What you are “basically” espousing here is
THE GAP THEORY. Here is its basic outline:<br><ul>1. There is an indefinite time gap (hence the name of the theory) between 1:1 and 1:2.<br><br>2. Verse 1 reveals the creation of a perfect heaven and earth very different from what we see around us now.<br><br>3. A preadamic race of humans inhabited this original creation.<br><br>4. Lucifer (unfallen Satan), whose "headquarters" was in the Garden of Eden, ruled over this race of people.<br><br>5. When Lucifer rebelled—many advocates see this in Isaiah 14—sin entered the world.<br><br>6. Part of God's judgment of this rebellion was the destruction of the earth with a flood (in Noah's day) followed by a global ice age, which accounts for the fossils.[/LIST] This is a very old theory that certain early Jewish writers and some church fathers held. Thomas Chalmers propelled it into prominence in 1814. Chalmers' purpose was to harmonize Scripture with Scripture, not Scripture with science. Darwin's Origin of Species first appeared in 1859, but Chalmers published his theory in 1814. Franz Delitzsch supported it in 1899. G. H. Pember's book Earth's Ancient Ages (1907) gave further impetus to this view. Many Christian geologists favored the view because they saw in it "an easy explanation for the fossil strata." Harry Rimmer supported it as did Arthur W. Pink (Gleanings in Genesis). L. S. Chafer held it but did not emphasize it. Arthur Custance is one writer who has defended it .<br><br>But, it is not correct. Basically is goes like this; <br><br>[color:red]
They Assert:</font color=red><br><br><ul>1. The first word in verse 2 ([color:red]
waw</font color=red>, "and") is a conjunction that indicates consecutive occurrences. It introduces something that happened after what precedes.[/LIST]
[color:blue]The response: </font color=blue><br><br>The verb tense and word order in this sentence do not permit this use of this conjunction (vv. 1-2). Rather here, as is normal, the conjunction indicates a break in the consecutive order of events and introduces a circumstantial (independent) clause (v. 2) that describes something in a preceding clause (v. 1). A better translation of the [color:red]
waw</font color=red> would be "now." In short, the Hebrew grammar does not allow for a chronological gap between verses 1 and 2.<br><br>[color:red]
They Assert:</font color=red><br><br><ul>2. The verb ([color:red]
hayata</font color=red>, "was") can and should read "became." The translators have rendered it this way in many other places in the Old Testament.[/LIST]
[color:blue]The response: </font color=blue><br><br>This is a legitimate translation, but "became" is not always the best translation (Jonah 3:3; Zech. 3:3). Here the translation should be "was."<br><br>[color:red]
They Assert:</font color=red><br><br><ul>3. The chaos ([color:red]
tohu wa bohu</font color=red>, "waste and void,") describes an evil condition (Isa. 24:1; 45:18; Jer. 4:23). [/LIST]
[color:blue]The response: </font color=blue><br><br>This is sometimes the case, but not always (Deut. 32:10; Job 6:18; 12:24; 26:7; Ps. 107:40). It is not so here.<br><br>[color:red]
They Assert:</font color=red><br><br><ul>4. "Darkness" is a symbol of evil in Scripture (1 John 1:5). This supports the badness of the condition that resulted from Satan's rebellion.[/LIST]
[color:blue]The response: </font color=blue><br><br>This is true in some cases, but not always (Ps. 104:19-24). Consider too that evening was part of the days God declared good.<br><br>[color:red]
They Assert:</font color=red><br><br><ul>5. The two primary words for "create" ([color:red]
bara</font color=red> and [color:blue]
asah</font color=blue> used respectively in 1:1 and 1:25) refer to two different kinds of creativity. [color:red]
bara</font color=red> usually refers to primary creative activity. Since Moses used [color:red]
bara</font color=red> in 1:1 this was the original creation and not just a general description of the process that follows (in 1:3-5 or 1:3-31). If 1:1 was a general description he would have used [color:blue]
asah</font color=blue> since some of what God created in the six days He formed out of previously existing material (e.g., man and woman).[/LIST]
[color:blue]The response: </font color=blue><br><br>These two words are not so distinct. For example, Moses used [color:red]
bara</font color=red> of the creation of man out of previously existing material (1:27), and he used [color:blue]
asah</font color=blue> of the whole creation as the primary creative activity of God (Exod. 20:11). Furthermore, he used [color:red]
bara</font color=red> of the creation of some animals (1:21) and [color:blue]
asah</font color=blue> of the creation of other animals (1:25). The real difference between these two words is that Moses used [color:red]
bara</font color=red> only of divine activity and he used [color:blue]
asah</font color=blue> of both divine and human activities. Thus, [color:red]
bara</font color=red> and [color:blue]
asah</font color=blue> are very close together in meaning. We cannot distinguish them on the basis of [color:red]
bara</font color=red> describing primary creative activity and [color:blue]
asah</font color=blue> referring to the reforming of previously existing material.<br><br>[color:red]
They Assert:</font color=red><br><br><ul>6. Adam was to "replenish" the earth (1:28, AV) implying a previous race.[/LIST]
[color:blue]The response: </font color=blue><br><br>The Hebrew word used means "fill," not "refill." Many modern translations so render it.<br><br>Though many evangelicals still hold the gap theory, very few Hebrew scholars do because the Hebrew grammar does not favor a chronologically sequential reading of verses 1 and 2. Rather, verse 2 in some way describes verse 1.<br><br>Notes on Genesis by Dr. Thomas L. Constable (while he is good here he is off in many other areas). Also, read Morris, The Genesis Record and Boice on Genesis.
