In reply to:[color:"blue"]As I said on one of these psots, when I aske my pastor about Covenant Seminary he said Bryan Chapell believes that because the original texts cannot be interpreted conclusively that it was actually 24 hours, that he believes the men at the seminary have the right to take either interpretation.
(Fred) As much as I appreciate Bryan Chapell, he is sorely mistaken about this. All reputable Hebrew scholars will tell you that there is absolutely no ambiguity at all with Genesis as to what Moses is trying to convey. He is saying that God historically created in 6 ordinary, 24 hour days. I personally would like to hear what from the language and text of Genesis compels Chapell to believe there is no clarity here. I mean, this ain't brain surgery. Any ideas?
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Yes, my pastor said that the word "Yom" is where the controversery come in to play.
He states in an article that I have that it is just as dangerous to say more than scripture says as it does to say less. He also says that it is our culture that tempts us to mute or warp the clear statements of scripture, and also tempts us to add to the Word. He says that in the last 40 years Covenant has not changed their position. All of their professors affirm that the first chapter of Genesis can be reasonably interpreted as teaching God's creative activity occurred in six solar days. Not all of their professors, he states, believe that this is the best interpretation. He says some profs hold to a 24/6 view, others hold to a longer day theory, and they even have one who leans to a possible gaps-between-the-days-view. He says their profs face questions arising from the fact that the sun did not appear until the fourth day of creation, the seventh day not having a designated evening (for which reasons theologians for centuries prior to any evolution theories have argued that we are still in the 7th day of God's rest and will be until the creation of the New Heavens and the New Earth at the consummation)the 6th day being so full of activity, the possibility of gaps between the days, the use of the Hebrew word "day" in some passages to designate an indeterminate period of time, and many more concerns he states.
As I type this I am wondering if we even are talking about the Creator of the Universe! As though, because there is so much activity it might have taken God longer to create it than a day!!!! I am astonished that we have such small thoughts of God. Does He not speak and it is done! It not the light in he speaks on in verse 1 the bright and morning star? Our light of the world?
Anyway, there you go, and the article goes on for 6 pages!
One thing I've been thinking about lately in regards to this is interesting, and I'd like to get some feedback on it.
Gen. 1:1 (NASB) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Ok, so God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen. 1:2 (NASB) "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."
Ok, so the earth at this point is seemlingly nothing but water at this point. The creation account continues with the 6 day account next in verse 3. Now I know that this perhaps doesn't have anything to do with your question about weather or not they were actually 24 hour periods, which I see no evidence otherwise, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that the time between when God created the heavens and the earth and when He started the 6 days could have been any length...from just a moment to a thousand years. Granted this is just speculation, but its there, and it was just something I have been thinking about lately, so I thought I'd share.
Thanks for the comment. I think that is all things God does everything for a purpose, and that nothing is done in idleness. I am sure it could have been a thousand years, however, since we don't know that my feelings from just the very character of God, is that He has a purpose from eternity to give His elect people to His son, and everthing in creation and even from before the very foundations of the world is for this end.
Tim Keller makes a great point in that God is a good steward of His time and if we have too many things to do in a day He has not given it to us.....which is why I find it hard to stomach when people say that there was so much activity on the sixth day that it had to be more than 24 hours.....as though God needed 2 days to accomplish what it in!
In any case, we are those that were without form and void and every part of our being was dark before God shined the light of the gospel into our lives.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Yes, my pastor said that the word "Yom" is where the controversery come in to play.
What exactly is the controversy? Yom is preceded by an ordinal, first day, second day, etc, and is distinguished as morning and evening was the X day. In every other instance in the OT when the word yom is preceded by an ordinal and is marked out as being morning and evening, it is understood as an ordinary, 24 hour day. Ask you pastor why in this instance it is to be understood otherwise. As far as the 7th day reference goes, the phrase evening and morning is used to set apart the various sequences of events. There was no need to distinguish it with evening and morning because God finished his creative act. In other words, he wasn't going to do something creative on the 8th day. If that were the case, then it would have been appropriate for Moses to say and the evening and the morning were the 7th day, then God did such and such...
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Welcome aboard Chris, What you propose is the old Gap theory that tries to place a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. The problem is that in the Hebrew verses 1 and 2 are one complete clause. So, in order to arrive at a conclusion that there is a gap between the two verses we would have to break the sentence in two; something that is inappropriate with any language. I actually wrote a paper on this subject for a sem. class. Tell me what you think:
Genesis 1:1-2 "Examination of the Gap Theory" By Fred Butler
(Introductory note: This was originally a paper completed for Biblical Hermeneutics class. The reason for the outlined format is that we were required to interact with a difficult biblical problem utilizing the various principles of hermeneutics completed in an outline)
I. Statement of the Problem
There is a view among theologians suggesting that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there exist a "gap". This gap was caused by some cataclysm and could be as old as a few thousand years or it could be a massive expanse of time. After this gap, God recreated the earth in six days as recorded in Genesis one. The question then is raised: Does Genesis teach that an historical gap exist between the two verses?
II. Proposed Solutions
A. The Gap Theory This theory believes the Hebrew text indicates there is a gap between Genesis 1:1and 1:2. It is also called the Restitution or Recreation Theory (James Boice, Genesis, Vol. 1 pg. 50) and it is also known as the pre-Adamic Cataclysm Theory (Henry Morris, The Genesis Record pg.46).
The theory is stated as follows:
1. Genesis 1:1 tells us God created the original world in which all things were good. It was a perfect world for God could not create anything bad. 2. Satan, or Lucifer before he fell, was ruler of the earth, which was at that time inhabited by a pre-Adamic race of people, (Robert Alexander, How to Study the Bible pg. 35). 3. Lucifer desired to be like God and thus rebelled. God’s judgment resulted in a ruined earth, existing in chaos. Genesis 1:2 states the earth was without form and void, indicating destruction (Alexander pg. 35).
The theory gained popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because it allows for an insertion of Satan's origin and fall. Most importantly, however, it helps harmonize Biblical chronology with the accepted system of evolutionary ages. The theory provides a solution to the geological difficulties between modern science and the historical record of the Bible (George Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages pg. 20). The gap, in other words, allows the evolutionary geologist to have all the aeons they want (Morris, pg.46); yet allowing for Bible-believing Christians to maintain a belief in the veracity of Holy Scripture.
B. The No-Gap Theory
The Biblical position is to understand there is no gap between verse one and verse two. Both verses are one independent clause describing the creation of the universe, "In the Beginning...” as well as the condition of the earth before God completed His work (J.J. Davis, Paradise to Prison pg. 46).
III. Preferred View
It is my opinion that the No-Gap theory is the preferred view. When we apply the following hermeneutical principles to this problem it will be demonstrated that no gap exists in the white spaces between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
A. Principle of Near Context
Within the immediate context of the Genesis one narrative, there is no indication of a gap. Each verse in the first chapter begins with the conjunction "And.” This is significant because the structure clearly means that each statement is sequentially and chronologically connected to the verses before and after (Morris, pg.48). The pattern would then have to apply to the first two verses, as well as any other pair of verses in the chapter. Thus, the supposed chronological gap is grammatically nonexistent. The condition in verse two follows immediately upon the creative act of verse one. The pattern, then, is set through the remainder of the chapter: God divided light from darkness, AND the light was day, the darkness night. God gathered the water from the land, AND God called the dry land earth, the waters He called the sea, and the record continues in like fashion until the creation is finished.
B. Principle of Original Language
Those who hold to the Gap theory will claim their support from linguistic considerations. The Hebrew word hayetha, that is translated “was,” can also be translated “became,” “to be,” or “to come to pass,” and according to Gap theorists, hayetha should be translated as one of those alternatives. When the verb is translated “became” or “to be,” it would suggest a change of state from the original creation to the chaotic condition inferred from verse two (Morris, pp. 44-45). The verb, however, is the regular verb of being, and to re-translate it as the gap theorists claim, would produce a grammatical inaccuracy. If the author of Genesis had meant to describe a changed state took place between the two verses, he would have used haya, the word normally used to denote a changed state. Now, it should be pointed out, however, that in the context of some Hebrew passages hayetha can be interpreted to indicate a changed state, like the gap theory suggest. But, in 98 percent of its occurrences, the verb means “was” (Morris, pg. 48). This is why it is translated as “was” in verse two, because there is nothing in the context of Genesis one to indicate it to be translated “became.”
Secondly, in verse two is the phrase, “without form and void,” (tohu waw bohu in the Hebrew). Gap theorists teach that these words should be translated “ruined and desolate.” This would then speak of a Divine judgment that was visited upon the earth and left it in chaos (Morris, pg. 49). Proponents of the Gap theory argue that God, who is perfect, would never create the universe in a chaotic state. This state of being, they claim, must have come long after the creation itself, and the fall of Satan is attributed to this judgment. The two other times tohu and bohu appear together it is in Isaiah 24:1 and Jeremiah 4:23. In these two passages they do describe judgment, but it must be pointed out that tohu does not always refer to something evil. For example, Job 26:7 reads, “he stretcheth out the north over the empty place, (tohu).” The empty place is not evil. In many places tohu refers to the wilderness, or desert, where life is absent, (Davis, pg. 45). Likewise, bohu does not connote desolation, but rather, emptiness (Morris, pg. 50). The idea that these two words must be speaking of destruction or judgment is forced. “Form and void”, simply mean that the earth was not yet complete (without form) and it was empty (void) and it had no inhabitants (Westen Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, pg. 130).
C. Principle of Cross-Reference
As was noted in point B, Gap theorists appeal to two particular passages implying judgment that use the Hebrew words tohu and bohu. The first is found in Isaiah 24:1, which states, The LORD maketh the earth empty and maketh it waste. The second is found in Jeremiah 4:23, where scripture says, I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form, and void. It is argued that these two verses are referring back to the time during the gap, when God exercised His vengeance. By observing both passages, however, it can be seen that the judgment described is speaking of a future (at the time of writing) judgment and is not a record of past, historical events (Fields, pg. 121). In Isaiah 24 the entire passage speaks of the Lord scattering abroad the inhabitants of the land of Tyre, because, as verse 5 reveals, They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. The passage continues to tell how their music will cease (vs. 8), merriment will be stopped (vs. 9), and the houses will be shut-up and their cities left desolate (vs. 10,12). This judgment cannot be speaking of a past event, but a future one that will be against the Kingdom of Tyre, its people, and their society.
As for the Jeremiah passage, with a quick examination of verses 23-27, it could be argued that this speaks of the divine judgment gap theorists claim happened to the pre-Adamic world. Verse 23 opens with almost the same wording as Genesis 1:2, and verses 23-26 all begin with the phrase, “I beheld,” speaking of something that happened in the past. But, when the passage is put in context of the whole of chapter 4, the nation of Judah is being addressed. Verse 3 reveals the Lord is speaking to them because they are unrepentant, and the Lord states He will bring judgment because of this sin. In verse 29, the instrument of judgment is executed by, “horsemen and bowmen,” later to be revealed in chapter 39 as the armies of Babylon. The idea of judgment is present within these scriptures, but it is a judgment on an established people group in the 6th century B.C. due to their sin, and is not a cross reference back to Genesis 1:2 to lend support to the gap theory.
D. Principle of the Singleness of the Meaning of Scripture
Gap theory advocates also maintain that the “darkness” spoken about in verse two cannot represent the state of the earth in its original creation, for God could not create an earth characterized by darkness (Fields, pg. 132). Darkness is viewed as a symbol for evil. John 3:19 states, Men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Satan's minions are called, “the rulers of the darkness” (Eph. 6:12), and those who are still in sin are described as, having their understanding darkened (Eph. 4:18). Darkness, however, does not always refer to evil. Even in Genesis 1, darkness is recognized as a positive for man. The evening of each day certainly included darkness, and it was for man's good. At times darkness may typify evil and death; at other times it is to be looked upon as a positive blessing (Douglas Young, Studies in Genesis One pg. 35). Psalm 104:20 says, God maketh the darkness, and it is night and night is set apart as a time for men to rest from the labour of the day (Ps 104:23). It is evident that darkness existed in Genesis 1:2, because no light had been created, for it was yet to be separated from the dark, that takes place in verse four.
E. Principle of Wider Context
One of the main purposes of the Gap theory has been to try harmonizing biblical chronology with the accepted evolutionary system of geological ages. The fossils now found by paleontologists are the remains of prehistoric animals and men that lived and died during the time of the supposed gap. The problem that arises is that if this world existed prior to the supposed pre-Adamic cataclysm, then it is suggested that sin and death existed for millions of years before the sin and fall of Adam (Morris, pg 47). However, according to Romans 5:12, that states, For by one man, sin entered the world and death by sin… Adam is the one who brought man's original sin and death. I Corinthians 15:21 also confirms this truth. It was not until man deliberately rejected the known will of God did death make its first appearance on this planet. Thus, the Gap theory seriously compromises the biblical doctrine of the Edenic curse Holy God inflicted upon the earth because of man's rebellion (John Whitcomb, The Early Earth pg. 142). Also, the theory leaves no clear word from God concerning the original perfect world. Those who advocate this theory assume that this world existed millions of years, yet there is no biblical record of the events or history in the creation of that world. Only Genesis 1:2 gives that possibility. That is only one verse. Is it to be assumed by the Bible believer that evolutionary geologists are to fill that missing gap? That then contradicts Exodus 20:11, which states that within the six days (not before the first day) God made the heavens, the sea, and all that is in them (Whitcomb, pg. 143).
Conclusion
After an examination of the biblical evidence, I believe the gap theory is an inadequate position to hold. First of all, the theory is not true to the literal grammar of the Genesis text in chapter 1. If we are to insert a gap of time between verse 1 and verse 2, we force the Hebrew language to say something that it is not saying at all. Moreover, the gap theory produces some serious theological problems with the origin of man’s sin. Romans 5:12 clearly tells us that it was Adam, and he alone, that brought about sin into our world, not Satan and his rebellion. If we remove the source of man’s sin to an unrevealed act of rebellion by Satan, away from a disobedient act by Adam fully revealed in the Genesis narrative, we adversely affect the theology of Adam’s sin imputed to all men; and that in turn affects Christ’s righteousness imputed to all those for whom he died.
Lastly, and I think most importantly, I believe the gap theory is a compromise position that needlessly accommodates the supposed theories of evolutionary geologists. The original proponents of the gap theory wrongly assume that the geologists were correct with their information. Their “authority” on the age of the earth was believed to be superior to that of the plain words of scriptures, and thus a mediating position was needed to allow the evolutionist to retain their geological theories and the Bible believing Christians to retain their belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of God’s word. Scientific theories, however, change with time. As scientists discover new things about the earth that had not been considered, previous scientific models are either modified, or abandoned all together. For instance, it was believed that millions of years and a river formed the Grand Canyon in Arizona. But, when Mount St. Helen’s erupted, a canyon about 100th the size of the Grand Canyon was formed in one day, along with geological “time” columns, when millions of tons of heated water and mud came pouring down the side of the mountain. If one volcanic eruption could produce a sizable canyon in one day, imagine what a world wide global flood could do in a year! That is what the Bible teaches happened in Genesis 6-8. There is no need to put a mythical gap in between verses 1:1 and 1:2 of Genesis. Unlike scientific theory, the Bible never changes. It is God’s word, and to say we can fully understand it now, in the light of so-called scientific theory, compromises and undermines the only true authority a believer has.
Sources Consulted
Robert Alexander, How to Study the Bible James Boice, Commentary of Genesis, Vol. 1 John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: A Commentary on Genesis Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (This is the most thorough and complete refutation of the gap theory available) Henry Morris, The Genesis Record George Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages John Whitcomb, The Early Earth Douglas Young, Studies in Genesis One
An excellent web site dealing with biblical creationism and the book of Genesis, check out the site: www.answersingenesis.org
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
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.
Thanks Joe. I realize this was the gap theory, I guess I am just surprised that it is possibly taught at seminary.<br><br>I will print this off and let my pastor read it.
Fred, you're preaching to the choir buddy. I believe just what the scriptures say, I was just answering your question about Bryan Chapell, and how my pastor explained the issue. My pastor actually believes it is a 24 hr day also.<br><br><br>But thanks for the input.
Yes, it is taught at some cemeteries, I mean seminaries. Notes on Genesis by Dr. Thomas L. Constable is good on this issue as stated in the other post, but he is off in other areas. What surprises me is the number of men that use to embrace this view--such as Pink. But, it goes to show we should never "fully" trust in men, until we have examined what they say by Scripture. I believe Fredman gave a link to Answers in Genesis and they do have some valuable resources, of which I am sure you are already familiar, but many others are not.
Joe<br><br>How right you are about knowing what men say. I absolutely love the writings of the Puritans, and most of us can't even hold a candle to their sweeping knowledge of the word, yet even with that there is truly only one Hero, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Good stuff! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] There was a good discussion re: Gap Theory here back in 2001. Here is one of my replies I offered in defense of the 24/6 day creation and while rebutting some who were espousing this Gap Theory. Particularly my defense was based upon exegetical and grammatical grounds. And, in this specific post, I zeroed in on Genesis 1 and the two Hebrew words, tohu and bara. The entire thread is accessible also after you click on the link below.
Wow, I had no idea that this was a topic of such controversy. I'm glad though for the responses you all have given me. I'll admit, I am not a Bible scholar. I don't know Hebrew or Greek, though I wish I did. It was just something that kinda stood out to me. In light of context, cross referencing, and original language, though, I see that this theory isn't correct. Thanks for the info, and I'll be more careful to think through all that I read from now on.<br><br>Chris
Chris,<br><br>That is one of the reasons this board exists. When you have a question post it. WE ALL learn in the process. The numerous replies are great as you get to see things from numerous perspectives. Some will be right and occasionally some incorrect, but still one learns.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
