Mabbul - The Waters Above

A vapour canopy about the antediluvian earth has been proposed occasionally through the centuries. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate (c. A.D. 400), described a canopy, 'compactae et densiores aquae'. White infers this to mean a canopy of ice. Immanuel Kant suggested more than two centuries ago that the Flood might have been caused by the collapse of a vapour "ring", an idea later proposed independently by Isaac N. Vail in 1874 Dillow recently hypothesised a forty-foot column of water vapour six miles above the earth.
Some proponents like a watery canopy; others prefer an icy model. But does the Bible suggest a canopy at all?
The following verses, when read together, particularly in a literal translation, are enough to cause one to suspect a canopy of some sort: GENESIS 1:6-7; 2:5-6,10; 3:8; 6:17; 7:6-12,17; 8:2; 9:11,15,28; 10:1,32; 11:10; PSALM 18:11; 29:10; and 2 PETER 3:5-6.
GENESIS 1:2 depicts a geoidal earth totally covered with water. Two Hebrew words, tehom, normally translated "the deep", and hamayim, "the waters", are both found in verse two. Driver says that tehom as used here does not mean what the deep, or the sea, would denote to the modern world, but rather "the primitive undivided waters; the huge watery mass which the writer conceived as enveloping the earth." These waters pictured in verse 2 completely covered our planet, forming a hydrosphere upon the earth and apparently a hot, steamy atmosphere for some miles above the earth - an utterly uninhabitable chaos. Such is the condition of the earth as the Spirit of God initiates His first creative act on Day One.
Following the creation of light, God deals with teom, the "bathic deep". Two acts are necessary for this: the separation of the waters above the earth from the waters below, and the raising of the land and the forcing of the oceans into their allotted areas. In verse 7, "God made the sky [firmament]" and He used the sky to "separate [i.e. establish order between] the waters under the sky from the waters above the sky." The words of verse 7 thus describe the establishment of the antediluvian vapour canopy. Without a perception of this canopy, Bible students are mystified about the significance of the second day's work.
"The waters above" were called mabbul, a specific Hebrew designation to distinguish the canopy from the waters below, teom, "the oceans". Although mabbul is not specifically used in chapter one, it does appear subsequently, particularly in the Flood narrative, as later biblical authors correctly recall the canopy's former existence. Von Rad exegetes the scripture brilliantly:
"An understanding... of the Flood depends materially on the correct translation of the word mabbul. Mabbul does not mean "flood", "inundation", or even "destruction", but it is a technical term for a part of the world structure, namely, the heavenly ocean. This heavenly sea, which is above the firmament (raqia), empties downward... We must understand the Flood, therefore, as a catastrophe involving the entire cosmos. When the heavenly ocean breaks forth upon the earth below, and the primeval sea beneath the earth, which is restrained by God, now freed from its bonds, gushes up through yawning chasms onto the earth, then there is a destruction of the entire cosmic system according to biblical cosmogony. The two halves of the chaotic primeval sea, separated - the one up, the other below - by God's creative government, are again united; creation begins to sink again into chaos. Here the catastrophe, therefore, concerns not only men and beasts... but the earth - indeed, the entire cosmos."
Mabbul then is the specific term for "the waters above", and our English versions should use the words "the canopy" or an appropriate synonym each time mabbul appears. Brown, Driver & Briggs, in their classic Hebrew lexicon, state that mabbul "seems... to be almost a proper name..." Indeed, twice it appears without the definite article, suggesting its use as a proper name. The word is found 13 times in the Old Testament, and it is commonly mistranslated, as Von Rad notes. Translating all the words except mabbul in these passages, we see as follows:
1."For behold, I will bring mabbul of waters upon the earth..." (GENESIS 6:17a).
2."Noah was six hundred years old when mabbul of waters came upon the earth" (GENESIS 7:6).
3."And Noah... went into the ark, to escape the waters of mabbul" (GENESIS 7:7).
4."And after seven days the waters of mabbul came upon the earth" (GENESIS 7:10).
5."Mabbul continued forty days upon the earth" (GENESIS 7:17a).
6."...[N]ever again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of mabbul..."
7."...and there is no longer mabbul to wipe out the earth" (GENESIS 9:11b,c).
8."...No longer shall there be the waters - namely, mabbul - to wipe out all flesh" (GENESIS 9:15b).
9."After mabbul Noah lived three hundred and fifty years" (GENESIS 9:28).
10."...[S]ons were born to them after mabbul" (GENESIS 10:1b).
11."...[A]nd from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after mabbul" (GENESIS 10:32b).
12."...[H]e became the father of Arphaxad two years after mabbul" (GENESIS 11:10c).
13."The LORD sat enthroned over mabbul, the LORD is enthroned as King forever" (PSALM 29:10).
2 PETER 3:5,13, which is such a helpful New Testament commentary on the Creation and the Flood, also confirms the two "waters" - Teom and mabbul.
"...[A]n earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which [Greek: di hon, plural] the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." (2 PETER 3:5-6)
The writer's choice of the genitive plural "which", shows his astute perception of the actual conditions prior to the Flood.
As may be seen from GENESIS 9:11 and 9:15, mabbul no longer exists; it was condensed out during the Flood several millennia ago. Today the atmosphere scarcely contains even inches of water vapour. Yet even the psalmist correctly recalls - many centuries later - the canopy's earlier existence (PSALM 29:10).
Noah stepped out of the ark into a brand-new world - now with more water than land after 40 days of rain. The sons of Noah, no longer threatened by hostile "giants", found a new threat - an increasingly-severe climatic regime, without the protecting antediluvian canopy.
Von Rad has confirmed from his exegesis of Genesis that the Flood involved the entire cosmos. 2 PETER 3:5-6 likewise pictures both the heavens and the earth having been violently re-ordered during the Flood, and then verse 7 gives the most specific New Testament portrayal of the future universal destruction by fire.
Still we are given a glorious hope. God not only assures us in GENESIS 9:11 and 9:15 that "there will no longer be a mabbul to wipe out the earth," but He also promises in REVELATION 21:1 that even teom, the ever-threatening waters below, will one day be eliminated: "...and the sea was no more."
by R. Russell Bixler
Source: 'Bible Science Newsletter'
http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/does-bible-speak-vapour-canopy

The Secret Within Isis

http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/isis-bob-dylan-and-jacques-levy

Does Isis Understand The Spirit of God?

Nut, the sky goddess, was the spouse of Ra, the sun god, who begot Osiris. By dallying with Thoth, the divine messenger, she gave birth to Isis, and by dallying again with Seb, the earth-god, to Set. Isis and Osiris so instinctively loved each other that they had relations with each other, unwittingly in the divine mother’s womb. Osiris and Isis were therefore brother and sister but, after the fashion of the Pharaohs they married. Osiris became ruler of Egypt, which he civilized, and he then set out to civilize the world.

The loving pair annoyed the prince of darkness, Set, whose father, Seb, is the equivalent of the Roman Saturn. Osiris was murdered by Set, who enticed Osiris to enter a handsome chest, fastened it down with molten lead, and had it flung into the Nile. The desolated Isis sought her brother and lover high and low. This search for the missing god or goddess is a common feature, and was dramatically represented in all the old mysteries. The chest was washed up on the coast of Syria and became lodged in the trunk of a tree which grew to such proportions that it was eventually cut down and used in as a column of the palace at Byblos with the coffin inside the trunk. Isis eventually found it there. After an interlude that smacks of the Demeter and Brimos story, she took the chest and set the tree in a temple swathed in linen like the tree of Attis.

Back in Egypt, Isis lay in the form of a hawk upon the dead body of Osiris and thus miraculously conceived her son Horus. Or she left the coffin at a place in Egypt while she went to see Horus. The evil Set found the body of Osiris and tore it into fourteen pieces, and scatted them. Isis painstakingly sought the parts of Osiris’s body and Isis and Horus put them together. As the wings of Isis fluttered over the corpse, Ra then reanimated him, and Osiris was resurrected. But, to confuse Set, Isis effected to have each part buried where she found it, which is why there were fourteen graves of Osiris in Egypt. But she could not find a penis which the fishes had swallowed, and had to make a synthetic one to conceive, in this version, their child Horus. Osiris then reigned as the king of the dead while Horus reigned on earth. At the core of this myth is a doctrine of a beneficent god slain by the powers of darkness and rising again from the dead.

The search took Isis to Phoenicia where she met Queen Astarte. Astarte didn't recognize the goddess and hired her as a nursemaid to the infant prince.

Fond of the young boy, Isis decided to bestow immortality on him. As she was holding the royal infant over the fire as part of the ritual, the Queen entered the room. Seeing her son smoldering in the middle of the fire, Astarte instinctively (but naively) grabbed the child out of the flames, undoing the magic of Isis that would have made her son a god.

When the Queen demanded an explanation, Isis revealed her identity and told Astarte of her quest to recover her husband's body. As she listened to the story, Astarte realized that the body was hidden in the fragrant tree in the center of the palace and told Isis where to find it.

Sheltering his broken body in her arms, the goddess Isis carried the body of Osiris back to Egypt for proper burial. There she hid it in the swamps on the delta of the Nile river.

Unfortunately, Set came across the box one night when he was out hunting. Infuriated by this turn of events and determined not to be outdone, he murdered Osiris once again . . . this time hacking his body into 14 pieces and throwing them in different directions knowing that they would be eaten by the crocodiles.

The goddess Isis searched and searched, accompanied by seven scorpions who assisted and protected her. Each time she found new pieces she rejoined them to re-form his body.

But Isis could only recover thirteen of the pieces. The fourteenth, his penis, had been swallowed by a crab, so she fashioned one from gold and wax. Then inventing the rites of embalming, and speaking some words of magic, Isis brought her husband back to life.

Magically, Isis then conceived a child with Osiris, and gave birth to Horus, who later became the Sun God. Assured that having the infant would now relieve Isis' grief, Osiris was free to descend to become the King of the Underworld, ruling over the dead and the sleeping.

His spirit, however, frequently returned to be with Isis and the young Horus who both remained under his watchful and loving eye.

http://www.carnaval.com/isis/

The Spirit Of God Moves

The Sustainer of Life: The Role of the Spirit of God in Creation

Dr Scott A. Ellington
LecturerEmmanuel College, Franklin Springs, Georgia.

The Spirit remains aloof from the initial creation of the cosmos recorded in Genesis, having instead the responsibility for continually sustaining and redeeming life. The unusual participle used to describe the Spirit’s presence in Genesis 1:2c מרחפת (merachefet), best characterises the ongoing and unfinished nature of the Spirit’s creative activity. For the writer of Job, the Spirit of God works constantly to sustain life. In the Psalms the Spirit as creator comes to be identified both with the enduring presence of God and with the maintenance of spiritual and moral life.

The Unassuming Spirit :
The Bible opens with accounts of God’s creation of the cosmos that provide the theological underpinnings for all that follows, most particularly for understanding the scope of God’s sovereignty and the trajectory of his redemptive plan. Already in the second verse of Genesis we encounter God’s רוח (ruach), hovering over the face of the unformed chaos. Given their placement and prominent role in our understanding of the larger biblical narrative, it is surprising that the Old Testament has so little to say about God’s creation and even less about the role of God’s Spirit in that creation. Additionally, Israel’s understanding of the role of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) or Spirit of God in creation is a late development. Direct references to the Spirit as creator are found only in Gen. 1:2 (a Priestly text), Job 27:3; 33:4; 34:14-15; Pss. 33:6; 51:10-12; and 104:29-301.
Letting the Text Speak :
In considering the person and action of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, two basic decisions need to be made with regard to the nature of biblical revelation and the understanding of the Spirit that we draw from it. The first is whether we should consider the biblical revelation of Spirit to be homogenous or contextual and unfolding. Should we expect each biblical writer to have a similar understanding of the identity and function of the Spirit of God or does that understanding evolve with the addition of new revelation and shift to reflect the unique context and concern of each writer?
A second and closely related decision concerning biblical revelation is whether we should regard it as essentially ontological or epistemological in nature. By this I mean, do biblical statements about the Spirit of God depict the essential nature of the Spirit, regardless of whether or not the biblical writer is aware of all that his or her revelation incorporates and implies, or do such statements reflect the understanding of the writer, so that what we are offered by the biblical writer is always shaped by context and limited by perspective? An ontological reading of the text allows the New Testament reader to look back from a “privileged” perspective and discern a meaning in the text that was denied its author. If, on the other hand, we read the text epistemologically, focusing on what the writer does and does not know, such surplus meanings are limited or excluded all together. Such an approach argues for answering the questions “What does this text say?” and “What does this author know?” before moving on to the question “How does this text fit with the larger biblical witness?”
It is also important to recognise that the matter of the identity of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is not so much a question of what people thought regarding this member of the Godhead as it is what the intention was of God Himself who inspired the writers.
But this begs the question, how can we distinguish “what God intended” from “what people thought”? All we have to go on is the text and the perspective offered by its authors. To go behind the text and speculate on “what God intended” is, in fact, to read our own concerns into the text. Bolstered by his assumption, Wood draws a theological portrait of the Holy Spirit based on the New Testament and then looks for points of contact between that portrait and references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. “What God intended” is, for Wood, nothing more than the overlaying of one understanding of the Spirit onto another, so that the Old Testament’s unique contributions to our understanding of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) are frequently blurred or passed over altogether.
In the Old Testament literature ruach is only used to express God’s activity as he relates himself to his world, his creation, his people. It was Israel’s way of describing God, not as he is in himself, but as he communicates to the world his power, his life, his anger, his will, his very presence.
Wind or Spirit? :
The Spirit of God appears already in the second verse of Genesis where she is remarkable for the ambiguity and open-endedness of her activity. One of the questions that has dominated the discussion of this first biblical reference to the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) is whether we should see in this phrase a reference to God’s Spirit, to the breath of God, or simply to a mighty wind sent by God. This question centers on the relationship between the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) in verse 2c with the “formless void” and the “covering darkness” that precede it. Both Gerhard von Rad and Claus Westermann understand the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to be in a parallel relationship with the formless void of the earth and the darkness that covers the sea. Westermann suggests that verse 2 provides a three-part description of the uncreated state of the world in preparation for God’s first word of creation in verse 3, translating רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) as “God’s wind.”8 Westermann’s explanation, though, does not account for the reference being to God’s רוח (ruach), which suggests an adversative relationship to the void and the darkness. Von Rad points out that there is no further mention of the spirit taking an active role in the creation process, so that רוח (ruach) is unlikely to refer here to God’s spirit, and suggests the translation “storm of God.” While von Rad’s observation does not offer sufficient grounds for his understanding רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to refer to God’s wind rather than his Spirit, it is nevertheless suggestive. There is a decided gap between the hovering רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) and the creative word that follows in verse 3. The hovering Spirit remains in the background as God speaks the word and initiates creation, but never alights to take a more active role.
The suggestion that אלהים (elohim) should be understood as a superlative, thus a “mighty wind,” has even less to commend it. As Hildebrandt points out, such an understanding of רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) would be unique in the Old Testament.
In the OT, the phrase ruah elohim occurs fifteen times in Hebrew and five times in Aramaic. It is never rendered “mighty wind” or “a wind of God” in these occurrences. If the writer intended to convey “mighty wind,” he would have used an adjective to make this clear (cf. Jonah 1:4; Job 1:19).
Hildebrandt’s assertion that the ו (waw) that precedes רוח (ruach) should be understood as an adversative provides the most probable reading11. Based on this adversative relationship of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to the pre-formed creation and the observation that the phrase is uniformly translated “Spirit of God” in each of its other appearances, Hildebrandt opts correctly for a translation of God’s Spirit, rather than a wind from God12. But what role, if any, does the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) play in the creation that is initiated by God’s word in verse 3?
http://webjournals.alphacrucis.edu.au/journals/aps/issue-12/sustainer-life-role-spirit-god-creation/

The Breath of God

The work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Julian Spriggs, M.A.

Through the centuries of history recorded in the Old Testament, we can see a progressive
development of understanding of the identity and work of God’s Spirit. This revelation leaves
room for the fuller doctrine of the Trinity that would be revealed in the N.T., where the Spirit
continues to perform the same activity and work as found in the O.T.

The Hebrew word for spirit

The Hebrew word for spirit, “ruach” is used nearly four hundred times in the O.T. It has a variety of meanings, which have a large measure of overlap. Sometimes the meaning can be determined with reasonable certainty by the context of the passage, but in other places the meaning is not so distinct.

(i) Wind
Over a quarter of the uses of “ruach” is to describe the wind, the powerful but invisible physical force of moving air. After the flood, God made a wind blow and the waters subsided (Gen 8:1). Also, during the plagues of Egypt, God sent the east wind which brought the locusts and the west wind removed them (Ex 10:13,19). Often it describes a strong, or even violent and frightening wind. God sent a strong east wind that divided the Red Sea (Ex 14:21), and Elijah witnessed the strong wind that broke rocks on Sinai (1 Kg 19:11). The Psalmist speaks about escaping from the raging wind (Ps 55:8). In many of these passages, the wind is described as coming from God, or being sent by God, so it can be understood as more than merely a physical wind. Jesus also drew a parallel between the wind and those born of the Spirit when he spoke to Nicodemus (Jn 3:8), as the Greek word for spirit, “pneuma”, also has a similar breadth of meanings.

(ii) Breath
Sometimes ruach describes the smaller quantity of moving air from human nostrils, or poetically, from God’s nostrils, like “the blast of the breath of God’s nostrils” (2 Sam 22:16), or “the breath of God’s mouth” (Ps 33:6). This can overlap with the following meaning, the breath of life.

(iii) Human life.
The spirit, meaning human or animal life. God sent the flood to destroy everything with the breath (ruach) of life (Gen 6:17). The Psalmist speaks of committing his spirit into the hands of God (Ps 31:5), thereby entrusting his life to God. Jesus quoted these words as his last words on the cross, when he gave up his life (Lk 23:46). Jeremiah stated that idols have no breath (ruach) in them (Jer 10:14). They have no life, especially when compared with the living God.

This spirit can be troubled, like Pharaoh after his dream (Gen 41:8), jealous (Num 5:14), angry (Ju 8:3), sullen (1 Kg 21:5), or stirred by God (1 Chr 5:26). In these cases, “ruach” is being used to describe an emotional response in a person.

(iv) The divine Spirit
In the O.T., this is often described as the Spirit of the LORD. In the N.T., he is the personal third member of the Trinity, together with the Father and the Son, Jesus.

Determining the meaning of “ruach”

In most cases it is not difficult to determine the intended meaning of ruach, whether it describes the wind, the human spirit or God’s Spirit. However, in some passages, the exact meaning can be debated. For example, in the creation account, the more familiar translation is of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters (Gen 1:2), as in the KJV or NIV. But some versions translate ruach as the wind of God (NRSV, NEB), which seems to reduce the supernatural aspect of the creation account.

In the earlier books of the O.T. revelation, little or no distinction is made between the divine and human spirit. Job states that as long as the spirit of God is in his nostrils he will not speak lies (Job 27:3), a poetic way of saying that while he was still alive he will speak the truth.

Ezekiel may have intentionally used all three meanings using a clever play on words in his vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1-14) . So the “ruach” was the Spirit of God who carried Ezekiel into the valley of dry bones (v1), and who will revive the house of Israel (v14). But it is also the breath that will enter the bones and give them life (v5, 10), as well as the four winds from where the breath will come from (v9).

The development in understanding of “ruach” through the O.T.

The doctrine and teaching of the Holy Spirit shows clearly the progressive nature of revelation through the Old Testament. In the early centuries, the Spirit was mostly seen as the power of God working in his creation and through his people. For example, the artistic and technical skills of Bezalel who made the tabernacle furnishings was described as him being “filled with the divine spirit” (Ex 31:3). This was because all wisdom and skill was understood to come from God. As the revelation through the O.T. progressed, God’s Spirit was described as being holy and having moral and even personal qualities.

When Ezra looked back over Israel’s history from the perspective of the return from exile, he referred twice to the working of the spirit of God. He stated that God gave his good spirit to instruct them in the wilderness (Neh 9:20), and that God had warned them by his spirit through his prophets (9:30). In the original account in the Pentateuch, there is no mention that the Spirit instructed the people. Normally it was Moses who instructed the people with the words that God had spoken to him (eg. Lev 18:1-2). This teaching role of the Spirit was not understood at the time. That revelation came later. This is similar to the role of the Spirit in the N.T. to teach and remind us of what Jesus said (John 14:26).

The Spirit’s work in creation

One important work of the Spirit in the O.T. was in creation (Gen 1:2). God’s spirit was active in the creation and in the sustaining of physical life. Elihu stated that if God should take back his Spirit then all flesh would perish and return to dust (Job 34:14-15). Without God’s spirit, there would be no life at all. The N.T. reveals that Jesus was also involved in creation (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Jn 1:3).

The picture in Genesis is of the Spirit of God hovering over the water (Gen 1:2), probably imparting God’s energy, order and design into the empty and formless world. This would indicate that Spirit did not create the world out of nothing, but worked with what the Son had already created, bringing order out of chaos and life from non-living matter. The creative role of the Spirit is also stated elsewhere in the O.T: The Psalmist states that “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath (ruach) of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).

The Spirit was particularly involved in the creation of mankind. After God formed Adam out of dust, he breathed into him the breath of life, and he became a living soul (Gen 2:7). Elihu said the same, “The spirit of God had made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). When put together, the revelation is of all three persons of the Trinity being directly involved in the creation of the world and especially of mankind in God’s image.

Take a scientific approach to understanding the breath of God:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Breath.pdf

Let There Be Light

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jakob_dylan/something_good_this_way_comes.html

Filling The Gap: What About Dinosaurs in the timeline of Genesis

The Gap Theory, also known as the ruin-reconstruction theory, allows for a gap between Genesis verses 1 and 2 of the Creation process, in an effort to harmonize science with the Bible. It is basically an attempt to solve the geological evidence that science presents by making a place for the catastrophe and chaos developments that are seemingly witnessed in the earth's fossiliferous strata.

The theory has been advocated for centuries. The modern form originated with Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University in response to George Culver's scientific presentation of the evidence for these catastrophic changes. The wide circulation of the Gap Theory by George H. Pember in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, and by C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Reference Bible helped spread the ideas. Arthur C. Custance's Without Form and Void, was the most scholarly and lengthy defense of the gap theory, which was published in 1970.
http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/worldview/gap_theory.html

Before getting into the Scriptural aspect of this discussion, one needs to first understand the background and history of the gap theory. Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, is credited with being the first proponent of the gap theory. His proposal of the theory was first recorded in 1814 in one of his lectures at Edinburgh University. Until 1814, no theologian had put forth the idea of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Chalmer’s teaching to a great extent reflected what was happening in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

In 1795, James Hutton (1726-1797) introduced the scientific doctrine of uniformitarianism in his book Theory of the Earth. Hutton believed that the processes of the past (e.g. climate, sedimentation, decay, etc.) occurred at the same rate as those of the present--a way of thinking that was prophesied in II Peter 3:4 as a sign of the last days. Uniformitarianism is now summarized in the phrase, "the present is the key to the past." His questionable logic became the foundation for many of the "scientific" discoveries in the early 19th century. Hutton’s teachings most affected the field of geology, then in its infant stages.

Following in the footsteps of Hutton, Charles Lyell (1797-1875) became known as the"high priest of uniformitarianism "and "the father of modern geology." Lyell’s famous three-volume work, Principles of Geology, quickly became the catalyst for the geologic movement’s move to uniformitarian principles. Many early geologists, after studying the numerous layers of sediment existing in the earth’s crust, assumed the layers were a result of the flood of Noah, knowing that moving water causes many layers to be deposited. Others claimed they had no idea as to how they were deposited. A few thought the layers were deposited slowly over millions of years at the same rate layers are deposited today. This slow but steady accumulation was thought to be an example of uniformitarianism. For hundreds of years, scientists in all fields of study had worked within a 6,000-year time frame for the age of the earth, primarily drawn from the chronology of the Bible. With the introduction of uniformitarian principles into science, geologists felt they finally had the answer to the mystery.

Shortly after the publication of Hutton’s and Lyell’s books, Christians began to feel that they were under a scientific attack for their belief that the earth was only a few thousand years old. One has only to read the writings of Thomas Chalmers to understand how sharply he felt the attacks of science upon the Scriptures. Some geologists and theologians, knowing that the uniformitarian deposit of sediment layers would require millions of years, quickly rejected the Biblical age of the earth and moved to adjust the Bible’s time frame to coincide with their new theory. Chalmers, like many other Christians at this time, began to seek a way to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the newly accepted teachings of geology. He attempted to do this with the gap theory.

Since 1814, many theologians have followed Chalmers’ example and attempted to accommodate both Scripture and the new supposed science. In 1859, Charles Darwin’s book The Orgin of Species introduced scientists and theologians to the possibility of an even longer time frame for the age of the earth. For example, G.H. Pember stated in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, "There is room for any length of time between the first and second verse of the Bible. "Statements such as these pressured many Christians to accept other dangerous theories under the guise of "science. "Theologians struggled to remain current with popular scientific findings.

The gap theory trend gained its greatest support in 1909 when C.I. Scofield first published his Scofield Study Bible. Dr. Scofield supported the gap theory in his explanation that "the first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages." He commented that "no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains." Dr. Scofield also advocated the "Day-Age "theory--another "time-allowing" theory teaching that the six days of creation were not literal 24-hour days but actually long periods of time. The Scofield Study Bible, believed to be the most widely used study Bible of its kind, resulted in a widespread acceptance of the gap theory, which continues today.

About the same time the Scofield Study Bible began its circulation, another very popular theological work was published, Dispensational Truth by Clarence Larkin. In his book, Dr. Larkin detailed the existence of a "chaotic earth "between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. His willingness to"fall back then upon Science "allowed science to greatly infiltrate his theology [Note his capitalization of the word Science]. This influence can be seen in the way Dr. Larkin embraced the "Nebular Hypothesis, "a predecessor of the "Big Bang" theory.

Regardless of the reason, the gap theory has gained considerable support from several modern theologians. These theologians, such as Arthur C. Custance, author of Without Form and Void (1970), and well known preachers Billy Graham and John Hagee, have adopted the gap theory, in one form or another. For some, the gap theory is the only explanation they have to make the Bible fit their preconceived idea for the age of the earth. For others, it is the only way they can explain certain passages in Scripture.
http://www.beaconmbc.com/articles/thegaptheory.htm

A long explained definition of the Gap Theory and its marriage to evolution:
http://ncse.com/cej/8/3/formless-void-gap-theory-creationism