The Gap Theory, Don’t Know Anything About It

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope1960

Guest
What exactly is it and are Catholics allowed to believe in it?
 
Are you talking about the notion of the “god of the gaps”?

If so, that’s the idea that we find demonstrations of God’s existence only where science doesn’t have explanations.

It’s not that Catholics are or aren’t ‘allowed’ to believe in it. Instead, it’s a misunderstanding of what Catholics believe. We don’t believe in God only where science can’t refute Him – we believe in Him, period! Science cannot prove or disprove His existence!
 
For the most part, Gap Theory is 100% ridiculous. It’s the result of people trying to take the Genesis account too literal and failing to understand that it it written in poetic / figurative language. Genesis is 100% correct and happened, but it’s not written as a history book.

Jesus is the Word Made Flesh and when He was on the Earth, what did He do? He spoke in figurative language a lot. He used parables. He did not lay out a step by step user manual. As much as Protestants like to believe the Bible is a user manual, it isn’t. It’s a book of faith and wisdom that gives us insight into God’s love for us. It is not a basic user’s guide to salvation.

This is how God speaks to us. He wants us to have faith, trust and love for Him. He doesn’t want using a checklist and user manual. He wants us to have a relationship with HIm.

The only part of “Gap Theory” that might make any sense is the idea that the devil and the demons rebelled between verses 1:1 and 1:2. (NOTE: other people believe this happened at Gen 1:3 and 1:4.)

Otherwise, the rest of it is bad theology, bad philosophy, bad science, bad history, & bad linguistics.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
For the most part, Gap Theory is 100% ridiculous. It’s the result of people trying to take the Genesis account too literal and failing to understand that it it written in poetic / figurative language. Genesis is 100% correct and happened, but it’s not written as a history book.
Click to expand...
Thank you! You helped me, not only with my OP, but as well as my interest in a non denominational church I’ve recently been interested in. I may have offended them and won’t be hearing back from them, but, if that isn’t the case, I don’t have to force myself into believing as literally as they do.
 
Hope1960 said:
I dont know if they call it God Of The Gaps or not but this explains it.
Click to expand...
It is something unrelated to “god of the gaps.”

It looks like a variation on the theme of Creationism, with a historical interval between the creation of the earth and the creation of man, to explain geological findings like fossils and radioactive dating.

In my opinion, it is an attempt to form a literal interpretation of Scripture which is compatible with science. The problem, as I see it, is that they try too hard to make the Bible match up with science, but this ends up being a distraction from more important truths in the biblical account of Creation.
Hope1960 said:
are Catholics allowed to believe in it?
Click to expand...
I guess so. I don’t think it would harm one’s faith, but I also don’t think it would help.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
It’s the result of people trying to take the Genesis account too literal and failing to understand that it it written in poetic / figurative language. Genesis is 100% correct and happened, but it’s not written as a history book.
Click to expand...
This seems contradictory. You say Genesis shouldn’t be taken “too literal” and that it is figurative language; then you say Genesis is 100% correct. So given that, is the story of Noah and The Flood in Genesis “100% correct and happened” or is it “figurative”?
 
KevinK said:
This seems contradictory. You say Genesis shouldn’t be taken “too literal” and that it is figurative language; then you say Genesis is 100% correct. So given that, is the story of Noah and The Flood in Genesis “100% correct and happened” or is it “figurative”?
Click to expand...
“Correct” doesn’t imply literal or figurative. Rather, it just means that it’s an account of something that happened. In the Bible, these accounts are theologically “correct” – they accurately teach the lessons that God wishes to teach us.

For example, Don McLean’s song “American Pie” is about things that really happened. However, he uses the genre of poetry and figurative expression to tell those stories (e.g., the events of “the day the music died”). His telling is correct, although it’s not literal. If you want literal accounts of the events, you’d go to a newspaper. Those retellings in the paper are also correct, but they’re also literal and historical.

With that in mind, we can address your question. Yes, the story of Noah and the Flood is “correct” – it talks about a true theological principle. It does it through the medium of a story about a flood. However, this does not imply that this account must be completely literal or historical. Its accuracy isn’t in those realms, but rather, in the realms of the theology that’s being presented.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of being off topic, the ND church I’d been considering says that all of the Bible is historical.
 
Hope1960 said:
are Catholics allowed to believe in it?
Click to expand...
No, and it is also unnecessary from a Catholic perspective.

Catholics are encouraged to read Genesis 1-11 for what it is: a poetic Hebrew creation myth which God intended to convey theological truth, not a biology textbook or historical chronology.
 
Last edited:
Demons can create supernatural events too. Imho “god of gaps” is not necessarily about God.
 
phil19034 said:
For the most part, Gap Theory is 100% ridiculous. It’s the result of people trying to take the Genesis account too literal and failing to understand that it it written in poetic / figurative language. Genesis is 100% correct and happened, but it’s not written as a history book.

Jesus is the Word Made Flesh and when He was on the Earth, what did He do? He spoke in figurative language a lot. He used parables. He did not lay out a step by step user manual. As much as Protestants like to believe the Bible is a user manual, it isn’t. It’s a book of faith and wisdom that gives us insight into God’s love for us. It is not a basic user’s guide to salvation.

This is how God speaks to us. He wants us to have faith, trust and love for Him. He
Click to expand...
Wisdom!

Let us attend!
 
phil19034 said:
The only part of “Gap Theory” that might make any sense is the idea that the devil and the demons rebelled between verses 1:1 and 1:2. (
Click to expand...
I believe St. Thomas and a few others believed there was a spiritual meaning implicit in these verses referring to the fall of the angels.

My belief is that the fall of the angels happened even before or shortly after the beginning of Creation, and their fall somehow effected the entire universe… Or maybe prefigured the fall of Adam… Not sure, just spitballing here. My theology on this isn’t fleshed out in the least.
 
ChristMyLife said:
40.png
phil19034:
The only part of “Gap Theory” that might make any sense is the idea that the devil and the demons rebelled between verses 1:1 and 1:2. (
Click to expand...
I believe St. Thomas and a few others believed there was a spiritual meaning implicit in these verses referring to the fall of the angels.

My belief is that the fall of the angels happened even before or shortly after the beginning of Creation, and their fall somehow effected the entire universe… Or maybe prefigured the fall of Adam… Not sure, just spitballing here. My theology on this isn’t fleshed out in the least.
Click to expand...
It is not St Thomas nor any of the Fathers of the Church that I’m aware of (except possibly Origin in some sense and possibly a few fathers who followed him though I’d have to reread what he wrote) who interpreted even in a spiritual sense the first two verses of Genesis 1 as referring to the fall of the angels. St Augustine interpreted verse 3 ‘And God said, “Let there be light”’ as referring to the creation of the whole host of the angels and verse 4 “…And God separated the light from the darkness” as referring to the distinction between the good and bad angels, ‘the darkness’ referring to the fall of the bad angels.

Augustine interpreted ‘the heavens’ of Genesis 1:1 as the creation of the angelic nature or angelic form but in some manner formless before their actual formation in verse 3. This is not to be understood as if the angels existed in some formless state in an order of time or duration before their actual formation but it is only understood as an order of nature such as before God created the angels he had in his mind the idea or form of them, namely, the angelic nature. The earth and waters of verses 1-2 Augustine understood as the creation of formless matter which was formed from days 2-6 into all the various creatures God created and formed in these days. And again, Augustine didn’t mean that formless matter was created without form according to a duration of time for formless matter does not actually exist without form of some kind.

For he interpreted the creative works of God in the six days of the Genesis 1 creation narrative to be simultaneous and that the works follow upon one another only according to an order of nature. For example, there need to be seas before there can be marine animals that live in the seas or there needs to be formless matter before something can be formed out of or from matter. Most of the other Fathers of the Church interpreted the various works of God in the six days as occurring in time. For example, on the third day, God gathered the waters together into seas and the dry land appeared. Then, after some lapse of time, namely, two days such as on the fifth day, God created and formed out of the waters which he had previously created from the beginning (verses 1-2) the marine animals and birds.
 
Last edited:
Richca said:
St Augustine interpreted verse 3 ‘And God said, “Let there be light”’ as referring to the creation of the whole host of the angels and verse 4 “…And God separated the light from the darkness” as referring to the distinction between the good and bad angels, ‘the darkness’ referring to the fall of the bad angels.
Click to expand...
I erred, I appreciate your fraternal correction. Thank you kindly.
 
Hope1960 said:
At the risk of being off topic, the ND church I’d been considering says that all of the Bible is historical.
Click to expand...
Which is one good reason why you shouldn’t be considering leaving the Church and joining them… 😉
 
Well, they didn’t say “all the Bible,” just “the Bible”. I think they made the decision for me. I was asking a lot of questions and I think they stopped emailing back. Ha.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Gorgias? Take this one, please.
Click to expand...
Sure!

Both statements are inaccurate: it’s neither the case that we must view Genesis ch1-11 only as ‘myth’, nor that this view itself is ‘heresy.’

The URL cited states that the doctors of the Church had a unanimous view that the early chapters of Genesis are “a literal historical account.” The person who made that statement seems to be forgetting what St Augustine wrote, not to mention what the school of Alexandria taught: in the Scriptures, God teaches not only through historical narrative, but also through allegory. It is not heretical to believe that this is the case. (If it were, then popes – both before and after Vatican II – would be guilty of heresy in their discussions of the allowability of exploring theories that propose other historical assertions beyond "six-day creation.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top