The Genesis gap and Re-creation I have stumbled on this essay (The Genesis Gap) on the site ichthys from which I am quoting a passage:


  ....5. 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.


The author , who seems extremely competent and well-informed, holds up the idea that  there have been 2 separate creation of the world, the original one of Eden, followed by the revolt of the angel(s) which caused the revolt of man , and a second, the actual earth and universe, after the first had been destroyed


  .....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 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....
  


the essay consists of four extended articles which make an easy and interesting reading. I have never heard of this hypothesis, and ask you expert to give an assessment of the reliability of the quotations but most of all ond the validity of the theory.

It makes a lot of sense, and surely solves a lot of problems arising from the usual interpretation of the Bible description, in which the presence of satan in the garden is inexplicable, unjustifiable, unbelievably illogical and totally absurd.

But the main problem is that a second re-creation is absolutely necessary because it is literally impossible that this material world with decaying matter and inert mass etc, can possibly have been the location of Eden.
Has this idea ever gained currency? what are its weak points ?
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 (&quot;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god&quot; comes to mind).
Notice how he translates Genesis 1:2 to suit his doctrine: &quot;But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled.&quot;
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 &quot; split grammatically from verse one with an abrupt, adversative.&quot; 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: &quot;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.&quot; 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.