The Genesis gap and Re-creation

"Has this idea ever gained currency? what are its weak points ?"

The idea you refer to is called the Gap Theory, and it is called this, because of the theory that there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Has this theory ever gained currency/acceptance? Yes, but as one would imagine, it's a small subgroup of the view which denies the literal days of creation - and it's certainly in the minority of Evangelical protestant groups.

In the US, Baptist is the the biggest denomination of evangelical protestants and along with many other evangelicals - hold to a literal view of creation as held by Nazarenes, Bible Methodists, 7th Day Adventists, most Assembly of God, most Pentecostals, most Church of God, Free-will Baptists and most Wesleyan and non-Calvinist groups.

What are it's weak points?

• This is a classic textbook example of what is referred to by Bible scholars and pastors as "One verse theology" which warns against taking a single verse and building an entire doctrine or theological viewpoint based on one verse - while totally ignoring other passages that shed light on or even refute the one verse.

The entire kerfluffle is literally based on one phrase "became" in Genesis 1:2, with the notion being that in the original Hebrew, it says "the earth became without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep" and from there, they make a giant leap of eisegesis - reading something into the text that is not there.
From there they extrapolate that God doesn't make things void and formless, and it is further assumed by some that this is the most likely time slot for the rebellion of the angels, - just because scripture doesn't say exactly when this happened - so it's an argument from silence.

• It should be noted here, that one of the most fundamental principles of solid Biblical interpretation is that we always cross-reference and search what other scriptures say about a topic, and thus - scripture interprets scripture.
  Not only does this theory involve conjecture and eisegesis, but it ignores other clear passages that teach a literal seven day creation.

The entire doctrine of the sabbath which is practiced by Protestants and Catholics alike around the world, is based on the creation account of six days defined by evening and morning, and a day of rest.
The notion that these were vast eons or epochs is not only directly contrary to the clear words of scripture, but it totally disregards the fact that Genesis is categorized as History, and even secular scholars agree that the style of Genesis is not like poetry or wisdom genre.
The notion that we should work for six unknown, indefinite periods of time, and then rest for an unknown, indefinite period of time is only surpassed by the ludicrous idea that we should all work for sixty years and then rest for ten.

It also should be noted that this view contradicts the Biblical view of 6000 year history for humanity followed by the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ.
This is perfectly illustrated by the concept of bookends, Genesis and Revelation - which is also a mirror or bookend of the Sabbath and creation - when all will be restored to like it was in the beginning.

God through His servants foretold this period repeatedly. It was the hope of Israel’s prophets throughout much of the nation’s history, especially during periods of decline and captivity.This same hope was shared by the apostles as they questioned Christ about the restoration of Israel’s ancient kingdom. Before His ascension to heaven, His disciples asked Him, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). The disciples eagerly expected to see the Messiah’s rule begin at that time. They knew the promise of a restoration foretold by so many of the prophets.

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/jesus-christs-1000-year-reign-on-earth

There is a reason this guy sounds like he is privy to some other revelation about two creations we all don't know about: what he is saying is nowhere actually taught in the text. Of course any number of theories can be read into Genesis' ambiguous statements all too easily.

Let's look at what he says, highlighting everywhere he assumes what he's trying to prove:

The Timing of the Satanic Rebellion: Finally, it should be mentioned that, in addition to the compelling reasons listed above for placing Satan's rebellion within the time frame of the Genesis Gap (that is, between original creation and the eventual re-creation of the earth – a period of unspecified length), there is, in fact, no other period in which it can reasonably be located. After the angels sing for joy with obvious relief at earth's re-creation (and the sea's restriction: Job 38:4-11), the temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan follows their creation in apparently rapid succession, leaving scant time for Satan's own fall and seduction of a large portion of angelic kind (Genesis 1-3; see Part 1 of this series).

III. Creation and Re-Creation: Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation of the heavens and the earth.

.....As we have seen, however, the second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2, is split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative construction. Verse two propels us untold eons forward in time [ha!] from the original, awesome act of creation, and moves us to the other side of the Genesis Gap, describing for us the state of the universe as it existed before God re-created the earth:

But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters. Genesis 1:2

Original creation had been marred by Satan's revolt, and cast into darkness by God's judgment upon the rebellious angels. In order to make the universe habitable once more for creatures with physical bodies (the attempted possession of which was a major issue in Satan's pre-fall propaganda, it will be remembered from Part 1 of our study), a re-creation of the earth was essential. Genesis 1:3 - 2:3, the account of the seven days, is a description of this renewal of the heavens and the earth. The objective behind this process of the seven days is also quite clear: the creation of Man. Everything God accomplishes within the period of re-creation is specifically designed to make life supportable for this His second category of creature possessing free will:

The Seven Days of Re-Creation....

(brackets mine)

That's pretty embarrassing. As you can see, he is just coming to Genesis with a doctrine of two creations, and then reading it into the maleable first chapter. There is nothing to refute—if you already accept his doctrine, Genesis has to be read in light of it; if not, you'll not actually find two creations in Genesis anywhere.

A key mark of heretics is peculiar translations of particular verses ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" comes to mind).

Notice how he translates Genesis 1:2 to suit his doctrine: "But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled."

This is laughable. For starters, תהו and בהו don't mean 'ruined and despoiled.' He needs them to mean that for his doctrine of a former world having been destroyed by evil or something. Particularly heinous/laughable is translating one of these words 'despoiled.' Despoiled, according to Merriam-Webster, means:

to strip of belongings, possessions, or value

Needless to say, this well exceeds the basic meaning of the word, and implies some agent which brought such desolation about, but which is nowhere actually indicated in the text.

But more greviously, he claims verse 2 is " split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative." This is, to put it lightly, complete garbage. For a start, in Hebrew ו wa (and/but) can be either adversative or copulative—and most of the time it is copulative (and; even, in the case of an appositive usage). Whether to translate/understand this as and or but is purely based on context, and how you understand the passage in light of it. So to beg the question and translate this as 'but' because (he has assured us) there is an extreme 'adversative, abrupt' part of the story to be told, is nonsense.

He claims this desolate state was, not before God has formed things in it, but it had 'come to be' this way—something nowhere stated in the text. Here he translates יהתה ([she] was—referring to the feminine noun ארץ meaning earth) as 'she became.' While this word can mean this in other contexts, there is no contextual reason when one reads the text to infer a previously 'un-desolate' earth! It's clear with the 'in the beginning' we are getting the run down of the creation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What isn't clear is that between this sentence and the next, this had been ruined by evil and so had 'become' this way. As you read the next few verses it becomes evident that this is just its state before He marked out seas and the land and created trees and animals on it.

I call this 'concordance translating,' where someone picks up a nice little concordance and fancies themselves a translator, and begins to assure us of new meanings of already understood texts—not so coincidentally coinciding with their new theology, which is on offer. If you want this showcased in an entire translation of the Bible, read the NWT. It is the most wooden, stick your foot in the door of every 'well its possible to translate it this way,' theologically driven, non-translations out there.