ronald E. Heine, translator. The Catholic University of America Press, 2002, pp. 47-48.</ref> The cited source is available here, and I don't see anything in it that supports this statement. If we go beyond the given page range to p. 49, Origen there discusses the difference between the spiritual heaven of verse 1 and the corporeal firmament of verse 6, but that's nothing to do with gap creationism. St. Jerome (c. 347 - 420) wrote that Origen taught that a world existed before our own, and another will exist thereafter, and so on, in constant succession.<ref> Ep. ad Avitum 4, as cited in Cavindi JC, editor, ''On First Principles'', Ave Maria Press, 2013, p. 30.</ref> This is correct, but neither Origen nor Jerome connect this with the idea (or even mention the idea) that there is a gap between verses 1 and 2. By the Medieval period this was apparently a familiar interpretation. Flemish Catholic writer Hugh of Saint Victor (1097 - 1141) wrote in reference to Gen. 1:1 and 1:2: "perhaps enough has already been debated on these matters thus far, if we could add only, how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular ordering of it was taken in hand? But how long it continued in this state of confusion scripture does not clearly show."<ref>Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 28.</ref> Even Custance (whose book is available online here) admits that Hugh of Saint Victor is "not saying, specifically" that anything happened between verses 1 and 2; and in fact Hugh goes on to say, in his very next sentence, that "between this which was made and that no delay at all intervened" (source). In the 13th century St. Thomas Aquinas analyzed these verses in his Summa Theologica and wrote: "It seems better to maintain the view that the creation of the heavens and the earth was prior to any of the days, literally before the days", i.e., there was first the creation of the earth, and then the enumerated "days of creation".<ref>Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 28.</ref> This quote isn't from Summa Theologica; Custance actually cites Aquinas's commentary on the second book of Lombard's Sentences (Distinct. xiii, Article 3). I don't have access to that source, so I don't know the context. If it's relevant, we need a non-polemic source that says so. French Jesuit theologian Denis Petau (1583-1652), referring to the time gap implied between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, wrote, "The question of how great an interval there was, it is not possible, except by inspiration, to obtain knowledge of it."<ref>Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 29.</ref> Catholic philosopher Benedict Pereira (1535-1610) wrote, "even though before the last day, the heavens and the elements were made subsequent to the substance, nevertheless, they were not perfected, completely furnished until the period of six days. However long that darkest day of the world lasted, whether it lasted one day or more than one day or less than one day is not clear to me or any other mortal, unless one is divinely made so."<ref>Custance, Arthur C., ''Without Form and Void'', 1970, p. 30.</ref> Again, if this is relevant, it needs a better source, and the quotes need putting in context. Thrown in like this, these quotes give the impression that the authors are arguing for full-blown gap creationism, whereas Custance only uses them to support the milder claim that a certain interval elapsed between the creation of the substance and the forming of it. In Jewish writings, the Genesis Rabbah states, "other worlds were created and destroyed before this present world was decided on as the permanent one",<ref> Genesis Rabba 2, p. 59, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tmm/tmm07.htm accessed 08/02/18.</ref> and the Zohar comments on Genesis 2:4 and connects it with the Hebrew phrase tohu va bohu (without form and void) found in Genesis 1:2, stating: "And these are the generations of the destruction which is signified in verse 2 of chapter 1. The earth was Tohu and Bohu. These indeed are the worlds of which it is said that the blessed God created them, and destroyed them, and on that account, the earth was desolate and empty."<ref>''The Sepher Ha-Zohar,or The Book of Light: Bereshith to Lekh Lekha,'' Chapter VIII.</ref> The first quote (apparently a somewhat free translation) comes from Genesis Rabbah 3:7. This passage, commenting on verse 5, says that other worlds existed, but doesn't say they existed between verses 1 and 2. The Zohar quote (or something like it) can be found here (Ctrl+F "generations of Formlessness"). This has been taken way out of context; the Zohar only restates the Genesis Rabbah claim in order to refute it: "It is said that the Holy One, blessed be He, created worlds and destroyed them ... But there certainly must be a secret here ... It cannot be that the Holy One, blessed be He, destroyed the makings of His own hands."

— Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanFromAnotherPlace I don't feel like the Papias quotation is merely an attempt to prove the antiquity of the Gap Theory. Papias does imply that Satan, originally ruling over the world, laid it in waste. That is a central claim in the Gap Creationism theory. But I wouldn't say that Papias shows there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, but he might imply it. 2600:1014:B069:4D62:8A37:F007:56A6:2501 (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)